Monday, September 3, 2007

Pro-Choice Equality


When you are not getting an air conditioner installed, you are indirectly claiming your love for open windows and thus increasing the need for proper home security arrangements. Also, then using candles indoors is out of question. You might as well be working on your garden tools within the doors.


This is for the pro-choice (abortion) people: [note: I am divorced with a child, I support my child willingly and would no matter what the law stated because I feel it is right to do so and I want to do so.]

Since the concept of pro-choice is the basic fact that the female should have the choice of having a child or not, shouldn't this construct be given to the male in the equation also?

Consider, you and your partner become pregnant unexpectedly (wrong time, not trying, etc.). Both of you are pro-choice and both feel that it wouldn't be a good idea to have the child. The husband/boyfriend argues that this wouldn't be good because of [insert good reason here] and you feel roughly the same. After thinking about it, you feel that reason [insert better reason here] would overcome his (and your concerns) and decide (as is your right) to have the child even though he doesn't want to.

A period of time later, you split up (in no relation to said pregnancy). Here's the question: should it be his choice whether to support the child or not? (morally yes and legally yes, in all places I'm aware of, but this is a hypothetical) Why or why not?

Since the decision to have the child was yours and yours alone (in this case, remember his choice was no child), shouldn't he then logically be entitled to the choice of supporting the child or not (that he didn't want and now does not live with).

Also, suppose he wanted the child and you ultimately decided against it (as is your right as you both believe), should he then have legal recompse from you for not having his child? If you have the legal means to get support from someone that didn't want a child (who believed as you that it is your choice) vis-a-vis shouldn't he have the same right to get support (something) from you for not having the child that he wanted?

As I am pro-life, these questions will not keep me up at night, they were just random thoughts that ran through my head and I wanted to get some responses from others on. Feel free to comment and discuss.

13 comments:

ThunderDragon said...

I can certainly see where you are coming from, but since it is the woman who has to carry the baby to term, there is no denying that she has a greater say over it. It's one thing pledging your money, but another to pledge your body.

My belief over abortion is that it should be possible to have one. No woman should be forced to have, or not to have, a baby.

Lord Nazh said...

9 months carry vs 18 years monetary support.

"No woman should be forced to have, or not to have, a baby."

Other than rape, no woman is ever forced to have or not a baby.

James Higham said...

The mnetary aspect didn't come up in my take earlier but it will now after reading this.

It's one thing deciding on abortion and it's another deciding on child support.

ThunderDragon said...

You can't compare money with personal invasion, no matter the length of time in which it occurs.

Lord Nazh said...

So TD, now consenting sex between 2 adults is personal invasion? Or did you not read the scenario as given?

ThunderDragon said...

Consenting sex, just as consenting pregnancy, is not personal invasion. But making them do so - for ANY reason - is wrong on both counts. Why should a woman have to carry to term?

Lord Nazh said...

Read the freaking post TD; the hypothetical is spelled out exactly (consenting sex), this isn't a debate on whether you should be allowed to kill babies (as you believe)

jmb said...

I came over to see what you had to say since James has taken this and added so many alternate scenarios, it boggles the mind.
Of course the law says yes in the first case scenario. But I think depending on the length of time before the split, a man would probably establish a relationship with his own child and would want to support it. (Well I am not talking about the type of father who skips off and ignores his child whether initially wanted or not.)
That's an interesting point about compensation to a father whose child is aborted against his wishes. I remember a potential father taking his girlfriend to court to try to prevent an abortion. I think he won, but she did it anyway.
I try to be pro-choice although I do not believe in abortion except in very limited circumstances. Once you have had a child I think it becomes almost impossible to consider abortion for even if you agree with it in principle and do not consider a foetus a child, you know that uninterrupted the bunch of cells would continue to grow and to turn into a girl or boy like the ones you have.
Never any simple answers are there?

Lord Nazh said...

Thanks for the comments JMB, but this isn't about if the man WOULD in fact support his child, in the hypothetical (both pro-choice) it is about whether he should HAVE to support the child or if he should have the choice (going with the pro-choice theme).

If both partners believe in choice and he doesn't want the child, should he have the choice of support (basically was the first question).

I remember the law suit (guy tried to get an injuction against the abortion) but I think he ultimately lost the case and she aborted.

jmb said...

Well Lord Nazh, I guess I wasn't clear in my comment. I assume 1) you mean that there would be no law governing support at all and 2) they are not married. Then I probably would say that he should have the choice of whether to support the child or not, since he did not want the child. Of course if the mother can't support the child alone, then society will be forced to by means of the welfare system. This means we pay instead of him.

If they are married in this hypothetical case, I think he should support the child. Marriage implies to me the possibility of children even if both partners don't want children, since the only 100% method of birth control is abstinence or sterilization. Rational on my part? Probably not.

The case I was thinking about was this one , in which while it was still in court she went to the States and had the abortion. The case continued on anyways since it was a big issue and he lost.
I think your hypothetical case had more possibilities than you envisioned when you posed it.
regards
jmb

Lord Nazh said...

JMB: I think me and James having almost the same post is confusing you (a little).

In my hypothetical, they are married, become pregnant and then later separate.

Since they are both pro-choice, there is another 100% reliable method that they can employ (abortion). He chooses this, she chooses to have the child.

Now the hypothetical question kicks, SHOULD he have the 'choice' of support. Yes morally and as current legally, but as a pro-choice couple, should he have a choice or is it only her that has one?

jmb said...

Lordy, lordy Lord Nazh, I am sometimes confused, but since you did not spell that out but said only "partner" which today implies unmarried more often than not, I considered all the possibilities.

Now as to the question now clarified: Yes, he should support the child because he was supporting the child while they were still married, after the child was born. (Are you going to further clarify that to say he was not?) This implies acceptance of the child as his responsibility, otherwise I assume he would have scarpered off either before or just after the birth.
I think I'm done here, this hypothetical business is a bit difficult for me as I am a very literal minded person.

By the way, what kind of dollar value would you put on a child aborted by the mother but wanted by the father, assuming one could sue for this and you agreed there should be recompense?

How about giving your own opinion on the first part, supposing you were not pro-life but pro-choice yourself?

Lord Nazh said...

My bad JMB; when originally written it said husband/divorce instead of partner/split :(

My answers (hypothetical): #1 he should have the choice of support, since his choice was for no child

#2: monetary value; standard child support x 18 years (minimum)