Abortion/ *Note* Thread Closing Shortly! ! !

robindch

eviltwin wrote: »

[...] its ultimately her body that will have to deal with the pregnancy and her life that will be altered in the short term.

And in return for that, what happens when the man offers to alter his life in the longer term? Is there an "cost" balance there that can be struck, if the argument from the woman's perspective is phrased in terms of her biological cost only?

And while it's undeniably her body that's hosting the fetus, well, doesn't the fetus contain genetic material, 50% of which is his? Does that, or should that, not confer at the very least, the right to consent to an abortion?

eviltwin

robindch wrote: »

And in return for that, what happens when the man offers to alter his life in the longer term? Is there an "cost" balance there that can be struck, if the argument from the woman's perspective is phrased in terms of her biological cost only?

And while it's undeniably her body that's hosting the fetus, well, doesn't the fetus contain genetic material, 50% of which is his? Does that, or should that, not confer at the very least, the right to consent to an abortion?

I don't know how you could enforce that though.

Would his rights always trump hers? What if she had compelling reasons to abort? Would you be happy forcing women to have babies they don't want? And how could you make sure they don't just do it anyway?

Forcing women to carry babies against their will is like something out of a horror film. I don't think its something most people would be comfortable with no matter what side of the abortion debate they are on.

fatmammycat

robindch wrote: »

And while it's undeniably her body that's hosting the fetus, ?

This should answer your questions.

robindch

eviltwin wrote: »

Forcing women to carry babies against their will is like something out of a horror film.

Absolutely, but nonetheless, at the moment, it seems that the majority of the pro-abortion side are asserting maternal rights only and denying paternal rights. And I'm wondering if that's appropriate in all circumstances? Especially in a case like the one I mentioned above where the sex was consensual and unprotected and both sides understood that any pregnancy that would result would be carried to term.

I'm wondering if the assertion and acceptance of at least some paternal rights -- and which ones are open to debate -- could alter a mother's attitude and make it less of a horror-show.

.

fatmammycat

Sin City wrote: »

because to me.life.is sacred (non religious way ) and hardship should not mean death. said woman could give the child up for adoption. I realise once its born attachments form and adoption could be that much harder but still wouldnt it be better to give the childs a chance.at life ?

Sacred can only be used in religious context. Once again; adoption should not be trotted out as a solution to unwanted pregnancy. No pregnancy is the solution to unwanted pregnancy.

fatmammycat

robindch wrote: »

Absolutely, but nonetheless, at the moment, it seems that the majority of the pro-abortion side are asserting maternal rights only and denying paternal rights. And I'm wondering if that's appropriate in all circumstances? Especially in a case like the one I mentioned above where the sex was consensual and unprotected and both sides, with the understanding that any pregnancy that would result would be carried to term.

I'm wondering if the assertion and acceptance of at least some paternal rights -- and which ones are open to debate -- could alter a mother's attitude and make it less of a horror-show.

Women are not the chattel of men, pregnant or otherwise. A man can have parental rights to a child, once said child is not the content of a woman's womb. If not, you're talking about a woman being some kind of brood mare.

eviltwin

robindch wrote: »

Absolutely, but nonetheless, at the moment, it seems that the majority of the pro-abortion side are asserting maternal rights only and denying paternal rights. And I'm wondering if that's appropriate in all circumstances? Especially in a case like the one I mentioned above where the sex was consensual and unprotected and both sides, with the understanding that any pregnancy that would result would be carried to term.

I'm wondering if the assertion and acceptance of at least some paternal rights -- and which ones are open to debate -- could alter a mother's attitude and make it less of a horror-show.

But how would it work in a practical sense? How would you actually make a woman keep the baby without having to keep her locked up until the birth. Cause I can't see any other way you would do it.

If you are talking solely about couples who had in theory agreed to keep any baby then what about the flip side, if the father gets cold feet....will you force him to stay involved with that woman and be the full time dad he doesn't want to be?

robindch

fatmammycat wrote: »

robindch wrote: »

And while it's undeniably her body that's hosting the fetus, ?

This should answer your questions.

So, your view is that the father has no rights whatsoever until birth?

If so, do you feel that fully respects all possible instances of the father's emotional involvement before, during and after the pregnancy, together with whatever current and future commitments he may well be asked to provide?

eviltwin

robindch wrote: »

So, your view is that the father has no rights whatsoever until birth?

If so, do you feel that fully respects all possible instances of the father's emotional involvement before, during and after the pregnancy, together with whatever current and future commitments he may well be asked to provide?

But fathers don't have any rights until birth anyway. When a pregnant woman is keeping a baby and getting pre natal care etc its always her choice to have the kind of pregnancy care, birth etc she wants.

Why would we give fathers more rights in the first trimester ( when most abortions happen ) than we give to men whose babies are closer to their due date?

robindch

fatmammycat wrote: »

Women are not the chattel of men, pregnant or otherwise [...] you're talking about a woman being some kind of brood mare.

Nope, I'm not.

I'm simply trying to phrase the debate in terms of the rights of the individuals taking part; or at least, try to establish whether anybody believes that this argument can be phrased in terms of the rights of the individuals concerned. Or whether, as above, the only individual with any rights is the mother, and whether that's appropriate in all circumstances.

eviltwin

But how would it work? I'd be interested to read how you would mediate in the case of a couple who are totally at odds.

Everyone has rights in theory, we don't live in a perfect world though.

fatmammycat

robindch wrote: »

So, your view is that the father has no rights whatsoever until birth?

If so, do you feel that fully respects all possible instances of the father's emotional involvement before, during and after the pregnancy, together with whatever current and future commitments he may well be asked to provide?

Correct. A man's involvement ought to run tangent with the would-be/maybe not mother: after this is her body we're talking about. If she has no intention to continue the pregnancy he has no sway over her future decisions.
After a pregnancy/birth the question is moot; said child exists, ergo it should be supported, or not as –is often the case– by its natural father. Men, of course, always have another choice in these matters too, don't impregnate a woman whose wishes you have no understanding of. Either way, the biological cards must remain stacked in favour of the woman and owner of the womb, a point most men find difficult to concede.

hattoncracker

When and If there comes a time where a foetus can be surgically removed and either put in a test tube or Implanted in the man's body or in a willing surrogate, then that would make it fair . And the man would have to sign a contract where her identity would never be revealed under threat of jail time...

fatmammycat

robindch wrote: »

Nope, I'm not.

I'm simply trying to phrase the debate in terms of the rights of the individuals taking part; or at least, try to establish whether anybody believes that this argument can be phrased in terms of the rights of the individuals concerned. Or whether, as above, the only individual with any rights is the mother, and whether that's appropriate in all circumstances.

Of course only she has the right, only she has the womb. Seriously.

fatmammycat

hattoncracker wrote: »

When and If there comes a time where a foetus can be surgically removed and either put in a test tube or Implanted in the man's body or in a willing surrogate, then that would make it fair . And the man would have to sign a contract where her identity would never be revealed under threat of jail time...

Even then there would be legitimate query over whether a newly pregnant woman should sumit herself to such a proceedure. It is either her body or not all the way. Fairness doesn't come into it: biology does.

robindch

eviltwin wrote: »

Why would we give fathers more rights in the first trimester (when most abortions happen) than we give to men whose babies are closer to their due date?

I'm referring to the possibility of a basic right to existence which would inhere, unless by joint consent of both parents to the contrary, from some point, perhaps when one parent finds out, and which would continue until term, at which point the current rights would inhere.

The point being that men don't have fetal rights at the moment, so it seems at least reasonable to posit the possibility that at least some such rights should exist. And if it's asserted that these rights shouldn't exist, there should be arguable rights-based reasons suggested as to why they shouldn't.

One possible instance of background here being that once a child is born, a father can be pursued for maintenance. What's the reciprocal right for that responsibility? It seems at least somewhat inconsistent that a father can go from having no rights at all before birth one day, to having a major financial responsibility after birth the next, with the mother holding the sole right to decide - is that fully equitable?

robindch

fatmammycat wrote: »

Of course only she has the right, only she has the womb. Seriously.

Fair enough. In return for that sole right on the part of the mother to deny the father any rights before birth, would, for the sake of argument, you be happy to concede that the father has the sole right to deny the child after birth?

As above, I feel there's an inequality in the rights here and I'm trying to see if there's some way that this can be balanced, at least in principle.

Bannasidhe

robindch wrote: »

I'm referring to the possibility of a basic right to existence which would inhere, unless by joint consent of both parents to the contrary, from some point, perhaps when one parent finds out, and which would continue until term, at which point the current rights would inhere.

The point being that men don't have fetal rights at the moment, so it seems at least reasonable to posit the possibility that at least some such rights should exist. And if it's asserted that these rights shouldn't exist, there should be arguable rights-based reasons suggested as to why they shouldn't.

One possible instance of background here being that once a child is born, a father can be pursued for maintenance. What's the reciprocal right for that responsibility? It seems at least somewhat inconsistent that a father can go from having no rights at all before birth one day, to having a major financial responsibility after birth the next, with the mother holding the sole right to decide - is that fully equitable?

But should such rights be granted to men prior to paternity being established?
Should they be granted automatically? What if there is a dispute as to paternity? What is to prevent the man just walking away?

Plus it must also be considered that men often have to be pursued through the courts to establish biological relationship and pay maintenance - don't hear many cases of this happening to women.;)

eviltwin

Its simply not practical.

How would it work? You haven't yet explained how you would actually deal with a case like this in practical terms

Sin City

marienbad wrote: »

Sin City - here you are using potential and actual life interchangeably yet again.

Do you accept that others have an opinion different than yours and if so why would you want to force your opinion on them ?

I am not forcing anything on anybody

I am only giving my opinion

iguana

robindch wrote: »

Fair enough. In return for that sole right on the part of the mother to deny the father any rights before birth, would, for the sake of argument, you be happy to concede that the father has the sole right to deny the child after birth?

As above, I feel there's an inequality in the rights here and I'm trying to see if there's some way that this can be balanced, at least in principle.

By 'deny' the child I assume you mean abjure himself of any responsibility or rights to that child? If so then as it stands mothers do have that right and fathers don't. Mothers can choose to have the child adopted and if he wants to the father can adopt the child and assume full parental responsibility. Imo, men should have the same right.

However the inequality of rights that you are talking about in terms of pregnancy is biological. You can't give men rights over a foetus without taking away the woman's rights over her own body and nobody can claim rights over someone else's body. They can't do it morally, nor without imprisoning the woman, can they do it practically. It's her body, the fact is she will do what she wants with it, not because she has that 'right' but because it's her body and she can. Biology is responsible for many inequalities, I don't think it's fair that I'm the one who has to go through pregnancy, labour or miscarriage. Is it equality that I'm in pain and discomfort and the restricted diet while my husband gets to carry on as normal? No, it's not. But we aren't Tectonese, women are the only ones who can gestate our young and as such both men and women have certain advantages and disadvantages that won't always suit each person under certain circumstances.

marienbad

Sin City wrote: »

I am not forcing anything on anybody

I am only giving my opinion

So are you have no issue with having a right to choose law in this country then ?

Sin City

eviltwin wrote: »

But you are talking about real people here not some kind of abstract what if situation so of course its going to be personal. And I think part of the problem with the abortion debate is its too focused on the "when does life begin" side of things without taking enough of an interest in the human stories of real people who make this decision every single day.

I can totally understand the point of view of those who want to give a child a chance, I don't for one second have any illusions that what I did was get rid of a bunch of cells, I know it was a baby - thats part of the reason it was so hard to do it and come to terms with it - but for that reason I took a long time thinking it over and it always came back to this one thing that deep down I knew was right for me.

Some people would say I was being selfish, I was in some ways but it wasn't just me in the equation, there are always other people to consider. The baby is just one and cannot always be put before the needs of people who are in the here and now.

Btw I know you are not making digs or passing judgement on anyone, you've been very reasoned and respectful in your debate which is much appreciated

First off thank you for not taking any arguement I post personally. I feel the best way to talk about it is in its abstract form, at least till we as a society can establish some certainties and not have our decesions clouded by emotion. Of course there is a human side to this debate, its a highly emotive subject and of course the emotive part does have its own merits. There will always be grey areas, such as rape , incompatible with life or childbirth putting the mothers life at risk.

These grey areas are probably best left to our legislators to deal with, but the normal cases of unwanted pregnancies and abortion can be discussed freely.


No one is suggesting its a black and white issue, but it does deal with life and death of a developing life so its a valid debate, one that probably wont be won anytime soon

Sin City

fatmammycat wrote: »

Sacred can only be used in religious context. Once again; adoption should not be trotted out as a solution to unwanted pregnancy. No pregnancy is the solution to unwanted pregnancy.

Sacred in this sense means precious , should not be taken away

After all life is greatest gift anyone can recieve (non religious) Why again should adoption not be an answer?

Sin City

marienbad wrote: »

So are you have to have a right to choose law in this country then ?

I am to have a vote yes, but I am not going to effect the consitution on my own am I ?

There has to be a majority of voters that would agree with me

If you turn the tables I could say you could be forcing pro abortion ideals on me but I wouldnt as it would be the will of the majority , how democracy works

Bannasidhe

Sin City wrote: »

Sacred in this sense means precious , should not be taken away

After all life is greatest gift anyone can recieve (non religious) Why again should adoption not be an answer?

Because in order for there to be a baby to be adopted a woman would be forced to continue with a pregnancy against her will.

Sin City

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Because in order for their to be a baby to be adopted a woman would be forced to continue with a pregnancy against her will.

True enough, but if meant saving a life isnt it worth it?
Isnt adoption a better option than death?

marienbad

Sin City wrote: »

I am to have a vote yes, but I am not going to effect the consitution on my own am I ?

There has to be a majority of voters that would agree with me

If you turn the tables I could say you could be forcing pro abortion ideals on me but I wouldnt as it would be the will of the majority , how democracy works

Not quite Sin City- a right to choose law will not force anyone to have an abortion and does not impact anyone's rights.

Whereas a ban on abortion does impact on peoples's rights.

And just in the interests of being completely open , I am -if push came to shove - probably anti abortion but I am absolutely pro-choice.

Bannasidhe

Sin City wrote: »

True enough, but if meant saving a life isnt it worth it?
Isnt adoption a better option than death?

When weighed against the death of the mother?
Because women did die in droves through botched abortions.

The better option is that when women do make the decision that they will not die because of it.

I do understand what you are saying, but for me the life of the person already here is worth saving over a potential person not yet born.

Outlawing abortion will not stop abortion, it will just drive desperate women to desperate measures. History proves this.

Were it not for the safety value provided by the UK we would be back to back-street abortions - in fact they are still with us for women who don't have the funds to travel or else they take the on-line route.

The simple fact is - abortion will always be with us whether we want it our not. The choice we have to make as a society is will it be safe or will it pose a serious threat to the mother's life.

Sin City

marienbad wrote: »

Not quite Sin City- a right to choose law will not force anyone to have an abortion and does not impact anyone's rights.

Whereas a ban on abortion does impact on peoples's rights.

And just in the interests of being completely open , I am -if push came to shove - probably anti abortion but I am absolutely pro-choice.

Fair play to you. Im pro choice as long as no one looses a life

at least I would go for the lesser of two evils, hence adoption over death