Does the abortion debate reveal what some people really think about women?

partyatmygaff

periodictable wrote: »

As a male, I'm pretty sure that were we able to become pregnant, that, at the end of 9 months we'd be offered a choice of two doors: delivery room or termination room.

Speak for yourself. I very much doubt that anyone would support something as morally bereft as what you're suggesting.

HHobo

partyatmygaff wrote: »

Speak for yourself. I very much doubt that anyone would support something as morally bereft as what you're suggesting.

When I read what he wrote first I reacted much the same, but upon re-reading it, I think he was making the point that if men were the ones who could become pregnant, there just wouldn't be any debate about abortion rights. Men would have them, no question.

I could be definately be wrong in that interpretation though!!

HHobo

jaffacakesyum wrote: »

I don't really understand what you are saying. I think it's a bit scary that you are promoting that men shouldn't take responsibility for contraception

I'm not promoting anything of the sort.

jaffacakesyum wrote: »

What are you suggesting exactly? "Men go have sex with who you want, don't wear a condom, don't ask if she's on the pill, go for it, sure it's not you who will end up pregnant" :eek:

No and I honestly don't know how you could get there from what I said.

It is a generally accepted principle that if I have more power and control over a situation than you do, I have a proportionally greater responsibility.
This is not, nor should it be, an all-or-nothing proposition.

Fizzlesque

eviltwin wrote: »

Thank you for posting that. I think you hit the nail on the head. There is counselling etc out there for those who need it - needs to be more though - and that's great but what if you don't have any issues with it, you don't need help or support, you just want to talk about it with someone who you can trust not to make you feel bad about it.

I've told a few people and the general reaction has been great and I feel good its not a secret anymore. I'm very lucky I was able to have an abortion and move on from it but keeping it a secret doesn't sit right with me. It was a major event in my life, it changed me in so many ways ( all positive ), its a huge part of my story and it just didn't feel right to me to hide that. Why should I?

One really good thing is that I can see more women admitting to having abortions on message boards which is a great move forward.

Thanks, Eviltwin - I wasn't sure if I'd myself expressed clearly enough with regard to thinking that it isn't necessary to be traumatised, or to have issues, for the chance to express yourself to be of value. And keeping secrets can't be good - keeping something a secret gives it power to become much more than it started out being.

I read some literature about adoption in the bad old days (for a piece I was writing for a writing course I was doing) and it really bothered me when I learned that the women whose babies were adopted were told to go home and forget they'd ever had a baby. Yeah riiight :rolleyes: Similarly, the women who did the adopting were told to pretend they'd given birth to the baby they brought home. Secrets and lies, what a foundation.

I'm glad you were able to stop your experience from being forced into becoming a secret. As you say, it's part of your story, why should you have to hide it?

pwurple

I've told a few people and the general reaction has been great and I feel good its not a secret anymore. I'm very lucky I was able to have an abortion and move on from it but keeping it a secret doesn't sit right with me. It was a major event in my life, it changed me in so many ways ( all positive ), its a huge part of my story and it just didn't feel right to me to hide that. Why should I?

100% glad you don't keep it secret. Openness helps us all, and probably your mental health as well. Keeping lifelong secrets would eat away at me anyway.

Fizzlesque wrote: »

I read some literature about adoption in the bad old days (for a piece I was writing for a writing course I was doing) and it really bothered me when I learned that the women whose babies were adopted were told to go home and forget they'd ever had a baby. Yeah riiight :rolleyes: Similarly, the women who did the adopting were told to pretend they'd given birth to the baby they brought home. Secrets and lies, what a foundation.

Agreed, awful stuff. The hangover of lies, shame and secrecy still affects people who adopt or are adopted today. I wish there was more openness about it.

username123

pwurple wrote: »

Agreed, awful stuff. The hangover of lies, shame and secrecy still affects people who adopt or are adopted today. I wish there was more openness about it.

Yes its desperate. I know a lady in her 60s who was only told a few years ago that she had in fact been the subject of an illegal adoption arranged by local convent. She had always believed she was adopted but had never had it confirmed until recently. The culture of secrecy has affected her more than the fact that she was adopted. She feels very let down by the people who adopted her (plus associated friends and family), who lied to her for nearly 60 years, despite her actually asking if she was adopted since her teens. Even given that the secrecy was because the adoption was illegal (ie, not to hurt her), it has had a negative lifelong effect on this lady.

periodictable

HHobo wrote: »

When I read what he wrote first I reacted much the same, but upon re-reading it, I think he was making the point that if men were the ones who could become pregnant, there just wouldn't be any debate about abortion rights. Men would have them, no question.

I could be definately be wrong in that interpretation though!!

Your interpretation is correct.
And in fact, look at the wording of the amendment which is concerned with the "right to life"-drafted by a man-ought it not to be concerned with the health of the woman rather than her right to life? I mean, a situation could arise where the woman could be denied a termination, only to remain alive, postpartum, in a vegetative state....yet she's still alive, so the law is satisfied and justice is done? I think not.

jaffacakesyum

HHobo wrote: »

I'm not promoting anything of the sort.



No and I honestly don't know how you could get there from what I said.

It is a generally accepted principle that if I have more power and control over a situation than you do, I have a proportionally greater responsibility.
This is not, nor should it be, an all-or-nothing proposition.

Contraception shouldn't be a petty power struggle. Any adult should take reponsibility for contraception. It takes two to tango. Why on earth would you be promoting that women should take more responsibility than men for contraception? It serves no benefit whatsoever

It doesn't affect me personally as I would always make sure I'm taking the pill correctly and wouldn't have sex if the guy refused to wear a condom and I also use the pull out method but regardless, I wouldn't suggest to anyone that women should take the fore runner on this. Everybody should act responsibly when it comes to sex, regardless of gender or sexuality.

EDIT: Just wanted to apologise actually, perhaps shouldn't have used the word 'promote' as you've just said you're not promoting anything of the sort but at the same time I'm confused because you do seem to suggest that men shouldn't have as much responsibility for it so I will leave the post as it is and hopefully haven't offended you as I don't want to put words in your mouth

jaffacakesyum

periodictable wrote: »

Your interpretation is correct.

100% agree.

Lingua Franca

jaffacakesyum wrote: »

It doesn't affect me personally as I would always make sure I'm taking the pill correctly and wouldn't have sex if the guy refused to wear a condom and I also use the pull out method but regardless, I wouldn't suggest to anyone that women should take the fore runner on this. Everybody should act responsibly when it comes to sex, regardless of gender or sexuality.

...especially since there's more risks to sex than just pregnancy.

Everyone should be looking after themselves. Everyone should be educated in sexual health and have access to contraception and std testing. And we should all take responsibility for ourselves but also what we could do to our partners.

username123

HHobo wrote: »

It is a generally accepted principle that if I have more power and control over a situation than you do, I have a proportionally greater responsibility.
This is not, nor should it be, an all-or-nothing proposition.

Ive been thinking about this today, and it is precisely because a man does NOT have the same amount of power and control over the situation that I would imagine they would be the ones to take contraception more seriously.

If I were male and I didnt know if having sex was going to result in an abortion or me being pursued through the courts for maintenance you can be sure Id be putting a lot of effort into ensuring the latter didnt happen!! To only way to take some control would be to take control of contraception to ensure I didnt lose control at a later stage.

I think you might have the logic backwards tbh.

Obviously it is the responsibility of both sexes to be aware of and take control of contraception, but the idea that the woman should invest more into it is just silly.

HHobo

username123 wrote: »

Obviously it is the responsibility of both sexes to be aware of and take control of contraception, but the idea that the woman should invest more into it is just silly.

Even if you completely ignore the imbalance of power in decision, consequences alone should be enough to suggest women should invest more into unwanted pregnancy.*

Imagine two people. When they shake hands, person A might contract a condition that person B is immune to.

This condition will radically affect the health of person A for the best part of a year. This condition carries significant risk and can even be fatal. Person A can ameliorate the condition but at the risk of psychological harm. It may leave person A in the position of having to treat the condition's after effects for the rest of their life.

Person B might be required to contribute to person A's medical expences for the rest of their life. Person A, if they really don't feel like accepting any responsibility can hop a plane and prentend it never happened.

Would you honestly say that the suggestion that person A should probably invest a little more in prevention is "just silly"?

Edit. * prevention. Quite an important ommission!

clairefontaine

You are both right.

The woman has greater responsibility because she bears the greater consequence and accountability, which is precisely why she has the greater power [though ask women in that position and powerful is the last thing they feel].

But if you as a man do not invest in the responsibility, than you can hardly complain that you have no power when the very tough choice has to be made.

The power is a product of the responsibility, not vice versa.

username123

HHobo wrote: »

Would you honestly say that the suggestion that person A should probably invest a little more in prevention is "just silly"?

Yes - because of this:

HHobo wrote: »

Person B might be required to contribute to person A's medical expences for the rest of their life. Person A, if they really don't feel like accepting any responsibility can hop a plane and prentend it never happened.

Person B can NEVER choose to do that unless person A agrees.

Im simply giving a viewpoint from my perspective - which is female. I am assuming if I were male that I would be pretty paranoid about contraception because I would have no control over person A (do we really need the analogy btw - surely pregnancy covers the story lol!). As I woman I take care of contraception for myself and I know what I would do if I had an unwanted pregnancy. As a man I would never have that certainty.

Probably my female perspective is missing something from the male perspective, and obviously, morally, responsibility for contraception lies with both.

In real terms it doesnt and shouldnt come down to who has power over who, but the fact is, the law in this country does not allow women power over their own bodies, so an unwanted pregnancy could very easily result in a birth - no matter what person A or person B would really want.

Honey-ec

username123 wrote: »

am assuming if I were male that I would be pretty paranoid about contraception because I would have no control over person A.

It's natural to think that when you're looking at it from a female perspective, but I have to say, my general experience has been the exact opposite - the vast majority of the men I've slept with have been more than happy to assume that the woman is "looking after" the contraceptive side of things and in all but a handful of cases, I've been the one to bring it up.

As unpalatable as it seems, Hhobo is right - a lot of men (not all, by any means, but a lot) are more than happy to assume the woman is taking care of things in the background quite simply because she has more of a vested interest in not getting pregnant than he does.

That's not even getting into the whole issue of STIs. For a LOT of the women I know, an unplanned pregnancy is the only thing that crosses their mind when it comes to unprotected sex/accidents.

username123

Honey-ec wrote: »

It's natural to think that when you're looking at it from a female perspective, but I have to say, my general experience has been the exact opposite - the vast majority of the men I've slept with have been more than happy to assume that the woman is "looking after" the contraceptive side of things and in all but a handful of cases, I've been the one to bring it up.

As unpalatable as it seems, Hhobo is right - a lot of men (not all, by any means, but a lot) are more than happy to assume the woman is taking care of things in the background quite simply because she has more of a vested interest in not getting pregnant than he does.

That's not even getting into the whole issue of STIs. For a LOT of the women I know, an unplanned pregnancy is the only thing that crosses their mind when it comes to unprotected sex/accidents.

I agree with you Honey-ec - in real terms men probably are far more lax than women regarding contraception. I have had experience of possibly 3 men who were paranoid about contraception to the point that they would not have sex unless they were happy the contraception was all in order. In all 3 cases they had seen a best friend or brother or something who had had a crisis pregnancy, assumed the woman would go to the UK, and the woman in each case decided not to, putting them on the hook legally for financial support for the next 18-22 years.

In saying that, my sister in law had pregnancy scare after pregnancy scare until she finally had a child, 8 years later, she hasnt had one pregnancy scare since.

When you think it through, I do believe it is really men who should be the ones more worried about potential outcomes. I agree the reality is different, but that may be more because not as many people think it through.

HHobo

username123 wrote: »

Yes - because of this:
Person B can NEVER choose to do that unless person A agrees.

I don't really understand what you mean by that. In the case where a woman decides to have an abortion, a man is powerless to prevent it.
If a guy decides to leave the country rather than deal with his responsibilities, the woman in question is just as powerless to prevent this.

username123 wrote: »

Im simply giving a viewpoint from my perspective - which is female. I am assuming if I were male that I would be pretty paranoid about contraception because I would have no control over person A (do we really need the analogy btw - surely pregnancy covers the story lol!). As I woman I take care of contraception for myself and I know what I would do if I had an unwanted pregnancy. As a man I would never have that certainty.

I completely agree that contraception is something that should be of major concern to men. I personally would take great care in this regard as would most of the men I know. I have also been in a long term relationship where she was taking care of contraception. I was placing a significant deal of trust in her when that was the case. Aside from simply insisting, ad infinitum, that condoms are non-negotiable I would have little choice but to extend that trust. This is the only real choice I have.

username123 wrote: »

Probably my female perspective is missing something from the male perspective, and obviously, morally, responsibility for contraception lies with both.

The only argument I have with this, is that women want the responsibility for contraception to be equal, morally etc. but if she becomes pregnant she seems rather reluctant to share the moral choice of termination or not equally. I think she should, infact must, have the far greater level of choice about what happens in the case of pregnancy. She might listen to his perspective, but ultimately she gets whatever she wants in this scenario. I simlpy can't imagine too many women allow the man involved to have an equal amount of choice morally or otherwise. It is a very unpopular opinion here, but I do feel that a disparity in power to choose, does impart a disparity of responsibility. About the only solution I can see to this, and it is woefully imperfect I admit, is to allow men the choice to abdicate their parentage legally. There is simply nothing you can do if he wants to keep the child and she doesn't.

username123 wrote: »

In real terms it doesnt and shouldnt come down to who has power over who, but the fact is, the law in this country does not allow women power over their own bodies, so an unwanted pregnancy could very easily result in a birth - no matter what person A or person B would really want.

I don't see this as realistic. I really doubt that any woman who wants an abortion will not simlpy go to the UK and get one in order to be a law abiding citizen. Whether or not it should be the case or not, it does come down to who has more power to act.

I think, for the abortion debate to move forward, we need to start dealing with how things actualy are not how things should be in a completely equitable world. If you are female and pregnant and you didn't plan to be then you have some very tough choices. If you are male and involved in an unplanned pregnancy, you have to stand by powerlessly while some very tough choices are made. There is no realistic way to change this scenario.
It would be unconscionable to even consider forcing abortions on unwilling women, and I personally find it equally noxious to demand that she carry an unwanted pregnancy to term. Everyone should have, at a minimun, complete sovereignty over their own body. After that we have to try to put together the fairest set of rules we can. A very difficult task in the case of abortion.

lazygal

Not every woman can afford to go to the UK, or may have dependents she can't leave. So in a case where a woman in Ireland is unable to go to the UK, her only option is to remain pregnant.

dark crystal

username123 wrote: »

Is it not obvious why people do not consider adoption as a real option? If someone gets pregnant without intending to, why on earth would they want the interruption to their lives of carrying that pregnancy to term (with associated health risks - both physical and mental health), the ruination of their social standing (by this I mean facing judgement at every turn) and then at the end of it, a painful labour, and giving birth to a child that they then give away?

I cant understand why anyone would choose it! Pregnancy is a public event because its obvious that someone is pregnant (in most cases). Can you imagine being in work and being pregnant and people asking all the normal questions like when is the baby due etc... and what do you hope to have etc.. and the answer being "none of it really matters because Im giving it up for adoption". I cannot see how it could be done in any practical sense without hiding away for the term of the pregnancy and then re-emerging later not pregnant and with no baby.

The only way to get around the public view would be to pretend some story like you were being a surrogate for someone. I dont think many womens jobs would be too accomodating if they thought the woman was being someones surrogate and availing of maternity leave/benefit/top up either.

Its just not a practical solution. Why would anyone want to be an incubator (with the exception of surrogacy)?

I would imagine because some women who find themselves pregnant may not wish to bring up the child they're carrying, but would be against terminating the pregnancy either. They value the life of the baby, but understand they simply could not give that child the best life it deserves. In that case, adoption is a perfectly viable option.

I understand your points about the social stigma attached, but I'll be perfectly honest here, I find it kind of sad that ending a pregnancy should be seen as somehow more socially acceptable than placing that child with a family who will love and cherish him or her instead.
Thank goodness we no longer live in a country where women are shunted off into 'laundries' (religious work camps) and forced to give their babies away. I completely understand how utterly heartbreaking it must be to give a child away and I'm not saying it's an easy option at all, but to be so dismissive of that option is wrong, imo.

Although I wouldn't consider abortion a choice I would ever personally make, I am pro-choice for women in general and the key word here is choice. Surely adoption should be seen just as much as a viable choice for women as abortion is.

I would like to think that when discussing how society judges women for choosing abortion, we could also look at how they judge women for placing their babies for adoption. The social and personal stigma you describe above can only be removed if an open and honest debate can take place and women who choose adoption are given just as much support as those who choose abortion. This is the only way societal attitudes will change.

username123

HHobo wrote: »

I don't really understand what you mean by that. In the case where a woman decides to have an abortion, a man is powerless to prevent it.
If a guy decides to leave the country rather than deal with his responsibilities, the woman in question is just as powerless to prevent this.

Ill just try to clarify this for you HHobo - then I think we should let this particular debate rest, we clearly have differing views, I respect your viewpoint.

Just to go back to your analogy.
Person A can decide to go to the UK and come back and pick up life where it left off. Or can decide to go ahead and have a child.

Person B - you are saying that the man can leave the country. Thats a MASSIVE life consequence - arguably a larger one than having a child. And he can still be pursued for maintenance if he stays in the EU. And if he doesnt - do you seriously think that walking out on a life, family, friends, a job etc... is on an equal par with going to the UK for an abortion and coming back again? It simply isnt - imo.

I understand what you are saying about allowing men to abdicate the responsibility legally - I dont agree with it, but I do understand it.

On an aside, I personally know some women who could not go to the UK for an abortion simply because they couldnt afford it. Im also in total agreement with you on forced abortions and forced pregnancies being unacceptable. Unfortunately we have forced pregnancy in this country by law, its not nice as a woman to have lived and continue to live under the shadow of that.

username123

dark crystal wrote: »

I would imagine because some women who find themselves pregnant may not wish to bring up the child they're carrying, but would be against terminating the pregnancy either. They value the life of the baby, but understand they simply could not give that child the best life it deserves. In that case, adoption is a perfectly viable option.

I agree, and if thats what someone wants, then I am in full support of them doing that. But in real terms, Im not sure how many women would want to do it at all, given the consequences in terms of a pregnancy being public, stigmatisation, and then obviously the trauma of giving up a child etc...

The point I was making is this, abortion is not just about not wanting a child for many women, its about not wanting a pregnancy - at all.

HHobo

username123 wrote: »

Ill just try to clarify this for you HHobo - then I think we should let this particular debate rest, we clearly have differing views, I respect your viewpoint.

I have come to the same conclusions.

username123 wrote: »

Im also in total agreement with you on forced abortions and forced pregnancies being unacceptable. Unfortunately we have forced pregnancy in this country by law, its not nice as a woman to have lived and continue to live under the shadow of that.

Given the debate underway in country at the moment. Changing this is would be a good first step.

dark crystal

username123 wrote: »

I agree, and if thats what someone wants, then I am in full support of them doing that. But in real terms, Im not sure how many women would want to do it at all, given the consequences in terms of a pregnancy being public, stigmatisation, and then obviously the trauma of giving up a child etc...

But it's that very stigma I would like to see broken. Why should a woman who makes a decision that she feels is in the best interest of her child be stigmatised at all? In 2013, it's so sad that adoption is still seen as such a social taboo.

The point I was making is this, abortion is not just about not wanting a child for many women, its about not wanting a pregnancy - at all.

And for those women, abortion would clearly be the best decision.

username123

dark crystal wrote: »

But it's that very stigma I would like to see broken. Why should a woman who makes a decision that she feels is in the best interest of her child be stigmatised at all? In 2013, it's so sad that adoption is still seen as such a social taboo.

Yeah, I agree with you. There should be no stigma. But there is - unfortunately.

If it were a more commonly taken up option (de-stigmatised) - how do you think women who chose it would be viewed in the workplace. I dont think an employer would be happy with someone progressing with a pregnancy (hospital appointments etc...), taking maternity leave (and top up pay if it were available), and then giving the child up for adoption and remaining on full legal maternity leave. Imagine someone doing this twice or three times. Do you think they would be viewed negatively in the workplace - even if the stigma surrounding giving a child up for adoption itself didnt exist?

Neyite

But for some women, adoption does not fully resolve the issue either. You know that in 18 years or so, that child will probably come looking for you. They will want to know why they were given up. They will want to meet any other biological siblings they have, and extended relatives. If you don't meet your biological child as an adult, you go through the hurt all over again and now you reject an adult through no fault of their own.

So you get judged by friends and the wider family circle for giving up a baby because you were too busy enjoying yourself, or wanted to finish your thesis, or you were unemployed at the time. The child will want to know details of the father, so if it was a disastrous relationship you are forced to dredge up old memories of that time. If you remained with the father and had more children at a later stage, the agony of adoption for all involved seems pointless in hindsight, since you went on to have a family anyway. And people forget to judge the scared penniless 16 year old, they'll judge the successful 34 year old with the nice car house and good job.

dark crystal

All valid points, but we also need to highlight the happy adoption stories, not just the negative aspects.

Most adoptees live very happy lives, are loved very much and adore their adoptive parents. Of course they will have questions later in life and it's up to the birth mother to weigh up all of these options when making her decision. I don't think any decisions made when experiencing an unwanted pregnancy are easy ones - it's just an awful situation to be in.

I remember a girl in my secondary school who got pregnant and gave the baby up for adoption. Surprisingly, she was really supported in her decision by the school and her peers and this was a Catholic school in 1992! I thought she was so incredibly brave at the time, although it must have been such a horrible time for her.

I understand that option isn't the answer for a lot of women, but perhaps if there was less of a stigma attached to adoption, more women may be more inclined to choose it and less people would judge them for it.

lazygal

I honestly don't think its the stigma of adoption that puts women off, its the hassle of pregnancy. I wouldn't go through pregnancy unless I REALLY wanted to and I'd have no hesitation in getting an abortion in certain circumstances. Pregnancy is crap. Even when its totally straightforward its crap. Its intrusive, you have to limit what you eat, drink, wear, do - sure your right to travel is limited by certain airline restrictions. It leaves long term side effects, like having an episiotomy (being cut down below to help baby deliver safely), dental issues (the old wives' tale of losing a tooth for every child is true for some women), your body shape is all out of whack, you might be pucking for months on end (my all day nausea never left me completely) which can do damage to the digestive system. There's days where all you want to eat is a forbidden food, in my case sushi, or do something pregnant women shouldn't, like have a long sauna session. But you can't because you're growing a preshus tiiiiiiineeeeeee baaaaaaayyyyybeeeee.

Its not a walk in the park being pregnant, and as I said stigma would be the least of my worries if I had an unwanted pregnancy.

dark crystal

lazygal wrote: »

I honestly don't think its the stigma of adoption that puts women off, its the hassle of pregnancy. I wouldn't go through pregnancy unless I REALLY wanted to and I'd have no hesitation in getting an abortion in certain circumstances. Pregnancy is crap. Even when its totally straightforward its crap. Its intrusive, you have to limit what you eat, drink, wear, do - sure your right to travel is limited by certain airline restrictions. It leaves long term side effects, like having an episiotomy (being cut down below to help baby deliver safely), dental issues (the old wives' tale of losing a tooth for every child is true for some women), your body shape is all out of whack, you might be pucking for months on end (my all day nausea never left me completely) which can do damage to the digestive system. There's days where all you want to eat is a forbidden food, in my case sushi, or do something pregnant women shouldn't, like have a long sauna session. But you can't because you're growing a preshus tiiiiiiineeeeeee baaaaaaayyyyybeeeee.

Its not a walk in the park being pregnant, and as I said stigma would be the least of my worries if I had an unwanted pregnancy.

I guess everyone is different - I loved being pregnant. No sickness or discomfort and I'm not a big drinker or sushi eater (yuck!). Not everyone experiences all those bad things!

It was just the giving birth bit I hated :P

lazygal

dark crystal wrote: »

I guess everyone is different - I loved being pregnant. No sickness or discomfort and I'm not a big drinker or sushi eater (yuck!). Not everyone experiences all those bad things!

It was just the giving birth bit I hated :P

I actually found the birth and the newborn stage way easier, no more puking and I could wear normal clothes again!

eviltwin

I don't think stigma has much to do with it, maybe more to do with what you tell people in the future but not so much about the decision. Its a very personal thing and I trust most women to know in their heart what is right for them regardless of what "society" thinks. Giving a child up for adoption is huge, mentally and emotionally its a lot to ask of someone but I'm sure every woman in a crisis pregnancy knows its an option. If she chooses to have an abortion or keep the child then thats up to her to decide.