Pro-Life "except in cases of . . . "

[Elphaba]

Well, it isn't just the effect on the woman per se; there's the question of the degree to which she got herself into that situation through her own consensual conduct.

No, it is just the effect on the woman per se -- it’s not on the father. If she ends up pregnant, he can walk away, but she can’t. If she does not want a child, she has to make the choice of having an abortion, giving it up for adoption, or keeping the child--all of which are something she does not want to do. The father does not have to do anything if he doesn’t want to. For example, if he’s willing to do whatever it takes, which means working underneath the radar, he doesn’t even have to help support the child he fathered.

Additionally, the majority of women who have an abortion used birth control when having sex. They either used it wrong, or it failed, but they did use it. So the stereotype of the heartless slut having sex without any thought for a possible pregnancy, with the idea that she can just abort it, is a stereotype, and not reality.

Example: in Utah, if a man has intercourse in the state, he is deemed to be legally "on notice" that a pregnancy may result.

Example: in the world, if a woman has intercourse she runs the risk of becoming pregnant, despite the fact that she used birth control.

We don't care about how that pregnancy may affect him--in fact, we pretty much waive the 13th amendment in his case if in fact a child is born.

We don’t care about how that pregnancy may affect her--in fact, if she isn’t a good girl and doesn’t have the baby and give it up, then she is heartless, and has no right to make any demands on the child’s father, because after all, that is slavery, and that is no exaggeration, especially in comparison to the life of luxury she’ll be living for the next eighteen years if she doesn't kill the child, but decides to keep it.

We tell the man: if you don't want to deal with the consequences, don't have sex.

We tell the woman: if you don’t want to deal with the consequences, don’t have sex, because if you do have sex, you’re a slut and, additionally, if you don’t have the child and give it up for adoption, you’re a heartless slut.

And if you did voluntarily have sex, and pregnancy results and the child is born, you will pay a substantial portion of your income towards that child's support. Whether you want to or not.

And if you did voluntarily have sex, and pregnancy results and the child is born, unless you do the right thing and give it up, you will pay ALL of your income towards the child’s support, as well as take on full responsibility for the emotional welfare of the child, which will exhaust you beyond anything you could have possibly imagined when you first chose to keep the child.

And if that drain on your resources means you have to work 80-hour weeks for the next eighteen years, or you can't afford to marry, or any future children of yours will have to subsist on a fraction of the standard of living enjoyed by that first child--too freakin' bad.

And if that drain on your resources means you have to work 80-hour weeks for the next eighteen years, or you can’t afford to marry, or any future children you have subsists on a fraction of the standard of living enjoyed by that first child--well, that actually won’t happen because, as a woman, unless you were already making a good living wage, you will most likely be making little more than minimum wage, and therefore never could have afforded the lavish imaginary lifestyle JAG has dreamed up.

Frankly, until men get the same consideration that women do with regard to the consequences of an unintended pregnancy initiated through consensual intercourse, I'm not inclined to give this argument a lot of mileage.

And what would that be? Do you want the hundreds of thousands of men who initially say they'll stick by her, but once reality hits they run, not walk, out the door, to be able to tell her what she can do with her pregnancy before they actually go through that door?

She is pregnant, not on vacation. She doesn’t have time to wait around until he decides what he wants to do, and then prove to her he means it. Not all men are as responsible as you are, and women know this. When a woman finds herself with an unwanted pregnancy but decides to have the child, even in many cases if she is married, she already knows the only person she can count on is herself.

I am not unsympathetic to those men who find themselves helpless to stop what would be their child from being aborted. I honestly can imagine the anguish and anger he would feel and admit I do not know what I would say to him, because there is no good solution. I really have given this a good deal of thought in the past, and I completely understand why a would-be father would go to court to prevent his would-be child from being aborted.

Unfortunately, women are not psychic, nor are they mind readers. They have to deal with reality in that moment, and many of them know that reality is they cannot rely on the father to take care his child. I fully expect most men on this board to have a fit at what I’m saying because they would never abandon their children. But I also know, from this board alone, three families whose father has walked out on them. Three! In my real life I know many more.

I admit I am gobsmacked at your POV. You insist in holding a woman to the fire if she becomes pregnant because it was irresponsible of her to have had sex in the first place, thereby risking a pregnancy, although, statistically, she is most likely to have used birth control. Regardless, she should not be able to choose what she wants to do about the pregnancy; rather, if the father wants her to have the child she must do so. Yet, if the father’s choice is to have nothing to do with the child, he should be able to walk away, with no consequences for his irresponsibility, and if there are any, it's slavery. Slavery? Please.

I haven't done a 50-state survey, but this article suggests that all 50 states have abolished the ancient marital rape exception laws.

I realize I wasn’t clear about this, so the misunderstanding is my fault, but I’m not talking about the justice system. I’m talking about society, and the stigma women face when they have been raped by their husbands, because many people still do not believe that is possible. I’m talking about the fact that it’s very unlikely a married woman would be supported if she told people she wanted an abortion because her husband had raped her.

That's why, when I'm king of the world, I'll only be requiring an allegation of rape, duly reported to the proper authorities. Heck, I'd even support an alternative whereby instead of going down to the police station, we started authorizing women's shelters to take rape reports--there just needs to be a record filed somewhere, so that a) we know the woman's serious, and b) she's taking affirmative steps to make sure that the situation doesn't happen again.

Well, that’s mighty big of you.

When I’m king of the world, no woman will have to prove to you, or anyone else, that they are doing anything to make sure they aren’t raped again, because it will be understood they didn’t do anything that caused them to be raped in the first place. Rather, it will be understood the rapist is the only person responsible for the rape, and it will be his responsibility to make sure he doesn’t rape again, not hers. It will be understood that she could walk down the street naked and no man has the right to rape her, nor does she have to take your affirmative steps to make sure she’s not raped again, because the only way she could do that is to live in her basement, all by herself, for the rest of her life, and never, ever put herself in the presence of a man again.

You think I’m just bitter and exaggerating? Ask how many women on this board have been raped.

Elphaba

[Just_A_Guy]

We tell the woman: . . . you’re a slut and, additionally, if you don’t have the child and give it up for adoption, you’re a heartless slut.

I don't tell her anything. I'm sorry about the social forces that are at work here, Elphaba, and I hope they change; but in the meantime I don't think we should make fetuses--whether they are bona fide babies or not--the whipping boys for our feminist grudges.

I admit I am gobsmacked at your POV. You insist in holding a woman to the fire if she becomes pregnant because it was irresponsible of her to have had sex in the first place, thereby risking a pregnancy, although, statistically, she is most likely to have used birth control. Regardless, she should not be able to choose what she wants to do about the pregnancy; rather, if the father wants her to have the child she must do so. Yet, if the father’s choice is to have nothing to do with the child, he should be able to walk away, with no consequences for his irresponsibility, and if there are any, it's slavery. Slavery? Please.

I insist on holding both parties responsible. I don't know what your experience has been in the past, Elphaba, to lead you to believe that men can walk away scot-free. But frankly, that's just not the case anymore as long as Mom is reasonably diligent about enforcing her rights. You may need to get ORS involved. If you know some women in Utah who aren't getting child support, and ORS doesn't seem to be cutting it for them--PM me; I can take on a pro bono case or two. They may also want to contact Utah Legal Services.

Pregnant women/single mothers may need a little (or a lot) more education as to what their resources are, but as I see it: under the status quo, where both parents are reasonably diligent about enforcing their legal rights: Once conception occurs, Mom has two chances to get out of an eighteen-year emotional and financial commitment. Dad gets zero chances, unless he skips the country.

Regardless, she should not be able to choose what she wants to do about the pregnancy; rather, if the father wants her to have the child she must do so.

Why does she get to make a choice that may bind the father for eighteen years, but he can't make a choice that (assuming she exercises her statutory right to relinquish the child) will bind her for nine months?

I’m talking about the fact that it’s very unlikely a married woman would be supported if she told people she wanted an abortion because her husband had raped her.

Hopefully--again--social attitudes will change with time; but in the meantime--how many women publicly announce their decision to have an abortion? I can see telling some intimate friends, but wouldn't those friends believe the woman regardless?

When I’m king of the world, no woman will have to prove to you, or anyone else, that they are doing anything to make sure they aren’t raped again, because it will be understood they didn’t do anything that caused them to be raped in the first place.

I apologize; I should have been more clear. I'm not talking about sensitivity training to make sure women don't wear skimpy clothes or any nonsense like that. I'm talking about evaluating the woman's home situation, if it's a domestic violence case, and getting her the resources she needs to improve her situation.

A woman can't necessarily control whether she's going to be raped; but she can control whether a man who has raped her in the past has continued access to her--she can move out; she can get a protective order. She can control, to some degree, the healing process--she can choose whether to get help and find a counselor, or not to.

This isn't about assigning blame, Elphaba; and it's not about "proving" anything. It's about everybody doing what logically needs to be done to help the woman involved. If an abortion is necessary for the healing of a victim of sexual assault, let it be part of a comprehensive treatment strategy rather than a stopgap measure to fix only the most visible consequence of the rape.

Edited March 17, 2010 by Just_A_Guy