Advice Goddess Blog
« Previous | Home | Next »

"Why I Am An Abortion Doctor"
Great piece by Dr. Garson Romalis in Canada's National Post, subheaded, "I can take an anxious woman, who is in the biggest trouble she has ever experiences in her life, and by performing a five-minute operation, in comfort and dignity, I can give her back her life":

I have been an abortion provider since 1972. Why do I do abortions, and why do I continue to do abortions, despite two murder attempts?

The first time I started to think about abortion was in 1960, when I was in secondyear medical school. I was assigned the case of a young woman who had died of a septic abortion. She had aborted herself using slippery elm bark.

I had never heard of slippery elm. A buddy and I went down to skid row, and without too much difficulty, purchased some slippery elm bark to use as a visual aid in our presentation. Slippery elm is not sterile, and frequently contains spores of the bacteria that cause gas gangrene. It is called slippery elm because, when it gets wet, it feels slippery. This makes it easier to slide slender pieces through the cervix where they absorb water, expand, dilate the cervix, produce infection and induce abortion. The young woman in our case developed an overwhelming infection. At autopsy she had multiple abscesses throughout her body, in her brain, lungs, liver and abdomen.

I have never forgotten that case.

After I graduated from University of British Columbia medical school in 1962, I went to Chicago, where I served my internship and Ob/Gyn residency at Cook County Hospital. At that time, Cook County had about 3,000 beds, and served a mainly indigent population. If you were really sick, or really poor, or both, Cook County was where you went.

The first month of my internship was spent on Ward 41, the septic obstetrics ward. Yes, it's hard to believe now, but in those days, they had one ward dedicated exclusively to septic complications of pregnancy.

About 90% of the patients were there with complications of septic abortion. The ward had about 40 beds, in addition to extra beds which lined the halls. Each day we admitted between 10-30 septic abortion patients. We had about one death a month, usually from septic shock associated with hemorrhage.

I will never forget the 17-year-old girl lying on a stretcher with 6 feet of small bowel protruding from her vagina. She survived.

I will never forget the jaundiced woman in liver and kidney failure, in septic shock, with very severe anemia, whose life we were unable to save.

Today, in Canada and the U.S., septic shock from illegal abortion is virtually never seen. Like smallpox, it is a "disappeared disease."

I had originally been drawn to obstetrics and gynecology because I loved delivering babies. Abortion was illegal when I trained, so I did not learn how to do abortions in my residency, although I had more than my share of experience looking after illegal abortion complications.

In 1972, a couple of years after the law on abortion was liberalized, I began the practise of obstetrics and gynecology, and joined a three-man group in Vancouver. My practice partners and I believed strongly that a woman should be able to decide for herself if and when to have a baby. We were frequently asked to look after women who needed termination of pregnancy. Although I had done virtually no terminations in my training, I soon learned how. I also learned just how much demand there was for abortion services.

Providing abortion services can be quite stressful. Usually, an unplanned, unwanted pregnancy is the worst trouble the patient has ever been in in her entire life.

I remember one 18-year-old patient who desperately wanted an abortion, but felt she could not confide in her mother, who was a nurse in another Vancouver area hospital. She impressed on me how important it was that her termination remain a secret from her family. In those years, parental consent was required if the patient was less than 19 years old. I obtained the required second opinion from a colleague, and performed an abortion on her.

About two weeks, later I received a phone call from her mother. She asked me directly "Did you do an abortion on my daughter?" Visions of legal suit passed through my mind as I tried to think of how to answer her question. I decided to answer directly and truthfully. I answered with trepidation, "Yes, I did" and started to make mental preparations to call my lawyer. The mother replied: "Thank you, Doctor. Thank God there are people like you around."

Read the whole thing -- including the two episodes where nutbags tried to murder him (in the name of "life," of course).

There's no definitive answer on when a person becomes a person. I believe it's when the fetus emerges from the woman and starts breathing on its own. If you believe differently...don't have an abortion. As for your belief that other women shouldn't have abortions, from my column (linked just above) for Pajamas Media:

Don’t want women to have abortions? Pay them to have the babies. Pay for the care of the babies after they’re born -- and don’t forget the college educations. And keep funding programs to show people why your point of view is right and mine is wrong. I celebrate your right to speak your point of view. I am, however, completely opposed to your attempts to force your point of view on me. Once again, the solution here parallels the only fair resolution to the meat is/isn’t murder argument: Go ahead and have your Tofurky, but without cramming it down my throat, too.

thanks, Deirdre

Posted by aalkon at February 5, 2008 11:21 AM

Comments

I tried to read it all, really, but found the descriptions just too graphic.

And you didn't link to it. Minor point.

Posted by: Simon Proctor Author Profile Page at February 5, 2008 5:25 AM

Thanks. Gotta stop blogging at 4am. Link is included now.

Posted by: Amy Alkon Author Profile Page at February 5, 2008 5:38 AM

Good article. It's rather preaching to the choir with me because I pretty much feel as you do -- it's not a person yet and the woman is, let her decide her life and if she wants to incubate this possible life. (It is only possible.)

The description of the ward that dealt with septic pregnancies that no longer exists is really telling. This is what the pro-lifers really want to see return? Of course, they'd say she's reaping what she sows.

The pro-lifers have gone from harsh to harsher. When they first started their screaming, there'd be all kinds of exceptions for things like rape and incest then when the rest of us said wait, murder is murder unless?, they got so they won't even allow for exceptions in these cruel situations.

Could it be because it's flat out cruel and sadistic to force a woman to carry and give birth to a baby she doesn't want. No matter who's standing in the wings waiting to adopt.

Posted by: Donna at February 5, 2008 5:40 AM

My wife worked in a mental ward. Most of the children there were unwanted in one shape or the other. The hell they had been through and the hell they would perpetrate on others (shiver).

I have always been pro-choice but up to a point. If the baby is viable (3rd trimester) and healthy I don't really see the reason to terminate. Given the lines there are for adoptions shit give up the kid. Actually if you find a private adoption firm you could make about 20K on the ordeal. Once you hit 3rd trimester you have had lots of time to figure out what to do and how you want to approach it. That said I can think of a few reasons it might be prudent to abort even at this time, I'm actually torn here.

The pro-choice people I know feel the same way. First and second trimester no questions asked. Your body your choice. It gets much more deviceive
in the third. I'm not even sure why I object to third trimester terminations other then it just seems illogical.

Posted by: vlad at February 5, 2008 6:07 AM

But since I'm male I only have an opinion and not any actual experince, nor will I ever.

Posted by: vlad at February 5, 2008 6:08 AM

Amy - the entire argument for abortion rests upon the idea that the woman should not be forced to bear a child she does not want, even if the entire enterprise is paid for, and she never sees the child. The abortion lobby will never go for the whole "you pay for the baby" thing.

It's never been about a "woman's right to choose", it's been about power. Listening to some feminist professor argue that abortion is the woman's only power over a man because she can stop him from reproducing kinda drove that idea home.

Posted by: brian Author Profile Page at February 5, 2008 6:38 AM

brian: I would agree with you if it were not for the stigma applied to unmarried pregnant women, especially young ones. Part of the concept hinges on the right to privacy, an accident happened and she should be able to correct it with out the whole world knowing. Now even if the procedure was banned in this country you'd only be taking it away from the less affluent. One round trip ticket will solve the problem for those of us with means.

"Listening to some feminist professor" oh come on. Your making sweeping generalizations based on a foaming at the mouth extremist. The professors opinion only makes sense if you believe that all sex is rape.

Posted by: vlad at February 5, 2008 6:50 AM

I believe it's when the fetus emerges from the woman and starts breathing on its own...I celebrate your right to speak your point of view. I am, however, completely opposed to your attempts to force your point of view on me. Once again, the solution here parallels the only fair resolution to the meat is/isn’t murder argument: Go ahead and have your Tofurky, but without cramming it down my throat, too (Amy).

This argument is fallacious. Men are right now on death row for "murdering" fetuses that never drew a breath. The issue is not what you believe nor what anyone believes but rather what is the law. The law treats men as murderers and women as victims when they "kill" a fetus.

I have two simple points: (1) the legal status of a fetus should be the same for everyone, men and women alike; (2) if it's a woman's sole right it's her sole responsibility, otherwise if women have choice then so should men.

Posted by: Jeff at February 5, 2008 6:54 AM

Great stuff, vlad - and Amy.

Posted by: Jody Tresidder at February 5, 2008 7:17 AM

The abortion lobby will never go for the whole "you pay for the baby" thing.
Which just goes to show how logically inconsistent their belief in an embryo's personhood is. They believe millions of people are being murdered, but won't raise a dime of private money to prevent it?

On that same subject, I've always wondered why there's never a funeral service when a Catholic or Baptist woman miscarries yet there always is for infant deaths. If they really believe there's no difference in the personhood of an embryo and a baby then why the disparity in how badly they mourn the loss of one or the other? Even unrepentant murderers get a funeral for Christ's sake.

Posted by: SeanH at February 5, 2008 7:25 AM

Men are right now on death row for "murdering" fetuses that never drew a breath.
I'm sure both sides would agree that's a great example of the law being an ass. Either it's a person or it's not.

Posted by: SeanH at February 5, 2008 7:29 AM

"Men are right now on death row for "murdering" fetuses that never drew a breath." Got any examples where they are on death row without having killed the mother as well.

Posted by: vlad at February 5, 2008 7:31 AM

Roe has allowed safe, professional abortion to gain a foothold in our culture. The spectre of girls dying in septic gulags is meant to push buttons but it isn't realistic. Reasonable limitations on abortions are no different than reasonable limitations on any medical procedure.

A responsible medical professional will see an unwanted pregnancy as evidence of a troubled situation. He or she will treat the symptom but at least offer recomendations for addressing the larger problem and take steps toward a formal, legal intervention if evidence of a crime is present. It is wrong to assume that every woman lining up for an abortion is an enlightened, empowered, modern cosmo girl. Some of them are crying for help and it is wrong not to give it.

Pregnancy is not a venereal disease. All the protestations that "it isn't a baby until I say it is" don't change the fact that wombs are the only place we know of so far that people come from. The "when does life really begin" question is easily answered: If it isn't really a baby, you aren't really pregnant.

Posted by: martin at February 5, 2008 7:34 AM

My body, my choice, my business, not YOURS. PERIOD.

Posted by: Flynne at February 5, 2008 7:35 AM

Got any examples where they are on death row without having killed the mother as well (vlad).

Yes.

My body, my choice, my business, not YOURS. PERIOD

No. With responsibilities come concomitant rights. It's half the father's responsibility, so he gets a say too. If you don't like it, give men choice so they can opt out of parenthood just like you can.

Posted by: Jeff at February 5, 2008 7:49 AM

"A responsible medical professional will see an unwanted pregnancy as evidence of a troubled situation."

Martin,

Yes, an "unwanted pregnancy" is not an ideal situation.

I am pro-choice and I agree.

Posted by: Jody Tresidder at February 5, 2008 7:58 AM


Great stuff , Jeff.

Abortion is a case of self-interest. It is impossible to justify abortion on moral grounds. Abortion on demand is immoral and its rather obvious.
Its so obviously immoral on its face that the ridiculous arguments for it can only be based on one thing-- self-interest.

If the "fetus" were determined tomorrow to be fully conscious and capable of doing calculus at 1 month gestation-- women would still demand the 'right to abortion"-- just shifting the argument away from the absurd " what is a person".
Abortion is solely about women controlling their lives-- defeating the unwanted pregnancy. Whatever it takes,on whatever grounds, they will demand this right and the ability to "terminate" their pregnancy,aka, kill the fetus/unborn child.

While it is impossible to justify abortion on demand on a typical moral basis-- women have been killing unwanted children forever. A matter of reproductive self-interest. Abortion is a modern, sterile,mechanized delivery of execution, sanitized as a "right", as a "termination of a pregnancy", not a life, medicalized, routinized for the modern woman.


If "choice" is such a fundamental right-- why do almost no women want men to have reproductive choice ? As one feminist I debated said when I asked why do women have the power to make men a "father" without his consent when she alone decides when she will become a "mother". Her answer-- " He is already a father.".. woops--she is pro-choice for women and pro-life when it comes to men ! Self-interest typically leads to irrational , indefensible positions

Why do women alone have the power to decide who is a "person"-- to claim such a power is Naziesque. It is chilling to see people with the most obvious self-interest deciding "who" qalifies as a "person". If you are not a "person", you can be killed for any reason or no reason at all. The history books are littered with the corpses of groups who were "non-persons" by someones' definitions.

Posted by: etahasgard1986@aol.com at February 5, 2008 8:03 AM

Once again: My body, my choice, my business, not YOURS, and ESPECIALLY NOT THE GOVERNMENT'S. PERIOD.

No. With responsibilities come concomitant rights. It's half the father's responsibility, so he gets a say too. If you don't like it, give men choice so they can opt out of parenthood just like you can.

Oh bullshit. Tell that to all the deadbeat dads who opt out of parenthood by NOT taking responsibility for those of their children that are already here. Hypocrite.

Posted by: Flynne at February 5, 2008 8:17 AM

I've personnally never been fond of abortion. But then I've got a skewed viewpoint not being able to bear children myself (I'm female and 22). I do believe that abortion is amoral but I'm also willing to say that I'd never be in the position that many other young women and teenagers are in so I can't really have an opinon one way or the other. I do think that it is each woman's choice and that you really can't legislate morality.

Jeff how many men have you known that actually wanted the child but the woman didn't? Just curious really because I've never really heard of any myself.

Posted by: Nicky at February 5, 2008 8:18 AM

Flynne, I'd be right there with you if we were marsupials; if a woman could just reach into her pouch and pluck that little oopsie out of there with a kleenex. But we aren't and she can't, she needs technical assistance and that kind of technology is going to be regulated.

Posted by: martin at February 5, 2008 8:22 AM

...give men choice so they can opt out of parenthood just like you can.

By the way, Jeff, men (and in this instance, I use the term loosly) make a choice to opt out of parenthood all the time, by NOT SUPPORTING THEIR ALREADY BORN CHILDREN OR THEIR CHILDREN'S MOTHERS.

Posted by: Flynne at February 5, 2008 8:23 AM

Once again: My body, my choice, my business, not YOURS, and ESPECIALLY NOT THE GOVERNMENT'S. PERIOD (Flynne).

Once again, no. Deadbeat dads are deadbeats because they aren't fulfilling their responsibilities. Those very responsibilities uphold the existence of concomitant rights. The days of women getting to have it both ways are quickly coming to an end. You'll have to get used to logical consistency.

Also, you commit the fallacy of decomposition. Effectively you argue that because there exist some men who are deadbeats, then all men should forfeit reproductive rights. That's obviously fallacious.

In addition, you ignore the existence of deadbeat moms and at higher rates than deadbeat dads.

All of this shows that you are quite wrong.

Hypocrite (Flynne).

Another application of the fallacy of decomposition. You assign to me, a man with no children, a hypocrisy defined only for men who have children. It's a completely unwarranted assertion.

And it's rather hysterical.

Posted by: Jeff at February 5, 2008 8:25 AM

If we're going to go here again, and it appears we are, I'll have to point out that this equal rights bit for fathers is complete crap. Did you forget about the whole giving birth part? Until that is shared equally, men won't have an equal part in the decision. That said, I do think Amy has supported men's right to not get screwed over in the deal quite a bit.

Morally, having a child you don't want, and probably will do a crap job of raising, is wrong. You don't think so? Next time your stereo gets ripped off, think again. If not everyone getting abortions is an enlightened woman, it follows that not everyone popping one out is either. You want to bitch about our "morally bankrupt" society? Who is raising these kids? Yep, that's right, jackasses who will continue to pop out selfish, under-parente drains on society. Adoption takes a great deal of unselfish strength, something many people don't exactly have in spades.

Anyone ever seen Idiocracy?

Posted by: christina at February 5, 2008 8:28 AM

By the way, Jeff, men (and in this instance, I use the term loosly) make a choice to opt out of parenthood all the time, by NOT SUPPORTING THEIR ALREADY BORN CHILDREN OR THEIR CHILDREN'S MOTHERS (flynne).

Wrong. The law doesn't allow men to "opt out of parenthood." Men who fail to live up to their parental responsibilities have their passport confiscated, their wages garnished, have state and federal benefits denied to them, and many other sanctions. Men do not have a legal right to terminate their status as parents.

You fail to make the elementary distinction between a violation of the law and a legal right. That's dumb.

Posted by: Jeff at February 5, 2008 8:29 AM

"If "choice" is such a fundamental right-- why do almost no women want men to have reproductive choice ?"

A "male abortion" option has been discussed here, and I for one support the idea.

It should be totally up to the woman to decide whether to terminate a pregnancy or not - not because of a 'right to privacy', but because of the 13th amendment. A woman's body is not public property.

But I also think a man should have a window of time to opt out if he wants to - he should be able to give up all rights and responsibilities to any offspring, just as a woman would if she chose to have an abortion.

This way her ownership of her own body is respected, but the man has an opt-out as well.

Posted by: Pirate Jo at February 5, 2008 8:30 AM

In addition, you ignore the existence of deadbeat moms and at higher rates than deadbeat dads.

Bullshit again. Prove it. Show me one, and the train wreck that is Britney does not count.

Once again: My body, my choice, my business, not YOURS, and ESPECIALLY NOT THE GOVERNMENT'S. PERIOD (Flynne).

JEFF. What I do with my body is NOT YOUR BUSINESS and it is NOT anyone else's either, it is between my doctor and I. It's not up for discussion with anyone else. Period. Not even the father, and especially not when he's proven himself to be irresponsible. YOU don't get to decide what someone else does with their body. That's like me or some other woman forcing a vasectomy on you because we've decided you shouldn't reproduce. It's not MY business.

Posted by: Flynne at February 5, 2008 8:31 AM

Excellent points, Christina and Pirate Jo.

Posted by: Flynne at February 5, 2008 8:34 AM

Did you forget about the whole giving birth part? Until that is shared equally, men won't have an equal part in the decision.

The solution is easy: since women get more rights, void a concomitant portion of a man's responsibilities.

For example, choice for men. women do carry the child so they get more rights. In particular, they get the unilateral right to decide whether to abort it. Men have no say. Women have more rights.

But, during the time it's legal to have an abortion, a man should be able to opt out of parenthood, both rights and responsibilities. Women also have that right. They can offer a baby up to the state after birth.

Under this scheme women have more rights (taking account of women's fate to carry the child), women have complete control over their bodies, and both men and women have choice.

Fair is fair.

Posted by: Jeff at February 5, 2008 8:35 AM

No, Jeff, you're missing the point. WOMEN have to carry a baby to term, and it wreaks havoc on their bodies. MEN get to stand by and watch, with NO PHYSICAL CHANGES WHATSOEVER. Not fair.

Posted by: Flynne at February 5, 2008 8:38 AM

JEFF. What I do with my body is NOT YOUR BUSINESS and it is NOT anyone else's either, it is between my doctor and I. It's not up for discussion with anyone else. Period (flynne).

Wrong. Your decisions will determine a legal right to seek child support form the father. You can pout about all you want, but it is up for duscussion. It will be discussed. And men aren't going to shut up about any more.

Excellent points, Christina and Pirate Jo.

So, what's different between Pirate Jo's proposal and mine? Can't take a suggestion from a human being with a penis?

Posted by: Jeff at February 5, 2008 8:39 AM

I bet if the male of the human species were the ones who had to carry the fetus, drive-by abortion clinics would be springing up all over the country. Right next door to the 24-hour liquor stores. o_O

Posted by: Flynne at February 5, 2008 8:39 AM

Don’t want women to have abortions? Pay them to have the babies. Pay for the care of the babies after they’re born -- and don’t forget the college educations.

That's actually just what Martin Sheen did for three of his grandchildren - when Charlie Sheen and Emilio Estevez knocked up their girlfriends unexpectedly, he basically stepped in and said, "Look, if you'll carry to term, I'll make sure that you don't want for anything." It worked. However, this is obviously not a solution that's possible, oh, 99.99% of the time.

As for the discrepancy in how the law treats men and women re: abortion....If a woman attacked a pregnant woman and killed the pregnant woman's fetus in the attempt, the female attacker would be prosecuted. The law draws a bright line between what the pregnant woman - the one who has to take a physical risk to continue the pregnancy - may do regarding her fetus, and what EVERYONE else may do regarding the fetus without her consent. I don't have an issue with that. Abortion law isn't about allowing people to decide when to become parents - note that it doesn't contain any provisions for allowing men to decide when to become parents. It's about granting pregnant women autonomy over their pregnancies because they and they alone are physically involved with a process that can become life-threatening. I don't see a problem in distinguishing what they do from what someone else who ISN'T pregnant with the fetus does, or attempts to do, to said fetus without her consent. Her body, her choice. (Jeff, in the case you linked to, where the guy is in jail for stepping on his pregnant girlfriend's stomach at her urging...gah, the law is an ass sometimes. I may think someone is foolish if she asks a boyfriend rather than a doctor to help her abort her pregnancy, but I don't think there should be any legal distinction between the two.)

I'm very, very glad that people like this doctor exist. I think this is a much better case to be made for legalized abortion than a lot of what I saw written on the recent "freedom to choose" day. Every time I see a writer *celebrating* abortion, I think about how it looks to those people in the middle, and I cringe. (And yes, I did see that - one woman talked about how she was proud that her mother had had more than one abortion. Uh...) I think the majority of people in the U.S. believe that abortion should be allowed at least in the first trimester, but I think most of them also see it as something to be avoided if possible, and as a last resort, more or less.

If "choice" is such a fundamental right-- why do almost no women want men to have reproductive choice?

Because men don't get pregnant. They assume 0% of the physical risk of becoming a biological parent. There are advantages and disadvantages to that. Advantages: No stretch marks, no risk to life or health, no resulting hormonal or sexual dysfunction, no need to limit their activities during gestation...the list goes on. Disadvantages: They may have to wait until the kid's born to confirm paternity, and they can't mandate the abortion of a fetus that they don't want. In terms of reproduction, men and women aren't the same, and that's why the law deals with them differently in regards to the pregnancy. But note, when I talk about "choice," I mean "the choice of whether or not to continue a pregnancy" rather than "the choice to parent." If, say, a woman gives birth to a child that she doesn't want to raise but that the child's father does, I'm staunchly in favor her being required to pay child support et al. Which should be obvious, but isn't for many so-called feminists, sigh.

Posted by: marion Author Profile Page at February 5, 2008 8:40 AM

I bet if the male of the human species were the ones who had to carry the fetus, drive-by abortion clinics would be springing up all over the country. Right next door to the 24-hour liquor stores.

If men carried fetuses, they'd take responsibility for their own body and wouldn't put it on the other gender.

Posted by: Jeff at February 5, 2008 8:41 AM

"But, during the time it's legal to have an abortion, a man should be able to opt out of parenthood, both rights and responsibilities. Women also have that right. They can offer a baby up to the state after birth."

Agreed. And in situations where the woman has the baby and the man never knew she was pregnant? She can't show up with a kid six months later and start demanding child support. He should also have the right to opt out as soon as he learns of his paternity. I think this kind of situation would lead to a lot less "oopsing" and a lot fewer, as Christina put it so succinctly, "jackasses popping out selfish, underparented drains on society."

Posted by: Pirate Jo at February 5, 2008 8:42 AM

JEff, your proposal is different from Pirate Jo's and you know it. Shut up already. When you are able to carry a fetus to term and give birth to it, then we can talk. Until then, you cannot even begin to imagine what it's like. Ergo, you HAVE NO SAY IN THE MATTER.

Posted by: Flynne at February 5, 2008 8:42 AM

Jeff: I believe you said death row 40 years is a little different then death row. Plus wouldn't this case argue strongly pro-choice. He wouldn't be in prison if not for stupid laws in one of the most Jesus freak states in the union.

Posted by: vlad at February 5, 2008 8:43 AM

Having said all that, I couldn't help but notice this in the article to which Amy linked:
Let me tell you about an abortion patient I looked after recently. She was 18 years old, and 18-19 weeks pregnant. She came from a very strict, religious family. She was an only daughter, and had several brothers. She was East Indian Hindu and her boyfriend was East Indian Muslim, which did not please her parents. She told me if her parents found out she was pregnant she would be disowned and kicked out of the family home. She also told me that her brothers would murder her boyfriend, and I believed her. About an hour after her operation I and my nurse saw her and her boyfriend walking out of the clinic hand in hand, and I said to my nurse, "Look at that. We saved two lives today."

Notice how he just accepts that this is the way that things are...

If men carried fetuses, they'd take responsibility for their own body and wouldn't put it on the other gender.

Really? And you know this how? I know plenty of men and women who like to try to escape responsibility for their actions. I see no reason why pregnancy/abortion would be any different.

Posted by: marion Author Profile Page at February 5, 2008 8:44 AM

The law draws a bright line between what the pregnant woman - the one who has to take a physical risk to continue the pregnancy - may do regarding her fetus, and what EVERYONE else may do regarding the fetus without her consent (marion).

This is not the issue. No one rejects the idea that a pregnant woman has more rights to her body than other people. The issue is the legal status of the fetus. Is it a human being or not?

If it is, then she can't kill except in self-defense. If it isn't, then an accident that causes a miscarriage is a bodily injury not a murder.

In terms of reproduction, men and women aren't the same, and that's why the law deals with them differently in regards to the pregnancy (marion).

Again, no one disputes this point. It's how the law treats men and women differently that's at issue. Men should have more rights to opt out of parenthood.

Posted by: Jeff at February 5, 2008 8:46 AM

Really? And you know this how? I know plenty of men and women who like to try to escape responsibility for their actions. I see no reason why pregnancy/abortion would be any different (marion).

Heh. It was a flippant response to a flippant remark. But I will say this: the law tends to make men legally responsible for things and also to relieve women of responsibilities. I'm pretty sure the law would make men fully responsible.

Posted by: Jeff at February 5, 2008 8:49 AM

"But I will say this: the law tends to make men legally responsible for things and also to relieve women of responsibilities."

Never miss an opportunity to bitch on behalf of those poor, downtrodden men, do you.

Posted by: Pirate Jo at February 5, 2008 8:52 AM

JEff, your proposal is different from Pirate Jo's and you know it. Shut up already. When you are able to carry a fetus to term and give birth to it, then we can talk. Until then, you cannot even begin to imagine what it's like. Ergo, you HAVE NO SAY IN THE MATTER.

Ah. I was right. you can't accept argument from people who have penises. You've now demonstrated a remarkable irrationality.

I do have a say in the matter because I'm a citizen who has a perfect right to engage in law-making activities like everyone else. I also have a moral right to have a say in the matter because, as a man, I have legal responsibilities.

Your irrational hysteria doesn't obviate my right to my say.

Posted by: Jeff at February 5, 2008 8:53 AM

"If men carried fetuses, they'd take responsibility for their own body and wouldn't put it on the other gender." Meaning, we wouldn't ask for child support? We wouldn't have sex? You need to be more specific.

Posted by: vlad at February 5, 2008 8:57 AM

Never miss an opportunity to bitch on behalf of those poor, downtrodden men, do you.

Heh. Sure. Only women can advocate for their rights. Men should just shut up. Why, it's downright unmanly of me to argue against laws that treat me unjustly.

Shucks. I'll just go back to saying "Yes ma'am."

Not.

Posted by: Jeff at February 5, 2008 8:59 AM

Never miss an opportunity to bitch on behalf of those poor, downtrodden men, do you.

I refer you to the answer a gave in a previous post. Hint: lookup 'flippant.'

Posted by: Jeff at February 5, 2008 9:00 AM

Jeff, I don't think there is any difference between your proposal and mine, and I actually AGREE with you on the male abortion idea.

I think Flynne has simply had enough of you, because whatever valid points you make are thrown out there to swim in an eyeroll-inducing mire of women-bashing venom. You sound like a bitter whiner, and it gets old, you just repeating yourself about what illogical, fickle creatures women are, especially the American ones, and blah blah blah. (Maybe you should consider living in Saudi Arabia, I hear they don't put women on such a pedestal there.)

Even someone with your obviously limited social skills should be able to recognize that Flynne isn't reacting angrily to your views about matters of law, but to your amazingly tiresome personality.

Posted by: Pirate Jo at February 5, 2008 9:04 AM

This is not the issue. No one rejects the idea that a pregnant woman has more rights to her body than other people. The issue is the legal status of the fetus. Is it a human being or not?

Yeah, that point is still up for discussion, but YOU are not at liberty to say how I feel about it.

Again, no one disputes this point. It's how the law treats men and women differently that's at issue. Men should have more rights to opt out of parenthood

They do, and they do it all the time.

I do have a say in the matter because I'm a citizen who has a perfect right to engage in law-making activities like everyone else.

Oh you're a lawyer and on the committee to overturn Roe v. Wade?

I also have a moral right to have a say in the matter because, as a man, I have legal responsibilities.

Not to me you don't.

Your irrational hysteria doesn't obviate my right to my say.

I am neither irrational, nor hysterical. Nice try, though.
Your irrationality, and misogyny, on the other hand, are showing big time. You do not have a say in my private life, at any time, whatsoever. Oh and by the way, you CANNOT legislate morality.

Posted by: Flynne at February 5, 2008 9:07 AM

The argument is being made that if a women should have the choice then the man should have the choice as well.

So let me boil this down to a simple concept and then tell me where you stand Jeff. "If a guy had the right to opt out (legally) of being a dad until birth you would be pro-choice?"

Posted by: vlad at February 5, 2008 9:08 AM

"Heh. Sure. Only women can advocate for their rights. Men should just shut up. Why, it's downright unmanly of me to argue against laws that treat me unjustly."

You're like that kid who humps everyone's leg on the playground and then wonders why he has no one to sit with at lunch! Myself and most of the women here advocate for men's rights and argue against laws that treat them unfairly! You can't see that when you come here and say all women suck, people are going to think you're an asshole? Is it really necessary to make a snotty comment about women, every time you point out something wrong with the legal system? "I think it's terrible that New Zealand braeburn apples are costing so much more than the Washington ones, due to the protectionist policies of government. And by the way, women always think they should have to pay less for apples than men."

Posted by: Pirate Jo at February 5, 2008 9:10 AM

"you CANNOT legislate morality." Shit I'd be happy if Jesus freaks were consistant about their morality. Just as simple a notion as this "If God is all powerful and he was against abortions why do we have them." or the lord said (can't remember where) that vengeance is mine. By attacking abortion doctors aren't you committing the ultimate act of hubris.

"YOU are not at liberty to say how I feel about it." Now why are you letting him get to you? He has the right to say what ever he wants, as do we all. Including the right to simply ignore him.

Posted by: vlad at February 5, 2008 9:14 AM

"But I will say this: the law tends to make men legally responsible for things and also to relieve women of responsibilities." Actually the responsibility lies with the one who makes more green backs. Shit look at Simpson's ex.

Posted by: vlad at February 5, 2008 9:17 AM

I think Flynne has simply had enough of you, because whatever valid points you make are thrown out there to swim in an eyeroll-inducing mire of women-bashing venom (Pirate Jo).

OK. That's a reasonable criticism of my style. Can you give me some examples. I honestly don't harbor any venom towards women, so show me how I'm coming across as a misogynist. Because I have to tell you, women like Flynne come across to me like misandrists. I just don't go making up villains on the other side of the keyboard so I can pretend to a moral superiority. I engage what I know: their ideas.

In my view, I'm arguing forcefully in the way I'd argue against anyone else. But maybe I'm doing something dumb. Help me out here.

So let me boil this down to a simple concept and then tell me where you stand Jeff. "If a guy had the right to opt out (legally) of being a dad until birth you would be pro-choice?" (vlad)

I'm not sure what you're getting at. I am pro-choice.

Posted by: Jeff at February 5, 2008 9:17 AM

Jeff,
I agree you you that it is a shame that men do not have legal recourse in an unwanted pregnacy. However, the law is written because of past precedent.



Men have been abandoning women they've gotten pregnant for all time. If given that choice, there would be millions of children in this country without "legal" fathers. Men who see that way out and take it.


I believe the choice to carry a child to term is a woman's. But having grown up with a father who was mostly in the wind, I dread the day that men have a legal right to not be responsible for the children they co-create. For now, child support makes one hell of an argument for birth control.

Posted by: Deion at February 5, 2008 9:19 AM

"He has the right to say what ever he wants, as do we all. Including the right to simply ignore him."

Yeah, it's like if you were at a party, and you thought the person standing next to you had something interesting to say, but they kept spilling their drink all over your shoes. You'd probably move away from them after a while.

Posted by: Pirate Jo at February 5, 2008 9:20 AM

Yeah, it's like if you were at a party, and you thought the person standing next to you had something interesting to say, but they kept spilling their drink all over your shoes. You'd probably move away from them after a while.

Eh. That analogy would hold if it there was a person constantly bumping into their arm causing them to spill the drink. Then you'd be blaming the wrong person.

Posted by: Jeff at February 5, 2008 9:25 AM

If you are ok with charging a man with double murder for killing a pregnant woman, and then say you are ok with a woman terminating a pregnancy at anytime, then you are a hypocrite.

You can not have it both ways. If it is murder to kill a fetus for him, then it is for her.

Jeff has time on his side regardless of the hysterics of flynne. At some point, the supreme court will have to face a decision where a man demands equal rights under the law. At that point, the gravy train will stop.

Posted by: Jimbo at February 5, 2008 9:28 AM

"Men have been abandoning women they've gotten pregnant for all time. If given that choice, there would be millions of children in this country without "legal" fathers. Men who see that way out and take it."

Well I'm not advocating (by way of a "male abortion option") that some guy could become a father and then opt out two years later. He would have a very narrow window right in the beginning. Then, if he opted out, the woman could either have an abortion, carry it to term and give it up for adoption, or choose to be a single mother.

If SHE doesn't want a kid, she can go the abortion or adoption route, no problem. Her body, her choice. But if HE doesn't want a kid, he can be dragged through twenty years of child support? What if the shoe was on the other foot, and he wanted the baby but she didn't? Should he be able to force her to carry it to term?

Posted by: Pirate Jo at February 5, 2008 9:28 AM

Thanks, Vlad and Jo.
Jeff, if you're pro-choice, why were you arguing so vehemently about women's right to choose?
For the record, I've never had an abortion. My daughters' father DID want me to abort the first time around, and I chose NOT to. I absolved him of all responsibility. It was after I had the baby that he came around, wanting to see her, get married, all that shit. And THEN he decided that he didn't want the responsibility any more, and we got divorced. The only thing I would have done differently was not marry him, and stick to my original decision about absolving him of all responsibility. I would have been better off.

Posted by: Flynne at February 5, 2008 9:30 AM

If you are ok with charging a man with double murder for killing a pregnant woman, and then say you are ok with a woman terminating a pregnancy at anytime, then you are a hypocrite.

No. The issue is "consent".

Posted by: Jody Tresidder at February 5, 2008 9:32 AM

"I'm not sure what you're getting at. I am pro-choice." Huh, your kidding right?

"Flynne come across to me like misandrists." Not from where I'm standing. From what I see she's bitter cause she got the shaft end from one guy at one point but I'm not seeing the sweeping generalization you are fond of.

Still looking for the fetus killer on death row.

Posted by: vlad at February 5, 2008 9:33 AM

Jeff has time on his side regardless of the hysterics of flynne. At some point, the supreme court will have to face a decision where a man demands equal rights under the law. At that point, the gravy train will stop.

Prove I'm hysterical, Jimbo, honey. Men have previously had MORE rights under the law then women. Ever study history?

Posted by: Flynne at February 5, 2008 9:34 AM

Jeff has time on his side regardless of the hysterics of flynne. At some point, the supreme court will have to face a decision where a man demands equal rights under the law (Flynne).

Your use of the word 'about' is ambiguous. Do you mean 'against?' If so, I've never argued against a woman's right to choose. I've argued that with or without the right to choose, men should have concomitantly equal reproductive rights.

If you think I've erred, please point me to the post, so I can clarify. Although, I honestly think you were stereotyping my position and thus questioning a straw man.

Posted by: Jeff at February 5, 2008 9:35 AM

Men have previously had MORE rights under the law then women. Ever study history?

I'm looking around to see if anyone is rolling their eyes. Pirate Jo? Anyone?

I've studied history rather thoroughly. Sure, men had more rights. But women had concomitantly less responsibility, too. If you look at any time in history, men had it just as bad or worse than women.

Posted by: Jeff at February 5, 2008 9:38 AM

I've argued that with or without the right to choose, men should have concomitantly equal reproductive rights.

But men CAN'T have concomitantly equal rights, because THEY CANNOT GET pregnant. They don't carry the fetus in THEIR body, only the woman does. There is NOT an equality of bodily functions that gives a male the right to terminate a pregnancy. The only way he can assure that the pregnancy isn't terminated is to NOT create the pregnancy in the first place, or to fully commit to the woman who has to carry the fetus. This isn't rocket science, ya know!

Posted by: Flynne at February 5, 2008 9:42 AM

"Men have previously had MORE rights under the law then women. Ever study history?"

Which brings up an interesting point. During the period of history when most of these unbalanced laws were made, it was men making the laws.

Posted by: Pirate Jo at February 5, 2008 9:43 AM

"I'm not sure what you're getting at. I am pro-choice." Huh, your kidding right?...Still looking for the fetus killer on death row.

No, I'm not kidding. I posted a link about a fetus "murderer."

Posted by: Jeff at February 5, 2008 9:45 AM

If you look at any time in history, men had it just as bad or worse than women.

Uh, no, I don't think so. Women could not own men and children as property (or even own property as such) and treat them as chattel, as men could, and did, with their women and children. Women couldn't even vote until early in the 20th century.

Posted by: Flynne at February 5, 2008 9:46 AM

"I've studied history rather thoroughly. Sure, men had more rights. But women had concomitantly less responsibility, too. If you look at any time in history, men had it just as bad or worse than women." Legally or practically. How can you be responsible for anything if you are forbidden the two sources of income, land and work. Women were not always allowed to work (not including farm work) and they were not always allowed to own land.

Given the fact that you are a history buff this should come as no surprise. Men were once able to get rid of their wives but having them institutionalized. In this time women had a huge responsibility: "Keep hubby happy at all times or you go to the loony bin"

Posted by: vlad at February 5, 2008 9:48 AM

"I posted a link about a fetus "murderer."" He's not on death row. If you read the article the prosecutor would have loved to (but did not) charge both of them with murder and seek the death penalty.

Posted by: vlad at February 5, 2008 9:50 AM

"But men CAN'T have concomitantly equal rights, because THEY CANNOT GET pregnant."

I see the point you are making. Due to biology, it will never be truly equal. A woman can't be forced to have an abortion OR to carry a pregnancy to term, because it's her body. This is how it should be. The man is at a disadvantage because he can be oopsed, while she can't. His wishes don't have to be respected.

But don't you think he should at least be able to opt out of the rights and responsibilities, just as she is able? Should he be on the hook for 18 years of child support just because a) the birth control failed, and b) she got all pregnant and emotional? Again, if he WANTED her to have the baby and she chose to have an abortion anyway, there would be nothing he could do about it.

I know there are lots of men who dodge child support, and they are breaking the law by doing so, but if they were unwilling fathers, I can't say that I blame them. I would resent someone forcing me to carry an unwanted pregnancy to term if I didn't want to be a mother, and I imagine they see the 18 years of legal financial responsibility much the same way. So I think they should have the legal right to opt out, too.

Posted by: Pirate Jo at February 5, 2008 9:51 AM

Uh, no, I don't think so. Women could not own men and children as property (or even own property as such) and treat them as chattel, as men could, and did, with their women and children. Women couldn't even vote until early in the 20th century.

Men didn't "own" women and children. Feminists argue that women were treated as if they were chattel. Which is false. Men had rights over their families because they were criminally responsible for the acts of their family. Men, brothers and fathers, were imprisoned for the debts of women. Women have historically been denied political privileges because women have not participated equally in defense of the state in war. Once the idea of military participation as separated from he idea of citizenship, women go the vote.

But even today, it's unequal. Women do not have to register for the draft with Selective Service.

When you consider both sides you find the situation for women wasn't so grim.

Posted by: Jeff at February 5, 2008 9:52 AM

Ok, Jeff are you arguing that a man should be able to terminate parental rights, that a man should be able to block a women having an abortion or both?

Posted by: vlad at February 5, 2008 9:52 AM

He's not on death row. If you read the article the prosecutor would have loved to (but did not) charge both of them with murder and seek the death penalty.

My bad. There's men in prison for life, not on death row. And?

Posted by: Jeff at February 5, 2008 9:53 AM

He's not on death row. If you read the article the prosecutor would have loved to (but did not) charge both of them with murder and seek the death penalty.

Just read my posts and Pirate Jo's posts. We agree on a policy of choice for men.

Posted by: Jeff at February 5, 2008 9:54 AM

vlad, that last one was for you. I has vestigial cut-and-paste left over.

Posted by: Jeff at February 5, 2008 9:55 AM

But don't you think he should at least be able to opt out of the rights and responsibilities, just as she is able? Should he be on the hook for 18 years of child support just because a) the birth control failed, and b) she got all pregnant and emotional? Again, if he WANTED her to have the baby and she chose to have an abortion anyway, there would be nothing he could do about it.

Jo, did you see this part of my previous post?
"For the record, I've never had an abortion. My daughters' father DID want me to abort the first time around, and I chose NOT to. I absolved him of all responsibility. It was after I had the baby that he came around, wanting to see her, get married, all that shit. And THEN he decided that he didn't want the responsibility any more, and we got divorced. The only thing I would have done differently was not marry him, and stick to my original decision about absolving him of all responsibility. I would have been better off."

I DID absolve him once. He still came around. I wasn't going to let him off the hook after we got married!

Posted by: Flynne at February 5, 2008 9:59 AM

I DID absolve him once. He still came around. I wasn't going to let him off the hook after we got married (Pirate Jo)!

Confuses use and mention, confuses extension of predicates, confuses extention of free variables --- it's an almost completely illogical interpretation of Pirate Jo's post.

Pirate Jo, any eye-rolling going on over there? Or is just us meanie men causing all this silliness?

Posted by: Jeff at February 5, 2008 10:07 AM

Shoot. I did it again. That last quote was Flynne's not Pirate Jo's. However, my comments were for Pirate Jo.

Posted by: Jeff at February 5, 2008 10:08 AM

My brother - who is still young and vital- proposed an idea i kind of like. It's a sexual pre-nump. The first section details the method of birth control, check the box, fill in date of last period, initial here. The second section details how you will deal with a birth control failure: abort, adopt, keep it. Initial here. The third section details who will pay for the kid if MOM wants to keep it.

It would be a legally binding form of a conversation that all partners should be having before the pants come off anyway. Don't agree with my view on the subject? Won't sign it? Thanks, I'll just go home and fantasize about you.

I always appreciated the good christian girls who wear a cross around their neck. Thanks for the warning.

I realize people in the greatest crisis of their life might want to change their mind, and there may be coerced signatures etc., Details. But what's wrong with the idea of informed pre-coital consent?

Posted by: smurfy at February 5, 2008 10:14 AM

Jeff, try to understand: I let the ex off the hook when he WANTED me to abort, by absolving him of all his responsibilities to me and the baby when HE DIDN'T WANT THEM. After the baby was born, HE CALLED ME. HE WANTED TO SEE THE BABY. HE WANTED TO GET MARRIED. Two years into the marriage, he decided HE DIDN'T WANT THE RESPONSIBILITY ANYMORE. Should I have let him go scott free, without any child support whatsoever? HE was the one who claimed paternity, I didn't do it for him!

Posted by: Flynne at February 5, 2008 10:18 AM

"Pirate Jo, any eye-rolling going on over there? Or is just us meanie men causing all this silliness?"

NOW there is some eye-rolling going on.

Flynne, I think you misunderstood me. You offered your ex what I think all men should have as an option. You stepped up to the plate and took the high road, saying in effect, I am making this decision because it's my body, and I realize it's not what you want, so I'm letting you off the hook. You don't have to participate, financially or in any other way.

Lo and behold, he comes back into the picture, but only for the rights of parenthood and none of the responsibilities. (Obviously you are wishing at this point that you had simply told him to go fly a kite. I would, too!) Now you are stuck trying to do what's right for your kids, while putting up with his crap, just praying he doesn't send them home one day charged up on Red Bull with a new puppy. It's no wonder you bristle at the implication that only men get screwed by the current system. Unfortunately, just as you can't change the biological fact that only women get pregnant, you can't make a deadbeat stop being a deadbeat.

Posted by: Pirate Jo at February 5, 2008 10:31 AM

Jeff, try to understand...

Flynne, I'm trying. I really am. I'm sorry you've had to deal with such a damned asshole. I have a friend who has had similar problems with her ex-husband. I hate pussies like these guys.

But Flynne, I've never, never been talking about your personal experiences. I didn't know anything about your situation until an hour ago. I'm not trying to minimize your plight, but it's just not what I'm talking about. Frankly, it would be presumptuous of me to comment on your personal situation. I'm not doing that, and I never intended to do that.

Pirate Jo and I are talking about choices men and women make during the period for a legal abortion. We're concerned about an asymmetry in reproductive rights. Men are concerned and should be concerned about their reproductive rights. It's not an attack on you personally.

Posted by: Jeff at February 5, 2008 10:35 AM

Unfortunately, just as you can't change the biological fact that only women get pregnant, you can't make a deadbeat stop being a deadbeat.

Yes, Jo, I understand that. What I don't understand is why Jeff is being such a jerk about it all. He's deliberately misinterpreting what I post, and that's annoying. I totally agree that men should have the option, as evidneced by my giving the ex said option. But, should I have let him get away with no child support AFTER we got married? That seems to be what Jeff is implicating.

Posted by: Flynne at February 5, 2008 10:41 AM

Let's pretend for a minute, Jeff, that our idea of men having asymmetry in reproductive rights was in fact the way things are. Flynne's situation would be where the bioligical father decided NOT to waive his parental rights or responsbilities, but then didn't live up to them anyway. Would you be in favor of wage garnishment, legal action, etc. in those cases?

Posted by: Pirate Jo at February 5, 2008 10:41 AM

"Just read my posts and Pirate Jo's posts. We agree on a policy of choice for men." I was asking for clarification. So I'll try this.

"Should a man have a say in his wife, girlfriend or one night stand get to TERMINATE the pregnancy?"

Posted by: vlad at February 5, 2008 10:43 AM

It's not an attack on you personally.

Jeff I just read this after I posted my last post to Pirate Jo. I think we may be on the same page after all, but it took a hell of a convoluted road getting there! Sorry for calling you a jerk, but it seemed to me that you were demeaning me and my situation, and that rankles.

Posted by: Flynne at February 5, 2008 10:44 AM

What I don't understand is why Jeff is being such a jerk about it all. He's deliberately misinterpreting what I post, and that's annoying. I totally agree that men should have the option, as evidneced by my giving the ex said option. But, should I have let him get away with no child support AFTER we got married? That seems to be what Jeff is implicating (flynne).

Preposterous. Here's what I've written

For example, choice for men. women do carry the child so they get more rights. In particular, they get the unilateral right to decide whether to abort it. Men have no say. Women have more rights.

But, during the time it's legal to have an abortion, a man should be able to opt out of parenthood, both rights and responsibilities. Women also have that right. They can offer a baby up to the state after birth.

Under this scheme women have more rights (taking account of women's fate to carry the child), women have complete control over their bodies, and both men and women have choice (Jeff).

Flynne, you are not being honest.

Would you be in favor of wage garnishment, legal action, etc. in those cases (Pirate Jo)?

Most definitely. And that would go for deadbeat moms too.

Posted by: Jeff at February 5, 2008 10:47 AM

Sorry for calling you a jerk, but it seemed to me that you were demeaning me and my situation, and that rankles.

No worries, Flynne. I'm sorry if I was mean to you. I have a mathematical way of writing that may come across as more strident than I intend. I'm seriously considering Pirate Jo's criticisms of my style.

Also, I can't help but think that the lack of body language is a factor in blog conversations. If you could see my face, you'd probably wouldn't think I was so mean. If I saw yours, I'd have probably interpreted your posts as personal observations.

Eh. As we converse more and more, we'll figure out each other's style.

Posted by: Jeff at February 5, 2008 10:56 AM

The problem with this scenario of Flynnes is that she can not just let him off the hook. Now days, he would have to pay regardless of what she says here. You pay the state now, not the mother.

And why do you all keep asking Jeff if he would be in favor of this or that after a baby is born?
Since I started reading this he has been on point about the rights and responsibilities before birth.

No one said that men should be able to walk away from a child they had due to marriage. Yet people are still lookiing for that gotcha.

We just want the same right to choose, before the fact, that women have. Is that so wrong?

Posted by: Jimbo at February 5, 2008 10:58 AM

vlad if you noticed te article said prosecutors decided not to seek the death penalty - which means under the law they can and one day some one will be

I forgot who mentiond britney in regards to a man wanting children while the woman didnt - which is odd because if britney didnt want the kids she wouldnt have been arrested for failing to return them to her ex

Anyway here you go
http://www.topix.com/phoenix/2007/10/baby-found-dead-in-car-outside-hooters
A woman who told freinds and familly she was sick of being mother and considered her child a burden refused to give the father custody when he asked for it - child died after 7 hours locked in a car under the Arizona desert sun

Jeff you do come across as a bit of an ass
Flynne you kinda over reacted

And to whomever said men are not physically effected by pregnacy I would suggest that things such as stress, sympethetic pregnacy, and 20 yrs of unwanted debt and interation with someone would will inevetably loath with every firber of your being could indeed affect your body

That being said given the alternitive to legal abortion it is obvious we need to keep it


And until I see some guy claiming god speaks to him, and this guy can acctually part rivers, fly, raise the dead, cause an eclipe, make water gush out of solid rock, heal hunndereds of poison victims at once

Well I really dont want to hear some jackass tell me "what god would want" And I certainly dont need morality lessons from a religion whos leader was instermental in hiding pedophile preists

Posted by: lujlp at February 5, 2008 10:59 AM

They can offer a baby up to the state after birth.

Jeff. Again I say, you are not giving the woman equality if you are not allowing her to terminate the pregnancy, and you are, in effect, forcing her to carry it to term, deliver, and THEN give it up to the state. She should have the option NOT to do that, as well. You, as man, do not understand what pregnancy does to a woman, physically. She should be able to choose to NOT have her body carry that burden if she doesn't WANT it. Not only that, why should the state be responsible for the unwanted child? Do you know how many children are in foster care in so many states, and there aren't any families that want to care for/adopt them? The taxpayer shoulders that burden too, and it's getting to be more expensive all the time. Is that fair to the people who ARE responsible about their reproductive choices?
How am I not being honest?

Posted by: Flynne at February 5, 2008 11:01 AM

Should a man have a say in his wife, girlfriend or one night stand get to TERMINATE the pregnancy?

No. Likewise, a pregnant women should have no say over whether the father opts out of parental responsibilities during the legal abortion period.

Posted by: Jeff at February 5, 2008 11:01 AM

Jeff you do come across as a bit of an ass (lijlp)

Point taken from you and Pirate Jo. I'm considering it.

How am I not being honest (flynne)?

Flynne, we're not advocating interference in a woman's choice to abort. We're advocating adding a choice for men to opt out of parenthood too. No one is advocating this,

you are not allowing her to terminate the pregnancy, and you are, in effect, forcing her to carry it to term, deliver, and THEN give it up to the state

Women will still have the same choice to do this, but no one will force them to do it. Women can still abort. But men will also be able to opt out of parenthood during the legal abortion period.

Posted by: Jeff at February 5, 2008 11:06 AM

But men will also be able to opt out of parenthood during the legal abortion period.

Right. That's what I've agreed with all along, and it's the option I gave my ex before I had our first child. We DO agree, but damn! what a helluva way to finally get here.

Posted by: Flynne at February 5, 2008 11:09 AM

Lujlp can you knock off the anti-christian stuff? We get it, you hate Christians.

Now that story you just linked is just sick. Why not give it to the father? I bet ya anything its because she did not want to pay child support.

I see a lot of these stories laetly where sicko's of both sexes are killing kids, heaving them off bridges etc. I mean my God, these are innocents people. If people are moved to murder to get out of paying for the support of their children, we have a serious problem.

Hiding from it will not make these acts go away, they will become more frequent.

The first thing the stupid government could do would be to make all child support tax free. If people at least were given credit for the money they paid another in child support, they could actually afford it, and not be so devastated financially by it. Then maybe they would be less freaked by the cost. Might save some poor kids life.

Posted by: Jimbo at February 5, 2008 11:10 AM

"No one is advocating this,

you are not allowing her to terminate the pregnancy, and you are, in effect, forcing her to carry it to term, deliver, and THEN give it up to the state"

Well as far as I could tell this is exactly what you were advocating. That's why I asked the question directly. I now know that your are not advocating giving men control of a womens reproductive rights.

Posted by: vlad at February 5, 2008 11:16 AM

Y'know, there's an alternative to abortion. It's called not fucking.

The entire abortion debate could end right now if people would be rational instead of emotional.

Simply - do not have sex with someone that you would not be willing to raise a family with. Ladies, don't fuck the guy until you know he's not an asshole and he's in it for the long haul. Men, don't fuck her until you know she's not just a wallet-hoovering opportunist hoping to get knocked up.

This is the legacy of the 60's free-love movement. When sex is decoupled from its biological function, this is what you get. I'm not saying that it was all beer and skittles before "the pill", but it's certainly gotten worse since.

And here I thought we were supposed to be advancing as a species.

Posted by: brian Author Profile Page at February 5, 2008 11:20 AM

Flynne - for all your letting him out of it, there's just no legal enforcement there. At any time, contract or not, you can go back and get a court to demand child support - past, present and future. There's no legal protection for men.

Not that I think there ought to be. Paying child support is the price you pay for being careless with your sperm.

Oh, and this:

You do not have a say in my private life, at any time, whatsoever. Oh and by the way, you CANNOT legislate morality.

We do it all the time. You can't buy beer on Sunday. Why? Morality has been legislated.

Posted by: brian Author Profile Page at February 5, 2008 11:23 AM

"which means under the law they can and one day some one will be" If the law supported a capital case in that state they would have pursued it. No that means that there was media hype about there being a capital case. If the prosecutor could have gone for a capital case he would have. The opinion at the end of the article points to the fact that if given the option the prosecutor would have nailed both of them for capital charges.

Posted by: vlad at February 5, 2008 11:24 AM

"all child support tax free." Just did my taxes. If I were paying child support I could deduct it on my taxes. The recipient would have to file the money are income.

Posted by: vlad at February 5, 2008 11:27 AM

We do it all the time. You can't buy beer on Sunday. Why? Morality has been legislated.

Not really. That's just here in Connecticut. What's to stop you from buying enough beer on Saturday to last thru Sunday into Monday? Nothing! And what's to stop you from driving to Massachusettes or New York on Sunday to buy beer? Nothing!
Anyway, pass the skittles, please. o_O

Posted by: Flynne at February 5, 2008 11:32 AM

"Not that I think there ought to be. Paying child support is the price you pay for being careless with your sperm." So since recreations sex should have a legal penalty shouldn't recreational eating.

"The entire abortion debate could end right now if people would be rational instead of emotional." The rational reason for making abortion illegal or even not having one is?

"You can't buy beer on Sunday. Why? Morality has been legislated." That depends on which state you are from. NY and NH you could buy beer all the time 24 hours a day. You can now buy liqueur in Ma on Sunday. The blue laws are slowly changing. There are still dry counties though, like the one which the Jack Daniels plant resides.

Posted by: vlad at February 5, 2008 11:38 AM

Well as far as I could tell this is exactly what you were advocating. That's why I asked the question directly. I now know that your are not advocating giving men control of a womens reproductive rights (vlad).
I would have thought this would have done it,
The solution is easy: since women get more rights, void a concomitant portion of a man's responsibilities.

For example, choice for men. women do carry the child so they get more rights. In particular, they get the unilateral right to decide whether to abort it. Men have no say. Women have more rights.

But, during the time it's legal to have an abortion, a man should be able to opt out of parenthood, both rights and responsibilities. Women also have that right. They can offer a baby up to the state after birth.

Under this scheme women have more rights (taking account of women's fate to carry the child), women have complete control over their bodies, and both men and women have choice.


but I'm glad we've arrived at an understanding. I'm advocating reproductive rights for men, which not entail taking them away from women.

Posted by: Jeff at February 5, 2008 11:43 AM

What a butt-kicking you are delivering, Jeff !

What a delight to read a sparkling appeal to rationality and the facts.

But the largely misandrist women you are logically and empirically decimating are immune to intelligent discussion.

Hence all kind of personal attacks, red herrings, and irrational flaming occurs. Why ? Their views cannot withstand scrutiny-- they are based on emotionalism and/or self-interest. So when challenged, the women resort to all types of illogic and name -calling and misrepresenting facts ( " Deadbeat Dads" is a misandric myth, like most of feminist inventions), and then to relating their personal experiences as if it were some kind of talisman of truth.

Flynne is a sterotype of an irrational misandrist-- but very common. You want her to write more so you can quote her to rational and moral people who are unaware of the irrationality,virulent sexism and entitlement of so many women.

Why don't men have "reproductive autononmy/choice"-- why because they don't get pregnant and suffer its physical complications ?

So what ?-- they are held liable for 18 years of economic servitude. Why do men have legal duties without concomitant rights ? Hell, if the woman dupes the man into thinking he is the father, unless he finds out within a few months-- he is liable for support for 18 years-- even if a DNA test shows he is not the father and the Mother admits lying... Some jurisdictions refuse to allow a "father" to question his paternity by obtaining a DNA test ! Why " Against the best interest of the child ! So a man can be legally compelled to support strangers---
Defend that , ladies... rather.. ignore it and call names and change the subject back to women and make sure the laws continue to serve women's squalid self-interest.

The Supreme Court is never going to ensure reproductive autonmy for men--, a similar claim was dismissed as "frivilous " by a federal District Court and A Court of Appeals-- that means it was totally bereft of legal merit.

WHY ?-- law is about money most of the time--its a state and federal treasury matter. Find the nearest available man to support the woman's bastard offspring-- or society will have to pay for them. Hence if men could opt out-- the states and feds would go bust paying for all the illegitimate offspring women have. Just write a name-- any name down lady-- we will track him down and sue him for you... so the state will not have to pay for your children.


Perhaps such women should be castrated to prevent them from draining the public coffers due to their hyperactive uteruses !

Feminist and most women want whatever serves their self-interests as women -- Equality when that serves them and Special Privelieges when that does-- (see Belford Bax 's 1913 destruction of feminist ideology !.) They will always defend or ignore discrimnation against men as unimportant.

You are throwing pearls before swine, Jeff

Posted by: etahasgard1986@aol.com at February 5, 2008 11:56 AM

etahasgard1986@aol.com: Hahahaha, did you actually read any of the posts. Are you reenacting an old Laurel and Hardy skit. You just bust in and ha he got you right after everyone realized they were vehemently supporting the same points.

Posted by: vlad at February 5, 2008 12:14 PM

Amy got a hundred comments in about 8 hours, which has got to be a new record for the blog

Posted by: Crid at February 5, 2008 12:19 PM

"Belford Bax 's 1913" Oh your a Marxists too. So not only should women be denied the right to vote but you want be to give up the privalag wrought by my education and hard work to feed the willful indigent derelicts.

Posted by: vlad at February 5, 2008 12:20 PM

Yeah, Vlad, he totally read all of my posts, misandrist bitch that I am. What a POS o_O

Posted by: Flynne at February 5, 2008 12:25 PM

"Y'know, there's an alternative to abortion. It's called not fucking."

I couldn't agree more! And the same thing goes for all you numbwits who get injured in traffic accidents. If you aren't willing to risk getting your legs broken in a car accident, stop driving to work and then expecting the hospital to set your bones when those accidents happen.

"When sex is decoupled from its biological function, this is what you get."

See, someone finally gets it! If you people would just realize that driving leads to traffic accidents, and that is its purpose, and stop trying to weasel out of your responsibilities, we could go back to the good old days when everyone rode bikes. The truth remains: there would be no traffic accidents if everyone stopped driving.

Seriously, I have to wonder what people are thinking when they COMPLAIN about the separation of sex from reproduction due to contraceptives. My guess is this person either doesn't enjoy fucking, or they want to have a shitload of babies.

The fact that smart, responsible people can enjoy their sex lives and still plan their children for when they want them and can afford them is probably in the top ten list of most civilizing influences upon humanity in the last century. Of course there are plenty of mouth-breathing dullards who will have lots of underparented kids they can't afford, but they aren't the ones using contraceptives, obviously. If only there was a way to get it into the water! And you'd have to take a fertility pill to GET pregnant.

Posted by: Pirate Jo at February 5, 2008 12:30 PM

brian you say be rational and dont have sex?
how rational is it to force ourselves to deny the driving forces nature has bred us for?

jimbo - I dont hate christians, I hate hypocrites and busy bodies

Unfortunatly a large majority of hypocrites/busy bodies happen to be religious and are willing to ignore damn near every tennat of their faith to force a code of conduct on the rest of us. A code not based on their reliogion either but based on their bizzare , egotisticl, misathropic, and myopic view of life

The second commandment is not to take the lords name in vain - but people do all the time - God wouldnt like this, god wouldnt like that, god hates gays and 9/11 was gods punishment for masterbation

ANd for those who think you cant legislate morality look at utah - cant swear in public, can only buy alcohol(even beer) in state licenced stores

Posted by: lujlp at February 5, 2008 12:33 PM

ANd for those who think you cant legislate morality look at utah - cant swear in public, can only buy alcohol(even beer) in state licenced stores

So? People can swear in private and even in public if there are no "swear" police around, how many people are going to really abide by that law? and, at least you CAN buy alcohol in a state store. That's not really legislating morality, that's just putting some restrictions on it.

Posted by: Flynne at February 5, 2008 12:39 PM

How about law against polygamy then?

Posted by: lujlp at February 5, 2008 12:47 PM

Wow, what a debate. I'm going to add my two cents here.

I read through these posts and there's a lot of talk about the father having the ability to give up the "legal rights and responsibilities" because that's "only fair" if women get the right to choose whether to abort the pregnancy. I ask, what would be a viable solution instead, in that case?

Babies are freaking expensive. And I mean very, very, very expensive. The hospital and doctor's visits, the food for the mom during the pregnancy, the formula for the baby after the pregnancy or the extra food for the mom if she's breastfeeding, the diapers, maternity clothes, baby clothes (babies grow fast so new clothes have to be bought often), baby food, a stroller, toys, crib, walker, car seats, books, blankets, shoes, and a host of other items. Tack on child care if the mom has to work, as well as the maternity leave. It's estimated that a baby costs around $10,000 to $30,000 in its first year, depending on how nice or secondhand the stuff is.

Now, if the father is legally absolved of his financial responsibilities, who's going to pay for all of that? The mom, all by herself? Seems kind of a hefty cost for not wanting to terminate, to have to shoulder that much financial burden by herself PLUS dedicating the almost 24/7 care a new baby takes.

What about the government? If that kind of a bill was passed, it'd be very dumb for any father to actually TAKE responsibility in that case. Think about it... Even if the couple loves each other and wants to be together and raise baby together, if the father legally absolves his responsibility, the mother gets a fat check from the government. The father could come around whenever he wanted, or even live with the mother (who'd check, after all?) and the couple would have bunches of extra money. Also, how would we pay for that kind of a support system? Extra taxes?

How about... The parents of the couple, IE the grandparents of the baby? Maybe, but of which one? The mother, or the father? Or both? What about the next guy that comes along? Why should they have to pay for someone else's kid?

I'm not against guys having a legal right to absolve themselves of the responsibility of a pregnancy. I really just don't see who'd pay for the resulting baby if they did. This is really not an easy thing to solve at all.

Posted by: Bad Kitty at February 5, 2008 12:50 PM

How about law against polygamy then?

Is there one? Does there need to be one? I mean, really, how many sane men do you know who actually want more than one wife? o_O

Posted by: Flynne at February 5, 2008 12:50 PM

Pirate Jo - your analogy falls apart on one critical point -

You aren't required to carry sex insurance. You ARE required to carry car insurance.

So, if you wanna start penalizing people for fucking without a license or insurance, fine.

Otherwise, you'll have to make another comparison.


Lujlp - We deny ourselves those things every day. We are biologically driven to eat all the food that comes to hand, and kill our competitors. Yet we force ourselves to not do those things every day.

Instead of evolving and leaving our animal selves behind, we are devolving and becoming no better than the semi-sentient lower animals.

Posted by: brian Author Profile Page at February 5, 2008 12:53 PM

"I'm not against guys having a legal right to absolve themselves of the responsibility of a pregnancy. I really just don't see who'd pay for the resulting baby if they did."

Maybe ... the couple who adopted it? There are plenty of things in my life I want but can't afford. I either wait until I can afford them to have them, or forget about having them.

Posted by: Pirate Jo at February 5, 2008 12:54 PM

See, what I see happening with the "semi-sentient lower animals" is them having lots of babies every time they have sex. Yet you are COMPLAINING because people have contraceptives now? It's precisely BECAUSE people have separated sex and reproduction that our standard of living has gotten so much better!

Posted by: Pirate Jo at February 5, 2008 12:57 PM

Bad Kitty - the unspoken part of the "men's rights" movement as represented here is that they REALLY want the ability to tell a woman to have an abortion. But since that won't really fly too well in polite company, they say "all I want is the same ability to walk away that she has", knowing full well that the majority of single, young women aren't in a position financially to raise a child. They realize that their walking away is going to cause a good number of them to abort, thereby absolving them of their responsibility.

Posted by: brian Author Profile Page at February 5, 2008 12:57 PM

Pirate Jo -

No, I'm complaining that people seem to think that they have a right to consequence-free sex as a result of contraception.

Reality is that no contraceptive is 100% effective. And using abortion as a secondary contraception because you wanna have all the fun and none of the responsibility is repugnant.

If you can't do the time, don't do the crime.

Posted by: brian Author Profile Page at February 5, 2008 1:00 PM

" ... they say "all I want is the same ability to walk away that she has", knowing full well that the majority of single, young women aren't in a position financially to raise a child. They realize that their walking away is going to cause a good number of them to abort, thereby absolving them of their responsibility."

It is indeed unfortunate that so many women who can't afford to raise children are getting knocked up by men who don't want to have children. One can only advocate birth control so many times. I look at the above situation as one where the woman SHOULD abort.

Posted by: Pirate Jo at February 5, 2008 1:02 PM

Jo -

Why would you look at it that way, instead of one where people who cannot afford to have children simply abstain from engaging in the one method of creating them in the first place?

Is sex some kind of sacrament?

Posted by: brian Author Profile Page at February 5, 2008 1:05 PM

"And using abortion as a secondary contraception because you wanna have all the fun and none of the responsibility is repugnant."

The only reason I can think of to agree with this statement is that abortion is hard on your body. Not as hard on it as a pregnancy, but it is still way, way, way easier and better for you to simply use contraceptives. I have to wonder about a lot of unintended pregnancies - aren't these people using anything? That said, if people aren't smart enough to use protection, is this really the gene pool we want reproducing? Or are you advocating against abortion simply on the principle of punishing those heathens who are enjoying consequence-free sex and GETTING AWAY WITH IT? By the way, I had the Essure procedure done (a method of tying the tubes) that is 100% effective.

Posted by: Pirate Jo at February 5, 2008 1:07 PM

No, I'm complaining that people seem to think that they have a right to consequence-free sex as a result of contraception.

You mean they don't? Isn't that the point of contraception? The pleasure without the pain, as it were? Taking personal responsibility? Something is wrong with having sex, and preventing conception at the same time? No beer and skittles for you, Brian! o_O

Posted by: Flynne at February 5, 2008 1:07 PM

... they say "all I want is the same ability to walk away that she has", knowing full well that the majority of single, young women aren't in a position financially to raise a child. They realize that their walking away is going to cause a good number of them to abort, thereby absolving them of their responsibility

It might also be that the person they were haveing sex with was a casual consentual relationship and he just doesnt want a familly with her

Incedentaly most people are so bad at bugeting they can barley afford to feed and cloth themselves, let alone a family

Posted by: lujlp at February 5, 2008 1:11 PM

"Why would you look at it that way, instead of one where people who cannot afford to have children simply abstain from engaging in the one method of creating them in the first place?"

I don't care how you stay skinny. You can stop eating doughnuts, or you can eat your doughnuts and then hop on the treadmill to burn them back off. I have never been pregnant and never will be, thanks to my titanium alloy-filled tubes, but I simply don't see abortion as immoral and would have one in a New York second if I ever did get pregnant. Hence, from my perspective it isn't a reason to stop having sex. Sex is fun, or hadn't you noticed? To me, the "consequence" of the unwanted pregnancy is the abortion itself. No way would I tie the albatross of a pregnancy around my neck as some sort of self-punishment.

Posted by: Pirate Jo at February 5, 2008 1:12 PM

Flynne - absent permanent modifications like those that Jo underwent, no. Anyone who uses chemical or mechanical contraception (as opposed to surgical) has every reason to believe that it could fail at any time.

And anyone who takes such risks without having a contingency in place is irresponsible.

I just don't consider abortion to be an act of "taking personal responsibility". It is, just like those men who want to abandon their offspring, an act of AVOIDING responsibility.

Posted by: brian Author Profile Page at February 5, 2008 1:13 PM

Abortions would practically disapear if they taught responsible sex ed

And by they I mean parents and schools

Posted by: lujlp at February 5, 2008 1:15 PM

"It is, just like those men who want to abandon their offspring, an act of AVOIDING responsibility."

So what? Why wouldn't you avoid responsibilities you don't want? Abstaining from sex (your favorite method) could also be seen as avoiding responsibility - you are trying to avoid the responsibility of having kids, just like the person having the abortion. Do we all have some kind of responsibility to have kids? I don't think so, even if a person does get pregnant.

Posted by: Pirate Jo at February 5, 2008 1:16 PM

No way would I tie the albatross of a pregnancy around my neck as some sort of self-punishment

Can you imagine the hell growing up in that house?

"Of course mommy loves you sweetie. All I meant was your a punishment from god. Mommy did somthing bad and your are the cause"

And quite frankly there are far to mny humans on this planet, they should never be another child born that wasnt 'an accident'

Posted by: lujlp at February 5, 2008 1:19 PM

I just don't consider abortion to be an act of "taking personal responsibility". It is, just like those men who want to abandon their offspring, an act of AVOIDING responsibility.

Yes, Brian, I totally agree with you, abortion is NOT a method of birth control, and I would never advocate it as such. Did you know that every time a woman has an abortion, it increases her chances of sterility by 15%? But I did use the pill, and never got pregnant while on it; I got pregnant when I went off the pill for a month, when I decided I didn't want to date for a while, and then was back on it for less than a month when I got pregnant. So yes, that method failed me that ONE time. (Now I've got my tubes tied, because I'm old and in the way, but still like sex. A LOT. And so does my boyfriend, who had a vasectomy. But we both still took personal responsibility. And I will teach my daughters that they both need to take that personal responsibility as well, when they're old enough. Personal responsibility. Communication and education. THAT'S what prevents unwanted pregnancies, more often than not.)

Posted by: Flynne at February 5, 2008 1:20 PM

Jo - way to miss the point.

To go back to your flawed analogy from before - being a responsible car owner means maintaining your car. If you don't maintain the car, and it breaks, and it does damage, you are expected to repair it. You can't say "well, if you weren't crossing the street, it wouldn't matter that my brakes were worn out".

Same thing with sex. The biological purpose of it is reproduction. Which means that despite your best efforts short of surgical modification (and excepting biological flaws) pregnancy is virtually guaranteed. It's a matter of when, not if.

So, you can either go into the whole enterprise with your eyes open, and have a reasonable plan in place to deal with such eventualities, or not. For "men" like Jeff here, there is no reasonable plan, for commonly accepted definitions of "reasonable". He wants to walk away from a child that he derived pleasure from creating. Well, pleasure and pain kinda offset. You want the pleasure of making a baby, you get the pain of raising it.

Children are punishment for enjoying sex.

Posted by: brian Author Profile Page at February 5, 2008 1:21 PM

Children are punishment for enjoying sex.

Geez, Brian, you sound like my grandad, how old ARE you?!?

Posted by: Flynne at February 5, 2008 1:25 PM

>>Well, pleasure and pain kinda offset.
Thats why we have bondage and S&M


You want the pleasure of making a baby, you get the pain of raising it.

Children are punishment for enjoying sex.

Spoken like a true beliver - devine lifelong punsiment from a 'god who loves you'

Posted by: lujlp at February 5, 2008 1:25 PM

Nope, not missing the point at all. You can't say "well, if you weren't crossing the street, it wouldn't matter that my brakes were worn out". Because in that case your negligence harmed another person - not the case with an abortion. As Flynne pointed out, it increases the chance of sterility by 15%, so you are damaging yourself by doing it, but ONLY yourself. I suspect that you equate a fertilized egg with a person, which is at the core of our disagreement. It's not that I'm missing the point, I just don't agree with you on this fundamental point.

Posted by: Pirate Jo at February 5, 2008 1:27 PM

Except that you're wrong lujlp.

God not only doesn't love you, me, or anyone else. He doesn't even know we exist.

Flynne - I'm younger than you, and more jaded than a man twice my age should be.

Posted by: brian Author Profile Page at February 5, 2008 1:39 PM

"Children are punishment for enjoying sex." That's a great way to look at it. So for a 5 second orgasm and bad luck you want to shit can 20 years of your life.

Explain why this is legit without the use of god or morality (religious perversion of ethics)?

Posted by: vlad at February 5, 2008 1:43 PM

"He doesn't even know we exist." Yet you are certain that he does in fact exist?

Posted by: vlad at February 5, 2008 1:45 PM

If he doesn't know we exist (assuming he does exist) why would he care if someone had an abortion?

Posted by: vlad at February 5, 2008 1:46 PM

Vlad - Given the youthful nature of both the Earth and Man (4 billion and less than half a million years, respectively), it's very likely that some or all of what we perceive to be our world was engineered, rather than springing up out of the noise. So I'd say that I am better than 50% confident there is a creator god.

However, there is no evidence whatsoever to indicate that said creator has interacted directly with his creation since setting it in motion.

If you don't like my statement about children being punishment, then we can turn the concept inside-out thus: If sex wasn't fun, there wouldn't be children.

Posted by: brian Author Profile Page at February 5, 2008 1:51 PM

vlad allow me to translate brians answer

BECAUSE I SAID SO

Posted by: lujlp at February 5, 2008 1:58 PM

So he set all of this in motion then it all evolved on it own. Thus he kick started the big bang and then sat back and watched? Why would it requires a sentient being to kick start the process?

"If sex wasn't fun, there wouldn't be children." These statements are not comparable. The fact that if X then Y does not equate with Y is the punishment for X because X is wrong.

Posted by: vlad at February 5, 2008 1:59 PM

Children are punishment for sex? And all this time I thought they were punishment for being dumb enough to eat at family-friendly restaurants.

Posted by: Pirate Jo at February 5, 2008 2:03 PM

"Children are punishment" First point they are not a punishment unless you don't want them. That's the equivalent of saying my game systems are a punishment for being successful, sounds fairly stupid doesn't it. If you don't want them don't have doesn't work, especially on young people who are the most at risk for many reasons. Final point most of us hate punishments, so you are claiming that you would hate your own children. Yet you claim abortion is wrong and have yet to explain why you feel this way.

Posted by: vlad at February 5, 2008 2:10 PM

Abortion is wrong from a standpoint of individual rights. Whether anyone is comfortable with it or not, there is a third person in the whole transaction whose rights need to be considered. Although they didn't ask to be called into existence, and they weren't a party to the actions that led to their existence and subsequent residence in the womb, they still need to be considered.

Given that there is no consensus for when a fertilized egg becomes a human, I'm comfortable with establishing the criteria as "when the zygote has implanted in the uterine wall and has a finite chance of departing the womb as a functioning being". That would make any intentional action on the part of any other person to forcibly evict the developing human from the womb a human rights issue, would it not?

I feel that my position errs on the side of excessive caution, but it also avoids thorny ethical dilemmas, such as picking an arbitrary time prior to which it is acceptable to simply prevent a life from taking its course.

And no, I'm not terribly fond of children, which is why I never want to be in a position where I have one of my own. Because I'm not sure I wouldn't hate it.

Posted by: brian Author Profile Page at February 5, 2008 2:24 PM

Okay, Brian, here's an oldie but a goodie:

Suppose someone was going to die without certain medical treatments, and YOU were the only person who was a match. And you were told that you were *obliged* to spend the next several months using your bodily resources to keep him alive. He needs a kidney? You have to give him one. He needs a couple of pints of blood? They stick the needle into you and take it.

Would you say this is acceptable? Do you think that one person should be forced physically bear the burden of helping another live? Are you for (live) organ and blood donations being made mandatory? If not, why not? Think of how many lives would be saved if we grabbed every healthy person at the age of, oh, 25, took a kidney and maybe a nice hunk of liver, and gave them to sick people.

But no, we don't require people to sacrifice their bodies for others.

And that includes fetuses.

Posted by: Jay at February 5, 2008 2:40 PM

Jay - if you're going to trot out that beaten-up old straw man again, let me go grab my torch. Not all oldies are golden.

It is on its face unacceptable. But here's why:

I did not engage in any actions to cause that person to be in the situation he was in. He isn't lying in that bed dying because I engaged in an action I knew could cause him harm. He isn't in a bad way because I did something that could potentially cause him harm. The situation you present imposes a demand on a party with no interest.

For the purposes of the arguments presented in this thread, two people consensually and willingly engaged in a physical interaction that directly led to the third party being called into existence. In a very real sense, they invited this person to take up residence in the womb.

Are you arguing that someone ought to be able to rescind that invitation without cause? I mean, there's implied contract to consider here. Even though the as yet unborn infant is not legally capable of entering into a contract, the parents are certainly capable of doing so on its behalf. And I think it goes without saying that once implanted, there's a reasonable expectation of departure as a living being in about 9 months.

Of course, all this is moot if you are simply able to declare an unborn child "not a person for legal purposes".

But then, you could also extend that to five months or so outside the womb, because the child is not yet self aware.

Pregnancy and birth present a unique situation - at what point to rights come in to being. If we are to assume that all humans have rights as a consequence of existence, at what point is that existence considered valid? Is it at conception, viability, birth, ability to acknowledge self, ability to act in furtherance of rights? There has to be a line drawn, unambiguously. I've already made my case for where I favor drawing said line.

You are free to make serious arguments about how I'm wrong, but your first attempt was sorely lacking. It is, in fact, a worse argument than that given by the losers that argue that they got "tricked" into getting a woman pregnant, and they want out.

Posted by: brian Author Profile Page at February 5, 2008 2:53 PM

"Don’t want women to have abortions? Pay them to have the babies. Pay for the care of the babies after they’re born -- "

We already do pay women to have babies, and pay for the care of the babies, and mothers, after they are born.

"My body, my choice" is where feminists stop. They always seem to leave out, "My responsibility."

These days, with so many effective methods of birth control, it's a lot harder to gin up tears for women who "accidentally" end up pregnant. A full 25% of all pregnancies are ended by abortion. This isn't "choice" saving innocent lives -- it is mass female irresponsibility, pure and simple.

How about keep your legs closed if you don't want to get pregnant?! (And no, 25% of all pregnancies are not the result of rape, so get off it!)

Posted by: Jay R at February 5, 2008 3:14 PM

Wow, Brian, I don't agree with all your views, but thank you for making a consistent, logical argument without resorting to Bible-thumping.

Setting aside (for a moment, anyway) the issue of when a fertilized egg becomes a person ...

You are pretty casual about telling everyone who doesn't want kids to forget about having sex, but are you living by that? Are you actually forgoing all sexual intimacy just because you don't want to be a father and won't take the risk of that happening? Or did you get a vasectomy and figure that counted as removing 100% of the risk? Or are you only shagging 70-year-old women?

It is curious that you seem to view sex strictly in terms of its reproductive function. It's like you see no value whatsoever in two people having a physical connection to share. To suggest that people might enjoy their lives and each other more because of it, you equate to a base desire that we should suppress, like not killing our competitors for food.

Posted by: Pirate Jo at February 5, 2008 3:27 PM

Jay R, I don't like paying for it either. Just be glad you don't live in Russia, where the government is literally running programs with the sole purpose of encouraging people to breed, at the expense of their taxpayers.

But please, think for a moment. Why do you call this mass female irresponsibility? Do you not assign ANY responsibility to the male? If so, what percentage would you give?

Posted by: Pirate Jo at February 5, 2008 3:33 PM

Jo - Thank you. I don't think I need God's help to figure out that abortion is wrong. So far as the sharing of connections goes, I've never been offered the opportunity. I'd like to think that I'd be able to be a little more rational than my dog when confronted with such things. I don't view sex strictly in terms of its reproductive function, but to view it entirely as an entertainment device seems to me to be a foolish act.

As far as Russia goes, what you have there is the end result of a complete totalitarian society. Where there was no opportunity for individual achievement, there was no desire to reproduce. Why have a baby if you've got nothing worth living for? So they had more abortions than live births by the time the USSR collapsed. I'd like to think that the declining birth rate in the USSR was a contributing factor in the fall of the wall. Russia is demographically fucked. If they don't get a serious baby boom, they won't exist in 50 years.

Jay's view is that of standard misogynists everywhere. Limbaugh calls it "get-even-with-em-ism" In response to what he sees as a society that has gone to far in favoring women over men, he has decided that it's time the shoe was on the other foot.

It is precisely this short-term thinking that perpetuates the petty squabbles that keep us from moving forward.

Posted by: brian Author Profile Page at February 5, 2008 3:44 PM

Children as punishment... I always knew there was a coverup going on somewhere.

Posted by: Christina at February 5, 2008 5:05 PM

Great arguments brian.

I recently had a close friend get pregnant. The father is a cousin of mine and I had introduced them. He was only here on vacation, staying with me, perfecting his english (which he did accomplish). All three of us are atheists, in our early 20's and educated. The story is as follows:

My friend, and my cousin engaged in a brief relationship. My cousin always practices safe sex, and it was (he told me) mutually understood that the girl could not get pregnant. Why trust her? From all of our conversations shes seemed trustworthy in this matter. So he came inside of her several times...and on the last day he was here was the day she got pregnant. Both of us were a little confused as it appearead she wanted to get pregnant by him. He explained to her that bringing a child into this world in their situation would not be ideal, as he doesnt even live in this country and the child would grow up fatherless. The girl is keeping the baby. I have to agree with my cousin that what she is doing is not rational, her home situation isnt idealic and she is bringing the kid into a world that all three of us are very familiar with. Shitty parents who had no business having children. My mother is one of those parents and it has only been through luck and brains that I've come out of the hole I was put in. My older brother has not been so lucky. One of the things I dislike about my friends pregnancy was her statement "I grew up without a father so my kid will turn out fine" She is still a friend and I have not expressed my views to her as it is none of my business, especially since I myself engaged in risky sexual behaviour. As to whether or not I would terminate a pregnancy in my current situation...truth is depending on the father.

Posted by: PurplePen at February 5, 2008 5:22 PM

Given that there is no consensus for when a fertilized egg becomes a human, I'm comfortable with establishing the criteria as "when the zygote has implanted in the uterine wall and has a finite chance of departing the womb as a functioning being". That would make any intentional action on the part of any other person to forcibly evict the developing human from the womb a human rights issue, would it not?

How so, Brian? Said zygote is not capable of arguing its own rights, it cannot even breath on its own yet, it is the sole discretion of the mother who is carrying it to decide whether to plead in its favor or not. Up until any birth defects can be detected (within 16 - 18 weeks), and anytime thereafter until it exits the womb, it is not a fully functioning autonomous unit. When I was pregnant with #2, I was having severe bouts of edema (swelling and severe itchiness of swollen feet, ankles, hands, and arms), and the ob-gyn told me that because my amnio-fetal proteins were so high, they would have to do perform an amniocentesis (where they stick a big needle in your swollen belly and draw out a substantial amount of amniotic fluid), to detect whether or not there were "problems" with the fetus. The results were that she had a 7 to 12% piece of an extra chromosome. The (then) chief of obstetrics at Yale then decided that further investigation was warranted, and scheduled me for a fetal echocardiogram. These tests were performed AFTER 16 weeks of pregnancy, because before then, "the fetus does not have a viable heartbeat" according to him. He told me that he would totally support my decision to abort the fetus if there were signs of severe organ damage and/or Downs Syndrome. I was still in kind of shock and operating strictly on auto-pilot at that point. After telling me that he would "pull no punches and tell [me] exactly what [he saw]" he started moving the dopler over my pregnant belly and saying things like "I see no webbing of the hands or feet" and "so far, there are no holes in any organs nor any damage that I can see" I wept. Uncontrollably. When the words, "there is nothing wrong with this child." came out of his mouth, the relief I experienced was like a breath of fresh air. She is now 12 years old, and is one of the sweetest kids you could ever imagine. But if the chief of obstetrics could be so understanding, so kind as to not pass judgement on me for what would have been one of the most difficult and gut-wrenching of decisions if she had been severely damaged, I don't think it's up to other people who don't know an individual's situation to pass judgement on something so private, and so potentially devastating, a decision as this. And it certainly is not the government's business.

Posted by: Flynne at February 5, 2008 5:40 PM

Flynne -

I never argued that it's the government's business. I think Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided on the merits. It's bad law. That doesn't mean I want the government penalizing abortion, at least not all of it.

Abortion is an intensely personal decision. On balance, I'd prefer it not happen. I don't believe that there is a rational or logical argument that supports it as a matter of course. Any rule will have exceptions. Such is the cost of living in a dynamic universe.

As far as this:

How so, Brian? Said zygote is not capable of arguing its own rights, it cannot even breath on its own yet, it is the sole discretion of the mother who is carrying it to decide whether to plead in its favor or not.

It's a matter of drawing a line in the sand. What constitutes "rights"? Is a right something that must be argued for? Are rights only granted to those who can effectively communicate them? At what point do we decide that a human possesses rights? And what does that entail?

My primary argument is against what I call "convenience abortion", which is by and large the majority of abortions performed. Abortions that happen for no reason other than the child is unwanted. You can try to rationalize that away, but it's probably not going to sway me for one simple reason - we don't accept that as an answer to unwanted pets (at least we are moving in that direction).

When complicating factors set in, I get concerned. Because now we're talking about getting into eugenics territory. I realize that a strong argument can be made. I'm not sure that's a road I want to go down. It leads to a great deal of logical inconsistency and requires judgments I'm not comfortable making. It certainly requires a great deal more thought before I can have a strong opinion.

Posted by: brian Author Profile Page at February 5, 2008 6:08 PM

Brian, the fact is, even if you did beat the shit out of someone and cause them to lose an eye, we do not mandate you donate your eye to them. We do not require one person sacrifice their body for another, regardless of circumstance.

Anyhow, there seems to be a vast philosophical difference here. See, some of us don't have major moral issues with abortion. Unwanted pregnancy is a medical situation that a woman may choose to rectify. We see a fetus as a parasite. I, personally, don't consider a fetus even quasi-realistically a "baby" until it could live outside the womb *without significant medical intervention* - that is, if essentially food and nurturing is enough to keep it alive. And since the vast VAST majority of abortions are well prior to that, I have no problem. I don't care - and it's not any of my business - what the woman's reason is. That she does not want to continue the pregnancy is reason enough.

Of course, if you disagree, then that's fine, and you're entirely within your rights to not have any abortions.

Heck, of course you're entirely within your rights to want to punish women for enjoying sex (oh, sorry, for "being irresponsible"), or to believe that Every Sperm Is Sacred, or that every baby is a gift/punishment from some Almighty and denying that gift is a ticket straight to hell. Whatever floats your boat. But you do not get to tell me how I, or any woman, should behave based on your beliefs.

I don't think anyone has ever changed someone's mind on "when is a zygote/fetus a precious human baby", and I suspect it'll not happen any time soon. But in the conflict of "rights" (if I allow for the fact some people believe the fetus has them, though I disagree), I have to vote "woman" every time. And since I do disagree, I don't think there's a conflict.


Posted by: jay at February 5, 2008 6:57 PM

And Brian, the "you" in that message isn't YOU - it's the generic form. Sorry if that wasn't clear - which it really wasn't.

Posted by: Jay at February 5, 2008 7:15 PM

"There's no definitive answer on when a person becomes a person. I believe it's when the fetus emerges from the woman and starts breathing on its own. If you believe differently...don't have an abortion."

Amy, this is really weak - especially given your position on at least one prior issue. If its OK for you to scream that the State should intervene to prevent parents for spanking children, then it's OK for those of us who believe that a late-term fetus is a child to shout that the State ought to prevent parents from killing what we see as children.

I think that your opinion on spanking is incorrect, as I argued on your blog. You think my opinion about when fetus becomes a child is wrong. So be it - intelligent people disagree on things. But what intelligent people should NOT do is avoid the arguments of others by trying to delegitimize them.

Every conscientious person has a civic duty to object to wrongful loss of life. On that much I am sure we agree. So the underlying question is not about the attitude of the State toward life - it is when life begins.

You and I disagree on this point. However, the fact that you are a women no more gives you a right a monopoly on the right to speak on this issue than my status as veteran gives me a monopoly on right to speak out on Iraq. I concede that as a woman you are potentially more directly impacted by the abortion issue, but that certainly does not imbue you with any greater moral authority on the subject, and it certainly imposes no obligation of deference upon me. I disagree with your comment as quoted above and I have as much right to speak as you, whether I have a womb or not. By analogy, as a Soldier I have a lot more personally at stake in Iraq than you do (of the two of us I am the only one who has had my HMMWV shredded by an IED while I was in it), but I would never dream of trotting that out like John McCain does with Vietnam as a means of silencing those who disagree with me on Iraq (you'll notice that I have never weighed in with my own view on the rightness or wrongness of the Iraq War in this forum). You have as much right to speak out as I do, even though I arguably have more at stake. Same for both of us.

It is not incumbent upon us to defer to your view of abortion. It is incumbent upon YOU to carry the day for your view in the marketplace of ideas - and since 1973, you and likeminded persons have.

As an incident to this discussion, I will outline my views on when life does and does not begin. I once heard a doctor on TV say that abortion makes us "morally goofy." He addressed both extreme positions in the debate - the view on the left that a fetus has no moral value whatsoever at any point from conception to birth, and the view on the right that a fetus has the same moral value as any other human from the moment of conception - as equally absurd. I think he was correct.

I do not believe that a single fertilized egg in the womb has anything like the moral stature of fully birthed human being. I have no objection to a woman eliminating such a pregnancy, legally at least (I might have a MORAL objection to it under many - but certainly not all - circumstances, but I would not advocate State intervention to stop her). On the other hand, I believe that the act of destroying a late-term child in the uterus is an act of absolute barbarism; I believe it is an act of murder morally (although I would never advocate defining it as such at law), and I believe that the State should neither endorse, nor condone, nor tolerate such monstrous acts. The line you (and others) draw - that a fetus is not a person until it has left the womb and started breathing - is utterly without any logical basis. In fact, it constitutes nothing but a convenient bright-line test designed to spare us the trouble of having to make difficult moral choices. I understand that women have a right to reproductive choice, but I also believe that they have a responsibility to exercise that choice within a reasonable space of time from conception. I don't think that a woman ought to be forced to make that choice on day 1 of gestation, but I don't think it is reasonable for her to wait until day 279 and still expect an absolute right to abort at that point either. That is irresponsible.

I mean really, the fetus does not go through some sort of magical transformation as it passes from the womb through the birth canal. Some believe in the transubstantiation of bread and wine during the Eucharist. I hardly think a similar process occurs during delivery.

Now there is a world of difference between using RU-486 to prevent a pregnancy or terminating one early in gestation on the one hand and destroying a viable child in the womb near its' due date. I think that this proposition is self-evident. One is always unfortunate but sometimes necessary, but certainly always within the rightful purview of the woman. The other utterly abhorrent under all, or nearly all, circumstances.

So where do we draw the line? It's a tough call. Most important questions in life are tough calls. That's why they're controversial. I am not happy with abortion law as it stands now, but I do think that the Supreme Court has got somewhere near a reasonable dividing line between acceptable (if unfortunate or distasteful) choices that people have a right to make, and outrageous acts of barbarism that people should not have a right commit. The dividing line right now is viability. Maybe that's not the ideal dividing line, but it is a reasonable start.

I believe that a fetus is a human being long before it draws that first breath after delivery but sometime well after the moment of conception.

Call me a "nutter" if you want, but don't tell me to shut me up.


Posted by: Dennis at February 5, 2008 7:47 PM

Wow lots of comments. I'm not a woman and I have the sex life of a rock but I'm bored so here goes. .

"When you are able to carry a fetus to term and give birth to it, then we can talk. Until then, you cannot even begin to imagine what it's like. Ergo, you HAVE NO SAY IN THE MATTER."

BULLSHIT!!! We are ,after all, talking about public policy. This is a democracy (ok, a republic) This idea of "you have no say in the matter" is a load of crap.

"But you do not get to tell me how I, or any woman, should behave based on your beliefs."

We (as in "we the people") tell people how to behave all the time. Prostitution, recreational drug prohibition etc. Men can be drafted at the flick of the presidential pen and have their bodies turned into hamburger but hands off YOUR body, eh?

"Children as punishment"

Well duh! That's why sex has to feel so good or we would never reproduce.

"Setting aside (for a moment, anyway) the issue of when a fertilized egg becomes a person ..."

Semantics. What is a "person" anyway? Is a patient in a longterm coma a "person"? What about a patient with extreme mental retardation? Or a patient on a respirator? A fertillized egg may or may not be a "person" but it is without doubt an individual. It carries a genetic code unlike any that has existed before, same as you or me.

"Don’t want women to have abortions? Pay them to have the babies. Pay for the care of the babies after they’re born -- and don’t forget the college educations."

It's called "adoption"

In the final analysis I'm pro-choice but that doesn't blind me to other arguments, or mean I will accept weak arguments just because they support my position.

On a completely unrelated note...
Worldwide protests against Scientology on Feb 10. I'm getting a huge kick out of this whole "anonymous" thing. Fair game this, MF!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JCbKv9yiLiQ

We do not forgive
We do not forget
Expect us

What a hoot!

Posted by: winston at February 5, 2008 8:58 PM

Winston: This line was based on the (the wrong)assumption that Jeff wanted to tell a specific women (the one carrying his baby) to have or not have an abortion. In this case this I think it's a valid argument. So long as the procedure remains legal allowing the babies dady to have a say in this gets real ugly for many reasons.
"Until then, you cannot even begin to imagine what it's like. Ergo, you HAVE NO SAY IN THE MATTER."

The question we are all fighting over is when should the line be. At what point does it become a life and therefore protected by law. On one hand there are deep right fundies that think masturbation is murder. On the other extreme we have people who believe as long as the kids head hasn't fully emerged it's ok to abort even during actual delivery.

One of the problems is that neither side wants to give ground for fear of a land slide not in their favor. I can't see a reason for late 3rd trimester abortions without medical reasons. Sorry you had plenty of time to decide to keep or not keep the baby and much of the damage done to you body has happened. The baby is viable and almost all of the defects that can be found prebirth should have been checked. These are of course MY opinions.

Logically I can see not reason for preventing abortions up to just prior to delivery. Here's why: No one really believes life is actually sacred. They believe certain life is and certain life isn't worthy of legal protection. Many of the further right wing are pro death penalty and war (under the right circumstances) and pro-life but will support the killing or clinic doctors and nurse as well as innocent by standers. Many on the further left wing are pro abortion (there's a difference between this and pro choice) but anti-war (for any reason) anti-meat but have no problem attacking or even killing scientists who work with animals. The basic thought is that life is not actually scared to any and all non-photosynthetic beings. The concept of life as sacred can't be used. The idea that human life is sacred can only be used if you can arbitrarily define human life. Which I have never actually seen done. You can not use logic to defend pro-life.

Pro-choice is easier to defend at least from my life experince. It's fairly easy to show that a percentage of unwanted kids are a financial burden to society. Also that the lives of these unwanted kids tend to be miserable in part due to the resentment they feel from the parents. The chance of getting adopted goes up for healthy babies and is higher for white babies but if the child has medical problems (mental or physical) they will likely remain wards of the state costing tax payer dollars. At the age of 18 the are released from state custody and have to fend for themselves. The action is not gradual it's 18 and out you go. There are exception to this and the complete justification required a bit more research to nail down the numbers.

This will all go out the window if two things happen. Someone can define what human means arbitrarily and prove that human life has intrinsic value. This is different then proving that a specific person has value.

Posted by: vlad at February 6, 2008 6:35 AM

Wow, took a good chunk of my day to read through it all. And my opinion of other posters went back and forth as I did. Amy hit a nerve with us all. An interesting discusssion/debate to have and it's good to have this forum where we can offend and support each other without worrying about someone getting so angry they get physical. So here goes (to just address a few points without rehashing the whole damned thing, if not mentioned, don't be offended, I found it interesting and read all the posts whether they agreed with me or not.):

I think I liked Vlad's final post above best. Kind of says it all, life isn't sacred. Fact of life -- we have to kill to keep from killing ourself by starving to death (cause, face it, you can't survive on only fruit). One that irritates the hell out of me with vegans -- what arbitrary thing makes animal life more sacred than plant life? Just because you're an animal?

I'm unapologetically pro-choice because I'm a mother. I used to be it's something -- then I gave birth. Sorry, guys, but you don't know. And the just-give-it-up-for-adoption thing shows a great deal of ignorance. One of the physical things you go through in pregnancy, one of the naturally occuring things you go through, is an emotional attachment forms to the baby. So those of you who advocate forcing a woman to give birth want to go back to the good old days when a 17 year old was shipped off to "a boarding school" to secretly give birth and have her baby ripped away from her? Sick.

That said those, men included, who don't give birth do, of course, have a say though, frankly, it is also fair to consider the ignorance of what it is like to go through when they speak. Just as, as was pointed out on another post, I'm no expert on firearms (and that was taken into consideration) but I'm still entitled to an opinion on gun control, just as someone who hasn't served in the military has an opinion on war, it counts but perhaps not quite as much as someone who knows more. We all listen and gain opinions based on the experiences of others but that only goes so far.

I resent the implication that anyone being celibate by choice is either a religious kook or just plain irrational. I'm neither and have been for a while now. Sex is utterly fantastic but while it might feel in the midst of one that an orgasm is to die for, frankly, it isn't really worth dying for. I am celibate by choice for two reasons (down from three since I am post-menopausal and it's doubtful I'd get pregnant) -- to avoid disease and because I don't want the headache of a romantic relationship. Looking for Mr. Good Bar is too damned dangerous. I don't judge anyone who likes to live dangerously but there's too many crazies out there that appear normal for me to risk the one night stand thing. Friends with benefits are just kidding themselves; it gets complicated and pretends that there's no emotions involved when you combined a mental friendship with a physical relationship. Yeah, right. Maybe I'm an old fogey set in my ways but I'm buying that as much as, back in my young virgin days (and hanging on tightly to it like it was some precious jewel that I'm now old enough and wise enough to know it wasn't), I bought the black guy I was dating's line that some white chick just won't sleep with black men. What kind of dumb white girls out there that sleep with someone just to prove they aren't prejudiced?

But I digress, religion isn't the only reason to abstain. Not wanting the complications of a relationship, not wanting to risk disease and/or pregnancy (or winding up like Diane Keaton in that damned movie) are every bit as logical as not eating too much yummy junk food because you don't want a heart attack. And hormones don't take over if you don't put yourself in a situation where they can run rampant. It takes real effort but it also takes effort to have that salad instead of meat-lover's pizza. Of course, I'm a tea-totaller and staying sober also helps one not give in to their inhibitions.

Jeff, (I think it was you), are you kidding me with the history thing. You willing to give up any rights to be free of responsibilities that go with them? Other than fatherhood, I mean.

And that's the rub. Flynne, I do get it. And I think your situation shows perfectly why the giving the guys the same opt out as we have is problematic. I don't care what legal documents are signed or laws enacted. I can't see human judges denying the asshole that comes back around however many years later his right to be a father to a kid he is biologically the father of. I think we will see complications arising from the sperm banks down the road -- in both directions. Logically, I'm all for it. Frankly, I think a woman needs to be able to take care of herself and anyone else who comes along. BUT I can see women getting too screwed by this. He wants to see his kid, it's his kid. What you want child support? No, hon, you waived your right to this. Need I remind you child support and visitation are two separate issues. His seeing his offspring aren't contingent on paying child support. Hell, my grandbaby daddy gets his kids every weekend even though he's sent him to the emergency room several times now and he doesn't have to pay his share of day care as usual because the judge said he needs money for living (poor dear) even though then (she's not only back at work after being ill; my daughter just got a big promotion, doubling her pay!!! YAY!!! I am so proud.) he was making more than my daughter and is living with a woman who works the same place as him and whose children are grown.

Sorry for that tangent. Bottom line on that: I think it's reasonable but not realistic, simply because human's are so often emotional rather than logical. It's hard to ignore the fact that you have a kid out there and some guy that opted out at 20 might spend three years wondering about his kid and force his way back into said kid's life (and, by extension, baby mama's too, there's a reason the phrase "child in common" has entered the family court jargon). The only thing that's gonna happen if that's enacted is that women and children are going to get screwed over big time.

Posted by: Donna at February 6, 2008 11:02 AM

Ok, I'll admit that I've been thinking about this issue since that marathon debate on the last post about child support.

I still have a problem with men 'opting out'. But hear me out- it seems to be an assumption on this topic that unplanned pregnancies occur because women can profit from them. Get this-

Sometimes, two people, NEITHER of whom want a baby at that time have PROTECTED sex and still the woman ends up pregnant.

Opting out for her at this point simply isn't an option. It would be tedious for me to explain that statment, as it's been said.

What men want here- for their equal participation- is to walk away totally unscathed: physically altered in no way, totally free from any invasive, life-threatening procedures, painful pregnancy complications, labor, delivery or lifelong health costs, both monetary and physical.

I agree checkbook Daddyism isn't good for kids. My husband and his siblings grew up eating out of dumpsters, half because of their deadbeat 'dads' and half because of their mom's misappropriation of the welfare money. (She would spend it all on potato chips, hot dogs and soda, then run out mid-month...every damn month). I agree that lots of deadbeat women out there see childbearing as a viable career. I see the unfairness and sympathize with guys- (you can find sympathy, by the way, in the dictionary between shit and syphillis- thanks, Major Payne!). Perhaps some personal responsibility would be worthwhile in this mix.

How about this- you can 'opt out' of being a Dad-first you pay for half the cost of the abortion or perform half of the work of screening potential adoptive parents, half the cost of any complications- physical or mental, and half of any lost wages associated with the pregnancy, labor, delivery or maternity leave. You can drive the woman to half of her appointments, or pay for half the gas, bus fare and/or childcare. Then you serve 20 hours of community service a week for the duration of the pregnancy and recovery period- preferably at some sort of establishment aimed at preventing teen pregnancy.

How about them apples?

Posted by: Allison at February 6, 2008 12:00 PM

Almost forgot- he also has to wear some kind of ostentatious, identifying marker for the world to see. Did I cover everything?

Posted by: Allison at February 6, 2008 12:16 PM

Did I cover everything?

Probably not Allison.
But it's a great start:)

Posted by: Jody Tresidder at February 6, 2008 12:22 PM

Allison: So you are pro-life and require the dad to support you in this decision. As long as you only get busy with pro-lifers I see no problem here.
"you can 'opt out' of being a Dad-first you pay for half the cost of the abortion" any guy not willing to do this if given the option is raging moron. If she's willing to have the abortion shit, if I'm in that situation I'd pay for the whole damn thing, even if I was pretty sure it wasn't mine just to be safe. The trick and complaint is the women gets to chose which option the guy pays for including 18 years of supporting HER and the child. If I were in that situation yeah I'd support the kid and try to be a parent. I'd make damn sure I had joint custody, I'd be nasty as hell towards the babies momma so long as the kid is not around. I wouldn't resent supporting the kid I will resent supporting her.

"Sometimes, two people, NEITHER of whom want a baby at that time have PROTECTED sex and still the woman ends up pregnant." Right so as long as you are not pro-life the problem is quite easy to fix.

Posted by: vlad at February 6, 2008 12:34 PM

"Almost forgot- he also has to wear some kind of ostentatious, identifying marker for the world to see. Did I cover everything?" Um, unless you get a planned parenthood tee-shirt how so?

Again if he's too stupid to take to option to opt out by paying for the termination I have no sympathy for him.

Posted by: vlad at February 6, 2008 12:36 PM

Yeah, vlad, she gets to decide which option he pays half for. If he dosen't like that, he can choose to only sleep with pro-choicers.

Personal responsibility cuts both ways in this proposition.

Planned Parenthood t-shirt? I was thinking more along the lines of a lead weight around his neck-each day, it gets progressively heavier and more akward in shape. On the last day, it breaks open in the middle of the grocery line.

Posted by: Allison at February 6, 2008 12:51 PM

"I was thinking more along the lines of a lead weight around his neck-each day, it gets progressively heavier and more akward in shape. On the last day, it breaks open in the middle of the grocery line." If you terminate then no it won't.

"If he dosen't like that, he can choose to only sleep with pro-choicers." Just cause she's pro-choice doesn't mean she won't bleed him dry if he has the capital.

Beside the argument is a guy being able to opt out just like she CAN. The fact that she chooses to hang onto a belief system that prevents her from making the choice is not the guys fault. She wants to avoid all the unpleasant side effects of being pregnant terminate. Unless you can give me a rational reason not to. Saying that you don't want to has no more merit than him not wanting to pay child support. Both are selfish decisions that effect another persons life without their consent.

Posted by: vlad at February 6, 2008 1:13 PM

Saying that you don't want to has no more merit than him not wanting to pay child support. >>>

In a country founded on the prinipal of religious freedom, by folks who had just fought a revolution for same? Yeah, it does. Maybe your religion is ok with terminating a pregnancy, and your religious freedom counts, too. But on this decision, I'm voting for two.

Both are selfish decisions that effect another persons life without their consent. >>

Not terminating a pregnancy is selfish? What kind of jack-ass would say that? Not wanting to pay child support for YOUR OWN KID is not?

Posted by: Allison at February 6, 2008 1:31 PM

"Not terminating a pregnancy is selfish? What kind of jack-ass would say that?" Sure why not. You want to keep the baby (that you don't want) because it makes you feel noble. Your bringing a child into a shit situation with little or no support structure (if daddy hides his assets you won't get shit) that you don't want because YOU feel it's wrong to terminate it. Your not voting for two, either way you are making the decision for the child. Terminate or birth neither is up to the kid, or am I wrong here.

"In a country founded on the prinipal of religious freedom, by folks who had just fought a revolution for same?" That would be religious freedom from persecution by the state. I am no more required to give credence to your religious beliefs then you are required to give credence to mine. This is logical discussion not a bible reading.

Posted by: vlad at February 6, 2008 1:42 PM

"Not wanting to pay child support for YOUR OWN KID is not? " Read what I wrote. Yes it is selfish. Not paying child support hurts the child. The child had NO choice in his/her conception or birth. The parents have the choice to do the nasty or not do the nasty, they have the choice to use protection or not, the women has the choice to abort, that dad has the choice (though not legally) to not pay child support. The only one with no choice in the matter is the child.

Posted by: vlad at February 6, 2008 1:46 PM

"Not terminating a pregnancy is selfish?" Selfish is defined as putting one self first in any decision. If you are in a situation where you will be unable to support the child keeping it would be selfish. What would you consider it?

Posted by: vlad at February 6, 2008 1:49 PM

To place an olive branch here. If she's willing to give the kid up for adoption I'd cover that too, wouldn't be easy but it's better for the kid then growing up in a shit situation. I will however require a contract that states that if the kid isn't mine she's got to pay me back without interest over time.

The only time I'd get nasty and evil is if she makes me support her useless ass as well as the kid. Yet again the child remains blameless.

Posted by: vlad at February 6, 2008 2:13 PM

If she's willing to give the kid up for adoption I'd cover that too,>>

That's mighty big of you, man. A pregnant woman and man are not equal according to the law, vlad. If by cutting out, you force her to have an abortion she has moral or *gasp* religious objections to, you are not taking care of your half. I don't get it. I'm never going to get it. Abortions, child support, baby Moses laws, everyone demands consequence-free sex. Everyone demands control over every aspect. Everyone wants to be the victim. Biology be damned! Whenever one party is given some kind of preference, the first thing many of them want is to use it against the other. Welcome to reality. Abortion is simply not an option for everyone. It is never going to become the law that you can make someone get one, or co-erce someone into getting one. Or declare yourself blameless in a situation you helped to create because somebody won't toe your line. Its not equal rights you want. You want to win what you perceive as a pissing match.

It took me a while to get there, but I can see abolishing child support once the two of you are on equal footing, and you have BOTH handled your half of the consequences from the decision you both made. All of them. According to both peoples' rights, but with the understanding that the person who is biologically on the hook has the biological say. Period.

Have the last word, by the way. I'll come back and read it, but I spend too much of my time on this stuff, and life is too short for such a never ending debate.

Posted by: Allison at February 6, 2008 2:44 PM

Allison, if you're going to bring religion into it, gimme a break. Name me the religion that allows sex outside of marriage? That alone shatters hiding behind the Buybull. And, much as it sucks, a woman does need to be able to take care of herself and any children that she chooses to have. I'm gonna get called a male basher but, just as I'm afraid that it isn't going to be realistic letting them opt out, it's not realistic to rely on a man for support, be it financial or emotional. Rely on yourself and don't give birth without committing yourself to either giving them up for adoption or being someone your children can rely on.

But other than that, you sounded good. I say if we do pass laws allowing men the opt out option, we should tie child support and visitation together. I really don't get why they're separate anyway. You want to be a Daddy, then man up and be one, including tending to their financial needs. If they come back around and later decide they want to daddy, tell them not unless you're willing to pay back child support. Signed the opt out and didn't help keep them alive the last six years, don't get to be sugar daddy now that they're out of diapers and more fun.

Posted by: Donna at February 7, 2008 11:09 AM

Gah- I said I would't comment again...can't help it... well, I said it to vlad.

Tying child support to visitation rather undercuts the argument that you're for the kids and should rely on yourself.

If you're handling it yourself, (and I agree that you shouldn't be a single parent if you can't) why deny the kids a relationship with their Dad over money?

And I still don't get that religion is such a bad reason to be pro life. Because I had sex I should also be prepared to end a new life? That's the same argument that folks used to use if a woman claimed to be raped- well, she's had sex before... I think she even enjoyed it! Can't have been rape.

Posted by: Allison at February 7, 2008 12:03 PM

"Because I had sex I should also be prepared to end a new life? " First why is it a new life? Certainly in the first few months it could easily be argued that you could miscarry for any number of reasons. There is no reason to assume that a fetus at this stage will make a viable baby.

Also you both had sex not just him so why should he not get some say in keeping the baby? Your harping on a man being able to tell a women to have an abortion. Look at the opposite side of the argument. Should a man be able to stop a women from terminating a pregnancy? Or even giving or not giving the kid up for adoption? He's the father he's partly responsible yet he gets no say in the matter.

As far as handling it yourself. To hell with accidental pregnancies look at planned pregnancies or even adoptions. If you have a child even as a couple you have to plan fro the possibility of one of you taking care of the child yourself. I personally know of one case where it was an adoption (can't get more planned then that) by a very wealthy couple. Mom was going to be a stay at home parent dad was getting over 300k. A few weeks later dad keeled over from a sudden heart attack dead no warning. So you should never depend completely on other people even really good people.

Religion is a bad reason for anything primarily because it intellectually lazy. Doing what you are told by a priest, cleric, rabbi, etc. gives them control over your life. Now this isn't always horrid, I can't ever see giving that much control to a different person as good, though not always evil. Now by doing so you are assuming with great personal risk that your chosen messenger of god is noble. History shows innumerable examples of these self proclaimed messengers being self serving at best.

Posted by: vlad at February 7, 2008 12:27 PM

Hah- you're so intent on re-hashing the same argument about mens' lack of abortion control- you missed the most golden opportunity to rip me to complete shreds! Bwahah- it took me two days to catch this stupid thing I said, and I've still got to point it out to you!

I can't make you pay for half her abortion, vlad. Say you're against it and walk away scott free. Of course, be prepared for her to decide if she can't afford the abortion she'll opt for the birth, because then you're back on the hook. If she's half as spiteful as men in this argument assume, look out!


Posted by: Allison at February 7, 2008 9:35 PM

Allison:

"Tying child support to visitation rather undercuts the argument that you're for the kids and should rely on yourself." How so exactly? He wants to be a part of the game, he should participate fully; otherwise, stay the fuck away, kid's better off without you.

"If you're handling it yourself, (and I agree that you shouldn't be a single parent if you can't) why deny the kids a relationship with their Dad over money?" Because Dad shouldn't be able to have it all the fun and none of the responsibility. This isn't a father; this is someone treating a human child as a form of entertainment. Hence, why I think the kid's better off without him if he ain't willing to contribute some of the effort to helping said kid thrive. (And, no, his mere magnificent presence in the kid's life ain't good enough. Kid needs silly practical things to thrive like food, clothing and shelter.)

"And I still don't get that religion is such a bad reason to be pro life. Because I had sex I should also be prepared to end a new life?" Umm, you don't see anything hypocritical there? Don't play with matches if you don't want to get burned and if you do set off that blaze, don't expect that guy to stay in the raging inferno with you. It's no longer fun now that it's not a cozy fire in the fireplace.

"That's the same argument that folks used to use if a woman claimed to be raped- well, she's had sex before... I think she even enjoyed it! Can't have been rape." Again, how so? You're really stretching it saying that! Getting knocked up sinning willingly and being forced to have sex against your will? No comparing apples and oranges here.

Posted by: Donna at February 8, 2008 9:26 AM

Oh, yeah, and, Allison, your religion is your bag. You've got no right to force him to live by it.

But I posted before I read Vlad's response and your last post there. Frankly, that last post makes me want to give some money to a men's rights group (and, trust me, I'm not terribly fond of them, especially after having temped for child support enforcement)! Christ! You're giving women a bad name.

Posted by: Donna at February 8, 2008 9:31 AM

I AM TORN BETWEEN THIS TOPIC... I BELIEVE THAT WE AS HUMAN BEINGS HAVE THE RIGHT TO DO AS WE PLEASE...BUT I ALSO FILL THAT IF YOU LAY DOWN TO MAKE A BABY THEN YOU OWE IT TO THAT CHILD TO LET IT HAVE A CHANCE TO LIVE HIS/HERS LIFE.

Posted by: T.I.P at February 27, 2008 11:57 AM

Leave a comment