'My body, my baby'

G86

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

That does in practical terms make it ultimately meaningless though. An opinion is just an opinion unless its backed up with something tangible.

Unfortunately it can only be black or white in this scenario, and the most fair way is to give the female the right to decide.

Legally it's meaningless - yes. But what I meant is that his opinion can be taken into consideration.

Under no circumstances do I think a man should have a legal say in whether or not a woman has an abortion. Ultimately, it's the womans decision.

Frank Black

G86 wrote: »

Legally it's meaningless - yes. But what I meant is that his opinion can be taken into consideration.

Under no circumstances do I think a man should have a legal say in whether or not a woman has an abortion. Ultimately, it's the womans decision.

'Taken into consieration', 'right to an opinion'

You've stated in your second paragraph what your views are - fine.

But enough of the wishy-washy mumbo-jumbo.

Monty Burnz

metrovelvet wrote: »

It is my understanding that abortion and the woman's choice are around the risks to her body and the pregnancy. There are no such risks for a man.

Right, but that's irrelevant surely? You could just as easily point out that no man will know the joy of a baby growing inside them, and all the other positive aspects of pregnancy. We are talking about a simple legal injustice that could be rectified.

metrovelvet wrote: »

Childcare is intensive and people will for the most part be sympathetic to someone who doesn't feel the can hack the 24/7 childrearing, but they wont feel sympathetic to someone who only has to see the child once every other weekend and still cant hack that.

I think everybody knows that childcare is intensive, or have we just travelled back to the 50s all of a sudden? And again, I don't see what your reference to seeing a child every second weekend has to do with anything?

G86

black francis wrote: »

'Taken into consieration', 'right to an opinion'

You've stated in your second paragraph what your views are - fine.

But enough of the wishy-washy mumbo-jumbo.

Excuse me, but it's not wishy washy. I'm not sure what your actual point is?

My opinion is this:

The man can let it be known whether he wishes to keep the child and why
Both parties can discuss it and his wishes can be considered.
However, it's the womans body, and therefore ultimately her decision.

I can't make it any clearer than that for you.

Monty Burnz

G86 wrote: »

My opinion is this:

The man can let it be known whether he wishes to keep the child and why
Both parties can discuss it and his wishes can be considered.
However, it's the womans body, and ultimately her decision.

That's the only sensible approach - but a potential consequence is foisting a load of financial and other responsibilities on a man who does not want them. That needs to be addressed too.

Men are well used to getting rogered by family law, but for some reason you never hear equality campaigners going on about that... :rolleyes:

Bottle_of_Smoke

seamus wrote: »

It makes perfect sense. If a woman is permitted to abort without the father's consent, then surely an equivalent system should be in place for the man?
..................

Monty Burnz wrote: »

Do you think that it is equitable that one person can abort a pregnancy where the second person wants a child, or can bring to term a child that the second person does not want?

I accept your points made and am gonna have a think about it. It just seems to me its a really childish "its not fair she has a get-out card but I don't" argument

At the pregnancy stage of a human I just think the mother reasonably has a bigger say. Her body is being dramatically and in some ways irreversibly changed, a man has only contributed an ejaculation to be blunt. So in that case abortion is a physiologocial choice for the mother.

At the end of an abortion the child is dead, so in that sense troubles are over. In the "father's abortion" outlined the kid is still around and has to deal with the consequences. I think this would encourage so many fathers to say ah f*ck this, I'd rather go travelling, and we'll ultimately end up with a LOT more single family kids.

- It would have to be done while the child is in utero and only up to a certain stage of the pregnancy (to prevent a guy from deciding "I'm off", a week before the child is born), say up to 20 weeks.

- The woman would have a legal obligation to notify the man of her pregnancy as soon as she knows about it, in order to give him the same amount of time to make a decision as she has.

How exactly would you prove the mother knew?

As I said I'm gonna think about it, I don't think its as clear cut as is being made out

Bottle_of_Smoke

G86 wrote: »

Legally it's meaningless - yes. But what I meant is that his opinion can be taken into consideration.

Under no circumstances do I think a man should have a legal say in whether or not a woman has an abortion. Ultimately, it's the womans decision.

I agree that's the only way, but I think we're on different wavelengths here, of course the opinion could be taken into consideration, that goes without saying, but in the context of this topic - my body my baby - it is categorically meaningless, not just legally meaningless.

And that's the only way to go because its the girl's body being affected

Bloody Nipples

G86 wrote: »

Excuse me, but it's not wishy washy. I'm not sure what your actual point is?

My opinion is this:

The man can let it be known whether he wishes to keep the child and why
Both parties can discuss it and his wishes can be considered.
However, it's the womans body, and therefore ultimately her decision.

I can't make it any clearer than that for you.

This makes perfect sense, you can't force a woman to bring a baby to term and alternatively you can't force her to undergo an abortion.

Therefore, as a woman has total control over whether she becomes a mother, the same rights should also be extended to any potential fathers by allowing men to opt out of fatherhood without legal implications.

Simple and fair.

However there's not really much agitation for men's rights in this regard as no guy is going to care enough unless it happens to him.

Frank Black

G86 wrote: »

Excuse me, but it's not wishy washy. I'm not sure what your actual point is?

My opinion is this:

The man can let it be known whether he wishes to keep the child and why
Both parties can discuss it and his wishes can be considered.
However, it's the womans body, and therefore ultimately her decision.

I can't make it any clearer than that for you.

My ‘point’ is that given you’ve stated that you believe that it’s entirely a woman’s decision as to whether to keep a baby or not – adding in stuff about how a man has a ‘right to an opinion’ on the matter or has a ‘right to have his views considered’ is meaningless drivel – and I can’t be any clearer than that.

It’s a black and white issue – trying to add shades of grey to the argument is unhelpful.

K-9

Monty Burnz wrote: »

That's the only sensible approach - but a potential consequence is foisting a load of financial and other responsibilities on a man who does not want them. That needs to be addressed too.

Men are well used to getting rogered by family law, but for some reason you never hear equality campaigners going on about that... :rolleyes:

In fairness equality campaigners do go on about it and I believe the Law Reform Commission see it as the next issue to address in family law.

Personally I think if a mother and father can agree on him abdicating his responsibilities, fair enough, it's their choice and they can address the ramifications. Legally I'd have a moral problem with it as it affects the child's rights.

I've been involved in a few of these types of threads and Bottle_of_Smoke sums up my views on it. It does smack of "equality for the sake of it" as it's the be all and end all and the child is an afterthought.

Women have the choice of abortion and as he bluntly puts it, if it happens well there is no baby to look after. Tough as that is on a father who wants the baby, barring forcing a woman who doesn't want a baby to become pregnant, there isn't much we can do about it and I'm not comfortable with that as that is going against a human right of a mother.

It's a very delicate balancing act.

Bloody Nipples

black francis wrote: »

My ‘point’ is that given you’ve stated that you believe that it’s entirely a woman’s decision as to whether to keep a baby or not – adding in stuff about how a man has a ‘right to an opinion’ on the matter or has a ‘right to have his views considered’ is meaningless drivel – and I can’t be any clearer than that.

It’s a black and white issue – trying to add shades of grey to the argument is unhelpful.

She's being nice by even saying a guy's opinion would be considered. Realistically it doesn't matter a fúck what a guy thinks.

Thus, it would only be fair if a man can have his own say on his participation in fatherhood.

seamus

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

At the pregnancy stage of a human I just think the mother reasonably has a bigger say. Her body is being dramatically and in some ways irreversibly changed, a man has only contributed an ejaculation to be blunt. So in that case abortion is a physiologocial choice for the mother.

Well I agree completely. And no matter what "system" is in place, the mother will always have the bigger choice, because as you say at the end of the day the mother decides if the child will or will not exist. If the father wants the child and the mother doesn't, there can never be system that allows both to have their way. But it should be possible to allow both to have their way in all other scenarios.

I think this would encourage so many fathers to say ah f*ck this, I'd rather go travelling, and we'll ultimately end up with a LOT more single family kids.

This is an argument I considered the last time this discussion came up, but tbh I actually find it groundless. There is no reason to consider that a man would be more likely to "abort" their child than a woman would. Your assertion that there would be more single parent families is correct - because men don't have the option to "abort" at present. So even if one man "aborts", then that's another single-parent family.
However there's an additional argument as to whether a child is better off with no father, or a "sometimes there, sometimes not" father, who's resentful of the child's existence.

I think in most cases, a man will go with his conscience rather than his selfishness. The idea that men are only interested in humping and no interest in children is about as fair as the idea that all women are fundamentally whores because they have sex to get things.

I think the fact that the vast majority of men do step up to their responsibilities when it comes to "accidental" children is testament to the fact that men in general feel a very strong connection and obligation to their children, however they come about.

How exactly would you prove the mother knew?

Scans and other such firm evidence aside, I can't see many women knowing they're pregnant and saying it to nobody in order to trap a man. Such incidents would be fringe cases, but as I mentioned there will always be special cases and what ifs. You can't legislate to cover everything.

Monty Burnz

K-9 wrote: »

In fairness equality campaigners do go on about it and I believe the Law Reform Commission see it as the next issue to address in family law.

Well, if you say so, I believe you, but I haven't heard them talking about this personally (whereas I have heard them talking about challenging golf clubs that only allow male membership, and such).

Personally I think if a mother and father can agree on him abdicating his responsibilities, fair enough, it's their choice and they can address the ramifications. Legally I'd have a moral problem with it as it affects the child's rights.

K-9 wrote: »

I've been involved in a few of these types of threads and Bottle_of_Smoke sums up my views on it. It does smack of "equality for the sake of it" as it's the be all and end all and the child is an afterthought.

Here's where I disagree - if we are to allow abortion then it is on the grounds that a foetus is not a person, or if it is a person, then a person with lesser rights than the mother. In that context, it's not a huge leap (in fact I'd say it's obvious) to say that the father's rights also trump those of the foetus. And one of those rights could just as easily be that he cannot be forced to take on the legal responsibilities of parenthood against his will. It's not 'equality for the sake of it' unless you regard being a parent (with all the obligations that entails) as the same as not being a parent, which seems a ridiculous position.

K-9 wrote: »

It's a very delicate balancing act.

I totally agree there.

Marty McFly

I think what the op has suggested is a brilliant idea, people these days constantly scream out for equality and aaginst sexism, it cant all be a one way street, if a woman has the right to abort without giving the mans opinions a consideration then likewise clearly the man if he chooses should have the right to say ok go ahead have the child but im off and legally its not my child, how can you argue against that?

Personally I hate the its my body my choice argument, afer all it takes two to make the foetus regardless of what you may say, I was once in a situation were i was in a relationship with a woman now we just had a scare but before we found out if she really was pregnant she had to talk about the what if? Her viewpoint was she was having an abortion whether I was on board or not with her choice she was going to England tough **** on me, when I found out she wasnt pregnant with my child I ended it and never saw her again in a way I was kinda glad she insisted on talking about the what ifs, I got to see that side to her.

py2006

luvbulmers01 wrote: »

Personally I hate the its my body my choice argument, afer all it takes two to make the foetus regardless of what you may say, I was once in a situation were i was in a relationship with a woman now we just had a scare but before we found out if she really was pregnant she had to talk about the what if? Her viewpoint was she was having an abortion whether I was on board or not with her choice she was going to England tough **** on me, when I found out she was pregnant with my child I ended it and never saw her again in a way I was kinda glad she insisted on talking about the what ifs, I got to see that side to her.

Was the scare and subsequent pregnancy related or was it a pregnancy further down the road?

K-9

Bloody Nipples wrote: »

She's being nice by even saying a guy's opinion would be considered. Realistically it doesn't matter a fúck what a guy thinks.

Thus, it would only be fair if a man can have his own say on his participation in fatherhood.

It depends on the particular case again. In many cases the fathers view maybe very important and could play a big part in the decision to abort or not, it would be part of various things to consider.

Some would have the "my way or no way" attitude and tbh I'd have sympathy with a man in that case.

Marty McFly

py2006 wrote: »

Was the scare and subsequent pregnancy related or was it a pregnancy further down the road?

Oh real sorry there was typo there just fixed it:o

Bloody Nipples

K-9 wrote: »

It depends on the particular case again. In many cases the fathers view maybe very important and could play a big part in the decision to abort or not, it would be part of various things to consider.

Some would have the "my way or no way" attitude and tbh I'd have sympathy with a man in that case.

Yeah a man's opinion could be a big factor in a woman's ultimate decision, but the decision is ultimately the woman's. I suppose it all boils down to the woman really.

And yeah the "My way or no way" attitude is incredibly disrespectful but it's there and I suppose just another piece of evidence that this particular scenario really requires legislation.

G86

black francis wrote: »

My ‘point’ is that given you’ve stated that you believe that it’s entirely a woman’s decision as to whether to keep a baby or not – adding in stuff about how a man has a ‘right to an opinion’ on the matter or has a ‘right to have his views considered’ is meaningless drivel – and I can’t be any clearer than that.

It’s a black and white issue – trying to add shades of grey to the argument is unhelpful.

If you think it's 'meaningless drivel' then so be it, but it is my point of view.

py2006

luvbulmers01 wrote: »

Oh real sorry there was typo there just fixed it:o

Ah right ok. I get ya now! Fair play to you. I think I may have done the same.

Did you explain your reasoning?

G86

K-9 wrote: »

It depends on the particular case again. In many cases the fathers view maybe very important and could play a big part in the decision to abort or not, it would be part of various things to consider.

Some would have the "my way or no way" attitude and tbh I'd have sympathy with a man in that case.

This is what I was trying to say. If the woman hasn't completely made her decision, then taking into account the fathers wishes/view may sway it. Therefore, his opinion isn't meaningless. I'm simply also saying that, while this can be done, the woman should always have the last say in whether she has an abortion.

Bloody Nipples

G86 wrote: »

the woman should always have the last say in whether she has an abortion.

I don't think any normal person would disagree with this.

Marty McFly

py2006 wrote: »

Ah right ok. I get ya now! Fair play to you. I think I may have done the same.

Did you explain your reasoning?

I sure did, I just felt her attitude of im having an abortion regardless of what my opinion on it was, was well disrepectful, showed how much she thought of my opinions or feeling in the process as it was all one sided never any consideration just im having an abortion if im pregnant and thats it, you can support me if you want but either way itd be an abortion, didnt see it as a good sign of things to come really once id seen that side of her personallity. Plus to be honest im not a fan of abortion either having seen the stages of foetus development at the bodys exhibit from four weeks upwards but thats a different matter altogether I guess.

goose2005

py2006 wrote: »

If a woman can abort a baby up a certain period in the pregnancy then perhaps men should be given the right to exclude themselves from involvement up to that date?

Obviously, we wouldn't want a scenario where a man can fill out a legal form stating he wants no involvement on the day of birth or after.

Why not? Women can fill out a form to put a child up for adoption - no involvement, no financial or legal responsibilities. But presumably giving men that option would not be in the "best interests of the child" (a term which invariably coincides with whatever suits the mother)

K-9

goose2005 wrote: »

Why not? Women can fill out a form to put a child up for adoption - no involvement, no financial or legal responsibilities. But presumably giving men that option would not be in the "best interests of the child" (a term which invariably coincides with whatever suits the mother)

If married well the father would be involved in the decision. If not there is a requirement on the father to be informed though I don't know what he could do if he objected.

Many women choose not to seek maintenance and not really bother with the father that much. The father would have to give up the right of changing his mind in a few years and walking back into the child's life, an option which he currently has.

py2006

I am by know means an authority on any angle of this debate so forgive my ignorance.

When it comes to adoption, where the couple are married, has the father no say if the woman wants to give the baby away?

Feeona

As a woman, I couldn't see myself having an abortion if I'm in a loving relationship. I don't know which way I'd go if it were just a casual relationship however. The amount of factors that can possibly affect a pregnancy (type of partner, career, finance, physical effects, hormonal effects) would all play a part in informing our decision, and as some of these effects wouldn't kick in until you're pregnant, well it's impossible to say what frame of mind you would be in.
As for the hypothetical situation in this thread, to be honest I really don't see myself flouncing about the place screaming 'My choice, my body' with total disregard for what my partner wants. I would discuss all options with my partner (whether they're casual or long term) and come to a decision. If it ended in the unlikely scenario of a stalemate ie 'Have the baby/abortion or else', I would choose 'or else'. An abortion or a birth will place both an emotional and physical toll on a woman, and trying to equate it with what a man goes through doesn't make sense because they're not equal experiences.
If a man ever said to me 'Well because you're not doing what I say, I'm not going to have any part in it', I would see that man as someone who's very callous and mean spirited and doesn't understand the full force or meaning of his words. To be honest, I don't know why any man would condense a pregnancy down to that. The only reason I can see why a man would do that is to prove a point, and it really is a sh*tty way of proving a point. Same as a woman shouting 'My body, my choice' without taking her partner's concerns into account - again a really sh*tty way of making a point.

K-9

py2006 wrote: »

I am by know means an authority on any angle of this debate so forgive my ignorance.

When it comes to adoption, where the couple are married, has the father no say if the woman wants to give the baby away?

Not something that I've personal experience in but a married father is an automatic guardian of the child so he'd have to agree to give up those rights, which he'd be doing if he agreed to adoption. If he disagrees I don't know what would happen. Haven't heard of any cases like that. Suppose the mother could walk away and leave him to it, which does happen.

metrovelvet

Feeona wrote: »

As a woman, I couldn't see myself having an abortion if I'm in a loving relationship. I don't know which way I'd go if it were just a casual relationship however. The amount of factors that can possibly affect a pregnancy (type of partner, career, finance, physical effects, hormonal effects) would all play a part in informing our decision, and as some of these effects wouldn't kick in until you're pregnant, well it's impossible to say what frame of mind you would be in.
As for the hypothetical situation in this thread, to be honest I really don't see myself flouncing about the place screaming 'My choice, my body' with total disregard for what my partner wants. I would discuss all options with my partner (whether they're casual or long term) and come to a decision. If it ended in the unlikely scenario of a stalemate ie 'Have the baby/abortion or else', I would choose 'or else'. An abortion or a birth will place both an emotional and physical toll on a woman, and trying to equate it with what a man goes through doesn't make sense because they're not equal experiences.
If a man ever said to me 'Well because you're not doing what I say, I'm not going to have any part in it', I would see that man as someone who's very callous and mean spirited and doesn't understand the full force or meaning of his words. To be honest, I don't know why any man would condense a pregnancy down to that. The only reason I can see why a man would do that is to prove a point, and it really is a sh*tty way of proving a point. Same as a woman shouting 'My body, my choice' without taking her partner's concerns into account - again a really sh*tty way of making a point.

Im looking at the part you have in bold. Her PARTNER's. How much consideration would you give to a fling or someone who doesnt care about you? If you were not in a partnership how much consideration would you give to them?

Love your last paragraph. It really rings true. Its like saying "Unless I have full custody Im ignoring the child." Hardly going to endear this person or make an impression on you as a good parent. More like make you run and put on a jumper to stave off the chills they give you.

SugarHigh

metrovelvet wrote: »

Feeona wrote: »

As a woman, I couldn't see myself having an abortion if I'm in a loving relationship. I don't know which way I'd go if it were just a casual relationship however. The amount of factors that can possibly affect a pregnancy (type of partner, career, finance, physical effects, hormonal effects) would all play a part in informing our decision, and as some of these effects wouldn't kick in until you're pregnant, well it's impossible to say what frame of mind you would be in.
As for the hypothetical situation in this thread, to be honest I really don't see myself flouncing about the place screaming 'My choice, my body' with total disregard for what my partner wants. I would discuss all options with my partner (whether they're casual or long term) and come to a decision. If it ended in the unlikely scenario of a stalemate ie 'Have the baby/abortion or else', I would choose 'or else'. An abortion or a birth will place both an emotional and physical toll on a woman, and trying to equate it with what a man goes through doesn't make sense because they're not equal experiences.
If a man ever said to me 'Well because you're not doing what I say, I'm not going to have any part in it', I would see that man as someone who's very callous and mean spirited and doesn't understand the full force or meaning of his words. To be honest, I don't know why any man would condense a pregnancy down to that. The only reason I can see why a man would do that is to prove a point, and it really is a sh*tty way of proving a point. Same as a woman shouting 'My body, my choice' without taking her partner's concerns into account - again a really sh*tty way of making a point.

Love your last paragraph. It really rings true. Its like saying "Unless I have full custody Im ignoring the child." Hardly going to endear this person or make an impression on you as a good parent. More like make you run and put on a jumper to stave off the chills they give you.

They could just cut the baby in half.:pac: