I'm anti-abortion, pro-life and pro-choice. I also think that most who believe that women have the right to choose are against abortions. The official pro-lifers seem to think that the pro-choice folks are abortion-happy. That's just not the case.

Just because I think a woman has a right to make her own decision doesn't mean that she should use it as a means of birth control, but it is her choice to make. As for a man's right, that's just plain bull. Carrying a fetus for ten months is not quite like carrying a backpack, so please don't complain when a woman makes the difficult choice to abort.

If the abortion option hadn't been available, I can't help but think of the many women who made stupid mistakes in their teens. If they'd opted to carry their babies to term, would they have gone to school and succeeded to become what they are today, or would they have been on government assistance because the notified father stopped paying child support? There are so many possible scenarios that don't necessarily end with the child's best interest at heart.

Before we judge others for their choices, let's not forget that it all boils down to what's in the best interest of the child.

Seconded.

Yes, in the real world, not everyone can have equal rights.

Let me elaborate:

An unwed sexually active couple find themselves accidentally pregnant. Beforehand, both had expressed not wanting to have children (one reason why they were unwed), which was why they were using birth control. However, this precaution had failed.

The woman has three options:

1. abortion
2. parenthood
3. adoption

The man has one option:

1. What the woman chooses

In this matter, the woman has ultimate (and unilateral if she so chooses) power of choice for three parties:

1. Herself
2. The child
3. The man

The woman is the only one with the power to opt in or opt out.

There are laws and social expectations that guarantee this.

Actually, I can imagine one situation that doesn't fit into that: the woman wants to give it up for adoption and the man would rather keep it.

levite, tisonlyi

thanks guys - definitely not easy, hence why it's pretty much a cut and paste of the only other time I have spoken about it.

Nice to have this kindof response rather then the flaming I expected to receive

:icare:

Unless you were raped or going to die, it's wrong. Abortions of convenience, which comprise the majority of abortions performed, are wronger than wrong.

i believe that if the woman is raped , it has her complete right to do abortion.....

well, infinite loser, then things are simple.
if you think the procedure is that wrong, don't have one.

I am curious how you appear to say in one sentence that it is only the woman who has the right to choose, but in another sentence say "best interest of the child"...What if the best interest of the child boils down to the FATHER wanting to have the child and be able to give said child a potential of a good life? I am almost SICK to my stomach about the arguments that a father has no rights in having an input to if a child is aborted or not. While I stand by my belief that abortion should be allowed, I ALSO stand by my belief that the father has equal rights in said child being aborted or not.

It's so easy to say "what about the father", but how many teenage single fathers do you know? How many adult single men do you know that have custody of a child, other than after a divorce? We all know about the babies of single mothers who end up neglected because she struggles to earn a living while he takes off, shirking the parental rights he claimed.

Maybe when we start to see more men step up to the plate, things will change, but at this point I'm not seeing it. Equality ain't always 50/50.

I disagree. Equality is 50-50. We just don't have equality on this issue.

Jewels this argument is horribly unfair, sorry but it really is

it is MUCH MUCH MUCH harder for the father of a child to gain single parent custody then the mother, even then the likelihood that he will receive ANY form of financial support from the government or the childs mother is pretty much nil.

Until the laws and attitudes of judges change from automatically awarding the children to the mother rather then the father (except in cases of extreme abuse) then we can't blame men for not being allowed to raise their own children.

And in the case of guys running off when finding out their female partner is pregnant how many female friends do girls loose when that happens - usually over 50% from what I have seen, that's simply becaue suddenly their friend can't go out drinking or shopping or stay up all night. Admittedly there is not the moral obligation that I believe comes with father / mother hood but I'm betting a large number of teenage girls would run away from a pregnant partner if the situation was reversed.

Oh and btw I actually know more single fathers then mothers and these specific individuals are generally much more concerned about the well being of their children then the single mothers I know (won't smoke / drink in front of the kids when the mothers do). Yet they still receive more visits from childrens services for 'check up' visits then the single women.

Explain to me again the rationale behind ignoring what one perceives to be wrong? Just to play around a little bit, let's assume it's the 19th century and a slave owner says to you, "Don't like slavery? Don't own slaves!". Exactly how much stock would you put into that argument?

So that makes it right to just say that a father HAS no rights in the decision? I was a single father for a long time. When I separated from my wife I took both of my daughters who were 3 and 5 at the time, one of which she wanted to abort by the way, and they now are both very well rounded at 14 and 17. Actually the 17 year old is currently in Basic training this summer, and will be attending UT Austin, and my youngest is already on her way to attend Texas A&M. So think for a minute, if I had agreed that a father has no rights to the choice of an abortion, one of those two beautiful girls would not be alive today! Still think a man has no rights to make a decision on abortion? Then come tell my daughters that one of them was a mistake and should not have been allowed to be born!

I feel for you, DC, I really do. But I ask you what to do in a situation where all you know is this:

A woman is pregnant. She wants to abort the baby. The father does not want to abort the baby. Neither will change their mind. She is going to abort the baby and the father sues to prevent her from doing so. What does the court do? What CAN they do?

It's a horrible situation where I don't see a good solution, at all. Either way someone loses terribly. Either the future person and the father's rights or the mother's rights are being trampled.

Other than in cases of blatant abuse (and then not always,) how frequently do courts award custody to fathers and stick the mother with 18 years of child support? How many fathers out there only see their kids every other weekend because our society has decided that women are always more fit than men to be parents?

Err... Surely if your ex-wife REALLY wanted the abortion she would have had it? Or, you know, maybe she discussed it with you, her life partner,and you made a joint decision - which she complied with? The point is, in the end, it was HER decision, or decision to abide by a joint decision.

So while your ex might have had thoughts about abortion, in the end she didn't have one. She chose that, not you.

No matter how you dress it up, the final word is ALWAYS with the woman. Laws or no laws, partners or no partners.

Men just have to live with being out of control for once.

But your scenario is obviously too vague. There are always more details to it than that. Courts will look at more than just "girl pregnant, want's abortion, father says no...ok we will make our decision now"


Actually, yes, my ex really did want the abortion. I told her that if she went through with it, that I would divorce her and sue her for custody of all our children. So she gave in. I tried for days to just talk her out of it and she didn't budge, so I did the only thing I could think of. So her "decision" was forced, not hers alone. I was not about to lose one of my children that way.
While you may feel that the final decision lays with the woman, I am sorry, but I must respectfully disagree with you and say that your belief is wrong. But then again, it is your belief. And I take SERIOUS offense to the last sentence. Nuff said.

Blackmail's okay, though. :rolleyes: Her rights were definitely well-considered. :thumbsup:

The fact you had to resort to the 'relationship-nuclear option' to 'force' her into having the baby kinda proves my point.

SHE DECIDED have the baby and not get divorced at that time, right?

SHE COULD HAVE EASILY CHOSEN THE OTHER OPTION.

When you're wrong, you're wrong.

It is, always, in the end, THE WOMAN'S CHOICE.

(As an aside... Wow... That level of emotional blackmail inside of a relationship simply boggles the mind.)

Well I am sorry that both of you disagree with me, but in my eyes my child's life was more important to me than anything else. Who are YOU to judge? If I were to follow YOUR direction, my child would not be alive today. I can sleep at night knowing that I made the right decision. Is the fact that she wanted to have the abortion and not include me in the decision right? Was it fair to our child? HELL NO! I am SICK and tired of people preaching that a father has no frigging rights when it comes to a child, or it being born, but I bet if I wanted her to have the abortion, and she chose to have the child, you and all the courts in the US would sure as HELL expect me to pay child support! But wait, a MAN actually wants to step up and be a parent? A MAN wants to do the right thing, and he is blasted for it? HA! and YOU think that I am the one making a bad decision? IT IS NOT ALWAYS THE WOMAN'S CHOICE. We both had a part in it, why should I have to sit back and watch while she kills my daughter??? Which is EXACTLY what would have happened. But since I did not accept what she wanted to do on her own, I have a WONDERFUL daughter who makes good grades in school, and has a VERY promising future ahead of her! She has proven herself to be intelligent, and driven. She even has been given a letter of recommendation to go to Annapolis Naval Academy. And her mom? She has had nothing to do with her or her sister's life for the past 10 years. Yea, I guess I am wrong, I should have just let her mom kill her. How could I have been so uncaring and thoughtless? :rolleyes:

You are looking at the situation with hindsight. You are seeing your alive, close to adult child and remembering that this child could have been aborted. It is always easier to look back and say "what if". Putting the unborn child before the wishes of the birth mother has probably caused her more harm then you will ever know. I see that you will say, "so what" or something similar, but you can not compare "could ofs" with "should ofs".

I wanted to say that I'm not judging, and I know this question wasn't directed at me, but I'm still not judging. While the result you achieved makes you happy, the methods used to achieve that result were not showing your best side. This is an opinion, not a judgment.

That is the basic argument. Does the unborn child have rights over the living person(s) already here? My personal vote is no.

I said in an earlier posts that there needs to be some sort of safeguards in place for a man who does not want the child born and if they should have financial responsibility for that child if it is born against their wishes. This needs to change. If women want the choice, they need to make the choice and not make it with an attached paycheck.


Umm, yeah. You forced her to have a child against what she wanted. Did you really think she was going to fall in love with you all over again and it was going to be all rainbows and butterflies?

You can not compare hindsight with the everyday reality of what the Mom of those girls feels, thinks and hurts through every day. In this particular instance hindsight is clouding how you are thinking, not helping.

No judgments, just commenting on what you consider right and wrong. Obviously we disagree.

While I understand and agree it would be great if the father had equal say (and please tell me where anyone has seen 50/50) but the fact is that you had to intimidate her into having your baby. From where I stand, that reeks of selfishness. If you hear that as a judgment, so be it.

Women should have to let me use their vaginas, because I don't have one, and I believe in equality.


I think that we can start talking about equality when men can choose to carry a baby to term. Until then, it won't be equal, and it doesn't necessarily make much sense to try to keep trying to shove the square "equality" peg into the round "it's biologically impossible" hole.

Biology isn't fair. Meow.

Maybe it's as simple as this. Maybe it's all about realizing that women will have more say in things that can be done with a lot of estrogen, and men will have more say in what can be accomplished with a lot of testosterone.

Thank you.

The reason I believe the men should not have a say is because I'm anti-abortion. In my perspective, the only reason a man would chime in for this sort of thing is to actually abort a kid. What DC did was right, IMHO, simply getting rid of a child for any other reason besides special circumstances i.e medical reasons, should be tantamount to endangerment. I think abortion is the final act of a very irresponsible person.

Meh. I think that there are plenty of times where abortion is the most responsible choice.

I am a 43-year-old mother of 3 fabulous daughters and I have had two abortions. Think what you will.
What's more, I know and have known many, many women - family and friends - who have had abortions. Women from all walks of life from waitresses to politicians.
People talk on these threads as if only 'other women' have abortions. Well, no, they are everywhere.
I tend to think, Xerxys, that your claim that all women who have abortions are 'very irresponsible' to be very naive.

Not to undermine your experience, MM, but I think the fact that you can raise children makes it even the more worse for you to have an abortion. You may say it's naive but I think differently. I think it's the fact that there was once a possible human being, ... perhaps it's the hindsight that gets me here but a capable person should not abort a child.

You have a right to your opinion. But that is all it is - an opinion - and it has no bearing on my choices or on my own feelings about my choices.
And what do you mean by 'the fact that I can raise children makes it worse?' Do you suppose there is a watermark of some kind for the 'ability to raise children?' If it is a potential life that is the critical issue (because, obviously, the life of the mother is an irrelevant issue) what does it matter if the mother has the ability to raise the child? It is less immoral to abort the fetus of a potentially bad mother?

I did say I'm of the stance that abortions should be undertaken under special circumstances. These extend only to medical issues threatening the life of the mother. If you mean life as in: "this kid really ruined my life" errr, no. That is irresponsible.

You started by saying you have healthy children, which is why I think that an abortion of convenience is wrong. We have adoptive and child support services ready to take care of an infant in place.

My view is this. I would personally never get an abortion, but I have supported friends who have gotten them. I believe it is a personal choice and I am not going to judge anyone for it.

Oh, so you meant the fact that I could have children, not raise them. They are two entirely different things.

I'm sorry, but I think your attitude is flippant and makes use of no perspective other than your own narrow beliefs. You don't even bother to try and understand the perspective of a woman (or teen) who is dealing with the anxiety and fear of an unwanted pregnancy. In your opinion they should just be able to carry it, give birth and walk away. La, la, la. I really don't have much to say to that.

Yes, they should be able to carry it, give birth and walk away, except without the la, la, la part. You think I'm being flippant? You think I haven't taken into consideration situations such as those outlined by Hyacinthe? These are legit but they happen to very few people and yes, I am willing to make an exception for them but as for aborting a child simply out of "anxiety" and "fear" ... when the child was initially conceived out of the 80% norm ... is there a more extreme word for inconsiderate? Incredibly negligent selfishness?

But alas, it is just an opinion and to you it's narrow minded so I have nothing left to say on the subject.

Oh yes, there are much more extreme words for inconsiderate. Monstrous, diabolical, loathsome, inhuman, for example. These are words that I am willing to apply to human beings - just not to women like myself or the millions of other women have made the choice to have an abortion. I do not accept that it is necessarily negligent. Selfish? Perhaps on some level, but in the scheme of all selfish things known to mankind, not intolerably so. Very often these decisions are not made only for the benefit of the mother. Has that occurred to you? This is an example of where my opinion that your views are narrow minded comes from. You don't seem to consider the role of the woman in any sort of universal sense. It's all cut and dry, right and wrong for you. It's just not like that.

Three things:

1.) Pointing out that men can't get pregnant is pretty disingenuous unless you're also going to point out that a woman can't impregnate herself nor is she a shark nor the Virgin Mary.

2.) 91/92%, approximately, of abortions are done for purely elective reasons (That is, unrelated to health concerns or fetal defects). Furthermore, less than 1% of abortions are done under "coercion" (Husband/bf/SO/family wanted her to have an abortion). An even smaller minority, less than 0.5%, are done because the female wants to hide the fact that she had sex from her parents (This is most relevant with teenagers).

Page 5

3.) 47% of abortions done yearly are repeat abortions. Broken down, 29% of abortions performed per year are done on those women who had one prior abortion; 11.8% on women who had two abortions prior; and 7.3% on those women who had three or more prior abortions. Or, stated another way, given 1.2M abortions in 2008 (Approximately), 348,000 abortions were performed on women who had one prior; 141,600 on women who had two prior; and 87,600 on women who had three or more prior. If that doesn't scream "Irresponsibility", I don't know what does.

Page 19

This is why I can't take the PC side seriously. They laugh at the notion of women taking abortion lightly, yet ignore the very statistics which show that the opposite is true.

They say they want to reduce the number of abortions, yet they not only refuse to restrict abortions to the most serious of cases on which they base the majority of their arguments (Rape, incest and concerns regarding the mother's health/health of the fetus), which would cause the number of abortions performed per year to plummet from about 1.2M to about 108,000 per year, but they (Well, at least groups like PP and NOW) protest against informed consent laws, waiting periods and parental/spousal consent laws, of which the majority of Americans support.

They say that abortions should be "safe, legal and rare", pointing to Western Europe (Which has an abortion rate of somewhere around 12.0) to make their case, but not only do typically liberal/PC states (States in the west, east coast and New England areas) have the highest abortion rates, in general, the states with the lowest abortion rates are generally conservative/PL (States in the midwest and South).

1.) New York: 38.2
2.) New Jersey: 34.3
3.) Maryland: 31.5
4.) Delaware: 28.8
5.) California: 27.1
6.) Nevada: 27.0
7.) Florida: 26.8
8.) Connecticut: 23.6
9.) Hawaii: 21.8
10.) Massachusetts: 19.9
11.) Michigan: 19.4
11.) Rhode Island: 19.4
13.) Illinois: 18.9
14.) North Carolina: 18.8
15.) Kansas: 18.4
16.) Oregon: 17.7
17.) Washington: 17.5
18.) Texas: 17.3
19.) Virginia: 16.5
20.) Georgia: 16.3
21.) Colorado: 16.1
22.) Arizona: 16.0
23.) New Mexico: 15.7
24.) Ohio: 14.9
25.) Tennessee: 14.4
26.) Pennsylvania: 13.8
27.) Alaska: 13.6
28.) Minnesota: 12.7
29.) Alabama: 11.9
30.) Louisiana: 11.7
30.) Montana: 11.7
30.) New Hampshire: 11.7
30.) Vermont: 11.7
34.) Iowa: 10.6
35.) Maine: 10.5
36.) North Dakota: 9.6
37.) Oklahoma: 9.5
38.) Nebraska: 8.9
39.) Indiana: 8.6
40.) Wisconsin: 8.5
41.) Arkansas: 8.3
42.) South Carolina: 7.9
43.) Missouri: 6.9
44.) West Virginia: 6.7
45.) Utah: 6.4
46.) Idaho: 6.1
47.) South Dakota: 5.1
48.) Mississippi: 4.9
49.) Kentucky: 4.4
50.) Wyoming: 0.7

Link

The act of pointing out facts is not disingenuous. In fact, it's kind of the opposite of disingenuous.

For a good example of how to be disingenuous, see your use of the phrase "purely elective reasons."

Okay, but if you're going to use statistics here, you at least have to acknowledge that no method of birth control (that actually involves p in v intercourse) is 100% effective. How many people live in the US? How many are sexually active? Use your clever statistical mind to determine for me how likely it is that someone could get knocked up despite their best efforts to fuck responsibly? If you had dug any deeper in that pdf you cited, you would have found that at least 50% of the women who had repeat abortions reported using contraception at the time of conception. Of the ones who weren't using contraception, only a fifth of them weren't using it out of ambivalence. You were saying something about being disingenuous?

This has nothing to do with "PC".

I didn't say pointing out facts was disingenuous. I said that pointing out the fact that men can't get pregnant without also mentioning how women can't get pregnant in the absence of a man was disingenuous, as it attempts to make reference to the biological actuality which suits your argument while ignoring the biological actuality which doesn't suit your argument.

So... You're arguing against the meaning of the word "elective", which has an actual medical definition, that of which is an abortion not done to protect the mother's health, or are you taking offense to the word "purely", which is used to distinguish between an elective and therapeutic abortion? Tell me now so I'll know how to respond.

Well, please show me where I claimed that any method of birth control was 100% effective? Please show me where I claimed that everyone who gets pregnant wasn't on birth control. In fact, please show me where I made reference to birth control at all, because I'm obviously dumb and can't remember the things I wrote out. Go ahead. Tell me. Show me. Do something.

...But, see, you can't find such a claim because I never made such a claim to begin with. Everyone knows that birth control isn't 100% effective. Everyone. This is why I made no reference to birth control, because no one made any claims regarding the use or non-use of birth control. God, I hate straw men.

But, since you didn't seem to understand the first time, even though I know I've said this before on other threads on the same subject, I'll say it again. First and most importantly, sex exists as a means by which to propagate the species. Everything else takes the proverbial backseat to this fact. Pleasure is merely the mechanism by which nature "coerces" humans into engaging in sex more often. The more often one has sex, the greater the chance of pregnancy occurring. This is important since, unlike most species, humans do not have a specific mating seasons and are capable of becoming pregnant year-round in rapid succession. Of course, other species also have sex for pleasure, but they are incapable of becoming pregnant year round and in rapid succession, to my knowledge, and have specific mating seasons. We all like the pleasure and closeness involved in sex, but these are not the end all be all reasons for sex existing. Yes, we might like to fool ourselves into believe that we're somehow acting above nature, but we aren't. Much like anything else, we're bound to it.

But, anyway, the point being? Everyone knows that sex can result in pregnancy. Continuously engaging in an action of which you are unwilling to accept the consequences of (Pregnancy) is irresponsible. Extinguishing a human life because it conveniences you is irresponsible. Extinguishing a human life two, three, four, or five times because it conveniences you is grossly irresponsible. If you don't want to become pregnant and can't accept taking care of a child, then you should either stick to oral or anal or give up sex all together. Killing another human simply because you want to be free of the, as most people today would call it, "burden" of caring for it is the epitome of irresponsibility. Personal responsibility seems to be a thing of the past.

It has everything to do with the often repeated PC position. Obviously, abortion can't be that hard of a decision if there are 1.2M+ of them per year with hundreds of thousands of them being repeat abortions.

Come on guys, this argument, though true, is weak. Whats the number of women who got knocked up because the condom broke? And if the number is significant (I could google it, but I'm lazy) does it really justify an abortion? The condom being (correct me if I'm wrong) the best method of contraceptive there is ... no?