How to make abortion not just a woman-only issue?

[LisaM]

I've been thinking and thinking about this. I propose that the health care bill covers free DNA testing for pregnancies. Once you determine who the father is, he's instantly on the hook for half of all costs, be they for abortion, pre-natal care, the birth, schooling, whatever.

I maintain that if men had to bear as much of the brunt as women do for pregnancies, we wouldn't even be having an abortion debate.

[madinmaryland]

1. Interesting thought, but how would you force the father to be tested?

I hate the idea of being forced to have DNA testing. Sounds very Orwellian to me. And an invasion of everyone's privacy. Who maintains the database?

[treestar]

19. File a paternity action

And the court will order it.

[Warpy]

2. The test can't be done before the end of the first trimester

so he's going to be on the hook for 18 years of child support at that point. It's a bit too late for an abortion unless there are extreme complications.

All the whining in the world about how men can't dictate to women whether or not to give birth won't get him off the hook, either.

I like to explain it in terms of liability law: once he deposits semen in a woman's body, he's liable for the consequences. He's just damned lucky it's not his life on the line, it's only money.

[colinmom71]

15. Actually, genetic sampling CAN be done during the first trimester...

Look up Chorionic Villus Sampling (CVS). This is a genetic test that can be performed between 9-12 weeks into a pregnancy. It does carry a somewhat similar risk of miscarriage that an amniocentesis does. An amnio is the test you're thinking of, which can only be safely done during the second trimester. But both tests have been clinically proven to be accurate in so far as yielding genetic information from a fetus.

However, there is still the issue of consent that needs to be addressed. Both the pregnant woman and the purported father have to be willing to surrender a sample of their DNA (either blood or mouth swab) to be compared to the fetal DNA in order to determine paternity. Some people may not be willing to consent to giving the sample, and they should not be legally compelled to do so unless there is a viable state interest at hand (ie.- an already born baby whose paternity is in question and whose support needs to be established by the courts).

[Warpy]

34. Most docs won't do CVS

before the 12th week because of the threat of damage to the fetus.

[ieoeja]

3. It is physically impossible for us to bear as much of the brunt as women do. (nt)

[LisaM]

5. Physically, but not financially

I'm just trying to re-frame the debate. If there were more consequences for men, this argument would be over.

[havocmom]

9. Money isn't the only issue. Time and limits on opportunities due to child rearing considerations

Those things matter too.

[havocmom]

4. Any idea how many dead-beat parents are already not paying child support?

I guess if we re-purposed the DEA to force payments, we might stand a chance, but it seems a pretty hard sell.

And it is not just $$ that females are paying more of for child rearing. There is the matter of time and limits on other life choices that fathers can duck more easily than mothers.

How 'bout we just implant embryos women don't want to take to term onto the spleens of men who want to limit choice? Make the boys who want to control the girls put up or shut up ;)

[joeybee12]

6. I see abortion rights as a privacy issue, because if the government can

interfere with such a private issue, they won't stop there.

[dmr]

52. My worry is a DNA data base - oh, what a can of worms that would be

I wouldn't trust anyone with that much information

[anonymous171]

7. Sorry, I'm pro-choice. This would just encourage men to pressure women into getting abortions. nt

[ZombieHorde]

8. Abortion became a "not just a woman-only issue" when my daughter was born.

I believe parents have the right to speak up for the civil rights of their children.

[colinmom71]

22. While I generally agree with you here...

We do have to be careful about how we would word legislation that addresses parental influence over a teenager's decision to abort an unwanted pregnancy. Please don't get me wrong, because I doubt that you would go to the extremes the following parents did.

There is a very good reason the Court has allowed teenagers to have an abortion without parental consent. I even knew one of those reasons. Several years ago, I knew a young woman whose parents exercised their idea of parental guidance. A few days after being told their 16 yr. old daughter was pregnant, they lured her to the car to go "run errands". Once they hit the interstate, the girl asked where they were going. The parents replied they were going to Jacksonville FL and that she was going to have abortion.

Well, the girl did not like that and expressed her objections. The parents merely replied that if she did not go through with the abortion, they would abandon her without any money or personal resources in the city they were headed for (about 2.5 hours drive away from home). She had nothing then, so she silently went through with parents' coercive plan. The parents were total WASPs and anti-choice, until *their* daughter came home pregnant...

Oh, and their reasoning for forcing their daughter to have an abortion? They were too young to have grandchildren.

Her boyfriend had already bailed due to the pregnancy. So it should have come as no great surprise when she turned up pregnant again the next year. But this time, she was "smart". She waited until she was well into the second trimester to tell her parents she was pregnant, so abortion was not an "option" by then. Of course, the new boyfriend was abusive so she had to stay home and have the baby, yadda yadda....

The last word I heard about this young woman (7-8 years ago) was that she was still in a cycle of seeking out abusive relationships. I have no doubt that her daughter will too...

[ZombieHorde]

31. I agree, those parents acted unethically.

I just want my daughter to have legal access to the health care services she may or may not need.

[LisaM]

10. I'm trying to find a way to inject this into the healthcare bill

I'm tired of these male senators decreeing that no one should have healthcare if any federal money goes for abortion.

Fine. Make the fathers pay for it, then. Not just the abortion, but the whole shebang.

Of course there's not a real way to make this happen. I'm just trying to point out that if men had to worry that their entire lifestyle would change every time they had sex, things would change. Birth control, RU486, and abortion would all cease be matters of debate and they wouldn't be wedge issues anymore either.

I'm just tired of this.

[dusmcj]

11. make men understand that if women are sexually free, they'll have more sex

I'm sure I'll get firebombed for being a typical sexist pig, but I note that the women will be having more sex as well. So maybe it would benefit both ?

[ieoeja]

13. Some men aren't particularly interested in sex with women.

And the bulk of the anti-choicers are also against birth control. So they basically fall into two categories:

- anti-sex (possibly from lying to themselves about their own urges and the mind-fuck that must do to them?)
- pro-breeding


The second group is also easy to understand. Look at Rightist foreign policy.

"We are bigger and stronger than everyone else. So we can do whatever the fuck we want. And make everyone else do whatever the fuck we want them to do. And the only reason they don't do that to us is because they can't. But they will as soon as they have the strength, so it is important that we keep everyone else down."


Then look at their domestic anti-immigrant, anti-minority, anti-worker, anti-poor, anti-woman policies.

"We (white) are more powerful than everyone else. So we can do whatever the fuck we want. And make everyone else do whatever the fuck we want them to do. And the only reason they don't do that to us is because they can't. But they will as soon as they have the strength, so it is important that we keep everyone else down."


Breeding more white babies is a big part of retaining control. I know some of these people. And their number one fear is unquestionably that whites will someday be a minority in this country. And that when that happens they will be enslaved or worse. They very, very, very, seriously believe that shit.

[dustbunnie]

16. You have GOT to be kidding if you think it's only "white" people who are anti-abortion.

If you are not kidding, here's a map for your elucidation.

http://www.womenonwaves.org/set-158-en.html

[dusmcj]

23. except we like to be stylin' as a modern society, yet we're just as tribal as the hicks

got our own Taliban and everything. And as the poster you replied to pointed out, the whiteboy Mouseturds of the Universe who know it's good to be da king b'lieve that it's good to dip your wick whenever you can cause that way you make white babies so we can keep outnumbering those dark people who're breeding at least as fast as our good Christian families with Leader husbands and Surrendered wives....

This is why I suggest that women need to practice saying "go fuck yourself" until it becomes reflex. They have the most to lose and they are being used as the tool to justify continued tribalist enslavement of the public. Control of the supply of pussy for the purposes of advancing the self-interest of the powerholding class continues unabated, whether it's a 65-year old hick in India grinning that he impregnated his 48-year old wife for the 15th time, or some (male) beotch thinking to determine when, who, how and whether someone can fuck someone else and for what purposes.

In the longer term of course, both sexes have equal amounts to lose - the species as a whole for potentially trapping up to 50% of its membership in situations where they can not exercise their potential, a mental health catastrophe (going on for millenia, but that just means it should be ended) where all suffer from false mental models which deprive them of liberty, happiness and in too many cases, life, and stultifying gender roles for all which serve only those so incompetent that they need to be part of a group in order to function.

I realize that my discussion does not take the vantage point of our LGBTQetc. colleagues into account too much. The statements about crapassed social constructions of gender roles and inhibition of exercise of personal freedom though, and the resultant disadvantage to all men and women, I suggest apply to, all men and women.

[dustbunnie]

27. I absolutely hear what you're saying. However:

the color of one's skin is not a good indicator of how one would "vote" on abortion, and I find it bizarre that anyone would think that only "white" men want to take away my right to choice. Religious saturation is a much better indicator. Although it's wrong to do so, I know the poster I responded to didn't include Hispanics and those from the Middle East as "white," and half the populations of those minorities would be thrilled to vote abortion out of existence. Do you honestly think there isn't a good portion of the black community that is anti-abortion as well? Canada and European countries are populated to the hilt with white men, and yet, no problem. The difference between them and us is we're saturated with religion the way third world countries are, as opposed to their secular-minded societies.

[dusmcj]

55. yes: black and hispanic reactionary populations are as dangerous as our white Talibs /nt

[dusmcj]

21. I was referring to the ones who are; but you've basically got it 100% right /nt

[rantormusing]

12. ridiculous

The number of times I have seen a male attacked for insinuating that he would try to talk about not getting an abortion because, wait for it, he wants to care for it, are many. If you want to know why abortion is strictly a woman's issue, look in the mirror.

[musette_sf]

26. "he wants to care for it"

So you would advocate FORCING a woman to bear an unwanted pregnancy, because "he wants to care for it".

Forced birth is forced birth. And progressives do not support forced birth.

[rantormusing]

30. I never said anything about force

but thank you for making my point for me. :eyes:

[musette_sf]

33. No, you did not SAY "force".

You said:

The number of times I have seen a male attacked for insinuating that he would try to talk about not getting an abortion because, wait for it, he wants to care for it, are many.

So your perception of the interchange between the man and the woman, where the woman does not want the pregnancy, and the man "wants to care for it", is that the "male (is) attacked" when the woman asserts that she wants is not what the man wants.

That is the ONLY way to read your sentence.

Therefore:

Either the woman has full choice over HER body;

OR

The man is asserting a "right" to FORCE the woman to give birth, because his "right" as sperm donor should be equal to or more important than, in your view, the woman's right to terminate the pregnancy.

It's that simple. There is no other interpretation of what you said. MRAs are so hypocritical and selfish.

Back in the days before DNA tests, enforcement of child support payments, and reproductive health care options and rights for women, @sshole sperm donors would say "How do I know it's MINE?" and drop the pregnant woman like a hot rock without consequences to him. Men of this sort didn't give a wang dang doodle what happened to the woman or the child, since he had no accountability.

NOW that parenthood can be easily established, child support WILL be levied, and women can make the choice whether to give birth or terminate, @sshole sperm donors want to claim sole ownership of the fetus, and want to FORCE the woman who doesn't want the pregnancy to give birth, ostensibly because "he wants to care for it". If the woman wants to give birth, then men of this sort will wage lengthy court battles to attempt to get custody of the child, up to and including lying about the woman and her character, since it's HIS and he can prove ownership. Men of this sort, when confronted with accountability, DEMAND control and ownership, regardless of what the woman wants.

What it's all about is CONTROL, one way or the other. Control over whether to be a parent at all if there are no consequences for just walking away, or control of the body of another human being to force her to bear a child against her will if there are unpleasant consequences for just walking away.

Either women own their own bodies and have autonomy over their lives, or they don't. If you can force me to endure an unwanted pregnancy to full term, give birth, and surrender the child to you, because you "want to care for it", then I do not own my body and I do not have autonomy.

Zip it or wrap it if you both do not agree that a child is an acceptable outcome for the sexual act. The End.

[ThomCat]

43. +1

:applause:

[cynatnite]

14. I don't want men to have the say so over what I do with my body...

and that's what would happen here. The anti-choicers want anything that can keep a woman from making a choice.

[Bitwit1234]

17. I say cut off the penis (if he is proved the father) then he won't

be responsible for any more pregnancies. That would really make sure the abortion issue would go away. And yes if a man is said to be the father of a child..they can force him to take a DNA test. Of course I don't know how they could test a fetus but...after the baby is born he sure can be tested. And then no other woman would be stuck with a child she probably couldn't afford.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

48. So you propose forced amputation for consensual sex? MMMMkay.

:crazy: That is Margot Kidder hiding in the bushes crazy.

[treestar]

18. It's more complicated than that

So many of the opponents of choice are women. The fundies just don't care that men end up on the hook too.

[cbdo2007]

20. What makes you think abortion is a woman-only issue?

[musette_sf]

25. Because the man CAN walk away

and the woman CANNOT walk away. The woman HAS to deal with the outcome.

Can't understand why someone who purports to be progressive would even have to ASK that question.

[cbdo2007]

36. With an abortion there's nothing to "walk away" from. You just have it

and move on.

If she didn't want to get pregnant she shouldn't have been having sex.

[musette_sf]

37. That is just disgusting.

Do you slut-shame women as a habit?

Are you anti-sex, perhaps?

Are you sure you are on the correct message board, or are you here for a reason other than sharing progressive and Democratic ideas, positions, and philosophies?

Because the opinion that a woman "just (has) an abortion and move(s) on" is indicative of a deep disrespect of women in general.

And the opinion that "If she didn't want to get pregnant she shouldn't have been having sex" is indicative of a worldview that sex for women is only for procreation, and that the only acceptable outcome of sex for women is procreation.

[cbdo2007]

39. Wow, you really read a lot into everyone's posts....

and you're really good at putting thoughts into our words for us and interpreting what we say as near outlandish when it's mostly benign.

I can already tell I'm not going to win this argument, so best of luck to you!

[musette_sf]

40. Gee, all you said was

1. "Women just have abortions and move on".

What could you possibly mean by THAT? You know, since the vast majority of women choosing to terminate, because it is their choice to do so, find it to be a soul-searching and difficult experience. And then there are those women who do NOT want to terminate, but sadly decide that it is the least-worst choice when confronted with an awful situation that is life-threatening to her, the fetus, or both.

But anyway! Saying that "women just have abortions and move on" was just BENIGN! No hidden agenda there! No possible interpretation of a general disdain of females, that someone could make of such an opinion! :grr:

2. "If she didn't want to get pregnant she shouldn't have been having sex."

What could you possibly mean by THAT? You know, since when MEN think about having sex, for the most part, the LAST BLOODY THING on their minds is pregnancy. One would think that a MAN who wants and likes recreational sex (which is just about ALL men) would WANT women to want and like recreational sex also. And a woman who wants and likes recreational sex is TURNED OFF by men who say stupid things like "If she didn't want to get pregnant she shouldn't have been having sex". You know, since NO method of birth control is 100% reliable, and a woman can get pregnant despite her best efforts to prevent it.

But anyway! Saying that "If she didn't want to get pregnant she shouldn't have been having sex" was just BENIGN! No hidden agenda there! No possible interpretation of slut-shaming women who want to have recreational sex without procreation, that someone could make of such an opinion! :grr:

Don't do a dumbass drive-by, if the best you can come up with is denial and projection when someone shines a bright light on your dumbass drive-by.

[ismnotwasm]

42. Um

I'd study up on biology a bit. And basic logic. Before you post maybe?

[ThomCat]

44. That's a disgusting attitude.

So pregnancy is a punishment now for having sex? Enforcing pregnancy is a punishment for having sex?

Even if you are sick enough to think that sex is something that deserves to be punished by what possible sick set of values does forcing a woman to bear the burden and risk of pregnancy for 9 months, and then forcing her to endure the efforts and costs of motherhood for the rest of her life equal the "crime" of helping a guy have an orgasm? x(

Did you read what you wrote before you hit the Post Message button? Do you really believe what you wrote?

[gorfle]

24. Step 1:

How to make abortion not just a woman-only issue?

So long as abortion is couched in the argument that, "It's all about the woman's body" then abortion will be a woman-only issue.

[musette_sf]

35. How is it NOT "all about the woman's body"?

So long as men think that their "right" as sperm donor equals or exceeds the woman's right to choose to terminate or carry to birth, then men will continue to interfere with and oppose women's autonomy.

It's like breakfast:
The chicken is involved.
The pig is committed.

In pregnancy:
The man is involved.
The woman is committed.

Commitment trumps involvement, every time.

When men get this very elemental fact of life, THEN abortion will be more than a woman-only issue.

[gorfle]

57. Because it also affects the fetus' body.

I was not referring to the man who fathered the baby.

[ThomCat]

45. It IS all about her body.

It all happens inside her body, and no matter what happens, it will affect her health, her rights, her life. A man is involved peripherally, and a men can get involved in the pro-choice fight in a lot of positive ways, but that doesn't chance the fact that the battlefield is still women's bodies.

Do we defend women's rights to their own bodies? Or do we stand by and let the anti-choice people turn women into indentured incubators? (even indentured pre-incubators if they have their way.)

[gorfle]

56. What about the body of the fetus?

Obviously there are at least two bodies involved.

[ThomCat]

58. Um, no.

Let's not start this bullshit. Until it is born, it's not an life of it's own.

I'm really sick of people insisting that a fetus trumps the rights and lives of women, because no matter how you try to spin it that is the final conclusion you're going to try to get to once you start with that argument.

[gorfle]

60. I'm not saying that.

I'm really sick of people insisting that a fetus trumps the rights and lives of women,

I'm not saying that. I'm pro-choice. I'm all for killing fetuses for any reason whatsoever.

I, like many other people, don't buy the "until it's born, it's not a life of it's own." There is little difference between a baby 10 minutes after it is born and 10 minutes before it is born. Since medical science cannot make a clear demarcation line for when a fetus is definitively human, the safest line of demarcation for people who want to err on the side of humanity, is conception.

But in any case, this is a moot point.

The original poster asked what could be done to stop this being a "woman-only" debate.

The first step to doing that is for people like you to stop insisting that it's only about the woman. Clearly, it is not a "woman-only" issue.

[Kitsune]

28. Find a way to get men pregnant, and abortion will be a sacrament. *nt*

[Thickasabrick]

32. If that happened, there would be abortion clinics at convenience stores nt

[musette_sf]

38. and they'd be advertising on the blimp

flying over the Super Bowl.

[ismnotwasm]

29. It's a human rights issue

If someone claims to supports human rights, supporting the right to abortion would logically follow.


Of course it doesn't seem to work out that way and that right there leads straight into another topic.

[ThomCat]

46. It is THE human rights issue.

Anyone who cannot support human rights for 51% of humanity can't really support human rights effectively for anybody. Once they make the exception that so many people don't deserve their rights, they're more than half way down the slippery slope to giving away anyone else's rights too. :(

[alfredo]

41. Roe V Wade was about the right to privacy. We all have a dog in this fight.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

47. What if there is a disagreement about which decision to make?

[Hekate]

49. It is a woman's privacy issue. Keep it that way. If SHE wants to involve anyone else...

... that is HER choice. Once you start mandating this, that, and the other thing, you end up like those states that want women to reveal their most intimate details so the state can "keep statistics" -- things like, who did you sleep with and how many did you sleep with, and by the way write down everyone's name.

For untold thousands of years women have had to be under the thumb of men who decided which pregnancies were authorized and which were not, so that babies could be determined at birth to be "legitimate" or "illegitimate." Men who decided for them which acts of sex were authorized and which were not -- because paternity had to be exactly determined for inheritance and a woman had to be a virgin at the time of the marriage contract.

When midwives were women and all matters of the female body were women's province, sometimes women could decide for themselves which pregnancies to terminate if they couldn't be avoided. Earlier in American history there were even ads in newspapers offering remedies to women to "bring on the menses."

Even so, the social and legal systems were such that men got to calculate the "cost" of (a) marrying a girl who "got herself pregnant" or (b) leaving her in social disgrace to either give up her own child to adoption or raise it alone or (c) to force her to go to an abortionist so he wouldn't have to deal with having a bastard or (d) letting her figure out that she needed to find an abortionist herself and risk her life. This was the case right up until Roe vs. Wade, and there are many today who really would like to turn the clock all the way back to before that time.

So, the history of involving men overmuch in abortion is not good. As individuals, I love my brothers, my husband, my son, respect many men that I know, etc, etc. But as a mass of male legislators and judges and the medical establishment, I would tread very carefully when it comes to protecting my rights and that of my daughter.

If and when a woman actually gives birth, *then* is the time to declare who the father is, and *then* is the time to talk about his rights and his responsibilities, as well as hers.

Hekate

[TorchTheWitch]

50. Exactly - not only is it a women only issue it's an individual issue

No one else should be involved in any decision making regarding an abortion than the individual woman herself. It's making abortion an issue involving anyone else that is the whole problem. My uterus is no one's business but mine, and any other woman's uterus is her own business.

[Hekate]

51. Thank you for getting it, Torch...

When there's an actual relationship, everything must be balanced within that framework -- but the state/legislators/judges should stay the hell out.

When my friend was pregnant with her third, it was her husband who pressured her to abort, as they already had their hands full. So she insisted that he be with her to hold her hand during the procedure. There's much more to that story (like the gyn who prescribed a form of birth control that turned out to be notoriously unreliable, and the clinic that stalled her for week after week) but they have a strong relationship to this day, over 20 years later.

Conversely, a cousin of mine was in love with a woman who twice became pregnant and twice told him she had an abortion, despite knowing he really wanted to have children with her. He was extremely hurt by this information -- personally I thought she was incredibly callous. Not that she should have had a kid just to satisfy him, but that she should have taken responsibility for herself and kept her mouth shut. And furthermore that she should have been honest enough to break it off knowing how incompatible their desires were, before having two abortions. They did break up, and he eventually fell in love with a woman who did want kids, and they had them together -- another strong relationship that has endured over 25 years.

I can be as judgmental as the next person (re my cousin's former lover), but get the state involved in these matters of the heart? No way in hell.

Hekate

[PeaceNikki]

53. HA!

And also HA!

"if men had to bear as much of the brunt as women do for pregnancies"

[Vinca]

54. It seems the people most anti-choice are old, white men.

I'm betting if custody automatically went to the male in these situations, they'd sit down and STFU. It's easy to protect the little embryos if you don't have to take care of them and support them financially for 18 years.

[gleaner]

59. It is already not only a woman issue ...

As you point out, the fathers have responsibilities as well. Some women though don't want the fathers of their children in the children's' lives. As in abusive relationships where the courts still grant visitation to abusive fathers regardless of the dangers that it poses to the kids and their mother.

Here are some of the mechanisms now in place to insure that fathers take responsibility. Where I live if a woman files for paternity, the court orders the DNA test and it is part of the lawsuit. If the DNA comes back positive the DA's office enforces child support ordered by the court. The IRS and the state withhold tax refunds to pay back child support and the DA's office garnishes the man's wages so that money goes directly to the child and the Mom without the Dad having any veto power. It is not a perfect system, but it does get money into the hands of a lot of kids and mothers who would otherwise do without it. If the men don't pay, or quit their jobs or get cute and the DA can find them, they get their butts slapped into jail to do some constructive thinking.

A free DNA test is a good idea but isn't it easier to wait until the baby is born unless you want to terminate the pregnancy? Also if you involve a man as the father early in the pregnancy it is likely that he would have a say in whether or not you could have the procedure the way a husband can in some places. A lot of men are not so enlightened that they would say, "Go ahead, it is entirely your choice." A lot of women might find themselves in court with the father of their child fighting to terminate the pregnancy. I think it is entirely a woman's choice, but not everyone agrees as we are all well aware.