Risk to life, including suicide?

Piliger

iptba wrote: »

I'm confused by what you are saying. I thought you thought abortion shouldn't be available? Have you suddenly changed your mind?

ETA: But it would certainly be a significant change, depending on how strict or otherwise the criteria were. But things change. Contraception changed behaviour. Other things could also. Who knows, perhaps there would lead to less casual sex (something many men might not like).

All this nonsense about society changing for the worse is just that - nonsense. Children have been having abortions for hundreds of years, all over the world, except doing it via ghastly back street abortionists. Men have been abandoning their responsibilities for millennia. Women have been forced to bear and deliver countless children by their husbands and fathers for millennia, and continue to be so in this sweet country that the Catholic Church has corrupted for us.

The great thing that is happening in Ireland now is that the people are waking up to the abuse and corruption and degeneracy that has been foisted on it by the Catholic Church. We have seen that organisation for what it is and we are clawing back our culture and rights. And women are demanding that for the first time ever in this country, they get the basic human right of having control over their own bodies. The economy may be tanked but a lot of good things are happening in ireland and in our Culture.

Piliger

iptba wrote: »

One of the reasons I'm interested in this idea of fathers being able to revoke rights and responsibilities (don't know if it is really feasible or not) is that it isn't simply during pregnancy that the mother has all the say; after birth, unmarried and separated fathers have few rights, or at least that can be the case de facto if no action is taken if the mother ignores any rulings.

Society seems happy to treat men as objects/sources of pay packets.

It's impossible, imho, to say you are wrong. However I think it is not so much Society that treats men as such, but Nature Nature gave us the sperm and gave the Woman the role of carrying the foetus for 9 months. The inevitable fall out is that women are the ones who's bodies are being used to gestate for 9 months and who are, as it were, on the front line.

If Women are to have the right of ultimate control over their body, and I believe they should have that basic human right, then they get to chose if they want to continue carrying the foetus or not.

Us men are marginalised, yes to a degree, but marginalised by nature ... :rolleyes:

iptba

Piliger wrote: »

It's impossible, imho, to say you are wrong. However I think it is not so much Society that treats men as such, but Nature Nature gave us the sperm and gave the Woman the role of carrying the foetus for 9 months. The inevitable fall out is that women are the ones who's bodies are being used to gestate for 9 months and who are, as it were, on the front line.

If Women are to have the right of ultimate control over their body, and I believe they should have that basic human right, then they get to chose if they want to continue carrying the foetus or not.

Us men are marginalised, yes to a degree, but marginalised by nature ... :rolleyes:

But nobody is saying men could force a woman to have an abortion.

Piliger

iptba wrote: »

But nobody is saying men could force a woman to have an abortion.

I accept that is not your view, but it is relevant to comments made on several occasions by others.

HellFireClub

Piliger wrote: »

Of course he should get a say. But in the end it is her body and her body alone and she should not have to carry anything inside it that she does not want.

You seem to think though that legislation that provides for your stance on the subject, will be the resolution of all things here and it won't be in my view, far from it. Having the right to do something, (on the basis of legislation being available), and then proceeding with it, at least when it comes to an abortion, does not fix the problem. It might fix the "immediate" problem in the short term, but the consequences of how it was fixed (by procuring an abortion), I think has the potential to cause huge problems, such as the ending of a relationship, being judged by society for being part of what many people rightly see as a downright horrific and fundamentally unfair procedure on two parties (an unborn human and a father), its not difficult to see how an abortion could generate more issues than it tries to resolve in my opinion.

HellFireClub

iptba wrote: »

But nobody is saying men could force a woman to have an abortion.

You could argue though that where legislation along the lines of the OP was in place, where a father could completely step away from the woman's decision to proceed with pregnancy, that it could ultimately be used to manipulate a woman into having an abortion by a father figure in the situation, as in "If you have that baby I'll step away and you will be all on your Tod".

eviltwin

HellFireClub wrote: »

You seem to think though that legislation that provides for your stance on the subject, will be the resolution of all things here and it won't be in my view, far from it. Having the right to do something, (on the basis of legislation being available), and then proceeding with it, at least when it comes to an abortion, does not fix the problem. It might fix the "immediate" problem in the short term, but the consequences of how it was fixed (by procuring an abortion), I think has the potential to cause huge problems, such as the ending of a relationship, being judged by society for being part of what many people rightly see as a downright horrific and fundamentally unfair procedure on two parties (an unborn human and a father), its not difficult to see how an abortion could generate more issues than it tries to resolve in my opinion.

So going ahead with a pregnancy you don't want to keep society and your man happy is the way to go? It might surprise you to know that most people don't really care either way if a woman has had an abortion, it doesn't make her a monster you know.

HellFireClub

Piliger wrote: »

I think we have to admit, as men, that there are a lot of selfish men around too.

They don't have the option of terminating a child's life though, not unless they want to resort to infanticide. It is fundamentally wrong to my mind, that a very small window of a few weeks in relation to how a life is terminated, could in effect be the difference between a perfectly legal abortion and a case of infanticide, punishable by life in prison. The only real difference is clearly a labour event and a very short period of time.

HellFireClub

eviltwin wrote: »

So going ahead with a pregnancy you don't want to keep society and your man happy is the way to go? It might surprise you to know that most people don't really care either way if a woman has had an abortion, it doesn't make her a monster you know.

A lot of people do care, because they have respect for life and they do judge and are fully entitled to judge, someone who has an abortion. A lot of right minded reasonable and rational people do not see pregnancy & rearing a child, as some sort of terminal disease that cannot be dealt with. A lot of people see it as the ultimate selfish act, and whether we have abortion here or not, for whatever grounds, is not going to change that.

eviltwin

HellFireClub wrote: »

A lot of people do care, because they have respect for life and they do judge and are fully entitled to judge, someone who has an abortion. A lot of right minded reasonable and rational people do not see pregnancy & rearing a child, as some sort of terminal disease that cannot be dealt with. A lot of people see it as the ultimate selfish act, and whether we have abortion here or not, for whatever grounds, is not going to change that.

I think most people are living in the real world and understand things aren't black and white. If you want to judge thats up to you though.

HellFireClub

eviltwin wrote: »

I think most people are living in the real world and understand things aren't black and white. If you want to judge thats up to you though.

It's not just "me" as you try to claim. Many guys living in the "real world" have a serious problem with a girl who would go down the abortion route. Legislation won't change that.

eviltwin

HellFireClub wrote: »

It's not just "me" as you try to claim. Many guys living in the "real world" have a serious problem with a girl who would go down the abortion route. Legislation won't change that.

Surely you will talk to any potential partner about that so if there was an unplanned pregnancy you both know you are on the same page? Someone who is pro life is hardly going to do a total 360 and have an abortion.

Piliger

HellFireClub wrote: »

You seem to think though that legislation that provides for your stance on the subject, will be the resolution of all things here and it won't be in my view, far from it. Having the right to do something, (on the basis of legislation being available), and then proceeding with it, at least when it comes to an abortion, does not fix the problem. It might fix the "immediate" problem in the short term, but the consequences of how it was fixed (by procuring an abortion), I think has the potential to cause huge problems, such as the ending of a relationship, being judged by society for being part of what many people rightly see as a downright horrific and fundamentally unfair procedure on two parties (an unborn human and a father), its not difficult to see how an abortion could generate more issues than it tries to resolve in my opinion.

What you say is self evident, yet it isn't really relevant to the Abortion, The Right to Choose, debate is it.

We have human rights because we are entitled to them. Not because having them is guaranteed to always produce a happy outcome. We have freedom of choice for how we eat, travel, voice our opinions, drive, marry, date, etc etc. Many of these freedoms end up in us making bad choices, mistaken choices, damaging choices.

This does not mean we don't deserve or have a right to those human rights.

The demand for a right to chose for women is not a demand that guarantees 100% happy outcomes. People will be people. Women will make good choices and some will make bad choices.

Piliger

HellFireClub wrote: »

It's not just "me" as you try to claim. Many guys living in the "real world" have a serious problem with a girl who would go down the abortion route. Legislation won't change that.

Of course some men will. Many will. What exactly does that mean though ? What will legislation change or not change ? Well it will mean that women without the means or funds to travel to the UK for an abortion would be able to do so here instead. How does that affect the men ? obviously some good and some bad. Just like life in general. Relationships cover a huge wide range. Some couples are close and some are not. Some are respectful and some are not. Some are transient and some are long term. The 'fact' that many men will not be happy with their lady's choice and decision is inevitable, as it is on many topics in life.

Zombrex

MaxWig wrote: »

If the Govt do pass this proposed legislation (X Case), does anyone see a scenario whereby a prospective father might be allowed to abdicate all rights and responsibilities, physical, emotional and financial to the new child, where that father is deemed to be suicidal as a result of the prospect of fatherhood. If not, why not?

Currently a father can put their child up for adoption, but adoption requires the consent of both guardians so it would require the mother to agree as she is automatically a guardian (and vice versa).

But I imagine that isn't what you mean, this seems to be the baffling men should be compensated because they can't abort their children argument.

Women should be allowed have abortions because ultimately they own their own bodies and should be allowed to remove the foetus from their bodies if they do not consent to it being there. That may or may not result in the death of the foetus. In most cases it probably will and in such cases since the baby is dead there is no child to care for.

To present cases where the foetus does not survive the abortion as a mother "abdicate all rights and responsibilities, physical, emotional and financial to the new child" is rather inaccurate, since there is no "new child" to abdicate responsibility for.

In the case where the baby is either born or survives the abortion (which really is simply a birth), both parents have responsibility to the new child because there is a new child.

So no, a father should not be able to decide to abdicate his responsibilities to his child if his child exists (other than through adoption) simply because he didn't have the option of an abortion. Such an idea fundamentally missed both the ethical justification for abortion and the practical realities of abortion.

iptba

Zombrex wrote: »

Women should be allowed have abortions because ultimately they own their own bodies and should be allowed to remove the foetus from their bodies if they do not consent to it being there. That may or may not result in the death of the foetus. In most cases it probably will and in such cases since the baby is dead there is no child to care for.

So women should be allowed have a very late term abortion e.g. 25-30 weeks, because it's her body?

Zombrex

iptba wrote: »

So women should be allowed have a very late term abortion e.g. 25-30 weeks, because it's her body?

Yes. The alternative is that you say no you can't, which is stating that the woman does not control her own body. I don't see any ethical way to justify that, a person's body is their property, not the property of the state, they should consent to what happens to it and how it is used.

Piliger

Zombrex wrote: »

Yes. The alternative is that you say no you can't, which is stating that the woman does not control her own body. I don't see any ethical way to justify that, a person's body is their property, not the property of the state, they should consent to what happens to it and how it is used.

That's not the alternative. We don't have to constantly define the argument as being limited to black or white - the extremes of everyone's views.

As a Pro Choice man, I do not believe in any way shape or form that life begins at conception. I believe strongly that there is no difference between those cells and the cells I scrape off my nose when it's itchy. None whatsoever.

I do believe, however, that there is a time ..... somewhere later in gestation, when those cells, when the foetal organism, changes from non-human-life to human-life. It is self evident that a foetus one week before delivery is a human baby and it is unavoidable to accept therefore, by all logic and rational thought, that it is a person. (Hence I am opposed to late term abortions)

So I, and I believe the great majority of Pro Choice people all over the world, arm left with the question ... when ? At what time does that change takes place ? My honest answer, and I believe the only true answer possible to that question, is I do not know. I don't believe anyone can know.

This therefore is why I agree with the UK abortion laws and their choice of when abortion is allowed until - although I would be agreeable to choosing to bring it back a week or so.

I believe our society should stand back from all of the extremes and take a reasonable balanced approach like this.

Zombrex

Piliger wrote: »

That's not the alternative. We don't have to constantly define the argument as being limited to black or white - the extremes of everyone's views.

As a Pro Choice man, I do not believe in any way shape or form that life begins at conception. I believe strongly that there is no difference between those cells and the cells I scrape off my nose when it's itchy. None whatsoever.

I do believe, however, that there is a time ..... somewhere later in gestation, when those cells, when the foetal organism, changes from non-human-life to human-life. It is self evident that a foetus one week before delivery is a human baby and it is unavoidable to accept therefore, by all logic and rational thought, that it is a person. (Hence I am opposed to late term abortions)

So I, and I believe the great majority of Pro Choice people all over the world, arm left with the question ... when ? At what time does that change takes place ? My honest answer, and I believe the only true answer possible to that question, is I do not know. I don't believe anyone can know.

This therefore is why I agree with the UK abortion laws and their choice of when abortion is allowed until - although I would be agreeable to choosing to bring it back a week or so.

I believe our society should stand back from all of the extremes and take a reasonable balanced approach like this.

I agree with pretty much everything you said about when a foetus is considered a person.

But none of that is relevant to the argument. Even if you consider the foetus a person from the moment of conception, it is not relevant. It is the woman's body. Saying that her consent to what happens to it is over rule by someone else (in this case the State acting for the foetus) seems ethically unjustifiable.

Or to put it another way, no one else owns the woman's body more than the woman herself. The foetus requires the woman's consent in order to use her body during the pregnancy, and without that conscent the woman is entitled to remove the foetus from her body. This should be the case irrespective of whether you view the foetus as a person or not.

Zombrex

To clarify this is not an argument for having an abortion, it is an argument for bodily privacy and the notion that a person must consent to what happens to their body.

I would be very critical of a woman who had a late term abortion simply because she didn't want to be pregnant any more. But I cannot think of an ethical justification for legally restricting that. It is like someone refusing to give blood, I may think less of them for doing so if I thought their reasons were stupid, but that is wholly different to holding them down and forcing them to give blood.

What ever I think about their decision not to give blood it is still their decision, it requires their consent, and if they don't give it, for what ever reason, there isn't much that can be done.

Piliger

I know what you are saying ... but life is not simple and black and white. And in expressing my views below, I also ask them of myself over and over again every time I come to this topic.

I agree that a woman's body is her own. I believe in that very strongly. But on the other hand there are times in life and in our society when Society has an interest in even our most private of lives. There is a long and well established principle that Society has an interest in all of our children for example. At one time it was considered that parents basically owned their children and no one else had any rights to interfere. It is now accepted that children are, in some respects, ALL of our children.

Here in our current situation, Society has a legitimate interest that Human Life. Society has also decided that human beings have their own innate Human Rights. So at some stage during the whole gestation process it is reasonable and indeed unavoidable to look at a 'baby'/'foetus' and assess when do those rights crystallise.

Of course it is arguable that those rights only crystallise at the moment of birth, and that until that very moment, there are no rights and Society has no interest - leaving a woman with 100% rights over what is inside her, to do with what she wishes.

I would suggest however that this argument does not stand up to severe examination when broader considerations are brought to bear.

If a baby has 100% Human Rights 10 seconds after birth - then can we really take a stand and assign it 0% rights 5 seconds before birth ?

What about 5 minutes before birth? and 5 hours before birth ? What about babies that are born two weeks prematurely and are considered by anyone of sound mind to be fully formed people ? How can we as a Society accept the moment of birth as the only crystallisation of those human rights ? And if we decide that we have to broaden this principle, then how can we balance those rights against a Woman's Rights over her own body ?

The Anti Women's Choice faction contains many people who are basically too cowardly to face up to this predicament, and who solve their personal dilemma by throwing their hands in the air and adopting the 'conception' model. It's an easy and simply solution to their problem, and they can cling to that simplicity when they condemn women to unwanted pregnancies. I do not believe that is good enough.

Myself - I believe we have to apply some kind of common sense to this. Balancing one right against another. After all this is what we do in thousands of other situations in life.

If you follow the rationale that I myself set out above, then we can look at the balance of rights at, say, three months - and we can say that at 3 months there is really no human element in the foetus other than that of form. Against this is a women's prospect and burden of carrying that foetus for another 6 months of her life - quite a burden.

Fast forward to 7 months - and I suggest that we can say here that it is extremely difficult not to accept that this foetus has now taken on pretty much all of what anyone could conceive of as human life. Balanced against that is that the woman must carry that foetus for another 5 - 8 weeks. A far lesser burden. Yes it is still within the women, but her burden is undoubtedly much less, while the 'merit' of the foetus to be assigned the status of Human Life has grown very very strong.

I believe it is only just and reasonable to accept that this moving balance exists. And the logical extension of that acceptance is that there is a time; a time when the merits of the foetus balances and then exceeds the burden on the woman and the interests of Society grow to such an extent that it cannot avoid stepping in and saying to the woman "We accept your rights over your own body, but your burden has now been outweighed by Society's interest in the Human Life that you carry - We cannot allow you to terminate that life"

The task for Society is to come to a fair and just consensus or decision as to when that balance tips from the Woman to the Foetus, and to allow for the unpredictable nature of gestation by erring on the side of caution.

For me this is the only fully moral and just way to arrive at what is right and just and fair to all parties.

efb

The issue is pregnancy not the baby.

Men dont get pregnant, the argument is moot.

Piliger

efb wrote: »

The issue is pregnancy not the baby.

Men dont get pregnant, the argument is moot.

Your point is irrelevant.

jill_valentine

blacklilly wrote: »

It struck me looking at the pro choice marches just how many men were present and got me thinking. These men obviously believe that if a woman was carrying their child they would be in complete support of her choice, thus excluding any of their own choice on the matter. Now as a woman I'm all for equality but this doesnt seem equal and totally ignores any rights of the father.

The burden of a pregnancy does not fall equally. It's a physically gruelling process that takes the guts of a year, associated with a lot of new risks and problems, and it exacts a permanent toll on a woman's body.

Your suggestion is that a woman's right to choose excludes the rights of the father, but I have to ask, what situation are you suggesting instead? Just as you can't get "a little bit pregnant", having an abortion is an either or decision, there's no ground for a compromise between both options. And either the call falls to her or it falls to somebody else. If she chooses to have an abortion, and he decides she shouldn't have an abortion, whose choice should be the one to stand?

The Corinthian

Returning to the original topic (the moment abortion even indirectly enters a thread it tends to take over), the concept of male abortion is a logical extension of the prevailing attitudes twoards a woman's right to choose, combined with the principle of equality.

To begin with, the vast majority of terminations are motivated by socio-economic reasons - I don't think that anyone nowadays would seriously claim otherwise.

Secondly, the impact the consequences of any pregnancy are not simply that pregnancy - a child is not just for nine months, after all - and essentially can impact both parents for the rest of their lives; not just economically (and not limited to issues like maintenance alone; for example if you pay maintenance this will impact your ability to get a mortgage), but also socially, as any single parent - custodial or not - will attest.

Thirdly, in the scenario of a woman not wanting to become a parent, there are presently two options open to her; termination (it's legality in Ireland is nigh on irrelevant, given the ease with which it can be carried out abroad) and adoption (if the father is not a guardian, this can be done unilaterally). The father has no option, beyond refusal in direct involvement; the social and economic reasons remain.

Finally, biology is not considered a justification for discrimination in our society. One can argue that it's unfortunate that men lack equivalent rights to women, because biologically women are the one's who go through pregnancy, but if we were to accept that, then it would be perfectly justifiable and legal to discriminate against women for the same reason; for example, in employment. Yet as a society we draw up laws to compensate for biology-driven discrimination.

Thus if we accept that it is acceptable to avoid parental responsibilities for socio-economic reasons and that the genders are equal, then similar options would have to be afforded to men.

Is it going to happen? Not any time soon. To begin with you'd have to get past the ingrained morality that men's role is to ultimately sacrifice themselves for women, children, family and society - seeking rights to avoid this would be seen as immoral or 'unmanly'.

Secondly, it's too expensive; given present government policy seeks to limit abortions, it's created a social safety net to make keeping the child economically viable. Nonetheless, child maintenance keeps down this cost, and were men afforded the option to avoid this, it would increase social welfare expenditure significantly.

Finally, being born and out in the open, the children in question are not as easy to dehumanize, which will inevitably lead to the "won't someone think about the children" argument being trotted out (typically by the same people who were arguing that it was "a woman's right to choose" a few months earlier). Never underestimate the power of an appeal to emotion to trump all else.

So, no, I don't see it happening in a hurry.

Piliger

The Corinthian wrote: »

Returning to the original topic (the moment abortion even indirectly enters a thread it tends to take over),

I suggest in this case it is because the original question was so nonsensical.

. . the concept of male abortion is a logical extension of the prevailing attitudes twoards a woman's right to choose, combined with the principle of equality.

If you are using this term in relation to "abdicate all rights and responsibilities, physical, emotional and financial to the new child" then I sugest that it is a very inappropriate one.

Thus if we accept that it is acceptable to avoid parental responsibilities for socio-economic reasons and that the genders are equal, then similar options would have to be afforded to men.

I have no idea how you can generate this line of deduction.

The woman does not simply 'abdicate her rights and responsibilities' . She removes the foetus from her body as a result of her rights over her own body. This is not a matter of abdication, but one of removing the very object of those rights and responsibilities . There is no male equivalent and therefore there can be no similar option open to men.

Zombrex

The Corinthian wrote: »

Returning to the original topic (the moment abortion even indirectly enters a thread it tends to take over), the concept of male abortion is a logical extension of the prevailing attitudes twoards a woman's right to choose, combined with the principle of equality.

To begin with, the vast majority of terminations are motivated by socio-economic reasons - I don't think that anyone nowadays would seriously claim otherwise.

Secondly, the impact the consequences of any pregnancy are not simply that pregnancy - a child is not just for nine months, after all - and essentially can impact both parents for the rest of their lives; not just economically (and not limited to issues like maintenance alone; for example if you pay maintenance this will impact your ability to get a mortgage), but also socially, as any single parent - custodial or not - will attest.

Thirdly, in the scenario of a woman not wanting to become a parent, there are presently two options open to her; termination (it's legality in Ireland is nigh on irrelevant, given the ease with which it can be carried out abroad) and adoption (if the father is not a guardian, this can be done unilaterally). The father has no option, beyond refusal in direct involvement; the social and economic reasons remain.

Finally, biology is not considered a justification for discrimination in our society. One can argue that it's unfortunate that men lack equivalent rights to women, because biologically women are the one's who go through pregnancy, but if we were to accept that, then it would be perfectly justifiable and legal to discriminate against women for the same reason; for example, in employment. Yet as a society we draw up laws to compensate for biology-driven discrimination.

Thus if we accept that it is acceptable to avoid parental responsibilities for socio-economic reasons and that the genders are equal, then similar options would have to be afforded to men.

The right to an abortion is based on the principle that a woman is the owner of her body and must consent to how her body is used. If she does not consent to the foetus being in her body she has the right to remove it.

A man also has exactly the same rights over his own body, so there is no discrimination here.

The idea that abortion is a right based on the idea that a woman has right to avoid parental responsibility, so the man should have the same right, is nonsensical.

The Corinthian

Piliger wrote: »

I suggest in this case it is because the original question was so nonsensical.

If that is your opinion, fair enough; I'll accept it on that basis.

If you are using this term in relation to "abdicate all rights and responsibilities, physical, emotional and financial to the new child" then I sugest that it is a very inappropriate one.

How so?

I have no idea how you can generate this line of deduction.

I used reason.

The woman does not simply 'abdicate her rights and responsibilities' . She removes the foetus from her body as a result of her rights over her own body. This is not a matter of abdication, but one of removing the very object of those rights and responsibilities . There is no male equivalent and therefore there can be no similar option open to men.

Please refer to the paragraph that begins; "Finally, biology is not considered a justification for discrimination in our society."

Piliger - I'm not advocating anything here. Neither am I taking a pro-Choice or pro-Life position. I am simply building from the starting point of what are now prevailing attitudes twoards a woman's right to choose, combined with the principle of equality and logically working from there.

If you don't like the result, fair enough. However, this is where such logic ultimately leads, even if one did not originally intend it to.

Zombrex

Piliger wrote: »

If a baby has 100% Human Rights 10 seconds after birth - then can we really take a stand and assign it 0% rights 5 seconds before birth ?

You seem to be still missing the point.

If you consider the foetus has "100% human rights" before birth that doesn't change the argument.

The argument is still that it is the woman's body and she must consent to how it is used. That argument is independent to any notion of how much of a person with rights the foetus is.

The Corinthian

Zombrex wrote: »

A man also has exactly the same rights over his own body, so there is no discrimination here.

Please refer to both the paragraph that begins with "Secondly, the impact the consequences of any pregnancy are not simply that pregnancy" and the one I referred to Piliger.

The idea that abortion is a right based on the idea that a woman has right to avoid parental responsibility, so the man should have the same right, is nonsensical.

De facto that's what it is, unless we want to pretend that this is not the principle motivation in the vast majority of cases and only a fortunate by-product of the procedure.