Roe v Wade has been overturned. How do you feel about that?

[yovargas]

Can we please tone down the rhetoric? Nobody is saying that your (generic 'your') feelings aren't welcome into the discussion. Just that your feelings on what other's feelings are or should be aren't welcome. That's probably a good idea in most discussions in general anyways.

[JewelSong]

I think the question TP posted is valid.

A man and a woman have sex. The women becomes unexpectedly pregnant. For any number of reasons, the woman does not wish to continue the pregnancy. The man wants a child and so wants the woman to continue the pregancy and bear the child. And then what...?

Should a man be able to force a woman that he has impregnated to bear his child? And if he is able to do that, what would the ramifications be?


And to muddy the waters further...

What if the woman was pregnant as a result of a rape, but the rapist felt remorse and wanted the child born? Should the woman be compelled to continue the pregnancy?

[anthriel]

that abortion only effects women

I think this is what is being inferred here. The underlying feeling that this is what is being said is almost certainly unintentional.

Of course this affects men, too. It affects them profoundly. Some men could care less about the effects of their sexual lives, but I feel like this assumption of men's feelings is as stereotypical and wrong as people feeling like women use abortion as a substitute for birth control.

Both are occasionally true, sad to say. But to assume the worst of everyone's feelings and motivations is just wrong.

Not that anyone here has said that men's opinions don't count in this discussion. But it has been implied in so many other venues that men may well be sensitized to that stereotypical assumption. Y'know? It's a girl thing. Boys don't care anyway. And if they do care, tough. It's not their bodies we're talking about, here.

If I were male, this would tick me off. Just sayin'.

Again, NOT that anyone said that in this thread. But it has been said. Many, many times. Perhaps we need to be sensitive to the fact that many men have felt marginalized on this subject, for a long time.

This decision is heart-wrenching for so many people. Period.

[Cerin]

You must agree that what racial progress we have had was the result of cooperation and respect on both sides.

Yes. As I said, I welcome men's respectful cooperation in tackling the abortion issue.

About half of the electorate and most of the elected are male, so it doesn't seem in your interest to dismiss us from the discussion.

As I said, I welcome men who come to the discussion with humility and compassion (rather than moral pronouncements about something they will never have to face themselves).

I'm not sure of which part you think we are unaware.

Alatar's statement (for example, not for the purpose of singling him out for personal criticism) is the type of statement that displays neither compassion, humility or understanding (imo).

Most things for which laws are passed are outside of the direct experience of most people. It isn't sufficient excuse to deprive them of their rights.

I'm not seeking to deprive anyone of their rights. Alatar explained what made his blood boil, and I explained what made mine boil.

The position that men should refrain from logically approaching the morality of abortion because they can never be pregnant is just as absurd and incendiary.

I didn't suggest that men should refrain from logically approaching the morality of abortion. I said it made my blood boil when men make statements of the kind Alatar made, which was not a 'logical approach to the morality of abortion', but an an emotional statement that displayed, imo, a lack of compassion, respect and understanding toward women.

As I said, I welcome any man approaching the abortion discussion with humility and compassion, in the awareness that pregnancy and its impact are not something they can ever fully understand and which laws will never be brought to bear upon them personally.

There are gaps in all of our experiences. For all of us there are certain truths we can never know. Reason and communication allow us to proceed in the world in spite of this.

Indeed. And would you not proceed with humility, compassion and respect in communicating about the experience of racism in America with those who actually experience its effects? Or would you walk in and patronizingly condemn the lot of them for reacting to their experience in ways you, who haven't and will never share in it, don't view as legitimate?

Or, what Jn said.

No woman here will ever have the decision to abort their child taken out of their hands. No woman here will ever have their right to know their own child taken from them. No woman here will ever have their future family decided by another.

???

These possibilities and the likelihood of them are the very things this thread was started to consider, I thought.

And yet you have no interest in listening to mens feelings? Hypocritical?

Your feelings I'd be happy to hear about (that is, statements about yourself, not unfounded statements about women who have abortions).

You're not interested in hearing from the other 50% of us who do despite your protestations, have an interest in the foetus being carried by a woman, since our only way of procreating is with a woman and her womb.

I'd be happy to hear the men's thoughts about these things (as long as they're not accompanied by ignorant assumptions and moral condemnations of women).

The constant mantra here that only women have the right to discuss their own bodies, their own feelings and THEIR OWN FOETUS is hypocritical and offensive.

You think you have a 'right' to discuss someone else's body and feelings? Would you welcome me making statements about your body and your feelings? I may have the right, but what grounds have I to legitimately address those things? Here is what you said earlier:

You have no idea what I have faced in my life and never will. Some things are private.

Just that your feelings on what other's feelings are or should be aren't welcome. That's probably a good idea in most discussions in general anyways.

Thank you, yovargas.


To summarize the apparent misunderstanding here:

I said (in response to Alatar's statement about what made his blood boil) that a certain type of statement by a man regarding this issue made my blood boil.

This was incorrectly interpreted by some of the men here as meaning I think men don't have a right to participate in the abortion discussion.

So to be clear, of course men have a right to participate in the abortion discussion.

What men don't have grounds to do is generically pass judgement on womanhood's response to a profound human experience that not a single one of them will ever know first hand.


Anthy, men are marginalized on this subject. Literally, they are on the margins of this reality until they are the ones who can give their bodies to making a baby.

Once the baby is born, of course men are not marginalized.

Edited to make a phrase less personal.

[Teremia]

What I think I'm hearing our friends who happen to be male say here is that it is upsetting to be powerless over the fate of their potential children.

I think I can understand that!


One reason feelings run so high when we start discussing abortion is that both men and women find themselves facing a pretty profound loss of control over their lives.

[Alatar]

Cerin

I have stepped out of this discussion. Please do not use me to further your agenda. I will not be responding to your (imo) vicious attacks on my personality, intelligence and beliefs.

Kindly do me the courtesy of leaving my name out of your (imo) spiteful attacks.

[yovargas]

Alatar, quite sincerely, I think you're seeing attacks where none exist.

[Cerin]

Alatar, I have not attacked your personality, intelligence or beliefs. Nothing I have said can be characterized as vicious or spiteful.

I would ask that you specifically quote where I have attacked your personality, intelligence or beliefs, or specifically what I have said that can be characterized as vicious or spiteful. If you will not, then I will put your statement down to the fact that you are obviously upset.

In order to correct a misunderstanding, I have been referring to a statement you made in this thread. I'll try not to refer to it again; if I have to, I'll do so indirectly and without mentioning your name.

eta: I have edited one phrase in my above post to make it less specific to your comments.

[JewelSong]

Alatar, I wish you would not step out, but step back from the discussion. I think your opinions and feelings are valuable. I also agree with Teremia when she said: One reason feelings run so high when we start discussing abortion is that both men and women find themselves facing a pretty profound loss of control over their lives.

I think this statement is very true. And it seems that you might have a personal story to tell as well. I would be interested in hearing from men who have been personally affected by abortion.

In most cases, the stories you hear involve an unplanned pregnancy with the man advocating for an abortion and the woman refusing. I have not heard of many situations where it is the reverse. The bottom line is that the woman controls what happens to her body, which can include the fetus she may be carrying. Anf the man is, for the most part, powerless to say yea or nay.

My question is: Would you change this? And how would you change it? Should a woman be forced to carry a pregnancy against her will, simply because the man who impregnated her wants a child? How could this be enforced?

Alatar wrote:

No woman here will ever have the decision to abort their child taken out of their hands. No woman here will ever have their right to know their own child taken from them. No woman here will ever have their future family decided by another...

Cerin wrote:

These possibilities and the likelihood of them are the very things this thread was started to consider, I thought.

I agree with Cerin here. If Roe v Wade is overturned, many women certainly will have "the decision to abort their child taken out of their hands." In the past, women who became pregnant out of wedlock were ofetn sent to a "home" where they gave birth in secrecy and had "their own child taken from them" without even seeing it.

You post with great passion and grief, Alatar. Do you have a personal story to share that might help us understand your feelings a bit better?

[Cerin]

Alatar, I'm really sorry that the things I said were so upsetting to you. I did not mean anything I said as an attack against you personally.

[vison]

Jnyusa said: "It also happens that in my opinion abortion law and adoption law are closely related in the hidden societal premises they contain. As they stand now, I view both of them as surreptitious property laws, and that has got to change."

That is a fundamental issue in this discussion.

I know three women who were "sent" to a "home for unwed mothers" and there they gave birth to babies they were not allowed to see. Two of those women have since met their now adult children, one has been searching in vain for over 20 years. I'm pretty sure a couple more of my high school friends who went on mysterious "trips" had the same kind of destination, and the same kind of heartbreak.

One of my own aunts was forced to give away her baby in 1945. She never knew what became of him. She's 80 years old now and still looking.

I also know a few women who have had abortions. Some were the old-fashioned illegal back-alley kind that left women scarred and infertile, or maybe killed them. One was yet another aunt of mine, forced by her bullying husband, who threatened to leave her and their other two children if she had another baby. It was all her fault, the pregnancy. She nearly died of septicaemia, was left (luckily for her) infertile. She died at 87 still tormented by that abortion.

Some were the safe, modern kind. But all the women I knew agonized over the decision. Not one of those women did it for "convenience", nor because her baby wasn't "perfect". How anyone can keep dragging those ideas into this discussion is beyond me.

When these theoretical lightminded sinners are brought up, the ones who abort babies for "convenience", or because the foetus has been found to be "less than perfect", what is it that you mean? Because these women are fools and wicked fools at that they should be forced to have the baby? For pete's sake, think about it.

There is a problem right now with women being made to have abortions because they are pregnant with girls not boys. Their husbands, and their fathers-in-law are often the forces behind the abortion decision. Not in China, right here in Canada and the US.

When "the pill" first came along, my mother was still a young woman and gladly took it. She had several friends whose husbands "wouldn't allow it".

Oh, for heaven's sake, I could go on for pages and pages and pages, my friends. I lived through those years. I was a young woman when abortions were still illegal in Canada, when doctors would routinely refuse to sterilize women under 35, when no woman could be sterilized without her husband's consent, or be prescribed birth control pills without her husband's consent. Hundreds and hundreds of thousands of women of my generation had babies that they had to give away without ever being allowed to see or touch them.

How fortunate I was! I never had to make that decision. The one surprise pregnancy I had was ectopic and came to nothing but a lot of blood and pain.

It is painful. It is hard for the man who might want the child, one of my brothers was in that very pair of shoes. It isn't fair. But the alternative is worse, as I know. No woman, for whatever reason, should have to bear a child she doesn't want. It comes down to that. It IS an either/or situation.

To reverse Roe vs Wade is to open the door to a chamber of horrors.

[Padme]

My question is if a father wants the child and the mother doesn't, can the mother walk away from the child after birth and not look back, or will she be forced to pay child support for a child she wanted to abort?

[Sassafras]

Thank you for that post, vison. For that is also my truth.

[IdylleSeethes]

Padme,

In the US both parents are responsible for providing support according to established guidelines adopted separately by each of the states. The state of residence of the child determines which state's formula to use. That determines the extent of each parent's financial responsibility. Current law doesn't allow anyone, including a judge, to dismiss debt accrued under a valid order. Assumption of responsibility for a child, as in adoption, will terminate the responsibility of the parents as of the date of adoption. Arrears are still collectable.

In practice, enforcement is erratic. In most cases the custodial parent (CP) is assumed to provide the required support and it is not audited. The non-custodial parent's (NCP) obligation to the CP may be audited and enforced. In practice, a state providing TANF (welfare) for a child will pursue the non-custodial parent (NCP) for support until it seems pointless. At that point it is administratively dropped, but retained as debt tracked by tax offset, lottery, FIDM, liens, and other automated background processes. A hit on any of those will resurrect the case for enforcement. For normal cases (non welfare), some states automatically provide Child Support Enforcement (CSE) services and others allow the CP to sign up for the services or use a private attorney. Whichever method is chosen, the NCP is pursued until it seems pointless and the same array of services are available as under TANF.

Arrears are never dismissed on TANF cases, although cases may be closed after several years of inactivity. Services to non-TANF clients usually end with the emancipation of the child. A non-TANF client, or a TANF client with arrears for the child not related to TANF may pursue the arrears through private attorneys.

Either parent may be the CP or the NCP. It is determined by who has custody. In some case, like foster care, both parents are NCPs.

This has the consequence of the mother being the sole decision maker about the father's financial responsibility for a child. The father can only offer an opinion. The TANF laws tacitly push the mother into the job market to support their children, but most states are flexible. In the real world, there are a lot of grandparents with physical, if not legal, custody of the children.

I have monitored about a million cases on my systems. It is extremely rare for a female NCP to be pursued, even in foster care cases. That has more to do with the reasons for family disintegration (drugs...) than a conscious attempt to waive the obligation of the mother.

[anthriel]

What I think I'm hearing our friends who happen to be male say here is that it is upsetting to be powerless over the fate of their potential children.

I think I can understand that!


One reason feelings run so high when we start discussing abortion is that both men and women find themselves facing a pretty profound loss of control over their lives.

Well said, Teremia. You said what I was trying to say. Thank you.

[truehobbit]

Well, I don't know the first thing about the Roe vs Wade case, but I've been reading this thread a bit. I didn't mean to chime in with yet another take on abortion but I can't help it, mainly because something reminded me of another discussion topic a while back:

Y'know? It's a girl thing. Boys don't care anyway. And if they do care, tough. It's not their bodies we're talking about, here.

If I were male, this would tick me off. Just sayin'.

The bottom line is that the woman controls what happens to her body, which can include the fetus she may be carrying. Anf the man is, for the most part, powerless to say yea or nay.

I think Anthy has a good point.
What ticks me off most about abortion discussions is women saying "It's my body, I do with it what I want".

Well, I disagree - as soon as there's another life, it's not just your body anymore, IMO.

What this reminded me of was a discussion about suicide we had on b77.
I said that I believed that everybody should be allowed to do as they please about their own lives, and that I didn't see why it should anyone's obligation to prevent a suicide when that is the wish of the suicidal person, no matter what age they are (we were talking about young people I think).
I remember that I horrified a few people with that statement.

So - when you want to kill yourself you don't own your own body, but when it's about having a child you do own your own body? Or what?

[Cerin]

Regarding suicide, I think the assumption is that that desire (apart from when it is related to terminal illness) is symptomatic of some kind of mental disorder, which is, I think, one of the reasons our instinct is to interfere.


There's an analogy I've brought up before but which I've never gotten many comments on. What would people say are the practical and conceptual differences between the notion of compelling women to carry on a pregnancy (so as to allow that life to continue), and compelling all healthy persons to donate one of their kidneys so as to allow the life of someone needing a kidney to continue?

The cases seem quite similar to me. In both cases, we are positing the forced use of a person's body to allow another life to continue. Yet we don't force people to give up a kidney, and we don't routinely condemn one another for not giving up one of our kidneys in order to save one of the many human lives in need of one.

eta: and in both cases, the forced use presents some risk and permanent changes to the body of the person forced to yield its use.

[vison]

I can see, understand, and sympathize with all the arguments against abortion. I think abortion is a terrible thing.

There is only one argument FOR abortion, but it is the compelling one, the one that counts: it is wrong to refuse abortion to a woman who wants it. It is wrong to force her to bear an unwanted child. It is HER body and it is HER decision.

Yes, abortion ends a "life". That is the tragedy. It ends that life and mars many more.

Rather than ranting and raving about the evil women who stupidly get pregnant, or the evil women who don't want to have their figures spoiled, or the evil women who might find a baby inconvenient, or the evil women who don't want to have a defective child, can't we spend even half as much energy creating a society in which there would never be a need for abortion?

We seem constantly in danger of sliding backward to an era I'd just as forget.

[Cerin]

It is wrong to force her to bear an unwanted child. It is HER body and it is HER decision.

Yes, I think it is the forcing that is the issue. We can all discuss how we feel about abortion, but the salient question is, do we favor forcing women -- by denying them the abortion procedure -- to bear children?

[truehobbit]

What would people say are the practical and conceptual differences between the notion of compelling women to carry on a pregnancy (so as to allow that life to continue), and compelling all healthy persons to donate one of their kidneys so as to allow the life of someone needing a kidney to continue?

That's a good point, Cerin!
However, I'm not arguing to force a woman to carry on a pregnancy, and I'm not sure anyone else here is.

So, let me turn it round a bit: if you knew that you could save the life of someone who is close to you (we are making an analogy to the life of one's own child, so I think the life of a complete stranger doesn't quite equal that) by donating a kidney, but you decide against it - wouldn't that be at least an ethically questionable decision?

(Oh, and I don't think that suicide is necessarily a sign of mental disorder. )

There is only one argument FOR abortion, but it is the compelling one, the one that counts: it is wrong to refuse abortion to a woman who wants it. It is wrong to force her to bear an unwanted child. It is HER body and it is HER decision.

Sorry, vison, but I think that's the only argument for abortion which is completely invalid!

(Like I said, this is the argument which ticks me off! )

There may be many reasons why it's better to have an abortion in a certain situation: being afraid the child will be handicapped and fearing you won't be able to handle it, being in a society where this child would be your ruin, being unable to afford a child, being in a situation where that child would just ruin your own life...
But never - NEVER - IMO, is "it's my body" a sufficient argument for an abortion, because as soon as that fetus is lodged in your body it's not just your own body anymore!

can't we spend even half as much energy creating a society in which there would never be a need for abortion?

Interesting! I wonder how you think that might be possible?