Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
A woman’s right to chose?
Topic Started: Sep 13 2003, 09:29 PM (602 Views)
Dandandat
Member Avatar
Time to put something here
Removed by User
Edited by Dandandat, Jul 14 2008, 10:23 AM.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Swidden
Member Avatar
Adm. Gadfly-at-large; Provisional wRench-fly at large
I guess that a part of the argument can go back to the old legal cliche "Possession is 9/10's of the law." As you point out, in a 50/50 scenario there is a high probability of a tie vote on opposite sides (I actually know someone who had this scenario, he wanted the child and she did not, the worked things out and she eventually changed her mind and had the baby, though they are not together).

There should be some level of legal parity. If two consenting adults agree that if should a child come from a romantic encounter that one or the other is not to be held responsible then the courts should recognize that agreement. So far, to my knowledge, this kind of argument has been put forward by men in some instances and it has not been held up. I do not believe that if there is a circumstance where one party is not in agreement that either party should be "off the hook."

As far as essentially making a woman go through with a pregnancy she is not prepared to go through with, then it gets harder to assert that the "father" should have any rights in laying claim to an unborn child. Pregnancy may be safer today than even 50 years ago, but it does pose some risk.

I think that the rights of men in these scenarios you outline should be seriously considered. That, if it were to come up, each would have to be taken really on a case by case basis. That is not likely to happen anytime soon...
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
24thcenstfan
Member Avatar
Something Wicked This Fae Comes
In an ideal world, both the father and the mother would have equal say in matters of abortion. Unfortunately, what all of your scenarios fail to take into consideration, is the legal status of the fetus. It is a woman’s right to choose, because the fetus has no legal rights. Although, many groups continue to lobby for the changing of that status…especially groups who want the murder of a fetus to be made a separate issue than just the killing of a woman who happened to be pregnant. There are other reasons why it should always be the woman’s right to choose and the father’s consent should not be required. These include: rape, incest, and if the mother’s life is in danger.

Here’s a “what if” scenario for you. What if the mother’s life were in danger and to save her life the baby needed to be aborted? However, the father who is extremely religious doesn’t believe in abortion or maybe doesn’t believe in any medical treatment/intervention whatsoever? Now, if the mother is incapable of getting the father’s permission to have the child aborted…she is going to die (that is if hospitals didn’t have a policy of mother’ life over the life of the baby). In this situation, the rights of the father would take precedence over the right of the mother to live. This is entirely unacceptable. Sure this is an extreme example…problem is, this could happen someday if the rights of the mother and what's inside her body are taken out of her complete control. As a side note...we are only talking about a fetus, not drugs. People right now are saying well what if she had a kilo of cocaine packed in her stomach? This is an entirely different situation.

I know men have a hard time understanding this, but a woman has the right to choose because it is her body (not just extra power over it) and the fetus (without legal rights) is in/a part of her body (regardless of it being the product of a man’s sperm and woman’s egg). It is as simple as that…and IMO, there is no possible scenario* in the world that will justify the taking away of those rights afforded to a woman. It may not be fair to some, but that is the way it is.

*Extremely rare exception…there is no possible scenario except in cases when the woman is mentally handicapped. I think the courts can take the decision out of the hands of a woman who is retarded (not sure if that is the PC term…it is not meant to offend anyone) and mentally incapable of making decisions above a certain level.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Wichita
Member Avatar
The Adminstrator wRench
As to your third scenario, (woman want baby, man does not) ...

I have no sympathy for the man. He chose to participate at the time of conception. There is a range of choices that make conception unlikely ... with the ultimate, abstention, making conception impossible. Having made the choice to participate, both partners have incurred a responsibility. (Assuming violence/drugs, etc. are not used by one party against the other.) Therefore, I do think men should pay child support whether or not they wanted the child.

Which, of course, makes the fourth scenario more difficult to justify. Since I am not pro-choice, I'm not going to try.

Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Minuet
Member Avatar
Fleet Admiral Assistant wRench, Chief Supper Officer
Dandandat
Sep 13 2003, 10:29 PM
The minuet the woman decides to tango she is (in my opinion of cores) relinquishing some of the control over her body to her partner

Are you picking on me? :whistle: :angel: :yes:
(Sorry I couldn't resist - I'm not picking on your spelling overall, it just seemed funny to me when my name came up)

Anyhow, many of your points seem to make sense when you are talking about mutual consent. Where it falls apart is if there is not mutual consent. This is why I believe that women need to have control over thier own bodies. They don't always have that control before the sex, so they deserve it after. Rape happens a lot more then you may realize and we must remember "date rape" where the woman has a hard time "proving" she didn't consent. This almost happened to me once many years ago, so I am not speaking off the top of my head. Luckily I was able to get out of the situation, but many women don't.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
benetil
Unregistered

Because the fetus develops in the woman's body, I think it is appropriate to give the woman exclusive rights over a pregnancy. If/when the day comes that a fetus can develop to term outside of a woman's uterus (either transplanted into a man's 'modified' body or placed into a completely synthetic, artificial environment) then I think that it would be appropriate for additional layers of decisions to be made (a decision to remove the fetus from the woman's body and allow it to develop elsewhere as opposed to a decision to terminate 'the fetus' itself). Even then, in a world where alternatives like I've suggested are available, I think the woman would have to give consent for a fetus to be removed from HER body.

In your second scenario, it sounds like you're suggesting double suicide for a man and a woman who mutually agree to terminate a pregnancy. Where does this, in any way, reflect a value for human life? Maybe the couple would go on to have children when they believe they are ready.
| Quote | ^
 
Admiralbill_gomec
UberAdmiral
I have a problem when my tax dollars go to pay for it...
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Minuet
Member Avatar
Fleet Admiral Assistant wRench, Chief Supper Officer
Admiralbill_gomec
Sep 14 2003, 10:50 AM
I have a problem when my tax dollars go to pay for it...

So it's ok if the person has private insurance???? <_<

Sorry, now my "lefty" side is going to show. I absolutely could not accept that only rich people could get abortions and poor people could not. I am not an advocate of abortion as birth control. As per my prior statements however, it must be available in the case of rape. Now you say only rich people should have this right???? :realmad:
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Lilac
Member Avatar
Painting the board red
I have to agree with Minuet on this one. It breaks my heart that rape is so common - or indeed, happens at all. And no woman, rich OR poor, should have to go through giving birth to a baby she doesn't want if it is the result of rape.

Abortion is definetly not birth control, but in rape the father's say isn't valid. Because he is a scum-sucking criminal.

(Sorry if I sound a bit fierce.. I hate rape more than anything in the entire world. Seriously.)
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
doctortobe
Speak softly, and carry a 57 megaton stick!
I'm not a woman, and a number of people on this board are so I have a question. No sarcasm, no veiled meanings, just a question.

If a woman was raped, if the father wanted the baby for his own but the mother wanted to abort, if for any reason besides the endangering of the mothers life an abortion is sought, would it be impossible to just carry the baby to term and give it up for adoption?

I mean total Envitro pregnancies are still a bit down the road, but if the woman doesn't want the child, could she not put up with it for 9 months then be rid of it? I ask this especially of those women who had consentual sex with a man. They made their choice right there. Why can't they accept the consequences?

I'm asking this because I don't know what kind of pressures, both physical and mental, go into being pregnant. I just wished that an expectant mother could be counseled before having to choose. I remember having to take an ex-girlfriend to Planned Parenthood (no she wasn't pregnant they had an Ob/Gyn there that would help her with something personal).

While sitting in the waiting room, I saw a woman who I presumed was pregnant being talked to by what looked to be a Planned Parenthood spokewoman. The mother was crying and the spokeswoman was saying things like "You don't need to worry about it, the process doesn't hurt at all". She was pretty much trying to give a salespitch to the woman who, by what I was seeing, was having second thoughts.

That's why I look at efforts to force abortion clinics to counsel women on alternatives and the dangers of abortion with a raised eyebrow. You're asking people in a business to try to detract customers when they have financial and most likely political reasons to attract them.

I just hope some sort of cheap, effective form of Envitro chamber comes along some day and abortion will be a moot point.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Minuet
Member Avatar
Fleet Admiral Assistant wRench, Chief Supper Officer
doctortobe
Sep 14 2003, 12:43 PM
If a woman was raped, if the father wanted the baby for his own but the mother wanted to abort, if for any reason besides the endangering of the mothers life an abortion is sought, would it be impossible to just carry the baby to term and give it up for adoption?


Do you mean to say "If a women was NOT raped" because that does change the issue completely. If a women was raped and the "father" had the right to force her to go through 9 months of pregnancy to me it would be like 9 months of reliving the rape. This is totally unacceptable. Rape is not about sex, it is about control and forcing a woman to continue a pregnancy is just allowing the rapist more control. :realmad:

If the sex was consensual then I personally believe that a decent woman should recognize the rights of the man. I guess the problem is how do you enforce a law that would protect the man's rights? The woman could just cry rape and have the final say anyways. This is a tricky question and I don't know how to solve it. Men do have rights too, and the majority of decent women realize this, but ultimately to protect women I think the law has to allow for the woman to have the final say. :ermm:
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Admiralbill_gomec
UberAdmiral
Minuet
Sep 14 2003, 09:58 AM
Admiralbill_gomec
Sep 14 2003, 10:50 AM
I have a problem when my tax dollars go to pay for it...

So it's ok if the person has private insurance???? <_<

Sorry, now my "lefty" side is going to show. I absolutely could not accept that only rich people could get abortions and poor people could not. I am not an advocate of abortion as birth control. As per my prior statements however, it must be available in the case of rape. Now you say only rich people should have this right???? :realmad:

No, I have a problem when my tax dollars goes toward "subsidized birth control." That is a completely different animal.

This is a behavior issue, and has nothing to do with rape and incest. There are women here in the US who get pregnant, don't want it, and choose to abort, AGAIN AND AGAIN. That irks me.

Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Minuet
Member Avatar
Fleet Admiral Assistant wRench, Chief Supper Officer
Admiralbill_gomec
Sep 14 2003, 02:36 PM
No, I have a problem when my tax dollars goes toward "subsidized birth control." That is a completely different animal.

This is a behavior issue, and has nothing to do with rape and incest. There are women here in the US who get pregnant, don't want it, and choose to abort, AGAIN AND AGAIN. That irks me.

If you saw my post above you know that I agree that abortion as a form of birth control is not right. However, I am back to the same problem with how do you legislate fairly? If you ban abortion all together then a grave injustice is being done to women who have been raped. If you compile a law that protects women who have been raped, but bans using abortion as simple birth control it sounds good but would be impossible to enforce. Women would just cry rape and get thier abortions anyways.

I prefer to err on the side of protecting women. It is not a perfect solution, but for now I cannot see a better one. :unsure:
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Dandandat
Member Avatar
Time to put something here
Wichita
Sep 14 2003, 09:22 AM
As to your third scenario, (woman want baby, man does not) ...

I have no sympathy for the man. He chose to participate at the time of conception. There is a range of choices that make conception unlikely ... with the ultimate, abstention, making conception impossible. Having made the choice to participate, both partners have incurred a responsibility. (Assuming violence/drugs, etc. are not used by one party against the other.) Therefore, I do think men should pay child support whether or not they wanted the child.

Which, of course, makes the fourth scenario more difficult to justify. Since I am not pro-choice, I'm not going to try.

I agree 100% with you Rose - He chose to participate at the time of conception and so bares the reasonably to work with the mother. So as to the fourth situation one can say She chose to participate at the time of conception so she to holds the responsibly to walk with the father.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Dandandat
Member Avatar
Time to put something here
24thcenstfan
Sep 14 2003, 08:59 AM
there is no possible scenario* in the world that will justify the taking away of those rights afforded to a woman. It may not be fair to some, but that is the way it is.

24 - what of a mens rights? does he not have any? you say "It may not be fair to some, but that is the way it is." - well the holocaust wisent fair to some but it was the way it was, should the people responsible for it be let off the hook? You see I am all for a woman’s rights, I am not a macho-man looking to repress a woman. But When I look at this country today as a 25 year old white male (I do not work in a board room in control of others making millions, nor will I ever. Nether has my father or his father before him) I find it frustrating that my rights keep taking a bake seat to others, just because of things that happened before my family even lived in this country or because it is easyer to write a simple law rather then a complex one.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
DealsFor.me - The best sales, coupons, and discounts for you
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Politics and World Events Forum · Next Topic »
Add Reply

Tweet
comments powered by Disqus