OT: Choice for Men

[haji1]

One problem I have with men having much of a say is that they can always leave. They may say early on that they want the child, but in the eighth month run off with the bar skank and leave the woman hanging. Now she has the child and no one there to help support it. I guess what I am saying is that because so many men do flee when they get a girl pregnant, it is hard for me to justify men having very much say in the birth of the child.

[ice4277]

Originally Posted by Franklinnoble

Like it or not, the moment a woman becomes pregnant, she is the custodian of another human life. Aborting it is not simply a matter of "controlling her body." Not all responsibilities in life are desireable. In fact, most things you can label as a "responsibility" are downright unpleasant, and some are even dangerous and/or life threatening, but they are responsibilities just the same, and we are a weaker society for cheapening the responsibility we have towards innocent human life.

Solid post.

[Cuckoo]

Originally Posted by haji1

One problem I have with men having much of a say is that they can always leave. They may say early on that they want the child, but in the eighth month run off with the bar skank and leave the woman hanging. Now she has the child and no one there to help support it. I guess what I am saying is that because so many men do flee when they get a girl pregnant, it is hard for me to justify men having very much say in the birth of the child.

Remember, women can also leave in a sense. Yes, the have to endure the pregnancy and birth of child which the man obviously does not, but most states have safe haven laws now making it acceptable to simply abandon a child. That is if they choose not to give it up for adoption.

I don't think the actions of the men who act irresponsibly should dictate the rights of those who wish to be responsible.

[Cuckoo]

Originally Posted by Blackadar

I didn't read it this way. It was never said men couldn't have an opinion. What was said was that the right to control your own body is a personal issue.

I understand that reading. What I would argue with is whether a baby (or even a potential baby for those who don't believe it's a life) is part of a woman's body or a creation of the two parties. I would assert that it's the latter.

[SirFozzie]

Well, when you consider that men are the agressors/initiators in most sexual activity.. I have NO problem with them being held liable for their actions.

Basically.. "You caused this problem.. if the woman goes through with it, and gives birth you have the obligation to help with the problem"

[judicial clerk]

I do believe a father should support his offspring, but support without being allowed input is essentially blackmail at gunpoint.

Any father to be has already been allowed "input", literally.

Thank you. I'll be here all week.

[clintl]

I don't think a life becomes a "person" until the brain has developed to the point that consciousness is possible. My understanding is that doesn't happen until at least the 5th month. Up to that point, I think it is perfectly reasonable to treat the fetus as a part of the woman's body, and give her complete choice about whether to carry it.

As far as men are concerned, if they don't use a condom, they are as responsible as the woman regardless of what she may have told them, and should be fully on the hook for the financial obligations of the child's upbringing. Men have complete control over the decision to wear a condom.

[Maple Leafs]

Originally Posted by clintl

I don't think a life becomes a "person" until the brain has developed to the point that consciousness is possible.

That's really the key: when is the fetus a human life? I never really understand why these abortion discussions ever get past that point.

If it's not a human life, then all the pro-life rhetoric becomes moot. If it is a human life, then it seems undeniably cruel to suggest that a woman can have a "choice" to kill it.

All the rest of the pro-choice/pro-life debate is just smoke and mirrors.

[Cuckoo]

Originally Posted by Maple Leafs

All the rest of the pro-choice/pro-life debate is just smoke and mirrors.

I disagree actually. Since the Supreme Court has ruled that a fetus can be aborted, arguing over whether it's a life, although an important discussion, doesn't effect much. Some believe that the decision should be overturned, and that's a worthy argument, but it's just as important to discuss how to address the current situation. This thread was looking at one aspect of parental responsibility, not necessarily the old abortion debate.

[Franklinnoble]

Originally Posted by Maple Leafs

That's really the key: when is the fetus a human life? I never really understand why these abortion discussions ever get past that point.

If it's not a human life, then all the pro-life rhetoric becomes moot. If it is a human life, then it seems undeniably cruel to suggest that a woman can have a "choice" to kill it.

All the rest of the pro-choice/pro-life debate is just smoke and mirrors.

Personally, I don't care for the arguments that pro-abortionists make with regards to the difference between a fetus and a baby. If left alone under normal circumstances, a fetus will indeed become a full-grown human at some point. It is alive, and it is a separate and distinct living being. By virtue of the fact that it could not exist without the introduction of a male sperm negates the argument that it is simply a part of a woman's body that can be casually removed at will. Splitting hairs over the stage and condition of its development is merely justification for early euthanasia.

[Fidatelo]

Originally Posted by Franklinnoble

Personally, I don't care for the arguments that pro-abortionists make with regards to the difference between a fetus and a baby. If left alone under normal circumstances, a fetus will indeed become a full-grown human at some point. It is alive, and it is a separate and distinct living being. By virtue of the fact that it could not exist without the introduction of a male sperm negates the argument that it is simply a part of a woman's body that can be casually removed at will. Splitting hairs over the stage and condition of its development is merely justification for early euthanasia.

I'm pro-abortion, but I agree with you here. Defining the exact moment of life is just an attempt for people to feel better about killing their baby. The decision to kill your unborn child should not come without some seriously moral baggage, but I still think it is a decision that should be allowed. This world does not need anymore un-wanted, un-loved children than it already has. Plus there are the rape reasons and health risk reasons that I feel are valid as well.

[Franklinnoble]

Originally Posted by Fidatelo

I'm pro-abortion, but I agree with you here. Defining the exact moment of life is just an attempt for people to feel better about killing their baby. The decision to kill your unborn child should not come without some seriously moral baggage, but I still think it is a decision that should be allowed. This world does not need anymore un-wanted, un-loved children than it already has. Plus there are the rape reasons and health risk reasons that I feel are valid as well.

Well, the problem isn't un-wanted children... any adoption agency will tell you that they have a waiting list of parents who are hoping to adopt babies in this country. Several members of my church have decided to adopt foreign children because of the difficulties with adopting American babies. Something else is systemically wrong if there is any instance of "unwanted" children in this country. I suspect the welfare/child support reward model needs to be closely looked at.

While I am sympathetic to cases of rape and health risks (more than you can possibly imagine), I don't find that to be an acceptable excuse for abortion. My wife was at severe risk with our second baby (now 8 months old) because of gestational diabetes and preeclampsyia that was diagnosed by the time she was two months pregnant, and she rejected any suggestion that she should terminate the pregnancy for the sake of her own health. She survived, and so did the baby, and both are happy and healthy, but I have no doubt she would do it again, and gladly give her life for the sake of her unborn child. Would that be convenient for me, and her two other children? No, but it IS responsible, and it IS the right thing to do.

[Marc Vaughan]

Originally Posted by Telle

You wouldn't be saying that if it was your body that had to birth the baby, your body that had to carry it for nine months, your health and life that might be put into jeopardy. If storks really brought babies, then sure you have a great plan. Or if the fetus could easily and without any side-affects be moved from the mother to the father, then sure again. Otherwise, I don't think so.

(gets up from his normal position sitting on the fence)

I'd use the same arguement for this which is frequently used against men - "If you aren't ready for the consequences then don't sleep with someone" ... simple as that.

I see no reason to victimise an unborn child because an adult made a mistake personally.

If a man has a child with a woman (regardless of his view on wanting or not wanting the child) then he is liable to pay childcare for the first 18 years of its life (in England at least), so if the alternative is to give the man the right to decide to support and raise the child in return for the woman sacrificing 9 months of being pregnant ...

I know if I'd had a girlfriend who aborted a baby of mine I'd have been traumatised and I personally think its awful that a father has no say in these things ....

(jumps back on the fence before anyone throws something at him)