I realize that most of the scenarios presented are concerning unwed couples. What about married folks?

One of my best friends is married (for, I don't know, like 4 years or something), has been on the pill, and just discovered she's pregnant.

Neither one wanted to be parents. But, my friend doesn't want to have an abortion, although that's what her hubby would prefer.

I don't think he'd leave her if she doesn't abort, but I don't think he's at all happy about this new "development."

What do you think? Are the rights/obligations any different for people who are married?

Who chose the picture next to this article?

That's a really good question.


It poses the issue that you can take all the precautions in the world and shit can still happen. (Especially when so many antibiotics now counter-effect the pill).

There's always adoption.

Easy for a man to say.

In this case, she doesn't want to have an abortion. I do support there being a choice in this matter, but the option that I don't see anyone talking about here is adoption.

If the woman's objections to the abortion are based on ethical/moral grounds and not on her actually wanting to have a child in her life, adoption seems to be the more viable option here.

If, however, she wants the baby to have a baby, it's a no brainer there as well.

I'd hate to see a kid born into a situation where they weren't wanted by either parent. Such scenarious unfortunately play out every day. Abortion and adoption are both viable alternatives and both worthy of consideration.

-- Now, as to the man's say in this? I don't think that he should have any say in what happens with the woman's right to give birth, but he should have the right to adopt the child if she doesn't want it (not likely here) and I also think he ought to have the right to terminate his own parental rights and financial responsibilities at least up until the point where abortion is no longer a viable alternative.

If we expect both parents to bear the financial burden of a child, we should give them both the alternative of rejecting that financial burden either through abortion, adoption, or termination of parental rights.

It depends how much the couple believes in "till death do us part". I would imagine that most of us have grandparents or g-grandparents who weren't exactly posters for planned parenthood.

I'm morally against abortion. That said, I'm not sure that it should be illegal until there is some way of supporting all pregnant women financially or perhaps implanting an unwanted fetus into an artifical womb. I don't know. Regardless, I just wanted to touch on something that I didn't see a lot of.

This is my persepective:
1. If you have sex, there is a chance of getting pregnant. Even protected sex has a chance.
2. At LEAST 95% of adults know that penis + vagina = baby (I'm think being conservative with the number here)

Therefore: both MEN and WOMEN should keep it in their pants if they don't want to accept the risk of a baby.

I think a lot of people tell men they should take responsibility ahead of time, but very little focus on the woman's responsibility. Yes, she will have a greater burden if pregnancy occurs, but that only means she holds a greater portion of the responsibility to say NO if baby will be bad for her at this time.

I feel like there are too many women using abortion as retroactive birth control. Too many who continue the same behaviors that led to their first pregnancy and ending up with second and third pregnancies terminated. This said, I don't know how I would react if I found out tomorrow I was pregnant. Hence my statement in the first paragraph, we can't get rid of it until we can support every mother.

Also, to the response: easy for a man to say to the idea of adoption, i'm not sure in what sense this was meant.

If it was the fact that many women can't bear to give up their baby once it's born, I would think that it would be a better option than NOT allowing it to be born.

If it's the fact that a woman still has to deliver the child, that may be the sacrifice she makes to let her child have a chance at life, even with someone else.

/sorry longwinded

I know this is kinda off topic, but I hate when people say that. As there are many couples that are married and do not plan on having children, either at the moment or ever. I don't think that any couple, married or not, should deny their relationship of sexual intimacy.

I don't disagree with you. I just think you should accept the risk. Someone in a class of mine once compared it to the risk of hitting someone while driving a car. That risk is there whenever you get into the drivers seat. I'm not saying stop driving, I'm saying be careful and accept responsibility if such an accident does happen.

Plus there ARE plenty of other ways to be sexually intimate that won't lead to pregnancy. (This doesn't count the creepy people mentioned above saving sperm and such)

I'll say it again: abortion = accepting responsibility.

I changed my mind... abortion is still wrong but i guess in certain cases... i wouldnt feel so negatively toward the option... i.e. rape...

Yes but I'm arguing from the perspective that abortion is wrong. Yes, it's doing something about it. But I don't see it as accepting responsibility for your own voluntary actions.

It's not something that can be gotten rid of without a lot of other social changes, but that doesn't mean that we should be like "yay abortions are here to stay" or anything.

No, you can't ban them until there are other options as mentioned in my first post, but I don't think that 2 wrongs make a right.

I think abortion should be manditory in almost every case.

lol