More on abortion
Feb. 24th, 2006 09:52 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
pecuniumAs might be expected there's a lot of talk about abortion in the blogospere right now.
In a few places I have seen the perrenial question, "What about the man's rights to help make the decision?"
As I see it, he doesn't have any. It's a binary choice. This isn't deciding how much money goes on one credit card or the other, or which movie to see tonight.
It's an either or. Either she carries it to term, or she aborts it.
Only one person gets to make that call. There's no way to split the Solomonic Ideal.
But, goes the cry, if she decides to keep the baby, he has to pay for it!
Qu'elle horreur. Shit happens. There are risks to sex. Pregnancy is one of them. If he didn't want the risk of a pregnancy, he ought to get cut, or buy a doll. Yeah, the good one's cost five-grand, but that's cheaper than food, clothes, daycare and college.
And, goes the flipside, what if he wanted the kid and she didn't? Well, he can talk to her, try to arrange a deal where he gets sole-custody, and she owes him nothing, but if she doesn't want to do that, he's SOL.
The argument also gets made, "He ought to be allowed to opt out."
This is the one which probably irks me more than any other.
It usually goes, more or less, like this.
In exchange for offering to pay for an abortion, he gets to walk away. If she takes it, he's out the cost of the abortion and no more.
If she doesn't, he's scot free. He, you see, "did the right thing." He offered to clean up the mess. She refused his noble offer, so she gets nothing more.
Bullshit. That's extortion. Being a single parent is hard. It limits things (jobs, housing, committed relationships) and makes life harder. He gets, in that scenario, to hang that over her head, get the abortion or suffer.
Reprehensible.
I feel for those people who want to make things just; who think that as two people are affected by the decision, two people ought to be involved in making it, but this is that simple. If abortion is an option, the woman gets to choose.
Is it better for the principles to sit down and talk about it. Probably, emotionally they probably both feel better afterwards. But it can't be required.
In a properly run world, abortion wouldn't be a real issue. Single parents wouldn't be any worse off than dual parents. Birth control methods would make accidental pregnancy more rare (and education would make BC more effective because people would use it properly).
But this isn't a perfect world, which means one person has to make the call, and that one person is the woman; she's pregnant. She is going to get stuck if he walks away (in theory he'd have to pay child support, but "dead-beat dads" wouldn't be a recurring theme in Time, and on the evening news if that were the case). He will be seen as the victim when she tries to get that child-support. She will be cast as a tramp and a harlot, conniving to get pregnant so she can live the easy life of a single mom without a husband to clean up after and all his money letting her stay at home and waste her life away on booze and other men.
It's about responsibility. One engages in risky behaviour, and one accepts the results.
In a few places I have seen the perrenial question, "What about the man's rights to help make the decision?"
As I see it, he doesn't have any. It's a binary choice. This isn't deciding how much money goes on one credit card or the other, or which movie to see tonight.
It's an either or. Either she carries it to term, or she aborts it.
Only one person gets to make that call. There's no way to split the Solomonic Ideal.
But, goes the cry, if she decides to keep the baby, he has to pay for it!
Qu'elle horreur. Shit happens. There are risks to sex. Pregnancy is one of them. If he didn't want the risk of a pregnancy, he ought to get cut, or buy a doll. Yeah, the good one's cost five-grand, but that's cheaper than food, clothes, daycare and college.
And, goes the flipside, what if he wanted the kid and she didn't? Well, he can talk to her, try to arrange a deal where he gets sole-custody, and she owes him nothing, but if she doesn't want to do that, he's SOL.
The argument also gets made, "He ought to be allowed to opt out."
This is the one which probably irks me more than any other.
It usually goes, more or less, like this.
In exchange for offering to pay for an abortion, he gets to walk away. If she takes it, he's out the cost of the abortion and no more.
If she doesn't, he's scot free. He, you see, "did the right thing." He offered to clean up the mess. She refused his noble offer, so she gets nothing more.
Bullshit. That's extortion. Being a single parent is hard. It limits things (jobs, housing, committed relationships) and makes life harder. He gets, in that scenario, to hang that over her head, get the abortion or suffer.
Reprehensible.
I feel for those people who want to make things just; who think that as two people are affected by the decision, two people ought to be involved in making it, but this is that simple. If abortion is an option, the woman gets to choose.
Is it better for the principles to sit down and talk about it. Probably, emotionally they probably both feel better afterwards. But it can't be required.
In a properly run world, abortion wouldn't be a real issue. Single parents wouldn't be any worse off than dual parents. Birth control methods would make accidental pregnancy more rare (and education would make BC more effective because people would use it properly).
But this isn't a perfect world, which means one person has to make the call, and that one person is the woman; she's pregnant. She is going to get stuck if he walks away (in theory he'd have to pay child support, but "dead-beat dads" wouldn't be a recurring theme in Time, and on the evening news if that were the case). He will be seen as the victim when she tries to get that child-support. She will be cast as a tramp and a harlot, conniving to get pregnant so she can live the easy life of a single mom without a husband to clean up after and all his money letting her stay at home and waste her life away on booze and other men.
It's about responsibility. One engages in risky behaviour, and one accepts the results.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2006-02-27 03:48 am (UTC)starting off with degrading comments like "you poor penises" really makes me want to listen to anything else you have to say. this is why i begin the debates i hold in my journal with rules about flames and taking things personal. i should have kept my comments there where people were being nice, even through a heated topic as this.
no subject
Date: 2006-02-27 04:01 am (UTC)Saying, for example, that right now women get to make men suffer is about as personal as someone (in this case
It's rhetoric, it makes a point that the speaker sees such complaints as whining. Since she followed up with substance, I'd say the shot was in bounds.
TK
no subject
Date: 2006-02-27 04:16 am (UTC)i do not appreciate being reffered to as a "poor penis", and i had made no insults to women reffering to them by their genitalia. i kept it as a debate.
but this is your journal, your rules. but this kind of response (in my small worth opinion) takes the discussion off topic and makes it about who can put insults into their side.
she came at me with insults and i have never even spoken a word to her.
plus she wants to talk about what emotion a guy goes through with no idea that i have had the heart wrenching emotion of having found out AFTER an abortion that i was a father. she knew not to who she spoke, nor what experience they had. i can accept someone having an opinion that differs from me. i am less accepting of people that feel having a different opinion is grounds for insults.
no subject
Date: 2006-02-27 04:18 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-02-27 10:28 pm (UTC)I'm not trying to be mean. Anything that has to do with my rights I take personally.
And as for being a "poor penis," I didn't mean it as a derogatory comment or degrading insult. I meant it to be humorous (I mean really, how can one say such a thing in a serious tone?), so I could keep things light here. Believe me, I'm not a "flamer," and I hate arguing with people-- especially online. Women's issues are something I'm passionate about and can't help responding to. So let me apologize for my tone not being clear enough. I won't apologize, however, for offering a women's point-of-view, which is often severely lacking in contemporary political debates over her rights.
no subject
Date: 2006-02-27 10:36 pm (UTC)your point of view did not offend me in the slightest. i am someone who holds debates OFTEN and welcome an opposing view. i feel the only way to truley stand by your opinions is if they have been put through the fire of debate. The world is made of so many views, it would be egocentric to think that everyone had to think like me. While i do not exactly agree with you, i would lay my own life on the line for your right to feel as you do.
i would offer, though, that the initial debate in my journal included several women, some who agreed with this latter post and some who didn't. You are welcome to drop by if you want to read.
no subject
Date: 2006-02-27 10:46 pm (UTC)As for the Voltaire sentiment, the same goes for you. Thanks for the invite.
no subject
Date: 2006-02-27 11:05 pm (UTC)but, point taken
no subject
Date: 2006-02-28 01:30 pm (UTC):)
no subject
Date: 2006-02-27 10:39 pm (UTC)