Abortion Discussion, Part the Fourth

eviltwin

Kidchameleon wrote: »

Of course not.


What I am saying is abortion is the ending of a life no matter how you look at it. It is a simple hard truth that people with any integrity should swallow. It is murder, in the same vein as the death penalty ie. murder endorsed by the state. I am in favor of allowing a woman to commit a form of murder on her unborn child, I voted in the recent referendum to allow for legislation as such.



I am also trying to discuss the strange double standard that exists where a woman can have a fetus aborted without consent of the father while a man cannot have a fetus aborted without the consent of the mother. The first scenario will have no consequences for the woman while the second will result in the father having a long, long stretch in prison. Both scenarios would have the same effect on the fetus. I acknowledge that the second situation would lead to serious distress on the mother, but the first could also lead to a similar level of distress on the father.

This is where I lose you. If you really see it as the ending of a life, as murder as you put it, then wouldn't the logical step be to treat it as murder in the courts?

If you don't then how can anyone take your argument seriously

As to the second part how can you not see the difference between electing to undergo a procedure yourself vs having that forced on you?

end of the road

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Again, this is your belief and you are entitled to it, it's not my belief, it's not the belief of the majority of Irish people that voted for abortion and it's not the belief of the judiciary.

when you say the majority of people that voted for abortion, do you mean the majority of yes voters, or yes voters as a whole?
either way, in my view, i'm not sure it can be said with 100% certainty that in your words, the majority of irish people who voted for abortion, do not believe that abortion is the ending of a life. it maybe the case, but in my view simply voting yes probably wouldn't be enough to show that all such voters share the same views, as yes voters in my experience, from either taking part in discussions or listening to tv and radio discussions, can and do deviate and have different views either on the issue as a whole or a specific aspect.

amcalester

Kidchameleon wrote: »

I am also trying to discuss the strange double standard that exists where a woman can have a fetus aborted without consent of the father while a man cannot have a fetus aborted without the consent of the mother. The first scenario will have no consequences for the woman while the second will result in the father having a long, long stretch in prison. Both scenarios would have the same effect on the fetus. I acknowledge that the second situation would lead to serious distress on the mother, but the first could also lead to a similar level of distress on the father.

If the man didn’t want to be a father he shouldn’t have had sex with a woman.

Pherekydes

Kidchameleon wrote: »

I am pro choice but I believe abortion is what it is. It is murder.

Are you opposed to murder in every instance?

I mean abortion. Are you opposed to abortion in every instance?

For an ectopic pregnancy, for instance? Would you allow a murder in that instance?

volchitsa

Kidchameleon wrote: »

Of course not.


What I am saying is abortion is the ending of a life no matter how you look at it. It is a simple hard truth that people with any integrity should swallow. It is murder, in the same vein as the death penalty ie. murder endorsed by the state. I am in favor of allowing a woman to commit a form of murder on her unborn child, I voted in the recent referendum to allow for legislation as such.

Why only unborn? Why not up to age 18? I mean, if it's murder, what's the difference?

Kidchameleon wrote: »

I am also trying to discuss the strange double standard that exists where a woman can have a fetus aborted without consent of the father while a man cannot have a fetus aborted without the consent of the mother. The first scenario will have no consequences for the woman while the second will result in the father having a long, long stretch in prison. Both scenarios would have the same effect on the fetus. I acknowledge that the second situation would lead to serious distress on the mother, but the first could also lead to a similar level of distress on the father.

Umm, because the fetus is inside her body, so she is entitled to refuse to allow the fetus to use her body.

Because if it's about consenting to be a parent, then the only inequality would be if the woman was allowed to kill the child after birth, but the man wasn't.
Which is not the case.

So it's about her right not to be pregnant. Which doesn't apply to the man in the first place.

aloyisious

Kidchameleon wrote: »

Of course not.


What I am saying is abortion is the ending of a life no matter how you look at it. It is a simple hard truth that people with any integrity should swallow. It is murder, in the same vein as the death penalty ie. murder endorsed by the state. I am in favor of allowing a woman to commit a form of murder on her unborn child, I voted in the recent referendum to allow for legislation as such.



I am also trying to discuss the strange double standard that exists where a woman can have a fetus aborted without consent of the father while a man cannot have a fetus aborted without the consent of the mother. The first scenario will have no consequences for the woman while the second will result in the father having a long, long stretch in prison. Both scenarios would have the same effect on the fetus. I acknowledge that the second situation would lead to serious distress on the mother, but the first could also lead to a similar level of distress on the father.

Re the definition of the act which you say is the same in abortion and the state death penalty, perhaps you could consider this quote - There can be no legal reason for murder; by definition murder is the unlawful killing of another person (traditionally, with malice aforethought). If the killing were legal, then it would not be a murder; it would instead be a justifiable homicide: end quote. If you key in this question (can murder be legal) the above quote will show up on your screen.

Re your "man versus woman strange double standard" example, the pregnant woman has a better chance of being given permission of aborting the foetus in her womb than the man claiming to be responsible for her being pregnant. The equal right for the man you mention would be based solely on his claim to be involved in the pregnancy, as against the right of the pregnant woman who certainly is involved in the pregnancy and given certain rights in regard to the pregnancy in her womb above any claimed by the man. Its not actually a strange double standard, its application of legal common sense as to whom has more say over what happens to the pregnancy and preventing an abuse of law and the pregnant woman's rights affirmed in law.

As for your contention that abortion is the ending of a life, there's a point of contention between debaters here: is the feotus a life or a life-form during gestation. Which of the two do you believe the foetus is?

uptherebels

Kidchameleon wrote: »

I am also trying to discuss the strange double standard that exists where a woman can have a fetus aborted without consent of the father while a man cannot have a fetus aborted without the consent of the mother. The first scenario will have no consequences for the woman while the second will result in the father having a long, long stretch in prison. Both scenarios would have the same effect on the fetus. I acknowledge that the second situation would lead to serious distress on the mother, but the first could also lead to a similar level of distress on the father.

Except there is no double standard. For it to be a double standard, it would need to applied differently to people in the SAME situation. As it is the only the female carrying the foetus, their situation isn't the same.

Calina

Kidchameleon wrote: »

What I am saying is abortion is the ending of a life no matter how you look at it. It is a simple hard truth that people with any integrity should swallow.

It actually isn't a simple hard truth. It is the ending of a potential life and there are no guarantees that that potential for life becomes independent life right up to birth although tbf, the probability has massively improved over the last 100 years or so.

Irish legislation provides for no questions asked abortion of up to 12 weeks. Most women who are aware of being pregnant at that point will probably also know whether they want to continue with that pregnancy. Any further than that and under Irish law you are looking at case by case assessments, generally health related. Close to term, delivery is the medical preferred option.

At 12 weeks, however, it is hard to argue that it is life, and easier to argue that it is potential for life. My rationale for that is between 30% and 40%of all conceptions end naturally in the first trimester, and iirc, about 80% of miscarriages occur in that time frame too. At best, it is a chance at life, but not life itself. This, incidentally, is why women often don't admit they are pregnant until 3 months have passed.

Ref for the 30-40% figure and for the 80% occurring before 12 weeks gestation : https://books.google.lu/books?id=4Sg5sXyiBvkC&pg=PA438&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false The Johns Hopkins Manual of Gynaecology

Your mileage may vary of course but in the time frame concerned, it is a chance not a certainty of life and the failure rate of pregnancies to get past that point supports the emphasis on the word chance or potential here.

Kidchameleon

amcalester wrote: »

If the man didn’t want to be a father he shouldn’t have had sex with a woman.

You could also say that if a woman didn't want to be pregnant she shouldn't have had sex with a man. Why should the potential life inside her have to end because of her irresponsibility?

Kidchameleon

Calina wrote: »

At 12 weeks, however, it is hard to argue that it is life, and easier to argue that it is potential for life. My rationale for that is between 30% and 40%of all conceptions end naturally in the first trimester, and iirc, about 80% of miscarriages occur in that time frame too. At best, it is a chance at life, but not life itself. This, incidentally, is why women often don't admit they are pregnant until 3 months have passed.

It is a very blurred line really isn't it. I mean, what is to say that ending a pregnancy at 12 weeks is any different to ending one at 13 weeks? We simply don't know enough about the gestation of life so we need to use our best guess as a guide when legislating for these things.


The situation that really made me vote to repeal is that of rape. I feel that no girl/woman should be forced to carry a rapists child. It really is tough sh*it on the part of the fetus/baby in situations like that IMHO.


But what if a rape victim is too scared to speak of what happened until say, the 15th week of pregnancy? Perhaps she didn't realize she was pregnant. In my opinion, she should be allowed end the pregnancy.


I believe that the 12 week unquestioned limit will be extended sooner rather that later.

Calina

Kidchameleon wrote: »

You could also say that if a woman didn't want to be pregnant she shouldn't have had sex with a man. Why should the potential life inside her have to end because of her irresponsibility?

She doesn't always get a choice in the matter.

Kidchameleon

aloyisious wrote: »

Re your "man versus woman strange double standard" example, the pregnant woman has a better chance of being given permission of aborting the foetus in her womb than the man claiming to be responsible for her being pregnant. The equal right for the man you mention would be based solely on his claim to be involved in the pregnancy, as against the right of the pregnant woman who certainly is involved in the pregnancy and given certain rights in regard to the pregnancy in her womb above any claimed by the man. Its not actually a strange double standard, its application of legal common sense as to whom has more say over what happens to the pregnancy and preventing an abuse of law and the pregnant woman's rights affirmed in law.

The only solution I have so far come up with is giving men the right to forgo their rights and responsibilities as parents up until the 12th week of pregnancy. The problem with this is that the state will have to pick up the tab. It is bad enough that we tax payers pay for the terrible decisions of all the single mothers out there. Also, what if the woman decided to tell the guy she was pregnant at 13 weeks, how would it work then?

Kidchameleon

Calina wrote: »

She doesn't always get a choice in the matter.

Indeed and she should be allowed to abort. I think the only thing even close to a male equivalent of this is paternal fraud, a heinous crime that is apparently all too common and not really punished by the state AFAIK. But that's a different topic.

Calina

Kidchameleon wrote: »

It is a very blurred line really isn't it. I mean, what is to say that ending a pregnancy at 12 weeks is any different to ending one at 13 weeks? We simply don't know enough about the gestation of life so we need to use our best guess as a guide when legislating for these things.


The situation that really made me vote to repeal is that of rape. I feel that no girl/woman should be forced to carry a rapists child. It really is tough sh*it on the part of the fetus/baby in situations like that IMHO.


But what if a rape victim is too scared to speak of what happened until say, the 15th week of pregnancy? Perhaps she didn't realize she was pregnant. In my opinion, she should be allowed end the pregnancy.


I believe that the 12 week unquestioned limit will be extended sooner rather that later.

The issue is that we like things to be simple. But pregnancy is a process of becoming and there is no simple cut off point before which X is untrue and after which X is true. You call it blurry; I call it a fact of life.

IMO, I don't see it going too far past 12. Maybe 15 or 18. Viability is coming to meet from the other end and while 12 is not viable, the closer to viability we are, the more likely delivery is the outcome. But I do not see it changing in the next 10 years.

That being said, I see no reason why parenthood should be forced on women and they still carry the overwhelming costs of parenthood even and especially post birth. This is why I don't think men have or should have an equal right to decide or block. When they take the career hit, the earnings hit, the inability to get hired after a childcare break and the increased risk of poverty and underprovision in pension hit for being parents, I might think men should have the right to decide not to be parents. But right now, wonen bear the biggest proportion of the economic, physical and mental costs. Hence my view that you shouldn't have to be raped to avoid being forced to continue being pregnant and taking those hits. Society does not reward women for being mothers. It repeatedly hits them.

Calina

Kidchameleon wrote: »

Indeed and she should be allowed to abort. I think the only thing even close to a male equivalent of this is paternal fraud, a heinous crime that is apparently all too common and not really punished by the state AFAIK. But that's a different topic.

What is "all too common" in this case? I ask because in discussions about rape it has been clear that many men consider the risk of a false rape accusation to be far higher than the risk of rape despite the fact that it is significantly less common than reported rapes and rape is notoriously under reported.

So what is apparentky all too common in an era when it can be easily disproven?

Cabaal

recedite wrote: »

Sometimes an opinion is just an opinion. Does EOTR claim that his opinion is an accepted fact?

Perhaps eotr could post instead of you acting like his puppet and him thanking your posts.

As I said, it's tragic and shows eotr is incapable if an adult discussion.

nozzferrahhtoo

Kidchameleon wrote: »

I am pro choice but I believe abortion is what it is. It is murder.

Kidchameleon wrote: »

It is ending a life, that is a fact, not a belief.

I think here lies the locus of your confusion and error. You say both of these sentences in posts almost directly after one another as if you think you are saying the same thing both times. You are, however, not.

I do not think there is more than a single person, maybe two, on this thread who disagrees that abortion is ending a life. And of those two I am not sure what their disagreement actually is.

But your error in using the word "murder" despite abortion not meeting the definition of murder in just about every dictionary I have looked it up in........ is that you switch from one to the other as if you think they are direct synonyms. They are not.

All unicorns are horses, not all horses are unicorns, is a joke I often make to my kids. All murder is killing. Not all killing is murder. Focus on this distinction and you will stop making the "murder" error. I can be 100% in agreement with your second sentence above and 100% in disagreement with the first.

That said and aside, as I do not think the use of terms quite as important as the last few weeks on this thread have made it.....

Kidchameleon wrote: »

Grand 'm getting to that. Say we change the situation a bit. A man slips abortion pills during the 8th week of pregnancy, pregnancy ends & he is charged with "fetal homicide". Woman has an abortion at 8 weeks, no charges. Both acts lead to the same outcome - pregnancy ends. Why are both not considered "homicide" or "murder"? I understand this a a bit of a semantic discussion.

...... I do not think EITHER of these should be treated in terms of homicide and murder. Because there has been no argument, least of all by the users of this thread, as to why an 8th week old fetus should have rights and moral and ethical concern. The actions of the woman should therefore be treated as they are..... her acting on her own body legally..... and the actions of the man in your example be treated as what they are...... an attack on the WOMAN, not the fetus.

He should be treated no differently for sneaking a potentially harmful or even lethal drug into her drink than I as a man should be if I did the same to you as a man (I believe?) if I put a potentially harmful or even lethal drug into your beer without your knowledge.

The man in your example has committed an attack on another individual human person. The woman.... has not. Similar to how I could opt to donate your a Kidney but you could not opt to simply take it from me and insert it in yourself. The latter would be an attack on my person, the former would not.

Kidchameleon wrote: »

What I am saying is abortion is the ending of a life no matter how you look at it. It is a simple hard truth that people with any integrity should swallow.

I do not need to "swallow" it, I accept it whole. I also accept that my last steak was also ending a life. As too was the last paper I used to write a letter. As too was the last course of antibiotics I took which likely ended life in the order of millions. As too was pulling up the weeds around my vegetables.

"Ending a life" is something I, and most of us, do all the damn time in fact. It bothers me not one single iota.

It is ending something else more important than mere "life" that concerns me. And that "something" which most anti choice campaigners have retreated from discussing with me is one of the more important distinctions between "ending a life" or "killing" and "murder". And it is that something that is not just slightly but ENTIRELY absent in the fetus when it is aborted in the first 12-16 weeks of pregnancy. Which is why I have zero moral and ethical concern for the fetus and 100% concern for the pregnant person carrying it.

If merely "ending a life" is an issue for you or anyone else than I can only recommend becoming a Jain and hoping for the best.

Kidchameleon wrote: »

Both scenarios would have the same effect on the fetus. I acknowledge that the second situation would lead to serious distress on the mother, but the first could also lead to a similar level of distress on the father.

I am open minded on the subject of "legal abortion" for fathers if it could be legislated for relatively cleanly. Much of the distress you refer to in fathers could be alleviated or at least mitigated if such a thing was allowed in a sensible way as that distress often does not require the death of the fetus but simply a legal separation from it.

Alas I am not clear even myself on how it could be sensibly legislated for and achieved as I feel it would need to be applied for during a period where the pregnancy is easily kept a secret and hence fathers could be denied access to such legislation merely by not informing them of the pregnancy in a timely manner.

But the goal itself I am certainly open minded on and see some good arguments for and only a few against.

Kidchameleon wrote: »

You could also say that if a woman didn't want to be pregnant she shouldn't have had sex with a man. Why should the potential life inside her have to end because of her irresponsibility?

It is interesting you shift to the phrase "potential life" here when you have been using just "life" in previous posts. You realise it can not be both right? You are either X or potentially X, you are not both.

You might find some introspection on why you shift between the two terms enlightening if you engage with it openly and honestly. If you truly work out what the difference is between the two terms you might find yourself not just on the same page as me and my thinking on the whole subject..... but on the same entire book.

Kidchameleon wrote: »

It is a very blurred line really isn't it. I mean, what is to say that ending a pregnancy at 12 weeks is any different to ending one at 13 weeks? We simply don't know enough about the gestation of life so we need to use our best guess as a guide when legislating for these things.

I think while you are correct that there is a lot we do not know..... that you also risk vastly understating how much we actually DO.

We know for example many of the pre-requisites of sentience/consciousness in a human person. We know that those pre-requisites are entirely absent in a fetus at 12/13 weeks. Many of them even at 20 weeks in fact. And at least one of them that I know of is presented but stuttering and not really "turned on" even at 24-26 weeks.

So I think we are scientifically at a place where our ethical and moral position on abortion between 12-13 weeks can be strongly informed.

Timberrrrrrrr

Kidchameleon wrote: »

You could also say that if a woman didn't want to be pregnant she shouldn't have had sex with a man. Why should the potential life inside her have to end because of her irresponsibility?

Her body her choice!

amcalester

Kidchameleon wrote: »

You could also say that if a woman didn't want to be pregnant she shouldn't have had sex with a man. Why should the potential life inside her have to end because of her irresponsibility?

Well that’s my point, thats a line that gets thrown at women but not men. That’s a double standard.

A man not being able to choose to end a pregnancy isn’t.

Kidchameleon

Calina wrote: »

What is "all too common" in this case? I ask because in discussions about rape it has been clear that many men consider the risk of a false rape accusation to be far higher than the risk of rape despite the fact that it is significantly less common than reported rapes and rape is notoriously under reported.

So what is apparentky all too common in an era when it can be easily disproven?

We just before I answer that, I'll highlight the fact that I said "apparently all too common". I don't know for sure how widespread paternity fraud is. That being said, I know personally 3 guys who have had it done to them (I am 37). The statistics range anywhere from 2% to 10% (in the UK) for miss-attributed pregnancy's.


https://www.telegraph.co.uk/family/parenting/one-in-50-british-fathers-unknowingly-raise-another-mans-child/


Loads of articles on the Google machine give the same figures this is just one example ^^



If we were to take a stab at the figure in Ireland and go with the most conservative one of 2%, that is 2 in every 100 babies born here are being raised by dads who do not know they are raising another mans child. In 2017 we had around 62k births, that's about 1100 per week. That make's 22 new dads per week raising another mans child. That would seem all too common to me. But that is me and perhaps I am getting my figures wrong somewhere.

recedite

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

It is ending a life, that is a fact, not a belief.
Disclaimer. I can have these views despite being pro choice

.Again, this is your belief and you are entitled to it, it's not my belief, it's not the belief of the majority of Irish people that voted for abortion and it's not the belief of the judiciary.

So here we have Timberrr stating his belief that the unborn are not alive (which is fine, although its very obviously erroneous) and following that up by a completely unsupported claim about the beliefs of the judiciary and the majority of Irish people (which he can't possibly know)


Then ironically, the poster who he has been hounding and trying to censor (for allegedly making unsupported claims) comes along with this very measured response...

end of the road wrote: »

when you say the majority of people that voted for abortion, do you mean the majority of yes voters, or yes voters as a whole?
either way, in my view, i'm not sure it can be said with 100% certainty that in your words, the majority of irish people who voted for abortion, do not believe that abortion is the ending of a life. it maybe the case, but in my view simply voting yes probably wouldn't be enough to show that all such voters share the same views, as yes voters in my experience, from either taking part in discussions or listening to tv and radio discussions, can and do deviate and have different views either on the issue as a whole or a specific aspect.

:pac:

amcalester

recedite wrote: »

So here we have Timberrr stating his belief that the unborn are not alive (which is fine, although its very obviously erroneous) and following that up by a completely unsupported claim about the beliefs of the judiciary and the majority of Irish people (which he can't possibly know)


Then ironically, the poster who he has been hounding and trying to censor (for allegedly making unsupported claims) comes along with this very measured response...





:pac:

At least now we’ve established that end o knows the difference between the 2, should make for better discourse in the future.

Kidchameleon

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

All unicorns are horses, not all horses are unicorns, is a joke I often make to my kids. All murder is killing. Not all killing is murder. Focus on this distinction and you will stop making the "murder" error.

That is a great way to put it, I 100% agree.

Calina

Kidchameleon wrote: »

We just before I answer that, I'll highlight the fact that I said "apparently all too common". I don't know for sure how widespread paternity fraud is. That being said, I know personally 3 guys who have had it done to them (I am 37). The statistics range anywhere from 2% to 10% (in the UK) for miss-attributed pregnancy's.


https://www.telegraph.co.uk/family/parenting/one-in-50-british-fathers-unknowingly-raise-another-mans-child/


Loads of articles on the Google machine give the same figures this is just one example ^^



If we were to take a stab at the figure in Ireland and go with the most conservative one of 2%, that is 2 in every 100 babies born here are being raised by dads who do not know they are raising another mans child. In 2017 we had around 62k births, that's about 1100 per week. That make's 22 new dads per week raising another mans child. That would seem all too common to me. But that is me and perhaps I am getting my figures wrong somewhere.

Couple of points: this is still a lot lower than the rape rate and 2) you cannot be certain that a) the woman knows and b) the man doesn't. Fraud is not necessarily proven. Also following the Brexit fiasco I don't consider the Telegraph as a source.

For the record, I am 46, and I am aware of no cases.

Lots of men are bringing up kids that aren't their own via earlier relationships etc. Where paternity is contested, it is usually tested.

But I think one pount needs to be pointed out - and I raised this in a previous post this this morning - women still take far more of a hit when it comes to being a parent. Even in cases where paternity is in doubt, the woman will still take a far bigger lifetime hit.

Timberrrrrrrr

recedite wrote: »

So here we have Timberrr stating his belief that the unborn are not alive (which is fine, although its very obviously erroneous) and following that up by a completely unsupported claim about the beliefs of the judiciary and the majority of Irish people (which he can't possibly know)

Unlike the poster who seems to be pulling your strings i will happily admit that it is my OPINION that the majority of irish people do not believe abortion = murder.

Then ironically, the poster who he has been hounding and trying to censor (for allegedly making unsupported claims) comes along with this very measured response...





:pac:

Please provide a link to show where i have tried to censor said poster.

recedite

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Unlike the poster who seems to be pulling your strings i will happily admit that it is my OPINION that the majority of irish people do not believe abortion = murder.
Please provide a link to show where i have tried to censor said poster.

There has been a general witch hunt against said poster, and you contributed.

Timberrrrrrrr

recedite wrote: »

There has been a general witch hunt against said poster, and you contributed.

So expecting a poster to actually take part in the debate and answer questions truthfully, not tell lies and not soapbox is now considered a witch hunt in your eyes?

Please show the exact post(s) where i have called for EOTR to be censored (as you have claimed) or retract the accusation.

Kidchameleon

Calina wrote: »

this is still a lot lower than the rape rate

What figures are you basing that on?

Calina wrote: »

you cannot be certain that a) the woman knows

She probably does though. If a woman has unprotected sex with more than one man and ends up pregnant, she should really start talking. But she will not see the inside of a prison cell either way.

Calina wrote: »

Also following the Brexit fiasco I don't consider the Telegraph as a source

As I said, thee are loads of sources for those figures, I picked one from my hat.


Here's more:


https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=16&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwjN2qWn-4PiAhWURhUIHRtrDS8QFjAPegQIBxAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.womenagainstpaternityfraud.org%2Fpaternity-fraud%2Fhow-many-paternity-fraud-victims&usg=AOvVaw0oTcFjOhZ3KmbypVrckdpC

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=13&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwjN2qWn-4PiAhWURhUIHRtrDS8QFjAMegQIARAB&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.theguardian.com%2Flifeandstyle%2F2018%2Fsep%2F18%2Fyour-fathers-not-your-father-when-dna-tests-reveal-more-than-you-bargained-for&usg=AOvVaw1k-vbsEAGDwYNg-Wwr4sRg

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=20&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwiYlff6-oPiAhVESBUIHadcDTAQFjATegQIBRAB&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.independent.co.uk%2Fnews%2Fuk%2Fcrime%2Fman-wins-right-to-sue-in-paternity-fraud-case-5366354.html&usg=AOvVaw1D26lhbxwRhcVAOXwJbly2


If none of these drive the point home, let me know what is acceptable to you regarding figures and I will see what I can do.

Calina wrote: »

women still take far more of a hit when it comes to being a parent

I agree, that's why I said paternal fraud is the closest analogy I can think of.

Calina

Kidchameleon wrote: »

What figures are you basing that on?



She probably does though. If a woman has unprotected sex with more than one man and ends up pregnant, she should really start talking. But she will not see the inside of a prison cell either way.



As I said, thee are loads of sources for those figures, I picked one from my hat.


Here's more:


https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=16&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwjN2qWn-4PiAhWURhUIHRtrDS8QFjAPegQIBxAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.womenagainstpaternityfraud.org%2Fpaternity-fraud%2Fhow-many-paternity-fraud-victims&usg=AOvVaw0oTcFjOhZ3KmbypVrckdpC

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=13&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwjN2qWn-4PiAhWURhUIHRtrDS8QFjAMegQIARAB&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.theguardian.com%2Flifeandstyle%2F2018%2Fsep%2F18%2Fyour-fathers-not-your-father-when-dna-tests-reveal-more-than-you-bargained-for&usg=AOvVaw1k-vbsEAGDwYNg-Wwr4sRg

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=20&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwiYlff6-oPiAhVESBUIHadcDTAQFjATegQIBRAB&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.independent.co.uk%2Fnews%2Fuk%2Fcrime%2Fman-wins-right-to-sue-in-paternity-fraud-case-5366354.html&usg=AOvVaw1D26lhbxwRhcVAOXwJbly2


If none of these drive the point home, let me know what is acceptable to you regarding figures and I will see what I can do.


The three links you supplied are basically worthless in supporting the ‘apparently common’ view point as one is a court case report, another is a puff piece on start-up DNA testing and the other is a lobby org in the US which by definition is biased.


I agree, that's why I said paternal fraud is the closest analogy I can think of.

This research underpinned the Telegraph piece. https://www.cell.com/trends/ecology-evolution/fulltext/S0169-5347(16)00070-7

Its conclusion was that extra pair children was surprisingly rare, not apparently common. The wiki page on the subject also highlighted cultural differences, class differences and age group differences.

However, this is off topic for this thread.

robindch

Mod:

robindch wrote: »

Folks - I believe we're all agreed that the use of the word "murder" in the context of abortion generates more heat than light and does not lead to civil discussion. Future posts which use, or refer, to the word in the disjunctive context in which it's been used of late will be deleted and the posters who post them may be carded or banned.

While the above clearly wasn't clear enough, discussion concerning, and using, the term "murder" continues unabated - but unlike previously, one inch on the right side of descending into incivility. Keep it that way and there'll be no moderation required

Kidchameleon wrote: »

The pills would cause the cessation of life or whatever the politically correct way of saying it is.

Using the term "politically correct" in that witless fashion amounts to trolling in this forum - cut it out or you will be moderated.

Kidchameleon wrote: »

It is ending a life, that is a fact, not a belief.

You perhaps missed the several thousand posts in this thread where this exact point has been discussed. Please do not call something "a fact" when it is clearly disputed on the grounds that neither side has made any significant effort to find common ground from which an agreed definition can arise.

recedite wrote: »

There has been a general witch hunt against said poster, and you contributed.

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

So expecting a poster to actually take part in the debate and answer questions truthfully, not tell lies and not soapbox is now considered a witch hunt in your eyes?

Neither of these posts contributes positively to the forum. Timberrrrrrrr - you will recall that implying that another poster is a liar is against the forum charter. Your next allegation to that effect will see you moderated too.