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

[jane]

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.

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.

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.

I do'nt even have the energy to go into the problems with this. It's just so appalling that I can't do it without freaking out on you completely, which I don't want to do because I know you don't mean any harm by it.

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?

Because the very fact that you think legal protection is necessary is tantamount to arguing for state control over women's bodies. At no point have I argued that men should be left out of decisions. I am saying that the only way those decisions can be made through negotiation is if they are not made in a court.

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.

If a man needs the law to step in to make his sex partner do what he wants, maybe he needs to take a good hard look at his own interpersonal skills.

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

But the woman is still being forced to carry the child in her womb. I'm sorry, but while I understand why you are arguing for this, the outcome would not be that there would be equal say at all, but that men would have the final say. And the final say should actually go to the person whose body it is. I have more say over my womb than a stranger on the street. And if I don't have more say over it, then we don't live in anything like an equal society.

 

[Dr Winston Umbogo]

I have some deep heat here, if anyone should require it for their wrists.

 

[snakybus]

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

yeah...not yet!

 

[Juno]

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.

Er, this is operating on the assumption that rapists are honest, responsible fellas who'll put their hands up and say "yeah I raped her alright but it's grand, I'll look after the kid". Rape is about power and giving a rapist rights over whether or not a woman should continue a pregnancy resulting from the attack is giving him even more power over his victim. It's often very difficult to prove rape, especially when a certain amount of time has elapsed. The number of successful prosecutions is testament to that.Also as far as I know women who have been raped are given the morning after pill on presenting to sexual assault treatment units. Should the rapists permission be needed for this too? And is giving a child over to a rapist really the best solution? I would be hugely opposed to any legislation giving men the right to veto a woman's decision to have an abortion. It's far too complicated a situation and way too personal for the government or the courts to be sticking their beaks in. The legal system has completely failed rape victims so I would have very little faith in their treatment of women in relation to abortion. Anyway, if legislation along these lines was brought in then the chances are women just wouldn't tell the fathers.

 

[MDR]

Jane, I have tried to address your points, but still feel that you're not addressing mine. Your argument still means that men would have no say in whether their child (not all men will view it as the scoopings of a woman's womb) is aborted. It's not about 'giving' men power over a woman's womb it's about enshrining their parental rights.

If a woman becomes pregnant, even accidentally, through consensual sex and does not want to carry the baby, what I'm saying is that she shouldn't have an automatic right to abort without the father's consent,

I don't understanbd your argument about employment rights when a man objecting to an abortion would have to take responsibility for the child when it's born. It seems that you're trying to think of as many exceptions as you can without addressing my central argument.

Don't get me wrong jane, i respect your intelligence and I understand your argument, I just don't agree with it. I realise that i hold a minority view and I'm not bothered who agrees with it.

 

[MDR]

Er, this is operating on the assumption that rapists are honest, responsible fellas who'll put their hands up and say "yeah I raped her alright but it's grand, I'll look after the kid". Rape is about power and giving a rapist rights over whether or not a woman should continue a pregnancy resulting from the attack is giving him even more power over his victim. It's often very difficult to prove rape, especially when a certain amount of time has elapsed. The number of successful prosecutions is testament to that.Also as far as I know women who have been raped are given the morning after pill on presenting to sexual assault treatment units. Should the rapists permission be needed for this too? And is giving a child over to a rapist really the best solution? I would be hugely opposed to any legislation giving men the right to veto a woman's decision to have an abortion. It's far too complicated a situation and way too personal for the government or the courts to be sticking their beaks in. The legal system has completely failed rape victims so I would have very little faith in their treatment of women in relation to abortion. Anyway, if legislation along these lines was brought in then the chances are women just wouldn't tell the fathers.

I think I have been crystal clear that I don't think a rapist's consent is needed - rapists should have no parental rights whatsoever. But you can't have men excluded from the decision simply by a women saying she has been raped even if that is not true, which is the alternative.

 

[jane]

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

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.

 

[F. Fred Palakon]

If a woman becomes pregnant, even accidentally, through consensual sex and does not want to carry the baby, what I'm saying is that she shouldn't have an automatic right to abort without the father's consent,

Should she have the automatic right to carry the child without the father's consent?

 

[jane]

Jane, I have tried to address your points, but still feel that you're not addressing mine. Your argument still means that men would have no say in whether their child (not all men will view it as the scoopings of a woman's womb) is aborted. It's not about 'giving' men power over a woman's womb it's about enshrining their parental rights.

If a woman becomes pregnant, even accidentally, through consensual sex and does not want to carry the baby, what I'm saying is that she shouldn't have an automatic right to abort without the father's consent,

I don't understanbd your argument about employment rights when a man objecting to an abortion would have to take responsibility for the child when it's born. It seems that you're trying to think of as many exceptions as you can without addressing my central argument.

Don't get me wrong jane, i respect your intelligence and I understand your argument, I just don't agree with it. I realise that i hold a minority view and I'm not bothered who agrees with it.

I'm trying to address your argument, but your argument basically gives, as Juno pointed out, veto power to a man over my body. If he could actually carry the child, then fine, we'd have a different situation. But this is one of those very rare situations in which we must take into account biological realities. That biological reality is that the womb is in my body. That biological reality is that pregnancy is not just a benign condition. Personally, if a man wanted to pay for a baby and I had to carry it, but the fact that I may be able to get pregnant, but it could actually KILL ME -- and he didn't think that was important? Then yes, I should be able to override his decision, and I shouldn't need to go to court to help me do it. If he can't see reason, then I should have the right to walk away without having to get into a legal battle over whether there is a risk to my life.

At no point have I argued that men should not have a say. I have instead argued that none of these decisions should be made in a courtroom. That's the only way that debate can take place. If a man needs the backing of the state in order to win an argument with a woman, then what are you really saying about your own opinions about men?

 

[snakybus]

Pro-choice encompasses the anti-abortion stance because it is about not making choices for others,

I think the whole argument with that, Jane, is the issue of rights of the unborn and how far they extend, in which case "making choices for others" is not as clear cut as you suggest -- namely that the unborn has no choice whatsoever -- the other complexities of this debate notwithstanding.

 

[krystal]

Should she have the automatic right to carry the child without the father's consent?

Yup. What happens in this idyllic future time when women have to report their biological functions to The Man?

So, in this scenario if he wants it she has to have it, unless she fights an expensive court battle or something along those lines. But if he doesn't want it does she get whipped off to Herr Baby Killer and have it removed, STAT?

It all seems to just go against anything the woman might want. Which, correct me if I'm wrong, doesn't seem to be a bit fair at all at all.

 

[F. Fred Palakon]

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?

I think it is crazy because of the attitudes to women contained in it (i.e. if a woman was raped, we should automatically treat her statements/experience with suspicion until proven true).

I think it is fucked up because the legal system as is is completely inadequate in dealing with rapes/rapists so decision-making process based on it is clearly untenable.

I wouldn't make it work. I would legislate for women to be able to have first trimester abortions whenever they wanted.

 

[jane]

I think the whole argument with that, Jane, is the issue of rights of the unborn and how far they extend, in which case "making choices for others" is not as clear cut as you suggest -- namely that the unborn has no choice whatsoever -- the other complexities of this debate notwithstanding.

Well, I understand this, but the fact is, these things are so specific. For example, I have a whole brood of unborn children, I do. They are my hypothetical offspring, who are someday going to be born (or adopted) and loved to pieces and then grow into teenagers and hate my guts for a while until they need money.

HOWEVER, that does not mean that any zygote that crawls into my uterus is one of those unborn children. I can't have a kid right now. It's a horribly sad thing because I really, really want to have babies. But right now, it's not a good time. I can't even think about babies until I can look after myself properly. For me -- and this is my personal understanding of it, and I am not imposing it on anyone else -- I cannot put my hypothetical brood of unborn children through what my life is like at the moment. It would be wrong. My decision to bring a child into the world, or not to, is actually about what's best for the child or children whom I very, very badly want. And if I can't make decisions for my own children, then what can I make decisions about, without having to ask the courts?

For someone to tell me I have to have one now is to harm my own very strong beliefs about family and motherhood, both of which are extremely important to me. The fact is, they're too important to me to leave up to chance.

That's just my own personal view, and the essence of my very pro-child stance on pro-choice. Each woman has her own. EAch man has his own. But the fact is, a man with his own hypothetical brood of unborn babies has no right to decide that the zygote in a woman's womb legally belongs to that brood.

 

[egg_]

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 just women, Jane, it's everyone. Like I said already, a barman is unlikely to serve you if you're falling down drunk. Heroin is illegal. Most people do think they have a right to some say how other people in their society live their lives - sometimes that's positive, sometimes it's negative, but it's absolutely not about women.

As for the 'hands off my womb', that is exactly what the debate is about. It's about women's bodies.

To say that is to imply that anyone who is pro-life wants some sort of sinister control over your body. Most people who are not pro-choice genuinely care about the life of the foetus, and don't give a flying fuck about your womb - if they could teleport the foetus out and raise it in a fishtank they'd be more than happy.

 

[krystal]

look. Unborn babies live in wombs and wombs are inside women, so of course it feels like a part of your body is being taken out of your jurisdiction. Or that other people have plans and ideas which will directly affect what you can and can't do with that womb which is located inside your body.

It's hard not to feel personal about that Egg.

To say that is to imply that anyone who is pro-life wants some sort of sinister control over your body. Most people who are not pro-choice genuinely care about the life of the foetus, and don't give a flying fuck about your womb - if they could teleport the foetus out and raise it in a fishtank they'd be more than happy.

 

[MDR]

Should she have the automatic right to carry the child without the father's consent?

Yes. I said that the consent of both parents should be required for an abortion.

 

[MDR]

I think it is crazy because of the attitudes to women contained in it (i.e. if a woman was raped, we should automatically treat her statements/experience with suspicion until proven true).

I think it is fucked up because the legal system as is is completely inadequate in dealing with rapes/rapists so decision-making process based on it is clearly untenable.

I wouldn't make it work. I would legislate for women to be able to have first trimester abortions whenever they wanted.

The import of your opening paragraph is that no evidence should be required for a rape claim.

Ok, for the sake of argument, let's say that a women could have an abortion without the father's consent where she simply had to tick a box saying that the pregnancy was the result on non-consensual sex - no prooof needed - would you agree that in cases of pregnancy from consensual sex that the father's consent (let's assume the father is known) would be required for an abortion to take place? I want to get a handle on your point of view towards the core point.

 

[minka]

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?

yes. abso-fucking-lutely. yes. unless he is willing to, i dunno, have the zygote implanted in himself and figure out how to gestate it for nine months, with all the demands on his body that that entails.

i can't believe that i'm even having to explain this to somebody.

 

[jane]

To say that is to imply that anyone who is pro-life wants some sort of sinister control over your body. Most people who are not pro-choice genuinely care about the life of the foetus, and don't give a flying fuck about your womb - if they could teleport the foetus out and raise it in a fishtank they'd be more than happy.

First of all, heroin is not the same as unpasteurised cheese. They are not the same thing. Heroin is not just about someone's body. Heroin was made illegal for all sorts of reasons, one of which is that it couldn't be easily regulated in the way alcohol could. Alcohol is legal, and it still kills people. Same with smoking. Same with driving cars. AND just because protecting potential addicts from themselves isn't necessarily about women's bodies, that doesn't mean that the abortion debate isn't about women's bodies.

The theoretical basis of the pro-life argument is that pro-choice is anti-life, and the whole thing, while they frame it around unborn babies, is essentially based around women's bodies because they are -- and we both know this -- often the same people that run around denigrating single mothers for being single mothers. And even if they weren't, because I'm sure there are pro-lifers that would happily stick up for single motherhood if it meant bolstering their argument, unless these pro-life people are willing to and DO everything in their power to help the born, then their argument holds little water.

If someone is against abortion, fair enough -- their choice. But they can't be against abortion for me because that's not their choice.

And they do care about wombs if they need it to be a legal issue. Underneath all the 'sanctity' of life is an underlying attitude, one which bolsters all of Western Christian philosophy, that women are all whores unless they are adequately civilised by men, and that we are liars until validated by a man (or a collective paternalistic unit like a courtroom), and that we will kill our own children if given half a chance. The pro-life stance that believes abortion is wrong but does not require legal action to be taken against anyone who doesn't agree (even if they get really sad about abortion) is not about women's bodies, no. But the one that says abortion should be banned, and if you look at the language of the last referendum, or the comments of Michael McDowell about how abortion can't be allowed in the case of rape because 'it will result in an increase in false accusations of rape if that were the means of access to abortion', are based around the concept that women are unruly liars and whores. It hasn't gone away just because people stopped saying it outright.

The fact that this debate is about women's bodies doesn't mean that I'm arguing that heroin or alcoholism is about women's bodies. Yes, sure, the state does patrol all of our bodies, and how well does it work? Does refusal to serve a drunk cut down on alcoholism? No. Because alcoholism isn't about access to booze. Legislating for the morality of the body doesn't work. It never has, and it never will. It's a sticky issue and it's not a single issue at all, but these are -- as you point out -- not just related to women's bodies. It just so happens that women's bodies are the ones we're talking abotu right now.

 

[MDR]

I'm trying to address your argument, but your argument basically gives, as Juno pointed out, veto power to a man over my body. If he could actually carry the child, then fine, we'd have a different situation. But this is one of those very rare situations in which we must take into account biological realities. That biological reality is that the womb is in my body. That biological reality is that pregnancy is not just a benign condition. Personally, if a man wanted to pay for a baby and I had to carry it, but the fact that I may be able to get pregnant, but it could actually KILL ME -- and he didn't think that was important? Then yes, I should be able to override his decision, and I shouldn't need to go to court to help me do it. If he can't see reason, then I should have the right to walk away without having to get into a legal battle over whether there is a risk to my life.

I think that if you read my earlier posts you will see that we agree on this point. I have not suggested that a woman should be required to jeopardise her life to carry the child.