Please Take Your Abortion Talk Here; You're Ruining a Perfectly Good Thread

[snacky]

I found it interesting upthread when someone suggested that people who choose abortion should be sterilized. Does being deliberate about your reproductive choices make you a bad parent? I would arge that it makes you a good parent. Some huge percentage of people seeking abortions (google it yourself, it's too early for me to locate citations) are already parents and know that adding another to the mix is a bad idea. Bam, good choice, based on family planning. As in planning your family. As in not having kids you can't afford or don't have time for. It's a responsible decision I've made, and am glad I've made. The children I've chosen to have enjoy better lives because of my choices.

The idea of terminating parental responsibilities for the non-pregnant parent makes sense if you don't consider a child to be entitled to the financial support of both parents. This isn't a car that people can choose to buy or not. It's a potential future person, and if that potential is realized that person has rights outside of its parents' choices. Would you condemn a child to being raised by a single person without financial support? It's interesting that this thread has called abortion a 'societal problem' but single parenthood and poverty are fine.

In your scenario of terminating parental responsibility, what if the couple in question are married? Have other children together?

[sis]

I found it interesting upthread when someone suggested that people who choose abortion should be sterilized. Does being deliberate about your reproductive choices make you a bad parent? I would arge that it makes you a good parent. Some huge percentage of people seeking abortions (google it yourself, it's too early for me to locate citations) are already parents and know that adding another to the mix is a bad idea. Bam, good choice, based on family planning. As in planning your family. As in not having kids you can't afford or don't have time for. It's a responsible decision I've made, and am glad I've made. The children I've chosen to have enjoy better lives because of my choices.

The idea of terminating parental responsibilities for the non-pregnant parent makes sense if you don't consider a child to be entitled to the financial support of both parents. This isn't a car that people can choose to buy or not. It's a potential future person, and if that potential is realized that person has rights outside of its parents' choices. Would you condemn a child to being raised by a single person without financial support? It's interesting that this thread has called abortion a 'societal problem' but single parenthood and poverty are fine.

In your scenario of terminating parental responsibility, what if the couple in question are married? Have other children together?

So I like the idea of being able to terminate parental responsibility.  Since women already get the choice by being able to elect to have an abortion or not, men should have a similar choice.  Though obviously you cannot force a woman to get an abortion.

In the case of married people, I imagine that the couple could draw up a "pre-contraception" contract.  Much like a pre-nup, where certain things are delineated.  For example: financial responsibility for the child, parental duties, schooling expectations, etc.  A lot of people go into marriage/parenthood with out similar expectations and goals related to child rearing and that can cause lots of problems.

[dramaman]

Your argument has consistently been one based on fairness, yet you are ONLY concerned about the unfairness of the man's situation as you perceive it under the law and totally willing to write-off the unfairness of the woman's situation simply because it is biological fact. Until you show a willingness to appreciate the woman's situation and accept that there needs to be some equivalent burden placed on the man for his role in the actions resulting in pregnancy, any arguments you make come off as chauvinistically one-sided. In other words, what you are advocating is for the man to be able to simply walk away and leave the woman holding the bag. That position will never get my support nor I suspect support from anyone who REALLY cares about fairness.

To be fair, right now the female can walk off and leave the man holding the bag. Outside of the necessity of the super invasive, unpleasant, graphic, borderline barbaric procedure, is there another part of 'holding the bag' that I am missing? If a woman chooses to keep her baby, why is that decision also forced upon the other party without consent?

Addressing the massive unfairness in the system can only be attempted for one side of the equation. Again, I never discounted the other side. But saying that since we can't make everything completely fair for everyone in all situations that we should leave it less fair than it could be made, or make the outcome even more unfair than it is currently, is a terrible argument. How is backtracking like this progress?

I am absolutely not attempting to discount how terrible pregnancy is for everyone involved. It's damn right awful. Thousands of women in the USA make the choice every day to attempt pregnancy; other thousands are inflected daily with this parasitic condition unwillingly. Literally thousands. It's heartbreaking.  I do not have any reasonable suggestions to completely prevent this from happening, and thus making sexual interactions risk-free and completely equitable for all involved. Do you?

Exactly HOW under our present system can a woman walk off and leave the man holding the bag as you allege? A woman gets PREGNANT and can NEVER simply walk off as you seem to want a man to be able to do.

The ONLY way a man is burdened in any way at all under our current system is IF the woman keeps the baby and IF she actually has the gumption to file for child support and IF the state can actually enforce the order. So guess which party is left holding the BIGGER bag? Cry me a river.

Again, you continue to exhibit a train of thought that totally discounts the fact that the woman, unlike the man, is the one who is STUCK with pregnancy. You can argue that you do understand and appreciate the risks and perils of pregnancy, but when you make offhand statements such as 'a female can walk off and leave the man holding the bag' you totally discredit yourself.

Also, its curious in your statement 'a female can walk off and leave the man holding the bag' you use the more generic, dehumanizing noun 'female' to refer to the woman, while you use the more humanizing noun 'man'. Ordinarily I wouldn't put much thought into noun assignment but in this case it is consistent with a line of logic that starts with the notion that men are of greater importance than females.

[Metric Mouse]

Exactly HOW under our present system can a woman walk off and leave the man holding the bag as you allege? A woman gets PREGNANT and can NEVER simply walk off as you seem to want a man to be able to do.

The ONLY way a man is burdened in any way at all under our current system is IF the woman keeps the baby and IF she actually has the gumption to file for child support and IF the state can actually enforce the order. So guess which party is left holding the BIGGER bag? Cry me a river.

Ok. So you are fine with one party getting to decide for the other party if they should be burdened, and to what extent they can exercise their reproductive rights.  You think it's ok because one party is exposed to more risk, and due to factors beyond human control the burden is skewed towards one party, so that person should get to choose how the issue is addressed, regardless of what the other party thinks. I understand your position. I think it's grossly unfair and sexist, but that is ok. We disagree, and we have both laid out our full arguments. Cool. :)

I am sorry you're unwilling or unable to suggest solutions besides forced procedures upon the party that already has fewer choices.  I think the issues that can be addressed should, even if the risks for one person can not be completely mitigated. (Unless you have suggestions for this?)

I clearly do not think male persons are more important than female persons. I also do not think female persons are more important than male persons. I also do not think that male persons should be punished because they are not female persons.

Thank you for sharing your thoughts on the matter. I appreciate the discussion.

[sis]

Your argument has consistently been one based on fairness, yet you are ONLY concerned about the unfairness of the man's situation as you perceive it under the law and totally willing to write-off the unfairness of the woman's situation simply because it is biological fact. Until you show a willingness to appreciate the woman's situation and accept that there needs to be some equivalent burden placed on the man for his role in the actions resulting in pregnancy, any arguments you make come off as chauvinistically one-sided. In other words, what you are advocating is for the man to be able to simply walk away and leave the woman holding the bag. That position will never get my support nor I suspect support from anyone who REALLY cares about fairness.

To be fair, right now the female can walk off and leave the man holding the bag. Outside of the necessity of the super invasive, unpleasant, graphic, borderline barbaric procedure, is there another part of 'holding the bag' that I am missing? If a woman chooses to keep her baby, why is that decision also forced upon the other party without consent?

Addressing the massive unfairness in the system can only be attempted for one side of the equation. Again, I never discounted the other side. But saying that since we can't make everything completely fair for everyone in all situations that we should leave it less fair than it could be made, or make the outcome even more unfair than it is currently, is a terrible argument. How is backtracking like this progress?

I am absolutely not attempting to discount how terrible pregnancy is for everyone involved. It's damn right awful. Thousands of women in the USA make the choice every day to attempt pregnancy; other thousands are inflected daily with this parasitic condition unwillingly. Literally thousands. It's heartbreaking.  I do not have any reasonable suggestions to completely prevent this from happening, and thus making sexual interactions risk-free and completely equitable for all involved. Do you?

Exactly HOW under our present system can a woman walk off and leave the man holding the bag as you allege? A woman gets PREGNANT and can NEVER simply walk off as you seem to want a man to be able to do.

The ONLY way a man is burdened in any way at all under our current system is IF the woman keeps the baby and IF she actually has the gumption to file for child support and IF the state can actually enforce the order. So guess which party is left holding the BIGGER bag? Cry me a river.

Again, you continue to exhibit a train of thought that totally discounts the fact that the woman, unlike the man, is the one who is STUCK with pregnancy. You can argue that you do understand and appreciate the risks and perils of pregnancy, but when you make offhand statements such as 'a female can walk off and leave the man holding the bag' you totally discredit yourself.

Also, its curious in your statement 'a female can walk off and leave the man holding the bag' you use the more generic, dehumanizing noun 'female' to refer to the woman, while you use the more humanizing noun 'man'. Ordinarily I wouldn't put much thought into noun assignment but in this case it is consistent with a line of logic that starts with the notion that men are of greater importance than females.

Interesting points there about the use of the words "female" vs "man".

I also think that after giving birth to a child, a mother is very unlikely to leave it and abandon it to the care of the father.  Not to say that it never happens, but it is much less likely than the reverse scenario.

[Metric Mouse]

So I like the idea of being able to terminate parental responsibility.  Since women already get the choice by being able to elect to have an abortion or not, men should have a similar choice.  Though obviously you cannot force a woman to get an abortion.

In the case of married people, I imagine that the couple could draw up a "pre-contraception" contract.  Much like a pre-nup, where certain things are delineated.  For example: financial responsibility for the child, parental duties, schooling expectations, etc.  A lot of people go into marriage/parenthood with out similar expectations and goals related to child rearing and that can cause lots of problems.

Interesting. Not to drag it out, but Dramaman and to a lesser extent Lagom have laid out some arguments against this right. I've offered counterpoints in the exchange above; any additions or comments?  Perhaps a "pre-conception" contract would be agreeable to both parties before the risky behavior is initiated, so that both sides can clearly weigh the risks and benefits?

[Metric Mouse]

Interesting points there about the use of the words "female" vs "man".

I also think that after giving birth to a child, a mother is very unlikely to leave it and abandon it to the care of the father.  Not to say that it never happens, but it is much less likely than the reverse scenario.

The point is not what scenario is more likely. The point is that under current law, a woman is often protected if she wishes to do such a thing, while a male would not be.

[Lagom]

Interesting points there about the use of the words "female" vs "man".

I also think that after giving birth to a child, a mother is very unlikely to leave it and abandon it to the care of the father.  Not to say that it never happens, but it is much less likely than the reverse scenario.

The point is not what scenario is more likely. The point is that under current law, a woman is often protected if she wishes to do such a thing, while a male would not be.

To reiterate my own stance, the main problem is that inequality is unavoidable in how we address this situation. But it seems to me that making things "fair" for the man almost certainly results in things being more unfair for the woman than things are unfair for the man right now. Thus if we are seeking to avoid as much unfairness as possible, the current arrangement is the best one.

A pre-conception contract certainly is an idea, but I'm pretty sure people running around having unprotected sex with casual partners are not going to be signing waivers beforehand.

[sis]

Interesting points there about the use of the words "female" vs "man".

I also think that after giving birth to a child, a mother is very unlikely to leave it and abandon it to the care of the father.  Not to say that it never happens, but it is much less likely than the reverse scenario.

The point is not what scenario is more likely. The point is that under current law, a woman is often protected if she wishes to do such a thing, while a male would not be.

To reiterate my own stance, the main problem is that inequality is unavoidable in how we address this situation. But it seems to me that making things "fair" for the man almost certainly results in things being more unfair for the woman than things are unfair for the man right now. Thus if we are seeking to avoid as much unfairness as possible, the current arrangement is the best one.

A pre-conception contract certainly is an idea, but I'm pretty sure people running around having unprotected sex with casual partners are not going to be signing waivers beforehand.

I think it is just a more advanced version of affirmative consent :-)

[dramaman]

Exactly HOW under our present system can a woman walk off and leave the man holding the bag as you allege? A woman gets PREGNANT and can NEVER simply walk off as you seem to want a man to be able to do.

The ONLY way a man is burdened in any way at all under our current system is IF the woman keeps the baby and IF she actually has the gumption to file for child support and IF the state can actually enforce the order. So guess which party is left holding the BIGGER bag? Cry me a river.

Ok. So you are fine with one party getting to decide for the other party if they should be burdened, and to what extent they can exercise their reproductive rights.  You think it's ok because one party is exposed to more risk, and due to factors beyond human control the burden is skewed towards one party, so that person should get to choose how the issue is addressed, regardless of what the other party thinks. I understand your position. I think it's grossly unfair and sexist, but that is ok. We disagree, and we have both laid out our full arguments. Cool. :)

I am sorry you're unwilling or unable to suggest solutions besides forced procedures upon the party that already has fewer choices.  I think the issues that can be addressed should, even if the risks for one person can not be completely mitigated. (Unless you have suggestions for this?)

I clearly do not think male persons are more important than female persons. I also do not think female persons are more important than male persons. I also do not think that male persons should be punished because they are not female persons.

Thank you for sharing your thoughts on the matter. I appreciate the discussion.

I can't help but doubt your sincerity about equally valuing men and women when you make arguments and comments that are based upon placing the concerns of men before the concerns of women. You repeatedly underplay the burden the woman has and simply express it as a choice, as if simply having the choice removes the burden. It does not. You think it is unfair that women have a choice and men do not. Women have a choice BECAUSE IT IS THEIR BODIES THAT GET PREGNANT. And the choice is NOT whether to be pregnant or not. The choice is whether to have surgery to abort a pregnancy or spend the next 9 months pregnant and possibly the next 18 year raising the child. Yet when I proposed to you that men be offered the same choice of surgery or simulated pregnancy, you rejected that as punishing. You even rejected something as innocuous as a monetary fine. You basically want the woman to bear ALL the consequences of pregnancy and the man NOTHING.

I'm sympathetic to men's rights in regards to making it easier for men to choose to raise a child when the woman does not want the child and similar inequities. I'm also sympathetic to concerns about forcing a man for 18 years to support a child that he made publicly known from the get go that he did not want. But I will NEVER support the idea that a man should be able to get a woman pregnant with NO consequences whatsoever. That is NOT choice. That's simply shoving ALL the burden on the woman. I'm all for fairness and that ain't it.  I agree with Lagom, the current system may not be perfectly fair, but it is more so than making the woman suffer the ENTIRE burden of an action that the man was an equal participant in.

[Metric Mouse]

I can't help but doubt your sincerity about equally valuing men and women when you make arguments and comments that are based upon placing the concerns of men before the concerns of women. You repeatedly underplay the burden the woman has and simply express it as a choice, as if simply having the choice removes the burden. It does not. You think it is unfair that women have a choice and men do not. Women have a choice BECAUSE IT IS THEIR BODIES THAT GET PREGNANT. And the choice is NOT whether to be pregnant or not. The choice is whether to have surgery to abort a pregnancy or spend the next 9 months pregnant and possibly the next 18 year raising the child. Yet when I proposed to you that men be offered the same choice of surgery or simulated pregnancy, you rejected that as punishing. You even rejected something as innocuous as a monetary fine. You basically want the woman to bear ALL the consequences of pregnancy and the man NOTHING.

I'm sympathetic to men's rights in regards to making it easier for men to choose to raise a child when the woman does not want the child and similar inequities. I'm also sympathetic to concerns about forcing a man for 18 years to support a child that he made publicly known from the get go that he did not want. But I will NEVER support the idea that a man should be able to get a woman pregnant with NO consequences whatsoever. That is NOT choice. That's simply shoving ALL the burden on the woman. I'm all for fairness and that ain't it.  I agree with Lagom, the current system may not be perfectly fair, but it is more so than making the woman suffer the ENTIRE burden of an action that the man was an equal participant in.

I've already stated:

I am absolutely not attempting to discount how terrible pregnancy is for everyone involved. It's damn right awful. Thousands of women in the USA make the choice every day to attempt pregnancy; other thousands are inflected daily with this parasitic condition unwillingly. Literally thousands. It's heartbreaking.  I do not have any reasonable suggestions to completely prevent this from happening, and thus making sexual interactions risk-free and completely equitable for all involved. Do you?

Clearly no one thinks a woman chooses to become pregnant. That's been stated several times in this thread.

I am all for a small fine, or paperwork filing fee, for an individual to claim a child and abort their rights to it; however you wish to frame it.  Realistically the parasitic condition is so terrible, there is no amount of money that would really make it 'fair.' Paying a fine is really not equitable to having a living being implanted into one's body that literally sucks the calcium from one's bones (among other horrible things), and to suggest that it is I think downplays how truly burdensome the condition is.  It's obviously advisable to do all in one's power to avoid such an unimaginable affliction. 

But, analogously, we don't take cookies away from everyone because some people are allergic to peanutbutter and will die. No one chooses that. It sucks. It's not fair. But we also don't inflict anaphylaxis or hives or other 'consequences' upon people who aren't allergic, in the name of 'fairness', because that's clearly the opposite of fair.  What we should do is focus on exploring ways to prevent the allergy for EVERYONE and treat and reduce the horrible burden in the unlucky few who do become allergic. Not make sure that everyone who wishes to eat peanutbutter experiences anaphylactic shock because some portion of the population will.

Again, if you have a suggestion on improving male's right or reducing the terrible burden of having a damn parastitic organisim living inside one's abdomen, this would be a great time to offer it. You admit that the system is terribly unfair for males, but since it's also unfair to women, it's ok to be unfair for everyone. No need to change things, they're just fine if everyone suffers.  I understand your stance: I just completely disagree.

[sis]

I can't help but doubt your sincerity about equally valuing men and women when you make arguments and comments that are based upon placing the concerns of men before the concerns of women. You repeatedly underplay the burden the woman has and simply express it as a choice, as if simply having the choice removes the burden. It does not. You think it is unfair that women have a choice and men do not. Women have a choice BECAUSE IT IS THEIR BODIES THAT GET PREGNANT. And the choice is NOT whether to be pregnant or not. The choice is whether to have surgery to abort a pregnancy or spend the next 9 months pregnant and possibly the next 18 year raising the child. Yet when I proposed to you that men be offered the same choice of surgery or simulated pregnancy, you rejected that as punishing. You even rejected something as innocuous as a monetary fine. You basically want the woman to bear ALL the consequences of pregnancy and the man NOTHING.

I'm sympathetic to men's rights in regards to making it easier for men to choose to raise a child when the woman does not want the child and similar inequities. I'm also sympathetic to concerns about forcing a man for 18 years to support a child that he made publicly known from the get go that he did not want. But I will NEVER support the idea that a man should be able to get a woman pregnant with NO consequences whatsoever. That is NOT choice. That's simply shoving ALL the burden on the woman. I'm all for fairness and that ain't it.  I agree with Lagom, the current system may not be perfectly fair, but it is more so than making the woman suffer the ENTIRE burden of an action that the man was an equal participant in.

I've already stated:

I am absolutely not attempting to discount how terrible pregnancy is for everyone involved. It's damn right awful. Thousands of women in the USA make the choice every day to attempt pregnancy; other thousands are inflected daily with this parasitic condition unwillingly. Literally thousands. It's heartbreaking.  I do not have any reasonable suggestions to completely prevent this from happening, and thus making sexual interactions risk-free and completely equitable for all involved. Do you?

Clearly no one thinks a woman chooses to become pregnant. That's been stated several times in this thread.

I am all for a small fine, or paperwork filing fee, for an individual to claim a child and abort their rights to it; however you wish to frame it.  Realistically the parasitic condition is so terrible, there is no amount of money that would really make it 'fair.' Paying a fine is really not equitable to having a living being implanted into one's body that literally sucks the calcium from one's bones (among other horrible things), and to suggest that it is I think downplays how truly burdensome the condition is.  It's obviously advisable to do all in one's power to avoid such an unimaginable affliction. 

But, analogously, we don't take cookies away from everyone because some people are allergic to peanutbutter and will die. No one chooses that. It sucks. It's not fair. But we also don't inflict anaphylaxis or hives or other 'consequences' upon people who aren't allergic, in the name of 'fairness', because that's clearly the opposite of fair.  What we should do is focus on exploring ways to prevent the allergy for EVERYONE and treat and reduce the horrible burden in the unlucky few who do become allergic. Not make sure that everyone who wishes to eat peanutbutter experiences anaphylactic shock because some portion of the population will.

Again, if you have a suggestion on improving male's right or reducing the terrible burden of having a damn parastitic organisim living inside one's abdomen, this would be a great time to offer it. You admit that the system is terribly unfair for males, but since it's also unfair to women, it's ok to be unfair for everyone. No need to change things, they're just fine if everyone suffers.  I understand your stance: I just completely disagree.

Something like $1000 which goes to the woman to either (a) fund her abortion or (b) fund some minimal amount of child costs?  I think that I like this in theory but I don't think it would actually work. 

[dramaman]

I can't help but doubt your sincerity about equally valuing men and women when you make arguments and comments that are based upon placing the concerns of men before the concerns of women. You repeatedly underplay the burden the woman has and simply express it as a choice, as if simply having the choice removes the burden. It does not. You think it is unfair that women have a choice and men do not. Women have a choice BECAUSE IT IS THEIR BODIES THAT GET PREGNANT. And the choice is NOT whether to be pregnant or not. The choice is whether to have surgery to abort a pregnancy or spend the next 9 months pregnant and possibly the next 18 year raising the child. Yet when I proposed to you that men be offered the same choice of surgery or simulated pregnancy, you rejected that as punishing. You even rejected something as innocuous as a monetary fine. You basically want the woman to bear ALL the consequences of pregnancy and the man NOTHING.

I'm sympathetic to men's rights in regards to making it easier for men to choose to raise a child when the woman does not want the child and similar inequities. I'm also sympathetic to concerns about forcing a man for 18 years to support a child that he made publicly known from the get go that he did not want. But I will NEVER support the idea that a man should be able to get a woman pregnant with NO consequences whatsoever. That is NOT choice. That's simply shoving ALL the burden on the woman. I'm all for fairness and that ain't it.  I agree with Lagom, the current system may not be perfectly fair, but it is more so than making the woman suffer the ENTIRE burden of an action that the man was an equal participant in.

I've already stated:

I am absolutely not attempting to discount how terrible pregnancy is for everyone involved. It's damn right awful. Thousands of women in the USA make the choice every day to attempt pregnancy; other thousands are inflected daily with this parasitic condition unwillingly. Literally thousands. It's heartbreaking.  I do not have any reasonable suggestions to completely prevent this from happening, and thus making sexual interactions risk-free and completely equitable for all involved. Do you?

Clearly no one thinks a woman chooses to become pregnant. That's been stated several times in this thread.

Some folks on this thread HAVE expressed a belief that women choose to become pregnant. Not you, though. You get credit for that at least.

With all your comments however indicating your belief that women are in some kind of superior situation in comparison to men and that women leave men holding the bag and even referring to women as simply females in the same sentence that you referred to men as actual men, I do have a hard time taking you at face value that you actually do understand and appreciate the burden of pregnancy for women. I can't help but wonder whether you are simply giving lip service and deep down you just think of pregnant women only in terms of posing a problem for men.

I am all for a small fine, or paperwork filing fee, for an individual to claim a child and abort their rights to it; however you wish to frame it.  Realistically the parasitic condition is so terrible, there is no amount of money that would really make it 'fair.' Paying a fine is really not equitable to having a living being implanted into one's body that literally sucks the calcium from one's bones (among other horrible things), and to suggest that it is I think downplays how truly burdensome the condition is.  It's obviously advisable to do all in one's power to avoid such an unimaginable affliction.

Good, I would think the minimum would be some monetary amount that would be equivalent to the cost of an abortion plus a certain amount more to balance out the inconvenience and recovery a women has to go through.

But, analogously, we don't take cookies away from everyone because some people are allergic to peanutbutter and will die. No one chooses that. It sucks. It's not fair. But we also don't inflict anaphylaxis or hives or other 'consequences' upon people who aren't allergic, in the name of 'fairness', because that's clearly the opposite of fair.  What we should do is focus on exploring ways to prevent the allergy for EVERYONE and treat and reduce the horrible burden in the unlucky few who do become allergic. Not make sure that everyone who wishes to eat peanutbutter experiences anaphylactic shock because some portion of the population will.

Damn, you just lost any goodwill you had gained from your prior concession above. You make these statements that you appreciate pregnancy yet you go and compare pregnancy to an allergy and act as if the man is some innocent bystander being denied a cookie. (Maybe you ought to write a children's book - If you Give a Deadbeat Dad a Cookie). This is why I continue to doubt your sincerity.

Repeat after me:

THE MAN IS NOT SOME INNOCENT BYSTANDER BEING DENIED A COOKIE. THE MAN GOT THE WOMAN PREGNANT.

THE MAN IS NOT SOME INNOCENT BYSTANDER BEING DENIED A COOKIE. THE MAN GOT THE WOMAN PREGNANT.

THE MAN IS NOT SOME INNOCENT BYSTANDER BEING DENIED A COOKIE. THE MAN GOT THE WOMAN PREGNANT.

Until you accept this truth and stop making half-baked arguments that rely on the fiction that somehow the pregnancy just magically happened and the man has no responsibility and is being unjustly punished, any words you offer claiming to really understand and appreciate pregnancy and the position the woman is in won't be worth a hill of beans.

Again, if you have a suggestion on improving male's right or reducing the terrible burden of having a damn parastitic organisim living inside one's abdomen, this would be a great time to offer it. You admit that the system is terribly unfair for males, but since it's also unfair to women, it's ok to be unfair for everyone. No need to change things, they're just fine if everyone suffers.  I understand your stance: I just completely disagree.

I already offered a suggestion that gave the man more options but you can't even accept that without complaining that the poor guy is being denied a cookie.

In regards to my attitude about the system, you entirely misunderstood me.  Is there room for improvement? Yes. Do I think the system is TERRIBLY unfair to men? No.

[LadyStache in Baja]

Wow y'all!  I'm definitely pro-choice.  Mother of 4.  I've had two abortions.  All of my pregnancies were fathered by my husband.  I wish I had known more about the IUD before.  I'd probably have less kids and less abortions by now!  Everything I'd heard was really negative.  After the birth of my 4th, I started doing some serious asking around and decided to go for it, glad I did. 

Anyway, all this to say, let's not forget that while pregnancy is definitely a burden, it is not all bad!  It's really beautiful too!  All this talk of parasites was getting me down!  I feel blessed (and burdened) that as I woman I get to experience child birth and lactation and the whole miracle!  I get to feel him kicking inside of me.  And yes, I get to feel morning sickness and have my body all stretched out and not returning to its former shape.  It's a privilege men will never have.  It's fucking awesome.  Childbirth was a fucking rush and I wish I could do it again (I say wish because it's not worth the financial and time burden of raising the baby).

I definitely grieved my abortions.  But it was definitely the right choice for our family. 

But honestly, if the parents aren't responsible enough to properly use birth control, do we really want them raising a baby?!

Retiredat63 had some interesting points about life pre-sexual revolution.  I sometimes think parenthood is a great way to make people grow up fast.  The extended adolescence of today is extremely off-putting to me.  Child-free by choice and kicking ass is awesome.  Being a man-child or woman-child nearing 30 is gross.

[winkeyman]

Just to reiterate, I am pro-choice.

But what strikes me most about the conversations in this thread (and conversations about this topic in general) is the contrast between how men and women are regarded many by pro-choice people.

When it comes to women, they can do no wrong. Abortion on demand, for any reason. It is totally wrong to question their sexual activities how or why they become pregnant. Women should never be burdened by an unwanted pregnancy, and pregnancy should not be used as "punishment".  Anyone who questions such things are prosecuting a war on women and should be shamed.

When it comes to men, they can do no right. They are sexual deviants who go around sleeping with as many women as possible, impregnating them and leaving them high and dry when they become pregnant. We need to find ways to "punish" men for this behavior or hold them accountable via child support, forced vasectomies or other mechanisms. Men need to take responsibility for their actions, and if they don't society need to find ways to force them to be accountable. Providing a "legal abortion" option for men is outlandish and crazy.

The difference is striking, and incredibly sexist. Kinda makes me sick.

[golden1]

When it comes to women, they can do no wrong. Abortion on demand, for any reason. It is totally wrong to question their sexual activities how or why they become pregnant. Women should never be burdened by an unwanted pregnancy, and pregnancy should not be used as "punishment".  Anyone who questions such things are prosecuting a war on women and should be shamed.

When it comes to men, they can do no right. They are sexual deviants who go around sleeping with as many women as possible, impregnating them and leaving them high and dry when they become pregnant. We need to find ways to "punish" men for this behavior or hold them accountable via child support, forced vasectomies or other mechanisms. Men need to take responsibility for their actions, and if they don't society need to find ways to force them to be accountable. Providing a "legal abortion" option for men is outlandish and crazy.

What the hell are you talking about?!?!?!?!?!  Can you even hear yourself?

This is a seriously bizarre persecution complex you have that has no basis in reality.  I don't even know where to start.

1) Abortion on demand doesn't exist except in the first trimester.  You can't get one in the third trimester.  You can only get one under certain conditions in the second. 
2) Women who sleep with multiple partners are considered sluts, or tainted.  Men who sleep with multiple partners are prized as "alpha males".
3) Men are not questioned about why they choose to sleep with whomever they sleep with.  Why should women be?
4) I have never heard once that men should have forced vasectomies.  Not one time.  I have heard multiple times that women who have children on welfare should be sterilized or receive birth control implants. 
5) I have never once heard that men's normal sexual behavior is considered deviant.  I HAVE heard that women who are highly sexual are considered abnormal, "sluts", "Trashy".

There is a double standard alright, and it is in the other direction I am afraid, at least in the case of perception of sexual behavior. 

 

[winkeyman]

Reply #1  "Sorry, but I just don't have a lot of sympathy for guys who knock women up and don't want to take the responsibility for their sperm 'donations'. Not all guys are sleazebags, but..."   

Contrast that to someone saying they "have no sympathy for women who get knocked up and don't want to take responsibility, and not all women are skanks, but..."

Reply #13  "I don't know if it is actually becoming more prevalent or if I'm just becoming more sensitive to it, but the MRA stuff on MMM has me thinking about peacing out for good."

Talking about Men's Rights bums them out, and makes them want to leave the forum. The very idea of advocating for Men's Issues is disturbing.

Reply # 19   " If a guy knows that he, ultimately, would not have any say in what happens to any fetus that results from sex, and has a problem with that, then he should not be having sex.  If he wants to have sex anyway, he should get himself sterilized. "

Let's say abortion was illegal. Women know that if they get pregnant, they will not be able to abort the fetus. If the women has a problem with this, she shouldn't have sex. Or just get sterilized.

Reply #23   "And you are assuming the woman consented to sex."

This is repeated often throughout the thread. What about male consent? There are men paying child support for children that are the product of the man being raped.

Reply #66  "Sounds reasonable on its surface, but the devil is in the details in terms of exactly how such severing is legally recognized and even so there should still be some monetary repercussions to prevent sleazebags from thinking they can just sleep around without any repercussions whatsoever should they happen to get a woman pregnant. Given that the woman who get pregnant automatically have repercussions in regards to their body, the man should have to face some kind of penalty that incentivized future behavior. I'm thinking of a stiff monetary fine (that goes towards social services) and/or a mandatory vasectomy paid for by the man."

Again, referring to sexually promiscuous men as sleazebags. Suggesting that men should be penalized for their sexual behavior, mandatory vasectomy. Mandatory? What happened to "my body my choice" or does that only apply to women?


Again, I'm not "the enemy" here. I am pro-choice. But I find it curious that whenever someone offers up a concern from the male perspective, the response is "lol if he was concerned with the consequences of sex he should have kept it in his pants. Enjoy the 18 years of child support, sleazebag!"

[RetiredAt63]

When it comes to women, they can do no wrong. Abortion on demand, for any reason. It is totally wrong to question their sexual activities how or why they become pregnant. Women should never be burdened by an unwanted pregnancy, and pregnancy should not be used as "punishment".  Anyone who questions such things are prosecuting a war on women and should be shamed.

When it comes to men, they can do no right. They are sexual deviants who go around sleeping with as many women as possible, impregnating them and leaving them high and dry when they become pregnant. We need to find ways to "punish" men for this behavior or hold them accountable via child support, forced vasectomies or other mechanisms. Men need to take responsibility for their actions, and if they don't society need to find ways to force them to be accountable. Providing a "legal abortion" option for men is outlandish and crazy.

Wow, I haven't heard any "women can do no wrong" here.  A person can be pro-choice and still think abortion is a last resort (birth control, morning-after pill, are definitely preferable).  I am pro-choice (living in Quebec, Henry Morgentaler was a hero) but had to think long and hard about my choices if my amnio had shown bad news (late 30's pregnancy).  An abortion is not nothing, if done early it is up there with a D&C (even spontaneous miscarriages have extra side effects, a D&C is standard after-treatment). Later is is a more serious procedure.

Given some of what I read here, I have to wonder how many of the men on this thread have any actual knowledge of biology and especially female biology.  There are all sorts of health risk that they blithely ignore.  Oh, I forgot the episiotomy in my list of health issues in an earlier post.  OK, guys, how would you like a nice slice made into the skin and muscle between the scrotal sac and the anus?  The doctor can give it a good stretch before it is sewn up again.

I remember the old joke, if women and men took turns havng babies, no family would have more than 3 children, hers, his, hers.  My Mom was more cynical, no family would have more than one child - hers. 

OK, as supreme female dictator, here is my solution:
Man and woman share risks of childbirth equally, whether they are a couple or not, one-night stands and drunken sex with someone picked up in a bar included. If she has morning sickness, he is given nausea-inducing drugs.  She has blood-pressure issues, he is given drugs to induce the same issues.  She gains weight, he gains weight (or has to carry the extra padding, in the same center-of-gravity messing up distribution.  She has gestational diabletes, we up his blood sugar to nice dangerous levels.  She is in labour for 24 hours?  He is given medication to induce massive abdominal cramps.  She has back labor (I had this, it was worse than the labour).  We make sure he has an incredibly painful lower back back-ache.  She has an epidural?  He gets one too, and gets to see what being a temporary paraplegic feels like.  She has an episiotomy?  He has the equivalent.  She bleeds like mad during delivery?  The Red Cross will be happy to get a triple donation from him.  She has a C-section?  That is easy to replicate in him.  And once that baby is born, he does half the feeding (if we push it, can we give him hormones to induce lactation?), half the diaper changes, half the getting up in the night, half the jiggling a colicky baby for 3 hours, etc. etc. 

Maybe then men will acknowledge the risks of pregnancy the way women always have.  Addendum - pregnancy due to rape, he gets all of it no matter how easy her pregnancy.


 

[winkeyman]

When it comes to women, they can do no wrong. Abortion on demand, for any reason. It is totally wrong to question their sexual activities how or why they become pregnant. Women should never be burdened by an unwanted pregnancy, and pregnancy should not be used as "punishment".  Anyone who questions such things are prosecuting a war on women and should be shamed.

When it comes to men, they can do no right. They are sexual deviants who go around sleeping with as many women as possible, impregnating them and leaving them high and dry when they become pregnant. We need to find ways to "punish" men for this behavior or hold them accountable via child support, forced vasectomies or other mechanisms. Men need to take responsibility for their actions, and if they don't society need to find ways to force them to be accountable. Providing a "legal abortion" option for men is outlandish and crazy.

Wow, I haven't heard any "women can do no wrong" here.  A person can be pro-choice and still think abortion is a last resort (birth control, morning-after pill, are definitely preferable).  I am pro-choice (living in Quebec, Henry Morgentaler was a hero) but had to think long and hard about my choices if my amnio had shown bad news (late 30's pregnancy).  An abortion is not nothing, if done early it is up there with a D&C (even spontaneous miscarriages have extra side effects, a D&C is standard after-treatment). Later is is a more serious procedure.

Given some of what I read here, I have to wonder how many of the men on this thread have any actual knowledge of biology and especially female biology.  There are all sorts of health risk that they blithely ignore.  Oh, I forgot the episiotomy in my list of health issues in an earlier post.  OK, guys, how would you like a nice slice made into the skin and muscle between the scrotal sac and the anus?  The doctor can give it a good stretch before it is sewn up again.

I remember the old joke, if women and men took turns havng babies, no family would have more than 3 children, hers, his, hers.  My Mom was more cynical, no family would have more than one child - hers. 

OK, as supreme female dictator, here is my solution:
Man and woman share risks of childbirth equally, whether they are a couple or not, one-night stands and drunken sex with someone picked up in a bar included. If she has morning sickness, he is given nausea-inducing drugs.  She has blood-pressure issues, he is given drugs to induce the same issues.  She gains weight, he gains weight (or has to carry the extra padding, in the same center-of-gravity messing up distribution.  She has gestational diabletes, we up his blood sugar to nice dangerous levels.  She is in labour for 24 hours?  He is given medication to induce massive abdominal cramps.  She has back labor (I had this, it was worse than the labour).  We make sure he has an incredibly painful lower back back-ache.  She has an epidural?  He gets one too, and gets to see what being a temporary paraplegic feels like.  She has an episiotomy?  He has the equivalent.  She bleeds like mad during delivery?  The Red Cross will be happy to get a triple donation from him.  She has a C-section?  That is easy to replicate in him.  And once that baby is born, he does half the feeding (if we push it, can we give him hormones to induce lactation?), half the diaper changes, half the getting up in the night, half the jiggling a colicky baby for 3 hours, etc. etc. 

Maybe then men will acknowledge the risks of pregnancy the way women always have.  Addendum - pregnancy due to rape, he gets all of it no matter how easy her pregnancy.

Once again, I am pro-choice so you are preaching to the choir, BUT...

I assume you are semi-joking, but you are not the first (and won't be the last) to suggest somehow legislating away the biological differences between men and women.

[RetiredAt63]

I assume you are semi-joking, but you are not the first (and won't be the last) to suggest somehow legislating away the biological differences between men and women.

For sure I am joking.  I would need a magic wand to implement that, not legislation, and my crystal ball refuses to show me where I can find one.  But as I said, there seem to be a lot of men who think we can just pop babies out with no physical (including hormonal) or emotional effects, so I tried to put it into terms they might empathize with.  Too bad we aren't sea horses.  Or marmosets/tamarins.

I remember a science fiction story (SF has fun looking at human social foibles) where the aliens that people were working with had a marmoset-like setup.  Female gave birth, male did almost all child care, marriage was for life and there was no pre-marital or extra-marital sex, in short all our ideals but built into the biology of the species.  They could not understand our divorce, or how someone could remarry after death of a spouse or divorce.  Good mirror.

[Cressida]

[MRA business]

[reality-based commentary]

Thanks, golden1 - intervention much appreciated.

[Gin1984]

Reply #1  "Sorry, but I just don't have a lot of sympathy for guys who knock women up and don't want to take the responsibility for their sperm 'donations'. Not all guys are sleazebags, but..."   

Contrast that to someone saying they "have no sympathy for women who get knocked up and don't want to take responsibility, and not all women are skanks, but..."

Reply #13  "I don't know if it is actually becoming more prevalent or if I'm just becoming more sensitive to it, but the MRA stuff on MMM has me thinking about peacing out for good."

Talking about Men's Rights bums them out, and makes them want to leave the forum. The very idea of advocating for Men's Issues is disturbing.

Reply # 19   " If a guy knows that he, ultimately, would not have any say in what happens to any fetus that results from sex, and has a problem with that, then he should not be having sex.  If he wants to have sex anyway, he should get himself sterilized. "

Let's say abortion was illegal. Women know that if they get pregnant, they will not be able to abort the fetus. If the women has a problem with this, she shouldn't have sex. Or just get sterilized.

Reply #23   "And you are assuming the woman consented to sex."

This is repeated often throughout the thread. What about male consent? There are men paying child support for children that are the product of the man being raped.

Reply #66  "Sounds reasonable on its surface, but the devil is in the details in terms of exactly how such severing is legally recognized and even so there should still be some monetary repercussions to prevent sleazebags from thinking they can just sleep around without any repercussions whatsoever should they happen to get a woman pregnant. Given that the woman who get pregnant automatically have repercussions in regards to their body, the man should have to face some kind of penalty that incentivized future behavior. I'm thinking of a stiff monetary fine (that goes towards social services) and/or a mandatory vasectomy paid for by the man."

Again, referring to sexually promiscuous men as sleazebags. Suggesting that men should be penalized for their sexual behavior, mandatory vasectomy. Mandatory? What happened to "my body my choice" or does that only apply to women?


Again, I'm not "the enemy" here. I am pro-choice. But I find it curious that whenever someone offers up a concern from the male perspective, the response is "lol if he was concerned with the consequences of sex he should have kept it in his pants. Enjoy the 18 years of child support, sleazebag!"

There is a difference between men having rights and MRAs, fyi.  MRAs are groups that want women to have less or no rights as an example see: Elliott Rodgers.

[arebelspy]

Ugh, more MRA * on here?

[Metric Mouse]

OK, as supreme female dictator, here is my solution:
Man and woman share risks of childbirth equally, whether they are a couple or not, one-night stands and drunken sex with someone picked up in a bar included. If she has morning sickness, he is given nausea-inducing drugs.  She has blood-pressure issues, he is given drugs to induce the same issues.  She gains weight, he gains weight (or has to carry the extra padding, in the same center-of-gravity messing up distribution.  She has gestational diabletes, we up his blood sugar to nice dangerous levels.  She is in labour for 24 hours?  He is given medication to induce massive abdominal cramps.  She has back labor (I had this, it was worse than the labour).  We make sure he has an incredibly painful lower back back-ache.  She has an epidural?  He gets one too, and gets to see what being a temporary paraplegic feels like.  She has an episiotomy?  He has the equivalent.  She bleeds like mad during delivery?  The Red Cross will be happy to get a triple donation from him.  She has a C-section?  That is easy to replicate in him.  And once that baby is born, he does half the feeding (if we push it, can we give him hormones to induce lactation?), half the diaper changes, half the getting up in the night, half the jiggling a colicky baby for 3 hours, etc. etc. 

Maybe then men will acknowledge the risks of pregnancy the way women always have.  Addendum - pregnancy due to rape, he gets all of it no matter how easy her pregnancy.

Personally, I feel this solution would mostly serve increase the pain and suffering in the world instead of reducing it, and thus would reject it upon principle.

From a practical and policy standpoint however, I can see the argument. I assume that either partner would have equal right to terminate the pregnancy, assuming an equally invasive procedure or medication ingestion.  Sounds like it would be about as 'fair'  equitable as could be.

edited.

[RetiredAt63]

Personally, I feel this solution would mostly serve increase the pain and suffering in the world instead of reducing it, and thus would reject it upon principle.

From a practical and policy standpoint however, I can see the argument. I assume that either partner would have equal right to terminate the pregnancy, assuming an equally invasive procedure or medication ingestion.  Sounds like it would be about as 'fair' as could be.

At least you saw the pain and suffering. 

[K-ice]

Foreplay talk that has never happened.

"Don't worry sweetie, if you get pregnant I'll pay child support."

[Metric Mouse]

Personally, I feel this solution would mostly serve increase the pain and suffering in the world instead of reducing it, and thus would reject it upon principle.

From a practical and policy standpoint however, I can see the argument. I assume that either partner would have equal right to terminate the pregnancy, assuming an equally invasive procedure or medication ingestion.  Sounds like it would be about as 'fair' as could be.

At least you saw the pain and suffering.

About the worst thing a person can go through, no doubt.  Hard to imagine people are willing to suffer through it.

[RetiredAt63]

Personally, I feel this solution would mostly serve increase the pain and suffering in the world instead of reducing it, and thus would reject it upon principle.

From a practical and policy standpoint however, I can see the argument. I assume that either partner would have equal right to terminate the pregnancy, assuming an equally invasive procedure or medication ingestion.  Sounds like it would be about as 'fair' as could be.

At least you saw the pain and suffering.

About the worst thing a person can go through, no doubt.  Hard to imagine people are willing to suffer through it.

Pregnancy and childbirth are so safe now (not 100% though) that people forget it was a leading cause of mortality for women for most of human history. I have seen suggestions that in societies where men went through puberty rites and testing, women did not because childbirth was enough of a test.  And of course historically women had little choice, if they were married they had children.  Since farming was the livelihood of the vast majority of people, children were essential to help run a farm and provide security in old age.  The reason historical novels are full of widowers looking for a new wife to mother their children is because it was so common.

[Gin1984]

Personally, I feel this solution would mostly serve increase the pain and suffering in the world instead of reducing it, and thus would reject it upon principle.

From a practical and policy standpoint however, I can see the argument. I assume that either partner would have equal right to terminate the pregnancy, assuming an equally invasive procedure or medication ingestion.  Sounds like it would be about as 'fair' as could be.

At least you saw the pain and suffering.

About the worst thing a person can go through, no doubt.  Hard to imagine people are willing to suffer through it.

Pregnancy and childbirth are so safe now (not 100% though) that people forget it was a leading cause of mortality for women for most of human history. I have seen suggestions that in societies where men went through puberty rites and testing, women did not because childbirth was enough of a test.  And of course historically women had little choice, if they were married they had children.  Since farming was the livelihood of the vast majority of people, children were essential to help run a farm and provide security in old age.  The reason historical novels are full of widowers looking for a new wife to mother their children is because it was so common.

Retired, being Canadian you may not be aware that unlike every other first world country, the USA maternal mortality rate is increasing.  And if you break it up, state by state, those states with anti-choice laws are the ones increasing that mortality.   

[RetiredAt63]

Pregnancy and childbirth are so safe now (not 100% though) that people forget it was a leading cause of mortality for women for most of human history. I have seen suggestions that in societies where men went through puberty rites and testing, women did not because childbirth was enough of a test.  And of course historically women had little choice, if they were married they had children.  Since farming was the livelihood of the vast majority of people, children were essential to help run a farm and provide security in old age.  The reason historical novels are full of widowers looking for a new wife to mother their children is because it was so common.

Retired, being Canadian you may not be aware that unlike every other first world country, the USA maternal mortality rate is increasing.  And if you break it up, state by state, those states with anti-choice laws are the ones increasing that mortality.

Oh, ouch.  I knew that the USA had bad infant mortality rates compared to other first world countries, but I didn't know that the maternity mortality rates were following that upwards trend.   If anti-choice laws means more teenage pregnancies and other high-risk pregnancies, it is not a surprising outcome.

This was the most recent result I found with a quick google search
http://www.indexmundi.com/g/r.aspx?v=2223
Canada is good but not great, we need to do better as well.

Maternal mortality rate (deaths/100,000 live births)         Rank worst to best out of 184
Brunei              24                                                         133   
Grenada            24                                                         134   
Saudi Arabia      24                                                         135   
USA                 21                                                        136
Hungary            21                                                        137   
Iran                  21                                                        138   
Luxembourg      20                                                        139   
Puerto Rico        20                                                        140   
Kuwait              14                                                        146   
Serbia              12                                                        147   
Canada           12                                                        148   
Denmark          12                                                       149   
United Kingdom 12                                                        150   
France               8                                                         162   
Switzerland        8                                                         163   
Germany            7                                                         164   
Australia            7                                                         165   
Norway              7                                                         166   
Estonia              2                                                         184   

(PS lining these up was horrible, tired of it, they are readable)

[iris lily]

Personally, I feel this solution would mostly serve increase the pain and suffering in the world instead of reducing it, and thus would reject it upon principle.

From a practical and policy standpoint however, I can see the argument. I assume that either partner would have equal right to terminate the pregnancy, assuming an equally invasive procedure or medication ingestion.  Sounds like it would be about as 'fair' as could be.

At least you saw the pain and suffering.

About the worst thing a person can go through, no doubt.  Hard to imagine people are willing to suffer through it.

Pregnancy and childbirth are so safe now (not 100% though) that people forget it was a leading cause of mortality for women for most of human history. I have seen suggestions that in societies where men went through puberty rites and testing, women did not because childbirth was enough of a test.  And of course historically women had little choice, if they were married they had children.  Since farming was the livelihood of the vast majority of people, children were essential to help run a farm and provide security in old age.  The reason historical novels are full of widowers looking for a new wife to mother their children is because it was so common.

Retired, being Canadian you may not be aware that unlike every other first world country, the USA maternal mortality rate is increasing.  And if you break it up, state by state, those states with anti-choice laws are the ones increasing that mortality.

I suspect it has to do with poor care at birth, poor prenatal care, and poverty in general. That would include the mindset and values of those in poverty. A direct correlation to lack of abortion services might change my mind.

[RetiredAt63]

I suspect it has to do with poor care at birth, poor prenatal care, and poverty in general. That would include the mindset and values of those in poverty. A direct correlation to lack of abortion services might change my mind.

Why would one of the richest countries in the world have so many mothers and children vulnerable to those variables?  The US is richer than a lot of the countries that do better.  It is a matter of social priorities. 

And Gin1984 has already pointed out ". . . unlike every other first world country, the USA maternal mortality rate is increasing.  And if you break it up, state by state, those states with anti-choice laws are the ones increasing that mortality."

[simplertimes]

I have a question for those who see an unborn child as a fetus and not really a baby until later in pregnancy or after birth, out of sincere curiosity:  What do you think of miscarriages or women who grieve early pregnancy loss or still birth? 

I am a "pro life Democrat" so to speak, and I also had a miscarriage when I was 7 weeks pregnant.  I experienced profound grief, and absolutely consider myself to have lost a child and not just a lifeless fetus/parasite/potential future child - an actual child.  I know women who have experienced miscarriages at every stage of pregnancy, and while late term still births are distinctly traumatic and emotionally painful, all of these women were grief stricken over the loss.

Before I miscarried I remember baking in the kitchen with my young daughter, placing a hand on my small growing belly, smiling to myself as I thought of the little one in my womb.  I remember returning from the hospital on Christmas morning after confirming the miscarriage, collapsing onto my bedroom floor and weeping in the few minutes I had to myself while my husband was gone picking my daughter up from my parent's house. 

So is a fetus considered a baby when a mother planned for/wanted it and then loses it?  But a baby is considered a fetus when the mother did not plan for/want it and wants to get rid of it?  Is this what people mean when they say a woman has a right to choose?  To choose whether to perceive her unborn child as a child or as a fetus?

I'm very interested in this psychological distinction.

[Lagom]

I have a question for those who see an unborn child as a fetus and not really a baby until later in pregnancy or after birth, out of sincere curiosity:  What do you think of miscarriages or women who grieve early pregnancy loss or still birth? 

I am a "pro life Democrat" so to speak, and I also had a miscarriage when I was 7 weeks pregnant.  I experienced profound grief, and absolutely consider myself to have lost a child and not just a lifeless fetus/parasite/potential future child - an actual child.  I know women who have experienced miscarriages at every stage of pregnancy, and while late term still births are distinctly traumatic and emotionally painful, all of these women were grief stricken over the loss.

Before I miscarried I remember baking in the kitchen with my young daughter, placing a hand on my small growing belly, smiling to myself as I thought of the little one in my womb.  I remember returning from the hospital on Christmas morning after confirming the miscarriage, collapsing onto my bedroom floor and weeping in the few minutes I had to myself while my husband was gone picking my daughter up from my parent's house. 

So is a fetus considered a baby when a mother planned for/wanted it and then loses it?  But a baby is considered a fetus when the mother did not plan for/want it and wants to get rid of it?  Is this what people mean when they say a woman has a right to choose?  To choose whether to perceive her unborn child as a child or as a fetus?

I'm very interested in this psychological distinction.

I've been emotionally attached to all kinds of things that are not people. Doesn't make it murder to destroy them. Point being that the question of when a fetus becomes a "person" is completely separate from how a mother feels about being pregnant.

[iris lily]

I suspect it has to do with poor care at birth, poor prenatal care, and poverty in general. That would include the mindset and values of those in poverty. A direct correlation to lack of abortion services might change my mind.

Why would one of the richest countries in the world have so many mothers and children vulnerable to those variables?  The US is richer than a lot of the countries that do better.  It is a matter of social priorities. 

And Gin1984 has already pointed out ". . . unlike every other first world country, the USA maternal mortality rate is increasing.  And if you break it up, state by state, those states with anti-choice laws are the ones increasing that mortality."

A matter of social priority? What exactly is the problem that must be solved? What causes increased deaths?

Since no one provided information linking lack of abortion services to maternal deaths,
I did a lazy Google search and found a CNN article that claims obesity and late in life pregnancy is affecting the maternal death rate. Also, lack of medical care whch probably taps into poverty.

[RetiredAt63]

I have a question for those who see an unborn child as a fetus and not really a baby until later in pregnancy or after birth, out of sincere curiosity:  What do you think of miscarriages or women who grieve early pregnancy loss or still birth? 

I am a "pro life Democrat" so to speak, and I also had a miscarriage when I was 7 weeks pregnant.  I experienced profound grief, and absolutely consider myself to have lost a child and not just a lifeless fetus/parasite/potential future child - an actual child.  I know women who have experienced miscarriages at every stage of pregnancy, and while late term still births are distinctly traumatic and emotionally painful, all of these women were grief stricken over the loss.

So is a fetus considered a baby when a mother planned for/wanted it and then loses it?  But a baby is considered a fetus when the mother did not plan for/want it and wants to get rid of it?  Is this what people mean when they say a woman has a right to choose?  To choose whether to perceive her unborn child as a child or as a fetus?

I'm very interested in this psychological distinction.

When I had my miscarriage there really was no fetus.  I still grieved.  I grieved for the potential that was lost, the life I had hoped to produce.

As a biologist I knew that miscarriages happen because the embryo/fetus is not viable.  Didn't change the fact that I wanted that baby and there was nothing but an empty sac.

Re terminology, there is lots of info on the web.  But basically there is the fertilized egg (one cell) that divides. Most of those early cells form the placenta and one starts becoming the embryo.  At roughly 8 weeks the terminology changes to fetus.  But really it is one continual process of cell division and differentiation.  And for me it is a baby when it is safely born and capable of living on its own.

[Sailor Sam]

I have a question for those who see an unborn child as a fetus and not really a baby until later in pregnancy or after birth, out of sincere curiosity:  What do you think of miscarriages or women who grieve early pregnancy loss or still birth? 

I am a "pro life Democrat" so to speak, and I also had a miscarriage when I was 7 weeks pregnant.  I experienced profound grief, and absolutely consider myself to have lost a child and not just a lifeless fetus/parasite/potential future child - an actual child.  I know women who have experienced miscarriages at every stage of pregnancy, and while late term still births are distinctly traumatic and emotionally painful, all of these women were grief stricken over the loss.

Before I miscarried I remember baking in the kitchen with my young daughter, placing a hand on my small growing belly, smiling to myself as I thought of the little one in my womb.  I remember returning from the hospital on Christmas morning after confirming the miscarriage, collapsing onto my bedroom floor and weeping in the few minutes I had to myself while my husband was gone picking my daughter up from my parent's house. 

So is a fetus considered a baby when a mother planned for/wanted it and then loses it?  But a baby is considered a fetus when the mother did not plan for/want it and wants to get rid of it?  Is this what people mean when they say a woman has a right to choose?  To choose whether to perceive her unborn child as a child or as a fetus?

I'm very interested in this psychological distinction.

To me, all fertilized eggs are potential babies. I acknowledge that abortion ends that potential. I simply see a world where women have autonomy over their bodies as being more, right, just, fair, and acceptable than a world where women are compelled to carry unwanted children. Thus my choice is to emphasis the rights of the fully realized woman, over the continuation of the potential child. Yes, the potential child loses the argument, and that is sad, but not sad enough to change my stance.

[RetiredAt63]

To me, all fertilized eggs are potential babies. I acknowledge that abortion ends that potential. I simply see a world where women have autonomy over their bodies as being more, right, just, fair, and acceptable than a world where women are compelled to carry unwanted children. Thus my choice is to emphasis the rights of the fully realized woman, over the continuation of the potential child. Yes, the potential child loses the argument, and that is sad, but not sad enough to change my stance.

The woman is a full person.  The egg/embryo/fetus is a potential person.  So yes, the balance goes to the realization, not the potential.

[Mississippi Mudstache]

I have a question for those who see an unborn child as a fetus and not really a baby until later in pregnancy or after birth, out of sincere curiosity:  What do you think of miscarriages or women who grieve early pregnancy loss or still birth? 

I am a "pro life Democrat" so to speak, and I also had a miscarriage when I was 7 weeks pregnant.  I experienced profound grief, and absolutely consider myself to have lost a child and not just a lifeless fetus/parasite/potential future child - an actual child.  I know women who have experienced miscarriages at every stage of pregnancy, and while late term still births are distinctly traumatic and emotionally painful, all of these women were grief stricken over the loss.

So is a fetus considered a baby when a mother planned for/wanted it and then loses it?  But a baby is considered a fetus when the mother did not plan for/want it and wants to get rid of it?  Is this what people mean when they say a woman has a right to choose?  To choose whether to perceive her unborn child as a child or as a fetus?

I'm very interested in this psychological distinction.

When I had my miscarriage there really was no fetus.  I still grieved.  I grieved for the potential that was lost, the life I had hoped to produce.

My sister also grieved profoundly when she miscarried around 8 weeks - however, the miscarriage was the result of a molar pregnancy, when meant that there was no life/embryo/baby to begin with. Her emotions and expectations were completely separate from the question of whether or not there was a human in her uterus.

I would also consider myself pro-life on a personal level. My wife and I chose to keep our second child, even though he was diagnosed with birth defects that cause parents to choose abortion 80% of the time. He is a wonderful 3-year-old now, and we don't regret our choice one bit. But it was, and still is, hard as hell, and unbelievably expensive. I could never in good conscience suggest that parents should be legally required to go through the same things that we did. If we had felt that we were coerced into our decision, rather than making it by our own free will, I can only imagine the resentment that it could have engendered.

[GuitarStv]

I have a question for those who see an unborn child as a fetus and not really a baby until later in pregnancy or after birth, out of sincere curiosity:  What do you think of miscarriages or women who grieve early pregnancy loss or still birth? 

I am a "pro life Democrat" so to speak, and I also had a miscarriage when I was 7 weeks pregnant.  I experienced profound grief, and absolutely consider myself to have lost a child and not just a lifeless fetus/parasite/potential future child - an actual child.  I know women who have experienced miscarriages at every stage of pregnancy, and while late term still births are distinctly traumatic and emotionally painful, all of these women were grief stricken over the loss.

Before I miscarried I remember baking in the kitchen with my young daughter, placing a hand on my small growing belly, smiling to myself as I thought of the little one in my womb.  I remember returning from the hospital on Christmas morning after confirming the miscarriage, collapsing onto my bedroom floor and weeping in the few minutes I had to myself while my husband was gone picking my daughter up from my parent's house. 

So is a fetus considered a baby when a mother planned for/wanted it and then loses it?  But a baby is considered a fetus when the mother did not plan for/want it and wants to get rid of it?  Is this what people mean when they say a woman has a right to choose?  To choose whether to perceive her unborn child as a child or as a fetus?

I'm very interested in this psychological distinction.

Having a miscarriage is pretty devastating.  It's not difficult because of the definition of fetus/embryo/life/death.  It's hard because you have already given a life to a child in your mind.  You've named the child, thought about how you'll care for him/her, begun preparing the room, thought about names, and created a whole future in your mind.

What you're grieving is the loss of a very powerful idea.

That doesn't diminish what you feel, or make it any easier.  It is however, completely outside the discussion of abortion that we're having.

[RetiredAt63]

I would also consider myself pro-life on a personal level. My wife and I chose to keep our second child, even though he was diagnosed with birth defects that cause parents to choose abortion 80% of the time. He is a wonderful 3-year-old now, and we don't regret our choice one bit. But it was, and still is, hard as hell, and unbelievably expensive. I could never in good conscience suggest that parents should be legally required to go through the same things that we did. If we had felt that we were coerced into our decision, rather than making it by our own free will, I can only imagine the resentment that it could have engendered.

It is truly such a personal decision.  I was at high risk for Down's syndrome (and some risk for much worse things like cri de chat syndrome) because of my age.  I went through a genetic questionnaire, and was asked if I wanted amniocentesis.  They do not do it automatically in Quebec, there is no point if the parents will not have an abortion even if there are major genetic abnormalities.  It is not like anyone is forcing a woman to have an abortion.

I know that there is a difference between having an abortion for major medical reasons and having an abortion because this is a baby you don't want and weren't planning to have.  But really, if a mother or couple know they can't bring up that child for whatever reason, the choice should be there.

And just to point out, we have had a very North American/first world discussion here.  In many parts of the world the abortion is for a 5th or 6th or 8th child, where the woman/parents have no access to birth control but there is no way they have the resources for another child.

[iris lily]

I have a question for those who see an unborn child as a fetus and not really a baby until later in pregnancy or after birth, out of sincere curiosity:  What do you think of miscarriages or women who grieve early pregnancy loss or still birth? 

I am a "pro life Democrat" so to speak, and I also had a miscarriage when I was 7 weeks pregnant.  I experienced profound grief, and absolutely consider myself to have lost a child and not just a lifeless fetus/parasite/potential future child - an actual child.  I know women who have experienced miscarriages at every stage of pregnancy, and while late term still births are distinctly traumatic and emotionally painful, all of these women were grief stricken over the loss.

Before I miscarried I remember baking in the kitchen with my young daughter, placing a hand on my small growing belly, smiling to myself as I thought of the little one in my womb.  I remember returning from the hospital on Christmas morning after confirming the miscarriage, collapsing onto my bedroom floor and weeping in the few minutes I had to myself while my husband was gone picking my daughter up from my parent's house. 

So is a fetus considered a baby when a mother planned for/wanted it and then loses it?  But a baby is considered a fetus when the mother did not plan for/want it and wants to get rid of it?  Is this what people mean when they say a woman has a right to choose?  To choose whether to perceive her unborn child as a child or as a fetus?

I'm very interested in this psychological distinction.

To me, all fertilized eggs are potential babies. I acknowledge that abortion ends that potential. I simply see a world where women have autonomy over their bodies as being more, right, just, fair, and acceptable than a world where women are compelled to carry unwanted children. Thus my choice is to emphasis the rights of the fully realized woman, over the continuation of the potential child. Yes, the potential child loses the argument, and that is sad, but not sad enough to change my stance.

Sam, this is nicely expeessed and ir represents my point of view very well.

[Northwestie]

It's pretty simple.  If you don't like abortion then don't have one.  Meanwhile, mind your own business.

[rosaz]

Having a miscarriage is pretty devastating.  It's not difficult because of the definition of fetus/embryo/life/death.  It's hard because you have already given a life to a child in your mind.  You've named the child, thought about how you'll care for him/her, begun preparing the room, thought about names, and created a whole future in your mind.

What you're grieving is the loss of a very powerful idea.

I disagree. There are plenty of people who buy a house with a child in mind - with a yard for 'their child' to play in, pick out a pair of potential names, give all kinds of thought to what their family will be like, well before a pregnancy occurs. Some of these people then experience infertility, and many of them do grieve over this; there, I would say it's safe to say what they are grieving is the loss of a very powerful idea. Miscarriage is different - you are grieving that something that was alive (fetus, baby, whatever terminology you prefer) is now no longer alive. You're not grieving the loss of the idea; you're grieving the loss of a life.

(I am in no way trying to diminish the grief associated with infertility, by saying it's more or less than miscarriage; I'm just saying that it's different.)

[Mississippi Mudstache]

Having a miscarriage is pretty devastating.  It's not difficult because of the definition of fetus/embryo/life/death.  It's hard because you have already given a life to a child in your mind.  You've named the child, thought about how you'll care for him/her, begun preparing the room, thought about names, and created a whole future in your mind.

What you're grieving is the loss of a very powerful idea.

I disagree. There are plenty of people who buy a house with a child in mind - with a yard for 'their child' to play in, pick out a pair of potential names, give all kinds of thought to what their family will be like, well before a pregnancy occurs. Some of these people then experience infertility, and many of them do grieve over this; there, I would say it's safe to say what they are grieving is the loss of a very powerful idea. Miscarriage is different - you are grieving that something that was alive (fetus, baby, whatever terminology you prefer) is now no longer alive. You're not grieving the loss of the idea; you're grieving the loss of a life.

(I am in no way trying to diminish the grief associated with infertility, by saying it's more or less than miscarriage; I'm just saying that it's different.)

This is not true. Even if you consider a fetus to be alive, in many cases (molar pregnancy, for example) a miscarriage is the result of decidedly non-fetal tissue being flushed from the uterus.

[rosaz]

This is not true. Even if you consider a fetus to be alive, in many cases (molar pregnancy, for example) a miscarriage is the result of decidedly non-fetal tissue being flushed from the uterus.

Ok, fair point. I'm talking about those miscarriages where there was a fetus (even if not a viable one).

[K-ice]

I am quite certain most women also grieve their abortions. From the moment you miss your period & pee on the stick the potential is there. It must be one of the hardest decisions in her lifetime.

But it is a choice I think all women should be able to safely make.

[Northwestie]

One of Malcom Gladwell's analysis shows that the primary reason for the steady drop in crime rates over the past 30 years is because abortion became legal and there were much fewer unwanted children or those raised in marginal circumstances that turned to crime as young adults.

[iris lily]

One of Malcom Gladwell's analysis shows that the primary reason for the steady drop in crime rates over the past 30 years is because abortion became legal and there were much fewer unwanted children or those raised in marginal circumstances that turned to crime as young adults.

Umm, this is theory, not fact.

But it is interesting for sure.

[jrhampt]

I am quite certain most women also grieve their abortions. From the moment you miss your period & pee on the stick the potential is there. It must be one of the hardest decisions in her lifetime.

But it is a choice I think all women should be able to safely make.

I never grieved mine and it was a pretty easy decision.  Really depends on the situation, your personal beliefs, how much you want the pregnancy/childbirth, how far along you are in the pregnancy, health complications, etc.