Could abortion be considered a double standard?

a reply to: Astyanax

But you made an attempt to understand his position, which is more than just about everyone else did.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: WanderingSage

I had a girl abort my child without even telling me and I've never felt sadness and pain like that before.

Did you think about that before your "contribution?"
She should have discussed it with you but it was still her decision and her's alone. Do you think you could have talked her out of it?

Regardless , when you're invested in that situation (dependent on how emotionally you are invested with the sectual partner), to come to a decision like that behind someone's back is very selfish. It isn't to do with talking someone out of it, a situation with this outcome can have long-term psychological implications for both male and female if left unresolved.

Even if it was/is fully the females choice and decision, then dignity must be given to the second party (male) in the form of a formal discussion.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: WanderingSage
Yes. But which bears the brunt of the responsibility?
Once the male is done, he's done. Not so much for the female.

Sir, you are wrong here. Again, taking into account emotional responsibilites. As a situational example; a man and a women decide if contraceeption fails they would agree upon a termination. The latter happens and the female is pregnant and now wants to keep the child. Where does this leave the male?

He now has the emotional responsibiltiy to help bring a child into the world, give support and pay contribution. Now imagine that the female also didn't want him to have any part in the childs life. Sure he can go to court, but having "access" is not the same as having a functional family.

It is a 50/50 responsibility and so should be the decision. Unless of course you live in the world where the male is always the one who does not give a damn and avoids maintinence. This is the 21st century and I know which world/choice I would rther believe in.

a reply to: WanderingSage

Now this is a true statement. This is why it should be a 50/50 decision. People always use the argument "the male is just a contributor".. that is their DNA! What about situations where females "trap" men in a beneficial relationship unbeknownst to the male?

Things need to cahnge in this 21st century.

originally posted by: L.A.B
a reply to: WanderingSage

Now this is a true statement. This is why it should be a 50/50 decision. People always use the argument "the male is just a contributor".. that is their DNA! What about situations where females "trap" men in a beneficial relationship unbeknownst to the male?

Things need to cahnge in this 21st century.

But what happens when the two don't agree? It has to go one way or the other. Which way should it go when they can't come to an agreement?

a reply to: kaylaluv

It should go to court and a decision should be made under the recommendation of a consultant, be it psychiatric or medical. This decision should be made in the best interest of the potential child, taking into account the current circumstances of the potential parents.

Or the other option, in my opinion, is the "no grey areas". This is simply if one of the two does not want the child, then there is no child regardless. This then avoids all the other complications later down the line, such as the child being brought into a broken family, etc.

Of course these are just postualtions and I recognise they are controversial. But I am trying to be realisitc in what would suit all parties in the majority of circumstances.

a reply to: L.A.B

In your first option, there is no way any court in America is going to force a woman to carry a fetus in her body if she doesn't want it there.

Same deal with your second option. No way is any court of law going to force a woman to remove a fetus from her body if she want its there.

Because it all boils down to whether a woman owns her own body or not. When a fetus can be successfully developed outside a womb, then we have a different argument.

a reply to: kaylaluv

A fetus probably can be successfully developed outside of a woman/womb, it just hasn't been done (that we know of) as it is "immoral".

So seeing as neither of my suggestions are really acceptible by US lore (probably the same outcome for my UK law) then your statement:

a man should not have ANY responsibilities to a child he does not want.

Should be the correct course of action. The only situation that this will matter is when the male does feel a moral responsibility.. what would you suggest to amend this?

originally posted by: Bone75
a reply to: Annee

Sorry, we're way off topic here. I don't want to pry and I certainly don't want to upset the almighty Phage lol.

What do you think about the scenario I laid out earlier where the woman killed the kid just to hurt the father? That was never addressed.

There is extremism in everything.

a reply to: kaylaluv

not to mention the time it would take to get into a court.

I think that the best we could do legally, would be to make it so that once a pregnancy is discovered part of the care the women get is a conferance where the father is notified and the couple along with the doctor sits down with an impartial mediator and the couple is at least forced to discuss it. but even then, I bet we'd have men trying to delay that meeting by postponements ect. hoping to extend the time to a point where they women might change her mind if she wishes to abort.
and even then, if you can't get an employer to provide their employees with medical insurance that provides birth control, you won't stand a cold chance in hades of the law forcing a women to abort her baby when she has sincere beliefs that it is immoral...
and I highly doubt if you going to be able to force her to carry it to term.

the best advice I can give is to both the male and the female is to not play around till you are sure that the person you are playing with is trustworthy and is considerate enough of your feelings to at least sit down and talk to you about it.

a reply to: L.A.B

Once a child is born, then both parties bear responsibility whether the child was wanted or not. A woman can be charged with child abandonment or abuse, just as much as a man can.

Before the child is born (before it is viable), no one but the woman carrying it in HER body should have the say on whether or not it stays there.

a reply to: dawnstar

I agree that the best way is for the woman to tell the father, and at least allow him to discuss it with her. But ultimately, it is her decision what to do with her own body.

a reply to: dawnstar

www.youtube.com...

Well spoken

You should know someone, trust eachother and come to terms with these sorts of things before things get out of hand, so you each know where you stand.

a reply to: kaylaluv

Before the child is born (before it is viable), no one but the woman carrying it in HER body should have the say on whether or not it stays there.

I understand this is the accepted norm, but it is still the DNA of the father. The female too should understand that choices come with consequences.. And thus, the multi-standard remains.

a reply to: Hefficide

I really have been thinking hard for the last thirty mins or so, just wanted to get your opinion. It appears to me that every pro choice arguement can be used to, demand doctor assisted suicide even for things such as depression, do you disagree? are the feelings the same, a mother has in bringing a life into this world, and the potential disaster that would follow thus reason for abortion, this justisfys suicide in the same way to the letter. Am I wrong?

Just because the genetic material contributed is 50-50, this is ultimately not a 50-50 decision. It's a serial sequence of events and responsibility and consequences.

The man's responsibility, comes before he inserts his penis and ejaculates into a woman he doesn't know well enough to trust that 1.) she won't "trap" him, 2.) she is taking precautions for birth control if he is not, 3.) she is firm and not lying about her stance on choice.

All that being said, if pregnancy occurs in the absence of or despite any of the above, the 100 percent choice lies with her, despite everything else. That being said, if he is against having the child and she decides to anyway, there should be no strings for him, and she bears that responsibility.

originally posted by: WanderingSage
Okay but if the roles are reversed and she wants it and he doesn't then he is still responsible. How is that right? He'll be responsible his whole life and not just for nine months.

I believe that a man should have the legal option to "opt out" in time for the woman to decide if she wants to be the sole caretaker or have an abortion. But that's not the way it is now, so it's kind of moot.

But the man has a LOT to lose when he has sex. He can lose the right to keep the baby, he can lose the right to opt out, he can lose 18 years of child support money... So, since he has SO MUCH to lose, he should be a LOT more careful about who he has sex with and what protection he uses.

Also if the woman doesn't want to get pregnant then she shouldn't have sex. It's responsibility for your actions.

Likewise, if a man doesn't want to take the chance of handing the fate of his baby over to someone else, then he shouldn't have sex. It goes both ways.

Fact is, men can't carry babies. That's just a fact. Until they are, they have so much more to lose, so they should be HIGHLY selective. Instead of blaming the woman for doing what she does, take 100% responsibility of creating a life and be ready to either let it go or to pay for it for 18 years. You DO have a choice. Take advantage of it.

I am sorry about your pain.

a reply to: WanderingSage

An interesting take on the subject.

I personally applaud your decision to jump into the fray, but must caution you that you won't change any minds.

Sadly, those invested in the pro-abortion side have too much emotionally invested to ever consider themselves wrong on this subject.

For the record, I agree with your premise.

Cheers.

a reply to: beezzer

... and those on the "anti-abortion" side are not equally or in a greater measure "emotionally" involved in believing in the righteousness of their cause?

Indeed, no minds are going to change as long as irrational beliefs are held up as facts.

originally posted by: beezzer
a reply to: WanderingSage

An interesting take on the subject.

I personally applaud your decision to jump into the fray, but must caution you that you won't change any minds.

Sadly, those invested in the pro-abortion side have too much emotionally invested to ever consider themselves wrong on this subject.

For the record, I agree with your premise.

Cheers.

Emotionally invested? Lol

Isn't the anti-choice crowd always harping on about the sanctity of life, Christian morals, baby genocide, and countless videos that try to demonize a clinic that offers crucial health services to poor women?

Emotionally invested lol

a reply to: L.A.B

If you are just talking about DNA, then what if a piece of the man (say a finger) was implanted into the woman's body. Does the man have a right to insist his "DNA" remain in her body, even if it is against her will? No. It doesn't matter if his DNA is in her body. He doesn't have the right to demand that she leave it in her body against her will. And no, I'm not comparing a finger to a fetus. I am saying that just because there is something in her body that is partially from him, doesn't give him the right to control her body.

And yes, the mother should understand the consequences of her choices. That's why she is responsible for the care and feeding of the baby once it's born, even if she decides she doesn't want it. To refuse to provide that care will put her in jail.