Thank you, LIFE, for having the class to write in defense (sorry, 'defence') of Dan, and for acting on the intent of the advice Dan gave you:
"Even though he claimed he respected me, he admitted that he would ban abortion if he could, essentially arguing that I am less capable of understanding what pregnancy means and the effect it would have on my life than he is. I broke up with him."
Good for you, and I wish you all the best -- especially in finding a partner who is worthy of you. ("Letter of the law," wow!)
I'm glad there was a clarification from "doesn't think it should be banned" to "would ban it if he could", which I think is a sufficiently considerable moving of the goalposts. I wish LIFE luck, but, remembering *Rumpole and the Boat People*, advise her to be on the lookout to avoid the common propensity to end up with the same type of person, only progressively slightly worse.
For what it's worth, I called Mr Savage's advice clever, though I was not as purist about it as the other supportive poster (I only saw one other in favour) who later made it quite apparent that any eight-year-old who had not already independently seen through and condemned the patriarchal agenda of life-beginning-at-conception propaganda was doomed forever to remain unworthy of being designated human (I paraphrase slightly, but that's close to the flavour if not the actual line set out).
I forgot to welcome Mr Ank back - it's been so heterocentric here the last few weeks that I've hardly had anything to say.
It seems appropriate now to reopen my question from last week: When do you dump a man for being anti-choice? Do you interview him at the bar when you're picking him up for a one-night-stand? Do you make him sign a document after dating him but before having sex with him for the first time? Is it alright to have non-PIV sex with an anti-choice man? What about lesbians who can't get pregnant from each other but who might disagree on the subject? I'm pro-choice myself, so I wonder what the parameters of this anti-choice boycott are.
Deep down I knew Dan had a master plan for his terrible advice. That's why I keep coming back. "Inability to empathize" is one of the best observations on conservatism I've ever read, and I'm pretty centrist and find a lot of conservative-bashing misguided.
GOOD SAVE DAN! & good on you for your no-BS owning of that advice. Phew, it stunk.
BETTER SAVE, LIFE! Right, *he* understood *better than you* how pregnancy would affect *you*. Right. *slow clap* Brava, bellisima. Move on & thanks so much for writing back. Better partners await you.
@ 10, Crinoline - I'd probably bring it up pre-sex, somehow. Whenever that turns out to be, 3rd date being the "norm" recently, I hear.
It's is 100% okay with me, if someone else whose position is pro-choice, sleeps with someone else whose position is anti-choice, as long as both agree on what the course of action will be.
*I*, would not do so. If we don't concur that ultimately, a decision about my body rests solely with me, then you don't get to play with/in said body. The end.
Maybe it's knee-jerk, but there it is. I also don't get with people who don't support equality 100%. Why should I, when so many hot, smart people do?
@9 - Mr. Venominon, granted, much of the topics here that tend to be discussed tend to be hetero-normative. But I bet if you took a role call every now & then you'd see plenty of "Savage Love" queer readers/Sloggers. (Said a bi woman.)
Hell yes I would and have dumped men for being sexist, aka being anti-choice. How dare they think they know best! And if they Haven't thought about the issue like that, and still don't get it once you've discussed it, that sense of entitlement will always be their perspective. No fucking way.
@10, oops, read that wrong! When? Well, the moment it comes up I suppose and raises your red flags. With the election coming up, it's a great first date topic - how bout that Ryan huh? What a creep... and go. Converse, and act accordingly.
The abortion debate wastes so much energy, when both sides agree that fewer abortions would be preferable and could try to work together to reduce the *need*.(I refuse to believe even the most frevent pro-choice advocate thinks more abortions would benefit a woman)
Abstinence campaigns are laudable, but idealistic in the heat of the moment, and need to be rammed home with information about prevention.
Twenty years ago, I was in a debate at university over abortion, and my position then was 'A woman's (and man's) right to choose... once': rape or medical emergency excepted, consent to pregnancy-causing sex was an acceptance of prophylaxis failing etc.
But the major sides in that debate were so rabid and uncompromising, that they weren't worth talking to.
My position now, having experienced 'the heat of the moment', is that abstinance teaching is too draconian - it should focus on avoiding penis-in-vagina and not being promiscuous (how will someone learn without making safe mistakes?) and valuing someone enough not to take photos.
I'm still broadly opposed to abortion-for-convenience, but mostly because to me it represents a failure of society to tackle serious problems with efficatious solutions. Just now, my wife and I are at the opposite end of the problem, suffering miscarriages, which traumatise her. If we have a daughter, hopefully I'll be able to teach her that one of the many reasons low-pregnancy-risk sex needs to be approached carefully is because it can enflame higher risk sex, and abortion also needs to be approached as a bad and potentially damaging last resort.
@16 (me): The log-in process lost several edits: In particular, I corrected 'daughter' to 'child', and 'bad' to 'undesirable'.
Abstinence campaigns need to be leavened with practical advice and guidelines for those who don't make the fairly unrealistic goals, and a cut-off point for those thst do! - speaking as a former 37-ish year old virgin, who should have been experimenting carefully from... oh 30, at least! I didn't know that a woman being 'into' me, with pleasured moans while hugging, did not mean she was desperate! Sigh...
Abortion for convenience is a myth. An abortion takes a gigantic toll on a woman's body, not to mention being expensive and uncomfortable. Hormones go crazy, cramps, nausea, etc. No woman who has had one would blithely plan to have another as if it was no big deal (though it would certainly be her right if she did). Women who have more than one abortion do not consider it convenient.
"Even though he claimed he respected me, he admitted that he would ban abortion if he could, essentially arguing that I am less capable of understanding what pregnancy means and the effect it would have on my life than he is."
If he actually SAID that she was "less capable of understanding", that sucks, but I get the feeling that I'm reading a slightly self-serving paraphrase that's been rephrased to make the boyfriend sound worse. Either that or you're saying "Because he would ban abortion, he's inevitably arguing that he's more capable than me", which is silly: if a woman votes to ban infant circumcision, she's not saying she's more capable than the parents, just that she thinks that what they're doing is wrong.
"Even though he claimed he respected me, he admitted that he would ban abortion if he could, essentially arguing that I am less capable of understanding what pregnancy means and the effect it would have on my life than he is."
If he actually SAID that she was "less capable of understanding", that sucks, but I get the feeling that I'm reading a slightly self-serving paraphrase that's been rephrased to make the boyfriend sound worse. I don't get the impression that the guy's an overt sexist, but are you retelling the story to make him sound like one so that you'll get a chorus of "You go, girl!" and other feminine platitudes?
(Either that or you're saying "Because he would ban abortion, he's inevitably arguing that he's more capable than me", which is silly: if a woman votes to ban circumcision of infant males, she's not saying she's more capable than the parents, just that she thinks that what they're doing is wrong.)
@18:
A class-mate of mine decided she wasn't fertile because she had so often unprotected sex and never got pregnant. So she did not use any protection with her boyfriend. Surprise, she got pregnant. Of course, she had an abortion and thankfully got on hormonal birth control.
Three months later, she decided to get off the pill because she didn't like the increased hair growth on her legs. Her boyfriend didn't like condoms. (I know that there are other forms of BC but she found them all inconvenient.)
So, yes, I'd say, they considered abortion to be a convenient alternative to birth control.
I try to have a discussion on birth control and abortion before I have sex with someone new.
Because I am not on the pill and oppose abortion (disclaimer: being against abortion doesn't mean that I want to ban it), I feel that my sex partner has definitely the right to know that I wouldn't abort the baby in case of an accident.
Frankly, I don't understand why people don't seem to do that as a matter of principle (unless in the heat of the moment they get distracted).
@10: I'd say it's a good idea to make the decision before you do any of the following:
1. Engage in any activity that could make a baby
2. Seriously consider the person as a potential life partner (rather than just as a fun time)
3. Enter into any situation or arrangement where you need to be able to trust that he or she has compatible values and/or can be trusted (cohabitation, any kind of legal partnership, certain flavors of kinky activity...)
And the decision doesn't necessarily need to be a dump/don't dump one. If it is, for example, a casual relationship, you can decide "I will not tell him if I get pregnant, I will just take care of it on my own."
@10 - I won't even go on a first date with a man who is anti-choice and/or Republican. If someone tries to set me up with a guy, I'll suss out the situation on a phone call ahead of time, and if they're Republican, I simply say "We're not compatible. Let's not waste each other's time." For me, having a Republican stance speaks to character and values, so it's a deal breaker from moment one.
Ms Hopkins - Your being one of my favourites, may I ask you to post more often, if only to help improve the balance?
My apologies, by the way, over terminology. We really need a new term here. I quite often use "same-sex(er)" to avoid bi erasure, but for some reason "opposite-sex(er)" just doesn't seem to be working, and tacking on the "-centric" suffix just seemed unbearably clunky for a late Tuesday night.
Seriously, though, do you not think the overall tone has shifted? I have thought something of the sort for some little time. I did not grudge the straight (with a rounder or two included) women the week in which almost the entire conversation concerned their masturbatory habits as twelve-year-olds. Good for them, I thought. But it was right around then that the stretches began, or perhaps that was when I started to notice it, that I'd go longer and longer without having any pertinent sort of in to the general discussion. In the last month, for instance, I've have more to say that has had some substance for someone in feminist discussions than I've had here, which seems to be a significant inversion of the usual order. One wonders if it means something, or if I'm just being a little too Ladbrokes-inspired, as sometimes happens.
Even though I could easily go the rest of the week without having anything else to say, I shall not ramble on.
I don't even know where I'd find an anti-choice man, so I gottta tell you, it's not a big concern. I think most people when they're dating come around to talking politics at some point.
I think calling it an 'anti-choice boycott' is silly, it's more like "I don't want to date a shitbag".
And no, Guttmacher is not some pro life shill; quite the opposite. Problem is, it's hard to focus on education and prevention when basic reproductive rights are under full scale attack. Parents, educate your children because the right is making damn sure they won't be, and woe unto us all if they win in November. "Safe, legal and rare" seems like a distnat dream.
Yep, conservatives change their minds when it's convenient for them, but so do liberals, anarchists, and suffragettes. I know two pro-choice couples who pressured their daughters not to have abortions because they wanted grandchildren. A super-liberal friend was firmly anti-military until his son joined the Marines, and now he thinks people in the service are pretty cool. Everybody has their opinions about what other people should or shouldn't do, and everybody also looks out for their own interests. Contradiction is the human condition.
Considering that 10-25% of all clinically recognized pregnancies will end in spontaneous abortions (SAB) or miscarriages, are the Republicans willing to paint those women as murderers?
As Smoakes @18 stated, the loss of a child, whether it is though termination (abortion) or miscarriage (spontaneous abortion), takes a large physical and emotional toll on the woman. Abortion is not a casual decision for the woman. The residual physical effects can last days to weeks. The emotional impact months to years.
There is an interesting article at Jezebel about miscarriages and the physical and emotion toll on the woman. The comments are illuminating. Maybe if more men had empathy, they would be more sympathetic and less rigid in their thinking.
Ugh, the men who think "sexual choices should have consequences"--why is it that so many men are so he**-bent on punishing women for sex? Why? here we have a group of men who say that the women who are sleeping with them should "suffer the consequences"---wtf? And how twisted is it to consider pregnancy a punishment?
I wish none of these guys could date, but unfortunately many of them do.
Dan:
I, too, was uncomfortable with your advising LIFE to lie to her BF. But I think you hit the more important nail on the head in saying that one bedrock characteristic of modern conservatism is an awe-inspiring lack of empathy. Not just that: a general intellectual immaturity, really. I, too, congratulate LIFE for D'ing the MFA. That lady will find the Right One soon enough, I am confident of it.
I'm glad this happened, because every once in a while people need to be reminded (either by Dan or by, well, anyone) that his advice is just that - advice. No one should take it if they disagree. He's human, which means he's sometimes stupid and wrong. I'm still reeling from his ridiculous claim a few weeks ago that "gay people make up 2-5% of the population."
Good on Dan for owning up to bad advice, but I'm still not sure he really sees the full problem.
"I didn't intend for LIFE to drag the lie out for weeks. I was thinking 30 minutes tops."
WTF does the *duration* of the lie have to do with anything? (Or is it supposed to be understood that that's another part of his advice he'd like to retract? Doesn't read that way to me, but it's early morning.)
Way to go, Dan, on hitting a direct bull's eye--"Consequences---they're not just for women, anymore!" Your comeback rocks the house (and I hope it continues to rock the House and Senate!)!!
LIFE----YAAAAAAAAYYYY!!!!! Good for you for DTMFA!!!
If your ex-boyfriend STILL remains doggedly anti-choice, even after your long talk with him, then he doesn't deserve to get any from anyone at all.
"me, me, me, me, me, me, me, me, me, me, me, me, me, me, me,me, me, me, me, me, me, me, me, me, me" I am glad you broke up with your boyfriend too- hopefully now he can find a woman that wouldn't be willing to kill a baby to avoid discomfort
@10 I agree that before you have sex is a good time to ask if one is antichoice.
@21 Perhaps your former class mate didn't want to discuss the real side effects that hormonal birth control had on her. Many women report depression, loss of sex drive and huge psychological issues with the pill. Perhaps she did not want to discuss such private things with you, especially because you obviously don't consider yourselves friends. I do think that forms of birth control like the IUD do not get offered enough by doctors, but that is a failing of education, not because people use abortions for convenience. Finally, if someone is going to reject birth control because it makes their leg hair grow, and who does not want a child is probably not a person that should be forced to have a child. Every child deserves to be loved and cared for and forcing women who don't want to bear a child or who are not in a circumstance to take care of a child is unfair to the child as well as the parent.
I do not engage in any sexual or romantic activity with partners of any composition of man and lady bits if they do not believe in a woman's right to choose. Straight up.
You don't think I deserve agency over my body? Then you are coming NO WHERE NEAR IT.
This is a conversation I always have pre-sexy times.
I was a a job interview yesterday and claimed one of my assets was being able to recognize and admit when I make mistakes. (I got a call this morning for a second interview, so my nerves about saying that were relieved) Thanks, Dan, for coming out with a shining example of how to behave when we get it wrong. AND "Consequences! They're not just for women anymore!" is SPOT ON.
@16 "I'm still broadly opposed to abortion-for-convenience, but mostly because to me it represents a failure of society to tackle serious problems with efficatious solutions"
Y'know what the solution is, right? MORE CONTRACEPTION for everyone! YAY Obama!
I'm very sorry for the recurring losses you and your wife experience, but your envy shouldn't allow you to dictate what goes on in other wombs around the country. Abortion is never convenient.
Inversely, Dan, I'll always be staunchly pro-choice, but if I became unexpectedly pregnant, I might find that I'm not pro-abortion when it comes to my own body. Who knows what those child-bearing hormones might do to my brains.
But I don't worry much because I'm on the pill and I prohibit my husband from coming inside me until we're ready for baby. I'm of the mind that it's less "degrading" (as some women call it) to have semen ON me than IN me, because I'm against reproducing at the moment.
Here's an informative editorial from NY Times regarding Roe v Wade and how it ties into our current election. As always, the comments are revealing, especially the anti-choice ones.
If you think what a parent does is wrong for their own infant, you are indeed thinking you know better than they/more capable of understanding the issue at hand.
It's kind of impossible to tell someone else they're doing something morally wrong without thinking that your own thinking on this issue is better than theirs.
I know you were joking, of course, but some people might take your joke about not getting pregnant from anal sex seriously. Might want to mention it was a joke for those low-information gullible readers out there.
I generally think those that are anti-choice simply see women as inferior, at least to the potential baby they may carry. Where in this society do we force people to sacrifice to such a large degree for another?
Generally, as a society, we prize autonomy and individual choice. We don't say, hey, this guy is homeless, so you're FORCED to offer him your guest room. Pretty much anyone would be outraged if the govt. FORCED you to open up you home to an unwelcome person. That such a requirement would be egregious and violate the homeowners right to privacy, safety and having his/her home to him/herself.
However, when it comes to women, apparently requiring the same of her BODY is no big deal. It's just a minor inconvenience. Oh, pregnancy, that minor inconvenience...as if it were a headcold or something.
Why do we prize someone's home more than her body? Oh, yeah, because she's a woman and not quite a full fledged person, in some people's minds...
@22: That's why I carry a wallet full of condoms. I always appreciate the heads-up. And the opportunity to step up and take responsibility. Not that I'm adverse to whipping one out should some random opportunity arise for STD purposes, alternate birth control in place or not.
It shocks me how little some people bother to communicate prior to commencing either recreational sex or a LTR. Some time ago, I was told by a potential bed-mate that, "I think too much". I guess she was hoping for a more spontaneous romp in the sack and I was asking too many questions about what, where, and other preparations. I asked her if she would be as happy should her 19 year old jock son (and Big Man on campus) should come home to inform her of her impending grandmother-hood with some cheerleader.
Her eyes got as big around as dinner plates and I hope she has a (belated) talk with him about college vs a job at the local car parts store.
@10: You dump the person when the deal-breaker comes up naturally during the course of the relationship and it becomes apparent that it is irreconcilable. Literally anything can represent a deal-breaker to a particular person. Some of them you don't even know are deal-breakers until you are confronted with them for the first time.
But I'll tell you this: if you tried to interview me for acceptable responses to your known list of deal-breakers on a first date, my reaction to that would be "This one is way, wayyyy too high-maintenance," and to climb out the restaurant bathroom window if necessary.
Maybe I am misremembering that question from last week, as being about doing due diligence for deal-breakers in general? Slightly less global version of the same thing: If you wanted to ask me my views on abortion before leaving the bar for a pick-up, I would probably say "Thanks, but never mind."
I like Dan, in general. Glad he acknowleged his advice was poor. I am pro-choice, but that is not the same as being pro-abortion (duh!).
By the way, Dan, and everyone who thinks that man have not historically had to face consequences. My favorite line from Parenthood is that women have choices and men have responsibilities. If LIFE decides - completely without the man's input - on whether to keep a fetus/pregnancy/baby, can the man decide whether or not he has to face 18 years of child support payments for her choice? Or is this just a "the woman decides and the man pays" kind of deal?
Oh, that's right. Thinking such thoughts makes me an untouchable. Mea culpa!
Your still one of the best Dan & human too. Imagine that!!! Don't berate yourself too much. We have all had situations where we thought we should "go there" where ever that is, and upon later review decided there may be a better way of handling a situation. What this shows is that you are a man who can empathize with others and is willing to listen, even if others wish to take you down a notch. In my opinion this only raises my respect for your commentary. Hey Dan, your not perfect & neither am I. Thanks for being you.
Right, because a couple of hundred grand in child support and college fund, not to mention at least two decades of actually being there for the kid if you take on the role of father, rather than just writing a check every month and otherwise ignoring the situation ... nahhh, that's nothing much, really. Hardly worth even considering.
@33- What's ridiculous about the facts? 2-5% are the current figures of OUT GLBT folks; can't speak for the closet cases. What's your beef?
@53- Yes, the woman decides and the man lives with it. Tough breaks, but it's her body, not his. AND- maybe men will think a bit more before they shoot their load in there. Doubtful, but maybe.
As Dan so aptly puts it- "Consequences! They're not just for women anymore!" Get used to it.
Miss Ann Drist/53 and Avast2006/55 -- yes, it's great to see more men taking on the responsibility that their choices in part brought about -- i.e. children.
But, let's not for a second think that it's not the responsibility of raising kids has not historically and for the most part still happens today falls on the shoulders of women. Is it getting better? Yes. But it's no where near equal.
For the vast majority, child support doesn't begin to even pay for the cost of raising a child, not even close to 50-50. And men have historically been able to abandon their children without a second thought if they chose to do so -- that was a very rare case for a woman. Not to mention that historically, it was a huge social blow to a woman -- to have a child out of wedlock -- made her a pyriah in many places (and in other parts of the world, she can still be put to death for such things, even if the child is a result of rape).
SO, yeah, things are getting better and more men are being forced to be responsible. But, it's still not even close to the responsibility born by women, physically, emotionally, psychologically or economically in having and raising kids. NOT EVEN CLOSE.
One of my pet peeves is childless women who insist they are somehow "more" qualified to have an opinion on abortion rights than men are. A childless man is every bit as capable of hypothesizing the consequences of becoming pregnant as a woman who has never been pregnant. Their experiences in that regard are equal.
KL: "Why do we prize someone's home more than her body? Oh, yeah, because she's a woman and not quite a full fledged person, in some people's minds..."
Did you register for the draft at 18? Men still do. Their bodies can be conscripted at any time.
And, re 57, it ain't a competition to see who has it harder. As I said, women have choices and men have responsibilities. For men the choice is this: she chooses and you suck it up buddy. It may be harder for a woman, but she still got her "second chance" to choose. The man has no "second chance" choice, because, let's face it, they both choose to blow it (or not) on their first chance (and blowing it would have solved the problem, instead of creating it).
I like your story about how men can choose to walk away without consequences, other than jail time and being stigmatized as a dead beat dad.
Are all of these people dumb enough to actually think Dan's advice last week was serious? It was dripping in sarcasm mocking the question and LIFE's boyfriend. He was just having fun with the answer and obviously didn't expect LIFE to follow it literally.
Ya know, we all have secret opinions about knowing more about something, or what is best for our partner than they do. that is life. Live with it. so the guy is pro life. If he believes life begins at conception, that is fair. There is no proof because "life" is a construct anyway with no real meaning but what we give it. And if he is pro life, it seems reasonable that he would believe it is of value to protect that life. I am pro choice because it is most convenient to be. But I am not going to tar and feather anyone who is pro life. Many of them make decent arguments, very different from the political bullshit that is intent on controlling women's bodies. There are some people who sincerely believe life begins at an earlier point than my position of convenience. And their opinions about abortion grow from that.
Now, the ones I like best are the ones who say, well, the law allows it and it may be just as well. But if it were up to me, and I could do so without oppressing other people, I would somehow prevent any abortions from ever taking place. I find that a pretty legit position.
Now, if you are concerned about what would happen if you got pregnant, that is a legit concern.
But to break up with someone just because he sees the world a little different than you and has an opinion about it he is foolish enough to share, then he is well rid of you.
Don't get me wrong. I am pretty liberal and democratic, and I would have a hard time dating someone who was a conservative. One of those reasons is they are too damn dogmatic and close minded.
I am no more willing to date a dogmatic close minded liberal. I think you did him a favor.
Miss Ann Drist: I'm not saying everything in this world is equal. Women have a biological reality of having to bear the kids -- it's just the way it is. Comparing pregnancy to combat isn't a fair comparison in any way, shape or form. It's not like the draft is a common occurrence. Women, generally, can't be rapists whereas men are, who's victims the vast majority of time are women. Should we make that comparison as well?
Sure, today, we as a society are holding men more responsible for fathering children -- both socially and legally. But, frankly, this is something they should have been doing for a long, long time. But, because of the biological reality of not having to actually birth a child, many were able to avoid this very thing whereas until fairly recently women weren't able to make the same decision nearly as easily. And even when a woman chooses to terminate, she still bears far more of the consequences of that decision, physically, emotionally and psychologically.
Not everything in this world is identical or exactly equal, but it doesn't mean that we shouldn't value things equally or respect them equally.
Let's face it, if men could get pregnant, abortion would be about as controversial as kittens.
At the end of the day, I don't think it comes down to personhood (the abortion debate). Because even if you think the baby/fetus is a person, so is the woman? When does one person's right to life trump another's to bodily integrity?
Do we force people to donate kidneys? Lungs? Bone marrow? Some of those things are far less invasive than pregnancy and could save someone's life, but we don't require people to donate bone marrow or any other part of their body.
Except if the person in question is a woman -- than it's perfectly acceptable for some to say that she should donate her entire body for 9 months, irrevocably change it and even risk her own life for another "person".
This would never fly in any other scenario on the conservative ticket -- the same people that are pro-life would be up in arms if you required such things -- claiming it impinged their freedom, individual choice, etc.
I personally don't care whether you consider the fetus a child or not. There is no doubt that the woman is a person and if she doesn't want another life form growing inside her, that should be her choice. Period.
@38:
At that time, we were friends. And she shared all kinds of personal stuff, like when she got very upset because an almost-boyfriend didn't want to have condomless sex with her without an STI-screening first.
I think she would have been a dreadful mother. And even though I think it would be better if more women would give up their babies for adoption instead of aborting them, I do understand why that wasn't possible for her. What upset me was that she and her boyfriend weren't even bothered enough by that unwanted pregnancy to try to find a birth control method that worked for them both.
For them, abortion was a convenient method of birth control.
Miss Ann Drist/53 and Avast2006/55 You are both acting like women drop the kid in a field and walk off leaving the rest of the responsibility to the poor put upon father. The fact is feeding, clothing, educating and raising the child is the responsibility of BOTH parents.
The choice about aborting or not rests with the woman because she is the one who will gain the weight. She is the one who will bear the risks of being pregnant, including a 10% chance she will die. It is her body, not the guys. The right to make this decision rests with the one bearing the consequences of pregnancy.
Once the child is born he/she deserves to have a good life provided by both their parents. The right to support belongs to the child and is SHARED between BOTH parents.
I realize that you 2 apparently only care about the man's financial security. Society and decency says otherwise.
@16
"The abortion debate wastes so much energy, when both sides agree that fewer abortions would be preferable and could try to work together to reduce the *need*.(I refuse to believe even the most frevent [sic] pro-choice advocate thinks more abortions would benefit a woman)"
Why does abortion HAVE to have a pall of awful attached to it? The way the world works right now for women in countries where abortion is illegal, I would say: Yes, please, more abortions! MORE ABORTIONS! No contest. I would also say: more contraceptive access! more reproductive planning and education access!
I had an abortion when I was 22 and I was happy to have it and I felt lucky I was privileged enough to have safe access to that abortion and I couldn't be more thrilled that I had the abortion. That's not to say I was happy that I NEEDED to have the abortion--on the contrary, I was quite freaked out by the possibility of having to bring the pregnancy to term (oh, by the way, you abort a PREGNANCY not a BABY)-- particularly because I was taking the pill and taking it correctly (same time, every morning, never missed one)--but I am in no way SAD or traumatized for having had an abortion. It has been only beneficial in all aspects.
I find abortion to be quite life affirming and a GOOD thing in that it gives women the ability to plan their life in a way that best suits them and their pre-existing families, whether they have kids already, never want children, or simply can't afford to be a mother. Again, abortion is not just a women's issue, but a socio-economic one.
The reason a woman chooses an abortion is of no consequence.
Let's repeat that:
The reason a woman chooses an abortion is of no consequence.
You either think that abortion should be legal or you don't. If you think that an abortion for this reason is okay but that an abortion for this other reason is not okay, you are completely missing the forest for the trees.
What is of consequence is a woman's right to an abortion and the right not to be discriminated against for making that choice: i.e., legal obstacles (here's looking at you, Mississippi, et. al.) that restrict her lawful access.
I find the "exceptions," in the case of incest, or rape, or that the pregnancy threatens the mother's life, to be completely arbitrary and infantilizing to women. If you say that an incest or rape victim MUST be forced to carry her pregnancy to term, I don't have to ask to know that you do not think women are humans (here's the kicker, you don't have to be a man to think this way). If the life of the mother isn't important to you, then forget it. This really illuminates the who's who of modern misogyny.
I would not have sex with anyone who is pro-life/anti-choice/forced-birther.
There's something that I've been wanting to share for quite some time now, and the subject of abortion is actually quite relevant to it. I've been a fan of Dan and his column (and the comments) for quite some time now. Although the personal questions about crazy things happening in the bedroom are nice, I find it even more intriguing to read about more 'politically relevant' questions. That is mostly because I'm Dutch. It is simply unbelieveable how different things are on the two sides of the ocean. Especially with things like abortion. For me it is so strange that you would have to discuss BC or abortion when you're dating someone, because almost everyone in the Netherlands is fully supportive of women's rights when it comes to their health and sex life - the extremely religious excepted of course.
Even though we are undoubtedly one of the world's most 'pro'-abortion countries, the funny thing is that we also have very, very little teenage pregnancies and abortions (in general, not just with teenagers). That is most propably due to our pragmatic approach of problems. For example, we dont have abstinence education. We have sex eduction that already starts at primary school. Our children do not only learn how to practice safe sex (we're proud to practice 'Double Dutch: the pill+condom) but we also learn girls to respect their bodies, to not give in to peer pressure and to not be ashamed of being a sexual being. BC pills are widely available, the government has their 'I do it safe or don't do it at all' campaign directed at teenagers, school doctors are not forbidden but rather encouraged to talk to pupils about (safe) sex, etc...
I could say so much more about all of these things, but I just wanted to share what an enormous joy it is to read Dan's columns (and the comments!) and in that way to get a very nice and informative look into the public debate that goes on at the other side of the ocean. I hope to be reading more of it for many many years.
@65: No, that is not my point. My point is that bearing to term is elective on the part of the woman. Nobody is making her have the kid. If she is undergoing all the weight gain, all the pain, all the risk of dying of complications or during delivery, it is because she CHOSE to.
If you think I only care about finances for the man, you need to work on your reading comprehension. If a woman thinks she cannot afford a child, and aborts, she is seen as exercising autonomy and empowerment. If a man thinks he cannot afford a child, he is a deadbeat bastard. Your crack about society and decency rings particularly hollow in light of such a blatant double standard.
If women expect the right to not be coerced into parenthood unwilling, they have no business expecting to coerce men into parenthood unwilling. A woman should not be bringing a child into the world under circumstances that force another person to be a parent, when she would never stand for being forced to be a parent herself.
As far as the rights of the child go, these are decisions and arrangements that should be made long before there is an actual child (a fetus is not an actual child, only a potential one) who has actual rights that need to be considered.
There's something that I've been wanting to share for quite some time now, and the subject of abortion is actually quite relevant to it. I've been a fan of Dan and his column (and the comments) for quite some time now. Although the personal questions about crazy things happening in the bedroom are nice, I find it even more intriguing to read about more 'politically relevant' questions. That is mostly because I'm Dutch. It is simply unbelieveable how different things are on the two sides of the ocean. Especially with things like abortion. For me it is so strange that you would have to discuss BC or abortion when you're dating someone, because almost everyone in the Netherlands is fully supportive of women's rights when it comes to their health and sex life - the extremely religious excepted of course.
Even though we are undoubtedly one of the world's most 'pro'-abortion countries, the funny thing is that we also have very, very little teenage pregnancies and abortions (in general, not just with teenagers). That is most propably due to our pragmatic approach of problems. For example, we dont have abstinence education. We have sex eduction that already starts at primary school. Our children do not only learn how to practice safe sex (we're proud to practice 'Double Dutch: the pill+condom) but we also learn girls to respect their bodies, to not give in to peer pressure and to not be ashamed of being a sexual being. BC pills are widely available, the government has their 'I do it safe or don't do it at all' campaign directed at teenagers, school doctors are not forbidden but rather encouraged to talk to pupils about (safe) sex, etc...
I could say so much more about all of these things, but I just wanted to share what an enormous joy it is to read Dan's columns (and the comments!) and in that way to get a very nice and informative look into the public debate that goes on at the other side of the ocean. I hope to be reading more of it for many many years.
Well teh menz can direct their ejaculate in such a way that supports their willingness to be a father or not. The point of ejaculation IS WHEN MEN MAKE THEIR CHOICE.
I appreciate that Dan reminded letter writers to read the comments, not just Dan's answer.
Dan published a letter from someone i know a few months back and she didn't even realize there were comments. She had never seen/read them!
@57: You can't compare the burden borne by the woman who raises a child to the burden borne by the man who walks away from the job. That's the wrong comparison.
Compare the burden borne by the woman who sticks around to the burden borne by the man who sticks around. If you do that, I'm reasonably confident that you won't continue to imply that several hundred thousand dollars and two or more decades of active involvement as a father are so insignificant as to not even qualify as "consequences" for men.
@74: You really do have difficulty keeping different concepts sorted out, don't you? Go back and read the thread. It will come to you eventually.
"Consequences! They're not just for women anymore!" implies that men face no consequences as a result of a pregnancy being carried to term, which is, of course, complete bullshit. That isn't about double standards at all.
If you need double standards explained, here, I'll bring the relevant quotes all in one place.
"Well teh menz can direct their ejaculate in such a way that supports their willingness to be a father or not. The point of ejaculation IS WHEN MEN MAKE THEIR CHOICE"
contrasted with
"If she didn't want to be a mother, she should have kept her legs closed."
People will happily make the former argument while jumping down the throat of someone who dares to make the latter. (I hope it was clear that I wasn't actually making that argument.) That is the double standard I was referring to.
Avast2006 -- if you don't want to be a father or a man that has sex with a woman to be a father, then take care of the birth control on the man's end!
You've got a few options -- condoms (not perfect, but better than anything), ejaculating other than inside a woman's babymaking areas (if with a condom on, pretty darn foolproof) or getting a vasectomy. Sure, it's permanent or nearly so, but those are options. Oh, and there is always abstinence.
No one forces men to take these risks. Men may not be able to have abortions, but they have other options. Take a little responsibility for your own (or men's generally) reproductive choices!
(And thank you for not continuing with "blah blah blah," the universal signal for "mouth in gear, brain in neutral." If my arguments are so easily refuted, then refute them. Gibbering at me merely looks like you can't muster an actual argument.)
Quote from #66: "The reason a woman chooses an abortion is of no consequence."
I agree wholeheartedly. A woman can choose to abort for any reason whatsoever. That is her right, and I support it.
If a woman says "I don't want to be a mother right now," that's a perfectly good reason, and everyone will support her. If a man says "I don't want to be a father" it's completely unreasonable of him, and all he gets is vilification.
If a woman says "I can't afford a child" and aborts, she receives only praise for exercising autonomy and empowerment. If a man says "I can't afford a child" he instantly becomes an arch villain, loser, deadbeat dad.
Women have the right and the ability to not bring a child into the world in a way that conscripts the resources of an unwilling participant. When they are the ones who don't want their own resources conscripted to the benefit of the child-to-be, then the pregnancy goes out the window, no questions asked. But they feel free to commandeer another person in a way that they would never stand for being commandeered themselves. This is unreasonable and wrong. Either A) secure the willing participation of your partner, B) elect to go it alone, or C) terminate the pregnancy because the situation does not suit you, the same way you would if it didn't suit you for other reasons. All three of these choices are womens' prerogative.
@77: Condoms break. (I've broken a few myself, back when my wife was off The Pill because it was messing with her cycles.) The Pill sometimes fails. Hell, even vasectomies sometimes fail. (Mine hasn't, thank FSM.)
"Oh, and there is always abstinence" is the same things as "If she didn't want to be a mommy she should have kept her legs closed." Thank you for illustrating my point.
@66 femwanderluster, You are the best! I love that post, I agree with you completely! I married an awesome lady who has made choices just like you have when she was in her late 20's. I'd be more explicit here but my spouse would like me to respect her body, privacy. Because of her decision we're living in a small, paid for home, we built ourselves. And that is freedom of choice!
Avast2006 -- I'm not saying that the choices are perfect. I imagine they could probably develop a hormonal birth control that could kill a man's sperm count but it wouldn't be popular unless they could alter other side effects (like not have it affect testosterone production). Also, I'm not sure how many women would take the risk of the guy being in charge of birth control -- I know I wouldn't. I'd protect myself.
But there are choices. Yes, men don't have the later choice of an abortion like women do, but they do have choices beforehand -- ones that they can effect themselves (condoms, vasectomies, etc.) or ones that they can effect through their partners (i.e. find a woman that's trustworthy and trust her to take care of the birth control).
Not perfect choices, but choices. They simply can't be employed after a pregnancy has occurred, like the choice of abortion can be for a woman (if that's something she is personally open to -- and not all).
When you choose to have sex, then you bear the consequence of a pregnancy, and that includes how the woman you had sex with views her options -- from adoption, to keeping the kid, to abortion.
A woman cannot bear a child to term and terminate her parental rights unless she's able to find another step into her shoes through adoption or otherwise. If she has the kid and the father takes custody, she's on the hook for child support just as much as if the roles were reversed. You guys are both equal in that. She can simply choose not to bring the kid to term if she's open to abortion.
Dan's saying: "Consequences! They're not just for women anymore!" is ALL about double standards and how women have borne (snickersob) the brunt of them re: babies and sex for forever. Thus it's ZING quality. It's funny because it's true.
Congratulations on your condescension. Seems you're the one who doesn't understand double standards.
Your quote or phrase or whatever it is/wherever this came from (the ether? conservatives? religion? the 20th century and before?):
"If she didn't want to be a mother, she should have kept her legs closed."
Is not equivalent to my saying that the man's reproductive choice rests at and before ejaculation because in my quote or phrase or whatever, no one is being slut-shamed and the man is still able to participate in recreational sex.
In your quote or phrase or whatever, the woman's only choice is never to have sex or she's a dirty whore who deserves to be punished with a pregnancy, which, if brought to term, will punish her with a baby. Oh and the man is also punished (if he sticks around, etc). What?! Pregnancy is not a punishment. It's a biological result of sexual actions that may or may not have involved safe sex/contraceptives.
Hmm...whose world-view here is realistic and nuanced and accounts for responsibility on the part of both the woman AND the man and whose world-view is crying foul where there is no foul because, again, you seem to want to ignore the man's responsibility and role in regard to consensual sex that results in pregnancy. The double standard here is expecting the woman to do all of the birth control planning and then complaining when you find out you've fathered a child because you didn't do ANY birth control planning.
Sure, it's not fun to have to support a life you never wanted to support. Godparents, anyone? Again, take action when it's actionable. Those moments for men are not the same moments for women (at least, post ejaculation). That's not fair, sure, but neither is biology, which has made reproduction unfair particularly for women humans.
Also, what @77 said.
Before I posted this, I checked for updates to the comments. I admit I am snarky in the above, but I do not apologize for that. I will say that you seem more even in your @78 response, but I take issue with this:
"When [women] are the ones who don't want their own resources conscripted to the benefit of the child-to-be, then the pregnancy goes out the window, no questions asked. But they feel free to commandeer another person in a way that they would never stand for being commandeered themselves."
So, basically, you (I'm assuming you're a guy here) are concerned that you (or men) might be accidentally or maliciously conscripted into being financially accountable for a child (note I didn't say "father" because this issue for you seems purely financial/based on confiscation of resources for your child's welfare). Fair concern. Except, again:
"Take action when it's actionable. Those moments for men are not the same moments for women (at least, post ejaculation). That's not fair, sure, but neither is biology, which has made reproduction unfair particularly for women humans." It's quite simple. To quote KL: "Take a little responsibility for your own (or men's generally) reproductive choices!"
Curious, are you an MRA? Getting hints of that from your posts.
Stop being a victim of someone else's choices. Make your own. Fuck knows that's what women have fought for and are still fighting for the world over re:reproductive rights, let alone reproductive choices.
also @72, the point is that the man can run. The woman is stuck with the kid because it came out of her attached to an umbilical cord. No such cord ties the father to the child, if he is so desperate not to be a father.
If the guy steps up to support his child, then...what is your argument? He CHOSE to step up. Why whine about that later? Seems the guy is always a victim to the woman and the baby in your scenarios and you don't allow for real life situations, like, plenty of fathers and even some mothers simply fuck off and leave the kid with the other parent. If the problem is you don't wanna feel like a total douchebag for abandoning your half of the responsibility, then, I have nothing for you except to say: don't ejaculate into vaginas.
@86. I am pro-choice. If you had said "The right to an abortion is awesome" I would have agreed with you, although I probably would have chosen a different description.
I am also adamant in defense of free speech. I think the right to call someone a nigger is important, but I don't think calling someone a nigger is itself is awesome.
I assume your choice of words was intentional, especially given your earlier statement in @66 that the reason for an abortion is of no consequence. If I have correctly read your post, you see:
No difference between an abortion at 12 weeks because birth control failed and one at 39 weeks because - hey, it's bikini season and I am sick of being pregnant.
No difference between a parent coming to the decision to abort a fetus with a rare and deadly medical condition and a parent aborting a child that shows genetic traits thought to be consistent with homosexuality (they will likely be able to screen for this in the future).
No difference between the ultrasound of the 26 week old fetus that is celebrated on the fridge and the other of the 26 week old fetus that is about to have it's life terminated.
Most of all, I don't think you even believe what you write. You are saying this to be controvesial and spark a debate. Others call this trolling.
Tim -- I personally don't care for the idea that abortion is awesome, at least not as a concept, but I do think the choice to have an abortion is awesome.
People make poor choices all the time. Just like you say with free speech -- protecting such things includes those that want to use such a freedom in an ugly, bigoted or foolish way. I'm not thrilled with the KKK, but I will defend their freedom to express their views.
Same with abortion -- and that's the point I think of a lot of what 86 is saying. It's a freedom of CHOICE, and that includes those individuals that are shallow, unfeeling, foolish, selfish, etc. and will make poor choices. And as distasteful as I personally think abortion as a form of birth control is, I think it's all the better that those that feel that way don't have kids because I can guarantee you such selfish, callous people would be the WORST parents ever.
@66: If you could go back in time, wave a magic wand, and never have had the pregnancy you terminated, would you do so? I'm betting the answer is yes.
And that is (probably) pretty much what whoever said "we all want fewer abortions" meant. Not fewer abortions because women are forced not to have them; fewer abortions because women don't *need* them... fewer abortions because there are fewer unwanted pregnancies. You agree with that concept, right?
and, @58: I may never have had a pregnancy, unwanted or otherwise, but "What if I got pregnant?" is *always* going to be a purely academic question for men (barring significant advances in medical technology), whereas for a woman, it's something that, unless she knows she's medically incapable of conceiving, is always a possibility.
I'm pro choice and yet I feel that the debate about abortion masks an equally important issue. The prosperity of the USA is such that we can have this conversation (medical care making abortions available, a life style to pursue and protect, etc.) And yet what is lacking and given the level of prosperity of this society should not be, is a guarantee of dignity for all. If the right wants to even begin having a moral ground to stand on in this argument then as a society we must inusre that a child is not a financial curse. the consequences of exercising humanity, and sexuality is humanity, should not be punished by subjugating parents and child in the servitude of the more fortunate. Until the right put their money where their mouth is there should not even be a debate. And if they ever did, I doubt the numbers of abortions still taking place would nessecite one.
I'm pro choice and yet I feel that the debate about abortion masks an equally important issue. The prosperity of the USA is such that we can have this conversation (medical care making abortions available, a life style to pursue and protect, etc.) And yet what is lacking and given the level of prosperity of this society should not be, is a guarantee of dignity for all. If the right wants to even begin having a moral ground to stand on in this argument then as a society we must inusre that a child is not a financial curse. the consequences of exercising humanity, and sexuality is humanity, should not be punished by subjugating parents and child in the servitude of the more fortunate. Until the right put their money where their mouth is there should not even be a debate. And if they ever did, I doubt the numbers of abortions still taking place would nessecite one.
@88 "Most of all, I don't think you even believe what you write. You are saying this to be controvesial and spark a debate. Others call this trolling."
Um, wow. I'm Norwegian, so to be called a troll is always a bit silly, but I understand what you mean in this context.
NO. I am not trolling. I think it's telling that you think I AM trolling. Apparently, "abortion is awesome" is controversial...who knew? Oh, wait, I know. I do, honestly, 100% believe what I have written in this thread. To me, the importance of reproductive rights and choice for women is of THE UTMOST. If there is one thing in this world that I do not take lightly it's women's rights = human rights and reproductive rights = human rights. Though, I won't lie and say I don't relish making people THINK about why they think abortion is bad or wrong or what have you. Seriously think. Please.
Abortion is awesome. Yes, "awesome" in the parlance of the day means "totally cool" but it also has an older meaning that I think blends with the modern one in this context. It is fucking radically awesome that women can decide when, if and how reproduction plays a part in their lives and how they use their resources. That, sir, is RADICAL. That is AWESOME. AWE-inspiring. It would be even more radically awesome if women all over the world had unadulterated access to family planning options including contraception, std testing and treatment, as well as abortion, but we're probably at least 50 years out on that one. AT LEAST. Now, who's trolling, sir?
I can tell from your comment that you DO make distinctions based on the reason a woman might choose to abort her pregnancy.
Why?
What is the difference in the end?
So you can tell someone else how to live their life? So you can judge someone else and feel superior that your life and your life choices are better than theirs? Or do you think women who have sex are somehow bad? Does it matter if they used protection/bc and it failed or... where's the distinction?
No, really, why? What IS the difference between a woman who aborts for aesthetic reasons (won't put my body through that! where's my surrogate?) and a woman who aborts for health reasons? Or that she was raped? Or that she can't afford her life and another?
Really, what is the end difference there? A (safe and legal) abortion is a (safe and legal) abortion is a (safe and legal) abortion, no matter what choices led the woman to that decision. Except that it was HER DECISION.
It's telling that your go-to first choice was "bikini season" babe which, sure, if that's a woman's reason to choose abortion, that's her life, not mine. Go ahead, bikini season woman. Honestly, no judgement. However, I will say that that's quite flippant on your part and belies a thought on your part that women take abortion lightly. That it's easy. Studies show differently, specifically that it's MOTHERS with children ALREADY who undergo the majority of abortions. Still, be a woman a mother of 10 or a mother of none but a food baby, the most important part? ABORTION IS LEGAL. The constitution does not say it has to be for NOBLE reasons. It just says it's legal. And you have NO say in a woman's choice there, random guy on the internet, and thank fuck for that.
From your reaction to my "abortion is awesome" post, I take it you think I think abortion is FUN, even. That is the mistake of people who would read my post @66 and see: she thinks abortion is entertaining and fun and I bet she does it every month. If you read my whole post @66, you would understand that the reason I think abortion is awesome, because it is, is that, at it's most basic, it is an amazing resource that gives women the ability to plan their lives and care for their pre-existing children, if they have them, or simply to care for themselves with a chance at financial independence; they do not have to shape their lives to fit a man's because they had his kid. It all comes back to autonomy. Which, oh, right, WOMEN'S autonomy is under fire right now. Can you tell me, Tim, when has a MAN'S autonomy ever been in question? It's quite simply unthinkable in our culture/society.
The litmus test for human rights is whether or not you think a woman's right to an abortion is her own, a decision she makes herself, no questions asked. If you think otherwise, you are wasting time trying to dictate other people's lives and the reason they live them the way they do. I am not kidding. Abortion IS black and white. You are either for it or against it. Everything in between is waffling: she is a human being with human rights or she is not.
It's like marriage equality, quite frankly. Two men or two women marrying each other does not impact your ability to marry a partner of your choosing (unless it's someone of your sex, then we need to look at which state/country you're living in and whether or not you'd have to move somewhere that recognizes gay/lesbian marriage).
My abortion has nothing to do with you or your life. Does it? Maybe it did and I forgot to ask, stupid selfish slut that I am: Tim, did my abortion 6 years ago adversely affect your life? Does the reason I had the abortion adversely affect your life?
Hmm. Trolling, yup. I am SO TOTALLY trolling, what with all these reasoned, engaging and thought-out responses. Wish I could say the jokes on you, but the yolk ends up all over women and their reproductive anatomy. Wait, was that an egg joke? Ovaries! No, no: the internet, it's a series of FALLOPIAN TUBES! Phew, but does this shit get old.
I did everything right and still got pregnant. Now I have actually had the experience that so many people would dictate for others and I can say OH HELL NO BACK THE FUCK UP.
My abortion was my choice. It was right for me. I am glad I went through that. Because now, more than ever, it is VALID oh how VALID that choice is now. Have you ever had an abortion, @91? Have one, don't have one: it's YOUR decision to make for YOURSELF. Not me, not anyone else. DO NOT presume to tell me what I think or want or would have preferred. I can make own decisions, thanks, though.
And you did READ my post @66?:
"I would also say: more contraceptive access! more reproductive planning and education access!"
I'm all for preventative measures FIRST, having used them myself, but they aren't always effective. Me: case in point.
Abortion is still awesome.
This BS people pull: "rare abortions" is just to placate the religious extremists who would dictate reproductive choice for all women, blind of any circumstances unique to a particular woman or the environment in which she lives, for the further goal of getting those women contraception access. That said, I would obviously rather women did not end up pregnant in the first place, unless they want that. And abortion is still awesome.
I am a radical fucking feminist who wants everyone to have European style comprehensive sex ed from primary school up and I want government to provide free birth control for all women, no matter the option they choose. And that includes abortion.
Femwanderluster -- thank you so much for your posts. I think the abortion debate in the US highlights how rampant misogyny and sexual shame (especially of women) is alive and well. That when it comes to women especially, we're just not smart enough to understand our choices. Silly us. That we need a big, strong man to explain them to us and make them for us because our widdle feather brains just would be so taxed...
And sadly many of these values are highlighted in Christian and Muslim religious systems. Sure, Christianity has come much further in the way it's practiced in a lot of the world than a lot of places that practice Islam, but the practice of both has always had a very strong streak of misogyny running through their core. The religions themselves don't necessarily have to be that way, but the way they've been practiced from for the last 1500-2000 years has unfortunately shown that. And, shockingly, the folks have been in control of those systems have been men. Hmmmm...
Your posts have been a relief to read. Sense! Logic! You're even nicer about it all than I can manage to be (rageLOLsob) and you still come off as thoughtful and balanced and not a shit-taker.
And I agree with you @97. It's the systems and institutions, not the ideas themselves, that are effed up and patriarchal.
avast@76
"Consequences! They're not just for women anymore!" implies that men face no consequences"
I think Dan meant by "anymore" that in the past men faced no consequences, but now, due to DNA testing and the subsequent ramping up of child-support laws and wage garnishing, now men do face consequences, just as women have always done.
"Even though he claimed he respected me, he admitted that he would ban abortion if he could, essentially arguing that I am less capable of understanding what pregnancy means and the effect it would have on my life than he is. I broke up with him."
Good for you, and I wish you all the best -- especially in finding a partner who is worthy of you. ("Letter of the law," wow!)
FUCKING LOVE IT
For what it's worth, I called Mr Savage's advice clever, though I was not as purist about it as the other supportive poster (I only saw one other in favour) who later made it quite apparent that any eight-year-old who had not already independently seen through and condemned the patriarchal agenda of life-beginning-at-conception propaganda was doomed forever to remain unworthy of being designated human (I paraphrase slightly, but that's close to the flavour if not the actual line set out).
I forgot to welcome Mr Ank back - it's been so heterocentric here the last few weeks that I've hardly had anything to say.
http://applebutterdreams.wordpress.com/2…
BETTER SAVE, LIFE! Right, *he* understood *better than you* how pregnancy would affect *you*. Right. *slow clap* Brava, bellisima. Move on & thanks so much for writing back. Better partners await you.
@ 10, Crinoline - I'd probably bring it up pre-sex, somehow. Whenever that turns out to be, 3rd date being the "norm" recently, I hear.
It's is 100% okay with me, if someone else whose position is pro-choice, sleeps with someone else whose position is anti-choice, as long as both agree on what the course of action will be.
*I*, would not do so. If we don't concur that ultimately, a decision about my body rests solely with me, then you don't get to play with/in said body. The end.
Maybe it's knee-jerk, but there it is. I also don't get with people who don't support equality 100%. Why should I, when so many hot, smart people do?
@9 - Mr. Venominon, granted, much of the topics here that tend to be discussed tend to be hetero-normative. But I bet if you took a role call every now & then you'd see plenty of "Savage Love" queer readers/Sloggers. (Said a bi woman.)
Great Column Dan, love to love you babayyy.
Abstinence campaigns are laudable, but idealistic in the heat of the moment, and need to be rammed home with information about prevention.
Twenty years ago, I was in a debate at university over abortion, and my position then was 'A woman's (and man's) right to choose... once': rape or medical emergency excepted, consent to pregnancy-causing sex was an acceptance of prophylaxis failing etc.
But the major sides in that debate were so rabid and uncompromising, that they weren't worth talking to.
My position now, having experienced 'the heat of the moment', is that abstinance teaching is too draconian - it should focus on avoiding penis-in-vagina and not being promiscuous (how will someone learn without making safe mistakes?) and valuing someone enough not to take photos.
I'm still broadly opposed to abortion-for-convenience, but mostly because to me it represents a failure of society to tackle serious problems with efficatious solutions. Just now, my wife and I are at the opposite end of the problem, suffering miscarriages, which traumatise her. If we have a daughter, hopefully I'll be able to teach her that one of the many reasons low-pregnancy-risk sex needs to be approached carefully is because it can enflame higher risk sex, and abortion also needs to be approached as a bad and potentially damaging last resort.
Abstinence campaigns need to be leavened with practical advice and guidelines for those who don't make the fairly unrealistic goals, and a cut-off point for those thst do! - speaking as a former 37-ish year old virgin, who should have been experimenting carefully from... oh 30, at least! I didn't know that a woman being 'into' me, with pleasured moans while hugging, did not mean she was desperate! Sigh...
"Even though he claimed he respected me, he admitted that he would ban abortion if he could, essentially arguing that I am less capable of understanding what pregnancy means and the effect it would have on my life than he is."
If he actually SAID that she was "less capable of understanding", that sucks, but I get the feeling that I'm reading a slightly self-serving paraphrase that's been rephrased to make the boyfriend sound worse. Either that or you're saying "Because he would ban abortion, he's inevitably arguing that he's more capable than me", which is silly: if a woman votes to ban infant circumcision, she's not saying she's more capable than the parents, just that she thinks that what they're doing is wrong.
"Even though he claimed he respected me, he admitted that he would ban abortion if he could, essentially arguing that I am less capable of understanding what pregnancy means and the effect it would have on my life than he is."
If he actually SAID that she was "less capable of understanding", that sucks, but I get the feeling that I'm reading a slightly self-serving paraphrase that's been rephrased to make the boyfriend sound worse. I don't get the impression that the guy's an overt sexist, but are you retelling the story to make him sound like one so that you'll get a chorus of "You go, girl!" and other feminine platitudes?
(Either that or you're saying "Because he would ban abortion, he's inevitably arguing that he's more capable than me", which is silly: if a woman votes to ban circumcision of infant males, she's not saying she's more capable than the parents, just that she thinks that what they're doing is wrong.)
A class-mate of mine decided she wasn't fertile because she had so often unprotected sex and never got pregnant. So she did not use any protection with her boyfriend. Surprise, she got pregnant. Of course, she had an abortion and thankfully got on hormonal birth control.
Three months later, she decided to get off the pill because she didn't like the increased hair growth on her legs. Her boyfriend didn't like condoms. (I know that there are other forms of BC but she found them all inconvenient.)
So, yes, I'd say, they considered abortion to be a convenient alternative to birth control.
I try to have a discussion on birth control and abortion before I have sex with someone new.
Because I am not on the pill and oppose abortion (disclaimer: being against abortion doesn't mean that I want to ban it), I feel that my sex partner has definitely the right to know that I wouldn't abort the baby in case of an accident.
Frankly, I don't understand why people don't seem to do that as a matter of principle (unless in the heat of the moment they get distracted).
1. Engage in any activity that could make a baby
2. Seriously consider the person as a potential life partner (rather than just as a fun time)
3. Enter into any situation or arrangement where you need to be able to trust that he or she has compatible values and/or can be trusted (cohabitation, any kind of legal partnership, certain flavors of kinky activity...)
And the decision doesn't necessarily need to be a dump/don't dump one. If it is, for example, a casual relationship, you can decide "I will not tell him if I get pregnant, I will just take care of it on my own."
My apologies, by the way, over terminology. We really need a new term here. I quite often use "same-sex(er)" to avoid bi erasure, but for some reason "opposite-sex(er)" just doesn't seem to be working, and tacking on the "-centric" suffix just seemed unbearably clunky for a late Tuesday night.
Seriously, though, do you not think the overall tone has shifted? I have thought something of the sort for some little time. I did not grudge the straight (with a rounder or two included) women the week in which almost the entire conversation concerned their masturbatory habits as twelve-year-olds. Good for them, I thought. But it was right around then that the stretches began, or perhaps that was when I started to notice it, that I'd go longer and longer without having any pertinent sort of in to the general discussion. In the last month, for instance, I've have more to say that has had some substance for someone in feminist discussions than I've had here, which seems to be a significant inversion of the usual order. One wonders if it means something, or if I'm just being a little too Ladbrokes-inspired, as sometimes happens.
Even though I could easily go the rest of the week without having anything else to say, I shall not ramble on.
I don't even know where I'd find an anti-choice man, so I gottta tell you, it's not a big concern. I think most people when they're dating come around to talking politics at some point.
I think calling it an 'anti-choice boycott' is silly, it's more like "I don't want to date a shitbag".
http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_induce…
And no, Guttmacher is not some pro life shill; quite the opposite. Problem is, it's hard to focus on education and prevention when basic reproductive rights are under full scale attack. Parents, educate your children because the right is making damn sure they won't be, and woe unto us all if they win in November. "Safe, legal and rare" seems like a distnat dream.
As Smoakes @18 stated, the loss of a child, whether it is though termination (abortion) or miscarriage (spontaneous abortion), takes a large physical and emotional toll on the woman. Abortion is not a casual decision for the woman. The residual physical effects can last days to weeks. The emotional impact months to years.
There is an interesting article at Jezebel about miscarriages and the physical and emotion toll on the woman. The comments are illuminating. Maybe if more men had empathy, they would be more sympathetic and less rigid in their thinking.
http://jezebel.com/5951937/the-never+end…
Any man who is against his girlfriend's having an abortion can always exercise the ultimate choice--have a vasectomy!
Here is a link worth following:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mniw30c8Kj4
Then draw the line.
I wish none of these guys could date, but unfortunately many of them do.
I, too, was uncomfortable with your advising LIFE to lie to her BF. But I think you hit the more important nail on the head in saying that one bedrock characteristic of modern conservatism is an awe-inspiring lack of empathy. Not just that: a general intellectual immaturity, really. I, too, congratulate LIFE for D'ing the MFA. That lady will find the Right One soon enough, I am confident of it.
"I didn't intend for LIFE to drag the lie out for weeks. I was thinking 30 minutes tops."
WTF does the *duration* of the lie have to do with anything? (Or is it supposed to be understood that that's another part of his advice he'd like to retract? Doesn't read that way to me, but it's early morning.)
I love you Dan!!!
LIFE----YAAAAAAAAYYYY!!!!! Good for you for DTMFA!!!
If your ex-boyfriend STILL remains doggedly anti-choice, even after your long talk with him, then he doesn't deserve to get any from anyone at all.
@21 Perhaps your former class mate didn't want to discuss the real side effects that hormonal birth control had on her. Many women report depression, loss of sex drive and huge psychological issues with the pill. Perhaps she did not want to discuss such private things with you, especially because you obviously don't consider yourselves friends. I do think that forms of birth control like the IUD do not get offered enough by doctors, but that is a failing of education, not because people use abortions for convenience. Finally, if someone is going to reject birth control because it makes their leg hair grow, and who does not want a child is probably not a person that should be forced to have a child. Every child deserves to be loved and cared for and forcing women who don't want to bear a child or who are not in a circumstance to take care of a child is unfair to the child as well as the parent.
I do not engage in any sexual or romantic activity with partners of any composition of man and lady bits if they do not believe in a woman's right to choose. Straight up.
You don't think I deserve agency over my body? Then you are coming NO WHERE NEAR IT.
This is a conversation I always have pre-sexy times.
Y'know what the solution is, right? MORE CONTRACEPTION for everyone! YAY Obama!
I'm very sorry for the recurring losses you and your wife experience, but your envy shouldn't allow you to dictate what goes on in other wombs around the country. Abortion is never convenient.
Inversely, Dan, I'll always be staunchly pro-choice, but if I became unexpectedly pregnant, I might find that I'm not pro-abortion when it comes to my own body. Who knows what those child-bearing hormones might do to my brains.
But I don't worry much because I'm on the pill and I prohibit my husband from coming inside me until we're ready for baby. I'm of the mind that it's less "degrading" (as some women call it) to have semen ON me than IN me, because I'm against reproducing at the moment.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/16/opinio…
If you think what a parent does is wrong for their own infant, you are indeed thinking you know better than they/more capable of understanding the issue at hand.
It's kind of impossible to tell someone else they're doing something morally wrong without thinking that your own thinking on this issue is better than theirs.
Generally, as a society, we prize autonomy and individual choice. We don't say, hey, this guy is homeless, so you're FORCED to offer him your guest room. Pretty much anyone would be outraged if the govt. FORCED you to open up you home to an unwelcome person. That such a requirement would be egregious and violate the homeowners right to privacy, safety and having his/her home to him/herself.
However, when it comes to women, apparently requiring the same of her BODY is no big deal. It's just a minor inconvenience. Oh, pregnancy, that minor inconvenience...as if it were a headcold or something.
Why do we prize someone's home more than her body? Oh, yeah, because she's a woman and not quite a full fledged person, in some people's minds...
It shocks me how little some people bother to communicate prior to commencing either recreational sex or a LTR. Some time ago, I was told by a potential bed-mate that, "I think too much". I guess she was hoping for a more spontaneous romp in the sack and I was asking too many questions about what, where, and other preparations. I asked her if she would be as happy should her 19 year old jock son (and Big Man on campus) should come home to inform her of her impending grandmother-hood with some cheerleader.
Her eyes got as big around as dinner plates and I hope she has a (belated) talk with him about college vs a job at the local car parts store.
This should be on a t-shirt.
But I'll tell you this: if you tried to interview me for acceptable responses to your known list of deal-breakers on a first date, my reaction to that would be "This one is way, wayyyy too high-maintenance," and to climb out the restaurant bathroom window if necessary.
By the way, Dan, and everyone who thinks that man have not historically had to face consequences. My favorite line from Parenthood is that women have choices and men have responsibilities. If LIFE decides - completely without the man's input - on whether to keep a fetus/pregnancy/baby, can the man decide whether or not he has to face 18 years of child support payments for her choice? Or is this just a "the woman decides and the man pays" kind of deal?
Oh, that's right. Thinking such thoughts makes me an untouchable. Mea culpa!
Right, because a couple of hundred grand in child support and college fund, not to mention at least two decades of actually being there for the kid if you take on the role of father, rather than just writing a check every month and otherwise ignoring the situation ... nahhh, that's nothing much, really. Hardly worth even considering.
@53- Yes, the woman decides and the man lives with it. Tough breaks, but it's her body, not his. AND- maybe men will think a bit more before they shoot their load in there. Doubtful, but maybe.
As Dan so aptly puts it- "Consequences! They're not just for women anymore!" Get used to it.
But, let's not for a second think that it's not the responsibility of raising kids has not historically and for the most part still happens today falls on the shoulders of women. Is it getting better? Yes. But it's no where near equal.
For the vast majority, child support doesn't begin to even pay for the cost of raising a child, not even close to 50-50. And men have historically been able to abandon their children without a second thought if they chose to do so -- that was a very rare case for a woman. Not to mention that historically, it was a huge social blow to a woman -- to have a child out of wedlock -- made her a pyriah in many places (and in other parts of the world, she can still be put to death for such things, even if the child is a result of rape).
SO, yeah, things are getting better and more men are being forced to be responsible. But, it's still not even close to the responsibility born by women, physically, emotionally, psychologically or economically in having and raising kids. NOT EVEN CLOSE.
Did you register for the draft at 18? Men still do. Their bodies can be conscripted at any time.
And, re 57, it ain't a competition to see who has it harder. As I said, women have choices and men have responsibilities. For men the choice is this: she chooses and you suck it up buddy. It may be harder for a woman, but she still got her "second chance" to choose. The man has no "second chance" choice, because, let's face it, they both choose to blow it (or not) on their first chance (and blowing it would have solved the problem, instead of creating it).
I like your story about how men can choose to walk away without consequences, other than jail time and being stigmatized as a dead beat dad.
Now, the ones I like best are the ones who say, well, the law allows it and it may be just as well. But if it were up to me, and I could do so without oppressing other people, I would somehow prevent any abortions from ever taking place. I find that a pretty legit position.
Now, if you are concerned about what would happen if you got pregnant, that is a legit concern.
But to break up with someone just because he sees the world a little different than you and has an opinion about it he is foolish enough to share, then he is well rid of you.
Don't get me wrong. I am pretty liberal and democratic, and I would have a hard time dating someone who was a conservative. One of those reasons is they are too damn dogmatic and close minded.
I am no more willing to date a dogmatic close minded liberal. I think you did him a favor.
Sure, today, we as a society are holding men more responsible for fathering children -- both socially and legally. But, frankly, this is something they should have been doing for a long, long time. But, because of the biological reality of not having to actually birth a child, many were able to avoid this very thing whereas until fairly recently women weren't able to make the same decision nearly as easily. And even when a woman chooses to terminate, she still bears far more of the consequences of that decision, physically, emotionally and psychologically.
Not everything in this world is identical or exactly equal, but it doesn't mean that we shouldn't value things equally or respect them equally.
Let's face it, if men could get pregnant, abortion would be about as controversial as kittens.
Do we force people to donate kidneys? Lungs? Bone marrow? Some of those things are far less invasive than pregnancy and could save someone's life, but we don't require people to donate bone marrow or any other part of their body.
Except if the person in question is a woman -- than it's perfectly acceptable for some to say that she should donate her entire body for 9 months, irrevocably change it and even risk her own life for another "person".
This would never fly in any other scenario on the conservative ticket -- the same people that are pro-life would be up in arms if you required such things -- claiming it impinged their freedom, individual choice, etc.
I personally don't care whether you consider the fetus a child or not. There is no doubt that the woman is a person and if she doesn't want another life form growing inside her, that should be her choice. Period.
At that time, we were friends. And she shared all kinds of personal stuff, like when she got very upset because an almost-boyfriend didn't want to have condomless sex with her without an STI-screening first.
I think she would have been a dreadful mother. And even though I think it would be better if more women would give up their babies for adoption instead of aborting them, I do understand why that wasn't possible for her. What upset me was that she and her boyfriend weren't even bothered enough by that unwanted pregnancy to try to find a birth control method that worked for them both.
For them, abortion was a convenient method of birth control.
The choice about aborting or not rests with the woman because she is the one who will gain the weight. She is the one who will bear the risks of being pregnant, including a 10% chance she will die. It is her body, not the guys. The right to make this decision rests with the one bearing the consequences of pregnancy.
Once the child is born he/she deserves to have a good life provided by both their parents. The right to support belongs to the child and is SHARED between BOTH parents.
I realize that you 2 apparently only care about the man's financial security. Society and decency says otherwise.
@16
"The abortion debate wastes so much energy, when both sides agree that fewer abortions would be preferable and could try to work together to reduce the *need*.(I refuse to believe even the most frevent [sic] pro-choice advocate thinks more abortions would benefit a woman)"
Why does abortion HAVE to have a pall of awful attached to it? The way the world works right now for women in countries where abortion is illegal, I would say: Yes, please, more abortions! MORE ABORTIONS! No contest. I would also say: more contraceptive access! more reproductive planning and education access!
I had an abortion when I was 22 and I was happy to have it and I felt lucky I was privileged enough to have safe access to that abortion and I couldn't be more thrilled that I had the abortion. That's not to say I was happy that I NEEDED to have the abortion--on the contrary, I was quite freaked out by the possibility of having to bring the pregnancy to term (oh, by the way, you abort a PREGNANCY not a BABY)-- particularly because I was taking the pill and taking it correctly (same time, every morning, never missed one)--but I am in no way SAD or traumatized for having had an abortion. It has been only beneficial in all aspects.
I find abortion to be quite life affirming and a GOOD thing in that it gives women the ability to plan their life in a way that best suits them and their pre-existing families, whether they have kids already, never want children, or simply can't afford to be a mother. Again, abortion is not just a women's issue, but a socio-economic one.
The reason a woman chooses an abortion is of no consequence.
Let's repeat that:
The reason a woman chooses an abortion is of no consequence.
You either think that abortion should be legal or you don't. If you think that an abortion for this reason is okay but that an abortion for this other reason is not okay, you are completely missing the forest for the trees.
What is of consequence is a woman's right to an abortion and the right not to be discriminated against for making that choice: i.e., legal obstacles (here's looking at you, Mississippi, et. al.) that restrict her lawful access.
I find the "exceptions," in the case of incest, or rape, or that the pregnancy threatens the mother's life, to be completely arbitrary and infantilizing to women. If you say that an incest or rape victim MUST be forced to carry her pregnancy to term, I don't have to ask to know that you do not think women are humans (here's the kicker, you don't have to be a man to think this way). If the life of the mother isn't important to you, then forget it. This really illuminates the who's who of modern misogyny.
I would not have sex with anyone who is pro-life/anti-choice/forced-birther.
Even though we are undoubtedly one of the world's most 'pro'-abortion countries, the funny thing is that we also have very, very little teenage pregnancies and abortions (in general, not just with teenagers). That is most propably due to our pragmatic approach of problems. For example, we dont have abstinence education. We have sex eduction that already starts at primary school. Our children do not only learn how to practice safe sex (we're proud to practice 'Double Dutch: the pill+condom) but we also learn girls to respect their bodies, to not give in to peer pressure and to not be ashamed of being a sexual being. BC pills are widely available, the government has their 'I do it safe or don't do it at all' campaign directed at teenagers, school doctors are not forbidden but rather encouraged to talk to pupils about (safe) sex, etc...
I could say so much more about all of these things, but I just wanted to share what an enormous joy it is to read Dan's columns (and the comments!) and in that way to get a very nice and informative look into the public debate that goes on at the other side of the ocean. I hope to be reading more of it for many many years.
If you think I only care about finances for the man, you need to work on your reading comprehension. If a woman thinks she cannot afford a child, and aborts, she is seen as exercising autonomy and empowerment. If a man thinks he cannot afford a child, he is a deadbeat bastard. Your crack about society and decency rings particularly hollow in light of such a blatant double standard.
If women expect the right to not be coerced into parenthood unwilling, they have no business expecting to coerce men into parenthood unwilling. A woman should not be bringing a child into the world under circumstances that force another person to be a parent, when she would never stand for being forced to be a parent herself.
As far as the rights of the child go, these are decisions and arrangements that should be made long before there is an actual child (a fetus is not an actual child, only a potential one) who has actual rights that need to be considered.
Even though we are undoubtedly one of the world's most 'pro'-abortion countries, the funny thing is that we also have very, very little teenage pregnancies and abortions (in general, not just with teenagers). That is most propably due to our pragmatic approach of problems. For example, we dont have abstinence education. We have sex eduction that already starts at primary school. Our children do not only learn how to practice safe sex (we're proud to practice 'Double Dutch: the pill+condom) but we also learn girls to respect their bodies, to not give in to peer pressure and to not be ashamed of being a sexual being. BC pills are widely available, the government has their 'I do it safe or don't do it at all' campaign directed at teenagers, school doctors are not forbidden but rather encouraged to talk to pupils about (safe) sex, etc...
I could say so much more about all of these things, but I just wanted to share what an enormous joy it is to read Dan's columns (and the comments!) and in that way to get a very nice and informative look into the public debate that goes on at the other side of the ocean. I hope to be reading more of it for many many years.
Well teh menz can direct their ejaculate in such a way that supports their willingness to be a father or not. The point of ejaculation IS WHEN MEN MAKE THEIR CHOICE.
Done.
Dan published a letter from someone i know a few months back and she didn't even realize there were comments. She had never seen/read them!
Compare the burden borne by the woman who sticks around to the burden borne by the man who sticks around. If you do that, I'm reasonably confident that you won't continue to imply that several hundred thousand dollars and two or more decades of active involvement as a father are so insignificant as to not even qualify as "consequences" for men.
Enjoy your double standards.
What's that about double standards?
"Consequences! They're not just for women anymore!" implies that men face no consequences as a result of a pregnancy being carried to term, which is, of course, complete bullshit. That isn't about double standards at all.
If you need double standards explained, here, I'll bring the relevant quotes all in one place.
"Well teh menz can direct their ejaculate in such a way that supports their willingness to be a father or not. The point of ejaculation IS WHEN MEN MAKE THEIR CHOICE"
contrasted with
"If she didn't want to be a mother, she should have kept her legs closed."
People will happily make the former argument while jumping down the throat of someone who dares to make the latter. (I hope it was clear that I wasn't actually making that argument.) That is the double standard I was referring to.
You've got a few options -- condoms (not perfect, but better than anything), ejaculating other than inside a woman's babymaking areas (if with a condom on, pretty darn foolproof) or getting a vasectomy. Sure, it's permanent or nearly so, but those are options. Oh, and there is always abstinence.
No one forces men to take these risks. Men may not be able to have abortions, but they have other options. Take a little responsibility for your own (or men's generally) reproductive choices!
(And thank you for not continuing with "blah blah blah," the universal signal for "mouth in gear, brain in neutral." If my arguments are so easily refuted, then refute them. Gibbering at me merely looks like you can't muster an actual argument.)
Quote from #66: "The reason a woman chooses an abortion is of no consequence."
I agree wholeheartedly. A woman can choose to abort for any reason whatsoever. That is her right, and I support it.
If a woman says "I don't want to be a mother right now," that's a perfectly good reason, and everyone will support her. If a man says "I don't want to be a father" it's completely unreasonable of him, and all he gets is vilification.
If a woman says "I can't afford a child" and aborts, she receives only praise for exercising autonomy and empowerment. If a man says "I can't afford a child" he instantly becomes an arch villain, loser, deadbeat dad.
Women have the right and the ability to not bring a child into the world in a way that conscripts the resources of an unwilling participant. When they are the ones who don't want their own resources conscripted to the benefit of the child-to-be, then the pregnancy goes out the window, no questions asked. But they feel free to commandeer another person in a way that they would never stand for being commandeered themselves. This is unreasonable and wrong. Either A) secure the willing participation of your partner, B) elect to go it alone, or C) terminate the pregnancy because the situation does not suit you, the same way you would if it didn't suit you for other reasons. All three of these choices are womens' prerogative.
"Oh, and there is always abstinence" is the same things as "If she didn't want to be a mommy she should have kept her legs closed." Thank you for illustrating my point.
But there are choices. Yes, men don't have the later choice of an abortion like women do, but they do have choices beforehand -- ones that they can effect themselves (condoms, vasectomies, etc.) or ones that they can effect through their partners (i.e. find a woman that's trustworthy and trust her to take care of the birth control).
Not perfect choices, but choices. They simply can't be employed after a pregnancy has occurred, like the choice of abortion can be for a woman (if that's something she is personally open to -- and not all).
When you choose to have sex, then you bear the consequence of a pregnancy, and that includes how the woman you had sex with views her options -- from adoption, to keeping the kid, to abortion.
A woman cannot bear a child to term and terminate her parental rights unless she's able to find another step into her shoes through adoption or otherwise. If she has the kid and the father takes custody, she's on the hook for child support just as much as if the roles were reversed. You guys are both equal in that. She can simply choose not to bring the kid to term if she's open to abortion.
Dan's saying: "Consequences! They're not just for women anymore!" is ALL about double standards and how women have borne (snickersob) the brunt of them re: babies and sex for forever. Thus it's ZING quality. It's funny because it's true.
Congratulations on your condescension. Seems you're the one who doesn't understand double standards.
Your quote or phrase or whatever it is/wherever this came from (the ether? conservatives? religion? the 20th century and before?):
"If she didn't want to be a mother, she should have kept her legs closed."
Is not equivalent to my saying that the man's reproductive choice rests at and before ejaculation because in my quote or phrase or whatever, no one is being slut-shamed and the man is still able to participate in recreational sex.
In your quote or phrase or whatever, the woman's only choice is never to have sex or she's a dirty whore who deserves to be punished with a pregnancy, which, if brought to term, will punish her with a baby. Oh and the man is also punished (if he sticks around, etc). What?! Pregnancy is not a punishment. It's a biological result of sexual actions that may or may not have involved safe sex/contraceptives.
Hmm...whose world-view here is realistic and nuanced and accounts for responsibility on the part of both the woman AND the man and whose world-view is crying foul where there is no foul because, again, you seem to want to ignore the man's responsibility and role in regard to consensual sex that results in pregnancy. The double standard here is expecting the woman to do all of the birth control planning and then complaining when you find out you've fathered a child because you didn't do ANY birth control planning.
Sure, it's not fun to have to support a life you never wanted to support. Godparents, anyone? Again, take action when it's actionable. Those moments for men are not the same moments for women (at least, post ejaculation). That's not fair, sure, but neither is biology, which has made reproduction unfair particularly for women humans.
Also, what @77 said.
Before I posted this, I checked for updates to the comments. I admit I am snarky in the above, but I do not apologize for that. I will say that you seem more even in your @78 response, but I take issue with this:
"When [women] are the ones who don't want their own resources conscripted to the benefit of the child-to-be, then the pregnancy goes out the window, no questions asked. But they feel free to commandeer another person in a way that they would never stand for being commandeered themselves."
So, basically, you (I'm assuming you're a guy here) are concerned that you (or men) might be accidentally or maliciously conscripted into being financially accountable for a child (note I didn't say "father" because this issue for you seems purely financial/based on confiscation of resources for your child's welfare). Fair concern. Except, again:
"Take action when it's actionable. Those moments for men are not the same moments for women (at least, post ejaculation). That's not fair, sure, but neither is biology, which has made reproduction unfair particularly for women humans." It's quite simple. To quote KL: "Take a little responsibility for your own (or men's generally) reproductive choices!"
Curious, are you an MRA? Getting hints of that from your posts.
Stop being a victim of someone else's choices. Make your own. Fuck knows that's what women have fought for and are still fighting for the world over re:reproductive rights, let alone reproductive choices.
You win the thread for being a caricature of the radical left that I thought only existed in the imagination of the radical right.
Yup, just pinched myself. Still here.
Care to elaborate, Tim?
If the guy steps up to support his child, then...what is your argument? He CHOSE to step up. Why whine about that later? Seems the guy is always a victim to the woman and the baby in your scenarios and you don't allow for real life situations, like, plenty of fathers and even some mothers simply fuck off and leave the kid with the other parent. If the problem is you don't wanna feel like a total douchebag for abandoning your half of the responsibility, then, I have nothing for you except to say: don't ejaculate into vaginas.
I am also adamant in defense of free speech. I think the right to call someone a nigger is important, but I don't think calling someone a nigger is itself is awesome.
I assume your choice of words was intentional, especially given your earlier statement in @66 that the reason for an abortion is of no consequence. If I have correctly read your post, you see:
No difference between an abortion at 12 weeks because birth control failed and one at 39 weeks because - hey, it's bikini season and I am sick of being pregnant.
No difference between a parent coming to the decision to abort a fetus with a rare and deadly medical condition and a parent aborting a child that shows genetic traits thought to be consistent with homosexuality (they will likely be able to screen for this in the future).
No difference between the ultrasound of the 26 week old fetus that is celebrated on the fridge and the other of the 26 week old fetus that is about to have it's life terminated.
Most of all, I don't think you even believe what you write. You are saying this to be controvesial and spark a debate. Others call this trolling.
People make poor choices all the time. Just like you say with free speech -- protecting such things includes those that want to use such a freedom in an ugly, bigoted or foolish way. I'm not thrilled with the KKK, but I will defend their freedom to express their views.
Same with abortion -- and that's the point I think of a lot of what 86 is saying. It's a freedom of CHOICE, and that includes those individuals that are shallow, unfeeling, foolish, selfish, etc. and will make poor choices. And as distasteful as I personally think abortion as a form of birth control is, I think it's all the better that those that feel that way don't have kids because I can guarantee you such selfish, callous people would be the WORST parents ever.
Bingo.
And that is (probably) pretty much what whoever said "we all want fewer abortions" meant. Not fewer abortions because women are forced not to have them; fewer abortions because women don't *need* them... fewer abortions because there are fewer unwanted pregnancies. You agree with that concept, right?
and, @58: I may never have had a pregnancy, unwanted or otherwise, but "What if I got pregnant?" is *always* going to be a purely academic question for men (barring significant advances in medical technology), whereas for a woman, it's something that, unless she knows she's medically incapable of conceiving, is always a possibility.
Um, wow. I'm Norwegian, so to be called a troll is always a bit silly, but I understand what you mean in this context.
NO. I am not trolling. I think it's telling that you think I AM trolling. Apparently, "abortion is awesome" is controversial...who knew? Oh, wait, I know. I do, honestly, 100% believe what I have written in this thread. To me, the importance of reproductive rights and choice for women is of THE UTMOST. If there is one thing in this world that I do not take lightly it's women's rights = human rights and reproductive rights = human rights. Though, I won't lie and say I don't relish making people THINK about why they think abortion is bad or wrong or what have you. Seriously think. Please.
Abortion is awesome. Yes, "awesome" in the parlance of the day means "totally cool" but it also has an older meaning that I think blends with the modern one in this context. It is fucking radically awesome that women can decide when, if and how reproduction plays a part in their lives and how they use their resources. That, sir, is RADICAL. That is AWESOME. AWE-inspiring. It would be even more radically awesome if women all over the world had unadulterated access to family planning options including contraception, std testing and treatment, as well as abortion, but we're probably at least 50 years out on that one. AT LEAST. Now, who's trolling, sir?
I can tell from your comment that you DO make distinctions based on the reason a woman might choose to abort her pregnancy.
Why?
What is the difference in the end?
So you can tell someone else how to live their life? So you can judge someone else and feel superior that your life and your life choices are better than theirs? Or do you think women who have sex are somehow bad? Does it matter if they used protection/bc and it failed or... where's the distinction?
No, really, why? What IS the difference between a woman who aborts for aesthetic reasons (won't put my body through that! where's my surrogate?) and a woman who aborts for health reasons? Or that she was raped? Or that she can't afford her life and another?
Really, what is the end difference there? A (safe and legal) abortion is a (safe and legal) abortion is a (safe and legal) abortion, no matter what choices led the woman to that decision. Except that it was HER DECISION.
It's telling that your go-to first choice was "bikini season" babe which, sure, if that's a woman's reason to choose abortion, that's her life, not mine. Go ahead, bikini season woman. Honestly, no judgement. However, I will say that that's quite flippant on your part and belies a thought on your part that women take abortion lightly. That it's easy. Studies show differently, specifically that it's MOTHERS with children ALREADY who undergo the majority of abortions. Still, be a woman a mother of 10 or a mother of none but a food baby, the most important part? ABORTION IS LEGAL. The constitution does not say it has to be for NOBLE reasons. It just says it's legal. And you have NO say in a woman's choice there, random guy on the internet, and thank fuck for that.
From your reaction to my "abortion is awesome" post, I take it you think I think abortion is FUN, even. That is the mistake of people who would read my post @66 and see: she thinks abortion is entertaining and fun and I bet she does it every month. If you read my whole post @66, you would understand that the reason I think abortion is awesome, because it is, is that, at it's most basic, it is an amazing resource that gives women the ability to plan their lives and care for their pre-existing children, if they have them, or simply to care for themselves with a chance at financial independence; they do not have to shape their lives to fit a man's because they had his kid. It all comes back to autonomy. Which, oh, right, WOMEN'S autonomy is under fire right now. Can you tell me, Tim, when has a MAN'S autonomy ever been in question? It's quite simply unthinkable in our culture/society.
The litmus test for human rights is whether or not you think a woman's right to an abortion is her own, a decision she makes herself, no questions asked. If you think otherwise, you are wasting time trying to dictate other people's lives and the reason they live them the way they do. I am not kidding. Abortion IS black and white. You are either for it or against it. Everything in between is waffling: she is a human being with human rights or she is not.
It's like marriage equality, quite frankly. Two men or two women marrying each other does not impact your ability to marry a partner of your choosing (unless it's someone of your sex, then we need to look at which state/country you're living in and whether or not you'd have to move somewhere that recognizes gay/lesbian marriage).
My abortion has nothing to do with you or your life. Does it? Maybe it did and I forgot to ask, stupid selfish slut that I am: Tim, did my abortion 6 years ago adversely affect your life? Does the reason I had the abortion adversely affect your life?
Hmm. Trolling, yup. I am SO TOTALLY trolling, what with all these reasoned, engaging and thought-out responses. Wish I could say the jokes on you, but the yolk ends up all over women and their reproductive anatomy. Wait, was that an egg joke? Ovaries! No, no: the internet, it's a series of FALLOPIAN TUBES! Phew, but does this shit get old.
Cut and dry. And move on.
I did everything right and still got pregnant. Now I have actually had the experience that so many people would dictate for others and I can say OH HELL NO BACK THE FUCK UP.
My abortion was my choice. It was right for me. I am glad I went through that. Because now, more than ever, it is VALID oh how VALID that choice is now. Have you ever had an abortion, @91? Have one, don't have one: it's YOUR decision to make for YOURSELF. Not me, not anyone else. DO NOT presume to tell me what I think or want or would have preferred. I can make own decisions, thanks, though.
And you did READ my post @66?:
"I would also say: more contraceptive access! more reproductive planning and education access!"
I'm all for preventative measures FIRST, having used them myself, but they aren't always effective. Me: case in point.
Abortion is still awesome.
This BS people pull: "rare abortions" is just to placate the religious extremists who would dictate reproductive choice for all women, blind of any circumstances unique to a particular woman or the environment in which she lives, for the further goal of getting those women contraception access. That said, I would obviously rather women did not end up pregnant in the first place, unless they want that. And abortion is still awesome.
I am a radical fucking feminist who wants everyone to have European style comprehensive sex ed from primary school up and I want government to provide free birth control for all women, no matter the option they choose. And that includes abortion.
Which, is still awesome.
And sadly many of these values are highlighted in Christian and Muslim religious systems. Sure, Christianity has come much further in the way it's practiced in a lot of the world than a lot of places that practice Islam, but the practice of both has always had a very strong streak of misogyny running through their core. The religions themselves don't necessarily have to be that way, but the way they've been practiced from for the last 1500-2000 years has unfortunately shown that. And, shockingly, the folks have been in control of those systems have been men. Hmmmm...
Your posts have been a relief to read. Sense! Logic! You're even nicer about it all than I can manage to be (rageLOLsob) and you still come off as thoughtful and balanced and not a shit-taker.
And I agree with you @97. It's the systems and institutions, not the ideas themselves, that are effed up and patriarchal.
"Consequences! They're not just for women anymore!" implies that men face no consequences"
I think Dan meant by "anymore" that in the past men faced no consequences, but now, due to DNA testing and the subsequent ramping up of child-support laws and wage garnishing, now men do face consequences, just as women have always done.