Pro Choice or Not

[Ariel Mae]

And if you want to codify it into law, please provide some real world examples including forcing the woman to have or not have an abortion.

Who said anything about forcing a woman into having an abortion? Discussing =/= forcing. Discussing == having a say/opinion on that matter at hand.

And as to who the 'tiebreaker' is, I'm still waiting for that 'discussion'. As I said, I have no answer. I haven't been in that situation. But I do know people, who, in the end, came to a 'middle ground', so to say. After discussing it, and coming to a standstill, they both came, male and female, with research/statistics, and discussed it, again. Neither really had a 'deciding factor'. They both came to terms with a compromise.

The woman has final say.

What if the woman is incapable of having the final say?

 

[Maleficent13]

I am not saying the other side is the way to go, I'm saying discuss the options. Can anyone suggest a way for both the man and the woman to have a real voice in the decision?

I cannot. Taking your question seriously, I honestly cannot come up with any scenario in which one or the other doesn't have the ultimate final say. Because really, this isn't a situation where compromise is feasable. You either continue the pregnancy or you don't. If one wants one thing, and the other wants the other thing, I honestly do not see any resolution. I cannot see how it would work, logistically.

 

[Cool-Beans]

Woman to man: I'm pregnant and I want to have an abortion.

Man to woman: I don't want you to.

Woman to man: Thanks for your opinion, but I'm having one anyway.

Other than codifying the man having a real voice in the decision, and that isn't going to happen, the answer is NO.

And if you want to codify it into law, please provide some real world examples including forcing the woman to have or not have an abortion. Ultimately, that is what you're talking about. There is no way to codify your position unless you give one person veto power over another.

I know he doesn't carry the child, but it is just as much his as it is hers. I think he should get a say.

And if the woman is intent on having the abortion, regardless of what her partner says, why tell him? That's really mean, IMO.

 

[chobie]

I know he doesn't carry the child, but it is just as much his as it is hers. I think he should get a say.

And if the woman is intent on having the abortion, regardless of what her partner says, why tell him? That's really mean, IMO.

So will you answer the question as to what you mean by a "say?" Should he have to consent to the abortion or for the birth for it to happen?

 

[AdventurerKat]

I am a mother of two and pro-choice.

 

[LuvDuke]

I am not sure the republican party will disappear. There are other issues in which they can take the lead and still have something valuable to say. Of course, the right wing would have to be jettisoned first!

Well that rightwing that would be jettisoned are white evangelicals that make up nearly 25% of the American public and vote overwhelmingly (75% - 80%) for the Republicans. By and large, moral values aka right-to-life, is the overriding issue why they vote for Republicans. You take that way and the Republicans lose a large part of their base.

 

[chobie]

Well that rightwing that would be jettisoned are white evangelicals that make up nearly 25% of the American public and vote overwhelmingly (75% - 80%) for the Republicans. By and large, moral values aka right-to-life, is the overriding issue why they vote for Republicans. You take that way and the Republicans lose a large part of their base.

Yep, considering that a many of those evangelicals are working poor, once that issue is gone they just might realize that the Democrats have more to offer them.

 

[LuvDuke]

I know he doesn't carry the child, but it is just as much his as it is hers. I think he should get a say.

And if the woman is intent on having the abortion, regardless of what her partner says, why tell him? That's really mean, IMO.

I don't know. I've never understood why people can't keep their mouths shut either. If you're going to do it, just do it and keep your mouth shut. It makes sense to me too.

 

[punkin]

Well that rightwing that would be jettisoned are white evangelicals that make up nearly 25% of the American public and vote overwhelmingly (75% - 80%) for the Republicans. By and large, moral values aka right-to-life, is the overriding issue why they vote for Republicans. You take that way and the Republicans lose a large part of their base.

Totally OT, but if the Rebublicans threw out the right wing crazies, went back to promoting fiscal responsibility, intelligent foreign relations, intelligent monetary policy I might be tempted to vote for them.

 

[Mrs.Toad]

I am not saying the other side is the way to go, I'm saying discuss the options. Can anyone suggest a way for both the man and the woman to have a real voice in the decision?

No, I can't come up with a way for both to legally have a real voice in the decision. I honestly see only three options: 1. Woman makes decision alone, 2. Man makes decision alone, or 3. Man and woman must both consent. I am 100% completely opposed to options #2 and 3, because that gives one person the right to force another to gestate and bear the child.

Now, as has been explained over and over, this is not saying that the man and woman shouldn't talk it over and try to come to an agreement. That would be ideal, but it cannot be legislated. I honestly see only one feasible option, and that is for the woman to have the final, legal, say.

Just like if a man wanted a vasectomy. Although, if married, I would hope that it was discussed and agreed upon with his wife, but what it boils down to is that it's his body and his choice. (I know it's not a perfect example, but there really is no other situation that correlates exactly to a pregnancy.)

ETA: If anyone has a suggestion wherein both can have a legal say, I'd love to hear it, too.

What if the woman is incapable of having the final say?

Then, like with any medical decision for an incapacitated person, it is made by the next of kin.

 

[Pam]

I'm Pro-Choice.

 

[NewJersey]

Totally OT, but if the Rebublicans threw out the right wing crazies, went back to promoting fiscal responsibility, intelligent foreign relations, intelligent monetary policy I might be tempted to vote for them.

And as for the democrats, they have a lot of fixin' they need to do as well.

 

[Eeyore's Tailfinder]

I voted pro-choice. I'm not too sure what the 'time limit' on abortion is in the USA, but in the UK I believe it's 24 weeks and I personally would like to see it lowered despite being pro-choice.

I believe in some cases, abortion may seem the only answer (e.g. in some examples listed like rape, incest, medical reasons etc.) but I also believe in other instances (e.g. young girls, etc.) there should be steps taken by the state to try and prevent unwanted pregnancies - e.g. in the UK, in school I had a real lack of sex education and we mainly talked about 'women's issues' which was really useless since all the girls had started about 4 years earlier. There should be more talks on contraception, etc. - at least where I'm standing from...

JMO

 

[declansdad]

OK here is a possible scenario:

Man wants child

Woman doesn't, wants an abortion simply as a form of birth control

Have woman act as a "surrogate" for lack of a better word

Man raises child by himself

Another:

Man doesn't want child

Woman does

Woman gives birth and raises child on her own

 

[komondorok]

OK here is a possible scenario:

Man wants child

Woman doesn't, wants an abortion simply as a form of birth control

Have woman act as a "surrogate" for lack of a better word

Man raises child by himself

Another:

Man doesn't want child

Woman does

Woman gives birth and raises child on her own

The problem with scenario 1 is that the man is demanding that the woman take significant medical risks with her own life in order to be a "surrogate." Until medicine can guarantee that every pregnancy is completely risk free, a second party cannot dictate medical decisions for another person.

It would still be up to the woman to decide if she is willing to take the medical risk of being that 1 in 4,000th woman who might die to "surrogate" the child for the man.

Fast forward 9 months. A sister, girlfriend, relative has a newborn baby, If the newborn infant is dying of kidney disease and you are found to be the perfect match, do you think a mother should have the right to demand your kidney, demand that you undergo a risky, although routine, medical procedure to save the baby's life?

Of course not. The compatible donor would weigh all the risks, take the mother's request into consideration, but ultimately make the decision that is best for him - despite the consequences of his actions. More than likely, a compassionate person would donate that kidney. But the donor would be incensed if he was forced to donate the kidney against his will, just because somebody wanted a kidney.

 

[The Mystery Machine]

The problem with scenario 1 is that the man is demanding that the woman takes significant medical risks with her own life in order to be a "surrogate." Until medicine can guarantee that every pregnancy is completely risk free, a second party cannot dictate medical decisions for another person.

It would still be up to the woman to decide if she is willing to take the medical risk to "surrogate" the child for the man.

Agree, I was on bedrest and incapacitated. My body was beaten senseless from preterm labor. Not to mention the drugs I was put on.

I wish it was as easy as a fairy tale, but the reality is there are alot of risks and potential loss with regards to being pregnant.

Heck my youngest killed my gallbladder.

How do you plan on resolving the medical complications?

 

[LuvDuke]

Totally OT, but if the Rebublicans threw out the right wing crazies, went back to promoting fiscal responsibility, intelligent foreign relations, intelligent monetary policy I might be tempted to vote for them.

That's a pretty tall order.

 

[punkin]

That's a pretty tall order.

A social liberal and fiscal conservative can dream, can't she?

 

[LuvDuke]

Who said anything about forcing a woman into having an abortion? Discussing =/= forcing. Discussing == having a say/opinion on that matter at hand.

And as to who the 'tiebreaker' is, I'm still waiting for that 'discussion'. As I said, I have no answer. I haven't been in that situation. But I do know people, who, in the end, came to a 'middle ground', so to say. After discussing it, and coming to a standstill, they both came, male and female, with research/statistics, and discussed it, again. Neither really had a 'deciding factor'. They both came to terms with a compromise.

What middle ground? You'll be half pregnant while having half an abortion? How do you compromise over being pregnant? Or having an abortion?

And if all of this is over the fact that you think there should be a discussion first, well show where someone said there shouldn't be. Knock yourself out. And when you're finished with the conversation, a decision has to be made.

What if the woman is incapable of having the final say?

Incapable how? In a coma? Emotionally incapable? Well then she can transfer the decision making to the individual of her choice.

 

[LuvDuke]

I voted pro-choice. I'm not too sure what the 'time limit' on abortion is in the USA, but in the UK I believe it's 24 weeks and I personally would like to see it lowered despite being pro-choice.

I believe in some cases, abortion may seem the only answer (e.g. in some examples listed like rape, incest, medical reasons etc.) but I also believe in other instances (e.g. young girls, etc.) there should be steps taken by the state to try and prevent unwanted pregnancies - e.g. in the UK, in school I had a real lack of sex education and we mainly talked about 'women's issues' which was really useless since all the girls had started about 4 years earlier. There should be more talks on contraception, etc. - at least where I'm standing from...

JMO

Roe v Wade set up a system by which, the later in the pregnancy, the more the state could regulate abortion. Roe v Wade did NOT set up a system that anyone could have an abortion at any time. That is fallacy set up by the right-to-lifers.

The decision established a system of trimesters that attempted to balance the state's legitimate interests against the abortion right. The Court ruled that the state cannot restrict a woman's right to an abortion during the first trimester, the state can regulate the abortion procedure during the second trimester "in ways that are reasonably related to maternal health", and the state can choose to restrict or proscribe abortion as it sees fit during the third trimester when the fetus is viable ("except where it is necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother").

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roe_v._Wade