Hiding From the Parents

[Deedee]

Honestly Colossus, I don't have the heart to go through yet another abortion discussion on here. Most of you are men, and I will say there are more than a few men on this board who have extremely disconcerting attitudes towards women to begin with. I personally think, and the numbers point it out, that a large percentage of the women having abortions worldwide do so because they either have been abandoned by the father, the father has encouraged them to abort, or the father was never a permanent fixture to begin with. It's all very nice that you're one of the good guys... it's wonderful that you enjoy being a father. If I were to find myself pregnant tomorrow, I wouldn't have an abortion.  But I also have support, and don't suffer financially. If I wanted to, could even do it alone. The women seeking abortions are often desperate, poor, and without a father/support, and I support their right to terminate an unwanted pregnancy.  What may seem like a beautiful, extraordinary experience to someone like you, can be nothing more than an extremely desperate, distressing situation to another. I'm sorry if that offends you.

And I don't think it's irreverant to bring up the issue of forcing a woman to potentially endure medical problems as a result of being forced to give birth. Every woman should have the right and liberty to pursue her aspirations without bodily interference by the state, just as men do.  If there was even a possibility of an issue like this affecting your sex, I think you'd look at things a little differently. Men don't bother to stop and think about that at all!

[Deedee]

It would help if the woman would think about those precious priorities and aspirations before she opens her legs and gets knocked up.

Just a thought.

Here's a case in point.  Colossus,  do you really expect a woman to respond to such a stupid comment? This btw... is an excellent reason for abortion laws that don't require a woman to consult the father before she has one. Unfortunately, the world is populated by idiots like this who take no responsibility for the children they father.

Maybe if more men kept it in their pants, or remembered this thing called a condom, we could cut down on the abortion problem by 90%. 

[Deedee]

I love the way women argue about abortion... as if the man has no say so at all and is nothing more than a semen dispenser.  So women should be allowed to have an abortion even if the father of the child opposes it, but if she has it then that man better provide for the financial well being of said child and play an active role in the upbringing?  I have known guys that went to jail for failure to pay child support (which they should), but I have never met a woman who went to jail because she had an abortion.  It looks like the cards are stacked against the men.

I'm sorry you feel the cards are stacked against men. Perhaps you could find some info in the library about how women fared historically when abortion was illegal. Try the 1950's first, then work your way backward. Sounds like men had it pretty good.

[Colossus_500]

Here's a case in point.  Colossus,  do you really expect a woman to respond to such a stupid comment? This btw... is an excellent reason for abortion laws that don't require a woman to consult the father before she has one. Unfortunately, the world is populated by idiots like this who take no responsibility for the children they father.

Maybe if more men kept it in their pants, or remembered this thing called a condom, we could cut down on the abortion problem by 90%. 

I agree, DeeDee, it's a two-way street, and men need not put the pressure on women to have sex and then abandon the woman, putting her in the position to make this decision.  But I still feel strongly that abortion has become more about convience than actually safety for a mother's life or an alternative to a child being born into poverty or abuse.  I know folks will go crazy when I say this, but I will also go on record in saying that we as a society have fallen of the beaten path of what's right, hence, leaving us where we are now.

[OKMike]

I agree, DeeDee, it's a two-way street, and men need not put the pressure on women to have sex and then abandon the woman, putting her in the position to make this decision.  But I still feel strongly that abortion has become more about convience than actually safety for a mother's life or an alternative to a child being born into poverty or abuse.  I know folks will go crazy when I say this, but I will also go on record in saying that we as a society have fallen of the beaten path of what's right, hence, leaving us where we are now.

I agree.  The morality of the U.S. is going down the crapper.

[ieffinhatecardio]

I love the way men argue about abortion... as if the woman doesn't even exist as a human being with an autonomous will, As if she's nothing but a holding vessal. 

Bizarre.

Good thing we have the courts.

"Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice. Forcing a woman, by threat of criminal sanction to carry a foetus to term unless she meets certain criteria unrelated to her own priorities and aspirations, is a profound interference with a woman's body and this a violation of her security of the person."

If I remember correctly there was even one male poster on this board that argued the mother's life was secondary to that of the fetus. I don't remember who it was but I remember reading his post. That one absolutely floored me.

[Dos Equis]

I agree, DeeDee, it's a two-way street, and men need not put the pressure on women to have sex and then abandon the woman, putting her in the position to make this decision.  But I still feel strongly that abortion has become more about convience than actually safety for a mother's life or an alternative to a child being born into poverty or abuse.  I know folks will go crazy when I say this, but I will also go on record in saying that we as a society have fallen of the beaten path of what's right, hence, leaving us where we are now.

I think abortion in this country is done primarily for the convenience of the mother.  I thought Deedee or someone posted a story that actually confirmed this, or at a minimum confirmed that abortion due to rape and incest was the rare exception? 

[Deedee]

If I remember correctly there was even one male poster on this board that argued the mother's life was secondary to that of the fetus. I don't remember who it was but I remember reading his post. That one absolutely floored me.

It was MilitaryMuscle. He also claimed that abortion was equivalent to murder, but that it was okay to murder if conception was a result of rape or incest.  How you can come to that conclusion is beyond me.

[Deedee]

Microwaves and electric toothbrushes are conveniences. Abortion is not and I find it the height of hubris to dismiss the despair, emotional distress of others as nothing more than the lazy way out.

Most of the women who have abortions are not bar sluts. They comprise a whole cross-section of society.  What about the 45-year-old woman who already has 3 grown kids, is starting to go through the "change," who miscalculated and thought she couldn't get pregnant? Is she "just lazy?"  Or what about the medical student who lives in school subsidized housing, owes thousands in loans, and found her birth control failed one night? Do you honestly think women make such a decision as easily as they take out the trash? And what about the husband of the 45-year-old woman who perhaps doesn't want to "start over" again in middle age.  Or the medical student boyfriend who also owes thousands in loans and doesn't want to let all of his dreams fall by the wayside to quit and work the cash at the 7-11 to support a wife and kid? Would that also count as just a small inconvenience in their lives?

The statistics quoting the rape/incest numbers was from Wiki... some of you should actually read it. It also states that women having abortion for the most part will only have one in their lifetime, which indicates that women don't use abortion as birth control or as a "convenient" alternative.

Forcing women to give birth and make them (once again) the sole bearers of responsibility for the consequences of having sex, will accomplish nothing except throw women back into the stone age and take away their right to function as equals in society. It won't happen. But if it did, the only way to level the playing field is to first of all, do everything possible to ensure that people are only having sex within the confines of marriage... and make men exactly as responsible as women... meaning if the child is not given up for adoption, he would have to share responsibility for raising the child and contribute equally to the child's support. If he refuses, off to prison he goes.

[Dos Equis]

Microwaves and electric toothbrushes are conveniences. Abortion is not and I find it the height of hubris to dismiss the despair, emotional distress of others as nothing more than the lazy way out.

Most of the women who have abortions are not bar sluts. They comprise a whole cross-section of society.  What about the 45-year-old woman who already has 3 grown kids, is starting to go through the "change," who miscalculated and thought she couldn't get pregnant? Is she "just lazy?"  Or what about the medical student who lives in school subsidized housing, owes thousands in loans, and found her birth control failed one night? Do you honestly think women make such a decision as easily as they take out the trash? And what about the husband of the 45-year-old woman who perhaps doesn't want to "start over" again in middle age.  Or the medical student boyfriend who also owes thousands in loans and doesn't want to let all of his dreams fall by the wayside to quit and work the cash at the 7-11 to support a wife and kid? Would that also count as just a small inconvenience in their lives?

The statistics quoting the rape/incest numbers was from Wiki... some of you should actually read it. It also states that women having abortion for the most part will only have one in their lifetime, which indicates that women don't use abortion as birth control or as a "convenient" alternative.

Forcing women to give birth and make them (once again) the sole bearers of responsibility for the consequences of having sex, will accomplish nothing except throw women back into the stone age and take away their right to function as equals in society. It won't happen. But if it did, the only way to level the playing field is to first of all, do everything possible to ensure that people are only having sex within the confines of marriage... and make men exactly as responsible as women... meaning if the child is not given up for adoption, he would have to share responsibility for raising the child and contribute equally to the child's support. If he refuses, off to prison he goes.

Lot of assumptions Deedee.  I never dismissed anything or made any comments whatsoever about despair, emotional distress, laziness, bar sluts, etc.  My comments were limited to whether most women get abortions because of health reasons (or rape/incest) or because they simply didn't want to get pregnant.  The latter = convenience IMO.  I am not talking about whether abortion should or should not be legal, but whether it is done primarily out of medical necessity.  It simply isn't for the most part, at least in this country.  And I am not suggesting that the decision to have this elective procedure is easy, made in haste, not without severe emotional consequences, etc.     

We had a discussion on the board a while back about whether abortion is a form of birth control.  I took the position that it is.  I still believe that.  Some definitions:

Practices employed by couples that permit sexual intercourse with reduced likelihood of conception and birth. The term birth control is often used synonymously with such terms as contraception, fertility control, and family planning. But birth control includes abortion to prevent a birth, whereas family planning methods explicitly do not include abortion. See also: What are Family Planning and Reproductive Health Programs? What's in a Word?
www.planetwire.org/glossarylist.php

Another word for contraception.
www.iwannaknow.org/glossary/

preventing birth or reducing frequency of birth, primarily by preventing conception.
www.nrdc.org/reference/glossary/b.asp

Any method used to reduce births, including celibacy, delayed marriage, contraception; devices or medication that prevent implantation of fertilized zygotes, and induced abortions.
highered.mcgraw-hill.com/sites/0070294267/student_view0/glossary_a-d.html   

[Deedee]

Well, I guess we differ in our perception of what the word convenience means. To me it's driving to the grocery store when I could technically take a five minute walk.  Abortion to me is not a convenience, but more in line with "the solution to an overwhelming problem." My comments weren't directed at you specifically, but you did say "for the convenience of the mother."  What about the father? Everyone discusses abortion on here and how it's wrong, and how women should be compelled to give birth, yet no one ever talks about the culpability of men. Women don't get preggers on their own. Yet they should bear the sole responsibility for it.    And even you made reference to that with your statement. IMO, there aren't very many men who aren't complicit in a woman's decision to have an abortion.

No one made reference to the majority of abortions being related to medical necessity in this thread. 

[Dos Equis]

Well, I guess we differ in our perception of what the word convenience means. To me it's driving to the grocery store when I could technically take a five minute walk.  Abortion to me is not a convenience, but more in line with "the solution to an overwhelming problem." My comments weren't directed at you specifically, but you did say "for the convenience of the mother."  What about the father? Everyone discusses abortion on here and how it's wrong, and how women should be compelled to give birth, yet no one ever talks about the culpability of men. Women don't get preggers on their own. Yet they should bear the sole responsibility for it.    And even you made reference to that with your statement. IMO, there aren't very many men who aren't complicit in a woman's decision to have an abortion.

No one made reference to the majority of abortions being related to medical necessity in this thread. 

Maybe "convenience" isn't the right word.  In my view, it's by and large an elective procedure and a form of birth control.  I'm not sure what word captures those elements (and I don't feel like thinking that hard on a weekend . . . unless I'm getting paid  .

I mentioned medical necessity only to highlight that the vast majority of abortions are elective procedures and not done primarily to preserve the health of the mother. 

And again, I'm not talking about legal vs. illegal and whether women should or shouldn't have the right to an abortion. 

Regarding men, there are laws in place to hold them responsible for the support of their children.  You cannot force a man (or woman) to provide moral and emotional support to a child, but you can force them to provide financial support. 

[Colossus_500]

I like former Senator Zell Miller's thought on abortion:

“How could this great land of plenty produce too few people in the last 30 years? Here is the brutal truth that no one dares to mention: We’re too few because too many of our babies have been killed. Over 45 million since Roe v. Wade in 1973. If those 45 million children had lived, today they would be defending our country, they would be filling our jobs, they would be paying into Social Security. Still, we watch as 3,700 babies are killed every single day in America. It is unbelievable that a nation under God would allow this.” —former Senator Zell Miller

[Deedee]

Yes, there was a whole thread devoted to that exact quote recently.  Hitler said something very similar. I guess when you think of your women as breeders, and the offspring as work drones for the state, it makes sense.  He's of course assuming of course, that all those babies turn out to be apple-cheeked model citizens.  Not a one born with fetal-alcohol syndrome, addicted to crack, suffering from debilitating disease or handicap. Not one criminal nurtured on abuse and poverty among them.   

I guess abolishing women's right to autonomy could work in the US (if practically nowhere else) as long as sanctions are placed on men's behavior and physical beings to level out the sudden loss of equality for women.  I disagree with BB who says you can't force a man to nurture his children.  I think you can.  During the 1950's and several decades before, there was this unofficial behavior modifier called "shotgun" marriage. I guess if that idea was brought back, at least for teenagers who've become pregnant, only this time as official law... it might work.  Also, I see nothing wrong with forcing men to share custodial rights for their illegitimate children... just as men do in cases of divorce. And of course, support their children financially on an equal basis with the mother. Finally, just as women would be forced to give birth, I think you could enact a "two strikes and you're out" law for men who consistently have children but abandon both them and the mother.  After the second abandoned child, state-sanctioned vasectomy should take care of the behavior problem. It would be cheaper on the tax payer than prison.

[Colossus_500]

Yes, there was a whole thread devoted to that exact quote recently.  Hitler said something very similar. I guess when you think of your women as breeders, and the offspring as work drones for the state, it makes sense.  He's of course assuming of course, that all those babies turn out to be apple-cheeked model citizens.  Not a one born with fetal-alcohol syndrome, addicted to crack, suffering from debilitating disease or handicap. Not one criminal nurtured on abuse and poverty among them.   

I guess abolishing women's right to autonomy could work in the US (if practically nowhere else) as long as sanctions are placed on men's behavior and physical beings to level out the sudden loss of equality for women.  I disagree with BB who says you can't force a man to nurture his children.  I think you can.  During the 1950's and several decades before, there was this unofficial behavior modifier called "shotgun" marriage. I guess if that idea was brought back, at least for teenagers who've become pregnant, only this time as official law... it might work.  Also, I see nothing wrong with forcing men to share custodial rights for their illegitimate children... just as men do in cases of divorce. And of course, support their children financially on an equal basis with the mother. Finally, just as women would be forced to give birth, I think you could enact a "two strikes and you're out" law for men who consistently have children but abandon both them and the mother.  After the second abandoned child, state-sanctioned vasectomy should take care of the behavior problem. It would be cheaper on the tax payer than prison.

My father was the god-father to a crack-addicted child.  He's 26 now and is enjoying a fantastic career in the military as an officer.  But DeeDee, you bring up some good points.  I agree with forcing some accountability on the men's side.  In fact, I'm for accountability where accountability should lie, which means both the male and female.  It's also interesting how your view of the unborn child vs. how Zell Miller sees them.  Though you bring up some realities of who these children might become should they be born (and if I could interject my viewpoint that it's due to an erosion of our moral fiber in society as a whole, i.e., the "make love not war" mentality), that they would become crack-addicts from day one whereas others like Zell Miller sees some of the unborn as future scientists, presidents, well-to-do citizens of this great country.  You kind of contradicted yourself in this post with one you made earlier.  In your last post, you talks as if the woman is a "bar slut", but in a recent post you were saying that not all women who have abortions are such:

Most of the women who have abortions are not bar sluts. They comprise a whole cross-section of society.  What about the 45-year-old woman who already has 3 grown kids, is starting to go through the "change," who miscalculated and thought she couldn't get pregnant? Is she "just lazy?"  Or what about the medical student who lives in school subsidized housing, owes thousands in loans, and found her birth control failed one night? Do you honestly think women make such a decision as easily as they take out the trash? And what about the husband of the 45-year-old woman who perhaps doesn't want to "start over" again in middle age.  Or the medical student boyfriend who also owes thousands in loans and doesn't want to let all of his dreams fall by the wayside to quit and work the cash at the 7-11 to support a wife and kid? Would that also count as just a small inconvenience in their lives?

Might I add to the points you made in your post the other day that abortion is definitely not discriminate of the affluent either.  "What would the neighbors think" comes to mind when I think of the high-society types. 

Bottomline, Deedee, while you might be right to your arguments of children being born into crack addiction, would you at least agree that, in the 45 million that have already been aborted, there was an accomplished human being or two in the bunch?   Say, maybe the one who finds the cure for cancer or is able to take the understanding of DNA to a level that we couldn't dream of now.   Heck, how about agreeing that perhaps in that 45 million that have been aborted could have just been good, kind-hearted people like yourself and some our friends on this board?

[Dos Equis]

My father was the god-father to a crack-addicted child.  He's 26 now and is enjoying a fantastic career in the military as an officer.  But DeeDee, you bring up some good points.  I agree with forcing some accountability on the men's side.  In fact, I'm for accountability where accountability should lie, which means both the male and female.  It's also interesting how your view of the unborn child vs. how Zell Miller sees them.  Though you bring up some realities of who these children might become should they be born (and if I could interject my viewpoint that it's due to an erosion of our moral fiber in society as a whole, i.e., the "make love not war" mentality), that they would become crack-addicts from day one whereas others like Zell Miller sees some of the unborn as future scientists, presidents, well-to-do citizens of this great country.  You kind of contradicted yourself in this post with one you made earlier.  In your last post, you talks as if the woman is a "bar slut", but in a recent post you were saying that not all women who have abortions are such:

Most of the women who have abortions are not bar sluts. They comprise a whole cross-section of society.  What about the 45-year-old woman who already has 3 grown kids, is starting to go through the "change," who miscalculated and thought she couldn't get pregnant? Is she "just lazy?"  Or what about the medical student who lives in school subsidized housing, owes thousands in loans, and found her birth control failed one night? Do you honestly think women make such a decision as easily as they take out the trash? And what about the husband of the 45-year-old woman who perhaps doesn't want to "start over" again in middle age.  Or the medical student boyfriend who also owes thousands in loans and doesn't want to let all of his dreams fall by the wayside to quit and work the cash at the 7-11 to support a wife and kid? Would that also count as just a small inconvenience in their lives?

Might I add to the points you made in your post the other day that abortion is definitely not discriminate of the affluent either.  "What would the neighbors think" comes to mind when I think of the high-society types. 

Bottomline, Deedee, while you might be right to your arguments of children being born into crack addiction, would you at least agree that, in the 45 million that have already been aborted, there was an accomplished human being or two in the bunch?   Say, maybe the one who finds the cure for cancer or is able to take the understanding of DNA to a level that we couldn't dream of now.   Heck, how about agreeing that perhaps in that 45 million that have been aborted could have just been good, kind-hearted people like yourself and some our friends on this board?

Well said Colossus. 

[Deedee]

Unfortunately it isn't enough that I just show up around here and smile brightly, they actually feel I should contribute work too.  However, I look forward to answering your post later. I'm enjoying this convo with you. 

[Deedee]

Okay, I don't think I contradicted myself.  I said the women who have abortions cover a large cross-section of society.  That includes medical students, 45-year-old women, bar sluts, etc...  I don't believe you can presume anything regarding what doesn't and has never existed.  If a million new people showed up every year... would some of them be geniuses? Potentially.  Possibly.  No one can say because these people don't exist. One thing is for sure though.  A percentage of them will be born into poverty and end up criminals. A percentage of them will be born severely handicapped.  Women over the age of thirty-five are at greater risk for conceiving babies with down's syndrome and a host of other disabilities...

Your argument runs around in circles. Ted Bundy was born in a home for unwed mothers.  He thought his mother was his sister for many years.  What if his mother had gotten pregnant after Roe v Wade and aborted him instead?  All those girls he murdered would still be alive, giving birth to their own children, who would have had the potentiality to be geniuses.  And what about all the people who are alive today, because their parents went on to have a family, even though they may have made a mistake early in life. Perhaps many wouldn't exist today.

Also, you talk about the morality of days gone by.  Was there something moral in shaming pregnant women because men had abandoned them and forcing them to leave town as soon as their pregnancy "showed"?  Do you think there was something moral in the creation of those unwed mothers' homes, or something righteous about stigmatizing "bastard" children?  If abortion was abolished, you'd have to replace those past social behavior modifiers like fear, shotgun marriages, stigmatization, etc... with something else. You can't have a million plus children showing up every year without making some kind of provision for their care. I guess manmade laws as I listed above, forcing men to share custodial rights, etc... would have to be instituted. I don't think people would put up with that much invasion of privacy. It just wouldn't fly in today's world.

[Deedee]

bump for beach and the conservatives.... answer plse.

[OzmO]

Dee Dee,  how do you really feel about abortion and how do you feel about C-500's view on it?

 

[Deedee]

Dee Dee,  how do you really feel about abortion and how do you feel about C-500's view on it?

 

As I said, wouldn't have one... NOW... but gotta tell you, when I was in uni and was soooooo stressed out with finals I was late, (stress with finals  ) and was beside myself. (Even though I was doing eveything right contraception-wise.) I was never so scared in all my life. Really scared. Won't go into it, but although it was just a scare, I realized some things. Worst two days of my life. Even tho teh man was okay with it and was supportive. I was terrified.

[Dos Equis]

Okay, I don't think I contradicted myself.  I said the women who have abortions cover a large cross-section of society.  That includes medical students, 45-year-old women, bar sluts, etc...  I don't believe you can presume anything regarding what doesn't and has never existed.  If a million new people showed up every year... would some of them be geniuses? Potentially.  Possibly.  No one can say because these people don't exist. One thing is for sure though.  A percentage of them will be born into poverty and end up criminals. A percentage of them will be born severely handicapped.  Women over the age of thirty-five are at greater risk for conceiving babies with down's syndrome and a host of other disabilities...

Your argument runs around in circles. Ted Bundy was born in a home for unwed mothers.  He thought his mother was his sister for many years.  What if his mother had gotten pregnant after Roe v Wade and aborted him instead?  All those girls he murdered would still be alive, giving birth to their own children, who would have had the potentiality to be geniuses.  And what about all the people who are alive today, because their parents went on to have a family, even though they may have made a mistake early in life. Perhaps many wouldn't exist today.

Also, you talk about the morality of days gone by.  Was there something moral in shaming pregnant women because men had abandoned them and forcing them to leave town as soon as their pregnancy "showed"?  Do you think there was something moral in the creation of those unwed mothers' homes, or something righteous about stigmatizing "bastard" children?  If abortion was abolished, you'd have to replace those past social behavior modifiers like fear, shotgun marriages, stigmatization, etc... with something else. You can't have a million plus children showing up every year without making some kind of provision for their care. I guess manmade laws as I listed above, forcing men to share custodial rights, etc... would have to be instituted. I don't think people would put up with that much invasion of privacy. It just wouldn't fly in today's world.

I agree with some of this and disagree with some.  I agree that millions of aborted babies likely included potential citizens that run the gamut from criminals to extremely productive members of society.  One of the problems I have with these types of discussions is the focus is exclusively on the potential dregs of society.  I remember a string on this board where people were claiming there would be "millions" of "unwanted" babies, essentially concluding all of them, or a significant number, would be part of the welfare system.  I don't believe an unplanned pregnancy always (or even often) results in an abandoned baby if the woman does not have an abortion.  

I do not agree with those who believe we should stigmatize unwed mothers or "bastard" children, either historically or today.  I do think we should encourage childbirth within the confines of marriage, but when a child is born out of wedlock, you should love the child and his/her parents.

If abortion was outlawed tomorrow, I don't believe the streets would suddenly be full of orphans.  I suspect that the vast majority of women who actually go through pregnancy and delivery will actually care for their child, with or without the father's support.