Your right to an Abortion

Ickle Magoo

Wompa1 wrote: »

Dealt with by killing a baby? I know my place as a man, it's not my choice. If a girl I'm going out with says she'd have an abortion I'd respect her decision but also make her aware that I'd prefer to father the child even if I had to do it alone. It's probably why like I said I'm not married being anti-abortion or pro-abortion. The only reason I've been replying is because a lot of the posts on here seem to be pretty cavalier. Like it's my body and a life is a life doesn't mean anything...how much does an abortion cost actually?

Killing a baby? Any chance of dialling back on the hyperbole?

As has been repeatedly said on this thread, it isn't that "life doesn't mean a thing" - the whole crux of the abortion debate, hell, the contraceptive and MAP debate is what constitutes "life" and what value is placed on that "life" given a particular point in time and the scenario that resulted in conception. There is no consensus on any of those points - which is why it's far easier for those who are anti-abortion to make emotive and hyperbolic chants of murder and killing babies while there is no shared argument to make in opposition - other than the rather obvious, it's not as black and white as some would like to think.

JamJamJamJam

Macha wrote: »

So for you it's about forcing the woman to "take responsibility" for getting pregnant. But then you acknowledge that there are scenarios where it isn't the woman's fault, ie being raped, but she should still be forced to carry the pregnancy to term. I think that's quite an inconsistency in your position.

And where are the measures forcing men to take responsibility for getting a woman pregnant? It is incredibly easy for a guy to walk away from a pregnant women. So basically what you're really saying is that the woman should take responsibility for both her and the man's actions. For me, this begs the question, when are we going to stop treating women as the guardians of chastity and morality?? (It's bad enough so many are given awful, loaded names like Chastity, Purity, Faith, Honour)

I agree with what you said mostly, and I don't mean to be pedantic, but I don't think the poster meant to imply that women alone should be responsible. His or her () argument was that a couple who become pregnant know that this may happen when they have sex. He/she is opposed to abortion, so if couples didn't have sex without being willing to accept that conception may occur, the need for abortion could be avoided for the most part. The fact that fathers can easily walk away, as you say, can leave women alone to deal with the pregnancy. But the poster wasn't implying that this is right.

Wompa1 wrote: »

Dealt with by killing a baby?

Can I ask how you feel about abortions very early in the pregnancy? As I see it, a lump of cells, for want of a better term, isn't at all equal in 'value' to a baby, so I would be alright with abortions as early as possible, before the embryo or foetus becomes very developed.

Count Duckula

py2006 wrote: »

If you get pregnant and decide to keep your baby. In equal measure would you accept a man saying "your body, your baby, I am off"

Not my view point necessarily, just interested in the reaction.

If that question interests you, there was a long thread in tGC a while back discussing that exact issue (that if a woman decided she wanted to keep the baby, could the man essentially have his own "abortion" in a legal sense).

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056232262

Monty Burnz

Count Duckula wrote: »

If that question interests you, there was a long thread in tGC a while back discussing that exact issue (that if a woman decided she wanted to keep the baby, could the man essentially have his own "abortion" in a legal sense).

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056232262

That poster has just opened a new thread on this in tGC, if anyone is interested.

metrovelvet

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

Killing a baby? Any chance of dialling back on the hyperbole?

As has been repeatedly said on this thread, it isn't that "life doesn't mean a thing" - the whole crux of the abortion debate, hell, the contraceptive and MAP debate is what constitutes "life" and what value is placed on that "life" given a particular point in time and the scenario that resulted in conception. There is no consensus on any of those points - which is why it's far easier for those who are anti-abortion to make emotive and hyperbolic chants of murder and killing babies while there is no shared argument to make in opposition - other than the rather obvious, it's not as black and white as some would like to think.

I dont know if you are speaking as a mod or as a participant here, but for a lot of people 'killing a baby' is not hyperbolic, they see it as a human life that the mother is ending with an abortion.

I would also say that 'killing' is a more accurate term and could understand not accepting the term 'murder' as murder is a legal term and in the juridictions where Irish women go for their abortions, abortions are not illegal so it can't carry the legal term of murder.

Ickle Magoo

py2006 wrote: »

If you get pregnant and decide to keep your baby. In equal measure would you accept a man saying "your body, your baby, I am off"

Not my view point necessarily, just interested in the reaction.

I would, certainly - not that I'd ever get involved with a man who would do that if I happened to be anti-abortion.

Really, what the individual would do doesn't mean anything to the wider implications of legalised abortion, does it? Just because some women are pro-choice doesn't mean others who may well be anti-abortion don't have the right to be upset if their partners want nothing more to do with them if they get pregnant.

I think it boils down to individual choice and ensuring your partner is well aware of the choice you would make if such a scenario were to occur at that point in time and both agreeing on what the result would be - whether that's him walking away, her having an abortion, either or both keeping the baby.

ETA:

metrovelvet wrote: »

I dont know if you are speaking as a mod or as a participant here, but for a lot of people 'killing a baby' is not hyperbolic, they see it as a human life that the mother is ending with an abortion.

I would also say that 'killing' is a more accurate term and could understand not accepting the term 'murder' as murder is a legal term and in the juridictions where Irish women go for their abortions, abortions are not illegal so it can't carry the legal term of murder.

I'm speaking as a participant - and making a plead for rational debate rather than insisting on any direction being followed in any mod capacity - I embolden any Mod directions and I try to avoid modding any thread I participate in as a poster to avoid confusion.

Referring to what could be a newly fertilised egg, a zygote, an embryo as a baby, a term used for a fully functioning, independent, full term...well...baby, is ridiculously hyperbolic. When trying to have rational debate, on an emotive subject, there really is no place for terminology that is deliberately emotionally caricatured for added effect...killing babies will get you good jail time in all scenarios, in pretty much all countries - not so abortion.

Throwing around those kind of superlatives like it is a clear and universally agreed point when they very clearly aren't adds nothing to a discussion - barring giving the feel of mild hysteria.

metrovelvet

py2006 wrote: »

If you get pregnant and decide to keep your baby. In equal measure would you accept a man saying "your body, your baby, I am off"

Not my view point necessarily, just interested in the reaction.

Whomever does accept this, imo should have a written contract done up before hand. Yes that may sound sooo unromantic and yes it is unromantic, but the thing is people change their minds when the theory moves into reality. People promise and say things in the haziness of the heady sex phase, and then when the reality changes and sobriety comes crashing down all of a sudden the band is playing a different tune.

Monty Burnz

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

I would, certainly - not that I'd ever get involved with a man who would do that if I happened to be anti-abortion.

But would you accept that you wouldn't get a penny or any support at all from the man in raising your child?

This may be going O/T for this thread though...

Count Duckula

Sleeping with someone when you're unaware of how they might deal with the consequences is the height of irresponsibility, to be honest.

Ickle Magoo

Monty Burnz wrote: »

But would you accept that you wouldn't get a penny or any support at all from the man in raising your child?

This may be going O/T for this thread though...

Of course. IF we had an agreement that he didn't want a child & I would refuse the MAP or an abortion should contraception fail and I was still prepared to have a sexual relation with him that could ultimately end in pregnancy, he should have every right to walk away. Unfortunately the law doesn't agree with me on that point either.

drkpower

metrovelvet wrote: »

Whomever does accept this, imo should have a written contract done up before hand.

It wouldnt do much good. The right to maintenance and other responsibilities owed as a parent are rights of the child, not of the mother. A putative mother and father attempting to contract out of those rights is unlikely to be succesful, as far as i am aware.

drkpower

Count Duckula wrote: »

Sleeping with someone when you're unaware of how they might deal with the consequences is the height of irresponsibility, to be honest.

That statement is essentially meaningless.

Noone is really aware of what another person will do if they hypothetically become pregnant in the future, given the many different issues a pregnancy may raise. Even the woman herself may be unlikely to know, in advance, with any degree of certainty what she may do if she becomes pregnant. As someone once said to illustarte the unpredictability of politics, but it applies here: Events, my dear, events.

metrovelvet

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

I would, certainly - not that I'd ever get involved with a man who would do that if I happened to be anti-abortion.

Really, what the individual would do doesn't mean anything to the wider implications of legalised abortion, does it? Just because some women are pro-choice doesn't mean others who may well be anti-abortion don't have the right to be upset if their partners want nothing more to do with them if they get pregnant.

I think it boils down to individual choice and ensuring your partner is well aware of the choice you would make if such a scenario were to occur at that point in time and both agreeing on what the result would be - whether that's him walking away, her having an abortion, either or both keeping the baby.

ETA:



I'm speaking as a participant - and making a plead for rational debate rather than insisting on any direction being followed in any mod capacity - I embolden any Mod directions and I try to avoid modding any thread I participate in as a poster to avoid confusion.

Referring to what could be a newly fertilised egg, a zygote, an embryo as a baby, a term used for a fully functioning, independent, full term...well...baby, is ridiculously hyperbolic. When trying to have rational debate, on an emotive subject, there really is no place for terminology that is deliberately emotionally caricatured for added effect...killing babies will get you good jail time in all scenarios, in pretty much all countries - not so abortion.

Throwing around those kind of superlatives like it is a clear and universally agreed point when they very clearly aren't adds nothing to a discussion - barring giving the feel of mild hysteria.

Except in abortion debates its about more than the embryonic stage, it goes beyonf the two month pregnancy, and into the as long as it occupies the mother's body philosophy.

Also Ickle, in the US if you kill a pregnant woman you get done for double homicide.

So... I still still dont agree that one can universally call it hyperbole.

metrovelvet

drkpower wrote: »

It wouldnt do much good. The right to maintenance and other responsibilities owed as a parent are rights of the child, not of the mother. A putative mother and father attempting to contract out of those rights is unlikely to be succesful, as far as i am aware.

Yes I realise that it would legally have ZERO weight, but at least in a person contract sense someone could be sued for breach of contract on that count...possibly..not likely though, I do agree.

In reality drkpower, either mother or father have ways of opting out of their various responsibilities.

The children have ZERO rights.

K-9

drkpower wrote: »

The right to maintenance and other responsibilities owed as a parent are rights of the child, not of the mother.

Indeed, while I'd have sympathy for the argument, the problem is the debate tends to centre around fathers and mothers rights and ignores the child's rights, which does raise problems.

iguana

drkpower wrote: »

It wouldnt do much good. The right to maintenance and other responsibilities owed as a parent are rights of the child, not of the mother. A putative mother and father attempting to contract out of those rights is unlikely to be succesful, as far as i am aware.

True but it is possible for a couple (or maybe it's just the mother?) to give up a child for adoption and for the child to then be adopted by a single person. Is that so different from one parent being allowed to give their parental rights and responsibilities solely over to the other parent? To in effect allow the custodial parent to "adopt" all rights and responsibilities from the other parent.

Obviously however, you can never totally walk away (and I mean all of this about anyone who has their child adopted). The child may come looking for you as an adult. You may have other children (already or later in life) who could find out about their half sibling and seek them out. The possibility of this child returning to your life at some other point will always hang over you to a certain extent. You may find that a future partner may be wary of starting a relationship with you due to the fact that you have a child out there somewhere. You may never tell that future partner and it could be an unexploded bomb in your relationship as they could feel extremely betrayed if the find out. You may find yourself with a genetic illness that you are consumed with guilt if you aren't able to let the child know, so they can begin treatment. Or, as Ireland isn't exactly a bustling megatropolis, you may continue on with your life intermittently knowing all about the child, which could become a hellish scenario. It may even be that your own parents/family maintain contact, which would put you in an extremely uncomfortable position.

Ickle Magoo

metrovelvet wrote: »

Except in abortion debates its about more than the embryonic stage, it goes beyonf the two month pregnancy, and into the as long as it occupies the mother's body philosophy.

And not everyone is arguing for abortion to the 39th week - it isn't a black and white topic where every stage post-conception is universally and legally regarded as baby killing. So, throwing around such terminology, wilfully ignoring the myriad of more intricate issues achieves nothing and answers nothing.

metrovelvet wrote: »

Also Ickle, in the US if you kill a pregnant woman you get done for double homicide.

In a country where abortion has been perfectly legal since the early 70's - hardly the last bastion of rationality, tbh. If anything making it legal for a mother to end their own pregnancy but giving a legal definition to anyone else who does it a murderer shows perfectly just how complex an issue it actually is.

ETA:

Just out of interest, is it considered a homicide if the mother doesn't die?

metrovelvet wrote: »

So... I still still dont agree that one can universally call it hyperbole.

I'd respectfully disagree. That kind of terminology has more place on street corner placards than it does in rational debate.

iguana

metrovelvet wrote: »

Yes I realise that it would legally have ZERO weight, but at least in a person contract sense someone could be sued for breach of contract on that count...possibly..not likely though, I do agree.

Definitely not likely. In Irish law any contract where you sign away your legal rights/responsibilities isn't worth the paper it's written on. It's why pre-nups, for example, have no validity here. If the law was amended to allow one parent to give up all rights and responsibilities for their child, I suspect it would have to come under existing adoption laws. Ie, both parents signs the child over for adoption, then the child is adopted by the custodial parent.

metrovelvet

But some people are Ickle, and abortion rights started around right to privacy, around control over your body, that is what pro choice is, whether the first week or the last week, you yourself may not agree with that, but that is where the legal basis for pro choice lies, privacy, not how human or not human the baby or embryo is. And that is btw how people justified slavery, black people were not considered human, but some other animal species.

It may make you feel more comfortable and at ease to NOT call it a baby, but that doesnt really authorise you to tell someone else to dial back the hyperbole, when many do not see it as hyperbole in any sense, and when baby or embryo or whatever is not actually central to the legalities of abortion anyhow. Because it's not about the baby -infant- embryo, whatever word you want to pick, choice is about the woman.

The double homicide charge for killing a pregnant woman just underscores that it's a baby when the mother decides its a baby. Pretty much sums it up for me ont he hpocracy around this debate. You go to the bereeavement forum and there are women devasted over a miscarriage. You talk to my grandmother who had three miscarriages and she could care less.

Well we can disagree, if you want it on a street corner placard or not. I dont see a problem with it myself.

Ickle Magoo

Out of interest, is it homicide if the mother doesn't die?

We've been through this already - most countries have caveats around abortion, pro-choice doesn't necessarily mean carte-blanch to do anything. Much like many laws, there are stipulations to those laws.

If it's only a baby when the mother decides so, then that line of argument lends no credence to other people demanding to call anything post-conception a baby or anyone using abortion, contraception or the MAP a baby-killer...and it has no more place in rational adult discussion on an emotive topic than using terminology like "bunch of cells" would be appropriate on the bereavement forum, it has nothing to do with my comfort.

py2006

metrovelvet wrote: »

The double homicide charge for killing a pregnant woman just underscores that it's a baby when the mother decides its a baby. Pretty much sums it up for me ont he hpocracy around this debate.

That is really interesting! I never even considered that. Food for thought huh!

K-9

iguana wrote: »

Definitely not likely. In Irish law any contract where you sign away your legal rights/responsibilities isn't worth the paper it's written on. It's why pre-nups, for example, have no validity here. If the law was amended to allow one parent to give up all rights and responsibilities for their child, I suspect it would have to come under existing adoption laws. Ie, both parents signs the child over for adoption, then the child is adopted by the custodial parent.

That would be my understanding as well, particularly if a father was adopting, the mother would have to give up guardianship rights and the mother would not be subject to maintenance proceedings or look for access rights.

As for the names, I think saying murder or killing is unhelpful, I'd also say a "bunch of cells" or zygote are as well, they just can inflame posters with opposite views.

drkpower

metrovelvet wrote: »

Also Ickle, in the US if you kill a pregnant woman you get done for double homicide.

Before you applaud or use such laws for support for any particular position, you might consider how those laws are actually being prosecuted. My understanding is that in certain states (ie. some of the southern ones....:rolleyes:), these laws are being used to prosecute pregnant women who suffer miscarriages or stillbirths rather than men who have assaulted a pregnant woman.

Be careful what you wish for.

metrovelvet

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

Out of interest, is it homicide if the mother doesn't die?

Good question. I don't know. Not sure if there has been a test case on that.

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

We've been through this already - most countries have caveats around abortion, pro-choice doesn't necessarily mean carte-blanch to do anything. Much like many laws, there are stipulations to those laws.

Which countries would those be? Not the US btw. Consitutionally, the woman has a right to privacy, it is her body, end of, so it has to remain legal. However, finding an OB who will do it late stage, is another story. I spoke to my OB in NYC a little about this kind of thing, out of curiousity, and he made a face and said "yeah... it's really really icky."

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

If it's only a baby when the mother decides so, then that line of argument lends no credence to other people demanding to call anything post-conception a baby or anyone using abortion, contraception or the MAP a baby-killer...and it has no more place in rational adult discussion on an emotive topic than using terminology like "bunch of cells" would be appropriate on the bereavement forum, it has nothing to do with my comfort.

Well if you are going call people hyperbolising for saying baby killer, than bunch of cells should also be in the naught vocab list.

metrovelvet

drkpower wrote: »

Before you applaud or use such laws for support for any particular position, you might consider how those laws are actually being prosecuted. My understanding is that in certain states (ie. some of the southern ones....:rolleyes:), these laws are being used to prosecute pregnant women who suffer miscarriages or stillbirths rather than men who have assaulted a pregnant woman.

Be careful what you wish for.

I never said I wished for it, I pointed it out as hipocrocy, a contradiction, that's all.

And if I remember correctly it was the Scott Peterson [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scott_Peterson] case that inspired it.

Fluorescence

Wompa1 wrote: »

Here comes a very very very unpopular statement both for men and women of my generation and because it ignores all the caveats e.g. women who are raped, are in risk of dying etc. But here it goes: that life is in that persons body through the actions of themselves. If you can't afford to get pregnant, don't have sex...it's not the unborn childs fault you and your b/f, ONS or F**k buddy couldn't keep it in your pants.

And I do have sex with my girlfriends out of wedlock, I'm not meaning to sound like a hypocrite. But it kind of sounds like we as people are trying to toss the responsibility here. where does the line get drawn? What if the woman is getting an abortion because she got pregnant from a one night stand? it is her body but it was also her risk when she had the one night stand. I really don't know...9 months carrying a child you might resent isn't good either but doesn't the logical thing seem to be cut down on the risky sex?? for guys and girls...not just girls

Ok, so let me get this straight: you think that under no circumstances should an abortion ever be an option... ever? Riiiight. At least you're consistent.

No contraceptive is ever 100% effective, and even when they're doubled up there's no guarantee that pregnancy won't happen anyway (though it is extremely unlikely). However, you think that no matter how careful two partners are, they shouldn't have sex if they don't intend on raising whatever child might accidentally come along despite all possible precautions?

I've stated before on this thread that I have tocophobia - an extreme aversion to being pregnant. In fact, it's highly likely I'd be rendered insane or suicidal if I were to fall pregnant and couldn't abort (and that would be 2 lives down the toilet by your logic). Should I stay celibate my entire life just because there's a 1 in a million chance all contraceptives would fail me? Why should anybody else have a say in whether or not I can have an abortion? Is a newly formed zygote really worth so much that I would need to take my own life in order to be free of it by the laws of this country?

py2006 wrote: »

If you get pregnant and decide to keep your baby. In equal measure would you accept a man saying "your body, your baby, I am off"

Not my view point necessarily, just interested in the reaction.

I would absolutely respect that decision, and choose not to sleep with him.

drkpower

iguana wrote: »

True but it is possible for a couple (or maybe it's just the mother?) to give up a child for adoption and for the child to then be adopted by a single person. Is that so different from one parent being allowed to give their parental rights and responsibilities solely over to the other parent? To in effect allow the custodial parent to "adopt" all rights and responsibilities from the other parent.

Remember, it is not about two people giving up, or giving to another, their rights. The rights we often call parental rights are usually, at least partly, the rights of the child, who obviously cannot engage in the transaction. Therefore, those rights of the child cannot be extinguished by a third party.

Adoption is one clear exception to that general rule. But the general rule remains. You can see why the legislature and the people might want to make an exception for adoption, seeing as how it is in the interests of the child. The same does not apply to creating an exception vis-a-vis maintenance or other similar issues, as it is unlikely to benefit the child.

iguana wrote: »

In Irish law any contract where you sign away your legal rights/responsibilities isn't worth the paper it's written on.

Just to clarify, adults can, in general, sign away any legal rights they want to. Happens all the time; you probably sign many such contracts every year waiving a multitude of legal rights.

However, you cannot sign away the rights of a third party.
And you cannot sign away/waive certain fundamental rights, usually constitutional rights.

Wompa1

fluorescence wrote: »

Ok, so let me get this straight: you think that under no circumstances should an abortion ever be an option... ever? Riiiight. At least you're consistent.

Where did I say that? I hadn't considered the caveats is what I was saying. In that it wasn't taking those cases into consideration. In a later post I said that those types of scenarios are exceptional cases. I don't believe that all abortions are for women who have a diagnosed fear, ailment or have been raped.

fatmammycat

metrovelvet wrote: »

I never said I wished for it, I pointed it out as hipocrocy, a contradiction, that's all.

And if I remember correctly it was the Scott Peterson [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scott_Peterson] case that inspired it.

It's not hypocritical at all. Scott Peterson killed a woman who intended to carry a pregnancy to term, indeed she almost had, therefore, double homicide. This has NO relevance to a woman who is NOT going to carry a pregnancy to term and deliver a baby. I don't see what's so difficult to understand here. Abortion: not about 'babies'. Abortion: about pregnancy.

metrovelvet

fatmammycat wrote: »

It's not hypocritical at all. Scott Peterson killed a woman who intended to carry a pregnancy to term, indeed she almost had, therefore, double homicide. This has NO relevance to a woman who is NOT going to carry a pregnancy to term and deliver a baby. I don't see what's so difficult to understand here. Abortion: not about 'babies'. Abortion: about pregnancy.

Exactly. It's a baby when the mother decides it's a baby.