Abortion/ *Note* Thread Closing Shortly! ! !

fatmammycat

Bannasidhe wrote: »

You should see me in my robes - I can leap building in a single bound.*










*provided said buildings are constructed of lego and not more than 1 metre high.

Unbound surely

Sierra 117

Bannasidhe wrote: »

You should see me in my robes - I can leap building in a single bound.*










*provided said buildings are constructed of lego and not more than 1 metre high.

Pfft. Jumping over lego buildings. I just run run right through them.

Bannasidhe

Sierra 117 wrote: »

Pfft. Jumping over lego buildings. I just run run right through them.

I used to play for Munster 'ladies' rugby team as a prop forward. Running through things is second nature at this point - jumping over things on the other hand....:eek:

Obliq

ehcocmeo wrote: »

Handing human rights to be determined by what people think does not always end well. The objectively of humanity from conception is a reality not an opinion.

A) Yes, human rights being determined by what people think does not always end well. However, that is the only way we get human rights - in a democracy, by the majority of people determining what IS right and what ISN'T.
Humanity from conception is indeed an opinion and is a reality depending entirely on your belief. It depends on what value you place on a small collection of cells that up until a certain degree of development, could be any mammal at all, except that it is conceived in a human.

Obliq

Bannasidhe wrote: »

I used to play for Munster 'ladies' rugby team as a prop forward. Running through things is second nature at this point - jumping over things on the other hand....:eek:

I used to play full-back for Derby 'ladies' University team. I got yer back missus

Sin City

FFS lads and lasses, this is a great debate but it seems to have fallen into mud slinging , insult hurling and general childishness.

If you cant have a proper argument without insulting your opposition then please, GTFO

robindch

ehcocmeo wrote: »

A Real mother, a Real woman [...]

Any more unhelpful personal comments and you'll be banned.

fitz0

Sin City wrote: »

FFS lads and lasses, this is a great debate but it seems to have fallen into mud slinging , insult hurling and general childishness.

If you cant have a proper argument without insulting your opposition then please, GTFO

An abortion debate lasting well into 1100 posts without being a sh*tfest should be considered a high achievement.

pauldla

Mickeroo wrote: »

No, not as an ultimatum like that, I think it more likely to be a case where the man and woman are not a couple to begin with. Woman wants to have the child, the man doesn't, should the man still be held responsible for raising the child when it's born?

The trade off proposed would lead to just that situation. It's still giving control of the womans body to the man, and that ain't right.

Rev Hellfire

pauldla wrote: »

The trade off proposed would lead to just that situation. It's still giving control of the womans body to the man, and that ain't right.

How does it give control, the decision remains the womans ?

pauldla

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

How does it give control, the decision remains the womans ?

Well, if the woman is given the ultimatum 'abort, or I'm out of here', how much control can she have?

Rev Hellfire

pauldla wrote: »

Well, if the woman is given the ultimatum 'abort, or I'm out of here', how much control can she have?

Complete, the decision is hers.
Now maybe she might not like the outcome, but she still gets to decide.

Perhaps I'm missing something.

pauldla

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

Complete, the decision is hers.
Now maybe she might not like the outcome, but she still gets to decide.

Perhaps I'm missing something.

Well, it could be that I am, too.

Just to recap, we're discussing the idea that abortion legislation should be introduced in tandem with a law that gives the man the right to desert. It seems to me that this is giving the man a huge amount of power, as he can threaten to desert his partner if she does not agree to have an abortion. At best this can be seen as a choice between two evils, at worst it could be seen as duress or coercion. Either way, not much of a choice.

Rev Hellfire

pauldla wrote: »

Just to recap, we're discussing the idea that abortion legislation should be introduced in tandem with a law that gives the man the right to desert. It seems to me that this is giving the man a huge amount of power, as he can threaten to desert his partner if she does not agree to have an abortion. At best this can be seen as a choice between two evils, at worst it could be seen as duress or coercion. Either way, not much of a choice.

The piece in bold is where I think we differ, this hypothetical law would allow him to 'desert' his partner (and child) if she elects to keep it. I'd assume any such law would be capped like abortions are to a given timespan.

I still don't see how this is an issue.
a) woman decides to keep child, male agrees everyone happy
b) woman decides to keep child, males doesn't. Then she can decide to raise it alone or abort if unwilling to so. Still her choice.
c) woman wishes to abort, she aborts. male doesn't come into it.

The choice always remains hers and the male has the choice to accept the foetus or not.

That's my understanding of this 'proposal'.

28064212

d) woman decides to give birth to child, but doesn't want to keep it. Male does. Then he can decide to raise it alone or give it up for adoption if unwilling to so

Obliq

pauldla wrote: »

Well, it could be that I am, too.

Just to recap, we're discussing the idea that abortion legislation should be introduced in tandem with a law that gives the man the right to desert. It seems to me that this is giving the man a huge amount of power, as he can threaten to desert his partner if she does not agree to have an abortion. At best this can be seen as a choice between two evils, at worst it could be seen as duress or coercion. Either way, not much of a choice.

Correct me if I'm wrong here, but surely a law that gives the man the right to desert would let every man who doesn't want to father a child born to him (and all the financial responsibilities that brings, even if there is no emotional involvement) off the hook as he could just sign up to "Well, I wanted her to have an abortion". Sounds completely unworkable and actually ridiculous.
Alternatively, the man could leave the woman if she decides to have an abortion, but that can happen anyway. Essentially, legislation on it's own merits, that gives women the right to an abortion for medical reasons in our country is our right, according to the European Court of Human Rights. End of. Why debate this confusing add-on to legislation that a)hasn't happened yet and b)won't be likely to happen unless it's put to the people in a simple yes/no question?
A sizeable number of people will be unhappy with the result of any legislation or lack thereof......IMO trying to give men rights in and around the abortion question sounds fair minded, but realistically it is an unfair situation. Women have to be able to take the full decisions either way because obviously, women are the ones who potentially would have to take on full responsibilities for a born child, if the man deserts.

pauldla

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

The piece in bold is where I think we differ, this hypothetical law would allow him to 'desert' his partner (and child) if she elects to keep it. I'd assume any such law would be capped like abortions are to a given timespan.

I still don't see how this is an issue.
a) woman decides to keep child, male agrees everyone happy
b) woman decides to keep child, males doesn't. Then she can decide to raise it alone or abort if unwilling to so. Still her choice.
c) woman wishes to abort, she aborts. male doesn't come into it.

The choice always remains hers and the male has the choice to accept the foetus or not.

That's my understanding of this 'proposal'.

But I think there is a loophole, and that's the part I'm trying to clarify. Would the legislation not create a situation where a man could coerce his partner into having an abortion by threatening to use his right to desert? (And doesn't 'right to desert' have a nasty ring to it?)

Obliq

28064212 wrote: »

d) woman decides to give birth to child, but doesn't want to keep it. Male does. Then he can decide to raise it alone or give it up for adoption if unwilling to so

And so for 9 months the woman is in great distress due to having to carry a baby she does not want? That option is already in place. How many instances have you heard of where a woman willingly gives birth to a child, then hands it over to a man to raise alone? I have heard of many set ups and situations, but I've not met that one. Do you know of any?

28064212

Obliq wrote: »

And so for 9 months the woman is in great distress due to having to carry a baby she does not want? That option is already in place. How many instances have you heard of where a woman willingly gives birth to a child, then hands it over to a man to raise alone? I have heard of many set ups and situations, but I've not met that one. Do you know of any?

What? I'm talking about a situation where a woman specifically does not want to abort, but does not want to raise a child either

Obliq

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

The piece in bold is where I think we differ, this hypothetical law would allow him to 'desert' his partner (and child) if she elects to keep it. I'd assume any such law would be capped like abortions are to a given timespan.

I still don't see how this is an issue.
a) woman decides to keep child, male agrees everyone happy
b) woman decides to keep child, males doesn't. Then she can decide to raise it alone or abort if unwilling to so. Still her choice.
c) woman wishes to abort, she aborts. male doesn't come into it.

The choice always remains hers and the male has the choice to accept the foetus or not.

That's my understanding of this 'proposal'.

I agree with Paulda in that if it was workable at all, your underlined idea is the only way it could work (probably the same timespan as the one in which abortion would be legal), but there is potential for an awful lot more abortions due to coercion from the threat of the man leaving the woman being the cause.

Rev Hellfire

pauldla wrote: »

But I think there is a loophole, and that's the part I'm trying to clarify. Would the legislation not create a situation where a man could coerce his partner into having an abortion by threatening to use his right to desert? (And doesn't 'right to desert' have a nasty ring to it?)

Absolutely.
Explain to me why should a male be forced to take on a responsibility both emotionally and financially for a pregnancy they don't want.
After all the option to either keep or abort remains with the woman for the initial duration of the pregnancy, you simply provide a legal manner for a male to do the same for a similar duration.

@Obliq
Now I fully recognise that such a system is never going to happen, but we're simply working through the idea of reproductive equality here.

Obliq

28064212 wrote: »

What? I'm talking about a situation where a woman specifically does not want to abort, but does not want to raise a child either

Oh, sorry! So you are. Missed the d) at the beginning as an add-on to the other options. My bad:D

Obliq

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

Absolutely.
Explain to me why should a male be forced to take on a responsibility both emotionally and financially for a pregnancy they don't want.
After all the option to either keep or abort remains with the woman for the initial duration of the pregnancy, you simply provide a legal manner for a male to do the same for a similar duration.

@Obliq
Now I fully recognise that such a system is never going to happen, but we're simply working through the idea of reproductive equality here.

Yes, I would agree with that class of reproductive equality. A man should be just as entitled as a woman to say they don't want a child and to not have to have responsibility for one..... yes, I'm seeing what you're saying now:-) And to give the time limit similar to the abortion one. However, a man can (and in my personal experience, has...) change his mind later on due to there actually being a live child and want fatherhood of him/her. In order for it to work at all, the man would have to agree to the child 'being dead to him', which is awful, but equivalent to abortion I suppose. That's a whole can of worms for all involved.

pauldla

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

Absolutely.
Explain to me why should a male be forced to take on a responsibility both emotionally and financially for a pregnancy they don't want.
After all the option to either keep or abort remains with the woman for the initial duration of the pregnancy, you simply provide a legal manner for a male to do the same for a similar duration.

@Obliq
Now I fully recognise that such a system is never going to happen, but we're simply working through the idea of reproductive equality here.

I'm not sure that you can force somebody to take on an emotional response. If the father does not care for the child, or refuses to show any emotion to the child, no amount of laws will change that. You can't force somebody to love.

The financial responsibility is a different issue. Aside from questions of traditional morality, can we suppose that one reason to enforce financial support is to make sure certain 'gentlemen' do not indulge in 'tom-catting', siring legions of offspring with absolutely no consequences for themselves?

If there is to be reproductive equality (which I think is an impossibility, sans major advances in medical science), should it not be that both partners share the burden as much as possible?

Hmm. I'm on the verge of saying 'The children! Think of the children!'

An afterthought. If such legislation were in place, how ethical would it be for there to be a list of men who have confirmed fatherhood on multiple offspring but who have exercised their right not to provide financial assistance?

BTW, I'm still very unhappy about the coerced abortion scenario. For that reason alone I think the idea is unworkable, unethical, and worthy of ridicule.

Rev Hellfire

pauldla wrote: »

An afterthought. If such legislation were in place, how ethical would it be for there to be a list of men who have confirmed fatherhood on multiple offspring but who have exercised their right not to provide financial assistance?

Perhaps if we also maintained a list of women who had multiple abortions, why should their be a stigma ?

pauldla wrote: »

BTW, I'm still very unhappy about the coerced abortion scenario. For that reason alone I think the idea is unworkable, unethical, and worthy of ridicule.

I'm not sure how simply saying you don't want to be involved at an early stage somehow forces the woman to have an abortion. Ultimately if someone is in a relationship where that is happening, then they've bigger problems to deal with.

pauldla

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

Perhaps if we also maintained a list of women who had multiple abortions, why should their be a stigma ?


I'm not sure how simply saying you don't want to be involved at an early stage somehow forces the woman to have an abortion. Ultimately if someone is in a relationship where that is happening, then they've bigger problems to deal with.

Are we not comparing apples and oranges? Does a woman have the right to know that the man she is with has had kids with multiple partners, but has deserted them? What function would you see an abortion list serving?

I'm not saying that. I'm suggesting a situation where the man, not wanting the child, tells his partner that he will desert her if she goes ahead with the pregnancy. I can see the legislation allowing that to happen.

Obliq

Quite interesting that this debate on the introduction of legislation to somewhat even up the rights of men and women to NOT have a child, be it through abortion or signing away (within a timeframe) would potentially result in more abortions due to the financial support for a child becoming optional/possibility of coercion by threat of relationship ending. So, giving men more rights (as well as providing abortion services for women) would truly put the cat among the pigeons, in terms of abortion on demand.

Rev Hellfire

pauldla wrote: »

Are we not comparing apples and oranges? Does a woman have the right to know that the man she is with has had kids with multiple partners, but has deserted them? What function would you see an abortion list serving?

They're not kids at that stage, they're lumps of cells working towards that as an end goal.

pauldla wrote: »

I'm not saying that. I'm suggesting a situation where the man, not wanting the child, tells his partner that he will desert her if she goes ahead with the pregnancy. I can see the legislation allowing that to happen.

Of course it will, that's the point. Everyone gets to make a decision, not just the woman.

This is all in makey uppy land, where on demand abortion is available for the first number of weeks. And where we all agree we're not dealing with mini-people in a womb at that stage.

pauldla

Obliq wrote: »

Quite interesting that this debate on the introduction of legislation to somewhat even up the rights of men and women to NOT have a child, be it through abortion or signing away (within a timeframe) would potentially result in more abortions due to the financial support for a child becoming optional/possibility of coercion by threat of relationship ending. So, giving men more rights (as well as providing abortion services for women) would truly put the cat among the pigeons, in terms of abortion on demand.

Indeed. I wonder, are they any countries that have similiar legislation in place? It'd be interesting to see how it works in practice.

Obliq

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

I'm not sure how simply saying you don't want to be involved at an early stage somehow forces the woman to have an abortion. Ultimately if someone is in a relationship where that is happening, then they've bigger problems to deal with.

Quite. Yes, unfortunately I can give you a long list of women who have been in an unbalanced relationship where the man holds a lot more power - and I am on that list. The presence of other vulnerable children in a family where there is a threat of violence and emotional abuse is one that can't be discounted as a reason women take choices that alone, she would not have taken (the threat of abandonment would be the least bad scenario to my mind). Coercion happens, more frequently than anyone likes to think. :mad: