I was reading this blog article in HuffyPost from about 2 years ago. The author brings up a point where she says:
"While pro-choice legislation makes the rights of the mother clear, at what point is a father able to say,'I do not want this child'? Whether pro-life or pro-choice, we should all be able to agree that the quality of life is just as important as life itself, and when faced with the pivotal decision of whether or not to continue a pregnancy, both parents must be included in the dialogue. If not, ultimately, it is the child who suffers."
She goes on and provides data of situations of children growing in fatherless homes
• 63% of youth suicides are from fatherless homes
• 90% of all homeless and runaway children are from fatherless homes
• 85% of all children who show behavior disorders come from fatherless homes
• 80% of rapists with anger problems come from fatherless homes
• 71% of all high school dropouts come from fatherless homes
• 75% of all adolescent patients in chemical abuse centers come from fatherless homes
• 70% of youths in state-operated institutions come from fatherless homes.
• 85% of all youths in prison come from fatherless homes.
So undoubtedly the right for a woman to choose is obviously non negotiable. If a woman decides based on her situation that she does not want a child because of her reasoning, she has the right to abort her pregnancy without the approval of anyone other than herself. But the does the same rules apply for no one being able to endure a man to be financially responsible for a child that he did not want?
Another question to look at is if a man and woman have sex, they both know the consequences of a possible pregnancy. To which a woman can abort out of. But if a man and woman have sex, does the man have the right to have the woman to carry his child to term even the woman does not want to? (Talking about consensual sex, not rape or any of that stuff). Keep in mind that she knows the consequence of a possible pregnancy as well.
Keep in mind this is about a specific situation such as consensual sex not rape. Obviously matters of rape would nullify the discussion which I am aware of.
Unwise, yes. Unless you are pro-life and believe that life begins with conception, then only harm to herself is what the woman has to consider, and since it's her body to do with as she pleases, how does morality come in? or ethics, for that matter? (ethics and morals aren't synonyms)
And who is forcing whom, other than perhaps a woman bringing a child to term forcing the father to pay for a child he didn't want? That's the only forcing I can think of here.
"then only harm to herself is what the woman has to consider"
this would only be true if she lived in a vacuum. There is such a thing as a knock on effect. Is the person who becomes addicted to heroine and ends up tearing their family apart only harming themselves by taking heroine?
If there's a relevant analogy there, I'm blind to it. Sorry. How does a woman quietly having an abortion impact anyone beyond herself?
Does that which effects me have absolutely no effect on how i effect others?
I agree with you Unseen - I find it interesting that anyone would consider an abortion to be acceptable as an emergency operation to eliminate an unwanted pregnancy, yet immoral if its the first port of call. Idiotic, perhaps, but immoral?
@Rocky It seems like the main adverse effect is that it offends you, but that shouldn't be a consideration. It's up to you whether to be offended or not and how to deal with it.
Unseen. What is morality if not a tool to create the type of society we think is best? Now i know neither one of us wants a society where abortions are illegal. But then i would also rather see a society where people understood about safe sex and took proper precautions than one where the opposite is most common. Would you also agree on this?
Rocky, do you know what you're saying?
You want dreams, your dreams, to influence other people more than their realities.
Morality, as generally understood, is a prescriptive code of behavior (dos and don'ts) not a system of social engineering. Conceivably, obeying the prescriptions of the code might actually be deleterious to society. Now, for example, while "Do undo others as you would have them do unto you" sounds good, but suppose I'm a masochist who enjoys being humiliated and spanked?
Tom- lets swap the issue slightly to womans rights in the middle east . Should we not try and put any pressure at all on them to embrace woman as being equal to men because it is only a "dream" and the reality is they are often treated like second class citizens there?
If we took your attitude then society would never change.
Unseen- i was not talking about what morality is but instead of what use is morality.
I honestly dont see how you can say morality is not a system of social engineering as our moral ability has evolved specifically as a way to modify or restrain our bahaviors so as to make social living worth while. Without moralityi dontsee any way that we could have ever engineered a working society in the first place. if every one just did what they wanted when they wanted there would be no such thing as society . If anything morality is not a system of social engineering. It is THE system of social engineering.
I honestly dont see how you can say morality is not a system of social engineering as our moral ability has evolved specifically as a way to modify or restrain our bahaviors so as to make social living worth while.
Who are the engineers?