OMFG I think I've turned into an Anti-Abortionist!!

Dargos · Post by **Dargos** » 2003-01-30 02:27am

Last night, I was having conversation with my wife about our day at work. My wife told me about a prisoner(she is a Federal Prison Guard here in Germany) that wanted a abortion. Yesterday was the last day of her 13th week of being pregnant (after the 13th week it is illegal here in Germany to have an abortion for other than emergancy medical reasons). This conversation set me to thinking about abortion.

I've always considered my self pro-choice, that a woman has the right to choose if she wishes to continue to full term or not. But now, after 5 years with my oldest boy, and 2 years with my younger, I can not comprehend a life without them.

This set me off into the "Why can't the father of the unborn have any say in the matter" direction. I know that IT IS THE MOTHERS BODY, however it took two to tango, so to say. No contriceptive is 100% effective other than abstainment, so when two willing partners have sex they take a risk.
If the sex act produces something unexpected, the male partner has absolutely no say in the matter. The female has total choice on to have the child or not regardless of the males wishes. It doesn't matter if he wants a child or not. She decides. Is this fair?

I know if I got someone pregnant now, I would want the child. If my partner did not...fine she can go as soon as the child is born. Is this wrong of me to feel this way. Is it unrational? I feel it is not.

So flame away if you wish.

TrailerParkJawa · Post by **TrailerParkJawa** » 2003-01-30 02:33am

I dont think it is unrational. I look at my "neice" and how she has changed my view of children. Im still pro-abortion, but I dont think your thoughts are unreasonable. Later term abortions are pretty damn rare thankfully, but I still am gonna side that its the women's decision.

Knife · Post by **Knife** » 2003-01-30 02:34am

Not really, strange of you that is. I have simular feelings. While I agree with morning after pills and such, late term abortions just erk me. Really there was plenty of time to plan for ooops's before the final month or two before the kid is born.

On fathers rights, I find it odd that a woman has the right to kill the thing if she wants, but men have to finance it if she has the kid. If it was fair, men would be able to opt out of financialy supporting children if the woman can opt out of the pregnancy.

InnerBrat · Post by **InnerBrat** » 2003-01-30 07:53am

As a woman, I feel that if a woman becomes pregnant, yes it's the responsibility of both parents, but to give the father a 'veto' over abortion is to give him unfiar rigths over the woman's body. Personally I am repulsed by the idea of being forced to carry a child I didnt' want.

Don't forget that for most women, the choce to have an abortion is a stressful and painful decision to make - IMO, in most situations she really REALLY doesn't want the child, otherwise she would adjust her life around this situation. This is an introspective opinion, based on how I feel, but I think a lot of women share this opinion.
And then to have a man exert his power over her body, is, I feel, a violation of her rights.

But I understand the pain it would cause a father to have no say in the loss of his children.

Incidentally, I think there should be an 'opt-out' for either parent befroe birth, to leave the child in the hands in the other parent, and negate any rights of the non-involved parent.

Post by **Edi** » 2003-01-30 09:02am

Dargos, nowhere is it said that you should be comfortable with the idea of abortion, but to blanket deny that right would be unjust. In the same breath I'll add that late term abortions are not justifiable at all unless the mother's life is in danger, and partial birth abortions are implicit murder. There was a thread on abortion some months back, it should pop up in a search if you want to take a look.

Edi

Post by **Lagmonster** » 2003-01-30 09:10am

Touchy topic. Touchy.

I am very fluid in my opinion when it come to abortion. I don't express any 'it is always wrong' or 'it is always right' stand. For me, it's very much a case-to-case analysis. I believe in analyzing the individual case as intently as possible before making decisions. To boot, determining whether the father has any say in the matter can be impossible.

I present as examples two cases that have actually transpired; these cases at least made me question whether the issue of the father's rights could be dealt with from a static standpoint:

1) A woman gets an abortion against the wishes of her boyfriend just to spite him because he bought himself a new car without asking her for her input. She states that she'd have no trouble making another baby later if she wanted to, so it was no big deal, and that she wanted to make her boyfriend realize that if he could make big decisions without her, that she could do the same without him.

2) A woman declares throughout her pregnancy that she has NO intention of caring for the baby, and in fact intends on dumping the child on the father immediately after birth and abandoning them both utterly. Despite the pleadings of father, family, and friends, she refuses to undergo an abortion. She states that she 'will force him to accept the responsibility for getting her pregnant' and hopes it will 'ruin his life'.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2003-01-30 09:38am

OK, case #1: the woman's motives for the abortion are despicable. However, this is also quite obviously a horrible relationship, and these two would make lousy parents. An abortion in this case may actually be the best thing for all concerned, provided it happens early so there are no issues with late-abortion bullshit.

Case #2: he shouldn't have been fucking the bitch in the first place if she was like that. You have to take responsibility for your own actions in this life, and this guy is finding that out first-hand. Boo hoo. But he can always get her back by suing her for child support and using her public statements as evidence.

Falcon · Post by **Falcon** » 2003-01-30 09:45am

Adoption anyone?

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2003-01-30 09:59am

Falcon wrote:Adoption anyone?

OK asshole, I'll make you a deal. You go through nine months of pain with distortion of your internal organs, stretching of your skin, back pain, vomiting, and other problems, then suffer through labour and the agony of childbirth, all to satisfy some asshat's religious beliefs, and then get back to us, and we'll talk.

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2003-01-30 10:27am

Knife wrote:On fathers rights, I find it odd that a woman has the right to kill the thing if she wants, but men have to finance it if she has the kid. If it was fair, men would be able to opt out of financialy supporting children if the woman can opt out of the pregnancy.

I think it is an unfair situation. A father has no rights in this and only the hefty responsibilities. It's a fucked up situation. I knew a guy whose kill friend had their son aborted and he couldn't do shit about it.

I don't know what the situation should be it's not fair to men as it is.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2003-01-30 10:35am

... it's not fair to men as it is

Pregnancy and childbirth are not fair to women as it is.

Wicked Pilot · Post by **Wicked Pilot** » 2003-01-30 10:54am

If the father wanted a child, then he should have fucked a women who wanted the same.

Post by **Lagmonster** » 2003-01-30 10:58am

The ultimate test for Pro-Choice guys is to ask yourself how you would feel if your wife got pregnant through you and then went off and had an abortion despite the fact that you really wanted to have the baby, or without discussing it with you.

If my wife became pregnant, I'd be thrilled, but if she decided she didn't want to have kids and opted for the abortion I would respect that, even though I wouldn't LIKE it, because I am so hopeful to have a family.

For all you unmarried bucks, DISCUSS children before you tie the knot. A lot of marriages get strained over the issue of children, especially when one party doesn't want them. Luckily, my wife and I do not disagree on much, and we are rediculously analytical when we sit down to discuss anything that involves a long-term committment. Not everyone is so thorough.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2003-01-30 11:02am

If you want to be a dad, marry a nice girl who wants to have kids and be a good mother to them. Marry a woman who doesn't want to have kids and you have no one to blame but yourself.

DocMoriartty · Post by **DocMoriartty** » 2003-01-30 11:22am

So no veto right for the father over saving a life but complete power for the woman to control the man's pocketbook for the rest of his life.

Women need to fucking grow up and realize that sex is for reproduction not for entertainment. If you cannot handle the potential consequences then DON"T FUCK!

innerbrat wrote:As a woman, I feel that if a woman becomes pregnant, yes it's the responsibility of both parents, but to give the father a 'veto' over abortion is to give him unfiar rigths over the woman's body. Personally I am repulsed by the idea of being forced to carry a child I didnt' want.

Don't forget that for most women, the choce to have an abortion is a stressful and painful decision to make - IMO, in most situations she really REALLY doesn't want the child, otherwise she would adjust her life around this situation. This is an introspective opinion, based on how I feel, but I think a lot of women share this opinion.
And then to have a man exert his power over her body, is, I feel, a violation of her rights.

But I understand the pain it would cause a father to have no say in the loss of his children.

Incidentally, I think there should be an 'opt-out' for either parent befroe birth, to leave the child in the hands in the other parent, and negate any rights of the non-involved parent.

DocMoriartty · Post by **DocMoriartty** » 2003-01-30 11:25am

Lagmonster wrote:Touchy topic. Touchy.

I am very fluid in my opinion when it come to abortion. I don't express any 'it is always wrong' or 'it is always right' stand. For me, it's very much a case-to-case analysis. I believe in analyzing the individual case as intently as possible before making decisions. To boot, determining whether the father has any say in the matter can be impossible.

I present as examples two cases that have actually transpired; these cases at least made me question whether the issue of the father's rights could be dealt with from a static standpoint:

1) A woman gets an abortion against the wishes of her boyfriend just to spite him because he bought himself a new car without asking her for her input. She states that she'd have no trouble making another baby later if she wanted to, so it was no big deal, and that she wanted to make her boyfriend realize that if he could make big decisions without her, that she could do the same without him.

2) A woman declares throughout her pregnancy that she has NO intention of caring for the baby, and in fact intends on dumping the child on the father immediately after birth and abandoning them both utterly. Despite the pleadings of father, family, and friends, she refuses to undergo an abortion. She states that she 'will force him to accept the responsibility for getting her pregnant' and hopes it will 'ruin his life'.

Item 1. When does a BOYFRIEND suddenly need to ask his GIRLFIENDS permission to buy a car. When someone mentions that there are rings on her fingers then I will give a shit what she has to say.

Item 2. Sue her ass till the day is long. Make sure she has to pay every conceivable penny the law requires. Also get your head examined for having sex with such a pathetic woman.

Sir Sirius · Post by **Sir Sirius** » 2003-01-30 11:26am

DocMoriartty wrote:Women need to fucking grow up and realize that sex is for reproduction not for entertainment.

Except that sex is one of the best, if not the best, form of entertainment there is.

DocMoriartty · Post by **DocMoriartty** » 2003-01-30 11:26am

Here we are back again.

All of a sudden sex has become a form of entertainment that women are entitled to with no possible repercussions.

Wicked Pilot wrote:If the father wanted a child, then he should have fucked a women who wanted the same.

DocMoriartty · Post by **DocMoriartty** » 2003-01-30 11:28am

Sir Sirius wrote:
DocMoriartty wrote:Women need to fucking grow up and realize that sex is for reproduction not for entertainment.
Except that sex is one of the best, if not the best, form of entertainment there is.

Unfortunately while true it is completely besides the point. If a woman wants sex to be nothing more than a form of entertainment to her then she should go get her tubes tied and "It" herself.

Then she can fuck all she wants and there is zero chance of an unborn child having to be murdered because it is "inconvenient" to the woman.

Alex Moon · Post by **Alex Moon** » 2003-01-30 11:36am

Sir Sirius wrote:
DocMoriartty wrote:Women need to fucking grow up and realize that sex is for reproduction not for entertainment.
Except that sex is one of the best, if not the best, form of entertainment there is.

So what? It's primary purpose is still to reproduction. If a woman or man isn't ready for that possiblity, then they shouldn't be having sex.

Kenny_10_Bellys · Post by **Kenny_10_Bellys** » 2003-01-30 11:38am

Might I suggest some of you go read 'How the mind works' by Professor Steven Pinker, detailing how the computational theory of mind and genetics explain how we work at a level far below that which we're aware of. The section on sex, abortion and reproduction is a real eye opener! Nothing new on men, you'll not be surprised to hear we developed to compete for females and try to replicate our DNA as much as possible with as young a woman as possible.

Women on the other hand have a much greater investment in their replication of genes, starting with a much larger gamete and all the way to carrying the child and nursing it for several years. It's no surprise to find out they're much more choosy than men and look for someone who will stick around and invest time in the child, and as it's a buyers market, they can pick and choose their mates from the available competing males.

As for abortion, from a purely genetic point of view it's a call the mother makes. She has a much more limited scope for genetic replication and a finite fertile period in which to do it, and the low level software running in the background will help decide if it's worth her investing time in a child with no father to assist, or if she should cut her losses up to that point and terminate the child and look for someone more reliable. In years gone by this usually meant killing or abandoning the newborn, a somewhat more black and white decision than an abortion.

Speaking purely for myself, holding unborn children to ransom or using them as pawns in games of petty politics and revenge is a despicable criminal act. While I wholey support the use of abortion where it is felt necessary, using it for reasons other than the purely medical or psychological is wrong.

When you play unprotected hide the sausage there isn't one person out there that doesn't know they're playing a very interesting game of russian roulette called 'Death or Babies'. Do the crime and do the time, both ladies and gentlemen. By all means let the child be adopted by those who will give it a loving home, but don't think that because no one can directly see the person growing inside there that it's not human life you're wasting.

Damn, I appear to be almost anti-abortion too! Wow, I never suspected. Still, read the book, it's very enlightening.

DocMoriartty · Post by **DocMoriartty** » 2003-01-30 11:47am

I think to a large degree what drives most men nuts is the double standard.

If a woman is pregnant and doesnt want the baby it doesnt matter what the father wants. He could be willing to raise the child with no help or money from the mother. Yet she still has complete freedom to get an abortion at any time if she doesnt want to be bothereed with the inconvenience of pregnancy.

If the woman though wants the baby and the father doesnt the father still has no say in the matter and his entire life can be turned upside down forever. He can and will be forced to pay for the child for the next 2 decades and in some places can even be forced to have visitation and take the child.

So a woman has complete control on both sides of the issue. The father has no say at any level. The child of course is the one that gets hurt the most since it can be killed for no better reason than the mother is too lazy or busy to bother to be pregnant even though in most industrialized nations there are thousands of couples willing to pay for everything and take the child the moment it is born.

So when did this fucked up way of running things get chosen as the "right" way to handle things?

Lord_Xerxes · Post by **Lord_Xerxes** » 2003-01-30 12:10pm

Lagmonster wrote: For all you unmarried bucks, DISCUSS children before you tie the knot. A lot of marriages get strained over the issue of children, especially when one party doesn't want them. Luckily, my wife and I do not disagree on much, and we are rediculously analytical when we sit down to discuss anything that involves a long-term committment. Not everyone is so thorough.

This is why I am glad that both my girlfriend and I never want to have children.

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2003-01-30 12:18pm

Falcon wrote:Adoption anyone?

Does the adoption agency pay for the astronomical delivery room costs, as well as compensate the woman for the physical and psychological trauma she must undergo for nine months? If so, then sure.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2003-01-30 12:27pm

DocMoriartty wrote:Here we are back again.

All of a sudden sex has become a form of entertainment that women are entitled to with no possible repercussions.

Prove that this is wrong. Sex can be used for reproduction, but your assertion that it must not be used for pure entertainment is 100% bullshit.