Abortion

[MadMike]

Which comes with its own set of physical and mental burdens, in addition to the economic cost. It's not nearly as simple as just "opting out" of parenthood.

If you'd bothered to read my post you'd know that you talking about the second part makes zero difference to me. It doesn't matter if abortion is legal, safe, and available, paper abortions are still a horrible idea for the reasons I mentioned. From a societal standout, "paper abortions" after pregnancy create a massive incentive problem when men suddenly have zero repercussions. Abortion is still a massive decision for women that, like I mentioned, comes with very real consequences.

Paper abortions, on the other hand, give men zero consequences and zero responsibility. The incentive structure it would create would be rife for problems. From what I've seen of frat life at colleges, you'd see hundreds/thousands of frat houses across all American universities devising schemes so men can either take advantage of drunk women or simply never have to consider the consequences for a mistake and therefore try to act responsibly. Abortions still serve as a large deterrent to women acting irresponsibly. You cannot remove all deterrents for men acting irresponsibly.

So yeah, having read the thread and heard this issue raised by the Tom Leykis crowd for decades, its still a horrible, unbalanced idea that would create a misaligned incentive structure rife for problems. In short, it would create more and worse problems than any it would allegedly "solve".

After impregnation, not after pregnancy. Just so we're clear.

But I agree that removing probably the most serious deterrent for males to practice safe sex, without adding something else as counterweight, is indeed flawed and would create a misaligned incentive structure.

 

[oneniltothearsenal]

After impregnation, not after pregnancy. Just so we're clear.

But I agree that removing probably the most serious deterrent for males to practice safe sex, without adding something else, is indeed flawed.

Yes, I'm fully aware of the parameters. It's not a new idea. People like Tom Leykis have been pushing this idea for 20+ years. I see it as massively flawed due to the incentive structure it will produce and how that incentive structure will nudge the decisions of hundreds of thousands of males aged 17-24.

 

[villain]

I don't this options and forced are something that go well together in a sentence, when it comes to contraception. An option is an option, it's not forced. Men lack many them as the focus has been more on female contraception.
I think tying of tubes has the level of implications for both, if I'm not wrong. It's literally the same process.



I assume that you're talking about the "paper abortion" here. I have gradually over the course of the argument started to accept that this would put all the onus for contraception on women and without something to mitigate this one-sidedness and brings some semblance of equal responsibility it would indeed be toxic.



I have to agree with that.

Unless i'm mistaken even if tube tying is reversed then it decreases the chance of a woman carrying a healthy baby to term (I could be wrong), and can effect fertility - plus it's at least 10x the price of a vasectomy - in the uk at least.
There are safer alternatives available for women than tube tying, but they carry with it at least a monthly reminder for potentially 20 years or so.
I think if you had the choice of being a man vs being a woman when it comes to thinking about contraception I very much doubt you would want to be a woman, even with more options available to you.
The quicker a male pill is made available though, the better for all parties.

Glad you came around in the end

 

[MadMike]

Yes, I'm fully aware of the parameters. It's not a new idea. People like Tom Leykis have been pushing this idea for 20+ years. I see it as massively flawed due to the incentive structure it will produce and how that incentive structure will nudge the decisions of hundreds of thousands of males aged 17-24.

Not familiar with the fella, but reading his wikipedia page he sounds a bit like a crazed misogynist.

 

[MadMike]

Unless i'm mistaken even if tube tying is reversed then it decreases the chance of a woman carrying a healthy baby to term (I could be wrong), and can effect fertility - plus it's at least 10x the price of a vasectomy - in the uk at least.

That's for @Pogue Mahone, our resident doctor, to opine on. I have nothing to offer here.

I think if you had the choice of being a man vs being a woman when it comes to thinking about contraception I very much doubt you would want to be a woman, even with more options available to you.
The quicker a male pill is made available though, the better for all parties.

I think I would hate being a woman, in comparison to being a man, full stop. I would detest periods and loathe boobs (they seem to be a pain to exercise with, especially past a certain size, and I'm not even that fond of them as a cishetero man). Pregnancies would be out of the question, someone else can deal with that. Not sure if that's what you're asking but anyway....
Yes the more male contraception options the better, I think we can all agree.

Glad you came around in the end

I'm still not happy!
I think our current status quo could be improved on and be made better for men and women. But paper abortions on their own, without some other form of disincentivisation of negligence for men, would put all the onus on the sex that already gets the shortest end to the stick when it comes to the repercussions of unprotected sex: women.

 

[villain]

That's for @Pogue Mahone, our resident doctor, to opine on. I have nothing to offer here.


I think I would hate being a woman, in comparison to being a man, full stop. I would detest periods and loathe boobs (they seem to be a pain to exercise with, especially past a certain size, and I'm not even that fond of them as a cishetero man). Pregnancies would be out of the question, someone else can deal with that. Not sure if that's what you're asking but anyway....
Yes the more male contraception options the better, I think we can all agree.



I'm still not happy!
I think our current status quo could be improved on and be made better for men and women. But paper abortions on their own, without some other form of disincentivisation of negligence, would put all the onus on the sex that already gets the shortest end to the stick when it comes to the repercussions of unprotected sex: women.

My dad is a OB/GYN and told me this at some point, but I could be misremembering - would be good for Pogue to chime in, if I ask my dad i'm worried he'll think it's something i'm considering having done

Yes being a woman is certainly the worst deal out of the two sexes for sure, that's a rabbit hole I'm sure I and the other women on here could rant about for days on end!

Our status quo could definitely improved, and I think steps are being taken to that end. Gynaecology is still a comparatively new practice (I think less than 150 years old or so) and the first few decades were basically forced experiments, so there's clearly still a lot to learn still.
I think unless there's an incentive to pressure men into being more responsible about contraception not much will change, and while the biology doesn't affect men these advancements tend to be slower, but that's just my opinion.

 

[Penna]

@Mike Smalling, at 30 weeks the majority of babies born with decent care will live. Some 30-week premature babies don't even need much intervention after birth. I have looked after many of them on neonatal units.

If you saw a 30-week baby you wouldn't ask why it's different than at 10 weeks. You would basically have to kill a child which was capable of breathing independently outside the uterus.

When I was a student nurse, women could have abortions up to 28 weeks of pregnancy. I had the misfortune to be assisting in theatre at one of these at-the-edge-of-legal procedures. The girl was a teenager, a concealed pregnancy, just short of 28 weeks. There was only one consultant gynaecologist who would perform abortions and he was a very odd man.

This old consultant performed a hysterotomy (vertical incision into the uterus) and removed a crying baby boy, who was put into a metal dish, covered with a surgical cloth and left alone until he stopped crying and moving. I kept going to look at him, I couldn't believe what had just been done. To say it was traumatising is an understatement and not surprisingly, it has always stayed with me. There's other details I wouldn't even write on here, because it's too distressing..

Would that young woman have been told "Your baby was actually alive and so we just put him on one side until he died"? No, she'd have been left in blissful ignorance of what really happened. Women need to know what late abortions are like.

 

[Mike Smalling]

@Mike Smalling, at 30 weeks the majority of babies born with decent care will live. Some 30-week premature babies don't even need much intervention after birth. I have looked after many of them on neonatal units.

If you saw a 30-week baby you wouldn't ask why it's different than at 10 weeks. You would basically have to kill a child which was capable of breathing independently outside the uterus.

When I was a student nurse, women could have abortions up to 28 weeks of pregnancy. I had the misfortune to be assisting in theatre at one of these at-the-edge-of-legal procedures. The girl was a teenager, a concealed pregnancy, just short of 28 weeks. There was only one consultant gynaecologist who would perform abortions and he was a very odd man.

This old consultant performed a hysterotomy (vertical incision into the uterus) and removed a crying baby boy, who was put into a metal dish, covered with a surgical cloth and left alone until he stopped crying and moving. I kept going to look at him, I couldn't believe what had just been done. To say it was traumatising is an understatement and not surprisingly, it has always stayed with me. There's other details I wouldn't even write on here, because it's too distressing..

Would that young woman have been told "Your baby was actually alive and so we just put him on one side until he died"? No, she'd have been left in blissful ignorance of what really happened. Women need to know what late abortions are like.

That sounds awful to witness surely that was never the way it was supposed to be done?

 

[Scarlett Dracarys]

@Mike Smalling, at 30 weeks the majority of babies born with decent care will live. Some 30-week premature babies don't even need much intervention after birth. I have looked after many of them on neonatal units.

If you saw a 30-week baby you wouldn't ask why it's different than at 10 weeks. You would basically have to kill a child which was capable of breathing independently outside the uterus.

When I was a student nurse, women could have abortions up to 28 weeks of pregnancy. I had the misfortune to be assisting in theatre at one of these at-the-edge-of-legal procedures. The girl was a teenager, a concealed pregnancy, just short of 28 weeks. There was only one consultant gynaecologist who would perform abortions and he was a very odd man.

This old consultant performed a hysterotomy (vertical incision into the uterus) and removed a crying baby boy, who was put into a metal dish, covered with a surgical cloth and left alone until he stopped crying and moving. I kept going to look at him, I couldn't believe what had just been done. To say it was traumatising is an understatement and not surprisingly, it has always stayed with me. There's other details I wouldn't even write on here, because it's too distressing..

Would that young woman have been told "Your baby was actually alive and so we just put him on one side until he died"? No, she'd have been left in blissful ignorance of what really happened. Women need to know what late abortions are like.

This is just horrible. I got pregnant when I was a teen myself..15 to be exact. I was too far in when I realized that I was but I was educated enough about the process so I decided to keep my baby. I didn't have it in me then or now to do something like that. I made a decision to do it all on my own if I had to. Luckily for me I had help and I wasn't shunned like most young girls are when they announce they're pregnant. When my daughter was born I would stare at her and think what if I had decided to end my pregnancy. She is so beautiful and I would make the same decision over and over again if I had to. I know people are in different types of situations where they feel like it's the only choice they have but everyone is different. At the end of the day, it's their choice but late-term abortions are very very cruel.

 

[Penna]

That sounds awful to witness surely that was never the way it was supposed to be done?

That was how it was sometimes done then, at that stage of the pregnancy - but I don't think many doctors would have felt it was appropriate, not least because it left a scar on that girl's uterus, which would have given her potential issues in future pregnancies.

This is just horrible. I got pregnant when I was a teen myself..15 to be exact. I was too far in when I realized that I was but I was educated enough about the process so I decided to keep my baby. I didn't have it in me then or now to do something like that. I made a decision to do it all on my own if I had to. Luckily for me I had help and I wasn't shunned like most young girls are when they announce they're pregnant. When my daughter was born I would stare at her and think what if I had decided to end my pregnancy. She is so beautiful and I would make the same decision over and over again if I had to. I know people are in different types of situations where they feel like it's the only choice they have but everyone is different. At the end of the day, it's their choice but late-term abortions are very very cruel.

You did a wonderful thing and I'm so glad it all worked out for you.

 

[nickm]

I find it insane that some women, who are not opposed to abortion mind you, decide to have the baby when they accidentally get pregnant, even though they know that the guy don't want the kid. It's seriously fecked up.

Why is that insane? I have relatives and friends who this happened to. They'd always wanted kids but for medical reasons thought it could never happen. The kid came along accidentally anyway so they decided to keep it, as there was no guarantee lightning would strike twice. The father sadly didn't want to be involved.

I do think the child's needs must come first in this wherever the fathers' regrets about being reminded of basic facts of biology. IMO women by dint of it being their bodies, their investment, rightly get to decide this stuff, men just don't so if a man doesn't want to make a kid , he should make sure. And if theres a mistake and a kid does come along, take some responsibility for that for the sake of the kid.

Paper abortion is just a legalised way of making life even harder for some kids. A winner for deadbeat dads I guess.

 

[Norman Brownbutter]

Of course it's bullshit. That it stands should tell you the viability of a "paper abortion" law: DOA, regardless of it's merits.

I honestly don't know why a vasectomy is so scary to some men. It really eliminates that possibility.

You dont know why someone would be scared at the idea of someone taking a very sharp blade and pair of scissors to their balls? Really???

 

[adexkola]

You dont know why someone would be scared at the idea of someone taking a very sharp blade and pair of scissors to their balls? Really???

It's done under anesthesia

From what I've read it's a relatively simple procedure... Some sore balls for the next few days but nothing a bag of frozen peas won't fix

Seriously considering one... Few things I fear more than an unplanned child

 

[NotThatSoph]

It's done under anesthesia

From what I've read it's a relatively simple procedure... Some sore balls for the next few days but nothing a bag of frozen peas won't fix

Seriously considering one... Few things I fear more than an unplanned child

Guy I know told me about when he got it done. Went fine, doctor told him to just take it easy for a few days. He decided to do a 6 hour drive instead, and the day after things had turned dark blue bordering on black. This is one of the whitest guys I know.

Stay on the couch!

 

[MadMike]

It's done under anesthesia

From what I've read it's a relatively simple procedure... Some sore balls for the next few days but nothing a bag of frozen peas won't fix

Seriously considering one... Few things I fear more than an unplanned child

How about unplanned triplets? Happened to a mate. He’s coping but that’s about it, his life changed forever.

 

[adexkola]

How about unplanned triplets? Happened to a mate. He’s coping but that’s about it, his life changed forever.

Reading this gave me a cold chill

 

[MadMike]

Reading this gave me a cold chill

I asked him if he changed his method of contraception since. He said no need, he had the best method of contraception now: a dead sex life.

He’s 39, his 3 boys are only 2 so he’s fecked for a good while longer.

 

[Drifter]

Don Winslow Films - #TexasWarOnWomen

 

[OleBoiii]

Why is that insane?

Ok, let me just paint the picture that I'm talking about:

A man visits a city that he has never been to for a work conference. After the conference he meets up with a woman through Tinder. They get to know each other really well for being a first date. They both learn that the other person is liberal and progressive and that they find family planning to be important. As far as abortion goes, they are both pro choice. The man makes it clear that he don't want kids for at least 5 years. Possibly never. He's also leaving the city tomorrow and never coming back. It's clear that it's only going to be a one-night-stand. Both of them use protection(him condoms, she on the pill).

Despite this, she still gets pregnant. And now things get interesting. While she is liberal, progressive, intelligent and value family planning, she's also reached an age where her biological clock is ticking ominously. Because of this, a new thought has started to creep into her head recently: "will I actually have an abortion if I accidentally get pregnant now?" Had you asked her this a few months back, then the answer would have been a resounding 'yes'. But now she's suddenly not so sure. Her wish for a baby has started to make her irrational. Being a single mother suddenly seems better than the idea of never having kids of her own. It doesn't matter if her child gets a difficult life or that she potentially ruins the life of another man. Her wish trumps everything. And thus she decides to keep the baby, regardless of what the man thinks.

From a purely moral standpoint, the woman in this example is not in the right in my opinion. The man has made his intentions very clear and used protection on top of this. He has also been given every reason to believe that on the off change(probably 1000 to 1) that she gets pregnant, then she will have an abortion(which he of course will help pay for).

At the end of the day, there is a big difference between not wanting an abortion because it goes against your religion/personal beliefs and not wanting an abortion because you just suddenly want a kid and you haven't found a man who wants to settle down with you.

 

[MadMike]

Bit of an extreme scenario there. Statistically speaking pill and condom reduce your chance of impregnation in a one-off night of sex, to less than 1 in 50 million. That’s provided both have good fertility to begin with. It’s practically impossible.

If a pregnancy happens given this level of precaution, you better start looking for foul play cause it is far, far more probable.

 

[OleBoiii]

Bit of an extreme scenario there. Statistically pill and condom reduce your chance of impregnation in a one-off night of sex, to less than 1 in 10 million. That’s provided both have good fertility to begin with. It’s practically impossible.

Math isn't my strongest subject, but I thought that condoms were only 98% effective even when used correctly? And birth control pills are even less effective?

But let's say that she forgot to take a pill or something to make it more realistic. It doesn't really change much. He still used a condom. He still made his intentions clear. And every thing the woman said during the date suggests that she's on the same wavelength as him.

 

[MadMike]

Math isn't my strongest subject, but I thought that condoms were only 98% effective even when used correctly? And birth control pills are even less effective?

Condoms are 98% effective and the pill is 99% effective but you need to read what that means and how the studies are compiled. This isn’t their one-off chance.

The effectiveness is measured by including couples in a study, where the couples use that method of contraception exclusively and without interruption for a period of 1 year. If 2 in 100 couples get pregnant then they say it has 98% effectiveness. The conditions for taking part in the study are good fertility (no infertile people to distort the rates) and an active sex life that averages at least twice per week (or 100 sessions for the year).

I think from that you can deduce that their one-off chance is less than 2 in 10000 and 1 in 10000 respectively if fertility is good. Simple statistics says you should multiply these fractions and end up with a maximum of 1 in 50m chance if both used simultaneously. These odds are impossibly small. Hence foul play (lying, coercion, damaged contraceptives) are far more likely.

 

[MadMike]

But let's say that she forgot to take a pill or something to make it more realistic. It doesn't really change much. He still used a condom. He still made his intentions clear. And every thing the woman said during the date suggests that she's on the same wavelength as him.

You’re preaching to the choir. I keep saying that in this particular aspect, men get the short end of the stick.

It’s just hard to argue that we get the short end of the stick overall when it comes to the repercussions of unwanted pregnancies (we don’t carry the baby, Or go through labour or have the dilemma/pain pain of abortion etc.) and it’s also hard to police these things. But I feel you concern, don’t get me wrong, I’ve been talking about this for the last 10 pages

 

[sebsheep]

Math isn't my strongest subject, but I thought that condoms were only 98% effective even when used correctly? And birth control pills are even less effective?

But let's say that she forgot to take a pill or something to make it more realistic. It doesn't really change much. He still used a condom. He still made his intentions clear. And every thing the woman said during the date suggests that she's on the same wavelength as him.

98% isn't 100% though, a guy using a condom because he does not want the person he is having intercourse with to get pregnant is taking a calculated risk. No matter his intentions, the chance is there and he should know that. It doesn't mean a woman is then wrong for wanting to keep a child, the reality of being pregnant can be very different from the idea.

That whole scenario wording looks like it was inspired by Ben Shapiro

 

[oneniltothearsenal]

Ok, let me just paint the picture that I'm talking about:

A man visits a city that he has never been to for a work conference. After the conference he meets up with a woman through Tinder. They get to know each other really well for being a first date. They both learn that the other person is liberal and progressive and that they find family planning to be important. As far as abortion goes, they are both pro choice. The man makes it clear that he don't want kids for at least 5 years. Possibly never. He's also leaving the city tomorrow and never coming back. It's clear that it's only going to be a one-night-stand. Both of them use protection(him condoms, she on the pill).

Despite this, she still gets pregnant. And now things get interesting. While she is liberal, progressive, intelligent and value family planning, she's also reached an age where her biological clock is ticking ominously. Because of this, a new thought has started to creep into her head recently: "will I actually have an abortion if I accidentally get pregnant now?" Had you asked her this a few months back, then the answer would have been a resounding 'yes'. But now she's suddenly not so sure. Her wish for a baby has started to make her irrational. Being a single mother suddenly seems better than the idea of never having kids of her own. It doesn't matter if her child gets a difficult life or that she potentially ruins the life of another man. Her wish trumps everything. And thus she decides to keep the baby, regardless of what the man thinks.

From a purely moral standpoint, the woman in this example is not in the right in my opinion. The man has made his intentions very clear and used protection on top of this. He has also been given every reason to believe that on the off change(probably 1000 to 1) that she gets pregnant, then she will have an abortion(which he of course will help pay for).

At the end of the day, there is a big difference between not wanting an abortion because it goes against your religion/personal beliefs and not wanting an abortion because you just suddenly want a kid and you haven't found a man who wants to settle down with you.

Here is another scenario if you allowed "paper abortions". College-age dude wants to get laid. He goes to many college parties and hits up drunk girls. He never bothers wearing protection because he knows he can just "paper abortion". Multiply that behavior by dude belonging to a fraternity with a culture that values sleeping with as many girls as possible knowing they can just "paper abortion" if anything happens. Multiply that by how many frats are out there, then add in all the non college-age partying males that might take advantage of such a law where they can just opt out of any parental responsibility. Teenage boys might talk their girlfriends into not using a condom, or take advantage of drunk girls at parties knowing they can just paper out of a potential baby. Men who cheat on their wives, both rich and poor, lose the responsibility of taking care of kids that result from philandering which at least provides some disincentive on not always completely irresponsible.

Your case sounds so exceedingly rare, just on statistics of the protection angle let alone the other specific parameters you listed, that it's not valid to make policy based on such rare cases. Other laws would be more effective at handling such outside the norm situations. The scenarios I just mentioned, on the other hand, are exponentially more common and far, far more likely to explode into problematic patterns.

While not perfect now, the incentive structure as it is, is still far better for a society then what would exist if you allowed "paper abortions".

 

[Don't Kill Bill]

My dad is a OB/GYN and told me this at some point, but I could be misremembering - would be good for Pogue to chime in, if I ask my dad i'm worried he'll think it's something i'm considering having done

Yes being a woman is certainly the worst deal out of the two sexes for sure, that's a rabbit hole I'm sure I and the other women on here could rant about for days on end!

Our status quo could definitely improved, and I think steps are being taken to that end. Gynaecology is still a comparatively new practice (I think less than 150 years old or so) and the first few decades were basically forced experiments, so there's clearly still a lot to learn still.
I think unless there's an incentive to pressure men into being more responsible about contraception not much will change, and while the biology doesn't affect men these advancements tend to be slower, but that's just my opinion.

Until the kids born and you love them and would sooner die than be be separated from them. At that point there is only one legal rights side you would want to be on and it isn't the mans side, if you are honest.

Can I ask you a question?

If the man has a vasectomy and still gets the lady pregnant because vasectomies are not 100% effective. Would you support the removal of his responsibility should the woman choose to keep the child knowing his objection?

 

[Wibble]

The recent iteration from conservatives is to quote a poll of 5000 biologists where the majority believe "life" begins at conception and claim a scientific consensus in support of abortion being the murder of human life.

Depends what they mean by life I guess. Doesn't necessarily have any implications for personhood. And some of the 5000 will be highly religious I guess.

 

[Jericholyte2]

Here is another scenario if you allowed "paper abortions". College-age dude wants to get laid. He goes to many college parties and hits up drunk girls. He never bothers wearing protection because he knows he can just "paper abortion". Multiply that behavior by dude belonging to a fraternity with a culture that values sleeping with as many girls as possible knowing they can just "paper abortion" if anything happens. Multiply that by how many frats are out there, then add in all the non college-age partying males that might take advantage of such a law where they can just opt out of any parental responsibility. Teenage boys might talk their girlfriends into not using a condom, or take advantage of drunk girls at parties knowing they can just paper out of a potential baby. Men who cheat on their wives, both rich and poor, lose the responsibility of taking care of kids that result from philandering which at least provides some disincentive on not always completely irresponsible.

Your case sounds so exceedingly rare, just on statistics of the protection angle let alone the other specific parameters you listed, that it's not valid to make policy based on such rare cases. Other laws would be more effective at handling such outside the norm situations. The scenarios I just mentioned, on the other hand, are exponentially more common and far, far more likely to explode into problematic patterns.

While not perfect now, the incentive structure as it is, is still far better for a society then what would exist if you allowed "paper abortions".

Exactly, the relative frequency of the first example (both wearing protection, a 1-in-50 million chance) wouldn’t come close to justifying the need for legislation that would allow the proliferation of the second example (men abusing that freedom).

 

[villain]

Until the kids born and you love them and would sooner die than be be separated from them. At that point there is only one legal rights side you would want to be on and it isn't the mans side, if you are honest.

Can I ask you a question?

If the man has a vasectomy and still gets the lady pregnant because vasectomies are not 100% effective. Would you support the removal of his responsibility should the woman choose to keep the child knowing his objection?

Nah being a woman is still getting the worse deal out of the two sexes for a variety of reasons.

And yes I’ve already made it clear that a paper abortion in the event that both parties agreed prior to sex to having no kids as well as taking precautions to avoid pregnancy, then still ending up in that situation and one side negates on the prior agreement, would be suitable.
It still doesn’t make it a sensible law to put in place because it becomes almost impossible to enforce without incentivising bad behaviour.

 

[Sparky_Hughes]

It's done under anesthesia

From what I've read it's a relatively simple procedure... Some sore balls for the next few days but nothing a bag of frozen peas won't fix

Seriously considering one... Few things I fear more than an unplanned child

I had mine about a month ago, do it mate. Best decision I've ever made

 

[OleBoiii]

@oneniltothearsenal

This is why it's important to read the other posts as well. Like you, I am against paper abortions. From a legal standpoint that is.

I was simply "challenged" to write why I think it's highly amoral to keep the baby in some cases.

If you are pro-choice, don't fear the medical implications of an abortion, know that the man don't want the kid and that he used protection, and you still go ahead and have the kid, then you are not morally in the right, imo. Especially if it was a one-night-stand or something like that. Morality and legality are completely different topics, as far as I am concerned. Cheating on your partner is also morally wrong(in most cases), but I wouldn't want a law against it.

 

[Superden]

@Maxii, didnt read all your post, my brain blocked it. all i saw were the words scrotum and then burning gun. think i may have passed out.

 

[oneniltothearsenal]

@oneniltothearsenal

This is why it's important to read the other posts as well. Like you, I am against paper abortions. From a legal standpoint that is.

I was simply "challenged" to write why I think it's highly amoral to keep the baby in some cases.

If you are pro-choice, don't fear the medical implications of an abortion, know that the man don't want the kid and that he used protection, and you still go ahead and have the kid, then you are not morally in the right, imo. Especially if it was a one-night-stand or something like that. Morality and legality are completely different topics, as far as I am concerned. Cheating on your partner is also morally wrong(in most cases), but I wouldn't want a law against it.

It wasn't really clear to me what you support because you first wrote that you can get behind the idea of paper abortions to a certain date. I don't really agree with your judgment of the woman in that case as "highly amoral" either. For me it's simple, if a man is not certain then don't have penetrative sex when out of town for a conference with a woman you just met. You can both just do oral and ensure no pregnancy.

 

[OleBoiii]

if a man is not certain then don't have penetrative sex

So 'never' then. Looks like abstinence is back in the menu, boys!

then don't have penetrative sex when out of town for a conference with a woman you just met.

I chose an extreme example for a reason, but for what it's worth: I'd argue that it's even more amoral to keep the kid if you get knocked up by a feck buddy who trusts you.

And for those who stumbled upon the thread who can't be bothered to go back: I'm specifically talking about women who are pro-choice, not afraid of the medical risks and normally would have had an abortion. In other words: women who suddenly decide that they want a kid at all cost, no matter how unreasonable it is. Women who indirectly tell the man: "I already got what I wanted. Feel free to stick around, though. You'll pay child support anyways."

 

[oneniltothearsenal]

So 'never' then. Looks like abstinence is back in the menu, boys!

That's your interpretation. It's pretty clear when you know someone where they stand. It's not even remotely the same if you know someone for a while then choosing to have sex with someone you literally met a few hours earlier (as per your example). Maybe "certain" is not specific enough. I don't believe it's possible to be "reasonably certain" with someone you just met no matter how a conversation. You can be reasonably certain with someone you know and have experience with and seen behavior over months. Otherwise, feel free to take risks but be aware of those risks. Another way to put it is if you don't feel like you can trust a woman then don't have sex with her. that's obviously not never and everyone will have a different standard of trust.

 

[OleBoiii]

That's your interpretation. It's pretty clear when you know someone where they stand. It's not even remotely the same if you know someone for a while then choosing to have sex with someone you literally met a few hours earlier (as per your example). Maybe "certain" is not specific enough. I don't believe it's possible to be "reasonably certain" with someone you just met no matter how a conversation. You can be reasonably certain with someone you know and have experience with and seen behavior over months. Otherwise, feel free to take risks but be aware of those risks. Another way to put it is if you don't feel like you can trust a woman then don't have sex with her. that's obviously not never and everyone will have a different standard of trust.

I feel like we are dodging the core of the moral issue here, though. I mean, can you imagine the conversation if both parties were honest?

Her: I'm pregnant...
Him: Shit... I can't remember the condom breaking?
Her: No, I don't think it broke.
Him: Ok, so what do we do now? It feels awkward to bring up abortion so quickly, but you know that I absolutely don't want kids. And I'm pretty sure that you also feel that same way?
Her: Actually, I'm going to keep it.
Him: Oh... Is it because you fear the medical procedure?
Her: No, I didn't even think about that.
Him: But you are still pro-choice, right? I remember we discussed politics once.
Her: Of course I am!
Him: So... Why do you want to keep the kid then? We are never going to date and you know that I don't want kids.
Her: Yes, but I did some thinking very recently and now I want kids.
Him: So find someone who wants kids then!
Her: But I'm not sure if I'll find someone before it's too late!
Him: So you'd rather be a single mother, potentially forever, and feck up my life, just because you are scared that you wont find someone who'll willingly have kids with you?
Her: Basically, yes. Sorry and thank you for the sperm!

 

[sebsheep]

I feel like we are dodging the core of the moral issue here, though. I mean, can you imagine the conversation if both parties were honest?

Her: I'm pregnant...
Him: Shit... I can't remember the condom breaking?
Her: No, I don't think it broke.
Him: Ok, so what do we do now? It feels awkward to bring up abortion so quickly, but you know that I absolutely don't want kids. And I'm pretty sure that you also feel that same way?
Her: Actually, I'm going to keep it.
Him: Oh... Is it because you fear the medical procedure?
Her: No, I didn't even think about that.
Him: But you are still pro-choice, right? I remember we discussed politics once.
Her: Of course I am!
Him: So... Why do you want to keep the kid then? We are never going to date and you know that I don't want kids.
Her: Yes, but I did some thinking very recently and now I want kids.
Him: So find someone who wants kids then!
Her: But I'm not sure if I'll find someone before it's too late!
Him: So you'd rather be a single mother, potentially forever, and feck up my life, just because you are scared that you wont find someone who'll willingly have kids with you?
Her: Basically, yes. Sorry and thank you for the sperm!

This looks like something from those twitter stories about men writing female characters in really weird ways.

 

[OleBoiii]

This looks like something from those twitter stories about men writing female characters in really weird ways.

That is because I purposely wrote it as a "If X were honest" gag to get my point across. Of course nobody talks like that. I'm not gonna write a novel with long backstories and shit to get a very simple point across

Do you deny that there are thousands of women every year who choose to keep the baby after an accidental pregnancy for no other reason than simply wanting a child? Do you, given the scenario above, still think they their are morally in the right? If so: why?

 

[sebsheep]

That is because I purposely wrote it as a "If X were honest" gag to get my point across. Of course nobody talks like that. I'm not gonna write a novel with long backstories and shit to get a very simple point across

Do you deny that there are thousands of women every year who choose to keep the baby after an accidental pregnancy for no other reason than simply wanting a child? Do you, given the scenario above, still think they their are morally in the right? If so: why?

I don't keep track of the reasons people are having babies tbh. I don't think there is anything wrong with women having babies from unplanned pregnancies because they decide it's what they want, why would there be?
Even in your crazy scenario the woman is fine from a moral standpoint in my view. The methods of contraception are not 100% effective so there is always the possibility of a pregnancy occurring, the guy has sex with the woman knowing this. If the woman then gets pregnant then for me it's her decision as to whether or not she keeps the child, it's her body. Conversations that happened beforehand about him not wanting a baby don't really matter, nor does her saying she didn't want one either. She is allowed to change her mind.

 

[Listar]

Yet an act of sex that has the potential to conceive life involves both a male and a female body. So yes, the risk is all on the woman but the responsibility falls on both and in the case of rape falls entirely on the man. We’re discussing this in the context of a modern, socially conscious society, so the Neanderthal position of “it’s the women who have the ovaries so it’s the women who have the problem” is entirely redundant when trying to figure out a balanced solution where both sexes take equal responsibility.

One solution is to have capital punishment (preferable stoning) for men who have sex outside of marriage. We did that to women ages ago so its only apt we turn the tables. I bet the need for abortion goes straight down.

This is better than all men having vasectomy (think about the costs)