A secular debate about abortion

[Coito ergo sum]

... what's the principled ethical argument that absolves the woman of all responsibility for accepting the consequences of her poor reproductive judgment by allowing abortion at will merely because she does not wish to be inconvenienced? Should we repeal gravity because a woman throws herself off a cliff without a parachute and then changes her mind half-way down?

Yes - if there was a way to allow people who throw themselves off cliffs without parachutes and land safely and unharmed below, then absolutely, we why not do it?

Why should we? Let me rephrase the analogy slightly to illuminate the principle under discussion: Is society OBLIGATED to repeal gravity, or for that matter provide safety nets at all cliffs, in order to relieve the woman of her responsibility for accepting the consequences of her imprudent behavior? I say no. If she wants to jump off a cliff and die, that's her RIGHT.

Why should we? For the same reason it's not a problem for people to use parachutes and avoid the natural consequence of BASE jumping. It's a free country and people can do what they please with their own body.

Society doesn't repeal gravity. Society merely doesn't block humans from avoiding the consequences of gravity. The real question is, should society prohibit the use of parachutes to make base jumpers suffer the consequences of leaping off a bridge? Is society obligated to do that?

Society doesn't have to provide safety nets at cliffs, but that's not what society is doing when abortion is legal. Abortion being legal is analogous to allowing people to put up their own safety nets. Why should society actively block the construction of safety nets?

Yes, absolutely, it is her right to jump off a cliff and die. It's also her right to jump off a cliff that has a privately constructed safety net below it and land unharmed.

If your analogy is that having sex is like jumping off a cliff, and getting pregnant is like hitting the ground, then clearly if there is a way to either not get pregnant or not hit the ground, but still be allowed to fuck and jump off cliffs, then there is no principled reason why we ought to force people to have babies or hit the ground. Is there?

Sure there is, it's called the "Did it hurt when you did that? Yes? Then don't do that" principle of operative conditioning. Society has a legitimate interest in quelling unbridled promiscuity, and requiring women to accept and experience the consequences of promiscuity provides them with a valuable lesson in the merits of sexual self-control.

Actually, society has not such interest. The number of times and the number of partners that a person has is not "society's" concern in the least.

The principled, ethical argument that would permit a woman to have an abortion, and be the sole decision maker, is that it is her body and the medical procedure is done to her, not someone else.

But the argument here is that once she agrees to have sex, and a child is conceived, she is no longer the sole decision maker because she has voluntarily entered into a contract with other interested parties, and has therefore voluntarily forfeited her right to absolute control of the fetus and indeed her body.

I know that's your argument, but an agreement to have sex is not an agreement to cede control of her uterus. Like I noted above, it makes more sense to simply state that a man's consent to sex is ceding of control of his semen to the woman to do with as she pleases, and to accept the consequences of a baby born of that congress. After all: (1) he knows the possible consequences of having sex, (2) he has total control over whether he ejaculates and where, (3) by ejaculating into the woman he is delivering to her complete possession and control of the semen, (4) if he has not expressly conditioned the delivery of possession and control of the semen on anything, then it's an outright gift, (5) since he knows that by giving a woman this gift he may father a child, he is fully cognizant of the potential for being subject to the right OF THE CHILD to support.

[lordpasternack]

Warren, women needn't be reluctant to have sex while they continue to have all the benefits of modern contraception and complete autonomy to terminate (and access to abortion) within whatever reasonable limits the state allows - they rightly would hopefully be more reluctant to wilfully choose to get pregnant and maintain that pregnancy when it is explicitly unwanted by the male partner. There's no compulsion, no force or duress either way - she theoretically is left with full autonomy and full accountability for whatever decision she ultimately makes - with upfront knowledge of the male's decision to withdraw fully and completely (boom boom!) from the situation.

Of course, I'm also coming from the point of view of someone in the UK - where I can easily obtain practically any type of contraception (including emergency contraception), and abortion, absolutely free of charge and without much fuss. I realise this isn't the case everywhere, and it adds more layers and complications to the issue that aren't simply resolved in my mind right now. I also don't know what would be most ideal out of biological fathers being expected to opt-in or opt-out of commitment in line with their desires up until a cut-off point where the woman has the legal right and capaciy to terminate the pregnancy.

[Coito ergo sum]

The same reason it is up to me, and me alone, that I have a tooth removed, or a vasectomy, the abortion is a medical procedure performed on an individual - that individual is the decision maker.

Your tooth is not a separate, unique, living human being with its own DNA and developmental future. Nor was your tooth created as the result of a voluntary act involving another party whose rights and expectations are due consideration.

Neither is an embryo or a fetus. The embryo and fetus is not separate. Yes, it has its own DNA, but it is not also separate.

To be otherwise - to give someone else the power over that decision - would be to (a) violate the woman's right to privacy in her own body, and (b) render her an involuntary servant, peon or slave.

Nope. She is a VOLUNTARY gestational parent. Her consent was given through the act of allowing a man to ejaculate insider her and deposit sperm inside her. When she allowed that to happen, she accepted the know risks of pregnancy and took upon herself the risk of being obligated to nine months as a gestational parent. Unless she was raped, in which case I support her right to abort.

The act of allowing a man to ejaculate inside her is not consent to his control over her uterus for 9 months. It makes at least as much sense to say that the woman accepts the man's unconditional gift of sperm which, since it was given without any conditions attached, is hers to do with as she pleases - like if he gave her earrings. He knows full well what sperm can be used for, and if she uses it to make a baby, he knows full well that that child has a right to support from both its parents.

You are merely parroting the common canard that women ought to be absolved of all personal responsibility and consequences from the results of their poor sexual decision making. I don't buy that argument for an instant, and there is no principled ethical argument that supports this specious argument.

No, I think both parents are responsible, and should be responsible, for the support of their minor children. I think the mother does and should bear the consequences of pregnancy by herself - she is fully subject to the consequences. If a child comes out of her womb, she has a legal obligation to support it.

She is the only party, however, that actually faces the consequences of abortion, because she is the only party that can have an abortion. Abortions require uteruses to have. So, while she makes the decision to have an abortion, she also bears the consequences of the abortion.

I've not suggested that women ought to be absolved of any consequences. Abortion is not an absolution.

This is about society refusing to facilitate bad behavior and bad judgment on the part of women who wish to engage in promiscuous sex without any regard for the consequences or the rights of others.

Whether a woman's behavior is "bad" is not the issue.

It's exactly and precisely the issue.[/quote]

It really isn't the issue - although, you have certainly just proven what LP was chastised for characterizing your argument as a few pages back -- your real concern is not abortion, but punishing the sluts.

She can get pregnant whenever she wants and is physically able.

Yup. But when she does, she incurs some obligations to the other party to the transaction, and thereby surrenders some part of her absolute autonomy over the products of conception, and therefore necessarily her body.

The parents have 50/50 control over the child and 50/50 obligation to provide support. Each parent has full control over their own bodies.

Once again - why is it, in your mind, the woman ceding control of her uterus, and not the man ceding control over the sperm unconditionally?

Even though it happens as a result of a man's sperm, it's not his body to control, it's hers. He does not have a right to compel her to either have an abortion or to not have an abortion.

He does if she consented to it, which she does by inviting his semen inside her vagina.[/quote]

That's the key thing, isn't it? No - she does not consent to cede control over her uterus to the man merely because she let him fuck her. It is far more reasonable to assume he is giving her an unconditional gift of semen, isn't it?

Hey - what if he said he'd pull out, but didn't? Does she get to sue him for fraud now?

Consent to the sex act is what creates these obligations that she may be compelled to adhere to. Because she has absolute control over who and what gets into her womb, it's her responsibility to deal with the consequences, and accept that when a child is formed, there are other legal, moral and ethical interests in play. If she doesn't want to take those risks or subscribe to that implied contract, then she can simply refuse to have sex, as is her right. But society is not obligated to relieve her of the natural consequences of her voluntary decision to have sex.

Yes - it's her responsibility to deal with the consequences, and she DOES deal with ALL the consequences. The ONLY consequences that the male MUST adhere to are the consequences owed to the child. He doesn't have to be there for her during the pregnancy. He doesn't have to pay her rent or alimony. He doesn't have to visit or share time with the child. However, the child - not the mother - the child - NOT THE MOTHER - the child - repeat - the child has a right to support from both parents. It is not the child's fault that the parents decided to have sex - the child never waived his right to child support and the mother has no power to waive that right.

She does, but once she voluntarily agrees to have those rights constrained, she can be held to that agreement. Consent negates any argument that her liberty is being infringed. She has SURRENDERED some liberty in return for sexual pleasure. She's not compelled to do that, but there's no reason she cannot be compelled to accept the consequences of doing so.

She hasn't though. It's doesn't logically follow that two people having sex means the woman cedes control of a portion of her body.

Why doesn't the man accept the consequence of giving her his sperm without qualifying the gift? He certainly could say, "Janey, I'm going to give you a few teaspoons cum, and in consideration of your receipt of said cum, you agree that you will use said cum for the purposes of enjoyment only and not for procreation." If she agrees to the limited use of the semen, then maybe you'd have something there - but, absent such express limitation, we can only conclude from the guy unconditionally donating his semen to her that he was giving her the semen in exchange for an orgasm. Anything more would be an unwarranted assumption. He received his orgasm, and she received the semen.

Your logic is like a gas station retaining control of a persons vehicle because there is an implied contract that by allowing the gas station to shoot a load of gasoline into it, that the gas tank is now ceded to the station owner.

[Warren Dew]

It's certainly servitude, but it's not involuntary because she consented to a term of voluntary servitude as the gestational parent by consenting to have sexual relations.

Indentured servants agreed to the indenture period in advance, yet it's still "involuntary servitude" under the U.S. constitution. If it's involuntary at the time of the servitude, it's prohibited, even if the person agreed in advance. To put it another way, in the U.S., you're not allowed to sell yourself into slavery.

[Copyleft]

I'm in the curious position of agreeing with Seth here, even though I'm staunchly pro-choice (and indeed, pro-abortion).

She is the only party, however, that actually faces the consequences of abortion, because she is the only party that can have an abortion. Abortions require uteruses to have. So, while she makes the decision to have an abortion, she also bears the consequences of the abortion.

...Yes - it's her responsibility to deal with the consequences, and she DOES deal with ALL the consequences. The ONLY consequences that the male MUST adhere to are the consequences owed to the child.

... whose existence was a consequence of the CHOICE the woman made, 100% on her own, as was her right. He had no say in that choice and yet he is told he has a responsibility for the outcome of the choice. Does she deal with ALL the consequences, or only SOME of them? I'd say being the legal and financial hook to pay child support is a significant consequence.

It is not the child's fault that the parents decided to have sex - the child never waived his right to child support and the mother has no power to waive that right.

That right does not exist until the child is born... and whether that birth occurs is entirely up to the woman. So she in fact DOES have the power to waive that right--by aborting.

[Warren Dew]

Of course, I'm also coming from the point of view of someone in the UK - where I can easily obtain practically any type of contraception (including emergency contraception), and abortion, absolutely free of charge and without much fuss. I realise this isn't the case everywhere, and it adds more layers and complications to the issue that aren't simply resolved in my mind right now. I also don't know what would be most ideal out of biological fathers being expected to opt-in or opt-out of commitment in line with their desires up until a cut-off point where the woman has the legal right and capaciy to terminate the pregnancy.

You also seem to be coming from the point of view of someone who has no problem with abortion and considers it a routine form of birth control. That's a fine point of view, but it's not the only one out there. There are many women who consider abortion immoral, or would refuse to have one for religious reasons. Since birth control can fail, those women would, as I said, be more reluctant to have sex, so on average, women would be more reluctant to have sex. As I said, that's probably also okay.

However, I'm also not convinced that it's an improvement to replace women who "trick" their husbands or partners into having children by "forgetting" their pills with men who "trick" their Catholic girlfriends into getting pregnant by "accidentally" folding their condoms enough to induce holes.

[Coito ergo sum]

I'm in the curious position of agreeing with Seth here, even though I'm staunchly pro-choice (and indeed, pro-abortion).

She is the only party, however, that actually faces the consequences of abortion, because she is the only party that can have an abortion. Abortions require uteruses to have. So, while she makes the decision to have an abortion, she also bears the consequences of the abortion.

...Yes - it's her responsibility to deal with the consequences, and she DOES deal with ALL the consequences. The ONLY consequences that the male MUST adhere to are the consequences owed to the child.

... whose existence was a consequence of the CHOICE the woman made, 100% on her own, as was her right. He had no say in that choice and yet he is told he has a responsibility for the outcome of the choice. Does she deal with ALL the consequences, or only SOME of them? I'd say being the legal and financial hook to pay child support is a significant consequence.

It is not the child's fault that the parents decided to have sex - the child never waived his right to child support and the mother has no power to waive that right.

It's incorrect to say that it was "100%" her own choice. She certainly had the last choice, but hers was not the only choice involved.

Moreover, from the child's perspective, whether the father didn't get to opt out during pregnancy is not the child's concern. The child wants his or her support from the father, or at least is entitled to it by virtue of it being the offspring. If the father was actually defrauded, then the father ought, I agree, have recourse - but, the fact is - that he enters into the sexual liaison knowing the following:

1. the woman might get pregnant;
2. it's the woman's uterus, and he has no expectation to control its contents at any time;
3. If a child breathes free air outside of that uterus, it will be looking for support from both parents.

While the result of this state off affairs is not completely equal, that inequality is a function of mother nature, not a function of law. Women have uteruses and carry babies, men don't. Men can't possibly have abortions, no matter what the law says. The best men can hope for is to have the law affirmatively seek to remedy an inequity in nature and provide him with what might be deemed the equivalent of an abortion from the male's perspective. But, this is a legal fiction - the man can't actually abort the fetus - he's only pretending that the fetus was aborted from his perspective.

That right does not exist until the child is born... and whether that birth occurs is entirely up to the woman. So she in fact DOES have the power to waive that right--by aborting.

Yes, she does. But, so what? Why does that necessitate that the the law create a legal fiction for the man that he can pretend to abort the fetus?

Yes - it's unequal - but that inequality is a product of mother nature. It's like Seth's allusion to "gravity." Women have uteruses, and don't impliedly turn over control of those uteruses by the mere act of having sex.

Think of the logical extension of what Seth's theory would entail. If the man can compel the pregnancy go to term, because he has an interest in the child and the woman impliedly agreed to carry the baby, if the man wants her to, then doesn't he also have a say in how that fetus is cared for? What if she doesn't want the baby, but he serves her with notice that she must continue to carry the baby to term - so, she decides to drink and smoke during pregnancy? Does he now have a right to tell her what to eat, drink and breathe in? Isn't this "implied ceding of the uterus" theory really a theory that calls for the implied ceding of female autonomy completely? She must follow the diet prescribed by the man - she must go to the doctor when he says so - and if she doesn't and something happens to the baby, he sues her for damages?

[Warren Dew]

Nope. She is a VOLUNTARY gestational parent. Her consent was given through the act of allowing a man to ejaculate insider her and deposit sperm inside her. When she allowed that to happen, she accepted the know risks of pregnancy and took upon herself the risk of being obligated to nine months as a gestational parent. Unless she was raped, in which case I support her right to abort.

This does not accurately describe the situation in the U.S. today, where abortion is well known and available. Most women, knowing the risks, are consenting only to the risk of having to get an abortion to avoid nine months as a gestational parent, not to any risk of actually undergoing those nine months. Your statement might hold true for Catholic women who know they wouldn't get an abortion, but not for most women.

[lordpasternack]

To maybe throw some other light on this debate - imagine that I allow someone some sort of access to my person, and that other person picks up some cells from my body, which they then, utilising whatever technology, use to clone me via a surrogate mother. What are my rights and responsibilities during this pregnancy and with respect to any resultant viable infant that emerges? Do I have the right to compel the female either to abort or to maintain that pregnancy to its natural end? Am I naturally responsible for any viable infant that emerges from that pregnancy given that it's COMPLETELY "my" genetic material in there?

What if I willingly donate eggs somewhere, and those eggs are used (with or without my implicit or explicit consent) by a surrogate mother without removing my DNA? Would I have any right to intervene with that gestation in any way? Should I expect any natural parental obligations on my part to follow?

Do I own the information contained in my full diploid genome or the numerous combinations of haploid genomes that reside in my ovaries? Does my guarding against "unfair" use of my genetic material extend to a right to lay seige against another person's body? Does surrendering or making my genetic material available in whatever way automatically make me accountable if it is used to create a person, perhaps without my knowledge or consent, and while I would (legally) be denied the choice to terminate the developing life while it remained inside its surrogate mother?

[Coito ergo sum]

Nope. She is a VOLUNTARY gestational parent. Her consent was given through the act of allowing a man to ejaculate insider her and deposit sperm inside her. When she allowed that to happen, she accepted the know risks of pregnancy and took upon herself the risk of being obligated to nine months as a gestational parent. Unless she was raped, in which case I support her right to abort.

This does not accurately describe the situation in the U.S. today, where abortion is well known and available. Most women, knowing the risks, are consenting only to the risk of having to get an abortion to avoid nine months as a gestational parent, not to any risk of actually undergoing those nine months. Your statement might hold true for Catholic women who know they wouldn't get an abortion, but not for most women.

In other words, Seth is attempting to suggest there is an implied obligation, similar to one where you impliedly agree to pay the price on a product before you leave the store. He seems to think that one can as easily imply-in-fact that a woman intends to waive child support on behalf of a child who is not yet born and may never be born, whether because there is never a fertiilzation, there is a natural miscarriage or there is an abortion or anything else. To suggest that it goes without saying that a woman agrees to that because she consents to be penetrated by a penis is speculative in the absurd.

The reality is that in this context unless the parties actually agree to something, we don't know what they are subjectively intending, other than that they are agreeing to bump uglies.

[Warren Dew]

To maybe throw some other light on this debate - imagine that I allow someone some sort of access to my person, and that other person picks up some cells from my body, which they then, utilising whatever technology, use to clone me via a surrogate mother. What are my rights and responsibilities during this pregnancy and with respect to any resultant viable infant that emerges? Do I have the right to compel the female either to abort or to maintain that pregnancy to its natural end? Am I naturally responsible for any viable infant that emerges from that pregnancy given that it's COMPLETELY "my" genetic material in there?

You would have no rights to compel abortion or carrying the fetus to term. I think that in most states, once an infant emerged, you could be sued for child support, probably successfully, and you could sue for custody, probably sucessfully. However, in many states, this would have to happen in the first year, since after that the birth mother and her husband, if any, are considered to be the legal mother and father. Florida might be different because they've modified their laws to facilitate embryo donation, but I suspect that to take advantage of the Florida laws, you might have to sign relevant papers in advance.

What if I willingly donate eggs somewhere, and those eggs are used (with or without my implicit or explicit consent) by a surrogate mother without removing my DNA? Would I have any right to intervene with that gestation in any way? Should I expect any natural parental obligations on my part to follow?

You wouldn't be able to intervene in the gestation. Whether you have parental obligation probably varies from state to state.

Do I own the information contained in my full diploid genome or the numerous combinations of haploid genomes that reside in my ovaries? Does my guarding against "unfair" use of my genetic material extend to a right to lay seige against another person's body? Does surrendering or making my genetic material available in whatever way automatically make me accountable if it is used to create a person, perhaps without my knowledge or consent, and while I would (legally) be denied the choice to terminate the developing life while it remained inside its surrogate mother?

This probably belongs in a separate thread. There was a big fight over patenting genes from samples where the patient might not have consented to such a patent, but I don't know the current status.

[Warren Dew]

In other words, Seth is attempting to suggest there is an implied obligation, similar to one where you impliedly agree to pay the price on a product before you leave the store. He seems to think that one can as easily imply-in-fact that a woman intends to waive child support on behalf of a child who is not yet born and may never be born, whether because there is never a fertiilzation, there is a natural miscarriage or there is an abortion or anything else. To suggest that it goes without saying that a woman agrees to that because she consents to be penetrated by a penis is speculative in the absurd.

The reality is that in this context unless the parties actually agree to something, we don't know what they are subjectively intending, other than that they are agreeing to bump uglies.

I think it's reasonable to say that they're agreeing to the consequences of current law, which is that the man has no control over any resulting pregnancy, and both have support obligations to the child.

[Copyleft]

Yes - it's unequal - but that inequality is a product of mother nature.

The strong dominating the weak is also a product of mother nature; humanist society should be striving for something better than that.

Think of the logical extension of what Seth's theory would entail. If the man can compel the pregnancy go to term, because he has an interest in the child and the woman impliedly agreed to carry the baby, if the man wants her to, then doesn't he also have a say in how that fetus is cared for? What if she doesn't want the baby, but he serves her with notice that she must continue to carry the baby to term - so, she decides to drink and smoke during pregnancy? Does he now have a right to tell her what to eat, drink and breathe in? Isn't this "implied ceding of the uterus" theory really a theory that calls for the implied ceding of female autonomy completely? She must follow the diet prescribed by the man - she must go to the doctor when he says so - and if she doesn't and something happens to the baby, he sues her for damages?

No, I'm agreeing with Seth from the other direction. I don't suggest that the man should be granted a say in the woman's decision; I'm saying that his LACK of rights in the situation entail a commensurate lack of responsibility for the outcome. "Her choice (which is absolute) = her consequences."

[Coito ergo sum]

Yes - it's unequal - but that inequality is a product of mother nature.

The strong dominating the weak is also a product of mother nature; humanist society should be striving for something better than that.

Better, yes. But, to suggest that because of the act of sex, a woman becomes an involuntary servant of the man who she has sex with, or that children would be deprived of child support by virtue of the fact that the mother did not get an express agreement from each sexual partner, each time she has sex, for that person to agree to support children resulting from that coitus, does not appear to be an improvement.

Think of the logical extension of what Seth's theory would entail. If the man can compel the pregnancy go to term, because he has an interest in the child and the woman impliedly agreed to carry the baby, if the man wants her to, then doesn't he also have a say in how that fetus is cared for? What if she doesn't want the baby, but he serves her with notice that she must continue to carry the baby to term - so, she decides to drink and smoke during pregnancy? Does he now have a right to tell her what to eat, drink and breathe in? Isn't this "implied ceding of the uterus" theory really a theory that calls for the implied ceding of female autonomy completely? She must follow the diet prescribed by the man - she must go to the doctor when he says so - and if she doesn't and something happens to the baby, he sues her for damages?

No, I'm agreeing with Seth from the other direction. I don't suggest that the man should be granted a say in the woman's decision; I'm saying that his LACK of rights in the situation entail a commensurate lack of responsibility for the outcome. "Her choice (which is absolute) = her consequences."

And, on that issue, your and Seth's analysis forgets one interested party and renders that party, an actual living, breathing human being, irrelevant to the discussion. The child. If that child is born, he has not had any opportunity to waive the 1/2 of the child support that is supposed to come from one or the other of the parents. The child is simply stripped of the right to support from the father because the mother had the last possible chance to prevent the birth.

Further, we are premising this right to a fictional abortion - a pretend abortion - on some sort of implied undertaking by the woman, and yet we absolve the male of any and all implied undertakings. In Seth's theory, the man is undertaking only to shoot his load - he has no other implied obligations. Why is it not just as reasonable to suggest that the main's ejaculation into the female is an unconditional gift of sperm, and that if he doesn't want the sperm used for babymaking he should get that expressly agreed to before he ejaculates?

[lordpasternack]

You also seem to be coming from the point of view of someone who has no problem with abortion and considers it a routine form of birth control.  That's a fine point of view, but it's not the only one out there.  There are many women who consider abortion immoral, or would refuse to have one for religious reasons.  Since birth control can fail, those women would, as I said, be more reluctant to have sex, so on average, women would be more reluctant to have sex.  As I said, that's probably also okay.

Well, I don't know - the ominous threat of paternity suits and child support money for unplanned kids doesn't seem to make many men overly cautious! But yeah - all you can do is make these services available to women (and also appropriate services to men) and try to win people over to what is deemed to be the best scenario with respect to sexual behaviour, family planning, and parental responsibility. You just do your best to make sure people are given the choice, whatever the choice may be…

However, I'm also not convinced that it's an improvement to replace women who "trick" their husbands or partners into having children by "forgetting" their pills with men who "trick" their Catholic girlfriends into getting pregnant by "accidentally" folding their condoms enough to induce holes.

I don't know. From a purely utilitarian stance, looking at the two scenarios in a vaccum - in the first example, the "tricked" party has absolutely no recourse, irrespective of any overriding religious opinions that would theoretically stop them from taking any recourse. In the second example, the "tricked" party has recourse to resolve the situation in their interests via abortion and also in future via long-term contraception that she needn't tell her partner about, and which he'd likely remain none-the-wiser. Whether she would or wouldn't take any recourse is besides the point. The choice is always there, dangling in front of her. 

I'll bet that there are MANY Catholic women who seek and go through with abortions. There are a fair number of rabid anti-choicers who seek and go through with abortions either for themselves or their daughters, some even with the gall to make their strong views heard all the way through the clinic building and maybe even during or after the procedure. I heard of one story where a girl called the doctor a "murderer" just when it was too late for him to halt the procedure, and he had no choice but to continue…

On the other hand, you could take a more purely feminist stance and say that women are so manipulated and subjugated by men and society that it makes more sense to place far more prior onus on the male (and an onus that he can never rescind) and let women make choices and operate sexually on that basis. I'm not quite so fond of that stance - although I agree it does have some merit - merit that is completely culturally sensitive. It works on the basis that women aren't really up to making family planning decisions themselves after all, even where the choices are widely available and accessible, and that males just need to be hooked in as collateral against the pressure women feel to make them babies. 

Men should take some responsibility and keep it in their pants, and just not have vaginal sex, and just not spunk if they want to avoid unwanted parental obligation! And the women should just keep their legs shut, and… ! Oh no, wait, you don't understand - it's the wimminz body, and the wimminz are PRESSURED sometimes to become parents, and even where we give the wimminz all the resources to be empowered and liberated, we have to acknowledge that they're still often just helpless victims of society, and we can't very well act as though we expect them to be accountable for themselves and take actions in what they deem their best interests as true autonomous individuals and adults. We start with the premise that most run-of-the-mill women are almost like children, who need feminists to look after them and guide them, and put the onus on the men to be most "responsible" for his fertility, and everything else that he might do to subjugate women.