Abortion and fathers' rights

drkpower

Drumpot wrote: »

Fundamental rights ?

Dont put yourself in a position to get pregnant in the first place.

How many women have abortions because of health concerns ? I dont actually have a problem with abortions due to genuine health concerns or rape as they are legitimate practical reasons.

What you basically promote is no personal responsibility. Once we go down the road of "well technically I didnt intend on this happening" , where do we stop with the excuses?

Its so pathetic that people think that a child is basically made by a woman. That is basically what the defenders of "100% woman choice" are saying. At the risk of beating a drum that sounds very camp, its just downright sexism and selective equality. Makes me sick that people can simplify the conception and subsequent decision of abortion of a child down to simple fundamental discrepancies that a modern medical rich world has mastered.

You seem to have gone off on some kind of irrelevant rant.

The topic is whether a father has/should have a right in the decision to have an abortion. I have explained to you how the concept of father's rights in respect of abortion is misplaced when you consider what the putative justification for abortion is in the first place.

Sid_Justice

RachaelVO wrote: »

In OBGYN term when you have an abortion because you don't want a baby you have it as a form of contraception. That's what they refer to it as.

My point is that conception has already taken place, abortion is not contraception, it's abortion. It's birth-control etc. but not specifically contraception.

RachaelVO wrote: »

38-42 weeks is totally normal. Stats show that the majority of women go over their due date.

If the majority of women go over their due date why don't they add a few days to the due date? I would imagine the reasons women go over their due date is because a due date is an estimation. Ultrasound, fundal height, last period, time of sexual intercourse etc. are estimations. I take your point that pregnancy length is variable (I did make this point myself). My point here is due date inaccuracy is due to both longer gestation and incorrect estimation of conception date.

RachaelVO wrote: »

The boy girl thing is to do with strong and fast swimmers. Boy swimmers swim fast but die sooner. Girl swimmers don't swim so fast but live longer, so depending on when you have sex during your cycle can (with I believe 90% accuracy) dictate boy or girl. The research was done in Erasmus University in Rotterdam.

I've looked up this research, thank you.

RachaelVO wrote: »

Hmmm, that's a confusing statement! So you think everyone should wait until they are married before they have sex (not saying that's wrong)!

No, I will explain in response to the next post.

Drumpot wrote: »

Keep your legs closed or take the proper precaution and you wont have to make a decision.

I think you're being both naively and cynical at the same time. The only guaranteed way to stay unpregnant is abstinence. All contraceptive methods have a failure rate, failure due to misuse (condom bursting, missing a pill, being sick and on anti-biotics etc.) and just inherent failure. While contraception, especially hormonal (implant, coils,COCP) are very effective not all women can use them. Women at risk of breast cancer or who smoke are not advised to use combined oral contraceptive pills as an example.

Secondly, it's your attitude that makes pregnancy sound like a punishment you receive for committing a crime called sex. I do agree that the attitude is somewhat admirable. If you do become pregnant, you do have a certain obligation to follow through with the pregnancy to the best of your ability. But I think it's very easy to have this staunch opinions on experiences you'll never have. I think it's impossible not to sound glib.

Aurum

Drumpot wrote: »

Are we talking about the health of the mother ? So where is the responsibility of the mother to make sure that they do not end up in a situation where their own health could be jeopardised by that of a new child ?

Keep your legs closed or take the proper precaution and you wont have to make a decision. As soon as you allow yourself to be made pregnant (rape aside), you cannot start speaking about fundamental rights if the threat has come from poor decision making. Once you have the life of another (dont quote me any EU or whatever BS description of what constitutes a human being) inside you, as far as I am concerned you have to take personal responsibility if it happened while you were consenting during the conception.

Once again, society likes to be blase to the concept of personal responsibility because it has labelled abortion on the shelf as an accepted product and made it ok.

What about circumstances that involved failed contraception? Women can use multiple methods of birth control, or make the decision to be sterilized, and there is still the possibility that these will fail and that pregnancy may occur. The women in question were hardly being cavalier about the prevention of an unwanted pregnancy, as you put it "allowing themselves to become pregnant". Do you really feel that any women who definitely doesn't want to have a child ought to remain abstinent for life?

JonJoeDali wrote: »

I'd be in favour of locking women up who threaten to "abort" (i.e. kill) their own flesh and blood.

It would be ridiculously difficult prosecute someone for this crime, if it were to exist. What about instances where a women was pregnant and fell down the stairs, and subsequently lost her child; how could you prove intent to abort? Or if the women was very depressed, tried to kill herself but failed, killing only the fetus; is she also guilty of murder?

southsiderosie

You seem to be contradicting yourself here.

First you say this:

Drumpot wrote: »

I am a simple person and simply believe that the people who make the child make the decision.

But then you say this:

Drumpot wrote: »

Keep your legs closed or take the proper precaution and you wont have to make a decision. As soon as you allow yourself to be made pregnant (rape aside), you cannot start speaking about fundamental rights if the threat has come from poor decision making. Once you have the life of another (dont quote me any EU or whatever BS description of what constitutes a human being) inside you, as far as I am concerned you have to take personal responsibility if it happened while you were consenting during the conception.

So now you have put the ball squarely back in the woman's court again.

You can't say there should be a joint decision making process and then bang on about a woman "allowing" herself to get pregnant. The implication of the latter is that the burden is on her not to get pregnant. And if that is the case, and the burden is HERS, then why would the decision not be hers whether or not to have an abortion? You can't have it both ways.

Drumpot

drkpower wrote: »

You seem to have gone off on some kind of irrelevant rant.

The topic is whether a father has/should have a right in the decision to have an abortion. I have explained to you how the concept of father's rights in respect of abortion is misplaced when you consider what the putative justification for abortion is in the first place.

No, fathers rights are misplaced when people try to justify one member making the decision because Abortion has been legalised and conformed by laws that simply look at things from a one dimensional point of view.

All you have stated is that because a womans body is her body, it makes the man null and void.

Drumpot

Aurum wrote: »

What about circumstances that involved failed contraception? Women can use multiple methods of birth control, or make the decision to be sterilized, and there is still the possibility that these will fail and that pregnancy may occur. The women in question were hardly being cavalier about the prevention of an unwanted pregnancy, as you put it "allowing themselves to become pregnant". Do you really feel that any women who definitely doesn't want to have a child ought to remain abstinent for life?

Why do we have adoption ? Because there are literally hundreds of thousands of people who cant have children.

If a person gets pregnant unintentionally, why should that mean that the father cannot have a say in what happens to the child ? Mistakes and accidents happen, but we arent talking about buying the wrong size TV, we are talking about having a child.

Again, personal responsibility does not seem to concern anybody here.

drkpower

Drumpot wrote: »

All you have stated is that because a womans body is her body, it makes the man null and void.

No; I have said that the only reason abortion is/should be permissable is because the foetus threatens the fundamental maternal rights. The foetus does not threaten the paternal fundamental rights.

Why can you not understand this very straightforward point?

drkpower

Drumpot wrote: »

If a person gets pregnant unintentionally, why should that mean that the father cannot have a say in what happens to the child ?

Because the foetus threatens the fundamental rights of the mother. It does not threaten the fundamental rights of the father.

Drumpot

southsiderosie wrote: »

You seem to be contradicting yourself here.

First you say this:


But then you say this:



So now you have put the ball squarely back in the woman's court again.

You can't say there should be a joint decision making process and then bang on about a woman "allowing" herself to get pregnant. The implication of the latter is that the burden is on her not to get pregnant. And if that is the case, and the burden is HERS, then why would the decision not be hers whether or not to have an abortion? You can't have it both ways.

Ah, selective quotes , we all love them..

I have always maintained that its a joint decision. This thread is about "fathers rights". If there is an equivilant decision on whether to abort, then fair enough.

I am not for abortion at all.

I can understand and accept it in rape cases (or under medical advice), but outside of that I dont condone it. In the absence of this, I dont see why the father should not have a say in whether HIS child should live or die. Its the child of the people who conceived it, not the mother.

K-9

Drumpot wrote: »

That is indeed the question. I am not saying a man should have the right to choose, I am saying it should be made as a pair.

Indeed, equality.

The question of how a judgement is decided is more difficult to conclude.

Indeed, but it's important we have answers to the equality we want and the problems it offers.

There are so many variables that can be involved. If a woman does not want an abortion and a man does, it seems logical that the man should be allowed to "annull" himself from the birth and as such the woman can have the child herself. This gives the power to the woman and gives life a chance. I see no negative from this.

It seems logical alright from a mens and women's rights view.

From a child's viewpoint there's a negative. With a female abortion the child well, doesn't exist. With a Male abortion it does!

If the woman does not want the child and the man does, it gets more grey. Should a woman be made bear a child that she does not want ? Well, that is more open to scrutiny, but I dont see why people/women should be allowed to ignore their own responsibilities of new life simply because its a painful inconvenience to them. Like fathers should not be allowed to just leave single mothers fend for themselves, I do not see why it should be that differant that women should be allowed to simply abort a child because it doest suit them unless real/serious medical reasons dictate otherwise.

I'm confused now, seriously, not being smart. You seem to think abortion is available too liberally now so why would you argue for a male equivalent? Surely you'd want to restrict abortion and have stricter rules and then apply the same to men?

Otherwise it's equality for the sake of it to me.

drkpower

Drumpot wrote: »

In the absence of this, I dont see why the father should not have a say in whether HIS child should live or die. Its the child of the people who conceived it, not the mother.

If a father of a one week old child wishes it to die, should he have a 'say' in that decision?

metrovelvet

When a man can get pregnant we can talk about equality. Otherwise we are not starting off equally.

Abortion is not just about not wanting the child, its also about not wanting to be pregnant.

Why is it so hard to get? You are not a father until the child is born and your name is on the birthcert.

Another fantasy land magical thinking thread about fathers rights.

Drumpot

drkpower wrote: »

Because the foetus threatens the fundamental rights of the mother. It does not threaten the fundamental rights of the father.

Yes, so, like Irish Law, the man has no rights over his child once its in the woman . . I get it . .

I just fundamentally disagree with the principle.

Nodin

Drumpot wrote: »

My wife is expecting our 2nd child and I see all the symptoms and pain she goes through. I discuss exactly what I am discussing here and while I dont envy the pain I do envy the fact that I didnt bond straight away with my first like she did. She had the pleasure of having him with her for 9 months before I even felt him and for that I do feel a little jealous. The whole discussion of abortion and womans bodies is discussed here as the whole bearing a child is such an awful ordeal. Even for a single mother, this can be worth it. Being adopted, I suppose my feelings on abortion are certainly more sensitive to others. Had my biological mother not taken responsibility for her mistake, I wouldnt be around today to discuss this with you.
...............

...this rather presupposes that all are in the same position and go through the same emotional and physical experience. Such is not the case.

Drumpot

K-9 wrote: »

I'm confused now, seriously, not being smart. You seem to think abortion is available too liberally now so why would you argue for a male equivalent? Surely you'd want to restrict abortion and have stricter rules and then apply the same to men?

Otherwise it's equality for the sake of it to me.

Lets be clear. I dont aprove of abortion.

This thread was on "abortion and a fathers rights". I am only discussing abortion in terms of how I believe the decision should be made.

Outside of rape and medical advice, I dont condone it at all.

drkpower

Drumpot wrote: »

Yes, so, like Irish Law, the man has no rights over his child once its in the woman . . I get it . .

I just fundamentally disagree with the principle.

A father never has the right to decide if his child lives or dies. Full stop.

Nor does a mother. Unless her fundamental rights are being threatened by it.

K-9

Drumpot wrote: »

Yes, so, like Irish Law, the man has no rights over his child once its in the woman . . I get it . .

I just fundamentally disagree with the principle.

Technically the state can, or at least apply to have rights over the pregnant woman, hasn't worked out too well in practice.

metrovelvet

drkpower wrote: »

A father never has the right to decide if his child lives or dies. Full stop.

Nor does a mother. Unless her fundamental rights are being threatened by it.

What are fundamental rights?

Sid_Justice

metrovelvet wrote: »

When a man can get pregnant we can talk about equality. Otherwise we are not starting off equally.

Abortion is not just about not wanting the child, its also about not wanting to be pregnant.

Why is it so hard to get? You are not a father until the child is born and your name is on the birthcert.

Another fantasy land magical thinking thread about fathers rights.

Is a pregnant woman with no children a mother?

Drumpot

Nodin wrote: »

...this rather presupposes that all are in the same position and go through the same emotional and physical experience. Such is not the case.

How so ?

I dont presume that my circumstances are the same as everybody or anybody.

In terms of the pain women go through, I think its fair to say that there are differant degrees of pain. I only state this from differant women I have spoken to about pregnancy.

But why do all the people who keep replying and disagreeing with me , fail to actually discuss PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY?

Is the word "accident" supposed to make abortion acceptable ?

Is the word, PAIN supposed to make abortion right ?

Or is it simply that because I will never know what its like to be pregnant, make me a hypocrite or whatever ?

metrovelvet

Sid_Justice wrote: »

Is a pregnant woman with no children a mother?

She is generally referred to as 'mother to be.'

drkpower

metrovelvet wrote: »

What are fundamental rights?

Good qyestion!

In this context, the rights to bodily integrity, health and life are those that are considered to be at threat from the foetus and thus putatively justify an abortion.

Drumpot

drkpower wrote: »

A father never has the right to decide if his child lives or dies. Full stop.

Nor does a mother. Unless her fundamental rights are being threatened by it.

FFS.

Keep hiding behind fundamental laws that prove nothing other then your inability to discuss this topic outside of your conformist views.

metrovelvet

drkpower wrote: »

Good qyestion!

In this context, the rights to bodily integrity, health and life are those that are considered to be at threat from the foetus and thus putatively justify an abortion.

hmnnn....have to think about that....

I know you are right...technically....that her right to bodily integrity supercedes the foetus' right to bodily integrity [and please people dont jump in with the clump of cells bull**** argument because that is the same as the 'how many angels can you fit on the head of a pin argument]

but of all the women I know who have had abortions...preserving that right was not the reason behind the abortions.

drkpower

Drumpot wrote: »

Keep hiding behind fundamental laws that prove nothing other then your inability to discuss this topic outside of your conformist views.

Fundamental rights.

The very heart of this discussion is fundamental rights, considering that competing fundamental rights is the putative justification for abortion and given that the father's fundamental rights are not at issue.

It isnt my fault that you are unable to grasp the concept.

Sid_Justice

metrovelvet wrote: »

She is generally referred to as 'mother to be.'

So if you met a married charming couple on the street. And she said she was pregnant and the man standing beside her was the father you'd say:

"Oh, dear oh dear. You are quite misinformed, he is not the father of the unborn until it is born and certified."

Are you saying a neonate has no father? You're mad.

K-9

Drumpot wrote: »

Lets be clear. I dont aprove of abortion.

This thread was on "abortion and a fathers rights". I am only discussing abortion in terms of how I believe the decision should be made.

Outside of rape and medical advice, I dont condone it at all.

Well I would be similar but I recognise the reality.

Reminds me of Garret Fitzgerald on Question Time on BBC in the early 90's asked about divorce, "I'm a romantic and think marriage is for life". He then went onto explain why that isn't practical.

I don't buy the "well you shouldn't have had sex" line as that applies to both sexes.

The big difference is the child exists under male abortion and will eventually know the father disowned him/her. That happens under adoption but there's a willing couple or person to take on the responsibility.

Male abortion goes on atm and can have consequences for the child. I don't know if legalising that is a good thing atm, I don't think people take sex responsibly enough as it is. It's seen as a right rather than a responsibility.

Yes, women have an "out". If you think that "out" is taken too easily now, why look for it for men? Why make a situation you think is bad, worse?

"Because dem wimminz have rights, we must have them too, though I actually disagree with said rights"! :eek:

metrovelvet

Sid_Justice wrote: »

So if you met a married charming couple on the street. And she said she was pregnant and the man standing beside her was the father you'd say:

"Oh, dear oh dear. You are quite misinformed, he is not the father of the unborn until it is born and certified."

Are you saying a neonate has no father? You're mad.

Legally a neonate born outside of marriage has no father. Thats right, for the same reasons my four year old has no father. Paternity is not established.

If they are married then the man has a legal relationship with the child and the child has a father.

Nodin

Drumpot wrote: »

How so ?

I dont presume that my circumstances are the same as everybody or anybody.

In terms of the pain women go through, I think its fair to say that there are differant degrees of pain. I only state this from differant women I have spoken to about pregnancy.

But why do all the people who keep replying and disagreeing with me , fail to actually discuss PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY?

Is the word "accident" supposed to make abortion acceptable ?

Is the word, PAIN supposed to make abortion right ?

Or is it simply that because I will never know what its like to be pregnant, make me a hypocrite or whatever ?

You paint rather simplistic scenarios. People don't abort children because of accidentally becoming pregnant, they do so because they become pregnant in situations where they believe they cannot raise a child, actually be pregnant etc.

Imagine, for instance, a drug addict becoming pregnant. Going through with a pregnancy would be problematic, then theres the effects on the foetus of the drug use.

drkpower

metrovelvet wrote: »

but of all the women I know who have had abortions...preserving that right was not the reason behind the abortions.

Certain freedoms are usually based on certain fundamental rights. We may exercise those freedoms for other reasons, but the reason we have them is because of fundamental rights.

I have a fundamental right to privacy. It allows me to do have sex with my wife in private. But I rarely cite my fundamental right to privacy as the reason I want to have sex with my wife.

metrovelvet

Yeah. I only know middle class abortion problems. LIke wanting to finish a degree, pregnancy from extra marital affairs, one where the father was a different race to the husband and wasnt sure what colour the child would come out, another wanted to leave her husband and the pregnancy would get in the way. Those kind of problems.

I dont know any poor starving rape victim stories.

Drumpot

drkpower wrote: »

Fundamental rights.

The very heart of this discussion is fundamental rights, considering that competing fundamental rights is the putative justification for abortion and given that the father's fundamental rights are not at issue.

It isnt my fault that you are unable to grasp the concept.

No, its your fault you are incapable of discussing the topic without referring to what current legislation prescribes.

Disagreeing with your very insular concept is not being unable to grasp the concept. Its simply seeing the ills of its folly.

up for anything

JonJoeDali wrote: »

I'd be in favour of locking women up who threaten to "abort" (i.e. kill) their own flesh and blood.

So Irish... locked up women when they did have children, lock them up now if they decide not to.

JonJoeDali wrote: »

I could never marry a pro-abortion woman like you. Even if you were the last woman on earth.

It's really unfeminine and seriously off-putting.

:rolleyes:

southsiderosie wrote: »

Do you think that women who have abortions don't feel guilty?

Why should guilt come into it?

The Brigadier wrote: »

I agree, much in the same way that the childs right to life trumps any notion that a woman can just make a choice to murder it.

Murder... such an emotive word.

Drumpot wrote: »

Is childbirth a curse ?

Why do you think periods were nicknamed the curse years ago. A curse when you get them, a curse if you don't.

jive wrote: »

The foetus is half theirs.

No reason why they can't have half the foetus if that's their right.


Judging by the tone of this thread it won't be long before we're back to the days of men making the decision as to whether the mother or the child survived when the situation demanded one be sacrificed in order for the other to survive.

Sid_Justice

metrovelvet wrote: »

Legally a neonate born outside of marriage has no father. Thats right, for the same reasons my four year old has no father. Paternity is not established.

If they are married then the man has a legal relationship with the child and the child has a father.

Legally a neonate found abandoned on the steps of a church has no mother. Just so you know.

drkpower

Drumpot wrote: »

No, its your fault you are incapable of discussing the topic without referring to what current legislation prescribes.

Disagreeing with your very insular concept is not being unable to grasp the concept. Its simply seeing the ills of its folly.

Current legislation does not prescribe anything! You do know that there is no legislation governing (the right to an) abortion (in Ireland), dont you....?:rolleyes:

My so called 'insular' concept of the justification for abortion is the very justification that almost every state that has granted abortion has recognised.:D

metrovelvet

Sid_Justice wrote: »

Legally a neonate found abandoned on the steps of a church has no mother. Just so you know.

I knew that already but thanks. Whats your point?

partyatmygaff

southsiderosie wrote: »

Considering a fetus at the point of conception to be 'human' is more a religious point than a philosophical or biological one. Catholic/Christian teaching posits that life begins at conception.

If life does not begin at conception then when does it begin? To say that life begins at an arbitrary x number of weeks post conception defies basic biological principles. You, I and every single human being on this planet began life as a single diploid cell. These cells divided again and again and multiplied. They still do multiply every second and each and every one of them (Excluding mutations e.t.c.) has a genome that remains unchanged to that of the zygote. Even at death, your genome is still that of that unicellular zygote.

Take for example a man who lives to 120 who was born at 40 weeks. That's 6280 weeks of life. Who is to say that the first 0.64% of his life was nothing? Was he not human for those 40 weeks? Did he spring in to life at 24 weeks old?

Biologically speaking and only that, human life begins at conception.

But certain philosophies posit that what makes us human is consciousness, not conception (or even the fact that we are technically alive).

Are those in vegetative states or those with debilitating neurological illnesses not human then? Would you find it perfectly acceptable to kill a man who was in a coma with a 20% chance of gaining consciousness? He may not be conscious at present but he is alive and just as a fetus, he has potential to gain consciousness following a certain period of time. The mothers of long-term coma patients would never view their child as being inhuman or in some way dead. If there is even the slightest chance that they will regain consciousness at some later point they will ensure that that chance of gaining consciousness is maximised. Why is the case different for unborn children?

metrovelvet

drkpower wrote: »

Current legislation does not prescribe anything! You do know that there is no legislation governing (the right to an) abortion (in Ireland), dont you....?:rolleyes:

My so called 'insular' concept of the justification for abortion is the very justification that almost every state that has granted abortion has recognised.:D

In the US its under right to privacy.

But in Ireland the foetus right supercedes the mothers right to bodily integrity as you call it? What other states guarantee absolute rights to bodily integrity?

Drumpot

Nodin wrote: »

You paint rather simplistic scenarios. People don't abort children because of accidentally becoming pregnant, they do so because they become pregnant in situations where they believe they cannot raise a child, actually be pregnant etc.

Imagine, for instance, a drug addict becoming pregnant. Going through with a pregnancy would be problematic, then theres the effects on the foetus of the drug use.

Theres the same concept of whether or not parents should be allowed to abort the child if they know it will be handicapped etc.

Like I have said previously, I dont condone abortion unless extreme circumstances arise (that I have stated).

There are specific circumstances, where people could discuss more in depth, but I was speaking generally. I know several people who have had abortions and in no cases were they worried about their health. I just find this sad, perhaps because I have self vested interest because I am adopted and know how many families would kill for an unwanted child.

That aside, my views still stand. Im all for freedom of choice (once both parties agree), but I am also for personal responsibility for decisions made. If something happens by accident, women do not have to pay for it for their lives. 1 year is the usual max , so people can talk about fundamentals and what not, but it doesnt change the fact that its as much about people wanting to be responsible as it is about people want to "live their lives as they choose".

drkpower

partyatmygaff wrote: »

Biologically speaking and only that, human life begins at conception.

And that is irrelevant.

What is relevant is whether it has rights, and in turn the extent of those rights, and in turn the manner in which those rights are balanced against others with competing rights.

Sid_Justice

drkpower wrote: »

Current legislation does not prescribe anything! You do know that there is no legislation governing (the right to an) abortion (in Ireland), dont you....?:rolleyes:

My so called 'insular' concept of the justification for abortion is the very justification that almost every state that has granted abortion has recognised.:D

I thought it was well accepted a woman may receive an abortion if there a real and substantial risk to her life due to the pregnancy.

metrovelvet wrote:

I knew that already but thanks. Whats your point?

You continue to mock "Father's Rights". i thought it was important to present some balance to your points about "gurr there are no fathers".

Sid_Justice

metrovelvet wrote: »

In the US its under right to privacy.

But in Ireland the foetus right supercedes the mothers right to bodily integrity as you call it? What other states guarantee absolute rights to bodily integrity?

no, they are equal therefore the status quo remains the same.

drkpower

metrovelvet wrote: »

In the US its under right to privacy.

True; the Us courts considered marital privacy as well as the rights i already mentioned.

metrovelvet wrote: »

But in Ireland the foetus right supercedes the mothers right to bodily integrity as you call it? What other states guarantee absolute rights to bodily integrity?

I dont know if any have an absolute right to bodily integrity. But the justification for abortion in the UK, Australia, most EU states and others includes the right to bodily integrity.

drkpower

Sid_Justice wrote: »

I thought it was well accepted a woman may receive an abortion if there a real and substantial risk to her life due to the pregnancy.

Not in legislation.

partyatmygaff

drkpower wrote: »

And that is irrelevant.

What is relevant is whether it has rights, and in turn the extent of those rights, and in turn the manner in which those rights are balanced against others with competing rights.

So when do you have a right to life? Forgive me if I am wrong but surely the right to life supercedes all other rights?

Does this right to life only exist when you are conscious?

southsiderosie

This whole debate about fathers rights, as usual, completely ignores the social, historical, and political context of abortion, birth control and sexual freedom. Given that this is an Irish message board, that omission is particularly galling.

Women have historically carried the burden of an unwanted pregnancy. At best this meant she was quickly married off, and everyone snickered marveled at how big the "premature" baby was. At worst, she was locked away to give birth in secret, her baby was taken from her (never to be seen again), and she spent the rest of her life as a social outcast. For those women brave enough to keep their children out of wedlock, they and their "bastard" child faced a lifetime of ostracism, and quite often poverty.

On the other hand, a man who got a woman pregnant and who didn't want the baby could do a runner or stay put and deny it was his - an option a pregnant woman simply does not have.

Men were not put into Magdalene laundries. Men were not seen as "damaged goods" by virtue of an out of wedlock child. Men were not told for centuries that they were the gatekeepers of virtue. Instead the social burden of fertility was placed at the feet of women, and it has been that way for centuries.

Set against this backdrop, being pro-choice isn't simply about the choice to have an abortion. It's about having choices and autonomy over the trajectory of one's life. Clearly some things have changed for women, both socially and economically, but I would still argue that the physical, social, and economic costs of unplanned pregnancy still fall much more heavily on a woman's shoulders, even today.

Finally, I find it highly interesting that the "mens rights" brigade seems to partially overlap with the "keep your legs closed" brigade. It never ceases to amaze me how people who want to portray themselves as interested in equal rights can also make crude, crass comments about women and sex in general. The latter attitude is why so many women like myself who would not personally choose to have an abortion will staunchly defend the right of other women to do so: if the burden of fertility and/or chastity is to fall on women - and historically it has - then so does the decision over whether or not to carry a pregnancy to term.

Sid_Justice

partyatmygaff wrote: »

If life does not begin at conception then when does it begin?

I agree, life begins at conception. But that isn't the same as saying a zygote is a person. It is human, but not sure if i'd describe it as a person. Another point worth considering is that a zygote at its early stages isn't even an individual. It can still splint to form twins.

drkpower

partyatmygaff wrote: »

So when do you have a right to life? Forgive me if I am wrong but surely the right to life supercedes all other rights? ?

Not at all. The right to bodily integrity can 'trump' the right to life in certain circumstances. An obvious example is that it is legal to kill a rapist who is raping a woman where there is no other reasonable way to cause him to desist. there are many other examples.

partyatmygaff wrote: »

Does this right to life only exist when you are conscious?

No.

Sid_Justice

southsiderosie wrote: »

This whole debate about fathers rights, as usual, completely ignores the social, historical, and political context of abortion, birth control and sexual freedom. Given that this is an Irish message board, that omission is particularly galling.

Women have historically carried the burden of an unwanted pregnancy. At best this meant she was quickly married off, and everyone snickered marveled at how big the "premature" baby was. At worst, she was locked away to give birth in secret, her baby was taken from her (never to be seen again), and she spent the rest of her life as a social outcast. For those women brave enough to keep their children out of wedlock, they and their "bastard" child faced a lifetime of ostracism, and quite often poverty.

On the other hand, a man who got a woman pregnant and who didn't want the baby could do a runner or stay put and deny it was his - an option a pregnant woman simply does not have.

Men were not put into Magdalene laundries. Men were not seen as "damaged goods" by virtue of an out of wedlock child. Men were not told for centuries that they were the gatekeepers of virtue. Instead the social burden of fertility was placed at the feet of women, and it has been that way for centuries.

Set against this backdrop, being pro-choice isn't simply about the choice to have an abortion. It's about having choices and autonomy over the trajectory of one's life. Clearly some things have changed for women, both socially and economically, but I would still argue that the physical, social, and economic costs of unplanned pregnancy still fall much more heavily on a woman's shoulders, even today.

Finally, I find it highly interesting that the "mens rights" brigade seems to partially overlap with the "keep your legs closed" brigade. It never ceases to amaze me how people who want to portray themselves as interested in equal rights can also make crude, crass comments about women and sex in general. The latter attitude is why so many women like myself who would not personally choose to have an abortion will staunchly defend the right of other women to do so: if the burden of fertility and/or chastity is to fall on women - and historically it has - then so does the decision over whether or not to carry a pregnancy to term.

i think it's a bit tragic you have such hang ups about historical injustices. Basically you're saying, we must have the right to abortion because men were mean to our pregant grandmothers...

drkpower

Sid_Justice wrote: »

i think it's a bit tragic you have such hang ups about historical injustices. Basically you're saying, we must have the right to abortion because men were mean to our pregant grandmothers...

I think you badly misinterpreted her post.