Opinion To Be or Not To Be (An Abortion Thread)

[ions]

Life begins at conception. Delete this post.

 

[JessFR]

Life begins at conception. Delete this post.

Awww, I really wanna. I shouldn't... But I could, but I can't... But I wanna!

 

[December Flower]

Ireland is a great example of what happens when you don’t have abortion available. The recent unveiling of the reports into the mother and baby homes are an absolute scar on our country. I am ashamed to be Irish at the moment and that’s hard for me to say.

A few years ago we discovered at a Tuam mother and baby home there were no less than 800 babies found in a septic tank. It was “kinder to strangle these children at birth” was a quote of a dr at the time....

Ireland had many of these “housings” and you can imagine how the mothers and children were treated. I’ll add a link but here’s a quote.
“It estimated 9,000 children, 15% of the total, died – an “appalling” infant mortality rate about double the national average. Neglect, poor food and extreme austerity all played a part. Instead of saving the lives of children legally deemed illegitimate, the homes “significantly reduced their prospects of survival”.

These children and their mothers suffered horribly all thanks to the Catholic Church and no abortions.

They are still finding babies bodies in fields currently in Ireland. Recently 700 were found in a field in Cavan.

Ireland publishes report on 'appalling' abuse at mother and baby homes

‘We embraced judgmental, moral certainty and perverse religious morality,’ says taoiseach Micheál Martin

www.theguardian.com

What in holy tarnation did I just read?
FFS I am shocked that a country thought to be the technological forefront of Europe is that Spartanian.

Wow. Completely baffled, thanks for the info though, I'd have never known. Suddenly I'm glad I live in a rather atheistic country now.
The Catholic Church is such a disgrace

 

[Xorkoth]

Yes good points. I suppose my point was, it's a whole lot of what ifs when we discuss this stuff. I myself go around and around in circles trying to think about such things.

 

[Cream Gravy?]

Surgery is more forceful.

You know abortions generally don't involve any surgery whatsoever, right? Most abortions can be done via medications. You're once again projecting an image of something that doesn't happen from what you imagine abortions to be.

They don't rip babies out at 8 months... oh wait they do, they're called Pre-matures. That's not abortion though. They sometimes get to live, if the right care is there. My sister was a month early.

I think you're really letting imagery/Christianity color your views here.

 

[mal3volent]

The fact that I think it should be rare

if it's not a moral issue, why should it be rare? What would be the issue if it were common?

and sorry I probably missed it (I've not read through all the thread), but if it's not a moral issue do you think there ought to be any "cut off" date? In other words, should a pregnancy be terminated as late as the woman chooses, no matter what her reasoning is?

also if both parties agree that the pregnancy was unplanned, shouldn't the male be able to legally opt out of paying child support if the female decides to have the baby?

 

[cduggles]

if it's not a moral issue, why should it be rare? What would be the issue if it were common?

and sorry I probably missed it (I've not read through all the thread), but if it's not a moral issue do you think there ought to be any "cut off" date? In other words, should a pregnancy be terminated as late as the woman chooses, no matter what her reasoning is?

also if both parties agree that the pregnancy was unplanned, shouldn't the male be able to legally opt out of paying child support if the female decides to have the baby?

I know that paragraph isn’t written clearly. I was stating that those aspects (e.g., rare, make contraception widely available, etc.) of my opinion were more so unscientific (and therefore more like moral considerations), but that overall, in terms of policymaking, the question is a yes/no question, and for that aspect, science is more important than morality.

I did mention that a late-term abortion (third trimester) could have a strong argument made against it, although most of those abortions are due to genetic or developmental defects that will result in a stillborn baby or a baby with a short, painful life. (I think those procedures are perfectly permissible.)
I also hesitate to put a cap on termination dates as long as the availability of abortion is as restricted as it is, as it could take some poor woman months to earn money for the procedure and transportation, etc. It’s a tough one.

I’d have to look at stats again for third trimester, but I feel solid on them. (The argument for a cutoff being that the fetus is viable at 22 weeks of age outside the womb, btw).

I think if a male and female have sex, there’s a chance of conception. I think for practical reasons the decision to carry a child to term is ultimately the woman’s with varying levels of input from whomever she wants to listen to for advice. But I think the obligation to support a baby/child in every way possible was created when the child was conceived, and abortion (for which the male should also be ultimately also be partially financially responsible) is just an off-ramp that frees the couple from further responsibility, financial or otherwise.
Once a baby is born, It’s not a baby’s fault that it wasn’t wanted by its father (presumably the mother wanted it), and he should do his best to fulfill all obligations that he can to help that baby grow into a fully actualized adult.
The reality is sadly and laughably different, but it would be ideal.

 

[mal3volent]

I think if a male and female have sex, there’s a chance of conception. I think for practical reasons the decision to carry a child to term is ultimately the woman’s with varying levels of input from whomever she wants to listen to for advice. But I think the obligation to support a baby/child in every way possible was created when the child was conceived, and abortion (for which the male should also be ultimately also be partially financially responsible) is just an off-ramp that frees the couple from further responsibility, financial or otherwise.
Once a baby is born, It’s not a baby’s fault that it wasn’t wanted by its father (presumably the mother wanted it), and he should do his best to fulfill all obligations that he can to help that baby grow into a fully actualized adult.
The reality is sadly and laughably different, but it would be ideal.

I'm really struggling to understand exactly where you're coming from here (not just you, presumably lots of others).

You say an "obligation to support a baby was created when the child was conceived". This actually sounds like fundamentalist pro-life rhetoric. Earlier in the thread, before the man's role was brought up, we were referring to it as a fetus, a parasite, a clump of cells, etc. "It's not a baby's fault that it wasn't wanted by its father"...well what about when it wasn't wanted by the mother?

If we are going to empower women to the point they can terminate the pregnancy for literally any reason/no reason at all, freeing them from any societal implications or moral regret, shouldn't we do some small favor for men as well?

I mean, as it stands, women have really lucked out in this equation, don't you think? They're cheered on to make any decision they choose while men have their fate tied to someone else's impulse.

Does it seem fair to you that Male 1 could undergo severe trauma from losing what they perceive as their child and Male B could be forced into economic distress for nearly twenty years? Meanwhile Male C (the happy and content male) can only exist if the Female allows it.

I'm slightly nauseated that I could be perceived as one of those men's rights bozos now. That wasn't my intention. My thing is fairness. I really get hung up on fairness.

Am I seeing things all wrong here? Help me out.

 

[Xorkoth]

Good points mal. It's a tricky thing because it's true that the child will suffer if the father decides not to be in their life, or probably even worse, is sort of there but not really. It's tempting to think of the decision to get an abortion as a similar abandoning, but the difference is that in that case, the child was never born, and hence will not suffer from lack of parental involvement at the choice. If I were to get someone pregnant, and didn't want the child (hypothetically, I think I would embrace it fully at this point in my life but let's say I was really young or in the midst of severe opioid addiction like I once was), I would talk to the mother and cast my vote for abortion, perhaps. But as the one carrying the child, she would have the final say, and if she did choose to keep the child, I would feel that I had no choice, morally, but to accept it and be there for my child. I think that's what cdugs was going for, is that regardless of whether it's right or wrong that it's the woman's ultimate decision (and as the one to carry and birth the child I just have to see it as her decision, though I think she should also certainly discuss with the father and not just shut him out of that decision), if the pregnancy ends up resulting in a child, that child is innocent and will suffer if one parent decides to abandon them.

One situation where maybe it would be acceptable is if the parents discuss and an agreement is reached that the father does not need to be a part of the child's life, period, at all, and the mother is okay with that. Then she would raise the child on her own, or perhaps with someone else who would be the other parent. In fact sometimes it's best that that does happen, as some men would make terrible fathers, yet manage to get a woman pregnant anyway.

 

[mal3volent]

Good points mal. It's a tricky thing because it's true that the child will suffer if the father decides not to be in their life, or probably even worse, is sort of there but not really. It's tempting to think of the decision to get an abortion as a similar abandoning, but the difference is that in that case, the child was never born, and hence will not suffer from lack of parental involvement at the choice. If I were to get someone pregnant, and didn't want the child (hypothetically, I think I would embrace it fully at this point in my life but let's say I was really young or in the midst of severe opioid addiction like I once was), I would talk to the mother and cast my vote for abortion, perhaps. But as the one carrying the child, she would have the final say, and if she did choose to keep the child, I would feel that I had no choice, morally, but to accept it and be there for my child. I think that's what cdugs was going for, is that regardless of whether it's right or wrong that it's the woman's ultimate decision (and as the one to carry and birth the child I just have to see it as her decision, though I think she should also certainly discuss with the father and not just shut him out of that decision), if the pregnancy ends up resulting in a child, that child is innocent and will suffer if one parent decides to abandon them.

One situation where maybe it would be acceptable is if the parents discuss and an agreement is reached that the father does not need to be a part of the child's life, period, at all, and the mother is okay with that. Then she would raise the child on her own, or perhaps with someone else who would be the other parent. In fact sometimes it's best that that does happen, as some men would make terrible fathers, yet manage to get a woman pregnant anyway.

The woman can choose to have the baby, no problem. If she wants it. If she thinks she can support it with the help of her family. If she decides she can't support it on her own, she doesn't have to have it.

Kinda harsh but so is the situation you outlined.

 

[Xorkoth]

It is true that, except in the case of rape, sex is consensual, both people agreed to it and the risks that entailed. People tend to look at the man like he's at fault, but it was a mutual decision. So it does seem kind of unfair to hold the man to account no matter what, unless they agreed beforehand on something, whereas the woman gets to choose.

I dunno, personally I would feel obligated, but that's also just me now, I rather want a kid at some point.

 

[JessFR]

You know abortions generally don't involve any surgery whatsoever, right? Most abortions can be done via medications. You're once again projecting an image of something that doesn't happen from what you imagine abortions to be.

They don't rip babies out at 8 months... oh wait they do, they're called Pre-matures. That's not abortion though. They sometimes get to live, if the right care is there. My sister was a month early.

I think you're really letting imagery/Christianity color your views here.

We don't do 8 month abortions? That's not what a lot of people here have implied.

I've repeatedly asked exactly where the cutoff is and gotten stonewalled on it. So I assume abortion is supposedly OK right up until birth.

Btw these are some great points @mal3volent I wish I'd thought of them.

 

[Cream Gravy?]

I've repeatedly asked exactly where the cutoff is and gotten stonewalled on it. So I assume abortion is supposedly OK right up until birth.

My personal beliefs about the value of human life in general are at odds with most humans' beliefs; I honestly think that abortion should be an option with no cut off. And if the woman has the child, but the father didn't want it, he should be under no financial obligation to care for it, unless it can be verified that he forced his semen into her non-consensually.

So yeah I'm pro-choice all the way up till the end. I also believe sterilization/eugenics have their place in society (no it's not racial).

 

[JessFR]

My personal beliefs about the value of human life in general are at odds with most humans' beliefs; I honestly think that abortion should be an option with no cut off. And if the woman has the child, but the father didn't want it, he should be under no financial obligation to care for it, unless it can be verified that he forced his semen into her non-consensually.

So yeah I'm pro-choice all the way up till the end. I also believe sterilization/eugenics have their place in society (no it's not racial).

Whereas I'm pretty much your counterpart. Believing in, at least morally speaking, no abortion at all outside of the most extreme of the extreme exceptions.

And if the woman keeps it while the man doesn't want it, he has to pay.

 

[Cream Gravy?]

I'm never surprised that the majority of people don't share my views, I'm very cynical.

I just thought I'd say where I thought the 'cut-off' belonged since you asked and there wasn't much answer.

 

[JessFR]

I'm never surprised that the majority of people don't share my views, I'm very cynical.

I just thought I'd say where I thought the 'cut-off' belonged since you asked and there wasn't much answer.

Well at least yours is clear and far less arbitrary than "x weeks in".

I still disagree with it of course.

 

[mal3volent]

And if the woman keeps it while the man doesn't want it, he has to pay.

how do you justify that? They both made the decision to have sex. The woman gets to decide if the baby lives or dies AND gets to force the guy into fatherhood. She gets to choose, he doesn't. Sorry people who were born with penises. You lost the genetic lottery!

 

[JessFR]

how do you justify that? They both made the decision to have sex. The woman gets to decide if the baby lives or dies AND gets to force the guy into fatherhood. She gets to choose, he doesn't. Sorry people who were born with penises. You lost the genetic lottery!

Having sex.. When you are straight... Carries a degree of risk. Even when you're careful.

And life, well life isn't fair. We shouldn't expect to be able to make it totally fair, only as fair as is practical.

Why is it for that it's the woman that's going to have to take it to term? Why should she have to take on that risk. Why should gay people not have to be subject to this risk? (I know I'm kinda ignoring bisexuals and others in this, I'm just simplifying for discussions sake).

IMO men often already don't take contraception seriously enough because they know they're not the one who's gonna be stuck carrying it.

Well, sorry, but someone's gotta support that child. And when you have sex.. That's a risk you take. That you might wind up having to be that someone.

That's how I justify it. Your actions caused the child's creation, you now have a responsibility towards it. You can get out of a lot of those responsibilities, but not all of them.

When that baby is born, the man and the woman will be it's parents and will have legal rights and obligations to it until and unless such time as those rights and obligations are modified through the courts.

Paying its support is one of those obligations.

 

[cduggles]

You say an "obligation to support a baby was created when the child was conceived". This actually sounds like fundamentalist pro-life rhetoric. Earlier in the thread, before the man's role was brought up, we were referring to it as a fetus, a parasite, a clump of cells, etc. "It's not a baby's fault that it wasn't wanted by its father"...well what about when it wasn't wanted by the mother?

Anecdotally, ime, the reality is that many women deal with and pay for abortions alone and I think we’re all familiar with the concept of the single mother. I think both these things are wrong. Dealing with the consequences of pregnancy shouldn’t be the sole province of the female. Often it is.

If we are going to empower women to the point they can terminate the pregnancy for literally any reason/no reason at all, freeing them from any societal implications or moral regret, shouldn't we do some small favor for men as well?

Men never have to have an abortion or worry about being pregnant and how their partner will react to the news. Men never have to endure the risk of nonconsensual or consensual sex inadvertently resulting in them becoming pregnant. Men always have more options in terms of just leaving a pregnant woman or family at any point. The social onus of raising a child still rests firmly on the woman.
I realize there are single full-time dads, etc. and I have yet to meet one. I know plenty of single mothers.
I’d say Nature gave man the upper hand here.

I mean, as it stands, women have really lucked out in this equation, don't you think? They're cheered on to make any decision they choose while men have their fate tied to someone else's impulse.

No, I don’t think women have lucked out, even if I’m not even touching the topic of rape. It’s my understanding that the man had an impulse “I want to have sex”, and if there were definitely consequences to the potential offspring of that sex then maybe men would be a little more careful before having choosing to have sex and using birth control, and that would be a good thing. I haven’t met any single mothers who feel cheered on. But then that’s just anecdotal.

Does it seem fair to you that Male 1 could undergo severe trauma from losing what they perceive as their child and Male B could be forced into economic distress for nearly twenty years? Meanwhile Male C (the happy and content male) can only exist if the Female allows it.

I'm slightly nauseated that I could be perceived as one of those men's rights bozos now. That wasn't my intention. My thing is fairness. I really get hung up on fairness.

Am I seeing things all wrong here? Help me out.

Male 1 gets the raw end of it, but I don’t think it’s right to force a woman to carry a child, ultimately. Maybe they could work something out and he could raise it. I’m not against negotiation, but as the host I believe the woman has the ultimate say.
And as noted previously, just because a woman chooses an abortion doesn’t mean she isn’t traumatized about it either. It’s possible that both of them are.
Male B chose (presumably) to have sexual intercourse that could possibly result in a baby being born. (I try to stick to fetus prior to birth and baby afterwards, but I slip sometimes). That is just taking responsibility for your actions. I don’t think the mother should have a free ride either. They need to both be mature, handle their responsibilities and accept the outcomes of decisions they have made. If a man doesn’t want a child, it’s pretty easy not to have one. Just ask Happy Male C.

Good points mal. It's a tricky thing because it's true that the child will suffer if the father decides not to be in their life, or probably even worse, is sort of there but not really. It's tempting to think of the decision to get an abortion as a similar abandoning, but the difference is that in that case, the child was never born, and hence will not suffer from lack of parental involvement at the choice. If I were to get someone pregnant, and didn't want the child (hypothetically, I think I would embrace it fully at this point in my life but let's say I was really young or in the midst of severe opioid addiction like I once was), I would talk to the mother and cast my vote for abortion, perhaps. But as the one carrying the child, she would have the final say, and if she did choose to keep the child, I would feel that I had no choice, morally, but to accept it and be there for my child. I think that's what cdugs was going for, is that regardless of whether it's right or wrong that it's the woman's ultimate decision (and as the one to carry and birth the child I just have to see it as her decision, though I think she should also certainly discuss with the father and not just shut him out of that decision), if the pregnancy ends up resulting in a child, that child is innocent and will suffer if one parent decides to abandon them.

One situation where maybe it would be acceptable is if the parents discuss and an agreement is reached that the father does not need to be a part of the child's life, period, at all, and the mother is okay with that. Then she would raise the child on her own, or perhaps with someone else who would be the other parent. In fact sometimes it's best that that does happen, as some men would make terrible fathers, yet manage to get a woman pregnant anyway.

^this except the last paragraph.

 

[cduggles]

I've repeatedly asked exactly where the cutoff is and gotten stonewalled on it.

I’ve repeatedly stated 22 weeks or third trimester except in cases of horrible genetic or developmental defects that would render the baby stillborn or to have a short, excruciating life could be argued to me, as long as abortion was readily accessible financially and logistically, which it isn’t in all of the states in the US.