Women's Rights and Their Bodies

[StringJunky]

In nature it is common for mamals to kill, abondon, or allow sibilings to starve to death offsping. When resources are scarce or many external threats exist it is common for mamals to cut their loses. I understand my wording seems cold if such were applied to humans but that isn't the point I am attempt to make; that human parents should abondon or starve their young. Just pointing out that it is natural for mamals to attempt reproduction when conditions are best. And that in nature there is a high rate of loss which is why animals generally try again and again until they die.

 

An often overlooked side to abortion is the fact that most women who have abortions live on to have children. A young women is a bad relationship who lacks resources often moves on to find a better relationship and more stability. In many cases a women who may have had an abortion at 18yrs old ends up married at 27yrs old and mothering a couple of children. Had the abortion never had taken place at 18yrs old the relationship and children that mother had later in life may (certainly) never have happened. I understand the potential of a future child is less tangible than an actual pregnancy today but one of the best evolutionary traits humans have is our ability to imagine possible futures.

The discussion's about women's rights on abortion and the degree of autonomy in that decision, not the ethics of abortion per se.

Edited December 1, 2016 by StringJunky

[Ten oz]

The discussion's about women's rights on abortion and the degree of autonomy in that decision, not the ethics of abortion per se.

My comments about women who have abortions moving on in life and having other children were directed at that. Often the children they abort vs keep are with different men. Which is to say the choice is the women's to make.

[Phi for All]

Which is to say the choice is the women's to make.

 

I keep thinking about being a free person. And this is the conclusion I keep coming back to. The choice is the woman's to make.

 

I know it sounds equitable for men and women to share in decisions regarding childbirth, but in the end, the man's part in the biological process is negligible compared to the woman's. After insemination, she's entirely capable of bringing the child into the world by herself. And she's the one taking all the major risks.

 

The way to make this fair and equitable is to give women this power that's rightfully theirs. It's their body that will play host, that will pay the costs in terms of health, that will risk death to bring life. If they want help, if they want to include the father in the decision-making process, that should be viewed as the honor and privilege it really is. Men who would be fathers should strive to be the type of man a woman would gladly include in such life and death decisions.

[StringJunky]

In an unplanned/accidental pregnancy, I agree. You are not acknowledging the emotional risk and other investments the other person - which could be another woman - makes. If a woman makes a commitment then reneges on it... no. She could still do it, but not with honour and freedom of guilt... unless she's devoid of such qualities, of course.

 

.... if they want to include the father in the decision-making process, that should be viewed as the honor and privilege it really is

I could throw up at this. You looking very PC here Phi.

 

Edit: Damn... I forgot, I'm a misogynistic bigot... I shall retire. Apologies for forgetting.

Edited December 1, 2016 by StringJunky

[Phi for All]

I could throw up at this. You looking very PC here Phi.

 

I'm very, very sorry you see it this way. I'm not really in a position where being PC is of any relevance to me. I have nothing to prove.

 

I'm rather now in a phase of questioning the foundations of why we do certain ruinous things, like try to interfere between a person and their own body. I'm not really calling for a major change here; it's a matter of life and death, and in the end, if I want to be free to choose my own death and whether it's to have meaning or not, it's going to be my decision, influenced by those I love, but mine solely.

 

I simply think a woman should have that right as well. I'm not the one who might die during pregnancy.

[Delta1212]

In an unplanned/accidental pregnancy, I agree. You are not acknowledging the emotional risk and other investments the other person - which could be another woman - makes. If a woman makes a commitment then reneges on it... no. She could still do it, but not with honour and freedom of guilt... unless she's devoid of such qualities, of course.

Well, yeah. If you commit to doing something with someone and then back out without consulting them it makes you kind of an asshole, regardless of what that thing is. There are always potential extenuating circumstances tha could make you more or less of an asshole for doing it, but in general, that's the principle.

 

That being said, people mostly have the right to be assholes if they want to be.

 

It is possible to be entirely in favor of someone's right to do something without personally approving of the particular way that person goes about doing it.

[CharonY]

 

Edit: Damn... I forgot, I'm a misogynistic bigot... I shall retire. Apologies for forgetting.

 

No one is saying that and throwing that around at best weakens your argument. It is understandable that fathers also have an emotional commitment to the whole issue, bu the whole problem is how to weigh each others input. As has already stated the physical impact is entirely the woman's, which is on top of emotional ones. There is simply an imbalance if a father can overrule a woman's right to make a decision that concerns her own body and well-being. It certainly does not make the anguish of the father any less real but I see far more issues if we promote the rights of the person with less stakes in the matter over the one with more.

[StringJunky]

No one is saying that and throwing that around at best weakens your argument.

Sorry, the comment was made elsewhere but pertained to certain persons involved in this thread.

[zapatos]

It seems unreasonable to me to allow the man no input into the decision of whether or not to abort, as there can certainly be a significant impact on him (albeit probably less than that of the woman). For example the woman may choose to have the child then expect financial support for 18 or more years that the man then must contribute.

The woman may also choose to have an abortion when the man is willing and able to provide 100% custodial care and financial support if the child is born.

 

While I cannot come up with any scenario where I see the man having veto power over the woman's decision, it seems reasonable for the man to have some influence on a decision that could impact him for life.

[Delta1212]

It seems unreasonable to me to allow the man no input into the decision of whether or not to abort, as there can certainly be a significant impact on him (albeit probably less than that of the woman). For example the woman may choose to have the child then expect financial support for 18 or more years that the man then must contribute.

The woman may also choose to have an abortion when the man is willing and able to provide 100% custodial care and financial support if the child is born.

 

While I cannot come up with any scenario where I see the man having veto power over the woman's decision, it seems reasonable for the man to have some influence on a decision that could impact him for life.

Here's the thing though: If he doesn't have some kind of veto power, what other influence is there? Abortion is not really something you can compromise on. There isn't a way to negotiate over the details. It either gets done or it doesn't.

 

Don't get me wrong. I understand the sentiment completely. It's something I grappled with for a long time as a male and being able to easily visualize the situation from that perspective.

 

However, how does that sentiment translate into concrete terms? What legal rights for each party give the man fair input into the decision without placing an undue burden on the woman's ability to control what happens to her own body?

 

I mean, I still think that it is a good idea that everyone affected have a serious discussion about such a decision, but I don't see how it can be legally mandated that such a discussion take place. In circumstances where such a discussion is likely to be productive, it probably would have taken place anyway. In those circumstances where it forces such a discussion to take place against the will of one or more participant, it seems like it is liable to do damage more often than it would do anyone any good.

 

From a legal rights perspective, rather than an ethical, moral or even just good manners perspective, I don't see any better way of doing things than giving the full legal right to make that decision to the woman who is pregnant. All of the alternatives I can conceive of seem much worse.

Edited December 1, 2016 by Delta1212

[Phi for All]

It seems unreasonable to me to allow the man no input into the decision of whether or not to abort, as there can certainly be a significant impact on him (albeit probably less than that of the woman). For example the woman may choose to have the child then expect financial support for 18 or more years that the man then must contribute.

The woman may also choose to have an abortion when the man is willing and able to provide 100% custodial care and financial support if the child is born.

 

While I cannot come up with any scenario where I see the man having veto power over the woman's decision, it seems reasonable for the man to have some influence on a decision that could impact him for life.

 

I think ethically every woman should want to allow a man to have more than just that initial input. I think women should think hard about allowing a man to help with the decision if he is willing and committed, even if it is a decision to abort. And I think women are better off with a committed partner in raising children.

 

But I think ultimately it should be their choice because it's their body. And men have so many more options than women do, so it's not like it's ever going to be an equal decision.

[zapatos]

Here's the thing though: If he doesn't have some kind of veto power, what other influence is there? Abortion is not really something you can compromise on. There isn't a way to negotiate over the details. It either gets done or it doesn't.

 

 

 

Yeah, I didn't claim to actually have an answer.

But...

It doesn't have to be only about whether the abortion takes place. Perhaps there can be some legally mandated financial considerations. For example in an extreme situation let's say the man and women only ever knew each other for about 30 minutes, during which time the woman became pregnant. If the man does not want the pregnancy to come to term, perhaps his financial obligation can be reduced. Or perhaps the woman has to make a reasonable attempt to contact and talk to him prior to the birth or she risks reduced child support.

There perhaps could be some guarantee of visitation for the father, or even a guarantee that he never be contacted again, once the child is born. Or maybe some agreement about how the child is to be raised (for example, in a religious environment).

I am of course just throwing out ideas. I don't know if any are workable, but if I am the 'father', then I'd at least like the 'mother' to be encouraged to talk to me prior to any major decisions.

 

 

I think ethically every woman should want to allow a man to have more than just that initial input. I think women should think hard about allowing a man to help with the decision if he is willing and committed, even if it is a decision to abort. And I think women are better off with a committed partner in raising children.

 

But I think ultimately it should be their choice because it's their body. And men have so many more options than women do, so it's not like it's ever going to be an equal decision.

 

I agree it won't, and shouldn't, be an equal decision. She just has too much invested to take that choice away from her.

[Ten oz]

 

I think ethically every woman should want to allow a man to have more than just that initial input. I think women should think hard about allowing a man to help with the decision if he is willing and committed, even if it is a decision to abort. And I think women are better off with a committed partner in raising children.

 

But I think ultimately it should be their choice because it's their body. And men have so many more options than women do, so it's not like it's ever going to be an equal decision.

I agree. Pregnacy and birth transforms the body. Whether is is surgical scars from emergency proceedures during birth (C sections, cutting the canal to create more room, stop excessive bleeding, etc), broken ribs suffered during pregnancy, weight gain, and etc up to death; millions of women are never physically the same again after a pregnancy. It is a physical transformation that is solely a women's. It is their choice to put themselves through that.

 

Options, not only is it their bodies but each pregnancy is a much larger share of the total chances to ever successfully reproduce they'll every have. A man can have nurmerous children with nurmerous women every 9 months and is capable of reproduction at that level from puberty till death. A man can have thousands of children. Women can have a single (twins, triples, and etc are possible but not most common) child with a single man once a year and only during a window of time in their lives, puberty to menopause. Even within the reproductive window for women risks increase exponentially with time. Women simply have less opportunity to successfully reproduce than man.

 

 

Yeah, I didn't claim to actually have an answer.

But...

It doesn't have to be only about whether the abortion takes place. Perhaps there can be some legally mandated financial considerations. For example in an extreme situation let's say the man and women only ever knew each other for about 30 minutes, during which time the woman became pregnant. If the man does not want the pregnancy to come to term, perhaps his financial obligation can be reduced. Or perhaps the woman has to make a reasonable attempt to contact and talk to him prior to the birth or she risks reduced child support.

There perhaps could be some guarantee of visitation for the father, or even a guarantee that he never be contacted again, once the child is born. Or maybe some agreement about how the child is to be raised (for example, in a religious environment).

I am of course just throwing out ideas. I don't know if any are workable, but if I am the 'father', then I'd at least like the 'mother' to be encouraged to talk to me prior to any major decisions.

 

 

I agree it won't, and shouldn't, be an equal decision. She just has too much invested to take that choice away from her.

I do not believe financial considerations belong in this coversation. Reproduction is a natural process and humans have clearly evolved is such a way that women are the selective gender with more personalyl/physically invested in the process. Money is not a byproduct of nature.

[zapatos]

 

I do not believe financial considerations belong in this coversation. Reproduction is a natural process and humans have clearly evolved is such a way that women are the selective gender with more personalyl/physically invested in the process. Money is not a byproduct of nature.

 

Tell it to the government, they are the ones who tied financial obligations to reproduction.

 

 

 

Today, the federal child support enforcement program is the responsibility of the Office of Child Support Enforcement, an office of Administration for Children and Families in the Department of Health and Human Services. Federal regulations promulgated pursuant to Title IV-D of the Social Security Act require uniform application of child support guidelines throughout a state, but each state can determine its own method of calculating support. At a minimum, 45 C.F.R. 302.56 requires each state to establish and publish a Guideline that is presumptively (but rebuttably) correct, and review the guideline, at a minimum, every four years.^[1] Most states have therefore adopted their own "Child Support Guidelines Worksheet" which local courts and state Child Support Enforcement Offices use for determining the "standard calculation" of child support in that state. Courts may choose to deviate from this standard calculation in any particular case.

 

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_support_in_the_United_States

[Ten oz]

 

Tell it to the government, they are the ones who tied financial obligations to reproduction.

 

 

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_support_in_the_United_States

The financial realities of raising a child isn't what we are dicussing. The burden of buying a kid shoes is very different than the biological matter of gestating a fetus in ones body for 9 months.

[zapatos]

The financial realities of raising a child isn't what we are dicussing.

 

I didn't realize this was your thread and that you were in charge of managing the flow of the discussion.

[Thorham]

This whole issue is exceedingly simple:

 

1. Women do all the work, women get to decide.

2. Men have no say, so men don't have to pay.

 

Easy, no?

[Ten oz]

When a woman says she has the right to do whatever she wants to do with her body, is it really considered "just her" body or can it be another human being's body if the baby's brain, spinal cord, heart and organs already began to form?

 

I didn't realize this was your thread and that you were in charge of managing the flow of the discussion.

The OP asks a philosophical question relating to ethics and biology. The fact that males may end up with a financial obligation does not change the fact that a woman's body is still her body.

[zapatos]

The OP asks a philosophical question relating to ethics and biology. The fact that males may end up with a financial obligation does not change the fact that a woman's body is still her body.

 

Why don't you participate in the parts of the conversation you wish, and ignore the rest. Then you won't feel obligated to play traffic cop.

[Ten oz]

Why don't you participate in the parts of the conversation you wish, and ignore the rest. Then you won't feel obligated to play traffic cop.

Seems to me you are just pivoting to an attack because the substance of your view is lacking. People are not property. The fact that men may be obligated to spend money at some point doesn't change the fact that a women's body is her own.

[zapatos]

Seems to me you are just pivoting to an attack because the substance of your view is lacking. People are not property. The fact that men may be obligated to spend money at some point doesn't change the fact that a women's body is her own.

 

I am pivoting to a defensive position because of your continued attack. If I wish to talk about the financial implications associated with a woman's decision regarding abortion I will do so, with your blessing or without.

 

I don't see how you can judge the substance of my view to be lacking when you attempted to shut off discussion without exploring it at all.

 

And don't start with the straw man arguments. I never claimed or implied that people were property or that women give up the rights to their own body.

 

Since you find this area of discussion to be irrelevant, can you please just move on and leave me alone?

[StringJunky]

 

I am pivoting to a defensive position because of your continued attack. If I wish to talk about the financial implications associated with a woman's decision regarding abortion I will do so, with your blessing or without.

 

I don't see how you can judge the substance of my view to be lacking when you attempted to shut off discussion without exploring it at all.

 

And don't start with the straw man arguments. I never claimed or implied that people were property or that women give up the rights to their own body.

 

Since you find this area of discussion to be irrelevant, can you please just move on and leave me alone?

It must be lovely to see the world in nice, clear, vibrant black and white tones, like a young person, instead of the dirty-grey mess that we see.

Edited December 2, 2016 by StringJunky