Yeah, it is pretty disgusting. I consider myself to be pretty much Pro-Choice while I know I could never get an abortion myself. However, if I got pregnant as a result of rape, I think I would at least consider it.

I think that a lot of people are quick to say "Hey this is how it is" when they have no idea because they haven't been there. Sexual assault is, in my opinion, the worst thing someone could experience. For someone to force you to carry to term the result of someone else's fuck up is disgusting and cruel.

I'm pro-death and all, but characterizing this move as favoring rapists and child molestors is just ludicrous. They don't want babies from their victims in the first place. And in the second place you've got no reason to think this was a genuine rape. Statutory rape is hardly the same thing if both of those involved are minors.

I have no problem with a fair criticism of Jebby, but calling him a defender of rapists is just not right.

Dave

Jeb Bush isn't doing what he's doing in these cases on behalf of the fathers/rapists. He's doing it on behalf of the fetus's. He's still wrong and trampling on the civil rights of women/children, but he's not defending rapists rights. Nobody is going to believe that.

I do support your desire to see Jeb out of office next election, and would hope that you would help make that possible by contributing time or resources to an opponent of his. However, I wouldn't use this as a strategy.

Jeb will have to leave office soon if he wants to get his presidential campaign going anyway.

Dave

Using obviously false arguements to support a point diminish your validity. I am concerned about the enviornment but when people make false claims about a hole in the ozone layer it weakens their arguement. The falseness of your arguement is the assertion that Jeb is interested in rapists rights. Didn't that seem silly to you when you wrote it?

One last thing. How far along is the pregnancy? I always wonder at how anxious some are to terminate life. The arguement is not about womens rights - it is about when you believe the baby has the right to live.

Until the day comes that a male can carry and bear a child, and is then willing to take transfer of the fetus, carry it, give birth to it, and then raise it for the rest of his life, no male has any right whatsoever to say anything to any woman about whether she carries any fetus to term. If you can't get raped, can't get pregnant, won't end up saddled with the kid, and won't have to go thru hell, then you have no interest, credibility, or say in the matter. Period.

I also note that Jeb isn't exactly offering to adopt the results or care for them himself, either. It's awfully easy to inflict this kind of decision on someone and then walk away from the life-long results. Talk is cheap. When so-called 'pro-lifers' start putting their money, time, and lives where their mouths are and adopting each and every one of these unwanted creatures before they're born, then I may consider listening to their arguments against abortion, but not until then. I certainly won't hold my breath. And religion is no argument: religion, like hands, belongs strictly to self, and not all over someone else.

Brava, Nancy!

Nancy -

your arguement is flawed. I will never be a thief but I can pass judgement on a thief and know that thievery is wrong. The real ethical question on abortion is when the fetus/baby has the right to life. Does it only aquire the right to life after emerging from the womb. What about postwomb abortions?

Nancy's argument is exactly like the 'chickenhawk' argument, and just as flawed.

Abortion or the lack of abortion impacts society as a whole. Everyone in society has a say in the policy towards it, even if we don't necessarily have the right to tell individual women how to live their lives.

Dave

You do NOT have any say in it - society as a whole has no say in it - unless and until society or you are prepared and able to step to the plate and take on the burden yourself instead of requiring the woman to do so.

I am constantly astounded that men think nothing of arrogating to themselves the right to determine how women shall control their bodies - "for their/society's own protection" is the usual BS given. No male I know would tolerate for a nanosecond any other person or authority dictating how or what he does with his body or safety - shoot, half the guys I know won't even wear seat belts or helmets, let alone allow someone to tell them how to run their reproductive lives - and yet men expect women to roll over and take this crap? I think not. It's time for men (and a lot of women) to wake up and come out of the middle ages. Guess what: women have SOULS - didja know that? Women have brains and intelligence and they can be taught - didja know that? Women are independent, autonomous legal entities - didja know that? Obviously not, otherwise you won't be blathering on about women having to have their rights controlled by the state, the church, men, or any other agency as if they were nothing more than breeding stock and chattel. As long as this arrogant and archaic attitude concerning the absolute right of any woman to control her own life and body continues, it must be taken, then, that those who hold that women don't have those rights regard women as nothing more than slaves; second-class citizens. The viability of the fetus has no bearing on this argument, which is foremost and primary: FIRST is the question of whether indeed a woman is a totally vested, independent, legal entity. If so, then no 'potential' entity can take precedence over her absolute rights. If she's not, then she is, de facto, a breeding slave, and that fact should be openly stated so the world can see how advanced and civilized the US really is.

Abortion is never the answer in the best of all possible worlds; no one pretends that it is. But this argument is NOT about the fetus; when you get down to the absolute bedrock bottom, the real question is about autonomy and power, and whether women shall continue to be the pawns of men and the society men (the predominantly powerful sector who hold the vast majority of positions in law, religion, politics, economics, etc.) have created. Women are NOT slaves; women are NOT breeding animals; women are NOT second class citizens, the view of various organized religions to the contrary; and women do not need any one to determine any course of action, ostensibly for the lie of "their own protection/good/society's good". NO ONE has the right to try to force us to be otherwise, for any reason. Basta!

Nancy, you come off as a sexist bigot in this last comment. Do you think that men would not gladly carry babies if they could? There are certain biological realities at work here. Plus at the very least men have some rights regarding the disposition of their offspring. You can't demand rights for women which can only be accomplished by denying equal rights to men.

As for society taking responsibility, it does. Once a baby is born society and government and private groups are there to raise it and get it adopted if you don't want to keep the baby, so abortion isn't the only available option, and saying that it IS the only option is tantamount to saying that your abortion is one of convenience, not necessity.

>>Women are NOT slaves; women are NOT breeding animals; women are NOT second class citizens<<

In what way do laws restricting abortion make women slaves, breeding animals or second class citizens any more than any other law that governs human behavior makes anyone a 'slave' to the law? The only case where this argument makes any sense at all is in cases of rape or incest, where the pregnancy is involuntary. You are essentially arguing against the laws of nature here. That's an argument you aren't going to win.

And please note that I'm 100% pro abortion for societal reasons. I'd rather see more abortions and fewer kids being born on principle. Plus I'm an atheist, so religious arguments against abortion make about as much sense as your illogical rant does to me.

The arguments you make are emotional, illogical and do more to hurt your cause than to help it. By acting like this you play right into the hands of the pro-lifers. This sort of argument is so weak and so inconsistent and so outdated that you create a position that's awfully easy to just dismiss as ranting.

If you think about it, your position is one which relegates women to a second-class status, by saying that they are somehow incapable of taking responsibility for what they do with their own bodies. You're saying that their rational faculties are overwhelmed by their sex drive, and that once they make a decision they shouldn't be held responsible for the consequences. Do you realy think that poorly of women?

Dave

I don't see Nancy's comments as sexist, or her position in any way that of a bigot. An individual's freedom to govern their own body trumps almost any other argument. I believe that the only situation where an outside agency could have domain over an individual's personal choice would be over infectious disease. i.e. You have Ebola but don't want to go to the hospital for treatment.

The arguments you make are emotional, illogical and do more to hurt your cause than to help it. By acting like this you play right into the hands of the pro-lifers. This sort of argument is so weak and so inconsistent and so outdated that you create a position that's awfully easy to just dismiss as ranting.

This is nonsense Dave. Nancy is expressing her beliefs, eloquently, and you have the gall to dismiss them as emotional? Bah, you're the sexist bigot around here.

Bennett, Nancy makes it abundantly clear that she thinks that men basically want to enslave women and make them second class citizens. That's a nonsensical and sexist position to take.

She also suggests that pregnancy is being forced on women by society, when in fact pregnancy is forced on women by nature and by their choice to become pregnant or to not avoid becoming pregnant. It is not the fault of men as a class that pregnancy exists, nor is it the fault of society that some women get pregnant when they really didn't want to.

Trying to shift blame and/or responsibility for a pregnancy away from the pregnant woman and onto men as a group or society or some sort of bizarre reproductive enslavement conspiracy does no one any good, especially women.

Dave

It is neither bigoted nor sexist to maintain that regardless of my gender, I as a human being have an absolute right to self-determine the uses of my body, the same as you or anyone else.
Any other argument is both delusional and false. My capabilities vs your limitations have no play whatsoever in this: either I am a full citizen, with full powers of self-rule, or I am not. Ironically (given the subject of argument) it's like stating one is pregnant or one is not; there's no in between. Because women are capable of bearing children and men are not is neither an excuse nor a reason, ethically or morally, to deny women the same self-rule that men enjoy. If women are denied this self-determination, then Q.E.D. they are neither equal nor free.

Would you tolerate any government or religion mandating that you MUST give blood, not because you want to, but because you can? Would you tolerate any goverment or religion mandating that you MUST give bone marrow, not because you want to, but because you can? Would you tolerate any government or religion mandating you must donate your organs, not because you want to, but because you can? The hell you would. So why should you expect me - or any other woman - to tolerate any government or religion mandating that I must submit my body for use for breeding, against my will, just because I can? When this is done, regardless of what ulterior 'for-the-good-of-society' argument is advanced as a smokescreen, it still has the same effect: it nullifies my status as equal, self-determining, and free. I thereby become nothing more than subordinate, non-determining, and chattel in law.

And if you get some woman pregnant, and she doesn't want to carry the kid, yeah, you have some say in it - but ONLY if you can take the embryo and carry it to term. Until then, you don't. Don't like that? Better get going and get someone to develop the medical advances that would allow you to do so.

In any event, you have no right - the government has no right - no religion has any right - to mandate that any woman should have to submit her body to serve as a breeding unit, just because she can.

I do assert that men in general want to keep authority and power over women; otherwise there would be far more women in the upper echelons of government and corporate managment. Men are very wary and very selfish about sharing power (note I don't say 'responsibility', a very different thing) with women.

And around the world: how many countries are there where women are literal chattel? Where they can vote? Have equal rights with men? Hm? Damned few, according to the U.N. and our own government's reports...or why would Mrs. Bush have felt it to be an imperative that she go to Afghanistan to encourage women to continue trying to gain rights and keep the few they had managed to get?

The very fact that the preponderance of low-paying, low-level jobs are filled by women, or are considered "womens' work" demonstrates that even the normally blind and beknighted government recognizes that women are not given their fair recognition of their abilities and rewarded commensurately with men. And don't get me started on religions, as you will lose crashingly there. They - all ruled by males, and all exclusionary of females in upper positions - are so self-evident as to be a positive embarrassment to the human race.

Then again, check out the US crime statistics: according to the FBI, abuse of women by men is the #1 sport of America. Almost 100% of women are murdered by men, not other women. Men, on the other hand, are killed mainly by other men. You don't consider those to be telling statistics? And before you tell me that you don't know where I got those figures (your standard excuse for not accepting any argument involving numbers in any thread I've seen) I will direct you to the FBI website, and the figures there ref: female/male mortality rates and causes. I do believe the US D.o.H has the same, but I got mine from the FBI.

You arguing that there is no bias by men against women is like the white person arguing that discrimination against blacks or other minorities is all in their minds. You don't experience it, so you don't see it, and will not admit it, since you are the main perpetrator (not meaning 'you' personally, Dave, of course, but 'you' in the plural as representing the cohort of men or whites in general). Go ahead: tell me all this is just in my own mind....

And BTW, this could be a thead on its own; we're getting away from the gist of the original argument. I'm not sure if this is allowed.

She also suggests that pregnancy is being forced on women by society, when in fact pregnancy is forced on women by nature and by their choice to become pregnant or to not avoid becoming pregnant. It is not the fault of men as a class that pregnancy exists, nor is it the fault of society that some women get pregnant when they really didn't want to.

Trying to shift blame and/or responsibility for a pregnancy away from the pregnant woman and onto men as a group or society or some sort of bizarre reproductive enslavement conspiracy does no one any good, especially women.

Dave, Why do you make this stuff up? Nancy says no such thing. She simply asserts that her body is her body, and no one has the right to interfere with her choices. Why distort her words? What does it accomplish?

>>It is neither bigoted nor sexist to maintain that regardless of my gender, I as a human being have an absolute right to self-determine the uses of my body, the same as you or anyone else.<<

No question that you have exactly the same right to self-rule and freedom to do what you want with yoru body as anyone else. That freedom brings with it responsibility to deal with the consequences of your actions as well.

>>Would you tolerate any government or religion mandating that you MUST give blood, not because you want to, but because you can? Would you tolerate any goverment or religion mandating that you MUST give bone marrow, not because you want to, but because you can? Would you tolerate any government or religion mandating you must donate your organs, not because you want to, but because you can? The hell you would. <<

As a general rule I object to government or religion telling anyone what to do.

>>So why should you expect me - or any other woman - to tolerate any government or religion mandating that I must submit my body for use for breeding, against my will, just because I can? <<

So, you're saying that there's a government or religion sponsored program of forced impregnation of women. Ok, where's the evidence for this?

The truth is that most women get pregnant voluntarily, and because it's a voluntary choice it becomes their obligation to deal respponsibly with the consequences. The fact is that the government didn't make you pregnant, YOU did.

>>When this is done, regardless of what ulterior 'for-the-good-of-society' argument is advanced as a smokescreen, it still has the same effect: it nullifies my status as equal, self-determining, and free. I thereby become nothing more than subordinate, non-determining, and chattel in law.<<

In modern American society NO ONE, not even the most fundamentalist, is making this argument in a serious way. Your status as equal and self-determining is unquestioned. It only comes into doubt when your freedom interferes with someone else's rights.

And this is EXACTLY why the issue of abortion can only be addressed as a scientific issue and not an issue of rights, because rights are absolute and the only question here is whether a fetus has rights or at what point it gains any rights, and that has to be determined by science.

>>And if you get some woman pregnant,<<

So when a woman gets pregnant it's always the man's fault entirely? Do you believe that all sex is rape?

>> and she doesn't want to carry the kid, yeah, you have some say in it - but ONLY if you can take the embryo and carry it to term. Until then, you don't. Don't like that? Better get going and get someone to develop the medical advances that would allow you to do so.<<

Actually, we have the medical technology to do this. So you would say it's ok to surgically remove the fetus and put it into a surrogate womb if the father wants to do so, even if the mother doesn't consent?

>>In any event, you have no right - the government has no right - no religion has any right - to mandate that any woman should have to submit her body to serve as a breeding unit, just because she can.<<

Again, no one is forcing women to do anything here. Where are the government implantation centers where women are kept in pens and forced to bear young? I'm sorry, but your portrayal of the character of heterosexual reproduction is literally demented.

Dave

See Bennett's comments. You twist my arguments and put words in my mouth I never said. I IMPLY nothing: if I wanted to say it, then I did. If I didn't then don't read anything into it that isn't there or exists only in your own imagination. I should think everything I've said has been blunt enough even for you; I'm not noted for having to IMPLY anything.

What about the assumption that possession is 9/10ths of the law? If a man gives his semen to a woman, isn't it hers now?

Seriously though, the crux of most abortion arguments always revolves around the concept that the man may lose the fetus against his will. How common is it in the heterosexual community for a man and a woman to disagree on whether or not they want a child, AFTER the woman is pregnant? Is it common? Isn't this stuff usually discussed beforehand?

That I've noticed, not usually. It would seem from what I've heard and observed that either neither party is paying much attention until it's too late, OR she wants him (not necessarily the kid) so she gets careless and gets prego so he'll have to marry her (she thinks/hopes), OR he thinks getting his girlfriends pregnant is a notch in his stick (would that it were) altho he doesn't want the kid either.

Now, I will cede to Dave that probably the preponderance of pregnancies are - even if not planned - certainly wanted. That's not at any point what I have argued. What I AM saying is that should it happen, and she does not want it, she should not have to carry it to term, for any reason. If there is a desire on the part of the man to bring the embryo to term, barring any technology otherwise (and if there is a way to grow a fetus in vitro to term, I'd sure like to know about it; sources, Dave?) his wishes must become subordinate to hers unless he can arrange an alternative to forcing her to carry it to term.

And I am quite blunt enough on my own, so DON'T read 'implications' into my statements. There are none. What I want to say, I do. No "in other words...".

I'd rather see more abortions and fewer kids being born on principle.

That's a very bizarre statement. Most people would "rather see" fewer unwanted pregnancies, not more abortions.

I think the whole issue of abortion and women's reproductive rights is extremely complex, definitely NOT black and white. I'm not even sure what I believe completely. My opinions keep changing as I get older. :)

Basically I'm pro-choice, and think that every woman should have the right to decide whether or not to carry to term. Where I live abortion is legal up to the 12th week. The morning after pill is legal here too, and I am very much in favor of it.

Sure there are some men out there who want to harm and control women.... my ex-boyfriend is a good example. He forced sex on me when I was 16, in an attempt to get me pregnant. Afterwards I rushed to my doctor who gave me a high dose of birth control pills, and luckily I didn't get pregnant. My ex was verbally and physically abusive, and having a child with him would have foced me to deal with this, at least in some capacity, for the rest of my life. However, I don't believe my ex was "evil" solely because of being male. I've met an equal number of women who are were just as creepy and abusive as he was.

My husband and I got married in our first year of college. We were young and stupid and not that careful. I got pregnant, but this time the sex was consensual. We had no money and I wasn't even sure I wanted to be a mother. I seriously considered an abortion, even getting a referral to a clinic. As it turned out, I got cold feet and couldn't go through with it. We had the baby. Fast forward 10 years ... my husband and I both finished college, we are financially stable and I am a stay at home mom with four children.

My husband has been extremely supportive. He supported me when I was considering the abortion 10 years ago. He has been there through each pregnancy, and takes a very active role in the upbringing of our children. No, he did not carry the babies or give birth or breastfeed, but as someone already suggested, there are biological factors as to why he can't... and if he'd had the choice, I'm sure he would have carried them and given birth. He is a very active and concerned father.

There are many good men out there like my husband, and to say that these men should have absolutely no rights in the abortion issue, especially of their own children, seems too extreme to me. Men are not evil tyrants, they're PEOPLE. They can be creeps like my ex or they can be very loving like my husband.

Just my two cents.

That's NOT what I've said: does no one out there read English? I SAID/WROTE: IF A WOMAN DOES NOT WANT TO CARRY A PREGNANCY TO TERM FOR WHATEVER REASON, UNTIL TECHNOLOGY EXISTS OTHERWISE, THEN HER WISHES MUST TRUMP (i.e. take priority over, come ahead of) THE MAN'S, AND NO GOVERNMENT, RELIGION, OR OTHER PARTY HAS THE RIGHT TO FORCE HER TO CARRY TO TERM.

That's it. Stop reading into my statements what I did not put there!

Hi Becky, Glad things worked out so well for you. You wrote "and to say that these men should have absolutely no rights in the abortion issue, especially of their own children..."

As Steve pointed out, the number of cases where there is dissagreement between married couples over termination of a pregnancy is so rare that it is not an issue.

As in the case with your ex-boyfriend, if you had become pregnant, should he have had any say whatsoever in your choice about having an abortion, if you wanted to?

I don't think so. It's YOUR decision.

I think that men should have a say within the relationship. "Honey, I don't want you to have an abortion."

But that's it. No legal say. There has to be a line, and it's my body, so that's where the line should be drawn.

Nancy, actually I DO agree with you that women should have the right to abortion. However you did say (or at least I interpreted you as saying... correct me if I'm wrong) that men have no rights whatsoever in the abortion debate. That's where I disagree. Each individual case is different, and there are plenty of good, decent men out there who should have a say in this matter, especially when it involves their own children. Just my opinion.

"As in the case with your ex-boyfriend, if you had become pregnant, should he have had any say whatsoever in your choice about having an abortion, if you wanted to?

I don't think so. It's YOUR decision."

Bennett, you are right, I agree with you! I guess I'm not explaining myself well. I'd better shut up now...

They're not "children." They're potential children. No men should have a legal say in what goes on -- or doesn't -- in my uterus.

Look at it this way: if a man has a legal position on whether or not a woman can get an abortion, what's stopping him from having a legal say in trying to get her to have an abortion she doesn't want?

If men have a say in stopping an abortion, then legally, they'd have the right to have a say in making the abortion happen, wouldn't they?

I wonder if all the pro-lifers out there would like it if it turns out that giving men legal rights to what's happening in a woman's body results in MORE abortions. Wouldn't that be the ultimate irony?

We're cool Becky. Keep the ideas flowing. :-]

Good point bhw.

Good point bhw. I wouldn't be surprised if something like actually happened!

Thanks Bennett. I just felt kind of stupid because I don't really disagree with any of you! Like I said originally my opinions on this issue keep changing and I appreciate the input from everyone. It's really making me think! :)

For the record, I am finished with pregnancy and childbirth. If I got pregnant again and my husband expected me to keep the kid, I'd definitely be pissed. I also wouldn't want him to have to the legal right to force me to have another child. It IS my body, and my body is tired of having kids! ;)

When my husband was working in India for 18 months, I volunteered at a women's HIV clinic in Bombay. What these women went through on a daily basis was unbelievable and heartbreaking... I could write a whole book about it. I feel very lucky to live in North America, despite all the problems we women face.

Thanks for the interesting discussion everyone! :)

It IS my body, and my body is tired of having kids! ;)

I hear that!

>>Dave, Why do you make this stuff up? Nancy says no such thing. She simply asserts that her body is her body, and no one has the right to interfere with her choices. Why distort her words? What does it accomplish?<<

Bennett, READ what she wrote, not what you think she wrote. Nancy wrote this:

"In any event, you have no right - the government has no right - no religion has any right - to mandate that any woman should have to submit her body to serve as a breeding unit, just because she can."

What's ambiguous about this statement? Where do you see government doing anything like this? For this statement to be true the government or a religion would have to be engaging in forced impregnation.

Dave

BHW: "That's a very bizarre statement. Most people would "rather see" fewer unwanted pregnancies, not more abortions."

Me too, but according to Nancy there's no control over the actual impregnation process, so all we have for birth control is abortion.

Dave

>>Then again, check out the US crime statistics: according to the FBI, abuse of women by men is the #1 sport of America. Almost 100% of women are murdered by men, not other women. Men, on the other hand, are killed mainly by other men. You don't consider those to be telling statistics? And before you tell me that you don't know where I got those figures (your standard excuse for not accepting any argument involving numbers in any thread I've seen) I will direct you to the FBI website, and the figures there ref: female/male mortality rates and causes. I do believe the US D.o.H has the same, but I got mine from the FBI.<<

This is a classic example of misuse of statistics. If most violence is committed by men, then most violence against women is perforce going to be committed by men. That doesn't mean that men are violent towards women in particular or because they are women. There's no indication statistically that they are any move violent to women then they are to other men. Men are just more violent. Saying that men are especially violent to women because they are uniformly more violent to everyone is a complete misuse of the statistical data to serve your purposes.

>>You arguing that there is no bias by men against women is like the white person arguing that discrimination against blacks or other minorities is all in their minds. You don't experience it, so you don't see it, and will not admit it, since you are the main perpetrator (not meaning 'you' personally, Dave, of course, but 'you' in the plural as representing the cohort of men or whites in general). Go ahead: tell me all this is just in my own mind....<<

While there may be individual men who are biased against women, arguing that there is an institutional bias against women in the US is absolutely laughable. Affirmative action has given women an overall advantage in the workplace, and right now it is statistically easier to get almost any kind of job as a woman than as a man, especially higher-paying middle management jobs. The fact that women do not hold as many top management jobs or middle management jobs as they could is a funciton of biology, not bias. You cannot blame men for the fact that only women can get pregnant.

>>And BTW, this could be a thead on its own; we're getting away from the gist of the original argument. I'm not sure if this is allowed.<<

Yes, but the original topic was remarkably stupid. Anything would be better.

Dave

>>That's NOT what I've said: does no one out there read English? I SAID/WROTE: IF A WOMAN DOES NOT WANT TO CARRY A PREGNANCY TO TERM FOR WHATEVER REASON, UNTIL TECHNOLOGY EXISTS OTHERWISE, THEN HER WISHES MUST TRUMP (i.e. take priority over, come ahead of) THE MAN'S, AND NO GOVERNMENT, RELIGION, OR OTHER PARTY HAS THE RIGHT TO FORCE HER TO CARRY TO TERM.<<

This technology DOES exist, however. But it raises the question of whether the woman can be forced to submit to an intrusive fetus-extraction instead of an abortion. I haven't researched it, but I believe there are at least a couple of cases in law on this subject and in those cases the court ruled against the father of the fetus.

Dave

Ah, Dave. You KNOW Nancy was waxing poetic about being denied the choice of terminating pregnancy. "Once a woman is pregnant...you have no right - the government has no right - no religion has any right - to mandate that any woman should have to submit her body to serve as a breeding unit, just because she can."

As in requiring her to maintain the pregnancy against her wishes versus having the choice to abort.

You can see that Dave. Can't you?

>>They're not "children." They're potential children. No men should have a legal say in what goes on -- or doesn't -- in my uterus.<<

Would you admit that it's the man's potential child as well? Doesn't that give him some say in what's done with the potential?

>>Look at it this way: if a man has a legal position on whether or not a woman can get an abortion, what's stopping him from having a legal say in trying to get her to have an abortion she doesn't want?<<

Yes, he absolutely should. If a man wants a woman to abort a fetus he fathered and the woman chooses not to comply then the man should be legally absolved of all financial or familial responsibility for the child when it is born.

>>If men have a say in stopping an abortion, then legally, they'd have the right to have a say in making the abortion happen, wouldn't they? <<

I think so, but thus far the courts have been obstinately refusing to acknowledge that fathers have any rights at all.

>>I wonder if all the pro-lifers out there would like it if it turns out that giving men legal rights to what's happening in a woman's body results in MORE abortions. Wouldn't that be the ultimate irony?<<

That would be fine with me, but then I'm not a pro-lifer.

The way I see it is this:

Both parents have a reponsibility to NOT get pregnant in the first place.

If they fail in this responsibility then they are both responsible for the disposition of the fetus.

Ultimately what's done with the fetus is the woman's decision, but if she decides contrary to the wishes of the man then he should have some legal recourse - either to salvage the fetus and arrange for it to be brought to term by other means, or if the fetus is born against his will, to not have to support the child in any way.

And pro-abortion though I am, I have to say that partial birth abortion of 'fetuses' which could live viably outside the womb without extraordinary medical aid is murder.

Dave

Would you admit that it's the man's potential child as well? Doesn't that give him some say in what's done with the potential?

Only within the relationship; not, in my opinion, legally. The potential child is still inside the woman's body.

>>Look at it this way: if a man has a legal position on whether or not a woman can get an abortion, what's stopping him from having a legal say in trying to get her to have an abortion she doesn't want?<<

Yes, he absolutely should. If a man wants a woman to abort a fetus he fathered and the woman chooses not to comply then the man should be legally absolved of all financial or familial responsibility for the child when it is born.

Different issue. I was talking about where to draw the line with the man's legal right to the woman's body. If people want to give the man the legal right to have a say in preventing an abortion, on the basis that it's HIS potential child, too, then how can he be denied the legal right to insist on an abortion? If the man has a right to have a say in what happens to the fetus, then it cuts both ways, whether he's in favor of carrying to term or having an abortion. Why would he be granted rights only to prevent abortion? [Oh, wait, we're talking about Jeb, aren't we?] Isn't he the father? Can't he say he doesn't want the child brought into the world?

And as far as the man being legally absolved from financial support if he preferred abortion and the woman carries to term, that's quite a double standard you have there. Here's what you said about women:

No question that you have exactly the same right to self-rule and freedom to do what you want with yoru body as anyone else. That freedom brings with it responsibility to deal with the consequences of your actions as well.

Don't men have to deal with the consequences, too? They know that pregnancy is a potential outcome of unprotected sex, but I'd be willing to bet that they don't usually discuss what their partner is willing to do if a pregnancy does occur. Nope, they'll dive right in and only insist on an abortion later, without bothering to find out if it was even an option the woman would consider in the first place.

So, for example, if you have sex with someone who won't even consider having an abortion, why should you get to walk away from a child that results from the encounter?

Ultimately what's done with the fetus is the woman's decision, but if she decides contrary to the wishes of the man then he should have some legal recourse - either to salvage the fetus and arrange for it to be brought to term by other means, or if the fetus is born against his will, to not have to support the child in any way.

Sorry, but you can't really be serious about forcing a procedure on a woman against her will, either an abortion or some science-fictiony uterus harvesting, can you?

And, as I stated earlier, I'm not on board with the idea that fathers can walk away from their obligation to support a child that they helped conceive, any more than I would say a mother should be able to do it. It's too easy for men to just walk away from any responsibility.

Men's bodies don't have to go through the pregnancy OR the abortion. It's very easy for them to say someone else should do one or the other.

Lots of good additional points raised about forcing a woman to abort a pregnancy she doesn't want to end that I forgot to include (I'm not just going in one directin w/my thinking, altho it sure did read that way). Dave - I'm still interested in your news that an embryo can be raised in an 'artificial womb' all the way to viability/birth status by technology currently existing. When I say 'artificial womb'
I do not include human surrogate mothers, I mean strictly in a glass tank sort of thing. What are you talking about, and where did you hear about it; I'd like to read about that kind of scientific advance!

I understand that the original post was to show how absurd Jeb Bush was.

So I think the main point is that while pro-life is in theory a good stance, it is also one that exists best in an ideal world where there isn't rape (underage, inability to give and refuse consent, acquaintance or assault).

In the case of incest or rape, the question should be: would either parent be fit or willing to bring up the child and if not, who will?

To force a woman or child to bear a child is to enslave a woman by her biology and the sentence isn't one of a matter of months, but years and it requires that she remain some how in contact and connected with the father of the child. The father has certain rights and responsibilities, the least of which is financial.

A child also has the right to be loved and well-fed and educated. Obviously this is not the case in our world today.

The problem with the real world is that between right and wrong is a gray area of emotional reality.

Nancy, read what I said again. I specifically said human surrogate mothers, not artificial wombs, though I'm sure that technology is not far off.

Dave

Dave, thanks for clarification. I suspected I WAS misreading, but must've kept blipping over it. Brain fart, I guess.

At the risk of being accused of being anti-male again (which I really am not, altho I admit that on this thread I certainly sound like it), I would like to ask about something that has always profoundly puzzled me and other women as well, from the comments and conversations of my female friends et al: what is it about guys and their generative organs? Why do men focus so much on a part of themselves that women seem to take for granted is only a minor part of their lives as human beings?

I work in a near-all-male environment, and this is something I do not generalize about: the guys spend a good deal of their time fixating on their sex lives, sex organs, and their ability to get and maintain erections, etc. Some of them even name these parts of their bodies as if it were a separate entity! I have never met or even heard of any woman who has ever done this. It's like ... well, it's like the entire focus of a guy's sense of self-justification and identity lies between his legs. I'm sorry, I really can't put it any better than that. I suspect strongly that this same (to me, odd if not perverse) genital focus is a good deal of what drives the chasm of opinion on subjects like abortion, etc.

I freely admit that this probably does not apply to all men, but given the preponderance of drugs as well as ads targeting the male sex drive, and having read thru various male-oriented publications all of which seem fixated on the subject in just about everything in them, and listened for years to male conversations and concerns (not necessarily expressed vulgarly) I have to say that's the overwhelming impression I (and other women) are left with. Why is this so important a part of a man's persona, instead of just an incidental portion of his identity, as it seems to be with most women?

I think it's because our sex organs are external and therefore vulnerable in a way which womens are not, plus they awkward and sensitive and that constantly reminds us they are there and need to be tended to. They also do have a history of malfunctioning, and that leads to a certain amount of concern for many who feel inadequate in other ways and therefore live in fear that they will lose sexual function as well.

Dave