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

[MDR]

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.

Ok, to clarify.

If a women has become pregnant through rape then she should not need the father's consent. In practical terms that means a woman would have to prove she was raped. You can't dismiss my general point based on the fact that making exceptions for rapists creates problems for rape victims in providing adequate proof, although a lower burden of proof could be required than would ordinarily be the case in a rape trial. Bear in mind that that has to be balanced against the alternative is that man could see his child aborted without his consent.

You refer to a woman's womb, which is standard pro-choice terminology when talking about these things. I am pro-choice myself, but i recognise that many men may not be and may not see it as a woman's womb but as their unborn child. In that case you are balancing an unwanted pregnancy on the pro-choice woman's side versus infanticide on the pro-life man's side. Irrespective of your standpoint on abortion, you can't fairly say that the man's point of view in that case should have no standing.

 

[MDR]

Ok, to clarify.

If a women has become pregnant through rape then she should not need the father's consent. In practical terms that means a woman would have to prove she was raped. You can't dismiss my general point based on the fact that making exceptions for rapists creates problems for rape victims in providing adequate proof, although a lower burden of proof could be required than would ordinarily be the case in a rape trial. Bear in mind that that has to be balanced against the alternative is that man could see his child aborted without his consent.

You refer to a woman's womb, which is standard pro-choice terminology when talking about these things. I am pro-choice myself, but i recognise that many men may not be and may not see it as a woman's womb but as their unborn child. In that case you are balancing an unwanted pregnancy on the pro-choice woman's side versus infanticide on the pro-life man's side. Irrespective of your standpoint on abortion, you can't fairly say that the man's point of view in that case should have no standing.

I should further add that the 'choice' in 'pro-choice' should refer to men also. As things stand, men have no choice.

 

[jane]

Ok, to clarify.

If a women has become pregnant through rape then she should not need the father's consent. In practical terms that means a woman would have to prove she was raped. You can't dismiss my general point based on the fact that making exceptions for rapists creates problems for rape victims in providing adequate proof, although a lower burden of proof could be required than would ordinarily be the case in a rape trial.

You refer to a woman's womb, which is standard pro-choice terminology when talking about these things. I am pro-choice myself, but i recognise that many men may not be and may not see it as a woman's womb but as their unborn child. In that case you are balancing an unwanted pregnancy on the pro-choice woman's side versus infanticide on the pro-life man's side. Irrespective of your standpoint on abortion, you can't fairly say that the man's point of view in that case should have no standing.

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.

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?

 

[jane]

I should further add that the 'choice' in 'pro-choice' should refer to men also. As things stand, men have no choice.

That's not true, and that's because you are basing your whole argument on legislation.

For like one second, could you remove the question of legality and think about it in terms of your own relationship? Would you have 'say' there? Yes, you probably would. Because for you, your 'say' would be about whether you two are ready to be parents, not about forcing a woman into motherhood before she is ready. That's choice.

You can't be pro-choice and believe men should have special legal protective powers over a woman's womb. You just can't.

I have a womb. You don't. I get to make decisions about it. You don't. You have a mickey. You get to make decisions about it. I don't.

THE END.

 

[egg_]

Hey Jane
I'm pro-choice, and I like you, but your ranting and your general tone on this thread makes me squirm a little.

 

[jane]

Hey Jane
I'm pro-choice, and I like you, but your ranting and your general tone on this thread makes me squirm a little.

What's wrong with my tone? I'm arguing that no one should legislate for a womb, and that removing the state's powers over reproduction leaves us with a better chance of female and male partners actually negotiating freely and equally.

What is wrong with that?

 

[glen]

Jane types really fast when she's angry.

 

[jane]

Jane types really fast when she's angry.

I'm getting de-repped as a babykiller, too.

DUDES, I UNDERSTAND SOME PEOPLE SEE IT AS AN UNBORN CHILD.

But being pro-choice does not mean I am taking away anyone's right to define what is inside a woman's own womb. I'm saying I should have a right to do what I think is right with my own.

 

[ICUH8N]

I agree with jane.

 

[glen]

Well I hope Kirstie's happy now that's all I can say.

 

[snakybus]

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'?

they do

it's called a vasectomy

 

[MDR]

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.



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?

At no time have I said or intimated that a woman who becomes pregnant through rape, incest, abuse should be forced to carry the child. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you genuinely misunderstood be on that. That said I don't think a man should be excluded from a decision on the abortion of his child just because some pregnancies come about that way. Nor have I suggested that a woman should be made to risk her life to carry a child and in fact i take exception to you using emotive examples that don't address my general point and which in fact clearly misrepresent it.

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.

Can I ask you this:Are you saying that a woman should be allowed to abort a child against the will of the father, even if he wants to raise it and care for it? Tell me how, without legal protection, a man can ensure that the child isn't aborted if the woman disagrees with him? The fact that men don't biologically carry the child in a womb means he has no physical control of the pregnancy and unless he has legal protection he is nowhere. The fact that a woman and not the man has to carry the child is a biological fact of life, but it doesn't mean that the father has less rights. It's not like he can offer to carry the child himself. Your approach gives absolutely no guarantees to men. Without legal protection the man has no say.

And drunken one night stands? What about them? If the father objects to the abortion he must take custody of the child.

 

[jane]

they do

it's called a vasectomy

I know that. But they don't forcibly snip every man over the age of 45.

 

[Dr Winston Umbogo]

I know that. But they don't forcibly snip every man over the age of 45.

they do in sligo.

 

[glen]

Oh it's always rape this, rape that, rape the other.

 

[F. Fred Palakon]

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.

That is some crazy fucked up shit right there.

 

[egg_]

What's wrong with my tone? I'm arguing that no one should legislate for a womb, and that removing the state's powers over reproduction leaves us with a better chance of female and male partners actually negotiating freely and equally.

Nothing wrong with your arguments, necessarily, but the way you've been making them - a "HANDS OFF MY WOMB" rant is very dismissive of people's (and particularly men's) genuine concerns about the rights/wrongs of this sort of thing, and insulting to any man who actually doesn't have any interest in control over your reproductive system.

Also, on the unpasteurised cheese thing - don't you think it's kinda heart-warming that a waiter is looking out for a mother and making sure she doesn't eat anything that might affect the baby? I think it's a little paranoid to see this as an example of society trying to control women

 

[MDR]

That is some crazy fucked up shit right there.

Why so? Jane asked how things would work where a woman wanted to have an abortion in the case of rape and I gave my best explanation. There is no protection for men if a woman has to only claim rape for him to be excluded from the decision. How would you make it work?

 

[glen]

Look out Mumbling Death Row.

 

[krystal]

what a horrific thing to put anyone through - man or woman.

Something like this would lead us right back to a victorian scenario - dirty back street abortionists with no proper medical training or the taking dangerous chemicals to force an abortion. Women have always gotten rid of unwanted babies by safe means or otherwise and this sort of draconian approach is only going to lead to women seeking help elsewhere by whatever means they can. And you can bet your ass they'd be very unsafe means indeed.

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.

No. No no no - because the woman still then has to go through the emotional trauma and the life changing event which is pregnancy and giving birth. Even if she doesn't want custody that child will want to know her at some point, even if that's against her will. This is just an unworkable situation for the woman and an unfair one for the child. All your arguements are only based on the rights you think men should have but you don't seem to see for one second what a HUGE thing having a child is to a woman. And therefore she may choose to not put herself through that for whatever reason.

And drunken one night stands? What about them? If the father objects to the abortion he must take custody of the child.