Your right to an Abortion

Ickle Magoo

Monty Burnz wrote:

Right, but for the umpteenth time, how is that different from a newborn baby in an isolated location with only its mother present? If there isn't a third party there to provide for the baby, it's in the exact same situation, no?

I don't know what grabbing at these obscure designed scenarios is trying to prove tbh - some attempt to cobble together the only scenario when a child that would die from immature lungs as soon as it was removed from it's mothers belly is the same as a child starving to death in the woods?

K-9 wrote: »

Anyway, seems the discussion has veered and a man's vote will be taken away on abortion! so I might leave my inferior opinion here.

I don't consider you having an inferior opinion - I hope you don't seriously feel that way.

In an ideal world a couple would discuss the issue and come to a mutual decision about what to do that they are both happy with - both parties would be agree/both willing and able to parent and have all the monitory and relationship stability to provide for any child conceived - unfortunately it's not an ideal world, contraceptives fail despite our best intentions and if it's a women who wants an abortion Vs a man wanting to force her to carry the pregnancy to term against her wishes then I just don't see that as a very viable or realistic option.

Ultimately, I think women have to have the veto in whether a pregnancy is going to continue because the alternative is too ridiculous, rather than it's absolutely preferable that men are refused a say in it.

Fluorescence

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

In an ideal world a couple would discuss the issue and come to a mutual decision about what to do that they are both happy with - both parties would be both willing and able to parent and have all the monitory and relationship stability to provide for any child conceived - unfortunately it's not an ideal world, contraceptives fail despite our best intentions and if it's a women who wants an abortion Vs a man wanting to force her to carry the pregnancy to term against her wishes then I just don't see that as a very viable or realistic option.

Ultimately, I think women have to have the veto in whether a pregnancy is going to continue because the alternative is too ridiculous, rather than it's absolutely preferable that men are refused a say in it.

This would be my view too. If the woman doesn't want to carry a child inside her body for 9 months than no one (not even the father unfortunately) should be able to force her otherwise. It's too much of a burden.

Ickle Magoo

r3nu4l wrote: »

No woman has any right to deny a potential father his rights to fatherhood or a decision on that fatherhood if she has chosen to commit to sex with that man. Especially when it's his genetic code that is 50% part of the being growing inside her, sentient or not.

Women deny a potential father his rights to fatherhood every time she takes her pill, get her depo injection or gets her IUD inserted - would you also consider those a denial of men's rights to fatherhood?

I take it that also rules out the MAP? Once fertilisation has occurred then that's it - she's stuck with a full term pregnancy on his whim? Are there any caveats to your "no woman has any right to deny a potential father" - one night stands? failed contraceptives? medical advisement?

metrovelvet

Ok, when we talk about rights we have to assume legalities, other wise they are not rights.

How can you seriously talk about the father and abortion when the father cannot be established by blood test until 14 weeks into the pregnancy?

K-9

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

I don't consider you having an inferior opinion - I hope you don't seriously feel that way.

In an ideal world a couple would discuss the issue and come to a mutual decision about what to do that they are both happy with - both parties would be agree/both willing and able to parent and have all the monitory and relationship stability to provide for any child conceived - unfortunately it's not an ideal world, contraceptives fail despite our best intentions and if it's a women who wants an abortion Vs a man wanting to force her to carry the pregnancy to term against her wishes then I just don't see that as a very viable or realistic option.

Ultimately, I think women have to have the veto in whether a pregnancy is going to continue because the alternative is too ridiculous, rather than it's absolutely preferable that men are refused a say in it.

That was at another poster who was posting earlier.

Well I think we are agreeing here then, it would be difficult practically, still I think adoption particularly by the single Dad if he is willing should be considered as an option, same as abortion or keeping the baby, it would be another choice and that would be my position, pro as many choices as possible.

Fluorescence

K-9 wrote: »

Well I think we are agreeing here then, it would be difficult practically, still I think adoption particularly by the single Dad if he is willing should be considered as an option, same as abortion or keeping the baby, it would be another choice and that would be my position, pro as many choices as possible.

Of course it's always an option, just like anything else. The point still remains though that if the woman doesn't want to physically bear the child in the first place then the father shouldn't be legally allowed interfere with that. After it's born is a whole different ball game. For many women it's not just being lumped with a kid to raise that causes them to abort, it's also having to give your body wholly over to another creature while it develops. Some women aren't willing to go through all of that turmoil, possibly developing an emotional attachment to the baby growing inside her, just to hand it over to someone else at the end of it all.

Monty Burnz

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

I don't know what grabbing at these obscure designed scenarios is trying to prove tbh - some attempt to cobble together the only scenario when a child that would die from immature lungs as soon as it was removed from it's mothers belly is the same as a child starving to death in the woods?

It's a thought experiment. I've helpfully posted a definition of 'thought experiment' from Wikipedia. If you want to engage with my posts rather than engage in petty point-scoring, I suggest you read it. Otherwise, please do us both a favour and ignore my posts. I'm not here to be insulted or ridiculed, I'm here to learn.

drkpower

Monty Burnz wrote: »

It's a thought experiment. I've helpfully posted a definition of 'thought experiment' from Wikipedia. If you want to engage with my posts rather than engage in petty point-scoring, I suggest you read it. Otherwise, please do us both a favour and ignore my posts. I'm not here to be insulted or ridiculed, I'm here to learn.

Monty, in fairness, your thought experiment is next-to-pointless. Ive illustarted two reasons why. The fact that noone has bothered to engage with the substance of it should tell you a lot about how valuable it is.

I admire the attempt but it is mis-guided. Move onto pastures new!

Ickle Magoo

Monty Burnz wrote: »

It's a thought experiment. I've helpfully posted a definition of 'thought experiment' from Wikipedia. If you want to engage with my posts rather than engage in petty point-scoring, I suggest you read it. Otherwise, please do us both a favour and ignore my posts. I'm not here to be insulted or ridiculed, I'm here to learn.

And deliberately engineering a completely unrealistic scenario in order to force a comparison is hardly a worthwhile thought experiment - especially given you completely ignore the mother and her welfare in the process.

This is a public discussion forum aimed at the lady posters of boards - I am free to reply to whomever I like. If you have an aversion to petty point-scoring, insults or ridicule then might I suggest you refrain from dishing it out?

K-9

fluorescence wrote: »

Of course it's always an option, just like anything else. The point still remains though that if the woman doesn't want to physically bear the child in the first place then the father shouldn't be legally allowed interfere with that. After it's born is a whole different ball game. For many women it's not just being lumped with a kid to raise that causes them to abort, it's also having to give your body wholly over to another creature while it develops. Some women aren't willing to go through all of that turmoil, possibly developing an emotional attachment to the baby growing inside her, just to hand it over to someone else at the end of it all.

Well it would conflict with a persons rights there so I can't see a woman ever forced to give birth. Obviously the woman would have to be open to it and a woman with that mind set about abortion isn't really going to avail of it. Some might like the option or choice and if it was taken seriously gives another option, attitudes towards adoption would have to change though as it seems there is a stigma about it.

Fluorescence

K-9 wrote: »

Well it would conflict with a persons rights there so I can't see a woman ever forced to give birth. Obviously the woman would have to be open to it and a woman with that mind set about abortion isn't really going to avail of it. Some might like the option or choice and if it was taken seriously gives another option, attitudes towards adoption would have to change though as it seems there is a stigma about it.

Is there a stigma around adoption? This thread is the first I've heard of it . Shame if there is - it's surely one of the most altruistic choices you can make for your child.

Monty Burnz

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

And deliberately engineering a completely unrealistic scenario in order to force a comparison is hardly a worthwhile thought experiment - especially given you completely ignore the mother and her welfare in the process.

You read the post where I discussed the example of medical intervention to save the mothers' life? In what sense is this ignoring the mother's welfare? Of course, I don't expect you to acknowledge that you got that one wrong based on yesterday's performance. And of course you seem to misunderstand and or/misrepresent the entire purpose of thought experiments, whether you are doing so deliberately or otherwise.

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

This is a public discussion forum aimed at the lady posters of boards - I am free to reply to whomever I like.

You certainly can, and I never suggested otherwise, did I? But if you are just going to deliberately misrepresent and rubbish my posts, it's not going to end well for one of us, and I know which one of us that is. So I'd prefer if you ignored them rather than abusing your position as a mod to bully me.

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

If you have an aversion to petty point-scoring, insults or ridicule then might I suggest you refrain from dishing it out?

Can you cite examples of me dishing out insults or ridicule? No. Do I expect you to acknowledge that that was another unfair accusation? No, sadly.

I've been scrupulously fair and patient, in spite of receiving flak from all directions as posters bring their particular agendas to what I hoped would be a civil discussion and an investigation into other people's thoughts on a very sensitive subject.

crucamim

Suaimhneach wrote: »

and make it known that there IS an opposition to these self righteous zealots who do not represent the women of this country.

The state and the church should have no say in that.

How do you know that they do not represent the women of this country?
And do the men of this country have no right to a say in what the laws of the country should be?

What do you mean by "the Church"? There are several Churches with followers in Ireland.

I agree that no Church should have any control over you. I disagree with your suggestion that the State has no right to control what you do with your children, born or unborn.

metrovelvet

fluorescence wrote: »

Is there a stigma around adoption? This thread is the first I've heard of it . Shame if there is - it's surely one of the most altruistic choices you can make for your child.

Pregnancy is very public. It's out of wedlock dirty laundry. No one wants to talk about the child they dont want, explain it to neighbors, to employers, etc. There are places set up for women who want to remain private, [my friends sister did this] for the second half of their pregnancy, kind of like pregnancy camps, but that takes money, and not everyone can take six or o months off of work. This girl I know was in college so she could take the semester off.

LegacyUser

I had anorexia. I was put in hospital. I gained weight even though I hated it, and I struggled to maintain that weight while being utterly depressed. Every morning I promised myself that if things did not start getting easier soon I would loose all the weight that they made me gain, and then some. I got pregnant - contraception failure. I was already struggling to deal with a body I wasn't in control of, so faced with the prospect of further loss of control of that body I was hysterical.

I could rationalise it that I was in no fit state to be a mother, I was struggling to be a woman or look after myself. But bearing in mind that I had been prepared to die rather than lose control of my body that loss of control was the critical issue for me. I just could not contemplate it.

I lived in a country where termination was legal so I had a termination. To this day I am happy that I made the right decision for me at that point in time. I was in no fit state to be a mother. I was also probably in no fit state to be having sex but my judgement at that point in time was pretty questionable. A couple of years later the weight ceased to be the struggle it once was an I made peace with my body.

If I were pregnant now I don't think I'd even contemplate a termination, but I don't regret having had one given where I was at the time.

Monty Burnz

metrovelvet wrote: »

Pregnancy is very public. It's out of wedlock dirty laundry. No one wants to talk about the child they dont want, explain it to neighbors, to employers, etc. There are places set up for women who want to remain private, [my friends sister did this] for the second half of their pregnancy, kind of like pregnancy camps, but that takes money, and not everyone can take six or o months off of work. This girl I know was in college so she could take the semester off.

I have honestly never heard of these 'pregnancy camps'. Sounds like something out of the 50s

I wonder whether this question will ultimately be resolved technologically (at least in wealthier countries in the short term) with improved contraception? I'm reasonably confident that nobody enjoys going down the termination road, so I assume that most rational women would opt for a form of contraception that is 100% reliable and without the side-effects associated with current offerings. How long it will take for such a product/system to arrive, I have no idea, but I would hope to see it relegating this debate (and the painful personal stories behind the debate) to the history books.

Improved contraception options for men would be useful too of course, but to a lesser extent obviously.

mystique150

Monty Burnz wrote: »

I have honestly never heard of these 'pregnancy camps'. Sounds like something out of the 50s

Horrendous! I can't believe such things are even in existence.

I don't think any of us should have the power to dictate what somebody does or doesn't do with their own body. We can help and advise people sure, but ultimately the decision is with the person that has to carry the baby.

It is highly hypocritical for us as a nation to say 'no' against another person's choice to have an abortion, only to have them get one next door in Britain anyway. We have this silly mentality that all is ok, as long as its not on my back door. Should, I ever find myself or anyone I knew in a position that needed an abortion for whatever reason, I believe they should be facilitated within our own country. It isn't anyone else's business, let alone some hypocritical righteous person.

Malari

mystique150 wrote: »

Horrendous! I can't believe such things are even in existence.

I don't think any of us should have the power to dictate what somebody does or doesn't do with their own bodies. We can help and advise people sure, but ultimately the decision is with the person that has to carry the baby.

It is highly hypocritical for us as a nation to say 'no' against another person's choice to have an abortion, only to have them get one next door in Britain anyway. We have this silly mentality that all is ok, as long as its not on my back door. Should, I ever find myself or anyone I knew in a position that needed an abortion for whatever reason, I believe there should be facilitated within our own country. It isn't anyone else's business, let alone some hypocritical righteous person.

I thought this way too until I read some of the arguments about exporting other types of crime. If it's legal in another country is it ok? If you can travel and get information then why not allow it here? It really is a lot to think over. It gets more grey every time I engage in a debate on it. And I'm glad, because I like to have my beliefs challenged. I like thought experiments that really make you wonder if you are being hypocritical.

For me, I'm in a relatively privileged position that I know I can go to the UK at quite short notice if I need to. But it would be so much better and safer for many women if it was possible here.

I do worry about privacy too. And I don't mean from a shameful point of view. If I have to go for any other medical procedure no-one needs to know. I can take time off work if necessary and no one questions it too much. If I suddenly have to go to London at short notice, you either have to tell some people the truth, or be faced with a happy inquisition into how your romantic/shopping trip went.

Count Duckula

Monty Burnz wrote: »

Improved contraception options for men would be useful too of course, but to a lesser extent obviously.

There was actually an interesting thread in another forum about the recent development of a new male contraceptive that was 100% effective, and the over-riding opinion from the male posters was that they wouldn't be going anywhere near it.

bronte

Count Duckula wrote: »

There was actually an interesting thread in another forum about the recent development of a new male contraceptive that was 100% effective, and the over-riding opinion from the male posters was that they wouldn't be going anywhere near it.

Yeah that was really unexpected.
I would have imagined they would leap at the chance to have complete control.
That lack of control must be one of the worst parts of being a man.
I know it would completely wreck my head.

Monty Burnz

Count Duckula wrote: »

There was actually an interesting thread in another forum about the recent development of a new male contraceptive that was 100% effective, and the over-riding opinion from the male posters was that they wouldn't be going anywhere near it.

I haven't heard about this contraceptive - can you remember any details so I could look it up?

There's an obvious issue in that men are less incentivised than women to use such contraception because pregnancy usually has greater implications for women than men (as raised in this thread more than once ). If I were a woman, I'd happily take the risk of conception out of a sexual encounter myself if I had a satisfactory option, rather than trusting the other party. Having said that, I would do the same as a man, so perhaps I'm not typical on that front.

Fluorescence

Monty Burnz wrote: »

I haven't heard about this contraceptive - can you remember any details so I could look it up?

There's an obvious issue in that men are less incentivised than women to use such contraception because pregnancy usually has greater implications for women than men (as raised in this thread more than once ). If I were a woman, I'd happily take the risk of conception out of a sexual encounter myself if I had a satisfactory option, rather than trusting the other party. Having said that, I would do the same as a man, so perhaps I'm not typical on that front.

There's not much literature about it at the moment - it was released for sale in India and the US medical people are researching it further. There's a thread in the Gentleman's Club about it if you want to read more.

Monty Burnz

fluorescence wrote: »

There's not much literature about it at the moment - it was released for sale in India and the US medical people are researching it further. There's a thread in the Gentleman's Club about it if you want to read more.

Thanks

Logical Fallacy

bronte wrote: »

Yeah that was really unexpected.
I would have imagined they would leap at the chance to have complete control.
That lack of control must be one of the worst parts of being a man.
I know it would completely wreck my head.

Not really all that unexpected. How many of the males in that thread were single?

Mainly bringing it up as a point because if you are having sex outside of relationships then you also need to worry about STD's, so if you are wrapping up to avoid that you might feel that an injection of that kind is a moot point.

Hell, i could have 10 doctors and 4 specialists tell me i am sterile, if i am having sex outside of a relationship then i will be wearing a condom to protect myself from STD's and my sexual partner from anything i might not even know i have.

lace

Monty Burnz wrote: »

I haven't heard about this contraceptive - can you remember any details so I could look it up?.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reversible_inhibition_of_sperm_under_guidance

There's a link to the Wikipedia article. Not much known about it yet - needs more testing.

I think an improvement in sex education and contraceptives is badly needed in this country but I'm not entirely sure it would stomp out the demand for abortions altogether. Unwanted pregnancy will still happen. And people will still have abortions - in this country or otherwise.

Count Duckula

bronte wrote: »

Yeah that was really unexpected.
I would have imagined they would leap at the chance to have complete control.
That lack of control must be one of the worst parts of being a man.
I know it would completely wreck my head.

I think men put a lot of stock in their virility, so anything that harms that "potency" is something they won't go near, even though it makes perfect sense for them too.

Monty Burnz

Count Duckula wrote: »

I think men put a lot of stock in their virility, so anything that harms that "potency" is something they won't go near, even though it makes perfect sense for them too.

You are spot on there, I think. I can identify a bit of that in myself.

sambuka41

My story wrote: »

I lived in a country where termination was legal so I had a termination. To this day I am happy that I made the right decision for me at that point in time. I was in no fit state to be a mother. I was also probably in no fit state to be having sex but my judgement at that point in time was pretty questionable. A couple of years later the weight ceased to be the struggle it once was an I made peace with my body.

If I were pregnant now I don't think I'd even contemplate a termination, but I don't regret having had one given where I was at the time.

So brave for coming on here and telling us that. This is why abortion is needed in this country. Women choose to have abortions for many different reasons, and maybe some do use it as a form of contraception (very expensive form,and personally don't know anyone who does) but for everyone of them there are women like this lady, who are not in a position to have a child at the time that they find themselves pregnant. It doesn't mean they are anti life, or pro abortion; just that bad timing, and their mental health was more important (and rightly so).

Someone made the comment earlier, cant remember who (so many pages) about the value of the woman's life, this seems to be neglected so much by the pro lifers. The woman is a human being too, deserving of your compassion and protection as much as the fetus.

Also I have worked with children from families where they were abused and neglected; never once have these pro lifers come to help them, actually NO ONE has, not even the marvelous government who want to keep abortion out. They are insistent that Ireland remain abortion free then do something about the fall out from that :mad::mad::mad:

bronte

I don't know guys, I'd take the 100% guarantee all the same if indeed that is what it proves to be.
Virility comes at a cost.

Monty Burnz

bronte wrote: »

I don't know guys, I'd take the 100% guarantee all the same if indeed that is what it proves to be.
Virility comes at a cost.

...and not just a cost to men.