There may be a damn good reason to not allow this -- it'll lead to poor people selling their organs, sometimes even fatally, for the benefit of the wealthy. I'm not clear on how much or how far this would be useful to the wealthy recipient, and therefore on how widespread this practice would be, so I'm "undecided" on that point for now.

Cannibalism of body parts is now know and hard to get people to stop begging for them. And if one does do it, it should be consensual. Disgustingly, it has led to poor people selling organs for money. And how often do they get what was promised?

Great post.

I agree with the majority of what you are saying but, what if that child was going to have a life of pain and suffering? You'd have to be pretty fucked up to let that happen?

@bryanthetrumpet Not sure what there is to disagree on. I'm definitely a "quality of life" person vs merely being born to exist.
If you're alluding to really late term abortions I certainly don't support giving birth knowing there would be no quality of life.
There are a litany of reasons someone can find themselves in the position to be considering/forced into a super late term abortion. Look at some who never knew they were pregnant to begin with- it happens. Some women have wonky cycles, extremely overweight, spotting, the list of circumstances that would put someone in that position are endless.
Too damned many people on this spinning ball anyway. I'm almost to the point of opinion if one doesn't have all ducks in a row and set it's immoral to have a child to begin with. There are no guarantees in life but try to stack the deck in the child's favor.
Also there are women, and I know them, who thought they wanted kids but those very necessary hormones did not kick in and the child suffered as a result.

Apologies for the rant and maybe veering off topic there. I'm a "no questions asked, on demand" for this life choice.

@jorj Perhaps you aren't aware not all parts of the country make the procedure easily accessible. Facilities that will perform late term are even fewer and farther in between, potentially endangering women's lives as a result.

Not sure why the caps are necessary.

Until women no longer have to be concerned about restrictions on the right to do what THEY CHOOSE concerning THEIR bodies there is indeed need for validation legally. People seem to forget that it's still to this day forever coming up in the courts.

THAT'S WHY WOMEN KEEP HAVING TO BRING UP RIGHT TO BODY AUTONOMY.

@jorj @jorj When men with your mindset "nut up" and get off their donkeys to shoulder more of the contraceptive/reproductive burden physically and financially(beyond condoms!) then you may have a leg to stand on, until then your hobby horse is obvious, you or someone "scratched" yourself on someone and it ended up in a live birth someone hadn't bargained for. TFB, that does not negate the issue that women shoulder 99% of the physical and financial burden of whether to carry a child or not to term.

Corpses still have more rights over their body than women in too many places for "the greatest nation on earth".

@jorj i thought it a legitiment arguement; and i'm not an 'emotional female' or even a particulary empathetic person but i smell bullshit from a safe distance ?

@bryanthetrumpet not necessarily the case. My grandson was diagnosed with neurofibromatosis but didn't know till he was 5 years old. But now that we know, he'll have a choice when he gets a little older.

Any man that thinks a woman should protect his rights is not thinking straight. If a man does not want a child then it is (his) responsibility to have birth control. Men that want to distance themselves believing it is the woman's job to provide protection are not fair-minded men.

@jorj As I said above, if you want to be 100% sure you're not creating a baby, get a vasectomy. Then you can have your fun and shoot blanks.

Have you ever tried to get a hysterectomy? (I have, and have heard a while range of reasons why I can't have one). Drs tell females, even single females that they won't perform this procedure all the time, for reasons like, "What if you meet a man in the future who wants children?" Thereby giving some future hypothetical boyfriend/husband more control over that woman's uterus than herself.

Trials for hormone based contraceptives for males get halted before they can be assessed as safe enough for the market because the subjects cannot tolerate the side effects of the hormones, similar side effects to those caused by the hormonal contraceptives women have been putting up with for decades. Perhaps males would try to tolerate the side effects more if they were the ones risking their lives and health by carrying and delivering babies?

And, on that note, it is statistically safer to abort than attempt to go full term and deliver, so isn't this -abortion on request- the most moral medical option for women, especially women who do not (for whatever reason) want to be pregnant and deliver a baby?

Western medicine is disappointingly male centric. You just have to look at things like treatments for erectile dysfunction being available before the size and shape of the clitoris was even discovered to see the imbalance. Also, even in countries with healthcare that is free at the point of access, women don't get decent and dignified post natal care. Just look at the rates of labour induced prolapses that don't get any treatment at all.

The above is just a snippet of the reason why I think abortions should be legal and available for women at any time. I doubt you'll change your mind because... But seriously, try being female and trying your 'solution' of getting a hysterectomy. (This is also an incredibly invasive procedure compared to most abortions, but you'll never have to worry about either issue so you can just suggest whatever wildly impractical thing you like and if women aren't doing that, feel superior and 'right' that they brought their 'situations' -pregnancies that take two but only one has all the responsibility- upon themselves.)

You get a tubal ligation. No hysterectomy unless worse is going on.

perfectly said!!

Thanks for your post.

No man or woman should demand a woman carry a baby she can't or doesn't want.

It's the patriarchal religions that have the men with authority taking over women's lives and bodies. As long as we have the patriarchy we'll have this desire to control women.

It's her body. Period.

Because men don't (and shouldn't) have any say, they also should be allowed to relinquish all rights and responsibilities associated with the conception. Just my two cents.

@TSaylors I have a problem with your statement. It takes two to make a child and both adults are responsible for birth control. If there is an arrangement for the man to walk away without responsibility then there is another problem. The child will grow and ask questions and that arrangement may not work out so well if the man now has a life that a previous child may complicate.

that is a very touchy and personal situation and i'm sure it varies wildly from case to case. not touching that with a 10 foot pole, hope i never have to go through it.

Yeah, that kind of shit is a huge problem and very difficult to legally address without a lie detector or something, the sort of thing king solomon was supposedly good at

@betpaq I now have a problem with your statement. There have been instances of men having their semen stolen in various ways. If a woman is pregnant by an unwilling man, and said man has no choice in terminating or carrying the pregnancy to term, why would he not at least have the option to divorce himself completely from the situation? Women should have complete autonomy, but men should have none?

@JeffMurray

Other than at a fertility facility, please give examples of semen stolen from men.

On the flip side of your statement, what responsibility does the man have when rape, incest, pedophilia, and sexual abuse are perpetrated on females. Don't say the law as we all know until recently the law has failed women miserably.

In consensual sex, it is the responsibility of "both" parties to provide birth control. If a man chooses to go natural then he chooses the consequences.

Historically men have been able to walk away from their responsibilities without consequences. Have you heard the term, "Deadbeat Dad" that turn of phrase didn't become well know because of a "one" of".

@betpaq There are a lot of examples and plenty of court cases to go along with them. One case involved a wife giving a used condom from her husband to a friend who used it to get pregnant. She then sued for child support AND WON. The court ruled that, regardless of how the semen ended up in the friend, once the man made the deposit he didn't have an expectation to reclaim it. There are cases of ejaculate from oral sex getting saved and used to impregnate. But that doesn't really even matter. We are discussing what should be, not what is, and there is the possibility of men being forced into genetic fatherhood.

Again, discussing instances where the law failed is not the focus of this discussion. Obviously, if there is a law on the books that a rapist should be financially responsible for offspring, and then wasn't forced to do so, that's not something we can solve by saying the law should be followed. We already agree on that.

As for both parties being responsible for birth control. That's a nice soundbite. But completely unrealistic and one of the vehicles by which women can get away with stealing semen. I have never been with a woman who didn't prefer to not use a condom during sex. I have only been in monogamous sexual relationships with women I loved and trusted. So if that woman told me she was on the pill and/or wouldn't carry a pregnancy to term and that she didn't want me to use a condom, what do you think would happen to the relationship if I essentially told her I didn't believe her or trust her and would only sleep with her with barrier protection? A step further, what if a man DID still use a condom that had a hole poked in it? The man is not "choosing" the consequences, they are inflicted on him because, as we all agree, he has ZERO say in whether or not the pregnancy is terminated.

Do you know what happens to "Deadbeat Dads"? It is definitely not consequence-free. There was a guy that played cards at a local shop that had to get a ride everywhere because the state revoked his license for owing back child support. Anyway, we are again discussing individual instances of someone circumventing existing laws which we both agree shouldn't happen and is not the focus of this discussion. The question is, since a man has no say in whether or not a pregnancy is terminated, why shouldn't he be afforded at least the ability to terminate his rights and responsibilities?

@JeffMurray

The courts may not always be right, some men are deadbeat dad's, some women are thieves, some men are abusive. Some men want the right to insist on an abortion. Some men want the rights to prevent an abortion. We can agree on that.

When it comes down to it, it is about the child's rights and well being once it is born. The parents played footies and the child had no say. You don't penalize the child for the irresponsible behavior of the parents. You penalize the parents.

@betpaq Who said anything about penalizing the child? Women can, and do, have children as single parents all the time (e.g. they want a child, but haven't found the right man, so they artificially inseminate or adopt if possible). So regardless of how the woman got pregnant, if she wants to have the child and the man does not, she can just have it on her own. Surely you're not suggesting women aren't able to raise children on their own?? Cause saying the man has to contribute (financially or otherwise) or it's punishing the child sure sounds like you're saying women are incapable.

Also, if the semen was stolen, how is that "the irresponsible behavior" of the father?

@JeffMurray

I've answered your question and you know where I stand and you have indicated where you stand on this issue. Let's agree to disagree and be done with it for we are at an impasse. No harm, no foul. Okay?

@Betty You did not answer the question, so I cannot agree to disagree at this point. You have painted yourself into a corner. Saying it's punishing the child if the father doesn't contribute is tantamount to saying women are incapable of effectively raising children without some kind of help from a man. You are free to retract that statement if you'd like, but then you no longer have an objection to my original claim. This is not an impasse, this is your failure to support your argument effectively.

@JeffMurray

At no time have I insinuated that women are incapable of raising children on their own.
A child has the right to knowledge of the family and medical history of both parents.
Birth control is the responsibility of both parties involved.
When an unplanned pregnancy occurs both parties should have a conversation about what they want. The choice to abort or not is between the woman and her doctor.
Once a child is born they share half of a parents DNA, you can't divorce that. A child "should" not be penalized for the actions of the parents.

In consensual sex and a child is "born" and the mother chooses to keep that child then arrangement must be agreed upon. There are different kinds of agreements. Financial, physical involvement, or information that the child will need as they grow up or a combination of two or all. A child will want to know if there are half-siblings, grandparents, aunts/uncles, and cousins and should not be denied that information.

This is where I stand on consensual sex that results in an unplanned pregnancy. Criminal actions are a completely different conversation.

@Betty So why exactly did you object to my proposition that men should be allowed to sign away all rights and responsibilities for a child they don't want because they have exactly ZERO PERCENT say in whether or not the fetus is aborted or not?

@JeffMurray

It is not just the man's choice to do so unless the mother agrees to it. The rights and needs of the child must be addressed. When a man walks away and wants nothing to do with the child personally he can't take half of that family history with him. The child has a right to it. His or her heritage, medical history, and family connections at the very least.
No man should have the right to force a woman to have a medical procedure.

Eventually, technology will advance to the point that when a woman refuses to have a child and the man wants the child then the fetus could be transferred to an artificial womb and the father can take custody of the child, then the mother must provide for the child under the conditions of an agreement they forge to provide for the rights of the child.

@Betty So you're saying that a man SHOULD be allowed to sign away rights and responsibilities IF he provides family history information?!? What if he was orphaned and grew up in foster care and doesn't know any of it? You realize that there are tons of humans in the world that have zero family history knowledge, right?

@JeffMurray

That is a different discussion. We weren't talking about orphans.

Yes, men can sign away their rights under certain conditions as I've listed.

@Betty I didn't say sign away rights. I said all rights and responsibilities, and the only condition should be that he doesn't get a say in whether to abort the pregnancy.
And if you really wanted a disclosure clause added in that made the man provide family history he was aware of or had access to, I'd be totally fine with that. I think we're closing the gap on this, and you wanted to agree to disagree.

The only time the father should be asked to help out is if the mother has no one. Not being married is always going to complicate sexual behavior and pregnancy. So, both be informed about contraception. It's also being unfair to the birthed child that is rejected.

Don't you think education would solve a lot?

Totally right. Ask those people to take on all of that or shut up.

@DUCHESSA "Education?" Are you talking about the fact that "contraceptives can/do fail? "How about "men can/do fail us?" How about "we sometimes get carried away and fail ourselves?" Aside from that....what ''education" are you talking about?

@LucyLoohoo About that education that allows a person to reason her decisions...........IAW, everything you said and more. Embryology, Anatomy, Histology, Pathology....also should be part of the info.

I understand abortion is physically painful because is a surgery....but no emotionally. No in my opinion. See, I feel is a relief for the woman.

@DUCHESSA I think it depends on the reason and circumstance as to whether it takes an emotional toll on the woman - I know several women who have had abortions. All are older now. One is simply glad - others were unable to conceive and had to adopt or use alternative methods of conception, but were emotionally affected, and one has had problems with depression for years. All had different reasons for their choice. We are all different.

@ThinkKate JMHO...But those women "emotionally affected" are / were so because a matter of brain washing.
See, the moment a woman decides to abort -regardless of the reason- she only wants the moment to be over and start to feel -physically- well again.

Why "and the doctor"? If a woman wishes to abort the opinion of the doctor is ONLY a medical one.

@DUCHESSA Here in Alabama women still have to go through a doctor to have an abortion. We haven't progressed to a point where the meds are available OTC.
I didn't mean to imply that a doctor should have the right to prevent a woman from accessing abortion care.

Needless to say the abortion must be performed by a doctor.

To clarify, if a woman were to have an abortion at 23 weeks, you believe she should be charged with murder?

If the fetus is of a maturity to live on it's own and anyone actively kills/has it killed, that could be murder. The abortion places I've known of go to twelve weeks. As I said, why not prevent, rather than terminate?

Patriarchy.

Great comment.