People is reporting that Michelle Duggar miscarried MERGED

[Witsec1]

Actually I am pretty that is exactly what she is saying. That a man can have control over what a woman does with her body and use mediation to force her into having a more dangerous and complicated abortion.

Yes, she cleared that up for me all right. She would spend taxpayer money to have this expedited service so a fuckwit like James Ference, for example, (use the site search function, Mrs S.) could have more opportunity to play mindfuck. She really thinks any guy who shoots his sperm without a backward glance can trump a woman's right to privacy as granted by Roe v. Wade. Meanwhile California is in a budget crisis, there are already born children who desperately need services that money could provide. And

[emmiedahl]

I know people who have had to do legal mediation and it is a fucking mess. You have to go to a mediator (your appointment is weeks out from when you schedule it), pay a couple of hundred dollars per session, and then you have to agree to abide by the mediator's recommendation. If you cannot come to an agreement in the first session, you make another appointment (another few weeks out) and pay more money. If the mediator is pro-life, a woman can bet she will get screwed. I have seen mediators hand down some of the most nonsensical child custody decisions, so I am not really comfortable with their abilities to act fairly in an abortion case. And by the time you have completed mediation, you have already spent weeks if not months in the process and hundreds if not thousands of dollars.

Bad idea all around. And it goes against the fundamental principle that people should have privacy and autonomy in their own health care. What if I want breast implants? Does my husband get to drag me into mediation? What if I want eye glasses for one of our children? Shall we go into mediation because her father thinks a lazy eye will work itself out? (both are hypothetical situations; my husband is not an asshole and my kids don't need glasses)

[Constance Vigilance]

One of the most important things when you're working with reproductive choice is speed. The idea of a process that could drag out for weeks/months, and make an abortion infinitely more traumatic -- as well as maybe impossible depending on how long it goes on -- all so that someone has the chance to persuade a woman that she doesn't really mean the decision she's made about her own body...wow.

[kayray]

I agree. Just like waiting periods for abortions, mandatory counseling, mandatory sonograms, mandatory information on adoption & other non-abortion choices, Mrs.S's infamous mediation bullshit and the decades of listening to condescending bullshit from others, from doctors to mere acquaintances - it is all predicated on the belief that a woman is too emotional, too flighty, too irrational, too weak to be able to make up her own mind about her reproductive life and needs others to look out for her, make those decisions for her.

This, exactly.

Whether I want an abortion, or sterilization, or birth control...I should not have to prove that I know my own mind well enough to make the right choices for myself. I find it abysmal that I know women who cannot even find doctors to give them an IUD if they have not had kids! If I ever decide I want to be sterilized (for now semi-permanent BC works for me), I will have to go through hoops to prove I know, at 30-something, that I do not want children. Yet since when do people have to prove they DO want children in order to have them?

Also, I laugh at this idea mediation is this happy, wonderful, process. I work in a field where I see plenty of mediation, and when it comes to mediation in a family law context, it is a lengthy process even when both parties are in agreement to the process. Further, mediation only works if BOTH people are going into it in the "spirit of mediation". They need to be open to compromise, to finding shared interests, and so on. If you both have an interest in the best interests of children already born for custody situations, it may work. If I want an abortion, and someone else wants the child, there IS no compromise available. I would not be interested in hearing people who would want me to have the child because it is not their body, their life. There are people out there, like me, who have just as much interest in being pregnant as in having kids (as in, none). Just because someone else would raise the child does not provide incentive to me. All mediation would do is delay getting a procedure I want, and add more emotional, physical and financial stress to the situation.

[treemom]

How many sessions ? 2 ? Within a week or so. Paralegal or family court draws up an agreement. And yes I think it should be an expense covered by the government - because I don't think access to cash should be an obstacle to people receiving medical care, going through legal issues etc.. Or it could be a fee similar to filing for divorce- a couple hundred bucks -- that might be good for making sure he is at least serious.

Some things do get prioritized and done quickly - in a time limited situation like a pregnancy, then it would need to be a system that moved fast.

I don't think he should have absolute rights -- I also don't think you can lump his interest in this issue into the same category as any other 'medical procedure' that the woman might have simply because they had sex. That is dishonest.

For child support, if you are applying for state aid - yes you obligated to say who the father is. However, you do not have to state who the father is if you feel he is a threat. That isn't that complicated. If you feel he is a threat, don't state it. If you don't feel he is a threat, hear him out.

Again, I think this shows you are heavily sheltered. In an area where I am 2 weeks would be a short time and the govt couldn't afford the cost. An in N area like I am 2 weeks old easily change an abortion from happening at a clinic, to happening at a hospital.

[emmiedahl]

Some people do change their mind about whether they want sterilized. A friend of mine fought for a tubal libation in her early twenties (and lost; no one would perform one) because she despised children. A decade later, she is in fertility treatments trying to have a baby because now she really wants one and has a physical problem that is making it difficult.

I still think the doctors should have given her the tubal when she asked. Because it is her body, she should be able to make choices and then deal with the consequences. I'm sure many people have made a decision in their lives that they regret. It's not anyone else's business.

[Milly-Molly-Mandy]

http://www.salon.com/2011/12/16/why_did ... born_baby/

Thought you might find this article interesting...plus it mentioned the real way the photo of Jubilee got out

[Mama Mia]

"Sheltered" ... hmmm.. that is a new one for me. I really don't think that is something that anyone has ever accused me of, ever. Just because IRL ... that just isn't something that would be a negative adjective used about me.."bitch" definitely, and pretty much every derivative of that, but in my particular life I don't think I've been 'sheltered' - if anything there a whole bunch of experiences that I would LOVE to have been sheltered from, if I could go back in time and had the choice. Is being 'sheltered' a negative ? It sounds kind of peaceful.

I guess I am sheltered in some ways..I've lived in the same city my entire middle aged life, and it doesn't seem to be a place that has some of the extreme bible-belt crazy that I'm learning about here. Interesting.

[treemom]

"Sheltered" ... hmmm.. that is a new one for me. I really don't think that is something that anyone has ever accused me of, ever. Just because IRL ... that just isn't something that would be a negative adjective used about me.."bitch" definitely, and pretty much every derivative of that, but in my particular life I don't think I've been 'sheltered' - if anything there a whole bunch of experiences that I would LOVE to have been sheltered from, if I could go back in time and had the choice. Is being 'sheltered' a negative ? It sounds kind of peaceful.

I guess I am sheltered in some ways..I've lived in the same city my entire middle aged life, and it doesn't seem to be a place that has some of the extreme bible-belt crazy that I'm learning about here. Interesting.

It is a problem when you are advocating political answers that won't work for the vast majority of the country.

Like I said, I didn't got to Kansas to see the amber waves of grain. I had very limited options. A waiting period would have pushed me into even more dangerous territory.

[valsa]

"Sheltered" is a negative when it causes ignorance. You touting a legal process that wouldn't be feasible in 99+ percent of the country, plus violating a woman's rights and putting her health in danger even in the places it was feasible, is ignorant. You may have some experiences but they're obviously not the right ones to have strengthened your ability to apply critical thinking to your beliefs.

It would be less ignorant and more honest of you to just say "I don't like abortion and I don't think it's right that a man doesn't have a say in whether his child is aborted, but there's no real way to change that without violating the woman's rights".

For instance, I don’t think it’s fair that a man can be forced to support a child he didn’t want from the very beginning. Both the mother and father go into sex knowing that a pregnancy is possible (even if it’s a very remote possibility due to contraception use) But once a woman is pregnant, she has the option to decide that she cannot financially afford to care for a child for the next 18+ years while a man does not. I think that’s unfair. In a perfect world, I think the solution would be that a man could give up parental rights while the woman still has the option of a low-risk first trimester abortion. The father puts up half the expenses it would take for her to have the abortion (cost, transportation, missed wages) when he applies to give up his rights. This would give the woman notice that she would not be able to get financial support from the him in the future and she’d be able to make the decision whether or not to keep the baby with that in mind.

Now, that’s what I think the solution would look like in a perfect world but we don’t live in a perfect world. I’d never support anything close to that in reality because I have the critical thinking skills to realize that it wouldn’t work. There’s not enough easy access to abortion in this country and what I just outlined could be used by a man to force a woman to have his child while not having to pay support for it (basically, he could give up his rights and financial responsibility when he knows she won’t be able to actually get an abortion even if she wanted to) Even if there were super easy access to abortion everywhere in the country, I still wouldn’t support it. A lot of women might not be able to afford the other half of the cost to get the abortion or they might not be able to take the days off work to have the procedure without risking their jobs or, much like your mediation idea, there is no realistic way to get things worked out in an expedite enough manner to guarantee the mother would be looking at a low-risk early abortion every time. See? It’s not that difficult to say “I wish things were like this†but realize there’s no way good way to make them like that.

[Mama Mia]

Interesting .. I think what I pretty much HAVE been saying is something close to that : That I don't think it's right that a man doesn't have a say in whether his child is aborted, but there's no real way to MANDATE that without putting the mother's health at risk.

Your comment about " I don't like abortion" is just, well, weird. Who goes around saying they LIKE abortion ? Very strange wording.

People say "I wish things were x" and find half-way feasible solutions to address whatever the particular issue is all the time. Are the solutions always perfect - no, of course not. I think the primary difference I am having here is that I agree that the woman's right is paramount in this situation but I don't think it is the only person who is impacted or who should have some sort of voice. I don't think it is doing the man some sort of favor to give him a voice, I don't think only men who grovel and say "whatever you want honey" should have a voice. The people going on and on about 'well gee should he just have a say in my boob job or any elective surgery " are playing blatently stupid. Or don't understand the basic process of reproduction.

[formergothardite]

No, actually your posts haven't been coming off like that. You were given many opportunities to say that no, you really don't think that a man should be able to use mediation to force a woman into having a more risky and dangerous abortion, and you never did. So one can only assume that you actually do believe that.

And this isn't a half-way feasible solution, this is one that would be a disaster in the real world.

[valsa]

No, that is not at all what you've been saying. You’ve been saying that you think your mediation plan could and should be implemented.

Personally, I don't like abortion but I don't dislike it either. It serves a necessary purpose so I’m grateful it’s an option.

Also, saying a woman's rights are paramount assumes that anyone else's rights are involved and, in this case, they are not. The woman's rights are the ONLY issue here. A man shouldn't have a say in what she does with the DNA he deposited in her any more than he should have a say in what the trash collecting company does with his used condoms or tissues. Once he puts it in her body, and until it comes out again, it's under her control only.

[goldennotebook]

What kind of decent man wouldn't respond along the lines of having an opinion, but ultimately deferring to the woman, whose body and choice this is? MrsS2004, do you think this response is seriously "groveling"? Because to me that's standard decent behavior. Men are welcome to an opinion about this choice, but they're not entitled to more than that. Responding with less than deference to what is my decision as an adult woman is patronizing at best and insidious at worst.

[Witsec1]

Interesting .. I think what I pretty much HAVE been saying is something close to that : That I don't think it's right that a man doesn't have a say in whether his child is aborted, but there's no real way to MANDATE that without putting the mother's health at risk.

Huh. If that's what you think, why are you advocating for a man's right to put a woman's health at risk by delaying abortion?

Your comment about " I don't like abortion" is just, well, weird. Who goes around saying they LIKE abortion ? Very strange wording.

You're saying that your moral intuitions should have the force of law.

People say "I wish things were x" and find half-way feasible solutions to address whatever the particular issue is all the time. Are the solutions always perfect - no, of course not. I think the primary difference I am having here is that I agree that the woman's right is paramount in this situation but I don't think it is the only person who is impacted or who should have some sort of voice.

You want taxpayer money to be spent to collect information about the father, to inform the father of his right to request counseling, pay for the counseling, pay for a program to vett the counselors, and possibly train them to answer questions about fetal development to your satisfaction (because those PP counselors just want the abortion $$$ doncha know :roll: and a random LCSW out of the yellow pages will totes be able to do a better job). You want Family Court mediators to drop cases they are working on that involve the well-being of actual born children to draw up a support agreement for a fetus that the father may or may not sign when it comes right down to it. And it will be up to the court mediator to somehow get a final answer and deal with the paperwork if daddy dear skips out of signing it..

I don't think it is doing the man some sort of favor to give him a voice, I don't think only men who grovel and say "whatever you want honey" should have a voice.

You think only a man who wants to persuade a woman to be an incubator for his child should have a voice. That's legally incoherent. If you say the father should have a voice, then he has a voice, whatever his opinion. So you don't actually think the father has a "voice".

Either you believe it is a woman's choice to undergo full-term pregnancy and birth, or you don't. You think a man who acknowledges it is her right to decide what happens to her body is "grovelling". 'Nuff said, for me. You don't support reproductive choice for women.

[Mama Mia]

1) I have said, repeatedly, that I don't think it should be the states responsibility to notify the father.

2) "family court mediators will have to drop cases..blah blah and blah" ... really ? Melodramatic much ? How often do you think this would even come up - seriously stupid argument.

3) I do think it is a woman's ultimate choice, I do not think that once a fetus is developing that the sperm has as little import as a used condom. That is just idiotic in the extreme. Just like the sperm and egg are not individually the only thing that goes into making a new human. Did you grow up in one of those states with abstinence only education and just really not understand how babies are made ?

5) An unwanted pregnancy, and the results of it do not just impact the female partner, they have a much greater impact on her for the first 9 months. I am not saying a man should not give his opinion if it includes that she should have an abortion - I am saying that the only proper response is NOT "yes dear, whatever you want, I have no opinion at all". If it would be more equal all the way around that the man can request mediation to talk about abortion being a better option .. sure why not.

[valsa]

3) I do think it is a woman's ultimate choice, I do not think that once a fetus is developing that the sperm has as little import as a used condom. That is just idiotic in the extreme. Just like the sperm and egg are not individually the only thing that goes into making a new human. Did you grow up in one of those states with abstinence only education and just really not understand how babies are made ?

Though it's not true, I'd rather have grown up in a state with abstinence only education than where ever you grew up, which apparently kills common sense. Exactly what makes a fetus different than a used condom? If a man's DNA being present means he has a right to make decisions about it, that should be true for all applicable situations. Also, if someone shoots or stabs me and the bullet or part of the knife stays inside me, they don't get to ask for mediation to interfer with what I want to do with it. Again, prove that DNA is different.

Oh, and "WON'T SOMEONE THINK OF THE BAYBIESSS!!!" isn't a good enough reason. Fetuses aren't that special.

[MerryHappy]

Putting your DNA in someone else gives you the right to control the choices they make in the future?

Shoo, point me in the direction of Congress and I will see if I can sneeze in their faces. :D

[formergothardite]

So you believe a father who already knows he is the father should be able to use mediation to force a woman to have a later and more risky abortion. Just answer yes or no to this.

If he is not able to force her, then there is nothing different than right now.

[Witsec1]

1)

2) "family court mediators will have to drop cases..blah blah and blah" ... really ? Melodramatic much ? How often do you think this would even come up - seriously stupid argument.

You're flailing now - falling back on insults when ya got nothin' in the way of reasonable rebuttall. When someone objected about the delay involved in getting a legal agreement you dismissed it by saying these cases would be expedited - which means that other cases would be delayed. You can't have it both ways. How often do you think it would come up? You just have no fucking idea do you? Seriously, if you were proposing this as a ballot measure you would be required to think about this stuff, in order to quantify fiscal impact for the ballot statement.

1

3) I do think it is a woman's ultimate choice, I do not think that once a fetus is developing that the sperm has as little import as a used condom. That is just idiotic in the extreme. Just like the sperm and egg are not individually the only thing that goes into making a new human. Did you grow up in one of those states with abstinence only education and just really not understand how babies are made ?

5) An unwanted pregnancy, and the results of it do not just impact the female partner, they have a much greater impact on her for the first 9 months. I am not saying a man should not give his opinion if it includes that she should have an abortion - I am saying that the only proper response is NOT "yes dear, whatever you want, I have no opinion at all". If it would be more equal all the way around that the man can request mediation to talk about abortion being a better option .. sure why not

This is really a straw man argument since no one wants to legally enforce a ban on men giving their opinions on their partner's pregnancy. Nor do we want to make it illegal for a man to ask his partner to go to counseling, (which is already available now at reduced cost in most places.)

If you want couples to have the right to get legal agreements in family court pre-natally, well, that will have an impact on the family court system, a system that seems pretty maxed out in most localities.

[ladypuglover]

Some people do change their mind about whether they want sterilized. A friend of mine fought for a tubal libation in her early twenties (and lost; no one would perform one) because she despised children. A decade later, she is in fertility treatments trying to have a baby because now she really wants one and has a physical problem that is making it difficult.

I still think the doctors should have given her the tubal when she asked. Because it is her body, she should be able to make choices and then deal with the consequences. I'm sure many people have made a decision in their lives that they regret. It's not anyone else's business.

That would be me. I had my tubes tied as soon as my 3rd son was born for all the wrong reasons. I was trying to make a deal with God that if he let this baby live then I would quit playing with fire and stop having babies. All was fine until my bio clock went off and refused to turn off. We had already been trying adopt even before my 3rd son and met so many dead ends that I had my tubes un-tied. I almost died from post surgery problems and may never be a size 5 again but I have 2 more sons that I don't ever regret. It does happen where even after being sterilized and the reversal can be deadly if what happened to me happened to a fundy.

[kayray]

That would be me. I had my tubes tied as soon as my 3rd son was born for all the wrong reasons. I was trying to make a deal with God that if he let this baby live then I would quit playing with fire and stop having babies. All was fine until my bio clock went off and refused to turn off. We had already been trying adopt even before my 3rd son and met so many dead ends that I had my tubes un-tied. I almost died from post surgery problems and may never be a size 5 again but I have 2 more sons that I don't ever regret. It does happen where even after being sterilized and the reversal can be deadly if what happened to me happened to a fundy.

There was a major study about post-sterilization regret. The rates of regret were actually quite low, but of those low numbers, most were people who already did have children, and had sterilization after the birth of those children, and later wanted more. Even of those numbers, not many of them were interested in reversal.

The problem is these regret experiences get thrown at those who do not want kids, ever, and is another way that discredits those of us who do not want kids from being able to make our own decisions about our fertility. Even if some do later regret their choice, I hate that it means assumptions are made that everyone will! I have known many childfree

people who had sterilization and never regretted it. Anecdotal, yes, but appreciated voices since it is hard to find people who could get sterilized simply as they did not want kids. Many doctors won't listen until you are at least 30, and with advanced maternal age becoming the new norm even that is no longer always the case! It is not too surprising that very few childfree regret their choice given they have had to spend 10+ years convincing someone to give them the procedure!

I am glad you were able to have more children after a reversal, but am sorry for all the complications it sounds like you had.

[ladypuglover]

There was a major study about post-sterilization regret. The rates of regret were actually quite low, but of those low numbers, most were people who already did have children, and had sterilization after the birth of those children, and later wanted more. Even of those numbers, not many of them were interested in reversal.

The problem is these regret experiences get thrown at those who do not want kids, ever, and is another way that discredits those of us who do not want kids from being able to make our own decisions about our fertility. Even if some do later regret their choice, I hate that it means assumptions are made that everyone will! I have known many childfree

people who had sterilization and never regretted it. Anecdotal, yes, but appreciated voices since it is hard to find people who could get sterilized simply as they did not want kids. Many doctors won't listen until you are at least 30, and with advanced maternal age becoming the new norm even that is no longer always the case! It is not too surprising that very few childfree regret their choice given they have had to spend 10+ years convincing someone to give them the procedure!

I am glad you were able to have more children after a reversal, but am sorry for all the complications it sounds like you had.

kayray, I agree, mine was not the same thing. I already had kids and was wanting more even if I knew my body wasn't the safest bet. A woman who doesn't want children at all is a whole nother ball game. I don't think the two should be compared since women in the second group rarely change their mind.

Also thank you, I'm fine now and getting better everyday. ;)

[Austin]

I think MrsS2004 is just stuck on a sentimental idea ("it's his baby, too!") and she's dug in.

I have actually thought a lot about this since this topic has been rolling along. I can imagine myself in a situation where one of my sons has come to me and told me that his girlfriend is pregnant and that she wants to terminate the pregnancy. Said son expresses that he wants the baby and asks for my advice on how to convince the girlfriend to have the baby. After I get over my shock and disappointment (what about the condoms I bought for all of you?), I might start thinking in terms of a little grandbaby. Wouldn't that be wonderful? It would be a miniature version of beloved son. He'd be such a loving father. . .

*snap* *snap*

Back to reality. "Son, it is completely her decision and if you've already expressed your opinion in the matter, say no more. It's not your decision to make at all. We'll help you deal with it, but you need to back off".

Sorry, MrsS2004, but men should have NO say over what women do with their bodies. When/if the woman delivers an actual byby, then he's got rights. Before that, none at all. I realize this is an odious idea to you, but it's the stark reality.

[emmiedahl]

^this. Furrealz.