posted
Scott, the part that really bothers me is the father gets no say in whether his own child lives. If the woman chooses to abort, she can and he can not stop her. If she chooses to keep the baby, he gets hit with child support even if he would have prefered the abortion.
Which I guess just goes to show how important it is we all pick our sexual partners wisely. A romp in the hay may be fun, but it has serious consequences. A man just gets fewer choices after the fact.
Posts: 2283 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:If I get a girl pregnant, I have no choice in whether or not she carries the baby to term. I can only hope she values the life of the innocent as much as I do.
Scott, I do not doubt your sincerity. But would you agree that you might be in the minority? I think many men/boys are very relieved that their girlfriends picked abortion.
There are other men (I'm not saying you) who may wish that their girlfriends did keep the baby.
"Oh yes, I'm a dad!"
But how many of those men will stay for the long haul. When I talked about the inequity of raising unwanted children, I'm not just talking about a monthly child support payment or weekend visits with dad. There is so much more to raising a child.
For the burden to be truly equal, the man should give up nine month of his life to stay home and take care of the baby. The man has to be there for every stage of the child's development--every 3:00 am rush to the hospital, every teacher's conference, and every backyard pet burial.
If I were a woman, I would see the system where men get off relatively scott free as a grave injustice as well.
[ April 26, 2004, 08:02 AM: Message edited by: Beren One Hand ]
Posts: 4116 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
In cases in which divorced fathers sue for custody, the father wins most of the time. The skew in custody statistics is due to the fact that the father concedes custody to the mother most of the time.
Posts: 8501 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Probably not, since the statement is flat out wrong. Without the absolute numbers, you can't tell from these statistics what percentage of fathers seek custody. But you can tell that "In cases in which divorced fathers sue for custody, the father wins most of the time" is flat wrong. Pay special attention to the difference between a maternal/joint request and a joint/paternal request.
Comment: Note that even when BOTH the mother and the father requested sole paternal custody, sole maternal custody was awarded in 12% of the cases.
quote:"The decrees overwhelmingly favored the mother's custody wishes: 67% of mothers obtained both the legal and residential custody arrangements they desired compared with only 15% of fathers; meanwhile, only 8% of mothers (vs 37% of fathers) found neither stipulation to correspond to their preference."
posted
Kasie, I'm glad you had a good time. We saw part of it on TV yesterday, when they were interviewing Howard Dean. Yay!
I agree with others here that it's insane that the same people who rant and rave about teaching kids about contraceptives in public schools are also shrilly accusing these women of being casual murderers, simply because they find pregnancies inconvenient. Excuse me? Maybe in the microscopic little bubble you live in, no one ever ever has sex before they are 100% ready to have a child and spend the rest of their lives with the other parent.
But that ain't the real world. No matter how much you stick your fingers in your ears and scream for abstinence above all else, people out there are going to have sex before they're ready to deal with all of the possible consequences.
So you CANNOT have it both ways. If you're going to refuse to educate kids ad nauseam about sex and birth control, then you damn well better be willing to give them a last-resort way of dealing with this without killing themselves with coathangers. If you see that final option as murder, then you damn well better make sure that EVERYONE is so well-versed in Sex Ed and contraceptives that abortion is never seen as an option.
quote:I tend to think history is a fairly reasonable guide to how people will act. Since, historically, pregnancy has NOT been preventable by the means advocated by your argument, I suggest that humans are not capable of preventing all unwanted pregnancies within the guidelines of "all pregnancy is preventable"
So history is a reasonable standard to determine what one should tolerate?
-----
quote:I am pro-choice. I am proud to be pro-choice. And there are millions of other women just like me. YES!
So say what you want. Believe what you want. It doesn't hurt me, bother me, or even irritate me. I'm not going to change you, and you're not going to change me.
I'm happy you have found strength of convinction. Because I have finally found mine.
So what do you think when religious people say stuff like this? "I'm sorry you're offended, but I don't care at all. I'm right, you're wrong."
There was recently a very big argument on Hatrack about how offensive and intolerant that mindset is.
-----
quote:I agree with others here that it's insane that the same people who rant and rave about teaching kids about contraceptives in public schools are also shrilly accusing these women of being casual murderers, simply because they find pregnancies inconvenient.
Well, yes. Those people are idiots. By all means, let's follow the mutually-accepted practice of focusing on stupid extremists. (And I do mean mutual-there are too many pro-lifers who do this, too)
quote:But that ain't the real world. No matter how much you stick your fingers in your ears and scream for abstinence above all else, people out there are going to have sex before they're ready to deal with all of the possible consequences.
While in fact I agree with you about what is and isn't practical, this kind of statement really has zero chance of persuading someone who is pro-life. They will (correctly, from their PoV) simply respond with, "Murder is a fact of life. So we should tolerate it?"
-----------
Why not hold a march rallying for increased sexual education, better and cheaper birth control and education, and advocation of personal responsibility? It's easy to feel solidarity when one deliberately flocks with like-minded people. It feels good, but is not really very useful beyond allaying loneliness.
posted
And it all still comes down to: how young does an infant have to be before killing it is no longer a crime, but a afternoon's outting at a clinic?
Where's the dividing line between a life in jail and a concilliatory stop at Cinna-Bun for coffee and tears afterwards?
Posts: 2848 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Personally, since I believe there is a great deal of unknown in that equation-and since I think that going past the line is in fact murder-I favor erring on the side of caution. There are those, I suppose, who say that since there is no ironclad proof, then nothing is wrong.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Actually, a right to privacy is explicitly spelled out right here:
quote: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated . . .
I don't know why people keep saying there isn't one. Now, the extent of the protection granted there is up to considerable debate. But that protection of one's privacy is explicitly offered by that line is clear as day.
Where on earth does the freakin' chestnut about no right to privacy in the Constitution come from?! Don't people read the thing?
quote: Also, the perspective I was referring to was the way you approach the argument -- is it about abortion (murder), or choice (something entirely different)? I think it's about choice, and what that means for women and society as a whole. People who believe it is a moral argument view it much differently.
Actually, the argument is about neither.
The question is NOT about choice, no matter how you look at it. The reason pro-life people don't sit down and argue against "the woman's right to choose" with you is because there is no reason to deny any person's right to choose unless they believe it directly conflicts with another person's right to life (or other rights). You are not going to hear a pro-lifer say that women do not deserve rights and should be crushed, need to be oppressed, and should be completely controlled by a man. (Well, maybe you would hear someone say that, but I'm trying to consider the viewpoint of the vast majority of pro-lifers you meet.) They are not saying that women are inherently without the rights that men have, and do not deserve to make choices about their own lives.
What a pro-lifer WILL do is argue the "baby's right to life" which is their main defense against abortion. It is NOT the oppression of women.
The question is ALSO not about murder. Most pro-choicers do not consider the child to be a life or a human, and are not specifically advocating the murder of children.
The question IS about whether or not the fetus has any rights. (Read: is a person.) That's the crux of it, and that's where the problem is. What happens is that the pro-choicer uses her (or his) POV of women's rights to color her decision regarding whether or not the *fetus* has rights.
The pro-lifer has come to the personal conclusion that the fetus has rights, and that's what they are fighting. In defending the fetus' right to life, it steps on the toes of the woman's right to choose, but it's not the intent of the pro-lifer to oppress the woman in question, although it is perceived that way.
I see it from this side: A man has a right to eat. No one would disagree with me, would they? But let's say a man goes into the grocery store, takes a package of meat, and walks out the front door with it, with no intention of paying.
Most people would agree that it was not the man's right to take the meat from the store. They are NOT arguing that the man doesn't have the right to eat! They are arguing with the specific method he has chosen to display his right to eat. Does the man have the right to eat? Of course! Does a woman have the right to decide whether or not to have a child? Yes. But there are methods to help the woman enforce that choice, such as abstinence and birth control, just as there are methods that the man can use to get food, including paying for it, using foodstamps, borrowing from a friend, eating at a soup kitchen, etc.
I'm saying all of this to build to one question:
Pro-choicers, WHY are you pro-choice? For one minute, consider the fact that no one is out to oppress you or deny you the right to choose not to have children.
Take a moment to consider the REAL problem, which is the rights of the child in question. What argument do you use to show that the fetus isn't a person? How can you defend the woman's right to choose to kill it, without defending the woman's right to choose whether or not to RAISE a child? What about the woman's right to make sure no one ELSE raises her child? Because those would be really good grounds for the "abortion" of a child that is already born.
Do you really feel, without a shadow of a doubt, that the fetus isn't a person? Or have you decided that it's the woman's right to choose, so in order to facilitate that, the fetus CAN'T be a person?
Before you try to turn it around, and ask me what PROOF I have that a fetus is a person, let me say this:
I don't have any, yet.
But, until someone PROVES that the child isn't a person and cannot have rights, I will continue to defend it. Why?
Because it's far better to be wrong about the rights of a fetus, and in doing so allow people to live, than to be wrong about the rights of a fetus, and in doing so, KILL hundreds of people.
Pro-choicers, are you willing to take that burden? Are you willing to assume that a fetus isn't alive, and have the death of all those children on your conscience should you discover you were wrong?
I realize that everyone has to make the best decision that they can, and live their lives accordingly, even though they may be wrong about things.
But it's a very scary thing to make your life's decision based completely on "woman's rights" which doesn't even cover the real problem at hand. I know that I would need a LOT more proof against the rights of a fetus before I would allow myself to kill one.
------
quote: And hooray for birth control for making that possible.
Sorry, Ruth, but:
That's the best, funniest, and most succinct thing I've read all day.
------
Oh yeah, and:
quote: You have bragged about going on a family vacation to the 1915 birthplace of the modern Klu Klux Klan, Stone Mountain, bought in 1958 to be completed for the same reason as the Confederate battleflag was placed on the Georgia state flag in 1956: to show the state government's opposition to desegregation.
Dude, no one's going for the celebration of the oppression of slaves. They're going for the kick-butt laser light show. I probably shouldn't even have addressed this comment, because I meant to make a joke about it, and then move on. But intent certainly plays an important part in this situation.
Posts: 6367 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
Right now, I feel making equitable to men the rights and status of women is a higher moral imperative than that of preserving an unborn child’s right to life. In the long run, the status of women is far more important and will impact the lives of our children much, much more.
Until we've reached equality, whether or not the fetus is a person or not is irrelevant. (Yes, I know everyone here is going to have a field day with that statement...have at it.)
And I feel the right to choose is essential to making the status of women equitable. Many of you disagree with me. (Belle already has, in this thread.) Fine.
But moral questions are personal ones, and this is the moral stance I've chosen to take.
Posts: 1784 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
Still, it's a difficult standard to live by. The next time someone says, "You're going to hell, sinner!" will you say, "I'm happy you have found strength in your convictions?"
Note: no, you did not say anything so blunt or rude. But, ultimately, it is very similar. I'm right, you're wrong, and so I don't really care what you think.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:In the long run, the status of women is far more important and will impact the lives of our children much, much more.
That's an interesting philosophy-one I share, in fact. One such example concerns the war in Iraq. I have said before that, in the long run, the war is a good thing because it will ultimately result in less suffering and more freedom for the Iraqi people than would have been experienced if Saddam Hussein were left in power, and handed that power to others.
Yet I doubt that argument would sway you. In fact, you posted a thread recently that makes it pretty clear it DOESN'T sway you.
Edit:
quote:Until we've reached equality, whether or not the fetus is a person or not is irrelevant.
How could that possibly be, though? I know you think a fetus isn't a person, and that's fine. I can empathize with that belief, and in fact in early stages I agree with it.
But if a fetus is a person, how could that possibly be irrelevant? If a fetus is a person, then aborting it is the murder of a defenseless child. How could that possibly be irrelevant? To continue to hold onto that belief-that the question is irrelevant-is to admit that if a fetus is a person, then furthering the cause of gender equality is worth purchasing at the cost of millions of murders.
posted
Rakeesh, plenty of people screamed that at me at the March. I was called a baby-killer, and some priest asked God to forgive me.
Like I said before, I was bothered because they assumed I hated them because we disagreed on this issue, and they in turn hated me. But I didn't get angry at them, or tell them they should believe what I should believe. I didn't try to argue with them.
Personal conviction is entirely that: personal. If you want to argue it in your personal lives, fine. I choose not to make it an issue -- I respect Belle immensely (and would really love to meet her), even though we disagree vehemently on this issue. I'd like to think it wouldn't keep us from being friends.
All Americans have a venue specifically for trying to fix the world, or make changes as we see fit: the polls. *That's* where I choose to express my convictions, and that's where I know I can make some sort of difference.
I won't make a difference by convincing people like Belle to believe what I believe. I'll make a difference by making sure people who hold my same beliefs go vote.
Posts: 1784 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:I won't make a difference by convincing people like Belle to believe what I believe. I'll make a difference by making sure people who hold my same beliefs go vote.
But you've tried to make a difference by discussing issues with others, frequently.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
On the war, you're probably right. I guess my issue with that goes more into whether or not we should be responsible for the things happening in other parts of the world, and go fix them (this is *such* a gray area, and I have *no* idea how I feel about it, as of yet), and what is best for the United States.
And my most recent post about the war...it was mostly an emotional reaction to a very graphic photograph. I wasn't entirely logical, and I apologize.
Posts: 1784 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't think I'm (or anyone is) owed an apology, Kasie. The pic upset you-it upsets anyone with a conscience who sees it.
I can certainly understand opposition to the war on those grounds. I was just pointing out that you're using a virtually identical justification for being pro-choice that many people use for the war in Iraq.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
Honestly....yeah, I've probably tried to convince others here to believe what I believe. But most of my discussions on Hatrack result in *my* changing. I enjoy Hatrack because it gives me a new perspective, it helps me flesh out my own ideas and beliefs, and acheive some clarity in my own thought. I happen to have finally *found* clarity on this particular issue.
But you also have to recognize that what I said about changing someone vs. getting someone to go vote is applicable in various degrees to various issues. On abortion, people are very, very intractable, to the point where I feel trying to change peoples' minds is next to impossible. On other issues, this isn't always the case, and I might see merit in trying to change minds.
Posts: 1784 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
On the contrary, on issues people-myself included-deem others intractable, I've changed my mind numerous times-in both directions, more than once.
Abortion, capital punishment, gun control, foreign aid, affirmative action...
Of course, I'm a wishy-washy doofus, so take my mindset for what it's worth Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Kasie, I am glad that you got to go on the March for Women's Lives, and enjoyed it. Wish I could have gone too.
Just for the record, you are not the only pro-choice person on Hatrack. I am pro-choice and have been for years. I am old enough to remember when women died as a result of illegal abortions, and have no desire to go back to those days.
ak, I agree with everything you have posted here. Ayelar, I agree with your post on this page, as well.
posted
Just for the record, I'm against ALL abortion, legal or otherwise.
My way would save the MOST women's lives.
Think about it...if a woman knew she would be charged with murder for having an abortion, there wouldn't be as many of them doing it.
Posts: 6367 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: Until we've reached equality, whether or not the fetus is a person or not is irrelevant.
This statement has just floored me. I can understand if you give reasons why you don't think a fetus is actually a person, but to say that it's irrelavant is altogether different.
Are you saying that you would agree with abortions even into the 3rd trimester? Even on fetus' that could be living, breathing babies if they were on the outside? Do you have a line where the fetus becomes a person is their own right?
Posts: 4625 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I would seriously like somebody who is pro-choice to sit down and explain to me exactly what made them draw the conclusions that they did. What makes them think that a fetus is not a child? What makes them consider the death of a pregnant womam two deaths instead of one, and the turn around and say that abortion is not killing, simply eliminating cells that have no meaning whatsoever?
Posts: 4229 | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
zgator, I don't know if she meant it that way but I mentally added a few words onto the end of that.
Re-read it this way and see if it gives you a different perspective, though you don't have to agree by any means.
quote: Until we've reached equality, whether or not the fetus is a person or not is irrelevant, because if the woman having the baby isn't treated like a "person" by society then there are far bigger problems.
We've discussed objectifying women ad nauseum here at Hatrack. While I'm not sure I take quite as extreme of a view as Kasie, I see where she's coming from. On the other hand while being an engineer you've never been a woman in engineering either, and never actually had to confront stereotypes that you thought were long dead.
quote: Yes, well, there would still be numerous back-alley abortions that kill both.
For how long? How long would it continue if women were being prosecuted for it? How many women would risk their lives and their freedom to kill the fetus? Making murder illegal hasn't stopped it altogether, but I'm sure more people would do it if it weren't illegal.
I was including back-alley abortions in my statement. Stop as much abortion as possible, and enforce it even as far as the "back-alley" abortions. Stop them ALL.
------
There is a really good way to end the stereotypes that female engineers and other women in similar situations face everyday:
Prove them wrong.
Maybe that's boring, or not fast enough for you, but giving women the right to play God doesn't fix how their male coworkers see them.
Are you going to go to work and say, "HA! I had an abortion today! I'm just as good as you!"
The only way men will ever learn to see women as competent workers is if they're shown time and again how competent women are IN THE WORKPLACE.
You guys are trying to fix this problem the wrong way.
I was going to say that you're treating the symptom rather than the disease, but even THAT'S too fair. What you're doing is treating yourself for heart disease when what you've got is a broken leg.
posted
PSI we can't elimnate any other kind of crime so what makes you think we would be so succesful with abortions? (If they were made illegal) We weren't sucessful in getting rid of them before it was legalized either. And illegal abortions would be far more dangerous. Or do you think that the woman might as well kill herself if she kills her fetus?
quote: I was including back-alley abortions in my statement. Stop as much abortion as possible, and enforce it even as far as the "back-alley" abortions. Stop them ALL.
What to do with >3,000,000+ unwanted children, then?
I'm not asking because I think abortion is desireable. I'm asking because you've got very specific short-term plans.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: Or do you think that the woman might as well kill herself if she kills her fetus?
That's not a good argument to bring up to a person who is against abortion. Why? Because the woman knew the consequences of doing what she did. She chose the path to try and kill the child in an unsafe manner. That makes her to blame not the law.
Posts: 4229 | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Okay, then let's legalize murder, but give them a safe way to do it, so that they don't get shot in self-defense.
This is a bit extreme, but why do we have to keep going down this road? You can't stop people from doing stupid things, but that doesn't mean you should make it legal for them to do it.
Posts: 6367 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's not an argument. It's a question. My stance on abortion has already been made-I despise it. I think no one should want to do it at all, especially in second and third term trimesters. I support universal-and I do mean universal, there should be vending machines in school, I say-birth control options that are understood, thus preventing abortions entirely.
Because I think that some abortion IS murder, and I don't know where to draw the line on what abortion ISN'T murder, so I want the world not to have to draw the line at all.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:PSI we can't elimnate any other kind of crime so what makes you think we would be so succesful with abortions? (If they were made illegal) We weren't sucessful in getting rid of them before it was legalized either. And illegal abortions would be far more dangerous. Or do you think that the woman might as well kill herself if she kills her fetus?
First, there's no evidence that illegal abortions are "far more dangerous" in America.
Second, safety of the mother is one of the compelling state interests recognized in Roe, which is why the second trimester distinctions were made. Go after people who perform unsafe abortions would be part of the job of law enforcement.
Third, "they're going to do it anyway" has seldom been reconized for a reason to legalize behavior that hurts others.
posted
Dagonee I believe they would be more dangerous, becaus in order to do them inconspicuously and not get prosecuted the sanitation standards would probably drastically decline. I'm not saying all clinics are actually maintaining the mandated sanitation standards now, but right now you can prosecute them for sanitation violations. If they couldn't be prosecuted for those violations because the risk of being caught as a criminal was so much higher what compelling interest do they actually have in mantaining them. Especially in a supply demand world where the blackmarket abortion prices would surely skyrocket to take advantage of desperate women.
posted
"I'm happy you have found strength of convinction. Because I have finally found mine."
Kasie, doesn't it bother you that you found solidarity not in feminism, not in a shared history of struggle or a united determination to improve the lives of the people on this planet, but rather in your belief that women should be free to kill their babies at any point before the head pops out?
It's a genuine shame that you find this synonmous with feminism, IMO.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:but rather in your belief that women should be free to kill their babies at any point before the head pops out?
Could we dispense with the inflammatory rhetoric, please? It's unnecessary. If you believe abortion kills babies, then okay, I found solidarity/whatever in that. Feel free to disagree.
Second of all, I never said it was synonymous with feminism. Maybe you're confusing the two. I do think that the right to choose is essential to women's rights in general, so maybe you're making the connection there.
But hey, then again, I see no shame in taking pride in being pro-choice, like I said before. Feel free to attack some more.
Posts: 1784 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'd like to add that I've always felt solidarity in feminism or the shared history of struggle or whatever. And hey, the March reinforced that too. But it was specifically pro-choice. So what's wrong with finding solidarity with people who believe as I do on this issue?
Posts: 1784 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I fully support the right of every woman to choose whether or not to engage in any activity that carries any possibility of causing a pregnancy. Isn't choice great?
Posts: 1652 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
"So what's wrong with finding solidarity with people who believe as I do on this issue?"
Nothing. Except, as above, it's a shame that you feel so passionately about the right to kill babies.
Let's face it: that isn't inflammatory rhetoric. It's a statement of fact.
The only thing that separates a late-term fetus from a baby is its physical location. As long as it's in the womb, "millions" of women feel so passionately about the need to kill the poor thing that they'll wear a lot of pink, put stickers on their nipples, and draw up posters with really obvious puns involving the president's name in order to convince each other that there's nothing wrong with killing babies at all, provided they're still tucked safely up inside the womb.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
You're looking for support on this forum for an opinion that is, by and large, not in the majority here. You won't find it, at least not in sizable numbers.
And yet you keep trying.
Why not tell yourself that it's not your JOB to make me happy, and that you're perfectly okay with killing babies -- whether I'm okay with it or not? You don't need to convince me that it's a good thing, and indeed will probably never be able to do so.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Kasie H:"In fact, I think we should put condoms in schools to help people be able to make safer choices."
What does that have to do with my statement (which you were supposedly agreeing with)? I never said anything about "safe" choices.
Posts: 1652 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
...and didn't I just say I'm perfectly okay with abortion and all that it entails?
Or are you just trying to get me to say "I am okay with killing babies."?
Well, okay then. You believe abortion is killing babies. Therefore, by your defintion, I support killing babies.
Posts: 1784 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
We saw part of it on TV yesterday, when they were interviewing Howard Dean. Yay! ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Kiss]](graemlins/kiss.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[The Wave]](graemlins/thewave.gif)
HERE HERE, Nick
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
