I thought about Abortion lately(actually, within the last 24 hours) and an epiphany came to me surrounding Abortion. It's clear and obvious to me that the position is so divided that to either be "pro-life" or "pro-choice" is to make yourself an enemy of the other camp. Therefore to take any position is politically untenable. Furthermore, the legality surrounding Abortion was decided via Roe V Wade. In much the same way others have proclaimed about the ACA, it is now the law of the land. So Abortion is no longer a legal issue, but instead it's a social issue. And I still have many social issues with Abortion. Namely, if we've rejected "Separate but equal" in segregation and in gay marriage, then we have to reject it as it regards Abortion. Special rights pertaining to the mother fall under this clause, as men have no recourse for the discussion surrounding the future of the child. The only way men could have the discussion, and I would recommend it to any man is to have the discussion before even beginning to date a woman(and vice-versa for women with men). If you're "pro-life", you should go with a pro-life woman and save yourself the hassle. Same thing with women whose "pro-choice". I believe the discussion is so paramount, that it's literally a deal breaker surrounding marriage. Because marriage is the ultimate contract that says "yes, I concur with this person on 'x' amount of views." But the problem lies in that if the discussion happens too soon, women wouldn't want to have the discussion seeing it as "arrogant" on the part of the man to assume that she would "sleep with him"(or something along these lines). So I think that giving men legal status in the abortion decision making process is not only the right thing to do, but it would make abortion so steep in our society that any threats of removal or objections or weakening of pro-abortion laws would be mute. It's literally in a woman's best interest to make men a legal part of the process. I think the legal argument can also be made in that the fetus shares the father's DNA(and I don't think we can argue about whether or not the fetus is a viable existence. It exists. You might want to debate whether or not it's a "life", but what we can't deny is that it exists. Otherwise, what are we "aborting"?) As such, the decision to abort a fetus should be between the man, woman and the family doctor. Are we to deny a man's personal property? Are we to make the legal argument that he somehow gave up his property rights when he ejaculated into the womb? I don't think that's a consistent argument, because if you make that argument that would give legal precedence to the false notion that a woman's body becomes a man upon marriage.(After all, she moved in with him) The legal barometers for the inclusion of men, and to protect a woman's right of choice is something that can be more aptly hashed out IMO between men, women, legal experts sitting together at a table. But I believe the correct Abortion Position to take, is one that strengthens abortions for both male and female parties. That isn't to say I've changed my mind surrounding the morality of abortion. That's a social issue, and as I said one that can only properly be decided by choosing a life partner who concurs with your idea of morality. But I believe that strengthening the legality of Abortion will actually save more children's lives, it'll strengthen families and I believe it makes more economic sense.
Welcome to the cold and grey middle ground. It's not easy and it just means twice as many people will hate you but it is more honest. I don't actually agree with all of your conclusions but I've infinitely more respect for the fact you're thinking them through than I do with anyone taking a predefined position.
Well, that might be the political reality. As I've recently thought to myself: "I'm not in this to make friends, but to make things potentially better". But please do tell, what do you disagree with? Discourse and discussion is the only way to move things forward in our political process.
It was really only the suggestion of giving men "legal status" in the decision on abortion. While I'm clear than there is a moral argument for the father to have input in that decision in all but the most unconventional situations, I'm not convinced there is any practical way to enforce that in law that would bring any significant benefit and not cause more problems than it solves. I think this kind of thing needs to be addressed in a wider social context. This would be much less of an issue if we didn't have so many "couples" getting in to this kind of situation who are not in the position to want to or be capable of engaging in an honest discussion about it.
I concur, hence I said "Everyone should gather together at a table". The greater complication is that women as a social class see Abortion as the holy grail of their "political rights"(coming from a society in which they only gained the right to vote in 1920). They cannot see abortion in the lens of a social issue, nor on the basis of morality but on the basis of a woman's "political power". As long as women see abortion as "empowering", any discussion about touching it, even improving it will be seen as a "threat" to a woman's political relevancy.
There's a common theme in your posts, AN....the reduction of the political/social power of women. Which again is interesting given your admitted lack of any current or previous long-term relationship with any woman.
You're talking about equality but this is one of the situations in life that simply isn't equal. This isn't up to perspective or bias. This isn't about subjective differences. Human reproduction places the burden of pregnancy exclusively on the woman. You could argue that the man helps or could share in responsibilities, and you'd be right, but that's not a given for every pregnancy. That's not something that is innate to human biology. So the reason I believe women have the power of choice is because it's entirely their body, and because they are the only ones whose body will bear the burden of pregnancy and it's aftereffects. Yes, the man did help create the fetus and that's why he has parental rights, but the woman's body is the one that does the reproduction and everything that entails after fertilization, which is pretty much the entirety of pregnancy. This is naturally unequal. This isn't something comparable to slavery or civil rights. This isn't separate but equal because there is nothing equal here. These are two fundamentally different biological roles, and in this particular instance, it's the woman who handles 99% of the role of reproduction. Therefore she should have the power of choice over what is happening in her body and whether or not she wants it to continue. Something to think about. If this really is about equality, where is the balance in the equation? Where is the equivalency in a man to the 9 months of pregnancy and it's effects on the body and the decades of ovulation that women experience? Also, just throwing this out there. I'm an equal opportunity pro-choicer. Anyone that is pregnant should have the right to choose abortion, not just women. When men get pregnant, I'll support their right to choose abortion too. Somehow I doubt I'll have to participate in many conversations about that though.
One of the main arguments for abortion is one arising from bodily integrity and rights. This obviously applies only to the woman. So I dont agree that man should have any say in the matter, the biology is inherently unequal. If the woman wants to abort and the man does not, do you force the woman to carry the child? That is quite ridiculous, dont you think? However, I do think that as long as it is only the womans choice, it should also be her sole responsibility. Which in practice means that the father should have an option of a "male abortion", giving up both parental rights and responsibilities before an abortion limit has passed. While biologically still unequal, this would help to make the situation at least legally more equal.
And not a post too soon after I highlighted why my proposal would meet with difficulty. And here I thought I reached the middle ground. Again, I think that it's ideologically retarded of women to see abortion in the same lens as a political right. Is it a political right to have a sex change? But even if we were to say it were a political right, it's a political right that obliterates the political right of men to be fathers. And so on that note Blasphemer, I have to concur with you. If Abortion is a political right, then men should be granted an abortion clause to waive all of their responsibilities and parental rights. This means no more government supported checks, and no more police hounding, etc. A pregnancy should only take place when both are willing to raise the child. No longer can a woman engage her pregnancy if the man doesn't want to. It's only in his political rights after all.
If the right to elective abortion and Obamacare are the law of the land, then the Constitution is not. You OK with that?
No I'm not, but it's the disgusting hand we've been dealt. As such, I'll play even these crappy cards to come as close to a proper resolution as possible. We can still win, even with a crappy hand.
Though you have obviously given some thought to your new position...it unfortunately puts you in the same place this has always been. Pro-Choice does not mean freedom to abort. Pro-Choice simply means allowing the woman to control her own body, and giving that control to her man is pretty much what the Pro-Life side is attempting. The only real difference would be the name of the man....husband, senator, governor, doctor or frank....it is still removing rights.
But my proposal doesn't give "control" over to the man, it would make the man an equal partner in the abortion talks. Which frankly, if he's not able to be an equal partner then the whole idea of love, marriage or a relationship is frankly out the window. Sorry, but from a personal standpoint I'm not so vain as to accept "Oh, we're equal in everything but this." No, either we're equal or we're not. There's no dancing around. I'll elaborate even further, if after council between the man, woman and doctor that they decide that an abortion is the best way to go, then men should be financially or emotionally compensated in some form for the significant loss of parenthood. (At least the loss of parenthood, with abortion and a heavy bias in family court, it's clear that women are seen as the "preferred" parent of the two.) Rather than "equality", the shoe is clearly on the other foot. The argument is now that men are socially inferior to women.
I must disagree with you here....by giving these powers to anyone other than the individual who must sustain and use her own body to feed and shelter the fetus/Baby, we would be creating something not only unequal but extremely unfair and cruel. Though one can see this as a social fairness issue, this is very clearly trumped by the individual rights aspect. And, if a couple cannot discuss and settle such an issue without resorting to legal action....the marriage or relationship is "out the window" regardless.
I don't see how it would be giving powers to someone else. Let's dumb it down even further: You have a council of a pregnant woman, her significant other and the doctor. Similarly to family council and after a while of deliberations, the doctor makes the decision. Are we to say that the doctor shouldn't be able to have that final say? If so, the whole woman-doctor relationship is a falsehood that clearly says "I'll share it with anyone but my husband" You can call it Social Fairness if you want, and you can even say that Individual Rights are more valued than Social Fairness, but if Social Fairness isn't held to any remote degree within a relationship, then the whole concept loses all of its romantic value to me. Indeed, without Social Fairness who can argue against reinstalling the Patriarchy? After all, Social Fairness between men and women is a falsehood. It's only fair to men to reclaim a position of superiority if they can't even have one of equality.
Let's "Dumb it Down" even further. If you wanted a vascectomy, should you wife be able to prohibit you from doing so? What about your Doctor? If you prevented your wife from doing as she pleased with her own body...say taking her to court to stop a tattoo, do you think she would respect you going forward? If you wanted a mole removed...but your wife thought it was cute and wanted you to keep it, even though it might be pre-cancerous, should she be able to force you to keep it?
-I believe a Vasectomy is far more politically personal than an abortion. A woman can have multiple abortions, but a Vasectomy is a permanent fixture to my recreational abilities. Hence I find it substantially different and I don't think I would ever want to make that decision. If I have to, or if I were forced to make that decision then I would leave the relationship. -Whether she has a tattoo or not is pointless, anything that she does personally for her own interests don't concern me. But the future unknown child could be my son or daughter, and I do take great pride in hopefully raising my kid. -I hope not, for all the complaints about the danger of a fetus, among the terminal illnesses, cancer is the most lethal and most deadly. I'd take any preventative measure I could against it and I'd hope she would value my life over her sexual fetish.
So....basically you do not feel she has the right to decide what you do with your body but feel you have the right to stop HER from claiming the same right....yeah that sounds like equality to me. Basically, you are not asking for the right of equality here.....you are asking for the right to control. You would use your freedom to leave the relationship if you were compelled to lose control of your personal freedom, yet feel it is okay to subject your woman to the same thing because YOU want to raise a child. A very selfish and egotistical position.....hopefully she too would leave. Unless you intend to have her imprisoned until you get your child.
It is the role of the doctor to make RECOMMENDATIONS as to what is the best decision regarding the woman's health. It is not, and never has been, nor ever should be the role of the doctor to make final decisions.
To a large extent, she lost that right when she agreed to have sexual intercourse with me. Don't you think it's the greatest form of hypocrisy to have sex and then have an abortion? Make up your mind, either you're committed to the relationship or not. The value of a child is indeterminable to a man, on the contrary a well-off man would provide financial security. If we live in this new sexual reality where women cannot be expected to keep their promises, then men should be more picky than ever before as to who to sleep with. Me, personally, I am extremely picky about it. I will not sleep with a woman who can't give me that commitment. I argue if she doesn't want to a raise a child, then it was retarded of her to even think about a relationship in the first place. Sexual intercourse will naturally bring a baby into the world, which will be cultivated and developed. You don't have "rights" to undo what is done, the rights that we've given to that effect have destroyed the social family structure. I mean, are you seriously proud of the single family problem in 2013? I myself don't know my own father. The 60's-70's revolution has been the worst advent in Western Civilization and it's brought us to the point of no return, much like the fall of the Roman Empire. You actually don't understand my position. How many times have I said that "If A, then B"? If I can't get Social Fairness in the relationship, I'll leave it. That. Damn. Simple. I'm not vested in a girl's romantic feelings if she's not vested in mine. You don't have to worry about any abuse from me or anything like that. In fact, I'll be so deliberate as to make sure that a woman and I are on the same page. Marriage is significant, it's a life changing event. A partner is someone whose thoughts are synchronized with yours. If we can't match on the crucial issues, then what's the point?
But then let's flip the script. Let's say she wants to get pregnant but you refuse insertion/deposit to her. So you control the non-pregnancy that she desires in that scenario. Since you wish to be equal, shouldn't she be entitled to both emotional and financial compensation for her significant loss of parenthood? And take it a step further. What if you choose vasectomy and she wishes to have more children? You have permanently entitled her to financial and emotional compensation for significant loss of parenthood. I understand your point and I don't disagree to a point, but I think in your rationalization there may be a slippery slope that you'd find difficult to get out of if she turned the scenario around for equality as I described. Man decides whether a woman can become pregnant at the point/time of insertion. After that it becomes her issue to deal with as she sees fit because the rest of the situation takes place within her body. We can only decide to impregnate or not impregnate, but we can't decide whether to keep or abort. That seems fairly equal to me. But women carry that extra trump card because they, too, can refuse to participate, also negating any potential pregnancy. I'm ok with that. It's not truly equal in terms of men having a say whether a child is aborted or not. But the child is not developed within a man's body so we're never going to be equal in the first place.
It's true that you could flip the switch in that regard, hence is why the original position is that the idea of abortion should be negated outright. As no person has the right to juggle justifications for keeping or ending life, or holding one gender as superior over another. But seeing to a "Social Fairness" is the best and most assured way of protecting Abortion rights. In my mind, when I think about all of the various social, political issues, etc. This country is so pathetic, it makes me mad, angry, hateful and depressed all at once. This is a miserable country with miserably unintelligent people where we can't even defend the meaning of a relationship anymore. I can honestly say that I hate the country, and then "love" it, for what it once was. A history I wish I was born a part of, instead of this ugly era.
I don't think it's holding one gender as superior. Your earlier comments about a relationship are the key to the answer. Those who feel so strongly should absolutely share relationships with those who feel likewise. If that happened this wouldn't exist as a problem. Where it breaks apart is consensual sex with people of different personal, religious or political view engaging in sex with different expectations for the outcome. If we all married our partners, had children in agreement with times and numbers to have, and had no rape, incest or other social issues that prompt desires to terminate pregnancies, this would all be moot. But reality is we're human, we're attracted to people for any number of reasons, we make poor decisions, we screw up, and we take unnecessary or unreasonable risks. Or one half of the relationship changes their mind or views. In the end, though, we're a people of compromise because we are all different. I'm sorry you feel as you do. As I get older I too am amazed at what I learn about my country and see within it, but at no point have I hated it just because I disagree with laws, politicians or the way things are going. All we can do is be true to ourselves.
I've always thought of myself as politically capable, and hence that's really the only reason I'm even politically interested. Human Capital has to be worked on in some area. But this country's so far from what it once was, what I envision it could be that I feel politically apathetic. That's there's no point anymore. That I should put 200% of my focus on my business degree and retire from the political world forever. I think I can affect more positive change by being a benevolent CEO hiring people, then trying to create a nation out of a people who no longer have any political views or convictions or the slightest belief. This country's literally a dead corpse walking to me.
Your dislike or lack of understanding of something hardly amounts to unconstitutionality. - - - Updated - - - That bluff has been called and you lost.
