Should the man have any say in whether a woman aborts or not?

Please reread your post. You are NOT arguing that BOTH the man and woman decide. You are arguing that the MAN can override any wish of the woman. You are saying that the MAN WILL DECIDE, then claiming that both are deciding.

Click to expand...

I am not arguing that the man's wishes should always take precedence over the woman's. It all depends on the circumstances. Look, if a woman wants to abort, and the man would not be able to support the child by himself if it were born, then let her abort. If she wants to keep the child and has the financial means to do so without help from the man, then let her do so. What is most important here is not the desire of the man or woman to have or not have a kid, but the ability of the person who wants the child to support that child without assistance from the other parent.

molten_dragon said:

Until the technology exists to allow a ZEF to be removed from the woman's body at any point and grown to term in an artificial womb, then I cannot support a man being able to prevent a woman from having an abortion if she chooses to.

Once that technology is available though, then yes, I do believe that a woman shouldn't be allowed to abort without the man's agreement. If she doesn't want the child and he does, then it will be removed (live) from her body, and grown to term artificially. That way, he gets the child, and she doesn't have to carry it to term if she doesn't want to.

Click to expand...

Why, exactly? There are ethical and practical reasons for abortion, too.

Genetic medical concerns, environmental concerns, anti-natalism, unfitness of BOTH the parents, etc etc etc. Or hell, no reason at all. Why does she need a reason?

Why should anyone be allowed to tell her what she can and can't do with what is basically part of her own body?

MistressNomad said:

Why, exactly? There are ethical and practical reasons for abortion, too.

Genetic medical concerns, environmental concerns, anti-natalism, unfitness of BOTH the parents, etc etc etc. Or hell, no reason at all. Why does she need a reason?

Why should anyone be allowed to tell her what she can and can't do with what is basically part of her own body?

Click to expand...

Pregnancy is so strange. I'm sure not everyone felt this same way: but I felt like I was abducted by aliens and my body had been taken over and everyting was completely out of my control. It did not - not ever in a single moment in all those months - did it ever feel 'natural' or 'good' - instead, it was quite disgusting.

Aunt Spiker said:

Pregnancy is so strange. I'm sure not everyone felt this same way: but I felt like I was abducted by aliens and my body had been taken over and everyting was completely out of my control. It did not - not ever in a single moment in all those months - did it ever feel 'natural' or 'good' - instead, it was quite disgusting.

Click to expand...

Well, basically, it is. Especially if you have a boy. The woman's body actually produces antibodies in the confusion of trying to create a fetus with the opposite hormonal make-up to herself.

I'm not sure everyone feels any single way about pregnancy. Not having ever been pregnant, I wouldn't know. But I have certainly heard wildly varying descriptions of it from women who have.

MistressNomad said:

Well, basically, it is. Especially if you have a boy. The woman's body actually produces antibodies in the confusion of trying to create a fetus with the opposite hormonal make-up to herself.

I'm not sure everyone feels any single way about pregnancy. Not having ever been pregnant, I wouldn't know. But I have certainly heard wildly varying descriptions of it from women who have.

Click to expand...

Somewhere along our evolutionary beginnings we ****ed ourselves a bit with this whole self-awareness thing.

Graffias said:

I am not arguing that the man's wishes should always take precedence over the woman's. It all depends on the circumstances. Look, if a woman wants to abort, and the man would not be able to support the child by himself if it were born, then let her abort. If she wants to keep the child and has the financial means to do so without help from the man, then let her do so. What is most important here is not the desire of the man or woman to have or not have a kid, but the ability of the person who wants the child to support that child without assistance from the other parent.

Click to expand...

What if the woman wants to keep the child, and can afford to raise it, but the man wants to have it aborted? Do you deny this man his (fictional) right to have a say in the decision, or do you deny the womans' right to not risk her life having a potentially fatal medical procedure performed on her without her consent?

Also, it is foolish to have anyones' financial situtation be a factor because that can change, and often does. There's no garauntee that someone who has money before the child is born will still have money after the child is born

Aunt Spiker said:

Somewhere along our evolutionary beginnings we ****ed ourselves a bit with this whole self-awareness thing.

Click to expand...

We have. Abortion and birth control has been going on since the beginning of time. The reason is because the more kids you have, the less time you have to pursue your self-awareness. We have conflicting drives. And since we have a sex drive instead of a parenting drive (at least until the offspring is born - like any creature that has sex for pleasure), our reproduction frequently loses out when pitted against our self-awareness. That's why we're seeing the birth rates we are in developed countries.

I personally don't care. But most people seem to, so there will probably be some fully technological way to reproduce in the next 50 years.

sangha said:

What if the woman wants to keep the child, and can afford to raise it, but the man wants to have it aborted? Do you deny this man his (fictional) right to have a say in the decision, or do you deny the womans' right to not risk her life having a potentially fatal medical procedure performed on her without her consent?

Click to expand...

Even a simple reading of his last posts can give you an answer. Just sayin'.

Also, it is foolish to have anyones' financial situtation be a factor because that can change, and often does. There's no garauntee that someone who has money before the child is born will still have money after the child is born

Click to expand...

It may be foolish, but jurisprudence all over the world is replete with instances where financial well being is factored in. Ignoring those precedents may leave your sense of self-righteousness intact, but at the end of the day if there's going to be a mature discussion on the subject you will have to accept that it has to be considered; not merely dismissed with a swish of your hand.

What if the woman wants to keep the child, and can afford to raise it, but the man wants to have it aborted?

Click to expand...

I thought I made myself clear in my last post. I would not support such a decision, and I explained why.

Do you deny this man his (fictional) right to have a say in the decision, or do you deny the womans' right to not risk her life having a potentially fatal medical procedure performed on her without her consent?

Click to expand...

Some abortions have been fatal, sure. But I'll wager that there have been far more fatal pregnancies. If you're trying to argue that having a simple surgery to have a small object removed from her uterus is more likely to cause health complications to a woman than pushing an object the size of a watermelon through her cervix, I would say that is complete nonsense. I'm far more sympathetic to the idea that a woman shouldn't be forced to give birth than the belief that she shouldn't be forced to have an abortion.

...And I'm not ok with the idea of a woman being forced to do ANYTHING with her body. This is just a huge can of worms. Not only would it never work (abortion rates remain the same even when it's illegal), but it is sure to result in even more bitter parenting situations than we have now. You know, besides the fact that it's a form of reproductive slavery.

HippoDance69 said:

Even a simple reading of his last posts can give you an answer. Just sayin'.

Click to expand...

You're right. I completely misread what you said.

It may be foolish, but jurisprudence all over the world is replete with instances where financial well being is factored in. Ignoring those precedents may leave your sense of self-righteousness intact, but at the end of the day if there's going to be a mature discussion on the subject you will have to accept that it has to be considered; not merely dismissed with a swish of your hand.

Click to expand...

While you're right that it is factored in, I don't think a mature discussion requires that we assume new policies (and giving the man a say in the matter would be a new policy) must conform to old ones.

Graffias said:

I thought I made myself clear in my last post. I would not support such a decision, and I explained why.

Click to expand...

Yes, you did. I misunderstood your post

Some abortions have been fatal, sure. But I'll wager that there have been far more fatal pregnancies. If you're trying to argue that having a simple surgery to have a small object removed from her uterus is more likely to cause health complications to a woman than pushing an object the size of a watermelon through her cervix, I would say that is complete nonsense. I'm far more sympathetic to the idea that a woman shouldn't be forced to give birth than the belief that she shouldn't be forced to have an abortion.

Click to expand...

I am not saying the risk is greater for an abortion. My point is that it should always be the individual who decides what risks they should be exposed to. It's one thing for a person to experience a risk for some goal they desire, and forcing them to take a risk for an end they do not desire. The relative risks aren't, or more accurately shouldnt be, the criticial factors. It's who gets to decide the level of risk they're willing to take, and whether it's for something they want (or not)

Life is the ultimate right. Without it, the other rights are meaningless. I don't think any individual should be forced to risk it in any way for any reason simply because "it's for her own good" but if the individual wants to risk in any specific (and legal) manner, then they should be allowed to.

Legally, no, it's entirely up to her. But on a personal, case-by-case basis... it's his child, too. He'd better get a say in what happens.

The reason a man should have a choice in the say of abortion. If you put a dollar in a coke machine and it pops out a coke, whose is it? :fueltofir

I find it delusional to wish to involve the man in a biological choice like abortion. I'm sorry, I know it's not fair, but our species has been sub-divided into two genders, one of which bears the responsibility and risk of carrying the unborn. The other is a de facto genetic donor and that is the extent of his involvement unless a baby is born and parenting is required. Until such point, the unborn could simply abort on its own, or be extinguished due to any number of issues.

It puzzles me how people view reproduction in such a tidy way. It's not. There is a reason why child birthing is called a "miracle" - that's because from step one to birth on the development path is arduous. When a woman miscarries, there is no qualm about nature deciding that the embryo's time has come, is there?

I know it's the human world, and I know we can make whatever rules we feel like - such as requiring the input of the male genetic donor's input before an abortion can be had - but it's not a rule that makes sense to me on any level. It has no practical value. It has no impact on the risk of pregnancy (or abortion, for that matter). It seems to be an emotional knee-jerk reaction and nanny government intrusion into something that is a personal, bodily matter.

And frankly... if a woman gets pregnant and really doesn't want it, it's going to be gone whether the man wants it to be the case or not. It could be done quietly. It could be so surreptitious that it looks like a miscarriage.

So... enough about the pretend control that you wish men had over women. That control doesn't exist, even if the laws change. If I want the fetus out, it's coming out.

MistressNomad said:

Why, exactly? There are ethical and practical reasons for abortion, too.

Genetic medical concerns, environmental concerns, anti-natalism, unfitness of BOTH the parents, etc etc etc. Or hell, no reason at all. Why does she need a reason?

Why should anyone be allowed to tell her what she can and can't do with what is basically part of her own body?

Click to expand...

My support for abortion abortion on demand is contingent on my belief that not allowing her to remove the ZEF growing inside her is a violation of her rights and that the ZEF is not a person with rights before 20 weeks gestation. And at the moment, abortion is the only way to allow her to remove the ZEF.

If there were another way to remove it that did not require killing it in the process, I would have to seriously re-evaluate my support for the idea of abortion in all cases, but if there's a father that wants the baby, I can think of no reason to support it at all.

I am not saying the risk is greater for an abortion. My point is that it should always be the individual who decides what risks they should be exposed to. It's one thing for a person to experience a risk for some goal they desire, and forcing them to take a risk for an end they do not desire. The relative risks aren't, or more accurately shouldnt be, the criticial factors. It's who gets to decide the level of risk they're willing to take, and whether it's for something they want (or not)

Click to expand...

So you're not disputing that having an abortion is much safer for a woman than giving birth. Then really this comes back to desire and not the level of risk. And your argument is that a woman's desire to be a mother is more important than a man's desire not to be a father simply because she's carrying the child, and this I disagree with.

molten_dragon said:

My support for abortion abortion on demand is contingent on my belief that not allowing her to remove the ZEF growing inside her is a violation of her rights and that the ZEF is not a person with rights before 20 weeks gestation. And at the moment, abortion is the only way to allow her to remove the ZEF.

If there were another way to remove it that did not require killing it in the process, I would have to seriously re-evaluate my support for the idea of abortion in all cases, but if there's a father that wants the baby, I can think of no reason to support it at all.

Click to expand...

That does not address any of the reasons above. It is essentially like involuntarily taking sperm from a man or ova from a woman at that point. It is still an infringement of bodily rights, it is still forced reproduction, and regardless of what other possibile options there may be, it still does not negate all possibly reasons to abort.

No, the man should not have any say in whether a woman aborts or not. Not until we're technologically able to remove the ZEF from the woman's body and hand it over to the father.

Of course, once that happens and these children are born, the state will do the logical thing and demand the mother pay child support. :lol:

Graffias said:

So you're not disputing that having an abortion is much safer for a woman than giving birth. Then really this comes back to desire and not the level of risk. And your argument is that a woman's desire to be a mother is more important than a man's desire not to be a father simply because she's carrying the child, and this I disagree with.

Click to expand...

The 1st 2 sentences are true. But it's not about either of their desires; It's about everyones' right to decide how and for what they are willing to risk their life, and the right to refuse medical treatment.

IOW, their desires in this matter are of equal value; Their rights are not

No, the man shouldn't have a say because it shouldn't be legal to kill a child for convenience sake. Medical reasons aside.

If he can't force her to have or not have an abortion, she shouldn't be able to force him to pay or not pay child support.

will great power comes great responsibility.

OscarB63 said:

If he can't force her to have or not have an abortion, she shouldn't be able to force him to pay or not pay child support.

will great power comes great responsibility.

Click to expand...

Including the responsibility to keep it in your pants, and the responsibility to provide for your spawn, wanted or not

Until there is the ability to have a relatively low risk surgical procedure in which the fetus can be removed and implanted into the husband or another surrogate, the choice whether or not to abort...while it remains legal...should remain singularly with the woman.

That said, there absolutely should be a mechanism in which...upon disovering the pregnancy...the father is able to relinquish any responsability to the child. The father of a child should be made aware of his parentage or potential parentage prior to the 3rd trimester. Anytime prior to the 3rd Trimester the father can give up all legal rights and privledges regarding the child. If no reasonable means of alerting the husband prior to the 3rd trimester, then he has 1 week from the time he's alerted of his fatherhood to make the decision.
By relinquishing his legal rights he can never claim custody, his name will not be marked legally anywhere as the father, he has no legal relation to the child. He would also be absolved from any legal requirements of child support.

If a woman has the ability to completely and relatively effortlessly remove all responsability, care, or attachment to a child prior to birth then the male should have a similar ability. If the woman is able to completely divorce herself of any responsability due to the potential burden of carrying the child for 9 months then the male should be able to completely divorce himself of any responsability due to the potential burden of 18 years of financial hardship.