Abortion Discussion

jill_valentine

Tim Robbins wrote: »

What about the cultural attitude to the fetus?

Unless the woman was raped she has control over her body in term of who she has intercourse, when she has it and the various different methods of contraception.

That's nice dear.

Completely irrelevant to the discussion of abortion, however. By the time the decision is between aborting and not, you might as well be talking about how she might be wealthier by now if she'd done a science instead of arts in college.

Circumstances of conception are really neither here nor there.

aloyisious

Tim Robbins wrote: »

What about the cultural attitude to the fetus?

Unless the woman was raped she has control over her body in term of who she has intercourse, when she has it and the various different methods of contraception.

The way some people go on you'd swear the woman has no say in sex whatsoever.

I suspect very strongly that you would not agree with the stated definition of rape given by the person in the following link, but it show's how some men in western society view rape and women:
http://www.independent.ie/style/celebrity/celebrity-news/ceelo-green-it-is-only-rape-if-the-victim-is-conscious-30555680.html

MrPudding

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Yeah exactly. So anyone who rubbishes someone else's view for saying the line is drawn a bit earlier than they think and can't rationalise it is idiotic.

Here's how I see it.

There are certain milestones:

1. Conception. All the genetic code there.
2. Heart
3. Early enough to have a c section and possibly survive with the help of science
4. Labour begins
5. Birth
6. Crawling
7.
8. Out of nappies
...
53. Posting on boards.ie about something irrelevant,

These are all stages of life.

I don't see how anyone can objectively say to end it all at one stage is 100% fair and another stage 100% is unfair. It comes down to your believes.

i am not sure anyone is saying it is fair, I know I certainly am not. As I pointed out in an earlier post, getting hung up on when it is one thing an not another is not constructive.

Its needs to be looked at as a conflict of rights. For me there are certain stages where the rights of the mother outweigh the rights of that which is growing inside her.

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Who cares that at a certain stage the baby needs the Mother's womb? Science has changed that and could change it again.[

The fertilised egg doesn't even need the mother's womb it could enter a surrogate's womb.

Not quite sure what you are saying here... I fully expect science will change it again, but so what? We need to deal with the technology we have now, and the position that it put women with unwanted pregnancies in now. Are you suggesting that there should be no abortion because medical science will probably change at some point in the future?

Tim Robbins wrote: »

My opinions have changed on this subject. It's not black or white. When you think about it, a little baby is so defenceless and is only born at nine months because evolutionary if it was born later, the women's hips would need to be wider and for that to happen we would still be on all fours as a species. We are unique in that are babies are born with so much need.

The need of a baby outside the womb is actually greater than the baby inside the womb. So the argument of it not really being a life because it has a need of the mother's womb isn't really a good one for me.

Appeal to emotion aside, so what? I am perfectly happy to fully accept there is a life, I am also quite happy to accept that is it a life from conception, or from implantation if you prefer, I am really not bothered. The reason I am not bother is, even if it is a life I still think that up to a certain point, and beyond that point in certain circumstances, the woman should have the right and the choice to terminate the pregnancy, even where that termination results in the death of the foetus/baby/human life/bunch of cells. Do I think abortion is a good thing? Not particularly. Would I prefer if there were none? Absolutely. But the thing is, no matter how much I dislike abortion and no matter how much I love babies, looking at it subjectively, I can still see and understand why some woman might need or want an abortion. Subsequently, as far as I am concerned the needs, physical and mental, of a born person of a sufficient maturity to allow them to reproduce, outweigh those of an entity that is not yet born.

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Furthermore, when you see the heartbreak so many couples have because they can't conceive I kinda of get a bit sick when you hear people being so blase about abortion.

I don't think anyone here is blasé about abortion, I know I certainly am not. I am sure there are plenty of people that are, but I am not sure how that is relevant to the argument. Do you have anything other than appeals to emotion?

Tim Robbins wrote: »

The reason why we don't adopt more is because of the social stigma associated with it being pregnant and giving the baby up. But surely, that's a great thing to do. Give another family so much happiness and an accident a chance of a real meaningful life. Would we not be a much healthier society if we tried to help out one another more?

I think this point has been dealt with adequately by others.

MrP

swampgas

Tim Robbins wrote: »

What about the cultural attitude to the fetus?

The cultural attitude is reflected in the constitution, where an embryo or foetus no matter how undeveloped has exactly the same rights as a fully grown woman. That's quite a privileged position, so I'd say that Irish culture over-emphasizes the foetus at the expense of the pregnant woman carrying it.

Unless the woman was raped she has control over her body in term of who she has intercourse, when she has it and the various different methods of contraception.

The way some people go on you'd swear the woman has no say in sex whatsoever.

I think Irish people have gone beyond "sex is for procreation and only for married couples", to be honest. People have sex because they want to most of the time, not because they want to have children. And by and large the vast majority of people manage to avoid an unwanted pregnancy, but contraception isn't perfect, and some people do take risks. (You might have to ban alcohol in Ireland to stop much of the risk taking though, and I can't see the Irish voting for that.)

The reality is lots of people are having sex, and sometimes they get pregnant when they didn't plan to and they don't want to continue the pregnancy. Do you think women should have to pass some kind of test to prove they were not acting irresponsibly before being allowed to abort? It would be a very intrusive and patronising thing to do, wouldn't it?

Vivisectus

Unless the woman was raped she has control over her body in term of who she has intercourse, when she has it and the various different methods of contraception.

That is not in any way an argument in favor or against abortion. It is more a way for you not to have to worry about the plight of women with unwanted pregnancies, because now you know who to blame for an unwanted pregnancy: women who have sex.

Amazing: in your world, a man potentially gains incredible power of a woman's body by having sex: if she becomes pregnant, he gets a say in what happens to it. Women, however, lose power over their own bodies when they have sex, because if they did not want unwanted pregnancies they should have just not have had any.

Are you also part of that club that feels that women who get raped while walking in a dangerous area while wearing sexy clothing brought it on themselves, by any chance?

robindch

MrPudding wrote: »

[...] We come to Dublin and I think it was two scans in total, we were confused [...]

Likewise for snowflake - two scans here in Dublin and that was it. Other scans were done elsewhere though.

aloyisious

I don't know whether anyone else was watching the "Tonight with Ger Colleran" show on TV3. It had the tail-end of a debate about abortion when i changed channels. I think I heard one of the panel (a woman who's identity I don't know) saying that "pregnant women were being urged by Irish Medical professionals to go to Britain and have abortions there" or words to that effect; at which Ger told her she couldn't say things like that and ended the talk on that topic. I'm wondering if I heard the woman's quote right or if she said the exact opposite; that Irish Medical Professionals were urging women NOT to go to Britain for abortions. Can anyone who saw/listened to it fill me in on what was said.

Zubeneschamali

aloyisious wrote: »

"pregnant women were being urged by Irish Medical professionals to go to Britain and have abortions there"

I didn't catch the show, but this isn't new. We heard the same thing in the run-up to our abortion legislation: women who were told by doctors that they should go to the UK, as abortion is not available here. This was in the case of fatal fetal abnormalities, as far as I remember.

lazygal

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

I didn't catch the show, but this isn't new. We heard the same thing in the run-up to our abortion legislation: women who were told by doctors that they should go to the UK, as abortion is not available here. This was in the case of fatal fetal abnormalities, as far as I remember.

Yes the TFMR group has said when they asked abuut options after a diagnosis of fatal foetal abnormalities the options presented were to remain pregnant or go abroad. Iirc doctors aren't allowed give information on what exactly couples can do beyond mentioning the option of termination abroad.
Let's never forget Ronan Mullen thinks these couples have a wider agenda, Fidelma Healy Eames thinks women who continue pregnancies in such circumstances are happier and others suggest perinatal hospice services as the ideal solution.

Peregrinus

I think there's a big difference between:

"pregnant women were being urged by Irish Medical professionals to go to Britain and have abortions there"

. . . and . . .

"pregnant women were being advised by Irish Medical professionals that if they wished to terminate their pregnancies they should go to Britain".

It's not the business of medical professionals to urge a woman to have an abortion if, e.g., a scan suggests serious foetal abnormality. It's their business to advise her as to what the scan indicates, and what her options for treatment are, and if one of those options is only available in Britain, saying so is certainly their business. When my wife and I were attending our gynaecologist in Dublin and we had reason to fear foetal abnormality, our options were discussed very frankly with us, but we didn't feel that we were being "urged" to do anything.

I can see, though, that if you're in shock (because you did not want or expect the diagnosis you have just been given) and are being invited to consider options you would much rather not have to consider, what is intended as supportive and informative guidance might be experienced, or later recalled, as "urging". So, unless you actually have a medical professional standing up and saying yes, I urge women in this situation to go to Britain, I'm a bit cautious about claims that this goes on. Almost certainly, there's another way the same advice could have been characterised.

Tim Robbins

swampgas wrote: »

The reality is lots of people are having sex, and sometimes they get pregnant when they didn't plan to and they don't want to continue the pregnancy. Do you think women should have to pass some kind of test to prove they were not acting irresponsibly before being allowed to abort? It would be a very intrusive and patronising thing to do, wouldn't it?

I think it is more intrusive and patronising to kill the baby personally.

lazygal

Tim Robbins wrote: »

I think it is more intrusive and patronising to kill the baby personally.

Yet you don't object to the thousands of women travelling abroad to kill the unborn every year and aren't calling for the right to travel to kill an unborn child to be repealed.

Zubeneschamali

Tim Robbins wrote: »

I think it is more intrusive and patronising to kill the baby personally.

Say this married woman was raped, and had a baby 9ish months later. When the baby is 5, a DNA test establishes that the father is the man convicted and jailed for raping her. Is it OK if she smothers the child?

Of course not - yet you think it would be OK if she had an abortion immediately after discovering the pregnancy.

So, you do not believe a fetus is a baby with all the same rights. Stop pretending you do.

Loafing Oaf

Tim Robbins wrote: »

I think it is more intrusive and patronising to kill the baby personally.

In what sense is abortion 'patronising'? Who is it patronising to?

aloyisious

Peregrinus wrote: »

I think there's a big difference between:

"pregnant women were being urged by Irish Medical professionals to go to Britain and have abortions there"

. . . and . . .

"pregnant women were being advised by Irish Medical professionals that if they wished to terminate their pregnancies they should go to Britain".

It's not the business of medical professionals to urge a woman to have an abortion if, e.g., a scan suggests serious foetal abnormality. It's their business to advise her as to what the scan indicates, and what her options for treatment are, and if one of those options is only available in Britain, saying so is certainly their business. When my wife and I were attending our gynaecologist in Dublin and we had reason to fear foetal abnormality, our options were discussed very frankly with us, but we didn't feel that we were being "urged" to do anything.

I can see, though, that if you're in shock (because you did not want or expect the diagnosis you have just been given) and are being invited to consider options you would much rather not have to consider, what is intended as supportive and informative guidance might be experienced, or later recalled, as "urging". So, unless you actually have a medical professional standing up and saying yes, I urge women in this situation to go to Britain, I'm a bit cautious about claims that this goes on. Almost certainly, there's another way the same advice could have been characterised.

Thank's Peregrinus: I didn't get to record (in mind) the actual wording the woman used, so if that's it, ta.

I see that, from a facebook post, the Pro Life Campaign Ireland has launched an appeal fund called "The Little One Fund" to help ensure that the baby born at 25 weeks as a result of Ireland’s abortion law is looked after in every way possible in the future and that other babies who may be born in similar circumstances receive all necessary care. I copied the wording (from words the Pro-life - all necessary care) from the facebook post.

lazygal

Is the pro life campaign worried babies born prematurely won't receive all necessary care? Is their funding solely for babies born prematurely because of a risk to life because of suicide or for all babies born prematurely because of a threat to life?

swampgas

Tim Robbins wrote: »

I think it is more intrusive and patronising to kill the baby personally.

So it's okay to grill a pregnant woman on the circumstances of her pregnancy, and her behaviour, and maybe her character, before deciding for her whether the abortion she wants should be allowed or not?

The point I'm trying to make here is that if a woman doesn't want to continue a pregnancy (especially in the first few weeks after she discovers that she is pregnant) why should anyone else get to have a say into whether an abortion should be allowed or not? Is it because you think that what the pregnant woman wants to happen to her own body is less important than what a bunch of people she doesn't know from Adam want to happen to it? Because that's the situation right now.

Zubeneschamali

swampgas wrote: »

So it's okay to grill a pregnant woman on the circumstances of her pregnancy, and her behaviour, and maybe her character, before deciding for her whether the abortion she wants should be allowed or not?

Of course, the reason this is even a bit practical is that there is a safety valve: all the prolife crew can usually decide is whether the abortion she wants should be allowed in Ireland.

Unless the woman is particularly poor, has a problematic visa status, of course, but keeping up the hypocritical appearance of defending the unborn means that some sacrifices are necessary, especially when the sacrifices fall only on the poor and immigrants.

Absolam

swampgas wrote: »

The point I'm trying to make here is that if a woman doesn't want to continue a pregnancy (especially in the first few weeks after she discovers that she is pregnant) why should anyone else get to have a say into whether an abortion should be allowed or not?

Because at some point (depending entirely on your/societies prevailing point of view) what she wants will result in the death of another person, and killing other people is generally an act that most societies like to have some sort of say in.
Up to the point where society agrees you're not dealing with someone else who has a right to life, you're right, no one else should really have a say in what she does (though I'm a little ambivalent about whether the other genetic donor involved should have a say even so.....). After that point, everyone (sort of) has a say.

alaimacerc

Absolam wrote: »

Because at some point (depending entirely on your/societies prevailing point of view) what she wants will result in the death of another person, and killing other people is generally an act that most societies like to have some sort of say in.

I see you're having another day off from your occasional series of "posters must always use words (potentially) having a legal meaning in compliance with that meaning according to their jurisdiction" posts.

Up to the point where society agrees you're not dealing with someone else who has a right to life, you're right, no one else should really have a say in what she does (though I'm a little ambivalent about whether the other genetic donor involved should have a say even so.....). After that point, everyone (sort of) has a say.

How would, according to your valency that from time to time feels this to be the case, would this "say" operate? Because I'm kinda guessing it's not particularly like a copyright suit.

alaimacerc

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

In what sense is abortion 'patronising'? Who is it patronising to?

I get the sense TR's response was not really any more thought-through than "rightbackatcha -- I'm rubber, you're glue".

It's an unfortunate aspect of the abortion debate that the "adjourn to non-responsive emotionalism" is regarded as a feasible option at almost all stages. A slightly more sophisticated (if that's the term!) example was on Tonight Without Vincent Browne recently, when Ger Colleran had on two "let's not be losing the run of ourselves and adopting developed world Western norms" "moderates" and two foetal-rights absolutists who couldn't quite bring themselves to actually articulate the position they were proposing or defending. Any time the presenter put it to them that they were advocating (the maintenance of) criminal legal sanctions, we got hand-wringing about "best medical practice" and "won't anyone think of the poor murdered babies" blather.

Absolam

alaimacerc wrote: »

I see you're having another day off from your occasional series of "posters must always use words (potentially) having a legal meaning in compliance with that meaning according to their jurisdiction" posts.

Can't recall ever saying that, but are you particularly concerned that any word I've used might be construed as having a legal meaning which is not compliant with the meaning according to the relevant jurisdiction? If so, feel free to substitute an appropriate word which conveys the correct (non-legal) sentiment and satisfies you.

alaimacerc wrote: »

How would, according to your valency that from time to time feels this to be the case, would this "say" operate? Because I'm kinda guessing it's not particularly like a copyright suit.

Well, I'd lean more towards the usual "simultaneous, conflicting reactions" sense of the word myself, rather than your curious occasional valency idea. There seem to me to be conflicting interests (not rising of course to the level of rights or entitlements).

A woman should, within societal boundaries, have the freedom to do as she will with her body. However, if what she does with her body potentially places another person (in this case the man she had sex with) at a significant disadvantage (ie paying child support, or being deprived of the advantage of the child he had a part in creating), surely that person has an interest (and therefore some "say") in what she does.
If it is entirely and absolutely a womans decision to not abort a child, is it not unreasonable to force a man to spend decades paying for a decision which was not his?
If it is entirely and absolutely a womans decision to abort a child, is it not unreasonable to force a man to go without the comfort of the children he could reasonably expect as a result of his actions?
And yet, it is unreasonable to force a woman to abort a child she desires because the man she conceived the child with doesn't wish to spend time caring and paying for it.
it is also unreasonable that a man should force a woman to spend months carrying and caring for a child she did not wish to have.


Hence... ambivalence.

aloyisious

Absolam wrote: »

Can't recall ever saying that, but are you particularly concerned that any word I've used might be construed as having a legal meaning which is not compliant with the meaning according to the relevant jurisdiction? If so, feel free to substitute an appropriate word which conveys the correct (non-legal) sentiment and satisfies you.

Well, I'd lean more towards the usual "simultaneous, conflicting reactions" sense of the word myself, rather than your curious occasional valency idea. There seem to me to be conflicting interests (not rising of course to the level of rights or entitlements).

A woman should, within societal boundaries, have the freedom to do as she will with her body. However, if what she does with her body potentially places another person (in this case the man she had sex with) at a significant disadvantage (ie paying child support, or being deprived of the advantage of the child he had a part in creating), surely that person has an interest (and therefore some "say") in what she does.

---

That last sentence sound's like something mentioned in the court cases, assuming rights (not provided in law) may exist merely because it seem's logical as follow-ons from what's written in law and court decisions. Something similar to what you mention in the last sentence of Para 2 above.

If it is entirely and absolutely a womans decision to not abort a child, is it not unreasonable to force a man to spend decades paying for a decision which was not his?

---

possibly negated by the "pay the piper" scenario of having one's enjoyment, one must pay for it.

If it is entirely and absolutely a womans decision to abort a child, is it not unreasonable to force a man to go without the comfort of the children he could reasonably expect as a result of his actions?

---

Can't (in all honesty) answer that except to say NOT all women are minded towards abortion in all cases.


And yet, it is unreasonable to force a woman to abort a child she desires because the man she conceived the child with doesn't wish to spend time caring and paying for it.

---

agreed. Not really ambivalence, justified recognition that man/boy doesn't call all the shots as a result of him "having his way" with the woman/girl and not wanting to pay the bill.

it is also unreasonable that a man should force a woman to spend months carrying and caring for a child she did not wish to have.

---

agreed as grounds for provision in law of legalized abortion here outside the control remit of medical professionals under the 2013 act.


Hence... ambivalence.

Sound's like going in a circle around the question of: do we or do we not eventually decide to leave the choice (in law) to the woman carrying a feotus resulting from sexual congress between a man/boy and a woman/girl.

J C

Absolam wrote: »

A woman should, within societal boundaries, have the freedom to do as she will with her body.

The key words there is 'within societal boundaries' (and by extension ethical and legal boundaries). None of us are free to do as we will with our bodies ... if by doing so we have a detrimental effect on other people.
The primary purpose of all law is to ensure that we don't do what we may judge to be convenient for us and our bodies, if our actions have a detrimental effect on others.

Absolam wrote: »

However, if what she does with her body potentially places another person (in this case the man she had sex with) at a significant disadvantage (ie paying child support, or being deprived of the advantage of the child he had a part in creating), surely that person has an interest (and therefore some "say") in what she does.

The man had a 'say' ... but lost it when he decided to have unprotected sex with the woman ... after that, he has legal responsibility for his actions and everything that may result from them ... including the conception of a child and supporting the woman during her pregnancy.
However, if women can have their children adopted (thereby relieving them of any further responsibility to care for them after the birth) then, in equity, a similar facility to be relieved of his parental responsibilities after the birth, should be available to the father - unless society deems it in the public interest to not afford such a facility. This would then becomes something that all men need to take into consideration, if or when they have unprotected sex with a woman.

Absolam wrote: »

If it is entirely and absolutely a womans decision to not abort a child, is it not unreasonable to force a man to spend decades paying for a decision which was not his?

It isn't 'entirely and absolutely a woman's decision to not abort a child' all she needs to do is to let nature take it's course and the pregnancy will proceed to term. The option of adoption is then always available to the woman, if she so chooses.

Absolam wrote: »

If it is entirely and absolutely a womans decision to abort a child, is it not unreasonable to force a man to go without the comfort of the children he could reasonably expect as a result of his actions?

Ethically and legally, it isn't 'entirely and absolutely a womans decision to abort a child' she too has ethical responsibility for her actions when she has unprotected sex and everything that may result from this ... including the conception of a child. A man doesn't have any 'reasonable expectation' of having a child every time he has sex - and a woman therefore has no responsibility to facilitate a 'reasonable expectation' that doesn't exist -and isn't even reasonable, in the first place.

Absolam wrote: »

And yet, it is unreasonable to force a woman to abort a child she desires because the man she conceived the child with doesn't wish to spend time caring and paying for it.

This would indeed be be unreasonable because the obvious answer is that she may care for the child herself without any input from the father.

Absolam wrote: »

it is also unreasonable that a man should force a woman to spend months carrying and caring for a child she did not wish to have.

If she doesn't wish to have a child, she shouldn't engage in unprotected sex ... if she does, it isn't the fathers rights that are then primary ... but the right to life of the child that she has conceived. None of us can kill people that we find to be annoying or otherwise irritating or discommoding. The ethical balance between the 'inconvenience' and physical/emotional strain of pregnancy for an adult woman and the killing of the foetal woman she is carrying is obviously in favour of protecting the life of the foetal woman ... otherwise every time somebody is negatively impacted by the their born children, they could legitimately kill them to eliminate the physical/emotional strain they are causing them.

Absolam wrote: »

Hence... ambivalence.

No need for ambivalence ... and the biggest ethical flaw in all of the inter-parental scenarios in your post is that they don't take any account of the child, whose very life could be 'on the line' there.

Out of respect for the A & A forum, I have confined myself to secular arguments in relation to abortion and your post.

Absolam

aloyisious wrote: »

Sound's like going in a circle around the question of: do we or do we not eventually decide to leave the choice (in law) to the woman carrying a feotus resulting from sexual congress between a man/boy and a woman/girl.

Pretty much, though I'd suggest moral and ethical contemplation before a legal one.

Absolam

J C wrote: »

The man had a 'say' ... but lost it when he decided to have unprotected sex with the woman ... after that, he has legal responsibility for his actions and everything that may result from them ... including the conception of a child and supporting the woman during her pregnancy.

Is it moral to hold him legally responsible once someone else takes a decision than effectively terminates his own decision though? Once the woman has decided to abort or not, the child, or lack thereof, is the result of her decision, not his. How is it right to hold him legally responsible for the result of her decision?

J C wrote: »

It isn't 'entirely and absolutely a woman's decision to not abort a child' all she needs to do is to let nature take it's course and the pregnancy will proceed to term.

Allowing nature to take it's course is a decision though, when abortion is a readily available option.

J C wrote: »

Ethically and legally, it isn't 'entirely and absolutely a womans decision to abort a child' she too has ethical responsibility for her actions when she has unprotected sex and everything that may result from this ... including the conception of a child.

That's why I said "if it is"; I was positing a situation different to the current one.

J C wrote: »

A man doesn't have any 'reasonable expectation' of having a child every time he has sex - and a woman therefore has no responsibility to facilitate a 'reasonable expectation' that doesn't exist -and isn't even reasonable, in the first place.

Doesn't that depend on the man? He might only be having sex for the sole purpose of procreation. Some people think like that.

J C wrote: »

This would indeed be be unreasonable because the obvious answer is that she may care for the child herself without any input from the father.

But in our current circunstances a father whose paternity can be established can be obliged by the State to contribute to the care and upkeep of his children.

J C wrote: »

If she doesn't wish to have a child, she shouldn't engage in unprotected sex ...

That suggests pregnancy as a punishment for making bad choices, but it wasn't my point. My point was that many posters on the forum consider forcing a pregnant woman to carry an unwanted child to term to be barbaric, which is a tricky point of view to balance against the other points.

J C wrote: »

No need for ambivalence ... and the biggest ethical flaw in all of the inter-parental scenarios in your post is that they don't take any account of the child, whose very life could be 'on the line' there.

No, I was deliberately excluding the foetus/child as the degree of rights it could have is a subject all it's own in the thread, in order to focus on the interplay of the potential rights and obligations of the potential parents.

PopePalpatine

J C wrote: »

It isn't 'entirely and absolutely a woman's decision to not abort a child' all she needs to do is to let nature take it's course and the pregnancy will proceed to term. The option of adoption is then always available to the woman, if she so chooses.

By any chance, does "dying due to pregnancy" count as "nature taking its course"?

J C

PopePalpatine wrote: »

By any chance, does "dying due to pregnancy" count as "nature taking its course"?

Certainly not.
Such situations should be addressed ... and if the death of the child results from necesssary medical treatment for the mother, this is a totally ethical, but obviously sad result.

J C

Absolam wrote: »

Is it moral to hold him legally responsible once someone else takes a decision than effectively terminates his own decision though? Once the woman has decided to abort or not, the child, or lack thereof, is the result of her decision, not his. How is it right to hold him legally responsible for the result of her decision?

It is both morally and legally sound. Everyone is legally responsible for both their direct actions and any consequences that may follow.
The father starts off the process ... and the mother may decide to keep or abort the baby ... and the father will have to accept her decision one way or the other. He doesn't have legal responsibility for her decision ... but he doesn't have legal rights over it either.

Absolam wrote: »

Allowing nature to take it's course is a decision though, when abortion is a readily available option.
That's why I said "if it is"; I was positing a situation different to the current one.

OK

Absolam wrote: »

Doesn't that depend on the man? He might only be having sex for the sole purpose of procreation. Some people think like that.

What he thinks he is doing and what she thinks she is doing may be quite different.

Absolam wrote: »

But in our current circumstances a father whose paternity can be established can be obliged by the State to contribute to the care and upkeep of his children.

True ... and in France all children equally inherit a parents property when they die. I guess men should be careful about engaging in unprotected sex ... if they don't want to maintain any children who might result.

Absolam wrote: »

That suggests pregnancy as a punishment for making bad choices, but it wasn't my point. My point was that many posters on the forum consider forcing a pregnant woman to carry an unwanted child to term to be barbaric, which is a tricky point of view to balance against the other points.

Pregnancy is neither a punishment nor a prize ... it is a fact of reproduction ... and the solution is to not engage in unprotected sex, if you don't wish to be pregnant, if you are a woman ... or a father, if you are a man.

Absolam wrote: »

No, I was deliberately excluding the foetus/child as the degree of rights it could have is a subject all it's own in the thread, in order to focus on the interplay of the potential rights and obligations of the potential parents.

Fair enough.

volchitsa

J C wrote: »

Certainly not.
Such situations should be addressed ... and if the death of the child results from necesssary medical treatment for the mother, this is a totally ethical, but obviously sad result.

What if saving both has become incompatible? If the mother's health requires an urgent termination but the baby is just around viability, so that a week or two's delay would likely save the child, but would greatly increase the risks to the mother.