Printable View
So in essence what you're saying is, to quote myself; "He has a say but ultimately it's up to the woman as it is still her body"? Which, if so, is basically what everyone pro-choice I know thinks.Quote:
Originally Posted by dahamsta
Anyone advocating anything else is, I presume, asking for the courts to intervene and wants a level of control on that woman's choice, so I stand by my comment on womb control.
I think that the problem is what exactly constitutes 'a say'. If the woman is ultimately entitled to do what she wants, even if it is the direct opposite of what the would-be father wanted, what's the actual value of him having a say at all.
I'm not sure whether it should be the courts or some kind of panel (doc, psych, lay perhaps), but yes, I absolutely think that the father should have a say. Hence my use of the phrase, repeatedly, "the father should have a say".Quote:
Originally Posted by jebus
Except in cases of rape, the woman gave up "control of her womb" (seriously, again with the emotive language? can we not be more mature about this?) when she consented to sex with the father. She can't have it one way and not the other.
Do you mean that the woman should be made to listen to what the man has to say - as in, actually be brought to the same room as him and be silent while he gives his opinion? Or, when you mention a court or some kind of panel, do you mean that the man makes his feelings known to them, and they pass this information on to the woman?Quote:
Originally Posted by dahamsta
Either way, after being made aware of his feelings/opinion, she is free to make her own decision?
Seriously, are you picturing me in a full-length leather jacket? I'm not Herr Flick of the Geshtapo. I think that if a father has a legitimate objection to an abortion and he and the mother can't come to an agreement, then an accelerated form of dispute resolution should be available to them. I'm not sure there are any circumstances whereby a woman can be /forced/ into carrying a child to term, but I do think that something should be in place to allow a father to, again, have his say.Quote:
Originally Posted by osarusan
I realise it's a difficult situation, but let's be completely honest here, there are actually some men out there who don't force themselves on women, and women out there who regard babies as nothings. I'm actually pro-abortion, but I don't think women should be allowed to discard babies willy-nilly.
Not at all mein fuhrer.
I know what you're saying about the father's feelings having legitimacy, but I think it comes down to two scenarios:
The woman, after being made aware of the opinions of the father (perhaps during some kind of counselling session, maybe with a balanced panel of childcare/medical/other professionals?), is free to make whatever decision she wants (and perhaps input from these people will influence her decision)
or
The opinions of the father, if not the same as those of the mother, have influence in a process that may see a woman /forced/ into carrying a child to term.
If it's the former, then I'm not sure of the merit of the father getting to have his say. If it's the latter, that's one scary process and who designs implements, and monitors it?
Is there a third (or more) scenario I'm missing?
And if either had legal standing, wouldn't it be more likely that a woman would get on the first plane to the Britain after having a pregnancy test so she doesn't have to go through either scenario? It'd be completely unenforceable.Quote:
Originally Posted by osarusan
Men also have the power to chose where they dip their unprotected wick - if they do so with a woman they can't trust to be open with them, have an adult conversation with, or have respect her decision as to what she does with her body, well that's back on them imo.
osarusan, no, there's no 3rd solution; and what Macy said in para 1 above. However all situations are different, and I'm talking more about situations that might be resolved in some way. Not all abortions are carried out by bitches that don't care about fathers, not all babies are kept because daddies say so. There's (probably, I'm not expert) an awful lot of middle ground that could be resolved with the right processes.
Macy, yes, in that case it's back on the fathers. AND the mothers. You're going out of your way to make everything binary, and I don't quite understand why.
I'm not even sure what you're advocating here, some kind of tribunal labour court where the man sets out his case to a woman against her having an abortion perhaps? Is that it? Is it a mediator? How workable in the real world do you think that is, honestly?Quote:
Originally Posted by dahamsta
What happens if the accelerated form of dispute resolution is set for, say, two weeks from when a woman informs a man she’s terminating the pregnancy and she decides ‘actually I think I’ll just have it this week’? Is she facing jail time?
Sorry if I’m just not grasping this but your concept doesn’t seem thought out to me
I'm not an abortion specialist and I'm not laying out a white paper. I'm saying that taking the attitude that a foetus/baby is a womans and a womans alone is wrong, and a mans opinion/want needs to be taken into account. Again, if men are to be required to pay maintenance or have a part in a child's upbringing, they should have a part to play in the decision as to whether or not a child is to be kept. Women can't have it one and not the other.
So you do advocate legal rights for the male on the foetus? Or is this still just you trying to find another way of saying what I said but in a way that might not annoy the pro-lifers?
Absolutely. There are very strong laws requiring men to take responsibility for children after they're born, and again - again, again, do I really need to keep repeating myself - what's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. I might add that I don't agree with the automatic default to custody to women either.
I should also add that while I understand that this is a hot button topic for some people, and some people love debating it, I don't appreciate the adversarial attitude. If you want to get hardcore with someone on the subject, you'll need to find someone else to discuss it with. I simply have an opinion, I'm not writing legislation.
Not adversarial, although I do find your belief pretty reprehensible as you, whether you find this term sensationalist or not, are advocating for a level of control on a woman's womb. Thankfully your idea is completely unworkable in reality so I guess there's no point in debating it any further.
I think you're unfairly misrepresenting dahamsta. He's not advocating that a man ought to be able to dictate the actions of a pregnant woman or possess some sort of "veto" over her wishes. At least, I think not anyway. He's suggesting that some framework be established to ensure that a woman might consider the man's opinion in making her final decision. Whether that's practical is another matter, but it's not as reprehensible as what you've accused him of advocating.
Agree totally with Danny and Dahamsta here. I have had more experience than anyone would want in this issue of abortion and this particular part of the debate and like to think I'm coming from a very informed place.
In terms of being "unworkable" and taking Danny's post into a practical situation, engagement of interested parties in decision making is fundamental in terms of success of the action and, in the case of the mother here, would assist in combatting/dealing with the feelings of guilt that follow these procedures.
In my work, I have to deal with multiple unions daily and in a very prescribed way. An example relevant to the point here is when we are considering organizational change. In these cases we are required to communicate the change, sit down and listen to union concerns and hear and consider alternative suggestions. Following this consultative process we make a fully informed decision. More often than not we go with our initial plan. But I know that the unions, although not always happy with or supportive of the outcome, appreciate the process.
Although they're worlds apart really, I think this illustrates that input is not control and does have value to both sides.
What DI said. I'm rarely surprised by the lengths people will go to to be offended; in this case I am surprised by the people doing it.
I'm not engaging on this subject any further, I'm a bit stressed at home with the newbie at the moment and I'm not going to allow myself to get annoyed by this.
Honestly I asked repeatedly for the stance to be made clearer and when he replied to the question of whether he's advocating legal rights for the male withQuote:
Originally Posted by DannyInvincible
"Absolutely. There are very strong laws requiring men to take responsibility for children after they're born, and again - again, again, do I really need to keep repeating myself - what's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. I might add that I don't agree with the automatic default to custody to women either."
I took it to mean he did want a system in place where a man could take a woman to court to block a woman from having an abortion, or leaving the country to have one at present. If that's not the case I'll withdraw the reprehensible part of what I said, but I think I was right to draw that conclusion from what was said above.
It's still completely unworkable however and would basically draw out a very difficult time in a woman's life to ensure that a man is allowed have an opinion, something I've never seen anyone advocate against
There are different degrees of legal rights. A legal right to be heard wouldn't be the same as a legal right to a veto.
I was thinking about this during the day, and I came upon this question:
In the event that a would-be father wanted an abortion, but the pregnant woman didn't, would there still be a case for a process to ensure the man can have his say?
I thought of that apparent corollary the other day and was going to post the very same question, but the notion of forcing an abortion upon an unwilling other is preposterous. Surely...