Lapsed Modernist

I believe Ohio is the place where the rape laws are still under "property."

From:

nightspore.livejournal.com

Well I think that if a father decides that the woman into whose womb he has deposited the homunculus has to have an abortion, she has to have it, no two ways about it. I mean, that follows, right?

From:

aerynne.livejournal.com

I think that if a mother wants to abort and the father doesn't want her to, they should take the fetus out, implant it in his midsection, and *he* can carry it to term.

From:

pdanielson.livejournal.com

From:

exactly.

From:

astronomick.livejournal.com

stinking patriarchy...

From:

One one hand I pretty much see how this is horrific...but what's a good and fair alternative? There has to be some middle ground that's not "too bad, father, you have no rights."

From:

pdanielson.livejournal.com

There's not a middle ground, because either the woman has autonomy over her own body, or she doesn't. If that's not "fair," well, I guess life's just not fair sometimes.

From:

Well look, that autonomy is exercised at the time of conception. I wouldn't say I agree with this particular legislation, but "life's not fair" isn't a good excuse to trample upon the rights of fathers either.

What's the alternative? Maybe mandated mediation between the parents, I don't know. But something, certainly.

From:

the problem with mandated mediation is, it doesn't really help if at the end of the day the woman wants to abort, and the man doesn't want her to. I just don't see how there is a middle ground possible in that situation. Either you force a pregnancy on someone or they have autonomy over their body. It's just not something where a compromise is possible, if the issue is the woman not wanting to carry the fetus to term.

From:

Well no, it doesn't help in the situation where the two parties can't agree on an acceptable solution, but the point is that they're at least forced to try.

Let's be really 100% clear here. If a pregnancy was forced upon someone, then she is a victim of rape and certainly only possibly the far right would argue that she should be forced to give birth. If we approach this topic as if pregnancies can otherwise "just happen" without a woman's knowledge or consent, it's really a different discussion than I think I intend to be having. Let's be clear again...autonomy over one's body is completely available to a woman (and a man for that matter) at the time of conception. Unfortunately, the victim culture we live in tends to obscure that fact.

From:

force and coercion are never the right way to go. I personally am not willing to mediate my body integrity. And by the way the last thing I want after being raped is to go to the "law" for permission for anything (period).

From:

I totally agree with sentence one and sentence three, and I don't want to sound like I'm supporting this particular piece of legislation.

Otherwise, though, let's not hide behind obtuse phrases like "mediate my body integrity." No matter how you feel about it, we're talking about scraping an unborn child out of your womb, and it's disingenuous to hide that behind wordplay. It sounds to me like you're saying that it would be wrong for the law to require a woman to talk to the father of her potential child about the options before taking any action. Correct me if I'm wrong, but seriously, that sounds like severe misandry to me.

From:

talking about scraping an unborn child out of your womb

your word choice reveals your personal beliefs (life begins at conception or something that maps onto that side of beliefs with according rhetoric). I don't believe that, and the "unborn child" rhetoric is foreign and alienating to me--it's an unviable cluster of cells that I could carry to term, and then it would be a child, or it's a cluster of cells that I don't want inside me and that should be used in stem cell research, hopefully. Some people kept telling me I would feel different about that once I had a baby--I really don't. I don't think the potential father has any say, legally, in whether or not a woman will have an abortion. Presumably, in many cases, the issue will be discussed (if it occurs in a context of an ongoing relationship), but I can't get behind forced mediation. I think even the "waiting period" and the attempts to introduce laws to make women watch an ultrasound of the fetus are abhorrent. By the way in the interests of fairness I also believe that if a woman decides to have a child, and a man does not want it, she is not entitled to child support from him. (If he commits to co-parenting and later changes his mind, then she is).

From:

Well said. I agree with all of that.

From:

(You can delete where I accidentally posted this anonymously.)

It clearly doesn't reveal my personal beliefs very well, then. I just don't like the dehumanizing rhetoric that clouds the abortion debate. How much of a "person" a fetus is at 1 week, 4 weeks, etc. doesn't really concern me. The fact is that after 9 months, it certainly will be if nature is allowed to take its course; that is, if you do nothing, a baby will be born. I think that's something to take seriously. I mean, if you really believe that abortion is as casual a thing as removing a mole, then maybe we really are so far apart in our personal beliefs as not to be able to discuss the issue on any reasonable level, but I'm not sure if that's what you're saying. I hope that even the most hardcore liberal would concede that an abortion is a sad thing that shouldn't be arrived at lightly. Either way, I hope you'd accept the fact that it's perfectly reasonable for someone to look at it either way, and not go to war against that person. That's pretty much my definition of "pro-choice"...accepting the fact that people can see it either way, and defending their freedom to act accordingly.

From:

I hope that even the most hardcore liberal would concede that an abortion is a sad thing that shouldn't be arrived at lightly.

this is a slippery slope. That point of view reminds me of this argument I had with my ex-boyfriend where it was revealed (at a Howard Dean rally which I had helped organize, of all things) that he was anti-abortion. I immediately said if that was the case, we were through, then he backpedaled, then we argued about it, and his "concession" was that even though abortion should be legal, women should at least feel guilty about it.

I guess I don't see why abortion has to necessarily be a sad thing. I suppose it is, often, since most of us are at least ambivalent about the idea of children, if not committed to it outright, but if you know you don't want children, and you don't believe that life begins at conception, why should you feel sad? Those kinds of statements seem to be on the slippery slope of attaching a moral value/judgement to the act that, in countries where it's not so politicized/moralized in the public arena, is treated as a medical procedure, rather than a moral/philosophical choice (i.e. in how it's thought and talked about).

From:

It really comes down to something that has nothing to do with children, or life. That is, how much value do you put in what could be or will be vs. what is? If you believe that what could be matters, you might feel sad for the child that could be but won't.

From:

I have felt sad for things that could be that I have personally felt invested in--beautiful flings that weren't meant to turn into relationships, circumstantially, stuff like that. But things that I am not invested in--their trajectory and my life along that possible-yet-unactualized trajectory--doesn't make me sad. If I didn't want a child, I guess I would have a hard time feeling sad about it in the way that you describe, since I have a general disconnect between a zygote/fetus and a new, unique human being. I mean, I can imagine the sort of sadness you describe ("what would this child have been like? would it have been a boy or a girl? who would it have looked like?") but I think someone who has no interest in children, or having a child, and yet finds themselves pregnant, can very well not have those thoughts, and that's okay--why should we pass judgement on someone else's particular manifestations of sentimentality or the lack thereof?

From:

Right, and I think we're on the same page as far as accepting that it's ok for someone to feel either way about it. I don't think this is about passing judgment. To me, it's about protecting the rights of a father who might feel differently than a mother either way. I really don't understand the backlash against the idea of giving the father a chance for a mediated discussion before the procedure happens. Nothing changes, other than the fact that the father has a guaranteed opportunity to have his opinion heard.

From:

Maybe I wasn't clear about the distinction between thinking something is okay for someone else to think, and whether that should have any practical impact on anything. I think people have the right to believe in the spaghetti monster, too. And people have the right to vote for Bush, too (and I have the right to think that they are either stupid or evil if they do, but that's irrelevant). Freedom of thought is important, but I don't believe that ANY legislation should be done to protect anything other than the right to think that and express that (in a first amendment taking to the streets kind of way). When you get into the territory of mandatory mediation, you have a captive audience of a woman, and that is infringing on her rights, which--since it's her body--are paramount in that case. The father has the right to feel however he wants--he does not have a right to force the woman into a dialogue, or even to force her to be the audience. It's wrong in the same way that those proposed legislations to make the woman see the ultrasound of a fetus prior to an abortion are wrong.

From:

perhaps instead the law should require that a man obtain permission from a woman to impregnate her before having sex. Then both parties would know ahead of time what the other will want to do in the event of pregnancy and they can choose to find someone else to have sex with if they cannot agree.

It sounds to me like you're saying that it would be wrong for the law to require a woman to talk to the father of her potential child about the options before taking any action. Correct me if I'm wrong, but seriously, that sounds like severe misandry to me.

It would be appropriate for a woman to talk with the father of her potential child about the options, given that she became pregnant in a situation where that is even possilbe, but yeah, I think it would be wrong for the law to require it. Laws should not invade an individuals privacy to that degree.

From:

Though my sarcasm meter is reading off the charts, I suppose it wouldn't be unreasonable just to place the burden of conception on the father from a legal standpoint. There'd need to be some kind of mechanism in place to protect against fraud though.

From:

I am saying that I am oposed to a law that would require me to gain permission from anyone to have an abortion. Required mediate is not any better of an option. AS I said personally, I would and have done this. But requiring it by law is absolutely against my belief system.
I aslo disagree with the term child- a blastocyst or fetus which is generally what is removed during an abortion is different than a child. A child is a human person who can live on their own, outside of a womb.

From:

I guess I pushed a little strongly on the required mediation idea...I don't have a strong feeling on it either way, other than the fact that it seems reasonable to me and was the first alternative that came to mind.

That's fine if you feel that way about the definition of a child or a potential child, but I think it's important to accept that it's valid for someone to disagree with your definition.

From:

I am fine with anyone disagreeing with my thoughts and opinions, they are just that thoughts and opinions. As a woman, mother and one who has studied pregnancy in depth, my opionons are based firmly in fact.
I am not opposed to mediation, I think it is a great idea in many situations. I am opposed (strongly) to the government regulating anything.

From:

Historically speaking, misandry has not been the problem. And while it is nice to envision a world in which men and women talk to one another about potential or confirmed pregnancy and its ramifications, there are plenty of acts that do not fall into the realm of the relationship headed toward parenthood. When a bill is proposing circulating lists of potential fathers and police reports of rape and incest, it is incredibly invasive, much more so than the simple-sounding proposition of consent from the father for the abortion. This proposition includes mandating how two people who have coupled under any circumstances must communicate regarding unintended pregnancy. My prediction is that if such a law were to pass, we will see an immediate increase in injury and disease sustained due to illegal abortions.

From:

Yes, the proposed Ohio law is pretty ridiculous, and I think we all agree on that.

From:

theophile.livejournal.com

I think it's kind of strange that you're invoking "victim culture" here, when the only evidence of perceived victimization I can see in the array of positions being discussed here is that of the hypothetical potential father whining that, because he is opposed to abortion, he should have some sort of say in what his sexual partner does with her body.

but the really problematic part, for me, in most of what you're saying on the subject is: your arguments only hold water if we start off with the assumption that abortion is wrong. the fact that both partners are aware at the time of conception that they are doing something that may lead to pregnancy is irrelevant-- they are doing something that may to pregnancy, but there is a medical procedure which can terminate a pregnancy, and unless we're operating under an assumption that there is something inherently immoral about abortion, the woman can "exercise her autonomy" at any point between conception and our socially-established cutoff point for legal abortion. I don't see how a woman is asserting her own victimhood in choosing to terminate a pregnancy; in fact, historically, the availability of abortion has clearly been a development linked with increased autonomy for women.

and whether or not abortion is a "sad thing" (which I think is a pretty hard point to establish in the case of early-term pregnancies-- do you feel like emergency contraception, for example, is also a "sad thing"?) seems irrelevant to me in considering whether the father should have a voice in the decision, which would remain, whether sad or not, an issue entirely confined to the woman's body.

which I think is the point that you've been avoiding addressing here: why should the father have any say in the matter? I think you've done a good job of covering questions such as why you think abortion shouldn't be taken lightly, but what rights should a potential father have in a legal matter where there will be no consequences for him, and many for his partner? I think you have to establish this, and establish it pretty well, before you can employ rhetoric like "too bad, father, you have no rights" meaningfully.

p.s. the apartment is still recovering from fumigation, but you should come over and meet our fetus soon. he's just started on his fifth trimester! I think we've decided to keep him.

From:

but the really problematic part, for me, in most of what you're saying on the subject is: your arguments only hold water if we start off with the assumption that abortion is wrong.

I don't think so. I think that my arguments hold water if we concede that it's valid for someone to believe that abortion is "wrong," regardless of what you or I may believe.

and whether or not abortion is a "sad thing" (which I think is a pretty hard point to establish in the case of early-term pregnancies-- do you feel like emergency contraception, for example, is also a "sad thing"?) seems irrelevant to me in considering whether the father should have a voice in the decision, which would remain, whether sad or not, an issue entirely confined to the woman's body.

Read another reply I wrote about this subject in this thread, which addresses the value one puts on what the fetus/zygote/whatever is versus what it will become.

what rights should a potential father have in a legal matter where there will be no consequences for him, and many for his partner?

I really think you need to define "no consequences" vs "many consequences" before you make this counterargument.

he's just started on his fifth trimester! I think we've decided to keep him.

While I know you're joking, how would you feel if it was legal for

lapsedmodernist to abort him now, and she decided she was going to do it? Wouldn't you like to have a say in the matter?

Ultimately what I'm getting at here is that it's not up to anyone or any group to define the point at which anyone else should become emotionally invested in a life. We need to support the rights of those who believe that life begins at conception as well as those who believe life begins at labor and birth.

From:

While I know you're joking, how would you feel if it was legal for lapsedmodernist to abort him now, and she decided she was going to do it? Wouldn't you like to have a say in the matter?

But I can't abort him because he is a real live baby now. While he was IN MY WOMB I could have aborted him because at that point he was a fetus. Did you really just make such a RW rhetorical talking point?

[Error: Irreparable invalid markup ('<i<we>') in entry. Owner must fix manually. Raw contents below.]

<i>
While I know you're joking, how would you feel if it was legal for lapsedmodernist to abort him now, and she decided she was going to do it? Wouldn't you like to have a say in the matter?</i>

But I can't abort him because he is a real live baby now. While he was IN MY WOMB I could have aborted him because at that point he was a fetus. Did you really just make such a RW rhetorical talking point?

<i<We need to support the rights of those who believe that life begins at conception as well as those who believe life begins at labor and birth.</i>

and how do you propose doing both, when they are in direct conflict with each other, and the entire position of the former in and of itself cannot exist without trampling the latter? Once you start talking about protecting rights, you start talking about legislating behavior, so if you protect the "rights" that those who believe that life begins at conception think they have, you shit all over the rights of those who think that they can do with their body as they please.

From:

But I can't abort him because he is a real live baby now. While he was IN MY WOMB I could have aborted him because at that point he was a fetus. Did you really just make such a RW rhetorical talking point?

I don't think it's fair to dismiss it out-of-hand as a right-wing talking point. You know me at least well enough to know that I'm pretty far off the right wing. The point I'm trying to make is that it's not up to any one person or group of people to choose which of the arbitrary definitions of "when life begins" is the "right" one.

hey some people think life begins at 40 amirite

and how do you propose doing both, when they are in direct conflict with each other, and the entire position of the former in and of itself cannot exist without trampling the latter? Once you start talking about protecting rights, you start talking about legislating behavior, so if you protect the "rights" that those who believe that life begins at conception think they have, you shit all over the rights of those who think that they can do with their body as they please.

Here's the thing...I'm not advocating for legislating the end result, and I think that's getting lost in the noise here. I don't believe the law should require anyone to have an abortion or not. I do want to see some way to allow men who want to have some kind of voice to have some support in that. You're totally right, and this is why we have these kinds of debates. I would just like to see some support for everyone without mandating any particular action.

Also, I hope we're not getting in an e-fight. I know this sort of issue can be very emotional. A lot of this is me playing devil's advocate.

From:

Just out of curiosity, why should the father have rights? I mean, sure he contributed some sperm but he's not the one who has to carry the fetus, and if he's invested enough in the woman and the offspring, it seems to me that the couple would discuss it anyway and voila! he has input. But if a woman does not want to discuss with the sperm donor, there is probably a good reason.

From:

It's an interesting question, and one that I've been alluding to but not really addressing. Just to feel out your viewpoint on it a little more, do you think that a father should be required by law to, for example, pay child support in the case of a pregnancy that's wanted by the mother and not by the father?

From:

Not necessarily. But child support is rather piddly compared to the time and effort and actual economic sacrifice (in terms of work time available and work time required) and cost of child rearing when the father is not there.

Actually - yes I think he should pay, unless he pays for the abortion. :)

From:

this is one of those things that seems so satirical it couldn't possibly be true. It scares me when I get that feeling about something that is true.

So so so many things wrong with it, but this may be the topper for me: "In addition, women would be required to present a police report in order to prove a pregnancy is the result of rape or incest."

Or maybe it is this: "First time violators would by tried for abortion fraud, a first degree misdemeanor. The same would be the case for men who falsely claim to be fathers and for medical workers who knowingly perform an abortion without paternal consent."

*head exploding*

From:

Oh but it's so much easier when we keep the onus on the woman dontcha know. To protect herself from impregnation, rape, abuse, incest, and - oh right, abortions conducted in an illegal manner (however defined).

From:

nearly-there.livejournal.com

this is one of those things that seems so satirical it couldn't possibly be true. It scares me when I get that feeling about something that is true.

That's a really good way of putting it. The whole thing, but particularly the bits that you quoted, makes me want to scream. Necessity of police reports for abortion in rape and incest situations? Um, possibility of endangering victims of abuse much? *headdesk*

From:

nearly-there.livejournal.com

Oops, that was supposed to be a response to

lady3jane.

From: