# Getting an abortion without telling him



## twoofthree (Aug 6, 2011)

The Height Of Feminine-Douchebagery: Getting An ABORTION Without Telling Your Man

Came across this article today, and thought it would make for an interesting discussion.

I can see both sides of this issue. So without knowing the people involved, I can't say if she did the right/wrong thing.

What are you views?

Should a woman be obliged to tell the father?
Should the man be a part of the decision making process?


----------



## JamieBond (Dec 13, 2011)

Um, yes.

The kid isn't just hers, it's both of theirs. She should at least give him the courtesy of telling him that he fathered something and give him the opportunity to step up and be a man and support her and the tyke.

( @twoofthree phew, when i saw this thread my first thought was omg she wouldn't...)


----------



## twoofthree (Aug 6, 2011)

JamieBond said:


> Um, yes.
> 
> The kid isn't just hers, it's both of theirs. She should at least give him the courtesy of telling him that he fathered something and give him the opportunity to step up and be a man and support her and the tyke.
> 
> ( @twoofthree phew, when i saw this thread my first thought was omg she wouldn't...)


I'm going to play the 'neutral moderator" role on this thread, 'cause for me it's not so clear cut.

She should give him the chance to "step up and be a man", but what if she doesn't want to "step up and be a woman"?

It's all well and good that he might be the type of guy to look after her and the kind. But what if she doesn't want that? She just wants her life to continue as it is now. . . no need for all that. Pretend it never happened.


----------



## kudi (Sep 27, 2011)

This one is easy, yes you must tell him. The saying, my mind, my body, my choice is wrong. Its my mind, my body, our baby. While your body is your property and are entitled to rule over it alone, the child is only 50% yours. Unless your the Virgin Mary or want to buy him out, then you shouldn't have the right to terminate a pregnancy without both parents consent.Its whats _fair_..whether its right is another issue.


----------



## geekofalltrades (Feb 8, 2012)

A man doesn't have the right to turn a woman into a brood mare against her will. No, she absolutely does not need his permission to abort their child. The decent thing to do would be to discuss it with him first, though.


----------



## Sybok (Mar 9, 2012)

my (male) view:

yes, if he know it (that you are pregnant) (2nd evil)
yes, if you anywhen will tell it (this is the most evil thing for me as man)
yes, if you feel it
no, if you dont feel it / he doesnt know it


----------



## twoofthree (Aug 6, 2011)

kudi said:


> This one is easy, yes you must tell him. The saying, my mind, my body, my choice is wrong. Its my mind, my body, our baby. While your body is your property and are entitled to rule over it alone, the child is only 50% yours. Unless your the Virgin Mary or want to buy him out, then you shouldn't have the right to terminate a pregnancy without both parents consent. Its whats fair..whether its right is another issue.


It's her body so she can decide if she wants it in there or not.
He can have his half after she's removed it. It's a mighty small half, though.


----------



## Laney (Feb 20, 2012)

You'd think it would be common courtesy to tell the man, and then together they could work out the options. But then again if the man would want to keep the child, and she is going to get rid of it anyway it might be wrong of her to tell him. This happened to my brother in law back in the 90's and he still mourns that child.


----------



## kudi (Sep 27, 2011)

> It's her body so she can decide if she wants it in there or not.


The moment she had sex she already made the decision _with_ him that she wanted it in there even if its implicit, since that is the natural result of sex: a child. Even if you have sex with protection its a risk you are both aware of and by engaging in sex have agreed together that your willing to take. Therefore if the result is a child its fair that the father has a part in that decision as well.


----------



## Paradox1987 (Oct 9, 2010)

Hmmm, in my head both courtesy and honour dictate that she tell the man. Whilst I agree that it is the woman's body, the consequences of sexual intercourse are not merely her burden all by herself. If after discussion they find that the man is eager to keep and the woman is eager to terminate the pregnancy, then I do feel that slight priority should be accorded to the woman's view. After all, a termination is no trifling procedure and nor is a pregnancy and birth/C-Sec, which she will have to undergo either way.

Unfortunately, with sex, emotions come in and cloud judgments. The concept of "what they don't know can't hurt them" isn't a great plan with something like this, because it's invariably likely to crop up somewhere. A male also has an emotional connexion to the resulting foetus. Anyhow, frank and real discussion leads to more resolution than strife if both parties are willing to really engage in the aftermath. Personally, I do believe that if you're not mature enough to discuss issues resulting from sex, maybe you should reconsider your status as a sexually active individual. But that's just my 2 pence.


----------



## twoofthree (Aug 6, 2011)

kudi said:


> The moment she had sex she already made the decision _with_ him that she wanted it even if its implicit, since that is the natural result of sex: a child. It cannot be denied that the result of sex is a child, even if you boots with protection its a risk you are both aware of and by engaging in sex have agreed together that your willing to take. Therefore if the result is a child its fair that the father has a part in that decision as well.


Sex doesn't always result in children.
And having sex is *not* consenting to having a child.

So the minute you have sex you're sharing the responsibility for a part of your body with the man?

Pah! I hope you tell all your girlfriends this.


----------



## Impavida (Dec 29, 2011)

In the situation described in the link provided by the OP, I would lean towards saying that she should have discussed it with him first. However, it's very dependent on the situation and the people involved.

In my current relationship, I would not tell my partner if I became pregnant and had an abortion. We have discussed the abortion issue at length and I know exactly where he stands on it. 

Scenario #1 - He says no to the abortion, I have it anyway, relationship ends.
Scenario #2 - He says no to the abortion, I have the child, I give him full custody at birth, relationship ends.
Scenario #3 - He says no to the abortion, I have the child, I go through the motions of parenting for a couple of years, resentment levels reach DEFCON 1, relationship ends, I give him full custody of the kid.
Scenario #4 - I have the abortion, he's none the wiser, our relationship continues happily ever after.

Seems like a pretty obvious choice to me. Basically, his view on abortion and my view on parenthood are both set in stone. Rather than start an argument that can only end badly, I would quietly do what needed to done.

But, this is all theoretical anyway, because I will never be in the position of needing an abortion.


----------



## Zanimus (Aug 25, 2011)

The complete dominion given to women over another life is rather disturbing. They alone are able to judge whether the life inside them is truly "alive." If it happens to be a burden to them, it stops being a baby and becomes a problem instead. At what point does it stop being an "it" and start being "he/she?"

The idea that a woman would terminate a pregnancy in complete secrecy transcends the forgivable level of douche-bag. It's unclear from reading the article but it sounds like she had never intended on telling him and he found out through some other means, which to me would be completely unforgivable. She clearly showed a lack of empathy for how this might affect the man in the relationship. Yes, just because the baby doesn't come out of his penis doesn't negate that he might feel just as strongly about the possibility of parenthood.


----------



## this is my username (Apr 15, 2011)

I would have to say it is very dependent on the situation, but for an umbrella answer: no.


----------



## twoofthree (Aug 6, 2011)

Zanimus said:


> *The complete dominion given to women over another life is rather disturbing.* They alone are able to judge whether the life inside them is truly "alive." If it happens to be a burden to them, it stops being a baby and becomes a problem instead. At what point does it stop being an "it" and start being "he/she?"
> 
> The idea that a woman would terminate a pregnancy in complete secrecy transcends the forgivable level of douche-bag. It's unclear from reading the article but it sounds like she had never intended on telling him and he found out through some other means, which to me would be completely unforgivable. She clearly showed a lack of empathy for how this might affect the man in the relationship. Yes, just because the baby doesn't come out of his penis doesn't negate that he might feel just as strongly about the possibility of parenthood.


It's only disturbing now that women have options?
When men would abandon woman and child, it didn't seem to matter much that she would be the one most affected by the result of their act.


----------



## Laney (Feb 20, 2012)

twoofthree said:


> Sex doesn't always result in children.
> And having sex is *not* consenting to having a child.
> 
> *So the minute you have sex you're sharing the responsibility for a part of your body with the man*?
> ...


That was probably a tongue in cheek comment, but I know for me and my relationships that's how it works. Before we jumped in the sheets we talked about our views of abortion/ parenting and so it was decided from the get go that my uterus and what happens with it is a team responsibility.


----------



## Sybok (Mar 9, 2012)

nice, sounds like the "yes but"-game


----------



## Pride49 (Nov 7, 2011)

Oh, yes. By all means CUT THE FETUS INTO SMALL PIECES! That was sarcasm. In my opinion don't F each other in the first place. I mean really. Or send the infant to an orphanage. The only reason I would approve of that is because the devastation of having no parents would toughen up the child and make their personality more colorful. Otherwise, care for the child. It's not that big of a deal. I mean jeez, Saying a child is a million dollar baby and such and would cost so much. In my opinion, yes, birth parents should have a say to whether end a child's life. Or fetus, whatever.


----------



## Zanimus (Aug 25, 2011)

twoofthree said:


> It's only disturbing now that women have options?


You're right, women have a vast array of options. Options that will result in *not getting pregnant*. This late in the game, "oops" is just not a viable answer to pregnancy any more. Condoms (without which she can refuse sex), IUDs, birth control pills, diaphragms, spermicide. All of these tools are at the disposal of both parties, yet the last line of defense (so to speak) is the women's right to consent to sexual intercourse.

If you intend on holding all of the control over the baby after the fact, you should shoulder all of the responsibility for preventing unwanted pregnancies in the first place.


----------



## twoofthree (Aug 6, 2011)

laney said:


> That was probably a tongue in cheek comment, but I know for me and my relationships that's how it works. Before we jumped in the sheets we talked about our views of abortion/ parenting and so it was decided from the get go that my uterus and what happens with it is a team responsibility.


That's cool if it's what you want to do.

But I wouldn't make any part of me subject to a team decision, unless I could be making team decisions about parts of him.
If that were the case then I'd be wanting rights over both his testicles, 'cause he wouldn't be needing them with me.


----------



## kudi (Sep 27, 2011)

> Sex doesn't always result in children.
> And having sex is not consenting to having a child.
> So the minute you have sex you're sharing the responsibility for a part of your body with the man?
> Pah! I hope you tell all your girlfriends this.


lmao, to have sex and to not expect the possibility of a child is idiotic, a child is one of the functions of sex and you do it enough times even with protection it WILL happen. Your right, having sex is not consenting to having a child in this case it was to remove it if a baby did happen, which she should make clear to him before hand. The mechanics of sex require that you share your body with your partner, so yes it does transfer responsibility. Just like if you caught something from them, you'd hold them responsible.


----------



## twoofthree (Aug 6, 2011)

Zanimus said:


> You're right, women have a vast array of options. Options that will result in *not getting pregnant*. This late in the game, "oops" is just not a viable answer to pregnancy any more. Condoms (without which she can refuse sex), IUDs, birth control pills, diaphragms, spermicide. All of these tools are at the disposal of both parties, yet the last line of defense (so to speak) is the women's right to consent to sexual intercourse.
> 
> If you intend on holding all of the control over the baby after the fact, you should shoulder all of the responsibility for preventing unwanted pregnancies in the first place.


That's how it is. That's how it always has been.
That's the imbalance I was pointing towards.
So what's the issue?

And that imbalance was never an issue when men could walk away and leave her with the bag. Now that she can ditch the bag, just like them, suddenly it's not fair.


----------



## twoofthree (Aug 6, 2011)

kudi said:


> lmao, to have sex and to not expect the possibility of a child is idiotic, a child is one of the functions of sex and you do it enough times even with protection it WILL happen. Your right, having sex is not consenting to having a child in this case it was to remove it if a baby did happen, which she should make clear to him before hand. The mechanics of sex require that you share your body with your partner, so yes it does transfer responsibility. Just like if you caught something from them, you'd hold them responsible.


Which bit of him are we sharing? Or is it only women that get shared out?

He can make decisions about my womb when I can make decisions about his testicles.


----------



## Laney (Feb 20, 2012)

twoofthree said:


> That's cool if it's what you want to do.
> 
> But I wouldn't make any part of me subject to a team decision, unless I could be making team decisions about parts of him.
> If that were the case then I'd be wanting rights over both his testicles, 'cause he wouldn't be needing them with me.


 Haha. We make team decisions about everything, be it our genitals or our wallets.


----------



## La Li Lu Le Lo (Aug 15, 2011)

twoofthree said:


> She should give him the chance to "step up and be a man", but what if she doesn't want to "step up and be a woman"?


So you're saying it's okay for her to be selfish?


----------



## kudi (Sep 27, 2011)

> Which bit of him are we sharing? Or is it only women that get shared out?


Its a two way road and if your not sharing, its called rape and punishable by law. 



> He can make decisions about my womb when I can make decisions about his testicles.


When sex results in the growth of new pair of testicles than by all means make decisions about it.



> I'm saying that if she doesn't look out for her interest, then who is?


She really must start choosing partners that have her best interest at heart, instead of sleeping with selfish pricks.


----------



## Fizz (Nov 13, 2010)

Pride49 said:


> Oh, yes. By all means CUT THE FETUS INTO SMALL PIECES! That was sarcasm. In my opinion don't F each other in the first place. I mean really. Or send the infant to an orphanage. The only reason I would approve of that is because the devastation of having no parents would toughen up the child and make their personality more colorful. Otherwise, care for the child. It's not that big of a deal. I mean jeez, Saying a child is a million dollar baby and such and would cost so much. In my opinion, yes, birth parents should have a say to whether end a child's life. Or fetus, whatever.


Children given up for adoption often have emotional problems and can be put into abusive foster homes. You have to take that into consideration that they're not going to automatically get adopted or even loved.


----------



## twoofthree (Aug 6, 2011)

LaLiLuLeLo said:


> So you're saying it's okay for her to be selfish?


I'm saying that if she doesn't look out for her interest, then who is?

One of them has to be selfish, unless they both agree. So which one?


----------



## Erbse (Oct 15, 2010)

Yes, and then she should have it and given it to the father, if he wanted it. Then pay aliments.

Oh wait, that would be equality.

Wrong thread.


----------



## Zanimus (Aug 25, 2011)

twoofthree said:


> That's how it is. That's how it always has been.
> That's the imbalance I was pointing towards.
> So what's the issue?
> 
> And that imbalance was never an issue when men could walk away and leave her with the bag. Now that she can ditch the bag, just like them, suddenly it's not fair.


Forgive me but I am failing to follow your logic. It's not so easy for men to "leave women with the bag" when he will go to *prison* for not paying child support. "Deadbeat dads" are seen as pretty low on the totem pole of morality, so I wouldn't say it was never an issue.

By my accounts this imbalance you're referring to is leaning completely in the favor of the woman. They have all the power over whether or not there is a baby, and they have all the power when they fuck it up and get pregnant anyway? Something doesn't add up here. 

When does the man get his say? His only birth control options are the woman's word that she is on the pill, and not having sex at all. There's condoms, but I remember reading somewhere else on PerC that one woman even got pregnant through a used condom she got from the trash. Completely evil.


----------



## Shahada (Apr 26, 2010)

I feel like the answer is the same as everything else for me, of course she has no obligation to tell anyone - it's her body, period. Obviously I think in most situations it is probably a better idea to tell the father for a lot of reasons: Common courtesy, avoiding bigger problems and headaches down the road, and so on. I would like to know myself if I was in that situation. And I think if the relationship is good (which of course it isn't always) I can't think of why you wouldn't discuss it first. But to say a woman is absolutely obligated to do so is not something I am comfortable with at all.


----------



## twoofthree (Aug 6, 2011)

kudi said:


> Its a two way road and if your not sharing, its called rape and punishable by law.


but only the female is to be shared?



> When sex results in the growth of new pair of testicles than by all means make decisions about it.


But we could remove the testicles and save debate on sex producing anything. Pre-emption.

All this talk about sharing her womb is probably why she would not tell about the abortion. You would be no wiser.
She doesn't have to share anything if she doesn't want to.


----------



## Fizz (Nov 13, 2010)

OK, why is it mostly males in here berating women for getting pregnant and/or having abortions? Oh wait, it's like real life again.  I have a message to a lot of people on this, grow up. If it's not your relationship, it doesn't concern you.


----------



## twoofthree (Aug 6, 2011)

kudi said:


> She really must start choosing partners that have her best interest at heart, instead of sleeping with selfish pricks.


How about she knows what's best for *herself*. Novel idea?

Him thinking it's best for her, doesn't make it so.


----------



## La Li Lu Le Lo (Aug 15, 2011)

Fizz said:


> Children given up for adoption often have emotional problems and can be put into abusive foster homes. You have to take that into consideration that they're not going to automatically get adopted or even loved.


You act as if they can't live a life outside of _possible_ abuse and depression. Those things don't last forever. If a child said "I wish I'd never been born," would you agree with them? How is aborting them a better option than having them live their life, for better or worse? (As all lives are)


----------



## Fizz (Nov 13, 2010)

twoofthree said:


> How about she knows what's best for *herself*. Novel idea?
> 
> Him thinking it's best for her, doesn't make it so.


There seems to be this theme going on still that males know what's best for females.


----------



## twoofthree (Aug 6, 2011)

Zanimus said:


> Forgive me but I am failing to follow your logic. It's not so easy for men to "leave women with the bag" when he will go to *prison* for not paying child support. "Deadbeat dads" are seen as pretty low on the totem pole of morality, so I wouldn't say it was never an issue.
> 
> By my accounts this imbalance you're referring to is leaning completely in the favor of the woman. They have all the power over whether or not there is a baby, and they have all the power when they fuck it up and get pregnant anyway? Something doesn't add up here.
> 
> When does the man get his say? His only birth control options are the woman's word that she is on the pill, and not having sex at all. There's condoms, but I remember reading somewhere else on PerC that one woman even got pregnant through a used condom she got from the trash. Completely evil.


Yes. I'm saying that this issue you raise is only a issue now.
When men would walk away, it wasn't an issue. 

So why is it an issue now? 
The fundamentals haven't changed apart from the woman can now drop the bag as well.


----------



## Fizz (Nov 13, 2010)

LaLiLuLeLo said:


> You act as if they can't live a life outside of _possible_ abuse and depression. Those things don't last forever. If a child said "I wish I'd never been born," would you agree with them? How is aborting them a better option than having them live their life, for better or worse? (As all lives are)


I'm bringing up the possibilities that could happen. You can't just assume their life will be great and dandy later on. I'm also not interested in debating this further because it's a moot point. There is nothing that we will agree upon, I will just save us both the trouble now.


----------



## twoofthree (Aug 6, 2011)

Fizz said:


> Children given up for adoption often have emotional problems and can be put into abusive foster homes. You have to take that into consideration that they're not going to automatically get adopted or even loved.


And only one person would have to put their life on hold for 9 months.


----------



## Swordsman of Mana (Jan 7, 2011)

> Should a woman be obliged to tell the father?


definitely



> Should the man be a part of the decision making process?


unless it was a complete fling, yes


----------



## kudi (Sep 27, 2011)

> How about she knows what's best for herself. Novel idea?
> Him thinking it's best for her, doesn't make it so.


Your putting words in my mouth, I never said that a woman wouldn't know whats best for her. She chooses her partner after all, so use that wisdom to choose someone that has your best interest at heart. Its not a dictatorship, its a partnership. To make important decisions such as abortion without the input of your partner shows a lack of maturity and understanding of what a romantic relationship is. As partners your not aiming to become 2 individual selfish units living their separate lives, but one unit who will do anything for each other and respect each other enough to weigh their voice in important decisions even if you don't agree.


----------



## Fizz (Nov 13, 2010)

twoofthree said:


> And only one person would have to put their life on hold for 9 months.


If someone doesn't want to have a child, they shouldn't have to. Some people also wouldn't want their offspring floating around out there without them knowing who has them, how they're being raised, etc. Some people also have genetic disorders that can be passed on, it would probably be best if the child knew that. There are plenty of unwanted children born everyday and not enough willing parents to adopt them. Most people want biological children and those who are sterile aren't going to adopt ALL OF THEM. There's also discriminatory selection on race and sex.

And anyone who has to complain about my opinion here, boo hiss, I don't care.


----------



## Swordsman of Mana (Jan 7, 2011)

Shahada said:


> I feel like the answer is the same as everything else for me, of course she has no obligation to tell anyone - it's her body, period. Obviously I think in most situations it is probably a better idea to tell the father for a lot of reasons: Common courtesy, avoiding bigger problems and headaches down the road, and so on. I would like to know myself if I was in that situation. And I think if the relationship is good (which of course it isn't always) I can't think of why you wouldn't discuss it first. But to say a woman is absolutely obligated to do so is not something I am comfortable with at all.


don't you think a man has the right to know if his child gets aborted? I do, and I don't think it's asking a lot (it's not, for instance, asking anyone to carry around a baby inside them for 9 months) to simply let the man know. after all, 50% of it's genes came from him


----------



## La Li Lu Le Lo (Aug 15, 2011)

Fizz said:


> I'm bringing up the possibilities that could happen. You can't just assume their life will be great and dandy later on. I'm also not interested in debating this further because it's a moot point. There is nothing that we will agree upon, I will just save us both the trouble now.


Abortion has only one possibility: The death of the baby. I'm not saying their life will be great and dandy later on. But I know that that child will still have a valuable life like the rest of us. There's no sense in saying that they're better off not having a chance at life because of temporary pain.

Yeah I know you didn't want to discuss it anymore, but I had to respond about that


----------



## Fizz (Nov 13, 2010)

LaLiLuLeLo said:


> Abortion has only one possibility: The death of the baby. I'm not saying their life will be great and dandy later on. But I know that that child will still have a valuable life like the rest of us. There's no sense in saying that they're better off not having a chance at life because of temporary pain.
> 
> Yeah I know you didn't want to discuss it anymore, but I had to respond about that


It's not a baby, it's a fetus or depending upon the timing, a mass of dividing cells.










That's not a baby.










That's not a burger.


----------



## Gray Skies (Dec 27, 2010)

Does she have to? No. Should she? Yes, absolutely, if she wants to continue having a relationship with the man. Deception makes for a shitty foundation.


----------



## twoofthree (Aug 6, 2011)

jayde said:


> In the situation described in the link provided by the OP, I would lean towards saying that she should have discussed it with him first. However, it's very dependent on the situation and the people involved.
> 
> In my current relationship, I would not tell my partner if I became pregnant and had an abortion. We have discussed the abortion issue at length and I know exactly where he stands on it.
> 
> ...


This sums up my thought process too.
This is why at the beginning I said it wasn't a clearcut case.

I think telling and sharing the decision is great in an ideal world.
But you might not agree. There's no much scope for compromise if you don't. You can't half have the baby.

And since she's the one most affected, she has more say.


----------



## twoofthree (Aug 6, 2011)

kudi said:


> Your putting words in my mouth, I never said that a woman wouldn't know whats best for her. She chooses her partner after all, so use that wisdom to choose someone that has your best interest at heart. Its not a dictatorship, its a partnership. To make important decisions such as abortion without the input of your partner shows a lack of maturity and understanding of what a romantic relationship is. As partners your not aiming to become 2 individual selfish units living their separate lives, but one unit who will do anything for each other and respect each other enough to weigh their voice in important decisions even if you don't agree.


I agree. But in the real world, couples won't always agree. And even if they do, people change.
I know people who didn't want children when they got together, and one of them changed their mind later. . . and vice versa.


----------



## La Li Lu Le Lo (Aug 15, 2011)

Fizz said:


> It's not a baby, it's a fetus or depending upon the timing, a mass of dividing cells.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Your definition of a human life doesn't justify the deliberate ending of it.


----------



## Fizz (Nov 13, 2010)

LaLiLuLeLo said:


> Your definition of a human life doesn't justify the deliberate ending of it.


That's upon your subjective morality, silly.


----------



## Impavida (Dec 29, 2011)

twoofthree said:


> This sums up my thought process too.
> This is why at the beginning I said it wasn't a clearcut case.
> 
> I think telling and sharing the decision is great in an ideal world.
> ...


Agreed. 

In an ideal world it would be best to make a decision like that together. It's not an ideal world though. 

Pregnancy is still an enormously risky thing. Even if women don't die from it as often in the western world, very few women escape it without long term effects on their health. Asking a woman to go through that when she doesn't want to is barbaric, IMO. Which is why in case of disagreement, the woman should always have the final say.


----------



## Shahada (Apr 26, 2010)

Swordsman of Mana said:


> don't you think a man has the right to know if his child gets aborted?


No I don't think a man has a "right" to that. 



Swordsman of Mana said:


> I do, and I don't think it's asking a lot (it's not, for instance, asking anyone to carry around a baby inside them for 9 months) to simply let the man know. after all, 50% of it's genes came from him


That's why I said in most situations it seems like a better idea to let the father know, and I would like to know as well if I were in that situation. If there's not a really good reason for not telling the father, and you have a good relationship with the father, I can't think of any good reason not to tell him, and if the mother doesn't, well, she's going to have to live with the possible consequences that could have on the relationship just as he would. But I still don't think it's a "right."


----------



## Impavida (Dec 29, 2011)

LaLiLuLeLo said:


> Your definition of a human life doesn't justify the deliberate ending of it.


So it's okay for you to dictate terms based on *your* subjective beliefs, but it's wrong for someone else to do the same?


----------



## kudi (Sep 27, 2011)

> In the situation described in the link provided by the OP, I would lean towards saying that she should have discussed it with him first. However, it's very dependent on the situation and the people involved.
> 
> In my current relationship, I would not tell my partner if I became pregnant and had an abortion. We have discussed the abortion issue at length and I know exactly where he stands on it.
> 
> ...


Children is an important issue, if you can't agree on that you should *definitely* not be involved with each other. Guilt, time and having the same friends will eventually bring your deceit to light and after that much time the level of betrayal they will feel is unimaginable and the relationship will definitely end. By remaining silent your just buying time and the more time you buy the costlier it will be later.


----------



## geekofalltrades (Feb 8, 2012)

kudi said:


> The moment she had sex she already made the decision _with_ him that she wanted it in there even if its implicit, since that is the natural result of sex: a child. Even if you have sex with protection its a risk you are both aware of and by engaging in sex have agreed together that your willing to take. Therefore if the result is a child its fair that the father has a part in that decision as well.


No, no, no, no, no, no.

No.

No.

...

No.

Birth control has advanced to the stage where you can reasonably expect to have sex without getting pregnant. Saying that she made the decision to have a child when she decided to have sex is like saying that a car accident victim made the decision to die horribly the instant she got in the car, or that someone with food poisoning decided to have excruciating diarrhea the moment they put a piece of food in their mouth.


----------



## Fizz (Nov 13, 2010)

jayde said:


> Agreed.
> 
> In an ideal world it would be best to make a decision like that together. It's not an ideal world though.
> *
> Pregnancy is still an enormously risky thing. Even if women don't die from it as often in the western world, very few women escape it without long term effects on their health. Asking a woman to go through that when she doesn't want to is barbaric, IMO. Which is why in case of disagreement, the woman should always have the final say.*


Exactly! There are so many permanent changes to one's body after pregnancy and I'm not talking about, "Oh there goes my figure!" It's very harsh on the frame, you can tell if a female skeleton has gone through a full-term pregnancy. There's also many health concerns depending upon the woman. It's not like every pregnancy is the same, some women are at higher risk of death or having miscarriage anyway.

I won't get more into it because I don't feel like hearing about how none of them are a good excuse.


----------



## La Li Lu Le Lo (Aug 15, 2011)

jayde said:


> So it's okay for you to dictate terms based on *your* subjective beliefs, but it's wrong for someone else to do the same?


To me this is clearly and issue of right and wrong.


----------



## twoofthree (Aug 6, 2011)

kudi said:


> Children is an important issue, if you can't agree on that you should *definitely* not be involved with each other. Guilt, time and having the same friends will eventually bring your deceit to light and after that much time the level of betrayal they will feel is unimaginable and the relationship will definitely end. By remaining silent your just buying time and the more time you buy the costlier it will be later.


He doesn't ever have to find out. Ever.


----------



## Impavida (Dec 29, 2011)

kudi said:


> Children is an important issue, if you can't agree on that you should *definitely* not be involved with each other. Guilt, time and having the same friends will eventually bring your deceit to light and after that much time the level of betrayal they will feel is unimaginable and the relationship will definitely end. By remaining silent your just buying time and the more time you buy the costlier it will be later.


Nice little set of assumptions you make there:

1) If I don't plan on telling my partner, why on earth would you think that I would tell my friends?
2) Why would I feel guilty for doing something that would save us both a lot of pain and suffering?
3) How does disagreement on abortion equal disagreement on children?


----------



## reletative (Dec 17, 2010)

somewhere upon entering this thread, I must've tripped and fallen into a DeLorean DMC-12 and gone back in time to the 1950's. 



It's my body, and to force me to carry a pregnancy to term is enslavement.

conversely, men should be able to petition for release from child support. especially in cases of a one-night stand, FB, etc.

i'm not even "pro-abortion" in the sense that, personally I hate abortion. it sucks. but i'm also not "pro-enslavement" or "anti-options". just because i wouldn't make personally make the decision to abort, doesn't mean i can force every other woman in the country to submit their reproductive systems to the government's control.

NO government in my uterus thanks.


----------



## La Li Lu Le Lo (Aug 15, 2011)

You should tell the husband on sheer _principle_ that lying to them about something as big as abortion is a horrible thing.


----------



## Impavida (Dec 29, 2011)

LaLiLuLeLo said:


> To me this is clearly and issue of right and wrong.


It's still *your* belief. If you think it's wrong, then don't do it. However, society as a whole does not agree with you, therefore what *you* think is right or wrong is only relevant to you.

There is no public consensus on this issue which is why there is no law governing it. Which means everyone is free to make the decision that aligns best with their own beliefs.


----------



## geekofalltrades (Feb 8, 2012)

LaLiLuLeLo said:


> To me this is clearly and issue of right and wrong.


Do you know the definition of subjective belief?


----------



## Zanimus (Aug 25, 2011)

twoofthree said:


> He doesn't ever have to find out. Ever.



This shows a pretty clear disregard for basic human emotions.



jayde said:


> _2) Why would I feel guilty for doing something that would save us both a lot of pain and suffering?_


How is this different than forcing a woman to give birth? It's taking away choice.


----------



## twoofthree (Aug 6, 2011)

Zanimus said:


> This shows a pretty clear disregard for basic human emotions.
> 
> How is this different than forcing a woman to give birth? It's taking away choice.


The difference is that only she would be pregnant and only she would give birth. He remains physically unaffected.


----------



## La Li Lu Le Lo (Aug 15, 2011)

geekofalltrades said:


> Do you know the definition of subjective belief?


Is life not an objective human right?


----------



## Impavida (Dec 29, 2011)

Zanimus said:


> How is this different than forcing a woman to give birth? It's taking away choice.


If a woman is undecided about having children or just unsure of the timing, then discussing it makes perfect sense because there is still a choice to make.

In my case, I will never have children. Ever. Period. He knows this about me already. So what choice am I taking away from him? I wouldn't be asking him whether or not I should abort, I would be telling him that I am going to.

As I've said before, this topic is entirely dependent on the situation and the players. With my current partner, based on extensive discussion on the topic, not telling him makes sense. 

In past relationships with different partners who held different beliefs, discussing it would make the most sense. It's all shades of grey...


----------



## Zanimus (Aug 25, 2011)

twoofthree said:


> The difference is that only she would be pregnant and only she would give birth. He remains physically unaffected.


In the result of pregnancy, both lives are completely changed. To say that a woman's changes "more" is absurd.


----------



## twoofthree (Aug 6, 2011)

jayde said:


> If a woman is undecided about having children or just unsure of the timing, then discussing it makes perfect sense because there is still a choice to make.
> 
> In my case, I will never have children. Ever. Period. He knows this about me already. So what choice am I taking away from him? I wouldn't be asking him whether or not I should abort, I would be telling him that I am going to.
> 
> ...


This is how I feel too.
But I don't expect that everyone would feel the same. They'd have to decide for themselves how they want to approach it.


----------



## reletative (Dec 17, 2010)

Zanimus said:


> In the result of pregnancy, both lives are completely changed. To say that a woman's changes "more" is absurd.


have you ever been pregnant?


----------



## Fizz (Nov 13, 2010)

Khys said:


> somewhere upon entering this thread, I must've tripped and fallen into a DeLorean DMC-12 and gone back in time to the 1950's.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I love people like you. I also agree that abortion isn't a beautiful thing and it's not an easy decision. I just don't think we should take that away from people who want to have it done safely. It's a scary thought to be carrying something inside of you that you don't want. I'm sure there could be psychological damage done to a woman if forced to carry to full-term.

I also agree about the males petitioning to not have to pay child support. Some may disagree and that the males should be "punished" for their behavior in the first place. It's the mother's choice to bring the child into the world, the father basically has no say whatsoever. Also by giving up paying child support, they probably shouldn't get visitation rights. Though that's up for debate.


----------



## Fizz (Nov 13, 2010)

LaLiLuLeLo said:


> Is life not an objective human right?


No. That's still a subjective opinion.


----------



## Zanimus (Aug 25, 2011)

Khys said:


> have you ever been pregnant?


Have you ever had your partner forcibly abort your child?

There are some things that not everyone can experience.


----------



## Impavida (Dec 29, 2011)

Fizz said:


> I love people like you. I also agree that abortion isn't a beautiful thing and it's not an easy decision. I just don't think we should take that away from people who want to have it done safely. It's a scary thought to be carrying something inside of you that you don't want. I'm sure there could be psychological damage done to a woman if forced to carry to full-term.
> 
> *I also agree about the males petitioning to not have to pay child support. Some may disagree and that the males should be "punished" for their behavior in the first place. It's the mother's choice to bring the child into the world, the father basically has no say whatsoever. Also by giving up paying child support, they probably shouldn't get visitation rights. Though that's up for debate*.


I believe men can get out of paying child support by signing away their parental rights. 

Where it gets tricky is if they still want to claim a child as theirs and have visitation rights, but not pay child support. In some cases I think that would be entirely justified, but it's a can of worms that the courts just don't want to touch.


----------



## Kittann (Apr 12, 2010)

Zanimus said:


> In the result of pregnancy, both lives are completely changed. To say that a woman's changes "more" is absurd.











Complications of pregnancy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Childbirth Complications | BabyCenter​


----------



## reletative (Dec 17, 2010)

Zanimus said:


> Have you ever had your partner forcibly abort your child?
> 
> There are some things that not everyone can experience.


nope but it sounds a hell of a lot better than being forced to be an incubator to a foreign body. Anybody seen "Species"?

Guess we don't see eye to eye on this one.


----------



## twoofthree (Aug 6, 2011)

Zanimus said:


> Have you ever had your partner forcibly abort your child?
> 
> There are some things that not everyone can experience.


It's about the same as someone robbing me of the £1 million that I never had.


----------



## Zanimus (Aug 25, 2011)

Khys said:


> nope but it sounds a hell of a lot better than being forced to be an incubator to a foreign body. Anybody seen "Species"?
> 
> Guess we don't see eye to eye on this one.


If this happens in Western society, I sure as fuck haven't heard about it.


----------



## Fizz (Nov 13, 2010)

jayde said:


> I believe men can get out of paying child support by signing away their parental rights.
> 
> *Where it gets tricky is if they still want to claim a child as theirs and have visitation rights, but not pay child support. In some cases I think that would be entirely justified, but it's a can of worms that the courts just don't want to touch.*


Yeah, it's quite dangerous when it gets to this point. I think it would be positive for the child to interact with their biological father. I can also imagine a lot of people abusing it, so yeah, courts want to keep themselves clear of this trouble.


----------



## alphacat (Mar 17, 2011)

To me, women need to decide:

1. A kid is the product of both sexes, thus, the father has the rights to know.

Or

2. Your body is your body, thus, the child is the woman's exclusively.

You can't choose to both ignore the father if you want an abortion, and include the father if you want child support. Having the cake and eating it is not an option.


----------



## twoofthree (Aug 6, 2011)

MuChApArAdOx said:


> Good point, yes it is her right to not carry it. So is she having this abortion because she doesn't want to be a mother, or because she doens't want to carry it ? Lets say she doesn't want to carry it, ok, her choice. If its because she doesn't want to be a mother, she could still give the child life and let it be cared for by another, no stings attached. I guess it depends on her motives.


It could be both.
After all she'd have to sacrifice 9 months of her life for something she doesn't want. Giving it a life isn't like blowing up a balloon. It's a lot more involved than that.

Personally, if I were in the position, it would be both. I don't a child, and I certainly wouldn't want a pregnancy.


----------



## Laney (Feb 20, 2012)

PeteTheZombie said:


> but imagine if he wanted to keep the child she had an abortion then he founds out later she didnt tell him
> 
> Relationship: *TERMINATED
> 
> *


 I think that's what happened actually.


----------



## geekofalltrades (Feb 8, 2012)

kudi said:


> your thinking to much, I was simply implying that you need a better analogy. I can agree sex's function is not exclusive to producing children, yet it still is one of its function.


And yet, from the point of view of a couple or person who doesn't want children, an unwanted pregnancy is... er... unwanted. We even use the word "accident" to describe it.

...which sort of makes it a perfect analogy.


----------



## Pete The Lich (May 16, 2011)

laney said:


> I think that's what happened actually.


i didnt read the whole article so youre probably right

and bah i was changing my sentence structure midway through it came out all jumbled 

nap time me thinks...


----------



## MuChApArAdOx (Jan 24, 2011)

twoofthree said:


> It could be both.
> After all she'd have to sacrifice 9 months of her life for something she doesn't want. Giving it a life isn't like blowing up a balloon. It's a lot more involved than that.
> 
> Personally, if I were in the position, it would be both. I don't a child, and I certainly wouldn't want a pregnancy.



This topic is a catch 22 for me personally. I'd have to be in this position in order to know what is right for me. I suppose its easy to say i would do AB and C, although until you're in it, i can't really say for sure. I don't know what the rules are here in Canada, maybe they are the same across the board, everywhere. Not something i ever need to research. Do men have any rights ? IDK. Now i'm curious thou, i must look do some reading. Interesting topic, hope it doens't get too heated and closed .


----------



## knittigan (Sep 2, 2011)

geekofalltrades said:


> And yet, from the point of view of a couple or person who doesn't want children, an unwanted pregnancy is... er... unwanted. We even use the word "accident" to describe it.
> 
> ...which sort of makes it a perfect analogy.


Thank you. Getting pregnant at this point in my life wouldn't be an "accident". It would be absolutely devastating and I wouldn't hesitate for a second about classifying being forced to carry a child to term as a form of psychological and physical violence.


----------



## Fizz (Nov 13, 2010)

knittigan said:


> Thank you. Getting pregnant at this point in my life wouldn't be an "accident". It would be absolutely devastating and I wouldn't hesitate for a second about classifying being forced to carry a child to term as a form of psychological and physical violence.


This is why I hate when people would label someone who wants an abortion as irresponsible or immature. I won't say most, but I'm sure plenty of women do anything and everything they can to avoid getting pregnant. There's even a chance to get pregnant if you're on the pill/patch and you're using condoms at the same time. Does that make someone irresponsible? No. I also agree that it would be a violation to force someone to go through an unwanted pregnancy.

I for one, am not ready for children right now. I also feel that if I waited until I was more financially and emotionally prepared to have them, they would be much better off. I would also prefer a partner that wants to have the children with me as well. It takes a village to raise a child, I'll need all the help I can get.


----------



## knittigan (Sep 2, 2011)

Fizz said:


> This is why I hate when people would label someone who wants an abortion as irresponsible or immature. I won't say most, but I'm sure plenty of women do anything and everything they can to avoid getting pregnant. There's even a chance to get pregnant if you're on the pill/patch and you're using condoms at the same time. Does that make someone irresponsible? No. I also agree that it would be a violation to force someone to go through an unwanted pregnancy.
> 
> I for one, am not ready for children right now. I also feel that if I waited until I was more financially and emotionally prepared to have them, they would be much better off. I would also prefer a partner that wants to have the children with me as well. It takes a village to raise a child, I'll need all the help I can get.


I'm on birth control and my partner and I always use condoms because neither one of us feels that one form of birth control is adequate. We're both students with plans for grad studies, have zero desire for a child at this point in our lives, and have even less desire to be in a situation where I'm required to get an abortion because we both feel that it would be very upsetting. Earlier on in the week I missed a pill for the first time in _years_ and the condom came off during sex that took place the day before I was supposed to ovulate. I'll also mention that women in my family have _superhumanly_ fertile uteruses. My mother got pregnant while on birth control and my sister got pregnant the first time she tried, after having just come off 12 years of pill use. I was absolutely devastated and ended up taking Plan B.

The chances of my being pregnant are incredibly slim, but if I somehow end up with the bun in the oven, it's because I'm irresponsible? I don't _think_ so. That is an absolutely extraordinary set of circumstances and I would be absolutely _destroyed_ if I had to carry a pregnancy to term just so that I could give it up to some nameless, faceless set of adoptive parents that might end up mistreating it and giving it a generally miserable life.


----------



## kudi (Sep 27, 2011)

The end reality is there is nothing men can do about it even if we agreed they should or entitled have a say in it. Its not physically possible to prevent a woman from aborting a child short of chaining and force feeding. Which is why its a futile discussion, in the end the woman has the final say. There is no practical way to enforce any other decision on the matter. Pro life vs pro choice, no one is ever happier or enlightened. I'll leave this pro-choice rally alone.


----------



## Laney (Feb 20, 2012)

This reminds me of discussions about whether a cheating spouse should ever come clean. The other person won't be hurt by what they don't know, but you still always see the other spouse as a prick. I'm leaning towards if you know the father would be distressed by what you've, tell him so he can find a different partner who respects his input.


----------



## knittigan (Sep 2, 2011)

kudi said:


> This discussion is going no where, which is typical of topics like abortion and religion. The end reality is there is nothing men can do about it even if we agreed they should or entitled have a say in it. Its not physically possible to prevent a woman from aborting a child short of chaining and force feeding.


That wasn't an argument. I was sharing my personal experience which, contrary to the snarkfest that is this post^, is an absolutely valid contribution to this discussion. There was absolutely no need to quote me. Personally, I feel like this conversation is incredibly productive, but if you disagree, you're free to leave.

Edit: It's especially relevant considering the nonsense that has been US politics as of late.


----------



## Fizz (Nov 13, 2010)

knittigan said:


> I'm on birth control and my partner and I always use condoms because neither one of us feels that one form of birth control is adequate. We're both students with plans for grad studies, have zero desire for a child at this point in our lives, and have even less desire to be in a situation where I'm required to get an abortion because we both feel that it would be very upsetting. Earlier on in the week I missed a pill for the first time in _years_ and the condom came off during sex that took place the day before I was supposed to ovulate. I'll also mention that women in my family have _superhumanly_ fertile uteruses. My mother got pregnant while on birth control and my sister got pregnant the first time she tried, after having just come off 12 years of pill use. I was absolutely devastated and ended up taking Plan B.
> 
> The chances of my being pregnant are incredibly slim, but if I somehow end up with the bun in the oven, it's because I'm irresponsible? I don't _think_ so. That is an absolutely extraordinary set of circumstances and I would be absolutely _destroyed_ if I had to carry a pregnancy to term just so that I could give it up to some nameless, faceless set of adoptive parents that might end up mistreating it and giving it a generally miserable life.


That's quite a scary situation, I like to avoid pregnancy scares as much as possible. There's nothing more relieving than getting your period after such a situation. Who knew that cramping, bloating, bleeding, craving, and agonizing pain could be so beautiful? I love the birth control pill, yes I do.

Oh gosh, I know what can happen when a child ends up in the wrong hands. I won't post it in the threads as it's not my information to give out. I'll PM you if you're interested in it.


----------



## Proteus (Mar 5, 2010)

In an ideal situation, I think there should be communication between the partners beforehand. These types of situations are not always ideal however, and sometimes it's in the woman's best interest to go through with getting an abortion without telling her partner, and she's perfectly in the right to do such. It's a part of her body until it pops out, and she has a right to do what she deems best for herself and in accordance with her wishes.

I'd want my partner to tell me because I'd want to offer to pay for the procedure, drive her to the clinic, and offer any type of emotional/physical support she might need afterwards, as I don't want children and wouldn't be involved with someone who did.


----------



## Cover3 (Feb 2, 2011)

'It's her body'

...


----------



## twoofthree (Aug 6, 2011)

I've done everything in my power to avoid this kind of situation. I protect myself to the hilt. I'll likely be sterilised soon.
I make it clear to anyone I'm dating that I don't want children. So it should come as no surprise what my preference would be if an accident were to still occur.

Given this, I think I would tell him for the sake of openness and honesty.

But I reserve the right to make the final decision.


----------



## dagnytaggart (Jun 6, 2010)

Be honest with him, let him express his wishes, but ultimately, it's still the woman's choice, as she has no choice but to be 100% involved with the outcome, 100% of the time. Whereas the guy doesn't share that guaranteed physical burden.


----------



## dagnytaggart (Jun 6, 2010)

knittigan said:


> I'm on birth control and my partner and I always use condoms because neither one of us feels that one form of birth control is adequate. We're both students with plans for grad studies, have zero desire for a child at this point in our lives, and have even less desire to be in a situation where I'm required to get an abortion because we both feel that it would be very upsetting. Earlier on in the week I missed a pill for the first time in _years_ and the condom came off during sex that took place the day before I was supposed to ovulate. I'll also mention that women in my family have _superhumanly_ fertile uteruses. My mother got pregnant while on birth control and my sister got pregnant the first time she tried, after having just come off 12 years of pill use. I was absolutely devastated and ended up taking Plan B.
> 
> The chances of my being pregnant are incredibly slim, but if I somehow end up with the bun in the oven, it's because I'm irresponsible? I don't _think_ so. That is an absolutely extraordinary set of circumstances and I would be absolutely _destroyed_ if I had to carry a pregnancy to term just so that I could give it up to some nameless, faceless set of adoptive parents that might end up mistreating it and giving it a generally miserable life.


My family's also disgustingly fertile. My mother got pregnant recently at 52 years old, on her first attempt after coming off the pill.

I got pregnant while faithfully using the pill, a condom (properly), the pull-out method, and during my (supposedly) least fertile time of the month, outside of my period.

Now, I don't even want to have sex anymore at all, until I get permanently sterilized (in a few months).

But with my luck, I'll get pregnant via immaculate conception. FML.


----------



## knittigan (Sep 2, 2011)

dagnytaggart said:


> My family's also disgustingly fertile. My mother got pregnant recently at 52 years old, on her first attempt after coming off the pill.
> 
> I got pregnant while faithfully using the pill, a condom (properly), the pull-out method, and during my (supposedly) least fertile time of the month, outside of my period.
> 
> ...


I just don't even. :shocked: :shocked:

That's unbelievable :shocked: :shocked:


----------



## Pride49 (Nov 7, 2011)

Unbelievably she would say that or that she is that unfortunate. Well, if you weren't ready for kids than don't hump each other. That was jargon, I meant fuck.


----------



## knittigan (Sep 2, 2011)

Pride49 said:


> Unbelievably she would say that or that she is that unfortunate. Well, if you weren't ready for kids than don't hump each other. That was jargon, I meant fuck.


Please at least make an effort to post something productive. I think it's fairly clear that she was being responsible. I don't know where you seem to get off on thinking that people should only have sex for reproductive purposes since even animals have sex for non-reproductive reasons.


----------



## Pride49 (Nov 7, 2011)

So it was the latter. Well, I simply don't understand the concept. For I have never personally experienced such things.


----------



## dagnytaggart (Jun 6, 2010)

Pride49 said:


> So it was the latter. Well, I simply don't understand the concept. For I have never personally experienced such things.


Then be silent.


----------



## Pride49 (Nov 7, 2011)

Technically I wasn't speaking, but I'll stop keying on a subject I find pointless. The overall population of the world is too large. I guess you would be doing the world a favor.


----------



## snail (Oct 13, 2008)

If both partners are actively, consensually involved in the sex that led to the pregnancy, neither should be allowed to kill the unborn child without the other's approval, since the child belongs equally to both parents.

Above that, the child is its own, so neither parent should be allowed to commit murder, even with the consent of the other.


----------



## Pride49 (Nov 7, 2011)

Sorry for continuing, but many of the rest of your family could also be devastated that they couldn't have a grand son or daughter. For example my sister considered abortion, but now I could almost disown her for the thought of getting rid of my nephew. It depends also on whether you have the money. Whether your parents are extreme Christians. But I would want an opinion of having a sire or not (Dragon talk). So you should be open to options. And don't fully detest the idea of not getting an abortion.(See, I can be less heartless.[That means I am, just being less of one]).


----------



## knittigan (Sep 2, 2011)

Pride49 said:


> Sorry for continuing, but many of the rest of your family could also be devastated that they couldn't have a grand son or daughter. For example my sister considered abortion, but now I could almost disown her for the thought of getting rid of my nephew. It depends also on whether you have the money. Whether your parents are extreme Christians. But I would want an opinion of having a sire or not (Dragon talk). So you should be open to options. And don't fully detest the idea of not getting an abortion.(See, I can be less heartless.[That means I am, just being less of one]).


Did you seriously just use a dragon analogy in the context of women's right to bodily autonomy? Because if so, that is an entirely new level of wow. Even for the internet.


----------



## Pride49 (Nov 7, 2011)

Cool, I'm one in a million. You are entitled to your own rights, I just enjoy arguing. I actually dislike the sire talk. I read it in a dragon book. I hoped someone else would think it was ridiculous. I almost wrote whether that was a compliment. But then I seen the anatomy part. and rights. Man I'm having trouble making light of this. Since now I am being analyzed for every mistake. I thought mentioning dragons was unique. And since thousands of dragon books bank on a dragon's superior intelligence I would think that as a compliment. The sire may only mean male, that is mainly why I hesitated. And it makes me sound like an old fool.


----------



## Chipps (Jun 1, 2011)

Well Im not reading all 13 pages of this discussion, but I will say that if a woman gets pregnant she carries most of the responsibility for the child. She bears most of the burden. I think she has the right to choose whether or not to tell the father. If she does, great. But he can't stop her from getting an abortion, nor should he be able to. If she choose not to, thats great too. We can argue that its not fair, but hey, lifes not fair. Its a human being growing in her body and she has the right to get it medically removed without the consent of anyone else. If a man didnt like it Id suggest he either 1. wear a condom next time or 2. not get someone pregnant who believes in abortion. His call.


----------



## Proteus (Mar 5, 2010)

Pride49 said:


> Sorry for continuing, but many of the rest of your family could also be devastated that they couldn't have a grand son or daughter. For example my sister considered abortion, but now I could almost disown her for the thought of getting rid of my nephew. It depends also on whether you have the money. Whether your parents are extreme Christians. But I would want an opinion of having a sire or not (Dragon talk). So you should be open to options. And don't fully detest the idea of not getting an abortion.(See, I can be less heartless.[That means I am, just being less of one]).


What other family members want should in no way impact what another person decides to do with their life and body. Parents and other people who try to pressure or guilt other family members into having a child because _they_ want more children in the family is incredibly selfish and emotional blackmail.


----------



## Mendi the ISFJ (Jul 28, 2011)

I would tell my man if we were still together, i cant see a reason why not. Perhaps she knew he would be so completely irresponsible that she would have to completely raise the child herself... though i question why you would be in an actual relationship with someone like that. 

I do know of situations where people were in a relationship together and had sex and then realized that the other would be unable to raise their own child due to being one of many things (ex. drug addict, unemployable, abusive, manipulative etc) and therefore would leave the person to be a single parent to the child or endanger their child. 

Many times people dont get to know potential lovers, then are shocked at what horrible people they are. There is not much you can do after the fact. 

In short, if the person is not a danger to the child, tell them, explain why you dont want to give birth and raise the child for the rest of your life, and then at very least get their input before going through with an abortion.


----------



## Pride49 (Nov 7, 2011)

Depends on how strong the resolve is. Both sides of the argument have reasoning, so really, there is no right or wrong when talking about morality.


----------



## knittigan (Sep 2, 2011)

Pride49 said:


> Depends on how strong the resolve is. Both sides of the argument have reasoning, so really, there is no right or wrong when talking about morality.


Morality =/= human rights


----------



## Pride49 (Nov 7, 2011)

It is a MORAL issue whether it is correct for abortion or not. Human rights. Wow, you said I was unbelievable before, well you are being predictable. It may be a woman's RIGHT to do or not do this. But the question was is it OK (Um....Moral) for me to do that. Actually the title suggests how to get away with it. In that case, simple go to a random hospital.


----------



## knittigan (Sep 2, 2011)

Pride49 said:


> It is a MORAL issue whether it is correct for abortion or not. Human rights. Wow, you said I was unbelievable before, well you are being predictable. It may be a woman's RIGHT to do or not do this. But the question was is it OK (Um....Moral) for me to do that. Actually the title suggests how to get away with it. In that case, simple go to a random hospital.


The United Nations recognises that all states must provide safe abortion and contraception for women as a matter of human rights


----------



## MXZCCT (May 29, 2011)

I'm not going to read all 14 pages. And someone probably already mentioned something close to what I'm about to say.
But I would be fucking furious if 'she' never told me about the abortion. It took two for the baby to be conceived. If she did not want the child, at least give the child to me.


----------



## Pride49 (Nov 7, 2011)

Thank you for that bit of information, if I would have made my response credible with it than maybe you would be awstruck right now. The point was that if someone asks if they should or should not do this. that is and opinion. "The United Nations Recognizes that all states must provide safe abortion and contraception for women as a matter of human rights" is a fact. Morality has long been an opinion. Am I seeking to change the law? no. Is that the question here? Whether it should be changed? no. The question is "Who can raise more reasons for or not doing abortion." That is an opinion. Nothing else. I have no personal experiences regarding this. This is a matter of moral debate. Someone PUTS personal experiences in, than it's fair game.


----------



## Pride49 (Nov 7, 2011)

That was for knittigan, I must say diddo to what MXZCCT said


----------



## TheOwl (Nov 3, 2010)

I don't see anything wrong with abortion.
It's basically killing a bunch of cells that have the _potential_ to become a baby. Until much later on, the group of cells/fetus doesn't have cognition; it can't feel pain. It's just a part of the woman's body; therefore, I don't believe the man has any right to it. It's not a child. It's potential.

That said, I don't know if I would tell the guy or not if I was getting an abortion. 
I wouldn't say it's wrong to not tell him (What if he's pro-life? What does telling him do besides make him feel guilty?), but I _probably_ would just because I value communication.


----------



## Pride49 (Nov 7, 2011)

you could also say should the woman have to go through the pain involved just for a fetus. This is a very complicated subject.


----------



## Cover3 (Feb 2, 2011)

TheOwl said:


> I don't see anything wrong with abortion.
> It's basically killing a bunch of cells that have the _potential_ to become a baby. Until much later on, the group of cells/fetus doesn't have cognition; it can't feel pain. It's just a part of the woman's body; therefore, I don't believe the man has any right to it. It's not a child. It's potential.
> 
> That said, I don't know if I would tell the guy or not if I was getting an abortion.
> I wouldn't say it's wrong to not tell him (What if he's pro-life? What does telling him do besides make him feel guilty?), but I _probably_ would just because I value communication.


So, like, they don't have any right to it(or say as you seem to imply), yet they have a responsibility towards it? sounds like a case of a cake being had and eaten there.


----------



## Sequestrum (Sep 11, 2011)

Until the day comes that men can be like seahorses and carry the child instead of the woman, the ultimate choice lies with the woman. Sorry dudes, but I've seen my wife through pregnancy and I've watched the full course of labor, and there is no way a woman should have to endure that unless she whole heartedly wants to.

Whether or not he should know should be a highly situational matter. Without knowing a great deal more about the parties involved, it is difficult to say clearly one way or the other if he should know or not. I can see situations where he should know, and I can see situations where he should not know.


----------



## Kittann (Apr 12, 2010)

MXZCCT said:


> Amazingly your assuming that I'm picking only on the women, which is false. I expect men who do not want a child to wear a condom and be smart about it.


Oh, I'm sorry.
Where in your post did you place any responsibility with the man at all? Please enlighten me.



> it is HER responsibility to not get pregnant first and foremost.


No, it is the responsibility of both to be safe about sex. If that fails, through the 'fault' of no one, then thankfully the woman has options.​


----------



## twoofthree (Aug 6, 2011)

MXZCCT said:


> Amazingly your assuming that I'm picking only on the women, which is false. I expect men who do not want a child to wear a condom and be smart about it.


. . . and what happens if the condom fails?
Then we still have a pregnancy. So trying to apportion blame etc. was quite a weak response.

You really could've left that old chestnut where it belongs.


----------



## Shahada (Apr 26, 2010)

MXZCCT said:


> Your taking accountability away from the women. If she does not want to have a baby, then it is HER responsibility to not get pregnant first and foremost. You might want to reevaluate your concerns.
> 
> You know, safe sex and birth control....
> *Or she shouldn't spread her legs at all if she is that serious about an unwanted pregnancy.*


As usual this is what it's all really about. "There should be consequences for being a slut." Thank you for at least being honest.



MXZCCT said:


> Amazingly your assuming that I'm picking only on the women, which is false. I expect men who do not want a child to wear a condom and be smart about it.


You said "women shouldn't spread their legs" not "guys should keep it in their pants." But yeah bro, totally equal opportunity offender here.


----------



## Paradox1987 (Oct 9, 2010)

MXZCCT said:


> I have to do it because it is my child. IF I was in no position to care for the child then I obviously would not be holding up the position I would be taking right now.
> 
> I would be giving the fetus, my child, the fighting change to live. Last time I checked, that is a good enough reason.


That's fair enough. Though even if I was in a financial position for a child, I'm not eager enough to attempt to test my parenting skills alone. Realistically, if she's made up her mind (for sound reasons), I can't change it; so I can't be bothered to try *shrugs*.


----------



## Manhattan (Jul 13, 2011)

MXZCCT said:


> Amazingly your assuming that I'm picking only on the women, which is false. I expect men who do not want a child to wear a condom and be smart about it.


Women who don't want a child "shouldn't spread their legs", but men who don't want a child should wear a condom? Do you get that your supposed standard for female responsibility is chastity and riddled with slut-shaming, while your idea of male responsibility is "being smart about it"? You'll have to add "he should have kept his pants up" to add some gender equality to your ridiculous argument. 

I hate that line of reasoning. If one partner is on the pill and the other is wearing a condom, the chances of pregnancy are less than 1%, but it happens. (I believe the chances are less than 1% for the pill alone?) Shaming the couple with "should've kept your legs closed/pants up" is like shaming someone who died in a car accident. "lol should have kept your car parked in the garage" 

You're also assuming it's a child. How can a cluster of cells without the ability to think have any worth? I don't understand it. I've always thought of what makes us special as humans is our higher cognition.


----------



## Fizz (Nov 13, 2010)

MXZCCT said:


> Your taking accountability away from the women. If she does not want to have a baby, then it is HER responsibility to not get pregnant first and foremost. You might want to reevaluate your concerns.
> 
> You know, safe sex and birth control....
> Or she shouldn't spread her legs at all if she is that serious about an unwanted pregnancy.


If all men thought like you, I wouldn't have a problem getting pregnant. 

Hello ladies...


----------



## Fizz (Nov 13, 2010)

Sequestrum said:


> *Until the day comes that men can be like seahorses and carry the child instead of the woman*, the ultimate choice lies with the woman. Sorry dudes, but I've seen my wife through pregnancy and I've watched the full course of labor, and there is no way a woman should have to endure that unless she whole heartedly wants to.
> 
> Whether or not he should know should be a highly situational matter. Without knowing a great deal more about the parties involved, it is difficult to say clearly one way or the other if he should know or not. I can see situations where he should know, and I can see situations where he should not know.


Damn it, evolve already!


----------



## Paradox1987 (Oct 9, 2010)

Fizz said:


> Damn it, evolve already!






 :tongue:


----------



## twoofthree (Aug 6, 2011)

Fizz said:


> Damn it, evolve already!


Science, not evolution might provide a solution. 

In the future, neither of them has to carry the baby. There are incubators. They look a bit like ovens. . . actually a lot like ovens.
You can both watch it develop, by using special viewing ports. There'll be CCTV cameras so you can watch live too.

You can pipe in music. . . talk to it. . . sing to it.

After 9 months. . . PING!!


----------



## reletative (Dec 17, 2010)

twoofthree said:


> Science, not evolution might provide a solution.
> 
> In the future, neither of them has to carry the baby. There are incubators. They look a bit like ovens. . . actually a lot like ovens.
> You can both watch it develop, by using special viewing ports. There'll be CCTV cameras so you can watch live too.
> ...


i don't think i like that idea. experiencing a happy pregnancy is an amazing experience that i would never want to miss out on.


----------



## bellisaurius (Jan 18, 2012)

If they've just had sex a couple times without either side showing a desire for more, then probably not; I'd imagine it's a conversation no one wants to have. Although, if one thinks the guy is a pump and dump type, then perhaps yes, to remind him of the costs, and maybe help out the next girl.

If they're in a committed relationship, he definitely should be told. He doesn't have a lot of say over and above what the woman thinks about what he has to say, but when a major life event happens to a significant other, they should know (for various reasons, not just in his interest, but in the interest of them being on the same page too).

If they're married, he has to be told. It'd be unfair to not let him weigh in (unless the guy's gonna go crazy in some way), as you've already bonded to the idea of a couple, as opposed to two individuals. I believe this much for the same reason I think a guy can't get a vascectomy without his wife's knowledge: many people get married with the intent of children, taking that away isn't something to be done lightly.


----------



## dagnytaggart (Jun 6, 2010)

MXZCCT said:


> Your taking accountability away from the women. If she does not want to have a baby, then it is HER responsibility to not get pregnant first and foremost. You might want to reevaluate your concerns.
> 
> You know, safe sex and birth control....
> Or she shouldn't spread her legs at all if she is that serious about an unwanted pregnancy.





MXZCCT said:


> Amazingly your assuming that I'm picking only on the women, which is false. I expect men who do not want a child to wear a condom and be smart about it.


But if he's really serious about not rendering a woman pregnant, he should keep his pants buttoned up altogether.


Right?


----------



## crazyeddie (Oct 19, 2011)

twoofthree said:


> The Height Of Feminine-Douchebagery: Getting An ABORTION Without Telling Your Man
> 
> Came across this article today, and thought it would make for an interesting discussion.
> 
> ...


I would say that "ought implies can." Ideally, yes, if the two people are in a relationship, the women should tell the man, and they should make the decision together. But impending motherhood would be a bit brain-breaking, so if she can't handle the strain, I think that might be a wrong action, but not a blameworthy one. It would make things even worse if it came up later on, though. It's not quite the same, but I think a related situation might be if the guy got a vasectomy without telling her. Or the guy dumping her when he finds out she's pregnant. Or the woman having a baby to try to trap him into the relationship. I would say it's mostly about trust, more than anything else.

P.S. if they aren't in a relationship, it's up to the woman. Women are not baby-making factories, here for your reproductive pleasure.

P.P.S. People talk too much about "fairness" in a relationship. There's fair, and then there's what both sides can live with. Being able to live with one another is more important than being fair. Sometimes, you can't be fair to the other person and still be sane. Mercy is more important than fairness.


----------



## crazyeddie (Oct 19, 2011)

Khys said:


> i don't think i like that idea. experiencing a happy pregnancy is an amazing experience that i would never want to miss out on.


Just so long as people have a choice.


----------



## crazyeddie (Oct 19, 2011)

Zanimus said:


> At what point does it stop being an "it" and start being "he/she?"


Sometime after the cortical synapses form, IMO. But the vast majority of abortions happen before that point.


----------



## crazyeddie (Oct 19, 2011)

Zanimus said:


> You're right, women have a vast array of options. Options that will result in *not getting pregnant*. This late in the game, "oops" is just not a viable answer to pregnancy any more. Condoms (without which she can refuse sex), IUDs, birth control pills, diaphragms, spermicide. All of these tools are at the disposal of both parties, yet the last line of defense (so to speak) is the women's right to consent to sexual intercourse.
> 
> If you intend on holding all of the control over the baby after the fact, you should shoulder all of the responsibility for preventing unwanted pregnancies in the first place.


There's been studies that show a correlation between him having a car and her not, and whether or not they use a condom. Economics play a large role in the power a woman has in sexual negotiations. Sure, there's 'single-player' birth-control, but that's expensive. And the cheaper ones don't always work.


----------



## TheOwl (Nov 3, 2010)

GoodOldDreamer said:


> Isn't it equivalent to someone who runs after hitting another person's car, rather than tell them upfront? Aren't they also a douchebag?


No, it's not equivalent at all. When someone runs after hitting another person's car, that person has damaged another person's property. When a woman has an abortion, she has only destroyed a part of herself. It doesn't affect the man.


----------



## Fizz (Nov 13, 2010)

TheOwl said:


> No, it's not equivalent at all. When someone runs after hitting another person's car, that person has damaged another person's property. When a woman has an abortion, she has only destroyed a part of herself. It doesn't affect the man.


They may lay claim to that sperm, but males cycle through sperm every couple months. Females are born with all the eggs they will ever have. I sort of have an attachment to mine and care what happens to them. I even worn them pre-fertilization not to be little assholes.


----------



## crazyeddie (Oct 19, 2011)

Fizz said:


> They may lay claim to that sperm, but males cycle through sperm every couple months. Females are born with all the eggs they will ever have. I sort of have an attachment to mine and care what happens to them. I even worn them pre-fertilization not to be little assholes.


I wouldn't say a fetus is part of the woman's body, exactly. I mean, even the placenta came from the fertilized egg. Maybe a better analogy would be that a valuable seed from one of my plants fell off my balcony and landed in my downstairs neighbor's flowerpot? And then she dumps out the pot? Yeah, it's my seed, and maybe it's valuable, but it's *her* pot. Sure, the resulting plant would have been a very good thing to have, but, dude, *her* pot.


----------



## Sequestrum (Sep 11, 2011)

Fizz said:


> They may lay claim to that sperm, but males cycle through sperm every couple months. Females are born with all the eggs they will ever have. I sort of have an attachment to mine and care what happens to them. I even worn them pre-fertilization not to be little assholes.


I have been waiting for the right moment to use this... and that moment is now! -cackles manically-


----------



## knittigan (Sep 2, 2011)

crazyeddie said:


> I wouldn't say a fetus is part of the woman's body, exactly. I mean, even the placenta came from the fertilized egg. Maybe a better analogy would be that a valuable seed from one of my plants fell off my balcony and landed in my downstairs neighbor's flowerpot? And then she dumps out the pot? Yeah, it's my seed, and maybe it's valuable, but it's *her* pot. Sure, the resulting plant would have been a very good thing to have, but, dude, *her* pot.


Your background in philosophy is showing, yo.


----------



## crazyeddie (Oct 19, 2011)

knittigan said:


> Your background in philosophy is showing, yo.


Oddly enough, never inhaled. Nor done scooby snacks. 'fraid I'm pretty boring, pharmaceutically speaking.


----------



## knittigan (Sep 2, 2011)

crazyeddie said:


> Oddly enough, never inhaled. Nor done scooby snacks. 'fraid I'm pretty boring, pharmaceutically speaking.


Haha, I was referring to the idea of reproduction as a flowerpot that comes up in a lot of traditional Greek philosophy. Aristophanes' speech in the Symposium is the one that best embodies it, but it's somewhat similar in Aristotle.


----------



## crazyeddie (Oct 19, 2011)

knittigan said:


> Haha, I was referring to the idea of reproduction as a flowerpot that comes up in a lot of traditional Greek philosophy. Aristophanes' speech in the Symposium is the one that best embodies it, but it's somewhat similar in Aristotle.


Huh. Didn't realize that. I *really* need to read more Aristotle. Of course, I think Aristotle really *did* think the 'seed' just came from the man. And that women were stunted 'plants'....


----------



## Oryx (Jan 5, 2010)

nevermind 10chars


----------



## Miss Scarlet (Jul 26, 2010)

A woman shouldn't have to say a thing.


----------



## crazyeddie (Oct 19, 2011)

@roxy I think you had a point, before you edited it out. I do think it would be a problem if a women took my sperm, gave it to another woman, and *she* had a kid. But I don't know if a woman I slept with having an abortion without telling me about it is any worse than her having my kid and not telling me about it. *If* I thought abortion was murder, that'd probably be a different story, but I've got no reason to think an abortion *is* murder.


----------



## bowieownsmysoul (Feb 26, 2012)

twoofthree said:


> The Height Of Feminine-Douchebagery: Getting An ABORTION Without Telling Your Man
> 
> Came across this article today, and thought it would make for an interesting discussion.
> 
> ...


Legally, she should not be obliged. It is her body and her decision. Ethically, under most circumstances it is the right thing to do. However, what if the sperm donor is untrustworthy, very stupid, abusive, or her rapist? Under these circumstances absolutely not. 

Under normal circumstances she should tell him and listen to his input but the decision is ultimately her own. Regardless of what the guy believes he will not gain forty pounds and have to say good by to his body and emotional balance as he knows it.


----------



## Runvardh (May 17, 2011)

Once the technology exists to allow men to gestate, he should be consulted. Until then, it's just easier to leave it her hands.

Edit: However, there should be an opt out choice guys can take in the case of her wanting it and him not. An option that does not leave him financially saddled for 18+ years.


----------



## tiptaptoe (Mar 1, 2012)

roxy said:


> I think it's scary when [...] "a woman's right to her body" is equivalent with "her right to get an abortion" or in general equating "freedom" with "just freedom to do the wrong thing"


Wait. What. How is a woman's right to her body being equivalent to her right to abortion "scary"? Is it "scary" that my right to my body is equivalent to my right to kill you in the event that your being alive will cause my body harm against my wishes (= infringe on my right to my body)? And even if it is "scary," does it being "scary" automatically make it wrong? If you were to take up parasitic residence in my body without my permission or consent and cause me excruciating pain and health risks when you finally exit after 9 months of preying on me, would it really be so wrong of me kill you in order spare myself this unwanted suffering, if we agree that my right to my body includes my right to free myself of any unwanted bodily harm when given the means to do so? 



> either the man supports her decision without question, or he doesn't respect her rights


Again, how is this scary or wrong given what logically follows from our mutually-agreed-upon premise that the woman has a right to her own body, namely her right to freely - i.e. without coercion from anyone else - make her own decisions about things that affect her body (such as pregnancy)?



> and that says the woman isn't exercising her right if she doesn't choose to abort her baby


 Logic fail. Right to her body means right to make decisions about her body means right to have different choices about what decision to make. "Choices," in the plural. Do you sincerely think that the people arguing for a woman's right to choose are so benighted as to not realize that limiting her "choice" to "abortion only" is just as much of a violation of her rights as limiting her "choice" to "birth only"? Then again, a common pro-lifer fallacy is to try to equate "choice of abortion" with "obligation to abortion," which is so blatantly disingenuous as to be downright facepalm-worthy. You know what's really scary? The fact that either you can't tell the difference between "choice" and "obligation," or worse, that you're willing to resort to such semantic obfuscation to set up a strawman of the other side in order to make your point. Here, again, is the _real_ argument that the "she doesn't have to tell him" people are making:


> The bottom line is that whether her decision is to kill or to keep the fetus, I have a hard time seeing how anyone can justify insisting that she always and without exception should tell the guy about her decision, even in cases where the guy would rather sacrifice her health and happiness for his own desires.


Note the "whether her decision is to kill or keep the fetus" part - her right to not tell has nothing to do with which decision she chooses to not tell about. If this were an argument about whether a woman should have to tell the man about her decision to keep the baby even on the off chance that he wants her to abort it, you can bet that the same people saying "no she shouldn't have to tell" in this thread would say the same thing there. In fact, I suspect it's only the "save the baby at all costs, who gives a shit about the mother"-type people on the tell-no-matter-what (again, not to be confused with those who advocate telling only under _some_ and not all circumstances) side who would suddenly switch positions from "has to tell" to "doesn't have to tell" if the situation switched from telling about an abortion to telling about keeping the fetus.


----------



## Sara Torailles (Dec 14, 2010)

In an ideal relationship, a woman should tell their partner simply to be fair to that partner. I use this interpretation loosely because there are women who have one night stands, and sometimes birth control fails. It would not be fair to tell a man you had a one night stand with about this kind of business.

Ultimately, in a good relationship, a woman would tell the man, and the man would have some sort of say, but the woman would ultimately make the final decision since she's the one that's going to be pushing it out of her vagina.

This isn't a hard and fast rule, since a lot of relationships do _not_ go well, and some men would force the woman to have the baby. Of course, the woman shouldn't be in a relationship with a man who she doesn't feel she can be honest with, but that's an entirely different matter.


----------



## crazyeddie (Oct 19, 2011)

tiptaptoe said:


> Wait. What. How is a woman's right to her body being equivalent to her right to abortion "scary"? Is it "scary" that my right to my body is equivalent to my right to kill you in the event that your being alive will cause my body harm against my wishes (= infringe on my right to my body)? And even if it is "scary," does it being "scary" automatically make it wrong? If you were to take up parasitic residence in my body without my permission or consent and cause me excruciating pain and health risks when you finally exit after 9 months of preying on me, would it really be so wrong of me kill you in order spare myself this unwanted suffering, if we agree that my right to my body includes my right to free myself of any unwanted bodily harm when given the means to do so?


Sounds like the Violinist Case: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Defense_of_Abortion#The_Violinist


----------



## crazyeddie (Oct 19, 2011)

What's y'all's opinion on this? Which is worse: a woman being in a relationship with a man getting an abortion without telling him, or a woman in a relationship in a man, brings his child to term and gives it up for adoption, all without telling him?


----------



## Psilo (Apr 29, 2009)

It's okay guys, there are people fighting to make sure you have the final say in the situation! We women are far too emotional to make these decisions, so we need you guys to do it for us!

Jeanne Devon (AKMuckraker): Help, Help! There's an Elephant in My Uterus. Permission Slips from Men for Abortion?



> State Rep. Alan Dick (R). He said that he doesn't believe that when a woman is pregnant, it's really "her pregnancy." As a matter of fact, he would advocate for criminalizing women who have an abortion without the permission via written signature from the man who impregnated her. He stated, "If I thought that the man's signature was required... required, in order for a woman to have an abortion, I'd have a little more peace about it..."


Certainly, nothing can go wrong there...


----------



## crazyeddie (Oct 19, 2011)

Psilo said:


> It's okay guys, there are people fighting to make sure you have the final say in the situation! We women are far too emotional to make these decisions, so we need you guys to do it for us!
> 
> Jeanne Devon (AKMuckraker): Help, Help! There's an Elephant in My Uterus. Permission Slips from Men for Abortion?
> 
> ...


<facepalm> God, I love election years...


----------



## tiptaptoe (Mar 1, 2012)

@_crazyeddie_ : Ah, there we go. I *knew* I couldn't have been the only person to see this blatantly obvious line of reasoning. XD Interesting to note that the actual Violinist argument adds another premise I myself did not mention:


> the right to life, Thomson says, does not entail the right to use another person's body





> abortion does not violate the fetus's right to life but merely deprives the fetus of something—the use of the pregnant woman's body—to which it has no right


This premise appears to be a reasonable extrapolation of the "right to body" that I did mention, and that afaik roxy does not disagree with.


----------



## knittigan (Sep 2, 2011)

crazyeddie said:


> What's y'all's opinion on this? Which is worse: a woman being in a with a man getting an abortion without telling him, or a woman in a relationship in a man, brings his child to term and gives it up for adoption, all without telling him?


The latter. An aborted foetus is simply the possibility of a child and a real child is... well, a real child. I don't believe that men have paternal rights to the possibility of their children, but I do believe that they have completely valid interest and paternal rights to their actual children, whether they know about them or not. Also, the amount of deception that goes into getting an abortion is far less than the amount of deception that goes into carrying a child to term and then giving it away. It's very cut and dry for me, but then I don't see aborting a foetus as morally equivalent to murder.


----------



## crazyeddie (Oct 19, 2011)

knittigan said:


> The latter. An aborted foetus is simply the possibility of a child and a real child is... well, a real child. I don't believe that men have paternal rights to the possibility of their children, but I do believe that they have completely valid interest and paternal rights to their actual children, whether they know about them or not. Also, the amount of deception that goes into getting an abortion is far less than the amount of deception that goes into carrying a child to term and then giving it away. It's very cut and dry for me, but then I don't see aborting a foetus as morally equivalent to murder.


That's what I thought, but it's always nice to get a second opinion on thought experiments. It's hard to tell when your philosophical intuitions have been corrupted by your theory.


----------



## knittigan (Sep 2, 2011)

crazyeddie said:


> That's what I thought, but it's always nice to get a second opinion on thought experiments. It's hard to tell when your philosophical intuitions have been corrupted by your theory.


What's your theory?


----------



## Sequestrum (Sep 11, 2011)

Cover3 said:


> Feotuses are trash, get over it.


Ehh, I don't think you understand what I was saying.

As far as a fetus is concerned, I think the law is currently correct. Abortions should be allowed up to a certain term. The reason the law states this is because, as crazyeddie was saying, they develop a part of their brain that has feeling at that point and gives them what we refer to as sentient life. At this point, they are aware they exist.

If you are calling something that can sense it's own existence, feel pain, interact with things in a conscious way trash, then the same could be said about you and I.


----------



## Cover3 (Feb 2, 2011)

Sequestrum said:


> Ehh, I don't think you understand what I was saying.
> 
> As far as a fetus is concerned, I think the law is currently correct. Abortions should be allowed up to a certain term. The reason the law states this is because, as crazyeddie was saying, they develop a part of their brain that has feeling at that point and gives them what we refer to as sentient life. At this point, they are aware they exist.
> 
> If you are calling something that can sense it's own existence, feel pain, interact with things in a conscious way trash, then the same could be said about you and I.


Oh, i see, I shouldn't be posting here anyway


----------



## Cover3 (Feb 2, 2011)

that's the meanest thank I've ever had


----------



## crazyeddie (Oct 19, 2011)

Paradox1987 said:


> If you kill a pregnant woman _and_ her foetus, you aren't charged with 2 homicides (here).


If she's killed that far into the pregnancy, you *should* be. Don't confuse legal with moral.


----------



## crazyeddie (Oct 19, 2011)

roxy said:


> The question wasn't about reasons why a woman might not want to have the baby, it was about whether it's right for her to hide it from the guy.


If they aren't in a relationship (it was just a one night stand or something), she's already made up her mind, and there's nothing the guy could do to change her mind, then I think telling him would just be cruel. If they're in a relationship, that'd be a different matter.


----------



## Paradox1987 (Oct 9, 2010)

crazyeddie said:


> If she's killed that far into the pregnancy, you *should* be. Don't confuse legal with moral.


I'm not. I personally, agree with that viewpoint. I thought I stressed that I was giving my opinion. As I said earlier, I think it (personally) immoral to bring a child unwanted into an environment where one of the primary caregivers has rejected it.


----------



## Playful Proxy (Feb 6, 2012)

The problem with this discussion is that it is a compound one. On the surface, it seems people are arguing one question, but underneath, I am seeing the same old "Is abortion allowed in the first place" wreaking havoc. 

The difference between a deadbeat father abandoning the mother and the baby is that he has to pay child support and regardless of whether HE decides of if he wants the baby or not, the mother STILL gets the choice on whether she wants to keep the baby at that point. If the mother does not want the baby and terminates it, the father has no choice in the matter. Another primary difference, is that the mother would pay no penalty for terminating the baby's life as opposed to the father refusing the support it. 

You see where the balance of power has been shifted a bit? The argument being made is that since it is the woman's body, she should be allowed to decide simply because she has to put up with the baby for 9 months. If we are going to go with the "well because there is suffering, one side should get more choice", I can pass the argument that he has to put up with the woman for 9 months of emotional craziness. That is not grounds for termination of either the baby or the relationship. As for carrying the baby, consider it early child support in favor of the man if she does not want custody of the baby. Both made the decision to have sex and the discussion should have been had between the two of them to begin with.

She should tell the man because he has just as much right to it as her, and if he wants to support it, he should have the choice to. I think the catch is that in order for a man to say no to an abortion, he should be able to set in stone that he wants to support the baby whether it be a team effort or not. This should stop people from opposing it simply for the sake of opposing abortion.


----------



## Psilo (Apr 29, 2009)

> You see where the balance of power has been shifted a bit? The argument being made is that since it is the woman's body, she should be allowed to decide simply because she has to put up with the baby for 9 months. If we are going to go with the "well because there is suffering, one side should get more choice", I can pass the argument that he has to put up with the woman for 9 months of emotional craziness.


Physically attached and actively taking nutrients =\= Emotional support. There's a difference. That's why the woman gets the final decision.


----------



## knittigan (Sep 2, 2011)

TheBackwardsLegsMan said:


> Obviously the man shouldn't have the right to make her have the child, but not even telling him is just demented.


I agree that it's best if she does tell him for the sake of honesty (barring abuse or anti-abortion politics or something like that), but I've been asking some of the men in my life about this since this thread opened and there have been a few who have said that they would rather *not* know. It really shocked me. One of them said he would be open to his partner telling him if she needed/wanted to, but ultimately he didn't care either way because the decision had already been made on her part and thus the point of conversation was moot.

I thought that was a little cold, myself. For a one night stand sure, but I specifically told him that this was to be thought of in terms of being in an active relationship with that person. To each their own, I guess.


----------



## twoofthree (Aug 6, 2011)

Signify said:


> The problem with this discussion is that it is a compound one. On the surface, it seems people are arguing one question, but underneath, I am seeing the same old "Is abortion allowed in the first place" wreaking havoc.
> 
> You see where the balance of power has been shifted a bit? The argument being made is that since it is the woman's body, she should be allowed to decide simply because she has to put up with the baby for 9 months. If we are going to go with the "well because there is suffering, one side should get more choice", *I can pass the argument that he has to put up with the woman for 9 months of emotional craziness. *That is not grounds for termination of either the baby or the relationship. As for carrying the baby, consider it early child support in favor of the man if she does not want custody of the baby. Both made the decision to have sex and the discussion should have been had between the two of them to begin with.


He doesn't have to stick around for the emotional craziness.


----------



## Mountainshepherd (Feb 23, 2012)

To me it has always seemed as a respect thing. If you don't respect a man enough to tell him about the abortion don't expect that man to have parallel respect for you. Similarly if you present that opinion to another man understand that what you are telling him is that your rights to your body super cede his rights to his child, you're entitled to that belief but you also have to face the consequences of such a moral position. It shows a distinct lack of respect for the position of a man, so conversely you void your right to expect men to respect your position in the same situation because you do not respect theirs.

Short answer, its a shitty thing to do to not tell him. Its your option to keep it secret but don't gripe about the consequences of an action you chose, you chose those consequences when you chose that action.


----------



## Sequestrum (Sep 11, 2011)

Mountainshepherd said:


> To me it has always seemed as a respect thing. If you don't respect a man enough to tell him about the abortion don't expect that man to have parallel respect for you. Similarly if you present that opinion to another man understand that what you are telling him is that your rights to your body super cede his rights to his child, you're entitled to that belief but you also have to face the consequences of such a moral position. It shows a distinct lack of respect for the position of a man, so conversely you void your right to expect men to respect your position in the same situation because you do not respect theirs.
> 
> Short answer, its a shitty thing to do to not tell him. Its your option to keep it secret but don't gripe about the consequences of an action you chose, you chose those consequences when you chose that action.


This is assuming that the man in question is a respectable man to begin with. What you say makes sense, and I would expect any woman I've been with to tell me, because I never put myself into a position to be distrusted by them. However, it is just as easy to imagine that a man might not be worthy of that respect, a "player" for example who lures susceptible women into a "relationship" has sex with them and then bails. I wouldn't lose sleep over a woman not telling a guy like that about getting an abortion, more than likely he wouldn't even answer the phone calls.

It's a hypothetical situation, and as such, you're allowed to imagine any parameters you like. Just remember that the conclusion you reach is based on the parameters that you specified.


----------



## CrabbyPaws (Mar 5, 2012)

Yes a woman should be obliged to tell the father, unless it was a case as in she was raped. 
That is a horrible thing to do, even if in the end she was still going to do it, the man still has a part in the whole thing. It should be discussed at least. 
When I saw the title of this thread, I thought it was a female telling her experience, I was all ready to go justice anal on her. Lol.


----------



## twoofthree (Aug 6, 2011)

Mountainshepherd said:


> To me it has always seemed as a respect thing. If you don't respect a man enough to tell him about the abortion don't expect that man to have parallel respect for you. Similarly if you present that opinion to another man understand that *what you are telling him is that your rights to your body super cede his rights to his child*, you're entitled to that belief but you also have to face the consequences of such a moral position. It shows a distinct lack of respect for the position of a man, so conversely you void your right to expect men to respect your position in the same situation because you do not respect theirs.
> 
> Short answer, its a shitty thing to do to not tell him. Its your option to keep it secret but don't gripe about the consequences of an action you chose, you chose those consequences when you chose that action.


NO.
She's saying that her rights to her body trump his rights to use it as a object. . . and incubator for his purposes.

How would you feel if someone forced you to use your body to incubate something you didn't want. . . like a giant tape worm. Would your refusal mean you shouldn't be respected?

I'm seriously shocked by the amount of men here that think they right to a child means that women have to incubate one simply to support that right. I.e. that it trumps their right to their wombs.

That along with the "she shouldn't spread her legs if she doesn't want to be a mother. . ."

We really haven't come as far as we thought.

*smh*


----------



## Mountainshepherd (Feb 23, 2012)

twoofthree said:


> NO.
> She's saying that her rights to her body trump his rights to use it as a object. . . and incubator for his purposes.
> 
> How would you feel if someone forced you to use your body to incubate something you didn't want. . . like a giant tape worm. Would your refusal mean you shouldn't be respected?
> ...


I'm seriously shocked that you think I said that, and even more shocked that you paralleled a tape worm and a baby. How self centered are you? Children are not parasites unless you consider your needs to be primary in all situations, in which case please don't have a child because you still are one. 

Bluntly put your calling women an icubator is your bullshit not mine don't assign it to me. I consider the miracle of life to be a miracle. I'm pro choice but I don't believe the argument degrades entirely to "my body my business", like everything in life its about more than the needs of one single person. The kids needs and potential situation for example. I don't consider a pregnant woman an object I consider her a potential mother to be, again don't assign your bullshit to me. 

I was expressing a specific viewpoint based on a specific approach naturally its more complicated than that. We are discussing a hypothetical situation with no known parameters. We don't have any knowledge of who the guy is or who the woman is, in a cut and dry situation with no other available understanding I do consider it to be an issue of respect. Details make the story in all situations and there is no single right answer to it IMO. It all depends on the parties involved as the comment after me highlights which I completely agree with.

See I'm a man and I'd like to think that if I was ever with a woman and she became pregnant, that she would have the bare decency to at least let me know what happened. So I could be there for her, so I could support her, and fundamentally so that I would know she gives a shit about my feelings too. Do my feelings trump hers in the situation? hell no but that doesn't mean they are entirely unimportant. Its not a contest its about whether or not the lives of the people involved can support bringing a new life, its about whether or not the environment is appropriate to bringing in a new life. It is about the woman's health. Yes you heard me, I agree it is also about the woman's body but that is not a trump card on all other variables unless you consider respect for other human beings to be something you can just turn on and off, which I believe is a social disorder. 

I like to be held to the arguments I'm making, not the arguments you're imagination is making. I don't think you're attitude has come very far if you think that any serious issue is ever trumped by a single person's needs, so don't go around passing judgement on others you aren't on holy ground. Equality is about equal relationships and equal respect, notice those words? equal? respect? you want me to respect you but you degenerate my position till it looks toxic so you can hate it, that's not respectful that's vile. You wanted to be treated like an equal, treat other people like equals too or you don't deserve it.


----------



## twoofthree (Aug 6, 2011)

You're saying that if she doesn't want the child but you do, she still has to keep it. So she's just an incubator, then. What else could you possibly call her. And all to sup-ort your right to your child.

I never said that a child was equivalent to a parasite. I was saying that an incubator is equivalent to an incubator.
In either case, being forced to incubate something you have no desire to, should be seen as equally wrong.

Tape worms have their uses.

I agree that telling is decent and all that.

I'm taking issue with the bit where you think that your right to the child trumps her right to not sacrifice 9 months of her life to act as your incubator.


----------



## Mountainshepherd (Feb 23, 2012)

twoofthree said:


> You're saying that if she doesn't want the child but you do, she still has to keep it. So she's just an incubator, then. What else could you possibly call her. And all to sup-ort your right to your child.
> 
> I never said that a child was equivalent to a parasite. I was saying that an incubator is equivalent to an incubator.
> In either case, being forced to incubate something you have no desire to, should be seen as equally wrong.
> ...


You're taking issue with arguments that exist only in your imagination.

I said I'd like to be told, that's it. That is all I said. I never said my right to a child trumps anything, or anything else your tacking on to justify having your back up. Please argue with me over things I actually said, not nonsense you think I implied because you've got yourself all twisted up. If I was going to say that I would have said it, I didn't say it because it isn't what I believe. 

Here is a neat one for you, I don't believe anyone has a right to a child. A child is a responsibility not a right or a privilege. 

I also don't accept your incubator position because I view people as people not as things, and again I never said anything of the sort your implying.


----------



## twoofthree (Aug 6, 2011)

Mountainshepherd said:


> To me it has always seemed as a respect thing. If you don't respect a man enough to tell him about the abortion don't expect that man to have parallel respect for you. Similarly if you present that opinion to another man understand that *what you are telling him is that your rights to your body super cede his rights to his child*, you're entitled to that belief but you also have to face the consequences of such a moral position. It shows a distinct lack of respect for the position of a man, so conversely you void your right to expect men to respect your position in the same situation because you do not respect theirs.
> 
> Short answer, its a shitty thing to do to not tell him. Its your option to keep it secret but don't gripe about the consequences of an action you chose, you chose those consequences when you chose that action.


ok. so having an abortion means she's saying that her rights to her body supersede his right to his child?

How can she honour his right, without subverting her own?


----------



## Mountainshepherd (Feb 23, 2012)

twoofthree said:


> ok. so having an abortion means she's saying that her rights to her body supersede his right to his child?
> 
> How can she honour his right, without subverting her own?


Now that is a fair question, thank you. Remember the discussion is about not telling someone entirely. The discussion isn't about keeping a baby or not, it is about informing the man of the situation at all. My answers are in reference to that decision, not informing him at all. What you are discussing now is something different from what I was speaking to.

As for the dilemma you posed, among life's hardest choices, but I still think while she makes that decision the father should generally be told about the situation.


----------



## TheOwl (Nov 3, 2010)

Mountainshepherd said:


> if you present that opinion to another man understand that what you are telling him is that your rights to your body super cede _his rights to his child_


I'm saying it again because people continually call it something it's not. _There is no child._ There is no child for him to have rights to because a fetus is not a child. Until it becomes sentient, it may as well be sperm as far as what it's worth.
If a man thinks he has a right to that fetus and to keep it alive, then yes, he's wanting to use the woman's body as an incubator.


----------



## Falling Leaves (Aug 18, 2011)

Khys said:


> on that note, rape can't always be proven. for example: with date rape and marital rape.


Hell, marital rape was considered to be perfectly legal this time last century. I'd like to say in cases where the baby was a product of rape by the husband the mother should have full choice over what happens to it, but it's more likely than not that the selfish prick of a husband will manipulate and coerce her into doing what _he_ wants. Bleurgh. 

Also, you forgot suprise sex.


----------



## reletative (Dec 17, 2010)

Falling Leaves said:


> Also, you forgot suprise sex.


yes but everybody likes surprise sex


----------



## lifeisanillusion (Feb 21, 2011)

I would go balistic if I found out a woman got an abortion with my child without telling me. Not saying I would necessarily want to keep the child, but I at least feel that I have a right to know about it.


----------

