It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

A Hypothetical Abortion Question

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 20 2005 @ 08:34 AM
link   
This is a hypothetical question that I have discussed with friends and I wanted to see what you folks thought about it. The subject is abortion. My friends and I are pro-choice, but this question always leaves us stumped. So I’m especially interested in the pro-choice position.

A man and a woman decide to have a child and raise it together. They do what it takes for her to get pregnant and they are successful. Sometime in the first trimester of pregnancy, she decides she doesn’t want to be a parent after all and doesn't want to go through with it for whatever reason and decides on an abortion. However, the man has has been looking forward to this event with his whole heart and has grown completely attached to the thought of being a father and having this baby and he is very against the abortion of his child.

The woman has no medical complications.
The man offers to take full responsibility for the child, financial and otherwise. All the woman has to do is continue to carry the child, bear it and then (if she still doesn't want to be a parent) she's free to turn it over to him completely.

I’m not saying whether they are married or not, because this may very well break up a marriage.

What is the ‘right’ thing for them to do?
Should he be able to legally force her to have the baby?
Does she have complete control, even though she made a parental agreement and promise and changed her mind?

Please state whether you are ‘pro-choice’ or ‘pro-life’.




posted on Oct, 20 2005 @ 09:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
What is the ‘right’ thing for them to do?


None of my business.


Should he be able to legally force her to have the baby?


No more than Dick Cheney can. WTH?


Does she have complete control, even though she made a parental agreement and promise and changed her mind?


Now you're just making up words? "Parental agreement?"

Listen, I'd like to sue every woman that ever said she'd love me forever, always be true or your pizza will be there in 30 minutes or less, but things change.

People also say a lot of things. Especially in bed. If that's a binding verbal contract, we got bigger problems.



posted on Oct, 20 2005 @ 09:29 AM
link   
It also begs another question. What about a man and a woman who get pregnant. She wants to keep the baby, he doesn't. Can he force her to abort? Should he be made to pay child support for a baby he never wanted?

Legally, he shouldn't be able to force her to abort, just like in your scenario I don't think she should be legally forced to carry.

What is the right thing for them to do? There is no one right thing and really no 'them' when it comes down to something like this. Where he wants the child and she doesn't there is little room for compromise (I don't consider carrying a child she doesn't want for 9 months and giving birth a compromise). What's right for him is to keep the child, for her it is to get rid of something she's not ready for.

To abort or not to abort... that is the question. hmmm. As tough a situation as it is regarding the father being more than willing to take the baby on his own after the birth the decision is ultimately hers to make. I think that is right.



posted on Oct, 20 2005 @ 09:55 AM
link   
To be completely honest, I think she should carry the child and give it to him.

I sort of did go through this in reverse, I wasn't alright with aborting my child, he didn't want one so we agreed that I would take the child and since he wanted an abortion it wasn't right for me to expect that he would spend his life paying for the child. He has no connection to the situation now.
People deserve love, they deserve the respect to be allowed life and forcing somebody to love or care for a child will only breed resentment. My daughter is mine and mine alone, people love her for the beautiful child she is, not because they get a bill and happened to be involved in some good sex.

I am pro-choice, I think parents do have the right to decide if they can have a child, and I will fully support anybody who decides to have an abortion, but in honesty that child does have the right to life and if somebody is waiting by to care for and love the child, what ethical right does that mother have to take the child away? He is the father, that is his child too whether or not she wants to deal with it.

It is her body, but it is also a life, whether or not you want to have consequences for it. It can put your body through hell, but she has no right to say that her tummy being firm is more precious than a human life. In this particular case she even choose to get pregnant, I would never be able to respect a person who purposely created a life just to kill it.

It's only 9 months, a few weeks to recover and she could give the baby away and never deal with it again, but that man will be haunted for his entire life by having his child taken from him.



posted on Oct, 20 2005 @ 09:56 AM
link   
Oh!!!!!!The all moral questions of who wants it and who doesn't, and who is to make the final decision. Hum . . .


I always tell my son, that if he gets a girl pregnant is not for him to chose but his destiny lies with the choices the girl will make.

The whole issue about abortion and about religious rights been so adamant to allowed women rights and I emphasized this is because when it comes to giving life it falls in the women Rights.

I hope you understand what I mean.

It's always the women Choice that is what it makes the issue so controversial.

By the way I will not be surprise if a bill to protect the man rights to force a women to carry his child will not be presented in the congress


I am glad that I get to post before the controversy starts with the other moral side



posted on Oct, 20 2005 @ 12:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
What is the ‘right’ thing for them to do?


Her body, her choice. Whatever she feels she needs to do.


Should he be able to legally force her to have the baby?


Absolutely not, under any circumstances.


Does she have complete control, even though she made a parental agreement and promise and changed her mind?


Yes she does. We as men have no concept. We should be staying out of it. One could hope that a woman would choose to carry the child to term and then give it to the man. But even though it may not be fair, a woman has the right to decide the fate of her child and her body. Its safe to say I'm pro-choice, not that I really have any right to have an opinion.

Please state whether you are ‘pro-choice’ or ‘pro-life’.

[edit on 20-10-2005 by Ambient Sound]



posted on Oct, 20 2005 @ 01:32 PM
link   
Pro-choice on this end, which seems to be the order of the day so far for this thread


I agree that it should be entirely up to her to decide whether to carry it and give it to him or abort the pregnancy in spite of his desires. If I were in that situation though, I know I would harbor an extreme hatred for her if she were to abort it, and I'd do everything I could to persuade her otherwise. But it still her choice.

I wouldn't see any legal grounds for prosecuting/suing a women who made that choice, unless abortion is ever completely criminalized. As RANT said above, there's nothing binding about it--unless for some strange reason they did sign a contract--and there'd be no way to prove she walked into it willingly (which would eliminate any "verbal agreement" issues, valid in some states I believe.)



posted on Oct, 20 2005 @ 04:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by MCory1
Pro-choice on this end, which seems to be the order of the day so far for this thread



Yes, I guess I'm assuming that the 'pro-life' people would say that she's obligated to have the baby. Their reasons might not be because she made an agreement, but that she just shouldn't have an abortion anyway.

Great answers... Now, as Parrhesia pointed out, there is another side to this question.


A man and a woman decide to have a child and raise it together. They do what it takes for her to get pregnant and they are successful. Sometime in the first trimester of pregnancy, he decides he doesn’t want to be a parent after all and doesn't want to go through with it for whatever reason and decides he'd like for her to have an abortion. However, the woman has been looking forward to this event with her whole heart and has grown completely attached to the thought of being a mother and having this baby and she is very against the abortion of this child.

It's her choice to carry on or not, right? Sure it is.

The man wants no part of it, financial or otherwise. The woman is free to carry the child, bear it and then raise it as hers.

Is the man obligated to financially support this child? THERE IS legal recourse for the woman to take. She CAN force him to pay child support.

Is this fair?
Should she try to get child support?

How do you feel about the 'unfairness' of this scenario?



posted on Oct, 20 2005 @ 04:37 PM
link   
I see there is no offer to take care of the women financially.......

I am pro-choice, by the way....

isn't it kind of unfair to expect a women to carry your child that she doesn't want, disabling herself for nine months possibly, without offering to replace the wages she would have earned, if she wasn't pregnant?



posted on Oct, 20 2005 @ 08:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent HereticThe man wants no part of it, financial or otherwise. The woman is free to carry the child, bear it and then raise it as hers.
Is the man obligated to financially support this child? THERE IS legal recourse for the woman to take. She CAN force him to pay child support.
Is this fair?
Should she try to get child support?
How do you feel about the 'unfairness' of this scenario?


That right there is exactly why I feel the way I do about this situation, if she can make the decision and force him into something, he really should be able to do the same. Reversing the situation everybody's heart goes out to that poor woman, how can he do this to her? what a jerk! she should collect off of him... but if she decides for the abortion the story changes, "well, it's her choice" she can back out with no retribution but the second he changes his mind we look down on him.

That is why I never asked for child support with my daughter, each parent should be able to say yes or no to the child as an individual choice (especially if it isn't planned). I should not be able to force him to have or not have the child any more than he should be able to do with me. Once it is there if a parent wants it, it should be kept for that parent. "Right now isn't a good time" is no excuse for taking somebody's child away that they were planning and wishing for.

You can't give one sex all the options and all the control. It isn't fair or right to do that, whether or not it's the woman.


Dawnstar-
The original post does say that he is going to completely take care of the child financially and that there are no complications with the woman, I would think it sort of would follow that he would take care of her while the child was present in her. Without serious complications, she isn't at all going to be disabled for 9 months.



posted on Oct, 20 2005 @ 08:53 PM
link   
blanketgirl,

You forgot one littler fact, the child is in the woman's body, forcing a woman to carry the pregnancy to satisfy the partner will make the woman a slave of that partner.

It's not way around the woman has the choices and that choices is what in this days and time is becoming the target to religious rights.

I doubt that the situation on the beginning thread will happen that often but I believe that it does at least it happen to the son of one of my neighbors he wanted the baby she didn't she chose to get rid of it they broke the relationship.

like I said before is the woman choice the day that a woman loses that right we will become nothing more that at the mercy of others our uterus will belong to the state the courts and anybody else regarless of what we want or not.





[edit on 20-10-2005 by marg6043]



posted on Oct, 21 2005 @ 08:24 AM
link   
When the day dawns and it's men that can get pregnant instead of women then I suspect we'll see an amazing about face on these issues from so many.

It is always the womans right to carry a pregnancy to full term or not, for whatever reason - even, IMO, in those circumstances where there are no complications or health issues (accepting the legal restrictions on time limits etc).

As for the case where the guy changes his mind and no longer wants the child, tough luck sunshine, it's a hard life with some hard lessons, eh?
You don't get to control every outcome when others are involved - especially a thing as fundamental as a womans right to control her own body. God help us all, men and women, the day that ever changes.

If you don't want to or can't face that kind of possible outcome (and you really ought to have considered it seeing as it's patently such a great big deal to you) then frankly don't put yourself in that position
.



posted on Oct, 21 2005 @ 08:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by blanketgirl
You can't give one sex all the options and all the control. It isn't fair or right to do that, whether or not it's the woman.


When it comes to carrying and bearing children, one sex does have all the options, not bestowed by me or by us, but by the creator (if there is one) or by nature.

It isn't fair, but it's reality.

How many times have we heard that life isn't fair? It's true!

Periods aren't fair. (Can we somehow force men to take that over?)
Menopause isn't fair. (Again. A little help, please??)
Men/women's wage differences aren't fair. (Don't even get me started!)


Originally posted by sminkeypinkey
You don't get to control every outcome when others are involved - especially a thing as fundamental as a womans right to control her own body. God help us all, men and women, the day that ever changes.


Well-said.

Thanks everyone for your participation in this discussion.
Now I can show it to my friends and say, "See? I was right"!



posted on Oct, 21 2005 @ 11:00 AM
link   
I'm going to take what I feel is probably the more unpopular side of the second issue and say she shouldn't be able to force him into financially supporting her and the child either. Two primary reasons for this:

1) She still walked into it herself as well, the responsibility falls 50/50. Just like any other "agreement", if one partner bails the other is left to manage as they see fit, although in most such instances there's some planning on what to do if the other leaves.

If I go into business with someone and they decide a couple of months later they just can't do it for one reason or another, I'm stuck with it. That's why you write into your business agreement what happens in the instance one partner leaves.

Likewise, as much in love as they may have been and as much as they both were determined at the onset to share the burden, they should still have both prepared for what to do if the other were to bail out on them.

2) Yes, the woman carries the child to term, goes through all the joys of pregnancy, and most often does the rearing for at least the first few months. That's the woman's side of the coin. The man's side is supposed to be supporting the mother and her child. That's how its worked for a long time, and although it may sound chauvinistic, I mean it as a true 50/50 deal. The woman can't work, so the man needs to do the work of two to support the family during a good chunk of the pregnancy and the first few months after the child is born.

Keeping in mind that it's the theoretical 50/50 deal, although I know that often it doesn't turn out (or at least seem to be) that way, why should one partner, the woman, be afforded the right to walk out on her own terms, but the other, the man, has to stick it out? Most--actually almost all I believe--of the posts for the original scenario were of the line "Yes, it's her body, her choice, she can do whatever." The man would have to make sacrifices as well as the woman, albeit not as overtly physical, so why doesn't he have that option?

I would like to pose a scenario of my own, probably hypothetical for most of you but at the same time not so impossible that you might never have been in the situation. It may not seem like it pertains at first, but it does (in my mind at least).

You have two children, a boy and a girl, each 17 years old lets say. Let's say for this example that they're both of the same emotional, physical, and mental capabilities, just to make it a little more fair.

Your son comes home one day with a concerned look on his face, and you ask him what's up. He tells you that he got a girl pregnant, and doesn't know what to do about it. He doesn't want anything to do with the girl or the baby. He respectfully asks for your advice. What do you tell him? How do you feel about him now? What do you expect him to do? How do you feel about what he wants to do (that is, leave the girl)?

Now flip it. Your daughter comes up to you (different day--otherwise a possible question to end with is "What do you tell the judge was your reason for sniping people from a clock tower?") and says that she's pregnant. She's wanting to abort the baby. What do you tell her? What do you think of the guy who "did this" to your daughter? What do you tell her to do with the baby?

My personal response to the first scenario would be "do what you want about the girl, but you're getting a job and raising that kid." That's the way I was brought up, and most of the guys I've known in my life were raised to believe the same way, regardless of their background. The man does not bail out on the kid, no questions asked. I'd be angrier than hell at him, but I'd respect him more than a lot of other people if he were to do what he could for that kid.

My own response to the second scenario is "you don't have to keep the kid if you don't want it. Abort it, put it up for adoption, or let us (or other family) raise it for you." I'd hate the bastard who did it to her, and wouldn't blame her in the slightest. That's what I've seen more often than not of the parents of girls when placed in that situation. It's the guy's fault, she's innocent, and she shouldn't have to worry about it.

I hope you guys see what I'm getting at, the double standard. It may not be the same you would do, and the cross-section of America I grew up in may not be a good reference point, but that's how I've seen it. It's always the guys responsibility, but it's the girl's choice.

Barring rape, I've always been under the impression that it takes two to conceive a child. Granted, when the moment comes you get all hot-and-bothered and logical thought ceases to exist, but "temporary insanity" doesn't play when you're creating a life (shouldn't when you're ending one either, but that's a different thought for a different thread.)

The woman bears just as much responsibility for the child as the man, yet most of the time it's her choice whether to go on or not. Why can't he have the same right?



posted on Oct, 21 2005 @ 12:00 PM
link   
If these were my 17-year-old kids, they would know ALL about sex, birth control and would have free access to any birth control they desired. They would know the consequences of having sex.


Originally posted by MCory1
Your son comes home one day with a concerned look on his face, and you ask him what's up. He tells you that he got a girl pregnant, and doesn't know what to do about it. He doesn't want anything to do with the girl or the baby. He respectfully asks for your advice. What do you tell him? How do you feel about him now? What do you expect him to do? How do you feel about what he wants to do (that is, leave the girl)?


I would be disappointed. I tell him that he doesn't have to be emotionally involved with the girl or the baby (although I'd encourage him to rethink disowning the baby) but he's obligated to financially help take care of the child. I don't feel any differently about him than I did before. Maybe a little more compassionate, because I can see what he has ahead of him for the next 18 years at least, better than he can. I would rather he leave the girl than be in a relationship that he doesn't want to be in.



Now flip it. Your daughter comes up to you ... and says that she's pregnant. She's wanting to abort the baby. What do you tell her? What do you think of the guy who "did this" to your daughter? What do you tell her to do with the baby?


I would be disappointed. I would help educate her on all her options and then support her 100% in the choice she made. I don't think I would take the child and raise it as my own. She's the mom. As far as the guy who 'did this' she is just as responsible as he is, so, although I would wish it was different, I wouldn't hate him or anything. I would expect him to pay child support if she did decide to keep it.



The woman bears just as much responsibility for the child as the man, yet most of the time it's her choice whether to go on or not. Why can't he have the same right?


Because he cannot bear children. That's the simple and straight answer.
Why can't men have menopause?

[edit on 21-10-2005 by Benevolent Heretic]



posted on Oct, 21 2005 @ 12:38 PM
link   
Actually BH they do have hormone problems as they reach middle age, we have a friend that is about the same age of my husband that started to notice some changes in his you private area and has to get into hormone therapy, he was having problems with testosterone deficiency.


Many middle age males don't like to talk about things like that.



posted on Oct, 21 2005 @ 01:11 PM
link   
I appreciate your response BH, but I do have a problem with this:



Because he cannot bear children. That's the simple and straight answer.
Why can't men have menopause?


As a man I find that to be hardly fair--I had absolutely no choice in whether I could bear children or not, and yet I do not receive equal right to decide whether I want to stick it out or not?

A woman often does have the choice whether they ever want to bear a child or not, and when there is no choice because they are unable to have a kid. A woman can have surgery or birth control to prevent having a kid; a man can do absolutely nothing to allow him to have one if he desired.

If we want one, we have to leave it up to the woman, and if she doesn't want one after it's conceived then that's just tough for us. If we likewise decide after the fact that we don't want one, then we're deadbeats who aren't good for anything. That double standard is frowned up in regards to any other physical characteristics brought on at birth, such as race or disabilities, but it's applauded when the double standard is applied to gender and parenting choice.

I'm not necessarily saying that those men who don't want the kid after the fact shouldn't have to pay child support, but if society isn't going to look down on the woman for not wanting the kid, why should it look down on the man? That hardly seems like "equal" rights to me.

As far as the other "joys" of being a woman, although I doubt you'd believe me I do sympathize. While it may sound extremely insensitive, when it comes that time of the month we do have to put up with you. I'm sure most women still think we get the better end of the deal, there's been plenty of girls I would've gladly taken the week of cramps and emotions than putting up with them, and I'm saying that with as good of an idea of what it's like as I'll ever know for sure. I know that isn't much--apparently the closest I'll ever get to it would be a week long battle with some nasty lactose intolerance or similar G/I problem (which I have done)--but that's the best I can give.



posted on Oct, 21 2005 @ 02:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by MCory1
As a man I find that to be hardly fair--I had absolutely no choice in whether I could bear children or not, and yet I do not receive equal right to decide whether I want to stick it out or not?


It's not fair. Life is not fair. let's talk about not fair, shall we?



A woman often does have the choice whether they ever want to bear a child or not, and when there is no choice because they are unable to have a kid. A woman can have surgery or birth control to prevent having a kid; a man can do absolutely nothing to allow him to have one if he desired.


I am unable to have a kid. I don't have the choice, even if I wanted one. There was nothing I can do to allow me to have a kid. What's fair about that? I may be able to sympathize with you more than you know. My choice would be to adopt (if I decided to).



I'm not necessarily saying that those men who don't want the kid after the fact shouldn't have to pay child support, but if society isn't going to look down on the woman for not wanting the kid, why should it look down on the man? That hardly seems like "equal" rights to me.


I agree with you on the double standard issue. That's why I suggest never getting into any of the situations where either person would have to depend on the other keeping their word. Or else know that you cannot depend 100% on someone else.

Marriage is a legally binding agreement with promises and vows, but people walk out all the time. It isn't fair or 'right', but it happens all the time.



As far as the other "joys" of being a woman, although I doubt you'd believe me I do sympathize. While it may sound extremely insensitive, when it comes that time of the month we do have to put up with you.


Yeah, insensitive is a pretty good word.


I do believe that you have some sympathy, but I seriously doubt that you have any clue about menopause. I'm in my 6th year. It lasts up to 10 years. So for the pleasure of not being able to have kids, I have had approximately 500 periods, one day of each was spent on my back with terrible cramps and achy back, much like labor pains. And now, as I'm in the last throes of my 'child-bearing' years, it all goes out with a *BANG* that can only be imagined if experienced.


And don't forget. A period is not just a week-long battle, it's a week-long battle followed by 3 weeks of normalcy, then another week-long battle, like clockwork for most of a woman's life. It gets old real fast, but... we're women. That's how it is. It isn't fair, but it's reality.



posted on Oct, 21 2005 @ 05:03 PM
link   
really, this is kind of a stupid discussion, since, well, you can't really "force" another person to much of anything. you can reward them if they do what you want them to , or, make life a little more unpleasant if they don't. but good luck trying to force someone to do what they want!

so, okay, you rewrite the laws, so that a women needs the father's permission before she can abort their child, or at least give him the abilitiy to contest it...so what!!! women have been finding ways to get rid of unwanted pregnacies since biblical times!!! how far do you wish to go in order to "force her"? I mean, she doesn't want a kid, there are ways to get rid of it without the assistance of a doctor. shall we watch the lady 24/7 just to make sure she does nothing intentionally to abort it? what happens if she miscarries, will you drag her into court with a lawsuit saying that it was an intentionally abortion? maybe you should have the right to dictate what she eats, just to make sure that the baby is nice and health, or maybe she can live with those migraines or other health problems, I mean, they are really just a small nuisance really, right(since you aren't the one feeling them!!) and the medicine might not be healthy for the child huh?? maybe she should have to go to court, just to prove that it's necessary?

I have known women to have to quit their job in the early months of pregnacy, simply because the job (printing business) was harmful to the child. should the father have the right to demand that a women give up her income, just so he can have the child he concieve.

like I said in my earlier post, I would be more than willing to work out any disagreements with my husband as long as he stayed in the realm of reasonbleness...
but, for a bunch of people declaring the need for smaller government, less meddling in the affairs of the common citizen, well, you seem to be down right determined to get them meddling in this one big time!!! man, if you don't think that you and your mate can work out something like this on your own, do you really think that laws and judges and politicians can do better? if so, well, all I can say was the two of you shouldn't have gotten together to make the baby to begin with!!



posted on Oct, 21 2005 @ 05:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by dawnstar
really, this is kind of a stupid discussion,


Jump down!


This is not a stupid discussion.



you can't really "force" another person to much of anything.


This is a hypothetical scenario designed to explore our feelings on childbearing, abortion and commitment. This is a discussion I have had with VERY intelligent friends of mine, none of whom are stupid.

Nobody is trying to convince anyone of anything. If you think differently, I suggest you may have misinterpreted something.


I am pro-choice. 100% no exception. I would never consider legislating childbirth OR abortion.



how far do you wish to go in order to "force her"?


Who are you talking to?




but, for a bunch of people declaring the need for smaller government, less meddling in the affairs of the common citizen, well, you seem to be down right determined to get them meddling in this one big time!!!


WTF are you talking to?



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join