quote: The National Center for Men has prepared a lawsuit -- nicknamed Roe v. Wade for Men -- to be filed Thursday in U.S. District Court in Michigan on behalf of a 25-year-old computer programmer ordered to pay child support for his ex-girlfriend's daughter.
The suit addresses the issue of male reproductive rights, contending that lack of such rights violates the U.S. Constitution's equal protection clause.
Heard this on the radio this morning and then saw it on the news so I had to look up the story. Although my inital reaction was distate for deadbeat dads, I started thinking about their argument.
The argument basically is this: If a girl gets pregnant she has the option to have the baby, give it up for adoption, or get an abortion. If a guy gets the girl pregnant, he obviously can and should not be able to make the choice for her. However, the guy has no way to opt out of the obligation like the woman does. One soundbite on the news blew my mind. It was some random pro-abortion woman off the street who said, "Well the guy has a choice. He knows he could get her pregnant so he should be responsible to prevent that. Otherwise he'll just have to live with the consequences." It kind of blew me away. Put that line in the context of talking about abortion and you'd have the same woman spouting off whatever the Institute for Men is saying. I mainly posted this because it was somewhat humorous (in an ironic sort of way), not because I expect anything to come of it.
Posts: 1412 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:It was some random pro-abortion woman off the street who said, "Well the guy has a choice. He knows he could get her pregnant so he should be responsible to prevent that. Otherwise he'll just have to live with the consequences."
Yeah, rewrite it as, "Well the girl has a choice. She knows she could get pregnant, so she should be responsible to prevent that. Otherwise she'll just have to live with the consequences." and you'll be crucified for being uncompassionate, sexist and possibly even Satan himself.
I've long thought that there needed to be a change there. If the guy gets no veto rights on whether the baby is carried to term or aborted (which requires the presumption that the growing cells inside her IS a baby) then he should be able to opt out of further responsibility, including full revocation of parental rights. I think that's fair.
Posts: 5948 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Can a father-to-be (whether husband, boyfriend, etc.) prevent the mother-to-be from getting an abortion?
Posts: 80 | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by JoeH: Can a father-to-be (whether husband, boyfriend, etc.) prevent the mother-to-be from getting an abortion?
Not legally, no. That doesn't mean that no man has ever prevented his wife/girlfriend from going through with an abortion through intimidation or the like.
Posts: 2069 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
When I saw the father's rights phrase, I thought it would be about the father-to-be's lack of rights to prevent the abortion.
Posts: 80 | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, that's part of it, isn't it? He has no rights one way or the other, but he does have responsibilities.
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't think legally the argument makes any sense. Personally, I am pro-life. However, I dont' think the decision in Roe V. Wade even if it stands in anyway legitimizes the fathers position.
From my understanding, the reasoning behind Roe V. Wade is very much centered on the ability of women to have control over their own bodies. This right is derived from a right to privacy. A man would have a similar right over care of his own medical care but would have no such right over a women's body. Once the baby is outside of the body, or viable outside the womb, the decision no longer gives women absolute control over its decisions. Likewise, with something not a part of a man's body, control should not rest there.
Second, with regards to adoption, women can give up a child for adoption but not over the biological father's objections. They could give up custody to the father but theoretically if the monetary system warranted it, they would be responsible for child support. In a lot of instances, this right of the father is denied because of a lack of knowlege about the paternity of the job but if paternity is established, the man would have the ability to stop an adoption.
In short, I agree with the sentiment that the choice was made when the man choose to have sex. He can't give up financial responsibility for his child.
Posts: 416 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think the argument does make sense. If one parent can legally avoid their responsibilities, than the other parent ought to be able to as well.
Posts: 1947 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
theresa, from a legal standpoint, and based on the precedent of Roe v. Wade, I think you're right. RvW is about the woman's right to control her body. But when you get into nebulous concepts like responsibility and who gets to avoid it (not what RvW was about), then it doesn't anymore. I don't think you succeed in supporting your last paragraph.
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
There are state decisions concerning frozen embryos that suggest that there is a right not to procreate. It hasn't been touched by SCOTUS, and there's no sense that such a right would trump the Casey rights (Roe is no longer controlling law). But it's not like this concept is brand new to the law.
quote:As soon as a man becomes equally pregnant, I'm sure he'll have equal protection inregards to what he does with his own body.
Let's give everyone equal protection over their own body, including unborn children.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ah, there's the nub of the question: at which point do the unborn become children? At the frozen embryo state? At the SacredSperm state as suggested by some recent popes? At the frozen SacredSperm state as technology now allows?
posted
I guess I don't know where I have failed to support the conclusion. If a women can't give up a baby for adoption without the known fathers consent. Then she is not free to sever parental rights without the fathers consent. Thus, there is no reason that the father should have a greater right then the mother.
Other than adoption the other option to give up parental rights is to have an abortion. I think the first paragraph explains why I think women have the unique right to this currently.
I hope that clarifies some.
Posts: 416 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
It seems to me that the issue is not the woman's control over her body, that's established in law whether you like it or not, but rather the man's control over his money.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Men trying to prevent a wife or girlfriend having an abortion has been tried several times. I remember one case where the guy was really distraught, saying, "They're killing my child." In another case, the couple were getting divorced and the wife said her husband knew having this baby would hurt her in the worst possible way which was what he was trying to do. I found her more believable than him.
Posts: 91 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
This is tricky, but I tend to favor a system that gives the father some say with out giving sleezeballs (sex and run) types an out of support for their unwanted pregnancies.
I'm imagining a system where if the woman is expecting to claim support from the father she must declare him the father early enough for him to opt out of it. If he opts out of it at that stage, she can choose to abort or she can choose to keep. If she chooses to keep then she is fully responsible for it. When the father opts out, he's basically petitioning for an abortion. So make it clear that by opting out, he petitions for abortion. It still kinda gives sleezeballs an out, but any control over the it is, and no control is gonna screw over a lot of well meaning people. I'd rather let some sleezeballs get away with it than screw over good people. If the father fails to request abortion at the early stage, then he is fully responsible (ie, as reponsible as he would be now).
So this system would still leave the ultimate choice in the hands of the female, while giving the father some say, but still some responsibility.
Posts: 3295 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
This really isn't a surprise to me. This is just like the discussion going on over in the Feminist Family thread. Women are fighting tooth and nail to keep a system that is more or less geared towards giving them control over everything that has to do with the creation, existance, and destruction of the American family.
Women choose to have or not have children, they have NO personal responsibility forced upon them by law. Men have no choices.
Women (many or most feminists, and a lot of the others) think they are are the ones who should choose who is the stay at home mom or dad, if the man forces her to work, he's uncaring, if he makes her stay at home, he's oppressive. Women can do either and it's just fair, men shouldn't decide. (Edited for clarity)
Women get automatic favoritism in divorce, whether it comes to who gets the children or who gets the house.
As for the whole "men gave up their choice in the matter when they chose to have sex." I'm sorry, but that's bullshit. If we applied that the same way to women, abortion would be illegal. Women decide if the baby survives or dies, then if they want it, or it goes up for adoption, and the entire time the man is waiting in the wings to see what happens. What if he wants his kid and the woman doesn't? Too bad, it's her body. If he wants to absolve himself of financial responsibility? Well he should have kept it in his pants.
Being a man in American isn't hard at all, until he has a family. Then he's just along for the ride.
quote:So this system would still leave the ultimate choice in the hands of the female, while giving the father some say, but still some responsibility.--Alcon
Some responsibility for men, but zero liability for men, if they "opt out." An aloof phrase which equals "good luck with Junior, I'm going fishin' "
It's not fair. Neither is the current system, but at least it has legal and moral precedence for men upholding their reproductive responsibilities.
Posts: 6316 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I do agree that the current abortion laws are unequal with respect to the sexes, I'm willing to suffer this unequality. Abortion is already a tragic circumstance, I'm not sure how committing another wrong, letting the father abdicate the responsibilities of paternity, mitigates the first wrong. In addition, I feel that this may have the adverse effect of leading to more abortions.
There is old argument about promoting justice through equality, which means that if we have two people with an inequal amount of goods, it's in the interest of justice of "level down" the higher person's goods so that they are equal with the lower person's goods. For those who dethrone humanity and worship equality instead, this argument holds an inordinate amount of sway. A similar argument can be made about allowing the man his paternity in the eyes of the law. If equality our highest good, then we should support such legislation, but equality is only one of our civic virtues.
Posts: 5600 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'd go along with men not having an "opt out" option if fathers had veto rights over their children being aborted.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: Women get should be the ones to choose who is the stay at home mom or dad, if they man forces her to work, he's uncaring, if he makes her stay at home, he's oppressive. Women can do either and it's just fair, men shouldn't decide.
Lyrhawn, are you suggesting that women can, and do, force men to work/stay at home?
Posts: 4393 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Abortion is biologically disposed against men. The same way that rape is biologically disposed against women. It's okay to admit that the sexes are different. The only problem is that the difference, in this case, resides on political fault line. I think that this is one case that men should accept the inequality. I mean, I still think that in the some of all experiences, men get the easier deal in the balance.
Posts: 5600 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm sure it happens, but do I think it happens in a majority of families? No, probably not.
But I think a great number of feminists, and women and general think it is/should be their decision to make that choice.
Regardless, it's socially acceptable for a woman to make that kind of choice, and really, it's socially preferred, but poor form and oppressive for a man to do the same.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: Regardless, it's socially acceptable for a woman to make that kind of choice, and really, it's socially preferred, but poor form and oppressive for a man to do the same.
I really don't get what you're saying here.
I think it should be a person's choice whether they work or not. No-one has the right to force their partner to work or not.
And, quite frankly, I don't think women are forcing men to work.
The impression I get from your posts is you have a view that women can simply say, without consultation or previous discussion "Right, that's it. I'm staying home and that's the end of the story".
I think you'll find the norm is that couples actually discuss the issue and find out what works best for them, rather than a woman deciding to issue an order out of the blue.
Posts: 4393 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: women and general think it is/should be their decision to make that choice
I'm a woman and a feminist and I don't.
Or rather, I think it is a woman's choice whether she works or not. And I think it is a man's choice whether *he* works or not.
It is a couple's duty to balance the two. We have examples on this board of men who have made the choice to stay at home and women who have made the choice to work.
Posts: 4393 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Some responsibility for men, but zero liability for men, if they "opt out." An aloof phrase which equals "good luck with Junior, I'm going fishin' "
Yeah, one way to mitigate that would be to include some bit about unprotected vs protected. IE if the male didn't use a condum he can't opt out. If it did, then he's sorta done what he can to prevent the kid from happening (short of not having sex). Everything else is up to the female. If he had unprotected sex, then forget it, it was his choice and is his reponsibility.
Basically the case I'm thinking of is where a guy hooks up with a girl, on equal terms, does his best to have safe, protected sex, they go their separate ways, then the girl gets pregnant decides to keep it and tries to get support from the dad. Currently she can get away with it (often, at least as I understand it). This way, she'd have to a) notify the dad he was a dad early and b) let him know of her intentions with the child and give him a chance to either say "hey, I didn't want this and I did what I could to prevent it, its your turn" or "I'm in for it, lets try it".
My thought is basically that parenthood is a two way street. What I mean by telling him 'early' is basically as soon as she realizes she's pregnant. If she doesn't do it (tell him) then he has no say in the matter of whether or not the child comes into existance, and should have no responsibility when it does.
Posts: 3295 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: Basically the case I'm thinking of is where a guy hooks up with a girl, on equal terms, does his best to have safe, protected sex, they go their separate ways, then the girl gets pregnant decides to keep it and tries to get support from the dad. Currently she can get away with it (often, at least as I understand it). This way, she'd have to a) notify the dad he was a dad early and b) let him know of her intentions with the child and give him a chance to either say "hey, I didn't want this and I did what I could to prevent it, its your turn" or "I'm in for it, lets try it".
The problem I see with this example is that the girl also did her best to have safe, protected sex. She would then have all the financial burden to bear if the father "opted out" and she didn't want to have an abortion (for religous/moral reasons for example).
There is a difference between not wanting to get pregnant and automtically wanting an abortion when you accidentally fall pregnant.
Posts: 4393 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
The whole thing is very sticky. But the idea of anyone having 'more' rights than anyone else is not a happy one. So the idea of females having more rights here than the father is one that very very much bothers me here. Don't get me wrong, I'm very much a femenist, but one whos for equality, not inequality.
There must be some way to give the father some say over the kid. I mean, as it is now the father can emphatically say "I don't want the kid, I'm not prepared for this." and have done everything he possibly could to prevent it. The mother can just say "To hell with you." have it and then sue for support. There's something not right about that.
quote:The problem I see with this example is that the girl also did her best to have safe, protected sex. She would then have all the financial burden to bear if the father "opted out" and she didn't want to have an abortion (for religous/moral reasons for example).
There is a difference between not wanting to get pregnant and automtically wanting an abortion when you accidentally fall pregnant.
It doesn't necesarily have to be abortion. It could be adoption too, if the father opted out. The opt out doesn't force the girl to have an abortion, it just forces to the girl to either find a new home for the baby or take care of it herself. The idea is to prevent a girl from single handedly deciding to have a child (against the fathers will) and then forcing child care out of him.
And I've never heard of a religion that was against giving a kid up for adoption.
Posts: 3295 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: women and general think it is/should be their decision to make that choice
I'm a woman and a feminist and I don't.
Or rather, I think it is a woman's choice whether she works or not. And I think it is a man's choice whether *he* works or not.
It is a couple's duty to balance the two. We have examples on this board of men who have made the choice to stay at home and women who have made the choice to work.
I was specific in saying that I don't think ALL women think that way. So far as I'm concerned, and I've covered this in the other thread on the subject, I think it SHOULD be a balanced decision between the parents involved in the decisionmaking process. One gender shouldn't have the right to tell the other whether or not they can or cannot work/stay at home. I guess my point, which I was overenthusiastic in portraying, is that it is much more acceptable for women to clamor for the right to be in control of the family, whereas men are purely viewed as sexist and playing to 18th century views of men controlling women.
As for the scenario above, it only assumes the woman tried her hardest as well if she was on birth control. And if both sides fail, and the women chooses to abort the child whereas the man wants to care for it himself, can he do so over her objections? Afterall, the desire of men in general to opt out is trumped by the needs of the child to be supported. And in that I agree, the rights of that child to grow up supported should outweigh the complaints of the man almost every time, depending on the situation, so long as he is allowed equal parenting rights. But when the man wants to raise that child, which is clearly taking the rights of the child into the forefront, then neither the child nor the man's rights are respected. They are trumped by the right's of the mother.
It's a strange reality there. Women first, children second, men last. And men plus children still don't trump women.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: It doesn't necesarily have to be abortion. It could be adoption too, if the father opted out. The opt out doesn't force the girl to have an abortion, it just forces to the girl to either find a new home for the baby or take care of it herself. The idea is to prevent a girl from single handedly deciding to have a child (against the fathers will) and then forcing child care out of him.
That's true - I had skipped the can give birth doesn't necessarily mean raising the child step in my head.
Posts: 4393 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
The big problem I see with this argument is that every time a man and a woman have sex there is a possibility that conception can happen. Women who take birth control pills are well aware of the fact that it may not work but I am amazed at the number of men who assume that a condom will prevent pregnancy 100% of the time. Read the boxes folks they all have their percentage sucess rate on them.
I think that if abortion is legal it has to reside on the woman to choose because it is her body that will bear all the changes a pregnancy entails.
Bottom line, if men and women don't want to deal with an unexpected/unwanted pregnancy, the best way to avoid it is to not have sex. If you choose to engage in the sex act then both parties will have to bear responsibility for any child that may be conceived.
By the way, those financial responsibilities the court hand down are sometimes $400/month, sometimes less than that. $400/month doesn't come close to paying for half of a child's expenses.
Posts: 1214 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by andi330: The big problem I see with this argument is that every time a man and a woman have sex there is a possibility that conception can happen. Women who take birth control pills are well aware of the fact that it may not work but I am amazed at the number of men who assume that a condom will prevent pregnancy 100% of the time. Read the boxes folks they all have their percentage sucess rate on them.
Ross - I don't, I don't understand. We used a condom.
Rachel - You know Ross, condoms are only effective like 99% of the time.
Ross -What? WHAT?! Well they should put that on the box!
Rachel - They do!
Ross - No they don't! *Checks the box* Well then they should put it in HUGE, BLOCK, LETTERS!
Rachel - Ross will you forget the condoms!
Ross - Well I may as well have!
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
First off, I am tired of hearing the argument that "if a man lets his wife work, he's seen as uncaring, if he let's her stay home, he's oppressive." Lyrhawn, I know you didn't mean it this way, but this kind of argument is about other people's perceptions, not about the reality and worrying about what other people think got old in High School. If you and your partner come to some arrangement about work, support, taking care of the kids, it's your own business, not your neighbors.
Now, on to the subject at hand. The guy filing the lawsuit, as he actually mentions in the story, doesn't have much to stand on. There are currently no laws (that I know of) that place any restrictions on men informing their partner know their preference when it comes to unplanned pregnancies, so I find his argument that "women have a myriad of options available to them and men have none" pretty empty. Now, she assured him that she couldn't get pregnant...it's still a good idea to use a condom against STD's etc. He furthermore complains that she knew he didn't want to have a child with her, as if she could had conscious control over her egg fusing with a sperm...I just gotta say, sex-cells have no regard for intentions and desires.
Posts: 681 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well come on, she assured him that it was medically impossible for her to have kids, and then she got pregnant. What was he supposed to do, ask for a medical report and have it notarized to prove it?
Had he known it was possible, he may have chosen not to have sex with her.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Another thing guys should know. And women, too.
"Pulling out" is not an effective method for preventing pregnancy.
Seriously.
It's not.
No.
Really.
Also, I was reading about various birth control methods, and a lot of people don't realize that the 99% for the pill only applies if the pill is taken exactly as directed. Otherwise, it's more like 95% (with the average woman's use, I mean. Obviously, the pill is NOT 95% effective if you don't color within the lines at ALL). Oh, and condoms START at 97% effective, and that figure drops when they're not used correctly, too.
But. I don't think that, "Well, if people don't want to get pregnant, then they shouldn't have sex" is a very defensible view, unless you want to bring up the "pregnancy as punishment" angle, which is EXACTLY what that sounds like to me.
"Oh, boo hoo, didn't want to have a kid? Well, you should've thought of that before you opened your legs, skank! Wait until marriage like a GOOD, MORAL person!"
posted
I think people are confused about "mothers" suing for child support. Child support actions are brought on behalf of the child. Many (maybe most) states will bring an action on behalf of the child against the mother's wishes in certain cases.
Child support is simply a recognition that biological parents have a duty to to their children to provide for them.*
There are certain cases where a parent can be relieved of that responsibility. One is abortion. The others all require that someone else voluntarily accept that responsibility before the biological parent can relinquish it.
Just because we allow one particularly gruesome type of abdication of parental responsibility doesn't mean we should throw open the floodgates to allow another.
*There are outlier cases where non-biological fathers are stuck w/ child support.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:But. I don't think that, "Well, if people don't want to get pregnant, then they shouldn't have sex" is a very defensible view, unless you want to bring up the "pregnancy as punishment" angle, which is EXACTLY what that sounds like to me.
"Oh, boo hoo, didn't want to have a kid? Well, you should've thought of that before you opened your legs, skank! Wait until marriage like a GOOD, MORAL person!"
How about I restate your view on abortion as "I should be able to vacuum out a baby's brain because I don't feel like being a little inconvenienced"? I'm pretty sure you'd feel that to be unfair and not conducive to discussion.
"Well, if people don't want to get pregnant, then they shouldn't have sex" is exactly the view being promulgated against the fathers trying to weasel their way out of child support. And it's appropriate to do so.
That doesn't mean it's punishment. It means that when one engages in an activity in which there is a chance of outcome A, they should be prepared to accept the consequences of outcome A when it happens.
As you pointed out, no birth control is perfect. So the chance of pregnancy exists pretty much every time a man and a woman have sex. Therefore both parties should be prepared to accept the consequences of that act. It's not punishment, any more than gaining weight is punishment for having an extra slice of pie.
Allowing one to avoid a natural consequence at the direct expense of another person (either to the actual life of that other person or denying that other person the means to be fed, clothed, sheltered, and otherwise cared for) simply because there is an unequal impact on the two people faced with the consequence is absurd.
This suit demonstrates that absurdity quite well.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dagonee: it is possible (based on seat of my pants calculations) to lower the risk of pregnancy below the chances of dying in a car accident when riding or driving in a car. Should everyone who rides in a car be prepared to accept death as a consequence for their actions, in the same sense of being prepared to accept?
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
That's a great analogy. Yes, everyone riding in a car has to be prepared to accept the risk of death. Of course, steps can be taken to lower that risk. Before the accidents happen, seat belts, airbags, crumple zones, and good driving techniques all reduce the risk.
Afterwards, good medical care reduces that risk.
Of course, we don't allow an accident victim to claim the heart for a transplant from a healthy person even when such actions would save the accident victim's life. Nor do we call it "punishing a person for driving" when we deny them the right to take another's heart.
Pregnancy differs from the car accident scenario only in that there is no way to "reduce the risk" to the mother of giving birth without taking another's life (edit: once the accident or conception has happened).
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh, I think there is a way to "reduce the risk" to the mother of giving birth without taking another's life. I think we need to ensure a universal, high, minimum level of care for expectant mothers.
Furthermore, the analogy does undermine the reaction of those who do say things like "well, if you weren't ready to get pregnant you shouldn't have had sex" -- would it ever be appropriate to tell someone "well, if you weren't ready to have a debilitating injury you shouldn't have ridden in a car"? It doesn't even make sense.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Alcon, I think you keep neglecting the fact that the biological circumstances for the man and the women ARE different. Look, men and women have equal control over their OWN bodies. Women can have or not have whatever medical procedures she wants on her body and men have the same option with their bodies. Personally, I believe that the child's rights supercede the women's so I am pro-life but I absolutely don't support a man having any say in what I do with my body.
Posts: 416 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Of course there are biological differences.
You can either give men and women the same rights concerning their bodies, or give them the same rights concerning their (born or unborn) offspring.
You can't have both.
Some people feel that rights concerning our offspring should trump rights concerning our bodies. Others disagree.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think the car analogy is a good one. You should be prepared to accept the consequences of riding in a car, no matter how low the risk. And if you want to completely eliminate the risk of receiving a debilitating injury then no, you should not be riding in a car. This is covered quite well in Driver's Education, actually. It's also common sense.
Would it be appropriate to *tell* someone these things? Probably not, since it would be sort of like rubbing salt in a wound as they lay in a hospital somewhere. It's also not something you tell their family at the funeral.
But being pregnant is not analogous to death, so it's not nearly as insensitive to say such things, especially in hypothetical situations.
Posts: 270 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
The argument that the woman told him that she had a medical condition that caused an inability to get pregnant doesn't wash either. Maybe she had been told that by doctors and maybe she made it up. Regardless, women that have been advised by doctors that they cannot have children get pregnant every year. Doctors aren't God folks and they can be incorrect.
The reason that women are the ones who can choose an abortion is because there are physical and emotional outcomes to keeping the child and to having an abortion. Women who are pregnant go through nine months of being uncomfortable, there is often morning sickness (which can last all day), there are hormonal changes which will last for months after the baby is born etc. In addition women who have abortions face emotional and physical problems too. Again there are hormonal issues that come with having an abortion while the body readjusts to not being pregnant and a large number of women suffer for years from depression and feelings of guilt after having abortions.
For everyone making the argument that giving the child up for adoption is the woman's choice too, think again. In order for an adoption to be legal and uncontestable both parents must sign away their parental rights. The mother cannot force the father into signing his rights away and vice versa.
Children are not a punishment for having sex, but they can be a consequense of it. If two people have sex, they must be aware that pregnancy is always a potential outcome and be prepared to deal with the consequenses. Period.
Posts: 1214 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Oh, I think there is a way to "reduce the risk" to the mother of giving birth without taking another's life. I think we need to ensure a universal, high, minimum level of care for expectant mothers.
I didn't mean the risk of harm to the mother should birth occur. I meant the chances of giving birth once pregnancy has occurred.
quote:Furthermore, the analogy does undermine the reaction of those who do say things like "well, if you weren't ready to get pregnant you shouldn't have had sex" -- would it ever be appropriate to tell someone "well, if you weren't ready to have a debilitating injury you shouldn't have ridden in a car"? It doesn't even make sense.
I think it would be appropriate to say to someone contemplating the death of another to avoid some of the consequences of that decision.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:For everyone making the argument that giving the child up for adoption is the woman's choice too, think again. In order for an adoption to be legal and uncontestable both parents must sign away their parental rights. The mother cannot force the father into signing his rights away and vice versa.
True. This is another counterbalance to the contention at the heart of the law suit.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dagonee, whether or not my reading of that view is conducive to discussion, that IS my reading of that view. It looks like another way to force the "right" morality on other people.
I've said this before: It really, really upsets me how little the average person seems to know about birth control, and I think a lot of it stems from the fact that we as a society view sex as "dirty" and try to avoid discussing it with teenagers. I wish I could replicate my sex-ed program; I think it was really helpful. We had one day of sex ed in fifth grade and another couple of weeks in middle school. Then freshman year, we had a semester of health class, most of which focused on sex ed and eating habits. Plus, we had a section on the human reproductive system in both seventh grade and high school biology. Maybe everyone does this, and I just have a spectacular memory, but it just seems like most people have NO CLUE.
Oh, and our curriculum still managed to emphasize abstinence. Funny.
posted
Dagonee, that approach sounds exactly like an attempt to cast the pregnancy as a punishment and guilt the mother into a course of action.
Furthermore, it advances what I consider an extremely dangerous point of view: that a fetus is the mother's responsibility because she had sex. A fetus isn't a mother's responsibility because she had sex, its her responsibility because its her fetus! (note that I am not using the possessive to indicate any diminishment of right's for the fetus; this is a "her fetus" in the same way one might say "his father").
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |