In my first post about abortion and responsibility I discussed some of the profound inequities that arise when fathers are allowed no input into the decision over whether or not to have an baby. Women cannot be forced to face the consequences of their actions by being required to care for a baby, but men are routinely forced to financially support children they never wanted or were tricked into conceiving. Women can abort or put a baby up for adoption and men are essentially powerless to either protect their child or to absolve themselves of responsibility. Despite our culture's dogmatic support of women's "choice", men have none.
Along these same lines, Cathy Young has an excellent article about a man's right to choose and how men and fathers should fit into the abortion controversy.
Advocates of "choice for men" have a point when they charge that there is a certain hypocrisy in these declarations [that it's biology's fault that women have the upper hand], now that the link between sex and procreation has ceased to be binding for women. "We are no longer being truthful when we chide the male defendant: 'It took two to make the baby,'" writes Fred Hayward. "It might have taken two to conceive an embryo, but thanks to legalized abortion, only one person controlled whether or not the baby was made."Some maverick feminists agree with this view. Karen DeCrow, an attorney who served as president of the National Organization for Women from 1974 to 1977, has written that "if a woman makes a unilateral decision to bring pregnancy to term, and the biological father does not, and cannot, share in this decision, he should not be liable for 21 years of support ... autonomous women making independent decisions about their lives should not expect men to finance their choice."
Yet, by and large, feminists and pro-choice activists have not been sympathetic to calls for men's reproductive freedom. "If there is a birth, the man has an obligation to support the child," says Marcia Greenberger, co-president of the National Women's Law Center. "The distinction with respect to abortion is the physical toll that it takes on a woman to carry a fetus to term, which doesn't have any translation for men. Once the child is born, neither can walk away from the obligations of parenthood." (Actually, a woman can give up the child for adoption, often without the father's consent, and be free of any further obligation.)
Indeed, on the issue of choice for men, staunch supporters of abortion rights can sound like an eerie echo of the other side: "They have a choice -- use condoms, get sterilized or keep their pants on." "They should think about the consequences before they have sex." (The irony is not lost on men's choice advocates or pro-lifers.)
Unlike Cathy Young I'm opposed to the vast majority of abortions anyway, and the gross unfairness of the status quo as she describes it merely underscores the moral vacuity required to justify legalized abortions of convenience. I hope that this unfairness will ultimately be resolved by the outlawing of most abortions, and I think Miss Young identifies one way in which technology might help bring about that cultural shift.
Some day, perhaps in our lifetime, science will add a new wrinkle to these issues. Reproductive technology will have advanced to the point where the fetus can be taken from the womb early in the pregnancy, with no more medical risk than an abortion, and incubated until it becomes viable. Will the law then allow the man to petition for custody of the unborn child if the woman doesn't want it? Will he be able to sue her for child support afterward? Will many feminists argue that it's an intolerable violation of a woman's reproductive freedom that her child should be brought into the world without her consent, let alone that she should be stuck with the bill?
It's just too bad that so many people have to die in the meantime.
8 week old blobs of cells are not people.
Hah! Just within the last couple weeks the Holy Spirit has been speaking of abortion as an attempt to avoid responsibility. I think at this time the Holy Spirit is trying to teach our culture the value of taking responsibility.
i think this is a tricky issue. i obviously disagree with you on your starting point (ie, abortion is always wrong) but i definitely see the merits of your greater point, that is, that the fathers should be able to have a say when they want to. i have some issues with the way you portray it as "women not accepting the consequences of their actions" - this is not always the case, but i do think that there must be some way to make legislation that does not unfairly leave a man's rights out of the picture.
8 weeks old blobs of cells have beating hearts, spines and human forms. They are capable of movement inside the mothers womb and we do not know just how much more.
Stop being ignorant with flippant comments. There is much more to it than that.
8 weeks old blobs of cells have beating hearts, spines and human forms. They are capable of movement inside the mothers womb and we do not know just how much more.
Stop showing your ignorance with flippant comments. There is much more to it than that.
Strange, the "human form" looks just like a chicken or dog fetus to me at that stage. And gerbils have beating hearts and spines. Any other flippant comments anyone wants to say?
Bill,
You may have looked like a dog inside your mom, but the rest of us looked like babies.
Although, Billy, maybe you can't help it. Maybe your mom looks like a dog, too. I should feel pity for you.
I like dogs. I think puppies are cuter then babies. Here is a story of a town that could not tell a human fetus from a chicken. Compare them, they look the same.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=366403&in_page_id=1770&ito=1490
Bill,
So, that is your justification for killing a human baby... Because it looks like a dog at 8 weeks. Sound reasoning. I have known really ugly people in my life, I mean really ugly. More animal than human looking. Should we have killed them?
At what age, in your opinion, does it become unacceptable to kill the unborn, 10 weeks, 15 weeks the day before they are born naturally? How did you arrive at this point?
Have you ever seen a live ultrasound of an 8 week old fetus or do you just rely on the opinions of what others write concerning the subject.
Eric-
I have seen ultrasounds of babies. They don’t seem any more special then any other fetus. Do they look different? A little. Can they think? No. If the fetus can live outside the womb, I don’t think we should kill it, since it is just the same as a baby outside.
If a human looks like an animal, they should still be treated like a human if they have the abilities, thought processes, etc. of a human. I am sure if you compared the thought processes of a dog fetus and a human fetus you would not find much difference.
Besides, if they are not conscious, it doesn't matter what happens to them! I don’t care if somebody tortured me when I was a fetus, because I was not aware of it. If I had to be killed, as a fetus would be a good time to do it, since I would never know. They're like fish. You can hurt them, but they won’t know it so it doesn't matter
For the record, a fetus at 8 weeks can feel pain.
The following is from the abortionfacts.com web site:
FETAL PAIN
By 8 weeks? Show me!
By this age the neuro-anatomic structures are present. What is needed is (1) a sensory nerve to feel the pain and send a message to (2) the thalamus, a part of the base of the brain, and (3) motor nerves that send a message to that area. These are present at 8 weeks. The pain impulse goes to the thalamus. It sends a signal down the motor nerves to pull away from the hurt.
Give an example.
Try sticking an infant with a pin and you know what happens. She opens her mouth to cry and also pulls away.
Try sticking an 8 week old human fetus in the palm of his hand. He opens his mouth and pulls his hand away.
A more technical description would add that changes in heart rate and fetal movement also suggest that intrauterine manipulations are painful to the fetus. Volman & Pearson, "What the Fetus Feels," British Med. Journal, Jan. 26, 1980, pp. 233-234.
O.K., that is activity that can be observed, but is there other evidence of pain? After all, the fetal baby can’t tell us he hurts.
Pain can be detected when nociceptors (pain receptors) discharge electrical impulses to the spinal cord and brain. These fire impulses outward, telling the muscles and body to react. These can be measured. Mountcastle, Medical Physiology, St. Louis: C.V. Mosby, pp. 391-427 "Lip tactile response may be evoked by the end of the 7th week. At 11 weeks, the face and all parts of the upper and lower extremities are sensitive to touch. By 13 1/2 to 14 weeks, the entire body surface, except for the back and the top of the head, are sensitive to pain." S. Reinis & J. Goldman, The Development of the Brain C. Thomas Pub., 1980
I truly believe that any women who has been pregnant, has felt a fetus move, heard the heart beat, has seen their child (no matter if it looked like a dog or not) and is honest with themselves and their "maternal instinct" they would NEVER abort. I have never posted before but I felt I could not let this discussion by without stating my opinion. Fortunately for me I have The Bible on my side, and science is slowly moving towards proving my points as well. :-)
Bill,
You make statements such as "I don't think" and "I am sure" to justify your arguments yet they contradict the very argument that you hold so dearly to.
First: Isn't it ironic that only people who have NOT been aborted get to make the decisions about who gets and does not get aborted?
Second: Science is advancing every day. Twenty years ago a premature baby had little if any chance of survival. Now, science and technology are advancing to the point where a baby may develop almost completely free of the mother's womb. Will that change your mind as to when it is okay.
Third: An 8 week old fetus shows every sign of feeling pain and has the recorded brain activity to prove it. Just because you say it doesn't does not make it so. Your own science that you are clinging to is proving you wrong.
Fourth: You obviously care that your mother did not kill you at 8 weeks. You care so much that you are using a part of your own life to defend her inaction and to justify her decision.
Fifth: Unless your science can prove in absolution that a fetus does not think, has no pain, no brain activity and is nothing more than a mass of cells, shouldn't you err on the side of life? Science has done nothing recently but prove otherwise.
Your arguments are old and outdated. Your science has repeatedly been shown to be in error and your statements are just wrong.
Bill: Last time I checked we don't condone killing adults who don't "have the abilities, thought processes, etc. of a human". Heck, leftists use "diminished capacity" as a reason for not executing convicted murderers!
science has shown no evidence of brain activity so far, so there is no reason to suppose this may change. If it does, maybe I will think differently. I never said anything about "diminished capacity", I mean no capacity at all. I am not a leftist. I condone the killing of convicted murders. If you stick a pin in a fish it will react. It has a spine, and a nervous system. Science does not have conclusive evidence that that it has no thought processes. Why don't we put fetuses in the same catogory as fish? Except you can't eat them.
Don't you think theres better things to be doing, like catching terrorists or excuting criminials, then focusing on some sissy protection of inch long things that don't even know what happens to them? Gees, I mean I can understand women worrying about them cause they remind them of little babies, but how about using reason for once. There an inch long! who cares!
If only all this information, concerning fetal development, was out there to read in the 1970's. In my opinion, no way would there be as many abortions, for convenience, as there were.