Discussion about abortion: part 2

[purits]

Can someone explain this idea of "my body, my choice" because it has never sat easy with me.

Some women seem to feel that they are the ultimate arbiter of whether they should / should not have an abortion and that the man involved and society have no say in this.
Yet once a baby is born, women suddenly insist that the man is a part of the process and must pay towards the baby's upkeep, even if he never wanted the baby. It does seem to be a case of 'heads I win, tails you lose'. Not sure that is an apt analogy, but you get what I mean - it all seems stacked in the woman's favour and it all hang's on her "choice" and no-one else gets a look-in.
Doesn't seem equitable to me.
Go on: flame me and tell me where I'm going wrong.

[msrisotto]

Well, it takes two to make a baby so just because the man doesn't incubate the thing, doesn't mean it isn't half his.

But, a woman's body is not in any part owned by a man, therefore, her body, her choice. Can you imagine the alternative to that? Forcing women to keep unwanted babies or forcing them to abort wanted ones?

[msrisotto]

There isn't much, if anything, that is stacked in a woman's favour by the way. She's damned if she does and damned if she doesn't with regards to having/not having children.

[slug]

Since the man does not have to go through the risky and potentially life threatening process of pregnancy and childbirth, and since a man does not have to contribute physical resources to the development of the foetus, and since a man is far, far less likely to be made redundant because a woman carrying his child is pregnant, then I think women have a perfect right to have the ultimate decision about what happens i their bodies.

However, if a man chooses to indulge in sexual activity that may potentially result in the production of a child then they have to accept that their actions have consequences. If they really, really don't want a child, then there's always the option of a vascetomy.

[Chaotica]

You are clearly mixing two issues up:

1. As msrisotto says, the man doesn't incubate the baby, the foetus cannot survive without the mother and so if the woman doesn't want to be part of that process then that should be her choice (added to which, the child will be dependent upon her most probably for a long time after birth.)
   
   
2. Anyone who has a baby should play a financial part in the baby's upkeep. This is largely irrelevant before birth, so only takes effect after the baby is born, but if the pg woman were starving and her partner had money or food, then you would expect the man to provide then as well. Merely by having sex, both partners make themselves liable financially for the consequences.
   
   You don't have to agree with (1) to agree with (2), or vice versa.
   
   I don't see what is stacked in the woman's favour here. You couldn't be forced to give someone a kidney (or force someone else to do so), OP; so why should the man have a say in (1). Of course, many women might want to give the man as say, but that is because they expect or hope for him to have a relationship with them or their child after birth.

[Chaotica]

x posted with slug

[purits]

"However, if a man chooses to indulge in sexual activity that may potentially result in the production of a child then they have to accept that their actions have consequences."

Does that apply to the woman, too? Should they be allowed to have free abortions on the NHS or should they "accept that their actions have [financial] consequences". See what I mean - if the man doesn't want the child then he still gets an 18 year child maintenance bill. But if the woman doesn't want the child then she gets a free termination.

[purits]

"Merely by having sex, both partners make themselves liable financially for the consequences."

But if you accept abortion, then this is not true. There is sex, which make result in a pregnancy. There is pregnancy, which may result in either a birth or a termination. Sex doesn't automatically have to mean a birth.
Isn't the man allowed to say that he wanted sex but not a baby and if the woman continues against his wishes then he should not be liable (I know this is simplistic: there has to be a cut-off date so he can't suddenly get cold feet at 38 weeks etc etc but you get the idea)

[happysmiley]

purits, re abortion being available on the NHS, would you suggest that women pay for the costs associated with childbirth too? The principle of free healthcare means that the childbirth is free, any medical needs that the child has are free, why shouldn't a termination be free?

Regarding the general concept of men not being given a say in a woman's choice to terminate, why should they have control over another person's body? Once a child is born, would you support a father being able to compel a mother to supply a spare kidney for the child, should it need a kidney transplant?

[purits]

I'm not suggesting that a man should have control over another person's body; I'm not suggesting that he should have final say. But I am saying that it's unfair to expect him to be financially liable for her decision. I know that we are talking life-and-death versus mere money but even so ...!

[happysmiley]

But you are implicitly giving him control over her body if you are giving him the right to say that he won't support the child.

Imagine how many women would feel pressured to terminate if the father threatened not to support them and they knew that they were consigning themselves and their child to a lifetime of poverty.

[purits]

But in an ideal world we want two people who agree to become parents. If there is disagreement, why should the rights of one over-ride the other? If that one goes ahead, regardless, then isn't it their responsibility? Why is the woman allowed to say "my body, my choice" but the man can't say "my life and my wallet, my choice"?

[MitchyInge]

sorry but is quite funny to suggest, in feminist section, that anything is stacked in our favour

at idea that women are so feeble they'll abort an otherwise wanted baby on basis of claims before birth that father won't support the child rather than bite bullet and support the child themselves - not to mention the availability of legal redress, possibility of compelling man to fulfil financial obligations or the chance that he will change his mind and be more supportive as pregnancy progresses or after the birth

[happysmiley]

MitchyInge, do you really believe that there would be no women who wouldn't terminate a pregnancy under the threat of poverty? It's not a question of being feeble, having your partner's support or not makes a huge difference in whether women wish to continue an unplanned pregnancy.

[MitchyInge]

I dunno really, have never considered and given the vast numbers of children born into poverty (but whyyyyyy does single parenthood equate to poverty? am I chippy or is there an assumption there that women incapable of earning money?) just made me go hmmmm

but for wider issue, is something for men and women to think about in advance and to take equal responsibility for the most effective contraception

probably about education and availability of really reliable methods, I just know for sure that if I was a man I'd double bag the condoms and hope my partner was equipped with an IUD and a contraceptive implant and or had undergone tubal ligation if I didn't want children

think the woman's rights v man's rights (and responsibilities on each side) an utter red herring, when is actually about thinking about possibility of pregnancy and both assuming responsibility for minimising risk or taking one another's views into consideration should it happen regardless

[happysmiley]

purits, yes ideally, mother and father would both agree to bring the child into this world. But where they don't agree you have a choice:

(1) whoever wants the baby more wins (so abortion would have to be agreed by both parties and the mother may be forced to go through the physically risky process child bearing and birth)

(2) whoever wants the baby least wins (so the mother may be forced to have the abortion).

Both outcomes take control from the woman over her own body. Therefore, the only acceptable outcome is that the mother decides whether to terminate or continue with the pregnancy.

As for who pays, the costs would always be split between both parents. So, if for example, the mother did not want the child but continued with the pregnancy on the understanding that the father would care for it and bring it up, I'd still expect the mother to pay for the child.

[happysmiley]

MI, single parenthood doesn't have to equal poverty but is much more likely to if the non resident parent doesn't contribute financially (as purits is suggesting would be possible if they said upfront that they didn't want the baby).

I know that I would struggle on my very good salary to cover childcare, mortgage, food and other basics, if DH left me and refused to contribute.

[hopalongdagger]

OP, I understand what you are saying and I agree, but I got flamed for this recently!

I have no problem with the 'my body, my choice' idea at all and think anything else would be quite hideous.

But I do find it strange that a man can in theory not want children, try to avoid his partner becoming pregnant by using contraception, and still be expected to pay for the child. And indeed, still be expected to take on the role of a father.

I know perfectly well that a lot of men don't conform to these expectations, but the expectation is still there.

It doesn't feel right to me that women can choose whether or not to become parents, but men can not. However, I don't know what the alternative is. I guess until we have a fail-safe but temporary method of male contraception, there is no alternative.

[MitchyInge]

well you fear that you'd struggle but you don't know what choices you'd make or how high the likelihood would be of enforcing a court order for maintenance from your husband - and a good salary is a good salary as opposed to minimum wage, for which I guess there are state top ups

am not completely arguing but do think it is important to remember that if a man can be sole breadwinner then a woman could

seems a bit negative to overlook never mind fail to promote female capacity to provide and adapt and thrive alone

[MitchyInge]

men can choose not to become parents

they just can't or shouldn't force someone else to have a baby against their will