Originally appeared at Ten Things I’ve Learned
Note: in the USA right now, exceptionally Conservative Republicans are working overtime to make it impossible for a woman to have an abortion (at least without feeling super-guilty about it). So here’s my experience going through the abortion process. I don’t know what it’s called…men can’t “have” abortions, right?
- Your politics mean nothing until they are tested.
- If you are pro-choice and someday want children, when a real possibility exists to have a child, no matter how unprepared you are or how ill-advised a decision it is, how do you not feel conflicted?
- Use protection. Seriously. No matter what he says, and no matter what she says.
- Men are largely behind the pro-life (anti-choice) movement; sometimes I think it’s because too many men don’t have access to knowledge or support around abortion issues. So we get dumb and angry. If only George W. had a shoulder to cry on, you know?
- There’s no good time for an abortion. Also, it sucks. Why do people think that women use it as birth control? Who wants to throw up for days, book an appointment for a clinic, possibly get yelled at and guilt-tripped by protesters, get doused with pain killers, have a procedure performed on your vagina (for men: think about your penis in this scenario. Right??), go home, feel shitty, be mad at your boyfriend, and then not have sex for weeks? Nobody. That’s who.
- Sure, there are over-arching gender politics in every relationship, but ultimately it comes down to two people trying to figure something out. A decision like this is tough for both parties…hopefully you both try to get through it the best way you know how without saying or doing anything too stupid or hurtful.
- Abortion is definitely worse for a woman than for a man. I get it. But there is emotional resonance for any half-decent man that gives a shit (and there are more of us than you might think).
- I could have an 8 year-old kid right now. If I did, they would be named Ghenghis. Boy or girl.
- We think we make decisions rationally, but we don’t.
- Someday, I think I could make a pretty great dad. But for the record, one of the worst things you can say to somebody is that they’d make a terrible parent.
Postscript: Going for an abortion was, without a doubt, the right decision. If she had made a different choice, I could be trying to raise a child with the worst, meanest, and craziest woman I have ever had the privilege of being in a relationship with, with not enough money and a lot of resentment. I still want kids (I think?), but I really believe it is irresponsible to bring a child into a fucked up situation just because you have the primal physical ability to. We are very lucky to live in a society where we have established the freedom to choose whether or not we have children, and on what terms. I don’t want to throw my life away, but more importantly, I don’t want to throw away the life of some poor kid that never had a choice to be born. I don’t mean to be sanctimonious….I’m the last person who is in a position to judge anybody. It’s just that life isn’t black and white, and you can’t have moral absolutes about stuff as messy as sex and pregnancy.
Image of Parenting, adoption and abortion courtesy of Shutterstock.
About Josh Bowman
I hear you BUT, the one person who had no say-so in this decision was the child who lost his/her life. Why is adoption never considered?
Because the early-term fetus is not a child; it is a bundle of cells that might one day become a child. At least, that’s what I believe, and I imagine that most people who have an early-term abortion must believe that as well.
I get REALLY frustrated at people who suggest adoption as some sort of cure-all, as if putting a baby up for adoption was as easy as posting an ad on Craigslist, and solves the problem instantly. It’s not easy and it’s not instant. In the U.S., adoption is extremely expensive, to the point that it’s easier to adopt a kid from a foreign country than to adopt in our own borders (PDF fact sheet available here). It often takes years to complete the process. I concede that there is financial aid, both from the state and from private resources, available, but that’s still a finite amount of money and not everyone can be eligible.
The reality is, the pool of people willing and able to adopt is already MUCH smaller than the number of kids awaiting adoption (and they’re not getting any younger). And if every aborted fetus was instead carried to term and put up for adoption, the way many pro-lifers suggest, it would be a full-on crisis. The system would be overloaded with kids and underserved by eligible adoptive parents. At least a portion of the living expense for these kids would have to be covered by taxpayers.
Bottom line: “Just put it up for adoption” is an unsustainable solution. Yet I still hear it suggested over and over by pro-lifers – and every time, I want to ask them if THEY themselves are willing to adopt instead of having their own offspring, and if they know how expensive and difficult it is to adopt in the U.S. (I try not to be a s#!t-starter, though, so I usually don’t actually ask.) If you support adoption in favor of abortion, put your money where your mouth is. I understand there are some pro-lifers who do actually do this, and I commend them, but those who DON’T are hypocrites, in my opinion.
Frankly, if my choice is between aborting my fetus or placing my baby into a system where it will likely have years to wait until it is adopted, if it gets adopted AT ALL…abortion starts to seem a little less cruel. Yes, I realize it means the child doesn’t even get a chance, but the odds of a happy life are not that much more in its favor if I give it up for adoption.
/rant
THANK YOU. I hate when I read people saying ADOPTION ADOPTION ADOPTION as if it’s this perfect ending. The system is so flawed, with so many children falling through the cracks and into abusive homes. I’m more surprised to hear a positive adoption story than a negative one. The simple fact is that we don’t need more children in the adoption system, we need less with better care for those who are forced to enter it.
Unfortunately, there is no “perfect” ending if a child is unwanted. However, you don’t seem to understand how this works. First, there is no “adoption system.” Adoption is a legal process. And, infants who are adopted very seldom end up in abusive homes. These are people who have waited for years and spend upwards of $30,000 in many cases just to have a love a child. Abusers are seldom willing to go through all of that.
There are as many as two million people waiting to adopt an infant at this moment. If it weren’t so expensive, the number would be far higher. I know plenty of people who were adopted. One thing I know of all of them is that they preferred being raised by their imperfect but loving adoptive family than having been aborted.
If you clearly state that your girlfriend convinced you not to use protection, and then the two of you chose to have an abortion, I’m not sure how you can make the argument that you weren’t using abortion as birth control. I’m all for abortion being legal but rare, but I just can’t wrap my mind around how people can be so careless with one of the MOST important things: using protection during sex if you’re not ready to be a parent.
@Megan….all I can say is it was very complicated. I’m not justifying what happened, I’m talking about what happened and what I learned from what happened.
@Sara…adoption was considered. So was keeping the baby. Ultimately, it was her choice, and she chose to have an abortion.
“Ultimately, it was her choice, and she chose to have an abortion.”
- This is the part of the abortion debate that needs more discussion amongst men. She might listen to your opinion, she might listen to your desire for, or for not, having an abortion. In the final analysis, it has nothing to do with you because it is her body, her choice. However, once she has made her choice, the child becomes your financial responsibility.
We are, in the west, reluctant to require women to carry a child to term, so that portion of the debate is stalled for the moment. However, when a woman chooses to bring a pregnancy to term, against the man’s wishes, then she alone should bear the financial burden for HER decision.
His body his choice.
I think you made the right choice.
I believe that someone becomes a human when they can survive by themselves outside the mother’s body.
embryos are not children.
What do you think of the laws that will prosecute a murderer of killing two people if a mother is pregnant when murdered?
I honestly ask this with no judgement. I personally am so torn and undecided on the abortion debate that I approach it all with complete curiosity and interest in people’s opinions.
Joanna,
If it helps, there are amoral arguments out there to help you decide.
Personally, I find moralistic arguments to be distasteful. There’s no rational reason to accept secular humanism over Christian morals, both are just sets of unsupported value judgments which people claim to be the “correct” way to think.
What helped me get around this was taking a “harm reduction” standpoint. Abortion is going to happen, whether it’s legal or not. The only difference is that illegal abortions will take place without medical supervision, and often without meaningful medical advice. This exponentially raises the chances that complications will develop that threaten the life of the mother and society as a whole (there are multiple studies of Romania under Ceaușescu relating to the public health crisis that resulted from the abortion ban confirm this).
If abortions are not truly preventable (and they are not), then it’s better for society as a whole if we make them legal and ensure that they take place under medical supervision.
This may not answer the whole “is a fetus a person” question, but it allows someone to make a policy judgment without relying on subjective moral values.
Far enough along in pregnancy usually means a couple has invested an enormous amount of emotion and bonding into the fetus/child/whatever word you want to use. So I feel it’s probably a good idea to have some form of law to punish those that harm mother and/or fetus. If my partner was punched in the stomach and the fetus died I know I’d have to be chained down around the attacker or I’d be facing the murder charge.
I’m not telling other people what to do but that’s a somewhat arbitrary standard, as it’s inaccurate. Humans can’t survive on their own for several years after birth.
Yeah, that’s the argument I use… My kids couldn’t survive on their own right now and they’re 7 and 4.
But theoretically they could be adopted. But a 22 week fetus could theoretically survive on its own with intense NICU intervention.
So where does it end? That’s where I struggle. Actually… Where does it begin?
I know if I were facing abortion, I would hope it would happen very early, because I’ve been pregnant and know how “alive” that fetus seems from extremely early on. But women I know and love have had late-term abortions… I just can’t quite get my head around it, and yet I couldn’t legislate any of it… I don’t think.
See? I’m a mess about this. And I’m a feminist. Go figure.
@Mike
“I believe that someone becomes a human when they can survive by themselves outside the mother’s body”
So, then someone isn’t human until they are like 13 or 14 years old. An infant just born can’t survive by themselves, they need assistance to feed themselves, clothe themselves etc. That is where your argument falls completely apart. And in practical reality there is no difference from getting nutrition from the umbilical cord than a bottle or the tit.
You evidently don’t live in the US. Here, men have no post-conception “freedom to choose whether or not we have children, and on what terms.”
I live in Canada.
From what have read Canada offers men zero post-conception “freedom to choose whether or not we have children, and on what terms.” it’s just as repressive and discriminatory as the US in that regard.
I am legitimately curious to see statistics showing men are largely behind the pro-life side of the issue. Abortion is such a hard issue for me. I do NOT condone it as birth control, at all. I do think it should be available in the first trimester for medical reasons and for rape/incest victims. But it is a truly emotional issue, and having had the privilege of working as a photographer in the NICU and labor and delivery wards, I have had the unique experience of seeing, touching, even holding babies as tiny, gestationally speaking, as 14 weeks. I can say that experience 100% changed my views on second trimester abortions, and I feel third trimester abortions are just plain wrong. Now, personally speaking, I had my son as a teenager. His dad and I were poor, were not together, and had a volatile relationship. I worked my ass off, did the best I could, and am the mother to an intellectually gifted, bright, unique, open-minded teenager who has his sites set on Ivy League. Now, many may say the beauty of it is that I had a choice, but if you were to ask my son, I’d say he favors the life he has, imperfect as it has been, to none at all. I have also given birth to a beautiful daughter with birth defects, who ultimately died at 6 months. Again, I am guessing (though I cannot speak for a deceased baby) she preferred the 6 months of flawed life she had, to a partial birth or late 2nd trimester abortion (which was when we found out about her issues). I know each person has their own story, and I respect that fully, but just wanted to share a bit of mine.
Hi Amie,
I don’t have statistics, but here’s an article that might be of interest:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/01/the-men-behind-the-war-on_n_1069406.html
Thank you for sharing your story.
I applaud this author’s candid story-telling. I, myself, am pro-choice and see that being in that actual situation would be a lot different than having an “opinion” on it.
But I have some issues with this list- #5, for example, I have known women who really, truly used abortion as birth control, did not use protection and didn’t see this “procedure” as any different the contraceptives, it’s sickening but true. “Be mad at your boyfriend” and “Not have sex for weeks” seem like the most trivial examples of why abortion is difficult. Being upset with the person that made just as poor a choice as you did is childish and being bummed you can’t get your freak on when you’ve just terminated a pregnancy is even more so. On the flip side I guess this is all a great argument for why for some people *should* make the choice not to become parents. All in all, it’s sad stuff.
Hi Jen,
Again, I’m speaking from my own experience. The things I mentioned came from that experience.
The point for #5 is really just…who would make the choice to use abortion as birth control? I gave a number of examples, some more trivial, some less so. The point is, it is a trying and difficult experience, and I just find it really hard to believe that anybody takes it lightly.
You may have known women who did, but I never have.
I know that, for me personally, #4 is completely false.
I believe that abortion should be legal, but I really do believe in more regulation than there is now (mandatory waiting periods, for example), and it is NOT because I “lack knowledge” that makes me “dumb and angry.”
I was told by a religious advisor, who definitely had an agenda (though she was also a woman, so go figure), that if my girlfriend conceived, she could go to Planned Parenthood and have an abortion before I was even aware of the situation.
I was shocked and thought “Sure not! There must be some requirement that the father be notified, even if he doesn’t get a say!”
And I was wrong. There is no requirement. You see, it was gaining knowledge that changed my mind.
It is difficult for me to believe that I have any reproductive rights. If my girlfriend becomes pregnant, she can terminate without my consent or knowledge. She can also refuse to terminate, against my advice, and I will be liable for paying child support for the next 18 years. Thanks to a recent Supreme Court decision (Turner v. Rogers), I can actually be jailed without having access to a lawyer if I am ever too poor to pay child support.
So, a woman is protected by “her body, her choice” and yet her “choice” can land me in jail without a lawyer. Great.
Let me know when I get some rights.
@Mike L
It’s even worse than that. If somehow a woman was able to get your sperm without our consent, (think drugged, alcohol, used condom), you would still be liable.
Josh, I am going to assume that you are a man by your name (if I am wrong please correct me), but I too live in Canada, and here, YOU (assuming you are a man) have ZERO, NONE, NADA rights to control if and when you have a child and under what terms. You do realize that if you were raped, drugged , or if a woman was able to obtain your sperm without your permission or consent you are going to have a child no matter what you say. And to boot, you could be saddled with 25 years of CS, yes 25 years if the child stays in school (college, university) AND even longer if the child is disabled.
So that last paragraph kind confuses me where you seem to think that abortion rights give you rights, they don’t. In fact they take away what should be a right. “The right to control your reproductive destiny”
I am a man, yes. I can’t say I’m totally familiar with the child support laws. I will say, however, that I don’t understand how the right for women to choose whether or not to have an abortion takes away my right to my reproductive destiny.
Here’s why….
Let’s suppose that I get someone pregnant. Now, if a woman does not have the right to have an abortion, then she has to carry the pregnancy to term (assuming she doesn’t get an illegal abortion). Then, you are on the hook for CS anyway.
If she does have the right to an abortion, than the two of you might discuss what to do, and she may go one way or another. It still seems like you have more room to discuss the outcomes in this scenario, no?
She can choose to become a parent or not, regardless of your opinion. But, what if disagree? What rights do you have?
Correct. None. That’s the point.
Hi Eric,
So what would be an alternate solution?
The man could be given up to 4 weeks in the first trimester after being formally informed, in writing, of the pregnancy whether he wishes to become a parent or not. If not, he could sign a standard document that strips him in perpetuity of his rights and obligations should she choose to not have an abortion. If he fails to respond, it would be assumed that he has accepted the opportunity to become a parent, should she not choose to abort, along with its privileges and obligations. This gives both men and women post-conception reproductive rights.
Remember, as with abortion, at that stage, there is no “child.” If there is to be one in the future, it would be based on the woman’s choice, not the man’s.
I think this is a less than stellar idea. We’d all love to pretend that this would work, and that all men would sign this waiver of parental rights having considered all possible angles of parenthood, but the fact is, many will sign because of financial reasons only, which leaves the woman to fend for herself. Yes there are deadbeat moms, but there are more deadbeat dads, and that’s just statistical fact. I understand that sometimes men and women will not agree on what is best in the event of an unplanned pregnancy, but if the woman chooses to keep the baby, I think the last thing society needs is a release of responsibility form for genetic fathers. This theory might work out well in some socioeconomic situations, but it’s not a broad spectrum answer. I just think this theory penalizes someone for being pro-life, or for just plain choosing to keep their baby, whether or not they are pro-choice. I’m also not implying women decide to keep their babies based entirely on whether or not they will receive child support. I chose to keep my son, knowing full well it would be a miracle if his dad contributed on any level. I was right. For 13 years his dad contributed less than $2000 total, but to let him “off the hook” financially, simply because I chose not to abort is the wrong message to send. This is not a pro-life argument in my opinion, it’s just a pro-common sense argument. No, not all men are out there screwing around, ready to jump ship the second an unplanned pregnancy happens, but yeah, some are. Just like there are women out there, having unprotected sex and not using common sense, but it always takes two. It’s just such a tough issue. I have male friends out there (2 in particular) who found out their partner’s were unexpectedly pregnant. One of these men so badly wanted to keep the baby when his partner said she was aborting, he offered to raise the baby entirely on his own, and would let her sign off all parental rights with no financial or emotional expectations. She declined and had the abortion. I really felt for him, he was devastated. He was also pro-choice. Where is the black and white and where is the gray? How can someone claim pro-choice, advocating for women to have complete control of their bodies, and then advocate for men to right’s as well, over the fetus in her body? Difficult ideas to bring together, I understand why it’s such a heated topic, there is no easy answer.
Equality is a principle. We can always find excuses to discriminate.
Yes, damned be to the man that dares to want to opt out of parenthood. With up to 1/4 pregnancies n the US resulting in abortion, one huge female privilege is the ability to opt out of parenthood regardless of their partners decision. Yet you don’t want to share the privilege of opting out of parenthood because of deadbeat fathers that don’t pay?
Well that responsibility would then be on the mother who can choose to abort, or raise the child alone. Woe is the woman now crippled by the cost of raising the child alone but so quick to jump to this line of thought you forgot about the men who are crippled by existing child support payments who actually have LESS say in the outcome of pregnancy than the woman.
“Equality is a principle. We can always find excuses to discriminate.” Eric M, this is perfect. All I see are excuses to keep things as they are, with men having no/few reproductive rights save abstinence. I gotta tell ya, I’m pretty sickened by the attitudes I’m seeing around, especially after the countless articles of how women’s reproductive rights are men’s issues as well. I am a low income male who is crippled by fear in sex because of the potential for having a child in a stage of life that I am unready for the burden of a child, sex itself is fine. There isn’t much in the way of contraception for me so I would have to rely on condoms and her word of taking the pill if SHE CHOOSES TO.
My friend just heard the words that his gf wouldn’t abort if she got pregnant, his wishes to NOT be a father yet get overridden by her own desires. I’d probably leave that relationship, that trust is gone knowing your partner ignores your wishes completely especially when there are no legal protections for you. But if I were a female I could opt out of parenthood, abort, even against my partners wishes it’s still 100% my choice. And what is used to justify this discrimination? Deadbeat fathers? Even though the stats show women are the higher % of non-custodial parents that don’t pay or are behind on payments.
that’s the thing, if you are pro-choice it has nothing to do with your desires, it has to do with your beliefs. I chose to keep my son, not because I felt a desire to be a mom, regardless of his dad’s opinion/choices, but because I knew I *could* be a good mom and viewed the life inside of me as a beautiful thing, regardless of how it got there. there is also this third option, adoption. my dad was adopted, as were all of his siblings, one of my best friends gave her son up for adoption, and i have good friends who have adopted. this is also a very viable option. it’s easy to say “Yes, damned be to the man that dares to want to opt out of parenthood.” but the opposite can be said for a woman who chooses not to terminate her pregnancy, “damned be the woman who chooses to keep her child”, because her road is just as challenging than a man who is inconvenienced by 18 years of child support. every aspect of this issue can swing both ways, that’s why there will never be black and white. it will always be a debate.
just as challenging “as” a man, not than. typo.
Eric, please see my response below to John Schtoll to see why a written consent or non-consent from the father doesn’t really solve anything.
@Eric, let’s assume the law you propose exists. Now let’s say the woman has the child, but can’t support herself for whatever reason, good or bad (she’s a minor, she has a drug problem, she’s disabled, she’s mentally ill, she dies, etc.) so the state picks up the tab, through welfare, food stamps, medicaid, foster care, or whatever. Who shoul bear the cost, the unwilling father or the unwilling taxpayers?
He doesn’t have a child. There is no child when he opts out.
Here’s how it works. When he opted out there was no “child.” There never has to be a child unless SHE and she alone chose to have a child. Her body, her choice, and her responsibility if she decides she wants a child, knowing that she will be a single parent.
However, if she doesn’t want to be a single parent, she can still choose abortion.
If she doesn’t want to be a single parent, She can still choose adoption.
If she’s a minor, she has parents to absorb some of the responsibility. And, the pro-choice movement could and should be willing to assist as much as possible.
There should be choice for women and men.
There’s a child and he’s 50% responsible for its creation. Why should I, the innocent taxpayer, support the child in this hypothetical? I acknowledge it’s unfair to men to be unwilling fathers (although, he was a willing participant in sex, presumably, in most cases anyway). How is that fair to me, the taxpayer? If no one else is around, someone has to support the child, we aren’t going to let it die on the street, are we?
The responsibility then lies solely on her, she has the choice to stop this hypothetical child from existing and refuses to take it so as a taxpayer, take it up with her. He can’t just force-abort the child, the child is inside her and thus the responsibility in this situation is 100% on her. They were both willing participants presumably however the only one that can end the existence is the female.
When the option of abortion exists, especially with the rate it is used these days, it’s the female that shoulders the responsibility of the child being born as the decision to come to term is hers, if the male has opted out.
Why are there so many excuses popping up against male reproductive rights? Should I write an article calling it “The war on men’s reproductive rights: How one gender has no choice in pregnancy”. Maybe I could write the followup “Female Privilege: Opting out of parenthood for herself or enforcing parenthood remains regardless of the males wishes”.
I’m kind of playing devil’s advocate here to think about all the social consequences of the “financial abortion” idea.
For example if the woman is a victim of rape or incest, but doesn’t want an abortion for religious reasons, can the father/perpetrator opt out?
What if the father changes his mind and gets involved in the mother’s/child’s life again after she has the baby, does that nullify his previous disclaimer of responsibility?
What if the man never heard about the possibility of “financial abortion” until it was too late, because he was young, uneducated or didn’t speak English or whatever?
What if the woman is mistaken about who the father is?
This is a tough issue since I believe in equality yet pregnancy is an area where biology is not equal. Women get pregnant and men don’t. Men can avoid the risk of unwanted pregnancy by foregoing sex, but that doesn’t seem like an attractive option for most men. No form of contraception is failure proof even with the best intentions and good faith. We definitely need more options for male contraception .
“I’m kind of playing devil’s advocate here to think about all the social consequences of the “financial abortion” idea.
For example if the woman is a victim of rape or incest, but doesn’t want an abortion for religious reasons, can the father/perpetrator opt out?”
I’d say rapist pays, when you force yourself on someone else and pregnancy occurs then the burden should be on the rapist. Maybe additional child support to cover the mothers part? I’m happy for welfare to help out in such cases due to the extreme circumstances.
“What if the father changes his mind and gets involved in the mother’s/child’s life again after she has the baby, does that nullify his previous disclaimer of responsibility?”
Maybe an opt-in but no opt-out after that? So he opts out, love happens or whatever, opts back in but he’s back to daddy status and responsible as such.
“What if the man never heard about the possibility of “financial abortion” until it was too late, because he was young, uneducated or didn’t speak English or whatever?”
I’d base it off time he heard about it, it gets tricky here but possibly a register of births would be made to let the man know of the pregnancy, or the birth and he has a certain time period to opt-out.
“What if the woman is mistaken about who the father is?”
A tough one. Current acting father’s neccessity to child support is removed, bio-father gets the child support bill, and even possibly costs refunded to the non-bio dad. But I think the courts would take into account an acting father as a real father so he’d still be considered the dad and have the claim to the child so to speak? Becomes a legal minefield when bio and acting father want custody as well as the mother though.
But if she has told non-biodad about pregnancy and not the bio-dad then non-bio dad can still opt out as per normal, and pregnancy is still up to the mother. Once child is born if real bio-father is told then he has chance to opt-out still.
“This is a tough issue since I believe in equality yet pregnancy is an area where biology is not equal. Women get pregnant and men don’t. Men can avoid the risk of unwanted pregnancy by foregoing sex, but that doesn’t seem like an attractive option for most men. No form of contraception is failure proof even with the best intentions and good faith. We definitely need more options for male contraception .”
Exactly but I still believe we should have the financial abortion option, women too can refrain from sex but that doesn’t seem like an attraction option for most women. Better contraceptives are needed but until then I believe both genders need some form of abortion. I personally hope my partner and I would make a decision before sex and that decision remains valid, and that she respects it. Until my life is much better off and I am fully independant, earning adequate income and can provide a decent life for the child (hopefully in love and married to my partner) I do not want to have a child. Another issue is deformities in utero, if my child/fetus has major disabilities then I would opt for abortion but I cannot force that. Quite frankly I kinda hope for parts of Gattaca (the movie on eugenics) to exist in voluntary form where me and my partner could try ensure the child is healthy, free from major problems. If I could I’d reduce the chance of a few hereditary health problems. But I’m sure that line of thought won’t win me any friends, that’s just my personal view on wanting my child to have the best chance of life.
“she has the choice to stop this hypothetical child from existing” this is only true for women who are pro-choice. for those who are pro-life, abortion is not a viable option. that is why i do not believe “opting out” is a broad spectrum answer. you may not like or agree with the pro-life stance, but it exists and deserves to be respected. i understand i am in the minority here, and i expected that. being a pro-life liberal makes for an interesting existence.
“For example if the woman is a victim of rape or incest, but doesn’t want an abortion for religious reasons, can the father/perpetrator opt out?”
In that case, no. By contrast, male victims of rape and incest are required to become a parent and write a check to their rapist for 18-24 years, as demanded by the government.
“What if the father changes his mind and gets involved in the mother’s/child’s life again after she has the baby, does that nullify his previous disclaimer of responsibility?”
He can’t. Legally. He has signed his privilege to be involved away.
“What if the man never heard about the possibility of “financial abortion” until it was too late, because he was young, uneducated or didn’t speak English or whatever?”
It is the woman’s responsibility to inform him. One reason she should know who the father is.
“What if the woman is mistaken about who the father is?”
Then, she should inform all of the potential fathers.
“This is a tough issue since I believe in equality yet pregnancy is an area where biology is not equal. Women get pregnant and men don’t.”
This is as close to equality as we can get at this time. She still gets to decide unilaterally whether a child gets birthed or not. This is the other side of that coin.
Pro-life is still a choice though. Men don’t have the luxury of choosing between abortion and pro-life stances, there choice is made for them.
It takes away your right to reproductive destiny because under canadian law you have NO right to be a parent or not (biological of course I am talking about), if your sperm is used no matter what the circumstances, you have may or may not become a parent, not by your choice but by someone else.
I hope that explains it.
I have a hard time believing number 7. Certainly in your situation you can say it, but I think it is more complicated than ‘if woman=cares more’.
If you are talking about it being physically worse, then I agree, but it seems like your talking about the emotional aspect in which I don’t agree that getting rid of an opportunity to raise a child is necessarily harder on the woman.
Hi Archer…I appreciate your thoughts on this. It was definitely hard on me….can’t say I know how it would feel to be in a woman in that situation.
It does suck. Especially if you are a pro-choice woman who, long before the situation ever arose in her own life, said she was pro-choice but would not get an abortion herself. So on point #1 you’re totally correct.
I felt all sorts of sick around it. Logical Brain said it was the right choice; Emotional Brain was tangled up in intense guilt (pregnancy happened because I got off-schedule on my birth control and we didn’t use a backup method), doubt, fear, anxiety, and grief.
I still get triggered today, almost four years after the fact. I remember once mentioning to a coworker that I had pretty bad heartburn at that moment, and she joked with me, “Are you pregnant?” That stung. It stings when I have to disclose it to doctors as part of my medical history. It stings when others around me debate abortion and I keep quiet because I want to keep my experience private, but don’t feel I can talk about it without drawing on my experience. (This is the most I’ve said about it in a LONG time, and I only say this much because I can do so anonymously).
I can’t say in detail how my husband (then-fiance) felt about it. I doubt it crosses his mind as often as it crosses mine, but I could be wrong – he might be triggered too, and just keeps it private, the same way I do.
I’m not sure it’s right to say it was harder or easier for either one of us – how exactly does one measure emotional impact? I don’t see a reason to try to quantify suffering. Suffice it to say: no one wants to have an abortion, but many women and couples find themselves in a position where they have to make that choice.
Now imagine this.
What if your boyfriend at the time (husband now) had 100% complete control over your right to be a parent or not. You discussed it, but in the end YOU made that decision, not him, he had no ‘real’ say in the matter. You say that it might be harder on you, it might now, but imagine if the decision was completely out of your hands. Can you imagine being forced to carry a baby to term or forced to have an abortion, and I am not talking about the physical pain but the emotional pain.
I am not saying of course that we should force women to have abortion or force them to carry a baby to term BUT we give men NO rights and in fact we could (as a society) give them equal rights.
No, I can’t imagine being forced to carry a baby to term – not by my government, or by my romantic partner. Which is why I oppose any measures by the government to try to force women to carry to term. Whether a woman makes a choice on her own or a couple makes a choice together, that choice should not be made for anyone by a third party.
I think it’s tough, though, to legislate men’s rights into this. Eric M. above suggests something about written notice and consent, and while that’s all hunky-dory in an ideal world where everyone files paperwork the moment they find out they’re pregnant … I don’t see it as practically enforceable, for a number of reasons (just to name one: situations where the woman doesn’t know who the father is or how to contact him, let alone in writing).
The hypothetical scenario through my eyes: Man and Woman find out Woman is pregnant. Woman does not want to carry to term. Man objects and, through legislation that gives him agency in the choice, denies Woman the opportunity to abort. Woman still feels strongly that she does not want to be a mother and is worried about the financial and physical repercussions of continuing on with pregnancy, but now she can’t see a doctor about it because it’s on paper somewhere that Man objects. Woman goes on internet and reads about the many non-medical ways of ending her pregnancy, such as herbal methods of inducing miscarriage.
Alternative: Woman does not care about keeping herself healthy for a fetus she doesn’t want, so she drinks, smokes, does drugs, etc. – does everything you’re NOT supposed to do while pregnant. Baby is born with severe medical problems. Man, who is On the Record as wanting to be a parent, now has to support Baby through illness & treatment for the rest of Baby’s life (if Baby survives).
Alternative: Woman does not want to be a mother but she carries the fetus to term and then abandons it with Man – who is still On The Record as wanting to be a parent.
Obviously these are extreme cases that hinge upon a very unhealthy, unstable relationship, and most cases would probably not go down this way. But my point: On the most literal level, a woman still has control over whether or not she stays pregnant. Even if her right to choose by herself is legislated away, she can get around it if she is desperate not to have a child. I supposed you could legislate a series of punishments for doing any of the above – to which I say go ahead, make it illegal to drink & smoke while pregnant, and try to enforce it. Any mother whose child was born with fetal alcohol syndrome or a drug addiction gets put in jail. That still leaves Man with the kid, alone. Or make every woman who has a miscarriage go to court to prove it was accidental/natural, not intentionally induced.
I am not anti-men’s rights, these are just the obstacles I see to trying to get these rights made into law. I would hope that when a woman gets pregnant she always knows who the father is and always informs him and always gives him a say in the decision, but that’s too pie-in-the-sky even for this liberal.
Looking at it again, it seems Eric M’s proposed solution has less to do with a man preventing a woman from having an abortion he doesn’t agree with, and more to do with a man not becoming a parent against his will and held liable for child support for a child the woman chose to keep, so my hypothetical scenarios are not all relevant to that.
But it’s still worth considering the flip side of such documentation – if Man receives in the mail written notice that a sexual partner has become pregnant, and indicates that he would be willing to be held legally and financially accountable for that child, does that mean the woman MUST carry the fetus to term? Or just that IF she does, he’ll pick up the child support tab? In other words, should men have a legally-protected say in whether or not a woman gets an abortion, or just in whether or not he will support the child?
I believe it’s the second bit, that he has the option to either sign onto child support and some level of parental connection or nullifying any parental right “a financial abortion” as it’s been called.
I think you’re probably right. Child support is honestly an issue that has never affected my personal life and thus I’ve had no impetus to learn much about the legal issues & rights involved with it. I leave the arguing on that topic up to those who are better informed and/or have a personal investment in the issue.
I still would like some male perspective on the question of whether men should have “equal rights” (i.e., the right to choose) in abortion matters, from a legal standpoint.
Sorry I misunderstood the topic and derailed conversation a bit. Not my intention.
I am a male and I 100% support the notion of parental abortion/financial abortion for men and women. That means no child support, and no say or responsibility for the child, basically they’re just another human. A man can abort his responsibility after being notified, maybe have a time period and half of the cost of an actual abortion to be paid as well so the woman isn’t shouldered with the full cost should she choose it but if she doesn’t choose it then no money paid. This would have to be extended to count for cases where he is notified after birth, otherwise a woman could avoid him until birth if the financial abortion only lasted during pregnancy.
Basically if he doesn’t want to be a father, he shouldn’t. If she doesn’t want to be a mother, she shouldn’t however she already has that choice where I live. This may result quite a large amount of men showing they don’t wish to be fathers at that stage of their life, but considering 1/4 of pregnancies are aborted I don’t think it’d go excessive in number compared to women opting out.
Another necessity is to address the cost of living, and provide better contraceptives to all (invent new ones too!). We should aspire to reach a stage where we NEVER have unwanted pregnancies, maybe a super contraceptive for men along with a way to prove both are on contraceptives so neither can deceive the other. With those options in place it should give both genders near complete reproductive control. I know it’d sure make me feel more at ease instead of being nervous as hell every-time I have sex (which pretty much is only because of my financial state and not being ready for a child).
Could a woman have the child and then turn it over to the father (if he wanted it) and give up all rights to custody and visitation but not be liable for child support, ever? What I’m asking is, would this work both ways?
Sounds fine to me. And if he didn’t want it, adoption would be the norm I guess. As long as it isn’t forced on her to have the child just for his decision since the risk of pregnancy is still there.
Not sure if this can be done currently, I think both parents would have to sign the rights to one but I don’t think you can sign away your financial responsibilities?
Interesting thoughts. I support the idea behind it all, the idea that men should be able to absolve themselves from responsibility for a child they don’t want the same way women can through abortion. However, I see many practical obstacles to this. Not reasons it should be abandoned, mind you, just considerations:
*Taxpayer cost of enforcement, documentation and legal proceedings (granted that child support enforcement/documentation/court is already an expense to the taxpayers)
*Realistic probability of participation in absence of tangible enforcement
*Rare but significant cases where notifying the father is not possible and thus he can’t get the option to sign off (examples: a pregnancy resulting from a one night stand where little personal information is exchanged and no follow-up contact is made; a prostitute becomes pregnant by an anonymous john; a woman becomes pregnant but is uncertain who the father is due to contact with multiple sexual partners)
*If the biological father changes his mind at some point the future, can he reverse the waiver? Can he later adopt the child?
*Could this result in a spike in abortions? Hypothetically, a woman might be more inclined to abort if she finds out she’ll get zero support from the father.
*I can see the appeal and usefulness of this for unattached men who are facing an accidental and unwanted pregnancy, but how would such a law affect a married man? Could a man who got his wife pregnant unintentionally also opt out of fatherly responsibility? Could a married man who got a woman OTHER than his wife pregnant, get off scot-free? I don’t think either of those scenarios are preferable to pinning the man for child support, frankly. (This would get even stickier in the case of polyamorous relationships, I would think.)
I apologize if my statement came across as if I was discounting how abortions affect women. I realize that abortion can be a very traumatic event in both men and women’s lives. It certainly sounds like it was in yours.
I don’t believe we can measure the emotional impact (in a relevant way) which is why I don’t like broad statements like how one gender is impacted more than another. To me, it seems like a variation on the ‘mothers love their children more because they came out of them’ argument that I personally don’t agree with.
I agree that abortion is something that no one should have to go through it. I also firmly believe we will eventually get to a point in time where conception can be 100% controlled, and I look forward to that day.
Thanks, and I didn’t take offense at your comment, just wanted to provide the female perspective.
If anything I might say that I probably face more triggers than my husband does – no one would ask him about pregnancy if he said he had heartburn, and he doesn’t have to include the procedure in his medical records – so from that perspective, the emotional consequences are longer-lasting for me than for him. The emotional impact is more intimate for me because it affected my own body, but that doesn’t mean it’s more significant. Again, it’s been a long time since I’ve talked to him about it so I don’t know if still crosses his mind or if he’s left it behind as part of the past.
“The female perspective.”
I’m going to be nitpicky, here, but really I think you mean to say “a female perspective.” There is no single female perspective when it comes to anything…let alone something as complicated as the issues surrounding abortion.
Nitpicky indeed – that is what I meant.
#9 is very correct. We love to believe we can hit the game winning shot but most of us miss.
Lots of interesting comments in this post. I guess I’ll just throw in my two cents, and spend it how you will…
I am pro-life for myself. If I get a woman pregnant, I feel personally responsible for that since I obviously failed to properly use protection. Moreover, I feel that while scientifically a fetus IS NOT A HUMAN BEING, I nonetheless hold that potential to be nearly equal to a human life. If a man were to kill my girlfriend and our (hypothetical) unborn child, I would feel he had murdered two people, assuming we intended to bring that fetus to term, because of that potential. (And also because of the sheer evil in murdering a pregnant woman.)
Conversely, I am pro-choice for everyone else. I feel deeply uncomfortable projecting my personal beliefs regarding the beginning of life, personal responsibility, and fetuses onto others who may not share my experiences, privileges, ideas, or resources. It is probably easier for me to say, working a middle-class job, that I wouldn’t want someone I got pregnant to get an abortion than it is for the lower-class person who can barely feed their own self.
Moreover, I won’t speak for a fetus. I won’t say whether the unborn are happier to be alive, even if that life is cruel, than to be dead and have never existed. Such a hypothetical is masturbatory guilt. It only appeases those who have political points to score. It certainly doesn’t help those people who’ve gotten abortions, or whose partners have gotten abortions.
Finally, I’d say it’s pretty obvious that men who don’t want to be fathers should be allowed to abort their responsibilities as one, with some stipulations of course. If both the woman and the father decide to have an abortion, the cost should be split evenly to avoid “hit it and quit it” types from foisting the cost onto just one person. And if a father does want to be a father but the mother decides to abort, the father deserves some kind of condolence. Not money or charity, but at least a reasonable effort to notify, educate, and provide support to the father — free of charge, of course.
Anyhoo, those are my thoughts.
It sounds like some people here need a serious reality check.
Here is the “waiver” you sign when you willingly engage in HETEROSEXUAL INTERCOURSE:
1. I accept that, through no choice of my own, I was born with one of two kinds of mammalian bodies: either the kind that grows babies, or the kind that doesn’t grow babies but gets the party started.
2. I recognize that I had no choice in the matter of which kind of body I got. Neither did anyone else.
3. Nonetheless, this body is now my responsibility to govern as I see fit. Everything it does and doesn’t do is my problem.
4. When it comes to other people’s bodies, I do not have the ability to govern them. I only have the ability to govern my own body, and to affect other bodies. And vice versa.
5. If I sex with someone, I accept that we might have an effect on each other’s bodies, intentional or not. One of these possible effects is pregnancy.
6. If I effect someone else’s body, there might be consequences for me that are outside of my control. And vice versa.
7. If I have the kind of body that grows babies, and I get pregnant, I cannot make anyone want to help me take care of it. I can possibly get a court to tell the baby-starter to pay me some money, but that’s no guarantee that he will if he doesn’t want to, and I might not be able to afford the legal costs of taking him to court all the time. The only thing I really have control over is what I’m going to do with my body—whether or not I carry it to term, and who I’m going to tell about it. At the end of the day, although they might try, there is NOTHING ANYONE CAN DO ABOUT THAT. Just like I couldn’t do anything about being born a baby-grower.
8. If I have the kind of body that doesn’t grow babies but starts them growing, and I get someone pregnant, I cannot make anyone stop growing their baby. If the baby is born, a court could tell me to help pay for it because I’m the baby-starter and it wouldn’t be here if it weren’t for me. But they might not. And even if they do, a lot of baby-starters get away with not doing it. The only thing I can control is what I’m going to do with my body—whether or not I’m going participate in the kid’s life. At the end of the day, there is NOTHING ANYONE CAN DO ABOUT THAT. Just like I couldn’t do anything about being born a baby-starter.
9. I accept that I do not have control over the other person’s body or actions if we conceive a child. All I have control over is my own body—who I have sex with, to whom I give the power of potential baby-making with me.
10. The only way to have any say in what another person does with their body is through discussion and consent. It helps if the other person gives a fuck about me.
Other than the terminology (Baby-starter? Heh) I agree with your assessment of the current ‘contract’ that people are held to.
Now the next step is, how do we improve from here? How do we change this contract to better suit people’s needs?
I personally like the ‘financial abortion’ idea wherein a father can relinquish all rights and responsibilities to a fetus within a timeframe comparable to abortion. That would at least improve 7 and 8 for more gender parity. I also think 7 could be improved with more technology going towards replicating the conditions inside of the womb so men could choose to keep their child even if the mother doesn’t want it (then giving the mother the option of financial abortion). More financial support from the government for single parents might not hurt…
All in all, a good spring board contract, but not something to be accepted as is.
The point I’m trying to make is that this is the only contract that can ever exist, and we need to accept that. It’s not great, and it’s not equal, but it cannot be “improved.” Men and women have biological limitations that we did not choose, and it is up to each of us to be responsible for our own bodies and actions. Unless “technology” can make it so that a man can carry a child to term himself and experience the wonder that is childbirth, we will never have equality in this respect.
The “financial abortion” idea is really problematic because the decision to end a pregnancy is NOT the same thing as simply relinquishing the financial burden of caring for a child. Its a complex, deeply personal decision that is based on everything that makes someone an autonomous individual–values, culture, history, bodily integrity, health, etc. And as long as men cannot get pregnant, there is no equality to be had on how the decision gets made. It’s her body. End of story. You cannot force a woman to give birth any more than you can force her to have an abortion because you want her to.
As a man, your control over your biological destiny lies at the point of conception. I don’t envy your position. But being a woman, I can’t imagine you envy mine either.
Then why force the man to provide financial assistance to the child, it’s completely HER choice whether to continue the pregnancy, regardless of his opinion she can choose an action which gives him 18 years of child support + father status, or no child at all. You assign his responsibility at conception but her’s extends further simply because it’s her body being used, yet she is afforded an additional privilege of being able to opt out of parenthood regardless of his wishes.
I’m sorry but there is more at stake than her body, and whilst that is a huge risk which I don’t want to see messed with (keep female abortion), there’s more to the pregnancy than JUST HER. He is expected to raise the child or at least help pay for it, but even if he wears a condom she can still become pregnant and he has NO say in the matter. If mandatory child support didn’t exist I’d understand your position, but it’s dishonest to assume abortion is never for opting out of parenthood.
Given the fact that child support is mandatory it can be a major burden, in my current situation I couldn’t afford a child alone, nor even half of the responsibility of a child, I couldn’t handle raising a child as I am not fully independent myself. But atm my only real option to be safe is avoid any sexual activity that could result in conception, whereas if I were a female I could choose to abort if I became pregnant.
“You cannot force a woman to give birth any more than you can force her to have an abortion because you want her to. ”
But she can force you to pay child support, ignore your wishes regarding parenthood. She has the options that extend past her own body, they extend into an 18 year major financial burden + social expectation of being a father. But often these are ignored in these debates as unworthy, or because it’s money it’s seen as less important. Not all of us men are swimming in cash, some of us face major financial difficulty and can’t even afford to look after ourselves yet we’d still be slammed with the child support bill. Finances are a major stress for many people, it can leave people depressed, it can leave people feeling the only option is suicide, it’s probably sent men (and women I’d guess) to jail who don’t pay child support. It’s a very legitimate concern, it’s not worse or better than womens, it’s different but similar to a point, it’s worthy and to me it leaves me extremely nervous in sex.
Keep in mind, Archy, that I’m for some sort of opt-out options…in conjunction with more social support for single parents. I’m just trying to explain why I think it’s so hard for some women to think of opting out of financial responsibilities as similar to abortion.
Alright so, for better or worse (I think worse, really), society expects mothers to be the primary caregivers. If a woman unexpectedly becomes pregnant, I am willing to bet that she assumes that her options are thus: abortion, adoption, or raising the child. The possibility that the biological father would want to be the primary caregiver probably doesn’t enter her mind…unless of course this is something that she and her partner have talked about previously.
Alright, so with that in mind, there is still social and legal issues with getting an abortion. I’d also like to point out that there is still social stigma associated with giving up a child for adoption. Yes, a woman can drop off a baby without any legal ramifications…but there is a lot of internalized guilt associated with doing so. So in a sense, it doesn’t matter if no one else ever finds out…there is a lot of internalized social pressure that says – if you get pregnant, you raise that kid yourself.
So if you think that abortion is wrong (or just not available because you waited too long), and if you buy into the social stigma associated with adoption…then you’re left feeling as though you have to raise the kid yourself, and feeling as though the father won’t want to be the primary caregiver. So all of that, plus the lack of socially constructed support for single parents…then it’s not difficult to see how someone could come to the conclusion that, hey, the father had a hand in creating the kid too…he should bear some responsibility. And traditionally, the male role involved financial responsibility, and the mother can’t really get a job now that she’s trying to raise a kid too….so he can kick out a bit of cash to help with the mess he helped create.
Again, I’m not arguing this is a good system…far from it…I’m saying that’s kind of the logic behind it. Personally I think the solution is that yes, men should be able to opt out financially within a certain time period after conception. I think that needs to go hand in hand with creating more financial support for single parents. Our society is still set up so that, theoretically, one person makes money while the other raises the kids (yes our economy is crap right now, not the point)….it’s how the nuclear family is set up to work. So when you’re missing part of that (only one parent), then it makes surviving particularly difficult.
There is very little social stigma for women associated with adoption. There is compassion. People consider women who have their children adopted to be selfless/self-sacrificing, even heroic.
By contrast, men are treated with scorn unless they embrace her child, no matter howill equipped and unprepared he was/is to be a father. There is no stigma worse than being considered a “dead-beat dad”, with the possible exception of being a child molestor or (male) rapist (of a female).
Even being a murderer is not always worse. For example, people often have more compassion for men and especially women who commit crimes of passion.
At this time, there are two million couples waiting to adopt an infant. So, the opportunity is always there for those who don’t want to abort.
I liked the idea of communities raising a child, a few adults raising the kids together. Always wondered why people didn’t do that more instead of single family homes. Remove the major financial burden part of raising children and you’ll have far more willing fathers, but at the moment a child is quite expensive and for me personally would mean I’d be going hungry to support it, my quality of life would diminish bigtime and seriously harm my own road to recovery. I’m kinda glad I’m not in a relationship atm, I couldn’t afford a child and that fear would hang over me all the time. Pity I can’t put my balls on pause for a few years!
I agree with this completely.
Even a woman who does not want to become a parent but is against abortion still has the choice of adoption. Millions of couples are waiting to adopt an infant.
Yes, for sure. Adoption is a wonderful option. I feel like many Conservatives want to have their cake and eat it too. My views are mostly Liberal, but not in regard to abortion. If you want to end 2nd and 3rd trimester abortion, and prevent women from using it as birth control, then you cannot take away sex ed, condoms at schools, the morning after pill, and you cannot pitch a fit about insurance covered birth control. Sex is not taboo, and that attitude will create more unwanted pregnancies. Prevention and education play a large role in reducing the “need” for abortions as birth control. Unfortunately, it often seems policies are created simply to contrast another political party/belief system, not because they make any real social and economic sense.
“The point I’m trying to make is that this is the only contract that can ever exist, and we need to accept that. It’s not great, and it’s not equal, but it cannot be “improved.””
I disagree. In fact, the ‘contract’ has been constantly evolving. The last one we had said:
7. If I have the kind of body that grows babies, and I get pregnant, I cannot make anyone want to help me take care of it. I can possibly get a court to tell the baby-starter to pay me some money, but that’s no guarantee that he will if he doesn’t want to, and I might not be able to afford the legal costs of taking him to court all the time. The only thing I really have control over is who I’m going to tell about it. At the end of the day, although they might try, there is NOTHING ANYONE CAN DO ABOUT THAT. [Or something to that effect, when abortion was illegal.]
We improved this by legalizing abortion and women gained more autonomy.
“The “financial abortion” idea is really problematic because the decision to end a pregnancy is NOT the same thing as simply relinquishing the financial burden of caring for a child.”
Hold up! I am NOT relinquishing my financial burden for a child. The fetus is a clump of cells. YOU might believe that personhood begins at birth, but I for one don’t.
Obviously, this is not your stance, but I thought putting it in these terms would make the picture perfectly clear. Abandoning a child is illegal (for the most part). Aborting a clump of cells is not. Also, you cannot simply ‘hand wave’ the emotional impact from a financial abortion by making it look simple. The father must live with the fact that he has a child he has no say in their upbringing or experiences (assuming the mother carries it to term). If it is hard for a mother to give up a potential life, just think of the father who to gives up both the potential and real possibility to raise a child (Not comparing impact here, just showing that the mother is not the only one affected).
{As an aside…Why do so many people describe taking care of a child in such negative terms (ie. burden, stuck with, etc.)? I see everyone doing it and it just ticks me off.}
“Its a complex, deeply personal decision that is based on everything that makes someone an autonomous individual–values, culture, history, bodily integrity, health, etc.”
So is the financial abortion, I argue.
“You cannot force a woman to give birth any more than you can force her to have an abortion because you want her to.”
So we agree then. Giving men the option of a financial abortion will give men more rights, not take them away from women. This is not a zero-sum game.
“As a man, your control over your biological destiny lies at the point of conception. I don’t envy your position. But being a woman, I can’t imagine you envy mine either.”
As a woman, your control over your biological destiny used to lie at the point of conception as well. Had you settled for that in the past? Were you ok with what they ‘contract’ said back then? I don’t think so which is why it changed, and must continue to change and improve.
Also as just a personal injection, I do envy your situation as a woman, and as a “baby-grower” but that is a topic for another day.
“Pro-life is still a choice though. Men don’t have the luxury of choosing between abortion and pro-life stances, there choice is made for them.”
Sorry Archy, there was no more room to reply above. I just want to address the above response. This is what I am trying to convey. For many who are Pro-life. IT IS NOT A CHOICE. No matter how many times you say it is, this is simply not the case. This is my conviction, deep down to the core of my being. As far as I am concerned, there is no other choice. I am not a religious fanatic, I do not believe in protesting at clinics, shaming women, or shooting doctors. I do not go to church. I do not hand out tiny plastic babies. I just simply believe, with every fiber of my being, that any abortion beyond the first few weeks/1st trimester, is wrong. So, for me, there is no abortion option. It does not exist.
What he means is that society has created the possibility for a choice. You are still utilizing your human agency in believing that adoption is not a personal choice for you.
A lot of people on all sides of the abortion debate have a hard time recognizing the difference between personally seeing abortion as a non-choice, and society providing that choice.
What if a man feels precisely that way?
Makes a macimum of 0% difference, doesnt it?
So, this whole thing must be fair and right for both parties. It can’t be almost ALL one way, as it is now. Men should be given some level of human dignity and consideration, just as women are.
Again, adoption is the best option if two parents are needed. And it’s widely available.
That is true. i shared in an above reply, the story of a friend of mine, a pro-choice man, who wanted to keep an unplanned baby, releasing his partner of all obligation, and she still aborted. I really feel for him. But I don’t know how to “solve” the equation. A group of people will always find objection with any presented solution. That’s problem when something is gray, and not black or white.
“I just simply believe, with every fiber of my being, that any abortion beyond the first few weeks/1st trimester, is wrong. So, for me, there is no abortion option. It does not exist.”
Do you mean for you abortion is an option in the first few weeks, or abortion for you is flat out refused but you allow it for others for the first few weeks/1st trimester?
And HeatherN summed it up nicely what I was thinking.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,880,00.html
http://www.salon.com/2011/12/21/why_women_have_second_trimester_abortions/
91% of abortions occur in the first trimester (88% in first 12 weeks.) Many of those in the 2nd semester are women who didn’t have proper access to abortion to get it done in the first trimester…
Debating late-term abortions is fine, but let’s not forget that we’re talking about a rather small subset of overall abortions. Even if the cutoff is viability, almost all abortions meet that criteria.
If we had proper funding for family planning, safe-sex education, and, yes, abortions, the share of late-term abortions would be even less.
“If we had proper funding for family planning, safe-sex education, and, yes, abortions, the share of late-term abortions would be even less.”
Exactly.
Aborton should be legal and late term abortions should be legally regulated and monitored. In my home country, abortion rates are very low but we have excellent sex educaton and excellent access to contraception for both, men and women; covered by health insurance. And so are abortions.
And to everyone who is pro-life, I’d suggest to just not have an abortion if you get pregnant but don’t enforce your personal beliefs on others.
As a women I find the idea that I could be forced by law to carry a fetus to terms because my partner has decided it must be so repulsive.
If you’re relationship is that much in the gutter that you need to take legal actions to force your partner into being the breeding mare for your offspring there is something profoundly wrong.
http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_induced_abortion.html
1.5% of abortions occur after 20 weeks, which is on the extreme edge of viability.