The story is that a married Wisconsin man slipped his pregnant girlfriend some mifepristone (RU-486) to induce a miscarriage at 14 weeks. Of course it is unconscionable that someone should slip someone else a drug of any nature, whether this or roofies, it is as unconscionable that a society would make males responsible for supporting an unwanted child against his will.
I understand that a woman should have the right to choose to abort a fetus or carry it to term, but this cannot be a unilateral decision. Rather, if it is unilateral, she should then accept the responsibility to support this child. If the child is wanted by both parties at the onset, of course they should both be required to support it. The other scenario occurs when he wants it and she doesn’t. She can abort, and he has no recourse. This is as it should be.
I don’t have the time to write at length, but when I hear stories like this, it really gets my blood boiling.
My Favourite Life 
I think that men should support their children even if they don’t want them. In case of an abortion there will be no child to care for. He was equally responsible for getting her pregnant and should therefore pay child support.
Comment by Mortality — December 5, 2007 @ 3:00 pm |
This is a typical female argument, and it misses the point. The same goes for the female view of “sex and love” or “sex and intimacy.” They can be separated. Sex can occur without the intent of getting pregnant. Without coercion, a male cannot impregnate a female. However, a woman can become pregnant without ever having intercourse—like emptying a used condom into herself…or that age-old turkey baster trick. She can claim the condom must have leaked or something Just because a woman takes control of a man’s spermatozoa does not make him responsible for her choice.
Even if they both had consensual sex without using birth control, pregnancy is not inevitable. The probability that she will be impregnated is substantially less than she will. If she becomes pregnant, she alone has the ability to keep or abort the fetus. This, being her decision alone, leaves the responsibility on her. Rights come with responsibilities. The shared responsibility involves the pregnancy. Carrying the child to term is solely hers. Period: end of story.
In my world, both parents would have to sign on the dotted line at hospital at delivery claiming responsibility. In a marriage this requirement could be lessened, but even still there are too many cases on record where the woman has a child through someone other than her husband, and yet is responsible—even upon divorce. Of course this is a separate issue, one that could be remedied if all parties were required to undergo DNA testing.
In the end, I am a Buddhist, so if a woman does bring a child into the world by deceitfully means, both she and the child will pay a heavy karmic debt. Because of this, what laws are in place pale in comparison. As a guy, I would rather pay for and raise an unwanted child borne under dubious conditions rather than to take the bad karma. The selfish mother will bear the full burden, and that is some heavy shit.
Comment by myfavouritelife — December 5, 2007 @ 3:29 pm |
With unprotected intercourse the risk of a pregnancy is roughly 80%. Also, if she gets pregnant by being dishonest or something that is a different thing.
Comment by Mortality — December 6, 2007 @ 1:32 pm |
Oh, and call one of my arguments typically “female argument” and then compare to not being able to tell the difference between sex and love/intimacy? I’ll be very pissed off. My arguments are not typically female just cos I happen to be a girl. I am not typically female nor are my arguments!
Comment by Mortality — December 6, 2007 @ 1:35 pm |
Mortality,
I don’t want to get into a into a pissing match here, but you numbers are WAY off. In the US, according to the NIH, DURING ovulation, the probability of pregnancy is about 30%, and only 67% of those will result in live births. So, of 100 women, 30 will get pregnant and 20 will deliver. If we include intercourse outside of the roughly 6-day ovulation cycle, the number are dramatically less. BTW, this study involved specifically married women trying to get pregnant.
Also, whether you are a typical female of not, your argument is straight out of the “Female Viewpoint” book. It is not a male perspective, by and large. Even if you were a male, I would still say it was a female vantage. Much like women prefer toilet seats to be lowered. Whether you are male or female, that perspective in predominantly female. It doesn’t mean that a male cannot concur with the view point—only most males are not going to care.
Comment by myfavouritelife — December 7, 2007 @ 8:13 am |
Everywhere I’ve read they say the risk is 80% that is of 1000 women having sex regularly during a year, ~800 will get pregnant.
Comment by Mortality — December 9, 2007 @ 1:34 pm |
Mortality, I think this is where your 80% figure comes in. For women trying to get pregnant over the course of a year, around 80% of them will become pregnant. The important thing is that these women (with a knowing and willing partners) are trying to get pregnant, but this is over the course of an entire year and not just a single encounter. It is a case of joint probability. By the time you factor in some 100 or so sexual encounters, you may approach 80%.
If it were all so easy to get pregnant, there would be little need for ovulation calendars and basal thermometers. It is also considering these women are having sex during ovulation. Coitus outside of the six-day ovulation window dramatically reduces to odds (almost to zero). Most women know when they are cycling and more susceptible to becoming pregnant. Not conveying this to a partner is deceitful. I hope this helps.
Comment by myfavouritelife — December 10, 2007 @ 11:59 am |