Conflating a medical abortion, even one for convenience, that a woman asks for herself and receives in the privacy of her G.P's office, with 'kicking a woman in the stomach to force an abortion so that you (the father) don't have to deal with it,' is poor logic.  Conflating a surgical abortion which a woman was desperate enough (for any reason) for that she has taken time off of work, crossed state lines, and paid for a hotel stay (not to mention gas and medical fees) with 'kicking a woman in the stomach to force an abortion' is not logical.  Conflating a surgical abortion performed even in the third trimester due to fetal demise, or serious birth defects, or for the health or sanity of the mother, with 'kicking a woman in the stomach to force an abortion' is also faulty logic. 

PLs have this funny tendency towards illogic in that they seem to be unable to differentiate not only fine degrees of difference, but anything smaller than a 180 difference:  a zygote is the same as a baby.  A zygote is the same as a grown Ob-Gyn.  Miscarriage by violent assault is the same as medical or surgical abortion.  Abortion is the same as birth control.

Try to tone down the froth a little and give us an argument that makes sense, ok?

Jun 14, 2009 -- 7:03PM, Bei1052 wrote:

Jun 13, 2009 -- 10:43PM, ManzanitaBear wrote:

That right there would be a forced abortion, like we were talking about above.

You have a weird definition of the word "forced". A second-party inducing a miscarriage cannot be deemed as a "forced abortion", since the woman in question is not being 'made' to do anything.

If they induce the abortion without her asking them to do so or giving meaningful consent, that is indeed force.  And a physically violent act like kicking her in the stomach is force by any definition.

Jun 14, 2009 -- 7:03PM, Bei1052 wrote:

And if you want to have as much sex as you want without ever being forced to take care of a kid you don't want or can't afford, as you put it, then a vasectomy would be a great blessing indeed.

So... Explain to me why the opposite, tubal ligations, are neither mentioned nor considered a "blessing"? Makes you wonder, doesn't it? <_<

They weren't mentioned in the article because the author was writing specifically about abortion.  She didn't mention vasectomies either.  I did.  And yes, I'd agree that tubal ligations are also a blessing when freely chosen and safely performed.  For any person of reproductive age to make informed choices about when and whether they'll have children, to have those choices respected, to have safe ways to carry out those choices, and to enjoy consensual sex without fear of an unwanted pregnancy--yes, that's a blessing.  And when sex isn't consensual, if a woman gets pregnant by her rapist, abortion is a mercy, unless she decides that she really, truly wants to have the baby.  Most of the time, if a woman gets pregnant by rape, the emotional trauma is so strong that continuing the pregnancy would be harmful, and if she has to raise the baby on top of that, she will not be able to do that well.

That's nothing like being kicked in the stomach.

Jun 15, 2009 -- 12:04AM, karbie wrote:

The suggestion of vasectomy vs. tubal litigation is the difference between out-patient and invasive surgeries.  Yet with one exception, in any marriage I've known where it was decided that no further children were wanted--or none were wanted at all--the man brought it up, and the woman had the surgery. The one case of the man getting a vasectomy was something he did when HE'D decided they had enough kids and she was informed of his decision after the fact.  I think that she would have agreed; it was having the whole deal taken care of without bothering to get her imput or consider her feelings that hurt.

Ummm... So even though they're in the same vein the tubal ligation is 'worse' because it's an invasive surgery and therefore isn't expected of women to have if they don't want kids as when compared to a vasectomy? I sure do hope I'm just totally not understanding your argument here.

What you consider "logical" is not necessarily logical to all people, and in all situations. Just PLEASE don't sneer at something being old and then bring up the "Kick in the stomach" for children you don't want and can't afford. That's assault; abuse, etc.--and unfortunately one of those "folk remedies" like Gone With The Wind and throwing a woman down a flight of stairs to make her miscarry that abusers latch on to because it's cheap and you can just keep on trying until it works.

Egads! I said this once before, but logic, at its core, merely pertains to whether or not an argument is valid or invalid, and the validity of an argument isn't measured by personal opinions. You can perceive an argument to be as wrong as sin, but this doesn't make the argument illogical. Of course, many people who throw out the word logic do so as a way to say, "I don't agree with what you're typing out", which has nothing to do with logic.

...And, *sigh*, to the rest of your paragraph. You seem to be fixated on the "kicking a woman in the stomach part" while ignoring the fact that my argument is in the same vein as the argument presented in the OP. If the desired outcome is the end of the pregnancy for any reasons, then the means by which the end to the pregnancy occurs is a "blessing" (In the case of the OP, abortion). Of course, the mean can be anything, and isn't limited to just what you want it to be or what you like (Abortion), nor is the argument constrained by gender. You can't use the argument as it suits you and then turn around and reject it when it doesn't, even if the premises would necessitate the conclusion. Though, the premises in the OP don't necessarily necessitate the conclusion, we're just up and assuming, as the OP did, that something which results in the end of an unwanted pregnancy is a "blessing" to those seeking the end of the unwanted pregnancy. In her case, abortion. In the case I used, kicking a pregnant woman in the stomach.

Why not just stick with your main argument that women have no business being allowed safe abortions because no abortions should ever be performed?  That's basically the point. Right?

1.) What would constitute an unsafe abortion? Especially in developed countries. All abortions are safe.

2.) If you believe so, then it must be so :)

Jun 14, 2009 -- 8:13PM, Bei1052 wrote:

 

For any person of reproductive age to make informed choices about when and whether they'll have children, to have those choices respected, to have safe ways to carry out those choices, and to enjoy consensual sex without fear of an unwanted pregnancy--yes, that's a blessing.

...Henceforth my original statement of why kicking a woman in the stomach could be allowed under the pretense of being a "blessing" for a man. It would be an informed choice. It would be safe. It would be respected. And it would allow him to enjoy consensual sex without fear of an unwanted pregnancy. See? A "blessing". 

That would not be an informed choice for the woman.  In fact, it would be interfering with her choice.

If a man doesn't want to become a biological father, he can use condoms.  He can talk with the woman and they can decide to use another form of birth control.  He can abstain from sex.  If he really, really doesn't want to be a biological father, he can have a vasectomy.

If a woman doesn't want to become a biological mother, she has pretty much the same set of choices, except that all nonpermanent contraceptives besides condoms are hers to use--for better or worse.  Most of them have side effects ranging from mildly annoying to very serious, and not experiencing any of that at all, ever, is the exception, not the rule.  And, if those things fail, she may do one of two things: change her mind about not wanting to be a mother, or have an abortion.  Since we have a natural built in inequality there, the man's decision to not procreate ends with contraception.  The woman can take that a little farther if she chooses.

And once a pregnancy happens, both the man and the woman have a choice not to parent even if a baby is born.  The woman can put the baby up for adoption.  The man can agree to put the baby up for adoption, or he can simply walk away.  Many do.  And when they do, they may be "legally" on the hook for child support, but if they're determined, they can nearly always dodge it.  The woman has all the burdens of raising the child--and hopefully all the blessings as well.

And that's simplifying things a lot, because most people making those decisions about reproduction do want children, just not right then, or already have children and don't want another right away, or already have all the children they want.  Those who consciously choose not to procreate at all are in the minority.

Jun 15, 2009 -- 1:10AM, Bei1052 wrote:

Ummm... So even though they're in the same vein the tubal ligation is 'worse' because it's an invasive surgery and therefore isn't expected of women to have if they don't want kids as when compared to a vasectomy? I sure do hope I'm just totally not understanding your argument here.

Are you suggesting that the difference between invasive and non-invasive surgery is insignificant?  That a man who does not want children (because it was the man's desire not to be a parent that brought this subject up) should introduce to his female partner her more invasive, and therefore more dangerous, sterilization as the solution to his fears, when he could alter his own body far more easily and safely (not to mention that a lot of HCPs refuse to give tubals to women who are under 40 and/or do not already have children)?  Are you really suggesting that?  Because it's asinine, if you are.