How exactly is abortion solely a woman's decision (more inside)?

Question

Question 1: I understand it's a woman's body, but there are a number of factors that go into raising a child, including the man's desire to be a dad and income level. I've seen a woman (a relative) poke holes in condom and i've heard of women telling the guy they're on BC. Also the government has to step in and help the woman's finance the kid. With all these factors involved in raising the kid, how is it solely the woman's choice?

Question 2: If you fully support that it's the woman's choice and will not be moved on the subject, would you at least support a measure in which men do not to have to be responsible for the kid? A contract of some kind that states that if the woman decides to bring a kid to term and the man does not want it that the woman has to bear all responsibility for the kid? (In special cases).

Answer 1

If a person does not want the responsibility of caring for a child or how abortion fits into their life, maybe that person should not put themselves in a position to make those choices.  

I.E. Abstinence

Answer 2

I can see where you're coming from as in if she wants it, you don't or you want it and she doesn't. But ultimately, it is still the woman's choice because only she can decide whether or not she wants to push an 8 lb. baby out of her va-jay-jay, you know?? And in reference to question 2, she didn't climb on top of herself to get pregnant, therefore the responsibility of bearing a child can never be soley her responsible. However, if you choose not to be a part of the child's life or partake in any event in the child's life, that's all fine and well, but child support will be knocking on your door. I understand some women may trick  a man into getting her pregnant like your examples in question 1 and that's just morally wrong. I don't know what to tell you about things like that. Just pray for a miscarriage in those cases.

Answer 3

After a pregnancy takes place, men have all the responsibility and none of the choice. The feminist argument is this: "You should have kept it in your pants!" As if women should not have kept their legs closed.

If feminists truly wanted gender equality, they would fight for men's right to opt out of all responsibility once a pregnancy occurs. One female member on this forum once called it a 'paper abortion.' Men should have the right to paper abortions.

Answer 4

when i found out that i was pregnant, my boyfriend told me that it was totally up to me, regarding what to do about the pregnancy. but i felt that he should have a say in the matter too, seeing as he'd be the dad and all.

Answer 5

I don't know what your point is.  You're ranting to hear yourself.

As for question 2, there is an option to a man not being responsible, he could wear a condom OR his name can be left off the birth certificate.  

Answer 6

First let me say that I find these stories of women poking holes in condoms and lying about birth control to be completely abhorrent.

It's a power game that always ends badly.

to answer your questions:

1) bodily integrity.  You can't force her to have an abortion, and you can't force her to carry a pregnancy to term.  If you deny her right to bodily integrity, I'm coming after your liver.

2) A paper abortion with some structure and restrictions is perfectly reasonable.   A paper abortion without such structure is nothing more than a free pass for men to have irresponsible s*x whenever they like with whomever they like and bear no consequences.  

I think it's time people started taking their sexual behavior more seriously, instead of treating it like a recreational activity to alleviate boredom.

Answer 7

I'm not sure what your rant is getting at, but if you want to push for a "contract," how about enforcing some degree of responsiblity for pregnancy?

Abortion is a medical procedure. A medical procedure is the sole decision of the individual agreeing to (or refusing) it.

Instead of fussing about who is and who is not responsible for a child, and who is and who is not a moron when it comes to parenting, and to what degree the government should and should not intervene, we need to demand that people who do not want to be pregnant take steps to not be pregnant.

With all the options available today, there is no reason on the earth to be pregnant if one does not want to be. It's about responsiblity. Government interference undermines that responsibility, as does everything you propose here.

Answer 8

As another poster stated, abortion is a medical procedure. Abortion laws (Roe v Wade) give a person the right to privacy, i.e. to consent (or not) to a medical procedure without the interference of the government. This medical procedure results in NO child if one determines to have the procedure. If an individual does nothing, a child MAY result from the the pregnancy going to term...or it may not.

I know I am stating the (very) obvious here, but my point is to illustrate how confused the issue of abortion and "parental rights" (or disavowal of those same rights) has become. The right of a woman to determine what medical procedures she can undergo has become confused with parental rights. A woman must be able to determine what happens in the event of PREGNANCY, because she, alone, experiences pregnancy. Pregnancy, and abortion rights, are a separate issue from "raising a child." No one else has the right to determine whether or not a woman goes through with a pregnancy. Think about it, what IF someone else did have that right? Like, say, the PRESUMED father? SOMEONE has to have the final say, right? If the two parties (mother and presumed father) disagree as to what should happen (abortion, no abortion) should he have the final say? So, if the woman wants an abortion, but he wants the child that MAY result in a pregnancy carried to term, should he be able to get a court order FORCING the mother to carry it to term? Why, at that point, should the father's "right" to have that particular woman bring part of his DNA into the world take precedence over the woman's right to NOT be forced to be an incubator for someone else's progeny? Conversely, if the father does NOT want the child that MAY result in a pregnancy carried to term, should he then have the final say, as well? FORCE the woman to go through with a procedure that she may, for religious reasons, find morally reprehensible, and tantamount to murder? BTW, I use the term "presumed father" above because, unless an amniocentesis is done (which is often not recommended unless a serious problem arises, because of the potential harm to mother and fetus), there is no way to tell, LEGALLY, if the "presumed father" really IS the biological father. See the legal conundrum this can potentially pose? If MEN are going to be given legal sway over the bodies of women because those women MAY be carrying their progeny, how are we to make sure that a man isn't terminating the "incubation" of ANOTHER MAN'S child? Or FORCING, through legal action,  a woman to carry to term ANOTHER MAN'S CHILD, only to find out it wasn't his to begin with. Does he then have the right to say he doesn't want to raise the child, the child he got a court order to force the mother carry to term, after all? What if it's discovered, before the birth, that something's wrong with the baby, and the man decides he does not have the resources to take care of the child? Does he then get to take it all back, and tell her she can have an abortion, or is he stuck to his "contractual obligation?" There are all sorts of legal quagmire's that can result, not the least of which is the FORCING of another human being to become an "incubator" or the FORCING of another human being to go through with a procedure they deem to be murder. Both of which are violations of a human's right to freedom and right to conscience. So yes, I support a woman's right not to be forced to become a simple object of incubation, or to be forced into a procedure she may ideologically oppose.

As for a contract of some kind...would this be a pre-coitus contract? As in "If we have s*x, and a pregnancy results,  and you determine to NOT have a medical procedure that would terminate the pregnancy, I will not be obligated to help support the child, and will forfeit any and all parental rights thereof?"

I wouldn't necessarily be opposed to it...except that MOST often, it's not an issue of "poking holes in condoms" (men do this, too, believe it or not) or lying about b.c. (My husband tells me that his brother used to lie to women, saying he was sterile, so that he wouldn't have to use protection), it's usually about failure of those methods. Condoms break, b.c. is not always effective. Why should the woman bear SOLE responsibility for the actions of BOTH? Because of abortion rights? What if she believes that abortion is MURDER? How much "choice" does she REALLY have, in that case?

Answer 9

Your suggestion is completely in line with my thinking.  I believe that if a man makes it clear that he does not want a child from the beginning - before s*x, he is being honest.  This puts the onus on the woman to decide if she then wants to sleep with him.  If she does and gets pregnant - and she rejects the notion of an abortion - she should be responsible for the baby/child on her own. She knew the situation going in....

Answer 10

1.) If a woman wants to abort the child, she'll find a way, no matter what anyone else thinks. If she DOESN'T want to abort the child, then she doesn't have to, and anyone who tries to abort it themselves is also committing assault on the woman.

Fair or not, the woman has the SOLE decision on whether or not she wants to carry the pregnancy to term. If she doesn't have the power, then who does? Any problems with this biological arrangement should be taken up with your Creator, not your legislator.

2.) I would support a man available to sign a legally-binding and irrevocable document forever waiving his rights and responsibilities to the child, provided this is done in the same time frame as it is legal for a woman to have an abortion. In most jurisdictions, this is around 18-20 weeks, although I understand that paternity tests are not performed until the birth.

Of course, this would have to be done in a reasonable and timely fashion. For example, the woman would not be allowed to wait until she is 6 months before contacting potential fathers (this would be past the legal date for an abortion anyway).

Answer 11

I think that it should go to court if they disagree and I think that he should have a say or a right to say what happens to a fetus. After she has the baby she can give it up if she wants to after ahemer has it  

Answer 12

I appreciate where you are coming from and I agree with what you've said in question two - if a woman has lied to get pregnant against a mans wishes then she should be solely responsible for it, it was her choice. Though, if it was an accident then I think both hold some responsibility, even if it is just paying maintance. If I was in the position where I didn't want it and he did and, by some change in the law, both parents needed to agree to abort it, then I would not want to be responsible for looking after it when it was born, but I would pay maintance as it was an accident that both were responsible for. It would be really hard to enforce any of this though and with all said, I would never support anything that forced women to stay pregnant against their wishes.

Answer 13

When asked an earlier question if abortion is a moral, scientific, social or medical question, a feminist respondent answered as follows:

"Medical, to me it is no different than removing an unwanted wart from your person. I have never had one, but if I needed to have one I would like the choice to be there. "

You make an error when trying to apply male reason to feminist dogma. Killing a wart is the same as an abortion. A major lack of intellectual capacity in reasoning complicated issues is prevalent in feminist dogma. They should be ignored as a voice for anyone and ridiculed for their positions on a wide range of issues.

Answer 14

1.  It is a surgical procedure performed on her.  It has risks.   You can not demand another person have surgery.

2.  No I would not support a man dumping his responsibility for a child onto the woman or the taxpayers.  Next time you have s*x with a woman make sure you have one of those contracts.  

Someone suggested here once a "'man tax"' to go along with that theory.   Men would be assessed a tax and the funds would go to children abandoned by their fathers.