Woman denied abortion dies in Galway.

[Macy]

Legislating for X doesn't go far enough. Ignoring the eventual outcome, and whether an earlier termination would've prevented the sepsis, it's completely barbaric that a woman would have to go through days of pain and anguish in circumstances where there is no hope of survival of the foetus. The Government should grasp the nettle now, and go for a constitutional referendum that recognises the health of the mother, as well as her life. That is the only real way to give proper clarity to the medical profession in my opinion.

[dahamsta]

Are even you, the owner of the site not allowed a "u" in this instance?

Self-censorship. I like clusterfeck better now anyway.

[BonnieShels]

I have have a number of "friends" who are of that crazy militant feminist type and have barracked me at every turn when I comment or make a statement on this.

So has a possessor of a penis and obviously the wrong chromosomes I faithfully withdraw all opinions on abortion, women's rights, childbirth, sex and anything else which may result in me getting a public and/or facebook dressing-down.

***bags!

Now, I will go stand in a corner and flagellate myself for being a white heterosexual male in a western democracy. How dare I.

[SkStu]

I have have a number of "friends" who are of that crazy militant feminist type and have barracked me at every turn when I comment or make a statement on this.

So has a possessor of a penis and obviously the wrong chromosomes I faithfully withdraw all opinions on abortion, women's rights, childbirth, sex and anything else which may result in me getting a public and/or facebook dressing-down.

***bags!

Now, I will go stand in a corner and flagellate myself for being a white heterosexual male in a western democracy. How dare I.

How can you expect women to take a guy seriously on sensitive feminine issues when he shouts "funbags!" in the middle of a rant?

[BonnieShels]

How can you expect women to take a guy seriously on sensitive feminine issues when he shouts "funbags!" in the middle of a rant?

It wasn't fun...

[SkStu]

Gee, really?

[BonnieShels]

Yes Stu. Yes.

eh...

The outrage at the votes result last night made me laugh.

Reminded me of this...


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WgrcotUpbww&feature=youtube_gdata_player

[DannyInvincible]

'Government abortion legislation to include threat of suicide': http://www.newstalk.ie/Government-abortion-legislation-to-include-threat-of-suicide


The government is to introduce legislation and regulation to allow for abortion in certain cases when a woman's life is at risk including the threat of suicide.

Legislation in line with the Supreme Court 'X Case' will be drafted over the coming months by Health Minister James Reilly.

After weeks of a heated debate the coalition in the end ignored nervous Fine Gael backbenchers and went with the advice of the Expert Group.

They will now legislate and regulate for the provision of terminations in certain cases when a woman's life is at risk.

But controversially the legislation will be in line with the Supreme Court interpretation in the 'X Case'

This means the threat of suicide will be legislated for as a risk to the life of a woman.

In a government Statement Minister Reilly says they will provide clarity for the medical profession about what is permissible - doctors will still have to take full account of the equal right to life of the unborn child.

What's controversial about the legislation being in line with the Supreme Court's interpretation in the 'X' Case? Wasn't that the only line possible?

[Macy]

Yeah - the fgers must be thick. The only way to legislate for the x case is to include the threat of suicide.

[Dodge]

Newstalk would use the word contersial in practically anything. "RTE's evening news, which controversially starts at 9pm..."

It might've taken 20 years and it seems as it FG are doing this against their will, but regardless, however they got there, its the right thing to do.

[DannyInvincible]

Newstalk would use the word contersial in practically anything. "RTE's evening news, which controversially starts at 9pm..."

Does the earlier news still start at 6:01PM? Now, that's controversial...

[DannyInvincible]

It might've taken 20 years and it seems as it FG are doing this against their will, but regardless, however they got there, its the right thing to do.

Ensuring legislation is up-to-date with constitutional "developments" is certainly prudent, but is legislation rubber stamping the 'X' case actually required in a substantive sense? What exactly will it change with regard to when a termination is and isn't permissible in the state? The test will remain as, "if it [is] established as a matter of probability that there [is] a real and substantial risk to the life of the mother" or will that phrase be dissected by greater clarity?

[Dodge]

Well to be fair, the government have said legislation and regulations to be introduced. Until we see what that entails, its only going to be speculation

[DannyInvincible]

Two things that are perplexing me slightly - or irritating me, even - are the media headlines/announcements (both national and international) and the cries of moral outrage from the pro-life camp that Ireland is set to - shamefully, in the latter's case - sanction abortion all of a sudden. See this (http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2012/1218/breaking44.html?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter), for example, or the statement by the four archbishops (http://www.catholicbishops.ie/2012/12/18/statement-archbishops-ireland-response-decision-today-government-legislate-abortion/):


Such legislation would “introduce an abortion regime into this country in which the life of the baby could be directly and intentionally targeted for destruction,” she said.

Spokeswoman for the religious advocacy group the Iona Institute Maria Steen said it would be “wrong and unnecessary” to allow abortion in cases where there is deemed to be suicidal intent.

“Irish law already allows the ending of a pregnancy when there is no other choice and there is a clear threat to the life of the mother,” she said.

“A decision to include a threat of suicide as a ground for abortion would also be wrong in principle because it would authorise for the first time ever the deliberate and direct destruction of unborn human life in Ireland.”


If what is being proposed were to become law, the careful balance between the equal right to life of a mother and her unborn child in current law and medical practice in Ireland would be fundamentally changed. It would pave the way for the direct and intentional killing of unborn children. This can never be morally justified in any circumstances.

Why the scaremongering and dishonesty? Abortion has been legally permissible since the 'X' Case given the fact that constitutional law takes precedence over every other body of law in the country. I don't understand the big hoo-ha over this, especially as the test is still narrow and restrictive in its prohibition of abortion on demand. The action of the government on this is simply standard legal practice, albeit long overdue.

Also, the risk of the possibility of suicide (as adjudged by a competent medical practitioner and not based solely upon the petition or submission of the pregnant woman, importantly, so as to curb the threat of bad faith) satisfies the 'X' Case test, so it's not as if the legislation is set to go beyond the constraints of the Supreme Court's ruling. It simply won't because it can't.

Mind you, I did admire the audacity of this section of the archbishops' statement:


Moreover, on a decision of such fundamental moral importance every public representative is entitled to complete respect for the freedom of conscience. No one has the right to force or coerce someone to act against their conscience. Respect for this right is the very foundation of a free, civilised and democratic society.

[Dodge]

Why the scaremongering and dishonesty?

I presume thats rhetorical given the people we're talking about?

[DannyInvincible]

I presume thats rhetorical given the people we're talking about?

What's the vested interest, other than polarising and entrenching opinion? For there's no halting the inevitable; it's already been a reality for two decades.

[dahamsta]

C'mon lads, peados and their supporters are people too.

[shantykelly]

Listening to Highland Radio this morning, heard an interesting point raised. One of the guests on the Sean Doherty show said he was completely against abortion, didn;t agree with it at all, but equally he feels it isn't his right to legislate for another individual, especially in such an instance of rape or similar. Kinda similar to my own views.

That said, I think a better sex education class taught in schools, especially with regard to contraception, and emphasis on responsibility for your actions, would be as equally as beneficial. Society doesn't have to go all puritanical and victorian, but a bit of a more adult approach would reduce, I feel, the number of unwanted pregnancies that result in abortion.

[Mr A]

That reflects my views in many ways. I think it's a very difficult issue and people must make up their own minds. Hence I am pro-choice* because I would not dare to tell other people what to do. To some extent because I'm on unsure ground.

* Although probably only up to the point where the baby would survive without the mother. After that I guess I'm pro life. And I fully acknowledge there's a grey area in between. I don't know where exactly the line should be drawn but think there probably should be one. At what stage is it a person involved? I don't know. But I don't think a few cells is a person.

Like I said, it's an immensely difficult subject. I'd love to see an open and wide ranging debate on it. But I know the debate would be taken over by loonies- in a way, I don't blame the political class for not wanting to touch this. On the other hand, it's their job so they need to get their cards on the table- and saying they're unsure (if properly explained) to me at least, would be ok.

Mixed up post I know- I hope it makes some sense to people.

[Charlie Darwin]

Out of interest, people who are strongly discomfited by abortion but wouldn't tell women what to do - do you feel you lack the courage of your convictions?

[Dodge]

Out of interest, people who are strongly discomfited by abortion but wouldn't tell women what to do - do you feel you lack the courage of your convictions?

I don't think thats fair. Even the the most vehement pro-choice supporters acknowledge its never an easy choice to make. In fact I hate the line taken by anti-choice campaigners that some how this will lead to an 'easy way out' for some women. Abortion is never easy, and thats what some are discomfitted by it

Personally, I'm strongly pro-choice. Choice in pretty much all social/family issues. The only people this effects are the individuals involved, and they're the only people who should have any say

As for the guy who swore children to keep quiet about being raped trying to tell families how to deal with pregnancy... that moral highground is long gone

[BonnieShels]

Pretty much with MR A in this one. And I suppose I would term us as the middle ground. It's a debate and discussion I never like having simply because of the polarising views that it generates.

Both extremes of either lobbies are reprehensible.

I'm delighted though that FG and Labour are finally dealing with this.

And Charlie, as Dodge said that isn't a fair statement to make. It's really difficult to come down strongly on either side of this because the pros and cons are so profound on both sides that you could argue with yourself all day and never be happy with your decision.

[Dodge]

Both extremes of either lobbies are reprehensible.



Genuine question here (as I know you've felt I called you out on certain things before unfairly)

What do you find reprehensible about the pro choice lobby?

[BonnieShels]

Genuine question here (as I know you've felt I called you out on certain things before unfairly)

What do you find reprehensible about the pro choice lobby?

I'm talking about the extreme end of the pro-choice lobby, the middle ground reasoned people, ie you I have no issues with, obviously.

You know that end of the lobby that feel that male input into this debate is moot. That putting any timeframe in place is an affront to their human rights, eg. I have had someone jump down my neck for merely suggesting that 24 weeks is a reasonable amount of time for a decision to be made.

I was told to "f*** off, what would I know and how dare I as a white, hetero man get involved in this debate as I have such a privileged position in society".

They wouldn't be happy with anything less than what happens in the USA!

Now, I accept that these people are few and far between but they do exist, and they are reprehensible. It is these that tend to lead debate on these issues (Just like Youth Defence on the other side).

I hope that makes sense.

[Dodge]

It does. I haven't come accross many though

[shantykelly]

Out of interest, people who are strongly discomfited by abortion but wouldn't tell women what to do - do you feel you lack the courage of your convictions?

Which conviction though? I believe that the majority of abortion is wrong, for a variety of reasons. Like everything, there are exceptions. However, I believe as strongly (if not more so) that an individual is responsible for their own choices and actions, and whatever they decide, they have to stand over it; it's not my place to tell someone else what to do with their life, what choices to make and what path to follow.

[DannyInvincible]

I believe that the majority of abortion is wrong, for a variety of reasons.

I'm somewhat puzzled by this. How can you make such a definitive moral judgment when you will not only not be privy to the particular circumstances of those concerned but further admit that the personal affairs of other people are none of your business? What are those reasons?

[Charlie Darwin]

I don't think thats fair. Even the the most vehement pro-choice supporters acknowledge its never an easy choice to make. In fact I hate the line taken by anti-choice campaigners that some how this will lead to an 'easy way out' for some women. Abortion is never easy, and thats what some are discomfitted by it

Personally, I'm strongly pro-choice. Choice in pretty much all social/family issues. The only people this effects are the individuals involved, and they're the only people who should have any say

As for the guy who swore children to keep quiet about being raped trying to tell families how to deal with pregnancy... that moral highground is long gone
I'm being a bit mischievous but I also think it's a serious point - a lot of people say they feel strongly against abortion but then qualify it by saying they can't tell a woman what to do. That always jarred with me, despite the fact I sort of share that position. I wonder if some men have a fear of sounding paternalistic by being strongly anti-choice when that's how they actually feel.


Which conviction though? I believe that the majority of abortion is wrong, for a variety of reasons. Like everything, there are exceptions. However, I believe as strongly (if not more so) that an individual is responsible for their own choices and actions, and whatever they decide, they have to stand over it; it's not my place to tell someone else what to do with their life, what choices to make and what path to follow.
Well if you think abortion is wrong that's a fairly strong opinion. If you think a person is responsible for their own actions, does that mean abortion is the responsible thing to do?

[DannyInvincible]

I'm being a bit mischievous but I also think it's a serious point - a lot of people say they feel strongly against abortion but then qualify it by saying they can't tell a woman what to do. That always jarred with me, despite the fact I sort of share that position. I wonder if some men have a fear of sounding paternalistic by being strongly anti-choice when that's how they actually feel.

Do or would you fear being perceived as paternalistic? Is the instance of an unconnected man (or even a related man, I suppose) moralising on the decision a woman wishes to take with regard to her own body not inherently paternalistic? I'll be honest; the termination of a pregnancy is unfortunate in terms of the loss of the unborn - I think most people would agree on that, which is why it's such a difficult decision for many to make - but I'd fear being perceived as paternalistic if I told a woman she was making the morally wrong decision, irrespective of her motivation.

This forum surprises me, by the way. I read through Politics.ie now and again and, amongst the sense, it's packed with all sorts of narrow-minded, crackpot opinions - naturally, the abortion debate is a big polariser - but the vast majority of posters here on this, a football forum, seem very open, enlightened and level-headed when it comes to discussing social and political issues. We're supposed to be boorish football fans, you absolute shower of fu-... :)

[Dodge]

I'm being a bit mischievous but I also think it's a serious point - a lot of people say they feel strongly against abortion but then qualify it by saying they can't tell a woman what to do. That always jarred with me, despite the fact I sort of share that position. I wonder if some men have a fear of sounding paternalistic by being strongly anti-choice when that's how they actually feel.


Or maybe they're against abortion but pro-choice. I mean they might never want to (for want of a better phrase) 'avail' of an abortion, but they understand that its up to parents to decide for themselves. I don't think many are pro-abortion, as in an ideal world they wouldn't be neccessary

But I feel like most understand now that they are neccesary. Saying its 'not for me to decide' isn't a cop out at all. its just common decency IMO

[BonnieShels]

Bang on the money Dodge.

[Spudulika]

As a father of two I'd always say I was against abortion, but pro-choice. Reading that looks mad, but I don't believe it's my right to tell another person to do this or that with their body when I'm not involved. If it was my wife/partner/ex who was pregnant and wanted to terminate the pregnancy, I'd want to have a solid discussion with them, explore all the options and then if she makes a decision, at least I have been heard.

Abortion just doesn't sit right with me, but would I look down on (for example) my sister for having one, which she hasn't, no. I would support her and lover her the same. What I find is very unsettling with many of the polarised comments is the lack of actual interest in the person, as in any battleground humanity isn't present and it's about winning a general point. I've read through the 5 pages here and am very impressed with the ideas and points of view.

And as a student of archaeology and early Irish church history, it's worthwhile pointing out to the religious types that even saints provided family planning and abortion services (my own Saint Brigid being one).

[OwlsFan]

But it's not her body though. It's a human being inside her body. Who speaks for the unborn child? While in the womb, the child may be killed (or the euphemism "terminated"). When the child is born, it is murder if it is killed. Not something I have ever quite understood. Simplistic approach? Possibly but I would say there are thousands of Irish people in this country who owe their existence to our anti-abortion laws. Childless couples are also crying out for children to adopt.

Spudulka you say you don't have a right if your partner decides to abort/terminate/kill your unborn child and yet when your child is born and let's say you don't want to know, she has the right to get orders against you to pay maintenance etc etc.

My opinion has nothing to do with religion. In fact it is not a religious issue. It's a moral dilemma. Is a child in a womb entitled to the same rights as a child outside a womb even if the mother doesn't want that child? Once the umbilical cord is cut, the child has rights. Until then it has no rights according to some. I just don't see the distinction but the debate will continue and the pro-abortion lobby has certainly used the death of the mother in Galway to bring its case to the forefront again. I am also thinking of the child who died.

Pro-choice? What choice does the child have?

Rape child? I personally know one who is aware of her background and has her own beautiful family. The child is innocent in these circumstances and does not deserve to die because of its father's actions.

[DannyInvincible]

But it's not her body though. It's a human being inside her body. Who speaks for the unborn child? While in the womb, the child may be killed (or the euphemism "terminated"). When the child is born, it is murder if it is killed. Not something I have ever quite understood.

Is the foetus a human being/person in its own right though? It certainly has the potential to become a person, but it exists as a developing body of cells connected via an umbilical cord within the body of an actual person upon whose survival it relies for its own survival. It cannot survive by itself, it does not possess any sense of self-awareness nor does it possess many of the attributes that are considered to be essentially human.


My opinion has nothing to do with religion. In fact it is not a religious issue. It's a moral dilemma. Is a child in a womb entitled to the same rights as a child outside a womb even if the mother doesn't want that child? Once the umbilical cord is cut, the child has rights. Until then it has no rights according to some.

Not quite. In states where abortion is permitted, I'm pretty certain there is generally an agreed cut-off point during the pregnancy after which a termination would be prohibited. In Britain, for example, abortion is only permitted within the first 24 weeks of a pregnancy. Albeit subject to some debate, scientific consensus appears to suggest that pain can only be felt by a foetus after 26 weeks at the earliest.

[Spudulika]

But it's not her body though. It's a human being inside her body. Who speaks for the unborn child? While in the womb, the child may be killed (or the euphemism "terminated"). When the child is born, it is murder if it is killed. Not something I have ever quite understood. Simplistic approach? Possibly but I would say there are thousands of Irish people in this country who owe their existence to our anti-abortion laws. Childless couples are also crying out for children to adopt.

Spudulka you say you don't have a right if your partner decides to abort/terminate/kill your unborn child and yet when your child is born and let's say you don't want to know, she has the right to get orders against you to pay maintenance etc etc.

My opinion has nothing to do with religion. In fact it is not a religious issue. It's a moral dilemma. Is a child in a womb entitled to the same rights as a child outside a womb even if the mother doesn't want that child? Once the umbilical cord is cut, the child has rights. Until then it has no rights according to some. I just don't see the distinction but the debate will continue and the pro-abortion lobby has certainly used the death of the mother in Galway to bring its case to the forefront again. I am also thinking of the child who died.

Pro-choice? What choice does the child have?

Rape child? I personally know one who is aware of her background and has her own beautiful family. The child is innocent in these circumstances and does not deserve to die because of its father's actions.

OF, I know that my using the word "terminate" seems callous and cold, in the same way that "ethnic cleansing" or "regime change" are just part of modern language without considering what they entail - tell a father who had his child die of shrapnel wounds on August 7th just inside the Bosnian border after 2 days walking that they were just part of ethnic cleansing, or a black african family about to be lynched by French/UK/US backed islamic fundamentalists in Libya that they're just collateral damage during regime change, they would have much different views. Terminate (I agree) is just sanitisation of what abortion is, and I just don't know what other way it can be described without insulting one side or another.

You mention adoption, this week the idiots in the russian houses of parliament used adoption as a stick to beat America with - they banned all adoptions to US couples, when the majority of these adoptions are of handicapped or invalided/ill children. Now I know that there have been scandalous instances in the recent past - a child dying from being left in a car by the parents, or a little boy sent back to Russia by plane with a note attached saying he's too difficult to deal with. But when you have a deputy, a woman (not from United Russia) standing up and stating that even if only 1/5 of the children adopted (c. 60,000) are used for organ transplants and sexual pleasure, there are still almost 50,000 being trained to fight Russia. This fool is allowed to makes rules on adoption, and she's not different from our own dail fools who sway with the wind and make it more difficult for loving parents/couples to adopt. So adoption (even by other family members) is immensely difficult to get through, so it's not a truly realistic option unless there is a whole load of red tape slashed away.

You're right about the case where a father walks away and yet has to pay regardless - even if the woman refuses to put him on the birth cert (one of the most stunningly insane things about the gender balance in Ireland), and this is just as insane as my being unable to stop my partner/wife/girlfriend/ex having an abortion if she wants to. I don't have rights, zilch! All I can do is be understanding, supportive and hope for the best.

OF, I don't like how you've slipped in the pro-abortion lobby bit, I heard that overrated hack Ivana Bacik use "anti-choice" against a member of the Iona Institute when the woman was actually making a very good point about the suicide element. As the woman rightly stated, if a woman feels that suicide is the only option rather than giving birth, then it is a more serious situation than just a pregnancy - that she should be supported and assisted and regardless that follow up care should be given. It was a very reasonable thing to say, yet she was attacked for being anti-choice. I don't like the fact that Israel continues to build illegal settlements on foreign land, but I am not anti-Israel, anti-semite and certainly prefer them to what they come up against from the islamic world.

I agree about the situation with the child of rape, this whole thing of - the woman doesn't want to give birth because of what happened, is too convenient and a catch all, I do believe there should be an option, though I personally feel that it would note be utilised by more than use it now (via the UK).

[DannyInvincible]

'Medical notes indicate Savita Halappanavar made a request for a termination': http://www.rte.ie/news/2013/0117/savita-halappanavar-galway.html

So, it transpires her request was recorded after all but that her life was not believed to have been at risk at the time.

[jebus]

I just don't see the distinction but the debate will continue and the pro-abortion lobby has certainly used the death of the mother in Galway to bring its case to the forefront again. I am also thinking of the child who died.

Pro-choice? What choice does the child have?

Rape child? I personally know one who is aware of her background and has her own beautiful family. The child is innocent in these circumstances and does not deserve to die because of its father's actions.

On a few of these points. When you use the term pro-abortion can I ask you to point me to one article from anyone who is genuinely advocating abortion as a thing someone should definitely do? You make it sound like some people see it as a way of life (ho-ho) but I've yet to hear or read about anyone who ever believes it's a good thing.

I'd be of the looney left side that believes I have no right to tell a woman what to do with her life, definitely don't have any right to enforce those opinions to the extent that a rape victim has to carry a child to term and, in effect, make it so that a man can force himself on her, impregnate her and that society will then force her to alter her life, body and health quite dramatically. Even taking into account children born from a rape who grow up happy, I don't even see how that is an issue for anyone outside of Youth Defence to be honest.

We'll see with legislation and how it goes, I imagine abortions will become available in cases of rape, incest, suicide & foetal abnormalities, but I hope suicide doesn't come with the baggage of having to have 5 separate psychiatrists sign off on it on the first rainy Monday of March. A psychiatrist should be involved at that stage anyway, if they deem the person to be suicidal and that person requests a termination it should be enough.

The area that also needs to be looked at is with asylum seekers currently in Ireland. While they wait on a judgement on their status (can take upwards of 4 years I hear) they are unable to leave the country. At the moment if they were raped, and became pregnant, they would have a choice of leaving for the UK for an abortion and being sent back to whatever they have escaped from or carrying the foetus to term.

Full disclosure: I don't think a foetus is a child up until it can live independently of its mother, I do want a referendum on full choice rights (abortion on demand if you want to call it that) in the next few years regardless of whatever floodgates people fear and I do understand that foetal abnormalities could open the door to eugenics. I think the rights of a woman walking around with the capacity for cognitive thought trumps all of that.

[Keen2win]

Why do people not feel the father should have any say?

[jebus]

He has a say but ultimately it's up to the woman as it is still her body.

Look at it this way, if a woman gets pregnant and decides to terminate it but the man wants to keep it what, keeping it legal, can he do beside trying to change her mind? He can talk to her but if she still decides to go ahead with it he can't do anything about it. Reverse that to a woman gets pregnant, wants to keep it but the guy doesn't. Keeping it legal again, what can he do about that situation once she has decided to have the baby?

[Keen2win]

He doesn't really have a say at all so. He wouldn't even have to be told?

And if it is her body and her choice, surely she should be allowed to abort the baby up until the last possible second? Why not?

Well I think there should be some rights for the father, in that if the sex was consensual and he wants to keep the child, that should have some legal sway. Remember, you may believe a foetus is not a child, but many fathers would not agree. Who are you to say they are wrong?

[jebus]

You see that you are advocating that the courts deny a woman the right to travel if she decides to abort but the father doesn't want it? This has already been quashed in the courts and is completely unworkable, you may believe a father should have legal rights over a woman's womb but I don't think the courts will ever back you up on that and that's just being realistic about it.

As for the other two points, yeah I guess a man doesn't have to be told if a woman gets pregnant, that happens every day in this world. She can emigrate to the other side of the planet and never see him again if that's what she wants.

On aborting up to the last second, first off let's acknowledge that late term abortions are rare (1-2% of all abortions) and happen mostly due to foetal abnormalities or where it is deemed the child will have little quality of life, most of these are something the mother didn't want to happen and comes after the 20 week check up. By the UK & Wales figures for 2011 it shows that 79% of abortions take place before 10 weeks with 91% before 12 weeks. The figure goes up to 98% up to 19 weeks.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2011/may/24/abortion-statistics-england-wales

Now for when the choice is taken from a pregnant woman. Well I'll let doctors decide that to be honest. Personally I just view it as whenever the foetus can survive outside of the womb, but that only goes on what I've read. In the medical world that is being debated on still but I haven't seen it being put at lower than 20 weeks yet, and that is in rare cases. But that's again getting hung up 2% of abortions, lots of which are because of foetal abnormalities or danger to the woman's life.

[passinginterest]

Not a debate I'd generally get involved in and one where my views have continued to become more liberal with age, but, I think Jebus has summed it up extremey well and I'd share his views.

[Macy]

The father can have a say, when he's carrying the baby, undergoing the effects of the pregnancy, is exposed to the potential risks of the pregnancy etc.

[dahamsta]

Call me old-fashioned, but I'd be of the view that the father should have some say, and referring it to as "having control over a woman's womb" is unnecessarily emotionalising it -- I'd go so far as to say it's the kind of horsecrap I'd expect from the militant anti-abortion ahabs, and I'd expect better in there.

I'm not for a minute suggesting that a father should have a 50:50 say, but he should have a right to say his piece and not be dismissed out of hand. If it's absolutely mandatory for a father to pay child support, and be emasculated if he doesn't - and rightly so in both cases - then he should damned well have a say in this.

[jebus]

All well and good but what exactly is the point in the man having, say, 49% of the vote? What happens when the woman says 'well I have majority say and I'm saying abortion'?

And are you not asking for some control of the womb by saying the man has his legal rights? Or what exactly are you suggesting the courts do here?

[Macy]

Call me old-fashioned, but I'd be of the view that the father should have some say, and referring it to as "having control over a woman's womb" is unnecessarily emotionalising it -- I'd go so far as to say it's the kind of horsecrap I'd expect from the militant anti-abortion ahabs, and I'd expect better in there.

I'm not for a minute suggesting that a father should have a 50:50 say, but he should have a right to say his piece and not be dismissed out of hand. If it's absolutely mandatory for a father to pay child support, and be emasculated if he doesn't - and rightly so in both cases - then he should damned well have a say in this.
Maybe saying no right to a say is wrong phraseology, but they should have no right to force a woman to carry a child to term. They can attempt to persuade. The case that sparked this thread shows that no pregnancy, even if the woman is healthy, is risk free.

[BonnieShels]

Call me old-fashioned, but I'd be of the view that the father should have some say, and referring it to as "having control over a woman's womb" is unnecessarily emotionalising it -- I'd go so far as to say it's the kind of horsecrap I'd expect from the militant anti-abortion ahabs, and I'd expect better in there.

I'm not for a minute suggesting that a father should have a 50:50 say, but he should have a right to say his piece and not be dismissed out of hand. If it's absolutely mandatory for a father to pay child support, and be emasculated if he doesn't - and rightly so in both cases - then he should damned well have a say in this.

Hello old-fashioned!

http://www.slate.com/content/dam/slate/articles/life/drink/2011/10/111020_DRINK_oldFashioned.jpg.CROP.article250-medium.jpg

Completely agree.

It's that over-emotional language that has swayed me ever and ever back to the right on this issue. As is my wont.

[dahamsta]

I'm a huge fan of the Old Fashioned, ever since Karen Walker introduced me. Quality is very dependant on the barkeep though.

jebus, Macy, please point to the part of my post that sez "voting" or "forcing" should be involved. I phrased it very carefully ("some say", "a say"), so I'm pretty, pretty sure it's not there.

It's not an election, it's a judgement call.

[peadar1987]

To be fair, neither side is innocent on the "over-emotional language" front. From "baby-murderers" to "womb-controllers".

[BonnieShels]

To be fair, neither side is innocent on the "over-emotional language" front. From "baby-murderers" to "womb-controllers".

They aren't. But I was a bit of a leftie in regards this... moving right is moving me towards the centre.