The abortion paradox

[Skagens]

Hello everyone

 

I've been thinking a lot recently about abortion and all that goes with it. If women are allowed to get abortions, and therefore duck responsibility for pregnancy, why are men stuck holding the bag when it comes to children? Why can women choose not to be mothers, but men can't choose not to be fathers? I figured it would be interesting in hearing people's opinions and arguments for or against it and decided to make this post. Now, I understand the topic of abortion is far from settled, and I also acknowledge that it is quite a sensitive topic, but the point is to hear and try to understand each side's positions on the matter and see if we can't have reasonable and amicable discussion about it. With that out of the way, I figured I would explain what the abortion paradox mean.

 

As far as I understand it, it goes a little something like this: If we value equal rights between men and women, we either need to ban all access to abortion OR dismantle the child support system, because if one gender has an easy-out from the responsibility of pregnancy, then in the name of equality, both genders must have an easy-out.

 

To start off, I'm pro-choice, meaning I believe it is ultimately up to the woman to decide whether or not to have an abortion. I don't like abortion, but I do not consider it murder, more like a necessary evil. However, I'm not so settled when it comes to the pro-choice arguments. The arguments of both sides (as far as I understand it) are:

 

Pro-choice

• Equality. If men can have sex without the fear of pregnancy, then women must also have the fear of pregnancy removed from the equation, in the name of equality and sexual liberation.
• Lack of personhood: The fetus is not a person, up until it's viable outside of the womb.
• The bodily autonomy: The right for a person to determine what happens to their own bodies, without the interference of the state. Meaning that a woman has the choice to abort or not abort, based on these bodily autonomous rights.

Pro-Life

• Responsibility. Consenting to sex is the same thing as consenting to pregnancy and motherhood. They're linked by cause and effect. Having an abortion is therefore ducking responsibility for ones actions.
• Sanctity of life. The moral authority comes not from religious beliefs, but from a reverence for sentient life. The uniqueness of humanity and the existence of a "soul" is also often brought up.

So I would be interested in hearing what your positions are about this. Do you consider yourself pro-life? If yes, why? And if you don't, why not? I ask the same of those pro-choice. What are your positions? I don't know how many there are here on the forum, but it would also be interesting in hearing from women on this topic. From what I've heard, half of those who consider themselves pro-life, are women, which is fascinating to me. Remember, be respectful.

[HeyYou]

Pro-life? Pro-choice? Are they mutually exclusive? If I am pro-choice, does that make me anti-life?? Hhhmmmm.......

 

In any event, I believe it is EVERY persons right to choose what happens to their body. And that includes ending that life. (suicide, euthanasia, call it what you like.) The state is not the populations nanny, telling them to stay away from the stove, lest they get burned.

 

What I find rather amusing about the whole thing though, is the republicans, that are anti-abortion, demand that every fetus be born, however, once born, it's essentially 'yer on yer own kid.'

 

The dems, on the other hand, don't care if you are born, or not, however, once born, they feel the need to take care of you all your life, including dictating how you should be living your life...... and, of course, they will provide some minimal support.... but, try and stand on your own two feet? They will yank that support faster than you can blink.

 

As for men 'opting out' of their responsibility....... I don't see that option ever coming about. As it stands now, it's gives women a certain amount of power over the men they have sex with..... so they have no interest in giving men an out. Curiously, given our (at one time) male dominated society, I'm kinda surprised this issue hasn't come up before...... I am not sure of the ramifications of the sperm donor signing off all parental rights for a child, I don't think it relieves them of responsibility for support though..... So far as I know, the man is responsible for paying support, until the child turns 18....... (or dies, I suppose)

[ScytheBearer]

Your framing of the debate makes no sense to me. But, so be it.

 

Right up front, I am a male. Being convex, I have no right to an opinion on abortion, right, wrong or indifferent, because I cannot become pregnant. Put simply, I don't have a dog in that fight.

 

The decision to have an abortion or not belongs to the person who is pregnant, and is between her and her medical practitioner.

 

What anyone else thinks or believes is just so much self aggrandizing ego inflation and is not germane to the person who is pregnant. Quite frankly, the decision is none of anyone's business.

 

So what ever your opinion or belief about abortion, unless you are pregnant right now, you're wrong and should sit down and STFU. If you are pregnant, keep your beliefs and opinions to yourself and do what ever you think is right for you.

 

I am neither pro-life nor pro-choice. I am pro MYOFB (with apologies to author Eric Frank Russell for my adding the "F").

Edited January 31, 2022 by ScytheBearer

[Skagens]

Pro-life? Pro-choice? Are they mutually exclusive? If I am pro-choice, does that make me anti-life?? Hhhmmmm.......

Labels. Just like republican and democrat, you don't have to adhere to all of their opinions in order to be put in their respective camp. I don't like it, but that's kind of where we are. Best not to dwell on it.

 

In any event, I believe it is EVERY persons right to choose what happens to their body. And that includes ending that life. (suicide, euthanasia, call it what you like.) The state is not the populations nanny, telling them to stay away from the stove, lest they get burned.

Ah, but if you believe the fetus to be life, then it is a human being, no? And as we all know, human beings have certain rights. Killing another human being would ordinarily be considered murder. What makes this different?

 

As for men 'opting out' of their responsibility....... I don't see that option ever coming about. As it stands now, it's gives women a certain amount of power over the men they have sex with..... so they have no interest in giving men an out. Curiously, given our (at one time) male dominated society, I'm kinda surprised this issue hasn't come up before...... I am not sure of the ramifications of the sperm donor signing off all parental rights for a child, I don't think it relieves them of responsibility for support though..... So far as I know, the man is responsible for paying support, until the child turns 18....... (or dies, I suppose)

And this is kind of my point. If both parties have taken reasonable steps to prevent pregnancy, and it occurs anyway (ie, unplanned pregnancies), and the woman decides to keep it, why should the man be responsible for the rest of that child's life to support it financially? It feels like a man having children is primarily a financial investment.

[Skagens]

Your framing of the debate makes no sense to me. But, so be it.

You can debate however you like, I didn't plan to set up any rules. The topic is abortion, how you want to go about discussing it is up to you. Perhaps I made my post too wordy.

 

Right up front, I am a male. Being convex, I have no right to an opinion on abortion, right, wrong or indifferent, because I cannot become pregnant. Put simply, I don't have a dog in that fight.

 

The decision to have an abortion or not belongs to the person who is pregnant, and is between her and her medical practitioner.

 

What anyone else thinks or believes is just so much self aggrandizing ego inflation and is not germane to the person who is pregnant. Quite frankly, the decision is none of anyone's business.

 

So what ever your opinion or belief about abortion, unless you are pregnant right now, you're wrong and should sit down and STFU. If you are pregnant, keep your beliefs and opinions to yourself and do what ever you think is right for you.

 

I am neither pro-life nor pro-choice. I am pro MYOFB (with apologies to author Eric Frank Russell for my adding the "F").

I disagree. Shouldn't a potential father have some say? I feel like you have a right to an opinion on whatever topic you wish. Just because I'm not and cannot become pregnant doesn't mean I can't have an opinion on abortion. A woman's decision to have or not have an abortion doesn't only affect them. Then again, I believe that's a discussion the concerned parties should have amongst themselves.

Edited January 31, 2022 by Skagens

[ScytheBearer]

 

Your framing of the debate makes no sense to me. But, so be it.

You can debate however you like, I didn't plan to set up any rules. The topic is abortion, how you want to go about discussing it is up to you. Perhaps I made my post too wordy.

 

Right up front, I am a male. Being convex, I have no right to an opinion on abortion, right, wrong or indifferent, because I cannot become pregnant. Put simply, I don't have a dog in that fight.

 

The decision to have an abortion or not belongs to the person who is pregnant, and is between her and her medical practitioner.

 

What anyone else thinks or believes is just so much self aggrandizing ego inflation and is not germane to the person who is pregnant. Quite frankly, the decision is none of anyone's business.

 

So what ever your opinion or belief about abortion, unless you are pregnant right now, you're wrong and should sit down and STFU. If you are pregnant, keep your beliefs and opinions to yourself and do what ever you think is right for you.

 

I am neither pro-life nor pro-choice. I am pro MYOFB (with apologies to author Eric Frank Russell for my adding the "F").

I disagree. Shouldn't a potential father have some say? I feel like you have a right to an opinion on whatever topic you wish. Just because I'm not and cannot become pregnant doesn't mean I can't have an opinion on abortion. A woman's decision to have or not have an abortion doesn't only affect them. Then again, I believe that's a discussion the concerned parties should have amongst themselves.

 

 

I gave my beliefs. They are what helps me deal with the issue without strain or discomfort. Your approval is neither sought nor needed.

 

I do not really give a s#*! what rights you or anyone else thinks they may have. Nobody, saying again, NOBODY, has the right to meddle in someone else's life. Not the sperm chucker, not the church, not the state. It is not their uterus, and it is not their decision.

 

Now, consider this from another angle.

 

Is the pregnant person a slave? Is the pregnant person a mechanical life support system for a fetus? Is the pregnant person property, which may to be possessed and controlled by another? If the answer is yes, then by all means, the owner has a right to do as they wish.

 

However, it the answer is no, then the only thing left to the rest of humanity is to sit down and STFU. Your opinions, your advice, your desire to muck about in someone else's life are all moot. The actions of a free individual are none of anyone's business. Like I said up front, MYOFB.

[HeyYou]

 

Pro-life? Pro-choice? Are they mutually exclusive? If I am pro-choice, does that make me anti-life?? Hhhmmmm.......

Labels. Just like republican and democrat, you don't have to adhere to all of their opinions in order to be put in their respective camp. I don't like it, but that's kind of where we are. Best not to dwell on it.

 

In any event, I believe it is EVERY persons right to choose what happens to their body. And that includes ending that life. (suicide, euthanasia, call it what you like.) The state is not the populations nanny, telling them to stay away from the stove, lest they get burned.

Ah, but if you believe the fetus to be life, then it is a human being, no? And as we all know, human beings have certain rights. Killing another human being would ordinarily be considered murder. What makes this different?

 

As for men 'opting out' of their responsibility....... I don't see that option ever coming about. As it stands now, it's gives women a certain amount of power over the men they have sex with..... so they have no interest in giving men an out. Curiously, given our (at one time) male dominated society, I'm kinda surprised this issue hasn't come up before...... I am not sure of the ramifications of the sperm donor signing off all parental rights for a child, I don't think it relieves them of responsibility for support though..... So far as I know, the man is responsible for paying support, until the child turns 18....... (or dies, I suppose)

And this is kind of my point. If both parties have taken reasonable steps to prevent pregnancy, and it occurs anyway (ie, unplanned pregnancies), and the woman decides to keep it, why should the man be responsible for the rest of that child's life to support it financially? It feels like a man having children is primarily a financial investment.

 

I believe the 'legal' definition here is 'viable outside the womb'...... something like 24 weeks. (6 months..... give or take) The whole 'qualifies as life at conception' thing is likely not a topic open to discussion here, simply due to whom its proponents are.

[Skagens]

I gave my beliefs. They are what helps me deal with the issue without strain or discomfort. Your approval is neither sought nor needed.

I do not really give a s*** what rights you or anyone else thinks they may have. Nobody, saying again, NOBODY, has the right to meddle in someone else's life. Not the sperm chucker, not the church, not the state. It is not their uterus, and it is not their decision.

 

Now, consider this from another angle.

 

Is the pregnant person a slave? Is the pregnant person a mechanical life support system for a fetus? Is the pregnant person property, which may to be possessed and controlled by another? If the answer is yes, then by all means, the owner has a right to do as they wish.

 

However, it the answer is no, then the only thing left to the rest of humanity is to sit down and STFU. Your opinions, your advice, your desire to muck about in someone else's life are all moot. The actions of a free individual are none of anyone's business. Like I said up front, MYOFB.

 

I'm not giving you my approval of anything. You seem to take my comments personally for some reason which is interesting if nothing else. I'm not trying to upset you. I just wondered what you meant when you initially said that my framing of the debate seemed strange to you.

 

Now to the topic at hand: One could argue the "sperm chucker" has some say as the woman is carrying that person's child. The child (if you consider a fetus as such) belongs to both parents. What if the dude doesn't want it but the mother decides to keep it, should the father be stuck financially even though protection was used? Obviously, the ultimate decision is up to the woman, as the dude can't force her to do anything. I personally believe it's a discussion to be had amongst the parents, and not up to some institution or state.

 

Also, I have to disagree, you should give a s*** about rights, they're kind of important. The question is weather or not the aforementioned rights are applied to the fetus.

 

And no, obviously the woman isn't a slave or an object owned by anyone. The question isn't weather or not the man owns the woman, it's if he should have some say in the pregnancy. I would argue, yes. That doesn't reduce the woman to some meat bag whose only purpose it to be life-support to the fetus, which isn't even an argument I'm making.

Edited January 31, 2022 by Skagens

[Skagens]

I believe the 'legal' definition here is 'viable outside the womb'...... something like 24 weeks. (6 months..... give or take) The whole 'qualifies as life at conception' thing is likely not a topic open to discussion here, simply due to whom its proponents are.

Yeah, this is also why many countries with legal abortions has about a 20-22 week cutoff period for having the procedure. "Before this time, the fetus is not a person, therefore it has no human rights, therefore it is not murder." That's an argument I hear a lot of people in the pro-choice side make.

[ScytheBearer]

 

I gave my beliefs. They are what helps me deal with the issue without strain or discomfort. Your approval is neither sought nor needed.

I do not really give a s*** what rights you or anyone else thinks they may have. Nobody, saying again, NOBODY, has the right to meddle in someone else's life. Not the sperm chucker, not the church, not the state. It is not their uterus, and it is not their decision.

 

Now, consider this from another angle.

 

Is the pregnant person a slave? Is the pregnant person a mechanical life support system for a fetus? Is the pregnant person property, which may to be possessed and controlled by another? If the answer is yes, then by all means, the owner has a right to do as they wish.

 

However, it the answer is no, then the only thing left to the rest of humanity is to sit down and STFU. Your opinions, your advice, your desire to muck about in someone else's life are all moot. The actions of a free individual are none of anyone's business. Like I said up front, MYOFB.

 

I'm not giving you my approval of anything. You seem to take my comments personally for some reason which is interesting if nothing else. I'm not trying to upset you. I just wondered what you meant when you initially said that my framing of the debate seemed strange to you.

 

Now to the topic at hand: One could argue the "sperm chucker" has some say as the woman is carrying that person's child. The child (if you consider a fetus as such) belongs to both parents. What if the dude doesn't want it but the mother decides to keep it, should the father be stuck financially even though protection was used? Obviously, the ultimate decision is up to the woman, as the dude can't force her to do anything. I personally believe it's a discussion to be had amongst the parents, and not up to some institution or state.

 

Also, I have to disagree, you should give a s*** about rights, they're kind of important. The question is weather or not the aforementioned rights are applied to the fetus.

 

And no, obviously the woman isn't a slave or an object owned by anyone. The question isn't weather or not the man owns the woman, it's if he should have some say in the pregnancy. I would argue, yes. That doesn't reduce the woman to some meat bag whose only purpose it to be life-support to the fetus, which isn't even an argument I'm making.

 

 

I do not understand your position. It is two faced to say the least.

 

On one side you say, "One could argue the 'sperm chucker' has some say as the woman is carrying that person's child". The implication here is that depositing sperm in a vagina gives you proprietary rights over a woman's body.

 

On the other side, you say "And no, obviously the woman isn't a slave or an object owned by anyone". Yet above you have already established proprietary rights over the woman's body, meaning you do view the woman as "an object".

 

Which is it. Your position seems hypocritical because you are making the argument that you have rights.

 

And if I may be allowed tuppence on "viable", the legal definition is just so much vapor and is meant only to erode freedom. A fetus is not viable at birth. If t'were, a woman could give birth and walk away, and everyone here knows that to be false. Viable after 22 weeks is meaningless, and believing so is foolish. A child requires care and nurturing from others until if is capable of thriving on it's own. Only when a "person" can survive without the support of others is it "viable", until then it is no different than a parasite.

 

PS. A pregnant woman is not carrying any man's child. It is her child. The male supplied some raw material, but the woman nurtures the growing result in her body. The belief that a woman has a man's child is an old, archaic, outdated Judaeo/Christian patriarchal belief based in the assumption that women are the property of men. And if it were "the man's child", there is an implication of ownership here again, making the child a slave.

Edited January 31, 2022 by ScytheBearer