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

[jane]

There you go fellas! Problem solved!


Pathetic.

How exactly is that pathetic? I was being serious. If men are that interested in fatherhood, adoption and surrogacy are options they can use. But you can't force a woman to be your incubator. As has been pointed out by many people, pregnancy is not just some sort of benign bump you grow. There's a hell of a lot more than that, not to mention the psychological trauma of being used as someone else's property for nine months.

Oh, and what would happen if the woman gave birth to the baby, and then decided that she did want to keep it after all?

ETA: By the way, I think it will be really interesting when the lads refuse to answer my questions. Especially after calling a genuinely serious point that I made 'pathetic'. If you have seriously thought these opinions through, then you will have answers to my questions. If you haven't, then they are just opinions based on opinions, and not on reality. If you come on just to shoot down a point, then perhaps you might try actually presenting a considered counterpoint?

 

[oh shit]

i find it absurd that anyone would suggest a paternal veto over an abortion.

firstly, there is no easy, risk-free way to ascertain paternity during pregnancy. therefore the only time such a veto could be enacted is when the male is present enough in the woman's life to know she is pregnant and that no one else is involved. this would suggest a close enough relationship to be able to talk it out. abortions are most needed where this is not the case, especially for young girls.

but setting that aside, the actual scenario in which a woman wants an abortion and the man takes legal action to prevent her - that really baffles me. i can understand on paper the pro-lifer argument but i really cannot understand how it would be 'equal' for a man to simply say a word and the woman to go through a pregnancy.
these things are not equivalent. no human should ever EVER be forced to do that. there is no comparison. nurturing and delivering a human baby is the most incredible thing a person's body can do but the right to decide on doing it must rest with that person.

ordering a woman to carry your accidental child so you can take it off and raise it - that's barbaric.

but anyway, on this island we don't need to empower individual men (who can't figure out contraception) to go around ordering people into pregnancy, because we have the government doing it for us.
the same government that refuses to properly educate people about their bodies. the same government that, while denying the right to choose abortion with the one hand, takes away any meaningful support for thousands of single mothers (a direct result of their religiously grounded refusal) with the other. and as jane said, a bunch of immigration laws just to really fuck it up.

you can get an abortion though. it usually costs a return flight to england for you (and if you're lucky, a friend). a place to stay for a night or two, plus food. and, because you aren't a local patient, a private-rate for the operation, which will vary depending on how advanced your pregnancy is.
i wonder what michel mcdowell would do if he had a 15 year old daughter pregnant?
off to the convent when the stitches heal, while her boyfriend manfully takes charge?

i would also wonder how many people here are speaking from experience as opposed to the tops of their heads. i guess everyone's is different.

 

[Wilbert]

How exactly is that pathetic? I was being serious. If men are that interested in fatherhood, adoption and surrogacy are options they can use. But you can't force a woman to be your incubator.

Ultimately, Jane, we're just going to have to disagree. I said earlier that I would never vote to allow men to legally force a woman to continue a pregnancy she didn't want but your comment above would be a ridiculously glib thing to say to any man whose baby you were aborting whether he liked it or not. I'm sure you would phrase it more sensitively than you have above though.

I think the biggest thing that the guys on this thread are saying is that they don't want to have 'a say' in these matters, they want RIGHTS!

At the moment, there is an imbalance of power in these situations.

I don't think there is a solution to it though. You can't force a woman to do something she doesn't want to do, that's barbaric, but you are coming across as saying "it's my womb, it's my choice, and that supercedes anyone elses wishes." It just doesn't seem....... fair.

Also, if a man were to suggest to you that you should have an abortion you didn't want to have because he didn't want to be a father, I'm sure you'd tell him that it was your womb and your choice and you were having it.

So, men have NO say whatsoever in this matter.

Does that seem fair?

Also, when you say 'men should have a say', what does that actually mean?
Does it mean you'll listen to the man and then do whatever you want anyway?
If so, that is not 'having a say'.

 

[oh shit]

in the context of a relationship or friendship in which you can sit down and decide if the man is really going to be a father and support the child, then that might sway a decision away from abortion. that's having a say.

if there was a legal right (which i don't see how you can have without ending up forcing a woman not to abort) then a man could simple say he's going to be the father, legally prevent an abortion and then..?
i don't think anyone should be legally contracted into parenthood before the pregnancy is carried through. cos you're gonna have to force a man who prevents abortion to actually do what he says he will.

in an ideal world, all parents would consent positively to bringing a child into the world, and all children would be wanted. but they aren't and a legal right to prevent abortion would further that.

but ultimately i think it's down to whether or not someone else - male or female - should have a moral right over another person's body.

 

[Buzzo]

I think this has been interesting, and people have articulated their views really clearly. What I'm particularly concerned with though, is Jane's unanswered questions about the practical implications of a law that gives a man the veto over a woman's body/foetus' life, and how the law would deal with detractors..... If you are arguing for such a thing to be enshrined in law, and I know people here aren't well rehearsed in framing legislation, just offer some ideas.

I think the idea of a woman having to prove she is raped is a terrifying start so maybe something different.

 

[1000smurfs]

apparently it's theoretically possible for a man to be pregnant, you don't need
a womb, it's bit like an ectopic pregnancy.

perhaps in a few years this will be practically possible, and the lads who really want a child can go the diy route.

 

[La La]

apparently it's theoretically possible for a man to be pregnant, you don't need
a womb, it's bit like an ectopic pregnancy.

perhaps in a few years this will be practically possible, and the lads who really want a child can go the diy route.

aye, it's only theory...

wouldn't be safe for the baby though, the womb protects it, and it protects the mother.

this would be a good place to insert a pregnant arnie picture.

hypothetically speaking, would any of you men here be willing to carry a baby if it was physically possible?

 

[jane]

Ultimately, Jane, we're just going to have to disagree. I said earlier that I would never vote to allow men to legally force a woman to continue a pregnancy she didn't want but your comment above would be a ridiculously glib thing to say to any man whose baby you were aborting whether he liked it or not. I'm sure you would phrase it more sensitively than you have above though.

I think the biggest thing that the guys on this thread are saying is that they don't want to have 'a say' in these matters, they want RIGHTS!

At the moment, there is an imbalance of power in these situations.

I don't think there is a solution to it though. You can't force a woman to do something she doesn't want to do, that's barbaric, but you are coming across as saying "it's my womb, it's my choice, and that supercedes anyone elses wishes." It just doesn't seem....... fair.

Also, if a man were to suggest to you that you should have an abortion you didn't want to have because he didn't want to be a father, I'm sure you'd tell him that it was your womb and your choice and you were having it.

So, men have NO say whatsoever in this matter.

Does that seem fair?


If so, that is not 'having a say'.

First of all, I think it will come as no surprise that no man I would sleep with would be unaware of my position regarding my own reproductive rights. If I got pregnant, and the dude was like, "Let's have it. I'll do 50% of the work," I might consider doing it. But if he was just all, "You have to have it because abortion is wrong" or did it as a way of exercising his legal veto power over my body, then no, he could get fucked. And actually, if his intentions were for his own interests and did not take into account mine or the fetus's (because I wouldn't bring a child into this world until I could afford to pay for it), then no, I probably wouldn't put it very tactfully. After all, an attempt to tell me what to do with my body? Not very tactful.

Also, when you say 'men should have a say', what does that actually mean?
Does it mean you'll listen to the man and then do whatever you want anyway?

If by this you mean 'disobey orders', then yes. I would not make the decision by myself, but there would have to be a mutual agreement about parenthood. As I also pointed out, there is the added fact that as a foreigner, I cannot have a child here -- thanks to your immigration laws -- without getting married, and I'm not going to be forced into BOTH marriage and motherhood against my will. No one can make me, and I will shout my head off and argue until I'm blue in the face until NO WOMAN is ever, ever forced into either. MArriage and motherhood seem like they could be pretty awesome things, but not if you don't have a choice in the matter, or if your choice can be overridden by some dude.

Oh, and also? I'm actually -- not that it's your business -- considering adopting anyway. I love children so much that I hate to think that there are children in orphanages, when I could love them just as much as one with my genetic material. But I would only adopt if my partner and I sat down and talked it through and agreed that this was the best thing for us, not "me, with his permission," but "us". But you don't care about that, just about having a legal right to my womb.

It's very troubling that on a board where most people appear to identify with left-wing politics, and are so frequently interested in examining the underlying causes of things, many people would be so vehemently anti-choice, and so unwilling to look at the reasons for gender inequalities -- how could people who claim to be so thinking be so selectively simplistic?

You are nothing like pro-choice if you believe that, and with friends like that, we don't need Youth Defence! We don't want people who pay lip service to free choice, we want people who are willing to accept that no one has a right to veto a woman's choice by LAW. Not the state, and not an individual man. A man is welcome to be a dick and bully his lady into motherhood, but it's not protected under the law.

Most people on here have some interest in social justice, but whenever women's issues of any kind are raised, all of a sudden, it's just "No, you're equal because we say so, and anything else is just getting ideas above your station," and you don't want to listen, which indicates that you think women can only benefit from social justice if it is given to us by men. You won't see the sense of this, and what I've just said will probably make you very angry, and it should. No one would bat an eyelid if someone became impassioned about anti-war politics. But women's rights? Oh, no. We must discuss those with detached reserve or admit we've lost.

Rather than giving rights to men, what you propose simply amounts to keeping them away from women. Because as it stands in Ireland, we have the right to go to England. We don't actually, under Irish law, have rights to our own bodies. Rather than give them to us, you would prefer to hand them to men for safekeeping.

It's understandable. I mean, many of the people on here have frequently railed against what they think feminists are trying to do, that giving rights to me takes them away from you, which is absurd. Rights are not a zero-sum equation. If you object to your right over my body being taken away from you, then fine, but you had no right to it in the first place. In fact, that you think it's okay to talk about my uterus -- it's in my body, dude, and it belongs to me, just like your cock belongs to you -- even hypothetically, makes me queasy.

The law you propose -- which you say responds to an 'imbalance of power' -- is tantamount to a legal counterweight against a womb-owner's 'biological advantage'. In other words, legislating for women's bodies. Not for babies. Not for aspiring fathers. But to control women's bodies to prevent us from using them against you. I can tell you that my belly sometimes flops over the top of my pants. And sometimes it does feel like there's a gun battle going on in there. But under no circumstances is my uterus attempting to carry out some bloody conquest that must be stopped by a law which favours male judgement over female autonomy. My uterus is a real pain sometimes, but I assure you that it is not in any way tyrannical, nor could it do anything more than cause bleeding every five weeks (I have a long cycle, which I'm sure you love to know, seeing as you're so interested in my reproductive organs).

I'm sorry you think it's not fair that I have a womb and you don't. You're jealous of my womb. You've admitted it. Admitting you have a problem is the first step. It's not fair, I know. You want my cramps, too? You want to realise, while you're out on a Saturday night, that actually, you've just started to percolate, and you're burning up, and because you know that within the hour, you'll be prostrate on the couch and unable to speak with the pain, you have to go home immediately, even though you spent twenty minutes on your makeup? Dude, get jealous of something else. I do have lovely legs. Why don't you envy those instead?

Yes, in legal terms, just as you have to defer to a woman before you pump her full of man glue, regardless of how much negotiating, pleading, and begging, and crying like a big baby you do, you also must understand that until -- as many here have pointed out -- babies can be grown in jars, it is just the way it is going to have to be. The same logic used to prop up this unworkable law -- which you continue to refuse to explain -- would be possible (and once men have legal power over women's wombs, what's stopping them?) to use to say that men who wanted to have sex with a woman could be all, "Too bad. It's my legal right. Now hold still or I'll blacken your other eye." As it stands now, in fact, they pretty much can because with the legal system the way it is, they have a 95% chance of getting away with it.

But you know what? The reason that people don't go around raping every woman they see is not that they might get caught (for some, maybe), but because negotiation and communication are most effective on a personal level, between two people, and not legislation. By your logic, you might also want a law that allowed a man to bring a woman to court because she refused to let him put his mickey in her. After all, you are arguing for men to have a legal right over a woman's body.

Anyway, I guess my point is that you're being really simplistic, and you refuse to explain your own points while demanding that I jump through hoops to defend mine. Why is that? Why can't you actually provide clear and relevant explanations for your arguments?

I find it so disappointing that in Ireland, so many people who claim to be on the left will ache and moan to find underlying causes and discuss the political theory of injustice and inequality, but as soon as women's issues come into the arena, all of a sudden, people would deny that water is wet if it meant acknowledging that women's rights are part of social justice, not just a separate issue. I also find it funny that these are some of the same people who 'opposed' Ladyfest, called it sexist, which is no surprise. It follows that anyone who believes women creating spaces in which we can discuss issues of importance to us, or simply say, "Hey, it's cool to be a chick," would also be hostile when we try to bring those women's issues out of that space and into the world. So we can't talk about this stuff in the open without being accused of emasculating every last man on earth, and we can't talk about it privately without being accused of being sexist. Where can we talk about it without being forced to submit to your terms? Eh?

Also, answer Wormo's question, please.

PS: No, I won't calm down. Too bad! This is too insanely enraging. I won't calm down until you people see sense, or at least admit that you're anti-choice.

 

[jane]

Ultimately, Jane, we're just going to have to disagree. I said earlier that I would never vote to allow men to legally force a woman to continue a pregnancy she didn't want but your comment above would be a ridiculously glib thing to say to any man whose baby you were aborting whether he liked it or not. I'm sure you would phrase it more sensitively than you have above though.

Could you also explain -- I mean, really explain -- how this law you propose does not contradict the fact that you say you wouldn't vote to allow men to legally force a woman to continue a pregnancy she didn't want? Because there is absolutely no way around the fact that giving a man veto power over all reproductive decision is tantamount to that, and if it's not, then maybe I'm just a dumb girl who doesn't get stuff because I spend too much energy hating men and slaughtering babies to think hard.

I'm glib because what you propose is so outrageous that it doesn't even merit being treated with respect or reserve. Ten quid and a bucket of embryos says you can't explain it because it's insane.

 

[SONYMEGADRIVE]

did someone legalise abortion in this country or something?

 

[jane]

Yeah, they were handing them out on Grafton St yesterday.

 

[1000smurfs]

aye, it's only theory...

wouldn't be safe for the baby though, the womb protects it, and it protects the mother.

this would be a good place to insert a pregnant arnie picture.

hypothetically speaking, would any of you men here be willing to carry a baby if it was physically possible?

good question, my honest answer is no. I'm too posh.

Would people feel weird about having their baby grown in an artificial womb, in a tank?

would it be more or less difficult to abort it morally/legally ?

I wonder how prolifers would feel about that sort of thing.

 

[Wilbert]

Could you also explain -- I mean, really explain -- how this law you propose does not contradict the fact that you say you wouldn't vote to allow men to legally force a woman to continue a pregnancy she didn't want? Because there is absolutely no way around the fact that giving a man veto power over all reproductive decision is tantamount to that, and if it's not, then maybe I'm just a dumb girl who doesn't get stuff because I spend too much energy hating men and slaughtering babies to think hard.

I'm glib because what you propose is so outrageous that it doesn't even merit being treated with respect or reserve. Ten quid and a bucket of embryos says you can't explain it because it's insane.

Jane, I'm not proposing any law. Sorry if I gave you that impression. If you look back on my posts you'll see that I said I would never vote for anything that would force a woman to do anything against her will.

I also said men should have rights in this situation, more than just a say in it, but I can also see that that idea can only lead any man full circle and all you can do is trust women to do whats right for them and hopefully their decisions will be respected and understood.

Also, I am not jealous of your womb. Not in the slightest! Wouldn't swap mens dangly bits for the complicated plumbing of women for anything!

I think you have argued your point really well (and maybe I haven't) and I agree with nearly everything you've said but you have to understand the terribly powerless feeling that any man who wanted a child that was being aborted would feel, as would any woman in a similar situation.

I also appreciate that most women could not put themselves through a pregnancy they did not want for the sake of someone elses feelings.

So, here we are back at square one. It's a very emotive subject and if I said anything that you thought was 'terrifying' I apologise.

I don't have views that you would find terrifying if you knew me. Stupid internet personas always make you sound angry when you are not, don't they?

 

[oh shit]

wilbert, it's the following two parts that are unclear...

I would never vote for anything that would force a woman to do anything against her will.

[...]

I also said men should have rights in this situation, more than just a say in it,

what do you mean by 'rights' and 'more than a say' if not legal measures? how would this work unless it meant a legal order preventing a woman having an abortion?

this is all academic anyway. in practical terms, a dangerous and painful amniocentesis would be required to verify the man's claim, the court costs would be ridiculous, and more than that, most people who are responsible enough to want to take on fatherhood would (hopefully) be responsible enough to respect his partner's wishes....

 

[Wilbert]

wilbert, it's the following two parts that are unclear...



what do you mean by 'rights' and 'more than a say' if not legal measures? how would this work unless it meant a legal order preventing a woman having an abortion?

The honest answer is that I don't know, but definitely not a legal measure that deprives a woman of control of her body. i guess it's one of those things that you feel is necessary but is just unworkable in real life.

There's no solution that will suit everybody.

 

[mazzyianne]

I cant believe I just read all this... easy knowing i'm in the middle of exams.
Anyway, i think wilbert has just reached the conclusion that I hope Ro would too. You want men to have a say. You feel men should have 'rights'.
But, and it's a big But.
They should NOT have the final say over whether or not women have to go through 9 months of being preggers and then labour.
Some of Ro's posts I find really scary, it's as if popping out a sprog is totally easy, then you just hand it over and off you go. i think bearing a child you dont want and giving it away it tantamont to torture. I would never ever put anyone through that. I'm shocked anyone could suggest it as a realistic option.
You are saying you want to give the choice to men, but that takes it away from women. And it's our bodies that carry the baby. Therein lies the difference.

Anyways, I :heart: Jane and Kirstie.
Well argued.

 

[Dr Winston Umbogo]

girl power and all that shite.

 

[taubstumm]

I think this has been interesting, and people have articulated their views really clearly. What I'm particularly concerned with though, is Jane's unanswered questions about the practical implications of a law that gives a man the veto over a woman's body/foetus' life, and how the law would deal with detractors..... If you are arguing for such a thing to be enshrined in law, and I know people here aren't well rehearsed in framing legislation, just offer some ideas.

I think the idea of a woman having to prove she is raped is a terrifying start so maybe something different.

yup... i can't see how what's under discussion could possibly be legislated for. i find what's being proposed to be really regressive.

if a father's right to force a mother to undergo pregnancy was to be enshrined in law, would the government have to pay for the militarised jail-hospitals that these pregnancies would presumably have to take place in?

 

[ICUH8N]

would the government have to pay for the militarised jail-hospitals that these pregnancies would presumably have to take place in?

I smell a movie script. It calls for Christopher Lambert/Jean-Claude van Damme and...perhaps Joe Pesci as the foil for their one-liners.

 

[oh shit]

would we need some women as extras in there? maybe just get some wigs.