this auld wan that's up the duff (3 Viewers)

[billygannon]

So anyway, this lady of 62 having a baby...

She seems to be physically capable of doing it, and the doctor responsible for it made the point that the state of people's bodies aren't dependent on their age. There are many 30 year olds who probably shouldn't have a child, because their bodies aren't up to it.

It's not a responsible thing for this lady to do. Just as it's not responsible for man of that age to do such a thing. In fact, the "implied virility" is nonsense - most people (indeed, most men) would feel that if a man of 62 had a child, he would be too old to bring it up capably.

With regards to this ownership of your body debate, it is a woman's decision what she wants to do with her womb. Empowering her to have greater control over it is a good thing.
That's how far the law and societal intervention should go in this case. It should provide safe facilities for a woman to either have a child later in life, or abort a pregnancy.
Everything else is down to personal opinions and personal relationships.

If a man desperately wanted a child, and his wife aborted a pregnancy without any other reason other than to want to end the pregnancy, then she is being inconsiderate of her husband's feelings. However this is a very extreme circumstance. The man has every right to feel agrieved by this and, in this particular hypothetical situation, I would feel that the woman was in the wrong.
But then again, that is my opinion.

 

[jane]

So anyway, this lady of 62 having a baby...

She seems to be physically capable of doing it, and the doctor responsible for it made the point that the state of people's bodies aren't dependent on their age. There are many 30 year olds who probably shouldn't have a child, because their bodies aren't up to it.

It's not a responsible thing for this lady to do. Just as it's not responsible for man of that age to do such a thing. In fact, the "implied virility" is nonsense - most people (indeed, most men) would feel that if a man of 62 had a child, he would be too old to bring it up capably.

With regards to this ownership of your body debate, it is a woman's decision what she wants to do with her womb. Empowering her to have greater control over it is a good thing.
That's how far the law and societal intervention should go in this case. It should provide safe facilities for a woman to either have a child later in life, or abort a pregnancy.
Everything else is down to personal opinions and personal relationships.

If a man desperately wanted a child, and his wife aborted a pregnancy without any other reason other than to want to end the pregnancy, then she is being inconsiderate of her husband's feelings. However this is a very extreme circumstance. The man has every right to feel agrieved by this and, in this particular hypothetical situation, I would feel that the woman was in the wrong.
But then again, that is my opinion.

Exactly. And I agree with you, for the most part. I wouldn't necessarily say that the woman aborting against the husband's wishes is 'in the wrong', but I would feel that perhaps there had not been sufficient negotiation in that relationship. Maybe he didn't want her to abort it, but wasn't willing to take on 50% of the parenting duties? I think the abortion issue is actually -- and I say this shaking with the peril -- related in some way to father's responsibilities, I just think it's being framed in a way that makes it impossible to debate. If men were encouraged, and helped to be very 'present' fathers, then there would be much easier negotiation in reproductive issues. Much easier. I think statutatory paternity leave (as well as maternity) with pay would go extremely far toward improving everyone's lives: men, women and children. However, none of this can take place until we stop legislating for women's bodies, thus placing women in a legally inferior position to men -- even when there may be more equity in individual relationships. All it does is pit women and men against each other, and no one wants that except for the anti-feminist backlashers who would paint us all as manhaters.

One of the fathering issues is, too, that gender expectations of masculinity still see totally awesome daddism as a compromise of manly duties of breadwinning and emotional detachment, and there may be a hint of emasculation when these men are described by others, or which they may internalise themselves. Many men object to traditional images of masculinity, or feel compromised by them themselves, especially because it results in things like, when a man doesn't have a job, he is 'unemployed', when a woman doesn't, she is 'a homemaker'. Increasingly, this is changing, but it isn't helping anyone, and won't until people are willing to really discuss how gender assumptions are harmful to everyone. So, yes, we live in a society, and a society does have to find balance between the corporate body of individuals and each individual him or herself, but that means being willing to take everything in its context, understand where certain assumptions come from, and how they inform our thinking, and then start as we mean to go on.

As for that lady with the baby, I wouldn't do it myself. But the fact is, that's not my business. The only thing this whole 'case' makes me want to talk about is why we feel we have the right to talk about it at all.

 

[wild_cat]

A friend of mine is 17 and her mother and father are well into their sixties shes embarrased some times about telling other people about the age of her parents.

My idea of hell is being raised by my granny, id be about 12 stone and heading for the nearest convent.


But I suppose, its better shes 64 insted of a morbidly obease 35 year old. Same difference. Or maybe I just have a thing against morbidly obease people having children, I dont think its fare especially if the child ends up with the same health problems as the mother or father, any one see that episode of "you are what you eat" where the mother was giving her toddles kababs.

 

[jane]

A friend of mine is 17 and her mother and father are well into their sixties shes embarrased some times about telling other people about the age of her parents.

My idea of hell is being raised by my granny, id be about 12 stone and heading for the nearest convent.


But I suppose, its better shes 64 insted of a morbidly obease 35 year old. Same difference. Or maybe I just have a thing against morbidly obease people having children, I dont think its fare especially if the child ends up with the same health problems as the mother or father, any one see that episode of "you are what you eat" where the mother was giving her toddles kababs.

Yeah, but we're all embarrassed of our parents when we're teenagers. My dad was 42 when I was born, and I was kinda embarrassed, too, but that's because it's a parent's job to embarrass their kids.

Now I'm like, "Look at me da! He's 73 and look at him go!" And I am actually incredibly proud to have parents who had already led such storied lives before they had kids.

And if morbidly obese people shouldn't be allowed to breed, what about alcoholics? Blind people? People who've suffered from depression or anxiety? People who use wheelchairs? People who are just not particularly attractive in a traditional sense?

 

[RSJ]

No one said a man should have no say. My argument is that every relationship is different, and therefore you can't legislate for this sort of thing.

Sure, you can legislate for different things once a child is born, but look how well that system works? My arguments in favour of legalised abortion do not imply that I think the situation of father's rights are flawless. There are lots of problems there, too, and yes, they should be dealt with. Men should not just be encouraged to be involved, they should be helped in every way to be fully-committed parents -- and that isn't entirely unrelated to abortion, but we can't deal with the issues under the exact same heading. Human relationships and the issue of childbearing and child-rearing are far too complex to be dealt with by legal means. I don't know anyone who wouldn't include her partner in the decision, and if she wouldn't, she'd either have a good reason for it, or the witholding of information would be a sign that there were real problems with the relationship. But you can't pass a law that punishes all women (because even the existence of the law sends a strong message to all women about their autonomy) just because you see potential for the existing system to be 'abused'. You have to legislate for realities, and not fears that women (or foreigners, or doley scum, or whatever) may be able to get one over on the system if you don't do something to prevent it.

The great thing about being pro-choice, and I mean really pro-choice (and I won't apologise for the fact that in order to be pro-choice, you can't say, "I am pro-choice but I don't think the woman should have as much legal say as a man") is the incredible feeling of lightness that comes with divesting yourself of the responsibility for other people's morality. Sure, you can make parallels with drugs, with drunks in bars, with whatever you like, but they are different issues altogether, and you don't even have to have the same position on all of them! I know! It's crazy. Like, I believe abortion should be free and legal and without apology or exception, but I believe all drugs should remain illegal! You know why? Because drugs and wombs are not the same thing. But really, you wouldn't believe the sense of utter relief that comes from just going, "Someone else's body, not my business."

Another thing, though, is that I hope that the 'hysteria' comment was not directed at the women who were passionately arguing for our legal rights. It's easy for a man to talk about wombs with a sense of dispassionate distance, but see, we have wombs. If a bunch of women were sitting aroudn saying we wanted legal veto power over your mickeys, you'd get upset, too. If I got 'hysterical', then fine. That's because it's an issue that constantly shocks me, that in a context -- like Thumped -- where people claim to be on the left, where people claim to be enlightened and thinking, when it comes to women's issues, first of all, you want to steamroll all over women's voices with some sort of false pragmatism and 'commonsense' approach, and second of all, it saddens me that so many people are still under the thumb of the church disinformation about abortion. Funny, too, since abortion really only became an issue not very long ago. Until pretty recently, it was just normal. In fact, the Romans rendered abortaficient and contraceptive plants EXCINCT so into their family planning were they. Damn Romans. Didn't leave anything for us!

You know what, though? Not all women are scarred from it. In fact, many women are relieved. The reason people become emotionally scarred from it is down to the individual, but what doesn't help is that there is a sense of shame attached to it, that if you are going to do this, you'd better be ashamed of it for the rest of your life. For some people, this is true. For friends who have had abortions, some of them said they never wanted to have another one. One had a kid on her own because she just couldn't go through another one. Another got pregnant again and decided to keep it, but the pregnancy was ectopic, and carrying it to term would have killed them both, so the abortion really did scar her, not because it was an abortion, but because she lost a child she really wanted. I could give you a hundred stories of people I know, and each one is different. And because of that, no law can -- or should -- cover them all.

Yup, it'd be a bit shit if a woman had an abortion but the man wanted the baby, but just because it's shit either way doesn't mean we should resort to the age-old strategy of giving the rights to the man by default. What Ro proposes is actually worse than what we currently have. And I don't think he ever told us what the penalty for a woman would be, should she defy her male keeper? Would she be tried for murder? That would mean that men who did consent to abortion would, by default, be given legal power for murder. Is it a property crime? That would mean that children would be defined as property, and not as human beings.

People's opinions about abortion may very much take into account their beliefs about babies but the fact is, as a legal issue, abortion laws are not about babies. Now, what with all the accusations that I'm hysterical and all, it seems that no one wants to look at the real difference between the legal issue and the personal one, and the fact that on this whole thread, I tried to talk about it at least six or seven times. But no one wanted to. People preferred to accuse me of being a man-hater, of calling everyone a misogynist, and all sorts of other caricatures reserved for occasions when people want to shout down a woman who is actually making sense, or is trying to re-frame the argument.

The laws about women's bodies are sexist. There is misogyny in society. I hate sexism and misogyny, but it does not follow that I hate men because sexism and misogyny are not just 'things' that are somehow 'perpetrated' by men. But I tried to bring up some of the theoretical underpinnings and got shouted down with 'oh, come off it, I'm not affected by history or social theory -- my opinions are my own!', as if that's even possible. Men are not the enemy. Sexism is the enemy. And sexism hurts everyone: men, women, and everyone in between.

It is disheartening to see that people can't debate abortion at all without accusing feminists and pro-choice people of hysteria and man-hating, rather than looking for ways to engage with the fact that we have a very different stake in our bodies than men do. We seem to see it as different issues. Ro sees it as legalised murder. I see it as a blob of cells. Snaky pointed out that no one is ever going to agree when human life begins -- that is too much to ask science to do. Science can't settle legal battles, which is precisely why the issue of abortion needs to be removed from the legislative realm. In an ideal world, both partners would negotiate. But until we are willing to discuss the very deep and theoretical and ideological underpinnings of these various beliefs, we'll get nowhere. And no one rose to that challenge, not on this thread, nor in 'real life'.

In an ideal world, no one would fuck each other before discussing their respective views on unwanted pregnancy. But you can't legislate for these 'ideal worlds' and hope human behaviour will follow. It's never worked, and it never will. So take it out of the legislative realm, and it can be dealt with. That's all. And I will be extremely passionate about this cause -- call it hysteria if you like -- until it has been won.

Here, jane, for the sake of those of us who would like to be able to read without glasses in our old age, could you put little summaries at the end of your posts? While i do find your posts interesting, educational and entertaining, and while i do want to read what you have to say, with each reply my eyes get more and more watery. I'm expecting someone at work to offer me a tissue and ask me if i'm ok pretty soon.

EDIT: That may have come out slightly bitchy, i was actually just having a mess

 

[jane]

Here, jane, for the sake of those of us who would like to be able to read without glasses in our old age, could you put little summaries at the end of your posts? While i do find your posts interesting, educational and entertaining, and while i do want to read what you have to say, with each reply my eyes get more and more watery. I'm expecting someone at work to offer me a tissue and ask me if i'm ok pretty soon.

EDIT: That may have come out slightly bitchy, i was actually just having a mess

Sure.

In summary:
1. A child is a choice, not a consequence.
2. Keep yer laws outta me gee.

 

[nlgbbbblth]

I think statutatory paternity leave (as well as maternity) with pay would go extremely far toward improving everyone's lives: men, women and children.

My employer allows 10 working days paid paternity leave which I gladly availed of last month. The Easter and May bank holidays coming in the middle of it dragged it out to almost three weeks off.

Not sure what's on the statute though. Women now get 22 weeks paid it seems. Does it vary from employer to employer in the case of men.

 

[pete]

My employer allows 10 working days paid paternity leave which I gladly availed of last month. The Easter and May bank holidays coming in the middle of it dragged it out to almost three weeks off.

Not sure what's on the statute though. Women now get 22 weeks paid it seems. Does it vary from employer to employer in the case of men.

sounds sexist to me

 

[jane]

sounds sexist to me

Actually, it is totally sexist. Men should be entitled to at least 22 weeks paid leave, too. And it should be statutatory.

Not only would it make it easier for men to bond with their children, it would actually help women, in that employers are still hesitant to hire women of childbearing age for fear that they'll skip off on maternity leave within the year. If men were entitled to equal leave, equity in the home and in the workplace would be just that much more possible. Dudes would get to be with their kids (thus acknowledging the many men who are dedicated fathers), and everyone would be better off. Especially the kids.

 

[krystal]

you know what roisin, you're 17. No one thinks their parents are cool or right at that age and that it because you're actually still really a kid. Sorry if that insults you but it's true. I mean I could be your mother and you exasperate me and there's not that many years between us.

I thought my parents were just soooo uncool and mean for not letting us have tv and not allowing me to go to gigs when I was 13 and also they're older than most of my parents friends too. My mother was an extremely flamboyant dresser when I was a kid and frequently attended parent teacher meetings got up in gold stilettos and indian harem pants. My dad was always enormously proud of her while we cringed. And I'm so embarrased I did that now - all she was doing was expressing her individuality.

So what do I think now that I am an adult? They were bloody right - they always had our best interests at heart and their slightly older age gave them a wealth of experience other parents didn't have. The thing is, wonderfully, your opinions can change with age. And you just cannot blame your parents for everything.

A friend of mine is 17 and her mother and father are well into their sixties shes embarrased some times about telling other people about the age of her parents.

My idea of hell is being raised by my granny, id be about 12 stone and heading for the nearest convent.


But I suppose, its better shes 64 insted of a morbidly obease 35 year old. Same difference. Or maybe I just have a thing against morbidly obease people having children, I dont think its fare especially if the child ends up with the same health problems as the mother or father, any one see that episode of "you are what you eat" where the mother was giving her toddles kababs.

 

[krystal]

me too, my mum and dad lived in a different country, had huge and valuable experiences (my mother worked for MI6 for christs sake!) before they married and had kids and came back here to settle down. I'm glad because I benefitted from that wealth of experience too. I'm glad I wasn't born to callow youth but to copped on folks with lots of life experience. And that's why I don't feel like I'll be ready to have kids soon (or ever) because I have too much else I want to do with my life first.

Yeah, but we're all embarrassed of our parents when we're teenagers. My dad was 42 when I was born, and I was kinda embarrassed, too, but that's because it's a parent's job to embarrass their kids.

Now I'm like, "Look at me da! He's 73 and look at him go!" And I am actually incredibly proud to have parents who had already led such storied lives before they had kids.

 

[jane]

me too, my mum and dad lived in a different country, had huge and valuable experiences (my mother worked for MI6 for christs sake!) before they married and had kids and came back here to settle down. I'm glad because I benefitted from that wealth of experience too. I'm glad I wasn't born to callow youth but to copped on folks with lots of life experience. And that's why I don't feel like I'll be ready to have kids soon (or ever) because I have too much else I want to do with my life first.

It's pretty awesome, I think. No matter what, it was our job to be embarrassed of our folks when we were teenagers, and it's their job -- and their right -- to embarrass us. But really, I can't imagine having parents who are wiser than mine. What's even cooler is that now that I'm an adult, they see themselves as having raised a child with her own sense of wisdom, and they really, genuinely listen to what are the benefits of my own experience.

If I can become a parent with even a fraction of the wisdom and experience that my folks did, I'll definitely be giving my kids a good start. And it makes total sense to me that I don't want to bring daughters into a world that doesn't let them make decisions about their bodies, or indeed, sons into a world where gender expectations can sometimes be so painfully narrow. I would love to have children, but because this world is a difficult place to live, I want to make sure I'm totally prepared to give them the intellectual and ethical tools to live in it in the happiest way possible. And to do that, I need to be really ready in my own life to take on that responsibility.

Except I do still call them up and give out to them for turning me into a fiery bigmouth, when I would have been much less anxious if I were just in blissful ignorance. And they just laugh at me and say, "Ha ha, sucks to be you."

 

[Dr Winston Umbogo]

feminists = lesbians = not lesbians = great people.

 

[wild_cat]

It's pretty awesome, I think. No matter what, it was our job to be embarrassed of our folks when we were teenagers, and it's their job -- and their right -- to embarrass us. But really, I can't imagine having parents who are wiser than mine. What's even cooler is that now that I'm an adult, they see themselves as having raised a child with her own sense of wisdom, and they really, genuinely listen to what are the benefits of my own experience.

If I can become a parent with even a fraction of the wisdom and experience that my folks did, I'll definitely be giving my kids a good start. And it makes total sense to me that I don't want to bring daughters into a world that doesn't let them make decisions about their bodies, or indeed, sons into a world where gender expectations can sometimes be so painfully narrow. I would love to have children, but because this world is a difficult place to live, I want to make sure I'm totally prepared to give them the intellectual and ethical tools to live in it in the happiest way possible. And to do that, I need to be really ready in my own life to take on that responsibility.

Except I do still call them up and give out to them for turning me into a fiery bigmouth, when I would have been much less anxious if I were just in blissful ignorance. And they just laugh at me and say, "Ha ha, sucks to be you."

Just dont walk into a sitting room full of your childs friends and dance to refused in front of them.

Or say Norr insted of Knorr and Argoes insted of Argos.

 

[pete]

Just dont walk into a sitting room full of your childs friends and dance to refused in front of them.

Everyone dances to refused. EVERYONE.

Or say Norr insted of Knorr

Isn't the K silent?

 

[jane]

Everyone dances to refused. EVERYONE.



Isn't the K silent?

Pete's right on both counts.

This time.

 

[jane]

Just dont walk into a sitting room full of your childs friends and dance to refused in front of them.

Or say Norr insted of Knorr and Argoes insted of Argos.

No, I won't rock out to Refused in front of them, but I will rock out to whatever it is they have decided is 'cool' (because, by then, Refused will be 'old people music'), thus leaving the very concept of coolness itself tainted with horrible adult awkwardness.

You have no idea how awesome I'm going to be at embarrassing my teenage child(ren). I mean, I'm already planning it. I've got the biggest head start ever, and they are going to be SO SORRY THAT THEY NEVER ASKED TO BE BORN.

Both of my parents still love embarrassing me in front of my friends. It's my right to do the same someday.

 

[Wilbert]

i would hate for any woman to be in the situation of being "forced" to have a baby just because the father decides he will look after it. it is ultimately the woman's decision and so it should be.

And I would hate for any man to be told that his baby is being aborted when he really wants to raise that baby.

 

[Wilbert]

If it's about the kids, and about wanting kids of his own, he can hire a surrogate mother (with her consent) or adopt a child which, by the way, would still be his own, despite not possessing his genetic material.

There you go fellas! Problem solved!


Pathetic.

 

[jane]

And I would hate for any man to be told that his baby is being aborted when he really wants to raise that baby.

Yes, it would be rather sad and he would have every right to grieve, mourn, be enraged, and end whatever relationship existed between himself and the woman. But it can't be made illegal.

Before you get to all of the fifty kinds of wrong that is, which you clearly can't see for whatever terrifying reason, how would you handle an infringement of that law by the woman? How would it be punished, and how would the 'crime' be classified?