Man Sentenced to Prison For Tricking Woman Into Taking Abortion Pill (self.SubredditDrama)
SubredditDrama
78 ups - 25 downs = 53 votes
269 comments submitted at 14:58:33 on Jan 29, 2014 by nutriton
Man Sentenced to Prison For Tricking Woman Into Taking Abortion Pill (self.SubredditDrama)
SubredditDrama
78 ups - 25 downs = 53 votes
269 comments submitted at 14:58:33 on Jan 29, 2014 by nutriton
Here's how you should feel about it:
Man and woman have sex. Man ejaculates into woman's vagina, which unsurprisingly results in a baby nine months later. Both the man and the woman are now responsible for caring for the kid, since it's a living, breathing thing conceived through an act performed by them and them alone.
Because man is at least partly responsible for the child, he supports it financially. The End.
Do you believe a woman should be allowed to get an abortion in this case?
You're talking about a fetus here. Don't get distracted, the original comment was concerning the actually born US citizen baby.
>Don't get distracted, the original comment was concerning the actually born US citizen baby.
Any decision regarding financial abortion would be made before a baby is born, giving the mother plenty of time to decide how to proceed. All of her options would still be open.
Last time I heard this discussion it was always about doing it after the birth. Because if you couldn't do that then you couldn't have men who are fine with raising the child, except on condition of having paternity. And it would also just mean that if a woman finds out she's pregnant she can just hide out for nine months.
I've heard maybe a handful of people argue that it should apply after birth. Almost everyone I've discussed this (myself included) with would only favor it if the decision had to be made well before abortion was no longer an option. Once you go past that point, you're taking away a large factor that a woman might consider in aborting. If she can no longer abort, then the father should be liable. The same is true when the mother and father are pro-life. In that situation, his choice should end at conception.
>And it would also just mean that if a woman finds out she's pregnant she can just hide out for nine months.
This has actually been discussed too. In this case, the father should still have his choice. Think of this like a statute of limitations that only comes into effect when the injury is noticed. If the mother fraudulently hides her pregnancy, then she would only be limiting her own choices.
First off you need to understand why a woman is allowed to choose but not her partner, and that's because of the right to bodily integrity. The baby is in the woman's body, she is the one who will have to go through 9 months of horror. She gets to decide. That's not even up for discussion.
The problem with what you've said is that then your partner could basically coerce you into getting an abortion because you know you won't be able to support your child. Then "all of her options" wouldn't be open at all. What you're proposing is super-fucking-wrong.
>The baby is in the woman's body, she is the one who will have to go through 9 months of horror. She gets to decide. That's not even up for discussion.
Sure, no one is arguing otherwise. She can still have the kid, she can abandon it, she can abort it, or give it up for adoption.
>The problem with what you've said is that then your partner could basically coerce you into getting an abortion because you know you won't be able to support your child.
I don't know how it would be coercion. Saying - "you don't have the money to pay for the kid" isn't coercion. It's just a fact.
It would simply be another factor to consider - (do I have the money to support a child? Will the father provide financial support?) If not, then that's something to consider. You could still have the kid if you could support it (or if gov't programs would help) or you could abort or give it up for adoption.
>Then "all of her options" wouldn't be open at all.
Her body, her choice. That still applies here. If she can't afford to have a kid, then maybe she shouldn't have one. No one is taking her choice away. At this point, you're using the best interest of the child as an excuse to really look out for the best interest of the mother at the expense of the father.
You're arguing that giving the father a choice limits the choices the mother can make, which isn't true. All of her choices are in tact, she just might have to wait on a consenting father if she can't afford a kid on her own.
>Sure, no one is arguing otherwise
Okay, cool. Some people are, but I'm glad you're not.
>I don't know how it would be coercion.
Look, we've acknowledged that bodily integrity is the most important thing here, right? So if a woman doesn't want to get an abortion, that's the most important thing. In that case, her partner saying they won't support her when the kid arrives is basically forcing her to do something against her will. She wants to keep the child (bodily integrity!) but she knows it'd be irresponsible if she can't raise it. You're taking away her decision. That's textbook coercion.
>Her body, her choice. That still applies here.
Except you're putting your selfish desire not to pay up before her right to do with her body what she wants. When you had sex, you took responsibility for a potential child. If you don't want to pay, you're a deadbeat asshole.
> Some people are, but I'm glad you're not.
If you could point to just a handful of people that are arguing this then I'll be shocked. You might find one or two extremely downvoted people, but no more than that.
>her partner saying they won't support her when the kid arrives is basically forcing her to do something against her will.
This is absurd. If a pregnant woman comes up to me on the street and says "will you support my baby" and I say 'no,' am I forcing her to abort? No, she can still have the child. She just does it without a check from me, a total stranger.
You've taken the bodily integrity argument to an extreme. A woman's bodily integrity is the most important thing to a point. It doesn't trump the choices of every other person around her. Even if you want a kid, you still might have to make a tough choice. That doesn't mean you're being forced to make it. The choice is still there and it's yours to make. Many factors will go into making it.
People have to sacrifice bodily integrity all the time. Women do it on a daily basis when they would prefer to have a kid, but just can't do it at this point in their life. Is her boss forcing her to get an abortion when he won't give her a raise? Is the mailman forcing her to get an abortion when he doesn't volunteer to pay for the kid?
>basically forcing her to do something against her will.
I'm not a slave to my boss just because she won't pay me if I stop going to work. I'm not being forced to work. I'm making a choice to work, even if I'd prefer to just stay home and watch TV.
>When you had sex, you took responsibility for a potential child. If you don't want to pay, you're a deadbeat asshole.
There it is again. I get that this is your opinion. But, it doesn't change anything. You're arguing for the best interest of the mother over the best interest of the father. Plain and simple.
> If you could point to just a handful of people that are arguing this
They're all over the thread. The one person I'm discussing with right now is saying exactly that. I know, I'm shocked too.
I'm not even addressing your bullshit scenarios. Seriously, you're shitting out false equivalencies like you're having diarrhea.
>You're arguing for the best interest of the mother over the best interest of the father. Plain and simple.
I'm arguing for the best interest of the child. The woman decides what to do with her body and a child comes out. The guy had sex and knew this could happen. The child needs money to be raised properly, so you pay. IT'S REALLY FUCKING SIMPLE.
>I'm not even addressing your bullshit scenarios.
I imagine because you can't. Saying "I'm not paying for a child" is not forcing anyone to do anything. Every option is still in place. The mother can abort, give the kid up for adoption, or keep the kid. Bodily integrity does not mean that you get to make the choice in a bubble. It's a difficult choice for a lot of women, but it's still their choice.
More Comments - Click Here
>In that case, her partner saying they won't support her when the kid arrives is basically forcing her to do something against her will. She wants to keep the child (bodily integrity!) but she knows it'd be irresponsible if she can't raise it. You're taking away her decision. That's textbook coercion.
That's a great argument for the state paying for it, especially since there are already people not paying child support even when they're supposed to.
Also, it's not "coercion" when your decision goes against someone else's.
>Except you're putting your selfish desire not to pay up before her right to do with her body what she wants.
Both cases are selfish, then.
>When you had sex, you took responsibility for a potential child.
This is a moronic argument.
"Abortion shouldn't be legal, just don't have sex if you don't want to take the responsibility for a potential child!"
>That's a great argument for the state paying for it
What. "Hey guys I fucked up, you take care of this for me, okay? Not like you have more important things to do than spare me the trouble of having less money for myself!" Seriously?
>it's not "coercion" when your decision goes against someone else's
It is, because your decision completely changes hers, you're literally restricting her decision. You realize she might have to get an abortion if you "financially abort", right? You realize you're arguing for making a woman get an abortion against her will?
>Both cases are selfish, then.
"I want to decide what happens to me and my body" vs. "I don't want to spend money on my child". Totally the same.
>This is a moronic argument.
Oh man now you've changed my mind, thanks for backing that up.
>In that case, her partner saying they won't support her when the kid arrives is basically forcing her to do something against her will.
what? no.
millions of women have children without a father who can pay any CS.
do you want to take their children away because you think they can't raise a child without CS?
What the fuck are you talking about, that's not even remotely the same thing. If she can't afford raising a kid without CS, it's like forcing her to abort. If she can comfortably get by without it, then that's fucking dandy for everyone. The father should still always contribute as well as he can. It's his kid. Nobody should have to take on the burden of a child alone. Ever.
>If she can't afford raising a kid without CS, it's like forcing her to abort.
Nope. still wrong.
If she doesn't want an abortion, she can leave the baby at a hospital.
And if she doesn't want that either, she can give it up for adoption.
> It's his kid.
Not in the same way as hers. He never got to decide to be the kid's father.
100 years ago you might have had a point.
>That's not even up for discussion.
I think that's the one and only point that everybody here is trying to discuss.
The woman is able to decided if there will be a baby or not and the man gets no say in a huge life changing decision of whether he will have to take care of a baby or not.
>I think that's the one and only point that everybody here is trying to discuss.
Just... no. NO. Everybody has a right to their body, you can't force a woman to go through 9 months of pregnancy if she doesn't want to, because a pregnancy is fucking tough. And you also can't force her to abort, because an abortion is also fucking tough.
>the man gets no say in a huge life changing decision of whether he will have to take care of a baby or not.
Yes he does. He can either have sex or not. It's really not hard of a concept to grasp.
So you're basically saying a Woman can go have sex as much as she wants and because it's her body, she can do it and just go get an abortion so she never has to worry about having a kid, however a man can only have sex if he's ready to have a kid because if he accidentally gets a woman pregnant then he's fucked and has no say so in anything beyond that point.
That's where the controversy lies.
Yes, I am saying that. But please kindly consider that NO WOMAN DOES THAT BECAUSE NEITHER ABORTION NOR PREGNANCY ARE FUCKING FUN.
Jesus Christ, the shit I put up with.
You get mad quickly.. I'm just trying to point the debate out to you and why it's actually a debate.
You're making a blanket statement saying that women don't just go around having sex unless they want a baby because abortion and pregnancy aren't fun. That's just not true. They may be on the pill and having sex for fun and then they get pregnant. They have a choice of whether they want to take care of a kid or not, men don't have that choice. It's an equality issue and that's why people make the argument that even if men shouldn't be able to make a women have a baby or have an abortion, they should have the option to say I would prefer an abortion to having a baby and if you don't want to then I relinquish any parental rights and any parental obligations to the baby.
> Any decision regarding financial abortion would be made before a baby is born, giving the mother plenty of time to decide how to proceed. All of her options would still be open.
Then this option is impossible with today's medical technology. Paternity can't be firmly established before the child is born except through the use of amniocentesis. Its very, very risky early in the pregnancy and much more invasive than I consider reasonable (think a needle up your uterus). Late-term abortions are ethically objectionable to most people, a nightmare to procure logistically and even illegal in many places.
Leaving aside all the other moral objections to this argument. Its logistically impossible today.
> Then this option is impossible with today's medical technology. Paternity can't be firmly established before the child is born except through the use of amniocentesis.
That's absurd. Most pregnant women probably have a fairly great idea about who the father is. If they don't, then they should be able to narrow it down to a few people. If they can't do that, then they're not getting child support from anyone anyway.
> Most pregnant women probably have a fairly great idea about who the father is.
Yeah. That's not exactly going to hold up in court when we're talking about an agreement of this nature.
'Probably a fairly good idea' is simply not good enough. We need to categorically know who the father is before we talk about signing away their responsibilities.
EDIT: And if we do use your standard, what if the woman misidentifies the father? Say she thought it was the first but it turned out to be the second. The first signed away his parental responsibilities, but the second didn't. Now the baby is born the window is closed. What now?
These are the problems that pop up when you try to draw up a contract without positively identifying the parties involved.
> 'Probably a fairly good idea' is simply not good enough. We need to categorically know who the father is before we talk about signing away their responsibilities.
Why? If she thinks John is the father and he opts out, then John isn't responsible. That was actually very easy.
>What now?
She made the choice to have the kid with the knowledge that the father opted out. Just because another schmuck might be the actual father doesn't change the fact that she chose to have the kid without support from him. The second guy shouldn't automatically be responsible now.
Custody would be an interesting question. Should the second guy get custody rights? I would argue that he should have that option, and the option to provide financial support.
>These are the problems that pop up when you try to draw up a contract without positively identifying the parties involved.
Not really. The answers to these questions are actually incredibly simple.
>Here's how you should feel about it:
That's how you feel, not how people should feel. A lot of people see the system as unfair and believe it could be fixed.
Edit: What's the rule on commenting in an SRD thread after you've been commenting in the linked thread (found browsing the linked sub)?
You're fine. You were already a part of the conversation and seeing this on SRD doesn't nullify that. Just don't go talking about or linking to SRD in the linked thread, you know?
Can do. Thanks for clearing that up.
I'm sorry, I guess I should amend that to read: "Here's what you believe if you're not a shitty person."
You never answered my question: In the case that you outlined, do you believe the woman should have the option of an abortion?
Yes. In cases like that, the woman has three paths to avoiding pregnancy: not having sex in the first place, taking something like Plan B, and having an abortion. I fully support allowing women access to all three options.
And on the flipside, the man only has one option: not sticking his dick in a vagina. I fully support allowing men access to that option.
If the argument you're going to make is, "Well women have more ways of divesting themselves of the responsibility of child rearing, boo hoo, not fair!" then color me unimpressed. It's not a compelling reason for allowing a child to be raised without the support it requires.
Right? The whole "but it's so unfair" argument is so ridiculous. Is it unfair? Absolutely. It's also "unfair" that men can't nurse and carry children, it's "unfair" that I can't pee standing up, but unfortunately biology doesn't give a fuck about fairness.
You know what, sometimes you've just gotta suck it up and quit your bitching because life isn't always fair. You can't force an abortion on a woman and you can't financially abandon your child like a scumbag. I'm not saying that it doesn't suck for the men that wind up with an unwanted child, but this notion of "fair" is absurd.
Exactly. I see MRAs banging this shit all the time.
Guess what? It's not fucking fair. And the reasonably intelligent all see why. It's not that the legal system dislikes men and discounts their "rights".
It's that in this case, their rights are superseded by 1. The right of a woman to autonomy over her body; and 2. The right of an infant not to fucking starve to death.
And, yeah, as a penis-having American, I'm fucking great with that.
[deleted]
There's no need. The system as it is now represents the values of our society.
Don't make any babies you don't want to support.
Right. There's no need for you to think, nor is there any need for you to consider whether society's values are ideal. Everything's much easier when we don't do these things, after all.
> Don't make any babies you don't want to support.
Fine, as long as you have the same scorn for parents who give their children up for adoption at birth.
More Comments - Click Here
> Absolutely. It's also "unfair" that men can't nurse and carry children, it's "unfair" that I can't pee standing up, but unfortunately biology doesn't give a fuck about fairness.
Then you shouldn't mind male laborers getting paid more (on average) than female ones, or female firefighters/soldiers being held to the same physical standards as male ones. Biology might not care about fairness, but the precedent has been set that we as people do.
> You can't force an abortion on a woman and you can't financially abandon your child like a scumbag.
Kindly stop implying that children would be starving on the streets. There are other ways to ensure children are supported: i.e. an expansion of existing government support for single parents. Which happens to be well in line with what some feminists have been arguing for for decades.
[deleted]
[deleted]
I understand what you're saying and to an extent I agree with you. Once the child is born, its welfare is the most important consideration.
But imagine the follow scenario: Man and woman have consensual, unprotected sex which results in pregnancy. The man wants the child, the woman wants to have an abortion. Can he tell her she can't have an abortion? If she has the child and the man takes full custody, does the woman owe child support on a kid she never wanted?
>Man and woman have consensual, unprotected sex which results in pregnancy. The man wants the child, the woman wants to have an abortion. Can he tell her she can't have an abortion?
No. It's her body and she gets to decide what to do with it.
>If she has the child and the man takes full custody, does the woman owe child support on a kid she never wanted?
Yes. She's responsible for bringing a child into the world, she has to care for it.
First question: No, he can't tell her to have an abortion. That right belongs to the woman and the woman alone. The man rolled the dice when he had sex (protected or not) and he doesn't get to object when a baby happens. Everybody knows what can happen when you mix up a penis and a vagina.
Second question: Yes, she has a responsibility to support the child even if she doesn't want it. If she has an agreement with the father, legitimized by the court, that she's relieved of responsibility in exchange for the father receiving unconditional custody, that seems fair to me. There's nothing wrong in negotiating care of the child like that.
I think you misread the question. In this scenario the man wants the child but the woman wants to have an abortion. Can the man tell the woman she cannot have an abortion because he is willing and able to care for the child?
Sorry, I did misread your question. In either case, no. The woman can't be forced against her will to carry a fetus to term.
In a fair world, the man would have an equal number of options for regulating his reproductive system, but that's not the biological reality. In our reality, two issues have primacy: the necessity of caring for the child and the right of a person to exercise domain over their person.
Excellent point. I disagree, but you've made your stance very clear and you're consistent about it.
Personally, I think that if a parent is willing and able to care for the child once it is born then that person deserves to have that child, no matter which parent it happens to be. Ideally this would mean the transfer of the child into a neutral third party surrogate but we aren't quite there yet, technologically. Until we get to that point, I suppose I would just hope that the mother sees that there is a good option other than abortion and that both can come together to find the best possible outcome for everyone.
>If she has an agreement with the father, legitimized by the court, that she's relieved of responsibility in exchange for the father receiving unconditional custody, that seems fair to me.
This is the same idea that's being proposed for men. Do you support it for women but not for men, or do you agree with it in general?
Let me clarify by saying that IF a custody agreement can be reached and IF it results in the child being supported until the age of majority, I don't care how financial obligations are assigned.
> Once the child is born, its welfare is the most important consideration.
Except that there are still several options that put the child in a worse scenario than if the parents simply kept it. Parents can abandon their kid at specified locations, putting the kid into orphanages or foster homes. Parents can give the kid up for adoption, which may or may not result in a better home.
In neither case do we force the mother or father to pay child support to the orphanage or the foster family. Why is it that if the mother decides that she'd rather keep the kid, instead of taking one of the many routes available, that the father should be forced to support her in that decision?
That's a very good question that I simply don't have an answer for. I'm sure there are those who disagree with the sentiment and I'd love to hear their reasons for it.
Yes, she can. Pregnancy is a burden that isn't shared equally. A man's involvement in pregnancy begins and ends with his ejaculation, and that's where he has his choice.
Same question I'm posing to everyone else then. If the man wants the child and the woman wants an abortion, what is the answer? If the child is born, would the woman owe child support? Assuming consensual sex in the first place.
Like I said before, I stand on no side of this issue other than I think that support the child, once born, is of the utmost importance and I am prochoice. But this stance leaves room for interesting philosophical debate. There is clearly inequity, but is it right for that inequity to exist and is there even an equal solution?
>If the man wants the child and the woman wants an abortion, what is the answer?
He can't force her to keep the pregnancy because doing so would violate her bodily autonomy.
>If the child is born, would the woman owe child support?
Yes, she would.
So the core belief then is that the woman's bodily autonomy comes foremost, above even the welfare of the unborn child or the feelings of the father. It does not matter that the man is willing and able to support the child even without any support from the mother. The emotional and physical toll of pregnancy and childbirth outweigh the future child and father's life together.
If that is the case, I congratulate you on your consistency. You have a firm belief in something. Personally in this situation I believe that if a parent is willing and able to take care of the child, the life of the child should be guaranteed regardless of which parent wants the it. But we're allowed to have differing beliefs.
I'm just glad some people are still willing to apply the Socratic method to find out what their actual beliefs are, rather than spout hyperbole and hollow ideology.
> So the core belief then is that the woman's bodily autonomy comes foremost
Yup. The second you start intruding on a woman's right to determine what is and isn't in her uterus is the second you reduce her to a human incubator.
Now let's apply the Socratic method to see if you are consistent in your beliefs. You think that a person's bodily autonomy should be violated to save the life of a child. Do you think that we should then force people to provide kidney transplants for sick children if they have parents that are willing to care for them?
> Do you think that we should then force people to provide kidney transplants for sick children if they have parents that are willing to care for them?
They're not equivalent though. There is a clear moral difference between forcing an innocent person to provide a kidney to a sick child and forcing (i accept that that is, in practice, what the pro-life argument entails) a mother, who, in most cases, willingly and knowingly engaged in an act that lead to the creation of the child, carry the same child to term.
Its not really the same thing though, is it? Just because I believe in the violation of bodily autonomy in a certain situation does not mean that I believe we should be harvesting organs from whoever to save children. It would be like me saying that if you believe bodily autonomy is the most important thing in this situation that you must also be against circumcision, the death penalty, chemical castration, and for the legalization of all drugs. It doesn't make sense to extrapolate from this one belief to all these other situations because there are a myriad of other factors that would come into play.
> Personally in this situation I believe that if a parent is willing and able to take care of the child, the life of the child should be guaranteed regardless of which parent wants the it. But we're allowed to have differing beliefs.
I don't get this. You seem to be suggesting that the unborn child's life is dependent on the willingness of a parent to care for it when it is born. The state is also willing (and legally) required to care for any child born withing its jurisdiction, so then, why could the state not then force the mother to have the child?
I don't believe that argument by the way, though i am pro-life.
You're right, its not the most consistent of beliefs. I could point out that, at least in the US, the state is woefully unable, and arguably unwilling, to take care of those children born to parents who don't want them or are otherwise incapable of taking care of them. There is also a difference between the interaction between two adults and the interaction between the state and an adult. But like I said, its not a very consistent belief which is partly why I egged on this discussion so far. I truly wanted something to chew on to see if I could get my own head in order about the issue.
You're not going to get anywhere with this discussion on reddit. Too few people recognize the value of equality between sexes.
As for your actual question, there's nothing that can be done until we can transfer an embryo to an artificial or surrogate one without any problems.
In addition to the frequently mentioned male "financial abortion", I think an "out" (finanacial abortion) for women who's baby's daddy wants the child should be made available to bring things close enough until we reach that point.
Although any expectant father in your scenario would have to rely on the kindness of his partner in regards to the abortion since it is still their choice.
And it will remain so until pregnancy doesnt put such a heavy stress on the body and last 9 months.
Not any better. You should consider the fact that even if you believe yours is the only right view, others might have different valid ideas.
> others might have different valid ideas.
Financial abortion is not a valid view. Its a coward and a deadbeats view trying to mask it as a rights issue.
Telling a woman you want a family with her, but then leaving after the child is born and things get hard, that's a deadbeat thing and cowardly.
If you tell her from the start that you don't want a family with her, and she tries to trap you anyway, it's not cowardly at all, it's liberation.
Either you don't really understand financial abortion - it wouldn't allow anyone to abandon his family, because at the point where the opt out is possible there is no family - or you just loooooove parasites and haaaaaate men.
You decided to have sex. You knew what could happen. Fuck you if you don't take responsibility.
know what you sound like?
>You shouldn't have sex if you didn't want a kid. no abortion for you, missy!
good one, bigot!
>>I'm not ready to have a child, I'm considering having an abortion.
>You decided to have sex. You knew what could happen. Fuck you if you don't take responsibility.
>Financial abortion is not a valid view. Its a coward and a deadbeats view trying to mask it as a rights issue.
Some people consider women who get abortions to be murderers. They'd see theirs as the only valid view too. Just because you believe yours is the only valid one, doesn't make it so.
Financial abortion is not a valid view.
This is the view of chicken shit little MRAs who want to knock up women and run away. End of story.
Very convincing argument. Only your view is valid because you say it is, anyone who disagrees is an evil MRA.
Why does the best interest of the child end when parents want to abandon their kids together, or when they want to put it up for adoption? Surely the financial support of both parents in those situations would benefit the child.
i beg you to go into the real world and tell people you support finical abortions and see how fast people stop wanting to talk to you.
edit : and dont ask teenagers.
Another very convincing argument. Anyone who disagrees is a teenager. So insightful.
No response to why we only focus on the best interest of the child when the father is being asked to pay?
More Comments - Click Here