Got curious about something... (regards abortion and father`s duties)

[Alceste]

No, you didn't say this.
Read your posts once again.



I said it is more fun than unwanted pregnancy.
There are several reasons as to why many women still choose to have the baby.
Views on morality and religion, to cite two examples.

I know what I wrote. Are you sure you do?

I also know many pro-choice women who have no moral or religious compulsion not to have an abortion who have gone ahead and had accidental babies anyway. In fact, I have a friend who has had THREE accidental babies (and one on purpose). She's not religious. She has just decided to go with the flow, come what may.

My point is that her reasons, or mine, or the reasons of any other woman, to have or not to have a baby, are none of your business. If you think abortion is wrong, don't get an abortion.

 

[Koldo]

I know what I wrote.

It doesn't look like this way.

Are you sure you do?

Sure.

I also know many pro-choice women who have no moral or religious compulsion not to have an abortion who have gone ahead and had accidental babies anyway. In fact, I have a friend who has had THREE accidental babies (and one on purpose). She's not religious. She has just decided to go with the flow, come what may.

As i said, there are several reasons. I just cited two.

My point is that her reasons, or mine, or the reasons of any other woman, to have or not to have a baby, are none of your business. If you think abortion is wrong, don't get an abortion.

If i am going to be the father, it is completely my business.
And i am not against abortion.

 

[Willamena]

'Mitigate' entails reducing.
Known risk + one alternative is not necessarily equal to mitigating risk.

No, it entails alleviating, in this case alleviating risk by providing choice(s) where otherwise there is none.

If you have a lottery ticket, don't you have a better chance of winning if you have tickets in two lotteries?

If you were to consider the first option as not being used during the second one, then i would go for the first one.

I consider the first option to always "be used," and the second one to provide an option where otherwise there was none. The doctor might be a quack, or a very ripe intern, or a homicidal killer, but it's an option.

 

[waitasec]

I know what I wrote. Are you sure you do?

I also know many pro-choice women who have no moral or religious compulsion not to have an abortion who have gone ahead and had accidental babies anyway. In fact, I have a friend who has had THREE accidental babies (and one on purpose). She's not religious. She has just decided to go with the flow, come what may.

My point is that her reasons, or mine, or the reasons of any other woman, to have or not to have a baby, are none of your business. If you think abortion is wrong, don't get an abortion.

there it is...

 

[Koldo]

No, it entails alleviating, in this case alleviating risk by providing choice(s) where otherwise there is none.

How can it be alleviating risk if the risk isn't reduced?

If you have a lottery ticket, don't you have a better chance of winning if you have tickets in two lotteries?

How can this represent the situation i proposed?

I consider the first option to always "be used," and the second one to provide an option where otherwise there was none. The doctor might be a quack, or a very ripe intern, or a homicidal killer, but it's an option.

Then this analogy doesn't work.
The doctor option includes 'time and nature'.

 

[Alceste]

It doesn't look like this way.



Sure.



As i said, there are several reasons. I just cited two.



If i am going to be the father, it is completely my business.
And i am not against abortion.

It's your business to the extent that you can and should communicate with your sexual partner / partners about whether or not you want kids, what kind of birth control you intend to rely on and what to do if there is an accident, but you have no right to compel a woman one way or another if an accident occurs. At that point it is a personal, medical decision, and it's hers to make. Just as she should not feel she has the right to compel you to get a vasectomy because that's her preferred method of birth control.

And of course, once there is a baby, that's your business too.

 

[dawny0826]

Let`s say for a hypothetical that I am pro choice and I leave a woman pregnant.

She decides to have the baby even though none of us wanted the baby when we had sex.

Am I legaly bound to provide to that baby even though I didn`t want to have him/her?

You both are, unless either or both sign away your legal rights to the child.

A woman should always have the ultimate right as to whether or not the child is carried full term, as she is the one carrying the child.

With these types of abortion arguments, I think that the greater focus should be on what didn't happen in the bedroom. Contraception is really an amazing concept.

 

[Koldo]

It's your business to the extent that you can and should communicate with your sexual partner / partners about whether or not you want kids, what kind of birth control you intend to rely on and what to do if there is an accident, but you have no right to compel a woman one way or another if an accident occurs. At that point it is a personal, medical decision, and it's hers to make. Just as she should not feel she has the right to compel you to get a vasectomy because that's her preferred method of birth control.

And of course, once there is a baby, that's your business too.

If you are fine with men being forced to face the consequence of an unwanted pregnancy by supporting the newborn, why aren't you fine with women being forced to face the very same consequence?

 

[Willamena]

How can it be alleviating risk if the risk isn't reduced?

It's also not not reduced by Door #2--neither you nor I can say that Door #2 will succeed or fail to reduce the overall risk. That doesn't matter--push it to the side--we are mitigating the risk of the known door, Door #1. What matters is that offering another option reduces the chance that the risk from the first door will fall into your lap.

How can this represent the situation i proposed?

It doesn't. It points at the mitigation mentioned above. If you have tickets to two lotteries, you have a better chance of winning than if you have a ticket to one lottery. In this case, what you are winning is your health.

Then this analogy doesn't work.
The doctor option includes 'time and nature'.

That's probably because it's not an analogy, I was actually asking about broken legs and doctors. If you have a choice to go to a doctor to get your leg looked at vs just leave it to time and nature, why wouldn't you take it?

Unless, of course, you're trying to avoid a perceived analogy... In that case, carry on.

 

[NIX]

If you are fine with men being forced to face the consequence of an unwanted pregnancy by supporting the newborn, why aren't you fine with women being forced to face the very same consequence?

If you are fine with men never having to grow a baby in their body and deliver it, why aren't you fine with women never being forced to do the same?

It really is so simple. Biology makes us different. It puts men and women in completely different situations. Trying to make a case that consequences should be fair/the same/equal is nonsensical as it is NEVER the consequence of sex that a man winds up pregnant. What's fair about that?

What does fairness even have to do with any of it?

 

[Alceste]

If you are fine with men being forced to face the consequence of an unwanted pregnancy by supporting the newborn, why aren't you fine with women being forced to face the very same consequence?

How is it the same? Are men having a growth in their abdomen gradually expand over the course of nine months, causing sickness, permanent physiological damage and an inability to work for several weeks, and then TEAR its way through their genitals, causing extreme pain and the risk of death, resulting in the annihilation of their prior hopes and ambitions for at least the next 18 years, if not forever?

No, not the same. Get over it. I'm over the fact that you can theoretically have dozens of kids over the course of your life and never even know they exist. Time for you to get over the fact that when you carelessly impregnate a woman, it's none of your business what she decides to do about it.

 

[NIX]

No, not the same. Get over it. I'm over the fact that you can theoretically have dozens of kids over the course of your life and never even know they exist.

Right? What woman can do THAT!?

It's just not fair.

 

[Alceste]

Right? What woman can do THAT!?

It's just not fair.

Yeah! Boo hoo! I think I'm going to complain about it and argue that the government make a law that all men must have a vasectomy at puberty unless they have written permission to procreate from a fertile partner.

 

[NIX]

Yeah! Boo hoo! I think I'm going to complain about it and argue that the government make a law that all men must have a vasectomy at puberty unless they have written permission to procreate from a fertile partner.

That's the spirit!

 

[NIX]

All the bitter undertones of sexual/sexist resentment. Women might just be better off loving other women until such time as they would like to concieve and birth a child.

The men would always have each other in the meantime.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

Yeah! Boo hoo! I think I'm going to complain about it and argue that the government make a law that all men must have a vasectomy at puberty unless they have written permission to procreate from a fertile partner.

I've gone so far to mention in another thread the option for men to have vasectomies or to be chemically castrated unless they show they are fit to be fathers.

And that the panel that decides on their eligibility for fatherhood is made up of all women. Because we know what's best for men. We have a uterus, in case you're wondering why we know what's best for men.

You see, when the tables are turned, and suddenly everyone sees how absolutely absurd, offensive, and/or terrifying such a scenario is, my hope is that people might....just might....put 2 and 2 together and figure out that putting that kind of restrictions on women and their bodily autonomy is absurd.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

All the bitter undertones of sexual/sexist resentment. Women might just be better off loving other women until such time as they would like to concieve and birth a child.

The men would always have each other in the meantime.

It works for bisexuals like me. Whoot! :highfive:

Although straight women might take issue with that.

 

[NIX]

It works for bisexuals like me. Whoot! :highfive:

Although straight women might take issue with that.

If rationality ruled sexuality.....

 

[Alceste]

All the bitter undertones of sexual/sexist resentment. Women might just be better off loving other women until such time as they would like to concieve and birth a child.

The men would always have each other in the meantime.

I've been doing pretty well with only humping intelligent, responsible, considerate men who don't mind wearing a condom (OK, and the occasional woman). Sure, I had one birth control slip-up, but that was almost 20 years ago.

 

[Me Myself]

How idiotic of you. Here's some news that may shock you: In countries where abortion is legal, safe and easily accessible, many women still choose to have babies resulting from unplanned pregnancies. I know, right? Amazing, but true.

Unplanned maybe, but it is no longer unwanted since you had the option and decided not to use it.

So it may have been an unplanned pregnancy, but since the moment she decided not to abort, the woman officially accepted SHE wanted a baby.

Something the father has not done officially in any regard unless he has done it.

The same way you say that simply having sex does not mean a woman should be a mother if she happens to concieve, then the same applies for the man.

Now if the woman chooses to become a mother (in other words, she chooses not to abort) thats okay for her, but that was not the decision of the father, so he has no reason to pay for the baby unless he wants to be part of his life.

9 months of pregnancy is nothing in comparison to 18 years of expenses.

If I had to choose, trust me, Id go with 9 months of problems.

I am sure many women would choose to he 9 months if they had the option of paying what the father is FORCED to pay AGAINST HIS WILL.