Abortion

[Syaoransbear]

Yeah, that's about as horrible as a woman being forced to carry against her will. He took away her right to decide what to do with her own body.

[Spelunker]

Yeah, that's about as horrible as a woman being forced to carry against her will. He took away her right to decide what to do with her own body.

This.

[Esmeia]

I do have a question; if the father WANTS to actually take care of the baby and the mother doesn't, does only she have the right to choose? This question might have been answered a dozen times already, but I'm honestly curious. Even if she didn't want anything to do with the child, does the father have any say whatsoever? Or does he just have to deal with it?

[LascielsShadow]

I do have a question; if the father WANTS to actually take care of the baby and the mother doesn't, does only she have the right to choose? This question might have been answered a dozen times already, but I'm honestly curious. Even if she didn't want anything to do with the child, does the father have any say whatsoever? Or does he just have to deal with it?

He just has to deal with it. He's not the one carrying it for nine months, with all the potential risks and complications that entails. If she decides not to have it, that's her choice, end of discussion. If she decides to have it and allow him to raise it on his own (in a case where she's not really interested in being a parent), that's also her choice. The father might get input, but in the end, it's always her decision. It's a lot easier for a man to suddenly back out than it is for a woman, especially in later stages of pregnancy.

Edited May 16, 2013 by LascielsShadow

[Syaoransbear]

I do have a question; if the father WANTS to actually take care of the baby and the mother doesn't, does only she have the right to choose? This question might have been answered a dozen times already, but I'm honestly curious. Even if she didn't want anything to do with the child, does the father have any say whatsoever? Or does he just have to deal with it?

How much say the father has is dependent on the mother, but legally he has no say(depending on where you live). Personally you would have to put A LOT of trust into a man to bear a child for him, because at any point in the pregnancy he could change his mind and it's really no big deal for him back out, whereas in most places you are pretty much stuck carrying the baby until birth if you are too far into the pregnancy, and then you have to go through the painful process of giving up the child to the failing adoption system.

[Riverwillows]

Once the baby is born and is up for adoption, the father does have rights and can, in most places, get custody of the baby.

 

But until the baby is born, he has no say.

[Obscure_Trash]

I do have a question; if the father WANTS to actually take care of the baby and the mother doesn't, does only she have the right to choose? This question might have been answered a dozen times already, but I'm honestly curious. Even if she didn't want anything to do with the child, does the father have any say whatsoever? Or does he just have to deal with it?

Yes, it is still the choice of the female-bodied who is pregnant. This is why it is super important for sexually active partners to communicate and talk to each other about this kind of thing ahead of time.

[ShinyTomato]

I do have a question; if the father WANTS to actually take care of the baby and the mother doesn't, does only she have the right to choose? This question might have been answered a dozen times already, but I'm honestly curious. Even if she didn't want anything to do with the child, does the father have any say whatsoever? Or does he just have to deal with it?

It's a sticky situation. When I was considering aborting of my Kai, I got a lot of flack from people about the fact that "the father" wanted to raise it. (OVER MY DEAD BODY.) Even at the clinic there were "have you talked to the father about this" and "what's the father's opinion" questions. I ended up going to a different clinic who took one look at the state I was in, and didn't ask.

 

Since then he's attempted to sue for custody twice.

 

There are states that allow a father to get a legal injunction to abortion.

Edited May 17, 2013 by ShinyTomato

[Spelunker]

It's a sticky situation. When I was considering aborting of my Kai, I got a lot of flack from people about the fact that "the father" wanted to raise it. (OVER MY DEAD BODY.) Even at the clinic there were "have you talked to the father about this" and "what's the father's opinion" questions. I ended up going to a different clinic who took one look at the state I was in, and didn't ask.

 

Since then he's attempted to sue for custody twice.

 

There are states that allow a father to get a legal injunction to abortion.

That's a load of crass. I'm sorry, Tomato.

[Alpha1]

So yes, I have changed my position in the last year, because I went to several classes on this at an Orthodox women's yeshiva, which had many interesting speakers, who pointed out things I had never put together in my studies before. My apologies if I suddenly need to announce to you when my position has shifted somewhat.

 

If it had nothing to do with what portion of the baby is being delivered, and it’s about the greater part of pregnancy, isn’t it saying that if a woman’s life is in danger, you can’t do anything to the fetus after 22-24 weeks?

 

I'm not sure the point you are making.

 

Why 40 days? It also says after conception, it is a mere fluid before that amount of time. There's some other numbers dealing with pregnancy, but nothing equal to 24 weeks. You like settling with 24 weeks because then it won’t become a tumor.

 

Is it "okay"? Not halachiacally, (though I use 24, not 22)

 

Again, would she necessarily be on a birthing stool at 24 weeks or more?

 

I'm saying we can't know and it doesn't matter.

 

Your connectome is your neurons and synapses. Even if self-awareness was limited to specific regions, I’m sure you would need more connections in those regions than what a newborn has. It's like rods and cones for vision.

 

“University of Iowa researchers have found that self-awareness is a product of a patchwork of pathways in the brain. The research challenges an accepted theory that three regions in the brain are critical in self-awareness.”

 

Why does an increase of brain-activity in a comatose person change things? They're not necessarily self-aware, but it still changes things.

 

They’ve had past experiences. They’ve already been a part of society.

 

Don’t you think it’s silly that states have laws that if an abortion is botched with the baby delivered alive, they have to try to save it?

 

Yeah, that's about as horrible as a woman being forced to carry against her will.

 

Why? It was only six weeks along. It’s worse to force a woman to carry for nine months when she doesn’t want to. I’m guessing the guy was scared he would be paying child support because of her choice.

 

[LascielsShadow]

Why? It was only six weeks along. It’s worse to force a woman to carry for nine months when she doesn’t want to. I’m guessing the guy was scared he would be paying child support because of her choice.

I can't believe you actually have to ask that question. It's horrible because it was a violation of her bodily autonomy as much as forcing someone to carry a child she doesn't want is. It was someone saying "Screw it, what you want isn't as important as what I want, so I'm going to ignore your rights as a human being". It doesn't matter how far into the pregnancy she was-six weeks or six months, the time makes no difference. There's no better or worse: forcing or tricking someone into aborting a wanted pregnancy is just as bad as forcing someone to carry an unwanted pregnancy to term.

[Alpha1]

I can't believe you actually have  to ask that question. It's horrible because it was a violation of her bodily autonomy as much as forcing someone to carry a child she doesn't want is. It was someone saying "Screw it, what you want isn't as important as what I want, so I'm going to ignore your rights as a human being". It doesn't matter how far into the pregnancy she was-six weeks or six months, the time makes no difference. There's no better or worse: forcing or tricking someone into aborting a wanted pregnancy is just as bad as forcing someone to carry an unwanted pregnancy to term.

I know it was a violation of it. I don't think it was as bad as forcing someone to carry to term.

[TCA]

I do have a question; if the father WANTS to actually take care of the baby and the mother doesn't, does only she have the right to choose? This question might have been answered a dozen times already, but I'm honestly curious. Even if she didn't want anything to do with the child, does the father have any say whatsoever? Or does he just have to deal with it?

This is why someone needs to invent temporary artificial uteruses that can have the fetus put in it and then be shoved into any 'father' who is in this situation! Problem solved, female-body doesn't have to carry if she doesn't want to but male can still have the kid if he wants it so badly.

 

(father in quotes because there's no baby yet)

Edited May 17, 2013 by TheCompleteAnimorph

[KageSora]

It was only six weeks along. It’s worse to force a woman to carry for nine months when she doesn’t want to. I’m guessing the guy was scared he would be paying child support because of her choice.

I think you're missing the part where it's pro-choice not pro-abortion.

 

We're not "abort ALL the fetuses!"

 

We're "let ALL the women choose!"

 

This is a horrific thing not because of the abortion, but because he forced his wishes on the woman against her will, violated her right to choose, and clearly went against the choice she had already made. THAT is why it's horrible, not because of the abortion but because of the ignoring of her decision.

 

It's as bad as forcing her to carry because this is a woman who WANTED that child--it's a terrible loss to a couple that wants a child but a miscarriage happens. I can only imagine the pain it must be to know that the father forced it to happen.

 

It will cause pain, it will cause suffering, it WILL cause some kind of trauma--it was a violation of her trust, it was a violation of her rights, it was basically saying "I recognize you made a choice, but I think it's a y choice so I'm gonna go ahead and force you to go through the exact opposite of what you wanted because I'm a selfish ".

 

THAT is why it's as bad, IMO.

 

 

Re: Father's rights:

 

I say that the father should be allowed to voice his opinion (exceptions for if he's out of the picture, abusive, a rapist, etc.) but that the final decision comes down to the woman. At least until such time as they devise a method for safely removing the fetus from the female and implanting it safely inside the male where it will continue to grow until it is delivered. Once that's possible, then the male can just complete the pregnancy if the female isn't interested.

 

If the female is alright with going through the pregnancy and giving birth then letting him take care of it, that's okay. However, as has been said, he could just up and vanish at 8 months and then she's stuck with the fetus. That, and pregnancy isn't a walk in the park, so even if he wants to raise the child the female may not be mentally or physically capable of safely handling the pregnancy.

[Kestra15]

 

Interestingly, today I ran into someone who is very pro-life, and she was telling me that her cat got pregnant and she found out when she went to have the cat fixed. The vet told her and she went ahead and did it anyway, despite knowing it would abort the kittens.

 

I found it very interesting. Does anyone have any ideas why this might be? I would have asked, but I didn't want to get in another heated debate that would have resulted in her not speaking to me for a month.

Relative morality.

 

I find it very hard to believe in absolute morality (that is, someone will always hold to their morals no matter the situation) and as we have seen before, there are plenty of people who will preach one thing yet turn around and do opposite. It would be an inconvenience to that woman to have to deal with kittens, so her morality slid down to relative morality - i.e. she stopped believing in it when it affected her directly.

 

Or, as otherwise theorised, as an animal the cat and kittens were not worth the same respect.

No, that doesn't happen until about 1 year. (14-15 mos., I think?) Difference in nervous system activity just means...a difference in activity.

Rubbish. My niece is very self-aware and she's been like that for several months.

http://umaine.edu/publications/4356e/

Given that the two sources of that article are 13yrs or more out of date, i wouldn't put as much stock in that. Things are advancing at a scary rate and certainly for my own research I rarely consider using anything before 2007 as 'up-to-date' research.

Edited May 17, 2013 by Kestra15

[NobleOwl]

isn’t it saying that if a woman’s life is in danger, you can’t do anything to the fetus after 22-24 weeks?

 

No. The fetus is still bar kayyama. It refers only to elective procedures.

 

It also says after conception

 

Where?

 

There's some other numbers dealing with pregnancy, but nothing equal to 24 weeks.

 

Viability.

 

You like settling with 24 weeks because then it won’t become a tumor.

 

Not at all. It's still possible at that point. Rare, but possible.

 

Again, would she necessarily be on a birthing stool at 24 weeks or more?

 

Women went into isolation in the birthing tent between 22-24 weeks. That's what it's referring too.

 

Your connectome is your neurons and synapses. Even if self-awareness was limited to specific regions, I’m sure you would need more connections in those regions than what a newborn has. It's like rods and cones for vision.

 

How many ways can I say it has nothing to do with self-awareness?

 

They’ve had past experiences. They’ve already been a part of society.

 

That doesn't change anything. Independent brain activity at certain levels is important.

 

Don’t you think it’s silly that states have laws that if an abortion is botched with the baby delivered alive, they have to try to save it?

 

No.

 

Why? It was only six weeks along.

 

Because he imposed his will on her body. He could have simply ceded all rights.

[Zaxian]

Read the article and found this comment. This guy knows where it's at. It's not always up to the woman to make sure contraceptives are used. Condoms were made for a reason, boys. I agree with majority of his statement, aside from the "not having sex with someone you wouldn't want to have kids with," because not everyone wants kids.

... Except that comment was not written by a guy.

... If I were a male...

[Shienvien]

It IS murder. Why? The woman wanted the child. The moment a fetus is WANTED is the moment it becomes a child to me. If it is born, it will (hopefully) be loved and raised with care. Just because the father does not want the child does not mean the woman can't have it.

I don't see it as murder, either, to be honest... I however, do see it as something akin to rape, or otherwise a violation of a person's body and right to decide.

[Alpha1]

No. The fetus is still bar kayyama. It refers only to elective procedures.

 

Explain “If a woman is in hard travail […]” and “one may not set aside one person for the sake of saving another.”

 

Can you show me what you think it says then? Also, isn’t it bar kayyama at 30 days? (Niddah 44b) No distinction at 24 weeks?

 

Where?

 

“ and if she is found pregnant,38 the semen, until the fortieth day, is only a mere fluid.39 Said Abaye to him: If so,40 read the final clause: If the embryo in her womb can be distinguished she is considered to have committed an offence41” Yevamoth 69b

 

Not at all. It's still possible at that point. Rare, but possible.

 

I was referring to some of your past posts like the one below. I know it’s possible. I’ve also told you Treeman could turn into a tree.

 

“The difference is whether there is a guarantee that the foetus can become a person or not. Once it can be nothing else, only emergency abortions should be considered.”

 

Women went into isolation in the birthing tent between 22-24 weeks. That's what it's referring too.

 

Viability.

 

Why do you think this happened at 22-24 weeks? Viability isn’t an all or nothing thing. The chances of survival increase gradually further through pregnancy even with our modern healthcare.

 

What do you think of this?

 

Sanhedrin 91b "Antoninus also said to Rabbi, ‘When is the soul placed in man; as soon as it is decreed [that the sperm shall be male or female, etc.], or when [the embryo] is actually formed?’ He replied, ‘From the moment of formation.’ He objected: ‘Can a piece of meat be unsalted for three days without becoming putrid?6 But it must be from the moment that [God] decrees [its destiny].’ Rabbi said: This thing Antoninus taught me, and Scripture supports him, for it is written, And thy decree hath preserved my spirit [i.e., my soul].7"

 

How many ways can I say it has nothing to do with self-awareness?

 

You’re not going to convince me by just saying this. The body will make 40,000+ synapses per second. There’s also rapid myelination and glial cell growth during this time, so there’s more than just the synapses to bolster my argument. The increase in brain activity of someone that was born doesn’t stand out. At the first year, the brain is already 70% of its adult size.

 

That doesn't change anything. Independent brain activity at certain levels is important.

 

We’re just going to have to agree to disagree.

 

No.

 

Quality vs. Quantity

 

I think you're missing the part where it's pro-choice not pro-abortion.

 

I’m pro-abortion. I’m not apologetic about it either. Too many pro-choice people have some kind of cognitive dissonance and think it’s horrible to use abortion like a contraceptive.

 

This is a horrific thing not because of the abortion, but because he forced his wishes on the woman against her will, violated her right to choose, and clearly went against the choice she had already made. THAT is why it's horrible, not because of the abortion but because of the ignoring of her decision.

 

Why wouldn't the abortion play a part? It's like "moral wounds" in the military. The women who decide to carry even after the father clearly doesn't want it likely have some religious basis for it.

 

THAT is why it's as bad, IMO.

 

I just don't see how it is as bad as being forced to go through pregnancy and getting an unwanted child from it.

 

He could have simply ceded all rights.

 

Maybe he was afraid he would be paying child support.

 

Given that the two sources of that article are 13yrs or more out of date, i wouldn't put as much stock in that. Things are advancing at a scary rate and certainly for my own research I rarely consider using anything before 2007 as 'up-to-date' research.

 

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3055433/

 

Child development classes will go over the development of the brain, so I know it’s mainstream.

Edited May 18, 2013 by Alpha1

[Kestra15]

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3055433/

 

Child development classes will go over the development of the brain, so I know it’s mainstream.

Not quite sure what your point is in relation to this article. It is a basic fact that not all neurons are firing when someone is born but this doesn't contradict Noble's earlier post - if anything it is actually in line with her post about how after birth a child's neurons start firing. So if you could just humour me and let me know what this article has to do with your stance I would appreciate it.

[Rosedamai]

I just don't see how it is as bad as being forced to go through pregnancy and getting an unwanted child from it.

 

Maybe he was afraid he would be paying child support.

Because the principle is the same-someone else controlling a woman's body against her will. That's heinous, no matter what.

That's what pro-choice people are against. The willful control of a person's body, the neglect of it to see her as a person, but rather as a tool to do whatever the other person wants.

In essence I don't see this as any different from being forced to carry to term, because both are violence against her body.

And god if he's afraid of paying child support than he's a *bag, isn't he?

[Alpha1]

Not quite sure what your point is in relation to this article. It is a basic fact that not all neurons are firing when someone is born but this doesn't contradict Noble's earlier post - if anything it is actually in line with her post about how after birth a child's neurons start firing. So if you could just humour me and let me know what this article has to do with your stance I would appreciate it.

 

Look at this. I don’t see what’s so special about where Noble would draw it, and technically she has said that she doesn't think it's halachiacally okay to kill it in the womb at 24 weeks.

 

“Soon after birth, glial cells increase dramatically in size and number, and the pace of myelination continues its prenatal trajectory. Myelination proceeds rapidly during the first year of life before continuing at a slower but steady pace thereafter”

 

“The early postnatal period represents a time of dramatic change in brain structure and function. The brain grows to about 70% of its adult size by 1 year of age and to about 80% of adult size by age 2 years (Dekaban, 1978; Knickmeyer et al, 2008).”

 

“GA week 34 marks entry into the peak period of synaptogenesis, during which almost 40 000 new synapses are formed every second, a process that continues well into early postnatal life.”

 

Because the principle is the same

 

You could say that about all stealing.

 

someone else controlling a woman's body against her will. That's heinous, no matter what.

 

What about laxatives?

 

And god if he's afraid of paying child support than he's a censorkip.gif*bag, isn't he?

 

Why should he pay for a baby he never wanted from the start?

 

[Rosedamai]

You could say that about all stealing.

What about laxatives?

Why should he pay for a baby he never wanted from the start?

Wow pregnancy is totally the same as pooping. That's a totally correct and accurate logic. You do know how pregnancy works, don't you? Do you also understand that stealing is outlawed?

 

Maybe he should have used protection?

[Fuzzbucket]

What about laxatives?

 

What on EARTH do laxatives have to do with it - unless you refer to someone forcefeeding them to an unwilling person ?

 

Why should he pay for a baby he never wanted from the start?

Because he was equally responsible for the fact that it is going to be born. Just because babies grow inside women does not mean men can get away with having sex and then saying "nothing to do with me, guv" when the inevitable happens. I realise far, far too many men think everything is the woman's responsibility. They are very wrong.

 

MEN - if you don't want to pay child support - don't have sex. Simples.

You haz the fun, you payz your duez.

 

ETA I see she wasn't even going to ASK him for support and said she'd go it alone. So even that doesn't hold up.

Edited May 18, 2013 by fuzzbucket

[Alpha1]

Wow pregnancy is totally the same as pooping. That's a totally correct and accurate logic. You do know how pregnancy works, don't you? Do you also understand that stealing is outlawed?

 

At six weeks, losing the little lentil bean would have been like a heavy period. Worse than a laxative, yes. But not the same as carrying for roughly nine months and getting an unwanted child.

 

Do you also understand that stealing is outlawed?

 

What? If I steal a pencil at a university store, it's not as bad as stealing someone's car.