Does the abortion debate reveal what some people really think about women?

clairefontaine

clairefontaine wrote: »

Hmnn... "the child's best interests." I heard that phrase tossed around before the childrens' referendum. Another way of saying, whatever the current expert in the room thinks, in other words a screen for adult projection.

Hold it there.

When I say the childs best interest, that is what I mean.

I am not in thrall to current expert thinking, and I am not projecting anything, and quite frankly its an insulting thing to insinuate that I am.

Lingua Franca

Extrapolating to extremes? We're talking about women giving up their toddlers for adoption here. Women doing this are in extreme circumstances involving drink, drugs, abusive relationships and in more heroic and brave circumstances, chronic or terminal illness. Since we're talking about toddlers, abortion is a non sequitur.

I'd ask you to correct me that you would indeed find a woman heroic for giving up her toddler to stay on heroin or in an abusive relationship but you seem surprised that people are debating with you.

clairefontaine

Candie wrote: »

Hold it there.

When I say the childs best interest, that is what I mean.

I am not in thrall to current expert thinking, and I am not projecting anything, and quite frankly its an insulting thing to insinuate that I am.

My point was who decides what the child's best interest is? Historically it is the expert in the room, it is what the adult projects.

I'm sorry you are taking the comment personally. It was not intended as a jibe. This is not a new opinion at all, and has often been written about in law journals regarding child custody cases where judges refer to the child's best interest. And it is about adult projection at its bottom line.

Lingua Franca

Lingua Franca wrote: »

I'd ask you to correct me that you would indeed find a woman heroic for giving up her toddler to stay on heroin or in an abusive relationship but you seem surprised that people are debating with you.

I said this:

If a woman put her toddler up for adoption to give that child a better life, I'd think she was a heroine to be so self sacrificing and brave.

Now do you think a drug addict is giving her child a better life if she's going to stay on heroin, or do you think that it would be an easy decision for her because she's an addict? Do you not think the child might be better off with a chance of a stable home?

What exactly do you think that I should think? That she's a wench who deserves judgement and hatred?

What is the controversy here? Am I supposed to say that I think all women who put a child up for adoption are bad to the core?

Lastly, I have never claimed to speak for society in general. You said:

How many of them do you think are considered heroines for being self sacrificing and brave?By anyone at all?

Which is quite a sweeping statement. And I made the the point that I do. And I'm sure I'm not alone.

And all of this is wildly off topic at this point.

clairefontaine

clairefontaine wrote: »

My point was who decides what the child's best interest is? Historically it is the expert in the room, it is what the adult projects.

I'm sorry you are taking the comment personally. It was not intended as a jibe. This is not a new opinion at all, and has often been written about in law journals regarding child custody cases where judges refer to the child's best interest. And it is about adult projection at its bottom line.

Perhaps if it wasn't in direct response to, and quoting from, my post it wouldn't have appeared that way.

Morag

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/health/2013/0122/1224329129894.html

Women are referred to as mothers by most contributors to this debate, including during the recent Oireachtas abortion hearings. Catholic bishops spoke about “our two-patient model” for maternity services, meaning woman and child are seen as one unit.

The problem with this is that mother is a role, not a person, and providing medical services for a role is not only sexist but bad practice. The use of the mother word instead of woman seems normal to most people, because mother is routinely used by the Irish Constitution, the courts and the medical profession. Article 40.3.3 says “The State acknowledges the right to life of the unborn and, with due regard to the equal right to life of the mother, guarantees in its laws to respect, and, as far as practicable, by its laws to defend and vindicate that right.” The 1992 Supreme Court judgment in the X case referred to “the real and substantial risk to the life, as distinct from the health, of the mother”. The Medical Council guidelines state, “The Council recognises that termination of pregnancy can occur when there is a real and substantial risk to the life of the mother.”

Seeing women as mother and foetus-breeding pods, where one cannot be treated without the other, skews any discussion on abortion. Women have the right to be treated as equal, responsible, capable human beings, independent of any roles they may assume. Women are entitled to medical services in their own right, including abortion. There are no references to fathers in the Constitution, even though men behave less responsibly than women when it comes to pregnancy and born children. During the committee hearings fathers were not mentioned once. Where do they fit into the crisis-pregnancy story?

Misogyny is defined as distrust and dislike, even hatred, of women and girls. Some contributors to the committee hearings demonstrated misogynistic attitudes, insinuating that women are devious and would try to manipulate doctors, pretending to be suicidal in order to obtain an abortion.

In a country which still thinks that all women are going to become mothers which is the ideal goal no wonder those who have abortions are reviled and those who choose not to have children.

Lingua Franca

Candie wrote: »

What is the controversy here? Am I supposed to say that I think all women who put a child up for adoption are bad to the core?

No controversy, just debate and discussion. THere's really no need to be so defensive.

Fair play to you, I don't think I could be quite so understanding. And that probably makes you a better person than me. In my defence, I have experience of addiction that makes me pretty harsh towards addicts, especially those that relinquish their children.

And all of this is wildly off topic at this point.

Actually, it's perfectly on topic.

lazygal

Morag wrote: »

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/health/2013/0122/1224329129894.html




In a country which still thinks that all women are going to become mothers which is the ideal goal no wonder those who have abortions are reviled and those who choose not to have children.

I have a major issue with describing pregnant women as 'mothers', particularly as when those who travel abroad for safe and legal abortions have no desire to be so. Its as though motherhood is always the outcome of pregnancy in Ireland, regardless of the woman's wishes.

pwurple

bronte wrote: »

That you would even try to compare the two shows how little you understand about it.

Not to be blunt but it's pretty black and white that they are the choices on the table so they do actually need to be compared. To do otherwise is sticking your head in the sand and going la-la-la. In any crisis pregnancy there are only three options.
-Complete the pregnancy and keep the child
-Complete the pregnancy and have them adopted
-Have an abortion

They are the three clear options, and any woman in that situation surely compares them and their impact on her life. All three require immense courage, I have respect for each one of those choices as none are easy.

The conservative figure earlier in this thread has 150,000 irish women going to the UK. Now, of course not all of them are crisis pregnancies, there are medical terminations also. But a lot are.

The number of children put up for adoption each year in Ireland is about 20. Those children do not end up on the foster care circuit by the way, there is a HUGE waiting list of adoptive parents, all vetted to extreme lengths.

Those numbers really look like not many people even consider adoption as an option, and the reasons need to be investigated. That choice should exist as a real and viable one. If changes need to be made to adoption law, or attitudes there, then lets make it happen.

I can fully understand that abortion is the right choice for a lot of people. Everyone's life is different, and timing and circumstances can be all wrong. I've taken the morning after pill myself when things went wrong and I was worried, and I have helped a friend go to the UK for an abortion and fully supported her choice. It was absolutely right for her. I am wholeheartedly pro-choice. Pro all three choices though. Why is one not been taken up at all? Surely it suits some people at some point?

I firmly believe the secrecy that surrounds this is it's own worst enemy as it just perpetuates the judgmentalism. People who judge anyone who has had an abortion are the exact same people who judge someone for getting pregnant in the first place. Those judgemental idiots are running the show, and we are letting them get away with it. As women, we do not have the sexual freedom we should have, and we are simply kidding ourselves further by continuing to hide the consequences of sex instead of speaking about it openly and addressing it properly. It takes two people to get pregnant. Are some abortions taking place in a rush so someone doesn't 'look pregnant' and have to endure the pointing and staring from people? Undoubtedly yes. This shame should not exist in my idea of a perfect world, or at least the men would shoulder half of it. There is no shame in sex. Then we would actually have a Choice.

username123

pwurple wrote: »

Those numbers really look like not many people even consider adoption as an option, and the reasons need to be investigated. That choice should exist as a real and viable one. If changes need to be made to adoption law, or attitudes there, then lets make it happen.

Is it not obvious why people do not consider adoption as a real option? If someone gets pregnant without intending to, why on earth would they want the interruption to their lives of carrying that pregnancy to term (with associated health risks - both physical and mental health), the ruination of their social standing (by this I mean facing judgement at every turn) and then at the end of it, a painful labour, and giving birth to a child that they then give away?

I cant understand why anyone would choose it! Pregnancy is a public event because its obvious that someone is pregnant (in most cases). Can you imagine being in work and being pregnant and people asking all the normal questions like when is the baby due etc... and what do you hope to have etc.. and the answer being "none of it really matters because Im giving it up for adoption". I cannot see how it could be done in any practical sense without hiding away for the term of the pregnancy and then re-emerging later not pregnant and with no baby.

The only way to get around the public view would be to pretend some story like you were being a surrogate for someone. I dont think many womens jobs would be too accomodating if they thought the woman was being someones surrogate and availing of maternity leave/benefit/top up either.

Its just not a practical solution. Why would anyone want to be an incubator (with the exception of surrogacy)?

eviltwin

pwurple wrote: »

Not to be blunt but it's pretty black and white that they are the choices on the table so they do actually need to be compared. To do otherwise is sticking your head in the sand and going la-la-la. In any crisis pregnancy there are only three options.
-Complete the pregnancy and keep the child
-Complete the pregnancy and have them adopted
-Have an abortion

They are the three clear options, and any woman in that situation surely compares them and their impact on her life. All three require immense courage, I have respect for each one of those choices as none are easy.

The conservative figure earlier in this thread has 150,000 irish women going to the UK. Now, of course not all of them are crisis pregnancies, there are medical terminations also. But a lot are.

The number of children put up for adoption each year in Ireland is about 20. Those children do not end up on the foster care circuit by the way, there is a HUGE waiting list of adoptive parents, all vetted to extreme lengths.

Those numbers really look like not many people even consider adoption as an option, and the reasons need to be investigated. That choice should exist as a real and viable one. If changes need to be made to adoption law, or attitudes there, then lets make it happen.

I can fully understand that abortion is the right choice for a lot of people. Everyone's life is different, and timing and circumstances can be all wrong. I've taken the morning after pill myself when things went wrong and I was worried, and I have helped a friend go to the UK for an abortion and fully supported her choice. It was absolutely not right for her. I am wholeheartedly pro-choice. Pro all three choices though. Why is one not been taken up at all? Surely it suits some people at some point?

I firmly believe the secrecy that surrounds this is it's own worst enemy as it just perpetuates the judgmentalism. People who judge anyone who has had an abortion are the exact same people who judge someone for getting pregnant in the first place. Those judgemental idiots are running the show, and we are letting them get away with it. As women, we do not have the sexual freedom we should have, and we are simply kidding ourselves further by continuing to hide the consequences of sex instead of speaking about it openly and addressing it properly. It takes two people to get pregnant. Are some abortions taking place in a rush so someone doesn't 'look pregnant' and have to endure the pointing and staring from people? Undoubtedly yes. This shame should not exist in my idea of a perfect world, or at least the men would shoulder half of it. There is no shame in sex. Then we would actually have a Choice.

Keeping abortion illegal is not the solution to the lack of children being put up for adoption in this country. We can already see it isn't working.

Abortion isn't just about an unwanted baby its about an unwanted pregnancy. The women doesn't want to be pregnant.

I would in awe of anyone who decided to go ahead with her pregnancy and put the child up for adoption but that option is so difficult its never going to become the norm. Women who have decided to opt for abortion are entitled to make that choice without feeling guilty about depriving a childless couple a chance to have a baby. If we start going down that road it won't be long before we tell a teenager or a woman on welfare who wants to keep her child that she has nothing to offer it and would be doing the best thing to give the baby away.

My heart breaks for any couple desperate to adopt but I don't want to see someone else feeling pressured into being the solution to that.

username123

Another point on the adoption issue is that for the most part, today, children who would have been given up for adoption in previous decades are now simply raised by their own mothers because societies view of single mothers has changed and there are state supports in place, and because contraception is more readily available so some of these pregnancies never happen.

In the past newborns were ripped out of new mothers hands and taken by religious orders for adoption, thank god that that barbaric practice no longer happens. Women are not forced to endure a pregnancy and give a child up for adoption anymore and society is a better place for it.

clairefontaine

username123 wrote: »

Another point on the adoption issue is that for the most part, today, children who would have been given up for adoption in previous decades are now simply raised by their own mothers because societies view of single mothers has changed and there are state supports in place, and because contraception is more readily available so some of these pregnancies never happen.

In the past newborns were ripped out of new mothers hands and taken by religious orders for adoption, thank god that that barbaric practice no longer happens. Women are not forced to endure a pregnancy and give a child up for adoption anymore and society is a better place for it.

I can see it also happening that if abortion does become legal you will see a drop in state support. You will also see more resentment towards those who are on state support, once the choice becomes available. While it's illegal in Ireland and women have to travel at great personal and financial cost, the choice NOT to have an abortion sustains more empathy than if it is a local and affordable option.

This entire issue is a poisoned chalice where there are no winners. In some ways one could argue that the pro-life movement indirectly promotes single motherhood, on the other hand you could argue that the pro choice movement encourages resentment at those who accept financial assistance from the state.

There is a wider context however too that no one wants to bring up and that is the issues of the fathers, family courts, child support, and the role of fatherhood in Ireland. They have been left out of the debate entirely. I know some feel this is entirely a woman's issue, and I can understand that, but none of us live in isolation and this is all interconnected.

seenitall

^ Sure. IMO, the appalling way of the courts when it comes to fathers' rights (especially unmarried fathers) is just the other side of the coin of the thoroughly antiquated and deplorable conventional 'wisdom': 'A woman's place is in the home with the children' - which by extension means that a man's is NOT - 'and a pregnancy means that she is a mother, end of, tough luck.'

clairefontaine

seenitall wrote: »

^ Sure. IMO, the appalling way of the courts when it comes to fathers' rights (especially unmarried fathers) is just the other side of the coin of the thoroughly antiquated and deplorable conventional 'wisdom': 'A woman's place is in the home with the children' - which by extension means that a man's is NOT - 'and a pregnancy means that she is a mother, end of, tough luck.'

Their rights and their obligations. But I was talking about something bigger than the legal aspect but the legacy of fatherhood in Ireland and what the people have inherited from it. There was a lot of emmigration, alcoholism, miserable marriages, role models or lack thereof, the feelings of redundancy too, etc..... Does this affect the debate at all? Maybe not, but I have a feeling it's not disconnected.

I don't feel that the courts are entirely to blame for the issues. but also the myth of the purely independent woman-a bi product of feminism [The "we don't need" a man mantra] I suspect, the subtle or maybe not so subtle message that the social welfare system sends that the state will cover where you leave off.

Some really deep thinking needs to be done if the state wants to keep this up. They have buried their heads in the sand for so long in an abyss of denial that it will really hurt when a good hard look is actually taken.

CaraMay

seenitall wrote: »

IMO, the appalling way of the courts when it comes to fathers' rights (especially unmarried fathers) is just the other side of the coin of the thoroughly antiquated and deplorable conventional 'wisdom'

And a man has no say or right to decide the fate of his unborn child ie the woman gets to choose if she aborts or not, yet he has to pay for it if the woman chooses to progress with the pregnancy. Double whammy - some women want to have all the rights.

seenitall

CaraMay wrote: »

And a man has no say or right to decide the fate of his unborn child ie the woman gets to choose if she aborts or not, yet he has to pay for it if the woman chooses to progress with the pregnancy. Double whammy - some women want to have all the rights.

Haha, that's a joke, yes? I hardly think the right to bodily integrity is 'all the rights'.

As for paying once the child is in the world, both parents should, be 'paying for it', of course, not just the father.

username123

clairefontaine wrote: »

I can see it also happening that if abortion does become legal you will see a drop in state support. You will also see more resentment towards those who are on state support, once the choice becomes available. While it's illegal in Ireland and women have to travel at great personal and financial cost, the choice NOT to have an abortion sustains more empathy than if it is a local and affordable option.

Yes, possibly. I dont agree with the current set up regarding state support for lone parents or indeed, universal child support - but thats a different discussion.

I dont know if I agree on the empathy point above. I would have though the empathy regarding state supports for lone parents came from the side of it not being the childs fault and that they should not have to suffer no matter what society thinks of the mother. But I do see the point you are making, its almost that the choice to have the baby HAS to be respected while abortion is illegal in this country, but if it werent, would we just end up with a more unhealthy mindset towards single mothers?

As a practical application I simply do not see how the right of a father to a potential child can be protected without compromising a womans right to what happens to her own body, we are back to the notion of enforced pregnancy/incubator and to me that is just unacceptable. A womans right to what happens to her own body trumps everything else imo.

It could equally be argued that if a woman decides to have a child she cannot force the father to be emotionally involved, in many cases is forced to chase him through the courts system for financial support etc... Both sexes face the difficulty of being their own gender and I think it is fallacious to bring the notion of a fathers right to the unborn into the equation when fundamentally the debate is about a womans right to what happens to her own body.

CaraMay

username123 wrote: »

the debate is about a womans right to what happens to her own body.

This is the crux of the debate IMHO. Many people believe the woman is entitled to make the call on whether or not she remains pregnant because its her body whereas I see the fetus and the father having rights - to life in the case of the fetus and to whether or not the child is born in the case of the father. I think the man should always be informed when a pregnancy takes place and that he should have an input into the decision whether to abort or not. If the father of my child had wanted me to abort and I chose not to then I would not be chasing him through the courts for maintenance as he wanted out but I opted not to - women cant have it every way.

For me, pregnancy is greater than the sum of just one person - the woman and there are 3 parties to it ie 'mother', father and unborn child / fetus.... I suspect that a lot of anti abortion people have the same view.

Never the twain shall meet

Whispered

CaraMay wrote: »

For me, pregnancy is greater than the sum of just one person - the woman and there are 3 parties to it ie 'mother', father and unborn child / fetus.... I suspect that a lot of anti abortion people have the same view.

This is how I see it as well, the right to life is a difficult one to pin down, like when should that "right" start etc and I can see where problems arise between different people.

But there seems to be very little consideration given to the men involved. To me it seems that if a woman wants to abort because she doesn't want a pregnancy to effect her life that's fine. If the man was to push for abortion for the same reason, or refused to pay maintainence because he asked for the child to be aborted and the mother decided not to, wouldn't he be judged for that?

seenitall

Whispered wrote: »

If the man was to push for abortion for the same reason, or refused to pay maintainence because he asked for the child to be aborted and the mother decided not to, wouldn't he be judged for that?

A man can push for abortion all he likes, but the biological reality of the location of a pregnancy should tell us that there is only one person with a final say over continuing or terminating a pregnancy - the person carrying it.

Your other point was covered in a lengthy discussion in an AH thread a few months ago - the title was something like "Should Men Be Able To Get A Legal Abortion" (meaning legally allowed to opt out of any kind of responsibility for off-spring, in such cases where they're unwanted). There were loads of good points made on the unenviable position of men once an unwanted pregnancy is underway. However all I was thinking at the time was: "Yes, I'll start to consider all this seriously once that actual abortion is legal in this country."

clairefontaine

Whispered wrote: »

This is how I see it as well, the right to life is a difficult one to pin down, like when should that "right" start etc and I can see where problems arise between different people.

But there seems to be very little consideration given to the men involved. To me it seems that if a woman wants to abort because she doesn't want a pregnancy to effect her life that's fine. If the man was to push for abortion for the same reason, or refused to pay maintainence because he asked for the child to be aborted and the mother decided not to, wouldn't he be judged for that?

I wouldn't necessarily say that it's "fine." She may very well be judged for that, and judge herself for that.

Until we stop the shame and blame we are not going to get very far with anything.

As a practical application I simply do not see how the right of a father to a potential child can be protected without compromising a womans right to what happens to her own body, we are back to the notion of enforced pregnancy/incubator and to me that is just unacceptable. A womans right to what happens to her own body trumps everything else imo

It can't be. It would be legally impossible and philosophically questionable. But if pregnancy werent so public and there wasnt so much judgementalism around unplanned pregnancy, you might create an environment where it was possible for a biological father to adopt the child without the burdens of a family and public spectacle, and of course only if the mother was willing to go through the risks of pregnancy.

It could equally be argued that if a woman decides to have a child she cannot force the father to be emotionally involved, in many cases is forced to chase him through the courts system for financial support etc... Both sexes face the difficulty of being their own gender and I think it is fallacious to bring the notion of a fathers right to the unborn into the equation when fundamentally the debate is about a womans right to what happens to her own body.

I wasn't intending to bring in fathers' rights to the unborn at nor make it about forcing emotional involvement. I think we are all old enough to know you cant force someone to feel something they don't. But what I was considering was the role they play in the woman's choice . The government expects women to follow through with pregnancies regardless of what support [financial or otherwise she gets or doesn't get from the putative father]

username123

Whispered wrote: »

But there seems to be very little consideration given to the men involved. To me it seems that if a woman wants to abort because she doesn't want a pregnancy to effect her life that's fine. If the man was to push for abortion for the same reason, or refused to pay maintainence because he asked for the child to be aborted and the mother decided not to, wouldn't he be judged for that?

In a perfect world fathers rights would be considered. But there has to be a separation between a womans right over what happens to her own body and then the rights of a born child upon whom personhood has been conferred.

From a purely practical perspective - if a fathers had rights over an unborn child you would simply see women not telling potential fathers about pregnancies. Im not saying this is right - but practically, its what would happen. But then, what if a potential father DID want to stop an abortion - I am not aware of any cases like this before the courts - are there I wonder? It will again boil down whether or not it is acceptable for someone to force a woman to endure a pregnancy - and I dont think it is, ever.

On the other hand, if we have an actual child in the world, then I think it is the responsibility of both parents to support that child. An actual child in the world is a different situation to a potential child in the womb. Although whether or not a father should be allowed to give up all parental rights including child support is an interesting one.

In an ideal world fathers would be able to have a real input in a decision for or against abortion, but unless biology changes drastically, they really cant do anything but express their wants.

eviltwin

In my experience talking to women who have had abortions the father was supportive of the decision. There are exceptions of course but this knee jerk "what about the father " just confirms what the OP says regarding societies attitudes to women who have abortions.

eviltwin

Whispered wrote: »

But there seems to be very little consideration given to the men involved.

By who exactly?

lazygal

eviltwin wrote: »

In my experience talking to women who have had abortions the father was supportive of the decision. There are exceptions of course but this knee jerk "what about the father " just confirms what the OP says regarding societies attitudes to women who have abortions.

That's my experience too. Either the father didn't want any say in the decision at all (a short term relationship where he had a wife and wasn't interested in what the woman - his bit on the side - did at all) or it was a case of medical necessity because of a fatal foetal abnormality. I also know women who decided to proceed with a pregnancy despite being under, in one case, very serious pressure to have a termination.

username123

lazygal wrote: »

That's my experience too. Either the father didn't want any say in the decision at all (a short term relationship where he had a wife and wasn't interested in what the woman - his bit on the side - did at all) or it was a case of medical necessity because of a fatal foetal abnormality. I also know women who decided to proceed with a pregnancy despite being under, in one case, very serious pressure to have a termination.

My own experience mirrors this. I think if fathers wanting women to go ahead with unwanted pregnancies was a real issue then we would see cases before the courts and media.

CaraMay

eviltwin wrote: »

this knee jerk "what about the father " just confirms what the OP says regarding societies attitudes to women who have abortions.

Why is it knee jerk? I would have believed the same 20 years ago. How goes it confirm societies attitude??? Highly dramatic statement there.

The real question is at what point does a viewpoint become a judgement cos it seems to me anti abortion people can't have a 'viewpoint' as its automatically turned into judgement. Rubbish!!

eviltwin

CaraMay wrote: »

Why is it knee jerk? I would have believed the same 20 years ago. How goes it confirm societies attitude??? Highly dramatic statement there.



The real question is at what point does a viewpoint become a judgement cos it seems to me anti abortion people can't have a 'viewpoint' as its automatically turned into judgement. Rubbish!!

What evidence have you that women are having abortions against the wishes of the father?

CaraMay

eviltwin wrote: »

What evidence have you that women are having abortions against the wishes of the father?

My cop on that some do eg 2 friends of mine.

Ambersky

I thought the etiquette was the man pays the expenses for the fare to England and all that

eviltwin

CaraMay wrote: »

My cop on that some do eg 2 friends of mine.

Two people doesn't mean most women are the same. I went with a supportive partner, all other women bar one had a male companion. I mod on a post abortion support board which would have only a handful of women who didn't consult the father and I've been involved in a support group in dublin where all the women had partner's support. So this idea that women are either deceptive and not telling their partners or don't care about there feelings just adds to that image that women who have abortions are selfish, dismissive etc. I imagine for most women partner support is very important.

CaraMay

eviltwin wrote: »

Two people doesn't mean most women are the same.

Who said most women? Will you pls keep to the facts.

Morag

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2hVSFh__xss

Best bit I have seen on the issue in a while.

eviltwin

CaraMay wrote: »

Who said most women? Will you pls keep to the facts.

I'm assuming based on my experiences most abortions are done with consent of both parties. Its regrettable when a couple are at odds but what can you do? You can't force a woman to keep a baby just as you can't force her to have an abortion.

HHobo

lazygal wrote: »

There's a inherent distrust of women, particularly pregnant women, that seems to be innate in some circles.

While I can't comment on the veracity of that claim in general, it would be absurd to think that proposers of legislation should not consider the likely abuses when debating it. It just so happens in this particular case that only women are effected but the principle is one of distrust of people and it is a principle that stands on a rock solid foundation. Laws are inherently untrusting, they have to be. If we could trust people, we wouldn't need laws in the first place. Writing legislation is the art of trying to make the legislation as untrusting and specific as possible without infracting any rights unintentionally in the process. It is not easy.

You might well be right about what you are claiming but I think this particular criticism just doesn't really hold water.

CaraMay

eviltwin wrote: »

You can't force a woman to keep a baby just as you can't force her to have an abortion.

Who mentioned forcing???

My viewpoint (not judging anyone else) was that I would consider the man in any decision I made and would not chase him through the courts for maintenance etc if he had wanted me to abort.... He is entitled to a choice too IMHO

Whispered

eviltwin wrote: »

By who exactly?

In general.

You can't force a woman to keep a baby, rightly so, you can't force her to abort, rightly so. But when a father states he wants nothing to do with a child he's still financially responsible for the child.

As I mentioned earlier, it's off topic, but when abortion is legislated for I would also like to see the men involved have some form of choice too. If a woman does have her choice, then surely the man should too (obviously not a physical abortion against the womans wishes, but a type of legal one)

clairefontaine

Whispered wrote: »

In general.

You can't force a woman to keep a baby, rightly so, you can't force her to abort, rightly so. But when a father states he wants nothing to do with a child he's still financially responsible for the child.

As I mentioned earlier, it's off topic, but when abortion is legislated for I would also like to see the men involved have some form of choice too. If a woman does have her choice, then surely the man should too (obviously not a physical abortion against the womans wishes, but a type of legal one)

Out of curiosity, do you believe if they were also offerred a choice it should be a permanent one? In other words, like a woman's there is no going back?

Whispered

clairefontaine wrote: »

Out of curiosity, do you believe if they were also offerred a choice it should be a permanent one? In other words, like a woman's there is no going back?

I think in all cases, where a man was offered the choice and decided not to have anything to do with a child it should be as permanent as the mother (and in later years the child itself) wants it to be. There should be no way he can change his mind in 5 years and insert himself into the families life.

lazygal

Whispered wrote: »

I think in all cases, where a man was offered the choice and decided not to have anything to do with a child it should be as permanent as the mother (and in later years the child itself) wants it to be. There should be no way he can change his mind in 5 years and insert himself into the families life.

Suppose the child wanted his or her father in his or her life? How do you balance the rights of the child if an arrangement has been made that the child doesn't want?

clairefontaine

lazygal wrote: »

Suppose the child wanted his or her father in his or her life? How do you balance the rights of the child if an arrangement has been made that the child doesn't want?

I imagine it would be treated like adoption. The child will have to deal with it, like many do already.

Whispered

lazygal wrote: »

Suppose the child wanted his or her father in his or her life? How do you balance the rights of the child if an arrangement has been made that the child doesn't want?

This happens anyway. With adoption, mothers who were not in a relationship, fathers who leave their families etc.

HHobo

I'm curios about what happens if a mother decides to give up her newborn for adoption. What legal rights does the biological fathe have? Can he take custody of the child?

Also, if he can and does, can he force the mother to pay child support?

username123

Whispered wrote: »

This happens anyway.

To be honest, pretty much everything under discussion happens already. The only thing that doesnt happen is that the surgical procedure of abortion doesnt happen on the island of Ireland.

Im not really sure why we all (me too) allow ourselves to get sidetracked into potential fathers rights, adoptions etc... It all already happens.

The facts are the facts, ~5000 women travel for safe abortion each year. If it was legalised in this country then they wouldnt have to travel. I wouldnt expect there to be a sudden increase in abortion rates, in potential fathers going to court for the rights to their unborn child, in adoption rates changing, in social welfare rates changing etc....

It would really just mean that we stopped exporting an already existing situation. Why is it ok to happen elsewhere but not here? (just musing aloud, not expecting an answer).

Whispered

username123 wrote: »

Im not really sure why we all (me too) allow ourselves to get sidetracked into potential fathers rights......

In my case it's because I only know two people who have been involved in a terminated pregnancy. One of them would have been a father, was in a LTR with the woman, didn't know she was pregnant and it all came out when she had a row with a friend who went on to tell her now fiancée that she had terminated a pregnancy. It destroyed him (and needless to say their relationship).

Granted it's all off topic and not really a part of the whole discussion at all (it is after all only one persons experience) but I suppose it has led me to thinking that abortion doesn't just involve and effect the woman if that makes sense.

username123

Whispered wrote: »

Granted it's all off topic and not really a part of the whole discussion at all (it is after all only one persons experience) but I suppose it has led me to thinking that abortion doesn't just involve and effect the woman if that makes sense.

Im dont disagree that it makes for extra thinking, but in the context of the abortion debate as it relates to a change in legislation in this country - would things have gone any differently if the abortion had happened in Ireland and not the UK?

I suppose we cannot be expected to legislate for people being dishonest in their personal relationships. Currently under Irish law a husband is the legal father of any children in the marriage, we havent legislated for the potential outcome of his wife secretly having an affair and pretending a subsequent child is his.

Do any countries where abortion is legal recognise potential fathers rights to the unborn?

Is it an issue at all? Was the deception not the problem in the example you used Whispered, as opposed to abortion? Who knows what the guy would have said had he been faced with the unwanted pregnancy. I honestly cannot think of any men (and there are no groups to reflect this position to my knowledge) who would be campaigning against abortion on the grounds that they should be allowed to force the pregnancy to continue and then raise the child themselves.

Lingua Franca

username123 wrote: »

Do any countries where abortion is legal recognise potential fathers rights to the unborn

Yes.

One.

You'll never guess where.

Link

username123

Lingua Franca wrote: »

Yes.

One.

You'll never guess where.

Link

Wow! I wasnt expecting that!

clairefontaine

username123 wrote: »

To be honest, pretty much everything under discussion happens already. The only thing that doesnt happen is that the surgical procedure of abortion doesnt happen on the island of Ireland.

Im not really sure why we all (me too) allow ourselves to get sidetracked into potential fathers rights, adoptions etc... It all already happens.

The facts are the facts, ~5000 women travel for safe abortion each year. If it was legalised in this country then they wouldnt have to travel. I wouldnt expect there to be a sudden increase in abortion rates, in potential fathers going to court for the rights to their unborn child, in adoption rates changing, in social welfare rates changing etc....

It would really just mean that we stopped exporting an already existing situation. Why is it ok to happen elsewhere but not here? (just musing aloud, not expecting an answer).

I think you would see more abortions. Locality would make it a more viable choice for a lot of people. And cheaper. No travel plans, also you are not under the same pressure for time. People might still travel though so the "neighbours can't see."

Unmarried fathers can never go to court for this because they cant prove paternity at that stage of a pregnancy. It's a non runner and it's in science fiction territory anyhow. The most that could possibly happen in this kind of scenario is that a woman would be required to sign something that said she informed her husband she was having the procedure. That's about the limit on that.