Your right to an Abortion

Monty Burnz

ash23 wrote: »

A man can walk away from his child. His only legal obligation is financial. He isn't obliged to do anything more than set up a direct debit once a month into an account and he can walk.

A woman can do the same, no?

Monty Burnz

ash23 wrote: »

I suppose it is unfair but that's biology.

It's not biology that's the problem in this case, it's the law. The law stipulates that a father has to pay for a child that he never wanted in the first place, and it's the law that should be changed. This aspect would probably fit better in the discussion in tGC though.

metrovelvet

Wibbs wrote: »

Great in theory ash, but it's not unusual for the woman to change her mind about termination when she actually gets pregnant(completely understandably too). It can also be the man who has this change of heart. So I'd certainly not advise a man(or woman) to rely on what's said before to the realities of after. The only real choice a man has is to abstain from sex that might lead to a pregnancy. Contraception is a slightly variable choice, given the failure rates. After the pregnancy occurs the only choice open is stay or leave. The latter is socially unacceptable in 99% of cases, regardless of the background story*.

Very very true. There is just no guaranteed way of knowing.

Wibbs wrote: »

While in regard to pregnancy obviously the case is strong, I'm also slightly cautious about appeals to biology when it comes to gender, as many's the ship of equality has perished on the rocks of that idea. Indeed the history of inequality and chauvinism aimed at women throughout the ages has often, if not largely been predicated on the appeal to biology idea. Too often it has been an argument that suits when it suits, depending on viewpoint.

Yes but the jury is still out on that one.

I dont think you can avoid the biology part of pregnancy and child birth though. It comes with so many risks, and although temporary nine months, the consequences are not always temporary, and many a woman have a scar or multiple scars across their public bones to prove it, as well as other consequences, not excluding death itself [though rare these days.]

Wibbs wrote: »

Christ. Talk about wastes of space. Mad to boot and funny enough MV you can add another two twats like that to your list from my experience.




*IMHO there are some rare enough cases where him leaving may be condoned or less vilified anyway. EG entrapment, rarer than the more paranoid male may believe but still happens, or even cases of being pregnant by another guy and claiming it's the primary guy(happened to a close friend, yet he got major stick from a few sources for scraping her off)

[/QUOTE]

Don't get me started. It will make one of your more epic posts look like an Aesop's fable.

K-9

Monty Burnz wrote: »

It's not biology that's the problem in this case, it's the law. The law stipulates that a father has to pay for a child that he never wanted in the first place, and it's the law that should be changed. This aspect would probably fit better in the discussion in tGC though.

A mother if she walks away can have to pay maintenance, does and has happened. The problem is he doesn't have the option during pregnancy to opt out, she has. The law just wants a contribution towards the child to be payable to whoever bears the most costs.

Morag

I do feel sorry for women who are pro life and end up in a crises pregnancy who then have to bite the bullet and rear the child no matter what. I've seen a few women esp those who end up left doing it alone become very bitter over the years and I often hope that their children never figure out how much their mother hates the life she is living.

There is one who lives near and I swear now the kids are mid to late teens she is hardly ever there

http://www.womensviewsonnews.org/2011/07/spanish-introducing-abortion-on-demand-numbers-of-terminations-fall/

A year after Spain changed its abortion laws, statistics are showing a drop in the number of terminations putting paid to fears that rates would rocket.

Since last July, abortion on demand has been available up to 14 weeks gestation, and up to 22 weeks in the case of foetal malformation or a threat to the health of the mother.

Previously, abortions were offered only in exceptional circumstances, and were rarely available in public hospitals.

Terminations were only permitted until the 12th week of pregnancy in cases of rape or until 24 weeks if the mother’s mental or physical health was in danger.

The vast majority of the 115,000 abortions carried out in 2009 took place at private clinics, many at a late stage of gestation, and were justified on the grounds that the pregnancy posed a “psychological risk” for the health of the woman.

Associations for abortion clinics across Spain said the number of terminations had in fact declined to various degrees depending on the region over the year. Spain’s Health Ministry has yet to publish official figures but confirmed the pattern.

‘The sale of the morning-after pill over the counter, pregnancy prevention programs and the advent of new subsidised contraceptives are all helping reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies,’ said Jose Martinez Olmos, the Spanish Secretary General for Health.

The abortion reform was part of an ambitious programme of social change under José Luis Rodriguez Zapatero, the socialist prime minister, which led to repeated clashes with the Church.

Monty Burnz

K-9 wrote: »

A mother if she walks away can have to pay maintenance, does and has happened. The problem is he doesn't have the option during pregnancy to opt out, she has. The law just wants a contribution towards the child to be payable to whoever bears the most costs.

But why would a woman carry to term a baby that she does not want*? If a woman does carry to term a baby that is only wanted by the father (and I'd imagine such cases are vanishingly rare, but happen) then a woman should have the same right as a father to effectively sign away her rights and responsibilities (financial and otherwise) towards the child. Effectively, she would be giving the child up for adoption by the father.

*obviously, I'm assuming here that abortion is available

metrovelvet

Monty Burnz wrote: »

But why would a woman carry to term a baby that she does not want*? If a woman does carry to term a baby that is only wanted by the father (and I'd imagine such cases are vanishingly rare, but happen) then a woman should have the same right as a father to effectively sign away her rights and responsibilities (financial and otherwise) towards the child. Effectively, she would be giving the child up for adoption by the father.

*obviously, I'm assuming here that abortion is available

Two reasons.

1. Her decision was made after the cut off point, either due to finding out too late or to a prevaricating father who could not make up his mind.

2. She recognises the right to life, but cannot or will not raise the child.

Fluorescence

Monty Burnz wrote: »

But why would a woman carry to term a baby that she does not want*? If a woman does carry to term a baby that is only wanted by the father (and I'd imagine such cases are vanishingly rare, but happen) then a woman should have the same right as a father to effectively sign away her rights and responsibilities (financial and otherwise) towards the child. Effectively, she would be giving the child up for adoption by the father.

*obviously, I'm assuming here that abortion is available

There's nothing stopping her from doing that under the current legal system AFAIK. If the man put his cards on the table and said, "Look, if you don't want to raise the kid but don't mind being pregnant, how about I adopt it from you and raise it as a single parent?" then that situation is entirely possible. I think most people just assume that no man wants to be a lone parent though.

drkpower

Monty Burnz wrote: »

It's not biology that's the problem in this case, it's the law. The law stipulates that a father has to pay for a child that he never wanted in the first place, and it's the law that should be changed. This aspect would probably fit better in the discussion in tGC though.

Tough. Once the baby is born, it has certain rights. Whether the father wanted it or not is irrelevent. Whether the mother wanted it is irrelevent. Whether the mother went ahead and did something (ie. had the child) that the father did not want is irrelevent. The right to maintenance is a right of the child. It is not a right of the mother, or anyone else. The law certainly should not be changed.

I am sick of hearing this complete red herring being trotted out. All it displays is a lack of understanding of the issues, similar to the lack of understanding displayed by those who advocate a paternal veto over abortion. That view completely misses the point about abortion rights being premised on a conflict of rights, something that does not arise (to any significant degree) in the paternal context.

Monty Burnz

drkpower wrote: »

Tough. Once the baby is born, it has certain rights. Whether the father wanted it or not is irrelevent. Whether the mother wanted it is irrelevent.

We are not talking about 'once the baby is born'. No legal system that I know of permits abortions 'once the baby is born'.

I'm talking about a scenario where the potential father decides to opt out at a point when the mother is still in a position to have the foetus aborted. The father should have the same right as the mother to say 'I don't want to be a parent to this child'.

Let's not deliberately confuse the issue, it's complex enough already.

drkpower wrote: »

I am sick of hearing this complete red herring being trotted out. All it displays is a lack of understanding of the issues, similar to the lack of understanding displayed by those who advocate a paternal veto over abortion. That view completely misses the point about abortion rights being premised on a conflict of rights, something that does not arise (to any significant degree) in the paternal context.

I'm sick and tired of posters jumping down my throat without seeming to understand what I'm saying, but what can you do?

Morag

fluorescence wrote: »

There's nothing stopping her from doing that under the current legal system AFAIK. If the man put his cards on the table and said, "Look, if you don't want to raise the kid but don't mind being pregnant, how about I adopt it from you and raise it as a single parent?" then that situation is entirely possible. I think most people just assume that no man wants to be a lone parent though.

There are men who will do that, Jonathan Philbin Bowman did raised his son by himself until he died.

But, if I was the woman being told that, I would want an iron clad contract to ensure it happened.

catthinkin

I have read this thread with interest few things really bother me

1. That if a woman gets pregnant by not using a regular form of contraption her decision to abort is less valid than if she did ? So essentially if she is deemed a slut she shouldnt have the same rights as a woman who had one lover used protection and yet got pregnant ?

2.when does the egg become human ? As we live in a soceity which alows woman to control there fertilty by all sorts of chemical intervention surely this is a moot point ? Every woman who takes the pill is essentially denying the begining of life, and if there is a god it seems to me laughable that he gives the gift of life to someone who never wants a baby and denies others who desperatly want one.

I dont think abortion is a pleasant or easy process for any person involved in the process but I would be most definitely be pro choice , I would be more concerned with the children already born that are already neglected than the welfare of a couple of cells that the mother does not want.

Monty Burnz

catthinkin wrote: »

2.when does the egg become human?

For my money, this is probably the crux of things. If some objective answer could be arrived at, I think 95% of the issues would immediately be resolved.

catthinkin wrote: »

I would be more concerned with the children already born that are already neglected than the welfare of a couple of cells that the mother does not want.

It is remarkable that the religious right in the US are happy to see children born into poverty and going to hopeless schools, trapping the next generation in this cycle of poverty, while simultaneously being outraged at the treatment of foetuses to the point of shooting people at abortion clinics.

Fluorescence

Sharrow wrote: »

There are men who will do that, Jonathan Philbin Bowman did raised his son by himself until he died.

But, if I was the woman being told that, I would want an iron clad contract to ensure it happened.

I don't doubt there are, but no woman is going to assume a man would want to raise her unwanted child solo. It's practically unheard of in our culture. The man would have to take the lead in such a situation and convince her of his intentions because the probability is ridiculously high that she'd never even considered such a scenario in her entire life. There's no real precedent.

Wibbs

catthinkin wrote: »

2.when does the egg become human ?

OK me trying to be as reductive as I can(and as is my wont), I'd say "human" is a hard call. I'd talk more of potentials. Potentials raised against the health(mental, physical and indeed societal) of the mother and yes to some degree the father should he chose to engage. Like you say C contraception interrupts potential right at source yet much fewer would take issues with say condoms, or hormonal contraception(which may prevent the potential human implanting) or even the MAP. At the other end one could argue that biologically the newborn baby is still a foetus* just an external one that engenders a much larger bond by virtue of being "out". As far as cognition goes a clever adult border collie is arguably more aware and conscious than a newborn. There's one in Austria IIRC that has a vocabulary of 300+ words and appears to understand symbolic representation. An adult dg has formed emotional attachments and hierarchies and memories far more than a newborn,yet they are euthanised regularly enough. If one removes the (understandable and complex) human emotion from the equation it does start to get odd.

When you add it in? I'm sure some would have read "he's comparing a dog to a baby and the baby is somehow lesser?" and likely raised a few :eek: and a bit of :mad: The emotion is so important and so complex and so individual and that's what makes us human and that's why this subject causes so much division. And is why legislation is a thundering bastid to get right.

For a couple that lose what amounts to a clump of cells because of miscarriage it can be a terrible terrible emotional injury, yet makes little purely objective sense. My own mother lost four that way and it still affects her many decades later. It broke my dads heart too.

Some sort of balance between the objective and the subjective and the society and where that intersects is probably something to aim for.

For me I would say that overall the potential is least before the point the foetus can survive outside the womb. Anything up to that point emotions notwithstanding is likely OK to terminate. Beyond that point regardless of objectivity the shock to the emotions of the woman and society is too high in the vast majority of cases. Most of all choice is what really comes into it(up to the previous cut off point). That's where all this intersects. The ability to make a choice. The choice to terminate or the choice to not terminate. On the latter point I'd add a sideorder of more support for those women(and couples) who don't want to terminate, but neither do they want to raise a child. Better adoption avenues etc. There are more and more couples incapable of having their own children, couples who will even go the surrogacy route, so the potential is there to meet in the middle.

TL;DR? I'm not pro abortion, or at least my cutoff point is in the order of weeks rather than months after conception, but I am pro choice, because I'm not my neighbour and they're not me. What allows for both is a choice for both.

My rambling 3 cents anyway.






*many have. In order to accommodate our large brains the baby continues foetal type development up to a year after birth. This is quite unlike other apes and more like marsupials in our case

K-9

fluorescence wrote: »

There's nothing stopping her from doing that under the current legal system AFAIK. If the man put his cards on the table and said, "Look, if you don't want to raise the kid but don't mind being pregnant, how about I adopt it from you and raise it as a single parent?" then that situation is entirely possible. I think most people just assume that no man wants to be a lone parent though.

Yes, single people can adopt, the problem is more as you say it isn't really considered an option and a man mightn't feel comfortable raising the option as most consider it a womans choice.

Monty Burnz wrote: »

But why would a woman carry to term a baby that she does not want*? If a woman does carry to term a baby that is only wanted by the father (and I'd imagine such cases are vanishingly rare, but happen) then a woman should have the same right as a father to effectively sign away her rights and responsibilities (financial and otherwise) towards the child. Effectively, she would be giving the child up for adoption by the father.

*obviously, I'm assuming here that abortion is available

Well that's more after a birth and she wants to walk away, it does happen or she just can't cope or the reasons metrovelvet mentioned.

I think your issue is more with men not having the option to walk away during a pregnancy, similar to abortion?

drkpower

Monty Burnz wrote: »

We are not talking about 'once the baby is born'. No legal system that I know of permits abortions 'once the baby is born'.

When it comes to maintenance, we absolutely are talking about 'once the baby is born'. And maintrenance is the right of a child that does not and should not be influenced by any disagreements between the parents before its birth.

Monty Burnz wrote: »

I'm talking about a scenario where the potential father decides to opt out at a point when the mother is still in a position to have the foetus aborted. The father should have the same right as the mother to say 'I don't want to be a parent to this child'.

No he should not. Do you understand the basis upon which a woman can opt-out of having a child (ie, have an abortion)? Because if you did, you would immediately understand the same dynamic does not apply as between the father and the child.

drkpower

Monty Burnz wrote: »

For my money, this is probably the crux of things. If some objective answer could be arrived at, I think 95% of the issues would immediately be resolved.

No, they would not.:rolleyes:

An embryo is human; it is life. I have no doubts as to both of those assertions. However that does not resolve anything. What causes the problem is not so much what the embryo is, but where it is.

Where it is creates a conflict between two entities and resolving that conflict is is what is at the heart of this issue.

Monty Burnz

K-9 wrote: »

I think your issue is more with men not having the option to walk away during a pregnancy, similar to abortion?

Yeah, that's the area I've been referring to in my last few posts on this thread - I'm not sure it's totally on-topic here though. It would even up the current legal imbalance somewhat.

Monty Burnz

drkpower wrote: »

No, they would not.:rolleyes:

An embryo is human; it is life. I have no doubts as to both of those assertions.

That's great, but not everybody agrees with your claims. Please show some respect to the views of others. I don't think :rolleyes: adds much to the discussion or is very respectful.

Ickle Magoo

Monty Burnz wrote: »

I don't think :rolleyes: adds much to the discussion or is very respectful.

Can I quote you on that?

drkpower

Monty Burnz wrote: »

That's great, but not everybody agrees with your claims. Please show some respect to the views of others. I don't think :rolleyes: adds much to the discussion or is very respectful.

Instead of foccussing on emoticons, you should focus on the substance of the point I have made. That was the bit you didnt quote!

I dont have much respect for any views which entirely miss the point. And that, with all the respect in the world, is what you are doing.

Monty Burnz

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

Can I quote you on that?

You certainly may. I find it annoying in discussions like this where people use it to suggest that you're an idiot, without actually saying so. It's particularly annoying when the same people miss points left, right and centre...

Monty Burnz

drkpower wrote: »

I dont have much respect for any views which entirely miss the point. And that, with all the respect in the world, is what you are doing.

You'll forgive me if I suggest that you have totally missed the point. There's no point in forensically going through all your posts to demonstrate examples as it would derail the thread, and due to respect for the venue and the subject area, I won't be doing that.

You will find though that where I disagree with someone, I try to do so in a respectful manner.

Anyway, this is all O/T. Perhaps you can send me a private message if you want to take issue with a point, rather than rolling your eyes at every post I make here?

drkpower

Monty Burnz wrote: »

You'll forgive me if I suggest that you have totally missed the point.

You cant just say that I have missed the point; you have to actually demonstrate it. I have demonstarted clearly how you have missed the point, and you havent even tried to demonstrate how I might be mistaken.

That is why my arguments stand up to scrutiny; and yours do not.

Silverfish

Okay folks can we get this back on topic please

Monty Burnz

drkpower wrote: »

You cant just say that I have missed the point; you have to actually demonstrate it. I have demonstarted clearly how you have missed the point, and you havent even tried to demonstrate how I might be mistaken.

If I were to do so, this whole thread would turn into a back and forth between us and I don't think that that would be appropriate, and so I have let things go. In addition, I was warned by a mod to drop an argument I had been making earlier, and so was not in a position to prove my point.

However, you've more or less insisted, so here's the most recent example of you missing the point completely. In response to a post where I suggest that knowing objectively at what point a foetus becomes a human being would help greatly in resolving the abortion issue, you come back with:

drkpower wrote: »

No, they would not.:rolleyes:

An embryo is human; it is life. I have no doubts as to both of those assertions. However that does not resolve anything. What causes the problem is not so much what the embryo is, but where it is.

Where it is creates a conflict between two entities and resolving that conflict is is what is at the heart of this issue.

So you roll your eyes (to suggest I'm an idiot) and then make two subjective claims about the foetus and declare them to be undoubtedly true. This allows you to focus on another part of the issue, and declare that to be the real problem. Do you not realise that that is a textbook example of begging the question? You are assuming that your subjective claims are objectively true, and proceeding from there - a classic logical fallacy.

drkpower wrote: »

That is why my arguments stand up to scrutiny; and yours do not.

'LOL', as the young people would say. Now can we please clear the floor for other posters who may have something more interesting to say?

Edit: apologies, there was no admin message when I hit the reply button to write this longish post. And 'However that does not resolve anything' is also begging the question.

drkpower

Monty Burnz wrote: »

.....and then make two subjective claims about the foetus and declare them to be undoubtedly true.

Read my post; I think you missed the point again.

I didnt say that they were objectively true. I said that I had no doubt that they were true. And I went on to say that whether they were true or not was irrelevant as that did not resolve anything as the real issue is the conflict between two entities.

So back on topic:the thrust of my point is that even if the embryo is considered human or life or both does not actually resolve anything; do you want to address that substantive point?

Stheno

drkpower, please see the warning posted by SF.

Thanks

decembersun77

Who is Prolife here?