It's an article from the Atlantic that references a scene from the TV show "Girls" where one of the characters tells her boyfriend (quite matter of factly) that she's had an abortion and he reacts quite angrily. There's a conversation that follows from there on the article which raises some interesting points on both sides.
The scene in particular is what got me thinking and what made me pose the question in the thread title, "what is the role of men in abortion decisions?" Because I think it's very, very easy for men and women to look at this clip very differently. I think it's easy for a woman to look at it and say "who does he think he is? how dare he?" and I think it's pretty easy for a man to look at it and say "who does she think she is? how dare she?"
Now, I agree with the general premise that it's a woman's choice to do what she pleases with her own body (though I oppose late term abortions with a viable fetus if the health of the mother isn't in jeopardy), but I wonder what considerations are due the father?
So I'm curious what others here think. I was going to put this to Sakeriver but I'm not as comfortable over there posing potentially divisive topics as I am here. Try to keep it civil everyone. Thanks.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
quote: "what is the role of men in abortion decisions?"
Only that which we are allowed by our individual women.
Posted by theamazeeaz (Member # 6970) on :
Ideally, both partners should discuss their respective stances on abortion before engaging in sexual activity*, and ideally both partners should discuss and agree on the procedure. In lopsided situations, however, the woman is always worse off. One-sided terminations of parental rights are often made under false pretenses, especially when it is the father who wants the child.
I have had two friends, both married, both veterans of multiple miscarriages, **while pregnant with their wanted children**, tell me they have never supported abortion rights more then at that moment. Until we reach the science fictional realm of accessible artificial gestation, the gestator chooses. After, we can discuss the issue of licensing our genetic material.
In the real world, there are a lot of reasons why a woman wouldn't discuss an unplanned pregnancy with the father, most of which are for personal safety. If the two are in a relationship, it might be time to reconsider it. Hard. Having an abortion and not disclosing, while justifiable, is a relationship ender, and that is equally justifiable. If the discomfort is because it's casual or very new, but otherwise good relationship, then if the decision needs to be made by relationship, or have an understanding in advance. The woman's health and happiness comes very, but it's stupid and naive to assume that a unilateral decision isn't going to make an intimate partner very very very upset. It's also equally stupid and naive to think that involving the partner is always a better choice.
If you are not capable of having a discussion about an unplanned pregnancy with the father, then abortion should be the default option. It might be safety, it might be maturity. If you decide to have a baby, it is because you decided against abortion, decided you wanted to give birth and carry a baby.
The other reality of the situation is what people want when the situation comes up is often different from what happens ahead of time.
If you need to make the abortion decision alone, I don't know if it's the best idea to disclose it after the fact.
*There is an okcupid question about which controversial issue is the most unacceptable for a partner to disagree with you on. The choices are abortion, death penalty and something else. Abortion is the only acceptable answer here for hetero couples. It's a dating site. It was the only option a couple would ever every have to make a decision on together.
Posted by Heisenberg (Member # 13004) on :
My two cents.
I would never make the case that it is in any way my decision. That being said, I might well get pretty angry over what decision she made, depending on what kind of relationship we're in.
A woman aborting my child and not bothering to tell me? Yeah, that's a deal breaker. Relationship over.
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
I'm close to a guy whose relationship ended exactly that way. He didn't even know she was pregnant. Which left me with the question: if you don't tell the guy before the abortion, why bother to tell him after?
My opinion is that allowing a man's sperm into your body carries with it the implied guarantee that you will keep his unborn child alive if he wants you to. That is assuming that the mother's health or well-being are not at stake and there were no pregnancy/abortion disclaimers discussed beforehand. In my mind it falls under the same category as offering to babysit for a friend. You didn't have to let the kid into your house, but now that he's there it would be nice to keep him safe until his dad comes to pick him up.
Of course, I'm pro-life anyway and I think the opinions on this are going to split along predictable lines. If the mother doesn't believe the fetus is a child, then it's logical that she might not care what the father wants her to do with it.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by PSI Teleport: If the mother doesn't believe the fetus is a child, then it's logical that she might not care what the father wants her to do with it.
I think this makes sense, but there's a missing component there I think. I think there's an expectation with this belief that the man must not have any feelings about it one way or the other, but there's a total lack of empathy there, or at least sympathy.
I think of this a bit like free speech. You have the right to say just about anything you want, but you don't have the right to be protected from people's reactions to it. Likewise, a woman has the ultimate choice to end a pregnancy, but she still has to deal with the emotional toll that decision takes on the father, or if she fails to deal with it, must deal with the breakup that ensues. And I think that, despite it being her ultimate choice, to make that choice without consulting someone for whom it is also a major deal is, if nothing else, incredibly rude.
Unless she has specific reason to fear for her safety.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
if my s.o. had an abortion without telling me at all, straight up having it in secret, it would pretty clearly tell me that there was none of the basis of trust and cooperation in our relationship that i at least presently expected there was. i'd ask questions about why specifically i was not told. depending on the answers, i'd probably conclude that it's time to end the relationship and move on.
it doesn't have to be a judgment on the appropriateness of her actions, per se, it's just effectively a clarion revelation on the nature of the relationship and whether it is appropriate that it continue. i have no interest in being 'together' so apart from someone.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
quote:I think there's an expectation with this belief that the man must not have any feelings about it one way or the other, but there's a total lack of empathy there, or at least sympathy.
From whom, I wonder? Who gave you that impression?
Bc as far as I've seen, the guy has every right to feel any way they happen to feel... it's when folks start talking legal mandatory consent from the father that people draw the line
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_:
quote:I think there's an expectation with this belief that the man must not have any feelings about it one way or the other, but there's a total lack of empathy there, or at least sympathy.
From whom, I wonder? Who gave you that impression?
Bc as far as I've seen, the guy has every right to feel any way they happen to feel... it's when folks start talking legal mandatory consent from the father that people draw the line
That was a response to the instance in PSI's example where the woman doesn't care about the father's response because she doesn't think the fetus is a child.
But I also think there's a slightly larger phenomenon at play where men's feelings aren't taken as much into account. I think that stems from the general expectation of manhood. Men are supposed to bury emotions, and therefore become emotionally stunted. I think that's something men have internalized, but I think it's also something women have internalized to some degree too. If they don't often see men displaying much emotion, they don't expect it, and perhaps subconsciously assume it isn't there, and therefore don't really look for it.
It's something we have to work on as a society.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
I think a quick chat before engaging in intercourse about protection, and what if it fails, is not out of the question...sure, it's not sexy, but it is the evolved, adult thing to do, regardless.
Then again, I've been w/ only my wife for almost a dozen years, so what do I kno about such things Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: I think a quick chat before engaging in intercourse about protection, and what if it fails, is not out of the question...sure, it's not sexy, but it is the evolved, adult thing to do, regardless.
Then again, I've been w/ only my wife for almost a dozen years, so what do I kno about such things
I think that's responsible as well, but that's not really what this discussion is about, and given the wide prevalence of multiple forms of birth control, clearly discussing birth control before sex isn't a silver bullet to prevent the abortion debate.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Not just discussing birth control...I specifically mentioned talking about what happens if that BC fails.
Men have EVERY right to be picky about who they penetrate, and share how strong their feelings are about the potential outcome, if, in deed, they have strong feelings.
Basically, it's on the man to speak the hell up BEFORE a dip dip dippity do time
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Because if the discussion happens AFTER coitus than you roll the dice that she shares your feelings, as she has ALL the franchise when it comes to bringing life changing parasite to term.
Also, I just assume everyone is anti partial birth abortions unless medically necessary until they say otherwise, just like I assume everyone thinks the holocaust is real until they say otherwise
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
While I think that's a good idea, I think it's still sort of beside the point for the question I'm posing here.
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
Lyrhawn, I think I agree with your analogy to free speech. Again, setting aside the fact that I'm pretty strongly pro-life, I think there is a "right," for lack of a better word (maybe "freedom"), to choose to do a selfish thing that hurts other people. Of course, following this will be the consequences, whether legal or civil or social. The woman can do what she wants, but it would be bad logic to suggest that the man doesn't have the right to be pissed or end the relationship just she because she had the right to end the pregnancy.
As far as the implication that the man must not have strong feelings about it, what I meant in my example was that the man's opinion might matter to the woman but wouldn't trump her belief in her right to make decisions for her own body. I just said it in a harsh way. I don't know for sure, but if I were pro-choice I think I might get a little salty if my dude thought his opinion on my pregnancy was as important or more important than mine.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: While I think that's a good idea, I think it's still sort of beside the point for the question I'm posing here.
Can you restate it please?
BTW, for those who do not kno, my wife is permanently disabled BECAUSE of childbirth. Yet another reason why the choice MUST stay with she who's body it is.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
quote:Originally posted by PSI Teleport: I don't know for sure, but if I were pro-choice I think I might get a little salty if my dude thought his opinion on my pregnancy was as important or more important than mine.
Or, I imagine, if your man insisted you abort his child.
Posted by Heisenberg (Member # 13004) on :
Who are you arguing with here, Stone Wolf? Because I see exactly zero people here saying that the man should get to choose whether the woman has an abortion.
What I am seeing are people saying that the man has a right to be upset over that decision, and his feelings shouldn't be dismissed out of hand.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: While I think that's a good idea, I think it's still sort of beside the point for the question I'm posing here.
I think planning ahead can be part of making the decision, so I think it's on point.
In a broader sense, I think there are two decision spaces, and each has multiple factors.
The first decision space (1) is the legal framework. I would say the main factors in this space are: (a) Rights and interests of the fetus, (b) rights and interests of the pregnant person, (c) and interests of society at large.
1a: Everyone has an equal standing (moral responsibility and moral right) to weigh this factor. 1b: Presently, women should have a much higher standing in defining this factor. This could change with biotechnology that allowed everyone to become pregnant. 1c: Everyone has an equal standing.
As with any place where there are competing rights/interests, something has to give. I think men have a place in defining and defending the interests of fetuses and society at large, and not so much a place in defining the interests of pregnant people.
Practically speaking, our legal system doesn't recognize the type of standing I am trying to describe in 1b. But I think men SHOULD be deferential about this. This is not really the status quo.
I don't think this approach makes the legal status of abortion a foregone conclusion...I'm just trying to describe what I think men's place is in the decision process, not the result. (I'm pro-choice, fwiw.)
The other decision space is the relationship/family (2). The main factors here are decision power (a), disclosure power (b), and relationship impact (c).
2a: The pregnant person owns this completely. 2b: The pregnant person owns this completely. 2c: Everyone in the relationship/family has the right to determine how events that they are aware of affects them and the relationship.
Under 2c it makes sense to communicate about abortion and understand how partners feel about it. It makes sense to take their feelings into account. It may be deeply unwise to avoid disclosure - it could represent or lead to a breakdown of trust and intimacy. But the decision about what to do, and who to tell, should still lie with the pregnant person.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Very impressive; A) arguments B) organization & 4. Overall post quality! Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_:
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: While I think that's a good idea, I think it's still sort of beside the point for the question I'm posing here.
Can you restate it please?
BTW, for those who do not kno, my wife is permanently disabled BECAUSE of childbirth. Yet another reason why the choice MUST stay with she who's body it is.
What is the role of men in abortion decisions?
Your point is well taken in a larger sense, but my question pre-supposes that whatever precautions were discussed or acted upon have failed in some sense and there's a pregnancy a woman wants wants to terminate.
At that point, what role should the man play? And perhaps regardless of what has been decided in the relationship or unilaterally by the woman, what is MORALLY right or wrong in this situation? I don't think anyone is arguing for a legal protection for men to really have any role or power here at all. But is there a moral obligation?
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by scifibum: Under 2c it makes sense to communicate about abortion and understand how partners feel about it. It makes sense to take their feelings into account. It may be deeply unwise to avoid disclosure - it could represent or lead to a breakdown of trust and intimacy. But the decision about what to do, and who to tell, should still lie with the pregnant person.
Legally I agree, we absolutely should not be legally compelling women to do anything regarding who they tell or consult in their decision making.
But I wonder if the moral question is as clear. I do think there is a moral obligation - when her safety is not endangered - to discuss the situation with the father. While actually having the baby or not necessarily puts her body in the cross-hares, it's not, actually, all about her. If we're arguing that the act of sex alone does not imply a shared consent to have or not have a baby on the part of either party, then his life is about to be immeasurably changed as well, and deserves, if nothing else, knowledge of the situation and a voice in the outcome; just not a controlling voice.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Morality is not absolute, it is dependent on the situation, and, as such, I'm sticking w/ my first answer...moraly the role of the man in any abortion situation is that which their woman allows them.
There's a lot of wiggle room that way... especially when picking your bedmates.
IF this is important TO YOU, find a girl who feels the same or at least empathizes enough to agree BEFOREHAND to not abort your child unless medically necessary.
And just hope they don't change their mind, bc, if they do, they do. Their body, their choices. No if, and, or buts. Moraly, physically, and in all other ways.
"The credit belongs to the WOman who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood;"
She puts her one and only life/health on the line: she gets all the votes. Full stop.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I agree with all of that so far as where the power lies.
I disagree there isn't a moral obligation to inform and discuss. That moral obligation just doesn't extend to the actual decision making process or result.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
I'm glad we ironed out where we fall in the Ven diagram...mostly the same, lots of overlap.
I can imagine situations where it would be moraly wrong for the women to not disclose/discuss, but as a hard and fast rule, yea, she who bears it, gets ALL the rights
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
And I can imagine situations where it would not be morally wrong for a woman not to disclose, for instance if her safety was in question.
You know, for centuries, women weren't respected as human beings let alone members of society or equals. In child bearing, women were no more than property purchased to function as baby making machines. Pay father for machine, insert sperm here, wait 9 months, offspring produced. We developed a new, modern, correct morality that gave women the rights and control they deserved that were so long denied: the right to make their own decisions about their role in procreation, and it is now universally (well, maybe not universally, but mostly) agreed upon that women are more than living baby production machines. They have agency, but beyond that, they deserve agency, because the act of having a child changes their lives and risks their lives in fundamental ways.
If that's a compelling moral argument for why women can never be vetoed in their control over their body (which I 99% agree with with very few exceptions regarding viability of the fetus)(and of course that isn't the only or even the best argument, ultimately it's about being able to control her own body, a far more fundamental moral right and argument), then I think it's fair to argue that men should be more than sperm donors and bank accounts. Far too often the discussion is about what men did to cause a pregnancy and what they must do after the baby is born: namely, offer up some sperm and then offer up child support. But if it's morally wrong for us to make a similar argument about women, I think it's morally wrong to make that same argument with men.
Certainly, it's far harder to reconcile such an attitude when paired with a society that's grappling with the changing role of fatherhood. We expect (and SHOULD expect) more active roles from men. It's righting a centuries old imbalance in how much men have participated, physically and emotionally, in the rearing of their own children. But that seems difficult to reckon with while also telling men they're just sperm donors and bank accounts during that early phase.
And given the gravity of the situation, I don't think asking for an FYI and a chance to fill out a comment card is a particularly burdensome and egregious thing.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Let's assume that A. The pregnancy is created thru a positive, stable relationship and B. The mother's health isn't an issue...
Then it does seem like a selfish decision to not inform/collaborate...but is it WRONG?
Not categorically, at least, not by my view.
Posted by Heisenberg (Member # 13004) on :
So selfishness for the sake of selfishness isn't wrong?
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Maybe she's cheating on him and not sure if it's his, maybe she's just not ready to be a mom, maybe she was raped, maybe it's none of anyone's business.
A man can father a child into his 90s.
Morality is not absolute, it shifts w/ circumstances and intents.
Is it PAINFUL to a man to find out that his child was aborted w/o his knowledge or concent...I can't even imagine...yes, horrible pain.
Tbc
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
So the short answer is, there is no moral default, each situation must be looked at individually.
That being said, the long story is that men can't stop (nor should they, nor is anyone here saying they should) a woman from getting an abortion, perhaps in secret, perhaps not. But regardless, she has all the agency, so participation by the father is literally at her discretion by definition...so my answer previously is just a matter of practicality and not one of morality, expect on a case by case basis...bc morality is situational
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
But you can conceive of a situation where it would be a moral absolute?
And not as some crazy, wild-eyed hypothetical, but as a pretty benign, normal situation.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
I'm sure I could come up w/ something...but why? I don't get the point
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Because I think you're over complicating it. Maybe you just really believe there's really just no role for a man there and his opinion doesn't matter and should be disregarded. I disagree but it's a fair opinion.
But I feel like you're actually tying yourself into knots a bit to make it sound like you'd even have to think much to come up with a benign, normative situation where that moral imperative would apply.
Of course there are exceptions where it wouldn't apply. But are you proposing that the normative, default position for ANY woman in that situation is fearing for her safety from her partner?
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
My default is that the man's role is determined by each woman.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
And by extension, by the couple themselves, as they get to voluntarily pick their partners and discuss priorities before mating
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
Saying that the man's role is determined by the woman is the same as saying that a man has no inherent rights, only privileges that are granted to him. I'm not attacking the position, just clarifying.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Yup
Posted by Heisenberg (Member # 13004) on :
Is it just miscommunication?
Lyrhawn is not and has not said that men should have a say in whether their partner has an abortion. What he has said is that a man who knows that his potential child has been aborted might get very upset, and that there is absolutely nothing wrong with that. That that potential emotional trauma should be recognized and the man shouldn't be looked down upon for that.
I couldn't agree more.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
There is no miscommunication...we simply disagree about the role of men in abortions
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: There is no miscommunication...we simply disagree about the role of men in abortions
Yes we do.
Fair enough.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I think a father has every right to try to persuade a woman not to have an abortion and to be heartbroken and even angry if that fails as long as that persuasion, heartbreak, and anger doesn't become coercion, force, or violence. If a woman doesn't trust the man to refrain from those, she is justified in not telling him. However, she should probably not be in a relationship with him.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
quote:Originally posted by PSI Teleport: Saying that the man's role is determined by the woman is the same as saying that a man has no inherent rights, only privileges that are granted to him. I'm not attacking the position, just clarifying.
Except by pre arrangement.
Posted by The Black Pearl (Member # 11788) on :
They have the same role than anyone other than the specific woman has. They can take a position but thats it. They're just "allowed" to more motivated. And woman might be more inclined to listen, men could even reasonably expect that to be the case. Men can feel hurt if they were never told. But there's no intrinsic difference to me between his role and role of the would be grandmother.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Long long story short, men, if you care about potential offspring, use your mouth BEFORE your penis.
Also good advice for coitus
Posted by just_me (Member # 3302) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: I think a father has every right to try to persuade a woman not to have an abortion and to be heartbroken and even angry if that fails as long as that persuasion, heartbreak, and anger doesn't become coercion, force, or violence. If a woman doesn't trust the man to refrain from those, she is justified in not telling him. However, she should probably not be in a relationship with him.
Logged in for the first time in forever just to say I agree with this 1000%.
Now, back to lurking...
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: Long long story short, men, if you care about potential offspring, use your mouth BEFORE your penis.
Also good advice for coitus
You say this like it solves everything.
What if you have the conversation and she...completely disregards it when the event actually happens and does something on her own? Your advice might weed out potential partners who don't at least pay lip service to an agreement, but doesn't really protect a man beyond that.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by just_me:
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: I think a father has every right to try to persuade a woman not to have an abortion and to be heartbroken and even angry if that fails as long as that persuasion, heartbreak, and anger doesn't become coercion, force, or violence. If a woman doesn't trust the man to refrain from those, she is justified in not telling him. However, she should probably not be in a relationship with him.
Logged in for the first time in forever just to say I agree with this 1000%.
Now, back to lurking...
I agree with this as well.
Posted by Heisenberg (Member # 13004) on :
None of what you're saying really has much to do what's being discussed.
Nobody is saying that a man gets to choose what a woman does. What is being said is that a "man's place" is not to meekly shut up and accept whatever she does, which is a viewpoint that one can often find amongst the more extreme pro choice crowd.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I agree that there isn't much protection for a man in the scenarios you're describing, Lyrhawn. Protection from the emotional impact inflicted if the decision is to abort if the man doesn't want to.
Having said that, though, I feel like it's possibly implicit in your phrasing that you feel there should be some protection? Correct me if I'm wrong on that. Anyway, yes, there is no protection for the man's emotions in that case. But I'll admit that this is, to me, balanced out by the difference in choices as well. The woman is locked by biology and later not locked so much as really hemmed in by the much stronger expectations of society into some binary choices: abort or carry to term, raise or give up for adoption. She has no option to evade these choices. Whereas the man has some binary choices also, but in addition to that a whole slew of other options as well: stay with her, be a father; don't stay with her, be a father; stay with her, be a crappy/indifferent father (eventually the woman will have a similar choice, but biology makes it harder for her to take this path, and not as soon); don't stay with her, be a crappy father but at least maintain financial responsibilities; don't stay with her and don't even do that much, or evade them whenever you can.
So, without saying you would disagree with this, there is some protection-imbalance for the man and the woman in the specific question of emotional damage done by a decision that goes contrary to his wishes. You appear to be seeking after a remedy for this imbalance, but I'm not sure there is one, and I am fairly sure there shouldn't be.
Posted by The Black Pearl (Member # 11788) on :
What role do women play in vasectomy decisions?
Actually that's a useful reversal question for both sides to ask. Although its not the same.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Black Pearl: What role do women play in vasectomy decisions?
Actually that's a useful reversal question for both sides to ask. Although its not the same.
It's not nearly the same at all, if for no other reason than vasectomies are reversible, and sperm donors can be found for a woman who wants to conceive when her partner doesn't (though if he really doesn't want to, I feel like that should probably be the end of the relationship).
But, insofar as the moral question of this conversation goes, I think he absolutely owes it to her to let her know he's planning to do it and give her a chance to register her reaction and deal with the fallout. But she would lack the same veto that a man lacks over an abortion decision.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Seems that way to me as well. The decision the woman has isn't over the vasectomy but the reaction to it.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Communication is key!
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: I agree that there isn't much protection for a man in the scenarios you're describing, Lyrhawn. Protection from the emotional impact inflicted if the decision is to abort if the man doesn't want to.
Having said that, though, I feel like it's possibly implicit in your phrasing that you feel there should be some protection? Correct me if I'm wrong on that. Anyway, yes, there is no protection for the man's emotions in that case. But I'll admit that this is, to me, balanced out by the difference in choices as well. The woman is locked by biology and later not locked so much as really hemmed in by the much stronger expectations of society into some binary choices: abort or carry to term, raise or give up for adoption. She has no option to evade these choices. Whereas the man has some binary choices also, but in addition to that a whole slew of other options as well: stay with her, be a father; don't stay with her, be a father; stay with her, be a crappy/indifferent father (eventually the woman will have a similar choice, but biology makes it harder for her to take this path, and not as soon); don't stay with her, be a crappy father but at least maintain financial responsibilities; don't stay with her and don't even do that much, or evade them whenever you can.
So, without saying you would disagree with this, there is some protection-imbalance for the man and the woman in the specific question of emotional damage done by a decision that goes contrary to his wishes. You appear to be seeking after a remedy for this imbalance, but I'm not sure there is one, and I am fairly sure there shouldn't be.
You'll have to go into a bit more detail on your last paragraph.
There's absolutely a power imbalance here. Of course a woman takes on a great deal more personal risk, basically assumes ALL the personal risk from the decision. And that's why you'll never hear me say that a man should have a veto power over her decision to abort or not.
And I'm also not talking about a legal protection for women to HAVE to tell the father about the decision to have an abortion. That's fraught with peril and lots of potential dangers for the safety of the mother as well.
I'm talking about a moral imperative. Assuming no other danger to the mother, does the father have a right to know? Does he have a right to know this was done and to deal with the feelings that come with it, and to decide if he even wants to stay with her if he disagrees?
It seems to me that expecting the mother to tell the father of her decision (qualified) is not an overly burdensome act on the mother's part. Given the power that decision will have over the father's life, especially, I think a simple FYI pales in comparison to the effect it will have on his future. It seems to me a pretty small courtesy.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Oh...Btw...I had a painful and upsetting life choice and several doctors, nurses and various equipment up my privates...But I OWE you something because you squirted your DNA in me?
That's a no vote from me.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Lyrhawn,
Just to be clear I didn't think you were talking about legal safeguards, that is laws, I just felt it was useful to be excessively clear given the subject matter.
Anyway, the answer to your question about moral imperatives is tricky, of course. For example, what if a man is on record as believing that life doesn't begin until any number of biological signs that don't occur until months into the pregnacy? Such as when the embryo has become a fetus? I'm far, far from an expert or even somewhat well informed on such questions so I had to look it up-apparently this is at roughly 10 weeks. So suppose the woman knows that the man doesn't believe, because he has said so, that the pregnancy isn't a human life until it becomes a fetus?
To me in such a case the argument can be made that the woman owes the man no explanation, as he's on record not believing there is a life at stake. Which does beg the question: is there a moral imperative to tell the man that the potential for a human life (in such a case, assuming he feels that way it is, setting aside the question of who the hell knows when human life actually begins) was terminated? I don't know, I don't think I've ever considered the question in that way before, but I'm leaning towards 'no'.
If, however, the woman knows that the man believes life begins at conception or is uncertain what his thoughts on the matter are, well in the former case she should tell him, I believe, as a moral decision. I think in an ideal situation ethically once things have arrived at that point, in the interests of truth she would not want to deceive by it going unsaid what had happened. Of course that's an easy armchair philosophy question to dispose of, we both know that.
If she isn't sure what his thoughts are on the question, well, obviously after the fact is a little late to be having an entire series of discussions, but I think there is a moral imperative to discuss it then.
It's tricky, isn't it? A part of my initial reaction to your remark that it's a small courtesy is to think of it historically. I just cant' shake my awareness of how grossly unfair, how dangerous, fatal, and how much injustice this sort of question has led to for women throughout human history and before it. Even now in late 2016, a more enlightened age than 3016 BCE for example, even when I recognize that in the present where we live that these are valid questions to ask, I still can't shake my consciousness of so much injustice and part of me wants to sneer at the complaint.
I suppose that when it comes down to it I think you're right, there is a right to know involved here for the man. But since I cannot ever face such a challenge myself, and since I wonder if I did I would measure up to it, I'm deeply wary of asserting too much the man's right to know. Even as I'm also conscious of the fact that if I were the man, I would want to know, had I been so neglectful as to avoid the questions and conversations necessary beforehand. But then it's not as though every pregnancy has come after a lengthy period of time dating where such things are discussed, either.
I wonder if the answer to your question isn't as simple as 'if the man doesn't assert a stance and ensure active, redundant birth control measures beforehand, he waives his right to know in a moral sense unless the woman decides to share it'?
*Of course even redundancies aren't certain, and even if a man, say, got a vasectomy and wore a condom there is still a chance. Given how much sex there is in the world, it's basically certain that this has happened, a lot, isn't it? There's a helluva outlier.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Part of what makes humans so special is that, no matter, no matter how bad it is, we gunna Eff. World's almost over...let's get it on! There's a war, I'm sad and scared, hold me! The war is over, let's celebrate, bow chicha wow wow. On a first date? Let's procreate! When the bombs are a-droping, the bed will be rocking!
From a meta point of view that is.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Lyrhawn, Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: Oh...Btw...I had a painful and upsetting life choice and several doctors, nurses and various equipment up my privates...But I OWE you something because you squirted your DNA in me?
That's a no vote from me.
That's an odd way of looking at it.
Using that logic, I suppose you're okay with men being able to skip out on child support payments?
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Rakeesh,
I sympathize with your hesitancy on the issue. I addressed some of that earlier in the thread.
But I think there's a degree to which we have to try to move past what happened in the past. Women in the western world aren't sold as child bearing slaves anymore. To say that modern men should suck it up and stop complaining because women decades or centuries ago suffered a horrible injustice that no modern woman suffers just...cause, seems detrimental to the cause of equality to me.
And I will say that, on a personal level, I would be devastated if this happened to me, if I was informed, coldly, after the fact, and then ridiculed for being upset about it. I don't know if life begins at conception or not, but I do know that having/conceiving children is a powerful idea for me, and to know that something was created in part by me, and that the decision was made without even letting me know it was happening so I could cope with it, that I was so worthless as to not even be considered in the decision, that my feelings, cares and concerns about such a monumental, life-altering decision were completely disregarded and rendered worthless, would be emotionally devastating for a period of time.
At the end of the day, I feel like a lot of this boils down to: "The woman is under no obligation to consider the feelings of her partner."
And while that's strictly true on a lot of levels, it feels intrinsically opposite to the entire point of having a partner in the first place.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: Oh...Btw...I had a painful and upsetting life choice and several doctors, nurses and various equipment up my privates...But I OWE you something because you squirted your DNA in me?
That's a no vote from me.
That's an odd way of looking at it.
Using that logic, I suppose you're okay with men being able to skip out on child support payments?
Huh? No.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
I'm talking about a moral imperative. Assuming no other danger to the mother, does the father have a right to know? Does he have a right to know this was done and to deal with the feelings that come with it, and to decide if he even wants to stay with her if he disagrees?
It seems to me that expecting the mother to tell the father of her decision (qualified) is not an overly burdensome act on the mother's part. Given the power that decision will have over the father's life, especially, I think a simple FYI pales in comparison to the effect it will have on his future. It seems to me a pretty small courtesy.
I think that there is a moral imperative to inform the father especially if you are in a relationship with him. In that case you have a moral obligation to the father of a potential child and a duty to be honest with someone that you, presumably, care about.
However, this moral obligation must be balanced against the very real possibility of coercion, force, or violence so I would oppose making it a legal obligation.
Full disclosure, I also believe that there is some moral duty to the potential child as well but that moral duty is outweighed by the need to insure a woman's sovereignty over her own body.
Posted by Heisenberg (Member # 13004) on :
Would you consider telling a woman that it's her choice, but you can't be with someone who would abort your child, to be coercion? A bad thing? Or is it better to keep that to yourself and dump her afterwards?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I wouldn't generally consider that to be coercion if it is true. There may be circumstances where it is depending on how dependent the woman is but that is a whole other problem. I generally favor honesty rather than the surprise dumping.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: Oh...Btw...I had a painful and upsetting life choice and several doctors, nurses and various equipment up my privates...But I OWE you something because you squirted your DNA in me?
That's a no vote from me.
That's an odd way of looking at it.
Using that logic, I suppose you're okay with men being able to skip out on child support payments?
Odd... empathising w what a woman goes thru?
And why why WHY does that equate to no child support!?!
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
IF the embryo makes it to being a child, it is the child who is owed support, not the mother, the mother's gain is circumstancial due to the child's minority.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_:
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: Oh...Btw...I had a painful and upsetting life choice and several doctors, nurses and various equipment up my privates...But I OWE you something because you squirted your DNA in me?
That's a no vote from me.
That's an odd way of looking at it.
Using that logic, I suppose you're okay with men being able to skip out on child support payments?
Huh? No.
I ask because your description is, to me, bizarre.
Using the logic of completely dismissing the man's role in a pregnancy, why couldn't someone way "you think I OWE you something for depositing my DNA in you?"
I'm not even sure how to discuss what you said, it's so weird to me.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_:
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: Oh...Btw...I had a painful and upsetting life choice and several doctors, nurses and various equipment up my privates...But I OWE you something because you squirted your DNA in me?
That's a no vote from me.
That's an odd way of looking at it.
Using that logic, I suppose you're okay with men being able to skip out on child support payments?
Odd... empathising w what a woman goes thru?
And why why WHY does that equate to no child support!?!
I don't think you're JUST empathizing. I feel like I'm empathizing too, I'm just doing it with both sides, not to the exclusion of half the parties involved.
I guess I really can't get into your head space. I'm a little flabbergasted at how little you value fathers.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: IF the embryo makes it to being a child, it is the child who is owed support, not the mother, the mother's gain is circumstancial due to the child's minority.
One could argue that by choosing to have a child the father might not want, she chooses to take on all financial responsibility as well.
I'm not necessarily saying that's my argument, but I'm also not 100% sure I disagree with it either.
Either way, you're the one who keeps arguing that the fathers essentially don't matter.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
It's not that they don't matter... It's that they do not get to choose their own level of involvement in abortion decisions...Those two hardly equate.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: I'm a little flabbergasted at how little you value fathers.
I'm not down on dads...Being a good father and husband are my highest priority in life.
But I married my gal and we tried to have kids...
There is a difference between fatherhood and a broken condom on a one night stand... and as such a different level of respect is due
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_:
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: I'm a little flabbergasted at how little you value fathers.
I'm not down on dads...Being a good father and husband are my highest priority in life.
But I married my gal and we tried to have kids...
There is a difference between fatherhood and a broken condom on a one night stand... and as such a different level of respect is due
I agree that a planned vs. an unplanned pregnancy are different with respect to the level of planning put into them.
But that's really insulting. Fatherhood is fatherhood. Your degree of fatherhood does not change depending on the method or level of planning put into conception. And given your ideological framework you've laid out, the level of planning has NO bearing on the role a father plays in those decisions. You've yet to include a corollary that affords extra respect or consideration for a planned vs. an unplanned pregnancy. Your point thus far has been that having a discussion before hand can avoid these awkward decisions, but that discussion isn't binding, and is subject to a lot of mind changing. So I call BS on that too.
We just disagree. Completely and fundamentally.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
No difference between a sperm donor and a real life father? Honestly, I don't even know where to start...There is a world of difference, just go ask someone who only has a sperm donor.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: No difference between a sperm donor and a real life father? Honestly, I don't even know where to start...There is a world of difference, just go ask someone who only has a sperm donor.
I will allow a single exception for a literal, actual sperm donor.
Though that person is still the child's biological father. That's a unique circumstance.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Fatherhood is fatherhood?...What about rape?
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
"Sperm doner" is a derogatory slang term for a very uninvolved father.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
We took classes, read books, we painted furniture, we assembled a crib, moved to a larger house, we timed out coitus to my wife's ovulation to influence the gender, we talked and talked and planned and discussed our future before we did anything else...premarital counseling, arranging for in house child care, bought a breast pump, as we both worked full time, I was at EVERY sonogram, I rubbed her feet and neck multiple times a day thru the third trimester...
I was a father by choice before either of my children was born.
You seem to want to have some say about something else, something unplanned...undiscussed even! You want a say AFTER the fact and seem to think that mere want somehow is the same as my careful hard work. You're wrong. Sorry friend.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I was a surprise. My parents were married in a hurry. I was very unplanned. My father was the best. There was never a minute when I or my siblings doubted the depth of his love for us. There could be no better father then mine no matter how planned.
Posted by Sean Monahan (Member # 9334) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: I was a surprise. My parents were married in a hurry. I was very unplanned. My father was the best. There was never a minute when I or my siblings doubted the depth of his love for us. There could be no better father then mine no matter how planned.
Ditto all of this for me.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Yes of course...They were THERE for you...birth control fails sometimes...
Posted by Sean Monahan (Member # 9334) on :
Your distinction between real fathers and "sperm donors" is not what Lyrhawn was talking about...
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Your degree of fatherhood does not change depending on the method or level of planning put into conception.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
I simply disagree
Posted by Liz B (Member # 8238) on :
Thought experiment:
I have discovered I am a match as an organ donor for my husband's mother (or, perhaps even better, his sibling he's never met). The donation will save this person's life; it's risky to me, but I'll probably live. It'll be a 6 month pre-op/ recovery period, though. (And, really, I guess that after the operation I would have to take care of her for 18 years or never see her again).
Am I obligated to tell him about this discovery? Does he get input into my decision? If I decide not to do it, am I obligated to tell him after his mother dies?
And now...same scenario, but instead of my husband/ mother-in-law of 19.5 years, it's the relative of the man I've been seeing for 6 months. Or 5 days. Or whatever.
***
My answer is that a woman's moral obligations to inform a man about pregnancy (or, you know, life-saving organ donation situations) will always change based on relationship--so no, there is no general obligation, moral or otherwise, to inform. Only specific obligations.
For instance, I believe I am obligated to tell my husband about all major decisions...particularly those that would risk my life (as pregnancy certainly would) or would substantially change our life together. Like, say, I'm not going to quit my job or buy a car or plan a vacation without talking to him.
If the situation were reversed and he didn't tell me and i somehow discovered it, I would be furious & devastated. I expect he would also be miserable keeping such a big and terrible secret from me.
That's my relationship, though. I don't think I can extrapolate from that to what others should do.
***
quote: What if you have the conversation and she...completely disregards it when the event actually happens and does something on her own?
Yes. This is tough. It's why the conversation is important but ultimately irrelevant. It's important because you should have the what-if-we-get-pregnant conversation so you know where you stand in the theoretical-pregnancy world. Because that matters--people who don't agree in the theoretical-pregnancy world shouldn't have sex and shouldn't be in a relationship together.
But the conversation is totally irrelevant in the actual-pregnancy world. Depending on your relationship (see above) either you have to figure out together or she has to figure out alone what she will actually do, which might be the opposite of what she--or the two of you--thought was best in theoretical-pregnancy world. And her changing her mind doesn't mean she lied, either--or even is "disregarding" the decision the two of you came to. She can remember it, think it's important (in some sense), and still realize that now that the pregnancy is real, the decision was only a pretend one.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
quote: My answer is that a woman's moral obligations to inform a man about pregnancy (or, you know, life-saving organ donation situations) will always change based on relationship--so no, there is no general obligation, moral or otherwise, to inform. Only specific obligations.
Well said Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: Fatherhood is fatherhood?...What about rape?
Why are you bringing up things you know are immaterial to the central question I'm asking?
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
By showing fatherhood ain't fatherhood.
It's a spectrum from rape to a planned child with a kind and dedicated father.
And relationships are spectrum too, from rape to happily committed... And that is your problem here, Dude, trying to find one solution to complicated and multifaceted problem is an exercise in futility. Either you get a over simplified answer that basically only fits the middle third of the curve and that poorly or no answer at all.
There is no hard and fast rule, it all depends on circumstances.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: By showing fatherhood ain't fatherhood.
It's a spectrum from rape to a planned child with a kind and dedicated father.
And relationships are spectrum too, from rape to happily committed... And that is your problem here, Dude, trying to find one solution to complicated and multifaceted problem is an exercise in futility. Either you get a over simplified answer that basically only fits the middle third of the curve and that poorly or no answer at all.
There is no hard and fast rule, it all depends on circumstances.
You're not arguing against any point I've made.
And for that matter, you're the only one who has put an absolute on the question. You said there is never a moral imperative. I've never argued there always is. I've argued throughout this thread that there CAN be, depending on the circumstances.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Liz B -
I agree with your general response.
My only quibble would be that I think a hypothetical partner should tell her partner even if it's after the decision, assuming they're actually in some sort of relationship or heading toward one. Basically, assuming the title "partner" actually applies.
If they have a discussion, regardless of what they decide, and she makes another decision and doesn't tell him, that's a betrayal of trust in my opinion. She has the right to do whatever she wants to do, but not telling him and allowing him the chance to react is wrong, to me.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: By showing fatherhood ain't fatherhood.
It's a spectrum from rape to a planned child with a kind and dedicated father.
And relationships are spectrum too, from rape to happily committed... And that is your problem here, Dude, trying to find one solution to complicated and multifaceted problem is an exercise in futility. Either you get a over simplified answer that basically only fits the middle third of the curve and that poorly or no answer at all.
There is no hard and fast rule, it all depends on circumstances.
You're not arguing against any point I've made.
And for that matter, you're the only one who has put an absolute on the question. You said there is never a moral imperative. I've never argued there always is. I've argued throughout this thread that there CAN be, depending on the circumstances.
I am very argumentative, so I'm likey cross talking w you a bit, but I didn't say that it is never a moral imperative, just that morality is situational, not universal.
Posted by MaryCobb (Member # 13219) on :
Honestly, I'm not in favor of abortion. I think, both parties are responsible for the right decision. But more of a woman rather than a man to choose whether to pursue or not. If both respect each other then they would not decide to choose to abort a child.
Posted by Kristin Mcchristian (Member # 13510) on :
I'm not really for abortion. It's a life we're talking about. If you don't want a child, don't get pregnant or don't make someone pregnant. As simple as that!
Posted by Risuena (Member # 2924) on :
And the last two posts contain horribly facile arguments, but I suppose we can't expect much more from accounts that appear to be bots.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
It would be a little discomfiting if spammers wound up making intelligent, cogent arguments on either side of the abortion debate.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
what are the spammers opinions on israel vs palestine
Posted by Two Cents (Member # 13450) on :
Very interesting discussion. Some thoughts vaguely related to the topic...
1) In a past relationship, my then partner and I talked about the risk of unplanned pregnancy due to failing birth control early on (within the first month). He was very strongly opposed to having a baby "yet". He would've been fine with it some years later, but not at that point. I felt the same, but would have been prepared to keep the child in the very unlikely event of unplanned pregnancy despite proper birth control. He disagreed. He believed it should be his right as the biological father to have as much say in the decision as I did, and that he would insist upon abortion of what he didn't believe would be a living baby at that point. I firmly told him that I would not ever abort without medical necessity. We agreed on using two separate methods of birth control, and he knew from then on that if I'd ever have to choose between an unborn child and him, it would always be the child.
2) When my mother and father had had two children, my mother had an accident while horse-riding, had to have surgery and due to med interaction, the birthcontrol she was using at the time failed and she became pregnant. My father strongly suggested she abort the child. My mother refused. My father did afterwards care for the third child as well as for the first two, but he claims even now that this incident was an essential part of why they divorced. (Not to my brother's face, but to both my mother and me.)
3) Said brother was recently told by his at that time no-longer-girlfriend that she was 8-months pregnant. Far too late for an abortion, so the topic wasn't even discussed. But she had told him, when he asked before they had intercourse, that she was on birth control. After she gave birth, my brother had to pay to have his parenthood certified by DNA testing, and now has to pay child support for 15-25 years, depending on circumstances.
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
When I read the thread title, what comes to my mind is not the individual decision for a particular abortion, but the legislative aspect of it. The laws that limit abortion, require parental/spousal notification/consent, waiting period, transvaginal ultrasounds, laws that allow women to sue doctors for emotional distress after they've had an abortion... the list goes on. All of these laws are written by men.
As to individual decisions between a pregnant woman and the father of her child, I imagine what it might be like if women actually wrote such laws. Somehow, I think women would be more accommodating to men in giving them some role in the decision making process, than men are in giving women the choice to decide about their own lives.
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
When I started dating my wife we actually had a real talk about this. I completely think that a woman has the final right to determine what happens, but I made it clear that while I wasn't looking to become a father right away I would expect to be part of the decision making process if she became pregnant. I also told her that accident or not, unless it was a threat to her life or health, abortion wasn't an option I would ever choose.
If I found out she had an abortion without telling me, I would have left. Not because of the abortion, but because of the lack of respect and consideration that would have shown.
Fortunately it was never an issue. Posted by The Black Pearl (Member # 11788) on :
I don't think any couple should ever discuss abortion. If you don't want a child then don't do sex!
Posted by MaryCobb (Member # 13219) on :
I don't think any couple should ever discuss abortion. If you don't want a child then don't do sex!
Posted by LudWig (Member # 13490) on :
Here's the role of men in abortion decisions: if he creams inside her then he must be supportive of her decision to abort the issue. However, if she decides to bring the issue to term, he must financially support her in that decision as well as far as child-support payments are concerned at the very least. It's only fair.
Posted by Lorelei Feliz (Member # 13414) on :
Both are responsible for having a child and so with the right decision. I insist that abortion should not be a solution. Couple must be aware of what they did in the first place. and therefore must take it both as a blessing. Men and women must be mature enough to decline the thought of abortion. However, yes sometimes men contribute much to the decision because it must be decided as a couple although the final thing will be more from the women.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
(Post removed by JanitorBlade)
[ May 01, 2017, 07:57 AM: Message edited by: JanitorBlade ]
Posted by The Black Pearl (Member # 11788) on :
This page makes me wish I was an abortion. But then again I've felt that way since November.
Posted by LudWig (Member # 13490) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Black Pearl: This page makes me wish I was an abortion. But then again I've felt that way since November.
Seriously though. Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
Sorry -- I know y'all hate people resurrecting old threads. But I just got to (and through) this one.
I first have to say I agree with what PSI Teleport said on page 1 -- "If you don't tell the guy before the abortion, then why bother to tell him after?"
To me, to tell him after you already made the decision without his input and took the action, means you are either trying to use that to control him, or you feel guilt. But if you didn't have enough of a relationship to tell him you were pregnant, probably a good idea just to keep silent on your choices afterward.
For me personally, it was the opposite scenario. Some 30+ years ago, I became pregnant. Was not in a serious relationship with the father, and knew I probably would not be. However, I felt obligated to let him know of the pregnancy.
He asked me to abort. I said no, I would not.
However, I also knew this to mean he had no desire to be a father or be responsible for a child, so because it was MY choice to have the baby, not his, I never made him in any way responsible for it (financially, emotionally, whatever) He never had any interaction with his biological son at all. To me, that was HIS choice when he asked me to abort, and I respected that.
And I have loved enjoying 31 years with a marvelous son.
Conversely to the original post, I don't think it is right for a woman who chooses to carry a pregnancy to use that choice to control the father of the child, against his will.
Posted by JanitorBlade (Member # 12343) on :
Very interesting perspective, Farmgirl.
Posted by LudWig (Member # 13490) on :
According to the anti-natalist view I recently discovered, all fetuses should be aborted as it's not ethical to bring a being into existence who will undoubtedly suffer.
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
Wouldn't it then follow that it's our ethical duty to kill everyone we meet on sight?
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)