NationStates Jolt Archive

I'm assuming the answer for pro-lifer's is a no-brainer, but I'm willing to accept that there might be women out there that are pro-life yet would still have an aborition in certain circumstances. My question is more aimed at pro-choice women, such as myself. Being pro-choice doesn't necessarily mean that you yourself would actually have an abortion (which may shock some of you rednecks out there). So, would YOU have an abortion? If so, under what circumstances?

If the father has a mullet, you should probably look into it.

Speaking as a man and as a libertarian, I don't believe that Government should have any role in deciding on whether or not a person should get an abortion and really should just stay out of it. Personally though I do believe that abortions is an unholy and immoral act and is the same as first degree murder. However, that's just me and I don't plan on using Gov. Co. powers to spread what I believe.

There are definitely some circumstances in which I would have an abortion. If I got pregnant now, for instance, it would be aborted. If the foetus had some severe disability, it would be aborted. If I was not able to support it financially, abortion. If I drank while unknowingly pregnant: abortion... et c. The circumstances under which I would keep an unplanned pregnancy are actually pretty small, which is why I do the whole bit of using contraceptives to keep from making that a likely consequence.

Of course I would, for all the reasons women generally do -- having a child would be the wrong thing to do at the given time; the pregnancy is not going well; I don't want to have children; etc.

In fact, the first and third (edit) reasons above were the reason I did have an abortion, many years ago. I got pregnant because of birth control failure, and I was totally broke, and the guy skipped town, and I didn't want to have children anyway -- which is why I was using birth control in the first place.

As a man, I am a realist when it comes to abortion. I don't like it, save the RU 486 pill or early term abortions, and think it can be easily construed as murder.

However, I fear for the safety of many Americans. I do not want "doctors" in alleys with coat hangars as family planning. Banning it will not stop it, only send it underground.

Unless I was in an extremely rough situation, I would not have my wife get an abortion.

I know, you didn't want a man's opinion, but it takes two to tango.

I'm not sure I would. When I was younger, yes, no doubt. Now...well, I don't want more children, but if I was to become pregnant...it's definitely a possibility, but I'm not sure I could actually do it.

Unless I was in an extremely rough situation, I would not have my wife get an abortion.

I know, you didn't want a man's opinion, but it takes two to tango.

No, not in all cases it doesn't.

I honestly would feel under no obligation to inform the father if I were to get an abortion. And his feelings on the matter would certainly not be the deciding factor.

No, not in all cases it doesn't.

I honestly would feel under no obligation to inform the father if I were to get an abortion. And his feelings on the matter would certainly not be the deciding factor.
Indeed... although I would probably tell the guy if only to make him wait on me afterwards (if it took two to get me in that situation he should at least make sure I'm ok after an unpleasant medical procedure, it's probably the least he could do imo).

No, not in all cases it doesn't.

I honestly would feel under no obligation to inform the father if I were to get an abortion. And his feelings on the matter would certainly not be the deciding factor.

While you are under no obligation to inform your husband or the guy that planted the seed, if the two of you really love one another and care about one another, I'd think that you two would want to talk about it like rational human beings, but then again, the last time I thought people could be rational was when I was five, so take that as you will.

While you are under no obligation to inform your husband or the guy that planted the seed, if the two of you really love one another and care about one another, I'd think that you two would want to talk about it like rational human beings, but then again, the last time I thought people could be rational was when I was five, so take that as you will.
What's there to discuss unless the decision to keep the kid or not rests solely on whether the couple can afford it? I mean, it's entirely the woman's decision as it is her body and her medical procedure.

What's there to discuss unless the decision to keep the kid or not rests solely on whether the couple can afford it? I mean, it's entirely the woman's decision as it is her body and her medical procedure.

Yes, but unless the dad of the child is an unbelievable asshole, and by unbelievable asshole I mean abuser, drug users, thugs, rapist, or a guy who'd run out on the woman as soon as he found out that she was pregnant, you'd think that the dad would like to at least know what is happening with the life form that he helped create, even if it was an accident.

I know that if my wife or girlfriend was considering abortion, I would at least like to know that she is going to do it, not so that I can stop her but that I can make sure she can actually go to a half decent place. Of course while I won't stop her from getting an abortion she will be sleeping alone that night because I will be sleeping somewhere else.

While you are under no obligation to inform your husband or the guy that planted the seed, if the two of you really love one another and care about one another, I'd think that you two would want to talk about it like rational human beings, but then again, the last time I thought people could be rational was when I was five, so take that as you will.

As already pointed out...what is there to discuss?

If I'm going to have an abortion, and I know he's opposed to it...then none of his beeswax. If I'm going to have one, and he's fine with it, then he might get to know.

Under no circumstances would I allow someone else to sway my decision, once it was made. Nothing irrational about the fact that it's MY body.

As a man I think that abortion should be allowed, i live in America, and i am proud that it is so free(that is what makes it so special) and I think that women have the choice to do what they think is right. It should be discouraged but it still should be legal

As already pointed out...what is there to discuss?

If I'm going to have an abortion, and I know he's opposed to it...then none of his beeswax. If I'm going to have one, and he's fine with it, then he might get to know.

Under no circumstances would I allow someone else to sway my decision, once it was made. Nothing irrational about the fact that it's MY body.

Fair enough, just don't be suprised if the guy decides to end the relationship. We can't tell you what to do with your body, but that doesn't mean we can't make our own decision as well.

I might. I used to think I would just like that, but recently I've thought a bit about women who have had unexpected pregnancies, and whose lives have not necessarily been destroyed. I have a fair amount of family and financial support though, so it wouln't be as hard to deal with a child. Still a daunting thought.
I'd definitely have one in the case of serious complications or health problems in the fetus.

Fair enough, just don't be suprised if the guy decides to end the relationship. We can't tell you what to do with your body, but that doesn't mean we can't make our own decision as well.*shrugs*

Life is choices.

Frankly if I were with someone who left me because I had an abortion, I'd have to say, 'good riddance to bad rubbish'.

Yes, but unless the dad of the child is an unbelievable asshole, and by unbelievable asshole I mean abuser, drug users, thugs, rapist, or a guy who'd run out on the woman as soon as he found out that she was pregnant, you'd think that the dad would like to at least know what is happening with the life form that he helped create, even if it was an accident.

I know that if my wife or girlfriend was considering abortion, I would at least like to know that she is going to do it, not so that I can stop her but that I can make sure she can actually go to a half decent place. Of course while I won't stop her from getting an abortion she will be sleeping alone that night because I will be sleeping somewhere else.
Well, yeah, if I found myself pregnant while in a good relationship I would tell the guy... but there wouldn't be much discussion involved apart from "ok, when can you book a day off to take a trip to the clinic with me so I don't have to ride the bus by myself after being doped up from surgery and then look after me while I recover?" it would really be the least he could do in that situation.

I might. I used to think I would just like that, but recently I've thought a bit about women who have had unexpected pregnancies, and whose lives have not necessarily been destroyed. I have a fair amount of family and financial support though, so it wouln't be as hard to deal with a child. Still a daunting thought.
I'd definitely have one in the case of serious complications or health problems in the fetus.

Yes, my personal opinion on the matter has changed somewhat as I become more financially secure...and then has begun to swing back as I get older. I certainly don't want to have a newborn in my mid-thirties, and frankly, even at 29, I think 'I'm done'.

*shrugs*

Life is choices.

Frankly if I were with someone who left me because I had an abortion, I'd have to say, 'good riddance to bad rubbish'.

Ehh, my senses tell me that it's not the actual abortion that would be the problem, but rather that the guy would feel like he'd just been left out in the cold by a woman who he may have love and care for when it came to a serious situation, but what do I know, I'm just a white guy who according to your word a racist, and I'm probably a male chauvinist too.

Yes, my personal opinion on the matter has changed somewhat as I become more financially secure...and then has begun to swing back as I get older. I certainly don't want to have a newborn in my mid-thirties, and frankly, even at 29, I think 'I'm done'.
Wow. I don't even think I'm going to start seriously considering having kids until my early 30s (or really late 20s).

Wow. I don't even think I'm going to start seriously considering having kids until my early 30s (or really late 20s).

I can't imagine having the energy to deal with kids in my thirties. I wanted to be well done with it by the time I was 28. Besides, it's a lot easier to have kids at the outset of your career, in my opinion. You take your mat leave, the kids grow up and you carry on. If you're already up there, and you take time off...I'm not sure you can recoup. Then again, it's all situational. For me it was just an age thing...I didn't want there to be a huge gap in age between me and my kids.

Ehh, my senses tell me that it's not the actual abortion that would be the problem, but rather that the guy would feel like he'd just been left out in the cold by a woman who he may have love and care for when it came to a serious situation, but what do I know, I'm just a white guy who according to your word a racist, and I'm probably a male chauvinist too.

Whatever floats your boat, Forrest.

I can't imagine having the energy to deal with kids in my thirties. I wanted to be well done with it by the time I was 28. Besides, it's a lot easier to have kids at the outset of your career, in my opinion. You take your mat leave, the kids grow up and you carry on. If you're already up there, and you take time off...I'm not sure you can recoup. Then again, it's all situational. For me it was just an age thing...I didn't want there to be a huge gap in age between me and my kids.
It's likely that I won't have my career up until my late 20s/early 30s (it depends on whether or not I end up doing a PhD or not). Besides, I'm the first born in my family and my mom had me at 29. I have three younger sisters... I think I'll be able to handle having two around that age...

Wow. I don't even think I'm going to start seriously considering having kids until my early 30s (or really late 20s).

I decided to abort an unwanted pregnancy in my 20s because (a) I didn't want it and (b) I was in serious financial trouble and had no health insurance and no support system, including the guy I was with at the time (who skipped out on a 2-year relationshiop before I could even tell him I planned to abort). If I had gotten pregnant in my 30s, it would still have been an unwanted pregnancy, but I might have gone through with it because I was on much better financial footing at that time. But now I'm in my 40s. If I got pregnant now, it would still be unwanted, but I'm on an even better financial footing, but I'd still think long and hard about aborting because I am on the cusp of it being dangerous to the potential child. It's not like I feel like I'm missing out on anything. I have no urge to become a mother of my own, biological offspring. I hear my biological clock ticking and I just yell, "Tick faster!!" So any decision not to abort a pregnancy would probably be made because of the input of an extremely supportive and persuasive baby-daddy. In other words, not likely. And by this time next year, absolutely certain -- no baby Muravyetses.

But now I'm in my 40s. I haven't the foggiest idea why, but I was certain you were in your early 20s! Well whatever, I still worship you...and anyway, women in their 40s seem to be the dirtiest ones :D

I'm very strongly pro-choice, but I'm not sure that I could ever have an abortion myself. It's a decision I'd really have to make at the time, not in advance, but as best I can imagine, I would probably choose to get an abortion in a case of rape, and would probably choose not to in any other circumstance.

Whatever floats your boat, Forrest.

Ok, how about this Busty, how about we both drop the name calling the sarcasm, and the bickering that gets nothing done except make you look like an unbelievable bitch, and me an arrogant asshole, and we try to put some thought and effort into what we type instead of resorting to the childish games.

I'm a man, and my opinion is not sought…

But I am pro-choice, and I believe that in this particular case, the choice should be woman’s, not somebody else’s.

I am pro-choice, and I would depending on the circumstances but given my medical history and the zero chance of being pregnant without medical help, assuming that I didn't have anything wrong with me.

Because of condition, I doubt I would for unless there was something wrong with the foetus, since I would be needing help to conceive in the first place, meaning that any pregnancy would be wanted since it would be planned. This means I would only abort for medical reasons as I would be in a condition where the unborn child would be planned and ready for.

Ok, how about this Busty, how about we both drop the name calling the sarcasm, and the bickering that gets nothing done except make you look like an unbelievable bitch, and me an arrogant asshole, and we try to put some thought and effort into what we type instead of resorting to the childish games.

You still here?

You still here?

The only real way you can get rid of me is by an exorcism, and even that's not guaranteed to work. Face it, you're not getting rid of me anytime soon.

I'm a man, and my opinion is not sought…


To be honest, it's not as though I'm expecting men to butt out of this thread...but I was hoping the poll options would encourage them not to skew the voting.

Then again, had you been spouting, "Evil women and their immoral abortions, I as a man shall wipe out baby-killing" my reaction would be different :D

The only real way you can get rid of me is by an exorcism, and even that's not guaranteed to work. Face it, you're not getting rid of me anytime soon.

I didn't realise calling you on your racism would get you so hot in the pants for me.

I didn't realise calling you on your racism would get you so hot in the pants for me.

I'll bring the condom if you bring the birth control pill.

I can't imagine having the energy to deal with kids in my thirties. I wanted to be well done with it by the time I was 28. Besides, it's a lot easier to have kids at the outset of your career, in my opinion. You take your mat leave, the kids grow up and you carry on. If you're already up there, and you take time off...I'm not sure you can recoup. Then again, it's all situational. For me it was just an age thing...I didn't want there to be a huge gap in age between me and my kids.Interesting. My mum had me when she was 39 - she's a very energetic woman though. The fact that the window of time for raising children and developing your career is the same is a fact women need to deal with. Basically, it's crucial that the supports are there so that women that are ambitious are able to have children. Otherwise, the women that are the most capable, career-driven, and competitive are the ones that won't have kids, or will have kids that never see their mothers, which is too bad. Though we have equality in the laws, actual structural equality only happens when women don't have to sacrifice their dreams to have children. You would also see less abortions then, I think. For example, I understand why a university student would want to have an abortion if she got pregnant - it seems like her life would be over. But that needn't necessarily be the case. Educated, driven, women shouldn't have to fear collapse for having kids, even outside of marriage.

Educated driven women shouldn't have to fear collapse for having kids, even outside of marriage.
Shouldn't have to no...but do, yes. It's exhausting trying to meet the demands of your workplace AND balance your family. It's still the case that most men aren't feeling that pressure. I don't think the roles should be reversed, I think the pressure should be acknowledged. However, there is a very strong antipathy towards people who choose to have children and pursue a career, despite the fact that it is no longer viable for most people to prosper, or even just MAKE it on one income anymore. It's not as though we all desperately want to be working for the sake of working. Most people simply do not have the luxury to choose. And if that's the case...penalising those who also want to have a family and a life outside of work...is the product of sour grapes I think, and quite devastating.

In any case, I want to still be young when my kids are old enough to be tossed out of my house on their ears :D

Whatever floats your boat, Forrest.

Err...I actually agree with him, Neesika. Sure, it's your right. You're the one who gets to make the decision, and my opinion should not influence your decision, but if my girlfriend/wife decided to get an abortion, I would really prefer to at least be consulted, to discuss it with her. It would, to me, be a serious breach of trust otherwise. I'm not saying that in any circumstance I would force her not to do what she has decided, but it's the act of talking alone that would be enough. Trust is a very fragile thing sometimes, and abortion, even for someone as pro-choice as me, is one of those issues that trust dangles upon very precariously.

On a side note, are you a single mom? For some reason I seem to be getting that impression.

I'm a man, and as stated in the poll, my opinion isn't sought.

I'm pro-life, and my fiancee is pro-life as well, so this isn't really an issue for the two of us. But purely on a philosophical level:

I can understand (if I thought abortion was an option) how it would be the woman's choice. That's fair. What I don't understand is why so many women apparently don't want to talk to their husbands about the decision.

I mean, think of it this way: a woman's going to buy an outfit. She drags her husband to the mall, because even though the end decision of what she buys is hers, she'd still ask questions like "what do you think about this one?" or "should I go with the other one?" because she appreciates her husband's opinion. NOT because he's the "head of the household" (a term I frankly roll my eyes at) but simply because he's her spouse.

With that said, if she'd ask his opinion on such a superficial thing (in the grand scheme of things) as a dress, why wouldn't she want to get his thoughts on such a more serious decision as getting an abortion?

I've heard people say that they wouldn't let anyone change their mind once a decision's been made; but why's that such a bad thing? Certainly once a person's got all the facts, if they don't change their mind because they think they're right, then fine. But if a person hears something that contradicts what they believe but still turns out to be logical - another fact they may have overlooked - and they STILL don't bother to listen, then of course the decision would still belong to them, but it'd be rather illogical.

I am pro-choice only because I hate the idea of Uncle Sam dictating what medical procedures we can have unless it is decided by popular vote.

I wrote some very repugnant things about women(outside of rape victims) who abort.

I deleted them.

Politically I am pro-choice. Morally I am not, not one bit.
Rape is not voluntary so I dont feel the women bears resposibilty in the pregnancy, it was totally forced upon her, I sypathize with them on having to make such a difficult choice.

For any other situation I have nothing positive to say.

Oh, and I didnt vote in the poll.

I haven't the foggiest idea why, but I was certain you were in your early 20s! Well whatever, I still worship you...and anyway, women in their 40s seem to be the dirtiest ones :D

Aww... thanks! :fluffle:

And it's true, in our 40s we women finally reach our full potential. This is because we've gone through all the bullshit society demands of us, and either coped with it or not, we're still not all used up, but we're experienced enough to know that all we really need to be happy in this world is a good fuck and a strong martini. ;)

So, my younger sisters, take care of yourselves, keep fit and healthy, because, trust me, your party hasn't started yet.

I am pro-choice only because I hate the idea of Uncle Sam dictating what medical procedures we can have unless it is decided by popular vote.
So...then...you are okay with people dictating what medical procedures other people can have. I see.

And who is this "we" you speak of, since you're a man?

I wrote some very repugnant things about women(outside of rape victims) who abort.

I deleted them.
Thank you for exercising self-restraint.

Politically I am pro-choice. Morally I am not, not one bit.
Rape is not voluntary so I dont feel the women bears resposibilty in the pregnancy, it was totally forced upon her, I sypathize with them on having to make such a difficult choice.

For any other situation I have nothing positive to say.
Good thing your opinion was not asked for then, and now I understand why.

Oh, and I didnt vote in the poll.
Thank you for that, as well.

I'm a man, and as stated in the poll, my opinion isn't sought.

I'm pro-life, and my fiancee is pro-life as well, so this isn't really an issue for the two of us. But purely on a philosophical level:

I can understand (if I thought abortion was an option) how it would be the woman's choice. That's fair. What I don't understand is why so many women apparently don't want to talk to their husbands about the decision.

I mean, think of it this way: a woman's going to buy an outfit. She drags her husband to the mall, because even though the end decision of what she buys is hers, she'd still ask questions like "what do you think about this one?" or "should I go with the other one?" because she appreciates her husband's opinion. NOT because he's the "head of the household" (a term I frankly roll my eyes at) but simply because he's her spouse.

With that said, if she'd ask his opinion on such a superficial thing (in the grand scheme of things) as a dress, why wouldn't she want to get his thoughts on such a more serious decision as getting an abortion?

I've heard people say that they wouldn't let anyone change their mind once a decision's been made; but why's that such a bad thing? Certainly once a person's got all the facts, if they don't change their mind because they think they're right, then fine. But if a person hears something that contradicts what they believe but still turns out to be logical - another fact they may have overlooked - and they STILL don't bother to listen, then of course the decision would still belong to them, but it'd be rather illogical.
Um, I don't know how to say this...

The fact that a woman thinks a man might, just maybe, be competent to express an opinion about a dress in no way implies that she thinks he is competent to express opinions about important things.

I mean, would you ask the guy who runs your local Starbucks for his opinion about your upcoming liver surgery? He may know a lot about mochiattas, but...

Err...I actually agree with him, Neesika. Sure, it's your right. You're the one who gets to make the decision, and my opinion should not influence your decision, but if my girlfriend/wife decided to get an abortion, I would really prefer to at least be consulted, to discuss it with her. It would, to me, be a serious breach of trust otherwise. I'm not saying that in any circumstance I would force her not to do what she has decided, but it's the act of talking alone that would be enough. Trust is a very fragile thing sometimes, and abortion, even for someone as pro-choice as me, is one of those issues that trust dangles upon very precariously.

On a side note, are you a single mom? For some reason I seem to be getting that impression.
If I may butt in, Kyronea, please take a look at my responses to Skibereen and Pathetic Romantics. Does this offer any hints as to why some women don't want to discuss these things with their men? When the real situation is placed in front of them, and you hear some of the stuff that comes out of some people's mouths, it does rather discourage you from bringing them into your confidence.

As you say, trust is a fragile thing. You say that not being included in the decision-making process damages a man's trust in the relationship. But if the woman does not want the man involved, it may be because she does not trust him. Trust is a fragile thing. It's also a 2-way street.

If I may butt in, Kyronea, please take a look at my responses to Skibereen and Pathetic Romantics. Does this offer any hints as to why some women don't want to discuss these things with their men? When the real situation is placed in front of them, and you hear some of the stuff that comes out of some people's mouths, it does rather discourage you from bringing them into your confidence.

As you say, trust is a fragile thing. You say that not being included in the decision-making process damages a man's trust in the relationship. But if the woman does not want the man involved, it may be because she does not trust him. Trust is a fragile thing. It's also a 2-way street.

If the woman do not trust the man, then whats the point of the relationship, why are they even in a relationship?

I suppose if the two people involved didn't trust each other, then sure, go ahead and make the decision and not talk about it. That would make sense. In regards to my comment though, I was assuming the two people in my example were in a healthy, trusting relationship.

To be honest, I don't know that much about fashion. But my fiancee still asks me for my opinion on outfits. Why? Because she respects my views, despite my ignorance on a given subject. Her asking isn't based on my knowledge; her asking my opinion is based purely on the relationship we have.

Regarding abortion, I don't see (if we're talking about a trusting relationship) why the situation would be any different. Why WOULDN'T people want to talk these these through if they mutually love, trust, and respect each other? THAT'S what escapes my understanding.

Um, I don't know how to say this...

The fact that a woman thinks a man might, just maybe, be competent to express an opinion about a dress in no way implies that she thinks he is competent to express opinions about important things.

I mean, would you ask the guy who runs your local Starbucks for his opinion about your upcoming liver surgery? He may know a lot about mochiattas, but...
Then why the hell did you sleep with him in the first place?

Excepting instances of rape or abuse, one would assume, for whatever reason, you had SOME interest in your male partner, maybe even a relationship. But if you can't find it enough to, oh, I don't know, talk with the father about this...

Why'd you even let him into your bed?

If the woman do not trust the man, then whats the point of the relationship, why are they even in a relationship?

Agreed.

If the woman do not trust the man, then whats the point of the relationship, why are they even in a relationship?

It's perfectly possible to get into a relationship in good times and never have the question of trust tested until something difficult comes up. Then all of a sudden, you find you don't trust your own lover. He's fine and dandy when the good times are rolling, but when you're up against it, and you suddenly don't feel like he's got your back, it's time to get out. You don't trust him, and that means you feel like you can't rely on him, and that means you won't rely on him, and that means the relationship is doomed.

On the other hand, if the woman does trust her man, she will talk to him about all difficult decisions, without hesitation.

I suppose if the two people involved didn't trust each other, then sure, go ahead and make the decision and not talk about it. That would make sense. In regards to my comment though, I was assuming the two people in my example were in a healthy, trusting relationship.

To be honest, I don't know that much about fashion. But my fiancee still asks me for my opinion on outfits. Why? Because she respects my views, despite my ignorance on a given subject. Her asking isn't based on my knowledge; her asking my opinion is based purely on the relationship we have.

Regarding abortion, I don't see (if we're talking about a trusting relationship) why the situation would be any different. Why WOULDN'T people want to talk these these through if they mutually love, trust, and respect each other? THAT'S what escapes my understanding.
If the talk isn't happening, then the trust is not there and the relationship is not healthy, even if the two people didn't know that beforehand.

If the trust is there, then the talk will be happening because talking through difficult decisions with people they trust is something women do.

EDIT: Also, PR, I'm a little annoyed at your use of fashion advice as an analogy for abortion decisions. Fashion advice is trivial. Abortion and pregnancy decisions are some of the hardest things a woman has to do in life. The mere fact that you would say, "She trusts me to pick out a dress, why won't she trust me to advise her on her reproductive life?" strikes me as so condescending that it would automatically undermine my trust of you, if you were in a relationship with me.

It's perfectly possible to get into a relationship in good times and never have the question of trust tested until something difficult comes up. Then all of a sudden, you find you don't trust your own lover. He's fine and dandy when the good times are rolling, but when you're up against it, and you suddenly don't feel like he's got your back, it's time to get out. You don't trust him, and that means you feel like you can't rely on him, and that means you won't rely on him, and that means the relationship is doomed.

On the other hand, if the woman does trust her man, she will talk to him about all difficult decisions, without hesitation.

Agreed. All I'm saying that if it's a good relationship, and if the two parties really do love and care about one another, then they should be able to talk about a major decision like this with each other.

It's perfectly possible to get into a relationship in good times and never have the question of trust tested until something difficult comes up. Then all of a sudden, you find you don't trust your own lover. He's fine and dandy when the good times are rolling, but when you're up against it, and you suddenly don't feel like he's got your back, it's time to get out. You don't trust him, and that means you feel like you can't rely on him, and that means you won't rely on him, and that means the relationship is doomed.

On the other hand, if the woman does trust her man, she will talk to him about all difficult decisions, without hesitation.

Couldn't agree with you more. I guess my confusion stems from some people I've talked to in real life, along with some posts in other threads on this forum, where some women are like "Regardless of our relationship, I'll NEVER talk to my husband about this because it's MY DECISION and it's NONE OF HIS BUSINESS!!!"

I can see how some of that attitude MIGHT stem from relational trauma that's happened in the past; but I can't see how that view and trust can co-exist in a relationship.

Then why the hell did you sleep with him in the first place?

Excepting instances of rape or abuse, one would assume, for whatever reason, you had SOME interest in your male partner, maybe even a relationship. But if you can't find it enough to, oh, I don't know, talk with the father about this...

Why'd you even let him into your bed?
Why do you sleep with people? Because you trust them to assist in the most vital decisions of your life? Or because you think they're hot?

I have zero intention of ever having a baby. My decisions about abortion are made in advance: If the birth control fails, then the pregnancy will be aborted. Period. I have admitted that, when I was finanicially stable enough to possibly raise a child in my 30s, I held out the extremely slight chance that I might, if the circumstances were just right, change my mind and go through with it. But the chances that I would have actually done so were very low because I'm one of those zero population growth people, and in the end, it never came up anyway. Now in my 40s, I am in the same "never" state that I was when I was dirt poor and on my own in my 20s.

So my reasons for sleeping with a man have absolutely nothing to do with factors that would count if I was considering him as a confident for things that were vitally important to me personally. He is not going to father any children through me, so his opinion about what I do about a broken condom does not matter. I personally would tell him, but it would not be to ask for his feedback. It would merely be an FYI message.

So, I hate to break this to you, but the kind of trust needed to involve a person in such important matters is far above the level of trust needed to have sex with that person.

If I may butt in, Kyronea, please take a look at my responses to Skibereen and Pathetic Romantics. Does this offer any hints as to why some women don't want to discuss these things with their men? When the real situation is placed in front of them, and you hear some of the stuff that comes out of some people's mouths, it does rather discourage you from bringing them into your confidence.

As you say, trust is a fragile thing. You say that not being included in the decision-making process damages a man's trust in the relationship. But if the woman does not want the man involved, it may be because she does not trust him. Trust is a fragile thing. It's also a 2-way street.
I don't necessarily disagree with you. In fact...I do agree with you.

But in any relationship I have, there must be enough of this sort of trust before I would consider sex, let alone unprotected sex, so I guess it's a case of me extending my own philosophy into the situation and then wondering why no one else seems to think the same way. My apologies.

Agreed. All I'm saying that if it's a good relationship, and if the two parties really do love and care about one another, then they should be able to talk about a major decision like this with each other.
And I'm saying that if it's a good relationship and the two parties really do love and care about one another, then this won't even be an issue because the woman will talk to the man she loves and trusts. It's just that they might not know that trust is lacking and the relationship is weak until something like this happens to test it.

I am of the opinion that if a woman feels she can't talk to her man about such things, then she should break up with him.

Why do you sleep with people? Because you trust them to assist in the most vital decisions of your life? Or because you think they're hot?
Because I happen to think that I might want a relationship with them that involves far more than sex.

So, I hate to break this to you, but the kind of trust needed to involve a person in such important matters is far above the level of trust needed to have sex with that person.
Ah, I see. So in others words it's ok for men to not have to take any sort of responsibility for their actions and for any relationship to be just using each other as sex toys then?

Couldn't agree with you more. I guess my confusion stems from some people I've talked to in real life, along with some posts in other threads on this forum, where some women are like "Regardless of our relationship, I'll NEVER talk to my husband about this because it's MY DECISION and it's NONE OF HIS BUSINESS!!!"

I can see how some of that attitude MIGHT stem from relational trauma that's happened in the past; but I can't see how that view and trust can co-exist in a relationship.
It can't, in the long run, but not every relationship is going to have a long run. And there are lots of marriages of two people who wouldn't trust each other as far as they could throw a car. Maybe that's why half of US marriages fail.

And I'm saying that if it's a good relationship and the two parties really do love and care about one another, then this won't even be an issue because the woman will talk to the man she loves and trusts. It's just that they might not know that trust is lacking and the relationship is weak until something like this happens to test it.

I am of the opinion that if a woman feels she can't talk to her man about such things, then she should break up with him.

Well since we are apparently in agreement, want a beer?

I don't necessarily disagree with you. In fact...I do agree with you.

But in any relationship I have, there must be enough of this sort of trust before I would consider sex, let alone unprotected sex, so I guess it's a case of me extending my own philosophy into the situation and then wondering why no one else seems to think the same way. My apologies.
That's a well reasoned statement. :)

I also would never consider unprotected sex unless I had total trust in my lover. However, since I don't want to get pregnant, ever, I would never have unprotected sex unless the relationship was so well-established that we both agreed to more permanent measures -- vasectomy and/or tubal ligation.

That's a well reasoned statement. :)

I also would never consider unprotected sex unless I had total trust in my lover. However, since I don't want to get pregnant, ever, I would never have unprotected sex unless the relationship was so well-established that we both agreed to more permanent measures -- vasectomy and/or tubal ligation.

I don't want children either and I've actually considered getting a vasectomy even though I'm not really with anyone right now and nor am I sexually active.

Because I happen to think that I might want a relationship with them that involves far more than sex.
You will get from a relationship whatever the other person gives to you. What you think you might like from them is irrelevant. It only matters when you compare what you want with what you have and decide whether what you have is close enough or not.

Ah, I see. So in others words it's ok for men to not have to take any sort of responsibility for their actions and for any relationship to be just using each other as sex toys then?
Wow, that's a nice strawman you got there. Do you carry him everywhere you go?

I imagine this might help clarify my viewpoints a little further.

I'm not sure wht athe social norm is today, but I doubt it involves being a 23-year-old virgin, which I am. Why? Because I plan on having sex with no one but my wife - and seeing how I'm only engaged, and not married, "my wife" is currently a non-existant person.

With that said (and people can call me old-fashioned about this, I won't mind), but for me, the order of a healthy relationship would be such:

Meeting the person
Build trust
Dating the person
More trust
Being engaged to the person
More trust
Marrying the person/Wedding night sex
More trust
Growing old with each other
More trust

As anyone can see, for me, sex doesn't come until I've committed my life to that someone, which obviously involves quite a heck of a lot of trust. Going from this viewpoint, if the girl who's having sex with me wouldn't even trust me enough to tell about a possible abortion decision, then I would say my marriage is on pretty rocky ground. Who marries someone they don't trust? That's stupid, and I don't apologize for calling it stupid.

With that said (and like I said before), I highly doubt the above "order for a relationship" is the norm anymore. If a person's just looking for a hump-buddy, then of course there wouldn't have been much trust built up between the two; definitely not enough to tell the other about something as serious as an abortion decision.

That's a well reasoned statement. :)
Why, thank you. Might I say your reasoning is...well as well? (That was worded oddly.)

I also would never consider unprotected sex unless I had total trust in my lover. However, since I don't want to get pregnant, ever, I would never have unprotected sex unless the relationship was so well-established that we both agreed to more permanent measures -- vasectomy and/or tubal ligation.
Ah, yes, I see. There is one difference between us: you would never want children at all, while I do...though probably only one child, and a daughter at that, because for some odd reason I would prefer a daughter over a son. Don't ask me why, because I am not entirely sure.

In any case, you are definitely a woman of strong and well-thought out opinions, and I do salute you as such.

Well since we are apparently in agreement, want a beer?

Thanks, maybe some other time. I need to catch some sleep, atm.

I don't want children either and I've actually considered getting a vasectomy even though I'm not really with anyone right now and nor am I sexually active.
Hehe, then there's no rush.

I don't like to mess with the normal function of my body too much, so although I've been considering tubal ligation for many years, I decided not to do it unless Mr. Right-Forever came along, which he hasn't. And since, thanks to AIDS and other not-fun things, I've sworn off unprotected sex with anyone other than Mr. Right-Forever, that means that I'd be using condoms even if I did get the ligation. So that kind of took the urgency out of it.

Wow, that's a nice strawman you got there. Do you carry him everywhere you go?
Oh? And how is it a strawman? Let's look at it. It does take, as noted, two people to tango (unless we're talking artificial insemination which is something different). So let us say we have Person A and Person B who meet in bar and decide to boing like bunnies. Due to an accident of whatever nature (Failure of birth control, failure of brains), Person B gets Person A pregnant. Person A, of course, has to take responsibility. It is, ultimately of course, her decision on if to bear the child, keep the child, or abort the child.

But let's look at Person B, what is his responsibility? He was there after all (couldn't have happened without him). Maybe he will run away, maybe he will stay. We don't know. But if Person A decides to go and do whatever it is without telling Person B, she is denying Person A the chance to take responsibility for his own actions. Those range of those actions are, of course, the realm of Person A (Nothing, everything, at least taking her down and paying half, whatever), but he cannot act if Person A decides not to tell him.

So what is a person who has no responsibility for his actions but a thing, just a toy for sex?

I imagine this might help clarify my viewpoints a little further.

I'm not sure wht athe social norm is today, but I doubt it involves being a 23-year-old virgin, which I am. Why? Because I plan on having sex with no one but my wife - and seeing how I'm only engaged, and not married, "my wife" is currently a non-existant person.

With that said (and people can call me old-fashioned about this, I won't mind), but for me, the order of a healthy relationship would be such:

Meeting the person
Build trust
Dating the person
More trust
Being engaged to the person
More trust
Marrying the person/Wedding night sex
More trust
Growing old with each other
More trust

As anyone can see, for me, sex doesn't come until I've committed my life to that someone, which obviously involves quite a heck of a lot of trust. Going from this viewpoint, if the girl who's having sex with me wouldn't even trust me enough to tell about a possible abortion decision, then I would say my marriage is on pretty rocky ground. Who marries someone they don't trust? That's stupid, and I don't apologize for calling it stupid.
I agree. It's one of the stupider decisions people make.

With that said (and like I said before), I highly doubt the above "order for a relationship" is the norm anymore. If a person's just looking for a hump-buddy, then of course there wouldn't have been much trust built up between the two; definitely not enough to tell the other about something as serious as an abortion decision.
Not only do I not want to have my own biological children, I also feel not much interest in marriage. I don't run about bars and clubs looking for Mr. Goodbar, but for me the point of a relationship is to have someone to have sex with. I'm also extremely picky about who I have sex with. There are lot of things I really need to be able to trust the man about, but abortion decisions are not one of them. If I can trust him enough to have sex with him, then the relationship will usually run for about 1 - 2 years, until it becomes apparent that what he wants from a permanent relationship is different from what I want from one (usually, kids). If the day ever comes when the man has the same expectations from a permanent relationship that I have, then that relationship will never end -- at least, I'd never end it.

So for me, the questions of "can I sleep with this man?" and "is this man my life partner?" are two different issues.

I have no idea if that's the social norm, and I don't care. It's how I do things.

Oh? And how is it a strawman? Let's look at it. It does take, as noted, two people to tango (unless we're talking artificial insemination which is something different). So let us say we have Person A and Person B who meet in bar and decide to boing like bunnies. Due to an accident of whatever nature (Failure of birth control, failure of brains), Person B gets Person A pregnant. Person A, of course, has to take responsibility. It is, ultimately of course, her decision on if to bear the child, keep the child, or abort the child.

But let's look at Person B, what is his responsibility? He was there after all (couldn't have happened without him). Maybe he will run away, maybe he will stay. We don't know. But if Person A decides to go and do whatever it is without telling Person B, she is denying Person A the chance to take responsibility for his own actions. Those range of those actions are, of course, the realm of Person A (Nothing, everything, at least taking her down and paying half, whatever), but he cannot act if Person A decides not to tell him.

So what is a person who has no responsibility for his actions but a thing, just a toy for sex?

It's a strawman because it argues facts not in evidence. You present it as a response to my statements, but my statements have absolutely nothing to do with the notions of mutual responsibility you outline above. It's your soapbox lecture, yet you are trying to cast it as if I had opened this line of argument. I did not. Respond to what I actually said, or go find an appropriate thread in which to throw down your little gauntlets. I will not help you to hijack this one.

To chime in a little late, I'm female, and pro-choice - and there are certain circumstances under which I would absolutely get an abortion.

If I got pregnant now, for instance, it would be aborted. I'm still in university, and my boyfriend and I, while long term and committed, are certainly not ready to introduce a child to our lives. We're not really sure if we ever will be. Besides, we're taking precautions against pregnancy; if I did end up pregnant, it wouldn't be because I didn't try to prevent it.

If I found out my child was severly disabled in some form or another, I would likely abort it. If we weren't financially able to support it, as well.

However - I would without a doubt discuss it with my partner. No, his opinion would not control my decision entirely, but the child is his, too. Even if it's my body, I couldn't *imagine* not talking to him about it, and letting him help me weigh pros and cons. I respect anyone's decision to have, or not to have, an abortion, but purposely keeping it from the guy, especially if you're in a relationship, doesn't seem entirely fair to him. If he was an asshole, I'd like to think you wouldn't be with him - and if he was a decent guy, wouldn't you at least want to let him know what was happening?

But, that's just how I feel. Imagine if your SO went and got a vasectomy without telling you at all. What if you wanted kids sometime down the road? What if you just want to keep up-to-date on your partner's life? It *affects* you, even if it's not your choice ultimately.

Why, thank you. Might I say your reasoning is...well as well? (That was worded oddly.)

Ah, yes, I see. There is one difference between us: you would never want children at all, while I do...though probably only one child, and a daughter at that, because for some odd reason I would prefer a daughter over a son. Don't ask me why, because I am not entirely sure.

In any case, you are definitely a woman of strong and well-thought out opinions, and I do salute you as such.
Thank you kindly. And since I always like to end a conversation with a compliment given to me, I'll go catch up on that sleep now. ;) :D

Ciao, all.

It's a strawman because it argues facts not in evidence. You present it as a response to my statements, but my statements have absolutely nothing to do with the notions of mutual responsibility you outline above. It's your soapbox lecture, yet you are trying to cast it as if I had opened this line of argument. I did not. Respond to what I actually said, or go find an appropriate thread in which to throw down your little gauntlets. I will not help you to hijack this one.
On the contrary, I am replying to the notion that has been presented that informing the guy is something all of the ladies who have so far posted have indicated is only an option and one they do not plan to exercise.

Since you're the only one responding back, I'm talking to you.

On the contrary, I am replying to the notion that has been presented that informing the guy is something all of the ladies who have so far posted have indicated is only an option and one they do not plan to exercise.

Since you're the only one responding back, I'm talking to you.

Not all ladies. I find it ridiculously unfair to not inform the man involved.

Thank you kindly. And since I always like to end a conversation with a compliment given to me, I'll go catch up on that sleep now. ;) :D

Ciao, all.
Sleep well. :)

Not all ladies. I find it ridiculously unfair to not inform the man involved.
Sorry, by the time I had posted that, you had posted... Forum time in action. ;)

43 male votes and 30 female ones? Since when do we even have that many females on here voting in polls, in a thread that's all of 5 hours old?

I call male bias. :rolleyes:


Oh, and yes.

43 male votes and 30 female ones? Since when do we even have that many females on here voting in polls, in a thread that's all of 5 hours old?

I call male bias. :rolleyes:


Oh, and yes.

You've discovered NSGs Secret Squad of Stealth Women. They're only deployed in an emergency, or during relevant polls...

You've discovered NSGs Secret Squad of Stealth Women. They're only deployed in an emergency, or during relevant polls...:p

So you mean they're letting him plummet to his death any second now?

http://www.dancepro.co.jp/action-machine/phot/ninja-biglift.gif

I honestly would feel under no obligation to inform the father if I were to get an abortion.

Uh, why not?

You make me sick getting rid of children's lives should be considered a crime you should embrace every life when you get the chance to even though I'm a man NO LIFE SHOULD BE THROWN AWAY LIKE GARBAGE!!!!

You make me sick getting rid of children's lives should be considered a crime you should embrace every life when you get the chance to even though I'm a man NO LIFE SHOULD BE THROWN AWAY LIKE GARBAGE!!!!

Oh. Oops.

*puts away trash bags*

:fluffle:

You make me sick getting rid of children's lives should be considered a crime you should embrace every life when you get the chance to even though I'm a man NO LIFE SHOULD BE THROWN AWAY LIKE GARBAGE!!!!

Define life in this context. Do you think it bad to kill bacteria ? To not keep human skincells alive ? What about animals ? What about food you throw away ?
After defining it, please look if an embryo fits your definition.

:p

So you mean they're letting him plummet to his death any second now?

http://www.dancepro.co.jp/action-machine/phot/ninja-biglift.gif
*blinks* I don't know where that pic came from, but I LIKE it! :D

You make me sick getting rid of children's lives should be considered a crime you should embrace every life when you get the chance to even though I'm a man NO LIFE SHOULD BE THROWN AWAY LIKE GARBAGE!!!!

I agree that killing children is wrong, but I don't see what that has to do with abortion.

Speaking as a man and as a libertarian, I don't believe that Government should have any role in deciding on whether or not a person should get an abortion and really should just stay out of it. Personally though I do believe that abortions is an unholy and immoral act and is the same as first degree murder. However, that's just me and I don't plan on using Gov. Co. powers to spread what I believe.

I agree whole heartedly with this statement. Every word expresses my position exactly.

You make me sick getting rid of children's lives should be considered a crime you should embrace every life when you get the chance to even though I'm a man NO LIFE SHOULD BE THROWN AWAY LIKE GARBAGE!!!!

I believe you are blinded by some common misconceptions about abortion.

You probably imagine women getting them done in the later trimesters. This is not at all common. In fact, when women seek abortions, they do it in the first trimester, a time when the VAST majority of miscarriages occur. The women who seek late term abortions are those having it done for medical reasons.

The pregnancy is the first step in creating a bond between the mother and her unborn child. The longer she waits, the less likely she is to abort it. The first three months are the months in which there is little or no connection. Once the foetus grows a little and has moved up, there is more of a connection because the woman has been sharing her body with it.

Here's a good place to start if you want a better idea of the development of the foetus. Clicky (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foetal_development).

I'm assuming the answer for pro-lifer's is a no-brainer, but I'm willing to accept that there might be women out there that are pro-life yet would still have an aborition in certain circumstances. My question is more aimed at pro-choice women, such as myself. Being pro-choice doesn't necessarily mean that you yourself would actually have an abortion (which may shock some of you rednecks out there). So, would YOU have an abortion? If so, under what circumstances?

I'd like to think I would never have one, despite my belief that they should be available as to bring an unwanted child into the world is a horrible thing. There are more than enough neglected and abused kids out there, and plenty in foster care waiting for an adoption that may never happen.

http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/05/09/america/irish.php <-- This case, which featured a young unmarried mother (who actually wanted to keep the child until she learned of its devastating birth defect of being born with only the brainstem, an open skull, and three days of life at max) would definitely be a case in which I too would have an abortion.

I'm fortunate in that I could support myself and a child, and have plenty of family who would help. should I find myself unexpectedly expecting -- but that's not the case, sadly, for everyone.

Yes, but unless the dad of the child is an unbelievable asshole, and by unbelievable asshole I mean abuser, drug users, thugs, rapist, or a guy who'd run out on the woman as soon as he found out that she was pregnant, you'd think that the dad would like to at least know what is happening with the life form that he helped create, even if it was an accident.

I know that if my wife or girlfriend was considering abortion, I would at least like to know that she is going to do it, not so that I can stop her but that I can make sure she can actually go to a half decent place. Of course while I won't stop her from getting an abortion she will be sleeping alone that night because I will be sleeping somewhere else.

Well yes, because I doubt after a medical procedure of that sort.....
Oh, wait, you're talking about leaving her, aren't you? What happened to discussing it like rational adults?

My mother was always pro-choice, although she never did elect to choose abortion. That's why I used to call her up every year on my birthday to thank her for carrying me to term.

Well yes, because I doubt after a medical procedure of that sort.....
Oh, wait, you're talking about leaving her, aren't you? What happened to discussing it like rational adults?

I think he means he'd be leaving her if she did not consult him at all...or at least I hope that's what he meant.

I think he means he'd be leaving her if she did not consult him at all...or at least I hope that's what he meant.
Nope.

"I would at least like to know that she is going to do it, not so that I can stop her... Of course while I won't stop her from getting an abortion she will be sleeping alone that night because I will be sleeping somewhere else."

Nope.

Y'know, the thought of Wilgrove procreating makes me feel all icky inside...

Y'know, the thought of Wilgrove procreating makes me feel all icky inside...

Why? He's not a bad guy; he just has some misconceptions about a few things that could use some clearing up. The way some people here on NationStates are so willing to write people off rather than redeeming them is astounding...so like the ones they write off yet they never realize it.

Why? He's not a bad guy; he just has some misconceptions about a few things that could use some clearing up. The way some people here on NationStates are so willing to write people off rather than redeeming them is astounding...so like the ones they write off yet they never realize it.

I'm not here to provide redemption. I'm here to have fun. What are you here for?

Why? He's not a bad guy; he just has some misconceptions about a few things that could use some clearing up. The way some people here on NationStates are so willing to write people off rather than redeeming them is astounding...so like the ones they write off yet they never realize it.

Butbut.. redeeming people requires effort :( Just writing them of and fishing in the pool of billions of other humans to find a replacement is so much easier...

I'm not here to provide redemption. I'm here to have fun. What are you here for?
Let me check.

Um, the voices in my head tell me to tell you I'm here because I want to meet people, or something like that.

Wilgrove isn't that bad. At least it's not the likes of MTAE.

Goddamn, man - all I said was the thought of Wilgrove procreating makes me feel 'all icky inside', it's not like I'm howling for his blood or anything.

Sheesh.

Goddamn, man - all I said was the thought of Wilgrove procreating makes me feel 'all icky inside', it's not like I'm howling for his blood or anything.

Sheesh.
Eh, none of us were howling for your blood, were we?

The thought of most people on NS procreating makes me feel icky too. Especially me, for that matter.

No, not in all cases it doesn't.

I honestly would feel under no obligation to inform the father if I were to get an abortion. And his feelings on the matter would certainly not be the deciding factor.I think you're being over dramatic here. I'll admit Fleckenstein was being worryingly possesive with his comments, but if you were in a loving, long term relationship then I'd hope you'd talk this through with the guy. Maybe you aren't sure when to have children and after talking to the guy you realise how serious and committed he is and think that you're ready. Or it could be a third child and you're not sure if you could cope with another, but what your partner says convinces you that he would be offering you a good amount of support.

So even though it is the womans choice in the end it tends to be the sign of a strong relationship where the one at least seeks out the other's opinion before they commit to a course of action.

I'm not here to provide redemption. I'm here to have fun. What are you here for?
I'm here to post relevant posts to the matter at hand being discussed.
Butbut.. redeeming people requires effort :( Just writing them of and fishing in the pool of billions of other humans to find a replacement is so much easier...
Yes, but taking the easy way out is foolish when one can accomplish hard work and feel better about themselves and the world!
Let me check.

Um, the voices in my head tell me to tell you I'm here because I want to meet people, or something like that.

Wilgrove isn't that bad. At least it's not the likes of MTAE.
Indeed. He has some misconceptions, but he's no racist, nor is he a mysogynist. Some people seem to think he's a racist--I think it's his misconceptions about black people having the same opportunity as white people in the U.S. for anything--but it's ignorance, not willful hatred.

Goddamn, man - all I said was the thought of Wilgrove procreating makes me feel 'all icky inside', it's not like I'm howling for his blood or anything.

Sheesh.

And I am just expressing my regret and dismay over how so many claim the moral high ground yet act exactly the same as the people they despise. It makes me sad. No offense meant on your part though.

I'd like to think I would never have one, despite my belief that they should be available as to bring an unwanted child into the world is a horrible thing. There are more than enough neglected and abused kids out there, and plenty in foster care waiting for an adoption that may never happen.


im just the opposite.

id like to think that i WOULD have one but i dont think i would.

im virtually 50 and to have a baby at this age would be ...inconvenient and unwise. if i found myself pregnant it would probably be much later than when a younger more regular woman would realize it.

no, it would have to be an extreme medical emergency.

if I was in one of those situations where the baby 100% wasn't going to survive, then I probably would, just to avoid the pain of labor and then the dead child. I know the abortion would be painful as well, but it doesn't seem like it would be as bad.

I was told with both of my children that I should get an abortion, the first one because she was unplanned and I was so young and unprepared, the second because she was literally making me sick. I almost died with both of them, but I was stubborn back then and didn't think abortion was a "real option", I am glad I didn't abort the pregnancies.

if I was in one of those situations where the baby 100% wasn't going to survive, then I probably would, just to avoid the pain of labor and then the dead child. I know the abortion would be painful as well, but it doesn't seem like it would be as bad.

I was told with both of my children that I should get an abortion, the first one because she was unplanned and I was so young and unprepared, the second because she was literally making me sick. I almost died with both of them, but I was stubborn back then and didn't think abortion was a "real option", I am glad I didn't abort the pregnancies.

Err, Smunkee? You almost died the first time? Why the bloody hell did you have the second one?!

Okay, yes, they both turned out fine, but Smunkee, I seriously urge you to consider tubal litigation. The fact that you almost died with both of your pregnancies suggests that a third would be fatal for certain, and we all know we wouldn't want to lose you, especially since it would leave Mr. Smunk with all three kids and we know he couldn't handle 'em. ;)

I would if I didn't live in am open adoption state. I read a book on open adoption and it broke my heart how long people waited.
I like open adoption because the birth mom gets to pick the couple, and there's continued contact between the birth parent and adoptive parent.
It's something I'd do to help my fellow human.

Err, Smunkee? You almost died the first time? Why the bloody hell did you have the second one?!

Okay, yes, they both turned out fine, but Smunkee, I seriously urge you to consider tubal litigation. The fact that you almost died with both of your pregnancies suggests that a third would be fatal for certain, and we all know we wouldn't want to lose you, especially since it would leave Mr. Smunk with all three kids and we know he couldn't handle 'em. ;)

condom+depo provera = still pregnant. :mad:

hubby has now been snipped.......his stuff would have to reattach for me to get pregnant again.

condom+depo provera = still pregnant. :mad:

hubby has now been snipped.......his stuff would have to reattach for me to get pregnant again.

Goodie. Glad to know there is no risk for you.

You make me sick getting rid of children's lives should be considered a crime you should embrace every life when you get the chance to even though I'm a man NO LIFE SHOULD BE THROWN AWAY LIKE GARBAGE!!!!

Oooh, it's like reading a remnant from the 18th century.

Anyhoo, Neesika, what's up with the abortion thread? Both you and I live in advanced societies where the question was settled around half a century ago. Seriously, now - "pro-life"? That's so backwards.

Oooh, it's like reading a remnant from the 18th century.

Anyhoo, Neesika, what's up with the abortion thread? Both you and I live in advanced societies where the question was settled around half a century ago. Seriously, now - "pro-life"? That's so backwards.

I envy you and your superior society. I look forward to the day when America finally joins you.

Until then, you get to have fun laughing at we Americans. :D

I envy you and your superior society.

Don't. It's so... coquettish.

I look forward to the day when America finally joins you.

Until then, you get to have fun laughing at we Americans. :D

Oh, somehow I believe that I'll have ample reason to laugh at you even beyond then.

I had an abortion nearly 20 years ago. Why?

At the time, I was living with my strict Catholic parents who would definitely have evicted me if they found out I was pregnant, so I would be homeless or dependant on the social.

My boyfriend told me he would leave me if I brought the pregnancy to term, so i would be homeless and single.

At that time, there was no employment protection for pregnant women and a colleage had been sacked for becoming pregnant, so I would be homeless, single and unemployed.

I wasn't in anyway ready to fill the role of "mother", so i would be homeless, single, unemployed and incompetently mothering an unwanted child.

My brother suffers from schizophrenia, and at that time, the research big news pointed to a genetic / inheritable component. I watched my own mother trying so hard to cope with a seriously mentally ill child and I knew I wasn't strong enough to do that.

Being a parent is a hugely responsible job, and one i would have failed at, both in terms of providing the love a child needs (I would have resented it, a lot) and in providing for its material wants and needs.

There were a whole pile of other factors which I don't need to detail.

The pregnancy continued for 1 month longer than necessary, because it took me that much time to raise the funds, so I had a long time to think about my decision. It wasn't easy but I have never regretted it.

I'm now in a stable, committed relationship with a man I trust and am reasonably financially secure. If I were to get pregnant now I would plan to have the baby; however, I'm getting a little old for breeding, and am more likely to encounter problems so I would be open to an abortion should the need arise.

I would certainly discuss the abortion with my partner - I DO trust him enough for that, but I have met a number of women who didn't tell the man in question, and that is their prerogative.

I don't like being excluded based solely on my gender, so I have chosen one of the women options. But I won't tell you which one, so you cannot account for it when considering the polls.

Don't. It's so... coquettish.


And here I thought I was complimenting you.


Oh, somehow I believe that I'll have ample reason to laugh at you even beyond then.
To be sure. You'll always find something to laugh at. You wouldn't be Fass if you didn't.

And here I thought I was complimenting you.

Me? You said nothing about me.

To be sure. You'll always find something to laugh at. You wouldn't be Fass if you didn't.

That's me, always with the merriment.

Me? You said nothing about me.

Yes I did. I specifically said I envied YOU, as well as your nation.


That's me, always with the merriment.
Indeed.

I would if someone raped me or something like that:eek:

Yes I did. I specifically said I envied YOU, as well as your nation.

You envied me for something that I had nothing to do with. So, you really did say nothing about me.

You envied me for something that I had nothing to do with. So, you really did say nothing about me.

...point.

Well, in that case...err...you have a stellar wit and I envy you for it,

There, that complimented you.
+

...point.

Well, in that case...err...you have a stellar wit and I envy you for it,

There, that complimented you.
+

Quickly, someone! Gag me with a spork, please.

I don't like being excluded based solely on my gender, so I have chosen one of the women options. But I won't tell you which one, so you cannot account for it when considering the polls.

What a crock of bullshit.
You're excluded from getting pregnant based solely on your gender. What a biased, biased world.

If I was a woman, I'd get an abortion for the lulz.

What a crock of bullshit.
You're excluded from getting pregnant based solely on your gender. What a biased, biased world.

Oh, didn't you know? It's all a feminist conspiracy. Being the evil, evil bitches we are, we conspire to keep men from experiencing the joys of unwanted pregnancies, and take all the fun of abortions and childbirth for ourselves.

Oh, didn't you know? It's all a feminist conspiracy. Being the evil, evil bitches we are, we conspire to keep men from experiencing the joys of unwanted pregnancies, and take all the fun of abortions and childbirth for ourselves.

Muahahaa!

*highfives Poli*

:rolleyes:

I'm assuming the answer for pro-lifer's is a no-brainer, but I'm willing to accept that there might be women out there that are pro-life yet would still have an aborition in certain circumstances.

Indeed. Blatant hypocrisy is rather common among right-wingers.

Oh, didn't you know? It's all a feminist conspiracy. Being the evil, evil bitches we are, we conspire to keep men from experiencing the joys of unwanted pregnancies, and take all the fun of abortions and childbirth for ourselves.

I demand the right to have my life ruined by unwanted children (Admittedly, unwanted children aren't exactly a walk in the park for men either.). I am offended that I do not have this right. It angers me. I'm thinking about staging some protests. Also, I demand the right to have massive hormonal swings, water retention, and postpartum depression. I intend to write to my congresshuman about these issues.

What a crock of bullshit.
You're excluded from getting pregnant based solely on your gender. What a biased, biased world.

I'm technically only excluded from getting pregnant with human children. I could still host a tapeworm, a botfly, or a xenomorph.

In any of those cases I think I'd be making a trip to planned parenthood.

I'm pro-choice and pro-life (generally opposed to abortion, but not in favor of making it illegal). While I think it is difficult for anyone to say for sure until they are in the position of an unplanned/unwanted pregnancy, I don't think I'd ever have one under normal circumstances. I would, however, if testing revealed trisomy of any gene other than 21 or the fetus was anencephalic or something equally awful. I also would if the pregnancy was endangering my life and it was still too early to attempt an early C-section.

I'm a man and my opinion isn't sought.

If I were a woman, I'd almost surely have one, as I'd probably be pregnant at some point and can't imagine having children.

I would abort a cihld under very few circumstances: rape, risking my own life and severe defects which would make life a torture for the child.

I'm absolutely pro-choice, i can't really say for sure whether i would have an abortion though unless i'm actually faced with the decision.

I do know i don't want kids, my biological clock doesn't tick at all, i have absolutely no desire to be a mother, and i am 29. I love kids, i just don't want any. I don't know if that would be enough of a reason for me to have an abortion though, i might choose adoption in that case, it's hard to say.

I think i would have an abortion though if i was raped or if the child had a severe birth defect, or if carrying the child to term would put my life in danger. Even that last scenario though might be different if i actually wanted children.

I would like to think that if i was in a loving, trusting relationship, i would tell the guy what i was planning, but if i had that kind of relationship, i would also be honest about the fact that i don't want kids, so he wouldn't be surprised by my choice.

On the contrary, I am replying to the notion that has been presented that informing the guy is something all of the ladies who have so far posted have indicated is only an option and one they do not plan to exercise.

Since you're the only one responding back, I'm talking to you.

A) It is an option that a woman may exercise or not, as she chooses and as she thinks best. Having sex with a woman does not make the man the boss of her, nor does it give him some kind of even partial authority over her that gives him any right to weigh in on what she does with her body. Not even if they are married. Your implication that informing the man is not an option further implies that it is mandatory somehow. Such a thing would total nonsense.

B) Your related implication that "women" (rather than specifically the few women who have stated their opinion on the matter here) are trying to keep the men in their lives...um...out of their lives, is bunk. As I have said repeatedly, women who trust their lovers will involve them.

C) It's still a strawman when it is directed at me. I did not argue that men should not be informed. (In fact, no one has argued that; only that a woman is not required to inform a man, which is a fact.) So, by directing a response to someone else's statements to me as if they were my statements, you are in effect trying to put words into my mouth and misrepresenting my statements in this thread. I see no reason why I should have to defend an argument I did not make.

EDIT: And by the way, the thread topic is women's reasons for having an abortion or not having an abortion. It NOT about your reasons why you think men should be allowed in on that action.

Indeed. Blatant hypocrisy is rather common among right-wingers.

It doesn't have to be hypocritical -- though yes, there is a lot of that among people who presume to moralize for others.

Non-hypocritical reasons for a person who opposes abortion to still have one would be in the case of the fetus dying in utero, or developing so abnormally that it could not survive upon birth, or an extreme medical or psychological condition that puts the mother at great risk. I.e., medical necessity.

As a man, I really don't care what women do so long as they don't care what I do.

As a man, I really don't care what women do so long as they don't care what I do.
I promise not to give a rat's ass what you do, as long as it doesn't annoy me.
:p

If a pregnant woman has danger of dying, then she must be assisted to have an abortion. At the same time more condoms should be use to avoid bringing hungry children to the world. At the end is a very personal decission, is a life decission that every woman has to think before making such a tough step.

Err...I actually agree with him, Neesika. Sure, it's your right. You're the one who gets to make the decision, and my opinion should not influence your decision, but if my girlfriend/wife decided to get an abortion, I would really prefer to at least be consulted, to discuss it with her. It would, to me, be a serious breach of trust otherwise. I'm not saying that in any circumstance I would force her not to do what she has decided, but it's the act of talking alone that would be enough. Trust is a very fragile thing sometimes, and abortion, even for someone as pro-choice as me, is one of those issues that trust dangles upon very precariously. It depends on the relationship.

On a side note, are you a single mom? For some reason I seem to be getting that impression.
No, I'm not. Nor would I necessarily get an abortion without telling him. But the reverse is also true. It would depend.

It depends on the relationship.

Speaking of which, let's get married, so I can impregnate you and my demon seed can race against the clock, and child-murdering doctors, to see if it can survive your wrath long enough to escape and seed the world with my twisted genetic makeup, pushing humanity down the broken-glass hallway of evolution into superiority, supremacy, and transcendental evil.

Then why the hell did you sleep with him in the first place?

Excepting instances of rape or abuse, one would assume, for whatever reason, you had SOME interest in your male partner, maybe even a relationship. But if you can't find it enough to, oh, I don't know, talk with the father about this...

Why'd you even let him into your bed?

Because you want to fuck him?

Having children with him is a whole other can of worms.

A) It is an option that a woman may exercise or not, as she chooses and as she thinks best. Having sex with a woman does not make the man the boss of her, nor does it give him some kind of even partial authority over her that gives him any right to weigh in on what she does with her body. Not even if they are married. Your implication that informing the man is not an option further implies that it is mandatory somehow. Such a thing would total nonsense.
And having sex with a guy does not give women authority over him to decide whether or not he is mature enough to be given the opportunity to even express his opinion or offer to take responsibility as well.

And I never said that men were the boss or had any real decision making powers over the woman in question.

C) It's still a strawman when it is directed at me. I did not argue that men should not be informed. (In fact, no one has argued that; only that a woman is not required to inform a man, which is a fact.) So, by directing a response to someone else's statements to me as if they were my statements, you are in effect trying to put words into my mouth and misrepresenting my statements in this thread. I see no reason why I should have to defend an argument I did not make.
Again, you were the one responding.

EDIT: And by the way, the thread topic is women's reasons for having an abortion or not having an abortion. It NOT about your reasons why you think men should be allowed in on that action.
It's NSG, threads wander.

Because you want to fuck him?

Having children with him is a whole other can of worms.
And pregnancy is something that can happen even with the best of birth control.

Oh, didn't you know? It's all a feminist conspiracy. Being the evil, evil bitches we are, we conspire to keep men from experiencing the joys of unwanted pregnancies, and take all the fun of abortions and childbirth for ourselves.
*heh* The funny thing is that my wife is very pissed off about that right now. She think I should be sharing in the fun of pregnancy.

It all depends on your view of sex i guess. If you believe you should only have sex with people you love, then ideally, you would trust that person with something like this. On the other hand, if you think that sex doesn't always equate to love, and doesn't have to, like me, you may find yourself falling into bed with someone you don't know well enough to trust.

Not that i have one night stands and stuff, i don't, but i'm not morally opposed to them.

As for the whole condom issue, i absolutely agree that there should be more widespread use of birth control. We need to make it affordable for everyone and teach people how to use it. That would cut down on abortions, but birth control isn't fool-proof. Even when used correctly it can still fail.

It depends on the relationship.

True at that.

No, I'm not. Nor would I necessarily get an abortion without telling him. But the reverse is also true. It would depend.
Oh, okay. Sorry...it's just that for some reason I kept getting the impression.

Uh, why not?

Because his opinion on the matter is irrelevant.

I said I would not feel obligated...doesn't mean I WOULDN'T tell. But that too, is my choice.

I think you're being over dramatic here. I'll admit Fleckenstein was being worryingly possesive with his comments, but if you were in a loving, long term relationship then I'd hope you'd talk this through with the guy. Maybe you aren't sure when to have children and after talking to the guy you realise how serious and committed he is and think that you're ready. Or it could be a third child and you're not sure if you could cope with another, but what your partner says convinces you that he would be offering you a good amount of support. Saying, 'not in all cases' is overly dramatic? I think you should check your definitions.

"It takes two to tango"

"Not in all cases"

So...not in all cases does the father need to be told. Hardly the 'OMG WOMEN SHOULD NEVER TELL THE MAN' you seem to have taken it as.

Oooh, it's like reading a remnant from the 18th century.

Anyhoo, Neesika, what's up with the abortion thread? Both you and I live in advanced societies where the question was settled around half a century ago. Seriously, now - "pro-life"? That's so backwards.

Hey, I'm just going with the caveman lingo so popular in certain countries that shall remain unnamed.

The abortion thread is because I'm two weeks late, and it's crossed my mind.

Because his opinion on the matter is irrelevant.

I don't agree, and think this is the height of the error committed by the rabid pro-choice crowd, in dehumanizing the man until he is nothing but a piece of meat. What's worse is metrosexuals like New Genoa saying "Gosh, I don't have an opinion, I'm a man." Nonsensical sucking-up to a glorified ego trip. Yeah I guess I don't have an opinion on Iraq - I'm an American. I have no opinion on Muslims - I'm an atheist. I have no opinions of humans, I'm a fucking robot. Beep, beep.

I don't like being excluded based solely on my gender, so I have chosen one of the women options. But I won't tell you which one, so you cannot account for it when considering the polls.

You don't like being excluded based solely on your gender?

Do you have some fucking amazing ability to get pregnant then?

No?

Then your vote is entirely idiotic.

Saying, 'not in all cases' is overly dramatic? I think you should check your definitions.

"It takes two to tango"

"Not in all cases"

So...not in all cases does the father need to be told. Hardly the 'OMG WOMEN SHOULD NEVER TELL THE MAN' you seem to have taken it as.

In his defense, the way your statement was phrased gave that impression at first. Obviously it wasn't what you meant, but you can see why some might misinterpret as such. Hell, even I did at first.

Indeed. Blatant hypocrisy is rather common among right-wingers.

Oh spare me. We are all hypocrites at one point or another. No matter what your principles are, you can never predict the kind of situation that might force you to compromise them. I'm not going to hold that against a pro-lifer any more than I would against someone who ostensibly says she would DEFINITELY get an abortion, yet doesn't.

EDIT: And by the way, the thread topic is women's reasons for having an abortion or not having an abortion. It NOT about your reasons why you think men should be allowed in on that action.

Exactly. That is precisely the kind of input that is both irrelevant, and unsought.

Speaking of which, let's get married, so I can impregnate you and my demon seed can race against the clock, and child-murdering doctors, to see if it can survive your wrath long enough to escape and seed the world with my twisted genetic makeup, pushing humanity down the broken-glass hallway of evolution into superiority, supremacy, and transcendental evil.

We don't have to get married to fuck, and do the whole demon seed race against time thing you know.

You don't like being excluded based solely on your gender?

Do you have some fucking amazing ability to get pregnant then?


Do you have an amazing ability to get yourself pregnant?

No?

I agree with the whole hypocrisy comment. I think everyone should do the best they can to not be hypocritical, but none of us can avoid it completely. I'm a pacifist, i don't believe in violence, but i freely admit that there is always the possibility i may find myself in a situation where i have to compromise that belief and use violence to defend myself or someone i love.

I hope i don't find myself in that kind of situation, and i would do everything i can to avoid violence, but we don't always have that luxury.

It's no different with abortion. It's really easy to say what we would or wouldn't do when we're not in that situation.

And having sex with a guy does not give women authority over him to decide whether or not he is mature enough to be given the opportunity to even express his opinion or offer to take responsibility as well.

And I never said that men were the boss or had any real decision making powers over the woman in question.
It's not about judging the man's maturity. It's about the woman deciding if it's going to be anything he's going to be involved in or not.

And that choice is hers. Whether you like the criteria she uses or not.

And pregnancy is something that can happen even with the best of birth control.

Hence options like adoption, or abortion.

True at that.

Oh, okay. Sorry...it's just that for some reason I kept getting the impression.

It must be because I come across as such a bitch that no rational man would want to stay with me?:p

I don't agree, and think this is the height of the error committed by the rabid pro-choice crowd, in dehumanizing the man until he is nothing but a piece of meat. What's worse is metrosexuals like New Genoa saying "Gosh, I don't have an opinion, I'm a man." Nonsensical sucking-up to a glorified ego trip. Yeah I guess I don't have an opinion on Iraq - I'm an American. I have no opinion on Muslims - I'm an atheist. I have no opinions of humans, I'm a fucking robot. Beep, beep.
Sorry hon, sometimes the man is just a piece of meat. Just like sometimes the woman is just a piece of meat. If you happen to get pregnant after shagging said piece of meat, his opinion on the matter is not really going to be all that important. If however, you are impregnated by someone you have developed strong ties to, then the situation may be different. But not necessarily so. Ultimately, the woman has to choose...she may be swayed by the man's input or not...but to do or not to do is finally answered by her alone.

Hey, I'm just going with the caveman lingo so popular in certain countries that shall remain unnamed.

Well, lacking a proper name as they do, that's for the best.

The abortion thread is because I'm two weeks late, and it's crossed my mind.

Uhm... eek!

It must be because I come across as such a bitch that no rational man would want to stay with me?:p

"This is precarious ground you walk upon, son..."

Not at all. I think it just takes a rare kind of man able to fire back at your own sarcasm with equal wit in good fun, a la Fass, and I've never seen you mention a significant other, so I think I just put two and two together and came up with five and didn't notice my error.

Do you have an amazing ability to get yourself pregnant?

No?

Irrelevant. Men can not become pregnant, and cannot have abortions. So clearly when I ask, 'WOULD YOU HAVE AN ABORTION", a man can not actually answer yes OR no.

Sorry hon, sometimes the man is just a piece of meat. Just like sometimes the woman is just a piece of meat.

That's nothing but a tu quoque justification. Look, I don't care how many millions of women are just pieces of meat - I ain't. The one has nothing to do with the other.

If you happen to get pregnant after shagging said piece of meat, his opinion on the matter is not really going to be all that important. If however, you are impregnated by someone you have developed strong ties to, then the situation may be different. But not necessarily so. Ultimately, the woman has to choose...she may be swayed by the man's input or not...but to do or not to do is finally answered by her alone.

Yeah it's her choice. Doesn't mean anyone else is "irrelevant" and their opinions "idiotic."

Well, lacking a proper name as they do, that's for the best. HAHA! It's been a while since we had a thread on that lack, no? Kehehehehe...



Uhm... eek!
No point panicking yet...I bought a home pregnancy test and it was negative...and yes, could be a false negative, but i'm not TOO freaked. Yet.

Sorry hon, sometimes the man is just a piece of meat. Just like sometimes the woman is just a piece of meat. If you happen to get pregnant after shagging said piece of meat, his opinion on the matter is not really going to be all that important. If however, you are impregnated by someone you have developed strong ties to, then the situation may be different. But not necessarily so. Ultimately, the woman has to choose...she may be swayed by the man's input or not...but to do or not to do is finally answered by her alone.
Ahah! Therein lies the heart of this argument and the difference in idea of what precisely is being discussed that has caused it! You are discussing situations in which there are no real strong ties, but just casual sex that leads to pregnancy, and without those ties you see no reason to inform the man involved, and while that may be a subject a person can quibble on, you would generally be correct.

Meanwhile, NERVUN seems to be thinking we're talking about sex with a significant other, someone that the woman has made strong ties with, and is suddenly breaking those ties by not informing said significant other. Purely a case of misunderstanding.

"This is precarious ground you walk upon, son..."

Not at all. I think it just takes a rare kind of man able to fire back at your own sarcasm with equal wit in good fun, a la Fass, and I've never seen you mention a significant other, so I think I just put two and two together and came up with five and didn't notice my error.

I've been in a common-law relationship for 10 years. Plus I'm much more cuddly in real life. And yes, men who can match my sarcasm turn my crank. Fass is wary for good reason :P

That's nothing but a tu quoque justification. Look, I don't care how many millions of women are just pieces of meat - I ain't. The one has nothing to do with the other. Well, I don't care how many men AREN'T pieces of meat. :P

Better not get me pregnant, I'll abort faster than you can say, 'get me a sandwich bitch'!



Yeah it's her choice. Doesn't mean anyone else is "irrelevant" and their opinions "idiotic."
When said person is totally, unalterably unable to actually BE pregnant or HAVE an abortion? Then yes, both adjectives apply.

Ahah! Therein lies the heart of this argument and the difference in idea of what precisely is being discussed that has caused it! You are discussing situations in which there are no real strong ties, but just casual sex that leads to pregnancy, and without those ties you see no reason to inform the man involved, and while that may be a subject a person can quibble on, you would generally be correct.

Meanwhile, NERVUN seems to be thinking we're talking about sex with a significant other, someone that the woman has made strong ties with, and is suddenly breaking those ties by not informing said significant other. Purely a case of misunderstanding.

I think the misunderstanding stems from a belief that all sexual relationships should be between people with strong ties. An idea I do not endorse.

Well, I don't care how many men AREN'T pieces of meat. :P

Better not get me pregnant, I'll abort faster than you can say, 'get me a sandwich bitch'!

That's the question, isn't it? You know it's interesting, the widespread use of antibacterial soap means that bacteria evolve - the ones resistant to antibacterial agents survive and breed.

My jism is the exact same way. It'll have anti-vacuum-cleaner shielding and extra-fertile warhead!


When said person is totally, unalterably unable to actually BE pregnant or HAVE an abortion? Then yes, both adjectives apply.

Nonsense. Everyone has an opinion. Having an opinion doesn't make one idiotic and certainly doesn't make the opinion idiotic.

It's not about judging the man's maturity. It's about the woman deciding if it's going to be anything he's going to be involved in or not.

And that choice is hers. Whether you like the criteria she uses or not.
I both agree and disagree. I agree in that, ultimately, it is her decision on what is to be done. It it also her decision on whether or not to accept any help or the opinions of her male partner. However, a woman who decides to not inform said partner (excepting cases of rape/abuse) is taking responsibility, or rather the option of, from the guy and doing so is as wrong as a guy dictating what a woman may or may not do with her body.

A woman doesn't have to accept anything he offers and she does not have to follow his opinion or even respect his viewpoints, but she may not take away the chance for him to do something about a problem he helped make.

Nonsense. Everyone has an opinion. Having an opinion doesn't make one idiotic and certainly doesn't make the opinion idiotic.

The opinion of men who can not become pregnant or have an abortion was explicitly not sought. Voting anyway is idiotic. Opinions can be stated in the thread without fucking up the poll.

The opinion of men who can not become pregnant or have an abortion was explicitly not sought. Voting anyway is idiotic. Opinions can be stated in the thread without fucking up the poll.

Oh, you mean the poll.

Well, shit hon. It's NSG, not the Rasmuessen Report.

Meanwhile, NERVUN seems to be thinking we're talking about sex with a significant other, someone that the woman has made strong ties with, and is suddenly breaking those ties by not informing said significant other. Purely a case of misunderstanding.
Not really. I see no reason as to why, as long as you can find him, my statement should not apply to one night stands.

I've been in a common-law relationship for 10 years. Plus I'm much more cuddly in real life. And yes, men who can match my sarcasm turn my crank. Fass is wary for good reason :P
Ah.

I think the misunderstanding stems from a belief that all sexual relationships should be between people with strong ties. An idea I do not endorse.
Most probably. I do endorse the idea on a personal level, but unlike some who endorse it, I do not seek to apply my own personal actions to others. NERVUN, I suspect, is projecting, as I was earlier.

I think the misunderstanding stems from a belief that all sexual relationships should be between people with strong ties. An idea I do not endorse.
Er, no. Or rather... hmm, I wouldn't have a sexual relationship with someone I didn't have strong ties with. But I accept that others have no problems with that so have fun. I just don't understand why you'd let yourself be that vulnerable with someone you didn't have any trust with at all. I'd view it akin to going bungee jumping with a company that you have no faith in and hoping like hell it doesn't kill you.

However, a woman who decides to not inform said partner (excepting cases of rape/abuse) is taking responsibility, or rather the option of, from the guy and doing so is as wrong as a guy dictating what a woman may or may not do with her body. Hardly. The two are not equal wrongs, no matter how much you want them to be. Ultimately, the man does not get to choose. Telling him or not does not alter this fact. Forcing a woman to either abort or not to abort is taking physical control over her body. Not even remotely comparable.

A woman doesn't have to accept anything he offers and she does not have to follow his opinion or even respect his viewpoints, but she may not take away the chance for him to do something about a problem he helped make.
Absolutely she can. He has NO chance to do squat unless she chooses to give him that chance. And then the ball is in his court. But he has no inherent right to know. She however, has the inherent right to choose.

Oh, you mean the poll.

Well, shit hon. It's NSG, not the Rasmuessen Report.

I'm still going to flip the bird to the men who idiotically voted as women :P

Not really. I see no reason as to why, as long as you can find him, my statement should not apply to one night stands.

Well that's nice. Next time you get knocked up during a one-night stand, you just go ahead and do that. I personally could care less what you choose, or what other people choose. That's sort of the point of being pro-choice.

I'm still going to flip the bird to the men who idiotically voted as women :P

Just for that, I just voted as a female pro-lifer who is willing to have an abortion. I would abort my children for the greater good of humanity!

Yes, I am Ann Coulter.

Er, no. Or rather... hmm, I wouldn't have a sexual relationship with someone I didn't have strong ties with. But I accept that others have no problems with that so have fun. I just don't understand why you'd let yourself be that vulnerable with someone you didn't have any trust with at all. I'd view it akin to going bungee jumping with a company that you have no faith in and hoping like hell it doesn't kill you. Preferences. You have yours, I have mine. As long as we are free to have those preferences, there is really no problem.

Not really. I see no reason as to why, as long as you can find him, my statement should not apply to one night stands.

Because said one-night-stand was not someone with which the woman has strong emotional ties, and hence she does not have to inform the man. She should only inform the man if said man has strong emotional ties with her and she with him.

Think about it. If you had a one-night-stand, and ended up impregnating someone, would you want that child to come to term, when you haven't even really formed any sort of emotional bond with the woman, or even gotten to know her anymore than is required for a one night stand? I doubt I would. Of course, I will never find myself in that situation, but that is beside the point.

Just for that, I just voted as a female pro-lifer who is willing to have an abortion. I would abort my children for the greater good of humanity!

Yes, I am Ann Coulter.

Damn, I should have made the poll public :D

If I were a girl and was fucking stupid enough to not use a condom or the pill, I'd rather get an abortion than have a child without a father.

If I were a girl and was fucking stupid enough to not use a condom or the pill, I'd rather get an abortion than have a child without a father.

Neither the condom nor the pill are 100% effective. No, not even used together. There is stupidity, and then there is just bad, bad luck.

My sister-in-law got pregnant while using an IUD.

My mother-in-law had her tubes tied...and became pregnant at 40.

Shit happens.

Just a quibble.

Neither the condom nor the pill are 100% effective. No, not even used together. There is stupidity, and then there is just bad, bad luck.

Just a quibble.

Yes, and technically a gunshot wound to the head doesn't kill 100% of it's victims.

Cut the crap.

Yes, and technically a gunshot wound to the head doesn't kill 100% of it's victims.

Cut the crap.

Sheesh. Is it just me, or does everyone seem to have it out for Neesika these past few days? She keeps being called racist, sexist, and just plain stupid by everyone! :(

Yes, and technically a gunshot wound to the head doesn't kill 100% of it's victims.

Cut the crap.

Where the hell did you get your education?

You're right...not all gunshot wounds to the head are fatal.

Point?

Sheesh. Is it just me, or does everyone seem to have it out for Neesika these past few days? She keeps being called racist, sexist, and just plain stupid by everyone! :(

Hahahaha, it's because they really have nothing else to say.

One the one hand, I'm pro-eugenics: I would never fault a woman for aborting a deficient child.

On the other hand, killing a perfectly healthy child for minor reasons isn't something I would endorse. The child should be put up for adoption or sent away some other way.

So, on balance, I'm pro-life to an extent, and pro-choice to an extent. Meaning I support both positions - I'd be a perfect politician! :D

One the one hand, I'm pro-eugenics: I would never fault a woman for aborting a deficient child.
On the other hand, killing a perfectly healthy child for minor reasons isn't something I would endorse. The child should be put up for adoption or sent away some other way.

So, on balance, I'm pro-life to an extent, and pro-choice to an extent. Meaning I support both positions - I'd be a perfect politician! :D

Yeah, in Hitler's Germany.

Where the hell did you get your education?

You're right...not all gunshot wounds to the head are fatal.

Point?

Brain damage is no joke, and bullets aren't 100%, like he said.

Remember Frank Nitti? Wild stuff.

Where the hell did you get your education?

You're right...not all gunshot wounds to the head are fatal.

Point?

God damnit, quit playing dumb.

Typically, when something penetrates the brain, the person is killed.

Of course, ever once in a blue moon, someone miraculously survives one of these bullets/flying objects that penetrates the brain.

As a good rule of thumb, if you get shot in the head, you die.

Same idea applies to birth control - When you use it, you don't get pregnant.

Yeah, in Hitler's Germany.

Hehe. Don't be silly. I don't see "race."

Remember the Greek, eu- = "good," meaning simply "good birth" by Eugenics. It's something we all so unconsciously anyway. 90% of retarded children are aborted in the Real World. ;)

There was a story recently of an Edmonton woman who knew her child would be born with horrible birth defects, and not live long past its birth. She chose to carry him to term anyway, and was with him for half an hour before he expired. He had no nose, and his mouth was cleft on both sides...he also had massive internal deformities.

I don't necessarily understand her decision, but I'm sure it was the right one for her, and her family, and I respect it.

It would be nice if the pro-life side would do the same in the alternative.

No point panicking yet...I bought a home pregnancy test and it was negative...and yes, could be a false negative, but i'm not TOO freaked. Yet.

http://www.hotelsupplies-online.com/2070.jpg

Well, have one on me, anyway. :)

Hehe. Don't be silly. I don't see "race."

Remember the Greek, eu- = "good," meaning simply "good birth" by Eugenics. It's something we all so unconsciously anyway. 90% of retarded children are aborted in the Real World. ;)

Hitler didn't just hate people based on race.

So don't fucking smiley face wink at me.

http://www.hotelsupplies-online.com/2070.jpg

Well, have one on me, anyway. :)

Hahahahaha...oh that's horrible :D

There was a story recently of an Edmonton woman who knew her child would be born with horrible birth defects, and not live long past its birth. She chose to carry him to term anyway, and was with him for half an hour before he expired. He had no nose, and his mouth was cleft on both sides...he also had massive internal deformities.

I don't necessarily understand her decision, but I'm sure it was the right one for her, and her family, and I respect it.

It would be nice if the pro-life side would do the same in the alternative.

See, I still think that's somewhat questionable. If the child will surely die, in a terrible way, there's no shame in aborting. It's what most people do without even sitting down and contemplating it morally - it does the child no good to live, and it damages the family, potentially.

Hitler didn't just hate people based on race.

So don't fucking smiley face wink at me.

Creating a "perfect" race was the objective, where I believe neither in perfection nor race. Big difference! :p

See, I still think that's somewhat questionable. If the child will surely die, in a terrible way, there's no shame in aborting. It's what most people do without even sitting down and contemplating it morally - it does the child no good to live, and it damages the family, potentially.

Meh, does the child no good to die either, and if the family wants it and is prepared, so what?

Hahahahaha...oh that's horrible :D

And yet, so effective.

Creating a "perfect" race was the objective, where I believe neither in perfection nor race. Big difference! :p

Yes, and a perfect race does not tolerate gays, or 'retards' or people of weak genetic material.

So your support of eugenics is just as disgusting, even though you 'don't see race'.

Meh, does the child no good to die either, and if the family wants it and is prepared, so what?

They're within their rights either way, it's just that I wouldn't fault them for terminating early, and would probably recommend that course myself if it were a loved one. I'm not in favor of heavy-handed lawmaking on the topic in general.

Hitler didn't just hate people based on race.

So don't fucking smiley face wink at me.

True. He hated smokers, and meat-eaters, and capitalists. I'm all three plus Eastern European. He really, really hated me!

Hitler didn't just hate people based on race.

So don't fucking smiley face wink at me.

You're right!

He only hated the Slavs, Gypsies, Jews, the phyisically "undesireables" (That's me by the way), and the mentally retarted.

Yes, and a perfect race does not tolerate gays, or 'retards' or people of weak genetic material.

So your support of eugenics is just as disgusting, even though you 'don't see race'.

The word "eugenics" and its use predates the Nazis by a good deal. Maybe if you can see beyond that specific use and its context, you'll read what I had written again and notice that I made no mention about gays, political enemies, etc. Not believing in race simply means that I would apply the same ethical standard to everyone based on deficiencies that would destroy the child's quality of life and undermine the family. It's not a stand I take lightly, but it's an important one nonetheless.

Creating a "perfect" race was the objective, where I believe neither in perfection nor race. Big difference! :p
...

Now I am confused. So what, to you, is eugenics, then? Just simply breeding out horrible genetic defects? Because if that's it, you might not want to call yourself pro-eugenics, as people tend to misinterpret that as racist.
Meh, does the child no good to die either, and if the family wants it and is prepared, so what?
Frankly, I think it is extremely heartless to intentionally give birth to a baby that will most certainly die like that. All you do is bring the baby into the world to experience a great deal of pain and then perish.

...

Now I am confused. So what, to you, is eugenics, then? Just simply breeding out horrible genetic defects? Because if that's it, you might not want to call yourself pro-eugenics, as people tend to misinterpret that as racist.


Yes, I do believe I've learned that today, Kyronea. Thanks. ;)

Honestly, I've never encountered a misunderstanding of the term in academic matters, but it's true that the word might carry a historic stigma, I suppose.

My long-winded stance on abortion:

I'm both pro-choice and pro-life. Yes, it's possible.

PROLIFE: Yes, I think of a fetus as a living being that has rights, and I am for it's life. It pisses me off when pro-choice people avoid using the word "killing" with regards to terminating a pregnancy and use euphamisms to lessen the importance of what is being done. Because you ARE KILLING the fetus. For me, that's just a simple fact. One of my instructors in my nursing program used to work on a labor & delivery unit and had to help out with abortions, and she talked about how sometimes the fetus was still squirming and kicking its little feet after it was aborted but died shortly after because it was too underdeveloped. How is that not killing something? To me, killing a fetus is something very serious and tragic that is unfortunately done too lightly in many cases nowadays. It's especially in light of the fact that the age of viability for premature newborns is getting younger and younger with improved medical technology so that the line is getting blurrier by the decade.

PROCHOICE: I also believe that abortion should be legal, and that women should have the right to choose. I absolutely support abortion in cases of birth defects and medical reasons endangering the life of the mother etc. I also have no problem aborting fertilized eggs still in a very early cell stage (zygote, morula, etc etc.) that haven't developed a neural tube yet. But I am pro-choice for normal pregnancies as well because, before abortion was legalized, I had a different instructor in my nursing program who used to work in a hospital that had an entire wing for people with botched attempts at abortions. After abortion was legalized, there was no longer need for this wing, and I think this is a VERY GOOD THING. I can understand people being desperate and scared, and doing what they think they need to do to be okay; I don't want that to be a coat hanger for anyone. From a social perspective, if having a baby will continue the cycle of poverty or teenage pregnancy for a young woman who cannot offer her baby a life with viable opportunities, granted the extremely flawed adoption system we have, I can understand how not having a baby at all may be the best option for some people.

So that's my reasoning. Life is precious, and the termination of a life should not be taken lightly. On the other hand, people in desperate situations need to be protected and given the option of abortion for the sake of their own well being as well.

The word "eugenics" and its use predates the Nazis by a good deal. Maybe if you can see beyond that specific use and its context, you'll read what I had written again and notice that I made no mention about gays, political enemies, etc. Not believing in race simply means that I would apply the same ethical standard to everyone based on deficiencies that would destroy the child's quality of life and undermine the family. It's not a stand I take lightly, but it's an important one nonetheless.
The power to determine what 'deficiencies' would merit abortion is not one I think anyone but the mother should ever have. Letting you, or anyone else, who for whatever noble intentions (that they invent for themselves) make that choice is abhorent. Your belief that you should have any say at all still makes me want to vomit.

Frankly, I think it is extremely heartless to intentionally give birth to a baby that will most certainly die like that. All you do is bring the baby into the world to experience a great deal of pain and then perish.

There was no evidence the child was suffering.

And babies die. Even the ones who seem perfectly healthy.

I would not call her decision heartless in any sense of the word. She, and her family, knew full well what was going to happen, and did it anyway. That kind of decision is not something that could ever be made lightly. For half an hour, the child was sheltered in his mother's arms, met his sister, father, and grandparents, and then passed. It's something.

The power to determine what 'deficiencies' would merit abortion is not one I think anyone but the mother should ever have. Letting you, or anyone else, who for whatever noble intentions (that they invent for themselves) make that choice is abhorent. Your belief that you should have any say at all still makes me want to vomit.

I don't know about that. I, for one, would have no problem, for instance, with laws that disallowed late-term abortion for factors unrelated to health, like sex, sexuality (if we ever have such tests), eye color, etc.

There was no evidence the child was suffering.

Oh?

There was a story recently of an Edmonton woman who knew her child would be born with horrible birth defects, and not live long past its birth. She chose to carry him to term anyway, and was with him for half an hour before he expired. He had no nose, and his mouth was cleft on both sides...he also had massive internal deformities.

That seems like evidence to me. Unless this article also stated that the infant had deficiencies in the nervous system that would have made him unable to feel pain.

That doesn't change the fact that it was the woman's choice whether or not she would abort - and that she might have made the best choice for her and her family. But the chances that the infant did not suffer are very, very, very low.

There was no evidence the child was suffering.

And babies die. Even the ones who seem perfectly healthy.

I would not call her decision heartless in any sense of the word. She, and her family, knew full well what was going to happen, and did it anyway. That kind of decision is not something that could ever be made lightly. For half an hour, the child was sheltered in his mother's arms, met his sister, father, and grandparents, and then passed. It's something.

Oh. I see...my apologies; I mistook it for one of those instances where the child would be suffering, due to the way Thumbless phrased his own post.

I don't know about that. I, for one, would have no problem, for instance, with laws that disallowed late-term abortion for factors unrelated to health, like sex, sexuality (if we ever have such tests), eye color, etc. Please take what you quoted in context. He was referring to being able to decide which deficiencies would merit abortion. Not when abortions should be allowed or not.



Oh?

That seems like evidence to me. Unless this article also stated that the infant had deficiencies in the nervous system that would have made him unable to feel pain. His deformities were extensive (he also lacked eyes)...and even an extreme cleft palette is not generally painful. The lack of a nose was related to the double cleft. I met a woman in Cuba who had been born with a double cleft and the barest nub of a nose, who had extensive surgery to reconstruct her face...but she said it had never HURT except when she was trying to eat. This child hadn't reached that stage.

That doesn't change the fact that it was the woman's choice whether or not she would abort - and that she might have made the best choice for her and her family. But the chances that the infant did not suffer are very, very, very low.
The child could have been suffering. Then again, many children (such as those with FASD) are brought to term and have a lifetime of hell ahead of them. At least they knew that if the child WAS suffering, it would not last.

The article also mentioned that they had consulted with doctors extensively regarding the issue of pain...and had been reassured that in fact it would be unlikely.

Hardly. The two are not equal wrongs, no matter how much you want them to be. Ultimately, the man does not get to choose. Telling him or not does not alter this fact. Forcing a woman to either abort or not to abort is taking physical control over her body. Not even remotely comparable.
Bull. There are only three types of people to whom responsibility can be morally removed, young children, the insane, and the elderly who are suffering from dementia. ANY removal of responsibility without the OK of the person in question if not a young child or suffering from inanity or dementia is wrong. It's not about taking away a woman's choice, it's about the man having to face up to HIS responsibility and THAT choice, my dear Neesika, is NOT yours.

Absolutely she can. He has NO chance to do squat unless she chooses to give him that chance. And then the ball is in his court. But he has no inherent right to know. She however, has the inherent right to choose.
Again, yes, he does. She can just call him and say, "I got knocked up. I'm getting an abortion. I don't want to see or hear from you again." But he MUST be given a chance to say, "Hell, I fucked up. I'm sorry for what happened and I respect your decision."

Because said one-night-stand was not someone with which the woman has strong emotional ties, and hence she does not have to inform the man. She should only inform the man if said man has strong emotional ties with her and she with him.

Think about it. If you had a one-night-stand, and ended up impregnating someone, would you want that child to come to term, when you haven't even really formed any sort of emotional bond with the woman, or even gotten to know her anymore than is required for a one night stand? I doubt I would. Of course, I will never find myself in that situation, but that is beside the point.
It's not a matter of him influencing her choice, it's about him taking responsibility for his actions.

Look, if I was driving a long and got into a car accident, say with a female driver and it was both our faults, that doesn't mean I should be allowed to continue merrily on my way, even if the woman decides that it's just a fender bender and no big deal. I should stop my car and admit that I screwed up.

Maybe I've been living in Japan too long where taking responsibility is very important, or maybe I've just been raised to admit to my own mistakes, but I see it as the woman making a choice for the guy when she does not inform, which I see as wrong as the guy making a choice for the woman. Sleeping together doesn't give either the power of choice over the other one.

Bull. There are only three types of people to whom responsibility can be morally removed, young children, the insane, and the elderly who are suffering from dementia. ANY removal of responsibility without the OK of the person in question if not a young child or suffering from inanity or dementia is wrong. It's not about taking away a woman's choice, it's about the man having to face up to HIS responsibility and THAT choice, my dear Neesika, is NOT yours. Don't be an idiot. If I got knocked up, I would have ZERO responsibility to tell the father, either way. Period. End of story. Sorry you have delusions to the contrary. Your version of morality is not mine, and matters not. You do what you feel is necessary. I shall do the same...and it does not include feeling obligated to anyone when it comes to MY theoretical pregnancy or abortion. So yes, that choice is absolutely mine. Nothing you say otherwise actually changes a thing.

Again, yes, he does. She can just call him and say, "I got knocked up. I'm getting an abortion. I don't want to see or hear from you again." But he MUST be given a chance to say, "Hell, I fucked up. I'm sorry for what happened and I respect your decision."That's nice for you. But not what MUST happen.

Please take what you quoted in context. He was referring to being able to decide which deficiencies would merit abortion. Not when abortions should be allowed or not.

If the law allows abortions for some deficiencies and not for others, has it not taken the decision on which would merit abortion - and, indeed, even on what merits a deficiency in the first place?

His deformities were extensive (he also lacked eyes)...and even an extreme cleft palette is not generally painful. The lack of a nose was related to the double cleft. I met a woman in Cuba who had been born with a double cleft and the barest nub of a nose, who had extensive surgery to reconstruct her face...but she said it had never HURT except when she was trying to eat. This child hadn't reached that stage.

I was more worried about the internal deformities - which can often be extremely painful. But....

The child could have been suffering. Then again, many children (such as those with FASD) are brought to term and have a lifetime of hell ahead of them. At least they knew that if the child WAS suffering, it would not last.

The article also mentioned that they had consulted with doctors extensively regarding the issue of pain...and had been reassured that in fact it would be unlikely.

This suggests otherwise, which is good - in my eyes. At that point, the issue of whether or not the infant will suffer can largely be taken out of the equation. The major decision, then, is whether it will be more difficult for the mother and the rest of the family if they do get to interact with the infant or if they do not - and while the decision can always only be made by the woman, that is a question that only the woman and her family could possibly have answered.


Bull. There are only three types of people to whom responsibility can be morally removed, young children, the insane, and the elderly who are suffering from dementia. ANY removal of responsibility without the OK of the person in question if not a young child or suffering from inanity or dementia is wrong. It's not about taking away a woman's choice, it's about the man having to face up to HIS responsibility and THAT choice, my dear Neesika, is NOT yours.

If a woman is having an abortion and is not asking the man for any support, what responsibility is there for him to face up to?

What if he was a real asshole to her after their one-night stand? Should she still be required, in your mind, to talk to him?

I agree that, in general, this is something that should be discussed with the man. Hell, I think that it is highly irresponsible not to discuss it before you have sex. But there is a difference between what I think people should do and what I think they should be required to do.

Again, yes, he does. She can just call him and say, "I got knocked up. I'm getting an abortion. I don't want to see or hear from you again." But he MUST be given a chance to say, "Hell, I fucked up. I'm sorry for what happened and I respect your decision."

Why?

Look, if I was driving a long and got into a car accident, say with a female driver and it was both our faults, that doesn't mean I should be allowed to continue merrily on my way, even if the woman decides that it's just a fender bender and no big deal. I should stop my car and admit that I screwed up.

That is rather a different situation, don't you think?

This is more like you brush a car in the parking lot, and have no idea that you have done it. The owner of the car does not wish to press any charges against you or have you pay for the damage. She'll take care of it herself. Yet you would require her to track you down and say, "Hey, you hit my car back there, but don't worry about it." What for?

Maybe I've been living in Japan too long where taking responsibility is very important, or maybe I've just been raised to admit to my own mistakes, but I see it as the woman making a choice for the guy when she does not inform, which I see as wrong as the guy making a choice for the woman. Sleeping together doesn't give either the power of choice over the other one.

What choice is she making for him? If he does not know about the pregnancy, he has no choice to make. And he cannot choose what to do about the pregnancy, even if he does know about it.

Don't be an idiot. If I got knocked up, I would have ZERO responsibility to tell the father, either way. Period. End of story. Sorry you have delusions to the contrary. Your version of morality is not mine, and matters not. You do what you feel is necessary. I shall do the same...and it does not include feeling obligated to anyone when it comes to MY theoretical pregnancy or abortion. So yes, that choice is absolutely mine. Nothing you say otherwise actually changes a thing.
So, in other words, you are a-ok with taking choice away from people.

Yeah, that's what it comes down to. You want to talk about the morality of guys taking choice away from women, you have to address that you are taking a choice away from men.

Hypocrisy at its finest.

That's nice for you. But not what MUST happen.
Who died and made YOU God?

So, in other words, you are a-ok with taking choice away from people.

Yeah, that's what it comes down to. You want to talk about the morality of guys taking choice away from women, you have to address that you are taking a choice away from men. Tough shit. As I pointed out, the two are not comparable.

Situation 1: The man never finds out about the child, or the abortion.
Situation 2: A woman is physicall forced to have the child, or forced to have an abortion.

If you seriously think the two are the same, you need to rethink.

Hypocrisy at its finest. Yes, you are full of it. There is no choice involved for the man, period...unless given to him by the woman. She wants him in the child's life? Okay, choice. She doesn't want him in the child's life? Okay, choice (to contest). She aborts the child? No choice. It's up to her alone. Tough shit.


Who died and made YOU God?
You're the one with delusions of grandeur who thinks that somehow women should be forced to tell the man of the pregnancy and/or abortion. Not in my fucking lifetime.

If the law allows abortions for some deficiencies and not for others, has it not taken the decision on which would merit abortion - and, indeed, even on what merits a deficiency in the first place?
Sorry...I was assuming we were talking about sane jurisdictions that had no restrictions on abortions, except regarding extremely late term ones.

If the father has a mullet, you should probably look into it.

LOL! Good call

If a woman is having an abortion and is not asking the man for any support, what responsibility is there for him to face up to?
The fact that he did it? That he was there? He inserted his Tab A into her Slot B? Taking responsibility is admitting that YOU are at fault. YOU did do those actions, even if you cannot make amends, or do not need to make amends.

As I said, that is an adult decision, isn't it? Isn't what BEING an adult is about, admitting that your actions led to the current problem?

What if he was a real asshole to her after their one-night stand? Should she still be required, in your mind, to talk to him?
If she feels that he would harm her or prevent her from carrying out her decision, that's one thing. But being an asshole, while childish, does not remove the mantel of adulthood from his shoulders (If it did, more than half the forum would be in trouble).

Flip it around, if he caught an STD (Let's say one that is harmless in women, but has an effect on guys) from her, doesn't he have an obligation to inform his partner that she is carrying this? Even if he doesn't want her to pay for the treatment or anything else, he should still tell her because she did help to cause the situation.

Why?
Again, because why should a woman have the power to strip that choice away from a guy?

That is rather a different situation, don't you think?

This is more like you brush a car in the parking lot, and have no idea that you have done it. The owner of the car does not wish to press any charges against you or have you pay for the damage. She'll take care of it herself. Yet you would require her to track you down and say, "Hey, you hit my car back there, but don't worry about it." What for?
Didn't your parents ever tell you to make sure to admit to your own mistakes? Even if you didn't know you made them. Hell, just saying, "I'm sorry" might be the only response needed, but at least the guy is doing SOMETHING to admit he made a mistake.

What choice is she making for him? If he does not know about the pregnancy, he has no choice to make. And he cannot choose what to do about the pregnancy, even if he does know about it.
Well, 1. Again, if you make a mistake, you need to own up to it. THAT is basic morality. 2. How can someone learn from their mistakes if they are never told about them? 3. Finally, again, taking ownership of your actions is part of being an adult. Only children hide from their actions. Now, the guy might hide. He might say, "Nut-uh", he might say, "Well, damn. I'll support you in whatever you need. And I will pay for this as well" or whatever. But it is not the woman's choice whether or not he should be allowed to be an adult or not. THAT is HIS option.

Tough shit. As I pointed out, the two are not comparable.

Situation 1: The man never finds out about the child, or the abortion.
Situation 2: A woman is physicall forced to have the child, or forced to have an abortion.

If you seriously think the two are the same, you need to rethink.
No, you need to rethink. Because it's:

A: The man has his choice of admitting to his mistakes taken away from him.
B: The Woman has her choice about her own body taken away from her.

That's what this is coming down to. Sorry you don't see that.

Yes, you are full of it. There is no choice involved for the man, period...unless given to him by the woman. She wants him in the child's life? Okay, choice. She doesn't want him in the child's life? Okay, choice (to contest). She aborts the child? No choice. It's up to her alone. Tough shit.

If you're done with your righteous anger, go actually read what I posted. At no time is it HIS decision what the hell she does. She DOES have an obligation to let HIM be an adult and deal with HIS messes. Even if that dealing is only what he does and does not involve you.

You're the one with delusions of grandeur who thinks that somehow women should be forced to tell the man of the pregnancy and/or abortion. Not in my fucking lifetime.
You're the one who seems to think that men are not adults and shouldn't have to deal with the consequences of their own actions because their sexual partners should keep them safe from having to know about those consequences.

*snip* Nothing forces a woman to tell the man.

And that, frankly, is the end of the story. You can wish it to be otherwise, but your wishes do not reality make.

The power to determine what 'deficiencies' would merit abortion is not one I think anyone but the mother should ever have. Letting you, or anyone else, who for whatever noble intentions (that they invent for themselves) make that choice is abhorent. Your belief that you should have any say at all still makes me want to vomit.

Ah. So it's not the elimination of horrible ailments through aborting that gets your goat, it's that Thumbless Pete should have a say, rather than - who again? - maybe Thumbless Sally instead? Got it. :D

To clarify (though I doubt it'll make a difference) it wouldn't really be "me" making the decision, but doctors and families using good guidelines. Really now, a pregnant mother isn't the only person whose opinion is important - a doctor who's seen twenty babies born with the illness also might be of assistance.

She DOES have an obligation to let HIM be an adult and deal with HIS messes.

She has nothing of the sort. Don't be silly. You may wish she had in "lala"-land, but in the real world she doesn't.

She has nothing of the sort. Don't be silly. You may wish she had, but she doesn't.

Perhaps Nervun lives in some alternate universe where his morality dictates the actions of all other human beings.

And yet I was the one accused of having a God complex. Amusing, no?

Nothing forces a woman to tell the man.

And that, frankly, is the end of the story. You can wish it to be otherwise, but your wishes do not reality make.
So in other words you have no answer to that.

Nessika I would assume that you would be royally, and rightly, pissed if one of your partners decided that you were not adult enough to deal with the consequences if your own sexuality.

Allow the fact that guys also can be rightly pissed off at the same.

Ah. So it's not the elimination of horrible ailments through aborting that gets your goat, it's that Thumbless Pete should have a say, rather than - who again? - maybe Thumbless Sally instead? Got it. :D

To clarify (though I doubt it'll make a difference) it wouldn't really be "me" making the decision, but doctors and families using good guidelines. Really now, a pregnant mother isn't the only person whose opinion is important - a doctor who's seen twenty babies born with the illness also might be of assistance.
There is a difference between seeking medical and expert advice, and being told you MUST abort due to certain 'deficiencies'.

So which are you proposing?

She has nothing of the sort. Don't be silly. You may wish she had in "lala"-land, but in the real world she doesn't.
This is a morality question Fass where we are talking about the rightness of actions.

I'm surprised though, I would have thought that you too would agree that adults should always own up to their own actions. Isn't that what you rant about a lot ala the actions of the US?

So in other words you have answer to that.

Nessika I would assume that you would be royally, and rightly, pissed if one of your partners decided that you were not adult enough to deal with the consequences if your own sexuality.

Allow the fact that guys also can be rightly pissed off at the same.

I'm sure many men, even me, would feel very upset, angry, and perhaps betrayed if I were not included in the process.

That does not mean, however, that a woman should be REQUIRED to include me in the process.

How would you require this? How would you involve a man in the decision making? It's a two person choice, one person has to have the final say. For that to be anyone else other than the woman is reprehensible.

yes, many men might feel rightly pissed off. And, morally, ethically, SHOULD a woman consult her partner in...most situations? Yes, probably. But you can't REQUIRE her to.

So in other words you have answer to that.

Nessika I would assume that you would be royally, and rightly, pissed if one of your partners decided that you were not adult enough to deal with the consequences if your own sexuality.

Allow the fact that guys also can be rightly pissed off at the same.

I could care less about his ire.

Your reference to an STD is totally out of line, by the way. There are generally legal requirements to inform your partner. Why? Because it actually impacts their physical health.

Not true of not being told of an abortion.

What YOU have no answer to is the fact that women are NOT forced to tell their partners of a pregnancy, and there is no real justification for forcing them, aside from your own outrage.

On my side, there is no coercion. So yes, I feel fine up here on my high horse. And rightly so.

Perhaps Nervun lives in some alternate universe where his morality dictates the actions of all other human beings.

He seems more bitter about the fact that women have uteri and men don't and thus the latter only have as much say as women feel like allowing them. Oh, such a cruel and unfair world we dwell in.

And yet I was the one accused of having a God complex. Amusing, no?

"Amusing" is not the word I would use, although I do find it risible.

Perhaps Nervun lives in some alternate universe where his morality dictates the actions of all other human beings.

And yet I was the one accused of having a God complex. Amusing, no?
You're the one claiming the right to strip another adult the right of making a decision. Funny that.

I'm sure many men, even me, would feel very upset, angry, and perhaps betrayed if I were not included in the process.

That does not mean, however, that a woman should be REQUIRED to include me in the process.

How would you require this? How would you involve a man in the decision making? It's a two person choice, one person has to have the final say. For that to be anyone else other than the woman is reprehensible.

yes, many men might feel rightly pissed off. And, morally, ethically, SHOULD a woman consult her partner in...most situations? Yes, probably. But you can't REQUIRE her to.
*sighs* We're talking the should of morality. Of course I cannot force anyone to do anything. I can hold them as morally representable as those who would deny a woman's right to choose though.

There is a difference between seeking medical and expert advice, and being told you MUST abort due to certain 'deficiencies'.

So which are you proposing?

I'm not proposing any heavy-handed legal guidelines at all. I was making an ethical argument: that aborting a child whose quality of life doesn't meet a minimum standard is *justifiable.* Not that it should be done by force or by government. I've already admitted my mistake of using the term eugenics where it was likely to be misunderstood. I never meant to imply that anyone outside doctors, families and (much further removed) voters would weigh in on proper guidelines.

You're the one claiming the right to strip another adult the right of making a decision. Funny that.

what decision? How could it POSSIBLY be a male decision? How could that be done? It has to, in the end, be ONE person's decision. SOMEBODY has to decide to abort or not to abort. THere's no compromise on that. There's no "half" abortion. Two opposing views can't both make a decision. In the end ONE person has to have the final, ultimite say.

how in any way could that be a male? How could a man have the right to make a decision involving a woman's body?

*sighs* We're talking the should of morality. Of course I cannot force anyone to do anything. I can hold them as morally representable as those who would deny a woman's right to choose though.

well....sure. You're entitled to your own morality. And perhaps, in certain circumstances, if a woman had an abortion terminating my future child, without even telling me, I'd have some very choice words to say to/about her. But....your morality is your own.

Moreover, I would point out that your use of the word "right" as I quoted above indicates that you are NOT talking about simply morality. A right is a legal instrument. Once you start discussing or invoking rights you are inherently talking about legal systems, either current or potential.

What YOU have no answer to is the fact that women are NOT forced to tell their partners of a pregnancy, and there is no real justification for forcing them, aside from your own outrage.
Bull, I'm talking about the morality and the responsibility of being an adult.

That's a moral claim and one you STILL have yet to address.

On my side, there is no coercion. So yes, I feel fine up here on my high horse. And rightly so.
Perhaps you just like making choices for people. Personally I feel that it is very morally repugnant to do so.

He seems more bitter about the fact that women have uteri and men don't and thus the latter only have as much say as women feel like allowing them. Oh, such a cruel and unfair world we dwell in.
Fass, did you even bother reading what I wrote?

This is a morality question Fass where we are talking about the rightness of actions.

And the "morality" you're hawking apparently, and fortunately, has no suckers to buy it. Tough luck.

I'm surprised though, I would have thought that you too would agree that adults should always own up to their own actions.

Men do that when it comes to having to pay alimony should she keep the child. The man has no say apart from the one he is accorded by the woman, whose discretion and body it is. It really is that simple - you deposited your spunk in someone else's cloaca, not your own. So, get over it.

Look, I am purposely coming across as heartless as possible, representing an extreme. In all my time knowing women who have decided to carry to term, or abort an unexpected pregnancy I know of only ONE who did not inform the father. I have never hidden a pregnancy, and have never had an abortion...and it's unlikely I would ever do either.

But Nervun has argued that even a one-night stand MUST be told. That a woman MUST inform, that it is actually NOT HER CHOICE to inform or not.

I absolutely oppose that. No woman should be forced to inform. Most women will do so willingly. But should a minority choose NOT to do so, I support their right to keep it to themselves.

...

Okay, at first I was wholly with Neesika on this, but she and NERVUN are both being ridiculously childish.

Look, NERVUN, you are both correct and incorrect. When there is a solid relationship with emotional ties, the woman should tell the man. But in other circumstances, such as one-night stands, the woman does not have to inform the man, because he doesn't really have any responsibility to take. That's the end of the story.

Furthermore, Neesika, you are being far too harsh about every little thing that is even slightly out of alignment with your own personal beliefs, and then you mock them for accusing you of exactly what you're doing? Come on!

Now, I apologize if I offended any of you with this, but please...if you're going to discuss adult matters and adult maturity, act like adults for fuck's sake!

You're the one claiming the right to strip another adult the right of making a decision.

The other person has no such right to be stripped of in the first place, no matter how much wishful thinking you dispense in that direction.

Perhaps you just like making choices for people. Personally I feel that it is very morally repugnant to do so.

To say a woman who has an abortion "makes a choice" for someone implies that this someone had a choice to make to begin with. He didn't. He never did. He never had the choice to take control of whether a fetus got birthed or not. It was never his choice at all, so how could that choice be made for him?

Bull, I'm talking about the morality and the responsibility of being an adult.

That's a moral claim and one you STILL have yet to address. I see no need to address your morality. Mine is my own. And it will be dictated by my beliefs, and my circumstances alone. You, however, believe your morality should be applied...forced, as evinced by your overuse of 'MUST' etc.


Perhaps you just like making choices for people. Personally I feel that it is very morally repugnant to do so.
Yet you support forcing women to inform, depriving them of their choice to keep it to themselves.

Hypocrite.

Men do that when it comes to having to pay alimony should she keep the child.

Oh but the question of whether a man should be required to pay child support for a child he did not want is an entirely seperate question, and one well beyond this topic.

I'm not proposing any heavy-handed legal guidelines at all. I was making an ethical argument: that aborting a child whose quality of life doesn't meet a minimum standard is *justifiable.* Not that it should be done by force or by government. I've already admitted my mistake of using the term eugenics where it was likely to be misunderstood. I never meant to imply that anyone outside doctors, families and (much further removed) voters would weigh in on proper guidelines.Then we have nothing to argue about at this point.

Fass, did you even bother reading what I wrote?

Oh, I read it and it was a bunch of tripe. What is needed here to get the point across with you would be one of those images of a uterus and a crying boy with the text "Can't have it. Not yours!" over it.

what decision? How could it POSSIBLY be a male decision? How could that be done? It has to, in the end, be ONE person's decision. SOMEBODY has to decide to abort or not to abort. THere's no compromise on that. There's no "half" abortion. Two opposing views can't both make a decision. In the end ONE person has to have the final, ultimite say.

how in any way could that be a male? How could a man have the right to make a decision involving a woman's body?
*sighs* Look, I'll repeat myself yet again:

1. A woman has the right to decide whatever the hell she feel like regarding what to do with a pregnancy. She does NOT have to accept, respect, take into consideration, or even LISTEN to what her male partner wants or offers, be it support, money, or a ride to the clinic. That is HER right as an adult, to make those choices and (most importantly of all) take the responsibility for her actions.

2. A man has the right to take responsibility, to own up, for HIS actions. He's ability to make amends is; however, limited to what the woman decides, but she cannot deny him the right to own up to his own actions.

Example, a woman can just email the bloke and say, "I'm pregnant. I'm aborting. I don't want to see or hear from you ever again" and that is fine. She has given him the opportunity to deal with his actions and she has made HER choice.

But for her to say, "No, I won't tell him because... (Well, actually we HAVEN'T gotten a good reason why not)" strips him of his right to be an adult.

One adult cannot remove the rights of another.

That's where the morality lies in this and I have yet to hear a good reason why Neeska thinks she has the right to do so.

Furthermore, Neesika, you are being far too harsh about every little thing that is even slightly out of alignment with your own personal beliefs, and then you mock them for accusing you of exactly what you're doing? Come on!

Now, I apologize if I offended any of you with this, but please...if you're going to discuss adult matters and adult maturity, act like adults for fuck's sake!

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12699873&postcount=240

Kyronea, I am fine with his beliefs AS BELIEFS. But up until very recently, Nervun has presented his beliefs as MUSTS and RIGHTS. Now he has acknowledged that at best, there is a moral 'should' ...which I can agree with. That changes things quite significantly. I will absolutely not back down on the former...never, ever should it be forced upon women to inform.

Oh but the question of whether a man should be required to pay child support for a child he did not want is an entirely seperate question, and one well beyond this topic.

It is separate, but it was not the point I was making, although it is similar in the sense that the man has no choice but to pay there either since the child has rights to that money and they trump him not being able to keep it in his trousers or the other hole.