With all this talk of abortion and whether or not a woman should be able to do what she likes with the baby, I'd like to put to you good people a moral dilemma I'm facing right now; one which is not nearly as serious as having to face an abortion, but still kinda relevant.

I've been seeing this girl for about five months and it's been great. We've been having sex for about three of those months. She and I are both 17, and we've only been using condoms for contraception. Recently, I've been faced with my friend getting a girl pregnant even while using condoms and a reminder from my parents that my girlfriend really should be on the pill if we're going to continue to get it on.

So, I kind of broached the subject the other day, and she was in agreement. Problem is, her dad's a doctor and is highly against the use of the pill as contraception for all number of highly dubious (in my eyes, but why the hell does that count?) medical reasons. After talking to him, she still wants to go on the pill (and is legally allowed to without her parent's consent) but says she'd feel guilty about going behind their back.

I'm really not sure where I should stand. On one hand, I really don't want to pressure her into going on to it, as I believe people should be able to whatever the fuck they want with their bodies, but on the other...I really don't want to face a pregnancy/months on end without sex.


Where do I stand here?

IUD, if she can get it.

Mirena offers 5 years of nearly 100% protection with very little side-effects, though it does hurt like a bastard to get it installed. That, or go to Planned Parenthood independent from her father to get the pill.

Take the pill like they tell one too, not skipping days or counting on it when you are also on certain antibiotics or have the shits. The pill is not perfect but it works well when used responsibly and when you don't already have high blood pressure. If you smoke, beware of blood clots. A friend of mine almost lost both her legs due to this side effect.

Do NOT count on condoms alone to do the job if you are having sex with any regularity.

EDIT: If she doesn't want to go on the pill behind her daddy's back, she certainly doesn't want to potentially face being pregnant and telling him or getting an abortion without telling him. There is absolutely no reason for her not to go on the pill if she is cleared for a prescription. None, especially with the varieties of pills available these days.

irwinclan wrote:

Keep fucking without condoms (or with). But, should she get pregnant, tell her you don't want to keep the baby. If she keeps it, you're absolved of any responsibilities!

Easy peasy, my man.

Marsupialized wrote:

only here wrote:

Marsupialized wrote:Who are abortion laws protecting?

answered in the bumming a cigarette thread imo.

That same pregnant chick I wouldn't give a cigarette to, I wouldn't want a LAW passed saying she shouldn't smoke if she wanted to. That's her business. Same reason I don't run an abortion clinic out of my apartment.

i'm just glad that poll is out there to show how we (80% at last count) really feel about fetuses (i.e. they aren't tapeworms). it was a good discussion until someone mentioned abortion last night.

Johnny 13 wrote:Are you married? Cause you come off like a single guy.

strange, it's not like rick to overlook a question...

Mandroid2.0 wrote:IUD, if she can get it.

Mirena offers 5 years of nearly 100% protection with very little side-effects, though it does hurt like a bastard to get it installed. That, or go to Planned Parenthood independent from her father to get the pill.

Take the pill like they tell one too, not skipping days or counting on it when you are also on certain antibiotics or have the shits. The pill is not perfect but it works well when used responsibly and when you don't already have high blood pressure. If you smoke, beware of blood clots. A friend of mine almost lost both her legs due to this side effect.

Do NOT count on condoms alone to do the job if you are having sex with any regularity.

EDIT: If she doesn't want to go on the pill behind her daddy's back, she certainly doesn't want to potentially face being pregnant and telling him or getting an abortion without telling him. There is absolutely no reason for her not to go on the pill if she is cleared for a prescription. None, especially with the varieties of pills available these days.

Thanks for the advice, Mandroid. We have discussed this, and yes, obviously getting pregnant would be a whole lot worse for her than going on the pill without his knowledge. In my more cynical moments, I'm tempted to believe he's more driven by a denial that she's having sex and the belief that in discouraging her from using the pill he'll be able to get her to abstain. Will try and lightly bring it up a bit more...

Heh, fingers crossed it's not all because she wants to have sex a whole lot less than I do.

Planned Parenthood has been a godsend for a lot of females that I know, including myself. Planned Parenthood is the only reason I've been able to afford getting my annual pap exams for the last few years. Planned Parenthood hooked me up with tools to prevent pregnancy (pills, IUD, Plan B), methods to prevent breast and cervical cancer, and pretty much the only health care I've enjoyed in the last 5 years. I would encourage any of you with a bit of extra money in your pockets to drop off a small donation to your local PP (at your convenience) in return for all that they do for a whole lot of women when private health care will not help them out with their reproductive needs.

As an aside, when I did have health insurance through my husband, I wasn't covered for both the cost of birth control pills or the costs incurred due to a pregnancy. They did allow me the Depo shot at a reduced cost, which made me gain 25 pounds, made my hair fall out, and essentially reduced me to a bipolar psycho who generally had no interest in sex anyway, which wore off after about 18 months. At the same time, my husband was completely covered for Viagra and various other erectile dysfunction medications, such that he could impregnate me if necessary.

Johnny 13 wrote:

Rick Reuben wrote:

johnny 13 wrote:The woman owns her body

The womb is her body, not the entity within it. The entity within it is a mutual creation. Why are people so programmed to believe that a baby is part of a woman's body? It was not in her womb when she was born, so it is not. Men are essential to the creation of a baby. I don't think you can make a rule on exactly how much input a husband should have into an abortion decision, but the argument that he should have zero is bullshit.

The woman owns the embryo, and is the one building it. It is her vitality that sustains it, and it is her body that provides every resource. It is hers and of her as much as her spleen is.

The embryo has no sapience, which means there is no person. A woman with rights cannot be in thrall to a hollow cluster of cells. I maintain that the unequal burden of pregnancy has an inverse relation to the value of the desire to decide the outcome of that pregnancy.

Jeez Louise, the tapeworm post was a deadpan response to just how stupid Rick's posting has been.

Johnny has stated far more eloquently than I could that giving a cluster of cells equal footing with living beings just doesn't make much sense. Saying said cluster of cells should have the same rights as the woman carrying it makes even less sense.

Rick Reuben wrote:

Mandroid2.0 wrote:Do you honestly think that most women would enter into a planned pregnancy without considerable thought? As an adult?!? It's a pretty fucking huge thing to agree to.

Yeah, sure. Do you think that all abortions in the first three months are by women who were caught by surprise by the pregnancy? Seems likely that some are women who knew they were at risk of getting pregnant, got pregnant, and then said, "Wait a minute, maybe I'm not ready to go through with this." People change minds all the time.

Something like 40-50% of all pregnancies are unplanned. The vast majority of abortions that take place in the US are because of failed birth control, and that number is well below the failure rate of contraception, so most people who find themselves pregnant, end up continuing with it even if it was something they were trying to avoid. Run the math. We are a nation of 300 million plus. There are a little over 1 million abortions a year performed here. Being stingy and saying that only a third of the population is sexually active and capable of reproducing, the numbers just don't reflect what you are saying. 1 million anything in America is just a shrug, hardly noticeable. People are careful, and taking pains to control their reproduction. It is unkind to make it seem like women are callous and acting on whims, when the population really seems to be doing a great job managing all of this.

Rick Reuben wrote:

Rick Reuben wrote:

Mark Hansen wrote:

Rick Reuben wrote:I would not want to be in a life long relationship with someone who would be that unstable.

There you go. If your wife aborted without consulting you, you would want out of the relationship. That means you would punish her for doing what she did, thus proving that you felt entitled to the consultation.

That's not my quote. I think it's Johnny 13's or Marsupialized's.

You're right, I went back and deleted that sentence, as that was not the one I was commenting on anyway. My comment was regarding the next statement , which you did make, starting out "There you go..."

My question about that statement is, why would you equate getting a divorce from someone who you are not compatible with, with a form of punishment? Isn't it better for both parties to part ways when they discover they are incompatible on a basic level such as this?