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

[glen]

 

[jane]

For millionth and final time.

The woman wasn't forced to become pregnant, it was due to a consensual sex act in which a risk of pregnancy existed. My view is that if the pregnancy is to be undone, the both partners must consent to that, just as they did to the creation of the 'organism', or more specifically the taking of a risk that they knew may result in the creation of an 'organism'.

There's no point arguing with you jane. You have no interest in learning about my point of view. You just want to shout down and cavil with my view because you don't like it. You keep asking me whether it will be a summary/criminal offence, what about health risk, what about rape. I give you my view on all these but it becomes clear that you don't care what the answer is. You're very intolerant. All I am doing is holding a viewpoint. I'm not legislating for this single handed. You seem to have a problem with me disagreeing with you. You're so concentrated on your competitiveness that you are not open to accepting any point I make.

First of all, I'm totally intolerant of your view on this situation because it is intolerable. I'm not -- as you can clearly see -- the only one who won't tolerate it. I'm challenging it because it needs to be challenged. If I don't take it all that seriously, it's because it's completely ridiculous and totally unworkable, and pretty much everyone on here agrees. I'm not trying to compete with you. It's not my fault I've thought my position through, and you haven't.

I was -- and have been -- in agreement with you about both parties having a say, but you have consistently failed to acknowledge that because you're so keen on not having to explain yourself (and you still haven't, and perhaps someone might want to back me up on this, since Ro clearly doesn't see anything I say as valid), and to avoid answering for what are really quite ludicrous statements, that you haven't once acknowledged that I have clearly stated a number of times that in a good relationship, these things are negotiated and discussed. That is the opposite of 'leaving the man out of it'.

I didn't say the woman was forced to become pregnant. But under what you propose, the final say should default to the man, thus, by design, it would FORCE the woman to carry a pregnancy to term.

 

[cheryl]

yuck

 

[glen]

It's only nature.

 

[c0De_n1NjA]

OH my god.
look at the size of kilroys nipples.

 

[taubstumm]

I think that's an articulate precis of the viewpoint I am disagreeing with. Although i understand where it comes from and respect it as intelligently worked out, the import is that a pregnancy caused by two people can be ended by the woman without the father's agreement. If the pregnancy continues against the woman's wishes, it is still true that she had an equal part in bringing it about. that's why i hold the views i hold. Again, I have never once asked anybody to agree with me; I am merely explaining why i think the way i do.

but surely, if the man has the final say, as a legal and a moral position, this implies the subjugation of women? if you don't think that that logically follows, i think we've lost eachother - it seems to me like the only logical conclusion to the point.

again, that's not to mention the implied practicalities - that there would presumably have to be militarised jail-hospitals for these half-unwanted babies to be born in.

 

[MDR]

First of all, I'm totally intolerant of your view on this situation because it is intolerable. I'm not -- as you can clearly see -- the only one who won't tolerate it. I'm challenging it because it needs to be challenged. If I don't take it all that seriously, it's because it's completely ridiculous and totally unworkable, and pretty much everyone on here agrees. I'm not trying to compete with you. It's not my fault I've thought my position through, and you haven't.

I was -- and have been -- in agreement with you about both parties having a say, but you have consistently failed to acknowledge that because you're so keen on not having to explain yourself (and you still haven't, and perhaps someone might want to back me up on this, since Ro clearly doesn't see anything I say as valid), and to avoid answering for what are really quite ludicrous statements, that you haven't once acknowledged that I have clearly stated a number of times that in a good relationship, these things are negotiated and discussed. That is the opposite of 'leaving the man out of it'.

I didn't say the woman was forced to become pregnant. But under what you propose, the final say should default to the man, thus, by design, it would FORCE the woman to carry a pregnancy to term.

Just because you say something is intolerable doesn't make it so.

Actually other people have agreed with me, but that's hardly the point is it. I've already said that I'm not looking to convince anybody. You're so intolerant that you can't stand me disagreeing with you, even though all I'm looking for is for a father's rights to be respected equally. You're in favour of a man having 'a say', but if the woman thinks differently, that man's 'say', which are are so generous in giving, counts for nothing. In your scenario a woman's view prevails notwithstanding the fact that both partners caused the pregnancy.

 

[glen]

See, sexist.

 

[MDR]

again, that's not to mention the implied practicalities - that there would presumably have to be militarised jail-hospitals for these half-unwanted babies to be born in.

Tom. I adressed this earlier. There is no need to police the pregnancy, but the father would have recourse through the courts after the fact if his 'potential child' (shall we call it) had been aborted without his consent.

 

[coraline]

My Mum just came in and saw that picture, thanks dudes

I came home to get my Dad to stick back on the wing mirror of my car which I
banged off this morning by driving ever so slightly too near a parked car. Dads are occasionally good for stuff...

 

[La La]

ok lets be serious here. WE ARE GOING NOWHERE.
people have their views and they will stick to them, regardless. we're pushing 26 pages here and the same points keep being made.

 

[1000smurfs]

should the daddy have a legal right to the dna of the baby? this could be obtained during the abortion and then used to create a clone, in 2012 or whenever,if the man can find a willing surrogate. I'm sort of serious, I can't see how how he shouldn't be entitled to that.

 

[krystal]

sheesh. talk about letting down the sisterhood.

My Mum just came in and saw that picture, thanks dudes

I came home to get my Dad to stick back on the wing mirror of my car which I
banged off this morning by driving ever so slightly too near a parked car. Dads are occasionally good for stuff...

 

[taubstumm]

Tom. I adressed this earlier. There is no need to police the pregnancy, but the father would have recourse through the courts after the fact if his 'potential child' (shall we call it) had been aborted without his consent.

ok. we'll agree to disagree on that one. but the other point: if the man has the final say, as a legal and a moral position, does this not imply the subjugation of women? like i said, if you don't think that that logically follows, i think we've lost eachother - it seems to me like the only logical conclusion.

 

[ICUH8N]

should the daddy have a legal right to the dna of the baby? this could be obtained during the abortion and then used to create a clone, in 2012 or whenever,if the man can find a willing surrogate. I'm sort of serious, I can't see how how he shouldn't be entitled to that.

He should be entitled to half of it, surely. I'm surprised no-one's mentioned solomonic solutions yet.

 

[mazzyianne]

Ok, my level of pissed-off-ness has reached an all time high,
Tom just said exactly the same thing I have said 2 or 3 times and you ignored, Ro.
Anyways, he got an answer, I cant work out what it means... Something about what is of import not being who carries the child but who caused the pregnancy?
Is that it?

 

[broken arm]

but surely, if the man has the final say, as a legal and a moral position, this implies the subjugation of women? if you don't think that that logically follows, i think we've lost eachother - it seems to me like the only logical conclusion to the point.

again, that's not to mention the implied practicalities - that there would presumably have to be militarised jail-hospitals for these half-unwanted babies to be born in.

if it was about a consensus in terms of what was right for the child would there be a case for legislation preventing the mother from aborting?

say in the case where the mother can be defined as "unfit"?

any social workers here? that know the ins and out of what defines unfit and allows the courts take a child from a mother/family?

 

[coraline]

Ro, I've been reading this thread all weekend and have been reluctant to get invloved, but I have to say I am surprised and shocked and bemused by your standpoint. You cannot force a woman to go through a pregnancy, and then you say you would sue for damages if she aborted without consent ? Its been said already, this is a ridiculous suggestion. Its fundamentally wrong and totally unworkable. Can you accept that in a situation of unplanned pregnancy where the man wants to keep the child and the woman doesnt, there can be no winner ? Life is not "fair" and there are many many many situations where an "equitable" resloution is not possible, and this is one of them.

 

[jane]

Ok, my level of pissed-off-ness has reached an all time high,
Tom just said exactly the same thing I have said 2 or 3 times and you ignored, Ro.
Anyways, he got an answer, I cant work out what it means... Something about what is of import not being who carries the child but who caused the pregnancy?
Is that it?

ACtually, I was going to point this out, too. I went back to the beginning of the thread to see if I had perhaps been hostile in my initial replies, but I don't think I was. I was clearly challenging the ideas, but most of them were accompanied by, "Yes, men should have a say," and "Yes, I understand that you are concerned that people negotiate..." Not hostile at all, in fact.

It's funny how Ro is responding so much more politely to the men on this thread than to many of the women. Clearly, mazzyianne, we are just hysterical and no one should listen to us.

I'm only making an observation. Make of it what you will.

 

[RSJ]

Ro, Jane is not disagreeing with you, she's asking you to think of the practicalities/eventualities of what you're proposing. Your whole argument is entirely half formed because you only talking about the theory of the situation without thinking of the reality - the physical implications of women having kids they don't want. As many people have said, pregnancy is not as simple as taking a week or two off work to dump the thing out, but you seem to think it is. I agree with jane, if you're so hell bent on backing your argument up with "i have sisters who've had kids so how dare you argue with me", go discuss this with them, ask them how they'd feel if they were forced to carry a child to term by a man they'd had a one night stand with.

In theory, yes men should have an equal say, but the cold hard fact is that it's entirely unworkable, and this idea of "legal recourse"... You already backed up your argument by saying "don't argue with me on this, i've thought about it loads" but it really comes across as if you're making all this up on the spot.