AIBU to be shocked by these American views on women's bodily autonomy?

[WhatTheHellJustHappened]

If you have time, please read this thread.

boards.askmen.com/showthread.php?130715-Then-End-of-a-relationship-before-and-after-an-Abortion&p=1311666#post1311666

The OP is a boy who regrets not supporting his girlfriend through her abortion.

The thread turns into an abortion debate around page two. There is one female poster making very valid agreements about a woman's right to make choices about her own body and is being flamed by the others.

One male poster actually says "So fucking what if it's her body?"
The worst part is that the women themselves are not speaking in support of a woman's right to choose:(

There are repeated references to how depressed men feel when their SO aborts, but nobody stops to think about how women feel when they are forced to give birth and endure 37-42 weeks of pregnancy. I completely sympathise with men who may feel helpless in such a scenario but I can't really support the idea of a man being able to prevent a woman from terminating a pregnancy.

I'm all for couples making decisions together, but surely the final decision about an abortion should lie with the woman?

The women have the right to opt out of parenthood through abortion.

To have the same right, men need to have the right to opt out of parenthood through abortion.

The rights that you are talking about are not equivalent.

One leaves a child in the world and the other does not. They are not the same thing at all.

No problem with men signing all rights away, the state would simply have to step in instead.

This is what you said, SardineQueen, my posts were a response to this.

I am not at all convinced that allowing men to opt out of their responsibilities to children that they father is a good thing, at all.

It looks as if you'd changed your mind in the meantime - fair enough.

So you agree with abortion through choice up to term.

That is an interesting stance can you explain why you hold that position.

To have the same right, men need to have the right to opt out of parenthood through abortion.

Men don't need an abortion since they cannot get pregnant, carry a child and give birth. It's enough for them to simply walk away without having to have any financial responsibility or contact with the child. That's what I mean when I say men should be able to opt out. I never said they could force the woman to abort.

destroyedluggage you are talking rubbish.

Do you understand that in a conversation people throw ideas around and talk out loud?

If you read the exchange that you are alluding to (which you were not involved in at all) you would maybe understand what it was that me and the other people were discussing.

HTH.

I agree with it for the same reasons solidgoldbrass explained.

destroyedluggage I find it strange that you don't see the differnence between having a baby and not having a baby. I would be interested to hear you expand on that.

Also as to why you think abortion until term should be available to all women.

Oh you just "agree with SGB"

Very few people in the UK are in favour of abortion to term as a choice for all women, I thought that you might be able to explain why you hold that belief in your own words.

You do understand the concept of a conversation, do you?

That we are not all sitting here with a book of "my views" which we stick intractably to?

That people are having a discussion during which they consider their ideas. That is how it normally works on here anyway. I haven't given much thought to the situation for men. I am more concerned with the situation for women. The question of whether or not you have to pay £5 a week pales into insignificance surely against the concepts of forced birth / forced abortion. I think so anyway.

Do you understand the difference between having a child, and not having a child.

In order not to have a child, when a pregnancy has happened, there needs to be an abortion. It's not complicated.

Not having contact with a child is not the same as not having a child. I woudl have thought that any parent would realise that.

You can choose whether to become a parent pre natally. By refusing to engage in intercourse, by preventing ones own gametes from meeting another's, or by terminating one's own gestation. Once the child is here you can't choose whether to parent - you have entered the state - you can only choose whether to do it well or badly.
I do.not support anyone's right to walk away from parenthood. You can't legislate for emotional well being but monetary contributions are measurable.

I support a woman's right to choose abortion right up to the moment of birth because it is clear-cut: the woman has the right to control over her body. Once the baby is born then it's a person. I don't have a problem with this at all because the number of women who might decide to terminate in late pregnancy for reasons other people would consider selfish or frivolous is incredibly small. Balance it against the number of women who might die from illegal abortions or complications of pregnancy that an abortion would have prevented, when abortion is still seen as something that it's men's business to permit, and it becomes very simple.

I don't agree sgb
once the baby is viable any abortion involves labourimg anyway a s many people have sad cause to know. So while in theory I support a woman's right to end a very late term pg it should ne to a live baby
. Sorry if that post.is upsetting it's an emotional topic

"You can choose whether to become a parent pre natally. By refusing to engage in intercourse, by preventing ones own gametes from meeting another's, or by terminating one's own gestation. Once the child is here you can't choose whether to parent - you have entered the state - you can only choose whether to do it well or badly.
I do.not support anyone's right to walk away from parenthood. You can't legislate for emotional well being but monetary contributions are measurable."

As someone who was abandoned by a parent, I agree with this.

I do not think parenthood should be imposed on anybody against their will.

Agreed destroyed luggage. That's why we have contraception and termination and for the truly risk averse abstinence.

I believe in abortion for any reason, on demand, up to term.

I'd like to explain this view, because I understand it's abhorrent to many.

Logic goes thus, starting from my teenage self's position:

Abortion is nasty, it's wrong.

What about rape?

Well, clearly we can't force someone to have a baby if they've been raped.

But doesn't that place a different value on the life of the foetus conceived of rape? And also, what if a woman has been raped, but not reported it, or failed to secure a conviction, is it still OK?

Does rape make the foetus worth less?

What about disabled foetus'?

It would be unethical to force women to carry and birth a severely disabled child, because they may not feel equipped to raise such a child.

But other women might not feel equipped to raise a NT child. And doesn't that place foetuses with abnormalities as worth LESS than an NT child?

What about foetuses after 24 weeks? They can survive, with massive intervention and a high possibility of disability?

So it's OK to abort a disabled foetus, but not to abort an apparently NT one with a high chance of disability? Does a foetus become "more" human just because it looks more human? That's not biology. Apart from the horror of the procedure, there is no moral difference in my mind between an abortion at 5 weeks and one at 30. You are doing the SAME THING, it is just the mechanics which are different.

That's the baby angle -what about the women? Well, if you're saying it's OK to abort a child conceived of rape or incest, you are placing a moral judgement on the behaviour of the woman. Essentially, the woman is being punished for having consensual sex, by having her right to bodily autonomy and parental choices removed. This also covers it being OK in the case of contraceptive failure.

What about women who have dozens of social abortions? Well, for a start, most people don't. For another, if somebody is that clear about not wanting to be a parent, what reason could you possibly have for forcing them other than punishment?

That's a simplified version, I've been thinking about this for a long time. There are also massive feminist issues around power (patriarchy resents the power women have to birth etc). Anyway, I believe it's a logical position, and the only one that does not have misogynist or disablist overtones.

Crunchy no flaming. You're entitled to your opinion.

Sardine Queen - I don't think it's a case of people not understanding that having a baby and not are different things. I don't think it's a case of (many) people wanting to force women to carry babies to term.

What most of the points you disagree with on this thread are, in my opinion, attempts to make an untenable situation manageable.

My stance is this:

• For two people who have created a life to have different desires for that life and for both to be unrpepared to come round to the others' view is tragic and unresolvable.
• Neither parent's opinion is more important than the other. If the man doesn't want the baby but the woman does the fairest solution is for the man to sign away all rights and never see it. Of course it's not ideal and he will still have to know the baby is in the world but it is the fairest possible* option. If the woman doesn't want the baby but the father does then, tragically for the man, there is nothing that can be done. The woman can't be expected to give birth to the baby so he has to lose his baby. There is no fair solution*

This is why I think the women have the advantage of choice in this situation and why I can understand how men come to make the kind of misogynistic comments in the OP - the comments are nasty but come from a place of loss and pain.

Neither parent's opinion is more important than the other.

I fundamentally disagree with this. The only risk to a man is financial and emotional. A woman is also risking injury, death, discomfort, financial and career damage, social stigma (still extant for single mothers)... She has FAR more to lose, and therefore far more right to choose. IMHO, of course.

Crunchy, I wouldn't flame you for that post either.

I completely disagree with you but your opinion is well thought out and totally logical.

macroinsomniac

How do you know they come from a place of loss and pain?

I doubt you know any of those misogynistic ranters personally, so how can you be so sure?

Moreover, this so called advantage of choice we have comes at a huge price. Since we bear the babies, we go through the innumerable health risks and discomforts of pregnancy and childbirth. We bear the risks of birth control methods like the pill, IUD etc. Hell, even with abortions we are the ones taking all those health risks and bearing the pain. Our lives, careers and bodies are affected.

If any man is willing to do all that in my place I'd gladly hand over this phenomenal advantage of choice you talk about to him.

We have that choice to abort, but it comes at a huge price.

"I fundamentally disagree with this. The only risk to a man is financial and emotional. A woman is also risking injury, death, discomfort, financial and career damage, social stigma (still extant for single mothers)... She has FAR more to lose, and therefore far more right to choose. IMHO, of course."

Absolutely.

manic this was quite clear

"Men don't need an abortion since they cannot get pregnant, carry a child and give birth. It's enough for them to simply walk away without having to have any financial responsibility or contact with the child."

I think that not having contact with a child or providing for it, does not mean that you have not got a child. I find it a strange statement. If a child is there it has two parents, whether those parents are interested or not, the child exists, you can't pretend it doesn't.