Abortion/ *Note* Thread Closing Shortly! ! !

Rev Hellfire

Obliq wrote: »

Coercion happens, more frequently than anyone likes to think. :mad:

Absolutely, but it also happens the other way. I know first hand men who remain in relationships because if they leave they are under no illusions that the likelihood of having a proper relationship with their children will be seriously compromised.

Both sides can play the coercion card equally viciously.

pauldla

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

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


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.

I'm looking at it further down the road, where a man may have deserted a number of previous sexual partners. Is it not just giving men a licence to licentiousness, while leaving the woman literally holding the baby? Should a woman be able to know that the man has previous form, so to speak?

I'm getting a bit frustrated, as I think I'm not making myself clear on my other point. Imagine a couple, for example, who find that they are expecting their second child. Can the man tell his partner that, if she goes ahead with the pregnancy, he will desert her, in an attempt to coerce her into having an abortion? She does not want to have the abortion, so what options are open to her?

Yes, it is all indeed in makey uppy land, but it's well worth asking the questions all the same.

Rev Hellfire

pauldla wrote: »

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

I doubt that any do, the only thing close to the mark was the Dubay vs Wells case.

Obliq

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

Absolutely, but it also happens the other way. I know first hand men who remain in relationships because if they leave they are under no illusions that the likelihood of having a proper relationship with their children will be seriously compromised.

Both sides can play the coercion card equally viciously.

So true. Have a long list of men in just such a position also. Thanks for bringing it up. Ultimately, where mothers deny fathers access to their children they are breaking the law and have to be dragged to court over it (thereby using the children as emotional battering rams) and legislation for unmarried fathers is a joke - there is no 'against the law' and they have no rights in such cases where the mother refuses to give access to their children.

Obliq

pauldla wrote: »

I'm getting a bit frustrated, as I think I'm not making myself clear on my other point. Imagine a couple, for example, who find that they are expecting their second child. Can the man tell his partner that, if she goes ahead with the pregnancy, he will desert her, in an attempt to coerce her into having an abortion? She does not want to have the abortion, so what options are open to her?

Yes, it is all indeed in makey uppy land, but it's well worth asking the questions all the same.

I suppose in that scenario, which is a good one as it sounds realistic, where the man has the right to desert, he won't have the right to desert the first child. As it is though, I take your point completely. What woman would NOT question their ability to raise 2 children alone, one of which would not be entitled to financial support from the father? That would be coercion enough for any woman to consider an abortion. But it is fair to say that, as Rev Hellfire has pointed out, there is more wrong with that relationship than this question.
I do think you're right about the 'tom-cat' thing.....men would potentially take even less care about contraception than is traditional in Ireland. These men can normally be avoided though, unless you have 'I like bad-boys' syndrome, in which case a list of the offending men would be null and void anyway. Probably a source of pride for some, even:eek:

Rev Hellfire

pauldla wrote: »

I'm looking at it further down the road, where a man may have deserted a number of previous sexual partners. Is it not just giving men a licence to licentiousness, while leaving the woman literally holding the baby?

Since the option to abort is available that's for the woman to decide.

pauldla wrote: »

Should a woman be able to know that the man has previous form, so to speak?

I'm not sure why, should men know that the woman has a habit of aborting if they happen to disagree with it?

pauldla wrote: »

I'm getting a bit frustrated, as I think I'm not making myself clear on my other point. Imagine a couple, for example, who find that they are expecting their second child. Can the man tell his partner that, if she goes ahead with the pregnancy, he will desert her, in an attempt to coerce her into having an abortion? She does not want to have the abortion, so what options are open to her?

OK, so lets say the first child they have to support regardless.
The second clump of cells, the male has the right to decline and the female needs to decide if they wish to respect his paternal rights or not.

Assume she doesn't, now the man plays the nuclear card and threatens to leave. Well I'll be honest I'm not totally sure, should marriage diminish his right to choose?

I'd imagine if the male doesn't want more kids he should have taken steps to prevent it, but accidents happen.

pauldla wrote: »

Yes, it is all indeed in makey uppy land, but it's well worth asking the questions all the same.

Its interesting to see a different viewpoint on the topic I'd agree.

MrPudding

doctoremma wrote: »

Unworkable. Is there a legal precedent for having to abide by your "home" laws when in another country (where said law doesn't exist)?

In the UK? Yes. The Bribery Act 2010.

MrP

Bannasidhe

Obliq wrote: »

So true. Have a long list of men in just such a position also. Thanks for bringing it up. Ultimately, where mothers deny fathers access to their children they are breaking the law and have to be dragged to court over it (thereby using the children as emotional battering rams) and legislation for unmarried fathers is a joke - there is no 'against the law' and they have no rights in such cases where the mother refuses to give access to their children.

But - and this is the ironic part - the reason unmarried father's do not have automatic rights to their children (and my son is in this position, playing the going to court game and trying to gain more rights step by step) is because of the existence of a 'get out clause' for men enshrined in Irish law since 1964.

This law makes the mother the sole legal guardian absolving the father of all rights and responsibilities. Now, given it was enacted in 1964 when unmarried mother's were damn lucky if they didn't end up in a Magdalene Laundry and their children in Industrial schools/state orphanages by no stretch of the imagination can such legislation be considered as little more than a licence to men to 'walk away' without repercussions.

The situation now is that although that law is still on the statute books, the courts do force men to make a financial contribution towards the upkeep of their children - provided paternity is established beyond a doubt and the man in question can be found (it's hard to enforce a ruling if the 'father' in question cannot be located). Paying maintenance does not, in my mind, constitute 'raising' a child. The courts do NOT insist the father sees his child - just helps to pay for their upkeep.

This happened my brother-in-law who found out 3 years ago that he had a 16 year old son as the result of a one night stand before he was married. He met this boy twice and decided he didn't like him so paid what he was ordered (back dated 15 years) until his 'son' reached the age of 19 and had left full-time education. He certainly had no hand or part in raising his son. He walked away and paid up only after he was dragged to court.

To my way of thinking it is impossible to have 'equal' reproductive rights between women and men for the simple fact that only women can bear children. Biology has made it unequal and there is nothing we can do about this (unless science can come up with an alternative). We need to deal with the situation as is and, for me, the crux of the matter is a woman's right to control what happens to her own body. No woman should ever be forced to endure a pregnancy against her will for any reason.

pauldla

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

Since the option to abort is available that's for the woman to decide.


I'm not sure why, should men know that the woman has a habit of aborting if they happen to disagree with it?


OK, so lets say the first child they have to support regardless.
The second clump of cells, the male has the right to decline and the female needs to decide if they wish to respect his paternal rights or not.

Assume she doesn't, now the man plays the nuclear card and threatens to leave. Well I'll be honest I'm not totally sure, should marriage diminish his right to choose?

I'd imagine if the male doesn't want more kids he should have taken steps to prevent it, but accidents happen.


Its interesting to see a different viewpoint on the topic I'd agree.

Well, I imagine that, for many men, knowing that a partner has had an abortion might not be that big a deal. For a woman, knowing that your man has had a child with another woman and has renounced any financial commitment to the child, might make her see him in a different light.

In any case, as I said previously, it IS apples and oranges. Having an abortion is not the same as 'doing the dirt', if you'll pardon the expression.

I agree with Obliqs point: a list would be counterproductive, if only because it would become a badge of honour in some quarters

Bannasidhe

pauldla wrote: »

Well, I imagine that, for many men, knowing that a partner has had an abortion might not be that big a deal. For a woman, knowing that your man has had a child with another woman and has renounced any financial commitment to the child, might make her see him in a different light.

In any case, as I said previously, it IS apples and oranges. Having an abortion is not the same as 'doing the dirt', if you'll pardon the expression.

I agree with Obliqs point: a list would be counterproductive, if only because it would become a badge of honour in some quarters

An uncle of mine by marriage is the son of a notorious womaniser who was known for boasting about the number of children he had scattered around Cork City. Now, my uncle is one of his legitimate children but knows he has at least 15 half-brothers and sisters possibly more. Their father didn't contribute to the upkeep of his legitimate children - his illegitimate children he considered nothing but trophy's which proved his manhood. I shudder at the thought we could return to that.

Rev Hellfire

pauldla wrote: »

Well, I imagine that, for many men, knowing that a partner has had an abortion might not be that big a deal.

I wouldn't be to sure about that, would be interesting to see if a survey has ever been done.

pauldla wrote: »

In any case, as I said previously, it IS apples and oranges. Having an abortion is not the same as 'doing the dirt', if you'll pardon the expression.

But we're not really comparing abortion to 'doing the dirt', we're comparing the right of woman to control her body and decide to have a child or not against the right of male to relinquish their rights and responsibilities to an offspring in managed equatable manner.

Rev Hellfire

Bannasidhe wrote: »

An uncle of mine by marriage is the son of a notorious womaniser who was known for boasting about the number of children he had scattered around Cork City. Now, my uncle is one of his legitimate children but knows he has at least 15 half-brothers and sisters possibly more. Their father didn't contribute to the upkeep of his legitimate children - his illegitimate children he considered nothing but trophy's which proved his manhood. I shudder at the thought we could return to that.

I'd hope with the contraceptive options freely available these days that such things are largely a thing of the past in the west.

pauldla

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

I wouldn't be to sure about that, would be interesting to see if a survey has ever been done.


But we're not really comparing abortion to 'doing the dirt', we're comparing the right of woman to control her body and decide to have a child or not against the right of male to relinquish their rights and responsibilities to an offspring in managed equatable manner.

Relinquish. Interesting choice of words. No doubt we all have financial commitments we'd like to relinquish, but does that mean we have the right to reliquish them?

We are comparing abortion to 'doing the dirt', in certain lights. It would be taken by some as legislation to run amok, as it would be open to horrendous abuse.

Obliq

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

I'd hope with the contraceptive options freely available these days that such things are largely a thing of the past in the west.

Sadly, (judging by a personal survey taken between the years 2007 and 2010) young men in the west appear to be unwilling or unable to buy condoms. Responsibility is still VERY much a woman's burden, and probably always will be. As you say bannasidhe, unless there are miraculous advances in science, from conception to birth and raising of said child is so often solely the women's responsibility that it stands to reason that abortion choice should be too. I hate to generalise, but that's the way of it for many.

Bannasidhe

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

I'd hope with the contraceptive options freely available these days that such things are largely a thing of the past in the west.

Afraid not - 2nd cousin of mine* who would be in his mid 40s now, grew up in London has (as far as we know) 9 children with 4 different mothers.

Now one of these mother's happens to be a very close friend of mine and I was there when this guy took off having gotten yet another woman pregnant. This woman had lots of brothers so they forced a shot gun wedding. 2nd cousin ran out on her within 2 years. He has since re-married and has a daughter.

In 1988, my friend was left with a 3 year old son, never received a brass farthing in child support, was landed with substantial debts and ended up homeless thanks to the actions of a prick who could keep his zipper up and failed to avail of contraception on the grounds that he was a Catholic.

It really does still happen...



* I come from a very large extended family - most of whom are decent people but there are some right selfish ones in there too......:o

Rev Hellfire

pauldla wrote: »

Relinquish. Interesting choice of words. No doubt we all have financial commitments we'd like to relinquish, but does that mean we have the right to reliquish them?

In many cases we do where they are consider unfair or entered into under duress.

pauldla wrote: »

We are comparing abortion to 'doing the dirt', in certain lights. It would be taken by some as legislation to run amok, as it would be open to horrendous abuse.

That would be for legislation to prevent, in cases where abuses to legislation occurs you correct the legislation, not ban it.

Obliq

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

That would be for legislation to prevent, in cases where abuses to legislation occurs you correct the legislation, not ban it.

Hence, the LIST OF SHAME Two strikes and you pay, anyone?!

Rev Hellfire

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Afraid not - 2nd cousin of mine* who would be in his mid 40s now, grew up in London has (as far as we know) 9 children with 4 different mothers.

I don't doubt that it does, I'm just expressing the hope that since contraceptive options are now more available, women now have more options available to themselves than was possible 20 years ago and can mitigate against such statistics.

Obliq

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

I don't doubt that it does, I'm just expressing the hope that since contraceptive options are now more available, women now have more options available to themselves than was possible 20 years ago and can mitigate against such statistics.

Yes,women do. Just not enough options in this country. And I stress women because this issue, through and through, cannot be fair. Equal rights for men and women can't really be had here.....even addressing the imbalance creates more problems than it solves.

Ickle Magoo

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

I'd hope with the contraceptive options freely available these days that such things are largely a thing of the past in the west.

In fairness contraceptive options have only very recently become freely available, certainly on these shores...and some still not so much. Do you know in Ireland you require your spouses written consent/permission to get tubal ligation/vasectomy? Crazy stuff... :eek:

pauldla

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

In many cases we do where they are consider unfair or entered into under duress.


That would be for legislation to prevent, in cases where abuses to legislation occurs you correct the legislation, not ban it.

Then does the man not have to show that he fathered the child unfairly, or under duress? And how can the love-'em-and-leave-'ems be told apart from genuine cases?

Rev Hellfire

pauldla wrote: »

Then does the man not have to show that he fathered the child unfairly, or under duress? And how can the love-'em-and-leave-'ems be told apart from genuine cases?

Under our proposal we said that a woman has to inform the male within a set time period within which they (the male) can if they wish abdicate their irresponsibles and future involvement with the child.

Failure to inform the male automatically grants them the right to distance themselves.

If we say that once the male agrees/disagrees a binding contract is established which sets out the rights of the various parties.

By ensuring all parties are informed appropriately, informed decisions can be made by both male and female parties.

Otherwise as you propose the woman decides and the male has to go along with it regardless (doesn't seem overly fair).

Perhaps you'd explain an alternative on how you would establish a framework for equatable reproductive rights? For a different slant on the matter.

Obliq

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

Under our proposal we said that a woman has to inform the male within a set time period within which they (the male) can if they wish abdicate their irresponsibles and future involvement with the child.

Failure to inform the male automatically grants them the right to distance themselves.

If we say that once the male agrees/disagrees a binding contract is established which sets out the rights of the various parties.

By ensuring all parties are informed appropriately, informed decisions can be made by both male and female parties.

Otherwise as you propose the woman decides and the male has to go along with it regardless (doesn't seem overly fair).

Perhaps you'd explain an alternative on how you would establish a framework for equatable reproductive rights? For a different slant on the matter.

Hmm, this is of course assuming that the woman knows who the father is, and that he doesn't look for a paternity test. Maybe there should be multi-forms?

pauldla

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

Under our proposal we said that a woman has to inform the male within a set time period within which they (the male) can if they wish abdicate their irresponsibles and future involvement with the child.

Failure to inform the male automatically grants them the right to distance themselves.

If we say that once the male agrees/disagrees a binding contract is established which sets out the rights of the various parties.

By ensuring all parties are informed appropriately, informed decisions can be made by both male and female parties.

Otherwise as you propose the woman decides and the male has to go along with it regardless (doesn't seem overly fair).

Perhaps you'd explain an alternative on how you would establish a framework for equatable reproductive rights? For a different slant on the matter.

Well, the way I see it, when the involvement is equitable, the rights will be equitable. Unfortunately, reproduction is not an equitable process for men and women. The mans involvement takes several minutes and uses about as much energy as is needed to boil an egg (or several eggs, but modesty prevents me from elaborating), followed swiftly by a sound slumber. For the woman, it takes 40 weeks, requries the same amount of energy as running a large number of marathons, and is attended by a host of physical, emotional and psychological strains, both during the pregnancy, and in the weeks and months that follow.

Human reproduction is anything but equitable.

Obliq

pauldla wrote: »

Well, the way I see it, when the involvement is equitable, the rights will be equitable. Unfortunately, reproduction is not an equitable process for men and women. The mans involvement takes several minutes and uses about as much energy as is needed to boil an egg (or several eggs, but modesty prevents me from elaborating), followed swiftly by a sound slumber. For the woman, it takes 40 weeks, requries the same amount of energy as running a large number of marathons, and is attended by a host of physical, emotional and psychological strains, both during the pregnancy, and in the weeks and months that follow.

Human reproduction is anything but equitable.

Ha, funny and true But aren't we looking at ways to address the imbalance of a woman being able to terminate a pregnancy against the wishes of a man, and a man being able to do a similar termination (as far as he can - financial abortion :rolleyes:) against the wishes of a woman? It doesn't make sense anyway....just an ethical conundrum for your lunchtime, so the two can't be equated anyway. Not equitable, as you say.

Rev Hellfire

Obliq wrote: »

It doesn't make sense anyway....just an ethical conundrum for your lunchtime, so the two can't be equated anyway. Not equitable, as you say.

True discussion for the sake of it.

PopePalpatine

ehcocmeo wrote: »

A Real mother, a Real woman would never ask that question.

Wait, is femininity being defined by the same types who see child abuse as "friendship gone too far"? :eek:

Bannasidhe

PopePalpatine wrote: »

Wait, is femininity being defined by the same types who see child abuse as "friendship gone too far"? :eek:

Oh, they've being doing that for centuries.

Nodin

PopePalpatine wrote: »

Wait, is femininity being defined by the same types who see child abuse as "friendship gone too far"? :eek:

Well you're hardly going to leave it to somebody with a vagina now, are you?

Bannasidhe

Nodin wrote: »

Well you're hardly going to leave it to somebody with a vagina now, are you?

Much better that those with womb envy should decide.



:pac: