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

[AKA_Monet]

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?

For a woman who is even willing to "donate" her eggs to her "man" to implant into a surrogate here is the process:

The woman is injected with super-ovulatory drugs. Some of the drugs are contraceptive in nature, so implantation is of "lost eggs" is nearly impossible.

Then when it is time for "harvesting the eggs", the ovary is "teased" surgically to pull a maximum of 12 eggs out of a follicle--and that depends on age and health of the woman and this occurs before the ovulation track.

Immediately, like within minutes, the eggs MUST be fertilized with the man's sperm. Human oocytes are VERY, VERY fragile and are difficult to maintain in liquid nitrogen alone. It will be a matter of years--but not that long with that process will change.

Then within 24-72 hours, embryogenesis occurs. I think that is is at least the blastocyst stage that the embryo is implanted into a pseudo-pregnant (primed up female) surrogate. At least 3-5 embryos are implanted at similar stages. They used to put a ton of embryos into the woman and found that it made no difference in treatment.

And that is how in vitro is done. Pricey if it doesn't take. At least $5K for the super-ovulatory treatment--one time injection... $25K+ per session of harvesting, and another $50K+++ for implantation per session...

The problem of miscarrying... Priceless...

[AKA_Monet]

As it relates to telling your husband about you wanting an abortion and having his opinion heard...

Well there is only one instance that I think it would be relevant...

The woman is a hoe-bag and she got pregnant by somebody that's not her husband... If she even knows who...

So, as far as her choice goes into having a child that is NOT the husband's and her desire to not bring a child into a world like that--she ought to consider "sterilization" if she is gonna prostitute herself around like that...

Besides a man who is NOT married and only wants children under the banner of marriage ought NOT be sticking his stuff into any ole woman who he has not previously considered that maybe he wants a child with her...

Otherwise, children will result from indiscretions... They always do... I'm sure "King Albert" of Monaco wants a reconsideration of his choices...

[HelloKitty22]

I'm posting two quotes from O'Connor's majority in Planned Parenthood v. Casey. The first directly proceeded the court's decision not to overrule Roe and the second addresses the spousal notification issue. (Nothing I could say could possibly improve upon her arguments)

Men and women of good conscience can disagree, and we suppose some always shall disagree, about the profound moral and spiritual implications of terminating a pregnancy, even in its earliest stage. Some of us as individuals find abortion offensive to our most basic principles of morality, but that cannot control our decision. Our obligation is to define the liberty of all, not to mandate our own moral code. The underlying constitutional issue is whether the State can resolve these philosophic questions in such a definitive way that a woman lacks all choice in the matter, except perhaps in those rare circumstances in which the pregnancy is itself a danger to her own life or health, or is the result of rape or incest.

It is conventional constitutional doctrine that where reasonable people disagree the government can adopt one position or the other. See, e. g., Ferguson v. Skrupa, 372 U.S. 726 (1963); Williamson v. Lee Optical of Oklahoma, Inc., 348 U.S. 483 (1955). That theorem, however, assumes a state of affairs in which the choice does not intrude upon a protected liberty. Thus, while some people might disagree about whether or not the flag should be saluted, or disagree about the proposition that it may not be defiled, we have ruled that a State may not compel or enforce one view or the other. See West Virginia State Bd. of Education v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624 (1943); Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397 (1989).

Our law affords constitutional protection to personal decisions relating to marriage, procreation, contraception, family relationships, child rearing, and education. Carey v. Population Services International, 431 U. S., at 685. Our cases recognize "the right of the individual, married or single, to be free from unwarranted governmental intrusion into matters so fundamentally affecting a person as the decision whether to bear or beget a child." Eisenstadt v. Baird, supra, at 453 (emphasis in original). Our precedents "have respected the private realm of family life which the state cannot enter." Prince v. Massachusetts, 321 U.S. 158, 166 (1944). These matters, involving the most intimate and personal choices a person may make in a lifetime, choices central to personal dignity and autonomy, are central to the liberty protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. At the heart of liberty is the right to define one's own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life. Beliefs about these matters could not define the attributes of personhood were they formed under compulsion of the State.

These considerations begin our analysis of the woman's interest in terminating her pregnancy but cannot end it, for this reason: though the abortion decision may originate within the zone of conscience and belief, it is more than a philosophic exercise. Abortion is a unique act. It is an act fraught with consequences for others: for the woman who must live with the implications of her decision; for thepersons who perform and assist in the procedure; for the spouse, family, and society which must confront the knowledge that these procedures exist, procedures some deem nothing short of an act of violence against innocent human life; and, depending on one's beliefs, for the life or potential life that is aborted. Though abortion is conduct, it does not follow that the State is entitled to proscribe it in all instances. That is because the liberty of the woman is at stake in a sense unique to the human condition and so unique to the law. The mother who carries a child to full term is subject to anxieties, to physical constraints, to pain that only she must bear. That these sacrifices have from the beginning of the human race been endured by woman with a pride that ennobles her in the eyes of others and gives to the infant a bond of love cannot alone be grounds for the State to insist she make the sacrifice. Her suffering is too intimate and personal for the State to insist, without more, upon its own vision of the woman's role, however dominant that vision has been in the course of our history and our culture. The destiny of the woman must be shaped to a large extent on her own conception of her spiritual imperatives and her place in society.

It should be recognized, moreover, that in some critical respects the abortion decision is of the same character as the decision to use contraception, to which Griswold v. Connecticut, Eisenstadt v. Baird, and Carey v. Population Services International, afford constitutional protection. We have no doubt as to the correctness of those decisions. They support the reasoning in Roe relating to the woman's liberty because they involve personal decisions concerning not only the meaning of procreation but also human responsibility and respect for it. As with abortion, reasonable people will have differences of opinion about these matters. One view is based on such reverence for the wonder of creation that any pregnancy ought to be welcomed and carried to full term no matter how difficult it will be to provide for the child and ensure its well being. Another is that theinability to provide for the nurture and care of the infant is a cruelty to the child and an anguish to the parent. These are intimate views with infinite variations, and their deep, personal character underlay our decisions in Griswold, Eisenstadt, and Carey. The same concerns are present when the woman confronts the reality that, perhaps despite her attempts to avoid it, she has become pregnant.

It was this dimension of personal liberty that Roe sought to protect, and its holding invoked the reasoning and the tradition of the precedents we have discussed, granting protection to substantive liberties of the person. Roe was, of course, an extension of those cases and, as the decision itself indicated, the separate States could act in some degree to further their own legitimate interests in protecting pre-natal life. The extent to which the legislatures of the States might act to outweigh the interests of the woman in choosing to terminate her pregnancy was a subject of debate both in Roe itself and in decisions following it.

While we appreciate the weight of the arguments made on behalf of the State in the case before us, arguments which in their ultimate formulation conclude that Roe should be overruled, the reservations any of us may have in reaffirming the central holding of Roe are outweighed by the explication of individual liberty we have given combined with the force of stare decisis. We turn now to that doctrine. ...

We recognize that a husband has a "deep and proper concern and interest . . . in his wife's pregnancy and in the growth and development of the fetus she is carrying." Danforth, supra, at 69. With regard to the children he has fathered and raised, the Court has recognized his "cognizable and substantial" interest in their custody. Stanley v. Illinois, 405 U.S. 645, 651-652 (1972); see also Quilloin v. Walcott, 434 U.S. 246 (1978); Caban v. Mohammed, 441 U.S. 380 (1979); Lehr v. Robertson, 463 U.S. 248 (1983). If this case concerned a State's ability to require the mother to notify the father before taking some action with respect to a living child raised by both, therefore, it would be reasonable to conclude as a general matter that the father's interest in the welfare of the child and the mother's interest are equal.

Before birth, however, the issue takes on a very different cast. It is an inescapable biological fact that state regulation with respect to the child a woman is carrying will have a far greater impact on the mother's liberty than on the father's. The effect of state regulation on a woman's protected liberty is doubly deserving of scrutiny in such a case, as the State has touched not only upon the private sphere of the family but upon the very bodily integrity of the pregnant woman. Cf. Cruzan v. Director, Missouri Dept. of Health, 497 U. S., at 281. The Court has held that "when the wife and the husband disagree on this decision, the view of only one of the two marriage partners can prevail. Inasmuch as it is the woman who physically bears the child and who is the more directly and immediately affected by the pregnancy, as between the two, the balance weighs in her favor." Danforth, supra, at 71. This conclusion rests upon the basic nature of marriage and the nature of our Constitution: "[T]he marital couple is not an independent entity with a mind and heart of its own, but an association of two individuals each with a separate intellectual and emotional makeup. If the right of privacy means anything, it is the right of the individual, married orsingle, to be free from unwarranted governmental intrusion into matters so fundamentally affecting a person as the decision whether to bear or beget a child." Eisenstadt v. Baird, 405 U. S., at 453 (emphasis in original). The Constitution protects individuals, men and women alike, from unjustified state interference, even when that interference is enacted into law for the benefit of their spouses.

There was a time, not so long ago, when a different understanding of the family and of the Constitution prevailed. In Bradwell v. Illinois, 16 Wall. 130 (1873), three Members of this Court reaffirmed the common law principle that "a woman had no legal existence separate from her husband, who was regarded as her head and representative in the social state; and, notwithstanding some recent modifications of this civil status, many of the special rules of law flowing from and dependent upon this cardinal principle still exist in full force in most States." Id., at 141 (Bradley J., joined by Swayne and Field, JJ., concurring in judgment). Only one generation has passed since this Court observed that "woman is still regarded as the center of home and family life," with attendant "special responsibilities" that precluded full and independent legal status under the Constitution. Hoyt v. Florida, 368 U.S. 57, 62 (1961). These views, of course, are no longer consistent with our understanding of the family, the individual, or the Constitution.

In keeping with our rejection of the common law understanding of a woman's role within the family, the Court held in Danforth that the Constitution does not permit a State to require a married woman to obtain her husband's consent before undergoing an abortion. 428 U. S., at 69. The principles that guided the Court in Danforth should be our guides today. For the great many women who are victims of abuse inflicted by their husbands, or whose children are the victims of such abuse, a spousal notice requirement enables the husband to wield an effective veto over his wife's decision. Whether the prospect of notification itself deters such women from seeking abortions, or whether the husband, through physical force or psychological pressure or economic coercion, prevents his wife from obtaining an abortion until it is too late, the notice requirement will often be tantamount to the veto found unconstitutional in Danforth. The women most affected by this law--those who most reasonably fear the consequences of notifying their husbands that they are pregnant--are in the gravest danger.

The husband's interest in the life of the child his wife is carrying does not permit the State to empower him with this troubling degree of authority over his wife. The contrary view leads to consequences reminiscent of the common law. A husband has no enforceable right to require a wife to advise him before she exercises her personal choices. If a husband's interest in the potential life of the child outweighs a wife's liberty, the State could require a married woman to notify her husband before she uses a postfertilization contraceptive. Perhaps next in line would be a statute requiring pregnant married women to notify their husbands before engaging in conduct causing risks to the fetus. After all, if the husband's interest in the fetus' safety is a sufficient predicate for state regulation, the State could reasonably conclude that pregnant wives should notify their husbands before drinking alcohol or smoking. Perhaps married women should notify their husbands before using contraceptives or before undergoing any type of surgery that may have complications affecting the husband's interest in his wife's reproductive organs. And if a husband's interest justifies notice in any of these cases, one might reasonably argue that it justifies exactly what the Danforth Court held it did not justify--a requirement of the husband's consent as well. A State may not give to a man the kind of dominion over his wife that parents exercise over their children.

Section 3209 embodies a view of marriage consonant with the common law status of married women but repugnant toour present understanding of marriage and of the nature of the rights secured by the Constitution. Women do not lose their constitutionally protected liberty when they marry. The Constitution protects all individuals, male or female, married or unmarried, from the abuse of governmental power, even where that power is employed for the supposed benefit of a member of the individual's family. These considerations confirm our conclusion that § 3209 is invalid.

[ISUKappa]

Originally posted by Rudey
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.

Yes.

The medical term for a miscarriage is "spontaneous abortion."

Facts on miscarriage rates vary -- some say 1 of 4 (25%) and some are as high as 1 in 2 (50%). The 1 in 2 rate includes possible chemical pregnancies, where the woman often has no idea she was pregnant; menstruation starts a day or two late and, unless a woman is actively charting her cycles, may not seem out of the ordinary.

So if you really wanted, you could count me in your little statistic because technically I've had two spontaneous abortions. I would prefer you not, though.

[ZetaGirl22]

What about instances where the woman is being physically abused by her husband and would rather not bring a child into that situation? What about a woman who is being raped by her husband? Those I think are legit situations where you wouldn't want to tell your SO, and I wouldn't necessarily call the woman a hoe bag in that situation.

[Rudey]

Originally posted by ZetaGirl22
What about instances where the woman is being physically abused by her husband and would rather not bring a child into that situation? What about a woman who is being raped by her husband? Those I think are legit situations where you wouldn't want to tell your SO, and I wouldn't necessarily call the woman a hoe bag in that situation.

She should go to the police. If she can walk into an abortion clinic, she can walk into a police station. Is she scared of having her insides scraped out? No. But she's scared of her husband?

-Rudey

[ZetaGirl22]

Originally posted by Rudey
She should go to the police. If she can walk into an abortion clinic, she can walk into a police station. Is she scared of having her insides scraped out? No. But she's scared of her husband?

-Rudey

I really dont want this to come off as rude, but have you ever been in an abusive relationship before? Yeah, a lot of women would be less scared to walk into an abortion clinic than go to the police. Many battered women even refuse to press charges when the police come TO THEM. Now I have never been in an abusive relationship, but I know people who have and from the outside, its difficult to understand why you wouldnt get out of that situation, but a lot of times women are just paralyzed by the fear and that if they try to get out, they will be hurt again or worse, killed. The time a woman is MOST likely to be killed in an abusive relationship is when she is trying to get out of it.

[Rudey]

Originally posted by ZetaGirl22
I really dont want this to come off as rude, but have you ever been in an abusive relationship before? Yeah, a lot of women would be less scared to walk into an abortion clinic than go to the police. Many battered women even refuse to press charges when the police come TO THEM. Now I have never been in an abusive relationship, but I know people who have and from the outside, its difficult to understand why you wouldnt get out of that situation, but a lot of times women are just paralyzed by the fear and that if they try to get out, they will be hurt again or worse, killed. The time a woman is MOST likely to be killed in an abusive relationship is when she is trying to get out of it.

You are telling me I haven't been in an abusive relationship so I don't know but then you say you haven't been in one either. Let me tell you, every relationship a man is in with a woman is one where he gets abused.

When you are getting your face bashed in, that's problem 1. When you are pregnant, that's problem 2. Solving problem 2, does not solve problem 1. Did that help?

I have sympathy for anyone that is bullied or abused, but not someone that is addicted to it. Harsh? Maybe. Crass? Probably. But that is a topic all on its own.

The woman can't say "I'm being abused" and get an abortion when an abortion doesn't solve the abuse problem.

-Rudey

[AKA_Monet]

Rudey,

The issue is a pimp must slap his hoes around...

And some pimps are married to their hoes now...



Zeta22--

Why would an "educated" woman marry an asswipe? Yeah, chit escalates in relationships and there is abuse that goes on. But under ever incidence of true physical and mental abuse, it behooves a woman to have a loooonnnnggggg papertrail by some responsible party, be it the police, the couselors, somebody that can legally document that craziness in the relationship is going on.

Otherwise, why get married if folks don't want to have kids... Either get it tied up or snipped...

I mean, really, that is the 2nd best way in not having kids--get sterilized...

And in my opinion, at a certain age, pregnancies are NOT accidents...

We all know how babies get made. So either folks don't do the doo (abstinence) or they get tied up or snipped (sterilized). And stop with the BS you see on market tabloids--that lunacy is just that--lunacy...

And most women I know are having kids who are not married... EFF telling the man that she's having his child, he's just gonna havta deal with it...

Where are we folks? In the 1950's where women just let there husband's ride on them all night long and pop a child out after another?

I think we are in the 21st century and women now have options beyond the comprehension of those making the rules these days...

I am tell y'all: Abortion in the mid-21st century will become a very, very moot issue...

We'd outta be worried about babies being "harvested" like on the Matrix outta of Aldous Huxley's mind... Of course wasn't he on morphine?

[BirthaBlue4]

Originally posted by ktsnake
I've never seen a woman offer to forebear on collecting child support in exchange for custody

I would, in a heartbeat. But that's a long story.

What I don't get personally, is how people can say 9 months is a long time, when the child is going to be in your care for 18 years. I always hear the focus put on the pregnancy, not the life of the child.

Some bottom lines:
If the couple is married, your husband have EVERY right to know about it and have full power in discussion. Especially (from a petty stand point) if you are under his insurance that is going to pay for it. (LITTLE TIDBIT: In DC, when you have a baby, even if you're divorced, your ex is the husband of any child you have for 6 months after the divorce. So even if she cheated, it's still legally his child). You may think, oh my body will be in turmoil for 9 whole months, but your husband may be thinking, I will have a child to love and teach about life, etc. etc.

If the couple is not married, it should still be a discussion, but my whole feeling on the thing is, if you WILLINGLY did it, you better WILLINGLY take care of whatever comes from it. You know the risks, you accept them as OK when you stick it in.

If the father wants an abortion and the woman does not, given that a woman has the right to do what she wants, he should have the right to not have to pay child support. I say this because if we're gonna look at this as if abortion is ok (its not with me, but this is for logical discussion), if the father doesn't think you all are ready, and he wants to "erase the mistake" but you as the woman want to take it on, that should be on you. If a guy is LETTING YOU KNOW IN ADVANCE that he's gonna be a deadbeat, that's on you if you proceed anyway.

It all boils down to how you look at babies. Some see a baby in a woman as life, others see it as tissue mass until it comes out and cries. That one view will shape how things will go. The way I see it, if you make it, you have to deal with it. And make better choices about who you have sex with. Every partner should be looked at as a potential father/mother. If you do that seriously, most people wouldn't have sex with the MAJORITY of people they've had sex with.

[AlphaFrog]

Originally posted by Peaches-n-Cream
I'm not flaming, just clarifying. You wrote that you are pro-choice, but you think a woman should not have a choice to have an abortion. Wouldn't that make you pro-life and anti-abortion?

I just saw this post (not sure how I missed it)

I was being sarcastic when I said I was Pro-Choice.

Although I can't say technically that I'm pro-life, because that includes no death penalty....and I say, if you kill someone you fry.

I had a teacher once that said it was impossible to feel that abortion was wrong and the death penalty is right. WRONG. One's an innocent who hasn't done anything. The other is a convitected criminal. Very different.

[/tangent]

[amanda6035]

Originally posted by USCTKE
I think it is sad that women get all the power in these types of situation...if you dont want a kid the simple thing to do is to keep your legs close...period...there is only two situations where I consider abortion an option, one is when there are problems with the pregnancy that threaten both the mother and the child...the other is in cases of rape. I know if I ever accidently got a women pregnant, I would do every thing in my power to make sure she kept the baby...I really do not know if I could live a happy life if someone killed my child because they didnt feel like putting up with it.

I'm so glad I'm not the only person who feels this way

[Beryana]

Originally posted by AlphaFrog
I just saw this post (not sure how I missed it)

I was being sarcastic when I said I was Pro-Choice.

Although I can't say technically that I'm pro-life, because that includes no death penalty....and I say, if you kill someone you fry.

I had a teacher once that said it was impossible to feel that abortion was wrong and the death penalty is right. WRONG. One's an innocent who hasn't done anything. The other is a convitected criminal. Very different.

[/tangent]

Actually, you can be anti-abortion and still feel the death penalty has its place - and in all that, still be 'pro-life.' Pro-life has to do with the dignity of all human life, even that which has yet to be born (how something can one minute NOT be human life and the next minute BE human life is beyond me - a pregnant women will not be giving birth to a puppy!). The death penalty has to do with social justice - and should only be used as a last resort for the protection of society, but is still an option.

[Rudey]

Originally posted by Beryana
Actually, you can be anti-abortion and still feel the death penalty has its place - and in all that, still be 'pro-life.' Pro-life has to do with the dignity of all human life, even that which has yet to be born (how something can one minute NOT be human life and the next minute BE human life is beyond me - a pregnant women will not be giving birth to a puppy!). The death penalty has to do with social justice - and should only be used as a last resort for the protection of society, but is still an option.

There are 3 different words for kill, death, and murder in the Old Testament. That is why many religious people are willing to accept both.

I thought Catholics were opposed to both though?

-Rudey

[irishpipes]

Originally posted by Rudey

I thought Catholics were opposed to both though?

-Rudey

From the Catechism of the Catholic Church #2267:

Assuming that the guilty party's identity and responsibility have been fully determined, the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty, if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor.
If, however, non-lethal means are sufficient to defend and protect people's safety from the aggressor, authority will limit itself to such means, as these are more in keeping with the concrete conditions of the common good and are more in conformity to the dignity of the human person.

Today, in fact, as a consequence of the possibilities which the state has for effectively preventing crime, by rendering one who has committed an offense incapable of doing harm - without definitely taking away from him the possibility of redeeming himself - the cases in which the execution of the offender is an absolute necessity "are very rare, if not practically non-existent."

ETA: I didn't post the Church's position on abortion, since I assume you weren't really asking about that.