How do you feel about men’s versus woman’s rights to their babies?

You know, though - sometimes women don't have a say on things, either - when it comes to the financial aspect of having a child.

I, for example, battled the state for a ridiculously long time to end my ex husband's child support garnishments. Once I married and my husband wanted to adopt the boys I saw it as an ethical wrong to still garnish support. The state, however, blunted to a 'it's for the kids - you can't say "no" even if you want to.' stance on the issue. They wouldn't let me end garnishment.

When my husband officially adopted the boys they finally ended concurrent garnishment (which is what adds up each month) but wouldn't end arrears: they were still garnishing his wages to pay those off. So then I had to argue with them some more -a nd they still said 'no, not even if you want to end it - unless a judge says you can.' So we put in for another court-hearing on that, the judge denied it (which was absurd).

So I started to just send the money back to him and his family each month - that was less of a headache that pressing the courts and legal system again for something - in my view - should never have been a hassle. The children were being taken care of adequately - I should have been able to end the garnishments of his pay when I wanted to.

Removable Mind said:

Then men need to put down a cash deposit that would equal the amount of an abortion before having sex.

Click to expand...

Yes, because the woman has no role to play and no options available to her if she wished to avoid pregnancy...

I remember a time when women wanted to be equal and independent, making their own decisions and being responsible for their own lives and decisions...

What ever happened to that?

Regardless if a guy isn't ready to be a daddy, then he damn well better pony up for the cost of an abortion if the woman declares that she will abort if she gets pregnant and he still wants to play.

Click to expand...

Why? She has decided to risk pregnancy and already decided on a course of action if that occurs. If she does not secure any commitment from the man before proceeding, why should she not be responsible for her decision?

You seem to think women are mentally deficient creatures incapable of forethought and personal responsibility. Has it ever occurred to you that perhaps they neither need nor want for your paternalistic 'looking after' them?

Aunt Spiker said:

It's not like it's some happy, wonderful joyous issue ot deal with.

Click to expand...

Nor all that terrible
<br>
<br>
Women having multiple abortions reaches record high - Times Online
<br>
<br>
For some, it might be terrible, for some it might be something awesome (now they can brag to the gals in Feminist Studies about how liberal and self-aware they are). For most, I suspect it's simple something to be done after weighing the options and probable outcomes of different courses of actions, marked by both gain and loss of opportunities and potential life experiences like any other major decision in life.

Red Flag said:

Nor all that terrible
<br>
<br>
Women having multiple abortions reaches record high - Times Online
<br>
<br>
For some, it might be terrible, for some it might be something awesome (now they can brag to the gals in Feminist Studies about how liberal and self-aware they are). For most, I suspect it's simple something to be done after weighing the options and probable outcomes of different courses of actions, marked by both gain and loss of opportunities and potential life experiences like any other major decision in life.

Click to expand...

From the article:

“More abortions are now happening at under 10 weeks gestation. This is a key priority for us - to reduce the time women have to wait at what is already a very difficult time,” said Dawn Primarolo, the health minister.

Click to expand...

Good - I support abortion but not abortion for convenience, if it's going ot happen then the earlier the better.

The under-16 abortion rate was 4.2 per 1,000 and the under-18 rate was 18.9 per 1,000 women, both lower than in 2007.

Click to expand...

Disturbing, here - is that teens under 16 (let alone - 18) are having sex and getting pregnant. But I don't see that 'having a baby' - even 'giving it up for adoption' is remotely a good suggestion. . . the issue should be focused on in different ways.

The vast majority o abortions - 90 per cent - were carried out at under 13 weeks gestation and three quarters at under 10 weeks Almost 2,000 were conducted because the child would be born handicapped.

Click to expand...

Good - again - less is being performed later.

But yet - all you and those in the article are doing is look at some statistics and drawing a conclusion without having more information. Questions need some asnwers: are these women who have had multiple abortions being raped and attacked repeatedly? Are they trying to use birth control and it's failing? Are they unable to afford monthly contraception? do they have medical and other problems that are rendering them unable to use birth control (such as allergies to spermacides, inability to pay for a month's supply of pills *every month* - and so on).

Without these many other qeustions answered we can't actually draw a conclusion.

But - that being said - this is only a very small percentage overall - the majority, according to the article, are not repeat pregnancies and abortions.

But: most importantly: why should my right to avoid having a 5th child be taken away because a few other women are immature or immoral or inacapable of avoiding pregnancy to begin with? If I have a 5th they won't be in and out of ICU: likely - that will be me. Nor will they be suffering from post-partum disorders: that, again, would be me. And they won't be nursing for a 5th child (once again - that would be me) and so on . .. you get the point.

I get tired of people trying to take away something I NEED to have as an option because of what other people do with their lives.

Aunt Spiker said:

Good - I support abortion but not abortion for convenience, if it's going ot happen then the earlier the better.

Click to expand...

That does not follow. How does an earlier abortion constitute an abortion not done for convenience while it would be for convenience if she had to wait longer to make the baby go away?

Wouldn't it actually be the earlier access to the procedure that would be more convenient, rather than the other way around?

Disturbing, here - is that teens under 16 (let alone - 18) are having sex and getting pregnant.

Click to expand...

How is that so disturbing? It's not really new. Hell, in the long view it's progress. Not so long ago in history (and still today in some places) they'd be marries with two children by that age. I'll grant you that it's not ideal (depending on what one considers ideal), but I'm not seeing how it's so disturbing.

Good - again - less is being performed later.

Click to expand...

This is significant in your view? Care to tell us why?

are these women who have had multiple abortions being raped and attacked repeatedly?

Click to expand...

No. In fact, the abortion industry estimates that less than one percent of all abortions performed involve rape and these repeat customers account for (according to the article) ~1/3 of the abortions performed. Simple math tells us that to parade rape victims out and exploit their suffering in order to justify repeat customers at the abortion store (which you clearly think is not-okay, or you wouldn't feel the need to parade rape victims out and hide behind their trauma) is, in simple terms- bull****.

Are they trying to use birth control and it's failing?

Click to expand...

So you assume these women are too stupid to know how to use contraceptives or speak to their doctors about birth control options?

Are they unable to afford monthly contraception

Click to expand...

How much is the pill, assuming one doesn't know where to find a clinic and receive information on free contraceptives? How much does it cost to not have unprotected sex? How much is an abortion?

But - that being said - this is only a very small percentage overall

Click to expand...

One third is not a 'very small percentage'. Why the dishonesty, if there's nothing wrong with what these women are doing?

More importantly - why does this matter?

I mean, abortion isn't cheap, it isn't easy for some women, and repeated abortions OR miscarriages can cause scarring so it's obviously ideal is accidental pregnancies never happen, or at least don't happen multiple times.

But what exactly are you shooting at?

To me, based on the "typical use" failure rates of all non-inserted/surgical contraceptives being so much higher than it needs to be, this is probably the result of so many years of "abstinence only sex-ed." Neither sex seems to have a consistently firm grasp on how to use contraception. It's true this can be remedied by doing some simple homework, but once you've taught kids sex is evil and contraception doesn't work they're unlikely to do it.

It seems as if Red Flag and I have very similar opinions on this issue. I want to make the technical argument that what grows inside the female is not strictly a part of her body. If this were the case then intercourse would not be necessary for pregnancy. The child growing inside literally contains the DNA of not only the mother, but also the father. If either individual is certain they are not prepared for a child then they have a choice to either masturbate or use preventative measures which still involve slight risk. If you take a risk and are dissatisfied with the outcome, then deal with it, take responsibility for your actions, and learn from your stupid mistakes. I reiterate that either party should be able to say they want the child. Financially, custody should reflect financial support. If one parent didn't want the child then perhaps their support is 25%. Otherwise, split it directly proportional to length of custody. My blood boils at how many people expect to be able to filter the consequences of their actions to only those which convenience them and not the responsibilities.

MistressNomad said:

this is probably the result of so many years of "abstinence only sex-ed."

Click to expand...

Except that abortions rates remain high in states like California (5th in the nation), where you'd have a hard time arguing anything like 'abstinence only' has been seen. Now, the high rates of out-of-wedlock teen births in certain conservative states seem to indicate that AOE is a factor in teen pregnancy rates, but AOE is unable to explain the increase in abortions and teen pregnancies since RvW passed.

Perhaps we should be looking at social-cultural factors that influence sexual promiscuity among our youth. Indeed it seems the more 'liberal' a woman is, the more likely she and her daughters to be sexually promiscuous. One must wonder why these girls know how to find the abortion store, but not a drug store. One would think condoms or the pill would be easier to find than an abortionist if one were actually thinking ahead and practicing personal responsibility.

Neither sex seems to have a consistently firm grasp on how to use contraception. It's true this can be remedied by doing some simple homework, but once you've taught kids sex is evil and contraception doesn't work they're unlikely to do it.

Click to expand...

They're also unlikely to bother when you teach them that they can simply make the baby go away...

sangha said:

People are responsible for the consequences of their actions, whether they desired those consequences or not. The actions or inactions of others does not absolve them of their responsibilities.

This is a long-standing legal principle, enshrined in our laws. For some reason, some men think they deserve "special rights" when they screw

Click to expand...

No one has special rights here. Both men and women should be able to choose for themselves whether or not to be parents without government involvement.

tessaesque said:

Or to have a parent who makes it clear you weren't wanted or you interrupted the life they had planned to lead for themselves. Forcing obligation on to somebody can be more harmful for the child long-term than the child being raised by a single parent with limited financial resources.

Click to expand...

Agreed.

Aunt Spiker said:

I think the notion of men being able to end their parental rights should be more widespread and easily obtainable in situations like this. . . rather than forcing an abortion.

Click to expand...

Definitely. It would solve so many problems.

Removable Mind said:

Then men need to put down a cash deposit that would equal the amount of an abortion before having sex.

Regardless if a guy isn't ready to be a daddy, then he damn well better pony up for the cost of an abortion if the woman declares that she will abort if she gets pregnant and he still wants to play.

And the guy better make a very clear declaration BEFORE having sex that he won't in anyway participate in any expenses of a baby should she get pregnant.

Then if she still wants to do it...have fun and be willing to take on whatever the consequences.

Click to expand...

Both people should be aware that pregnancy is a possibility before sex. That's rather obvious.

Red Flag said:

Are you also unqualified to pay for a child until such time as you can make the determination as to whether a pregnancy proceeds forth and you become a parent?

Click to expand...

You assume much, don't you? Yes, I would have supported any child of mine, if it's any of your business. I also married a woman with two existing kids and raised and supported them. They are still my kids. Until such a time that I can become pregnant I have no right to attempt to make that decision for another, in reality not even then would I have the right to make such a decision. If you as a man want a breeder, then go find one, but to try to force an unwilling woman to carry your git is unreasonable.

Red Flag said:

Except that abortions rates remain high in states like California (5th in the nation), where you'd have a hard time arguing anything like 'abstinence only' has been seen. Now, the high rates of out-of-wedlock teen births in certain conservative states seem to indicate that AOE is a factor in teen pregnancy rates, but AOE is unable to explain the increase in abortions and teen pregnancies since RvW passed.

Perhaps we should be looking at social-cultural factors that influence sexual promiscuity among our youth. Indeed it seems the more 'liberal' a woman is, the more likely she and her daughters to be sexually promiscuous. One must wonder why these girls know how to find the abortion store, but not a drug store. One would think condoms or the pill would be easier to find than an abortionist if one were actually thinking ahead and practicing personal responsibility.

Click to expand...

And conversely, children raised conservatively start having sex just as young and they are LESS likely to use contraception properly. And by the way, conservative girls get abortions too. When it's their abortion, somehow it's more acceptable to them. This phenomena is so common it has a name - "back-door abortion." Picket during the day, patron after dark.

They're also unlikely to bother when you teach them that they can simply make the baby go away...

Click to expand...

Right, because it's not like abortions cost money or are generally unpleasant to go through, physically and, for some, emotionally.

I am absolutely against abortion, to start out with. I personally think that women shouldn't even have the right to an abortion. You had sex- the consequence of pregnancy is your problem, in 9 months you birth the kid and give it up for adoption if you don't want it. Either side, man or woman, should be able to veto the decision to abort- but if the man won't let the woman veto, he has to take full responsibility for the child. If the woman vetoes the abortion, she has to take full responsibility for the child. If both man and woman want to abort, I still think they shouldn't be able to, but if they have to be able to I won't protest as much. But if one parent wants to keep the child, I absolutely believe the child should not be aborted. I honestly don't care that you have to endure 9 months of pregnancy for it- that is something you agreed to when you had sex. As far as I am concerned, by having sex you agreed that a child was a possible result. Getting an abortion means that sex is purely recreational- child creation is a side effect which can be easily "fixed". I find that mentality to be quite sick. I recognize that abortions can be difficult, so don't whine to me about that- you're killing your own offspring. From my perspective, you should be in such mental anguish with the knowledge of what you're doing that the physical pain is almost irrelevant. Having sex is like every other action- it has consequences. Deal with the consequences like a mature adult.

Belgarath said:

I am absolutely against abortion, to start out with. I personally think that women shouldn't even have the right to an abortion. You had sex- the consequence of pregnancy is your problem, in 9 months you birth the kid and give it up for adoption if you don't want it. Either side, man or woman, should be able to veto the decision to abort- but if the man won't let the woman veto, he has to take full responsibility for the child. If the woman vetoes the abortion, she has to take full responsibility for the child. If both man and woman want to abort, I still think they shouldn't be able to, but if they have to be able to I won't protest as much. But if one parent wants to keep the child, I absolutely believe the child should not be aborted. I honestly don't care that you have to endure 9 months of pregnancy for it- that is something you agreed to when you had sex. As far as I am concerned, by having sex you agreed that a child was a possible result. Getting an abortion means that sex is purely recreational- child creation is a side effect which can be easily "fixed". I find that mentality to be quite sick. I recognize that abortions can be difficult, so don't whine to me about that- you're killing your own offspring. From my perspective, you should be in such mental anguish with the knowledge of what you're doing that the physical pain is almost irrelevant. Having sex is like every other action- it has consequences. Deal with the consequences like a mature adult.

Click to expand...

Why are you against it? Also, how can abortion be prevented and what should happen to women who get illegal abortions?

Belgarath said:

I am absolutely against abortion, to start out with. I personally think that women shouldn't even have the right to an abortion. You had sex- the consequence of pregnancy is your problem, in 9 months you birth the kid and give it up for adoption if you don't want it. Either side, man or woman, should be able to veto the decision to abort- but if the man won't let the woman veto, he has to take full responsibility for the child. If the woman vetoes the abortion, she has to take full responsibility for the child. If both man and woman want to abort, I still think they shouldn't be able to, but if they have to be able to I won't protest as much. But if one parent wants to keep the child, I absolutely believe the child should not be aborted. I honestly don't care that you have to endure 9 months of pregnancy for it- that is something you agreed to when you had sex. As far as I am concerned, by having sex you agreed that a child was a possible result. Getting an abortion means that sex is purely recreational- child creation is a side effect which can be easily "fixed". I find that mentality to be quite sick. I recognize that abortions can be difficult, so don't whine to me about that- you're killing your own offspring. From my perspective, you should be in such mental anguish with the knowledge of what you're doing that the physical pain is almost irrelevant. Having sex is like every other action- it has consequences. Deal with the consequences like a mature adult.

Click to expand...

You never have sex purely for the fun of it?

evanescence said:

Why are you against it? Also, how can abortion be prevented and what should happen to women who get illegal abortions?

Click to expand...

There’s something that upsets me about the killing of beings that science has yet to prove aren’t human. Until someone can provide evidence that the unborn is not a human being, I will feel unhappy about killing them.
Closing down abortion clinics is the first thing that comes to mind.

tessaesque said:

You never have sex purely for the fun of it?

Click to expand...

I do- and I accept, that when I do that, if a child results I will do everything in my power to make sure the child isn’t aborted, and I will pay for however much of the child’s upbringing the woman deems I should pay. I would not be a good father figure- I only have sex with those who know me well enough to know that. I would stand out of the way, but would send however much money the woman needed to raise the child as best she could. If I can possibly prevent it, no child of mine will ever be aborted. I would consider that murder, and would at all costs avoid having any further contact with the woman who aborted. While I don’t know for sure whether or not that unborn was a human being or not, the 50% chance it was is plenty to deter me. I don’t understand why it isn’t enough to deter anyone else.

I haven't read the thread yet, but the OP and poll are rather convoluted, so I'll try to respond in a manner that may address both pre-birth and post-birth scenarios.

Once pregnant, a woman has the absolute right to choose whether or not to bring the pregnancy to term, whether the man wants a child or not. If the woman chooses to end the pregnancy, I don't believe she has any duty to disclose that pregnancy to the father of the child.

If the woman chooses to carry the child to term, I believe she has an absolute duty to inform the father. If the father wants to be a part of the child's life, the woman has an absolute duty to allow that. Legal papers should be prepared protecting the father's rights of visitation and child support. If the father does not want to be a part of the child's life, he should not be required to pay child support. Legal papers should be prepared whereupon the father relinquishes all parental rights, and further directs him not to contact the child until it is 18 years old.

This is all based on the assumption that the woman is not married to the child's father. If they are indeed married, then the decision to terminate the pregnancy or carry to term should ideally be made jointly. If the married couple cannot agree, then again the mother's choice wins out regardless of the father's wishes. However, dissent over this, the most important decision a married couple can make, constitutes a breach of trust that will no doubt destroy the marriage itself. Legally, the father would be responsible for a child born of marriage regardless of whether he wanted the responsibility or not, but again I believe the woman should allow him to give up parental rights and not be responsible for child support, as above.

In no case should the child's father ever be able to legally force a woman to carry to term a pregnancy she does not want.

Polotick said:

I have no right to attempt to make that decision for another

Click to expand...

Nor does she have any right to make that decision for a man.

Aint equality grand?

Belgarath said:

I am absolutely against abortion, to start out with. I personally think that women shouldn't even have the right to an abortion. You had sex- the consequence of pregnancy is your problem

Click to expand...

Wait for it...

, in 9 months you birth the kid and give it up for adoption if you don't want it.

Click to expand...

So it's not about taking responsibility for one's child, but about pregnancy as a punishment that women deserve for taking enjoyment in sexual activity?

Either side, man or woman, should be able to veto the decision to abort

Click to expand...

Wait... so you do want them to be allowed to abort, so that the 'right' to veto the decision is even a question? Please make up your mind.

I honestly don't care that you have to endure 9 months of pregnancy for it- that is something you agreed to when you had sex. As far as I am concerned, by having sex you agreed that a child was a possible result.

Click to expand...

So we're back to pregnancy being a deserved punishment? What about AIDS? Should we ban contraceptives and HPV vaccines?

Getting an abortion means that sex is purely recreational

Click to expand...

Yes, god forbid women enjoy sex? Oh, speaking of god... why is human physiology such that sexuality so divorced from reproduction in the first place? In most species, females are only sexually receptive during ovulation and cease to experience sexual desires after their fertile years or up or after the loss of sexual organs. This is not the case with humans, where sexual desire and pleasure has been so removed from reproduction that most zygotes never implant and we're extremely inefficient when it comes to making babies. It would appear god or nature disagrees with your premise that the two are somehow 'supposed' to so intertwined as to be indistinguishable each from the other

-but I doubt you're interested in the facts.

Here, become less ignorant
Amazon.com: Sociobiology: The New Synthesis, Twenty-Fifth Anniversary Edition (9780674002357): Edward O. Wilson: Books

Red Flag said:

So it's not about taking responsibility for one's child, but about pregnancy as a punishment that women deserve for taking enjoyment in sexual activity?

Click to expand...

It’s not punishment- it’s consequences. There’s a difference.

Wait... so you do want them to be allowed to abort, so that the 'right' to veto the decision is even a question? Please make up your mind.

Click to expand...

No, but I recognize that the odds are against the unborn ever being given the right to live- at least not within my lifetime. So I am saying that, until the world recognizes that right, the man should be given the right to save his own child.

So we're back to pregnancy being a deserved punishment? What about AIDS? Should we ban contraceptives and HPV vaccines?

Click to expand...

Pregnancy is a predictable consequence. Consequences happen when you do actions. By taking part in the action, regardless of the action and the consequence, you open yourself up to the consequence. The possibility of getting pregnant is the consequence of having sex. It’s not a punishment- it’s a result. There’s a difference.

Yes, god forbid women enjoy sex? Oh, speaking of god... why is human physiology such that sexuality so divorced from reproduction in the first place? In most species, females are only sexually receptive during ovulation and cease to experience sexual desires after their fertile years or up or after the loss of sexual organs. This is not the case with humans, where sexual desire and pleasure has been so removed from reproduction that most zygotes never implant and we're extremely inefficient when it comes to making babies. It would appear god or nature disagrees with your premise that the two are somehow 'supposed' to so intertwined as to be indistinguishable each from the other.

Click to expand...

It doesn’t matter how inefficient we are when making babies. The case is very simple: you’re free to enjoy sex, do it whenever you want and however you want as far as I am concerned. But if you get pregnant as a result, you have to recognize it as your responsibility. You took the risk, nature took its course, and you got pregnant. It’s now your responsibility as a mother to hold the child for 9 months. When birth occurs, I don’t care if you keep the child or you give it up for adoption. But up until that point, if you get an abortion as far as I am concerned you’re murdering a helpless child.

Red Flag said:

Nor does she have any right to make that decision for a man.

Aint equality grand?

Click to expand...

Perhaps a woman wouldn't care if a man had an abortion or not. Your argument is flawed.

Belgarath said:

There’s something that upsets me about the killing of beings that science has yet to prove aren’t human. Until someone can provide evidence that the unborn is not a human being, I will feel unhappy about killing them.

Click to expand...

I'm glad your feelings aren't the basis of the law. In any case, ZEFs are human. But being human doesn't automatically bestow the rights of personhood.

Belgarath said:

Closing down abortion clinics is the first thing that comes to mind.

Click to expand...

More illegal abortion clinics which are dangerous and unregulated will replace them.

Belgarath said:

No, but I recognize that the odds are against the unborn ever being given the right to live- at least not within my lifetime. So I am saying that, until the world recognizes that right, the man should be given the right to save his own child.

Click to expand...

Should we recognize this 'right'? If so, why? And how do we determine what entities shall be granted this 'right'?

Pregnancy is a predictable consequence. Consequences happen when you do actions. By taking part in the action, regardless of the action and the consequence, you open yourself up to the consequence. The possibility of getting pregnant is the consequence of having sex. It’s not a punishment- it’s a result. There’s a difference.

Click to expand...

So we should ban contraceptives and HPV vaccines, lest people enjoy life and eachother without consequence? What about bicycle helmets, seatbelts in cars, and vaccinations against rabies?

It doesn’t matter how inefficient we are when making babies. The case is very simple: you’re free to enjoy sex, do it whenever you want and however you want as far as I am concerned. But if you get pregnant as a result, you have to recognize it as your responsibility. You took the risk, nature took its course, and you got pregnant.

Click to expand...

So... should we not set broken bones or allow smokers to receive treatment for asthma or cancer? If you take a shower and slip and break a hip, we shouldn't let you seek medical attention?

It’s now your responsibility as a mother to hold the child for 9 months.

Click to expand...

Why? Aside from your desire to punish her for her sexuality, I mean.

When birth occurs, I don’t care if you keep the child or you give it up for adoption.

Click to expand...

So it's not about parental responsibility after all...

But up until that point, if you get an abortion as far as I am concerned you’re murdering a helpless child.

Click to expand...

Define: muder

Is it murder to break a vase or step on an ant? Is it murder to kill you or bask ET's brains in with a bat for fun? We're back to the first question.

evanescence said:

More illegal abortion clinics which are dangerous and unregulated will replace them.

Click to expand...

Abortions have become more popular since RvW...

Why can your daughters find a backalley abortionist but not a condom or a backalley doctor willing to give her the pill or an IUD?

I find it interesting that we're primarily arguing between equality in right to veto and strictly the woman's right? Maybe to barter for the fair price I should have underbid by suggesting the man solely chooses?

evanescence said:

I'm glad your feelings aren't the basis of the law. In any case, ZEFs are human. But being human doesn't automatically bestow the rights of personhood.

Click to expand...

Cool. I've had this argument enough for today- maybe we can have this discussion another day. If you want to find my arguments, by now they're repeated across like 3 threads related to abortion.

More illegal abortion clinics which are dangerous and unregulated will replace them.

Click to expand...

I agree that that's a big problem. Unfortunately, it's the same problem people who are anti-drug are having (I'm for the legalization of drugs). You don't want to them to be legal, because you're convinced they're immoral and dangerous to society, but on the other hand making them illegal just makes the black market drug trade even worse, and results in way too much time spent by the police catching drug dealers when they should be catching murderers and rapists. I honestly can't claim to have an answer to that- I don't even know that there is one. It's a sad case in our society, when people (whether abortionists, child molesters, or murderers) ignore the morality, the rights of all human beings, and their own conscience to do terrible things.