The fake pregnancy is a mean - malicious even - strategy for ferreting out this guy's real feelings about abortion. If he truly believes that an embryo is a person deserving of society's protection then he will likely be traumatized and alienated by this prank. And what if he does? It doesn't mean he's an unrepentant asshole who deserves to have a woman he cares about fuck with him like this. Bad advice. Boooo

Better advice? Tell him that you're concerned that his position on abortion is a red-herring, that many men who feel this way are misogynist pigs, and that you cannot have your body in the hands of a man who holds to those views. See what he says. Maybe he's just a sweet man with a soft spot for the unborn. You don't know yet.

First of all, he said he thought abortion is wrong, not that it should be banned. I thought the whole point of being pro-choice is that it's ok to personally think abortion is wrong without imposing that choice on others. So I think to break up over this is crazy- almost as crazy as lying about being pregnant to play a mind game. I agree with you Dan 99% of the time but I think you jumped the tracks weith this one.

@9 a tumor has a genome that is often wildly different from the human it developed in. Oh, and it's definitely human cells. Should we think of all the little tumors as people too.

Abortion is an an issue where you CAN agree to disagree as long as everyone (the woman) retains her rights in case an abortion becomes necessary.

I know this because I am an ob-gyn who performs abortions, and my husband is pro-life. He knows what I do and lets me rant about the poor access to contraception that makes my job difficult and I let him rant about Obamacare this and that.

If both parties respect each others opinions and share other values, this issue does not need to define and ruin their relationship.

He said he was against abortion, not that it should be banned. I thought the whole point of being pro CHOICE is that it's ok to be personally against abortion as long as you don't ban it for those who are ok with it. To break up over this is crazy- almost as crazy as pretending to be pregnant to play a mind game. I usually agree with 99% of your opinions Dan but this is the 1% time I disagree.

sorry, new to the site, posted twice by mistake (not trying to double my input!) Should be able to delete one's own post . . .

Good job there advising your reader to play creepy mind games with her boyfriend.

I think the big question here, one that none of the sides wants to face, is what makes a person a person. We have made decisions on a number of borderline cases -- to give an example, a comatose patient is a person even if there is no personal activity going on in his/her brain and even if the doctors think that there probably won't be in the future (basically because it was one before the coma, and we think personhood only ends with death). Another culture might decide that, in this case, we're already dealing with an empty shell, even if the machines can keep that body alive.

Humans are clearly a phenomenon rather than a thing. They "start" at gametogenesis, way before they even have a sigle, individual DNA strain, and they "end" at death -- hopefully after producing a series of new gametes, some of which will hopefully evolve into a human body. Humans are a process, with several stages; a shape-shifting cylinder in the (old) forth-dimensional time-space continuum, changing width, girth, shape, but remaining always continuous, always unbroken. We are like the egg that becomes a caterpillar that becomes butterfly that then lays eggs from which new larvae will come.

A lot of ink is spilled on the question of whether some of the first phases (or of the final or post-final ones) are to be called "human". To me, this is all a cultural problem, not a scienfic one; it depends on your philosophy, not on the reality of the long process that is a human being -- though it will take cues from some of its phase transition stages and insist that "something happened here" that made this part of the long process "truly human". Be it the formation of a single individual DNA strain at conception, or the moment of "viability", or the moment of birth, or a few years after that (as the Ancient Greeks used to think) -- whatever your choice, it is simply a line that you're drawing to divide some part of the human process from some other part, for practical reasons.

To (sincere, not simply political) anti-choicers, humanity begins at conception; so this is where they draw the line, and the human process that came before that moment is simply discarded, declared non-human. The basic reason is pragmaticity: we cannot do anything to save all those gametes (which I suppose Christian ethics would dictate we should save if we believed they were "already human"), so we conveniently prefer to follow the traditional view that they are not "human lives" and thus need not concern us. At best, they are only "potential humans".

To (sincere, not simply political) pro-choicers, humanity begins at some point after conception. Birth was the usual point and, historically, it was traditionally accepted as the moment of the beginning of (at least legal, often also real) human life; that it no longer is accepted as such is an interesting phenomenon (part of another tendency in our culture that deserves separate analysis). Pro-choicers have to find some other moment -- a few weeks, a few months -- at which the fetus becomes 'viable' and is therefore 'human'. Again, for pragmatic reasons: pro-choicers don't want to control the mother's body or choices, so they have to give her some time after conception at which to exert her right to choose what to do with her body; but this is only possible if human life is seen as beginning at some point after conception (hence 'viability').

So I frankly don't see the whole abortion debate as a substantive issue. It's simply a question of where we draw the line -- and draw we do, because no culture has ever embranced the whole human phenomenon, in all its length, as one process. Ours is no exception.

The arguments should be pragmatic -- how to save more lives, how to respect people's individuality and right to control their own bodies, fully understanding the need for pragmatic compromise here. What would cause more harm, more unhappiness, more suffering? It seems to me quite arguable that prohibitting abortion would cause more suffering than it would solve. The pragmatic equations would yield a net negative result. Which is why I'm pro-choice.

That people, however, prefer to frame the debate on first principles -- it's a human life! no, it's not! -- rather than on pragmatic ones shows, I think, that the fullness of the human phenomenon is really not accepted by anybody. They are having cultural battles masquerading as substance, scientific, moral battles -- simply because they can't see that this is at heart a pragmatic question with cultural consequences, not a biological (or even philosophical) one.

And that, I think, is a pity. Especially because this implies that the debate will never go away. A belief is a belief is a belief, and there is no way to repudiate it; it may become more or less popular in time, it may become dominant or it may disappear, but it cannot be disproved. And yet people get so angry about it!...

(To say nothing of those participants who aren't sincere, and who are just trying to carry out some political agenda... But I leave these out, because they really have nothing interesting to contribute to the debate.)

I have to disagree with you Dan, which I rarely do. "Faking" a pregnancy for any reason is shitty. Period end, DTMF-level shitty.I'm pro-choice but I also can at least understand how a person would have a serious dislike for abortion. I don't think that abortion is ever a "good" thing, and I think that reducing the number of abortions is a legitimate goal. The way to do that is through increased sex education/access to birth control, etc..., but just because those are my beliefs doesn't mean that I'm a fan of abortion. Anyways, you rule but you're off base on this one.

I love Dan`s column every week, but wow did he drop the ball this week. Advising the girl to lie about a pregnancy is the worst advice ever. Hopefully he will retract it next week...

A final comment, on our culture and birth no longer being the accepted moment at which human life begins.

Many say that this is all about conservatives trying to regulate women's (and actually also men's) sex life. And indeed it is: abortion politics is riddled with the desire to make people conform to the "right" kind of sexuality, which, to conservative right-wingers, means marriage only and only for procreation.

But there is something else: a tendency in our society, as we become more "enlightened," to see life and feelings in, and to ascribe rights to, more and more entities in the world. From the abolition of slavery to the animal-rights movement, we have been seeing and admiring life ('that in others which is like that which is in me') in more and more entities, and we have developed a stronger desire to accept and protect these other entities.

In such a climate, is it a surprise that more and more people also ascribe life, feelings, humanity, a soul, etc. to a fetus?

This is especially difficult for liberal left-wingers, since they represent inclusivity, the desire to reach out to others and form a larger communion. There is something apparently self-contradictory with ascribing feelings and rights to animals and not doing that to fetuses; and sufficiently many liberal left-wingers vaguely feel that. Which means that right-wingers have an unexpected ally in this "outreach" tendency in our society: an already present predisposition to be open-minded and think that, if something could possibly be alive, feeling, and human, then maybe it is.

It is a bit surprising that it should be so, when one thinks of the very different origins of this feeling for left- and right-wingers (respectively, the desire for inclusivity, and a desire to keep tradition and to control people's sexual freedom). But it's not the first time that history makes strange bedfellows. Think of second-wave feminists like Catharine MacKinnon siding with religious activists on the topic of pornography.

@63 mydriasis:

I agree that personhood isn't a scientific concept. The problem is that it is a legal concept with huge ramifications for all the parties involved. If a single-cell human zygote is a person, it stands to reason that as a person it should have a full set of those rights that go with personhood. But those rights infringe severely on the personhood rights of the woman carrying that zygote. We find ourselves in the position of saying either a) it's a real, live, fully-qualified human being, but it's still okay to kill it, or b) Mom is a real, live, fully qualified human being, but her zygote has more control over her body than she does herself. She is a lesser human being than the single-celled creature inhabiting her abdomen.

Saying "fine, then a zygote isn't a person" isn't just a way out of that paradox. It's also a far more realistic interpretation of the physical situation. A zygote is a lot more like an amoeba than it is like a fully formed, fully-functioning human being. The idea of compromising the rights of a woman to her own body in order to protect the interests of what is functionally an amoeba is absurd.

You ask in #18: "So we're judging humanity by the number of cells?" The answer is Yes, of course we are. When the number is within the normal range of tens of TRILLIONS of cells, no. When it's one cell, or two, or a few thousand, or even a few million cells, yes. That creature is not functionally human. It is even less functionally human than the brain-dead accident victim whose life support we sadly shut off. It doesn't even have a brain, or enough of one, to qualify as brain-dead under human functional standards.

True, it will be a human being eventually, given a nurturing environment, time, and lack of interference, but it isn't one NOW. Rights are derived from current status, not future status. Children are not allowed to vote, drink, smoke, drive, have sex, sign contracts, et cetera, even though they will be adults capable of all of the above one day, given a nurturing environment, time, and lack of interference. Likewise, you can't collect on your life insurance until you are actually dead, even though it is known beyond any shadow of doubt that you will be inescapably eligible to collect eventually.

An acorn is not an oak tree, despite containing a unique, living specimen of the oak genome. There is no reason that human development escapes that logic.

Crinoline, in comment 6, is right on.

I was shocked Dan recommended such a douchebag lie. Never lie to a man about pregnancy. Nothing good can come from it.

This horrible advice is shaking my respect for Dan. How could he be so wrong and give such ruinous advice? Really, this disturbs me.

I think I'm with most people here that lying about an imaginary pregnancy is a bad idea.

But I do think that you should have a frank discussion about what each of you would do if you faced an unexpected pregnancy. That's something you probably want to know.

I had an unexpected pregnancy, in a newish relationship with a pro-life man. He supported me in getting an abortion, but it was very hard on him, and very hard on our relationship. I don't regret my decision, but sure as hell wish we'd used a condom! Incidentally, we did reconcile and got married several years later, so this is not the totally insoluble thing that some people might think it would be.

@30 - Thank you. Thank you, thank you, thank you.

@9 When it can viably exist as a organism separate from its mother.

Add me to the list of people who think lying is a horrible idea. Sure, it'll flesh out his "real views," but it will do nothing to "save" the relationship.

I recommend continued discussions on the topic where you can flesh out his beliefs in detail, and see how they sit with you.

It's difficult to think of an analogy where the guy is in LIFE's shoes. They all sound ridiculous, but I'll give it a shot anyway:

If there was a woman who believed that I, as a man, should not legally be "allowed" to have an orgasm unless I was ejaculating into a fertile, ovulating woman's vagina, I would not date that woman.

It wouldn't matter to me how conscientious she was on other issues, or how sincerely she believed that sperm are people. The bottom line is that someone who truly viewed me as an equal would be INCAPABLE of believing anything like this about men, and anyone who doesn't view me as an equal is not worth my time.

For whatever reason, this is not something men have to deal with outside of hypothetical analogies. For women, however, it's a different story, and you should demand partners who think of you as ranking somewhere above livestock. Even if he's "sweet and loving" towards his livestock.

People can come around, if they are open to discussion. My partner changed his mind on abortion after we were together for a couple of years. ... I'm more concerned about the second part; the kid caught looking at violent porn. Yeah, maybe he just discovered that he's kinky. Could be. But as someone in the same situation right now, I think I can add a bit to the conversation. We caught our kid looking at violent porn, too. Porn of women being raped, beaten, spit on, etc. The first time, it was "Maybe he was just looking for the most shocking stuff." Around the sixth time we realized it was more serious. Not only is he continually searching out the stuff, he is also using violent behavior to control people and make them do what he wants. He also seeks out smaller, younger females and tries to be alone with them. !!!!!!!!! I have seen him hurt other kids on purpose, coldly. I could go on and on. The point being, sometimes it's just early kink. Sure. But sometimes it's the sign of something much more serious and dangerous. Please be aware of that, Dan, and put that possibility forward as well, for the safety of all kids.

Add me to the chorus of people saying Dan really needs to issue a retraction of his advice to LIFE.

First of all, as someone else pointed out, there is a lot of "them crazy bitches'll lie about anything, like pregnancy and harassment and rape" misogyny out there, and it's a terrible idea to add to that.

Second, playing that sort of mind-game is such a severe breach of trust that I would say *that* is much more of a DTMFA case than holding pro-life views. Imagine you and your S.O. had opposing views about euthanasia, and he came home one day claiming to have been diagnosed with a terminal illness, only to reveal later that he'd just done it to call you on the carpet about your views.

Third, there are more ways to change someone's mind than telling a big, fat, trust-destroying lie. When Mr. ShifterCat and I were teenagers, he was pro-life. We had some awful arguments about it, but I presented my case well enough that today, while he's still not comfortable with the subject of abortion, he's definitely pro-choice.

I'm more concerned about the second part; the kid caught looking at violent porn. Yeah, maybe he just discovered that he's kinky. Could be. But as someone in the same situation right now, I think I can add a bit to the conversation. We caught our kid looking at violent porn, too. Porn of women being raped, beaten, spit on, etc. The first time, it was "Maybe he was just looking for the most shocking stuff." Around the sixth time we realized it was more serious. Not only is he continually searching out the stuff, he is also using violent behavior to control people and make them do what he wants. He also seeks out smaller, younger females and tries to be alone with them. !!!!!!!!! I have seen him hurt other kids on purpose, coldly. I could go on and on. The point being, sometimes it's just early kink. Sure. But sometimes it's the sign of something much more serious and dangerous. Please be aware of that, Dan, and put that possibility forward as well, for the safety of all kids.

Yikes, jellybeans, sorry to hear that. Have you found anything to be done for/about your kid?

@77: The reason the one-cell argument is not specious is that people want to legally define personhood at the one cell stage. If that's how the law is going to treat it, then that's the scenario that gets argued.

Of course people have abortions much later than one cell. That doesn't invalidate the developmental issues along the way. One cell is merely one stage in that spectrum. It happens to be the most extreme (and therefore most absurd) stage, but that's where the pro-life people want to draw the line.

If this wasn't about legal attempts to control women's bodies against their will, we wouldn't be having this conversation. It would be a lot more of "Fine, you believe what you believe and I'll believe what I believe" and "If you don't believe in abortions, don't have one" and that would be as far as it went.

@113(avast), you're actually stating quite clearly what I think pro-choicers (and anti-choicers for that matter) should state clearly: namely, that this is a pragmatic question, not a philosophico-scientifical one.

The point is indeed what the consequences are, what problems will arise or be solved by a particular choice about where in the human phenomenon we draw the line between (legal) personhood and lack thereof.

But most people want to consider that a scientific (or philosophical) question. They want to "be right" about when personhood starts.

When in this case the best we can hope for is to be right about what causes more problems and what doesn't.

We should stick to that, and be a little less concered with Big Questions (which actually aren't). But I won't hold my breath. People will go on talking as if this were indeed a scientific question -- as if science could look at the number of cells and tell us what The Truth(inc) is about personhood, and we'd have to take it no matter what the consequences are.

It's like deciding that we come of age at 18 (or 21) rather than earlier or later. It's a pragmatic matter -- informed, but not resolved, by science.

Cost-benefit analysis is the most reasonable way of approaching this problem; but alas, very few on either side will consider it as the main source of their activism. Which truly is a pity.

I hope Dan's advice to fake pregnancy was just a rhetorical move and not actual advice. If anyone did that to me, even if the outcome was exactly what she'd hoped for and she was thrilled, I'd dump her on the spot.

Real-life example of people who are anti-choice-in-the-abstract (but then suddenly not in reality): http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2012/10/sco…

Of course Dan's advice for LIFE is absolutely ridiculous, and if taken, would result in a breakup either way- she dumps him because he's anti-abortion, or he dumps her because she's a manipulative liar. But that's not really what I want to comment on.

I am absolutely pro-choice. I firmly believe in a woman's right to choose. But that's just it. I believe it's a choice. Personally, I wouldn't choose abortion. I believe that life begins in utero (although, not at conception), and I would never choose an abortion (and haven't, I was unexpectedly pregnant twice and have two beautiful, amazing children). I don't believe those stances are necessarily mutually exclusive.

Do I think they should break up? Yes, not because he's a life-begins-at-conception person, but because that is obviously a deal breaker for her. It would be a good idea if they both took this as an opportunity to do some deep thinking of their stance. If he is against abortion, and would never want any of his "babies" aborted, then he should not be sleeping with any woman until he knows for sure she feels the same. Likewise, if she is at a point in her life that she would have an abortion were she to become pregnant, she should not be sleeping with anyone who wouldn't choose the same.

Basically what I'm trying to say is, talk it out. Find out how supportive he'd be if you chose to have an abortion even if he wouldn't want you to. And ask yourself if you'd be willing to go against the other responsible party's wishes if it meant you would most likely be irrevocably damaging the relationship. If you and he don't like one or both of those answers, end the relationship now.

@55's comment is best comment. Setting aside the abortion debate entirely: two people who cannot agree on the appropriate course of action in the event of a pregnancy should not be doing anything that could potentially result in pregnancy.

Dan, I do respectfully disagree agree with your advice to My Friend's Kinky Son.

Exactly what good to you really think will come from their friend confronting their friend's son about his kinky porn, other than the friend getting the satisfaction of having taken some sort of action in response to something that upsets her? What teen boy is actually going to incorporate a monologue from his mom into positive sexual behavior?

And, at the risk of getting all wannabe Freudian, you did not touch on the possibility that this kid's eroticizing of violence against women may be connected to his mom being overbearing (like, say, snooping for porn on his computer because she does not respect his privacy and may be threatened by any expression of his sexuality, be it kinky or vanilla), so her confronting him about these feelings via monologue may only serve to strengthen them.

Wow, I'm shocked. Dan's advice to LIFE, while technically useful, has enormous destructive potential. Sure, she'll get to the truth of whether or not the boyfriend believes what he's saying, but feigning pregnancy is like shouting "fire" in a crowded theater.

LIFE Just tell your boyfriend that your period is late (it may even be true, some women have irregular periods for various reasons) and that you may be pregnant. Display increasing angst for a week (most men don't track the menstrual cycle of their SO) and ask your boyfriend what he is prepared to do(i.e. Dan's suggestions) now that it's crunch time. Don't let him not answer or delay responding until you are sure of the pregnancy. Tell him you "really need" an answer now!!! His response will be informative, indicate the flexibility of his beliefs, and whether he really is committed to your relationship (he can say that he loves you as long as a problem/issue is hypothetical/abstract)

Along time ago I had a girlfriend who was absolutely terrified whenever her period was a week or more late. She was in no way, shape, or form ready for motherhood.

@130 People can say or even believe something when it is abstract or hypothetical. You really don't know how someone will "act" until they are faced with the reality (e.g. their attitude, feelings, and supportiveness in cases such as rape, health issues or parenthood, being the most common such situations). My wife had a friend (now deceased) whose husband and friends abandoned her when she was diagnosed with MS.

@135:
The rapist is in your body out of his own volition.
The fetus in your body could say (if it was conscient and able to speak) that it never asked to be in your body; in fact it was forced by you and your sex partner to be there.

@129 See my above comments. People may talk it out and theoretically agree, but that is no guarantee about how they will act when it is real. People also change their minds and it is important that they confirm that that agreement remains true. I speak from personal experience, but don't necessarily disagree with what you and 130 are saying.

I think the LW is leaving out some info: I know many people who do not personally agree with abortion but do not believe that it should be banned or not available to those wishing to have an abortion. It is a personal CHOICE. Much like supporting abortion rights is a CHOICE. If this guy said straight up that he is against all abortions and no one should have them, then I would (sorta) agree with the advice. But that's not (according to LW) what he said. I am very liberal and a extremely pro-choice, but I think that response is exactly the same "all-or-nothing" rhetoric used by anit-abortion groups.

Dan I'm with you 99% of the time but I think you're doing LIFE's boyfriend a great disservice by overlooking the fact that she stated that he does not think abortion should be banned, and that while he believes in personhood from conception, he thinks that its ok for them to have a disagreement about the issue. It doesn't sound like he's necessarily trying to make choices for her/control what she does with her body, he's simply expressing his opinion on the subject. His opinion is one which I myself wholeheartedly disagree with, but if he is truly not trying to force that opinion on others (and thats a big if) then I don't see it as a fundamental indication of assholery, just a difference of opinion.

Yeah, I'm with #127 in thinking that Dan's "advice" was more of a rhetorical rant to point out what hypocrites anti-choicers often are, and not so much a piece of actual advice.

Hopefully the "advice" she gets from this is that anti-choicers are bad relationship material and that abortion views are highly relevant when it comes to sex partners, and that she should just dump him before a pregnancy even comes up.

At least, that's what I hope; faking a pregnancy is always a bad idea, and it wouldn't make him rethink his views so much as it would allow him to vilify pro-choicers as crazy, manipulative liars.

I am pro choice and almost always agree with Dan, but lying about being pregnant is really awful. It is cruel, manipulative and conniving, and there is no reason to do it.

@141:

Generally I would agree in principle, but being cruel, manipulative, and conniving to an anti-choice douchebag (or at least someone who presents as such) is simply fighting fire with fire. Entirely justified.

@142 Except NO WHERE do we have proof that he's an anti-choice douchebag. Everyone seems to be assuming that, but the LW says straight out that he told her he doesn't think abortion should be banned. Wouldn't that, by very definition, make him PRO-CHOICE? Isn't the whole point of being pro-choice that you allow others to make their own choices, no matter your own beliefs? Is it written somewhere that in order to be pro-choice you HAVE to subscribe to the "it's only a bundle of cells, not really even alive" way of thinking? Isn't it possible that SOME people may believe that life begins at conception, or at least that we don't know WHEN life begins so if in doubt, you shouldn't abort, but still recognize that others have the right to a different belief, and that NONE of those beliefs have any business being dictated by the government?
It's important that she have a discussion with him about his beliefs. That they really think, together, about what would happen if she came up positive on a pregnancy test. Would she have an abortion? Could he live with that? Manipulative game-playing has no place in an adult relationship. It's high school bullshit, and I'm disgusted that Dan would give such advice.

On the abortion issue... While I don't necessarily agree with lying, it is a great way to see this guy's true colors. I could never be with someone who couldn't understand the difference between a clump of cells and an actual thinking & feeling human.

As to the kid looking at kinky porn--big deal. So he's into some kinky stuff. I look at some crazy shit but would never actually do any of it. Porn is (for a lot of people) a fantasy, and there's nothing wrong with that.

LIFE's boyfriend may be pro-choice, but if he's really anti-abortion as well she should really consider whether she wants to date him. He won't try to make abortion illegal, but he can be a royal douche in the event of an unwanted pregnancy. He can lobby her to carry to term beforehand, adding extra layers of stress she doesn't need; he can "refuse to participate," requiring her to get a ride from someone else and pay for it herself; he can shame her afterwards with nasty comments and looks, and "grieving" with his friends - i.e. telling everyone they know about it.

That said, Dan's response is still The Worst Advice On The Internets.

Dan, is this a political column or a relationship column? Your answer to question one was terrible. Blowing up the relationship in the way you advise may be good for the nation, but will obviously doom their relationship.

No one who writes an advice column on relationships should advocate torpedoing an otherwise functional relationship for the purpose of teaching a lesson. It is one thing to do that on the way out of a bad relationship, it is another to abandon a good one in that way.

I read your blog for the politics. It's ok to fit the occasional political rant in the main column, but at least try to keep it out of the practical advice portion of your answers.

She can end the relationship if she wants, but imagine yourself on the other side of this letter. What would you tell someone to do who was the victim of such a prank? 5 letters, starts with D....

Opposition to abortion is misogyny, full stop. It's a denial that a woman should be able to determine what happens to and in her body; it's a denial that women are full people ('fetal personhood'/'fetal rights' is a derail - we don't let actual people who have been born do what they want to women('s bodies) without their consent, even if they, say, need an organ donation or blood transfusion to survive). Don't fuck (and especially don't stay in long-term relationships with) misogynists; it validates the behavior. And if you disagree, then please dismiss me - I have no more right to be telling any of you what to do with your bodies than the anti-abortion crowd does.

"If you do oppose access to birth control—or you oppose Obamacare because it expands access to birth control—you're not really pro-life. You're just anti-sex."

Gee, really? It wasn't obvious or *anything*!

If anything, I don't think those who are anti-sex see anything wrong with being anti-sex, either.

I think it is definitely a case of DTMFA. IF I had a girlfriend who could not respect my opinion on a subject that is completely arbitrary and philisophical, so much so that she was unsure of the relationship, I would dump her so fast. Never mind a fake pregnancy scare.

Life or not life is all a matter of personal opinion. Of course, I do think that banning abortion is a different subject entirely.

Frankly, if you could somehow completely divorce the life or not question, from the control of a woman's body issue, women might have very different opinions. Consider, women tend to be very spiritual, and might consider that there is something spiritually special about that clump of cells, they are also often very pro animal rights, which could also transalate into pro life. Plus, women are always talking about that special feeling they have once they are pregnant. No woman ever really wants to abort. They just consider the alternative worse. Is there any woman on this board who has ever had an abortion and felt it was completely like having some type removal like a skin tag or a small tumor growth. I doubt it. the bottom line is, the life or not life debate tends to be more about how it allows you to believe in abortion rights or not, more than a carefully considered choice in and of itself. Conservatives use the life argument to support control of women's bodies. Liberals use the not life argument to de3ny control over women's bodies. Both might have different opinions if it did not line up with other political opinions.

interestingly enough, i know of a guy who desperately wanted his girlfriend to have his baby, but not only supported her right to choose, he also offered to pay for her to have the medical option, rather than the surgical abortion (free, but also more traumatic).... people can hold differing convictions and still behave ethically and with compassion.
also, i think the line is somewhat arbitrary.... over here it is easy enough to get an abortion before 12 weeks (coincidentally about the time you can feel movement, and the point at which early miscarriages become unlikely), more difficult to get approval between 12 and 20 weeks; and illegal after that unless done to save the life of the mother. deliberately causing the death of the child between 26 weeks and when they are born, carries a murder charge.

I liked how @81 formulated it:

Since I know that abortion is strongly against your moral code, I cannot in good conscience risk involving you in a potential situation within which I know you would be very unhappy with the outcome. So, no more sex.

For people who are wondering how Dan can give such terrible advice: remember that for Dan this IS a purely intellectual discussion, in a way that it is not for heterosexual males.

@119: Here's an analogy where the guy is in LIFE's shoes: the Draft.

Don't listen to Dan, LIFE. get yourself on the pill if you're not already. Educate this boy and DON'T allow him to come inside of you until you know you want a child (if he does anyway, DTMFA). Make him read the news. A lot of people just inherit their polical view from their parents, believing they are right.

Also don't be afraid to get snarky. "Ohhh, big manwy man must weawwy want a wittew baby, how KYOOOOT!" It is adorably naive of him to think he'll prevent you from getting an abortion in the slight chance that you become pregnant.
Call him gross, it worked on my now-hubby (I asked him why he would care about fetuses when he is generally more misanthropic than I am, and he couldn't argue that). Here's hoping he comes around!

@147: That's sillyness. If you're 9 months pregnant and you kill the baby inside you that's murder. There might be a very small set of circumstances where that murder is justified, but it's still murder.

Perfectly rational people can also feel that aborting a fetus at any stage is also murder, but STILL be Pro-Choice. You can think abortion is bad, and also think that forcing women to carry unwanted pregnancies to term is MORE bad.

That's the thing about abortion - there is no universally GOOD option; just a whole bunch of disagreement as to which bad option is worse.

Until people stop confusing (or deliberately conflating) bioligical humanity with legal personhood, the scientific with the religious, and the political with the personal, LIFE's decision will be a difficult one at best. I'm not saying that any of the juxatpositions listed above are black-and-white dichotomies; they are all most likely grey continua, but arguing as if the there are no necessarily meaningful destinctions among them doesn't advance the debate in the direction where the participants have at least some hope of even agreeing to disagree.

I really, really wish that my mother had the kind consideration to murder me at any time during the 9 months I was inside her. Abortion does involve a third party, and why does everyone seem to think that this party wants to be born? I believe that a fetus has a right not to be forced into unwanted genital contact, or forced into existence. The kindest, most sacred thing any mother can do for her child is to destroy it before it suffers the degradation of birth.

"@135: The rapist is in your body out of his own volition. The fetus in your body could say (if it was conscient [sic] and able to speak) that it never asked to be in your body; in fact it was forced by you and your sex partner to be there."

A better analogy than simply rape is rape by a severely mentally ill person. Even if one acknowledges that a fetus is a person, and that the fetus does not have the necessary moral agency to "intend" to be violating a woman's bodily integrity, it's still arguable that the woman has a right to expel such an intruder with deadly force.

Having sex does not mean you give up your right to bodily integrity. If I unknowingly walk into the room of a mentally ill serial rapist, I have not "forced" him to rape me, even if he is unable to stop himself. Nor has the act of sex "forced" a fetus into a woman's womb. Both acts may enable the violation of bodily integrity. But neither act is morally laden with force. Nor is either one acceptable, simply because the woman in question opened the door to it. You do not give up your right to bodily integrity simply because someone else wants--or even needs--your body.

Oh, I would add 2 things:

1) I think Dan's suggestion to lie was simply rhetorical. He writes this column not just to dispense advice but also to entertain. I doubt he seriously thinks the LW will deceive her boyfriend to prove a point (or wants her to).

2) I wouldn't sleep with anyone who opposed abortion. Accidents happen, even after you've been married for years. I want a partner who will be supportive of my choices. I also want a partner who believes and respects the fact that I own my own body.

This isn't a theoretical difference of opinion. She needs to have a long conversation with him to figure out the root of his beliefs and discuss the implications of them. And, after that, if she finds a fundamental lack of respect for her body and her choices at the root of this opinion, she should leave.

As far as we know, life began exactly once. Or maybe once for each kingdom (animals, plants, viri, etc). Or maybe many times, but kingdoms went extinct (that's awfully likely).

Life does NOT begin at conception, nor at birth. Life is a continuous process. By just about any definition other than "Life is what happens at conception/birth", it is utter nonsense to claim that life begins at some point in the process of DNA building itself a new body.

Life THAT'S WORTH PROTECTING might begin at conception or at birth, but it seems more reasonable for it to begin at the onset of consciousness or memory, or at the point of the acquisition of the other symbiotic life forms without which we could not survive (e.g. e. coli in the gut), or, better yet, at the ability to recognise and admit when you're wrong.

For that matter, I rather love the idea of getting people to define what they mean by "life that's worth protecting" and then discuss how it applies to animal rights. How can anyone believe that it's okay to kill sentient life forms that play and learn and mourn and have loving families, but that it's not okay to squish a few thousand cells that are less capable of experience than a gnat? Getting them to pin down that definition is fun.

But no, I'm going back to "Life that's worth protecting begins when you start regularly using experience, observation, reason, and scientific impartiality to recognise and fix your faulty preconceived notions."

Unusually bad advice from Dan. There are sooo many examples of men who will relentlessly try to prevent their gf/wife/ex from obtaining an abortion, regardless of their own willingness or suitability or ability to be a father.
I find it just that he might try to tell her to carry the baby to term as he would be to drive her to an abortion clinic. Which wouldn't actually prove a damn thing about him, except that he opposes abortion, which he already said.

His willingness or unwillingness to "step up" isn't what's being debated. And it doesn't mean he gets to make that call for her, which is the true crux of the matter.

Accidents happen, even after you've been married for years.

In many countries (including Singapore, Germany, and the Netherlands, so this isn't necessarily due to the low standard of living), married women have the majority of abortions.

I have never commented, but have to for this one. Faking and lying about a pregnancy is appalling. Horrible advice and I usually love your advice! This is setting her up for failure....why would you suggest that?? And what if he's all excited about the baby and it backfires?

Lying to someone about a pregnancy is emotionally abusive to the extreme. I never thought I would read an article in which Dan Savage advised someone to abuse their partner, but I sure as hell just did.

@ avast

I think we're mainly on the same page. Ankyl (who's been gone for a while, no?) pointed out what I agree with - the definition of personhood is a pragmatic one, not one that truly reflects a binary reality.

I accept that the law must define personhood how it does and that the definition serves a purpose. That's fine by me. My own definition of personhood is just messier.

I think the thing that troubles me about the opposite view - that the developing person is essentially the same as a somatic cell or clump of somatic cells - is what I mentioned earlier. A pregnant woman who carries her child to term has a borderline godlike ability to effect the future life and wellbeing of her child. Thalidomide was one example, but alcohol is another easier one. The idea that a pregnant woman could do permanent damage that will affect the life of a human being (a real human being!) without it being considered immoral because, oh, well that's not a person yet. That troubles me.

A fetilized egg is not the same as a person, but it's also not the same as just any old cell in your body.

Whether or not the writer of the first letter should break up with her boyfriend is probably not a one-issue decision, but I wanted to point out that the anti-choice nuts don't want the fetus to have the same rights as a person, they want the fetus to have MORE rights than a person. If a person -- a regular, already born person walking around -- needs a kidney, there are no laws on the books trying to force anyone to donate a kidney, even though the end result may be the person dying.

OK, so one moral here is that a letter about abortion gets more responses than a letter about nasty porn.

What does this say about our nation? About Dan?

Long-time reader here; I signed up for the specific purpose of posting this comment:
It's up to LIFE whether or not the choice issue is important enough to break up over, but I think it should be noted that the anti-choice nuts don't want the fetus to have equal rights and status as a person. They want the fetus to have MORE rights than a person.

A person -- a regular, already born, walking around person -- does NOT have the right to use another person's body, or any part of the other person's body, without consent. No one is trying to get laws on the books saying that it's mandatory to donate a kidney, because someone with kidney failure might die if you don't.

Yeah, NO lying about pregnancy. BAD, BAD idea in this or any other situation.
This is my personal experience. I thought my bf was anti-choice in the abstract. We had several conversations about his feeling that he didn't have a right to impose his will on another person's body. And then I got pregnant. He would have LOVED to marry me and was certainly willing to be an active and financially supportive parent. But I didn't think having a baby was the right choice for me at the time. Suddenly, in an already stressful situation, I was faced with a person I loved calling me a murderer and threatening me emotionally and psychologically. Choice should have been a deal breaker for me before him, and it CERTAINLY is now.

Dan, that's the fucking craziest thing I've ever read someone advise someone else. Just break up with the douchebag.

@30: Pinky, have you considered running for presidency?
You ROCK!!

Random Lez, @36, yes.

Only two letters today! I do hope Dan reverses his advice to lie about being pregnant. Doing so would hurt the letter writer's relationship and reputation.

I'm a pro-choice female, but I do think it's important to consider something before we accuse pro-life males of not considering us "equals". When an unintended pregnancy happens, it is only the female who has a choice. Those child support payments Dan mentioned, etc, will be mandated by the state whether the man wanted to be a father or not. Men are expected to prevent conception if they don't want the responsibility of a child; if a pregnancy happens despite his best efforts, he's legally a father. Women are lucky in that we have post-conception options. Men do not. In that respect, we really are not equals.

I'm a pro-choice female, but I think there's something important to acknowledge before we accuse pro-life men of not considering us "equals". We're not equals. Only women have post-conception options when it comes to parenthood. Men are expected to prevent conception if they don't want the responsibilities of fatherhood. In the event of an unintended pregnancy, it's completely out of his hands and those child support payments Dan mentioned will be mandated by the state whether he wants a child or not. Women are lucky in that we still have months to make this decision. In this respect, we really are not equals.

@SilverChimera:

I don't think that a fetus has more rights than the woman carrying it. But I definitely think that it is completely wrong to compare it to a rapist, mentally ill or not.

Nicely quoted, though.

@162: I hadn't thought to hear something more ludicrous than one-cell-equals-a-human-being, but you just topped it. That fetus is in the woman's body as a direct consequence of HER actions. The fertilized egg has absolutely no agency whatsoever. It had absolutely nothing to do with its own implantation, and it sure as hell didn't get there by itself, randomly. It got there because the woman had sex, period, end of story. (Yes, there's a man involved too, and he bears responsibility for it too. But the egg cannot be responsible for its own creation.)

I agree with the second part of your thesis: there isn't a person on the planet, fully developed or not, who has the right to commandeer another person's body to meet their own physical needs. Even if you would die without it, you don't get to just take my liver. Hell, you don't even get to demand a pint of blood off me, even though that's entirely replaceable and only slightly inconvenient for me. It's my body; you get my permission or you go without, period. Personhood, no matter when granted, does not confer a right to infringe that. So technically, the question of when personhood is acknowledged should have no bearing.

Just the whole fetus-as-rapist thing, mentally ill or not, is beyond absurd. Pregnancy is a known result of sex. Biologically, that's what sex is for. Claiming that it's the fetus' fault that it's in your uterus is the equivalent of getting drunk, plowing your car into a bridge abutment, and then accusing the concrete wall of assault and battery. Or eating cheeseburgers three meals a day and then accusing the resulting fat cells of raping your waistline.

@123(mydriasis),

indeed, I was in the field (upper Marau river) for a couple of months, then another month finishing a project with colleagues.

I basically agree with you -- with the added comment that the "godlike ability to affect a person's future" is not limited to "that bunch of cells" after fertilization. Since the process we call "human being" starts before fertilization, this power is always present. You -- man or woman -- can always affect your future children by exposing yourself to substances that will cause mutations in your gametes.

In other words, I think that the mere facts of sexual reproduction -- in fact, of any biological reproduction -- imply that we have borderline godlike powers to influence the next generation. It's disturbing, but it's inescapable, given how reproduction works. Which is why I concentrate on the question of which decisions have which consequences (and motivations), rather than on the brute fact that we have such power.

To some extent, given the way DNA works, no cell in our body is "just a cell;" soon cloning will make all cells potential gametes, potential (?) humans. Still we have to live our lives with some (limited) concept of personhood, as independent from our cells.

@182(Haley), who said: "Women are lucky in that we have post-conception options. Men do not. In that respect, we really are not equals."

Indeed. But if we accept the concept of "my body, my choices" (see avast above on how you can't force me to donate even blood unless I agree, even though donating blood wouldn't harm me at all), then there is no other solution, as far as I can see. Or do you see a way in which men -- who don't have their bodies on the line when it comes to pregnancy -- could justify having the same powers? Either we repell the principle of bodily autonomy (and what should we replace it with? under what conditions do I have the right to commandeer your body?), or then we can only blame nature for making reproduction work the way it does.

Maybe in the future it will be possible for women who don't want to continue their pregnancies to simply remove the fetus and place it in an artificial womb. Then both the man and the woman could have, I believe, the same rights as to deciding what will happen to that fetus. But as long as the fetus ''has to live'' in the mother's womb -- no other options available -- then either we give up bodily autonomy, or we accept that we aren't equal.

@187 (ank, welcome back),

I think the equality that 182 was hinting at is not about requiring pregnancy, but about equal ability to opt out.

Women can opt to not be burdened with a child if the pregnancy is unwanted. She can walk away from it via abortion. Whether she wants it is entirely critical; whether he wants it is entirely immaterial. Carrying to term is at this point essentially entirely voluntary on the part of the woman, but the man is being held responsible for a decision that he didn't get to make. People who would be apoplectic to hear someone say "If she didn't want to be a mommy she should have kept her legs closed" will happily turn around and say "If he didn't want to be a daddy he should have kept it in his pants" and the hypocrisy is entirely lost on them.

Given today's medical realities, which make carrying to term voluntary on the part of the woman, a fairer system would allow the man to walk away from a pregnancy exactly as easily as the woman can -- no more, no less. If she then decides she does not like the prospect of being a single mother, nobody is forcing her to carry to term.

Women already make this resource availability calculation today. If a woman feels she lacks the resources to raise a child, and feels that an abortion is necessary, it happens, and no one gets to coerce her against it. The difference would be that she does not get to commandeer the resources of the man when making that determination. She can secure his partnership, she can go it alone, or she can opt out the same way he did. (Which is also to say, he would be able to opt out the same way she gets to today.) Neither party is able to force the other to become an unwilling parent.

Specifying of certain details would be necessary, such as limited time periods in which to opt out, and splitting of costs (she cannot disavow the pregnancy without the abortion, so it would be reasonable to require the man to split the cost of the procedure with her).

Let the flaming begin. It will be interesting to see whether there is any logic applied, or just screams of outrage and name-calling.

@174

"don't want the fetus to have the same rights as a person, they want the fetus to have MORE rights than a person."

THIS. EXACTLY.

@ 175

That people get more riled up about a human rights issue than something that every 10 year old with an internet connection has seen and become accustomed to?

There is another way to test the bf from question #1. Just tell him your period is late and you MIGHT be pregnant. It is not uncommon for women to have an unusual cycle from time to time.

So tell him your late, see how he reacts and then in a few days tell him you got your period and everything's ok. It's a better way to judge his reaction than flat out lying about being pregnant.

I've been pregnant, felt the baby move at five months - I could never have an abortion. Why that should translate into thinking other people shouldn't, I can't imagine.

I do what's right for me, you do what's right for you. If I work on the assumption that you are an adult autonomous human being making whatever choices you think best when in a difficult situation, there's really no conflict. There's only conflict if I think I know better than you do what to do with your life.

On to the letter about teenage boys, kinky porn, and Jellybeans's heartbreaking letter in 120. Perhaps the reason we've all been going on about abortion is because we don't know what to say about violence. I know I don't. What's a parent to do? The assumption is that porn is one thing over there that doesn't affect what people actually do over here. But what's a parent to do when the assumption is incorrect? What's the society to do? In some number of cases, there are people who do want to act out on the violence because it turns them on. I can't see any evidence that nurture or upbringing has anything to do with it. Anyone know of any studies? It's such an unpleasant subject I don't blame anyone for wanting to avoid it, but it's pretty important too.

@182 Haley: As a guy, I thank you for being so sensitive and insightful about this.

@187 Ankylosar: You make strong points, but kind of put words in Haley's mouth. She did not suggest that men should have power equal to the women they knock up with regard to whether or not to abort. She was just trying to be open minded as to a particular male perspective.

@188 Avast2006: Life isn't fair, and not all laws should be designed to be fair. The really important laws must be driven by what is best for society in the big picture. No, it's not fair that knocked up women get to unilaterally decide whether the guy spends the next 18 years financially (and hopefully, emotionally)on the hook. Too bad! This is what is best for the kids, and therefore for society as a whole. There are plenty of perks to being a guy that make up for this inequity.

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/…

Dan, regarding letter #1: THANK YOU! You warm my heart!

Speaking of reproductive rights, Dan (and thanks for that!), please consider posting a link to the amazing and amusing video campaign from the Center for Reproductive Rights, "Draw the Line." Kevin Bacon, Sarah Silverman, Audra MacDonald and Meryl, oh my! No one deserves to be compared to a farm animal and we all need to consider what is really at stake right now politically. https://www.youtube.com/watch?list=PLNjz…
Thanks!

@194 Crinoline--Parents catch their kids watching porn everyday, MFKS pretty much had the answer all along. It was kind of a boring letter compared to all the knee-jerk reactions the word "ABORTION" can create (coupled with LOUSY advice).

LIFE, I think a good man's stance on abortion is related to how stongly his woman feels about it. Don't let the conversation die, but don't break up with him over this right away, you only just recently found out about his views.
You should strive to create a pro-choice ally in him; which is better than scaring the boy into the arms of a less-educated woman. You said yourself that he's not an unreasonable man.

Never let him forget how psycho his "pro-life" allies are, crowding abortion clinics to harass people for lack of anything valuable to do.

@194 Crinoline: Maybe upbringing doesn't have anything to do with kinks. But if this is true, then it kind of follows that upbringing (such as a monologue from a fretting and snooping mom) also won't have anything to do with modifying a kink in a "positive" direction or modifying behavior that is supposedly connected to the kinky porn.

I probably wouldn't be psyched if I found "violence" (in quotes because it is pretend violence) against women porn in my kid's possession, but even if I wanted to and believed I could get rid of all his porn in this genre, I wouldn't delude myself into thinking there was much I could do about the underlying curiosity and/or fantasies.

Dan should have filed this one under "let it go and stop snooping." He advises against "shaming" this kid, but then proceeds to advise: "talk ... about the difference between porn and real sex ... the difference between erotic power exchange and violence ... about safety and misogyny ... encourage him to be thoughtful about his sexuality." But this is a conversation that will bring primarily shame and embarrassment to 99% of boys "caught" with vanilla porn and 100% of boys caught with kinky/violent porn, so Dan is accidentally contradicting himself here. This plan will not work.

Dan's advice to: "emphasize the importance of meaningful and informed CONSENT" is of course spot on, but this is a conversation to have with all kids, and it can take place completely outside of some "I found you porn, son" conversation. Tell your kid this without mentioning his porn, if you want it to actually sink in.

I wouldn't worry too much about this kid acting out violent, non-consenting versions of these fantasies. People, male and female, masturbate to plenty of things we would never actually do-that's part of the turn-on.

Just weighing in to agree with the other comments that lying about being pregnant in order to ascertain someone else's integrity in this situation is a terrible idea. It encourages LIFE to act like a jerk instead of a thoughtful, responsible adult herself. These are profound existential disagreements. Better to take him at his word and end the relationship on that basis. Plenty of men - including my brother - have foolishly married a woman they never intended to because of an unplanned pregnancy. While I usually think you are right on, this time it is bad advice, Dan.

LIFE, I would be more concerned in your current situation that, should I actually become inadvertently pregnant, he would not attempt to block my choice and my right to have an abortion by asserting any paternity rights. It's happened - look up John Stachokus. And earlier this year the Prenatal Nondiscrimination Act fortunately did not get the 2/3 vote needed to pass the House, but it will be a shitty business getting pregnant with an anti-choice man and acting on your right to have an abortion if it ever does pass.
http://jezebel.com/5886575/prenatal-disc…

@188 I've been staying out of this because I don't want to get annoyed by arguing with a flouncy brick wall but also because you are taking my position better than I could.

I would like to respond to your question, as thanks if for no other reason.

I find it unconscionable that men are forced to care for a child they did not want. Not only are women able to abort, we can give a child up for adoption should we give birth.

@195 If men have unfair perks, we should address those issues as well. Those would be different subjects. How are we supposed to advance as a society if we justify injustice with injustice? That's horrible!

There are certain biological differences that are unfair be we can't do anything. If a man wants the child but the woman chooses to abort, that is unfortunate...end of sentence.

But we could let men opt out of parenthood. And I think we should. I think every adult should have the option. If the woman can't take care of the baby alone, she should opt out herself. If that seems flippant, I'm sorry. I get how hard that would be. I just don't believe the difficultly of that decision justifies forcing a man to be a parent.