this auld man that's up the duff (1 Viewer)

[glen]

what do we, the good peoples of thumped think?

I is a bit torn (but not as torn as his flaps are gonna be, wha?) - on the one hand it's his body (and money), so it's his choice to have a baby, on the other hand, he's a wee bit old to be doing so.

But IVF is there and available and how does it fundamentally differ from anything else we do to change our bodies or structure our lives? So why should a thing like being a really old man prevent a man from having a baby after nature has decreed he can't?

Discuss.

 

[La La]

jesus Nelg.

that's a can o' worms right there. see you on the 1,000999,,8888th page.

 

[broken arm]

can't we grow babies in petri dishes these days?

 

[mazzyianne]

Finally, the perfect moment

 

[ICUH8N]

can't we grow babies in petri dishes these days?

http://www.thumped.com/bbs/showpost.php?p=535360&postcount=368

 

[broken arm]

http://www.thumped.com/bbs/showpost.php?p=535360&postcount=368

Manizonia

 

[P. Littbarski]

can't we grow babies in petri dishes these days?

we can, but it requires a *lot* of agar jelly.

 

[Jerry Twig]

what do we, the good peoples of thumped think?

I is a bit torn (but not as torn as his flaps are gonna be, wha?) - on the one hand it's his body (and money), so it's his choice to have a baby, on the other hand, he's a wee bit old to be doing so.

But IVF is there and available and how does it fundamentally differ from anything else we do to change our bodies or structure our lives? So why should a thing like being a really old man prevent a man from having a baby after nature has decreed he can't?

Discuss.

he obviously hates lesbians so i think he should be shot

 

[glen]

That would make him an awful racist I''"""""""""""""d say.

 

[Jerry Twig]

oh awful, and i hear he has a gaggle of sisters, all paedos

 

[glen]

Come on for fuck sake - we've a lot of catching up with this thread to do to catch up you know.

 

[classic seanc]

If boys could have babies we'd get better footballers and fighters in the future, cuz we could train them from inside the womb. Also, putting up shelf-ers.

I agree

 

[glen]

Yes, it is accurate to say that.

And Pete, I agree with you that the problem of anyone being forced to support children they didn't ask for is one that has to be discussed, but what I'm saying is that we can't even begin to talk about that issue until we stop pitting men and women against each other as enemies. If parenting were made easier, if reproductive rights were guaranteed, I think the mere fact that we were closer to gender equity would make this discussion, if not easier, than, er, 'less impossible'.

It might not seem like I'm addressing your question, but the fact is, even that hypothetical situation can't really be discussed unless and until we can deal with some of these deeper issues. And really, I have no idea how the two can be reconciled.

JohnnyRaz, I'm sorry that 'womb rights' etc etc bore you, but just because you're bored of discussions about a problem doesn't mean it's going to go away. Why don't you go to the Bored In Work thread?

No, I didn't say that. But many of the behaviours that are manifest as sexist are underpinned by a cultural perception that women are not to be trusted. There are plenty of gender perceptions that harm men, too. They're just not the same as those that harm women, and which sometimes involve perceptions that women's bodies must be controlled by legislation in order to protect us from ourselves.


I'm not blaming you for anything except insulting people who don't deserve it, and refusing to acknowledge that it matters[/quote]

By saying that sexism is hurts everyone, and that it is everywhere? And that no one is immune to it? If you were insulted by anything I said, perhaps you just misread something. If you were insulted by the fact that yes, the anti-choice position is -- regardless of how it is framed -- underlined EITHER by an inability to recognise that abortion laws are about controlling women's bodies, or by a somewhat more conscious belief that women's bodies need to be controlled by law, then that was not intended as an insult. It is not something I made up. I am absolutely not arguing that everyone who believes that abortion is wrong wants to control my womb -- I never even said that. I have, for the last however many pages, been quite careful to distinguish between people's personal opinions on abortion and the legal realities of abortion law.

One of the problems with dealing with rape cases is that of course, you cannot assume that the defendant is guilty because that goes against the whole principle of the 'innocent until proven guilty'. However, it need not necessarily follow that the victim is lying, and the way rape cases are actually handled do sometimes place undue emphasis on the potential untruth of the victim.

There isn't a single person involved in the legal system, or who would be closely related to dealing with cases of rape who would suggest that there be an automatic assumption of the defendant's guilt, but the extremely difficult question is how to balance the preservation of the accused's rights with a sensitive handling of the victim's experience.

As with all criminal cases, the state is the prosecution, and the victim is only a witness. It is not seen, in strict legal terms, as a crime against the person, but one against the state. Unlike in murder trials, where the victim is dead, the rape victim can be cross-examined. This, again, is just part of how the legal system works, but these cross-examinations are one of the reasons that many rape victims do not wish for their case to go to trial, as these can be extremely aggressive and damaging. Often, these also take the form, not necessarily of proving that sexual contact occurred, but for the defense to try to prove that the victim somehow 'asked for it'.

When it comes to rape cases, the legal system that we have fails badly. However, this legal system is very much underpinned by notions, regardless of the 'innocent until proven guilty' stuff, that most people are liars, not just women. Even when the commission of a crime has been established, the defence may frame its argument around whether the victim 'deserved' what he or she got.

It's just that this becomes really prominent in a case of rape. I imagine that very similar situations might also occur with murder. While the victim is dead, the people close to him or her may not be, and the defense -- as in the recent case of the Anabels 4 -- may take very technical lines that, while they admit the person(s) did 'the deed' would downplay the terrible fact that someone was killed because of it. The fact that those lads went free must have been incredibly traumatic for the family. The technicalities being constantly discussed in the media, while never really acknowledging the family's pain, and the fact that if many of us were sitting there going, "But they kicked him to death!" imagine what Brian Murphy's family was thinking.

The legal system does not handle crimes against the person well, period. It's just that here, we were only talking about rape, which is a special case for a number of reasons. In public perceptions of rape, there is still a very strong sense that women -- who are the bulk of rape victims, but by no means all -- have a tendency to lie. According to the 2002 SAVI survey (which I have sitting in front of me), almost 15% of people surveyed believed that rape victims were not necessarily 'innocent', and may have done something to ask for it. 40% believed that 'accusations of rape are often false'. This is in contrast with the number of rape cases that do make it to trial -- and given the trauma that may be associated with taking a case to trial, it is extremely rare for a false accusation to go that far. And false accusations are, in general, quite rare in their own right.

So yes, while the legal system doesn't necessarily treat any victim of a violent crime with any real sensitivity, rape cases are particularly bad, as they are very much underlined by a prevalent belief in society that women are whores and liars.

And I agree with Mazzyianne that emotion is a form of knowledge, and just because someone gets emotive about something doesn't mean what they say should be dismissed. If I were making a documentary, by the way, egg, I would probably employ somewhat more reserve, but then, I would not have to worry quite as much about deflecting accusations of manhating and hysteria (which, no, did not come from you). I have not accused anyone of anything, except of being shortsighted, narrowminded and overly simplistic, or of refusing to acknowledge that I and others have tried to bring some complexity to the table. But simply bringing up the legal system, or the underlying causes for these ideas in the present -- which are indeed very relevant -- has resulted in dismissively simple, glib responses, rather than asking real questions that respect the fact that while we might not include everything we know about everything in the answer, we may well have something to back it up.

I think your point, egg, is interesting. How much of what is the modern perception of abortion law rooted in these ancient understandings of women as 'unruly'? While I do think there are seriously underacknowledged perceptions that are cultural inheritances, these things don't come down to us undistilled. I don't think there's a point where we can really divide things up into neat categories, where we have one heading for 'stuff from the past' and another for 'totally modern ideas'. I do think, actually, that all of us has prejudices and internalised sexism, racism and other isms -- including everyone who is on the side of understanding and social justice -- that we leave unexplored to our peril.

How is what she said in any way sexist? How is pointing out that being a person with a womb, in a society that is obsessed with what goes in and what comes out of that womb, influences how we live in the world?

I don't have a big load of siblings, but I do have lots of friends with kids, and I'm a godmother to a gorgeous little nipper, who makes me laugh heartily from the belly. And I also want a family someday.

No one, absolutely no one would suggest that just because you're a man, you can't love kids, or value them. No one made any judgements on your experiences with kids, we only asked you to explain your incredibly simplistic and quite scary proposition that instead of legalising abortion, the proprietorship of women's wombs be handed from the state to individual men.

The point is that your experience in the world is different from a woman's. If it weren't, there would be no differences between men and women, or no differences among men and women. No one would think it was anything but cool that any man or woman loved kids and wanted them. The whole point of pro-choice is that every child should be a wanted child -- without a love of children, there would be no viable pro-choice position. I don't know where you got the idea that anyone was suggesting you don't know anything about them. But you still don't know what it's like to have a womb.

You can stop participating if you like, but by backing out without explaining how this law you propose doesn't hurt women, and how it would actually be enforced -- well, that really weakens what little argument you had.

 

[glen]

Exactly. I see the concerns, but I also see the underlying issue that 'society' (in whatever way we choose to define it) still sees a woman's womb as a sort of public domain, and that a woman's choices about her body aren't entirely her own. In the last few years, since more people our age have been having babies, I've definitely heard a lot of them talking about how other people make it their business, even total strangers. I even heard a couple of women talking in a lunch place a few weeks ago about how one of them, when waitressing, refused to put parmesean cheese on a woman's salad because she noticed she was pregnant. Ok, unpasteurised cheese is on the 'risk' list of foods, but that's not anyone's business, especially not a stranger, and I should have butted in and told the bitch to get off her high horse because, duh, of course it was none of my beeswax, but neither was telling a woman what to do just because she's up the duff! Imagine the outrage if someone randomly went around robbing cakes off of overweight people, or making them run laps, or nicking the butter off someone's plate because they have high cholesterol! But no, somehow, people think they have a right to impose their will on a woman because she's pregnant, or tell her when she can and cannot give birth.

Of course her age is an issue, but I would hesitate to impose any restriction on a woman's choice to give birth, whether it has to do with abortion, or with wanting to give birth at an age or at any other time deemed less than ideal by the wider public.

I mean, plenty of people have kids when they can't afford them, or when they're too young, or who have a history of serious illness. This is a woman who is extremely healthy, who wants nothing more than to give care and attention to a child, and is willing to do anything to have the opportunity to do so. While I still don't like to judge women one way or the other, all concerns aside, that child is 100% wanted, and that's a start millions of kids on the earth don't get.

Clearly, she's prepared for it, and she's ready for it, and it's not like she wouldn't have thought long and hard about the effects of her age, but it doesn't make it onto the news when a 62-year old man becomes a dad. In fact, people often have the opposite response, with either explicit or implicit applause for the guy's virility.

There have been occasional incidents where women have given birth naturally in their late 50s or into their 60s, so how is this all that different, except that she went to tremendous trouble to do it, and is extremely committed to being a mom?

Where was I? Oh yeah, still reeling from the fact that you're not supposed to have smelly cheese when you're pregnant. If I ever am up the duff, I'm screwed. Stinky cheese comprises about 75% of my diet.

If there's a scientific/medical reason for it, it's not really a 'taboo'. But that's semantics, anyway. Really, though, if it's such a problem, how come there's no taboo on old men being dads, then? How come they don't go around castrating men when they hit 45, 'just in case'?

Plenty of risks are involved with pregnancy. There's no reason she can't carry a healthy child, and given how careful the doctor involved will be, and how careful she will be, chances are, she'll have a much healthier pregnancy and much healthier baby than a lot of younger women will.

What's wrong with someone asking you to explain your off-the-cuff remark?

Yes, you meet 'disapproval' if you do things that are definitely damaging to OTHERS, or indicate that you are hurting someone else (i.e., your wife, piling your rubbish up is bad for your neighbourhood), but who is to say when and how people breed?

Just because when a man fathers a child at an advanced age, the wife is often quite young (and, by the way, no one has talked about the father's age at all in this case, which indicates again that it's only a problem if a woman does it, and also, people just assume he's her age or older, never even asking if he's younger, as clearly, no one would want to stick it in an aul one), doesn't mean it's an entirely different situtation.

Until fairly recently, a huge proportion of women died in childbirth, but no one went around saying women shouldn't have babies if they're just going to go and die and leave someone else to raise them. In fact, while those kids were sometimes raised by their fathers, they were often farmed out to someone else. Now, I wouldn't rest my whole argument on this, mainly because I am loath to use 'it happened in the past, therefore it is valid', since all societies change, but I do think the fact that this woman's womb has been -- like all wombs -- made everyone else's business is the issue here, not whether or not an aul wan should be 'allowed' to have a babba. Families have been redefined, and that's a good thing. Why not extend the definition a bit more? Why not leave people to develop their own definition? Sure, that kid might grow up well pissed off that he or she was brought into the world in this way, but the situation is comparatively better for this child than for millions of others born every year.

It is about women's bodies. If it were about babies, then people would be just as concerned about cocks, which they're not. If a man is still pumping fresh crude into his 70s, people think he's a god. It is never even discussed that he won't be around to see his kid grow up, as if it doesn't matter at all. When actually, it does. And at least in this situation, the issues have been thought out really thoroughly, and the baby is not just a trophy of some old dude's virility, but a child who is very wanted.

The point is, though, whether you like the concept or not, it's none of anyone else's business. It's between the parents, their doctor, and whoever else they choose to include. Not us, not the media, not the government.

So fine, society is about a corporate body composed of individuals, but there is still, within that, some level of autonomy, and there should be. Society's collective decisions should not extend to my womb, or the womb of a woman twice my age. Those are not anyone else's decisions to make.

Yes, but only if he is defined as 'potential father'. I mean, I know someone who got knocked up by a dude, and the dude said he wanted nothing to do with the child, then said he'd hunt her down and press charges against her for murder (he was nuts, by the way) if she had an abortion because he was totally anti-abortion. Then he moved to Texas. If there were legal protection on his behalf, she could be forced to pop the sprog and raise it, even though he didn't need to be around. Yes, that's an extreme case, but it's not uncommon.

Lucky for her, she had a miscarriage about a week before she was going to have an abortion. How sad that a miscarriage would be seen as a 'lucky break'.

Sorry, but actually, that whole situation really depends on context.

Ideally, yes, that would be the best way, but not all relationships are ideal. The best way to deal with this is not to have any legislation that controls or attempts to control a woman's womb. The reason this is the best way is that it means each couple can deal with things in their own way. Giving men legal control over a woman's womb in ANY WAY is a very, very dangerous road to go down. VERY dangerous. Doesn't return control to the woman or the man, just leaves it as everyone else's decision but the woman's.

Removing ALL legislation from reproductive systems is the absolutely only way to even move an inch toward there being equality in reproductive decisionmaking. Thus, if men want to have a say in whether they have babies or not, they would be wisest to join up with pro-choice campaigns because pro-choice campaigns are not about pro-abortion, they're about ensuring that wombs are not controlled by the state, and that all reproductive decisions can be made within their very specific contexts, rather than by blanket legislation on 'morality'.

If a dude wants a baby so bad, perhaps he should try adopting or fostering one that someone else didn't want.

 

[Doctor Muscles]

Exactly. I see the concerns, but I also see the underlying issue that 'society' (in whatever way we choose to define it) still sees a woman's womb as a sort of public domain, and that a woman's choices about her body aren't entirely her own. In the last few years, since more people our age have been having babies, I've definitely heard a lot of them talking about how other people make it their business, even total strangers. I even heard a couple of women talking in a lunch place a few weeks ago about how one of them, when waitressing, refused to put parmesean cheese on a woman's salad because she noticed she was pregnant. Ok, unpasteurised cheese is on the 'risk' list of foods, but that's not anyone's business, especially not a stranger, and I should have butted in and told the bitch to get off her high horse because, duh, of course it was none of my beeswax, but neither was telling a woman what to do just because she's up the duff! Imagine the outrage if someone randomly went around robbing cakes off of overweight people, or making them run laps, or nicking the butter off someone's plate because they have high cholesterol! But no, somehow, people think they have a right to impose their will on a woman because she's pregnant, or tell her when she can and cannot give birth.

Of course her age is an issue, but I would hesitate to impose any restriction on a woman's choice to give birth, whether it has to do with abortion, or with wanting to give birth at an age or at any other time deemed less than ideal by the wider public.

I mean, plenty of people have kids when they can't afford them, or when they're too young, or who have a history of serious illness. This is a woman who is extremely healthy, who wants nothing more than to give care and attention to a child, and is willing to do anything to have the opportunity to do so. While I still don't like to judge women one way or the other, all concerns aside, that child is 100% wanted, and that's a start millions of kids on the earth don't get.

Clearly, she's prepared for it, and she's ready for it, and it's not like she wouldn't have thought long and hard about the effects of her age, but it doesn't make it onto the news when a 62-year old man becomes a dad. In fact, people often have the opposite response, with either explicit or implicit applause for the guy's virility.

There have been occasional incidents where women have given birth naturally in their late 50s or into their 60s, so how is this all that different, except that she went to tremendous trouble to do it, and is extremely committed to being a mom?

Where was I? Oh yeah, still reeling from the fact that you're not supposed to have smelly cheese when you're pregnant. If I ever am up the duff, I'm screwed. Stinky cheese comprises about 75% of my diet.

If there's a scientific/medical reason for it, it's not really a 'taboo'. But that's semantics, anyway. Really, though, if it's such a problem, how come there's no taboo on old men being dads, then? How come they don't go around castrating men when they hit 45, 'just in case'?

Plenty of risks are involved with pregnancy. There's no reason she can't carry a healthy child, and given how careful the doctor involved will be, and how careful she will be, chances are, she'll have a much healthier pregnancy and much healthier baby than a lot of younger women will.

What's wrong with someone asking you to explain your off-the-cuff remark?

Yes, you meet 'disapproval' if you do things that are definitely damaging to OTHERS, or indicate that you are hurting someone else (i.e., your wife, piling your rubbish up is bad for your neighbourhood), but who is to say when and how people breed?

Just because when a man fathers a child at an advanced age, the wife is often quite young (and, by the way, no one has talked about the father's age at all in this case, which indicates again that it's only a problem if a woman does it, and also, people just assume he's her age or older, never even asking if he's younger, as clearly, no one would want to stick it in an aul one), doesn't mean it's an entirely different situtation.

Until fairly recently, a huge proportion of women died in childbirth, but no one went around saying women shouldn't have babies if they're just going to go and die and leave someone else to raise them. In fact, while those kids were sometimes raised by their fathers, they were often farmed out to someone else. Now, I wouldn't rest my whole argument on this, mainly because I am loath to use 'it happened in the past, therefore it is valid', since all societies change, but I do think the fact that this woman's womb has been -- like all wombs -- made everyone else's business is the issue here, not whether or not an aul wan should be 'allowed' to have a babba. Families have been redefined, and that's a good thing. Why not extend the definition a bit more? Why not leave people to develop their own definition? Sure, that kid might grow up well pissed off that he or she was brought into the world in this way, but the situation is comparatively better for this child than for millions of others born every year.

It is about women's bodies. If it were about babies, then people would be just as concerned about cocks, which they're not. If a man is still pumping fresh crude into his 70s, people think he's a god. It is never even discussed that he won't be around to see his kid grow up, as if it doesn't matter at all. When actually, it does. And at least in this situation, the issues have been thought out really thoroughly, and the baby is not just a trophy of some old dude's virility, but a child who is very wanted.

The point is, though, whether you like the concept or not, it's none of anyone else's business. It's between the parents, their doctor, and whoever else they choose to include. Not us, not the media, not the government.

So fine, society is about a corporate body composed of individuals, but there is still, within that, some level of autonomy, and there should be. Society's collective decisions should not extend to my womb, or the womb of a woman twice my age. Those are not anyone else's decisions to make.

Yes, but only if he is defined as 'potential father'. I mean, I know someone who got knocked up by a dude, and the dude said he wanted nothing to do with the child, then said he'd hunt her down and press charges against her for murder (he was nuts, by the way) if she had an abortion because he was totally anti-abortion. Then he moved to Texas. If there were legal protection on his behalf, she could be forced to pop the sprog and raise it, even though he didn't need to be around. Yes, that's an extreme case, but it's not uncommon.

Lucky for her, she had a miscarriage about a week before she was going to have an abortion. How sad that a miscarriage would be seen as a 'lucky break'.

Sorry, but actually, that whole situation really depends on context.

Ideally, yes, that would be the best way, but not all relationships are ideal. The best way to deal with this is not to have any legislation that controls or attempts to control a woman's womb. The reason this is the best way is that it means each couple can deal with things in their own way. Giving men legal control over a woman's womb in ANY WAY is a very, very dangerous road to go down. VERY dangerous. Doesn't return control to the woman or the man, just leaves it as everyone else's decision but the woman's.

Removing ALL legislation from reproductive systems is the absolutely only way to even move an inch toward there being equality in reproductive decisionmaking. Thus, if men want to have a say in whether they have babies or not, they would be wisest to join up with pro-choice campaigns because pro-choice campaigns are not about pro-abortion, they're about ensuring that wombs are not controlled by the state, and that all reproductive decisions can be made within their very specific contexts, rather than by blanket legislation on 'morality'.

If a dude wants a baby so bad, perhaps he should try adopting or fostering one that someone else didn't want.

Seconded.

 

[glen]

Yes, but just because you didn't just come out with the argument doesn't mean it isn't terribly flawed. See my post above, regarding rape. If you can't explain how you'd deal with that, then your argument doesn't hold any water whatsoever. It is based on an assumption that all sex resulting in conception is both consentual and done within an established relationship.

And what you're saying, really, is that in a legal sense, a man's decision about a woman's womb should override hers. Because if a man actually had 'equal' say in it, then it wouldn't need to be legislated for at all. I don't think you are even attempting to understand my points. You can legislate in ways that promote equality, but you absolutely cannot legislate for equality itself, because equality is about individuals negotiation from positions of autonomy. It's about the absence of a need for legislation.

NO ONE IS ARGUING THAT MEN SHOULD NOT BE INCLUDED IN THE DECISION. And that's not what I'm arguing. What I'm saying is that there is a huge massive hole in your argument that isn't just about rape. It's an example, but an important one. But if you think there needs to be legislation for it, then your legislation is not about babies, it's about controlling women. If it's about babies, you don't need a fucking law.

What if someone is drunk and has sex, and then she doesn't ever see the guy again, in a non-rape way? Then she can't have an abortion because she doesn't know the dude's name? Then, that brings us back to childbirth being a punishment for having sex. The very fact that a woman's decision to HAVE a baby has grown into an argument about abortion is a nice whopping piece of evidence that reproductive legislation is not about babies, but about women's bodies. Thus, as long as it's about MY body, I get to make the decision. That's in a legal sense. In a personal sense, within a relationship, it might not be about my body, it might be about a discussion of potential parenthood. But that's a totally different issue that can't be legislated for.

Really, when a woman is pregnant within a relationship, it isn't just the woman who is pregnant. I can honestly tell you that if I got pregnant, I would probably have an abortion, but I might consider having the child if I were in a situation where my partner was ACTUALLY WILLING AND ABLE to do FIFTY PERCENT of the childrearing and household duties, and saw it as 'we' were pregnant, not just me.

If, however, a partner was like, "No, I want a kid. You give up your career and take care of it because fatherhood is my legal right." I would go fucking mental if there was a law that forced me to give up a career simply because some motherfucker wants to prove he can spread his seed. Also, I'm not carrying a baby for nine months, especially considering I have a medical condition that puts me at serious risk of DYING IN CHILDBIRTH, even if I was just going to hand it over. So I should put my fucking life at risk because you want a baby? If someone wants one that badly, he can ADOPT. ADOPTION. IT EXISTS.

Well, then, how would the veracity of a rape claim be made? And why, then would a woman's choice about childbirth be based on a decision made by someone ELSE about whether or not she is telling the truth? Added to this is the fact that only about 5% of rape cases that actually get reported (a fraction of the real number) end in a conviction. And by the time that case got to trial, the fucking kid would be sitting his or her junior cert.

What about drunken one-night stands? What about the fact that I am one of many women who may not be physically able to carry a child to term? A man should be able to override that, putting my life at risk? I think not. What if the conception takes place in an abusive relationship? The thing is, you have not even begun to accept that I am not saying men should have no say. I am saying that each case is specific, and that the reason this can't be a legal matter is that each and every case is different, and legislation is extremely general.

Quote:
Bear in mind that that has to be balanced against the alternative is that man could see his child aborted without his consent.

Ro, I cannot believe you genuinely think a rapist has a right to force his victim to carry a fucking child to term. That's so appalling, I don't even know where to begin. Didn't he already force her to have sex? IS THAT NOT ENOUGH? You might have stated the opposite in your first sentence, but you totally contradict it here.

So really, what you're saying is that abortion should be allowed in the case of rape, which means a woman pleading for someone else to validate a decision about what happened to her very own body, or that women should be allowed to do it as long as they have a man's consent. Could you tell me how exactly that is pro-choice? Could you tell me when I get to decide?

Actually, no. I won't drop emotive language. If you can't handle specificities being used to highlight flaws in your argument, then that's perhaps because blanket legislation cannot adequately account for the particular context of each case. If you absolutely must keep it in the abstract, with no specific examples used, then how do you expect this legislation you propose to operate successfully, unless you define success as 'successfully denying reality through legal means'?

State control over my womb is extremely emotive. Arguing that state control over it should be compounded by having to ask a man's permission before I scoop something out of it? It makes me extremely angry. I will remain emotive about it until the state gives me the right to make my own decisions about it. EVen then, I will probably be very emotive. Because it's my womb, and I have a right to have passionate beliefs about what I should and shouldn't have in it.

To give you another loathed personal example, because of the way immigration law works in this country, I could not legally or financially have a child in this country. Even if I got married, they changed the residency requirement for marriage so that you continue to need a work permit for thee years before you become resident. In order to get a work permit, you need to be in full-time employment. I would need to be part-time, at most if I were to raise a child. Three people could not survive on one salary, and I'm not about to sponge off me fella (sorry, dude, I swear, you're just being put to hypothetical use here). Essentially, the combination of immigration law, employment regulations and abortion law has made it illegal for me to have sex unless I can be absolutely sure I won't get knocked up. Now, if that doesn't 'count' in relation to your argument, then you're saying that I don't count. Everyone's personal situation MUST count.

So before you go even discussing giving men legal power over my womb, first you need to give power to the people who have the womb. And until I have that power, I am going to be extremely emotive about any and all discussions that relate to it.

Quote:
In terms of the veracity of the rape claim, the woman needs only to make an uncontsted claim of rape if she wants to have an abortion. The making of a false claim should be a criminal offence. The claim should have a different status to a normal claim of rape in that it does not in itself give rise to criminal proceedings unless the woman wants it to (she may only want to claim rape to a degree that allows her to have the abortion, but would of course have the option of pressing charges in the normal way). If the father contests the claim, and undertakes to take responsibility for the child, then the woman will have to prove rape. If she cannot then the birth must go ahead and the man takes custody of the child. If a woman makes an uncontested claim (father is unknown or simply not told) which is subsequently claimed by the father to be false, a court will have to decide whether the rape claim was in fact genuine and make a determination on that basis, even where the abortion has already happened. That's a way that it could be worked, although I'm sure it could be improved upon with more thought.

 

[glen]

No, it's not an example of society trying to control women, it's an outcome of an sometimes unspoken and/or unconscious societal understanding that society has a responsibility to protect women from themselves. It's not the same thing as an 'example'; it's much more nuanced than that.

I can see how it would be seen as heartwarming, but it's really not. It's about as heartwarming as a stranger refusing to serve a piece of cake to a fat dude because his pants look a little tight.

As for the 'hands off my womb', that is exactly what the debate is about. It's about women's bodies. Which contain wombs. I am a woman, therefore, I have a personal connection to the debate that a man does not. If the legislation were about babies, then a hell of a lot more would be done to help the already-born, rather than all the focus being placed on the unborn. A concern about abortion is a concern about wombs. A concern about wombs is a concern about women in the abstract. I happen to be a woman. Thus, the discussion IS about me, just as it's about the other 3 billion women on the planet. I take it personally because it's about me.

Thing is, I haven't done anything to insult anyone's views on abortion. The thing is, I totally respect someone's belief that abortion is wrong, as long as it doesn't extend to imposing it on me. Pro-choice encompasses the anti-abortion stance because it is about not making choices for others, about the decision-making power over a womb resting with the person in whose body that womb exists, with no need for legal intervention.

No, it's not an example of society trying to control women, it's an outcome of an sometimes unspoken and/or unconscious societal understanding that society has a responsibility to protect women from themselves. It's not the same thing as an 'example'; it's much more nuanced than that.

I can see how it would be seen as heartwarming, but it's really not. It's about as heartwarming as a stranger refusing to serve a piece of cake to a fat dude because his pants look a little tight.

As for the 'hands off my womb', that is exactly what the debate is about. It's about women's bodies. Which contain wombs. I am a woman, therefore, I have a personal connection to the debate that a man does not. If the legislation were about babies, then a hell of a lot more would be done to help the already-born, rather than all the focus being placed on the unborn. A concern about abortion is a concern about wombs. A concern about wombs is a concern about women in the abstract. I happen to be a woman. Thus, the discussion IS about me, just as it's about the other 3 billion women on the planet. I take it personally because it's about me.

Thing is, I haven't done anything to insult anyone's views on abortion. The thing is, I totally respect someone's belief that abortion is wrong, as long as it doesn't extend to imposing it on me. Pro-choice encompasses the anti-abortion stance because it is about not making choices for others, about the decision-making power over a womb resting with the person in whose body that womb exists, with no need for legal intervention.

 

[glen]

No, it's not an example of society trying to control women, it's an outcome of an sometimes unspoken and/or unconscious societal understanding that society has a responsibility to protect women from themselves. It's not the same thing as an 'example'; it's much more nuanced than that.

I can see how it would be seen as heartwarming, but it's really not. It's about as heartwarming as a stranger refusing to serve a piece of cake to a fat dude because his pants look a little tight.

As for the 'hands off my womb', that is exactly what the debate is about. It's about women's bodies. Which contain wombs. I am a woman, therefore, I have a personal connection to the debate that a man does not. If the legislation were about babies, then a hell of a lot more would be done to help the already-born, rather than all the focus being placed on the unborn. A concern about abortion is a concern about wombs. A concern about wombs is a concern about women in the abstract. I happen to be a woman. Thus, the discussion IS about me, just as it's about the other 3 billion women on the planet. I take it personally because it's about me.

Thing is, I haven't done anything to insult anyone's views on abortion. The thing is, I totally respect someone's belief that abortion is wrong, as long as it doesn't extend to imposing it on me. Pro-choice encompasses the anti-abortion stance because it is about not making choices for others, about the decision-making power over a womb resting with the person in whose body that womb exists, with no need for legal intervention.

No, it's not an example of society trying to control women, it's an outcome of an sometimes unspoken and/or unconscious societal understanding that society has a responsibility to protect women from themselves. It's not the same thing as an 'example'; it's much more nuanced than that.

I can see how it would be seen as heartwarming, but it's really not. It's about as heartwarming as a stranger refusing to serve a piece of cake to a fat dude because his pants look a little tight.

As for the 'hands off my womb', that is exactly what the debate is about. It's about women's bodies. Which contain wombs. I am a woman, therefore, I have a personal connection to the debate that a man does not. If the legislation were about babies, then a hell of a lot more would be done to help the already-born, rather than all the focus being placed on the unborn. A concern about abortion is a concern about wombs. A concern about wombs is a concern about women in the abstract. I happen to be a woman. Thus, the discussion IS about me, just as it's about the other 3 billion women on the planet. I take it personally because it's about me.

Thing is, I haven't done anything to insult anyone's views on abortion. The thing is, I totally respect someone's belief that abortion is wrong, as long as it doesn't extend to imposing it on me. Pro-choice encompasses the anti-abortion stance because it is about not making choices for others, about the decision-making power over a womb resting with the person in whose body that womb exists, with no need for legal intervention.

No, it's not an example of society trying to control women, it's an outcome of an sometimes unspoken and/or unconscious societal understanding that society has a responsibility to protect women from themselves. It's not the same thing as an 'example'; it's much more nuanced than that.

I can see how it would be seen as heartwarming, but it's really not. It's about as heartwarming as a stranger refusing to serve a piece of cake to a fat dude because his pants look a little tight.

As for the 'hands off my womb', that is exactly what the debate is about. It's about women's bodies. Which contain wombs. I am a woman, therefore, I have a personal connection to the debate that a man does not. If the legislation were about babies, then a hell of a lot more would be done to help the already-born, rather than all the focus being placed on the unborn. A concern about abortion is a concern about wombs. A concern about wombs is a concern about women in the abstract. I happen to be a woman. Thus, the discussion IS about me, just as it's about the other 3 billion women on the planet. I take it personally because it's about me.

Thing is, I haven't done anything to insult anyone's views on abortion. The thing is, I totally respect someone's belief that abortion is wrong, as long as it doesn't extend to imposing it on me. Pro-choice encompasses the anti-abortion stance because it is about not making choices for others, about the decision-making power over a womb resting with the person in whose body that womb exists, with no need for legal intervention.

No, it's not an example of society trying to control women, it's an outcome of an sometimes unspoken and/or unconscious societal understanding that society has a responsibility to protect women from themselves. It's not the same thing as an 'example'; it's much more nuanced than that.

I can see how it would be seen as heartwarming, but it's really not. It's about as heartwarming as a stranger refusing to serve a piece of cake to a fat dude because his pants look a little tight.

As for the 'hands off my womb', that is exactly what the debate is about. It's about women's bodies. Which contain wombs. I am a woman, therefore, I have a personal connection to the debate that a man does not. If the legislation were about babies, then a hell of a lot more would be done to help the already-born, rather than all the focus being placed on the unborn. A concern about abortion is a concern about wombs. A concern about wombs is a concern about women in the abstract. I happen to be a woman. Thus, the discussion IS about me, just as it's about the other 3 billion women on the planet. I take it personally because it's about me.

Thing is, I haven't done anything to insult anyone's views on abortion. The thing is, I totally respect someone's belief that abortion is wrong, as long as it doesn't extend to imposing it on me. Pro-choice encompasses the anti-abortion stance because it is about not making choices for others, about the decision-making power over a womb resting with the person in whose body that womb exists, with no need for legal intervention.

 

[Jerry Twig]

No, it's not an example of society trying to control women, it's an outcome of an sometimes unspoken and/or unconscious societal understanding that society has a responsibility to protect women from themselves. It's not the same thing as an 'example'; it's much more nuanced than that.

I can see how it would be seen as heartwarming, but it's really not. It's about as heartwarming as a stranger refusing to serve a piece of cake to a fat dude because his pants look a little tight.

As for the 'hands off my womb', that is exactly what the debate is about. It's about women's bodies. Which contain wombs. I am a woman, therefore, I have a personal connection to the debate that a man does not. If the legislation were about babies, then a hell of a lot more would be done to help the already-born, rather than all the focus being placed on the unborn. A concern about abortion is a concern about wombs. A concern about wombs is a concern about women in the abstract. I happen to be a woman. Thus, the discussion IS about me, just as it's about the other 3 billion women on the planet. I take it personally because it's about me.

Thing is, I haven't done anything to insult anyone's views on abortion. The thing is, I totally respect someone's belief that abortion is wrong, as long as it doesn't extend to imposing it on me. Pro-choice encompasses the anti-abortion stance because it is about not making choices for others, about the decision-making power over a womb resting with the person in whose body that womb exists, with no need for legal intervention.

No, it's not an example of society trying to control women, it's an outcome of an sometimes unspoken and/or unconscious societal understanding that society has a responsibility to protect women from themselves. It's not the same thing as an 'example'; it's much more nuanced than that.

I can see how it would be seen as heartwarming, but it's really not. It's about as heartwarming as a stranger refusing to serve a piece of cake to a fat dude because his pants look a little tight.

As for the 'hands off my womb', that is exactly what the debate is about. It's about women's bodies. Which contain wombs. I am a woman, therefore, I have a personal connection to the debate that a man does not. If the legislation were about babies, then a hell of a lot more would be done to help the already-born, rather than all the focus being placed on the unborn. A concern about abortion is a concern about wombs. A concern about wombs is a concern about women in the abstract. I happen to be a woman. Thus, the discussion IS about me, just as it's about the other 3 billion women on the planet. I take it personally because it's about me.

Thing is, I haven't done anything to insult anyone's views on abortion. The thing is, I totally respect someone's belief that abortion is wrong, as long as it doesn't extend to imposing it on me. Pro-choice encompasses the anti-abortion stance because it is about not making choices for others, about the decision-making power over a womb resting with the person in whose body that womb exists, with no need for legal intervention.

well, yes, but not quite glen. how is a man to sqeeze a nipper out of the tip of his mickey?

 

[1000smurfs]

this thread will be aborted, to save the life of the database