Penelope is not most women, though - she is me/you/Yog (as a woman) - the point of an OP like this, as I see it, is always “What would *I *do” - and I see abortions as just another form of birth control. Not quite cutting toenails, which rarely carry any medical risks, but certainly on a par with taking a strong headache pill. And who consults their spouse over that?
As Madonna does not seem like an idiot to me, I am tempted to ask for a cite. But I’m not gonna, because Skald Rule 896 is to avoid finding out details of the private lives of artists I like.
It’s still a medical procedure – perhaps you could view it more like getting a tooth pulled?
I’m of course pro-life, but even if I was pro-choice, I’d certainly expect that (except in medical emergencies) women would get the permission of their spouse and/or the baby’s father before having an abortion, and I’d support spousal-consent laws requiring that. It’s his baby as much as it is hers, even if you don’t view it as a full fledged baby yet.
It’s irrelevant anyway since I’m pro-life and don’t believe they should be having abortions anyway.
Would it be okay if I do? Because really, if Madonna has had eleven (yes?) abortions, you’d think that information would be everywhere. All the “cites” I found were dubious at best. Hello, Freepers!
I would also think that wouldn’t be all that healthy, would it? I know abortion is SAFE, but seriously, 11? It is, after all, a medical procedure.
As with most important things, IMO, people need to think about the wildest extremes of what could happen and what to do about it. Have a plan all ready to go.
If later your response needs to change for whatever reason, new discussions need to happen.
At this time I can’t think of any decision my wife could make that I would feel like I had been deceived. I might not like it but I would not be surprised.
Back when children were possible in my first marriage, all the different out comes and possible things that could go wrong were discussed in advance. There were ‘Rut Row’ incidents but not any conflict on the agreed in advance responses.
In myself & my wife’s final marriage, we have done this to the extreme.
No black place still unknown, or black mark on our soul or in any legal sense.
Mostly now days we just try to protect the world from the each other.
The fact that this question needs to be asked or presented just makes me sad that so many people need to be taught even a part of these things.
I don’t think you understand what pro-choice means. If you were pro-choice, you would be against other people having the right to veto that decision. Thinking abortion is okay, but only if the woman’s owner-husband says so would not be pro-choice.
Well, the choices should belong to men, obviously.
:: puts on evil helmet ::
:: checks lists of Dopers whom Rhymer Enterprises needs alive at present ::
:: finds faithfool’s name, oddly enough in the Q’s ::
Knock yourself out. I have to go drop the Assassination Department admin in the croc pool.
Of course it’s pro-choice, it’s just taking the position that the choice rests with two people rather than one. This makes a lot more sense to me than saying that the mother unilaterally gets to make the decision. The baby is (nearly) as much his as hers.
That having been said, it’s not my position: I think that except in cases of medical emergency, neither the mother, nor the father, nor anyone else should be allowed to choose an abortion.
While it’s in the mother’s womb? No it isn’t. The mother’s investment is far, far, FAR greater than the father’s can possibly be, absent some sci-fi invention allowing the fetus to be removed and grown in an artificial uterus. The man’s investment can be accomplished in less than a minute. Optimally it WON’T be, but the most uxurious man alive cannot come close to equally the mother’s contribution, except on a financial level, which is not the main thing here.
Thanks. Maybe the Q stands for questioning? 
So, Madonna abortion aficionado, can you give us a cite for those eleven times she’s terminated pregnancies? Gracias!
The man’s contributing a large portion of the genetic material for that child. It may be over quickly, but it’s no less important for all that. By descent, it’s his child, same as it is hers.
Meanwhile, she is contributing a major portion of her bodily resources and her health; a few strands of DNA are nothing in comparison. The contributions of the genders during a pregnancy don’t even come remotely close to each other; a rather basic biological fact in all mammals.
Yep. She has to carry it, feed it, take care of it, inconvenience herself to a great degree, and risk all manner of bodily harm for nine months in order to bring it into the world. He can take off any time he wants with no (physical) consequences. I know this is a bit of a harsh view, but if it’s inside you and you don’t want it in there, it’s not a baby, it’s a parasite. No one should have to carry a parasite against their will. Sorry, Dad. You figure out how to carry it, it’s all yours.
Who gives a fuck?
I’m not talking about the genetic contribution. I’m talking about the INVESTMENT–that is, the work. The fetus is drawing on the mother’s very body for sustenance and life support; its presence is a literal, physical stressor she cannot ignore or simply walk away from. The same is not true of the father, whose investment can be over in moments. You can’t equate the two. Men don’t find their entire bodies changing during the course of a pregnancy. They don’t have to get fat or find their extremities swelling or get morning sickness or any of the myriad symptomsthat can make pregnancy extremely unpleasant for many women. They don’t risk gestational diabetes or eclampsia or any of the symptoms that can make it lethal if things go bad.
You can’t equate the man and woman’s investments, because they’re fundamentally unequal. A guy can have a quickie with his wife (or girlfriend or random hookup), go off for 40 weeks to sail the world or fight in Afghanistan or whatever, and come back to find the baby has been born without his having done anything but have an orgasm. The same is not true of the woman.
ETA: Your comment about their parents’ genetic contribution is, at best, an argument for the guy being equally responsible for the baby’s upkeep after it’s born. Not before.
He may contribute 50% of the genetic blueprint, a set of instructions, that’s it. It is her body that does 100% of the work assembling a zygote into a baby none months later at great physical cost to her physiology and anatomy (even in a healthy pregnancy), with zero biological contribution/work (outside of the genetic blueprint) from the male. Children are not the property of their parents.
Others have already mentioned some of the biological costs, but the social costs matter too. Every heard of the ‘Mommy Tract’? Women are more likely to earn less and are less likely to be promoted after having children, whereas men are more likely to earn more and be promoted.
If the marriage is truly happy and health, of course I think the woman would have a moral duty to consider her husbands opinion. A legal duty, however, absolutely not.
Well, I’ll drop out of this thread, since I don’t buy the basic premise (that a right to abortion should exist.)
No one’s denying that the biological costs exists. If the pregnancy poses a serious health risk to the mother, I think she should be allowed to have an abortion. Barring that, any physical discomfort, inconvenience etc. is surely trivial compared to the life of the child, and should hardly be a serious concern for decent people.
Yes, of course there are social costs too. I’m not sure why the fact that women earn less or are less likely to be promoted, after taking time off for children, is a glaring social problem though. Taking time off is a choice, and if women choose to trade time with their children for having lower income and status, why is this a problem exactly?