AmberCutie's Forum
An adult community for cam models and members to discuss all the things!

Women's rights video "This Is My Body"

  • ** WARNING - ACF CONTAINS ADULT CONTENT **
    Only persons aged 18 or over may read or post to the forums, without regard to whether an adult actually owns the registration or parental/guardian permission. AmberCutie's Forum (ACF) is for use by adults only and contains adult content. By continuing to use this site you are confirming that you are at least 18 years of age.
Status
Not open for further replies.
It amuses me when people use required child support to say that the man should have a say in it. That's like saying a few dollars are equal to the damage, risks, and loss of time/life that women go threw to have a child. More women die from giving birth than from abortions.


They both take a risk when they fuck--from STD's to pregnancy--but you can never equate a risk of life to something as meaningless as money.


As far as I'm concerned, if I get pregnant even when using chemical birth control, long periods of abstinence, few partners, AND condoms... even if I get pregnant 100 times, I will always get an abortion than harm myself and a future I work so hard for. It's not my fault that doctors refuse to sterilize me because of THEIR morals. This is my body, if I have the funds and desire to be sterilized, I should be. It should be done with care and without poor intent just because someone else thinks it is my "job" as a female to reproduce in an over populated world.
 
[quote="AlexLady"

. It's not my fault that doctors refuse to sterilize me because of THEIR morals. This is my body, if I have the funds and desire to be sterilized, I should be. It should be done with care and without poor intent just because someone else thinks it is my "job" as a female to reproduce in an over populated world.[/quote]

This pisses me off to no end. They refuse to do the procedure until a woman has had at least one or two kids. Its ridiculous, if a woman doesn't want kids, she knows and theres no reason why she should be denied rights to that.

I like this video. As far as abortion goes im pro choice but mainly pro birth control and condoms and also pro sex education. In my high school we were taught abstinence, not birth control. I remember them making us suck on candy and then asking us to pass it around. When we all said "ew no" they said something along the lines of "well if you sleep with other men before your married your used and your value goes down" Thats kind of off topic but its crucial that we teach kids the right way to prevent pregnancy rather than telling them they should just abstain otherwise they are used up and gross. The thing that boggles my mind is most pro life people also oppose easy and free access to birth control... wait so you don't want people to have abortions but you don't want to prevent people from wanting abortions?
 
Jaydenrainey said:
This pisses me off to no end. They refuse to do the procedure until a woman has had at least one or two kids. Its ridiculous, if a woman doesn't want kids, she knows and theres no reason why she should be denied rights to that.
Most doctors also refuse to perform even a partial hysterectomy on a woman under 40 who doesn't have kids even if she medically needs it. I know this from personal experience. Since I was 15, my parents have spoken with almost every single doctor in my state that my insurance works with but they refuse to even speak with us since I'm still under 21 and without kids.

Honestly, it's fucked up. If a person wants to be sterilized, regardless of gender, they should be allowed to sign some sort of legally binding form and get sterilized. Granted, some sort of short counseling with a doctor and therapist might need to take place to make sure said person is sure, but otherwise I don't see the harm in it. It's not hard to freeze eggs or sperm to save for later and use for in vitro. It's a hell of a lot harder to get an abortion or die from pregnancy complications.
 
I had a kid, I feel like I've met my quota ( :lol: ) and am denied surgery because I 'might change my mind' later. I'll be 27 in a month, I have an almost 2 year old. I will never want another child. I even explained that if a fluke of a pregnancy happened to me again that I would abort and that made no difference.

I wish I had control over this part of my body.
 
AlexLady said:
It amuses me when people use required child support to say that the man should have a say in it. That's like saying a few dollars are equal to the damage, risks, and loss of time/life that women go threw to have a child. More women die from giving birth than from abortions.
It's not the money, it's the forced responsibility. And yea, she's going to be stuck with either a kid or an experience of having an abortion, but if he is morally against having his offspring aborted, I'd imagine that can be at least a little damaging to his psyche. Granted, in the end she has to look out for herself and personal well-being. I'm sure some fathers actually feel very strongly for their child and the loss of offspring is incredibly painful, whether by miscarriage or abortion. To simply disregard a man's emotions toward his child is, I think, rather psychopathic.

It's interesting to learn about the difficulties women face with voluntary sterilization. I imagined it would take work but had no idea you were vehemently denied. I faced a similar problem when I went for my vasectomy the first time (though it's a much simpler procedure). The doctor refused because I was under thirty and we were childless. He felt "he couldn't morally do the procedure." He could morally play with my balls and take my money, however. :?

Nordling said:
why would we as a society want to force unwanted children onto people who would probably be bad parents?
I've always wondered this myself. I personally think it would be better that a child never be born than have to grow up in a shitty family that doesn't want him, or get tossed through the system of adoption houses.
 
lordmagellan said:
AlexLady said:
It amuses me when people use required child support to say that the man should have a say in it. That's like saying a few dollars are equal to the damage, risks, and loss of time/life that women go threw to have a child. More women die from giving birth than from abortions.
It's not the money, it's the forced responsibility. And yea, she's going to be stuck with either a kid or an experience of having an abortion, but if he is morally against having his offspring aborted, I'd imagine that can be at least a little damaging to his psyche. Granted, in the end she has to look out for herself and personal well-being. I'm sure some fathers actually feel very strongly for their child and the loss of offspring is incredibly painful, whether by miscarriage or abortion. To simply disregard a man's emotions toward his child is, I think, rather psychopathic.
Men do have the right to give up legal rights (and the financial responsibilities) to their biological children if they're that opposed to having them. A friend of mine's father did this because she was not a boy. She has an older brother for whom he continued to pay child support. :roll: So a woman can't really force a man to be a father any more than a man can force her to be a mother.
 
  • Like
Reactions: LadyLuna
lordmagellan said:
AlexLady said:
It amuses me when people use required child support to say that the man should have a say in it. That's like saying a few dollars are equal to the damage, risks, and loss of time/life that women go threw to have a child. More women die from giving birth than from abortions.
It's not the money, it's the forced responsibility. And yea, she's going to be stuck with either a kid or an experience of having an abortion, but if he is morally against having his offspring aborted, I'd imagine that can be at least a little damaging to his psyche. Granted, in the end she has to look out for herself and personal well-being. I'm sure some fathers actually feel very strongly for their child and the loss of offspring is incredibly painful, whether by miscarriage or abortion. To simply disregard a man's emotions toward his child is, I think, rather psychopathic.

This is vain.

It is not your child just because you put a gamete into the mix. What, because it has your eyes it's special to you? The only one with an attachment to the fetus is the mother; because it is attached to her uterus.

There's a HUGE difference between being a father and a sperm doner. You have the option -become- a father -after- the mother decides to risk her life and attempt to carry the fetus full term. Up until then, you have no more of a role in it than deciding if the woman's period starts before the blastocyst attaches to her. Having an emotional attachment to something just because you are genetically tied to it only strikes me as vain, or maybe worse, you're weak for allowing an out-dated feeling of "need" to spawn overtake you emotionally.


No man should ever have a say in it, not until he has the option to carry the fetus.

(That thanks was a mis-click.)
 
  • Like
Reactions: bob and JickyJuly
AlexLady said:
lordmagellan said:
AlexLady said:
It amuses me when people use required child support to say that the man should have a say in it. That's like saying a few dollars are equal to the damage, risks, and loss of time/life that women go threw to have a child. More women die from giving birth than from abortions.
It's not the money, it's the forced responsibility. And yea, she's going to be stuck with either a kid or an experience of having an abortion, but if he is morally against having his offspring aborted, I'd imagine that can be at least a little damaging to his psyche. Granted, in the end she has to look out for herself and personal well-being. I'm sure some fathers actually feel very strongly for their child and the loss of offspring is incredibly painful, whether by miscarriage or abortion. To simply disregard a man's emotions toward his child is, I think, rather psychopathic.

This is vain.

It is not your child just because you put a gamete into the mix. What, because it has your eyes it's special to you? The only one with an attachment to the fetus is the mother; because it is attached to her uterus.

There's a HUGE difference between being a father and a sperm doner. You have the option -become- a father -after- the mother decides to risk her life and attempt to carry the fetus full term. Up until then, you have no more of a role in it than deciding if the woman's period starts before the blastocyst attaches to her. Having an emotional attachment to something just because you are genetically tied to it only strikes me as vain, or maybe worse, you're weak for allowing an out-dated feeling of "need" to spawn overtake you emotionally.


No man should ever have a say in it, not until he has the option to carry the fetus.

(That thanks was a mis-click.)

Say whuuuuuuuuuut? :?

I'm struggling to see the connection between wanting to be a father and being "vain". To dismiss a guy's paternal instincts as vanity is curious behaviour.
 
Nordling said:
It isn't vain to "want to be a father." Instincts are valid to a point, but it is vain to feel one has a RIGHT to be a father with the Host of HIS choice. The host gets to decide. :)

Agreed.

AlexLady said:
Having an emotional attachment to something just because you are genetically tied to it only strikes me as vain

I can't agree with the above quote though. The alternative is to not give a flying fuck about your unborn child. I don't see how that's a desirable trait.
 
mynameisbob84 said:
Nordling said:
It isn't vain to "want to be a father." Instincts are valid to a point, but it is vain to feel one has a RIGHT to be a father with the Host of HIS choice. The host gets to decide. :)

Agreed.

AlexLady said:
Having an emotional attachment to something just because you are genetically tied to it only strikes me as vain

I can't agree with the above quote though. The alternative is to not give a flying fuck about your unborn child. I don't see how that's a desirable trait.
To be obsessively concerned with one's DNA and it's replication is not desirable either. If you share your DNA in a consenting situation where both you and the potential host (the woman) agree that you should grant a future to a "you and I" DNA combination, it's not only acceptable but desirable. Vanity is where a guy thinks his DNA is some kind of magic potion that must be protected, legally and otherwise, regardless of the thoughts of the other donor--the one that has to do the real work. It's just a clump of protein, dude! :)
 
If a man just "wants to be a father" he could adopt or find a women with kids and no father.


That he wants it to have his genetics is vain. If you re-read what I wrote, you'll find that I said that wanting it just because it has his eyes/genetics/whatever, is vain.

The instincts I never said were vain, I said they were out of date. This is because the world is over populated, so allowing your instincts to control you so emotionally strikes me as weak. When it comes to life, you should use more logic than "but my hormones say spawn!"

If you're still confused, I'm more than willing to re-word it again.
 
AlexLady said:
If you're still confused, I'm more than willing to re-word it again.

Given the sheer volume of condescension contained within that one sentence, I'd be fearful of requesting any further disambiguation :)

What you initially categorised as "vain" was this...

I'm sure some fathers actually feel very strongly for their child and the loss of offspring is incredibly painful, whether by miscarriage or abortion. To simply disregard a man's emotions toward his child is, I think, rather psychopathic.

I can't agree that being upset by losing a child before it's born is akin to vanity (or weakness).
 
Lol. I like how you act as if all I replied to was the miscarriage part, and not how you think a man has reasons to be emotionally upset over his spawn being aborted, souly because he's genetically tied to it. It's not like I quoted the whole paragraph, oh no, I only quoted the miscarriage part so surely that's what I think is vain.

*facepalm*
 
AlexLady said:
Lol. I like how you act as if all I replied to was the miscarriage part, and not how you think a man has reasons to be emotionally upset over his spawn being aborted, souly because he's genetically tied to it. It's not like I quoted the whole paragraph, oh no, I only quoted the miscarriage part so surely that's what I think is vain.

*facepalm*

I can only reply to what you post. You said it was vain for a man to care about losing an unborn child (be it through abortion OR miscarriage). I disagreed.
You're of the opinion that a man has no reason to be upset over his unborn child being aborted OR miscarried (outside of vanity). I get that. That's fine. We can agree to disagree :?
 
The difference between humans and most other critters is, humans can analyze their instincts and make a rational decision about whether or not that instinct should be followed or not. We can't deny our instincts nor make them non-existent, but we don't have to put them on a pedestal in a horribly overpopulated world.

Okay, someone decided that your half of a DNA clump wasn't mana from Heaven, you feel a bit of loss--sure, it happens and is even valid, since it's a natural response to the churning desire of all beasts to become immortal through their selfish (yes, and vain) DNA. But for gosh sakes, bite your lip or something and do the right thing--get over it...that microscopic clump of atoms is NOT a pony.
 
mynameisbob84 said:
AlexLady said:
Lol. I like how you act as if all I replied to was the miscarriage part, and not how you think a man has reasons to be emotionally upset over his spawn being aborted, souly because he's genetically tied to it. It's not like I quoted the whole paragraph, oh no, I only quoted the miscarriage part so surely that's what I think is vain.

*facepalm*

I can only reply to what you post. You said it was vain for a man to care about losing an unborn child (be it through abortion OR miscarriage). I disagreed.
You're of the opinion that a man has no reason to be upset over his unborn child being aborted OR miscarried (outside of vanity). I get that. That's fine. We can agree to disagree :?


No. This is about abortions. Not miscarriages. You're the only one going on about that.

We can agree to disagree about abortions, but you're an idiot for thinking I ever mentioned miscarriages being vain.
 
Nordling said:
The difference between humans and most other critters is, humans can analyze their instincts and make a rational decision about whether or not that instinct should be followed or not. We can't deny our instincts nor make them non-existent, but we don't have to put them on a pedestal in a horribly overpopulated world.

Okay, someone decided that your half of a DNA clump wasn't mana from Heaven, you feel a bit of loss--sure, it happens and is even valid, since it's a natural response to the churning desire of all beasts to become immortal through their selfish (yes, and vain) DNA. But for gosh sakes, bite your lip or something and do the right thing--get over it...that microscopic clump of atoms is NOT a pony.

I get all that and I agree. All I'm saying is that sadness and regret are completely natural and acceptable emotional reactions to the loss of an unborn child. To not care that you've just lost a child because you're afraid it might seem vain seems sociopathic to me :twocents-02cents:
 
AlexLady said:
mynameisbob84 said:
AlexLady said:
Lol. I like how you act as if all I replied to was the miscarriage part, and not how you think a man has reasons to be emotionally upset over his spawn being aborted, souly because he's genetically tied to it. It's not like I quoted the whole paragraph, oh no, I only quoted the miscarriage part so surely that's what I think is vain.

*facepalm*

I can only reply to what you post. You said it was vain for a man to care about losing an unborn child (be it through abortion OR miscarriage). I disagreed.
You're of the opinion that a man has no reason to be upset over his unborn child being aborted OR miscarried (outside of vanity). I get that. That's fine. We can agree to disagree :?


No. This is about abortions. Not miscarriages. You're the only one going on about that.

We can agree to disagree about abortions, but you're an idiot for thinking I ever mentioned miscarriages being vain.

Well, you did. Whether that's what you meant or not is something I can't know. But it is what you said (when you quoted lordmagellan and replied "This is vain").
That said, I think we can probably chalk this up to a communicative misunderstanding and all move on.
 
mynameisbob84 said:
Nordling said:
The difference between humans and most other critters is, humans can analyze their instincts and make a rational decision about whether or not that instinct should be followed or not. We can't deny our instincts nor make them non-existent, but we don't have to put them on a pedestal in a horribly overpopulated world.

Okay, someone decided that your half of a DNA clump wasn't mana from Heaven, you feel a bit of loss--sure, it happens and is even valid, since it's a natural response to the churning desire of all beasts to become immortal through their selfish (yes, and vain) DNA. But for gosh sakes, bite your lip or something and do the right thing--get over it...that microscopic clump of atoms is NOT a pony.

I get all that and I agree. All I'm saying is that sadness and regret are completely natural and acceptable emotional reactions to the loss of an unborn child. To not care that you've just lost a child because you're afraid it might seem vain seems sociopathic to me :twocents-02cents:
Well, yeah, if one pretended to not care because of what others might think, but I don't know that many do that. Personally, I'd feel relief. :D Assuming it was an unplanned pregnancy caused by casual sex that is.

Now, if it were PLANNED by both parties, sure, feel tons of regret--because then it IS a pony. :D
 
  • Like
Reactions: LadyLuna and Rose
AlexLady said:
lordmagellan said:
It's not the money, it's the forced responsibility. And yea, she's going to be stuck with either a kid or an experience of having an abortion, but if he is morally against having his offspring aborted, I'd imagine that can be at least a little damaging to his psyche. Granted, in the end she has to look out for herself and personal well-being. I'm sure some fathers actually feel very strongly for their child and the loss of offspring is incredibly painful, whether by miscarriage or abortion. To simply disregard a man's emotions toward his child is, I think, rather psychopathic.

This is vain.

Happy?
 
AlexLady said:
AlexLady said:
lordmagellan said:
It's not the money, it's the forced responsibility. And yea, she's going to be stuck with either a kid or an experience of having an abortion, but if he is morally against having his offspring aborted, I'd imagine that can be at least a little damaging to his psyche. Granted, in the end she has to look out for herself and personal well-being. I'm sure some fathers actually feel very strongly for their child and the loss of offspring is incredibly painful, whether by miscarriage or abortion. To simply disregard a man's emotions toward his child is, I think, rather psychopathic.

This is vain.

Happy?

Ecstatic.
 
lordmagellan said:
It's interesting to learn about the difficulties women face with voluntary sterilization. I imagined it would take work but had no idea you were vehemently denied. I faced a similar problem when I went for my vasectomy the first time (though it's a much simpler procedure). The doctor refused because I was under thirty and we were childless. He felt "he couldn't morally do the procedure." He could morally play with my balls and take my money, however. :?
It's an incredibly hard process to deal with, especially when you factor in health care/insurance. Most health insurance companies refuse to cover any sort of voluntary sterilization. From personal experience, my mother (who's birthed 3 children and is over 40) is going in for a complete hysterectomy at the end of August because of fibroids that are causing massive blood loss. Our health insurance denied this surgery for her three times until her doctor personally called the company and said my mother could die if something wasn't done to have her uterus removed asap. To say that fighting for voluntary sterilization as a woman is difficult is an understatement. :/ It's funny to read about how big companies, the government and the church feel they should control our reproductive organs.
 
  • Like
Reactions: LadyLuna
PlayboyMegan said:
I can't wrap my head around why they would refuse anyone over the age of 18 voluntary sterilization.
If they change their mind later and want children, they can adopt.

The answer I got when I asked was something about changing my mind in the future and regretting not being able to have any more biological children. I agree, if I changed my mind I could adopt.
 
PlayboyMegan said:
I can't wrap my head around why they would refuse anyone over the age of 18 voluntary sterilization.
If they change their mind later and want children, they can adopt.
The fear of a lawsuit, getting sued, moral objections, etc.

Or according to the first doctor I spoke with, "You're crazy. You should be committed." :roll:
 
  • Like
Reactions: Nordling
I, too, have been amazed at how we aren't allowed to prevent the pregnancy in the first place, and then we aren't allowed to terminate it once we have this pregnancy we were not allowed to prevent.

It's ridiculous!

I think "My doctor said a child would kill me" should be a good enough reason to get sterilized.
 
I couldn't stay away from this thread because I feel so strongly in a woman's right to choose whether or not to have an abortion, regardless of what the "father" says. I think that seeing as women have been given reproductive systems, and not men, it is only logical for women to have complete control. It's not an anti-man thing; if men were the ovens then they should have all rights. But until you're the one that is facing a nine month long pregnancy and all of the physical, emotional, life-changing effects from it then quite frankly, stfu. It's not just chilling until someone else takes it away. Pregnancy is a huge ordeal. If you got a chick knocked up and forced her to have the baby, would you also quit drinking/smoking/living your life as she carried your baby? Would you take off work when she got too pregnant to work anymore? Better yet, would you give her a wage for the time she has to miss to carry your baby? Would you pay for the counseling sessions she might need after going through such an ordeal? Would you buy her maternity clothes? And if she died in childbirth, would you bring her back to life ala Frankenstein? (OK, that last one was a joke. I make jokes to deal with anger, which is the emotion I am feeling while reading some of these comments.)

Storytime!

A friend of mine recently got pregnant. She came over to my house to take the test because she was late. It was positive. She got knocked up the FIRST time her boyfriend and her had sex and the condom broke. She is one of the brightest and promising women I've ever met in my life, and has no desire to ever have children. Even just being pregnant until the abortion was hell for her. She was sick constantly, and started getting incredibly depressed. Also, the idea of something growing inside of her TERRIFIED her. I'm not talking about in a "scared-of-being-a-new-mom" sort of way. I mean in a "having constant horrible nightmares about Alien" sort of way. Her boyfriend was completely supportive of her getting an abortion, but had he not, and had he tried to get in the way of her having one...I don't even know what I would do. My blood rages at the thought. How dare ANYONE get in the way of my friend's future and happiness, regardless of if it was his sperm or not.

I know this isn't said very much, but I'm incredibly proud of my friend for dealing with her pregnancy in the way that was best for HER. For HER, that meant getting an abortion, and I think she's an incredibly strong woman for killing that fetus.
 
LadyLuna said:
I, too, have been amazed at how we aren't allowed to prevent the pregnancy in the first place, and then we aren't allowed to terminate it once we have this pregnancy we were not allowed to prevent.

It's ridiculous!

I think "My doctor said a child would kill me" should be a good enough reason to get sterilized.
It should be, but my mother and I both still have out uteruses (uteri?). My grandmother only was able to have hers removed because it gave her cancer and took her life. Health insurance companies are stupid. They're not in it for what's best for women's health, they're in it for the money we pay so they can screw us over.

Off my high horse now. :whistle: It's stupid, that's all.
 
This is going to be long, a bit rambling and might even take on a few inadvertently Rand-ian philosophies. I completely understand if you wish to disregard this completely.

Anyway. I am rarely passionate about anything, the way I was raised, the family I had and the life I've lived causes me to stop and analyze every emotional response I experience to make sure that it's both rational and deserved. I try very hard to avoid knee-jerk reactions and as such I've thought carefully about whether or not I'd even respond to this thread. I'm sure that before I hit the submit button I'll read through what I've typed three or four times before deciding if what I have to say is actually worth saying. I want to address many things here, not just the issues of abortion but the original posting of "This is My Body" and some of the finer details it brings up. With that said, I feel that I need to tell a few brief stories so that I can fully explain how and why I've come to the feelings and conclusions that I have.

I grew up in a home that was full of affection and shared knowledge. My grandmother worked as a librarian and my father was tinkerer, artist, inventor and dreamer. Over breakfast every single morning we would talk about things we'd dreamed the night before. Ideas we'd come up with. Questions we didn't know the answer to. There were very few things that were off limits when it came to discussions and as I got older my family freely explained things to me that I needed and wanted to understand. One of those things was my mother.

See, I've related a story before about my mother's pregnancy here. What I didn't mention there was that no one in my immediate family believes for a moment that a doctor would mistake a woman six months pregnant with twins for a woman six weeks pregnant with an unliving fetus. This was before ultrasound, not before doctors were trained to measure a uterus. :? While no one came out and said it it was clear that my mother lied and went to an abortion clinic after seeing the doctor that informed her she was pregnant. She lied saying she was 6 weeks pregnant and hoped they would abort my sister and me with no questions asked. I don't blame her.

I am neither pro-life nor pro-choice. I don't believe for a moment that things can ever be that simple when speaking about life and death. There's no line in the dirt, there are no teams; there is only each individual person and their decisions. Believing for one moment that there are rules that can always govern every individual in every situation is hubris on level with Bellerophon. (Just because you've slain the Chimera doesn't mean you deserve to join the gods.) My mother wasn't raped, she was in no danger of dying, my sister and I aren't mentally incapacitated but she found herself in a unique situation. She was a lesbian, using my father as proof positive to her family that she wasn't. It was supposed to be an easy relationship to walk away from, a comfortable place to stay until she was financially independent enough to not need the support of her family and could tell them the truth. We were a complication she couldn't afford and because of that she tried to end us.

Knowing that my mother most likely tried to murder me just hours after finding out I existed doesn't make me hate her. It doesn't make me want to stand up and shake my fist in agreement with one side or the other. It makes me realize how personal and individual each life choice is for each person. She faced something that very definitely was going to change her life, prevent her from the life she wanted. Prevent her from being herself. In the video one woman says "These decisions have nothing to do with you. If I'm not hurting you or stopping you from pursuing your inherent right to happiness it's none of your business." I find no fault in my mother seeking out her own inherent right to happiness. In a single moment she found all her plans, all her dreams ripped from her and pulled far from her reach. The simple dream of living as the person she was, seeking the partner she preferred was slipping from her grasp and she was afraid. In that moment, I'm sure she felt that abortion was her only hope for happiness.

When a woman chooses abortion she is choosing life just as surely as she is choosing life if she carries to term. The difference is that she's choosing her life, her happiness. It doesn't matter her reasons, it doesn't even matter if she's taken into consideration the political, social and cultural issues of an abortion. Whether or not she keeps that child is a matter of her well being. Some women would be miserable and guilt ridden at the idea of depriving a child of life. Some would be happy to know that that child will never have to live through neglect, resentment and despair. It is all incredibly personal and I don't think anyone has the right to pretend that there's a cold cut formula to this sort of choice. There is no way to say "If pregnancy originated from X,Y,Z allow abortion. If untrue, deny action." We're not machines all poured from the same mold and as such can't expect dealing in absolutes to ever be an effective method for regulation of anything let alone something so intimate.

Now, on to other issues. I don't think anyone else has mentioned it so I think I will. There is a line in the video where one of the women says "And allowing myself to be penetrated once does not assume your right to do it again for your own purposes and your own reasons." This refers to laws that have been passed recently in some states that require women to get a transvaginal ultrasound before an abortion. This alone, isn't a terrible thing, it could very well prevent the sort of thing my mother tried to do to me. But, when you realize that most of the states that have passed this law also have laws that state that women can only get an abortion in cases of rape, incest or significant threat to the mother it changes the perspective a bit. In some cases you're not only forcing a woman that's been raped to have something foreign shoved into her but in many cases a doctor will deny an abortion if the fetus' growth doesn't match the dates a woman states she was raped. While this is obviously not the case for every woman there are other factors to be considered with a law like this.

Ultrasounds in the first trimester are not medically necessary, neither are they particularly effective. A traditional ultrasound has trouble even spotting a fetus in the first few weeks of pregnancy. That's why they opted for the far more invasive transvaginal ultrasound. Beyond the obvious discomfort these procedures are also stupidly expensive. I was a high risk pregnancy with my daughter. I was having gallbladder issues and they'd found a large chorioangioma that was threatening to steal nutrients and blood supply from my developing baby. Because of this I had an ultrasound every week from the middle of the second trimester until she was born. I was lucky enough to have fantastic insurance that covered it completely but I still got a statement of what each ultrasound cost. Each week we did a simple ultrasound checking prenatal vitals and taking a few measurements, never lasting longer than ten minutes...each ultrasound cost $800, sometimes more.

While many of the states with these laws have an amendment that requires the government to give women a list of places that will do an ultrasound for free, most of those places are funded by pro-life groups that will do anything in their power to brow-beat, guilt trip and otherwise coerce a woman into changing her mind. It seems like common sense but in the face of this law I find myself actually having to say that women in this situation don't need to feel judged along with their already jumbled and mostly negative emotions. A woman also has to wait 24 hours between ultrasound and abortion. If she's lucky enough to go to a free clinic she won't have to pay that huge ultrasound bill that most insurance companies won't pay for because--as stated--they're medically unnecessary she still has to take not one but two days off of work. She's not paying directly but she's still paying for it in the end.

This is a matter that's greatly important and personal to me. I was beaten and raped when I was 16. I nearly died. I'm in physical therapy almost a decade later in part because of the injuries I suffered back then. I demanded that the doctors run a pregnancy once a week for the next six weeks. I spent the entire time terrified that I'd come back with a positive result. If I'd ended up pregnant from my rape I would have wanted an abortion. While now that I'm older I think I could love the child despite the trauma, at the time any reminder of the event sent me into a panic. A lifetime of reminders wouldn't have left me sane. And if in order to get that abortion a doctor had told me "We're going to put this thing inside you and swish it around a bit so you can see the tiny rape seed growing inside you." I would have lost it.

And now, finally to the points brought up in this thread about a father's rights. While in an ideal world, everyone that had sexy with each other would be in a healthy, loving, cohesive relationship that's not the case. If a man wants a child it needs to be planned because it it's not a planned pregnancy that child can very easily become a trap to the mother. If the relationship wasn't serious, wasn't meant to be a forever paring then asking a woman to spend nine months with you while she carries and cares for a child she's planning on handing over to you the moment she finishes labor is a prison sentence. Instead of bars and razor wire she has swollen feet, stretch marks, sore breasts and morning sickness. Her body, the only one she has, the one she needs confidence in is going to be changed forever by the pregnancy. And if she's still looking for "the one" after you she might not have the confidence in her body that she once did. Beyond that, when she does find the right guy or girl how does she explain to the person that she's going to spend the rest of her life with that she has a child that might one day be curious enough to look her up?

Fathers can disappear into anonymity, mothers can't. There's no way for a mother to stand back, hands in the air and say "That's not my baby, it must be some other girl's." Even if a man badly wants to be a father, wants the child that this hypothetical woman is carrying; even if he will be the most fantastic and attentive father in the world, he has no right to ask a woman to give up her body, her confidence and at least nine months of her freedom to that end. If a man wants to be a father he needs to make the commitment to that child before conception, he needs to understand that the difference between father and sperm donor is the decision to actively create a child rather than making the best of a broken condom.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.