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.

purits, let's try again.

A man and woman want sex but not a baby. They both have contraceptive options, the woman can take the pill, the man can use condoms. Both are 99% effective. So far so equal.

Contraception fails.

The man currently has two choices. He can (a) step up to the plate and share financial and emotional responsibility for the child with the mother or (b) he can avoid emotional responsibility but he will still have to make financial provision. Not great choices, but choices none the less.

If he decides not to take full responsibility, the woman can either (a) take full emotional responsibility herself and receive limited financial support or (b) have an abortion. Again fairly shitty choices.

So we have an equitable situation where both parents suffer some loss due to the unwanted pregnancy.

What you propose is that the man gets a third choice ie he takes no responsibility whatsoever and life goes on the same for him. Suddenly he gets a "good" choice where he personally does not suffer.

Of course to give him the "good" choice, you have to make the woman's choices worse. Now you have created inequity.

Incidentally, although you are clearly not pro-choice, are you pro-abortion or pro-life?

Or c, adoption

Well, purits, I don't want to have my tubes tied because there's a chance I might want to have another child in the future.

It's very simple, really. There are cells in my uterus that might, if allowed, become a life. Sometimes it's not the right time. Since allowing those cells to become a human being will affect me I have a right to not let that happen.

The man will not be pregnant and giving birth, will he? So he has no say. But because having sex obviously carries a risk of pregnancy, both parties have to be conscious of it and be aware of possible consequences ie termination or raising the child for woman, raising the child or at least contributing to the cost of raising the child for man.

Are you seriously implying that a man should have a say whether a woman should go ahead with pregnancy or not?

If I am to believe the other thread then (b) have an abortion is not necessarily a "shitty choice". Several women on there were adamant that it was the right choice for them and resented the implication that they ought to be feeling guilt-wracked because of it.

Whether I am pro or anti is not the question. I just think it's unfair that there does not seem to be equality. I think that feminism is about equality, not the wishes of one sex over-riding the other.

Purits- when a two people decide to have sex thay have to accept a risk of pregnancy.

Then, if pregnancy happens, it is quite obvious that a man cannot possibly decide for a woman whether to go ahead with it or not. Because preganancy happens to a woman, there cannot be that sort of 'equality' you're talking about.

What other solution have you got?

No, winnybella. I have said (several times) that it is the woman's choice. But if she decides yes when he wants no then why should he be made to pay for her over-riding decision?
He has no say and has to pay? - seems unfair.

Because he had sex with her, the outcome of which could be pregnancy. No contraceptive is 100%.

I do get where you're coming from, btw.
But that's how it is, there really isn't any other solution. If a guy has sex, he has to accept the risk of pregnancy and then since he cannot have a say whether a woman should go ahead or not with pg, in a case she decides to have a baby, it is his baby as well and he has an obligation to help support it.

Women have babies, men do not. There is no way that you can make this equal because this is the way it is. There is no other fair way for things to work other than the way they currently do and to suggest a £1K fine to justify abandoning your child is a horrific idea - would you really want to live in a society where that was an option?

So where do you stop OP?

If a man has the right to force a woman to carry the baby & have it, what other rights does he have over her? The right to sex when he feels like it? The right to hit her, kick her?

"a £1K fine to justify abandoning your child is a horrific idea"

But he hasn't abandoned his child. He doesn't want the child to be born in the first place. It's the woman that wants it, but would like the man to fund her decision.

Differentname: have you posted on the wrong thread? Your comment bears no relation to the discussion so far.

"have an abortion is not necessarily a "shitty choice". Several women on there were adamant that it was the right choice for them and resented the implication that they ought to be feeling guilt-wracked because of it."

erm, yes! There are plenty of women for whom having an abortion is not a regret and there is no reason at all that they should feel guilty.

however, there are plenty of women who have abortions because someone else persuades them they should ant that's a really shitty situation.

"He has no say and has to pay? - seems unfair. "

bollocks. bollocks bollocks. he should have kept his dick in check. wrapped it up, discussed contraception.

yes yes no contraception is 100% but thats really a shitty excuse compared to the amount of abortions. like all abortions are becuase the pill failed or the condom split - bullshit bulshit bulllllshit.

of course thats the case some of the time, but the reality is that there is little thought process behind it, great shag...oh dear i'm pregnant. not ..i'm on the pill - make sure you have a condom and we will be as carefull as we possibly could be.

no.

tbh. this subject annoys me. the recklessness annoys me. Women have so many choices. societal culture means that in 2010 carrying a condon - male or female is no biggee.

go to the docs get put on the pill - no biggee.

there are exceptions - i accept that. there are a small percentage of people to are allergic. but most of it is down right thoughtlessness.

If abortion statistics gave us figures for those who couldn't use certain kinds of contraception due to allergies - AND then added together those who genuinley had failed contraception - it wouldn't be a fraction of the abortion figures.

abortion is a dreadful thing and can be avoided. Which means true decisive thought processes should go into contraception use if you are sexually active.

Yes it does. I was answering this

"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"

It isn't equal. It is not a situation where it is possible to be equal, and that's how it is. If you have sex there is always a chance that conception could occur unless you cannot conceive (due to sterilization or lack of fertility) or you can guarantee that the sperm do not meet the egg. So you have to accept that there is a chance that you could end up with a baby that you have to support. Fathers should in no way be allowed to walk away from that responsibility. If they really really don't want to have a child then they shouldn't get themselves into a situation where a child could be conceived.

I agree that it's not great that decisions about abortions are not equal, but until men can get pregnant that's how it is, because as others have said the alternatives are untenable.

purits said

Of course not all women feel guilty about it, but there's no guarantee how any one individual would feel. There is a emotional risk there that a woman faces and a man does not have to. And I'm fairly certain that women feel worse about terminations that they have been coerced into.

The reason why I ask if you are pro-abortion is because I've never before been involved in a debate where someone is proposing an idea that would increase the number of abortions by women who would ordinarly want to proceed with the pregancy.

also, purits, if you accept that society has to do something to stop reckless men impregnating women and then abadoning their children, which you do as you propose a £1k fine, surely you accept that we need to do something that would actually work. Given that paying large sums of maintenence for the next 18 years doesn't put many men off, why do you think a £1K fine would work?

Popping in to say I have had an abortion with no lasting distress - was upset at the time, but not deeply distressed.And I know lots of other women with the same experience. It's just that there is a strong taboo about talking about it, and to be seen to do so without guilt or trauma is seen as shameless and amoral, somehow. So people don't. You are somehow expected to demonstrate how bad and regretful you feel and that your upset is somehow the natural 'punishment.IMO IME.

And the relationship with that to feminism and who controls not just a woman's body but moral beliefs over a woman's body, is obvious.

This debate seems to be centred around contraception failure. What about the other scenarios? What about women who have IVF, and then choose to abort, without their partner's knowledge? Or a couple that decide to have a baby, and then split up?
In my job I have spoken to people in many different situations, it's not all black and white. One couple decided termination was the right route for them, then decided to get rid of the family dog instead...best of luck to their child.

I think that the reason the discussion is focused around contraceptive failure is because the OP's main concern is around the right of a father to say "no, i didn't want the baby, I'm not prepared to pay for it" and bugger off.

The easy answer to this is if you didn't want the baby, you should have used contraception, as many of us have said, but the OP isn't happy with that as she refuses to accept that the positive act of sex creates babies. She seems to think that the negative act of not having an abortion creates the baby.

In both of the scenarios you outline, the father has actively engaged in making the baby so I don't think the OP would give him the option of buggering off. (How on earth the mother would "prove" that they had planned the baby in the non IVF scenario and force the father to pay up though, I don't know. I guess it would be almost impossible and the reality is that he would be able to walk off scott free in the OP's ideal world.)

I would expect that many many scenarios are much more grey than black and white. In some ways the totally accidental pregnancy conceived outside of a committed relationship is the most straightforward - although I suspect that given that many older women have abortions perhaps the accidental pregnancy after you have finished your family might also be in that category.

Re the burden of abortion for those who do not have any moral hazard, I still think that the burden falls on the woman. I know when I went to get the MAP it wasn't easy. I didn't enjoy squirming in the doctors office whilst he lectured me on being responsible - that should have been dh as far as I'm concerned, as he was the one who got carried away in that particular scenario. I suspect asking for an abortion would have been much more painful.

"What about women who have IVF, and then choose to abort, without their partner's knowledge"

I don't have statistics on this but I would say that this scenario is very very rare. Having been through IVF I can absolutely say that it is something a couple goes through together emotionally and in some ways physically. If a couple decide to terminate after IVF I am sure that in most cases they decide together and it's because of some chromosonal issue they have decided they do not want to continue with or some much worse situation like they know the foetus will not survive the birth.

I know that there were a couple of other threads recently following some reports about the very small percentage of terminations after IVF in which many people mistakenly assumed couples abort, because they no longer want the child for one reason or another, but I can tell you that couples who go through all that IVF entails don't take these decisions lightly and I am really surprised that anyone would really think so.

Let's change tack a little. When I was young, I used to worry about unwanted pregnancies. When DD became sexually active, again, I worried. However, I can now see that these concerns are nothing compared to my worries about DS who is getting to that age.
Since DD and I are female, we are in control of the situation. If there is an unwanted pregnancy then it is/was in our power to do something about it. Or not, if we wish.
DS will not have this option: if he is involved in an unwanted pregnancy he will have to stand by while the girl does her "my body, my choice" routine. How do I explain that you may like a woman enough to make love to her, but don't trust her because she may betray you. How do I explain this to him without implying that all women are scheming harlots who are out to trap their menfolk.
What is the feminist way to explain this?