So, pro-lifers, in what situations does a woman have a right to obtain an abortion? I’ll agree that cases where the safety of the woman is at stake should certainly be okay. And of course, rape and incest. But what about inconvenient or simply unplanned pregnancy? What if this child has the potential to catastrophically affect the woman’s future educational, earning, achievement, and social potential?
What if the woman just flat doesn’t want the kid?
Frankly, I’m guessing that most people that call themselves pro-life believe that the choice should ultimately lie with the woman to carry the pregnancy to term or not, and I agree with this viewpoint. But I also believe that men should have the ability to terminate their parental rights and responsibilities completely in the same way that men can. Yet, in that thread, even in GQ, people had a thinly veiled disgust for his attempts to shirk his parental responsibility. The only person that even brought up or entertained the thought that the situation was unfair to males was Carnac the Magnificent.
Once the kid is born, the woman can’t terminate any responsibility. A pregnancy is not a child, and if it’s terminated, then there never was a child to be responsible for.
Once the kid is born, it’s a whole different ballgame and both parents are on the hook. A man is responsible for his own sperm. I can’t believe that anyone would suggest that it’s acceptable for a man to abandon his own children.
As has been said on this topic many times before - it’s just biology. If we were seahorses it might not be as much of an issue, but unfortunately we’re not ( oh, to be a seahorse, delicately floating amongst the kelp fronds! ). The woman carries all of the physiological burden and risk of bringing a child to term and thus gets ( and absolutely must have ) an unequal say in termination. Once the child is born, the welfare of the child now becomes paramount and both parents, willing or not, are on the hook.
Pregnancy carries with it many health risks, including the risk of diabetes, permanent back problems, infertility from an infection or botched delivery, and hormonal changes, which can take several years to go back to “normal” (pre-pregnancy levels). Also, there is often a hormone-influenced bond that forms between the mother and the baby once the baby is born, which inhibits adoption. Carrying a baby to term is a much bigger investment than, say, leaving a cake in the oven the full twenty minutes.
If that was the case, how could anyone ever call themselves pro-life? What you are describing sounds to me like pro-choice, rather than pro-life.
Anything I’ve ever read or heard about the pro-life point of view is that the woman never has any right to terminate a pregnancy and that the right of the unborn to be born is the only right that there is.
My quick $0.02 is that as long as the adoption system is not overburdened, there is no need to kill our offspring.
In cases where the fetus would kill or seriously damage the mother, besides ‘normal’ childbirth ‘damage’, I think that person should be able to chose to kill their child. Well I really think it should be the parents who make that call together.
In cases of serious fetal problems, again I would leave that up to the parents.
In the case of rape, absolutley not, you don’t kill an innocent 3rd party (child) you kill the rapist, well after he/she pays 18 yrs of child support.
Of course? Why “of course”? If life begins at conception then it begins at conception from rape and incest as well. The fetus/child is not a party to whatever activity that led to its existence.
I have always found the rape or incest exception to be philosophically troubling. Indeed it seems to me to give lie to the claim of pro-lifers that it’s all about the innocent unborn child. When you invoke the rape or inceat exception what you seem to be saying in effect is “Well, the mother wasn’t an immoral slut so she shouldn’t be punished for having sex.” While that’s over the top, it’s really what it comes down to, isn’t it?
She can in Pennsylvania. This is a ‘Safe Harbor’ state, meaning that a woman or girl can drop her newborn off at any hospital, no questions asked, and never see the kid again. She doesn’t have to give her name or any identifying information of any kind. So say all the flyers that are located on the front ‘flyer table’ of the building I work in describing the Safe Harbor program.
Rape is far and away traumatic enough without adding yet another injury by forcing someone to endure 40 weeks of a constant, 24/7 reminder that they were attacked. Hell no I would never, ever force someone to endure a pregnancy caused by rape.
Then Diogenes the Cynic are you OK with your money going to pay a hitman to kill that baby because the mother was raped?
Remember the OP is about morallity, not law. People commit immoral actions all the time, including aboutions. Morally speaking there is very little reason to kill (or hire to kill) one’s offsrping.
Life is full of traumas, big and small. Are you advocating a trauma exception to the rape or incest exception?
What if a married couple conceives a child, but shortly after that the father is killed in an automobile accident, and the mother has no way of providing for the child by herself. Is that a big enough trauma? What if prenatal testing shows that the fetus will be born with some terrible birth defect that will require constant care and will certainly kill the child in a few years? The mother will have “to endure 40 weeks of a constant, 24/7 reminder” of the hopeless situation she is in. Have we crossed the trauma threshold yet?
On the other hand what if the rape leading to a pregnancy is one of those if-she-says-no-it’s-rape kind of things? Does that really reach the level of trauma to justify ending an innocent child’s life?
Your two hypothetical situations are completely different. In the first one, comparing a woman’s grief over the death of her husband, with whom she lovingly spawned a child, to a woman who has been violated is offensive.
Second, if prenatal testing shows such a defect, I would advocate the mother’s right to chose to abort.
I’m going to ask for some clarification on this point:
"-she-says-no-it’s-rape kind of things? "
My understanding is, if a woman says no, and the guy proceeds to have sex with her in spite of her refusal, that IS rape.
Yes, I don’t buy the trauma arugment, live is full of them, deal w/ it.
There is an old Indian (Native American) saying, which I don’t recall the exact words, which I’m sure are translations anyway. “When you ask the Great Sprit for strenght, He (or She) sends you hardship and trauma as that will strenghten you.”
In the case of the father dieing, adoption is a very good option.
Legally you are correct, but this op is about moriallity, and in that respect it’s not so cut and dry. Also the word rape has been diluted so much as when I hear the word, I have to ask for clarification, which is a shame.
When I hear rape now, several things go through my mind as to the possibilities, including the violent type where one does not know the rapist, or knows them, to date rape, both violent and a type where one says no at 1st but then seems to go along w/ it, to regretting sex after it happens. This doesn’t even include statuatory rape where the victiom could be technically be one day younger then the rapist.
You can’t make the trauma go away by saying you “don’t buy” it.
Forcing a victim to endure a pregnancy caused by a rape is cruel and inhumane to the pont of being sociopathic. It shows an utterly depraved lack of human compassion or empathy.
I’m not advocating for ‘exceptions’ because I am not a pro-life person who believes abortion should be illegal.
What I’m saying is that a rapist has already victimized a rape victim. Why should that rapist be further victimizing that woman by having to carry his child?
What good do you see in forcing someone to carry the pregnancy of a rapist? I see nothing but destruction.
It’s certainly not the most apt comparison in the world. The woman who chose with her husband was certainly not victimized by her husband and isn’t continuing to be victimized by him because he died. If anything, as in the case of a former coworker of mine, the child becomes a way for part of that deceased husband to live on. When Sandra (not her real name) found out that her husband had died in a tragic accident while she was pregnant with their daughter, she chose to name the daughter after the husband as a way of keeping part of him with her always. It would’ve been far more traumatic to her to lose that baby.
Dealing with it? One way to ‘deal with it’ is to not allow yourself to be further traumatized so that you can begin the healing process. Yes, life is full of trauma. Why extend a person’s suffering needlessly to ‘protect’ one that doesn’t exist?
You could tell her to just give the kid up for adoption. Have you considered the devastation that could be caused to both the woman and the kid when he or she shows up at her door 18 or 20 years down the road to find his or her ‘birth parents’ and discovers that he or she was the product of a rape and that the only reason he or she exists is because the state forced his or her mother to give birth?
[GQ mode]
Anyone have a ready cite on a case where an unmarried father took custody after the baby was born and then had the state impose child support payments to be taken from the mom over her objections?