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.
Assuming they took precautions against pregnancy and were not trying to get pregnant, how do you justify taking away the man's life based solely on the wishes of the woman?
I don't see a problem with a woman having 3 undesirable options. It's better than what men have at the moment: look after the child by choice or look after the child by force of law.
Quite frankly, if she wants a baby, she should find a partner who also wants a baby. Other than that, single parenthood is a viable option. My mother managed and I'm only slightly mentally damaged by the experience.
Matt, I think you phrased it better than I did. I'm on the same page as you.
Hi Strega, As I said in my post, I have talking about this before... if you go digging through the TA archives, you could probably see some less eloquent posts from before I really got my thoughts organised.
So you are saying it's not advisable to use abortion as the first form of birth control, not that it is immoral. Is that correct?
To be honest I REEEEEAAAAALLLLY struggle with this one. Remember It's not that long ago that I claimed Christ as my personal savior and the mentality has been grinded with a stone into my psyche...not to mention I myself was adopted and could have easily been aborted and would not be here...so YES I am personally against abortion. I can think of no good reason to do it ever and would choose adoption 100% of the time...that being said my arguement from my statement of this discussion is that YES it's not advisable. Immoral...No, it's not immoral, but the hair on my neck stands up as I type that.
I might go as far as to say it is immoral. Being sexually active and using abortion as the first line of birth control is most likely psychologically harmful to the woman and likely any family/friend support she has. If nothing else having her pop in a dozen times a year will give the medical staff a bleaker outlook on humanity.And if causing harm to herself and others when it is so easy to avoid doing so is not immoral i dont know what is.
If nothing else doing so is damn stupid and i sometimes think that being a bloody idiot should be immoral
@Rocky...oh my...thank you for this. I want to clarify. I AGREE with you that using abortion as first line defense against an unwanted pregnancy is immoral. I was referring to the act of getting an abortion in general....I probably didn't make that point very clear. I don't want anyone to misunderstand that. I am against abortion for myself and I am angered by women who use this method to prevent babies. I know of a couple and it outrages me...
As far as the rest of the discussion is concerned I think that the current system in place is just fine. Men pay child support based on their income and ability to pay and what's wrong with that? I can understand some men may feel like they are being "trapped" but I think that's a very immature way to look at it. Nothing says they have to go get a diamond ring and propose to the woman carrying the child. No one is making them commit to her. It's simply committing to their own flesh and blood. There's nothing more beautiful than having a child and seeing their eyes which are your eyes look back at you. Being able to forgo this responsibility in my opinion with give men more of a right to be dead beat dads.
As it is there are many men who have children for which they do not pay for an in many cases the women do not seek the child support because they would rather not deal with him either so they go their separate ways and that is that.
I can understand the argument also that "what if she lies that she's on the pill..." Well...I don't know. The world isn't perfect. But allowing men to legally opt out of paying for a child in my opinion could create a number of loopholes that will ultimately hurt the women raising the children and therefore hurting the children. How is that moral? How is that beneficial to us as a species and a society? What benefit does it bring us as a whole? All it does is give irresponsible men an out to continue to be irresponsible. At least the current system attempts to fight against this. If the man is not directly in the child's life he won't be changing the diapers, or soothing the fevers, or disciplining misbehavior, he'll just make his one time a month transfer from his bank account. Is that really so hard? what's wrong with expecting that of him? What's wrong with asking men to step up to the plate an be men? Nothing.
"Oh but it will effect his career...." No. It will slightly limit his income but it will affect the single mother's career for getting passes up for promotions for having to stay home with a sick child every time they come home with a daycare bug which with small children happens ALL the time...she'll need the extra income. It could mean the difference between being able to buy milk or not. It really does matter and it's important. Men should care more than they do about the welfare of women everywhere.
Consider this: A man and a woman hook up for a one night stand. The man is not irresponsible, and uses a condom (establishing dis-intent for having a child). For whatever reason, that condom fails to prevent a pregnancy.
You are saying that he is irresponsible because he doesn't want that child to ruin is life (and probably the womans life too, but that's her choice).
it will affect the single mother's career for getting passes up for promotions for having to stay home with a sick child every time they come home with a daycare bug which with small children happens ALL the time...she'll need the extra income
She has a choice... have the baby and do it tough or abort the baby and find a real father for the next one.
Being able to forgo this responsibility in my opinion with give men more of a right to be dead beat dads.
No, being able to forgo this responsibility gives men the right to not be a father at all.
I AGREE with you that using abortion as first line defense against an unwanted pregnancy is immoral.
Stupid perhaps, because ANY surgery carries a risk with it.
What makes it immoral? That sounds like a religious view. An attitude rather than a fact.
If causing harm to yourself and others ,when it is so easy to avoid , is not somewhat immoral what is? Now forcing them to have an unwanted child would likely be far more immoral but that only makes the other choice the lesser of two evils.
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?