Happy Atheist Forum

I suppose its only fair to state my position on this, I'm pro-choice.

While I agree that abortion is nothing to be celebrating, I agree it can be a necessary procedure for many women because of particular circumstances. And it should always be an option.

Thoughts?

I'm pro-choice.

Tip: There's actually a way you can create a real poll for this in the options under this WYSIWYG text editor box.

I added a real poll to the OP


I also added the "other" option for myself.  I don't like the idea of having to choose between pro-life and pro-choice because it implies that being for choice is anti-life.    I think it should be anti-choice v pro-choice because that's the root of the issue.

I'm pro choice and I'm pro life...life is good, I just don't think we should force anyone to carry a life nor do I draw the line of where consciousness (what they mean by life) begins the same place the anti-choice people do.

This argument seems to come from a time when people were viewed as livestock.

I'm with Whitney.  I don't really care for the terms pro-life or pro-choice because of the connotations they have.  

Abortion is one of those things I've always been on the fence about.  I absolutely support a woman's right to make the choice about what she does with her body.  At the same time, I'd much rather people weren't put in the position of having to choose in the first place because of circumstance.  I'd much rather people didn't have unprotected sex if they weren't prepared to have children.  I'd rather condoms didn't break, that people could take BC properly, and that rapists didn't roam the streets freely.  I feel really torn about abortion, because I think of all the people who can't have children and want them and it makes me sad that what someone else wants so badly another person would throw out.  In the end though, I think the rights of an adult woman supersede that of an embryo or fetus every time.

I struggle with it philosophically as an existentialist because Sartre says that what we choose for ourselves, we essentially choose for all people (because if we thought it was a bad idea, why would we do it?).  If I were in the position of having an unwanted pregnancy, I'd likely go through with it, and put the child up for adoption.  However, I would never choose that for every woman in a similar situation.  So yeah, I struggle with this.  I really hope I'll never be in a position where I do have to make that decision.

I am pro-choice and I have had an abortion.  I'm not ashamed or embarrassed by that fact, I have no doubt that I made the right choice and I would never dream of trying to make that choice for anyone else.

I hate the idea of people being obsessed with this subject.

I can't in good conscience consider a small collection of cells intelligent life.

I'm pro choice.

I find it somewhat ironic (angering) when the pro-lifers show willing to harm/kill an actual human being in protection of a collection of cells.

For an interesting insight into an antitheist (as she describes herself) view on abortion search for Angie the Antitheist on You Tube. She chose to broadcast her abortion live (using RU486 rather than the more physical methods!) on the grounds that she wanted to share the experience with other women considering an abortion. There was a significant risk of death to Angie herself if she went ahead with the birth. Amongst the many death threats she received, perhaps the most disturbing (and I'm pretty sure the police got involved over this one) was the threat to kill her 3(?) year old son - no doubt for Jesus.

I'm pro-choice in principle, being a small-government-type.

As regards America, I'm also pro-choice because I find the idea of male legislators outlawing an option that they will never have to consider to be insultingly patronizing.

I put it this way...

It isn't Jello until it comes out of the refrigerator. Before that, it's just colored sugar water.  

I'm pro-choice.

Pro-choice. It ain't my body.

Both. I think Abortion is bad, but I realize my opinion isn't all encompassing, so I also think other people should be able to make that judgment call on their own.  If you are against abortion, don't get an abortion! the law shouldn't force everyone to conform to the same standards on when life begins.

I can definitely see the argument for how it might be okay earlier on, but at the point where there's even a slight chance that the fetus is viable, I think it's immoral to terminate it.

It will probably not be a surprise to most on this forum to learn that I consider myself pro-life.  However, I am certainly not a fanatic on the issue and would never condemn anyone for taking such a difficult decision.

Interesting.  I guess I would have to say that I am pro choice.  I don't, however, think that it is accurate to necessarily call a fetus "a collection of cells".  At some point those cells start to resemble a human being.  Furthermore, at some point, that thing that resembles a human being has a higher likelihood than not of actually becoming one.  As I understand it, some legal abortions happen after this point.

I don't know if this question should be in another thread (if so, my apologies--I'm new) but of you who believe in a woman's right to choose, how many of you believe in the father's right to choose?  

Let me explain.  Julie gets pregnant and Tom wants her to terminate--and offers to pay half.  Julie takes the pregnancy to term.  Tom leaves Julie.  Julie sues Tom for child support.  Tom refuses to pay because he didn't choose to be a father.  He instead issues Julie a check for exactly half the cost of an abortion--is he wrong?

Quote from: "humblesmurph"As I understand it, some legal abortions happen after this point.

Yes..medically necessary abortions...the ones where the mother's life is in danger or there is something extremely wrong with the baby.

Quote from: "humblesmurph"I don't know if this question should be in another thread (if so, my apologies--I'm new) but of you who believe in a woman's right to choose, how many of you believe in the father's right to choose?  

Let me explain.  Julie gets pregnant and Tom wants her to terminate--and offers to pay half.  Julie takes the pregnancy to term.  Tom leaves Julie.  Julie sues Tom for child support.  Tom refuses to pay because he didn't choose to be a father.  He instead issues Julie a check for exactly half the cost of an abortion--is he wrong?

When it becomes possible to move the fetus outside of the mother's body into a pod then the father can have a say in the matter.  While this may not be totally fair; any other option would be allowing the desires of one individual to control the medical decisions of another.

The whole topic is so bizarre.  I would lay a bet that pro-lifers are probably more likely to get an abortion than other people are.  Pro-lifers don't seem to give a rat's ass about children after they are born.  They only care about those who can't think yet or who don't think anymore, living (if it can be called that)in a vegetative state.  They also are insistent upon born people suffering.  They fight to force terminally ill people to stay alive so they can suffer more no matter how badly the person doesn't want to.  They fight against effective anti-suffering drug protocols.  They fight against the good educations that would prevent suffering of many types.  It seems as if they fight sex education because they want to make sure there are unwanted pregnancies and gruesome STDs.

To me, it seems that much of the pro-life contingent thrives on judging people, making sure people suffer, and being hypocrites when such decisions apply to them.  

Don't like abortions?  Then make sure kids get educated, including comprehensive, science-based sex education!

Quote

When it becomes possible to move the fetus outside of the mother's body into a pod then the father can have a say in the matter.  While this may not be totally fair; any other option would be allowing the desires of one individual to control the medical decisions of another.[/quote]

I appreciate you addressing my comment, however you did so without answering the the admittedly vague question.  Let me clarify. I would never suggest that the potential father of a child has the right to demand that the potential mother bring the pregnancy to term.  He has no such right in my view.  

My question was on what moral authority, if any, does a mother have to impose eighteen years of child payments on a man who didn't want the child?  In the USA "deadbeat dads" are considered among the most vile members of the population, however, I don't see much difference between a deadbeat dad and a woman who either aborted her child or gave it up for adoption--well, except he didn't have a choice in the matter.

Quote from: "humblesmurph"

Quote

When it becomes possible to move the fetus outside of the mother's body into a pod then the father can have a say in the matter.  While this may not be totally fair; any other option would be allowing the desires of one individual to control the medical decisions of another.

I appreciate you addressing my comment, however you did so without answering the the admittedly vague question.  Let me clarify. I would never suggest that the potential father of a child has the right to demand that the potential mother bring the pregnancy to term.  He has no such right in my view.  

My question was on what moral authority, if any, does a mother have to impose eighteen years of child payments on a man who didn't want the child?  In the USA "deadbeat dads" are considered among the most vile members of the population, however, I don't see much difference between a deadbeat dad and a woman who either aborted her child or gave it up for adoption--well, except he didn't have a choice in the matter.[/quote]

I started a thread on that, it turned into a massive shit throwing festival with no one agreeing with each other as I recall. Read it, but I wouldn't post in it.

Quote from: "humblesmurph"

QuoteWhen it becomes possible to move the fetus outside of the mother's body into a pod then the father can have a say in the matter.  While this may not be totally fair; any other option would be allowing the desires of one individual to control the medical decisions of another.

I appreciate you addressing my comment, however you did so without answering the the admittedly vague question.  Let me clarify. I would never suggest that the potential father of a child has the right to demand that the potential mother bring the pregnancy to term.  He has no such right in my view.  

My question was on what moral authority, if any, does a mother have to impose eighteen years of child payments on a man who didn't want the child?  In the USA "deadbeat dads" are considered among the most vile members of the population, however, I don't see much difference between a deadbeat dad and a woman who either aborted her child or gave it up for adoption--well, except he didn't have a choice in the matter.

I started a thread on that, it turned into a massive shit throwing festival with no one agreeing with each other as I recall. Read it, but I wouldn't post in it.

Edit, fixed quotes

Quote from: "humblesmurph"My question was on what moral authority, if any, does a mother have to impose eighteen years of child payments on a man who didn't want the child?  In the USA "deadbeat dads" are considered among the most vile members of the population, however, I don't see much difference between a deadbeat dad and a woman who either aborted her child or gave it up for adoption--well, except he didn't have a choice in the matter.

He chose to have sex without adequate preventative measures...

What if the guy said he put on a condom but actually didn't (this is probably common) and the girl gets pregnant  but is against abortion...she (or even worse, the rest of us) gets stuck paying for a kid just because the dad doesn't want it?

This is why I don't much care for "what if" scenarios, they tend to snowball.

I think that when people have sex, they are both willing participants in an activity that may result in pregnancy.  Accountability doesn't began when a pregnancy is discovered, it starts when two people decide to do the horizontal mambo.  Even if the guy could legally prove that he and the woman agreed pre-coitus that they would have an abortion if she got pregnant, having been pregnant myself I can completely understand how someone might change their mind once the event was a reality.  In this instance should the guy be free of any responsibility?  I don't know.  Part of me says yeah, if he could legally prove they agreed to get an abortion in the event of pregnancy before they had sex, he shouldn't have to pay child support.  But then the more ethical part me says - it's not that kid's fault that his parents made some deal before he was conceived, and he shouldn't have to suffer a possible life of poverty because his parents intended to screw and run without consequence and somehow mucked it up.  Once a kid is involved, the focus should be what's best for the kid.  

Women do have more power when it comes to a pregnancy, but we also have to physically carry and give birth to children using our own bodies.  We have more control because every decision we make for the baby is a decision we make for ourselves as well.

I will search for the former thread on the topic.  The main point I was trying to make is that the woman has all the choice.  The contract to take care of a child is called "marriage".  If two married people have a child, then by all means string that SOB up if he doesn't want to take care of his child.  If you don't want kids, don't get married.  However, if as a woman, you choose to have premarital sex (a choice I would surely make) use birth control.  

 Choice is the reason people try to make a different case for rape victims trying to terminate.  Many people who are on the fence about abortion in general are clear about the fact that an impregnated rape victim shouldn't have to carry their assailant's potential baby to term.  After all they didn't have a choice in their being pregnant so they shouldn't have to carry a baby they didn't want. In this case, people understand implicitly that with less choice comes less responsibility.

BTW, the "what ifs" that I use are not some far out hypotheticals about black holes or big bangs.  Many men are in fact behind bars because women took babies to term that the men didn't want and then took the men to task for not paying child support.  This has nothing to do with a woman's body.  She can do whatever she wants with her body.  This is about the state taking away property and liberty from men who have no choice in the matter.  It seems to me absolutely logically inconsistent to be pro choice and to be in favor of a system that forces men to pay for the choice they have no say in.

People who say things like "well that's just the way it is, if you don't want to pay child support, don't have sex" are using the same logic as pro lifers.  To somehow suggest that the inner workings of a woman's body are somehow more sacred than a man's liberty seems at least as crazy and out there as a belief in god.  Furthermore, it poses a more immediate threat in this country because I'm sure they have locked up more "deadbeat dads" than atheists.

As long as abortion is legal and just as safe (if not much more so) as bringing a baby to term, a man owes a woman no more than one half the cost of an abortion if she gets pregnant.  You simply can't in all fairness have it both ways.  This seems pretty clear to me, if I have erred in some way please let me know. If you don't want to argue about it, that's cool too, but please think about it.

 Eventually atheism can't just be the abhorrence of god and religion--we have to think critically and reasonably about all things, not just the supernatural or lack thereof.

Quote from: "humblesmurph"I will search for the former thread on the topic.  The main point I was trying to make is that the woman has all the choice.  The contract to take care of a child is called "marriage".  If two married people have a child, then by all means string that SOB up if he doesn't want to take care of his child.  If you don't want kids, don't get married.  However, if as a woman, you choose to have premarital sex (a choice I would surely make) use birth control.

Hahaha, what?  Man, I need to tell all my childless married friends that they need to start having kids or get divorced, since marriage is for making kids now, not about being with someone you love.  And those hippie freaks who have no interest in allowing the state to delegate their relationship but still had a kid?  Well, they're obviously doing it wrong!

Also it's important to keep in mind that birth control sometimes fails.  In those cases, is it OK for the man to throw a couple hundred bucks at a woman and say 'see ya'?  I don't think so.  I don't think any decent human being would.

Quote from: "humblesmurph"Choice is the reason people try to make a different case for rape victims trying to terminate.  Many people who are on the fence about abortion in general are clear about the fact that an impregnated rape victim shouldn't have to carry their assailant's potential baby to term.  After all they didn't have a choice in their being pregnant so they shouldn't have to carry a baby they didn't want. In this case, people understand implicitly that with less choice comes less responsibility.

Well, this is a huge oversimplification of why it's wrong to force a woman to carry her rapists baby AND It's a bit unsettling that you're trying to draw similarities from this kind of scenario to one in which a man is expected to be equally responsible for a kid he willingly helped create.

Quote from: "humblesmurph"BTW, the "what ifs" that I use are not some far out hypotheticals about black holes or big bangs.  Many men are in fact behind bars because women took babies to term that the men didn't want and then took the men to task for not paying child support.  This has nothing to do with a woman's body.  She can do whatever she wants with her body.  This is about the state taking away property and liberty from men who have no choice in the matter.  It seems to me absolutely logically inconsistent to be pro choice and to be in favor of a system that forces men to pay for the choice they have no say in.

My point isn't that your what if is in all cases invalid, it's that I could come up with an equally plausible what if in which a man wants to spread his genetic material around as much as possible, but doesn't want to take responsibility for any of his kids so he throws 300 bucks (or whatever half the cost of an abortion is) a conception at the women he's impregnated and skips off to be an irresponsible ass for the rest of his life, secure in his legacy since he's pretty sure at least one of them will survive long enough to reproduce and perpetuate his DNA.  What ifs can always be countered with equally compelling what ifs.

It seems to me that your issue isn't with women, it's with how the legal system figures out and delegates child support.

Quote from: "humblesmurph"People who say things like "well that's just the way it is, if you don't want to pay child support, don't have sex" are using the same logic as pro lifers.  To somehow suggest that the inner workings of a woman's body are somehow more sacred than a man's liberty seems at least as crazy and out there as a belief in god.  Furthermore, it poses a more immediate threat in this country because I'm sure they have locked up more "deadbeat dads" than atheists.

What you seem to be suggesting is that men ought to be able to buy irresponsibility at the price of half an abortion if their attempt to screw without making a kid fails.  This is the exact same mis-characterization pro-lifers perpetuate about women who opt to get an abortion.  In a perfect world, people who didn't want kids would use multiple methods of birth control every time they had sex and those methods would never fail and no unwanted children would be produced.  However, we all (hopefully) understand that life is not fair, sometimes unplanned situations occur, sometimes women are skeezy, sometimes men are jerks, but the reality of the situation is that when you have sex, you're running the risk of creating a kid and if you're a guy, that's more of an out-of-your-hands situation than if you're a woman because the baby is a part of a woman's body.  That's reality.  Again, you seem to have issues more with how the courts legally delegate financial responsibility for a child, yet you keep blaming women as if it's our choice to have to physically bear the burden of having a kid.  I agree that there is a very sexist and unfair slant against men in a lot of cases when it comes to legal issues with children, but that is NOT a woman's fault and I don't see how allowing men to get out of their share of responsibility for creating a kid with a one time payment of half an abortion is a logical solution to this issue.

Quote from: "humblesmurph"As long as abortion is legal and just as safe (if not much more so) as bringing a baby to term, a man owes a woman no more than one half the cost of an abortion if she gets pregnant.  You simply can't in all fairness have it both ways.  This seems pretty clear to me, if I have erred in some way please let me know. If you don't want to argue about it, that's cool too, but please think about it.

I think this is a ridiculously short sighted and selfish position, and it ignores the fact that wanted or unwanted, both parents have an equal responsibility in making sure the innocent kid, if brought to term, has a shot at a good life.  It's a gross oversimplification of the issue to say that if a guy doesn't want to have a kid, the woman should either have an abortion or raise the kid alone.  Flipping it around, if a woman got pregnant and the man did want the child but she wanted an abortion, your logic would seem to support the idea that a woman should have to go through pregnancy against her will to bring the child to term so that he could take the baby and raise it alone.  Does that seem fair as well?

I think there is a problem in our culture with people who want to take advantage of other people, and when women use children to do this, it makes me really angry.  I think the legal system should take this into account if the man can reasonably prove that the woman knowingly impregnated herself in order to rope the guy into paying child support, but even then - children should not suffer because they have shitty parents.  And a dad who only wants to pay for the cost of half an abortion in regard to taking responsibility for a kid he helped create - wanted or unwanted - is just as shitty a human as a woman who gets pregnant on purpose as a kind of financial boon.

Being pro-choice is not, to me, about being pro-irresponsibility.  It's about having the option available in a worst case scenario.  I'm pro-choice because I'm pro-life worth living for kids.

Quote from: "humblesmurph"Eventually atheism can't just be the abhorrence of god and religion--we have to think critically and reasonably about all things, not just the supernatural or lack thereof.

Not to nit-pick, but atheism isn't necessarily about the abhorrence of god or religion, it's the lack of belief in god.  I personally don't abhor things I don't believe in.

Wow, I'm shocked.  I read the former thread on this topic--every word of it. Twice.  I did this after my last post however.  

Pinkocommie, your position presupposes that there is in fact a responsibility on the man's part.  All I was asking was what, besides the law as it presently written, makes that responsibility a "fact"?  

I wrote explicitly that I absolutely do not believe that a person has the right to force another person to have a medically intrusive procedure, be it abortion or tonsillectomy.  A human being's body is hers to do with what she wishes.

I wish that I could make you understand that at the base of this touchy issue is the presupposition that having a baby is somehow better than aborting one. If a woman says "I got pregnant because I had unprotected sex because it feels better without a condom and birth control pills make me fat" I would still have no problem with her deciding to abort her fetus.  None.  It seems to me many of you would judge her harshly for this--even those who are staunchly pro choice.  I'm assuming that most of you would say that she is acting irresponsibly.  However, if a fetus is just a "bunch of cells" as we like to call them when we defend the right to terminate them--what's the big deal?

Quote from: "humblesmurph"Pinkocommie, your position presupposes that there is in fact a responsibility on the man's part.  All I was asking was what, besides the law as it presently written, makes that responsibility a "fact"?

Babies can't be made (outside of a lab, at least) without men.  Therefore, men have some responsibility when a baby is made.  I personally think this responsibility extends to as long as that baby is alive or capable of life.  I think this because I think that any given person in a society has a responsibility to take care of the innocents of that society, and that especially includes the parents of a  kid.  I agree that in the relatively small instances where a hapless victimized man is somehow tricked into conceiving a child with a ruthless gold digger, it seems unfair that he be forced to pay for the kid, but the kid (if brought to term) still deserves to be given a chance to succeed in life and it's certainly unfair for the kid if the guy runs off and fails to bear his fair share of responsibility for the child, which is often legally designated as a monthly payment to cover part of the cost of raising a child if the dad has not won custody or has willingly forfeited custody, because he didn't intend to make a baby.  I think part of that responsibility does fall on the man, because if it weren't for his involvement, the kid wouldn't exist in the first place.  The focus shouldn't be about what's fair for the mom vs. what's fair for the dad.  It's about what's fair for the kid, if the kid is brought to term.

Quote from: "humblesmurph"I wish that I could make you understand that at the base of this touchy issue is the presupposition that having a baby is somehow better than aborting one. If a woman says "I got pregnant because I had unprotected sex because it feels better without a condom and birth control pills make me fat" I would still have no problem with her deciding to abort her fetus.  None.  It seems to me many of you would judge her harshly for this--even those who are staunchly pro choice.  I'm assuming that most of you would say that she is acting irresponsibly.  However, if a fetus is just a "bunch of cells" as we like to call them when we defend the right to terminate them--what's the big deal?

I personally don't think that having a kid is always better than not having one.  That's why I say I'm pro-choice because I'm pro-life that's best for the kid, which is sometimes not being alive at all.

I would equally support your hypothetical woman's right to have an abortion.  In her case, since you've painted her to be a socially irresponsible, stupid person (unprotected sex cuz it feels better is stupid and socially irresponsible because it promotes the spread of STDs and STIs among the general population) I would hope she would have an abortion if she got pregnant for the sake of the child.  I wouldn't judge her for having the abortion, but I sure would judge her for being such an idiot about sex to begin with.

However, unlike your hypothetical woman's situation, abortions often aren't simple, easy affairs.  For the majority of those going through it, male and female, it's an extremely emotional situation to have to deal with, not to mention at times an intrusive medical procedure that carries with it a possibility for complications.  And that's not even touching on the cultural and social pressures that exist regarding abortion, which makes the choice even more difficult.  I don't think those pressures logically should exist, but they do.  Ignoring the fact that it's a complex and emotional situation for most people in order to add credence to your personal position that it's no big deal seems disingenuous to me.

thank you for responding.  It is a big deal.  It's a big deal because a fetus is not just "a bunch of cells".  It is an almost human life. This  almost human just doesn't have the same rights as it's host.  That's why even if you strip away societal pressures and religious zealots abortion is still such a heart wrenching thing to do.  BTW, the woman in the example isn't all that rare. It only takes one act of unprotected sex to have a child.  I have had unprotected premarital sex at least twice in the last 5 years.  I'm sure you know people who are otherwise good folks who have done the same.  

I think on some level many of us pro choice advocates understand that abortion is a form of justifiable mini homicide.  It just hurts to think of it that way.  

When SSY brought this up last year he made valid logical points.  His point is still logical. Not one reasonable argument was brought to weaken his stance.  You all went around in circles.  He was talking about how the law should be enforced--all his objectors did was remind him how it was presently enforced.

  Intuitively I agree with you pinkocommie, I just wish I had one logical reason for doing so.

Quote from: "humblesmurph"thank you for responding.  It is a big deal.  It's a big deal because a fetus is not just "a bunch of cells".  It is an almost human life. This  almost human just doesn't have the same rights as it's host.  That's why even if you strip away societal pressures and religious zealots abortion is still such a heart wrenching thing to do.  BTW, the woman in the example isn't all that rare. It only takes one act of unprotected sex to have a child.  I have had unprotected premarital sex at least twice in the last 5 years.  I'm sure you know people who are otherwise good folks who have done the same.

Yeah, I wouldn't argue that good people can't, at times, also be stupid and socially irresponsible.

Quote from: "humblesmurph"I think on some level many of us pro choice advocates understand that abortion is a form of justifiable mini homicide.  It just hurts to think of it that way.

Hmm, that's an interesting point.  I think if you feel the need to add a qualifier to distinguish what you're talking about from homicide (mini homicide?  Haha, just poking fun.  ) it's no longer homicide.  If homicide is killing a person, then the only way one might classify early term abortions as homicide is if they classify the potential to become a person as the same thing as a person.  I don't think a potential person and a person are the same thing, so no, I don't agree with you there.  But, that could admittedly be an argument based on semantics more than anything and I think I understand what you're trying to say regardless.  Also, just because a zygote might not considered a person yet, I don't think it makes the decision to have an abortion any easier, you know?  Very complicated.

Quote from: "humblesmurph"When SSY brought this up last year he made valid logical points.  His point is still logical. Not one reasonable argument was brought to weaken his stance.  You all went around in circles.  He was talking about how the law should be enforced--all his objectors did was remind him how it was presently enforced.

I'm pretty sure I wasn't here for that and have not read the thread you are referring to.  Sounds like a brawl, though.

Quote from: "humblesmurph"Intuitively I agree with you pinkocommie, I just wish I had one logical reason for doing so.

It's a human problem and humans are not very logical.  It'd be awesome if we lived in a reality where logic always prevailed, but I think when you toss in human emotions and the plethora of other social and cultural factors that go into this issue, looking for logic in the first place may be an illogical endeavor.

Also, thanks for the discussion, I appreciate you taking the time to discuss your point of view.  I know you're new and I don't want you to feel ganged up on by any means.

On the contrary, I do not feel ganged up on at all.  As expected, every woman disagreed with SSY's original point about the inequities of the system, and most men (though not all) agreed with him. It seems to me the guys that seem to see my point of view abstained from the discussion this time around because it was all covered in a prior thread .  

The message I got from SSY's thread was that regardless of where one stands on the child support issue, unless she plans to offer it for adoption, a woman should think twice about carrying a child to term that she doesn't have the means to provide for and that the father has informed her he wants nothing to do with.  It's synonymous with "being stupid and socially irresponsible".

The way the term moral authority is used seems to suggest morals have to be set in stone by god, or proven objectively true.
I see morals as something arrived at to help people live their lives and produce the society we aspire to.
Most modern advanced countries have come to the conclusion that a child deserves the support of the father.
Does the father owe support to the mother, the child or both?
If he owes support to the child, perhaps the mother has no right to waive this right on the child’s behalf, even if she dislikes condoms.

I find the suggestion that giving a pregnant woman $300, negates responsibility repugnant.

I'm not convinced in fairness, a male should be held responsible where a female impregnates herself from sperm retrieved from a condom.
I don’t think this is a common problem, I’ve never met anyone who claimed to experience it.

The opposition to abortifacient drugs such as RU486/Mifepristone is unfortunate, stupid and annoying.

Just as biology gives the woman the option to carry or not to term, biology also allows the man to skip out.  Computers are removing that balance.

One aspect I've not seen touched on is what if a man wants the child and the woman doesn't?  If the man cannot rightfully commandeer her body for nine months -- if, despite his wishes, she aborts -- why should she commandeer his for a longer time?  (I type this thinking that it costs roughly $750,000 US to raise a child nowadays; the man's half being $375,000, and assuming a salary of $50,000/yr, she -- or rather, the child --  is using over 7 years of his time).

Why is this double-standard acceptable?

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"Just as biology gives the woman the option to carry or not to term, biology also allows the man to skip out.  Computers are removing that balance.

One aspect I've not seen touched on is what if a man wants the child and the woman doesn't?  If the man cannot rightfully commandeer her body for nine months -- if, despite his wishes, she aborts -- why should she commandeer his for a longer time?  (I type this thinking that it costs roughly $750,000 US to raise a child nowadays; the man's half being $375,000, and assuming a salary of $50,000/yr, she -- or rather, the child --  is using over 7 years of his time).

Why is this double-standard acceptable?

Hold on a second.  Assuming child support is paid monthly, 18 years is 216 months.  375,000 divided by 216 is 1736.11111.  Man, if that's what the ladies are getting in child support, I am getting massively screwed.  My ex is out of work right now, so he only has to legally pay me 25.00 a month.  How much does he pay when he works?  I wouldn't know, it's never happened.  I know a couple other divorced people, and the child support figures are never above 200.00 a month.  Also, none of the dads have any responsibility past 18, none of them have a legal requirement to help pay for college.  This is what a poor person's divorce looks like.  It must be waaaaaaay different when there's money involved.

FWIW, my parents were by no means wealthy, but because my brother had health issues the court mandated that my dad had to continue paying child support even after my brother turned 18.  I was 18 when my parents divorced, so I never factored into the equation.  I think my dad stopped paying support when my brother turned 20, but my mom is pretty hush hush about those things so I'm not positive.

It seems to me that most every divorce or custody agreement is different.  That's why I dislike trying to apply hypotheticals to this subject - it seems every hypothetical has an equal and opposite hypothetical.  I consider my situation out of the ordinary, but that's really only because I've always heard the nasty stereotype of the person receiving child support being a greedy jerk and getting tons of money.  I just keep thinking about the kids.  Maybe it is irrational of me, but reducing an innocent kid's worth to a monetary number seems wrong to me, as does trying to justify not being at least partially responsible for that kid - for however long the kid lives - when you had a part in causing it to exist.   It's just too hard for me to consider the subject without being empathetic for the kid above everything else.

Honestly, I've never heard of anyone receiving an amount of child support that was actually useful, either.  My one friend right now is stuck-she really doesn't want to take her daughter's father to court for support, but on his own he isn't doing shit.  It sucks.  But yeah, every custody and payment agreement is different.

Quote from: "pinkocommie"

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"Just as biology gives the woman the option to carry or not to term, biology also allows the man to skip out.  Computers are removing that balance.

One aspect I've not seen touched on is what if a man wants the child and the woman doesn't?  If the man cannot rightfully commandeer her body for nine months -- if, despite his wishes, she aborts -- why should she commandeer his for a longer time?  (I type this thinking that it costs roughly $750,000 US to raise a child nowadays; the man's half being $375,000, and assuming a salary of $50,000/yr, she -- or rather, the child --  is using over 7 years of his time).

Why is this double-standard acceptable?

Hold on a second.  Assuming child support is paid monthly, 18 years is 216 months.  375,000 divided by 216 is 1736.11111.  Man, if that's what the ladies are getting in child support, I am getting massively screwed.  My ex is out of work right now, so he only has to legally pay me 25.00 a month.  How much does he pay when he works?  I wouldn't know, it's never happened.  I know a couple other divorced people, and the child support figures are never above 200.00 a month.  Also, none of the dads have any responsibility past 18, none of them have a legal requirement to help pay for college.  This is what a poor person's divorce looks like.  It must be waaaaaaay different when there's money involved.

Of course, you're assuming that the man is not doing anything other than paying money.  In addition to paying support, I have my son 42% of the time, which ought to be added in.  Also, the mother neither has responsibility beyond age 18, so I'm unsure why you raise that point.

I too am out of work right now; in addition to paying $224/mo out of my unemployment for a 4 days/month differential in custody, when my son's mom needs money, she gets it, with no questions asked, if I have it.

I notice you didn't address the main point of my post.  Is it unimportant to you?

Well, no, I just don't really want to fight about it.  Is that OK?

Also, the real issue is not support payments; the issue is why there's a double standard.

Before everyone jack-slaps me about writing that, consider my earlier post again, please, in this light:  A woman can choose to abort or carry to term, and expect legal support from the father in the latter case.

A man cannot choose one way or the other.

When a woman exercises the rights biology gives her -- to carry or not carry -- it's a woman's right gifted from biology.  But when a man exercises the perogative that nature gives him -- to wit, to bone out on her -- he is castigated on a moral, not biological, basis.

Why when a woman exercises biology is it considered natural, but when a man does so he's judged on a moral and not a biological basis?

eta: and no, I don't wanna fight myself.  Just askin'.  These are questions I haven't answered, myself.  Forgive me if I sound like I have.

The hypotheticals are too confusing for me, I guess.  You start throwing figures out there that account for an involved father figure, yet we were originally talking about a hypothetical situation where a man is uninterested in being a father and whether it's fair for that guy to have to pay anything more than half an abortion in regard to the child if he makes it clear he doesn't want anything to do with it.  I assumed that a guy who wants nothing to do with a kid isn't going to be involved in the kids life when he's trying to shirk those very responsibilities for the cost of half an abortion.  Does that make sense?  So, not thinking in terms of the cost of being an involved father who pays support, your hypothetical of half the cost of raising a kid to 18 being so high, I assumed you must have been factoring in half the cost of college as well, which is sometimes negotiated as a part of custody payment agreements.  That paired with my own personal experience of having an ex who hardly has to pay support, sometimes doesn't even pay the meager amount he's supposed to, and doesn't see my son more than a day out of a month - I sadly didn't even consider that you might be factoring in non-payment type costs.  Man, that sucks that I didn't even think about that.  

Anyway, I'm also not trying in any way to perpetuate that stereotype of the dads in a divorce or custody situation always being responsibility shirking jerks because I know that's just as hurtful of an assumption as when people assume that a mom who receives support is a gold digging wench.  Like I keep saying, every situation is different, which is why I think this is one of those subjects that is really complicated to consider.

As for the double standard and a man's responsibility when he makes it clear he doesn't want to have a kid and all that, I've been thinking about this all day because it is a really interesting issue that I had never really thought about before.  What I keep coming back to is that it seems wrong to try to break it down to such a simplistic biological argument.  It's taking me some time to mull over, because I keep bouncing around between cultural, social, and biological considerations.  Does that make sense?

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"Also, the real issue is not support payments; the issue is why there's a double standard.

Before everyone jack-slaps me about writing that, consider my earlier post again, please, in this light:  A woman can choose to abort or carry to term, and expect legal support from the father in the latter case.

A man cannot choose one way or the other.

When a woman exercises the rights biology gives her -- to carry or not carry -- it's a woman's right gifted from biology.  But when a man exercises the perogative that nature gives him -- to wit, to bone out on her -- he is castigated on a moral, not biological, basis.

Why when a woman exercises biology is it considered natural, but when a man does so he's judged on a moral and not a biological basis?

eta: and no, I don't wanna fight myself.  Just askin'.  These are questions I haven't answered, myself.  Forgive me if I sound like I have.

Just a request for a clarification of the underlined. Once pregnant a woman has no 'biological right' to not carry to term, the clock to birth is ticking and only a natural abortion will prevent the birth. So I'm not sure what you mean by a biological right to not carry to term.

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"When a woman exercises the rights biology gives her -- to carry or not carry -- it's a woman's right gifted from biology.  But when a man exercises the perogative that nature gives him -- to wit, to bone out on her -- he is castigated on a moral, not biological, basis.

Why when a woman exercises biology is it considered natural, but when a man does so he's judged on a moral and not a biological basis?

But women are still judged on a MORAL basis as well, not just the biological.  I hardly think abortion would be such a hot button issue if there wasn't a moral component to it.  And in spite of biology, there are people who don't think it's natural either way.  It's not as though women are given a free pass on the biology issue-they still get judged for having abortions, even in cases where the pregnancy posed a serious risk to their own health.

Quote from: "philosoraptor"

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"When a woman exercises the rights biology gives her -- to carry or not carry -- it's a woman's right gifted from biology.  But when a man exercises the perogative that nature gives him -- to wit, to bone out on her -- he is castigated on a moral, not biological, basis.

Why when a woman exercises biology is it considered natural, but when a man does so he's judged on a moral and not a biological basis?

But women are still judged on a MORAL basis as well, not just the biological.  I hardly think abortion would be such a hot button issue if there wasn't a moral component to it.  And in spite of biology, there are people who don't think it's natural either way.  It's not as though women are given a free pass on the biology issue-they still get judged for having abortions, even in cases where the pregnancy posed a serious risk to their own health.

I have not come across that many woman who have had abortions. But of that limited group all I have ever had is sympathy for the person concerned and I have only seen a sympathetic reaction too them. I have never seen any condemnation. The causes of the pregnancies have been teenage experimentation and a mistake for a lady who is an 'escort'.

I think it would be fair to say that no sane woman gets deliberately pregnant just to have an abortion. Thus all abortions are a result of an accidental unwanted pregnancy or a result of social/family pressure on a woman to terminate desired pregnancy or the result of rape. I personally could not find myself being anything other than sympathetic to any woman who found herself in one of those situations. I don't see a moral imperative in these issues at all. All I see is a woman facing the prospect of life defining event being forced to do something they do not want to do.

I'm not talking about (sane) people like you, Tank.  I'm talking about the old men in legislation who will never be raped or become pregnant, but still think they have a right to dictate what women do with their bodies.  I'm talking about the people who protest Planned Parenthood and bomb abortion clinics.  I'm talking about Catholics and other religious denominations who think you'll go to Hell for having an abortion.  Unfortunately, not everyone is as sympathetic or enlightened as you are-the majority of Americans are pro-life (http://www.gallup.com/poll/118399/more-americans-pro-life-than-pro-choice-first-time.aspx).  Not all of them fall into the extremist group, but some do.

Quote from: "philosoraptor"I'm not talking about (sane) people like you, Tank.  I'm talking about the old men in legislation who will never be raped or become pregnant, but still think they have a right to dictate what women do with their bodies.  I'm talking about the people who protest Planned Parenthood and bomb abortion clinics.  I'm talking about Catholics and other religious denominations who think you'll go to Hell for having an abortion.  Unfortunately, not everyone is as sympathetic or enlightened as you are-the majority of Americans are pro-life (http://www.gallup.com/poll/118399/more-americans-pro-life-than-pro-choice-first-time.aspx).  Not all of them fall into the extremist group, but some do.

I understand what you are getting at, just attempting to illustrate that there is another view, even if it is in the minority and hoping that one day it will be a majority view. I hope that abortions decrease as they are not a good thing for a person to have to go through for whatever reason, they should be the 'contraception' of last resort.

Quote from: "philosoraptor"I'm not talking about (sane) people like you, Tank.  I'm talking about the old men in legislation who will never be raped or become pregnant, but still think they have a right to dictate what women do with their bodies.  I'm talking about the people who protest Planned Parenthood and bomb abortion clinics.  I'm talking about Catholics and other religious denominations who think you'll go to Hell for having an abortion.  Unfortunately, not everyone is as sympathetic or enlightened as you are-the majority of Americans are pro-life (http://www.gallup.com/poll/118399/more-americans-pro-life-than-pro-choice-first-time.aspx).  Not all of them fall into the extremist group, but some do.

wow, 51% of Americans are anti-choice.  This makes me sad.  However, I don't see what gender has to do with anything. Even if only women voted and they by majority declared that choice was wrong I would still disagree.  Just because an action is gender specific doesn't mean we don't all have a say in it.

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"Also, the real issue is not support payments; the issue is why there's a double standard.

Before everyone jack-slaps me about writing that, consider my earlier post again, please, in this light:  A woman can choose to abort or carry to term, and expect legal support from the father in the latter case.

A man cannot choose one way or the other.

When a woman exercises the rights biology gives her -- to carry or not carry -- it's a woman's right gifted from biology.  But when a man exercises the perogative that nature gives him -- to wit, to bone out on her -- he is castigated on a moral, not biological, basis.

Why when a woman exercises biology is it considered natural, but when a man does so he's judged on a moral and not a biological basis?

eta: and no, I don't wanna fight myself.  Just askin'.  These are questions I haven't answered, myself.  Forgive me if I sound like I have.

The short answer is it is alot more difficult for a woman(in general) emotionally and physically not to carry a  pregnancy to term than it is for a man to walk away. If a man leaves it has the potential to ruin two lives. If a woman aborts he affects are different. With that said there should be changes to custody laws that almost always grant women custody and almost always require support from the man. These things should be taken on an individual basis and judged on whats best for the child.

Quote from: "Nothing Sacred"The short answer is it is alot more difficult for a woman(in general) emotionally and physically not to carry a  pregnancy to term than it is for a man to walk away. If a man leaves it has the potential to ruin two lives. If a woman aborts he affects are different. With that said there should be changes to custody laws that almost always grant women custody and almost always require support from the man. These things should be taken on an individual basis and judged on whats best for the child.

I dunno.  I can't see how you could say it's easier for a man to walk away from a living child than it is to terminate a pregnancy.  The woman has the very real rationalization of  "well it wasn't really a baby that I killed".  For a man to turn his back on a real child he has no such rationalization.  Additionally, the aborted fetus will never come find the woman to ask her why she is such a scumbag.  The man who abandons his child deals with it for a lifetime--Be it through wage garnishments, or constant fear thereof, or the child someday confronting him with the scumbag question.

Quote from: "humblesmurph"

Quote from: "Nothing Sacred"The short answer is it is alot more difficult for a woman(in general) emotionally and physically not to carry a  pregnancy to term than it is for a man to walk away. If a man leaves it has the potential to ruin two lives. If a woman aborts he affects are different. With that said there should be changes to custody laws that almost always grant women custody and almost always require support from the man. These things should be taken on an individual basis and judged on whats best for the child.

I dunno.  I can't see how you could say it's easier for a man to walk away from a living child than it is to terminate a pregnancy.  The woman has the very real rationalization of  "well it wasn't really a baby that I killed".  For a man to turn his back on a real child he has no such rationalization.  Additionally, the aborted fetus will never come find the woman to ask her why she is such a scumbag.  The man who abandons his child deals with it for a lifetime--Be it through wage garnishments, or constant fear thereof, or the child someday confronting him with the scumbag question.

A man can walk away before the reality of the situation sets in. He has no medical procedure and no physical change to go though. He also wouldn't have the "murderer" stigma placed over him. Dont get me wrong for a decent human being it would not be easy but from what I have seen those who walk aren't decent.I was speaking about the immediate effects of walking away in my previous post . Those who think about the future rather than the immediate are less likely to find themselves in these situations. As I said previously though the reason why the reaction to each is different is that the effects are different. As you said a child is envolved when a man walks away....sorry if that was incoherent and rambling it's late and im tired

Quote from: "pinkocommie"The hypotheticals are too confusing for me, I guess.  You start throwing figures out there that account for an involved father figure, yet we were originally talking about a hypothetical situation where a man is uninterested in being a father and whether it's fair for that guy to have to pay anything more than half an abortion in regard to the child if he makes it clear he doesn't want anything to do with it.  I assumed that a guy who wants nothing to do with a kid isn't going to be involved in the kids life when he's trying to shirk those very responsibilities for the cost of half an abortion.  Does that make sense?  So, not thinking in terms of the cost of being an involved father who pays support, your hypothetical of half the cost of raising a kid to 18 being so high, I assumed you must have been factoring in half the cost of college as well, which is sometimes negotiated as a part of custody payment agreements.  That paired with my own personal experience of having an ex who hardly has to pay support, sometimes doesn't even pay the meager amount he's supposed to, and doesn't see my son more than a day out of a month - I sadly didn't even consider that you might be factoring in non-payment type costs.  Man, that sucks that I didn't even think about that.  

Anyway, I'm also not trying in any way to perpetuate that stereotype of the dads in a divorce or custody situation always being responsibility shirking jerks because I know that's just as hurtful of an assumption as when people assume that a mom who receives support is a gold digging wench.  Like I keep saying, every situation is different, which is why I think this is one of those subjects that is really complicated to consider.

As for the double standard and a man's responsibility when he makes it clear he doesn't want to have a kid and all that, I've been thinking about this all day because it is a really interesting issue that I had never really thought about before.  What I keep coming back to is that it seems wrong to try to break it down to such a simplistic biological argument.  It's taking me some time to mull over, because I keep bouncing around between cultural, social, and biological considerations.  Does that make sense?

It sure does.  I find myself oscillating on this issue, because as much as we may desire otherwise, there are no easy answers.

Well, to be honest, I've found one, and forgive me my bluntness, it reads don't screw a woman if you're not willing to be a parent with her.  It works for me, has kept me out of court, and has ensured that my son has one helluva mother, even if we both are too hardheaded to live under the same roof.

Quote from: "Tank"

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"Also, the real issue is not support payments; the issue is why there's a double standard.

Before everyone jack-slaps me about writing that, consider my earlier post again, please, in this light:  A woman can choose to abort or carry to term, and expect legal support from the father in the latter case.

A man cannot choose one way or the other.

When a woman exercises the rights biology gives her -- to carry or not carry -- it's a woman's right gifted from biology.  But when a man exercises the perogative that nature gives him -- to wit, to bone out on her -- he is castigated on a moral, not biological, basis.

Why when a woman exercises biology is it considered natural, but when a man does so he's judged on a moral and not a biological basis?

eta: and no, I don't wanna fight myself.  Just askin'.  These are questions I haven't answered, myself.  Forgive me if I sound like I have.

Just a request for a clarification of the underlined. Once pregnant a woman has no 'biological right' to not carry to term, the clock to birth is ticking and only a natural abortion will prevent the birth. So I'm not sure what you mean by a biological right to not carry to term.

I mean that because it is her physical body, she can decide to abort, either hiring the process out or doing it herself.  No law or forum debate changes that raw fact.  That is what I mean by natural.

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"I mean that because it is her physical body, she can decide to abort, either hiring the process out or doing it herself.  No law or forum debate changes that raw fact.  That is what I mean by natural.

Cheers, understood.

Quote from: "philosoraptor"

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"When a woman exercises the rights biology gives her -- to carry or not carry -- it's a woman's right gifted from biology.  But when a man exercises the perogative that nature gives him -- to wit, to bone out on her -- he is castigated on a moral, not biological, basis.

Why when a woman exercises biology is it considered natural, but when a man does so he's judged on a moral and not a biological basis?

But women are still judged on a MORAL basis as well, not just the biological.  I hardly think abortion would be such a hot button issue if there wasn't a moral component to it.  And in spite of biology, there are people who don't think it's natural either way.  It's not as though women are given a free pass on the biology issue-they still get judged for having abortions, even in cases where the pregnancy posed a serious risk to their own health.

This is a fair point, and would've been even fairer a couple of generations ago; but it cannot be denied that abortion has largely lost, and continues to lose, the attached stigma.

That there are conservative religionists who still stigmatize women is true; that they are the moral bellwethers of our society has been changing for some time now, thankfully.

Also, to all, please forgive my multiple posts.  My C&P function is not working properly right now, else I would roll all my answers together.

Quote from: "NothingSacred"

Quote from: "humblesmurph"

Quote from: "Nothing Sacred"The short answer is it is alot more difficult for a woman(in general) emotionally and physically not to carry a  pregnancy to term than it is for a man to walk away. If a man leaves it has the potential to ruin two lives. If a woman aborts he affects are different. With that said there should be changes to custody laws that almost always grant women custody and almost always require support from the man. These things should be taken on an individual basis and judged on whats best for the child.

I dunno.  I can't see how you could say it's easier for a man to walk away from a living child than it is to terminate a pregnancy.  The woman has the very real rationalization of  "well it wasn't really a baby that I killed".  For a man to turn his back on a real child he has no such rationalization.  Additionally, the aborted fetus will never come find the woman to ask her why she is such a scumbag.  The man who abandons his child deals with it for a lifetime--Be it through wage garnishments, or constant fear thereof, or the child someday confronting him with the scumbag question.

A man can walk away before the reality of the situation sets in. He has no medical procedure and no physical change to go though. He also wouldn't have the "murderer" stigma placed over him. Dont get me wrong for a decent human being it would not be easy but from what I have seen those who walk aren't decent.I was speaking about the immediate effects of walking away in my previous post . Those who think about the future rather than the immediate are less likely to find themselves in these situations. As I said previously though the reason why the reaction to each is different is that the effects are different. As you said a child is envolved when a man walks away....sorry if that was incoherent and rambling it's late and im tired

I think I get your point, but it goes both ways.  Just as it would be easy for a man without morals to walk away from a child, it would be easy for a woman lacking whatever emotional insight that makes abortion difficult to terminate a pregnancy.  The immediate effects for both would be the same in my view--and the long term effects would be worse for the man for reasons already stated.  I'm not saying that it is necessarily harder for man, I just think it silly to assume it's harder one way or another based only on gender.