Abortion

@ Airi.

Ok but what if the woman wanted a baby but the father didn't, she would still be able to ahead with it with out the dads consent, leaving the that father with to options, 1 to leave the mother raise the baby on her own, or 2 take care of a child he doesn't want. Man can't help it that woman carrys their child, and what kinda person would abort a baby when they know someone is willing to care for it?

@ Maleficent A Because they don't want to go through pregnancy? Plain and simple. It's not the father's body. He has no right to tell the mother what to do with her body. It's bodily autonomy. You can't force someone to do anything with their body that they don't want to. Deny woman their right to bodily autonomy is giving them less rights than a corpse.

@ Maleficent A

So when I'm pregnant do I get to force the man to do things wth his body that he doesn't want to do? No. You're comparing apples and oranges. Stop.

But@ BadStreetBoys
But woman are denying the fathers rights to love and care for their unborn baby.

@ dru is beautiful.
But there's no need to force a man to do something with his body during a pregnancy, and that's not his fault.

And don't tell her to stop, she's just putting her opinion out there, you can't tell her to do something she doesn't want to do

@ gayboy101

Lol that isn't a right. Your RIGHT is bodily autonomy. That's an actual right. What you said was irrelevant. The man isn't going through pregnancy, it's not his body. He has no choice in what someone chooses to do with their body. Example: say my brother has a kidney disease and I am the only person in the world who is a match. Absolutely no one can force me to donate a kidney to my brother, even if that means he will die because I won't do it,

@ BadStreetBoys
Well then that's pretty messed up of you :| you could just sit there and watch your brother die, knowing you could of saved his life, wow

Anyway we are getting of the subject,

But its ok for a woman to force a man in to something he doesn't wanna do? Yeah it might not be his body, but its his baby, shouldn't men have a say in that?

@ gayboy101
It's not off topic, it's the same type of situation with bodily autonomy. Even if I died, if I didn't sign up to be an organ donor they still couldn't use my organs to save him. If you deny a woman that right you're giving her less rights than a corpse.
No they shouldn't, not his body, not his decision. Plain and simple. Unless you are the one pregnant. You don't get to decide

@ BadStreetBoys
It may not be his body but its still his baby, shouldn't both parents have a say in that?

@ gayboy101
Not a baby a fetus. At least use correct terminology

gayboy101:

@ BadStreetBoys
It may not be his body but its still his baby, shouldn't both parents have a say in that?

While that would seem sensible, at the end of the day the woman is the one carrying the baby. For all that a man might want to have his say, it wouldn't be right for him to just expect the woman to act as a human incubator against her will just because of what he wants.

@ gayboy101
I believe the father should have his own opinion on the matter (want / reject the fetus and that he may become a father) but it should ultimately be the woman's decision of whether or not she wants to go through pregnancy. If he wants a child but the woman doesn't, he should accept her decision of "no".
If men want children, they can adopt or there's artificial insemination (which I am not 100% sure of is actually illegal or not - I think it's legal as long as the surrogate doesn't benefit financially or something).

If a woman doesn't want to go through a pregnancy, she shouldn't have to.

Maleficent A:

@ Airi.

Ok but what if the woman wanted a baby but the father didn't, she would still be able to ahead with it with out the dads consent, leaving the that father with to options, 1 to leave the mother raise the baby on her own, or 2 take care of a child he doesn't want. Man can't help it that woman carrys their child, and what kinda person would abort a baby when they know someone is willing to care for it?

Once again, as BadStreetBoys has been mentioning, we come to the subject of bodily autonomy. A woman's body is her own. It is not a man's property, it is not another woman's property, and it sure as hell is not the government's property. A woman belongs to herself and no one else. No one should have a right to take away a woman's reproductive rights and lower her to the status of a mere incubator. That's not right. That's not okay.

If the woman wishes to bear the child, it is her choice to do so. If a woman wishes to have an abortion, it is her choice to do so. These sort of issues are not as black and white as you appear to be portraying them to be. A male and a female have more than two choices when it comes to pregnancy and abortion. If the two are mature then they will talk it out and decide what is best. If the woman wants to bear the child but the man doesn't, a couple can be mature enough about deciding whether the male should be asked to pay child support, have visitation rights, have nothing to do with the child whatsoever, etc.. Yes, there are horrible women in this world who will try to force something on a male and our courts are extremely sexist towards men and women when it comes to this. However, that does not mean you or anyone else gets to take away a woman's right and lower her status below a human being.

A man does not get to force a woman to have an abortion because he didn't want the child.
A man does not get to force a woman to bear a child she does not wish to.
A woman does not get to force another woman to have an abortion.
A woman does not get to force a woman to bear a child she does not wish to.

---

gayboy101:

@ BadStreetBoys
Well then that's pretty messed up of you :| you could just sit there and watch your brother die, knowing you could of saved his life, wow

Anyway we are getting of the subject,

But its ok for a woman to force a man in to something he doesn't wanna do? Yeah it might not be his body, but its his baby, shouldn't men have a say in that?

It might be messed up but it is her right to deny the request just as it is any human's right to deny the request. Every living, sentient human being has the right to bodily autonomy and no one should be allowed to force them to do something with their body that they cannot want. Someone should not be forced to give another person an organ if they do not wish to. It's the same way a woman should not be forced to have an abortion if she does not wish to.

No. A woman is not an incubator. A woman is a living, sentient, breathing human being with human and civil rights that should not be stripped from her. A man does not get to turn a woman into an incubator because he wanted to force her to birth the fetus against her will. A man does not get to force a woman to do anything with her body just as a woman should not be allowed to force a man to do anything with his body.

If I had a one night stand and became pregnant, I would not find it appropriate to gain my casual sex partner's legal permission to terminate my pregnancy.

If I was raped and did not report it (or, if I reported it, there was not enough evidence and therefore was not considered rape by the legal system) I would not find it appropriate to gain my rapist's legal permission to terminate my pregnancy.

If I was in an abusive relationship, I would not find it appropriate to gain my abuser's legal permission to terminate my pregnancy.

Even if I was in a safe, stable relationship, I would not find it appropriate to gain my partner's legal permission to terminate my pregnancy.

I personally would talk to my partner about it if we were in a steady relationship, but I don't like the idea of a law telling me it's required.

When men can carry a fetus to term, I think he should be allowed to pay for the fetus to be transplanted from one body to another. Until that day, if a man doesn't agree with bodily autonomy for females, he should stop having sex with them.

He gave his sperm away. He doesn't get to decide what the recepient of his gift does afterward.

Ah, Tennessee.

dru is beautiful.:

When men can carry a fetus to term, I think he should be allowed to pay for the fetus to be transplanted from one body to another. Until that day, if a man doesn't agree with bodily autonomy for females, he should stop having sex with them.

I hope I don't come off like an argumentative jerk here because it's not my intention, but I disagree. I think that even if society is able to create an artificial womb, I do not believe women should be obligated to transfer the fetus to the womb. If I'm nine weeks pregnant and want an abortion, I'm probably going to take misoprostol, have bad abdominal pains and diarhhea for a couple of days and be done with it. I am not going to agree to major abdominal surgery which opens me up the risks of infection and adverse effects of any medication as well as taking me out of work or school for weeks I think we'd all like there to be this wonderful answer where men can have children they want without interfering with a woman's autonomy, but I don't think this is it. /End pedantic argument (I just had one of those "hurr hurr. one day we'll have artifical wombs and then you females will see" arguments with someone and I almost self destructed from rage. Sorry, if you're getting the brunt of it.)

In general, I support the right of a woman to obtain an abortion in any case at any time in the pregnancy. As far as I'm concerned a woman can wake up and get an abortion because she likes the sound of the word. She can get pregnant just so she can get an abortion. She can use abortion as birth control. It is not my body. I am not her doctor. I am not willing to become the judge that decides whether a woman and her doctor can perform a medical procedure that is none of my business. I trust the medical community to decide for themselves whether to perform an abortion. One example, is Dr. Susan Robinson, who doesn't feel morally okay with performing abortion after 26 weeks except for on a case by case basis. I 100% support that decision.

It is my opinion that the father of the fetus gets exactly 0 votes in what the mother of the fetus chooses to do with the fetus that is in her body. She can take advice if she chooses to do so (and I would imagine that in any kind of romantic relationship, the couple would probably discuss it), but I don't believe he should have any rights with regards to it. It's all well and good if the father wants the fetus, but the fact is he doesn't get to force a woman to bring the fetus to term. He's not the one who will lose his job or scholarship because he's pregnant. He's not the one who faces the medical risks a woman does. He is not the one who is expected by society to do the vast majority of the caretaking of the child. In addition, I sincerely do not care if the father of a child has to pay child support for a child he does not want. Child support is owed to the child. It has nothing to do with the mother or the father. In a perfect world, society would be able to step in and provide support for a child whose parent chooses not to be involved in its life, but we do not live in that world.

@ May Lewis
I don't think the man's opinion should ever override the woman's. I just think the option should be available. I still think the woman should have the option of saying yes or no. So if the woman wants him to take the fetus, he can have it. But she can't be forced to do so. If that makes sense?

Hopefully we have accurate and easy access to birth control before we need to transplant any fetuses.

@ dru is beautiful.
I completely agree with you. Like you said, there will never be a perfect solution and that in the end the woman decision should always win. I'd love to see what artificial wombs attainable and reduce the need for surrogates if couples want to have a biological child, but, as you said, it is about a million places lower in priority to me than how women's reproductive rights are being eroded today.

This isn't really relevant to the topic at hand, but here's what I have to say about abortion in general:

I don't believe the right to abortion is a question of woman autonomy, but rather a question of what exactly defines human life. With that in mind, I believe abortion is ethical only in the first few weeks of pregnancy, when the organism truly is just a "clump of cells."

However, past Week 5 of pregnancy, the embryo will have already begun neurogenesis and show initial signs of brain activity. (The brain is one of the first organs to begin developing in an embryo.) Additionally, past Week 5, the embryo will also have developed a functional beating heart.

By Week 6-8, embryo development will have progressed such that the embryo is actually capable of movement.

Any abortion past Week 8 essentially kills a moving, thinking organism with an actively beating heart--and the majority of abortions (about 90%) occur at Week 13. At this point, it is no longer a mere "clump of cells." It is an organism with differentiated organs, arms and legs, and brain activity.

A common argument in favor of abortion is that a woman should be in control of her own body. This is true; however, the fetus is not a part of the woman's body. It is a distinct and separate organism that happens to depend on the woman's body for survival. A fetus' lack of autonomy does not negate the fact that it is a separate LIVING organism. The woman should not have the right to decide whether the fetus lives or dies.

--------------------

Regarding situations involving rape (and also any type of potential unwanted pregnancy), I don't believe abortion is the answer. Emergency contraceptives can be used up to 5 days after sexual intercourse and can stop a pregnancy before it happens. Rather than legalizing abortion, I believe we should instead more adequately EDUCATE people about preventive measures (emergency contraceptive, birth control, etc.) and also make these preventive measures MUCH more readily available.

---------------------

Regarding situations in which the mother's life is at risk, I believe it is ethical to have an abortion only before Week 26 of pregnancy--and only if there is SUBSTANTIAL risk to the mother's life. This is because babies born at Week 26 of pregnancy do have an 80% chance of survival. Thus, after Week 26, the fetus can simply be delivered prematurely rather than aborted.

@ as dreamers do.
The fact of the matter is that until the embryo/fetus gets to the point where it is viable to survive on its own, we are still dealing with the fact that it's still an autonomy issue for the female carrying it. At this point in my life, the fact that if I somehow got pregnant (regardless of whether it was rape or not), it is still up to me on whether or not I want to put my body and my emotional wellbeing through a pregnancy. Pregnancies can have adverse effects on the body, but also can be detrimental on the person's emotional wellbeing as well. After all, there is an intense amount of stress, and not just because of hormone fluctuations.

For example, if I were to get pregnant, I would be at a high suicide risk due to my own issues with mental illness and past experience with suicide attempts. So, in that case, if we are considering the fetus and the woman as two separate individuals, is it better to risk losing both?

If the living organism can't sustain itself outside the host's body, then I don't know how you can consider it a separate being until it can. The fetus is sharing blood supply, glucose levels, oxygen, nutrients and virtually everything in order to even exist. If you remove a fetus at 12 weeks, regardless of the fact that it has a heartbeat, it will die. Then again, I'm not entirely certain as to why the pro-life movement is so keen on pointing out when the heartbeat starts. Virtually all that means is that the cells designated to be the heart are now contracting and pumping blood. That's all that means. I'm also curious as to just how far that logic goes. Is it any living creature inside a woman's body with a heartbeat that she can't make decisions about or is it just the fetus?

I do agree that we need much more education to make emergency contraceptives easier to get to and so that people have more information about them. After all, it would reduce the number of necessary abortions by quite a lot. However, that being said, it won't eliminate the need for abortion.

Also, considering we're both in America, there is no legalizing Abortion. That's already been done. Abortion is legal on the state level and at the federal level due to a supreme court decision decades ago. Chances of that decision ever being undone are highly unlikely. It's a legal right in America and currently the discussion is whether or not access to safe abortions should be limited.