Interesting op-ed: A Man's Right to Choose

[AlphaFrog]

Originally posted by 33girl
Here's a wild idea.

What if the guy wants the kid and the woman doesn't - could they take the fertilized egg out of the pregnant woman and put it in a surrogate (found and paid for by the guy of course)? Would that work?

I'm serious - is this medically possible?

I've often wonder about that too...

I don't see why it wouldn't be medically possible...if they can take fertilized eggs and freeze them, and then implant them later, why wouldn't this be possible?

Of course then you have the uberfemnazis arguing that the woman shouldn't have to go through that kind of surgery.

[KSig RC]

Originally posted by 33girl
Here's a wild idea.

What if the guy wants the kid and the woman doesn't - could they take the fertilized egg out of the pregnant woman and put it in a surrogate (found and paid for by the guy of course)? Would that work?

I'm serious - is this medically possible?

It may be possible, but there are three huge problems:

1 - the cost would be amazing

2 - there would have to be some treatments to 'simulate' pregnancy in the surrogate, meaning an amount of time where the original mother still carried the child would be required.

3 - there would be a decidedly non-zero chance of miscarriage, rejection, or other such loss of the fertilized egg. While this risk is obviously a "comes with the territory"-type thing, the reality is that these situations result in a 'de facto' abortion (while still keeping the first two problems).

[ISUKappa]

Originally posted by KSig RC
It may be possible, but there are three huge problems:

1 - the cost would be amazing

2 - there would have to be some treatments to 'simulate' pregnancy in the surrogate, meaning an amount of time where the original mother still carried the child would be required.

3 - there would be a decidedly non-zero chance of miscarriage, rejection, or other such loss of the fertilized egg. While this risk is obviously a "comes with the territory"-type thing, the reality is that these situations result in a 'de facto' abortion (while still keeping the first two problems).

Yes. You would almost have to have a surrogate ready the moment the woman finds out she's pregnant, otherwise it would take at least a month, if not more, of hormones for the surrogate to be ready for implantation (wouldn't you say, R?)

I would think at that point, it would be extremely difficult to take an embryo/fetus (depending on gestational age) at 8-12 weeks and implant it in another mother. The conditions of the uterus would have to be *exactly right* otherwise it would most certainly end in spontaneous abortion (miscarriage).

Not to mention, the original mother would still have to deal with the after affects of the loss of pregnancy, much like any woman who has had a pregnancy loss at that gestational age. Bleeding, cramping (sometimes severe), depression, the readjustment of hormones, etc... It's not fun.

[adpiucf]

Originally posted by KSig RC
I agree completely with you. Surely you'll also agree, then, that this right and responsibility should allow the man to relinquish his rights to the child, just as the woman can terminate the pregnancy, no?

I mean, why should a man be saddled with her choice for the next 216 months, and have to make concessions that will affect his livelihood, his ability to work, and limit is opportunities in nearly every area of his life for years to come?

I realize the argument is extreme, but true feminism is based in equality - so let's discuss equality, not some bizarrely nominal notion of self-importance or 'fairness' rooted in inconvenience.

No I agree with you completely. If a man doesn't want the child, he shouldn't be obligated to support it.

I guess that on the flip side (and this is not intended to incite flames or anger-- just something that occurs to me as I write) of this argument is where the woman can terminate and leave neither party saddled with an obligation, there is also the fact to consider that from birth, there is a third party in the equation and that child's emotional and physical welfare to consider-- and at that time the courts can hold both partners liable to support that child unless one parent has officially terminated his/her parental rights. Or both-- making the child a ward of the state.

A man or woman in this case can be emotionally blackmailed and legally ordered into being an active partner in the raising and financial needs of the child. In which case, the man and woman don't win, but the child's needs supercede the parents's decision?

So if you have a kid and both parties are not 100% down, everyone loses unless the child is given over to the state for adoption into a 2 parent household?

I don't believe a parent should be obligated to support the child if s/he legally terminates her/his parental rights. Not fair to the child, and will probably mess them up psychologically, but it is an equitable split that removes the unwanted burden from the uninterested party.

I guess that is why the court intervene with children's advocates?

[Rudey]

If the man doesn't want the child, it's not enough that he doesn't have to support it.

If you want to treat the man's "work" as essentially a service, then he should be properly compensated.

-Rudey

[ISUKappa]

Originally posted by Rudey
If the man doesn't want the child, it's not enough that he doesn't have to support it.

If you want to treat the man's "work" as essentially a service, then he should be properly compensated.

-Rudey

I hear the place in Chicago pays out $75. That will buy you a nice steak dinner and bottle of Popov.

[ZetaGirl22]

Ok firstly, I feel that wether or not the father should be involved in the decision depends on the situation. If the couple is in a healthy, committed relationship, then ya, I think the man SHOULD have some sort of opinion on what the decision should be. I know plenty of women who SERIOUSLY regret their abortion whose partners kind of left the decision to them that WISH their partner had talked them out of it.

Second, I think culture just talks about abortion and women who've had abortions in these kind of remote, insular ways, when the fact is, no one will EVER know the expereince or reasons behind a woman's decision unless they have been in that postion themselves. For everyone who thinks and says horrible things about women who have had an abortion, think about this quote (and forgive me for not remembering who said it......I think it is from the Project Rachel website) "A woman does not want an abotion like she wants a cupcake, she wants it like a wild animal stuck in a trap wants to gnaw off its own leg" The abortion decision is not one made so cavalierly as a lot of prolifers like to think, that there ARE a great deal of women who suffer from horrible sadness and grief after coming to this decision, which a lot of prochoicers, the medical establishment, and the psychological community just want to reject.

I guess what I want to say is this, before you judge one way or the other, think about the fact that these are REAL people you are talking about with REAL feelings. By age 45, 43% of American women will have had an abortion........just things to think about, you never know who you might be upsetting with your comments. If anyone feels the need to flame, flame away!!!!

[Rudey]

Originally posted by ZetaGirl22
By age 45, 43% of American women will have had an abortion.....

Where is this from?

-Rudey

[GeekyPenguin]

Originally posted by ZetaGirl22
By age 45, 43% of American women will have had an abortion........just things to think about, you never know who you might be upsetting with your comments. If anyone feels the need to flame, flame away!!!!

WHAT? The only way this is possibly true is if you are using abortion in a very broad sense, to include miscarriages and stillborns.

[ZetaGirl22]

Sorry, it 1 in 3, but here are the stats I can find from one source, The Alan Guttmacher Institute here's the link

http://www.agi-usa.org/media/presski...noverview.html

[GeekyPenguin]

That says AT CURRENT RATES, and it also said 1 in 3. That's 33%.

"At current rates, about one in three American women will have had an abortion by the time she reaches age 45. "

[ZetaGirl22]

here's another one that says 43%

http://womensissues.about.com/cs/abo...rtionstats.htm

[GeekyPenguin]

Originally posted by ZetaGirl22
here's another one that says 43%

http://womensissues.about.com/cs/abo...rtionstats.htm

Look, you clearly are having reading problems today.

"43% of women will have had at least one abortion by the time they are 45 years old (this statistic includes miscarriages in the term "abortion")."

[Rudey]

Originally posted by ZetaGirl22
here's another one that says 43%

http://womensissues.about.com/cs/abo...rtionstats.htm

That includes miscarriages - which is very different from an abortion the last time I checked. Plus I think miscarries are not a rare occurence so I bet most of the number comes from that. Plus this "Institute" is using some strange notation called "At current rates". And to top it all off I don't even think it's possible to get good abortion numbers - I don't believe that clinics just share their numbers and I don't believe these numbers are audited.

People throw numbers around and then somehow they become statistics and somehow everyone starts quoting them. Divorce, gays, gun accidents in the home, etc.

-Rudey

[ZetaGirl22]

OK sorry, my point is, 1 in 3 is still A LOT and I just want to caution people to be careful about the language we are using