The abortion issue is one of the most loaded issues of our time, especially in America. There are two questions that generally come up when it comes to this issue. 1.) Where exactly does life begin at conception or at birth? 2.) Does a woman solely own the right to choose what is not 100% hers in creation but is 100% in her body?

Personally, I think both sides are completely untenable and illogical. If we state that a woman has no dominion over her body then no one has a right of dominion over their own body...which in turn affects what drugs some of us put in our bodies (or would like too :), which then affects do people have the right to self terminate? Euthanasia. Then on the other hand as far as what science tells us takes two peoples to make a fetus in the first place. Question then becomes can she terminate something that is not fully hers? Which while unpopular is a fair question. I mean if I destroy something that she also has a claim to I then have to give her restitution for my decision. But there's also another side that no side likes to mention for fear of reprisal. Which is the issue of men.

It is not fair that a woman can decide for a man if he wants to be a father or not. Simply put. It would be just as unfair if a man were to decide if a woman has to be a mother. If you can agree on this point your following so far. I firmly believe no side man or woman should be deciding something so life altering for another person. And before people come at me with the mantra that he should've used a condom or kept it in his pants, let me kindly remind you she as well could've kept her legs closed! (Now the issue of rape I will address in a separate matter because for purposes of this conversation it is.) When you have two people that want to have a child all is good, when you have two peolpe that don't want children all is good. It's when you have a 1 wants and 1 doesn't that we encounter problems legally and ethically. Is it ethical to make a man a father when he does not wish to be?? Keep in mind if you substitute "make a woman a mother when she does not wish to be"...most would emphatically say NO IT'S NOT RIGHT. And thats my point exactly. The simple fact is women so far as we know have this genetic ability to carry offspring. I don't recall during evolution women choosing this feat, nor men declining it to being with. Your simply born with the ability, no more no less.

A woman can decide if a man is to be a father or not, based on frankly no legal precedents but with how she feels about the situation. If she is happy with him and wants a child...then it's a go. But he might think it's a complete and utter mistake. But what he desires his rights simlpy legally do not matter. If you were to put this question in terms of race or even gender as one group trampling or deciding for another you would be in the smallest of minorities thinking this is correct. In fact we've had a war and massive social movements protesting these kinds of things. And of course the reverse is also horrible...a man wanting a child making a woman have his child against her will is completely out of step with humanity, reason, fairness, justice..and just about every other adjective you can use to describe it. Pro-choice and pro-life persons do a horrible job of leaving men out of the discussion on abortion which I think is sacrificing what is right to what is politically correct and as long as you have this kind of thinking going on this issue will never be able to settle.

A fairer, more ethical, solution would be giving the people the right to "opt-out" within a certain legal time frame from being presented with evidence of a pregnancy from a doctor or hospital in writing. That way both can have some sort of better ability to make a sound decision for themselves AS INDIVIDUALS. If a man is notified his girlfriend or wife is pregnant he should get 45 days to state officially with some state agency that he wishes to "opt-out" of parental responsibility. And if the woman in this case wishes to keep the pregnancy she is 100% liable for all costs associated with such, but if she does choose to have the abortion as well he is the liable for 50% of the costs and this is non-negotiable. On the other hand if a woman is pregnant and she does not wish to keep the pregnancy she should have to as well notify the man in question in 45 days through the state agency of her intentions to terminate. His recourse being he has 45 days to try and convice her in writing only of either taking it to term, or adoption. If at the end of that 45 days she still insists on termination he is given something for the destruction of his genetic material...say $200 bucks. And he is then responsible for 50% of the costs of the procedure. Granted this solution is not perfect but I think it to be far more fair and ethical then the current situation of letting one decide for another.

Now in the case of rape, very simply, if a woman is claiming rape a man has no say. Period. Since the sex itself was not consentual, and as a result neither should the decision to terminate or not as well require the notification of the other party. Granted now you can have a potential problem with women claiming rape in order to maintain the status quo we have now in regards to men having no say on abortion...however, to make this claim at this time is going to require inordinate amounts of evidence of actual rape and be much harder to prosecute. You've been dating 2 years and now you want to claim rape and you just happen to be going to look highly suspicious. Which is why there would have to be some kind of statue of limitations to claim this particular situational rape...say 30 days in order to combat against false claims or rape just to circumvent the law.

Before I get flooded with angry emails in my box understand me when I say I firmly am saying this out of my belief that no one party should decide something for another individual. That is my sole concern with this particular issue. I don't wish to see women deciding for men, nor do I wish to see men deciding for women. I would like both sides to be able to decide for themselves and know the consequences fully of their actions. And yes granted safer sex, or no sex would've been the wiser choice...but we have to deal with effects of the situations after this has happened.

People that want to be families should be, people that don't shouldn't be. Simply.

Views: 96


You need to be a member of Atheist Nexus to add comments!

Join Atheist Nexus

Comment by Dre Smith on September 10, 2009 at 12:26pm
"You risk great danger when you drop your drawers... proceed with caution! "

But everyone runs this risk, it's common place to laud the man for doing this but never seems to be the woman these days who gets this kind of commentary. We regard her much as an unfortunate lamb that got caught up, and the male as some kind of villian for contributing to her pregnancy in the first place. When in reality to put it bluntly...should have proceeded with caution.

Bottomline in my view: The status quo in regards to equality is unsustainable over a long term and sexist.
Comment by Dre Smith on September 10, 2009 at 11:44am
Yes a woman runs the risk of pregnancy but not by choice, like I said by way of genetic accident she is the only one that can become pregnant. Far as I know no woman in the history of humanity itself has ever been given a choice from nature to forego the ability to become pregnant. She didn't sit down with evolution and fill out an application that says to be pregnant or not to be. It's just something she was given out of nature. I likewise as a male did not check off a box that says inability to become pregnant either.

It completely seems like we are making exceptions to the rule of equality based on a gender biased concept which is supposed to be against the very laws of equality we strive to perfect. My solution may not be 100% perfect, but I think it's far better than the current status quo so many of you seem to be content with. If you want to agree to disagree that's fine with me, however the idea of any woman deciding anything for me or for me deciding for her goes completely against my conscience and I will not endorse ever any such arrangment like the status quo that in regard places any citizen, that just happens to be a male in this case relegated to a second class inferior position when in all other considerations both are supposed to be on the same level.

You're saying in this regard women are not equal to men. So I want to know why the hell should we bother and not even regress back to the old concepts of men over women, the right of the strongest, white over black, and all other "natural" inequalties? Why not just go back to the way things used to be?
Comment by Dre Smith on September 10, 2009 at 10:39am
But the law does not allow for such. All are supposed to be EQUAL before the law. That means no one gets any exceptions for race, height, gender, intelligence, the list is almost endless. Every person before the law is to be equal. That is one doesn't get more special rights over the other simply by fault of a genetic accident that made one male or made one female. If you substitue black and white instead of gender hear the focus is much clearer. As I said neither party should be making these kinds of life altering decisions for another solvent individual party. Because if you folks want to keep a saying this is solely a woman's right, then you have to admit a man by definition has to be declared to a great degree legally incompetent of any actions made on his behalf by any woman in this matter because you are taking him out of the equation when it is convenient, and then re-inserting him again when it is convenient to do so in the form of child support just as one primary example.

Now unless people want to move away from the entire concept of "equality" itself, and get away from making society more "equal" which is another discussion entirely. That conversation can be had and for yall's claim would considerably hold more weight. Because then if we are not all equal in a direct pratical sense...then why should we even bother to strive to make society equal for all other constraints like race for example?
Comment by Shutch on September 10, 2009 at 10:29am
"You've been dating 2 years and now you want to claim rape and you just happen to be going to look highly suspicious. Which is why there would have to be some kind of statue of limitations to claim this particular situational rape...say 30 days in order to combat against false claims or rape just to circumvent the law."

This is dangerous logic. Clearly you're unaware of the concept of intimate partner rape, which is the leading form of sexual assault among young women. Rape is not determined by the tenor or length of a relationship. Rape is an act of coerced sexual intercourse, regardless of the context of the relationship, be it spousal, girlfriend-boyfriend or otherwise--period. As the previous posters have so trenchantly stated, policing who determines "responsibility" for an unplanned pregnancy would work in a PollyAnna universe in which men were also able to become pregnant, grapple with the tremendous life circumstances and challenges of a 9 month pregnancy, and plan and provide for care of another human being after its birth, regardless of whether the "mother" would be present to make these choices. This is the singular gender specific reality that all pregnant women face; men simply do not have an analogous position. So placing arbitrary restrictions and provisions on abortion that do not take into account the gravity of this singular choice for the life, free will and right to privacy of women amounts to a regime of compulsory pregnancy that territorializes the bodies of women.
Comment by Dre Smith on September 10, 2009 at 10:15am
And I am saying neither should have rights over the other. To give someone rights is entirely based on them being able to exercise or not to exercise those rights as INDIVIDUALS. The fact one is a woman or man should have absolutely no consequence as to deciding which one gets more of a say over the other, before the law in which all are supposed to be EQUAL there is to be no discriminating factors between any two parties. This includes being of opposite sexes. Just because one is a woman, a pregnant woman does not mean she gets special access to solely decide something over a man and the at the same time not allow for the reverse to be true. If you can have one simply you can have the other, which is a damned problem we have created with the two one sided arguments. Yes its her body, but until science tells me the fetus itself is of her own 100% creation she not be able to arbitrarily decide if one is going to be a father or not. There has to be something better. Like I said it's great if both want a child, or both don't. It's when you get those 1 and 1 cases that are the problem and we need a rational solution to address them.

I don't like the idea of a man telling a woman what to do with her body, but at the same time a woman should not be able to tell a man he is going to be a legally responsible person when he had no legal recourse to reject what is currently solely her decision based entirely on how she feels about the situation. She wants to be a mom and he not a father he should be held liable for her actions when he had no legal standing in the first place. Because if this is allowed to be the status quo the reverse in a legal sense has to be true if for no other reason.
Comment by Dre Smith on September 9, 2009 at 4:48pm
And comments like these are exactly why we get nowhere on this issue. I'm glad your comfortable with someone else deciding whether in the end your going to be a father or not...I hope in your case you wish to be. As I said the issue of men on this issue is constantly trampled by political correctness.
Comment by Martin C on September 9, 2009 at 2:28pm
Problem being as long as its in a woman's body, it is still part of the woman. This is like a man arguing over the removal of a toilet seat that he happened to knock one off into.. He still has no claim to the seat even though it has a piece of him in it. Sorry if this seems insensitive to women comparing their bodies to a toilet, just the easiest way to relay the message considering it can belong to someone and might be removed for some reason while a box of kleenex really is just disposable...



Update Your Membership :




Nexus on Social Media:


© 2018   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: The Nexus Group.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service