thanks for your post here - I'm interested in responding to it but don't have sufficient time right now- however i didn't want you think it was ignored (by me, since I'm doing much of the ranting in this thread...) I'm hoping to comment later.

it is a weird distinction to make, it's also a very human kind of distinction - I think what I mean to say is that at some point during a pregnancy, everyone will acknowledge that there is a baby inside of a woman, and it looks like us, and it interacts with us (kicking, reacting to sound are a couple things that come to mind) and no one of balanced psychological make-up relishes the idea of killing a baby, still inside its mother in this case. I'd go as far as saying that no one relishes the idea of terminating a pregnancy AT ANY point during a pregnancy. but, for myself, I can't go as far as deciding that any point in a pregnancy - such as initial fertilization of an egg, should be considered a baby. so what choice does that allow, then?

I once tried to make a point to a different poster here that for at least some portion of the gestation period, what exists inside a woman's body is a potential human only. maybe that's cherry picking, I don't know, but ultimately I don't really want to engage in debate about when that potential is realized and must be considered as much a person as anyone, because it turns the discussion into one about religion usually, and I don't have the patience for argument that centers around belief systems.
so I'm back to feeling that if that potential person is being grown inside of me, then it's up to me to determine my own belief system, my own moral choices, and how I intend to act on them.



which is your own set of moral choices, and if you're growing the baby inside you, then you got no problem because you're carrying it through to term, and will be thrilled with the results...



so here, you totally lose me. what this seems to put forth is that if I have sex, and I'm pregnant as a result, then welp! too bad for me if I just wanted to have sex because I wanted to get laid (which is perfectly acceptable for men, by the way) because it was my responsibility to ensure I WOULDN'T get pregnant, and my problem for wanting to have sex with someone (hi, my name's malice, and I'm a dirty whore?)
see, now I'm forced to deal with something growing inside me, giving birth to that 'something', probably raising them, and having my life forever changed and sometimes ruined simply because I was horny and now must pay...

look I understand to some degree what you're saying but I can't agree with it at all, it rings of a male worldview that has more to do with the hierarchical evolution of the species than it does with individual freedoms and choices.
ever hear that stand-up routine where the comic notes: if men got pregnant, abortions would be something they could stop off to get done on their way to a night out drinking and playing pool with their buds... (?) - there's some truth there. in my mind a great deal of truth - men do not have to contribute anything to a pregnancy other than their sperm, and nature has made that act of sperm contribution the most important and enjoyable thing any man wants to do - which would be fine if we were only the sum of our biological make-up - but we aren't - the evolutionary drive to reproduce isn't any longer the key motivation for having sex. people like to fuck. a lot. we aren't a species in danger of extinction, we are not made up of kingdoms and familial lines of succession to ensure order and security, we're just people who try our best to make it through life as happily and safely as possible.

I have more, but not right now...

Even if the baby is wanted, there is a cut off point on early births where the doctors can or can not provide life support (incubator, etc) to keep the baby alive. I'm not sure where that point is - I have heard of a few kids surviving being born at 6 months, so for sake of argument we'll go with that.

The law could simply be that any baby that is taken from the womb after 6 months gestation be treated as though it was a wanted but early birth. Mothers who choose to abort early could sign their rights away and the child offered up for adoption.

so here, you totally lose me. what this seems to put forth is that if I have sex, and I'm pregnant as a result, then welp! too bad for me if I just wanted to have sex because I wanted to get laid (which is perfectly acceptable for men, by the way) because it was my responsibility to ensure I WOULDN'T get pregnant, and my problem for wanting to have sex with someone (hi, my name's malice, and I'm a dirty whore?)
see, now I'm forced to deal with something growing inside me, giving birth to that 'something', probably raising them, and having my life forever changed and sometimes ruined simply because I was horny and now must pay...

look I understand to some degree what you're saying but I can't agree with it at all, it rings of a male worldview that has more to do with the hierarchical evolution of the species than it does with individual freedoms and choices.
ever hear that stand-up routine where the comic notes: if men got pregnant, abortions would be something they could stop off to get done on their way to a night out drinking and playing pool with their buds... (?) - there's some truth there. in my mind a great deal of truth - men do not have to contribute anything to a pregnancy other than their sperm, and nature has made that act of sperm contribution the most important and enjoyable thing any man wants to do - which would be fine if we were only the sum of our biological make-up - but we aren't - the evolutionary drive to reproduce isn't any longer the key motivation for having sex. people like to fuck. a lot. we aren't a species in danger of extinction, we are not made up of kingdoms and familial lines of succession to ensure order and security, we're just people who try our best to make it through life as happily and safely as possible.

I have more, but not right now...[/quote]




First, thanks for your thoughtful engagement. It's pretty refreshing in an online world of flame wars.

I get what you're saying about a male-centric statement, and the way I worded that part does only emphasize a woman's role. I think you're right that this conversation has drawn out a bias in what I chose to say. I would amend my statement to include that the man also chose to have sex and if it resulted in a pregnancy, I feel like he is as inextricably tied to the pregnancy as the woman morally speaking. I think you're right about your point that if men could get pregnant then abortions would be drive-thru, and I kind of hate that that's true. It's horrible that men find it so easy to vanish when sex produces a serious life complication (emotional or physical). I feel, though, that a male has abdicated a crucial part of his manhood if he merely gets off and then bails (whether or not he gets a woman pregnant, honestly). I feel like sex is the profound sum of many component parts (obvious physical pleasure, deep emotional bonding and human connectedness, reproductive action) and when men or women separate out those components, things can get messy. Don't get me wrong, I'm ok with contraception, for reasons I'll explain in a minute, but the way I feel about sex, I don't think men or women should take it lightly, so ultimately all of the physical and emotional outcomes of sex, such as pregnancy or emotional/spiritual 'ties that bind' should be shared wholly by both partners. (This is a different conversation, but I agree that people like to fuck a lot. I have some ideas why that's true, but I wonder what you would say about why.)

I will stand by my belief that sex is a profound thing with huge emotional, spiritual, and physical consequences, and that all parties involved should be ready to accept any and all of those consequences should they engage in the act, but I thank you for calling me out for placing all of that burden on the woman. That was alienating, and that kind of carelessness is probably part of why this is such a divisive issue.

I have a kid (I don't know if I mentioned that) and I know that it changes life on the sub-atomic level. Candidly speaking (as candid as I can be in a decidedly anonymous online forum), my wife and I have often wrestled with the hardship and sacrifice it takes to raise a kid, even sometimes feeling like our live was ruined. I understand the dread that an unexpected pregnancy could summon. If I were a woman, especially a single woman whether on a career track or living poor and hoping to escape or anywhere in between, I can't imagine the cocktail of emotions I would feel if I found out I were pregnant. Fear, regret, anticipation, amazement, and the conflict between an instinct to protect something that's a part of you and the instinct to preserve yourself. I wish our culture were the kind that had men ready to step into manhood and journey with a woman. I hope that our culture can at least be the kind where a woman doesn't have to journey alone even if the man disappears.



All that said, how do you make policy to accommodate both our worldviews in a democratic republic that's supposed to reflect the views of all its citizens? I can't image it's possible on the federal level. With society being more mobile than ever, though, is it possible for states to reflect their majorities and people can move to states that reflect their values? This places all of the burden on the poor, who may not have the resources to move. Do you err on the side of the most freedom, which essentially favors one moral code above another? I don't really know that there is an answer, which is part of why I wish most of this particular conversation happened between neighbors, friends, and communities and not between politicians and super PACS.

I think in any case in which the debate for a law in which side A is for choice and side B is for an absolute, we should always err on the side of the choice.

No one group should have the ability to take a right away from another group.

Should one group have the right to saddle another group with a near lifelong responsibility?

Just to press into that last statement a bit, a very large portion of the law is about one group taking rights away from another group. Let's say you have group A who has no moral qualm at all about stealing, but group B finds stealing morally wrong and enacts a law wherein people go to prison for choosing to steal, thus losing their right to freedom (and other rights if the theft is a felony)--would you hold that up to the same standard of no one group should have the ability to take a right away from another group? The law errs against choice and one group takes rights from another group.

I think stealing is far different from the matter at hand, of course, but the point I'm making is this: The law takes sides on moral debates. With theft, the number of people who find it wrong probably vastly outweighs the number of people who don't, so it's a no-brainer to have laws against theft. So the real question to my mind is how should the law come down on this moral debate? The numbers are way more even on both sides compared to something simple like theft, so any majority is going to be narrow.

Also, as an aside, I don't really think it's about life vs. choice. I don't think the 'life' side hates choice any more than I think the 'choice' side hates life.

There's always a gray area, but stealing is a more clear-cut problem, because you know and see who it affects. I don't especially consider a clump of undifferentiated cells a person. While I personally wouldn't ever have an abortion, there have been times in my life that had I gotten pregnant, it would have been a real option on the table. Maybe working with so many babies throughout my years has given me a different perspective. Sometimes it really is better just not to let it get that far, than to try and raise a kid you can't afford, don't really want, and resent. The idea of forcing more dumb teens, rape victims, poor women or even just women that aren't ready into unwanted roles as parents is a scarier idea to me. People forget babies don't stay babies. They're people. Not choices, not lessons, not consequences. They deserve to be wanted, nurtured and taken care of. Otherwise don't bother.

i am single and no kids and will remain so for the rest of my misbegotten life...

having said that until a baby shoots out is it really viable? on a base level babies are parasites feeding off of the mother. if the mother were to expire the baby would also (given that no life support or doctor intervention happens).

i dont mean that to say that its ok to abort up to the 35th week. i also gather from this thread that 21 weeks is considered late in terms of getting aborted and that the standard for getting an abortion is around 4-6 weeks(?).

i think it is a womans choice as to whether she wants to do it or not but if there is a disagreement between a father and mother on early termination then the male should not be held responsible for child support. if she decides to have an abortion and the father doesnt want her to have one can he take her to court for damages?

im sure the analogy isnt the best wording but its the best i can come up with for right now.

there are many consequences that i thankfully havent (nor will i) ever have to deal with in terms of fathering a child......

This is a point that my wife and I disagree about. The answer is that it varies from state to state, but in reality, the courts move too slowly to for a hearing to be had.

My wife things the father has zero standing. I don't know what say a man has or for how long, but it's surely not zero if he wants to save the life of the fetus. And sure, there are men who are abusive and will use this as a way to tie the mother into a continuing abuse relationship (or all sorts of other nefarious motivations). That's why, in a case of disagreement between mother and father there should be some sort of hearing where each could provide evidence. How you do that in time for it to matter ... I don't know.

On the flip, father wants an abortion and the woman does not. He should have some sort of hearing that allows him to opt out of parenthood even if that involves some sort of monetary support. Frankly, even in that situation, I think it should be less than a father who leaves after birth. I mean, a woman can choose to abort with no future debt to the child, but a father doesn't have that same choice, so damages should be limited based on a hearing.

I think the man should have a very limited time, early in the pregnancy where he can walk away without any future child support possible. This would help provide the woman with better information regarding any decision she's going to make. I do think that the man should have no say in any abortion decision.

I feel for a guy wanting to keep a pregnancy to become a father but am comfortable with it not being his call in any way. I'm more concerned with father and child rights post birth. I think every birth certificate should require a DNA tested father to be declared on it. I think child support payments should be made to the child and not the mother. The mother would have power of attorney though. It would mean that if a house were purchased by the mother, any portion of child support used to help make mortgage payments would provide the kid(s) part ownership in the house.

I agree with this. I also think that it's a pretty cowardly thing to do, but it's not the government's place to correct cowardice.

I know I'm cherrypicking your argument, but as a father, this just bothers me. I mean, if a father really views this as his child and feels like the mother is killing his child, he should have some avenue, however narrow, to save it.

This all assume that the relationship is AT LEAST healthy enough for the man to know about the pregnancy, b/c there's nothing to stop the woman from hiding the pregnancy and getting the abortion without the father's knowledge.

At the risk of Malice breaking up with me, I gotta say I agree with you. BUT, since the woman bears the physical, psychological, and social burden of the pregnancy, my feeble brain cannot think of a solution that would allow for the father to be legally on par with the mother until after the child is born. Until someone solves that (gestation tanks?), it remains the mother's choice alone.

I think the issue is that technology still hasn't quite caught up with this yet. There's no 100% positive way of truly knowing the father of the kid before its born. (Prenatal DNA testing, while possible, is expensive and kind of dangerous). How many men would exercise tat right over the woman, only to find out the kid isn't there's? Then there's still the consequence of forcing a woman to go through pregnancy, which isn't exactly pleasant or cheap.

Ideally, yes. Pragmatically, absolutely not.

Hey ... if the mother wants to present evidence in court that this guy probably isn't the father because she's a huge slut, more power to her!

Nice, B. Real nice.

As a guy who has witnessed his wife endure 2 pregnancies, I am 100% comfortable with this being up to the woman. I feel some sympathy for the guy who wants a kid and is denied, but ultimately, it's the woman who must sacrifice at least a year of her life or more (it doesn't end at 40 weeks), with all kinds of risks along the way. It's unreasonable.

If they had to, holy shit, knocked up sluts would be evrrrywhere. :p