Repeal the 8th Bandwagoning

TheDoc

Lady Spangles wrote: »

Are you talking about children here or pregnancies? I mean, if you're talking about your own children, then surely you have rights as you are still their father. You can't be ignored or cast aside. The same for any father in the same situation.

Yeah if only that was the reality. So while me and my GF are very much a normal couple, living together raising our children, I've had to go to court twice to get paperwork and stuff done that provides me some rights. It's moreso for the likes of inheritance and guardianship, which is not assumed under law for unmarried couples.

There is a lot of other stuff also relating to social welfare, tax and various other things, raising a family where the parents are not married. It's a bit bonkers. But definitely don't have any immediate rights, I had to get some people to sign paperwork to give me some, which was nice of them.

But in terms of abortion, then it's really the woman's decision. It's the woman who carries the fetus to term, goes through the pregnancy etc. It's her body, so it's her choice. Likewise, if a man wants his female partner to abort against her will then he can't really force her. Women aren't compelled to obey men just because.

Again I'd state it depends on the context of what we are talking about regarding abortion here.

The mere fact you said "obey men" probably just outlines the point I'm making. It's not about obeying, it's about being mature and respecting that a child will have two parents, male/female , male/male, female/female, whatever the combination.

So in the hypothetical example where a woman is going through a pregnancy, partner excited at the prospect and both happy as larry all the usual first baby stuff. Woman has a freakout, panics, the normal "am I ready for this" that I'd imagine all first time parents go through. But in this case its a step further of "no I'm not doing this" and wants to abort. The father should be ignored here? Sorry not buying that.

In a situation similar where the mother doesn't like how she has lost a party lifestyle and feels a baby would "cramp her style" and wants to abort, a father must just shut up and put up?

It's complex, delicate and 101 different scenarios, but sorry I don't think in 2017 when everyone likes to think we are moving to equality, everyone thinks they are more intelligent and where everyone seems to be displaying more passion, visceral behaviour and vocalisation of issues like this, that there can be a total neglect of both parents in the equation.

So what the victory is woman will have choice over their bodies where previously they had none, but even in amending the law, removing parts or writing new ones, we would still just ignore the father/partner in the process? Doesn't sound very modern or forward thinking to me.

Although from the very few conversations I've had, this is a bit like Irish Water among many other "hot topics" where in reality there simply is no debate or willingness for sides to be mature and have their views challenged. It's just a visceral standpoint and if you don't agree "your a moron" sort of thing

One eyed Jack

__Alex__ wrote: »

That there are non-religious folk against abortion doesn't detract from the fact that the majority of countries where there is strong opposition to abortion tend to be very religious and often countries with large Catholic populations. Funny that.

I'm not sure what point you're even trying to make tbh? The majority of people in the US are religious, and the vast majority of women who have availed of abortion there are religious. Yeah, still not seeing your point. You can keep going on about religion all you want, but you're completely ignoring the fact that people are far more complex than your simplistic correlations.

TheDoc

__Alex__ wrote: »

My view is that the father absolutely should get a say, without question. Where I come unstuck a bit is what happens if there is a difference in opinion? Say if she wants an abortion and he doesn't. At this point, whatever decision is made, it is inherently not equal. It can't be. Where there is a difference of opinion between the mother and father on this issue, equality isn't possible.

And you'd hope there would be some form of arbitration available? Again it's very complex, and there is so many scenarios to contemplate and theorise. But I definitely don't think it's as straight forward was " it's a womans body, the woman can do as she sees fit"

Christy42

TheDoc wrote: »

And you'd hope there would be some form of arbitration available? Again it's very complex, and there is so many scenarios to contemplate and theorise. But I definitely don't think it's as straight forward was " it's a womans body, the woman can do as she sees fit"

Do you have a solution? I get what you are saying but I see no way to legislate for it. I see no way that keeping the 8th helps the man have a say either. It is simply no abortion no matter the man's (or woman's) opinion on the issue.

Lady Spangles

TheDoc wrote: »

Yeah if only that was the reality. So while me and my GF are very much a normal couple, living together raising our children, I've had to go to court twice to get paperwork and stuff done that provides me some rights. It's moreso for the likes of inheritance and guardianship, which is not assumed under law for unmarried couples.

There is a lot of other stuff also relating to social welfare, tax and various other things, raising a family where the parents are not married. It's a bit bonkers. But definitely don't have any immediate rights, I had to get some people to sign paperwork to give me some, which was nice of them.

That sounds like madness, to be honest. I'm not a parent and I'm in the north as well, so please excuse my ignorance of how things are done in the Republic. Is there a branch of Fathers for Justice in the Republic? I know they're more (in)famous for their public stunts while dressed as Batman, but these days I think they are more clued up on legal issues and are a little more organised into being a proper and respectable pressure group.

Whatever the case, it definitely sounds like a lot more needs to be done to recognise father's rights. But that's an entirely separate issue to the 8th and abortion.

Again I'd state it depends on the context of what we are talking about regarding abortion here.

The mere fact you said "obey men" probably just outlines the point I'm making. It's not about obeying, it's about being mature and respecting that a child will have two parents, male/female , male/male, female/female, whatever the combination.

As part of mature discussion, then of course a father's opinion needs to be taken into account. But often it's nothing more than one party or the other's way of saying they expect to get their own way. People get manipulative and I know more than one girl who has been manipulated into having said baby only for the father to then promptly vanish.

Another case I read about recently involved a woman who went through with having a baby she did not want, so the father could raise said baby (she pays maintenance but that's where her involvement ends). He's now trying to sue her because he no longer wants the baby and only did it because he just assumed she would change her mind about the situation once the kid was born. She hasn't.

So how much should a woman do to satisfy the father? It's especially risky when there's another life, an innocent kid, caught up in the middle of all this.

So what the victory is woman will have choice over their bodies where previously they had none, but even in amending the law, removing parts or writing new ones, we would still just ignore the father/partner in the process? Doesn't sound very modern or forward thinking to me.

I know it sounds unfair, but it's down to the individual woman on how much she allows the father's opinion to affect her ultimate decision. Most women can't afford to take such risks.

Zubeneschamali

TheDoc wrote: »

I wouldn't exactly be like "**** what he wants princess, you do what you think is best".

No?

I would. Might be looking to "have a few words" with yerman, too.

__Alex__

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I'm not sure what point you're even trying to make tbh?

Whenever anyone points to a religious motivation behind someone's opposition to abortion, somebody always pipes up with "Well, I'm athiest and I oppose it so religion can't be the reason!". Of course non-religious people can oppose abortion but that doesn't change that many people are influenced by religion when it comes to opposition of abortion. And I've known people who think they are not influenced by religion on the topic but it's not remotely believable.

Not sure why you say I'm "going on" about religion, the post you replied to was literally my first post on religion and abortion.

__Alex__

TheDoc wrote: »

And you'd hope there would be some form of arbitration available? Again it's very complex, and there is so many scenarios to contemplate and theorise. But I definitely don't think it's as straight forward was " it's a womans body, the woman can do as she sees fit"

Well, what do you think? What is the solution if she wants an abortion and he doesn't?

Zubeneschamali

__Alex__ wrote: »

Whenever anyone points to a religious motivation behind someone's opposition to abortion, somebody always pipes up with "Well, I'm athiest and I oppose it so religion can't be the reason!".

And in particular, the 8th amendment. The 8th is not only religiously inspired, it is sectarian: every other Christian church in Ireland opposed it at the time because it put Catholic dogma in the Constitution.

I have yet to hear an atheist say they like the 8th and want to keep abortion for FFA liable to a 14 year prison sentence for mother and doctor.

Mad stuff.

One eyed Jack

__Alex__ wrote: »

Whenever anyone points to a religious motivation behind someone's opposition to abortion, somebody always pipes up with "Well, I'm athiest and I oppose it so religion can't be the reason!". Of course non-religious people can oppose abortion but that doesn't change that many people are influenced by religion when it comes to opposition of abortion. And I've known people who think they are not influenced by religion on the topic but it's not remotely believable.

Well of course it doesn't change the fact that many people are influenced by their religion when it comes to abortion, I'd say it was quite a big factor in relation to informing people's morality on abortion. That's assuming the obvious really, occams razor type stuff, nothing new there.

I wouldn't assume someone's opinion with regard to abortion is necessarily informed by religion though, and in my reply to Akrasia I listed many more reasons besides religion why someone may be opposed to abortion.

By that same token, I wouldn't assume that someone who is religious is opposed to abortion either. That's why I say it's really not that simple, and why I point out that people who are looking to repeal the 8th amendment may well alienate their largest support base by focusing on anti-religious rhetoric.

Not sure why you say I'm "going on" about religion, the post you replied to was literally my first post on religion and abortion.

Well using your own argument - whenever someone points to any motivation besides religious beliefs as a reason someone may be opposed to abortion, there's always someone who pipes up with the fact that there are people who are religious who are opposed to abortion. They're really not telling anyone anything they didn't know already, so what's their point?

Now whether you believe them or not is a different matter entirely, that's entirely your own business in all fairness. I wouldn't be so quick to make that assumption myself though.

__Alex__

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Well using your own argument - whenever someone points to any motivation besides religious beliefs as a reason someone may be opposed to abortion, there's always someone who pipes up with the fact that there are people who are religious who are opposed to abortion. They're really not telling anyone anything they didn't know already, so what's their point?

Now whether you believe them or not is a different matter entirely, that's entirely your own business in all fairness. I wouldn't be so quick to make that assumption myself though.

What has any of this got to do with me asking why you said I was "going on" about religion and abortion? This part of your post is in response to that.

Zubeneschamali

One eyed Jack wrote: »

That's why I say it's really not that simple, and why I point out that people who are looking to repeal the 8th amendment may well alienate their largest support base by focusing on anti-religious rhetoric.

There is a reason why all these religious folks let on they have other reasons like "I read a biology book once". It's why the Iona So-Called Institute get wheeled out to plug the catholic Church line, and they pretend to be concerned about secular society.

Coming out and saying "God said it, I believe it, that settles it" no longer cuts it in Ireland, they have to do it by stealth. But we are not falling for it anymore, and their efforts fell very flat in the SSM referendum.

__Alex__

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

And in particular, the 8th amendment. The 8th is not only religiously inspired, it is sectarian: every other Christian church in Ireland opposed it at the time because it put Catholic dogma in the Constitution.

I was reading about the history of the Death with Dignity movement in the US. It was illuminating to discover how many times the Catholic Church and the Catholic Church alone put the kibosh on assisted suicide legislation being brought in in various US states, despite it being a minority religion in the US. Mad stuff.

One eyed Jack

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

There is a reason why all these religious folks let on they have other reasons like "I read a biology book once". It's why the Iona So-Called Institute get wheeled out to plug the catholic Church line, and they pretend to be concerned about secular society.

Coming out and saying "God said it, I believe it, that settles it" no longer cuts it in Ireland, they have to do it by stealth. But we are not falling for it anymore, and their efforts fell very flat in the SSM referendum.

You think anyone actually gave a shìte what anyone in the Iona Institute thinks?

No, my objection the the repeal of the 8th amendment isn't based on religion, it isn't based on science, it's based on the impression I'm given by ultra-liberal anti-religious leftie fcukwits who have no intention of stopping with the 8th amendment in their complete disregard for human life in favour of promoting what to them is a "society of intellectuals". Their ignorance of humanity is one obstacle they will fail time and time again to overcome.

Woodhenge

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

There is a reason why all these religious folks let on they have other reasons like "I read a biology book once". It's why the Iona So-Called Institute get wheeled out to plug the catholic Church line, and they pretend to be concerned about secular society.

Coming out and saying "God said it, I believe it, that settles it" no longer cuts it in Ireland, they have to do it by stealth. But we are not falling for it anymore, and their efforts fell very flat in the SSM referendum.

Bait and switch, 'by repealing the 8th you can give the rotten church the two fingers/we can help rid religious influence on public policy'. People have already seen through it. People can see plain as day the campaign wants abortion on demand and are trying to paint opponents as religious fanatics to disguise this main purpose.

The first time I really gave abortion any deep thought was not through a lecture by a priest, it was the horror, anger and revulsion expressed at the actual physical procedure in the Sex Pistols song 'Bodies'.

m5ex9oqjawdg2i

neonsofa wrote: »

People choose to have abortions based on their inability to raise a child.

I don't think that's right at all. Would sterilization not be a better option for all involved in this case?

You include very young women in your example of people where the decision would be easier to make, why is that? Why do you think the baby of a young girl should be allowed to be terminated whereas you dont agree regarding the baby of a slightly older woman who just doesn't want the child and has a generally ****ty attitude?
I had my first child young, unplanned and not ready, I personally didn't even consider abortion and I'd like to think I did a good job all things considered. A situation where others might have assumed termination is the best option but in actual fact it turned out lovely. During my early 20s I knew that I couldn't care for another baby, if I had an unplanned pregnancy I would more than likely consider termination, because my circumstances wouldnt allow for another child and it would impact negatively on my first child. Whereas you would not deem it acceptable at that stage.
I think it should be up to the individual woman to decide if she is capable or not and judge herself based on what her own circumstances are.

That's why I said it's a grey area and I don't have all the answers. They were just some examples, I haven't prepared an in dept paper on it or anything. I was more thinking along the lines of a child being unable to carry to full term due to their body not being fully developed for child birth. I would hope that this is also an incredibly rare event. Having people, who are qualified, decide on the criteria for an abortion is quite important as you can see :P

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

No. They really couldn't. There is no criteria you could construct to establish that a person has done "everything possible to make sure you don't become pregnant". How would you establish that a pregnant women sitting across the table from you used condoms 100% of the time she had sex for example? There is simply no way, short of inventing time traveling and making uninvited voyeurism legal, that you are going to establish that.

I wasn't talking about that policing a woman's birth control, I meant decide on the criteria for an abortion. If birth control fails, that should be good enough reason to have an abortion. Impossible to police, but I would very much like to see some sort of regulation. Also support groups for potential parents who are seeking an abortion.

And even the way you phrase it is not workable. A person who was doing "everything possible" to avoid being pregnant....... would not be having any sex at all. Is that credible as a policy really?

Having unprotected sex without birth control, knowing that it's ok because you can just have an abortion is, well, sick. It's an awful attitude to have.

And as I said I do not "think it is right" that a person can eat hundreds of mars bars with the express intention of getting morbidly obese. But my judgement of their motivations should be kept separate of my judgement of their right to do so.

If I can not indict morally the act of abortion, then a persons reason for seeking one (career goals, or not liking the gender of the developing fetus) are simply not my business.

The analogy doesn't work because on one hand you are dealing with the life of an unborn child, and the other hand you are dealing with money... basically. A miserable 200 euro a week.

A persons reasons should absolutely come into it.

I just personally think that seeking a resolution through discourse on this issue should not be done based on what is "easier" but on what we can genuinely argue for. And I have not just seen few, but NO arguments for affording rights, or moral or ethical concern, for the fetuses most people are choosing to abort (over 90% of them in or before week 12 of development and even more by week 16).

Your main argument seems to be that the unborn child is not a sentient being. At some point it does become a sentient being. I don't think that point in time has been decided on though. Life begins at fertilization, and that life will continue to develop until death. Even so, why does an unborn child at 12 or 16 weeks have less of a right to life than an unborn child of 20 or 24 weeks? Because we don't believe it's conscious? Given time, it will be. That's really strange to think and decide on.

nozzferrahhtoo

Royce Numerous Goose-step wrote: »

I wasn't talking about that policing a woman's birth control, I meant decide on the criteria for an abortion.

Apologies then, but when you talk about making abortion available for anyone who "do everything possible to make sure you don't become pregnant, yet still manage to conceive" it certainly reads like that. It is vague enough to be MASSIVELY open to interpretation, so some clarification is welcome.

Of course a pedantic literal reading of that point renders it nonsense. To do EVERYTHING POSSIBLE To not become pregnant would by definition include complete consensual abstinence. And abstinence approaches to unwanted pregnancy have been tried. Spoiler alert: It did not really work.

So I did you the justice of not reading it too literally. But even a dilute reading of "EVERYTHING POSSIBLE" suggests things like condoms which, lets face it these days, is pretty much the "MINIMUM POSSIBLE" standard. But there is simply no way to ensure an abortion applicant even adhered to THAT standard, let alone "EVERYTHING POSSIBLE". There is no list of criteria you can write up to even begin to verify the criteria.

Royce Numerous Goose-step wrote: »

If birth control fails, that should be good enough reason to have an abortion. Impossible to police, but I would very much like to see some sort of regulation. Also support groups for potential parents who are seeking an abortion.

Yes, one thing I can not say enough, and I am personally happy to say it 1000 times if people like yourself give me even the tiniest thread to do so, is that the pro-choice and anti-choice side share a majority common goal. We BOTH want as few abortions being performed as possible. I think the anti-choice side forget that. And some, especially the ones who call "pro choice" people with terms like "pro aborts" are willfully TRYING to forget it, or distort or lie about it.

And support for parents seeking abortion is one way to do that. Because many people having abortions do not actually WANT to have it, but some familial, social, economic or other factor corners them into thinking it is the only viable choice they have. We NEED to support such people. Many by giving them support and better options. Many, sadly, just by informing them of the options they ALREADY have but are alas ignorant of.

But one consistent thing I find in all the pro-choice activities I have dealt with personally, is that they are invariably strongly biased TOWARDS any initiative that moves to reduce the quantity of people seeking abortion. And a point of despair for many is that the people campaigning AGAINST abortion, also campaign AGAINST many things like condoms, or MUCH earlier and improved sexual education for children at school level. And usually for the worst reasons like "God hates condoms" or "Let kids be kids, do not destroy innocence by educating them about sex".

I am all for the innocent of children and prolonging the magic and wonder of childhood as long as possible. I have never had it explained to me why knowledge of sex is the antithesis of it.

Royce Numerous Goose-step wrote: »

Having unprotected sex without birth control, knowing that it's ok because you can just have an abortion is, well, sick. It's an awful attitude to have.

And I strongly suspect people who DO have that attitude are also a minority like the other minorities we have discussed. Abortion is an INVASIVE procedure, sometimes risky, sometimes expensive, sometimes nerve racking and emotionally problematic. Hell most DENTAL appointments are relatively less invasive and risky (though it can be both) and look at the extremes some people go to avoid THEM.... hell I can not even sleep myself the night before one....... not to mention as well as the expensive and inconvenience of them.

And that is mere dentistry.......... barely comparable to the deep invasion of one of the more intimate and sensitive areas of the body. I strongly doubt many people are considering abortion as a mere contraception method of convenience to have on a whim.

Royce Numerous Goose-step wrote: »

The analogy doesn't work because on one hand you are dealing with the life of an unborn child, and the other hand you are dealing with money... basically. A miserable 200 euro a week.

The analogy is not predicated on that, so that can not be a failing point. But analogy never "works" per se, it is not a methodology of verifying an argument, but of EXPLAINING an argument. And if you understand what I MEAN by the analogy, then it has "worked" as well as it was intended.

But I repeated the point WITHOUT the analogy too, which I always endeavor to do when using analogy due to how many people misunderstand the purpose of analogy. The point being that if a person has a right to do X, and there are no moral arguments against doing X, then while we might independently decry their MOTIVATIONS for doing X, we can not indict X itself with those motivations. So no, a persons reasons should absolutely NOT come into it.

Royce Numerous Goose-step wrote: »

Your main argument seems to be that the unborn child is not a sentient being. At some point it does become a sentient being. I don't think that point in time has been decided on though.

No. It has not. And I am the first to point that out usually. The point however is that my position on abortion is not predicated on identifying when it DOES come on line, but on strongly identifying points where it has NOT.

Over 90% of voluntary abortions in countries both to our west and east consistently happen in or before week 12. Significantly more by week 16. Arguments that might even make us SUSPECT that sentience is coming on line only kick in around 24 onwards.

So our inability to tie down an exact time when sentience comes on line does not change the fact that we can in GOOD CONSCIENCE offer the service at stages in development when the VAST (almost total in fact) demand for it is in play.

When I am asked to pin my flag to the mast I say I would prefer a system that offers question free access to abortion by choice up to 16 weeks. But I genuinely would not lose any sleep living in a country that has implemented 12 weeks OR 20 weeks either.

Royce Numerous Goose-step wrote: »

Life begins at fertilization, and that life will continue to develop until death.

Biologically sure it pretty much does (there are some pedantic arguments against that, as you have seen above related to things like twins, that while valid are not really relevant for me) but I do not think we mediate rights and moral concern on mere biological life. IF we did then we would show equal concern for ALL life in our world. Which our species patently does not do.

No I think it pretty clear we mediate moral concern based on things like consciousness and sentience. Not just in our own species, but how our moral regard for OTHER species scales proportionally with it too. There is a reason why people hold more moral concern for birds than fleas, for cats than birds, for pigs than cats, for monkeys or dolphins than pigs, for great apes more than any of them, and for humans more than all. There is a reason if someone leaving a burning building had to leave a box with 10,000 spiders to die or a box with a SINGLE cat to die.... they tend generally to value 1 single life over 10,000.

Royce Numerous Goose-step wrote: »

Because we don't believe it's conscious? Given time, it will be. That's really strange to think and decide on.

And that is basically the ENTIRE abortion debate whittled down into a few words. When it comes down to it the "two camps" are divided essentially by ONE small difference. The pro-choice crowd mediate moral and ethical concern on present realities, the anti-choice crowd mediate it based on future potentials.

My ENTIRE approach to morality and ethics and rights is to maximize the well being of EXISTING sentient agents. That is the core axiom on which all else is based. Agents that MIGHT exist in the future have CURRENTLY no specific moral worth to me (though I will not make this post any longer by digging into what I do NOT mean by that) in and of themselves..... but CERTAINLY not relative to the pregnant woman who IS a current sentient agent.

And in most other contexts that is how we DO act too. People just sometimes want to act differently on this particular subject. In fact the book, and later the movie, of "the minority report" was specifically about that moral reality. The concept of convicting people of crimes they have not actually committed yet and, by virtue of your conviction, never will.

The whole premise of that story is predicated on how we do not generally mediate present moral choices on potential futures and how wrong it feels to us when we are asked to.

But those bets are all off when it comes to abortion. Suddenly potential futures are being asked to be brought forward and applied before their due. "It might be an entity with rights in the future, so lets act like it is thus NOW instead". That is, constitutionally I am afraid, not a move I can myself make. It is just not in me to make it. And the arguments offered FOR making it are rare and barely coherent on the few occasions they are offered.

Woodhenge

And that is basically the ENTIRE abortion debate whittled down into a few words. When it comes down to it the "two camps" are divided essentially by ONE small difference. The pro-choice crowd mediate moral and ethical concern on present realities, the anti-choice crowd mediate it based on future potentials.

I think that is a bit of a generalisation that would not reflect many people's intuitive and emotional reaction to abortion.
Sentience and future potential are interesting to mull over, but they are not a simple determining point that our treatment of life or bodies pivots on.
Dead bodies have neither sentience nor functioning organs, but people would be repulsed by a country where people grind up deceased relatives for compost in the garden, cut their hair off to make dusters, sell their organs on eBay etc.

thee glitz

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

But one consistent thing I find in all the pro-choice activities I have dealt with personally, is that they are invariably strongly biased TOWARDS any initiative that moves to reduce the quantity of people seeking abortion. And a point of despair for many is that the people campaigning AGAINST abortion, also campaign AGAINST many things like condoms, or MUCH earlier and improved sexual education for children at school level. And usually for the worst reasons like "God hates condoms" or "Let kids be kids, do not destroy innocence by educating them about sex".

Against my better judgement, I'm asking have you any evidence for either of these claims?

.........

thee glitz wrote: »

Against my better judgement, I'm asking have you any evidence for either of these claims?

CAPS LOCK is his EVIDENCE.

That and the big book of 1001 stereotypes and a thump PROOF keyboard his Mammy BOUGHT him for Christmas.

neonsofa

Royce Numerous Goose-step wrote: »

I don't think that's right at all. Would sterilization not be a better option for all involved in this case?

I'd be unable to raise another child now despite the fact that I'm a good parent. In a few years time when I'm earning more and have a stable home sorted, and a boyfriend (always helps like ) I could be in a position to have more. I dont think sterilisation is a better option, no. Also try getting a gp to approve it for a woman under 40 especially if she has no kids already.

Royce Numerous Goose-step wrote: »

That's why I said it's a grey area and I don't have all the answers. They were just some examples, I haven't prepared an in dept paper on it or anything. I was more thinking along the lines of a child being unable to carry to full term due to their body not being fully developed for child birth. I would hope that this is also an incredibly rare event. Having people, who are qualified, decide on the criteria for an abortion is quite important as you can see :P


.

The so called "impartial professionals" advised me to terminate when I found myself pregnant at a young age. Told me I wouldn't be able for it (mentally moreso than physically as you say) and I would be ruining my education/career plans. I made my own decision and proved that the professionals actually knew very little about what I was capable of. Yeah it was tough and I'm sure an older parent would have been better equipped but I did my best and she loves me and never goes without anything, and I achieved more than I had planned with regards to my career. So I really do think the woman herself should decide what is right for her, not professionals, maybe with guidance from professionals but ultimately the woman does know her own circumstances the best and her mindset about the pregnancy is going to determine how she parents and how she protects the baby during pregnancy and also how traumatic the birth will be etc. If she feels that she made her own choice to keep the child as opposed to it being forced upon her because termination is not available then she is going to be a lot more positive generally in her approach to parenthood.

Annasopra

Lady Spangles wrote: »

I mean, if you're talking about your own children, then surely you have rights as you are still their father. You can't be ignored or cast aside. The same for any father in the same situation.

No. Because the constitution priveleges and places primacy on the married family.

Lady Spangles

Woodhenge wrote: »

The first time I really gave abortion any deep thought was not through a lecture by a priest, it was the horror, anger and revulsion expressed at the actual physical procedure in the Sex Pistols song 'Bodies'.

A song written by a man whose wife has had a number of terminations and stated in a recent Guardian interview: "A man must never interfere in a woman's right to choose."

Perhaps, instead, you should have researched the scientific facts.

EDIT: Link to said interview here

Feisar

Can someone answer me this question?

At what point does an embryo become a person? I'm an atheist so I don't believe is souls or crap like that.

However there must be a point when autonomy over ones body must give way to the killing of another?

Lady Spangles

Feisar wrote: »

Can someone answer me this question?

At what point does an embryo become a person? I'm an atheist so I don't believe is souls or crap like that.

However there must be a point when autonomy over ones body must give way to the killing of another?

Being from the UK, I always go with the 24 weeks cut off point. I would say it's actually 20-24 weeks. The fetus develops over time so there's bound to be disagreement over the precise moment.

osarusan

Feisar wrote: »

At what point does an embryo become a person?

That, or a variant on it, is the key point of discussion. More specifically, it is if and when the embryo/foetus should be afforded the protections we afford to people, or 'born' people.

There are people at one end who favour no abortion on demand whatsoever, and on the other, who want abortion on demand without limits, but most people are discussing what criteria determine when a foetus should be afforded those rights.

Sentience, and what constitutes sentience, and when that develops in foetuses, is one of the most frequently mentioned criteria.

.........

Lady Spangles wrote: »

Being from the UK, I always go with the 24 weeks cut off point. I would say it's actually 20-24 weeks. The fetus develops over time so there's bound to be disagreement over the precise moment.

How did you decide a fetus was suddenly a person at 20 weeks but not 19.5 weeks ?

What on earth is personhood ?

Woodhenge

Lady Spangles wrote: »

A song written by a man whose wife has had a number of terminations and stated in a recent Guardian interview: "A man must never interfere in a woman's right to choose."

Perhaps, instead, you should have researched the scientific facts.

EDIT: Link to said interview here

Whether someone defers to a woman's right to choose or not doesn't mean they are not appalled by what actually happens. I think if you read the lyrics (I won't copy them in here) and the equivocal statements made years afterwards you can't fail to see that.

.........

Feisar wrote: »

Can someone answer me this question?

At what point does an embryo become a person?

At what point does anyone become a person ? 18 yo ? 21 yo ?

The notion of personhood is totally vague and pointless as can mean a thousand different things to different people.

For good reason NASA doesn't search for Alien 'persons' , it searches for Alien life.

Lady Spangles

Woodhenge wrote: »

Whether someone defers to a woman's right to choose or not doesn't mean they are not appalled by what actually happens. I think if you read the lyrics (I won't copy them in here) and the equivocal statements made years afterwards you can't fail to see that.

Shock tactics. The Sex Pistols were famous for them. Regardless, abortions these days involves taking a pill that causes the uterus to reject the embryo/fetus. That's all. There's no coat hangers, jack hammers or whatever other crazy techniques your imagination is conjuring up.