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.
The word 'murder' is also innacurate [though it sounds dramatic]
Should a woman ask for consent if she has her tubes tied? Yes the fetus would genetically be half his but it's still inside her body.. the word 'consent' implies that the guy is her boss.. 'consult' would be a better word and I agree that ideally she should consult him before making such decisions. If he says no however.. he should not have the final word.
And what if he's been abusing her? If she's poor? What if the relationship is unstable? What if he's a drug dealer and a bad influence? I've met many people who have chosen to be parents yet ended up just abusing and neglecting their kids.. what makes you so certain that a willing parent would be a good one?
I agree with you. BOTH people should take responsibility for a pregnancy. I, for example, would not choose to have an abortion (except for health reasons). Even if I was raped, I wouldn't abort it - Shall we talk about morals, now?) I could just never insist that another woman make the same choice that I would. It's too personal a choice.
And nobody said it was fair. Yes it would be more fair if the man also had the right to choose not to support the child, but if your concern was 100% with the child, as you have both stated, you wouldn't even entertain the 'fairness' of a man's choice to abandon his offspring.
That's why I say this is more about the man having control over the woman (and being "fair) than it is about concern for the child. The idea that, in this one case in the universe, women have control over something that you don't just bothers you so much.
I can only assume that if you (as men) did have the choice to abandon, you wouldn't have anything to complain about, right? It would be fair and you could abandon a born child and everything would be fine...
So all the little children whose fathers are now being forced to pay child support would have that support removed and then you'd be happy...
Am I right? Is this what you want? Is that 'fair' enough for you?
Originally posted by GradyPhilpott
The title of this thread is Men and Abortion.
Originally posted by JebusSaves
Yes, i would have something to 'complain' about and i would be FAR from happy. I'd have the fact that there are still abortions that are unnessary.
Anyday i would prefer a child to be born and have both parents invested in it.
I don't want a world where Fathers can abandon their children,
because i don't want a world where mothers can murder their children without the consent of the father.
Originally posted by WestPoint23
If a man should be made to pay child support regardless of his view on the abortion issue why shouldn’t a woman be made to deliver the baby regardless of her view on the abortion issue? What you’re proposing is not in the least bit fair.
Originally posted by WestPoint23
Fair enough, out of Grady’s wishes I will no longer continue to peruse this discussion in this thread
Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
Yeah! Buh-bye!
Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
I agree with you. BOTH people should take responsibility for a pregnancy.
Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
And nobody said it was fair. Yes it would be more fair if the man also had the right to choose not to support the child, but if your concern was 100% with the child, as you have both stated, you wouldn't even entertain the 'fairness' of a man's choice to abandon his offspring.
Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
Who says it has to be fair?
Originally posted by JebusSaves
The word 'murder' is also innacurate [though it sounds dramatic]
Not really. To Murder is to extinguish life, in the case of the Foetus, its laking its life.
dictionary
mur·der
The unlawful killing of one human by another, especially with premeditated malice.
At what point does this child attain life?
When its Brain Forms, When its Heart Forms, When its capable of surviving outside the womb, when it its Soul arrives?
So, to me, Murder is the correct term and it has nothing to DO with illiciting emotive responses.
The Tubes tied is stupid. Has she Murdered a child to have them tied, no.
All she has done is prevent the eggs she has from being fertilized.
Concent does NOT imply the man is her boss, it implies that he has an equal say over the life of his child.
Originally posted by WestPoint23
why do you then continue to support a woman’s right to choose if you agree that the laws as they are now are unfair and or wrong?
So what do you propose?
Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
Probably for the same reason you would support another man's right to NOT support his child, even though you would support yours.
Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
And, there's a difference between 'unfair' and 'wrong'. It's unfair, yes. But not wrong. Wrong is a moral judgment.
Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
Women having to bear the children is unfair.
Men being stronger than women is unfair.
Women having periods and menopause is unfair.
Men having impotence issues is unfair.
Originally posted by WestPoint23
Well, in my opinion if something is knowingly unfair and something can be done to reverse it but it isn’t, then that something is morally wrong,
Those are things which we have no control over, natural factors, we should try to accept them and move on, not make laws to favor one side over the other to try and correct and or compensate what some may consider natures "flaws.
Originally posted by WestPoint23
Again, what is so wrong about making both sides fulfill the responsibilities they sign up for when they conceive a baby?
Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
If we could do something to make it fair, I would be all for that. But making a woman have an unwanted child does not make it fair.
Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
You're proposing making the laws! Not me. There are no laws that favor one side over the other, except natural law.
Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
What's wrong with it (and I do mean wrong) is that it doesn't solve the problem. It doesn't do any good.
Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
It makes the mother, the father AND the baby suffer and does NOTHING toward preventing further unwanted pregnancies.
Originally posted by Astronomer70
Well, I
ve been following this thread all the way now and I have yet to see anyone bring up the case of married couples. Do all the fules remain the same in the case of a married woman wanting an abortion and the married man not wanting her to abort? Haven't they become one when they get married?
Originally posted by Astronomer70
Do all the fules remain the same in the case of a married woman wanting an abortion and the married man not wanting her to abort? Haven't they become one when they get married?
Originally posted by WestPoint23
Well, since you wont support making the woman carry the baby how about (as I said earlier) relieving the man of automatic responsibility over an unwanted pregnancy?
I’m proposing making new laws to balance out the ones we already have because they are unfair to the man in an unwanted pregnancy situation. If the current laws are unfair to the man does that not mean they favor the woman?
Yes is does, it abolishes abortions (unless in special circumstances) and in doing so becomes fair to both sides because it makes them both fulfill their responsibilities.
Hey I’m all for awareness and education in order to prevent abortions but I’m also in favor of legislation to regulate unwanted pregnancies and in doing so to act as a deterrent for future unprotected sex.
My proposal follows a simple rule of thumb, that is "you make it you own it", if both parties know they would be forced to take care of an potentional baby perhaps they’d be more resistant to that powerful momentary temptation.
In that the woman still has the final say, and the man still bears financial responsibility regardless (although in this case rightfully so)?
Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
Can the woman decide on a vasectomy? Because if the man is going to make the decisions about what a woman does with her body, in all fairness shouldn't the woman have the right to make the decisions about the man's?
Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
I don't support that. Because there's a child in the world now who has needs. Regardless of whatever happened in the past, whomever made what decision, they both took the chance and there's a baby now... And both parents are responsible for it.
Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
The current laws don't favor the woman, they favor the child! If there is a child, it must be provided for!
Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
You're proposing giving a man the right to be a deadbeat dad. To feel free to spread his seed far and wide without consequence!
Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
You can't abolish abortions! Women will get abortions whether it's legal or not.
Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
And how are men doing now, knowing that they're going to have to fulfill their responsibilities? How's that working?
Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
Both parties already know that!
CONTEXT: Nearly half of unintended pregnancies and more than one-fifth of all pregnancies in the United States end in abortion. No nationally representative statistics on abortion incidence or on the universe of abortion providers have been available since 1996.
Link
Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
You aren't old enough to remember when abortion was illegal. We already tried this.
Link
The abortion rate declined from 29.3 per 1,000 women aged 15-44 in 1980 and 27.4 in 1990 to 22.4 in 1996. The abortion ratio (the proportion of pregnancies ending in abortion) also fell during the early and mid-1990s. These declines meant that in the mid-1990s, measures of abortion reached the lowest levels since the 1970s.
Link
Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
Why is it "rightfully so" just because they're married?
Originally posted by WestPoint23
Err, if the current laws favored the child he/she would have to face execution.
Yeah, if that's what one chooses to do, just like a woman can open and spread her legs far and wide without consequence.
I’m sure it can be reduced though if more people were aware of it and took steps to limit and prevent abortions.
They may both know it but knowing alone wont change much unless there’s some unwanted incentives waiting for you. Like I said, they’ll think they can get rid of it somehow or that it wont happen to them. Heck, they already know they can, the statistics speak for themselves.
Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
To me, a pregnancy does not constitute a child. Not until it's born is it a child, to me. I understand to you it may be different.
[...]
Most women who have abortions agonize over the decision and live with it for their lives. It's not a simple decision.
Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
I'm just glad that the law agrees with me.
Originally posted by WestPoint23
Thanks for your time.
Originally posted by GradyPhilpott
If it's not a child, what's all the agonizing about? As you describe it, the decision to abort should be as easy as stepping on a cockroach.
Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
Should I continue with this pregnancy, quit school, depend on my mother to take care of me and the baby, hope the father contributes? Will the baby even know his father?