'My body, my baby'

wolfpawnat

My two cents;

My body, my rules; until the cost of raising the child comes into it, then for some women its, right pay up!

That said, if a fella is willing to do the deed, he should be willing to accept the consequences.

A man should not be able to force an abortion, but that said, what if he wants to be a father? Why should his child be killed because the mother does not want to go through with the pregnancy? Why does she not have the child, sign over her rights and continue on with her life?

It really is a very hazy area!

metrovelvet

wolfpawnat wrote: »

My two cents;

My body, my rules; until the cost of raising the child comes into it, then for some women its, right pay up!

That said, if a fella is willing to do the deed, he should be willing to accept the consequences.

A man should not be able to force an abortion, but that said, what if he wants to be a father? Why should his child be killed because the mother does not want to go through with the pregnancy? Why does she not have the child, sign over her rights and continue on with her life?

It really is a very hazy area!

She may not want to risk a c section, bed rest, eclamsia, a blood transfusion, have her hips broken by sadistic OBs, bleeding out or dying from mrsa in an Irish hospital.

py2006

metrovelvet wrote: »

She may not want to risk a c section, bed rest, eclamsia, a blood transfusion, have her hips broken by sadistic OBs, bleeding out or dying from mrsa in an Irish hospital.

Again you are very extreme!

When it has an adverse affect on a womans health to the point it could be fatal nobody is going to argue!

But that is not the point of this thread at all.

drkpower

py2006 wrote: »

When it has an adverse affect on a womans health to the point it could be fatal nobody is going to argue!

Au contraire! Even Irish law does not necessarily permit an abortion where 'it could be fatal '.

And only one of the examples MV gave was necessarily fatal.

py2006

drkpower wrote: »

Au contraire! Even Irish law does not necessarily permit an abortion where 'it could be fatal '.

And only one of the examples MV gave was necessarily fatal.

I know! I was referring to men and the rights (or lack of).

If a man wants to keep his baby but realises the pregnancy may adversely affect his wife/gf's health seriously he isn't going to argue!

I realise if a man wants to keep the baby it doesn't matter a damn!

metrovelvet

py2006 wrote: »

I know! I was referring to men and the rights (or lack of).

If a man wants to keep his baby but realises the pregnancy may adversely affect his wife/gf's health seriously he isn't going to argue!

I realise if a man wants to keep the baby it doesn't matter a damn!

You dont always know how its going to affect your health or your life until the fat lady sings, until the baby is born. Its risky business.

A friend of mine caught mrsa in hospital after a secition. She came close.

Another woman I know due to an auto immune problem, forget the name sorry, is under doctors orders not to have anymore babies. She had two that nearly killed her. Women who already had sections have a high probability of having to have another one.

And btw, some men dont really give a ****. If you are talking about social validation, that is one thing, if you are talking about rights, that is another, that means legally enforcably says in the matter.

Otis Driftwood

metrovelvet wrote: »

She may not want to risk a c section, bed rest, eclamsia, a blood transfusion, have her hips broken by sadistic OBs, bleeding out or dying from mrsa in an Irish hospital.

Rein it in Metro.Your melodrama is gone beyond tiresome at this stage.

drkpower

py2006 wrote: »

If a man wants to keep his baby but realises the pregnancy may adversely affect his wife/gf's health seriously he isn't going to argue!

Im not sure I share your confidence!

If men (and women, of course) are happy to prevent strangers from obtaining treatment in respect of some of the conditions MV mentioned, Im not sure if they would have too many qualms if the woman concerned was their wife!

HellFireClub

Feeona wrote: »

As I've outlined in my previous posts, I'd take responsibility for my actions by sitting down with the father and discussing the options. I don't understand why you think I wouldn't take the 'blame' or try to apportion it elsewhere

It's a moot point for me anyway, because I can't see myself having a one night stand in the future. I just think it's important to be aware of the different scenarios people face at different times in their lives. There but the grace of god and all that jazz.

Sorry Fee, I should have said that I was speaking from the hypothetical position of a guy who found that he gets caught up in an unwanted pregnancy, (unwanted by either one of the two parties involved that is).

Getting caught up in an unwanted pregnancy is the stuff of absolute nightmares I think and if it happened to me as a guy, I'd completely be blaming myself for allowing myself to let my guard down and get caught out like that.

I'm not saying that when I say "caught out", that there would be automatically have been a deliberate attempt on the part of a girl to trick me into fathering a child, (although it does happen apparently), but if I got caught out like that either intentionally by a girl or it just happened, as it sometimes does, I'd completely blame myself and I'd be absolutely devastated...

I feel sorry for folks who use their heads, act responsibly and use contraception properly and yet still end up with an unwanted pregnancy, but I often think that a lot of these situations arise from one or both parties just being pure stupid or ignorant when it comes to using contraception and it's hard to find an excuse for that in this day and age I think...

py2006

drkpower wrote: »

Im not sure I share your confidence!

Ah here, are you suggesting that a lot of men would rather see their wife die through pregnancy! Come on. :rolleyes:

LeeHoffmann

That's not what you said py2006. You said adversely affect, not die.

If a man wants to keep his baby but realises the pregnancy may adversely affect his wife/gf's health seriously he isn't going to argue!

all men, is it?

I realise if a man wants to keep the baby it doesn't matter a damn!

doesn't matter to all women, is it?

metrovelvet

py2006 wrote: »

Ah here, are you suggesting that a lot of men would rather see their wife die through pregnancy! Come on. :rolleyes:

Are you restricting your advocacy of rights to married men?

As already mentioned it is not just death that is a possible consequence, there are other serious potential consequences also.

py2006

LeeHoffmann wrote: »

That's not what you said py2006. You said adversely affect, not die.

you're right, my apologies!

What I meant, is that there are very few people who would insist on carrying out a pregnancy if it would harm a women seriously and even run the risk of death.

Anyway, this is taking a different direction to what my original question was about.

py2006

LeeHoffmann wrote: »

all men, is it?
doesn't matter to all women, is it?

Doesn't matter by law apparently! Correct me if I am wrong

LeeHoffmann

I realise if a man wants to keep the baby it doesn't matter a damn!

It wasn't clear whether you meant 'the law doesn't care about what the man wants' or 'the woman doesn't care what the man wants'. It sounded like you meant the latter to me, but it seems you meant the former. I don't want to nit-pick but I think it's important to try to be clear here as the ambiguity can make some people (like me) think you mean 'women don't care what men want' and then it becomes a men vs women issue when it doesn't need to be and really isn't.

py2006

LeeHoffmann wrote: »

I don't want to nit-pick but I think it's important to try to be clear here as the ambiguity can make some people (like me) think you mean 'women don't care what men want' and then it becomes a men vs women issue when it doesn't need to be and really isn't.

No that is not the aim of this thread at all. As I said in my original post, I am not advocating anything. I merely wanted to gage the reaction to the whole "my body, my baby" attitude that came across from some in the thread I referred to. And what would the reaction of "your body, your baby, I'm off" be to those who are of that attitude.

LeeHoffmann

Ok I forgot that you were the OP. Thanks for clarifying

rolly1

"My body, my baby and NO MAN will have a say in that".

Well Ohio State seems to take a different view..

Legislation in the Ohio House of Representatives (House Bill 252) requires written consent from the father of an unborn child in order to perform an abortion. The bill will put to test the “it’s my body, it’s my right” notion of pro-choice activists by adding the rights of the father of the unborn child into the equation. Ideally, the decision of abortion should be a consensus between both parents, with both parties being involved in any decisions regarding the child.

drkpower

rolly1 wrote: »

Well Ohio State seems to take a different view..

Worth noting that that proposed law only applies to abortions post 24 weeks (supposed viability). In other words, women will still have an unfettered right to an abortion before 24 weeks (which is their constitutional right) and the father's rights will not be considered.

metrovelvet

drkpower wrote: »

Worth noting that that proposed law only applies to abortions post 24 weeks (supposed viability). In other words, women will still have an unfettered right to an abortion before 24 weeks (which is their constitutional right) and the father's rights will not be considered.

Is that because post 24 weeks is when paternity can be established?

drkpower

metrovelvet wrote: »

Is that because post 24 weeks is when paternity can be established?

No; its because it would be unconstitutional to fetter a womans right to an abortion pre-24 weeks. After that, State's can legislate as they see fit. But it is interesting that Ohio are going down this road.

py2006

drkpower wrote: »

But it is interesting that Ohio are going down this road.

Why Ohio?

metrovelvet

drkpower wrote: »

No; its because it would be unconstitutional to fetter a womans right to an abortion pre-24 weeks. After that, State's can legislate as they see fit. But it is interesting that Ohio are going down this road.

I dont see how they realistically can, except for married couples. I guess they'd do those new blood tests?

What is really interesting about it, is that it will dispel the popular delusion in the first place that abortion is legal only for the first trimester.

drkpower

py2006 wrote: »

Why Ohio?

No idea! I just meant that any state is going down this road.

I have a (possibly probably incorrect) view of Ohio as a pretty working class male white state. Perhaps the man's lobby is more powerful there!

py2006

drkpower wrote: »

No idea! I just meant that any state is going down this road.

I have a (possibly probably incorrect) view of Ohio as a pretty working class male white state. Perhaps the man's lobby is more powerful there!

Ah right ok! I didn't know that!

It really is such a hazy area! It can be a very harrowing experience for men and it looks like no amicable solution is possible!

Sparky_Larks

Interesting that this debate is premised on the idea that men cannot legally remove the self from the responsibility of raising a child in this state.

However in this state a Woman cannot remove herself from the responsibility once she is pregnant.

Before we would look at the right for a man to legally remove himself from any children, abortion would have to be legalised in this country.

Caitlinn

py2006 wrote: »

"My body, my baby and NO MAN will have a say in that".

'Your body, your baby, I'm off'.

In my opinion both of these viewpoints are completely deluded and I think anyone who thinks like that shouldn't have any children - ever. They are clearly either very immature or just plain stupid. Either way not people who should be teaching a child about life.

The Corinthian

Sparky_Larks wrote: »

However in this state a Woman cannot remove herself from the responsibility once she is pregnant.

Before we would look at the right for a man to legally remove himself from any children, abortion would have to be legalised in this country.

I'm not sure whether to laugh or cry at this response.

To begin with it completely ignores the option of adoption, which legally exists in Ireland as a means for a woman to "remove herself" from parental responsibility. Have we truly reached a point where this is no longer an option?

Secondly, while not available in Ireland, a woman has a constitutional right to have an abortion anywhere else (a bizarre situation akin to having pedophilia illegal, but giving someone the constitutional right to travel to Cambodia to practice it) - so the option is certainly there in practical and legal terms.

So claiming that women have no such options is either deluded or an appalling attempt at claiming that black is white.

Caitlinn wrote: »

In my opinion both of these viewpoints are completely deluded and I think anyone who thinks like that shouldn't have any children - ever. They are clearly either very immature or just plain stupid. Either way not people who should be teaching a child about life.

Indeed, but it is an inevitable consequence of granting rights. You can't grant a right to one group in Society and then get upset when other groups seek the same right - not unless you want to actively discriminate, in which case you cannot complain when the same happens to you.

For example, if men lack this right because of biology and the law does not compensate for this biological gap, then neither should the law compensate to protect the rights of women when biology works against them. Otherwise, you really are just looking to have your cake an eat it, and as we can see this is a state of affairs that is already being questioned.

I suspect that unless you want to introduce equal rights of 'abdication' of parental responsibility down the road, some form of compromise - where women will lose some of the more unilateral rights in reproduction, will probably have to be reached.

py2006

Caitlinn wrote: »

In my opinion both of these viewpoints are completely deluded and I think anyone who thinks like that shouldn't have any children - ever. They are clearly either very immature or just plain stupid. Either way not people who should be teaching a child about life.

Its interesting that, as a woman (I presume?), you are suggesting that women who claim 'my body, my baby and no man will have a say in it' are "immature" or "stupid". There a lot of women who would disagree with you there. You only have to look at the abortion thread in the Ladies Lounge.

There is a hint of 'selfishness' about it alright, especially if there is a husband or serious boyfriend involved.

Forgive me if I interpreted your post incorrectly!

metrovelvet

Yes you can grant rights to one group and not another. Disabled people get special parking and big vat and duty discounts on cars. Adults can vote and sit on a jury, kids cant.

When men get pregnant, then they can fight for abortion rights.