Abortion: Fathers' rights

Cantab.

Hypothetical question here:

Is there provision in the law for a man to stop his girlfriend/wife travelling abroad to carry out an abortion?

Since a child takes just 9 months to be born (~24 weeks to be ineligible for an abortion), how quickly would the cogs of the law turn to judge on such a scenario?

Any legal gurus out there?

Our man in Havana

I don't think it could happen as it would infringe the mothers consitutional right to travel and would be at odds with european law allowing free movement of people.

walrusgumble

bond is right, the x case in 1992 or so and a few other cases prevented health boards from preventing mothers from travelng.

the fact that you are not married doesnt help, i am sure that u are aware that the constitution is not very kind to the rights of unmarried fathers.

padser

Cantab. wrote:

how quickly would the cogs of the law turn to judge on such a scenario?

The one problem you wouldnt face is time, you can get an injunction stopping something pending a case.

If you are serious about trying something your best bet is to go to a solicitor.

Afaik the HC has once before granted an injunction restraining the mother from going abroad to get an injunction. I think though that the woman simply ignored the order.

There is also the point that its no longer just the constitution, The ECHR would also now have to be taken into account. Result IMO would be far from certain.


Bottom line there has been little litigation so far in this area in Ireland. It could certainly be tested if again if you feel strongly enough about it.

On a practical point, it could be expensive. Try contacting fathering groups etc, even the one over in england (cant remember their name, they are very active -batman suits etc) in order to obtain financial backing, some might be willing to help you.

Cantab.

Bond-007 wrote:

I don't think it could happen as it would infringe the mothers consitutional right to travel and would be at odds with european law allowing free movement of people.

Yet we can stop football hooligans from going to the World Cup...

Robbo

Cantab. wrote:

Yet we can stop football hooligans from going to the World Cup...

That's because hooligans are a reasonable threat to public order.

TalkISCheap

That was the same reason they gave for limiting free speech in Austria... Insulting people was a 'reasonable threat to public order'!

Cantab.

Robbo wrote:

That's because hooligans are a reasonable threat to public order.

And as for the reasoning behind a mother who chooses to kill her and her partner's child?

EducatedGuess

The reason women choose to have abortions is irrelevant, the fact is that it happens and on a huge scale. I do not understand that while we acknowledge the fact that women can freely go to a different jurisdiction to have an abortion we do not allow them to take place in Ireland. I think it is typically Irish, that while not directly allowing abortions to take place we allow them to travel abroad. Does it helps us feel more comfortable with it? Anyway the law as it stands does not give fathers much choice to prevent an abortion save where the abortion is a risk to the mother or mental health issues. However, the woman's right to choice still stands. I think that the fact that this procedure is carried out abroad restricts the courts protection, if it was allowed to take place in Ireland, the courts could act quicker and not impede on such rights as the free movement of persons etc.

Cantab.

EducatedGuess wrote:

The reason women choose to have abortions is irrelevant,

To this discussion on the rights of fathers, yes.

EducatedGuess wrote:

the fact is that it happens and on a huge scale. I do not understand that while we acknowledge the fact that women can freely go to a different jurisdiction to have an abortion we do not allow them to take place in Ireland.

We don't allow them in this country because the people have said so and afaik, it's morally despicable.

EducatedGuess wrote:

I think it is typically Irish, that while not directly allowing abortions to take place we allow them to travel abroad. Does it helps us feel more comfortable with it?

Exactly, we don't feel 'comfortable' with abortion, therefore it's outlawed.

EducatedGuess wrote:

Anyway the law as it stands does not give fathers much choice to prevent an abortion save where the abortion is a risk to the mother or mental health issues. However, the woman's right to choice still stands.

Womens' rights are above that of unborn babies and men's?

EducatedGuess wrote:

I think that the fact that this procedure is carried out abroad restricts the courts protection, if it was allowed to take place in Ireland, the courts could act quicker and not impede on such rights as the free movement of persons etc.

Do you honestly think that a court, in a juristiction where they have legislated for the carrying out of abortions, will/can protect the wishes of a father whose child is carried by his partner? Legalising abortion would only make the situation even worse for the rights of fathers/the unborn.

padser

EducatedGuess wrote:

Anyway the law as it stands does not give fathers much choice to prevent an abortion save where the abortion is a risk to the mother or mental health issues.

This is simply not true.

There has been no definative ruling on the issue yet. There will im sure at some point be a test case taken (there was in the past I think and an injuction was brought, but the woman skipped the country and the case never proceeded because it was moot) by a prospective father.

There is an article in the constitution saying the right to travel will not be restricted but this was drafted in respect to the state opposing travel, and might be interpreted as being overridden by the right to life, and by the fathers rights.

If someone was serious about doing something they need to talk to a solicitor quickly as an injucntion needs to be sought for obvious reasons.

Thirdfox

Well in general fathers seem to get the short end of the stick when it comes to children: see the STATE (NICOLAOU) v. AN BORD UCHTÁLA [1966] IR 567 case - "it is rare for a natural father to take any interest in his offspring, it is not difficult to appreciate the difference in moral capacity and social function between the natural father and the several persons described in the sub-sections in question."

With that kind of attiude what chance do prospective fathers have?

But surely this can be constitutionally challenged? What difference, if any, would there be for unmarried couples?

In general I'm not too happy about the presumption of guardianship for the mother but not the father.

Certainly if I knew I had a healthy child in someone's womb I would do anything to ensure that child lives (including taking out the foetus and implanting it into someone who was willing to host the child).

happydaz

i'm not sure where to start on this debate....
firstly, as it's already been stated women have abortions -this si the starting point for fathers rights, not the reasons why women have abortions....if teh law was too much in favour of fathers right we'd be in danger of teh father of the X case being able to prevent the abortion.
as for nicaolou as an example of fathers rights...ive looked at this case and at a glance it seems to reflect how fathers have no rights in ireland. however there were some details in teh case which made me understand possibly why teh courts took that call. I think Keegan Vs ireland is a much better case example of fathers rights in ireland-more modern too!
the adoption act of 1998 is a pathetic attempt to grant fathers some say in their childrens rights. for me-it doesn't go far enough....
however having said all this i would never consider it ok for one person to tell another they should give birth....i'm neither pro choice nor anti abortion...i just fel it's wrong for us to judge the personal acts of others...

Cantab.

Cantab. wrote:

Womens' rights are above that of unborn babies and men's?

The men don't suffer the pregnancy or ill health and don't necessarily have to share the cost, iirc. So yes, a living thinking person supercedes a clump of cells which is an early fetus.

Anyway, let's not get into this.
IIRC, fathers have little rights. You'll have to see if it's worth trying to challenge it, and have it resolved within the few months.

padser

Thirdfox wrote:

Well in general fathers seem to get the short end of the stick when it comes to children: see the STATE (NICOLAOU) v. AN BORD UCHTÁLA [1966] IR 567 case - "it is rare for a natural father to take any interest in his offspring, it is not difficult to appreciate the difference in moral capacity and social function between the natural father and the several persons described in the sub-sections in question."

With that kind of attiude what chance do prospective fathers have?

But surely this can be constitutionally challenged? What difference, if any, would there be for unmarried couples?

I agree that surely it can be constitutionally challenged. It has been challenged on numberous occassions in both England and the US, to no avail. However they do not have out constitution. In Englands case there is no constitution at all.


The attitude in State (Nicolaou) in 1966 is not necessaryily representitive of the current view of the Supreme Court. Let us not forget that Norris v AG was only 18 years ago (1988) - The supreme court that ruled a ban on Homosexuality was not unconstitutional. Attitudes change over time.

Finally their may well be a difference for unmarried couples vis a vis married couples. Firstly and most importantly our constitution is bound to defend the family, and this has been repeatedly held only to apply to married couples. Secondly a husband and wife are, at law, a different entity to co habiting partners.


I dont honestly believe the Supreme Court would really decide it was their place to effectively legislate on the issue, but there is certainly an interesting and strong case to be made under both Bunracht na Heirean, ECHR and possibly even natural law.

Cantab.

bluewolf wrote:

The men don't suffer the pregnancy or ill health and don't necessarily have to share the cost, iirc. So yes, a living thinking person supercedes a clump of cells which is an early fetus.

This might settle your conscience (where you believe a feotus is but a 'clump of cells'). The scenario I pose above is one where the father regards this 'clump of cells' as his own flesh and blood.

You seem to think that since it is ok for you, as an individual, to reject a foetus as being inhuman, that abortion is justified. Would you give creedance to the flip-side of this argument that: were an individual father to regard a foetus as being obviously his own flesh and blood, that he should be accomodated under the law to force his partner give birth/find a surrogate mother as it is the lesser of two evils (death vs. the experience of childbirth).

Also, since you believe a foetus is not human, and you are a logical, rational human being, I take it you would have no sympathy for a woman who miscarries?

Incidentally, I (and indeed most reputable medical opinion) refute the feotus as being but an inhuman 'clump of cells', as it is fundamentally flawed reasoning: If a foetus/zygote is not the earliest form of human life, then what is? Do you not agree that something miraculous, out of this world, sopmething inexplicable by science, occurs at the moment of conception?

bluewolf wrote:

Anyway, let's not get into this.

To be continued over on humanities...

bluewolf wrote:

IIRC, fathers have little rights. You'll have to see if it's worth trying to challenge it, and have it resolved within the few months.

[/QUOTE]
Fathers ought to have more rights. I would definitely support any man in his quest to stop his partner going abroad to murder his own.

Sangre

Fathers literally have no rights with regards to children in Ireland. Its absolutely shocking. You should take a look at the caselaw and legislation, depressing stuff.

Its a sad state of affairs when a mother doesn't have to tell the father his child is being given up for adoption. Want to rear it your self? Oh well!

EducatedGuess

To try circumvent any further moral debates on abortion, I presume we are talking about a legal abortion taking place in Britain, where the medical and legal requirements are set out. i.e. number of weeks it can be safely carried out etc. Cantab seemed to point out in my post the moral points and support it by moral arguments. This is not a morality question it's a legal one. My point on the free moevement of persons is not based on the Constitution but on European Union Law which supercedes our national law. The question is not whether you are pro-abortion or not and to be honest that is irrelevant in law. The argument against the prevention of an abortion is that the mother has a physical relationship with the unborn and the father does not. When you take a look of family law now and as it has been pointed out already, fathers esp. unmarried have very little rights over children that are born never mind unborn. Is Cantab suggesting that a woman who does not want the baby [for whatever reason] should be forced to carry the child to full term and then hand it over to the father? Abortion is not "outlawed", it is legal to recieve information in the state re: abortions [where they can be carried out, expense, medical procedure etc].

Thirdfox points out something very important in an attitude of society without even knowing. He said " if I knew I had a healthy child in someone's womb I would do anything to ensure that child lives..." key word 'healthy', not all children are born healthy, is one to presume if the unborn was found to be unhealthy it would be a different answer? [I am asking the question not presuming you would do any different].

Thirdfox

Oh it was a conscious decision - I knew exactly what I was saying (or not saying) - my friends and I were discussing abortion in college and we roughly all came to the consensus that if a baby was to be born with a seriously debilitating disease e.g. Down Syndrome etc. then perhaps it would be best to proceed with an abortion. However that really is my personal belief and has nothing really to do with the topic of what rights does a father have over his unborn child.

What I suggested was that if the mother did not want the baby and the father did then perhaps the baby could be removed from the womb and put in a "host" mother (I'm sure there would be volunteers).

But really this thread is about the fact that legally, a woman does not have to consider the wishes of the father at all (whether he wants or does not want an abortion to take place).

Cantab.

I don't know whether to post my reply to this as a new thread in Humanities or not. Mods can see fit what to do with it anyway.

Cantab. wrote:

You seem to think that since it is ok for you, as an individual, to reject a foetus as being inhuman,

Of course it is human. It has human DNA. Please do not put words in my figurative mouth.

Would you give creedance to the flip-side of this argument that: were an individual father to regard a foetus as being obviously his own flesh and blood, that he should be accomodated under the law to force his partner give birth/find a surrogate mother as it is the lesser of two evils (death vs. the experience of childbirth).

If it was possible to transfer the fetus out of her womb to another at an early stage, a lot of women might be ok with that. They're working on it at the moment, I think, it was done with horses.

Also, since you believe a foetus is not human, and you are a logical, rational human being, I take it you would have no sympathy for a woman who miscarries?

Since I don't believe a fetus is not human when it clearly is, the rest is irrelevant. In any case, if she wants it and loses it, then of course I sympathise.

Incidentally, I (and indeed most reputable medical opinion) refute the feotus as being but an inhuman 'clump of cells', as it is fundamentally flawed reasoning: If a foetus/zygote is not the earliest form of human life, then what is? Do you not agree that something miraculous, out of this world, sopmething inexplicable by science, occurs at the moment of conception?

Again irrelevant, since you've gone off on a tangent based on something I did not say.

Fathers ought to have more rights. I would definitely support any man in his quest to stop his partner going abroad to murder his own.

First off: murder is a legal term. In England, abortion is legal killing, therefore it is not murder. I understand how strongly you feel about this, but that's a misuse of terminology.
Unless the legal experts here would like to correct me

Perhaps I should make my full opinion clear.
As things stand, I am pro-choice. I would much prefer if there was no abortion since it does involve killing something, though I regard that as on a level with killing a fly. Which I also dislike a lot.
If there was 100% contraception, if there was no rape or a more accessible morning after pill, if there was more comprehensive sex education everywhere, I would certainly strongly consider wanting it banned everywhere. But sometimes I do think it is necessary and since contraception is not foolproof and celibacy is not an option for so many, it's a necessary evil, so to speak. I still do think it is a living clump of cells, but not alive, not sentient, and for the moment that's fine by me. We kill such things all the time, and sentient creatures to boot - plants and animals.

Please don't point out that many raped pregnant women can bring up their children; I'm aware it happens and I have the utmost respect for their strength in doing so. For many others, it would completely destroy whatever they had left. Ideally, this whole circumstance should not come up at all.

the_syco

Although I support more fathers rights, the "right" to force a women to keep an unwanted feotus should not be there. If, for example, the women is raped, the rapist can then, as the "father" of the feotus, stop her attempt to abort it.

I'm pro-choice, and I believe that the woman has the right to choose if she wants to keep the feotus or not.

Sangre

That it the most ridiculous arguement I've ever heard the_syco. ALong the lines of....

ABORTION SHOULD BE LEGAL SO WE COULD HAVE ABORTED HILTER.

Sangre

Sangre wrote:

That it the most ridiculous arguement I've ever heard the_syco. ALong the lines of....

ABORTION SHOULD BE LEGAL SO WE COULD HAVE ABORTED HILTER.

Great, a hitler reference already.

What's so ridiculous about rape? Do you think it doesnt happen? Do you think the X case was peachy?

EducatedGuess

the_syco actually makes a valid point and it should not be just dismissed as ridiculous. It suggests nothing that Hitler should or would have been aborted. If Clara Hitler was raped, who could have predicted the way the child would have turned out. The negative side of the argument put forward is that if abortion is allowed you cannot just allow it for those women who are raped etc.

Eru

The moral and legal question of parental rights and abortion in general will never be answered fully so Im not going to go into it however I suggest a compromise. Personally I am anti-abortion but I also feel strongly about peoples right to make decisions concerning their own lives.

A, if a woman is raped then its an illegal act, the father could easily be blocked form parental rights as it is, the fathers influence not being in the interests of the child or a danger to the child. Treat it as an illegal contract if you will.

B, Outside of rape and actual medical grounds I suggest a mother that chooses to have a child against the fathers wishes should have to indemnify the father from any obligations both socially and financially. If he has no say in the decision then why should he have to be a part of the result? In other words, it takes 2 too tango, but only 1 to decide the tune is unfair.

C, If a father wants to keep a child and the mother doesnt I think the father should have to take sole custody of the child and as above, indemnify the mother from any future inclusion. Now, people will say the mother must carry the child, 9 months, etc etc. I agree if theres a medical worry however in the case where mother and child are both healthy I believe the 9 months of discomfort, nausua, etc falls way below the importance of the childs life and the fathers right to his child.

Now, this isnt the perfect answer but from a purely black and white approach I believe adoption is a far better answer than abortion as is single parenthood.

Karlitosway1978

Karlitosway1978 wrote:

C, If a father wants to keep a child and the mother doesnt I think the father should have to take sole custody of the child and as above, indemnify the mother from any future inclusion. Now, people will say the mother must carry the child, 9 months, etc etc. I agree if theres a medical worry however in the case where mother and child are both healthy I believe the 9 months of discomfort, nausua, etc falls way below the importance of the childs life and the fathers right to his child.

I'm assuming the father is also going to cover any and all related costs, as well.
Including the time she misses from work (if it's unpaid) or having to repeat a year in college, etc.

I don't agree, by the way, that he should have such control over her body, and I do view that as akin to a prolonged form of rape unless she is in some way agreeable to the arrangement; e.g. getting a court order to force her to give birth, etc.

MrPudding

Karlitosway1978 wrote:

C, If a father wants to keep a child and the mother doesnt I think the father should have to take sole custody of the child and as above, indemnify the mother from any future inclusion. Now, people will say the mother must carry the child, 9 months, etc etc. I agree if theres a medical worry however in the case where mother and child are both healthy I believe the 9 months of discomfort, nausua, etc falls way below the importance of the childs life and the fathers right to his child.

But why should the woman have to carry the child? Don't get me wrong, it is horrible to think of you child being aborted against your will but I don't think the woman should be forced to carry it should she not want to.

Like a lot of people I am pro-choice but would prefer if abortion did not happen. In an ideal world it would not be needed but we don't live in an ideal world and I can see circumstances where a woman can see no other option. Se should have the right to choose.

TBH with you I think we should be doing more to improve men's rights over children that have actually been born than trying to fix something that probably only effects a small number of people.

How many cases are there where a man's partner aborts a feotus against his will? Not many I would imagine. I would expect there are more being aborted without the mans knowledge.

Compare this with the number of men that have no rights to see there children after separation or maybe have not seen them at all.

Look after the living first.

MrP

MrP

MrPudding

MrPudding wrote:

TBH with you I think we should be doing more to improve men's rights over children that have actually been born than trying to fix something that probably only effects a small number of people.

Yeah, I think more energy would be better off spent there and trying to reduce the "need" for abortion in the first place instead of arguing about it.

mountainyman

bluewolf wrote:

The men don't suffer the pregnancy or ill health and don't necessarily have to share the cost, iirc. So yes, a living thinking person supercedes a clump of cells which is an early fetus.

This is in no sense accurate LEGALLY. don't deliberately give out false information.

MM

mountainyman

mountainyman wrote:

This is in no sense accurate LEGALLY. don't deliberately give out false information.

MM

Like I said, I wasn't sure whether to discuss it in this thread or not.
Plus going by the context, I thought it was obvious enough that this is not so and only my opinion.
Maybe this thread can be split into Humanities...

Eru

bluewolf wrote:

Yeah, I think more energy would be better off spent there and trying to reduce the "need" for abortion in the first place instead of arguing about it.

Lets get something straight, outside of medical grounds, no person 'needs' to have an abortion. I was 19 when I became a father and my partner was 17. It was damn tough I can tell you but we survived (well the relationship didnt) and now we are both doing just fine as is my daughter.

Its a terrible thing but many, many people look at abortion as an after the act method of contraception. This has dire effects for those involved but thats the reality, how many times have we personally heard stories about people going to England because they "werent ready to have a kid" or "I wanted to live my life".

Adoption is by far a better option than abortion. The women had to take maternity leave which is paid or maybe has to repeat a year in college. Well thats a shame but 1 year of inconvenienece to you is damn well less than denying a child their entire life.

MrPudding wrote:

But why should the woman have to carry the child? Don't get me wrong, it is horrible to think of you child being aborted against your will but I don't think the woman should be forced to carry it should she not want to.

Well personally my answer is because its not a fashion trend, its a child, you dont just dismiss it in a cupboard because it doesnt look good. If you feel strongly about it, dont have sex. Your supposed to be an adult afterall so make adult decisions.

MrPudding wrote:

Like a lot of people I am pro-choice but would prefer if abortion did not happen. In an ideal world it would not be needed but we don't live in an ideal world and I can see circumstances where a woman can see no other option. She should have the right to choose.

Outside of medical grounds why would a woman have no option? I can think of 2 straight away. BTW, it could be argued that by making the baby both parties already made the choice.

bluewolf wrote:

I'm assuming the father is also going to cover any and all related costs, as well.
Including the time she misses from work (if it's unpaid) or having to repeat a year in college, etc.

I don't agree, by the way, that he should have such control over her body, and I do view that as akin to a prolonged form of rape unless she is in some way agreeable to the arrangement; e.g. getting a court order to force her to give birth, etc.

Most of those costs would exist birth or abortion and maternity leave is paid so thats not a very realistic arguement anyway.

I also fail to see how its prolonged rape simple because you have to carry the fruit of your own labour. If you think that then how must the father of an aborted child feel?

A Primal Nut

happydaz wrote:

i'm not sure where to start on this debate....
firstly, as it's already been stated women have abortions -this si the starting point for fathers rights, not the reasons why women have abortions....if teh law was too much in favour of fathers right we'd be in danger of teh father of the X case being able to prevent the abortion.
as for nicaolou as an example of fathers rights...ive looked at this case and at a glance it seems to reflect how fathers have no rights in ireland. however there were some details in teh case which made me understand possibly why teh courts took that call. I think Keegan Vs ireland is a much better case example of fathers rights in ireland-more modern too!
the adoption act of 1998 is a pathetic attempt to grant fathers some say in their childrens rights. for me-it doesn't go far enough....
however having said all this i would never consider it ok for one person to tell another they should give birth....i'm neither pro choice nor anti abortion...i just fel it's wrong for us to judge the personal acts of others...

If the baby was two years old and the mother killed it then, would it still be wrong to judge that because it's a personal act? You could say that about any murder or crime. Remember, it's the mother who has the choice, not the unborn child, so its not just a personal act.

hullaballoo

mountainyman wrote:

This is in no sense accurate LEGALLY. don't deliberately give out false information.

MM

I'm not sure to what extent it's acceptable to make calls like that one, and I say this for two reasons.

1. LEGALLY, bluewolf has made a valid point. The courts do in fact take into account that fathers don't have to suffer the pregnancy. It would be absolutely unnatural to remove the pain and suffering that a woman goes through during pregnancy, and also to remove the pain and suffering as a result of a rape, from the balance.

2. It's simply not very nice to make someone feel that their thoughts don't count, just because they cannot articulate them in what is necessarily a legal sense. Any of us who are in any way experienced in dealing with legal issues can imbue other posters' pronouncements with our own meaning. Failing that, or if it is inappropriate, we can look for clarification.

Please refrain from presuming to tell posters to what standard they must post in this forum.

Karlitosway1978

Karlitosway1978 wrote:

Lets get something straight, outside of medical grounds, no person 'needs' to have an abortion. I was 19 when I became a father and my partner was 17. It was damn tough I can tell you but we survived (well the relationship didnt) and now we are both doing just fine as is my daughter.

That's fine. I put need in quote marks for a reason. Just because you don't think there's a need doesn't mean there is one.
Good for you for managing it; that doesn't mean everyone can.

If you want abortions to stop, here's some advice:
Stop trying to deny the fact that there is a perceived need for them and try to tackle the causes of this need rather than arguing til you're blue in the face about whether there is one. Because let me tell you, this argument has been going on for a very long time, it will go on for a very long time, and meanwhile nothing is going to change unless people want to start focusing on how to solve the issue. If you do that, you will have a lot more pro-choice people on your side.
Noone wants to get an abortion for fun. They do it because they have not the means to give birth; they were ignorant of contraception both normal and emergency; they were raped; they think adoption is wrong, etc.
Now would you prefer to have more women giving birth unwillingly and lecturing them on how abortion is wrong when they're already in that situation, or would you like to help prevent unplanned pregnancies in the first place?
A case of prevention being better than cure, I feel.
I'm here arguing this to try and help you understand my viewpoint. If I could, I would go out and try educate people more, and if only crime was not an issue. When I get the opportunity, I do.

A quick google search will show you that countries with better sex education have less teen pregnancies. Areas in America where abstinence-only education is prevalent have higher teen pregnancy rates.

Its a terrible thing but many, many people look at abortion as an after the act method of contraception. This has dire effects for those involved but thats the reality, how many times have we personally heard stories about people going to England because they "werent ready to have a kid" or "I wanted to live my life".

People who use abortions in lieu of contraception - do you want irresponsible people like that raising a child? Furthermore, I don't agree with it.

Adoption is by far a better option than abortion. The women had to take maternity leave which is paid or maybe has to repeat a year in college. Well thats a shame but 1 year of inconvenienece to you is damn well less than denying a child their entire life.

There is no child if you abort the fetus. What about me denying a "child" their potential life by not remaining pregnant full-time?
I don't agree that I should have children just because I can, just because the blueprints for one are in the making.
I do not want to give birth just to abandon the child to god only knows what; I do not think the world needs me to breed just because I can, and I do not agree that adoption is better than abortion.
Furthermore, adoption is not an alternative to an unwanted pregnancy. If you would like to argue that adoption is better than abortion, perhaps you could start there and refrain from "just put up with it".

I am not paying 4k in college fees alone, nevermind added costs, just because you dislike abortions.

Well personally my answer is because its not a fashion trend, its a child, you dont just dismiss it in a cupboard because it doesnt look good. If you feel strongly about it, dont have sex. Your supposed to be an adult afterall so make adult decisions.

Oh right, I'm supposed to be celibate my whole life just because you might get offended otherwise? Not going to happen. I would make an adult decision - by deciding what's best, and possibly going out to get an abortion. Though it would be far easier to bury my head in the sand and pretend nothing is going on.

Outside of medical grounds why would a woman have no option? I can think of 2 straight away. BTW, it could be argued that by making the baby both parties already made the choice.

Consent to sex does not mean consent to pregnancy if I used contraception. Following your logic, it could also be argued that by getting into a car, I already made the choice to suffer a car crash.

Most of those costs would exist birth or abortion and maternity leave is paid so thats not a very realistic arguement anyway.

I will take that as an agreement that a father should pay any costs above what a normal abortion would cost.

I also fail to see how its prolonged rape simple because you have to carry the fruit of your own labour. If you think that then how must the father of an aborted child feel?

Noone should have that kind of control over my body. That's how.
I do not consent to pregnancy and will do my best short of permanent celibacy to prevent it. This is not labouring toward getting pregnant.
If you are insistent on this "dealing with the consequences of your own actions" tack:
- do you think a woman who has been raped should also be forced to give birth against her will?

- if you get into a car and suffer a car crash, then you can just bear it without any treatment because after all, you consented to it.

Also, I would like to know just how far you think someone should go to force a woman to give birth. Denial of right to travel? Constant surveillance? Restraint? And if she is suicidal as a result...?

a primal nut wrote:

If the baby was two years old and the mother killed it then, would it still be wrong to judge that because it's a personal act?

Please don't argue using straw men; it does nothing for your side.

MrPudding

Karlitosway1978 wrote:

Lets get something straight, outside of medical grounds, no person 'needs' to have an abortion.

Let’s get something else straight. This is your opinion and based on your beliefs which may be different to other peoples.

Karlitosway1978 wrote:

Its a terrible thing but many, many people look at abortion as an after the act method of contraception. This has dire effects for those involved but thats the reality, how many times have we personally heard stories about people going to England because they "werent ready to have a kid" or "I wanted to live my life".

I reckon very few pro-choice advocates would agree with an abortion free for all. As I mentioned before I am firmly pro-choice, that said, I do think we should be having them willy nilly.

Karlitosway1978 wrote:

Adoption is by far a better option than abortion.

And I am sure that as someone who won’t have to carry a child you firmly believe that.

Karlitosway1978 wrote:

The women had to take maternity leave which is paid or maybe has to repeat a year in college. Well thats a shame but 1 year of inconvenienece to you is damn well less than denying a child their entire life.

The woman’s choice. Who are you to judge what inconvenience it is to her?

Karlitosway1978 wrote:

Well personally my answer is because its not a fashion trend, its a child, you dont just dismiss it in a cupboard because it doesnt look good. If you feel strongly about it, dont have sex. Your supposed to be an adult afterall so make adult decisions.

Why should I not have sex just because I don’t want a child? Our first child was conceived whilst my gf was on the pill. We were responsible people using contraceptives but it still happened. Of course we could have used the pill, the coil and a condom all at once but we didn’t. We made a reasonable effort.

Karlitosway1978 wrote:

Outside of medical grounds why would a woman have no option? I can think of 2 straight away.

I did not say she had no other option. I said she “could see” no other option. That is not to say there isn’t one. But, if she decides an abortion is the thing for her then so be it.

Karlitosway1978 wrote:

BTW, it could be argued that by making the baby both parties already made the choice.

Choosing to make a baby and choosing to have sex which accidentally results in conception are two different things. Which one are you talking about?

MrP

the_syco

Karlitosway1978 wrote:

If you feel strongly about it, dont have sex.

Well, sh|t happens. If you don't plan to have a kid, and sh|t happens, should you still have the kid? Yes or no. Your choice. My opionion is that the woman, who'll have to carry it for 9 months, should be able to choose to keep it or not.

Eru

the_syco wrote:

Well, sh|t happens. If you don't plan to have a kid, and sh|t happens, should you still have the kid? Yes or no. Your choice. My opionion is that the woman, who'll have to carry it for 9 months, should be able to choose to keep it or not.

I did, you think my daughter was planned at 19? However again I remind you, theres literally thousands of couple in Ireland who would jump at the chance to adopt a new born Irish child.

And I cannot see how an abortion could be considered easier for the mother. I know people that had them and it caused terrible mental health problems afterwards. You still do give birth by the way.

Now for some other comments:
A, If I have no right to decide about another persons body then why do you believe a person has the right to decide if a child lives or dies and yes, it is a child. Its there, it exists and will be born and grow into an adult.

B, Everyone says theres reasons for needing an abortion but you know what? No one has been able to state one.

C, Bluewolf, part of your argument is based around rape, in fact you seem to consider rape as the fruit of your labour. personally I dont see rape as being within that context, in fact Im pretty sure I specifically excluded it. Dont hide behind 1 thing. Other than that your arguement is all over the place.

I agree that prevention is better however how in the world can you state you dont believe in contraception but you do believe in abortion, WTF???? That just stinks as a belief system and is strange to say the least.

Also, here in the hell did you get that I think you should be a baby machine? Please, look back over your own comments, they make no sense.

When all is said and done I have already excluded rape and medical grounds. If the mother had consentual sex and is having a healthy baby I personally think that the right of the child to be born outweighs the mothers inconvenience.

The parents of said child could easily place that child for adoption thereby ridding themselves of this self created problem, giving the gift of parenthood to those that are unable to have their own child and finally, give that child the chance to live. Everyone that states they dont want a baby and will do what they can to avoid it, well thats your choice at the end of the day but dont attempt to argue on moral, ethical or legal grounds, your making a personal choice based on selfish reasons. Your decision is for the benefit of yourself in the quickest and easist method without consideration for another.

padser

Karlitosway1978 wrote:

. Well thats a shame but 1 year of inconvenienece to you is damn well less than denying a child their entire life.

Exactly.

Cant believe iv ended up on the same side as Karlitorsway in an argument but that quote right there sums up the entire argument in my opinion. Provided there is a willing father to take on the child there is no justification at all for allowing the woman to abort.

Mr Pudding: Its not opinion that other then medical grounds there are no valid reasons to 'need' an abortion. Thats fact.
There are plenty of other reaons to want an abortion. But unless your life (or I guess at a stretch your general health) is at risk there is no 'need' for an abortion.

Hagar

If I'm reading any of this correctly it seems the the right to determine whether or not the child is born resides solely with the mother? If this is so why is the father made liable for child maintenance as a result of someone else's sole decision ie to have the baby? If a woman decides to have the baby she is accepting responsibility for it, what right does she have to impose the consequences of her sole decision on someone else? Would this unilateral imposition be acceptable in any other circumstances?

Eru

Hagar wrote:

If I'm reading any of this correctly it seems the the right to determine whether or not the child is born resides solely with the mother? If this is so why is the father made liable for child maintenance as a result of someone else's sole decision ie to have the baby? If a woman decides to have the baby she is accepting responsibility for it, what right does she have to impose the consequences of her sole decision on someone else? Would this unilateral imposition be acceptable in any other circumstances?

Not really the starting point, I added it in but Im glad someone has taken a look at this aspect, please continue.

Padser and I on the same side? God almighty

BTWm well done for being able to express the point on 'need' V 'option' more effectively than I could.

Sangre

Actuallly a case being taken in New York to the effect that men should be allowed to opt out of child support because they have no choice in it being born. Especially since abotions are so much more prevelant in a city like New York.

Hobart

Karlitosway1978 wrote:

I did, you think my daughter was planned at 19? However again I remind you, theres literally thousands of couple in Ireland who would jump at the chance to adopt a new born Irish child.

That's a very valid point. But abortions are not always a "get rid of it because I don't want it" scenario.

And I cannot see how an abortion could be considered easier for the mother.

That's probably because you are not and never will be a mother.

You still do give birth by the way.

Not always.

Karlitosway1978

Karlitosway1978 wrote:

I did, you think my daughter was planned at 19? However again I remind you, theres literally thousands of couple in Ireland who would jump at the chance to adopt a new born Irish child.

It's not our job to breed for them.

And I cannot see how an abortion could be considered easier for the mother. I know people that had them and it caused terrible mental health problems afterwards. You still do give birth by the way.

So it should be banned for everyone?

Now for some other comments:
A, If I have no right to decide about another persons body then why do you believe a person has the right to decide if a child lives or dies and yes, it is a child. Its there, it exists and will be born and grow into an adult.

Not necessarily, as miscarriages do happen.
Do you really want to argue from potential?
If the fetus is in my body, taking my nutrients against my will, then yes, I have the right to get rid of it.

B, Everyone says theres reasons for needing an abortion but you know what? No one has been able to state one.

Personal choice.

C, Bluewolf, part of your argument is based around rape, in fact you seem to consider rape as the fruit of your labour. personally I dont see rape as being within that context, in fact Im pretty sure I specifically excluded it. Dont hide behind 1 thing. Other than that your arguement is all over the place.

I said I viewed it as akin to rape. I wasn't speaking literally, I was sure this was clear enough.
Please explain how my argument is all over the place as I think it's quite clear.
And why do you make an exception for rape?

I agree that prevention is better however how in the world can you state you dont believe in contraception but you do believe in abortion, WTF???? That just stinks as a belief system and is strange to say the least.

How the hell did you get that from my posts when I went on and on about how people should use it?

When all is said and done I have already excluded rape and medical grounds. If the mother had consentual sex and is having a healthy baby I personally think that the right of the child to be born outweighs the mothers inconvenience.

I don't agree.

The parents of said child could easily place that child for adoption thereby ridding themselves of this self created problem, giving the gift of parenthood to those that are unable to have their own child and finally, give that child the chance to live. Everyone that states they dont want a baby and will do what they can to avoid it, well thats your choice at the end of the day but dont attempt to argue on moral, ethical or legal grounds, your making a personal choice based on selfish reasons. Your decision is for the benefit of yourself in the quickest and easist method without consideration for another.

Whose morals?
Why is wanting to not disrupt my life to that extent selfish but demanding I give birth so other people can have children not selfish? They don't need children, they want children.
Yes, my decision is for the benefit of myself. Believe it or not, people are not wholly unselfish.
What's wrong with being selfish? You don't agree, so you must dictate some of my choices?
Adoption is not the solution to all life's problems.
Adoption is not an alternative to an unwanted pregnancy; only an alternative to raising the child.

If this is so why is the father made liable for child maintenance as a result of someone else's sole decision ie to have the baby? If a woman decides to have the baby she is accepting responsibility for it, what right does she have to impose the consequences of her sole decision on someone else?

She doesn't. If she wants it and the father doesn't, then I don't suppose he should pay.

Cantab.

Hobart wrote:

That's probably because you are not and never will be a mother.

Are you suggesting that because a man is a man, they're not entitled to a say in the protection of the unborn?

I suppose you'd be for immigration laws that only immigrants can vote in, motoring laws that only motorists can vote in, etc.?

Cantab.

Cantab. wrote:

Are you suggesting that because a man is a man, they're not entitled to a say in the protection of the unborn?

It means you have less of an idea what giving birth is like, or even how to imagine being pregnant, and as such can't quite dismiss it as an inconvenience.
A say, yes. A veto, no.

Hobart

Cantab. wrote:

Are you suggesting that because a man is a man, they're not entitled to a say in the protection of the unborn?

No. If you take the time to read what I was replying too, you would see that.

I was making the point that men cannot know the psychological impact an abortion can have on a woman (if there is one in a specific case).

They can theorise and deduce, but they cannot feel or experience it because of a quirk of nature that defines them as men, and others as women. That's just a matter of fact. i.e. I cannot think your thoughts!

I suppose you'd be for immigration laws that only immigrants can vote in, motoring laws that only motorists can vote in, etc.?

Generalisations and "shooting from the hip" do not add weight to the thrust and direction of your argument. If you wish to debate the point in a rational and coherent way, please do. But don't be silly.

seamus

Pulling the moral aside, if a man is to have a say to prevent a woman aborting, then equally he would have the right to a say in forcing her to abort?
I know the OP referred to this country, but this is a valid question.

I personally would be very interested in the result of the US case that Sangre mentions. If a woman has the right to "opt-out" of having a child, then a man by extension should be allowed to do the same (by having no legal ties to the infant).

Thirdfox

Why is it silly? I find that to be a very valid point - do you have the mentality of some escaping persecution at home and want to seek asylum here? No? Then you should get no say right?

If anyone wants to come and debate it there, I'm going to make a thread in humanities about this since we're discussing less of a legal issue at this point. Sound good?

seamus

bluewolf wrote:

If anyone wants to come and debate it there, I'm going to make a thread in humanities about this since we're discussing less of a legal issue at this point. Sound good?

Yep. Probably best.

Back with legal discussion, wasn't there a ruling in Germany (or maybe Sweden) a couple of years back that meant that men who deposited in sperm banks could be technically tracked down and forced to pay child to support for the offspring of their deposits?

Hobart

Thirdfox wrote:

Why is it silly? I find that to be a very valid point

It's silly, imo, because no rational person, again imo, would try to put forward a thesis that only people who drive should have a vote in laws which have an impact on motoring.etc...etc..

Thirdfox wrote:

- do you have the mentality of some escaping persecution at home and want to seek asylum here? No? Then you should get no say right?

I presume you mean someone? I don't really think my reasons for posting here are in discussion, are they?