Is abortion legalised murder?

I was looking at the abortion statistics for England and Wales recently and was shocked at what I saw.

In 2003 the number of abortions in England and Wales were 181,600 compared to 175,900 in 2002, which is a rise of 3.2 %in 1 year.

Assuming that the number of abortions stick at 181,900 per year for the next ten years the total number of deaths of unborn children will be 1,816,000 thats one million eight hundred and sixteen thousand dead babies in 10 years.

The words mass and genocide come to mind.

No, the words teenage pregnancies and teenage abortions come to mind.

We have the highest number of teenage pregnancies in Europe.

That rather depends on when you consider a feotus to become a baby - at conception or when it is capable of survival outside the womb?

Only 30 thousand were teenaged pregnancies.
That leaves 151,600, although I still dont believe this is justifiable.

yes however statistics don't tell the story of those deaths do they really?

I mean which scenario would you like first?

The babies that are found to have deformities or major diseases and the parents are advised by the hospital to abort the baby to save the child from a difficult life (I know this whole thing is a moral minefield)

A young girl who is raped and chooses not to subject herself or her child to such a traumatic life experience.

A woman who if she continues with a an accidental pregnancy will die through her own medical complications.

A teenage mums who is forced by family counsellors to abort her child.

At the end of the day the only way to address many of these moral issues is to stop the pregnancies happening in the first place. With increases in medical testing it is now more likely to pick up abnormalities at an early stage and just about wipe out many conditions such as spina bifida and downs syndrome.

Moon

No it isn't murder, because that (in the UK) is characterized by 'malice'. Whilst some abortions may be conducted out of malice, it is unreasonable to assume that abortions are malicious by definition.

I believe you may classify it as killing with some justification; although that depends on at what point you believe a human egg becomes a human being.

Originally posted by Phanerothyme
No it isn't murder, because that (in the UK) is characterized by 'malice'. Whilst some abortions may be conducted out of malice, it is unreasonable to assume that abortions are malicious by definition.

Assuming these "eggs" are going to grow into healthy human beings with out intervention of another.

Is this justifiable homicide, (because it would have wrecked my life)

or is it murder.(Intentional killing of another human being)
All be it a very weak unable to defend its self human being.

As I've mentioned in a previous post

Unless you've walked the path, you are really not in a position to comment.

Come back when you have been in a situation where a termination or possible termination is involved.

Originally posted by coopster1974
As I've mentioned in a previous post

Unless you've walked the path, you are really not in a position to comment.

Come back when you have been in a situation where a termination or possible termination is involved.

As the son of a person who could have walked the walk but did'nt, I guess I wouldnt be able to put my point across if she had decided to walk the walk.

Originally posted by jonsastar
Assuming these "eggs" are going to grow into healthy human beings with out intervention of another.

Thats really quite a large assumption! Perhaps you should term them potential babies to be more accurate?

Jonastar,

If you want to have a debate about the ethics of abortion - fair enough and what I am about to say may have no bearing on the crux of what you wished to emphasise.

However, you have chosen to use statistics to illustrate your point and unfortunately your limited selection of data is misleading.

Over the last ten years the average annual increase in "legal" abortions has been 0.7%. This does not reflect the fact that in 4 of the last ten years, the number of abortions actually were less than in the preceding year.

1993 168,714
1994 166,876 -1.1%
1995 163,638 -1.9%
1996 177,495 8.5%
1997 179,746 1.3%
1198 187,402 4.3%
1999 183,250 -2.2%
2000 185,375 1.2%
2001 186,274 0.5%
2002 175,900 -5.6%
2003 181,600 3.2%

The question of "teenage pregnacies" is also open to misinterpretation.
Literally, 13 to 19 year olds, the number of abortions is of the order of 30,000 per year as you stated.

It should be pointed out that with legal marriage possible at 16, the term "teenage pregnancy" is generally understood by your average debater to refer to schoolgirls or 'under 16s'

The number of 'under 16' abortions is in the order of 3 to 4,000.


Data up to 2001 from: http://www.statistics.gov.uk/downloads/theme_health/AB28_2001/AB28_2001.pdf

Originally posted by jonsastar
Is abortion legalised murder?

No.

Please walk this way >>>>>>> to enter the real world.

No it isn't. I can't be bothered to go into my reasoning, we've done it all before if you care to use the search function.

Where do you draw the line between abortion and murder? Even David Steel recently admitted that the time limit set by him in 1968 for aborting a baby was too late and should be shortened. One local radio phone-in presenter says that abortions should be encouraged right up to birth. I would say IF you allow abortion just before birth, why not allow a termination just after birth if the mum decides she doesn't want to keep the baby.

It's often men who have the strongest opinion on abortion.....I wonder why?

Originally posted by jonsastar


The words mass and genocide come to mind.

Are you for real, or is this some kind of sick windup?

Originally posted by jonsastar
As the son of a person who could have walked the walk but did'nt, I guess I wouldnt be able to put my point across if she had decided to walk the walk.

We are all the children of people who could have had us aborted.

Equating abortion to genocide is totally ludicrous.

I was bought up in the 1960s and in an environment where if someone got pregnant and didn't want the baby then it was deemed 'tough'/ Baby was had, and teh couple concerned either got married, placed the baby in to care or, less commonly, the girl looked after the baby with the help of her extended family. I'm sure abortions happened, but tended to be not talked about.

Anyway...the result is that I grew up viewing abortion as an occasional unfortunate consequence of our behaviour - a relative of mine fell pregnant on holiday and there was never talk of an abortion - just how the family was going to look after the baby later.

I personally disagree with abortion except in the case of the developing baby threatening the life or psychological well being of the mother - however, I wouldn't legislate to make it easier to get, and neither would I tighten up the law at the moment. I WOULD make it easier to put a newborn in to care with 'no comebacks' than we have today, however. That way the baby gets a chance, the mother gets to get on with her life.

Ultimately I regard it as a woman's choice - she chose to have sex, she can also choose to do what she wants with the baby. And that puts the moral and ethical issues squarely in the hands of the person carrying the child. I appreciate that this soudns very harsh on the father, but in many ways the way that human biology works means that his direct involvement is over very early on in the process. If he wants the child and the woman doesn't. what can you do except put teh woman in custody for 9 months to ensure she doesn't have an abortion? Ridiculous.

A woman's right to choose, complete with moral, health and ethical consequences.

Joe

Originally posted by Moon Maiden
With increases in medical testing it is now more likely to pick up abnormalities at an early stage and just about wipe out many conditions such as spina bifida and downs syndrome.

I'm not sure whether you was being offensive with that or not, hopefully and most likely not...

If it was up to those tests, I would be dead! Because the doctors said from an early date that I would have spina bifida, but guess what, I don't...

and if it was for those test's I would never have met my ex girlfriend, she has spina bifida but she's a REALLY amazing person...

I dont see why we should be allowed to play god, some people say abortion is wrong unless the child will have some sort of defect... but where do you draw the line at a defect? there are LOTS of disabled people out there that I've met that are 500% better, nicer people than the regular folk I meet...

and were all defects really, I dont think any one of us is perfect, so maybe we should all be put down before were born? :P and the stupidist thing about baby's I've heard and it really touches a sore nerve is when people go "hope it's not born ginger, might have to get an abortion if it is".... y'know, ugh well this is a whole different topic, but whats the hatred towards ginger people? :P

anyways, I'm not for or against aboration, I do think there are valid reasons for it, such as rape, or really young teenagers... but "it'll ruin my career" stuff is bull poop! if you didnt want a baby then shut your legs or be properly protected, businesswomen eh!? :P

Abortion is legalised killing- so yes- it's legalised murder. I'm a firm believer that life is sacred and not something that should be destroyed because it is inconvenient. Unfortunately, in this country, abortion is seen more as a means of contraception rather than a last resort. It's quite simple really; if you don't want to have a child- use contraception. People should think about the consequences of their actions!

Sorry if that sounded like a hard line to take. My friends often say I see things in black & white and not the grey in between. Abortion and the sanctity of life is something I feel very strongly about.

Apologies if I caused offence to anyone though.

Are you a religious person JonJParr? Are your opinions down to religious beliefs? Do you not think that this planet is over populated already? Are you of the belief that it's better to have a child that is not wanted or loved? Is it better to have neglected and abused children? people are not perfect, people make mistakes, contraception can fail. I guess you are also a paying member of the pro life group that try to stop terminally ill people having the right to die, you think people should suffer to the better end. well I have to say that I won't be too upset if one of your kids gets accidentally pregnant and that someone you know wants to be assisted in death as they are suffering. People like you make me sick.

Caused offence to me!

Originally posted by neeeeeeeeeek
Caused offence to me!

But there was no need for "I won't be too upset if one of your kids gets accidentally pregnant and that someone you know wants to be assisted in death as they are suffering."

Firstly, this is an emotive issue and not one that should be discussed with malice and accusations. I will try to respond in a manner which I think answers your questions and yet is courteous.

Are you a religious person JonJParr?
No I'm not religious.

Are your opinions down to religious beliefs?
Answered above.

Do you not think that this planet is over populated already?
I don't think the world is over populated no - there's so much of the world that, as yet, has nobody living in it.

Is it better to have neglected and abused children?
It is better for parents to love and care for their children which they CHOSE to have.

"People are not perfect, people make mistakes, contraception can fail"
People are not perfect but should not shy away from their responsibilities and furthermore I wouldn't call a child a "mistake". As for you argument about "contraception failure". You mean to tell me there were 181,600 people in the UK in 2003 whose condom or pill didn't work? With statistics like that Durex shouldn't really be in business should they?

"I guess you are also a paying member of the pro life group that try to stop terminally ill people having the right to die, you think people should suffer to the better end."
I am not a paying member of any pro life group. I do not feel that people should suffer, emotionally or physically. But should we be asking our doctors to treat us and then a few years down the line kill us?

"well I have to say that I won't be too upset if one of your kids gets accidentally pregnant and that someone you know wants to be assisted in death as they are suffering."
I do not have any children but I do have family members who are ill- none of them want to end their lives prematurely though.

"People like you make me sick."
I hope you're not suffering too badly.

Originally posted by xafier
I'm not sure whether you was being offensive with that or not, hopefully and most likely not...

If it was up to those tests, I would be dead! Because the doctors said from an early date that I would have spina bifida, but guess what, I don't...


eep no I wasn't at all... i just know it is a reality and that many parents take the doctors advice.
My nephew and his wife were told their son would have MS and all kinds of other problems and he is fine...she is pregnanct again and they have TOLD her to abort the baby because of the same problems they forsee...she has of course ignored them and to them both whether baby is born with these problems or not they will be prepared and love baby regardless.

This is why I said it was a moral minefield because for some parents the thought of a child living with such a condition isn't an option for them, they don't want their kids to live in pain or to suffer in anyway, so rather than face the risk they eliminate it..

This is all very harsh isn't it?

Moon

I may also have been a bit harsh so sorry, I don't wish suffereing on anyone.

People should think about the consequences of their actions!

They are, that's why they may choose not to bring another unwanted child into the world.

Originally posted by neeeeeeeeeek
They are, that's why they may choose not to bring another unwanted child into the world.

What I meant was that people should think about the consequences of their actions BEFORE they have sex instead of seeing abortion as remedial action which can be taken afterwards.

Originally posted by JonJParr
What I meant was that people should think about the consequences of their actions BEFORE they have sex instead of seeing abortion as remedial action which can be taken afterwards.

however as has been discussed...casual sex isn't the entire reason for abortion is it?

Moon

You're right there Moon Maiden - it isn't always the reason for abortion. It's hard to make a call in those circumstances and I'd have to weigh up whether I thought the reasons for abortion outweighed the reasons for keeping the baby. A very tough call.

The flipside is that the majority of abortions are, however, as a result of casual sex and I personally feel that is not a valid reason to warrant it.

The overpopulation theme is an interesting point.

I have heard that consumerist societies tend to prefer smaller families so that they have more money to spend on expensive gadgets/holidays etc.
And that the state of texas is so large, that there is enough room there for everyone on the planet to have a house and a nice bit of garden there.
Inevitably, the rich white western society is going to lead the human race in contracting it's population anyhow. And presumably the african and indian populations would go the same way if they start to achive some level of wealth in the long run.
Look at the recent problems, with Italy having such a low birth rate that they are only 2 decades away from having population consequences. And in Britain, we are going to be so top heavy with retired people that the economy will be at risk in 30 years

It wouldn't surprise me if the government has to do some serious, cajoling of young people to get sprogged up very soon. It would help if they gave serious tax advantage to people who look after kids, and Nursery nurses, so that it makes having children a financial advantage in the short and medium term for couples, as now it's a serious burden.

So I am still wondering wether the human population explosion is a conspiracy theory..

only really read clips of this thread, but it got me thinking, instead of condeming people who have abortions or whatever, why dont we promote contreception? and safe sex? esp to teenagers.
i personally dont believe in abortion unless the pregnancy has been brought on by a sexual offence or the baby is in pain. i dont think the child being disabled is an excuse for abortion.
i have a good friend who has a disabled little girl (spinal bifida i think its called) and she is the sweetest, most talented little girl, whos progressing ace! She only disabled due to domestic violence, but my friend thankfully chose not to abort.
anyway, im also not sure about people who take the morning after pill. once or twice yeah but three four time +++?
ive never been in the sit though so its just my humble opinion. i just know there are plenty of people who cant have children, who this would prob devestate

Originally posted by muddycoffee
It wouldn't surprise me if the government has to do some serious, cajoling of young people to get sprogged up very soon. It would help if they gave serious tax advantage to people who look after kids, and Nursery nurses, so that it makes having children a financial advantage in the short and medium term for couples, as now it's a serious burden.


What are the tax credits then if not an encouragement to have kids ?

Originally posted by nick2
What are the tax credits then if not an encouragement to have kids ?
is your child is diagnosed with ADH or whatever you get extra £££ - dont know what thats gotta do with it, just thought id share my pointless knowledge

the tax credits can only be an encouragement to have kids if you are happy to stay at home all day and watch day time tv because the child care assistance is a joke.
It doesn't 'pay' to be a working mother and the family looses out all round in my experience.

Saying this though, I suspect many of those who specifically get pregnant because of the money don't really think or care about this.

Moon

Originally posted by JonJParr
Abortion is legalised killing- so yes- it's legalised murder.

You appear to have your definitions mixed up. Murder is premeditated UNLAWFUL killing.

Abortion is de-facto NOT murder.

Originally posted by jonsastar
Is abortion legalised murder?
The words mass and genocide come to mind.

Those words come to mind for me, when I think of smoking.

I am sure that everyone here knows a woman who has had an abortion (wether they know it or not). And the constant doo gooding attitude of the Anti-Abortion brigade, only serves to make these Women feel guilty. And they don't deserve this abuse from some sections of society.

Originally posted by Moon Maiden
the tax credits can only be an encouragement to have kids if you are happy to stay at home all day and watch day time tv because the child care assistance is a joke.
It doesn't 'pay' to be a working mother and the family looses out all round in my experience.

Saying this though, I suspect many of those who specifically get pregnant because of the money don't really think or care about this.

Moon
there was a program a while ago about some girls who raced to get pregnant - about 14/15.
benefits are so small anyway, esp if husband/partner works. dont know how people cope on benefits, some dont have choice i suppose?

Originally posted by NatalieSheff
benefits are so small anyway, esp if husband/partner works. dont know how people cope on benefits, some dont have choice i suppose?

But when you read in the paper about families getting £3000 a month in benefits you don't think they are just "coping", you think they are living the life of Riley.

Originally posted by nick2
But when you read in the paper about families getting £3000 a month in benefits you don't think they are just "coping", you think they are living the life of Riley.
youve been watching that tv family swop thing?! when the ones on benefits were on £40k and the working family on £28K

i only know people who have one partner working, so can only comment on that. they get few pounds its pants esp when u c how expensive nappies are, although she does get free milk

Originally posted by nick2
But when you read in the paper about families getting £3000 a month in benefits you don't think they are just "coping", you think they are living the life of Riley.

that would be the couple now in jail for benefit fraud? Hardly representative.

I doubt that Texas is big enough for everyone to even stand up in, never mind have a house and a garden. Lets check.

261,914 square miles of land in Texas.

Approx 2*10^9 people in the world.

0.00013 square miles per person.
339 square metres each...

So a square of land 18 metres by 18 metres.

A bit more than i expected to be honest. But that is assuming that every inch of texas is viable land and that we don't require anything other than a square of land each (ie, no roads, no communal buildings, no work places, no green space, no facilities, no where to produce food or power)...

By most measures the human population is massively over what it should be. Without modern intense farming methods there is no way we could feed ourselves, which is what normally limits any population. I'm not sure that it has much to do with abortion though.

what I meant was that people should think about the consequences of their actions BEFORE they have sex instead of seeing abortion as remedial action which can be taken afterwards.

They should but we all are aware that we aren't perfect. Abortion is in my opinion a better option than having an unwanted baby. I'm sure no one decides in advance not to use contraception because they can have an abortion afterwards.
Abortion is a remedial option that can be taken afterwards, but I doubt anyone takes it lightly, and I see no argument that makes a case for removing the decision from the mother to be.

Perhaps we could genetically engineer more gay people, that would slow down the population explosion ?

Originally posted by Tony
You appear to have your definitions mixed up. Murder is premeditated UNLAWFUL killing.

Actually, I haven't. The word "murder" also means to kill brutally or inhumanly something that abortion 'as contraception' most certainly is!

Originally posted by JonJParr
Actually, I haven't. The word "murder" also means to kill brutally or inhumanly something that abortion 'as contraception' most certainly is!

abortion is neither brutal or inhuman though, nor is it illegal.

If it were legally murder then it would be prosecuted, qed - it is not murder.

I suppose your question is in fact a tortology, legalised murder is meaningless. If it is legalised then it is killing, if it is not legalised then it is murder, it cannot be both.

Originally posted by Cyclone
abortion is neither brutal or inhuman though, nor is it illegal.

If it were legally murder then it would be prosecuted, qed - it is not murder.

I suppose your question is in fact a tortology, legalised murder is meaningless. If it is legalised then it is killing, if it is not legalised then it is murder, it cannot be both.

Abortion is brutal. At the moment, abortion in the UK is legal up to 24 weeks. At this stage, if a baby is aborted it is a case of body parts falling into a bucket. If a born baby were cut into pieces and dropped into a bucket we would call it murder. We would call it inhumane. We would call it brutal. Why then does a live foetus developing in a woman's womb not have the same right to life? The same right to dignity?

In addition to premeditated unlawful killing murder also means "to kill brutally or inhumanly". Look it up, I standby my post. And it is not a 'tautology' because it is not an empty statement- murder has more than one meaning!

I have a varied opinion here but I have a devils advocate view also.
I see abortion at 24 weeks as murder or at least a killing, that child is almost capable of supporting itself without it's mothers body.
I think the abortion dates should be reduced to somewhere between where the cells have almost finished dividing and 12 - 14 weeks ish but I don't know enough to specify.
I strongly believe that I should never have an abortion but I feel each woman has her own set of morals to live with.
Despite my belief that I shouldn't have an abortion I would have to make a decision if:
a: the child would have great disability or no quality of life
b: one of us would die
c: I was raped
d: it was an advanced ectopic pregnancy
e: the life of one child would severely endanger others in a multiple pregnancy

I wonder what the government would do if all those babies who were aborted had gone full term, how would the fostering/adoption system cope if they were put into care.
Women should have a choice I think. I can imagine the life of both parent and child could be awful if the child was unwanted, maybe that would give rise to abuse and neglect?
Personally I'm not sure I could do it but I'm not a judge for others, I'd just like the deadline date reduced.
At 24 weeks a foetus is recognisable as a baby and at 21 weeks can live with breathing assistance.
"Week 24
The foetus is around 33cm in length. The fused eyelids now separate into upper and lower lids, enabling the baby to open and shut its eyes. The skin is covered in fine hair (lanugo) and protected by a layer of waxy secretion (vernix). The baby 'breathes' amniotic fluid in and out of its lungs. "
http://readthetruth.com/horrorstory.htm
In the secoind part of the link above it states that a foetus can identify distress at 13 weeks.

Originally posted by Zebra
http://readthetruth.com/horrorstory.htm
In the secoind part of the link above it states that a foetus can identify distress at 13 weeks.

I'm sorry but after your well reasoned and interesting posting, you quote a link from a right-wing religious website, the balance of which is extremely questionable.

Yeah I see your point but I wasn't sure of the 'viable' age of a baby and this came as a great shock. Regardless of how left or right wing anything might be, the fact of the matter highlights that in Britain it is apparently legal to abort a child which has a viable life.
I also had a look at some pictures of the size of a baby at 24 weeks (which for those who don't know is at the end of the second trimester of pregnancy, fully six months).
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_pictures/3847319.stm
http://www.standupgirl.com/inside/embryoscopy/index.html
It would have to be something much more serious than inconvenience to make me do anything to hurt a baby of that size, never mind actually decide to have it killed.

Originally posted by Zebra
Yeah I see your point but I wasn't sure of the 'viable' age of a baby and this came as a great shock. Regardless of how left or right wing anything might be, the fact of the matter highlights that in Britain it is apparently legal to abort a child which has a viable life.
I also had a look at some pictures of the size of a baby at 24 weeks (which for those who don't know is at the end of the second trimester of pregnancy, fully six months).
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_pictures/3847319.stm
http://www.standupgirl.com/inside/embryoscopy/index.html
It would have to be something much more serious than inconvenience to make me do anything to hurt a baby of that size, never mind actually decide to have it killed.

most people who have an abortion for anything other than medical reasons probably make the decision much earlier. 24 weeks is the maximum legal time, not a target that people wait for.

Having seen the link that zebra set up I believe now more than ever that some abortions are murder.

Of coarse there are situations that abortion is the only option, rape, age, death of mother etc, but abortion purely for selfish reasons is questionable.

May be the law should be changed so that no pregnant female over 30 should be able to abort, unless in certain circumstances.

Originally posted by jonsastar
May be the law should be changed so that no pregnant female over 30 should be able to abort, unless in certain circumstances.

LOL...Are you going to personally support the mother whilst she isn't working and the cost of the child for 18 years ?

No ? Well you have no right to be involved with other people decisions.

I believe every woman of any age should have the right to have an abortion if they feel it is right choice for them.

Though I don't think I could do it myself, I just hope I am never in such a tough situation (touch wood)

Originally posted by jonsastar

May be the law should be changed so that no pregnant female over 30 should be able to abort, unless in certain circumstances.

You make them sound like animals in a breeding programme for endangered species.

Why 30? Whats so special about 30? And what are these certain circumstances that would permit a woman to have a choice over what happens to HER body?

May be the law should be changed so that no pregnant female over 30 should be able to abort, unless in certain circumstances.

:loopy: :loopy: :loopy: :loopy: :loopy: :loopy:

Anything else I say may cause offence. And what the hell is 'death of mother' about???? :loopy:

Originally posted by jonsastar
Having seen the link that zebra set up I believe now more than ever that some abortions are murder.

Of coarse there are situations that abortion is the only option, rape, age, death of mother etc, but abortion purely for selfish reasons is questionable.

May be the law should be changed so that no pregnant female over 30 should be able to abort, unless in certain circumstances.

basically at the end of the day society (and that means your and my opinion) should legislate the minimum possible for situations where we are talking about personal choice that doesn't impact on someone else.
As foetus' do not have legal rights and are not recognised as people that doesn't include them.
It's not our decision and we although entitled to an opinion should not try to force our views onto anyone else.

Originally posted by Moon Maiden

My nephew and his wife were told their son would have MS and all kinds of other problems and he is fine...she is pregnanct again and they have TOLD her to abort the baby because of the same problems they forsee..

Moon
It's very unlikely that any health proffessional has TOLD anyone to abort their child.
What does happen is that people are advised about what the outcome of their pregnancy is likely to be and what this might mean for themselves and their child.
Parents then have the choice to continue or not with their pregnancy.

Originally posted by Cyclone
abortion is neither brutal or inhuman though,
You have your arms,legs and head hacked off. Lets see if you think it's brutal then.

Originally posted by scross
You have your arms,legs and head hacked off. Lets see if you think it's brutal then.

Is that what actually happens during an abortion scross or are you exaggerating?

I realise that this is an emotive subject and people have strong views but my brain can cope without exaggerated images like that, thanks.

Originally posted by scross
You have your arms,legs and head hacked off. Lets see if you think it's brutal then.

correct me if i'm wrong, and even provide a link to back up what your saying. But I think you're talking rubbish. Most abortions are chemically induced miscarriages if I remember correctly.
I could be wrong though.

Originally posted by Cyclone
Most abortions are chemically induced miscarriages if I remember correctly.
I could be wrong though. [/B]
Most maybe, but not all.

Originally posted by scross
Most maybe, but not all.

so what you're saying is that most but not all abortions are not brutal then?

I read a website which described in great detail the types of abortion, for informaton only, the above description is possible, partial birth, salt poisoning, suction, chemical inducement and also ceaserean are all types of abortion.
I can't explain anymore, after what I've read I'm horrified that anyone can do it.
If the website I've just read was shown to teenagers I don't think a single one of them would consider casual sex.

Originally posted by Cyclone
so what you're saying is that most but not all abortions are not brutal then?
No, never said any such thing.

Most people on this thread seem to be of the opinion that if a woman gets pregnant and then decides she doesn't want to keep the baby then she should be allowed to kill it. Should the man who helps in producing the baby have any say in whether or not to keep the baby or should it be totally up to the woman?

Originally posted by scross
Most maybe, but not all.

you can't it both ways. If most abortions do not involve chopping up the foetus, which is what you argued was brutal, then most abortions are not brutal.

As the man is involved for only about 5 minutes and the woman for 9 months, any say he has in the issue is whatever say the woman involved wishes to give him.

Originally posted by Patchy
Most people on this thread seem to be of the opinion that if a woman gets pregnant and then decides she doesn't want to keep the baby then she should be allowed to kill it. Should the man who helps in producing the baby have any say in whether or not to keep the baby or should it be totally up to the woman?

No the woman, has to do all the hard work.
If she is getting no help from the father, and she sees that he isn't going to share the burdon of bringing up the child, then it's up to her.
If the man spends his time making clear to her that he is going to share the burdon 50/50 and immediately changes his lifestyle for good, to accommodate the new offspring. Then he might have an argument.
The amount of men I know (in last 10 years) who's only intrest is going to the pub and "Wetting t'babbies eeyad", and haven't even been at the birth.

Originally posted by Cyclone
you can't it both ways. If most abortions do not involve chopping up the foetus, which is what you argued was brutal, then most abortions are not brutal.


Actually I never argued that any kind of abortion was or was not brutal. I just wondered whether or not you would find it brutal to have your arms, legs and head chopped off. Stop trying to put words into my mouth.

I can't believe what I've just read in these last 5 pages.

There should be no obligation at all for women to carry and give birth to a baby she doesn't want. It's no good for the child, never mind the woman.

You're advocating people having unwanted children??

And all this about if you are prepared to have sex you have to be prepared to accept the consequences if contraception fails , does that apply to men too? If a man had a one night stand, do you think if a woman turned up at his house 9 months later and plonked a baby on his lap, he should give up his life to look after it? Or is it just women who have to suffer the consequences??

If you can't trust a woman with making a choice about her own body , how on earth can you trust her with a child?

It is outrageous and offensive that people still think women should have to put themselves through the physical and emotional traumas involved in completing a pregnancy and giving birth when they do not want to.

Raar!

just to remind you, this was your post

Originally posted by Cyclone
abortion is neither brutal or inhuman though,

You have your arms,legs and head hacked off. Lets see if you think it's brutal then.

You are drawing a parellel between me saying it is not brutal and the brutality of being dismembered.

Originally posted by scross
Actually I never argued that any kind of abortion was or was not brutal. I just wondered whether or not you would find it brutal to have your arms, legs and head chopped off. Stop trying to put words into my mouth.

am i supposed to believe that your comment about having arms and legs chopped off was in fact nothing to do with the topic or the preceding posts that mentioned that technique as a method of abortion and the brutality of abortion?
It's fairly clear to everyone what the thrust of your argument was, even if you try to deny it now.

Just to be clear though. Why do you believe that abortion is brutal since we have established that most abortions are not carried out by dismemberment?

Originally posted by Cyclone


Just to be clear though. Why do you believe that abortion is brutal since we have established that most abortions are not carried out by dismemberment?
Have we established that?

Originally posted by scross
Have we established that?

I don't think we've established that at all! Many abortions +20 weeks involve dismembering the baby.

Originally posted by scross
Most maybe, but not all.

you agreed to it, I presumed that was established enough.

I'm sure we could get the figures.

Originally posted by Cyclone
you agreed to it, I presumed that was established enough.

I'm sure we could get the figures.

I went off to try and find the figures to support this argument. The descriptions of how these unborn babies are butchered is too harrowing so I'm not going to continue trying to find them. It's inhumane and disgusts me that people feel that the life of an unborn child is so cheap. When it's only a collection of cells it's entirely different to a 24 week foetus that's got arms, legs, fingers, finger nails, hair, a mouth, a nose - a soul.

a soul. that would rather depend on your religous persuasions, doesn't really hold much sway (for me anyway) in this kind of discussion.

Originally posted by JonJParr
I went off to try and find the figures to support this argument. The descriptions of how these unborn babies are butchered is too harrowing so I'm not going to continue trying to find them.

It's not that harrowing. Just look at the information that I have already pointed out.

The figures for 2001 are here. it is not unreasonable to think that the percentages will not vary that much from year to year.

Total: 176,364
Under 9 weeks: 75,501 43%
9-12 weeks: 79,368 45%
13-19 weeks: 18,718 11%
20 weeks and over: 2,777 2%

There is a further breakdown of the last category into individual weeks.

Originally posted by purplepippa
It is outrageous and offensive that people still think women should have to put themselves through the physical and emotional traumas involved in completing a pregnancy and giving birth when they do not want to.

Raar!

You are entitled to your opinion, but I find it more outrageous and offensive that a lot of people who have got pregnant through careless behaviour are prepared to kill an unborn baby. All this talk about how it is better for the child to be aborted if it is going to grow up unwanted... that would apply to a baby if the mum decides she doesn't want it.

People should accept the consequences of having (consensual) sex and that includes men as well as women.

Originally posted by Patchy
You are entitled to your opinion, but I find it more outrageous and offensive that a lot of people who have got pregnant through careless behaviour are prepared to kill an unborn baby. All this talk about how it is better for the child to be aborted if it is going to grow up unwanted... that would apply to a baby if the mum decides she doesn't want it.

People should accept the consequences of having (consensual) sex and that includes men as well as women.

People should accept that it's not their place to impose their morality on someone else. It's not our foetus nor body, so it's not our choice. Have an opinion, discuss the opinion, but don't think that we have the right to decide for anyone else.

Originally posted by Cyclone
People should accept that it's not their place to impose their morality on someone else. It's not our foetus nor body, so it's not our choice. Have an opinion, discuss the opinion, but don't think that we have the right to decide for anyone else.

That depends if you think we have the right to protect those who are unable to protect themselves. You might as well use your argument to say that if someone wants to abuse their 2-week-old baby you can have your opinion that it is wrong, but don't try to impose your views on them as it isn't your baby. If you think that then fair enough, but I can't say I agree with you.

Originally posted by Patchy
That depends if you think we have the right to protect those who are unable to protect themselves. You might as well use your argument to say that if someone wants to abuse their 2-week-old baby you can have your opinion that it is wrong, but don't try to impose your views on them as it isn't your baby. If you think that then fair enough, but I can't say I agree with you.

except you ignore my point about "where it doesn't infringe the rights of another person". Not many people would argue that a 2 week old baby is still not a person. That's basically the argument that allows abortion.

There is no overall view on abortion. Every case is different. Ive been there myself and dont regret it for one second. Should men have any say in abortion at all? No matter what happens, the best thing you ever did or the worst, its always the women with the memories built in.

Its a right we have, a right that many many women died for.

Originally posted by Angeldevine

Its a right we have, a right that many many women died for.

That's one way of looking at it, but another way of looking at it is considering the huge number of unborn children who have died because of this "right". In the vast majority of cases, the woman has a choice whether or not to get pregnant. The unfortunate destroyed unborn child has no choice in the matter.

Originally posted by Angeldevine
There is no overall view on abortion. Every case is different. Ive been there myself and dont regret it for one second. Should men have any say in abortion at all? No matter what happens, the best thing you ever did or the worst, its always the women with the memories built in.

Its a right we have, a right that many many women died for.

So what about the mans rights, its always womens rights, how many women out there who do not want these unborn children have even bothered to ask the man who fathered it if he wants the child when it is born, you can get on with your life and he can be a father.

The choice should be given.

[i][B you can get on with your life and he can be a father.

The choice should be given. [/B]

so women can get on with their life can they? would this be before or after they've given up nine months of their lives to grow and ultimately deliver (in incredible pain) the child?

WHAT a choice - Wow - I'm surprised more women don't do this :loopy: :loopy: :loopy:

Originally posted by Angeldevine
There is no overall view on abortion. Every case is different. Ive been there myself and dont regret it for one second. Should men have any say in abortion at all? No matter what happens, the best thing you ever did or the worst, its always the women with the memories built in.

Its a right we have, a right that many many women died for.

It isn't actually a "right" that women have to abort a child. In this country there is no abortion on demand. The only legal grounds for abortion are that the mother or baby will be at risk if the pregnancy is allowed to continue.
Interpretations of this are often quite loose so it does sometimes appear that abortion is a lifestyle choice.

Abortions can also be carried out up to the 40th week of pregnancy (ie the full 9 months) in exceptional circumstances.

Originally posted by Rubysoho
so women can get on with their life can they? would this be before or after they've given up nine months of their lives to grow and ultimately deliver (in incredible pain) the child?

WHAT a choice - Wow - I'm surprised more women don't do this :loopy: :loopy: :loopy:

Wow , what an amazing response , I see that you have put load of thought in it, rubysoho

Where is the equal opportunity in this society, I guess that because a woman carries the child for 9 month it gives her the right to kill a child that the father may want to raise alone for the rest of the childs life.

That sort of changes your 9 month theory doesnt it, 9 month or a whole life , let me think.

I guess becuase you dislike children all the fathers dont deserve the chance to raise there own kids.

No actually I have two of my own who I love dearly - however as the woman carries the child ultimately (I believe) that it is the women who should have the final decision to abort or continue a pregnancy.

The day you can carry a child THEN you can sit there and pontificate about whether abortion is right or wrong - until you do any anti-abortion argument that comes from you is just hypothetical as you will NEVER find yourself in a situation where you may have to search your soul to make that decision.

Before you insult people and accuse them of hating children maybe you should read other threads to find out an idea of their personal situation - or do you just get off on aggravating people for the hell of it just because they believe in pro-choice!!!!:rant:

Just have to add, how can you be so vehemently against abortion but 100% behind the death penalty??? Surely isn't that a tad contradictory (with some double standards thrown in) - or are you more interested in going back 100 years and controlling a womans body and reproductive rights than you are concerned about saving a life???

Originally posted by Rubysoho
so women can get on with their life can they? would this be before or after they've given up nine months of their lives to grow and ultimately deliver (in incredible pain) the child?


Sorry , mistook (in incredible pain) the child,

for (an incredible pain) the child.

Many apolgies.

But because there is the option to terminate does not make it the right option, there are such things as condoms, the pill and even the morning after pill.

Even better , keep your knickers on and the problem is solved before it occurs.

Originally posted by Rubysoho

Just have to add, how can you be so vehemently against abortion but 100% behind the death penalty??? Surely isn't that a tad contradictory (with some double standards thrown in) - or are you more interested in going back 100 years and controlling a womans body and reproductive rights than you are concerned about saving a life???

Not at all contradictory, as I have never met an unborn baby who has murdered somebody.

But there are many unborn babies who are murdered.

And there are many many murderers who get to keep there lives when they do not deserve too.

So not really, not really at all .

Oh and ranting on about womens rights doesnt make the choice of abortion any less murderous than what it actually is.

Especially when you have so little regard for mens rights.

Much as I can empathise with the fathers desire to have a child and perhaps raise it alone, it should be considered that women are not just breeders to be used when required.

I've explained my personal stand on this matter elsewhere on this thread, I personally would take some account of the father but if the father was not going to be with me - I'm afraid I would not be used as a hatching area to suit him. I'd rather raise a child alone myself or in some cases have an abortion.
A woman does have rights over her own body and while the child is in her body she has rights there, until birth or until a man can sustain a pregnancy the buck has to stop there. No woman should be forced to carry any other persons child. Since women do the carrying part, women get the choice.
9 months is a long time, I'm told gestation is actually 40 weeks, closer to 10 months, which is a long time to endure a forced pregnancy. It could seriously screw someone up.
IMO the safest and most logical approach is to treat each woman and each child as an individual. Some women might not have a problem with carrying or aborting a child, some will. As the UK generally does - take each case on its own merit and do not tar everyone with the same brush.

Originally posted by jonsastar
Sorry , mistook (in incredible pain) the child,

for (an incredible pain) the child.

A pair of spectacles might help with that.

Many apolgies.

Yes thanks Jon, you sound VERY sincere.

But because there is the option to terminate does not make it the right option, there are such things as condoms, the pill and even the morning after pill.

None of which are 100% effective even when used correctly (or do the non-emotive birth-control statistics not interest you or serve your argument as well as the oh-so-very emotive abortion statistics??)

Even better , keep your knickers on and the problem is solved before it occurs.

True, but men can also keep their tackle in their pants (see Jon, I DO care about mens rights).

Originally posted by jonsastar
Not at all contradictory, as I have never met an unborn baby who has murdered somebody.

But there are many unborn babies who are murdered.

And there are many many murderers who get to keep there lives when they do not deserve too.

So not really, not really at all .

Oh and ranting on about womens rights doesnt make the choice of abortion any less murderous than what it actually is.

Especially when you have so little regard for mens rights.

Surely Jon, if you believe in God it is up to him to punish those who you would deliver the death penalty too.

If you believe in preserving the sanctity of life before it even becomes a sentient being, then why can you not extend the same compassion to those fully grown humans who have committed (albeit rather heinous) crimes.

In regards to Mens Rights - Why should I regard YOUR right when you choose to put the right of a collection of cells over MY right to choose what /what not to put my body through??

I am not against the rights that women have on there bodies but I do believe that if they cared as much about them selves when they were copulating than when they found out they were up the duff there would be a good chance that the abortion statistics would go down, purely because the women would have thought of the cosequences before the act and would have made him wear a condom.

I for one have never slept with a woman who suggested a condom, but if she had I would have worn it just to get my rocks off.

Originally posted by jonsastar
I for one have never slept with a woman who suggested a condom, but if she had I would have worn it just to get my rocks off.

are we to assume from that, that you have never suggested it either?

purely because the women would have thought of the cosequences before the act and would have made him wear a condom.

I for one have never slept with a woman who suggested a condom, but if she had I would have worn it just to get my rocks off.

Are you suggesting you can't take your own decisions when it comes to contraception ?
It's good to know where the responsibility lies ultimately :rolleyes:

I do agree that women can also take responsibility for contraception. I certainly have done with both condoms and contraceptive pill. On the plus side, I've always slept with partners where a baby wouldn't have been a problem for us in the first instance. I can't speak for later since they're exes LOL.
Again now in a strong relationship it wouldn't be a problem.
Some women don't care and some are less bothered or less realistic about the likelihood of pregnancy, I can't comment on that as much.

Originally posted by bonny
are we to assume from that, that you have never suggested it either?

I would like to have kids and no I have never suggested it.

Originally posted by Siân
Are you suggesting you can't take your own decisions when it comes to contraception ?
It's good to know where the responsibility lies ultimately :rolleyes:

Sorry, one time I went to the gents to get a condom as a woman I had met told me she would give me the best sex I had ever had, but I knew her history and so off to the gents I went, to no avail.

So I sadly declined her offer of the best sex ever as I value my soldiers. haha

Originally posted by jonsastar
I am not against the rights that women have on there bodies but I do believe that if they cared as much about them selves when they were copulating than when they found out they were up the duff there would be a good chance that the abortion statistics would go down, purely because the women would have thought of the cosequences before the act and would have made him wear a condom.[B]

Made him wear a condom?????? I didn't realise that a woman had to act as mother as well as lover???? Is that not denegrating your Male right to be a consenting adult - or do you prefer to be 'made' to do these things??
[/i]
I for one have never slept with a woman who suggested a condom, but if she had I would have worn it just to get my rocks off.

Are STD's not a concern for you (condoms don't only protect against pregnancy you know??)?

Originally posted by Rubysoho
Made him wear a condom?????? I didn't realise that a woman had to act as mother as well as lover???? Is that not denegrating your Male right to be a consenting adult - or do you prefer to be 'made' to do these things??

Hey your in charge of what enters you not the man.


Are STD's not a concern for you (condoms don't only protect against pregnancy you know??)?

If you look at an earlier statement you will see that I have chosen to go with out when I thought that STD could have been about and no rubber was available.

Originally posted by jonsastar
If you look at an earlier statement you will see that I have chosen to go with out when I thought that STD could have been about and no rubber was available.

well you sound like the type of person we should all be taking advice from and valuing your opinion.

Big NOT!

No point even debating anything with you until you learn to have some sense and respect for yourself and others.

So, seeing as you've never slept with a woman who suggested wearing a condom and have never suggested using one yourself (your own words which kinda gives the impression you've never worn one - unless of course one made it down there 'by magic') yet turned the chance of a bit of nookie down because there was a risk of STD without a condom - am I safe in thinking that you've actually never had sex yet?????:|

Hey your in charge of what enters you not the man

If thats the case Jon then surely I (not the man) am in charge of what does or does not exit me nine months later.

Kind of negates your whole argument dontcha think Jon???:loopy:

Originally posted by Rubysoho
If thats the case Jon then surely I (not the man) am in charge of what does or does not exit me nine months later.

Kind of negates your whole argument dontcha think Jon???:loopy:

not really but if you agree with child murder then thats your thing ,

so I take it in your eyes its ok to go around getting pregnant just because abortions an option, just to prove your right as a woman.

Typical , feminist

No normal thought patterns what so ever.

just say anything to get 1 up on a man.

You do alot for man kind, well done.

Originally posted by bonny

No point even debating anything with you until you learn to have some sense and respect for yourself and others.

Eh!!! what are you on??? :loopy:

have even read what I wrote?

So Wheres the no respect come from?

I choose not to sleep with some one because they could be carrying STDs and so have no respect for my self or others, wake up and smell the toast!!! :loopy: :loopy: :loopy:

Originally posted by jonsastar
not really but if you agree with child murder then thats your thing ,

so I take it in your eyes its ok to go around getting pregnant just because abortions an option, just to prove your right as a woman.

Typical , feminist

No normal thought patterns what so ever.

just say anything to get 1 up on a man.

You do alot for man kind, well done.

No Jon, I don't believe its okay to go around getting pregnant just because abortions an option - I don't believe I have said that in any of my replies. I DO believe that a woman has the right to choose to terminate a pregnancy if she does not feel physically/emotionally/mentally/fiscally able to be a mother to that child.

I don't class myself as a feminist, maybe to you I am (just as you come across to me as something of a mysoginist - you may not be but some of your responses have been bordering on the neanderthal, so excuse me if I'm wrong).

Normal thought patterns - for right wing, redneck, religious fundamentalists perhaps not no, but for run of the mill society I think I hold a fairly pragmatic viewpoint.

You do jack all for the male of the species with your inability to take any inititiative/responsibility for your own contraception, and your blase, ill thought out, narrow minded comments such as 'keep your knickers on/your legs closed' and 'your in charge of what enters you not the man'.

When you have grown up enough to take responsibility for your actions in your own life, THEN you can get your soapbox out and tell women they're in the wrong for taking charge of their life and their decisions.

there's been some valid points made here but there's also been a few disparaging comments against women too. The "knickers" gibe and the "feminist" gibe were cheap shots, unworthy and childish.

Unless and until you've been there either as a pregnant woman or the man who put her in that condition, you can't really comment on people's reasons for doing what they do.

Any man who has unprotected sex with a woman in her fertile years may find himself in the latter position sooner or later. I hope you're prepared for it. Also you ought to think more about your own health ... condoms don't just protect against unwanted pregnancies after all...

Society seems to have a problem with allowing women to take control of their own bodies. There is a method of extracting menses by vacuum which would save time, discomfort (and money) for women. But it might have the side effect of ending a lot of pregnancies before they are even properly begun and therefore it isn't offered.

Someone earlier made the point that it always seems to be men who have the most vehement opinions about contraception and abortion ... probably because they know they will never have to make these difficult, life altering decisions. I wonder if the men who are complicit in a pregnancy and consequent abortion are still agonising and grieving over it years later as are many women. Somehow i doubt it.

I think we've established that the majority opinion is that it's up to the women in the situation. Most people of the opposing view seem (IMHO) to have a rather strong religious background and rather a distorted view of the facts and statistics behind the issue.

So, the original question is answered, no?

'Unless and until you've been there either as a pregnant woman or the man who put her in that condition, you can't really comment on people's reasons for doing what they do.'

Um, that's a strange comment to make, especially about a subject like this.
It really got my back up when I read it.

Originally posted by jonsastar
I would like to have kids and no I have never suggested it.

If you have never suggested wearing condoms and have had unprotected sex then yes, I was right to say that you lack respect for yourself and you clearly lack respect for women.

So riddle me this batman.......if a woman faces a severe impact on her health by continuing with a pregnancy (after taking precautions, as no precaution is 100%) and is advised not to continue...............is this murder?????????

Feel free to PM me if you want to continue this debate, maybe I can put you straight on a few facts.

I dont want to fall foul of the mods by engaging in direct responses but i don't understand what put ur back up about that paragraph, zebra ...

you posted "Um, that's a strange comment to make, especially about a subject like this.
It really got my back up when I read it."

I happen to believe that especially if you've never been in a similar situation it's hard to pontificate on what the people in that type of situation (whose circumstances you know nowt about) should do or not do at the time ...

If you have religious beliefs - follow those - no one who believed it was a sin/murder would be doing it anyway and therefore the question for them doesn't arise. Let the rest of us make our own decisions about what we should do.

Life's hard enough anyway without strangers making it even more difficult.

I know a mother who is lives Sheffield, asked her husband if they should have another child, 2 months later she was pregnant. Her husband was over the moon, told all his family and friends the good news and daughter that she would be having a brother/sister. A few weeks later the mother went to Jessops hospital and had the unborn baby terminated.

I have to say in this situation I would have to say murder.

It seems a lot of people are in favour of changing the law to abortion on demand, rather than the current law allowing it if the mother or baby are in severe danger.

I would be interested to know what time-limit people would like. For example, should termination be available up to a certain number of weeks/months, or should it be allowed right up until birth? Or should it be allowed even up to a couple of weeks after birth if the baby is born disabled but the mother didn't know it was going to be disabled?

the law may not be, but the reality is already that on demand.

Originally posted by bivvy
I know a mother who is lives Sheffield, asked her husband if they should have another child, 2 months later she was pregnant. Her husband was over the moon, told all his family and friends the good news and daughter that she would be having a brother/sister. A few weeks later the mother went to Jessops hospital and had the unborn baby terminated.

I have to say in this situation I would have to say murder.

Why? Because the husband had told people??

And did you tell her you thought her a murderer, if, as you say, you know her?

My opinion is that its everyones right to choice, and if a mother or indeed father chose to have a termination then so be it. I think it shouldnt be viewed as murder as really up until a certain point its just a group of cells. I know its not just as simple as that but I think choice is the most important thing. accidents happen and we all enjoy intercourse and its one of the consequences if your not properly prepared, modern science and medicine allows us to have choices about these things and its unfortunate and not nice when it happens but it can save a whole lifetime of heart ache and even suicides and poverty, its a choice. As humans we have choices.

I see your point RubyD, the part that irritated me is that I have never been in the position of having an abortion and hope I never will.
I have views however.
My original reply to this thread agrees with your view of letting people choose for themselves.
I may not have had the experience but I am entitled to an opinion and have known a few people who have gone through it. I've been privy to the aftermath and it's not a good thing for women to go through emotionally (obviously). This means I have an opinion about what can happen to women as a result of having an abortion.
Though the pov of someone who has first hand experience is likely to be somewhat more accurate is detail, the experience of a person assisting later is still valid. Everyone is entitled to their opinion anyway, some are just more valid than others I think.
My personal views reflect my moral values more than anything but I see each person as an individual and each case is different.

Originally posted by Cyclone
I think we've established that the majority opinion is that it's up to the women in the situation. Most people of the opposing view seem (IMHO) to have a rather strong religious background and rather a distorted view of the facts and statistics behind the issue.

So, the original question is answered, no?

Shouldnt the father of the child have input into whether or not to go ahead with it?

Originally posted by youngmcgill
Shouldnt the father of the child have input into whether or not to go ahead with it?

on what basis. He won't have to spend 9 months pregnant.
He can obviously offer his opinion and point out that he wishes to take the child as his after it's birth. But he won't be the one who has to carry it, give birth to it, sacrifice some parts of social life, take time off work etc... So at the end of the day the father has only as much influence on the situation as the mother wishes to give.

Originally posted by Cyclone
on what basis. He won't have to spend 9 months pregnant.
He can obviously offer his opinion and point out that he wishes to take the child as his after it's birth. But he won't be the one who has to carry it, give birth to it, sacrifice some parts of social life, take time off work etc... So at the end of the day the father has only as much influence on the situation as the mother wishes to give.

Its got nothing to do with the 9 months pregnancy, I agree that yes its good that men dont have to carry. I think its unfair that men who say they wish the pregnancy to be terminated and the woman says no but then the father then has to have 18 years of CSA payments. You sort of make your own point by saying the father has as much influence as the mother is prepared to give, however it shouldnt be the case as the consequences of pregancy have as much an effect on the father as the mother, is it fair that the decision is completely taken out of the fathers hands? What happened to equality?

Originally posted by youngmcgill
Its got nothing to do with the 9 months pregnancy, I agree that yes its good that men dont have to carry. I think its unfair that men who say they wish the pregnancy to be terminated and the woman says no but then the father then has to have 18 years of CSA payments. You sort of make your own point by saying the father has as much influence as the mother is prepared to give, however it shouldnt be the case as the consequences of pregancy have as much an effect on the father as the mother, is it fair that the decision is completely taken out of the fathers hands? What happened to equality?

It has EVERYTHING to do with the nine month(+) pregnancy and
no it possibly isn't fair - but whoever said life was?

The abortion/pregnancy argument can NEVER be about equality as the burden of responsibility (in that it is the woman who 'loses control' over her body for nine months whilst the foetus develops) will NEVER be equal (male ejaculation in no way compares to a pregnancy).

Unless you want to return to a time where no woman had any control over her own body or reproductivity, then it is entirely right that the final decision should rest with the woman over whether to abort or not.

Young mcgill - please read back over the thread - we've already done fathers rights. Women basically say no - men have no right. The day you have to give your body over to something growing against your will is normally the day you give up life for cancer..... women are not breeding mares to be used at your whim.
Im sure this will all be seen clearly if you read back a few pages.
There is no equality over womens bodies, the biological imbalance has nothing to do with rights, just because you can't, doesn't mean we should.
You wouldn't want to be forced to carry something for 40 weeks would you? Neither do we.

Originally posted by Rubysoho
It has EVERYTHING to do with the nine month(+) pregnancy and
no it possibly isn't fair - but whoever said life was?

The abortion/pregnancy argument can NEVER be about equality as the burden of responsibility (in that it is the woman who 'loses control' over her body for nine months whilst the foetus develops) will NEVER be equal (male ejaculation in no way compares to a pregnancy).

Unless you want to return to a time where no woman had any control over her own body or reproductivity, then it is entirely right that the final decision should rest with the woman over whether to abort or not.

Its not about losing control over your body and I find your comment about ejaculation in comparison to pregnancy very stupid. Thats not the point, and I agree that the Pregnancy isnt perfect and unfortunately the male anatomy doesnt allow us to participate. I find it very selfish to say that becuase females have to carry the baby for 9 months, does that mean that even if the male voices his concern over having a child he should be liable for it for the next 18 years even if he doesnt wish it to be born? I think there should be some sort of "get out clause" (pardon the pun but its the only expression I can think of) to say that if the female still wishes to carry the child even after the males expressed wishes are not to have the child, he should not be liable for maintenance payments. It IS about equality as the overall effect and consequences are equal to both in terms of the burden after birth. Just becuase the female has to carry the child for 9 months does that mean the male should keep her and the child for 18 years as form of payment? No!

Originally posted by Zebra
Young mcgill - please read back over the thread - we've already done fathers rights. Women basically say no - men have no right. The day you have to give your body over to something growing against your will is normally the day you give up life for cancer..... women are not breeding mares to be used at your whim.
Im sure this will all be seen clearly if you read back a few pages.
There is no equality over womens bodies, the biological imbalance has nothing to do with rights, just because you can't, doesn't mean we should.
You wouldn't want to be forced to carry something for 40 weeks would you? Neither do we.

I dont care if the issue has already been ocvered in this thread, this is my opinions and im equally entitled to it as everyone else is, you dont have to read what I write if it causes you such a huge problem.

You sort of make the point yourself here that women are not breeding mares and certainly not viewed this way by men. Women also have the choice not to give their body up for breeding as you put it, you also have the choice not to carry the child, you are not forced to carry a child you have the option and this the whole basis of the argument. Women feel so hard done by but in reality miss the whole point of the argument as you dont realise that you do have a choice, nobody is forcing you to have the child and thats the whole basis of the argument which you have made yourself!

I think you might be arguing with yourself.
Women (at least the ones posting here) don't feel 'hard done by' for having to be the sex that carries a child. They just feel that since they are doing the carrying, it's up to them whether to go ahead with it or not.

I can actually see a glimmer of a point in your posting that I do feel some sympathy with.
If a women is pregnant and the man expresses a wish not to have a child (ie to abort) and the women chooses to go ahead, it should be accepted then that she will shoulder the responsability to raise the child including all financial responsability.

Other than that though, i'm afraid I don't see much strength in an argument that men should have some sort of power to force women to abort or not abort a foetus.

Originally posted by youngmcgill
Its not about losing control over your body and I find your comment about ejaculation in comparison to pregnancy very stupid. Thats not the point, and I agree that the Pregnancy isnt perfect and unfortunately the male anatomy doesnt allow us to participate. I find it very selfish to say that becuase females have to carry the baby for 9 months, does that mean that even if the male voices his concern over having a child he should be liable for it for the next 18 years even if he doesnt wish it to be born? I think there should be some sort of "get out clause" (pardon the pun but its the only expression I can think of) to say that if the female still wishes to carry the child even after the males expressed wishes are not to have the child, he should not be liable for maintenance payments. It IS about equality as the overall effect and consequences are equal to both in terms of the burden after birth. Just becuase the female has to carry the child for 9 months does that mean the male should keep her and the child for 18 years as form of payment? No!

Why are you trying to turn an abortion thread into whether men should be liable for maintenance payments????

Originally posted by Cyclone
I think you might be arguing with yourself.
Women (at least the ones posting here) don't feel 'hard done by' for having to be the sex that carries a child. They just feel that since they are doing the carrying, it's up to them whether to go ahead with it or not.

I can actually see a glimmer of a point in your posting that I do feel some sympathy with.
If a women is pregnant and the man expresses a wish not to have a child (ie to abort) and the women chooses to go ahead, it should be accepted then that she will shoulder the responsability to raise the child including all financial responsability.

Other than that though, i'm afraid I don't see much strength in an argument that men should have some sort of power to force women to abort or not abort a foetus.

And that my point entirely, not that a male should indeed have the right to force a woman to abort a pregnancy, but that a male should have the right to express his wishes. If the female choses to have the child against the wishes of the father, then the financial burden should be up to the female and there should be no repercusion for the male.

I think that some women do feel "hard done by" and in some ways I do sympathise with them, but i think the broader spectrum has to be seen and its the longer consequences that must be viewed and not just the fact that she has to carry the child for 9 months, but it reality the the male also should have an input. Ignoring the financial implications, its also important to look at the morale implications as well. Is it right to have a child that is not brought into a stable loving relationship where it can be looked after and cared for? If the relationship ends and the male meets a new person and the male expresses his wishes that he doesnt not want a child with his previous partner surely this also should be taken into consideration as it would have implications for his future?

I know that sounds very selfish but ultimately at times you have to be selfish and in reality if you had split with your partner and she was pregnant and at a time where the pregnancy could be terminated I think this should be done if it is the fathers wishes because is it right that there would be a child bron with the fathers DNA who ultimately could come looking for daddy one day against the fathers wishes and possibly jeopardise any relationships he may have in the future?

In reality it is only the female who has a choice and thats just not right and my belief is that there should be a "get out clause" and the female, should she decided to have the child, should have it on the understanding that if the father doesnt wish to be a part of the childs life or carry the financial burden then he should have the ability to say no and the child is born with the female carrying the sole burden.

This allows the female to make an educated decision and also allows the male the freedom to also have the choice. And choice is the most important factor for both male and female.

Supposing im in a relationship, we order a £50000 car, my partner leaves me, is it fair for me to say well im not selling it or sending back, you have to pay for it, insure it MOT and tax it for the next 18 years and im going to drive it? No, and most people would agree its not. I know its an extreme example but the ultimate consequences are similar, why should the female have liability for something which she choses not to. Again, choices.

Originally posted by Rubysoho
Why are you trying to turn an abortion thread into whether men should be liable for maintenance payments????

Its not about maintenance payments, if you read the thread youll see its an argument about choices.

you are arguing a different point now, one that so far no-one has actually disagreed with.

But you seem to be inconsistent.

"if you had split with your partner and she was pregnant and at a time where the pregnancy could be terminated I think this should be done if it is the fathers wishes "

No, because you are putting the fathers views above the mothers, but she is the one with the greater input at that stage.

"should she decided to have the child, should have it on the understanding that if the father doesnt wish to be a part of the childs life or carry the financial burden then he should have the ability to say no"

Contradicts what you said earlier, but is a much more reasonable approach to the situation.

Originally posted by youngmcgill
And that my point entirely, not that a male should indeed have the right to force a woman to abort a pregnancy, but that a male should have the right to express his wishes. If the female choses to have the child against the wishes of the father, then the financial burden should be up to the female and there should be no repercusion for the male.

I think that some women do feel "hard done by" and in some ways I do sympathise with them, but i think the broader spectrum has to be seen and its the longer consequences that must be viewed and not just the fact that she has to carry the child for 9 months, but it reality the the male also should have an input. Ignoring the financial implications, its also important to look at the morale implications as well. Is it right to have a child that is not brought into a stable loving relationship where it can be looked after and cared for? If the relationship ends and the male meets a new person and the male expresses his wishes that he doesnt not want a child with his previous partner surely this also should be taken into consideration as it would have implications for his future?

I know that sounds very selfish but ultimately at times you have to be selfish and in reality if you had split with your partner and she was pregnant and at a time where the pregnancy could be terminated I think this should be done if it is the fathers wishes because is it right that there would be a child bron with the fathers DNA who ultimately could come looking for daddy one day against the fathers wishes and possibly jeopardise any relationships he may have in the future?

In reality it is only the female who has a choice and thats just not right and my belief is that there should be a "get out clause" and the female, should she decided to have the child, should have it on the understanding that if the father doesnt wish to be a part of the childs life or carry the financial burden then he should have the ability to say no and the child is born with the female carrying the sole burden.

This allows the female to make an educated decision and also allows the male the freedom to also have the choice. And choice is the most important factor for both male and female.

Supposing im in a relationship, we order a £50000 car, my partner leaves me, is it fair for me to say well im not selling it or sending back, you have to pay for it, insure it MOT and tax it for the next 18 years and im going to drive it? No, and most people would agree its not. I know its an extreme example but the ultimate consequences are similar, why should the female have liability for something which she choses not to. Again, choices.

Originally posted by Cyclone
you are arguing a different point now, one that so far no-one has actually disagreed with.

But you seem to be inconsistent.

"if you had split with your partner and she was pregnant and at a time where the pregnancy could be terminated I think this should be done if it is the fathers wishes "

No, because you are putting the fathers views above the mothers, but she is the one with the greater input at that stage.

"should she decided to have the child, should have it on the understanding that if the father doesnt wish to be a part of the childs life or carry the financial burden then he should have the ability to say no"

Contradicts what you said earlier, but is a much more reasonable approach to the situation.

Why is the mothers input greater than that of the fathers? It should be a case of both parties agreeing or the pregnancy is terminated.

Originally posted by youngmcgill
Why is the mothers input greater than that of the fathers? It should be a case of both parties agreeing or the pregnancy is terminated.

because of biology.

Originally posted by Cyclone
because of biology.

I dont accept that as a strong enough argument because the long term consequences effect both parties and therefore should have equal input.

Well, in your direct reply to me McGill as we don't have to have a child and we have the choice of abortion I need not press my point further.
Your snippy comments about not caring whether a point is already covered could perhaps benefit from being reviewed. This is a forum, not a pulpit.
Physical capability will, most likely, always be a stronger case than lawful preference.
I rest my case on this particular part of the thread as I feel its getting silly.

Originally posted by Zebra
Well, in your direct reply to me McGill as we don't have to have a child and we have the choice of abortion I need not press my point further.
Your snippy comments about not caring whether a point is already covered could perhaps benefit from being reviewed. This is a forum, not a pulpit.
Physical capability will, most likely, always be a stronger case than lawful preference.
I rest my case on this particular part of the thread as I feel its getting silly.

Exactly it is a forum not a pulpit and my views are equally entitled to be aired as anyone elses whether or not its already been covered. I didnt realise there was an agenda for discussion, if you think the discussion is getting silly then dont participate in it.

Originally posted by youngmcgill
I dont accept that as a strong enough argument because the long term consequences effect both parties and therefore should have equal input.

unless the more sensible argument of the man not having to provide support or have any input if his wish is to not have the child is accepted.

You can't argue for both positions (well, you can, but it makes no sense). And you can't discount 9 months of pregnancy for any reason. It's easy for you to discount it, you won't be the one drastically effected.

My point that in the first 9 months the mothers input is far greater than the fathers is not an opinion, it's clearly a biological fact. So given an equal weighting for all other input, the mother comes out on top by 9 months. Since it's a binary decision any disagreement has to go in favour of the mother since she has the greater weighted involvement.

Originally posted by Cyclone
unless the more sensible argument of the man not having to provide support or have any input if his wish is to not have the child is accepted.

You can't argue for both positions (well, you can, but it makes no sense). And you can't discount 9 months of pregnancy for any reason. It's easy for you to discount it, you won't be the one drastically effected.

My point that in the first 9 months the mothers input is far greater than the fathers is not an opinion, it's clearly a biological fact. So given an equal weighting for all other input, the mother comes out on top by 9 months. Since it's a binary decision any disagreement has to go in favour of the mother since she has the greater weighted involvement.

I totally agree with that point and for the first 9 months yes of course the female has greater input but ultimately the long term consequences are equal for both parties. I think your argument would stand more ground if it were the other way around, ie the male insisting the female continue the pregnancy as then of course it would be the male insisting the female goes through the trauma and biological effect of carrying a child and thus absolutely I think she would have every right to protest. But the whole argument would involve the mother not carrying the child and thus meaning her not having to go through the trauma of pregnancy. If she wanted to have the child then of course shed be welcome to carry a child but by another man.

Originally posted by youngmcgill
I dont accept that as a strong enough argument because the long term consequences effect both parties and therefore should have equal input.

I don't really understand why men feel that they should have equal input??

Like has already been said. We carry the children for 9 months and go through the birth. That is a womans decision to make, not a mans. You have no control over a womans body and neither should you!!!!!!! We have a vote now too incase that slipped your attention.

Now...................where you actually do have equal participation and a choice is at the stage of conception.

If you wish not to have a child....................GET A GODDAM CONDOM!!! and prevent it in the first place if the woman you choose to sleep with isn't using birth control, cos' Oh..... how sorry I feel for men that get tricked into the woman getting pregnant. I'll tell you how sorry.....NOT A JOT!

I have tried to avoid this thread due to it's nature, and failed. Yes it does offend me for a lot of reasons, make of that what you will. You will never come close to the truth as to why with specualtion either.

There are many sides to this argument, but men who are against this, in my opinion, are not entitled to be. Name one way in which women express a strong enough opinion about a male condition that warrants them being attacked for it???

Originally posted by bonny
I don't really understand why men feel that they should have equal input??

Like has already been said. We carry the children for 9 months and go through the birth. That is a womans decision to make, not a mans. You have no control over a womans body and neither should you!!!!!!! We have a vote now too incase that slipped your attention.

Now...................where you actually do have equal participation and a choice is at the stage of conception.

If you wish not to have a child....................GET A GODDAM CONDOM!!! and prevent it in the first place if the woman you choose to sleep with isn't using birth control, cos' Oh..... how sorry I feel for men that get tricked into the woman getting pregnant. I'll tell you how sorry.....NOT A JOT!

I have tried to avoid this thread due to it's nature, and failed. Yes it does offend me for a lot of reasons, make of that what you will. You will never come close to the truth as to why with specualtion either.

There are many sides to this argument, but men who are against this, in my opinion, are not to entitled to be. Name on way in which women express a strong enough opinion about a male condition that warrants them being attacked for it???

First of all, i see that you refer to it as a "condition" when you talk about male conditions i certainly wouldnt refer to pregnancy as a condition. I think you must really be quite removed from reality as the only form of contraception that is 100% effective is not to have intercourse, contraceptives fail on occasions.

Its not about feeling sorry for anyone or men trying to take control over a females body the basis of my argument is more so about the morale obligation that falls with pregnancy. It cant be ignored that women do have to go through a great deal during pregnancy and that is not the basis of my argument and its certainly not about taking control of their body. I think your opinions seems to be something of its the males responsibility to ensure 100% contraception and the female should be paid for her time during pregnancy and again that is completely wrong and of no relevance.

The fact of the matter is that contracpetion does fail as do relationships. In the event that this happens there has to be an understanding that having a baby is not just about the 9 month pregnancy and the inconvenience it may cause to the mother but more so the greater consequences for both parties and that of the male given that he has no real powers to view his opinion.

My point is that both parties should consent to haveing the child and if the father decides not to have it then he should be able to do so. whether this be through having no ties or financial or morale obligations to the child when its born or otherwise, the father should still be in a position, as long as its justified, to walk away. Why should we be blackmailed or forced into something which we have no control over. Again yes we do have control when it comes to contracpetion, but we all live in a modern world and realisitcally thats not going to happen, we all have intercourse and accidents do happen whether deliberate or otherwise. The father should have a choice as well, not just the mother.

Originally posted by youngmcgill
I totally agree with that point and for the first 9 months yes of course the female has greater input but ultimately the long term consequences are equal for both parties. I think your argument would stand more ground if it were the other way around, ie the male insisting the female continue the pregnancy as then of course it would be the male insisting the female goes through the trauma and biological effect of carrying a child and thus absolutely I think she would have every right to protest. But the whole argument would involve the mother not carrying the child and thus meaning her not having to go through the trauma of pregnancy. If she wanted to have the child then of course shed be welcome to carry a child but by another man.

i really can't see how you argument that a man should be allowed to force an abortion carries any weight if the woman wishes to raise it on her own with no input from the man.
It sounds to me that what are you arguing for would be a violation of the highest order at least on a par with rape or serious assault.
I've argued it to as far as I can see it's logical conclusion, beyond that I'm simply going to have to put you down to being some sort of sexist throwback or a troll.

You keep going on about the longer term consequences. There are none if the woman chooses to keep the baby after the man has left, so where does that leave you?

I agree with having the choice. The choice though should be to walk away or not, not to force anyone to have an abortion, that's just sick.

Why shouldn't the baby have a right to life?

Originally posted by youngmcgill
My point is that both parties should consent to haveing the child and if the father decides not to have it then he should be able to do so. whether this be through having no ties or financial or morale obligations to the child when its born or otherwise, the father should still be in a position, as long as its justified, to walk away. Why should we be blackmailed or forced into something which we have no control over. Again yes we do have control when it comes to contracpetion, but we all live in a modern world and realisitcally thats not going to happen, we all have intercourse and accidents do happen whether deliberate or otherwise. The father should have a choice as well, not just the mother.

So if both parties should consent to havinf the child, what laws are going to be put in place to ensure that both parties stag together with the child ????? unrealistic. A man has no right to make a decision over a pregnancy other than before the act of sex. If a man does not want a child, does not trust contraception, etc. etc. DO NOT HAVE SEX.

As far as being forced (what a joke!) , blackmailed into something like pregnancy, like you say you have control over that area as much as we do, so sort it out in the begining.

If you are silly enought to get someone pregnant through not taking control, then more fool you, you knew the risks, you knew you may have to support a child, all for the sake of a sex act. So why should you be able to walk away, you knew the risks didn't you.

Originally posted by Cyclone
i really can't see how you argument that a man should be allowed to force an abortion carries any weight if the woman wishes to raise it on her own with no input from the man.
It sounds to me that what are you arguing for would be a violation of the highest order at least on a par with rape or serious assault.
I've argued it to as far as I can see it's logical conclusion, beyond that I'm simply going to have to put you down to being some sort of sexist throwback or a troll.

You keep going on about the longer term consequences. There are none if the woman chooses to keep the baby after the man has left, so where does that leave you?

I agree with having the choice. The choice though should be to walk away or not, not to force anyone to have an abortion, that's just sick.

Im not a sexist throwback or a troll and take great offence from your referal. Im not going into great depth here because its apparent that you cant see the other side of the argument and are blind the males rights.

The male is still the father and that cant be ignored. Would you like 15 years later to have the child knock on your door when your in a totally new relationship perhaps with children of your own to someone else? I wouldnt. Curiosity killed the cat and the child will more often than not want to know who its real daddy is eventually.

Originally posted by youngmcgill
Im not a sexist throwback or a troll and take great offence from your referal. Im not going into great depth here because its apparent that you cant see the other side of the argument and are blind the males rights.

The male is still the father and that cant be ignored. Would you like 15 years later to have the child knock on your door when your in a totally new relationship perhaps with children of your own to someone else? I wouldnt. Curiosity killed the cat and the child will more often than not want to know who its real daddy is eventually.

How hard is it to grasp???

If you don't want a child, make sure you don't get one! If it means don't have sex, then don't.

Originally posted by youngmcgill
Im not a sexist throwback or a troll and take great offence from your referal. Im not going into great depth here because its apparent that you cant see the other side of the argument and are blind the males rights.

The male is still the father and that cant be ignored. Would you like 15 years later to have the child knock on your door when your in a totally new relationship perhaps with children of your own to someone else? I wouldnt. Curiosity killed the cat and the child will more often than not want to know who its real daddy is eventually.

And on another note, im not in anyway in any belief that its fair to force a woman to have an abortion and certainly not resigned to the fact that thats even a possible conclusion. Which is why some of my points conflict because I really dont believe that to be a feasible option just more so I think its something that should be taken into consideration. I think the best conclusion would be to have some sort of get out clause where the male can walk away but again only if its justified and thats a whole new argument.

Originally posted by bonny
How hard is it to grasp???

If you don't want a child, make sure you don't get one! If it means don't have sex, then don't.

Because we live in a modern society and unless your a nun, most people tend to have sex when they are in a relationship because we enjoy it and most people do try to avoid pregnancy and ue contraception but it doesnt always work. Be realistic.

Originally posted by youngmcgill
Because we live in a modern society and unless your a nun, most people tend to have sex when they are in a relationship because we enjoy it and most people do try to avoid pregnancy and ue contraception but it doesnt always work. Be realistic.

You carry on thinking it's OK to close the door after the horse has bolted then.

Where are the morals in that. Just take responsibility for yourself. There are no rules that say you cannot do that in a modern society. Grow up.

then use more than one type of contraception, the pill can be taken at the same time as using condoms!!!! If one fails then the other is the backup! why do some people not get this???

i'm certainly not blind to male rights, I'm keen on having all the the rights i'm intitled too.
Having the right to determine what happens to someone else clearly contravenes their own rights though. So it's inconsistant with my view.
Maybe you're not a troll, but i've looked at your arguments and i've said several times that I think you have a point with a man not having to be responsible for a child including making maintenance payments if they take that position where a legal abortion is still possible. So, i'd say that I can see your arguments, but you however refuse to consider mine.
What the child might do later in life is no argument for anything. It might cure cancer, it might destroy the human race, 'mights' take us no where in an argument.

Originally posted by youngmcgill
Im not a sexist throwback or a troll and take great offence from your referal. Im not going into great depth here because its apparent that you cant see the other side of the argument and are blind the males rights.

The male is still the father and that cant be ignored. Would you like 15 years later to have the child knock on your door when your in a totally new relationship perhaps with children of your own to someone else? I wouldnt. Curiosity killed the cat and the child will more often than not want to know who its real daddy is eventually.

Originally posted by bonny
So if both parties should consent to havinf the child, what laws are going to be put in place to ensure that both parties stag together with the child ????? unrealistic. A man has no right to make a decision over a pregnancy other than before the act of sex. If a man does not want a child, does not trust contraception, etc. etc. DO NOT HAVE SEX.

As far as being forced (what a joke!) , blackmailed into something like pregnancy, like you say you have control over that area as much as we do, so sort it out in the begining.

If you are silly enought to get someone pregnant through not taking control, then more fool you, you knew the risks, you knew you may have to support a child, all for the sake of a sex act. So why should you be able to walk away, you knew the risks didn't you.

Like I said, we live in a modern society and we all have sex and all understand the consequences. Most of us use contraception and we all understand that it doesnt always work but most people still do it but we all understand that we have choices and the ultimate choice lies with abortion. And its not about forcing a woman into abortion but realising that the male should also have a choice about whether or not to have involvement with the child.

I think your ignoring the fact that there is also adegree of responsibility on the womans part as well and really there isnt anyone to blame if all the normal precuations have been taken but its more so about how to deal with it.

At the time of pregnancy you have the option to deal with the situation if your relationship has broken down. When you have had the child and after a few years if your relationship breaks down, you dont and thats the difference, its a completely different set of circumtances.

Originally posted by bonny
You carry on thinking it's OK to close the door after the horse has bolted then.

Where are the morals in that. Just take responsibility for yourself. There are no rules that say you cannot do that in a modern society. Grow up.

Im not going to answer any of your comments Bonny as its quite clear that youve got a very feminist stance. Its not about "growing up" its about being realisitc. You should try it.

Originally posted by em3978
then use more than one type of contraception, the pill can be taken at the same time as using condoms!!!! If one fails then the other is the backup! why do some people not get this???

Most people do get it but again, it doesnt always work. The argument isnt about prevention as we all know how to. My argument is more so about when there is a genuine mistake or "accident". Ive no sympathy for people who dont take proper precaustions as really its to be expected but im more refering to those who do. In an ideal world we would only have sex when you want a baby but really, come on, we all know that just doesnt happen and anyone who suggests otherwise would be foolish. It does happen, we do have sex for fun and accidents do happen.

Originally posted by youngmcgill
Most people do get it but again, it doesnt always work. The argument isnt about prevention as we all know how to. My argument is more so about when there is a genuine mistake or "accident". Ive no sympathy for people who dont take proper precaustions as really its to be expected but im more refering to those who do. In an ideal world we would only have sex when you want a baby but really, come on, we all know that just doesnt happen and anyone who suggests otherwise would be foolish. It does happen, we do have sex for fun and accidents do happen.


Accidents can be prevented then you would have nothing to complain about would you? You can't keep bleeting on about that, it isn't rocket science. Stop playing the victim when you don't have to be one, for goodness sake.

Originally posted by youngmcgill
Im not going to answer any of your comments Bonny as its quite clear that youve got a very feminist stance. Its not about "growing up" its about being realisitc. You should try it.

I am not a feminist and I am not taking a feminist stance. If I were though why should that be a problem as it would only be counteracting your chauvinist one.

isnt the Pill 99.9% proof. unlucky to be the .1% that GOT CAUGHT. you do read of women trapping men, i suppose it spoils it for the ladies who are that .1%

Originally posted by youngmcgill
I totally agree with that point and for the first 9 months yes of course the female has greater input but ultimately the long term consequences are equal for both parties. I think your argument would stand more ground if it were the other way around, ie the male insisting the female continue the pregnancy as then of course it would be the male insisting the female goes through the trauma and biological effect of carrying a child and thus absolutely I think she would have every right to protest. But the whole argument would involve the mother not carrying the child and thus meaning her not having to go through the trauma of pregnancy.

No, it would just mean she would have to go through the trauma and biological/hormonal effects of an abortion(even though I am pro-choice I am in no way blind to how devastating an abortion is) purely because the man who got her pregnant would rather her go through that than be involved with his child!!!!

but counter to that is that a man who does wish to be involved with his child (even to the level of having full custody) can be denied that because the women decides to have an abortion.

Having the right to say, I don't want this child from the mans point of view is valid, it just leaves the woman with the choice to raise it herself or abort it. I don't see why a man should be forced to pay for it.

Women are not breeding mares, but equally men are not just vessels to produce income to raise unwanted children.

Originally posted by bonny
Accidents can be prevented then you would have nothing to complain about would you? You can't keep bleeting on about that, it isn't rocket science. Stop playing the victim when you don't have to be one, for goodness sake.

Nobody is the victim its just the consequence of human nature and we have a choice, both male and female. Its not about the male its about both parties. Accidents cant be 100% prevented in modern society, if they could we wouldnt be having this conversation.

Originally posted by Cyclone
Women are not breeding mares, but equally men are not just vessels to produce income to raise unwanted children.

True, but we all have the choice to stop this from happening from both genders points of view. We all know that contracption isn't fool proof, so if we are engaging in the act then we must accept the risks and the results and lay no blame on the opposite gender. Both are to blame but it is a woman who carries the baby in HER body, and her body that is affected. A man has no right to say what happens from there, he knew the risks, there is no point crying over it afterwards and playing the victim.

Originally posted by Cyclone
but counter to that is that a man who does wish to be involved with his child (even to the level of having full custody) can be denied that because the women decides to have an abortion.

Having the right to say, I don't want this child from the mans point of view is valid, it just leaves the woman with the choice to raise it herself or abort it. I don't see why a man should be forced to pay for it.

Women are not breeding mares, but equally men are not just vessels to produce income to raise unwanted children.

I completely agree and I think thats the whole point of my argument, being that both parties should have a choice. I think we may have reached a conclusion!

Originally posted by youngmcgill
Nobody is the victim its just the consequence of human nature and we have a choice, both male and female. Its not about the male its about both parties. Accidents cant be 100% prevented in modern society, if they could we wouldnt be having this conversation.

Of course they can!!!!!!!!!! Why can you not see that? If you are so against having a child, take responsilbility for it not to happen, don't have sex, have a vasectomy then use other precautions too, all of them. It is a risk and always will be as long as you are having sex with a woman that you don't care to have a child with!

It is not impossible, it is just that you don't want to have to make any sacrifice, you would rather a foetus/block of cells/ was sacrificed than your own pleasure

Originally posted by youngmcgill
I completely agree and I think thats the whole point of my argument, being that both parties should have a choice. I think we may have reached a conclusion!

That is no conclusion, that is two men ending the lesson on "right we have a say over what women do to themselves, lets stop the conversation here cos then we have decided we have won"

:clap: :clap:

Originally posted by bonny
That is no conclusion, that is two men ending the lesson on "right we have a say over what women do to themselves, lets stop the conversation here cos then we have decided we have won"

:clap: :clap:

I know, ONE person validates one single point of his and automatically the argument is won:loopy:

Don't blame me.

Are you actually arguing with the position that I stated then?

If a women finds herself pregnant and tells the father. He either indicates that he does or does not wish to have a child and or contribute to it's upkeep and upbringing.

If the woman disagree's then her view will be carried out (I agree with this), but if she chooses to keep a child he doesn't want, she should then be responsible for the child (as it's her choice to keep it).

Is that unfair?

Originally posted by Cyclone
Don't blame me.

Are you actually arguing with the position that I stated then?

If a women finds herself pregnant and tells the father. He either indicates that he does or does not wish to have a child and or contribute to it's upkeep and upbringing.

If the woman disagree's then her view will be carried out (I agree with this), but if she chooses to keep a child he doesn't want, she should then be responsible for the child (as it's her choice to keep it).

Is that unfair?

No, women have brought up children alone for many years, and it is a reality many women deal with when they become pregnant.

However I think the attitude of 'either get an abortion or I'm off' is incredibly immature. All Young McGill seems concerned with is the financial implications - (heaven forbid it makes a dent in your beer money) rather than justifying why men should be able to walk away.

Originally posted by Cyclone
Don't blame me.

Are you actually arguing with the position that I stated then?

If a women finds herself pregnant and tells the father. He either indicates that he does or does not wish to have a child and or contribute to it's upkeep and upbringing.

If the woman disagree's then her view will be carried out (I agree with this), but if she chooses to keep a child he doesn't want, she should then be responsible for the child (as it's her choice to keep it).

Is that unfair?
are you sugg

Originally posted by bonny
Of course they can!!!!!!!!!! Why can you not see that? If you are so against having a child, take responsilbility for it not to happen, don't have sex, have a vasectomy then use other precautions too, all of them. It is a risk and always will be as long as you are having sex with a woman that you don't care to have a child with!

It is not impossible, it is just that you don't want to have to make any sacrifice, you would rather a foetus/block of cells/ was sacrificed than your own pleasure

Im sorry Bonny but your getting personal now and its not about personal characteristics. I read your message and your circumstances are different and I think your view has been tainted by it. Dont make assumptions. Nothing is 100%, unless you dont have sex and its human nature im afraid and thats something you and everyone else has to accept.

Originally posted by bonny
That is no conclusion, that is two men ending the lesson on "right we have a say over what women do to themselves, lets stop the conversation here cos then we have decided we have won"

:clap: :clap:

Its not about winners or losers or anyone telling other people what to do, its about choices and choices relating to different sets of circumstances.

Originally posted by stelps
Are you suggesting that the man is unware that having sex might result in a pregnancy?
If he is having sex then he ought to take some responsibility for the child

if you use that argument to argue against a woman having an abortion you are (rightly) branded as unreasonable.

So if the argument cannot be applied to woman (they can understand consequences too I believe) then it cannot be applied to a man.

The fact is that the woman has the ultimate choice, continue with or stop the pregnancy.
The man has far less of a choice, but I don't see why he can't say, I don't want this child and thus not be responsible for it if the woman chooses to keep it.

I'm not talking about anything so immature as have an abortion or i'll leave you, that's not what i'm getting at at all.

Originally posted by Rubysoho
No, women have brought up children alone for many years, and it is a reality many women deal with when they become pregnant.

However I think the attitude of 'either get an abortion or I'm off' is incredibly immature. All Young McGill seems concerned with is the financial implications - (heaven forbid it makes a dent in your beer money) rather than justifying why men should be able to walk away.

No your wrong im afraid. The finacial implications are of course important as it would rule the rest of your life. Its not about walking away or forcing anyone to have an abortion, its about having the right to say no and being able to make the decision of whether or not to contribute to something which you do not want in the first place. And thats whats wrong. Its not immature, i think its immature and wrong to ignore the male point of view.

Originally posted by youngmcgill
Im sorry Bonny but your getting personal now and its not about personal characteristics. I read your message and your circumstances are different and I think your view has been tainted by it. Dont make assumptions. Nothing is 100%, unless you dont have sex and its human nature im afraid and thats something you and everyone else has to accept.

Why should we accept that. If you 100% don't want to have children and are not willing to step up to the plate if someone accidentally does get pregnant then either do as Bonny says and have a vasectomy or buy a blow up doll (100% reliable as far as no pregnancys I am reliably informed).

If you could be in a relationship with a woman, possibly even in love with her, and can leave her (and your baby) if she refuses to have an abortion after accidentally falling pregnant says more about you than a million and one posts on here.

Originally posted by Cyclone
if you use that argument to argue against a woman having an abortion you are (rightly) branded as unreasonable.

So if the argument cannot be applied to woman (they can understand consequences too I believe) then it cannot be applied to a man.

The fact is that the woman has the ultimate choice, continue with or stop the pregnancy.
The man has far less of a choice, but I don't see why he can't say, I don't want this child and thus not be responsible for it if the woman chooses to keep it.

I'm not talking about anything so immature as have an abortion or i'll leave you, that's not what i'm getting at at all.

I completely agree with Cyclone's point of view. The male should still have input and a choice of being aboe to say yes or no, but not as to whether to terminate, that is a womans right and their own responsibility.

The male should still have the ability to make his feelings known and then if the woman decides to continue the pregnancy against the males wishes, why should the male be forced to contribute towards it. Its not about forcing to have abortion but the male having the ability to say no.

Originally posted by Rubysoho
Why should we accept that. If you 100% don't want to have children and are not willing to step up to the plate if someone accidentally does get pregnant then either do as Bonny says and have a vasectomy or buy a blow up doll (100% reliable as far as no pregnancys I am reliably informed).

If you could be in a relationship with a woman, possibly even in love with her, and can leave her (and your baby) if she refuses to have an abortion after accidentally falling pregnant says more about you than a million and one posts on here.

So to any woman who might choose to have an abortion you would be saying that they should never have had sex in the first place if they didn't intend to deal with the consequences.

There's no point in talking to someone about male choice who doesn't first believe in female choice.

Originally posted by Rubysoho
Why should we accept that. If you 100% don't want to have children and are not willing to step up to the plate if someone accidentally does get pregnant then either do as Bonny says and have a vasectomy or buy a blow up doll (100% reliable as far as no pregnancys I am reliably informed).

If you could be in a relationship with a woman, possibly even in love with her, and can leave her (and your baby) if she refuses to have an abortion after accidentally falling pregnant says more about you than a million and one posts on here.

Once again, its not about "abortion or ill leave you", its about if youve already left and she tells you shes pregnant!?

And again relating to your "blow up doll" argument. Be realisitc as I keep saying, we are all humans and human nature dictates we enjoy intercourse and its a way of expressing your utmost love someone.

Originally posted by youngmcgill
No your wrong im afraid. The finacial implications are of course important as it would rule the rest of your life. Its not about walking away or forcing anyone to have an abortion, its about having the right to say no and being able to make the decision of whether or not to contribute to something which you do not want in the first place. And thats whats wrong. Its not immature, i think its immature and wrong to ignore the male point of view.

It would be nice if you discussed it with you 'women' before you ever had sex.

Just say 'Honey, just so you know, I enjoy having sex and really want to have sex with you - however- should you fall pregnant I am giving you two options. Either abort it and we can continue on with our relationship or if you go through with it I will leave and give you no financial assistance as I really don't want to have any children with you.'

Therefore, not only are you giving her advance warning but also you give her the ULTIMATE choice in deciding whether she really wants to have sex with you in the first place.

Originally posted by youngmcgill
Once again, its not about "abortion or ill leave you", its about if youve already left and she tells you shes pregnant!?

And again relating to your "blow up doll" argument. Be realisitc as I keep saying, we are all humans and human nature dictates we enjoy intercourse and its a way of expressing your utmost love someone.

If you loved someone your utmost why would you want to walk away from a baby that is a combination of you and the person you love???

Originally posted by Rubysoho
It would be nice if you discussed it with you 'women' before you ever had sex.

Just say 'Honey, just so you know, I enjoy having sex and really want to have sex with you - however- should you fall pregnant I am giving you two options. Either abort it and we can continue on with our relationship or if you go through with it I will leave and give you no financial assistance as I really don't want to have any children with you.'

Therefore, not only are you giving her advance warning but also you give her the ULTIMATE choice in deciding whether she really wants to have sex with you in the first place.

Yes perhaps I should draw up a contract before having sex then shall I? Cos that just wouldnt be stupid or unrealistic or stand up in court wouldnt it?

Honestly, get real. What coulour is the sky in your world?

Originally posted by Rubysoho
If you loved someone your utmost why would you want to walk away from a baby that is a combination of you and the person you love???

Because your feelings for people change.

Originally posted by Rubysoho
If you loved someone your utmost why would you want to walk away from a baby that is a combination of you and the person you love???

can we just clarify whether you are prolife or prochoice, as I said if you're prolife (which is what i suspect) then there is no point in discussing this.

Originally posted by youngmcgill
Yes perhaps I should draw up a contract before having sex then shall I? Cos that just wouldnt be stupid or unrealistic or stand up in court wouldnt it?

Honestly, get real. What coulour is the sky in your world?

I am being real, at least then she would be able to say 'no thanks' knowing your views on the subject, rather than blindly having sex with you for however long, ending up pregnant and then being dumped when she doesn't have an abortion even though you profess to love her.

Or are you just saying that you don't have the balls to give your views to the women in your life face-to-face, only to strangers over an internet connection.:rant:

Originally posted by Cyclone
can we just clarify whether you are prolife or prochoice, as I said if you're prolife (which is what i suspect) then there is no point in discussing this.

I agree again, pro-life and pro-choice are completely different.

Originally posted by Rubysoho
I am being real, at least then she would be able to say 'no thanks' knowing your views on the subject, rather than blindly having sex with you for however long, ending up pregnant and then being dumped when she doesn't have an abortion even though you profess to love her.

Or are you just saying that you don't have the balls to give your views to the women in your life face-to-face, only to strangers over an internet connection.:rant:

Shouldnt the woman then have a responsibility also to sit me down and say look, if i get pregnant its my intention to keep it and make you pay for it for the next 18 years, just so you know?

Shouldnt there be a responsibility on the female to let the male know her opinion also?

Originally posted by Cyclone
can we just clarify whether you are prolife or prochoice, as I said if you're prolife (which is what i suspect) then there is no point in discussing this.

No, I am pro-choice, I just really, REALLY DO NOT understand this guys point of view, first its the money, then its wanting women to have an abortion or he'll leave, then its not about that at all, now he loves them whilst having sex with them but apparently is prone to sudden and acute changes of feeling...aaghhh!!!

Originally posted by Rubysoho
No, I am pro-choice, I just really, REALLY DO NOT understand this guys point of view, first its the money, then its wanting women to have an abortion or he'll leave, then its not about that at all, now he loves them whilst having sex with them but apparently is prone to sudden and acute changes of feeling...aaghhh!!!

Never have i said anything about abortion or leave. And yes it is about money as its a big part of everyones life. And yes, when ive had sex with people I do love them but your feelings can change for people. Im sorry but is it wrong to love someone that you have sex with?

his early argument was rather difficult to follow, but it seems like a fairly simple question now.

The woman clearly has the choice, or maybe you'd argue that a woman shouldn't have an abortion because she's having sex with a man she loves?

If the woman has the choice (which you agree because you're pro choice), why does the man not have a choice. You seem to be suggesting that his choice should be accept the possability of a child or not have sex, whereas a woman apparently has the choice of the abortion.

How do you resolve that dichotomy?

Originally posted by youngmcgill
Shouldnt the woman then have a responsibility also to sit me down and say look, if i get pregnant its my intention to keep it and make you pay for it for the next 18 years, just so you know?

Shouldnt there be a responsibility on the female to let the male know her opinion also?

Most women would assume (especially if you'd said you love her - we're a bit strange like that) that you would still want to be involved in her and the childs life.

Also, most women don't get pregnant as a means to obtaining money (which is what you seem to be implying), however unless they were forewarned of your inclinations should a pregnancy occur then I think that she is not being unreasonable in expecting some financial support.

Originally posted by youngmcgill
I completely agree with Cyclone's point of view. The male should still have input and a choice of being aboe to say yes or no, but not as to whether to terminate, that is a womans right and their own responsibility.

The male should still have the ability to make his feelings known and then if the woman decides to continue the pregnancy against the males wishes, why should the male be forced to contribute towards it. Its not about forcing to have abortion but the male having the ability to say no.

It isn't actually anyone's "right" to have a termination. Legally a termination can only take place on medical grounds. The fact that abortions appear in practice to be available on demand means that some people are making a lot of money from it, which might lead to a different moral argument altogether....

Originally posted by Cyclone
his early argument was rather difficult to follow, but it seems like a fairly simple question now.

The woman clearly has the choice, or maybe you'd argue that a woman shouldn't have an abortion because she's having sex with a man she loves?

If the woman has the choice (which you agree because you're pro choice), why does the man not have a choice. You seem to be suggesting that his choice should be accept the possability of a child or not have sex, whereas a woman apparently has the choice of the abortion.

How do you resolve that dichotomy?

If someone is vehemenently opposed to having children then I feel the responsibility lies with them in the very early days of every relationship (ie BEFORE having sex) to forewarn their partner of the likely outcome should a pregnancy occur in the relationship. If they do this, then not only does the woman have the choice to end the relationship if she does not want to bear sole responsibility for any possible child, but also both parties know where they stand on the issue. That I believe is his choice - to ensure that any partner is fully aware of his feelings and would be intentions. I don't believe this to be an unreasonable thing to ask of someone, quite the opposite its mature and responsible.

Originally posted by Rubysoho
Most women would assume (especially if you'd said you love her - we're a bit strange like that) that you would still want to be involved in her and the childs life.

Also, most women don't get pregnant as a means to obtaining money (which is what you seem to be implying), however unless they were forewarned of your inclinations should a pregnancy occur then I think that she is not being unreasonable in expecting some financial support.

The basis of the argument isnt that women get pregnant for financial gain but simply that there should be a choice not only for the female but also for the male. I think it is unreasonable to expect support whether financial or otherwise when the male has made known that he doesnt wish to play a part in the pregnancy or with the child. At this point the female can decided that if she wishes to keep the child, she does so under her own steam and resources without implicating the male.

All circumstances are different and im looking at it from a point of view where there has been a relationship and that relationship has ended and there is a pregnancy after the male has left. Unfortunate I know, but it happens. The male should be entitled to say im not a aprt of your life and dont wish to have a child with you and not have the implications that follow.

I think we understand that there is shared responsibility but there should also be shared choice.

Originally posted by Rubysoho
Most women would assume (especially if you'd said you love her - we're a bit strange like that) that you would still want to be involved in her and the childs life.

Also, most women don't get pregnant as a means to obtaining money (which is what you seem to be implying), however unless they were forewarned of your inclinations should a pregnancy occur then I think that she is not being unreasonable in expecting some financial support.

i don't think anyone has suggested that. You can't believe that bringing up a child isn't damned expensive, nor that it doesn't totally alter your life.

you can well be in love with someone and wish to spend the rest of your life with them whilst being completely not ready to sacrifice your financial and literal freedom to having a child.

Women can have abortions, that's a fact.
So why do you think they should have this choice whether to make a commitment, both personally, financially and all the rest, and men should have no choice (apart from to not have sex, which is an option open to women as well).

Originally posted by Rubysoho
If someone is vehemenently opposed to having children then I feel the responsibility lies with them in the very early days of every relationship (ie BEFORE having sex) to forewarn their partner of the likely outcome should a pregnancy occur in the relationship. If they do this, then not only does the woman have the choice to end the relationship if she does not want to bear sole responsibility for any possible child, but also both parties know where they stand on the issue. That I believe is his choice - to ensure that any partner is fully aware of his feelings and would be intentions. I don't believe this to be an unreasonable thing to ask of someone, quite the opposite its mature and responsible.

I think it is unreasonable because its just not going to happen. And again, you keep saying he, shouldnt there be some responsibility for the woman to make her feelings know that if there is a pregnancy she will want to keep it?

Originally posted by Cyclone
i don't think anyone has suggested that. You can't believe that bringing up a child isn't damned expensive, nor that it doesn't totally alter your life.

Seeing as I have two children of my own I don't believe either of those things, in fact I know the opposite is true.

Originally posted by Rubysoho
Seeing as I have two children of my own I don't believe either of those things, in fact I know the opposite is true.

Can i clarify, are you saying that bringing up a child isnt expensive and it isnt life changing?

Originally posted by youngmcgill
I think it is unreasonable because its just not going to happen. And again, you keep saying he, shouldnt there be some responsibility for the woman to make her feelings know that if there is a pregnancy she will want to keep it?

Why is it not going to happen??

I would much rather know from the outset whether or not I would be left 'high and dry' by a partner should a pregnancy occur or whether I could count on their support. If women had that information, they could then make an informed decision whether or not to continue the relationship and all the responsibilities that may/may not entail.

Men and women probably should make these feelings known to each other, but seeing as we live in a society where it is ok to have sex with someone you've only just met but it is taboo to talk about the consequences of said sex it probably won't happen.

Originally posted by youngmcgill
Can i clarify, are you saying that bringing up a child isnt expensive and it isnt life changing?

Ho, Ho, Ho, aren't we pedantic? Or have you simply run out of rational argument?

equally it should be a womans responsability to state her intentions then?

Since neither of those is likely to happen maybe we can move back to the real world and consider the situation where it hasn't been discussed and an unexpected pregnancy (by both parties) occurs.

At this point the woman has the choice to abort or not. What choices does the man have and how do you justify his choices or lack thereof compared against the choices of the woman?

have to leave this now, i'm leaving work. I'll pick up in the morning.

Originally posted by Rubysoho
Why is it not going to happen??

I would much rather know from the outset whether or not I would be left 'high and dry' by a partner should a pregnancy occur or whether I could count on their support. If women had that information, they could then make an informed decision whether or not to continue the relationship and all the responsibilities that may/may not entail.

Men and women probably should make these feelings known to each other, but seeing as we live in a society where it is ok to have sex with someone you've only just met but it is taboo to talk about the consequences of said sex it probably won't happen.

Its not going to happen because when your in a loving relationship you dont generally expect that relationship to come to an end and therefore its not really something that you would talk about at the start of a relationship. I think a lot of this point has to be about being reasonable and its not about being taboo or avoiding the topic, its just not the way things go or the way your mind works when your in a relationship. The argument stems to when a relationship has ended. Again it comes back to the point of your feelings can change and our views generally of sex arent generally that of the serious consequences of it and thats something society as a whole would agree with and partly the reason for the problem, but really - be realistic. Sex is a big part of human nature and relationships and way of expressing our love, likewise women also enjoy sex and its a big part of their life and they understand the consequences of it also, so you could argue that it would be up to the female to question the male before they have sex and not the other way about? And thats not going to happen either.

Originally posted by Rubysoho
Ho, Ho, Ho, aren't we pedantic? Or have you simply run out of rational argument?

Not at all, just wondering why your making stupid comments about children being cheap? Ho Ho Ho! I suppose stupid sums up your whole debate to this argument.

Originally posted by youngmcgill
Its not going to happen because when your in a loving relationship you dont generally expect that relationship to come to an end and therefore its not really something that you would talk about at the start of a relationship. I think a lot of this point has to be about being reasonable and its not about being taboo or avoiding the topic, its just not the way things go or the way your mind works when your in a relationship. The argument stems to when a relationship has ended. Again it comes back to the point of your feelings can change and our views generally of sex arent generally that of the serious consequences of it and thats something society as a whole would agree with and partly the reason for the problem, but really - be realistic. Sex is a big part of human nature and relationships and way of expressing our love, likewise women also enjoy sex and its a big part of their life and they understand the consequences of it also, so you could argue that it would be up to the female to question the male before they have sex and not the other way about? And thats not going to happen either.

Yawn. put all the responsibility back in the womans hands again, how unsurprising coming from one with such a boorish point of view as yours.

Much as I would like to continue this debate with you (I do so enjoy banging my head up against a brick wall), I actually do have a life outside of this computer (complete with children - horrors haven't you just run away screaming at the notion of someone actually looking after the 'C' word).

And having to resort to insults isn't adding anything constructive to the argument and in effect makes you look stupid not me.

Originally posted by Rubysoho
Yawn. put all the responsibility back in the womans hands again, how unsurprising coming from one with such a boorish point of view as yours.

Much as I would like to continue this debate with you (I do so enjoy banging my head up against a brick wall), I actually do have a life outside of this computer (complete with children - horrors haven't you just run away screaming at the notion of someone actually looking after the 'C' word).

And having to resort to insults isn't adding anything constructive to the argument and in effect makes you look stupid not me.

I think your doing a very good job at making yourself look stupid. We all have lifes outside of "the computer" and really thats an insult to everyone not just me. I think it best from now if we just ignored your point of view as its just stupid and your not taking an active part in the discussion.

Why is it when a man makes any valid point he is shouted down, called a neanderthal or boor, simply because he disagrees with the female point of view.

Hey guess what, men have rights too.

And because a man disagrees with a woman it doesnt mean he is a neanderthal.

I disagree with abortion.

I find the arguement that the man has no rights in whether or not his own baby should live or die on merits that he does not have to go through nine months of pregnancy a very weak one,
that holds no sway.

Obviously there are certain cases that abortion is the only option, and in these cases the option should be given to the mother to abort.

On the grounds that a child can be killed because it will cause me 9 months discomfort, even when the father wishes to keep the child, then I have to disagree with the females right over the males, as we are talking about a life here and not just 9 months discomfort.

There are many cases where disabled children are born and the parents do not wish to keep the child, as it will make there life difficult.

Does this give them the right to terminate, as it is there lives that will be made uncomfortable , and might I say for a longer time than 9 months.

NO, why ??

because it is considered brutal.

Lets say a woman who is pregnant and wants an abortion, has an early labour and the baby is delivered say at 20 weeks, it is able to breath in an incabator.

Do the doctors turn off the machine because the lady was going to have an abortion the day after??

Originally posted by Cyclone
So to any woman who might choose to have an abortion you would be saying that they should never have had sex in the first place if they didn't intend to deal with the consequences.

There's no point in talking to someone about male choice who doesn't first believe in female choice.

You are assuming that all women have a choice in termination.

Originally posted by bonny
You are assuming that all women have a choice in termination.

All women do have the choice of termination bonny.

Originally posted by Cyclone
can we just clarify whether you are prolife or prochoice, as I said if you're prolife (which is what i suspect) then there is no point in discussing this.

I think that this debate is past whether anyone is prolife or prochoice, it seems to be more about what men can dictate to women now. I think Rubysoho has made some very valid points.

With regard to having sex with a woman that you have no intention or wish to have children with, why not be honest and state your case before you have sex with her then you truly are both consenting adults who have taken the risks into consideration. If that is a silly argument it is only about as silly as saying having sex with a woman who may fall pregnant due to the act enables you to winge about it after should you have to face the music! and demand that you be relinquished of all responibility.

If you know the risks , why take them? There is no point asking for a pardon after. You know a baby develops in a womans body, and you have no control over that, it's abig risk to take.


All in all I can see where you come from, but men will never have a say in whether women can have a termination and nor should they.

Imagine you got your wish......................men forcing women to have abortions......................men forcing women to continue an unwanted pregnancy.

Who will be to blame if a pregnancy is continued and the mother dies as a result, or there are complications with the birth, the baby does not survive.............are you men going to pay compensation to the women you have traumatised or damaged?


On the other hand you enforce a termination..............following this the mother develops severe mental illness and commits suicide(due to hormone imbalance)are you going to compensate her family etc.

These are shocking examples but never the less VERY real and something that you men need to consider if thinking seriously about your wishes.

Are you going to want to step up to the plate in these circumstances or want a "get out" clause as before????

Originally posted by jonsastar
All women do have the choice of termination bonny.

totally and utterly wrong!!!

Originally posted by jonsastar

On the grounds that a child can be killed because it will cause me 9 months discomfort, even when the father wishes to keep the child, then I have to disagree with the females right over the males, as we are talking about a life here and not just 9 months discomfort.

There are many cases where disabled children are born and the parents do not wish to keep the child, as it will make there life difficult.

Does this give them the right to terminate, as it is there lives that will be made uncomfortable , and might I say for a longer time than 9 months.

NO, why ??

because it is considered brutal.



discomfort?? can be considerably more than that (what a joke)

Are you meaning to terminate an unborn child or murder a baby that has been born, it isn't very clear.

If you mena to terminate a pregnancy that the baby will be disabled in some way then YES, they do terminate. Infact the woman is offered the choice by the doctors to terminate in cases of spinabifida etc. YOu have a blood test done etc, and if it comes back positive then they offer you termination. The test is not always accurate also, so it kind of shatters your argument.

Originally posted by bonny
I think that this debate is past whether anyone is prolife or prochoice, it seems to be more about what men can dictate to women now. I think Rubysoho has made some very valid points.

With regard to having sex with a woman that you have no intention or wish to have children with, why not be honest and state your case before you have sex with her then you truly are both consenting adults who have taken the risks into consideration. If that is a silly argument it is only about as silly as saying having sex with a woman who may fall pregnant due to the act enables you to winge about it after should you have to face the music! and demand that you be relinquished of all responibility.

If you know the risks , why take them? There is no point asking for a pardon after. You know a baby develops in a womans body, and you have no control over that, it's abig risk to take.


All in all I can see where you come from, but men will never have a say in whether women can have a termination and nor should they.

Imagine you got your wish......................men forcing women to have abortions......................men forcing women to continue an unwanted pregnancy.

Who will be to blame if a pregnancy is continued and the mother dies as a result, or there are complications with the birth, the baby does not survive.............are you men going to pay compensation to the women you have traumatised or damaged?


On the other hand you enforce a termination..............following this the mother develops severe mental illness (due to hormonal imbalance)are you going to compensate her family etc.

These are shocking examples but never the less VERY real and something that you men need to consider if thinking seriously about your wishes.

Are you going to want to step up to the plate in these circumstances or want a "get out" clause as before????

EXACTLY!!!! (Beautifully put Bonny)

Originally posted by bonny
totally and utterly wrong!!!

The option is (in UK) there.

Like you have said in previous posts, the option is there and the choices are made.

Regardless in many cases of the fathers wishes, in many cases with out his knowledge.

Originally posted by jonsastar
The option is (in UK) there.

Like you have said in previous posts, the option is there and the choices are made.

Regardless in many cases of the fathers wishes, in many cases with out his knowledge.

The option is not always there. Some women have to have a termination. Do you want to argue that point some more Jonastar?

Originally posted by bonny
The option is not always there. Some women have to have a termination. Do you want to argue that point some more Jonastar? #

Could you be a little more specific please Bonny.

Originally posted by jonsastar
#

Could you be a little more specific please Bonny.

Yes I could but you may end up embarrassed if I did and feel bad for asking, is that enough info???. Lets just say, you are wrong and it doesn't take much research to find that out or common sense.

Originally posted by bonny
Yes I could but you may end up embarrassed if I did and feel bad for asking, is that enough info???. Lets just say, you are wrong and it doesn't take much research to find that out or common sense.

By the sounds of it you are in the percentage that HAS to take the termination option, and if that is the case this thread is not aimed in your direction.

The terminations I am against are the selfish termination that are carried out because the lady in question has to many other things to do to have the time to raise a child.

If a woman never wants a kid but wants loads of sex then may be there is an operation she can have, that also goes for men who never want kids before the PC brigade jump on it.

Originally posted by jonsastar


The terminations I am against are the selfish termination that are carried out because the lady in question has to many other things to do to have the time to raise a child.

If a woman never wants a kid but wants loads of sex then may be there is an operation she can have, that also goes for men who never want kids before the PC brigade jump on it.

Terminations for reasons that can be classed as lifestyle choices are as far as the law is concerned illegal, yet they happen at clinics all the time and cost a fair bit too. It upsets me that clinics are making money from what is effectively an illegal practice.

Originally posted by stelps
Terminations for reasons that can be classed as lifestyle choices are as far as the law is concerned illegal, yet they happen at clinics all the time and cost a fair bit too. It upsets me that clinics are making money from what is effectively an illegal practice.

I was not aware of that stelps, how does the law determine an abortion that is a lifstyle choice from an abortion that is not?

Other than the obvius, ie, the infatuation with terminating females and not terminating males in some UK cultures.

By law the only grounds for abortion are:

1. Risk to life of the mother
2. to prevent grave permanant injury to the physical or mental health of the mother
3. risk of injury to the physical or mental health of the mother greater than if the pregnancy were terminated
4. risk of injury to the physical or mental health of existing (ie already born) children
5. substantial risk of the child being born seriously handicapped
6. in an emergency - to save the mother's life
7. in an emergency - to prevent grave permanant injury to the physical or mental health of the mother.

abortions on grounds 3 and 4 may be carried out up to 24 weeks. abortion on other grounds may be carried out up to 40 weeks

This is from the abortion act 1967 which does not give a woman a right to termination only protects a doctor from prosecution if he or she carries out a termination (if two doctors ccertify that in their opinion, formed in good faith, an abortion should be carried out).

Hope this helps

Stelps

Originally posted by jonsastar
I was not aware of that stelps, how does the law determine an abortion that is a lifstyle choice from an abortion that is not?

Other than the obvius, ie, the infatuation with terminating females and not terminating males in some UK cultures.

The law does determine an abortion, and abortions (other than paid for ones) are not done on the national health without there being good reason.
Also you don't automatically have the right to abort "willynilly". It isn't as easy as some people seem to think it is.

If you are to start a debate like this at least research what you are debating, and find out a few facts and don't rely on myths propgated by people who have no experience of what they speak about.

Originally posted by stelps
By law the only grounds for abortion are:

1. Risk to life of the mother
2. to prevent grave permanant injury to the physical or mental health of the mother
3. risk of injury to the physical or mental health of the mother greater than if the pregnancy were terminated
4. risk of injury to the physical or mental health of existing (ie already born) children
5. substantial risk of the child being born seriously handicapped
6. in an emergency - to save the mother's life
7. in an emergency - to prevent grave permanant injury to the physical or mental health of the mother.

abortions on grounds 3 and 4 may be carried out up to 24 weeks. abortion on other grounds may be carried out up to 40 weeks

This is from the abortion act 1967 which does not give a woman a right to termination only protects a doctor from prosecution if he or she carries out a termination (if two doctors ccertify that in their opinion, formed in good faith, an abortion should be carried out).

Hope this helps

Stelps

THANK YOU

:clap: :clap: :clap:

Originally posted by bonny
You are assuming that all women have a choice in termination.

Its not an assumption that all women have a choice, its relating more to general circumstances.

I think there are too many opinions here tainted by personal circumstances which are unrelated to the actual point of this discussion.

There are situations where women do not have the choice in abortion and I sympathise with that, whether it be through ill health or complications with the pregnancy, thats completely different and must be viewed upon differently.

The basis of our argument here is not that men should be able to force a woman into a termination or be able to enforce some sort of legal battle with them to force termination but more so the ability to have a choice in the event that it happens.

I think we should consder some basic factors here. Firstly under normal circumstances where reasonable contraception has been made and in a circumstance where a relationship has ended and the female is pregnant before separation. Under these circumstances the female has the choice whether to keep the child given the circumstances. Our argument here is that the male should also have the opportunity to express his views whereby he should not be forced into accepting the pregnancy. He should have the opportunity to say I dont want the baby and dont want anything to do with its upkeep or upbringing and should the female decided to keep the baby, she keeps it under her own resources.

I think everyone should accept the fact that we all live in a modern society and all enjoy the act of love making and all realise there are consequences if precautions are not taken, but what I dont accept is the view, especially from the females, that it appears to be the males responsibility to make his intentions known before this happens. I think thats unrealistic and you could argue that it is also the females responsibility to make her intentions known also. Ignoring all these factors, which I agree are important, the basis of our discussion is in this specific situation, what rights should each party have. Prevention is always better than cure but you always need a cure just incase.

Again, the argument is not about being forced into a termination or ignoring the effects this has on a female but merely highlighting that the male should also have input. And we do have a right for input as it effects both male and female.

Originally posted by bonny
THANK YOU

:clap: :clap: :clap:

I think its important to realise Stelps and Bonny that doctors will grant termination on the basis of the mental repercusions as having a child does in all circumstances have an effect on a persons mental well being. This has been scientifically proven and NO doctor would not grant abortion under these grounds as an individual would have a right to sue if its not granted.

That is fact through my own experience.

if you are going to quote me, I'd really appreciate it if you bothered to actually read my posts.

I have at no point argued that men should be able to impose their will on women regarding this. I infact argued the exact opposite.

You also seem to have conveniently ignored the posts I made with the hypothetical situations and continue to bang on about the same issue which I have no disagreement with.

I fail to see why the onus should be on either partner to discuss in advance what they might do in the result of a pregnancy. Neither partner should have to spell out whether they are ready for or want children. There is no reason the issue cannot be dealt with later as long as no one mislead the other.

You neatly continue to look at only the argument where the man wants the termination and the women wishes to keep the child.
No doubt your argument does a complete flip when the it's the other way around, and once again it's the womens rights that win.

So, the woman gets to choose whether to abort or not (and legal or not, an abortion is always a choice, although keeping the baby may not always be a choice).

This makes a man no more than a walking wallet if an accidentally pregnant women decides to keep the child.

I don't see why it is unfair to either party if it's not the mans wish to have the child for him to have no part in raising the child and contribute in no way.
If the situation were the other way around and the woman chose to abort he would have no say in the issue (which I agree with, it's not his body).

Originally posted by bonny
I think that this debate is past whether anyone is prolife or prochoice, it seems to be more about what men can dictate to women now. I think Rubysoho has made some very valid points.

With regard to having sex with a woman that you have no intention or wish to have children with, why not be honest and state your case before you have sex with her then you truly are both consenting adults who have taken the risks into consideration. If that is a silly argument it is only about as silly as saying having sex with a woman who may fall pregnant due to the act enables you to winge about it after should you have to face the music! and demand that you be relinquished of all responibility.

If you know the risks , why take them? There is no point asking for a pardon after. You know a baby develops in a womans body, and you have no control over that, it's abig risk to take.


All in all I can see where you come from, but men will never have a say in whether women can have a termination and nor should they.

Imagine you got your wish......................men forcing women to have abortions......................men forcing women to continue an unwanted pregnancy.

Who will be to blame if a pregnancy is continued and the mother dies as a result, or there are complications with the birth, the baby does not survive.............are you men going to pay compensation to the women you have traumatised or damaged?


On the other hand you enforce a termination..............following this the mother develops severe mental illness and commits suicide(due to hormone imbalance)are you going to compensate her family etc.

These are shocking examples but never the less VERY real and something that you men need to consider if thinking seriously about your wishes.

Are you going to want to step up to the plate in these circumstances or want a "get out" clause as before????

Originally posted by Cyclone
his early argument was rather difficult to follow, but it seems like a fairly simple question now.

The woman clearly has the choice, or maybe you'd argue that a woman shouldn't have an abortion because she's having sex with a man she loves?

If the woman has the choice (which you agree because you're pro choice), why does the man not have a choice. You seem to be suggesting that his choice should be accept the possability of a child or not have sex, whereas a woman apparently has the choice of the abortion.

How do you resolve that dichotomy?

maybe if you bother to read this post, you can actually try to answer the question I posed?

Two consenting adults, taking precautions and with no pre discusion of child related issues.
By accident the woman becomes pregnant.

At this point currently the man has no choice at all. It is now completely at the womans discretion whether the man becomes a father or not. With all it's attendant financial and social responabilities.

Is that not a removal of the mans right to choice?

(If you argue that he made his choice by having sex, then why do you support the womans right to choose, that's rather unfair isn't it).
In fact you could argue that by using precautions both parties clearly indicated a desire not to have children. In which case you could consider the woman to be rather duplicous in changing her mind and through no fault of his own landing the man with a rather large responability and bill.

Term for abortion- Infanticide. Someone gets charged with murder it's homicide- Any difference?( apart from the obvious).
Teenage pregnancy- often synonymous with unwanted pregnancy- not always so.
Education- lack of sex education in schools BIG PROBLEM why do people still equate informing and educating someone about sex/safe sex/protecting oneself aginst STI's with promiscuity?
Should all take a leaf out of the dutch book when it comes to sex education- in their schools even the teachers are open and honest about their sexuality. Sex is not a taboo subject here and they have one of the lowest rates of teen preg in the world. On average, dutch teenagers also commence sexual relations at a much older age ie 18-19 yrs than teenagers in this country.

Term for abortion -foetusicide

last time I checked even new born babies were not considered Infants, unborn ones most certainly are not.

I agree about role of education though.

ok then, but I think when it's planned on medical grounds, say for instance if the baby has a syndrome incompatible with life- such as edwards or mermaid baby syndrome(sorry can't remember the correct term) then I believe it is then called infanticide.

Oh and newborn baby's are considered neonates. Not sure when they become infants but it's defo by their first birthday.

Not thet i'm obsessing about this but a neonate/newborn becomes an infant after the neonatal period- which is 6 weeks post birth.

Originally posted by stelps
By law the only grounds for abortion are:

1. Risk to life of the mother
2. to prevent grave permanant injury to the physical or mental health of the mother
3. risk of injury to the physical or mental health of the mother greater than if the pregnancy were terminated
4. risk of injury to the physical or mental health of existing (ie already born) children
5. substantial risk of the child being born seriously handicapped
6. in an emergency - to save the mother's life
7. in an emergency - to prevent grave permanant injury to the physical or mental health of the mother.

abortions on grounds 3 and 4 may be carried out up to 24 weeks. abortion on other grounds may be carried out up to 40 weeks

This is from the abortion act 1967 which does not give a woman a right to termination only protects a doctor from prosecution if he or she carries out a termination (if two doctors ccertify that in their opinion, formed in good faith, an abortion should be carried out).

Hope this helps

Stelps

Having read the abortion act 1967 I am shocked that so many abortions happen in the UK.

Could the process of giving birth be classed as physical harm coming to the mother??

Also all a woman has to say is I could not cope with a baby Im not strong enough and this would give grounds for abortion because it could cause mental health problems.

So if a woman wanted to abort on life style grounds it is easy to fabricate a story that a doctor couldnt argue with.

I know of a married woman who got rid of her husbands child with out his knowledge, because she said she could not cope with the two kids they already had.

Surely there should be a clause here that lets the father have a say??

well basically no. The ultimate decision to abort will always be the womans, it's her body. The only influence a man can have on that is what the woman chooses to give him.

Originally posted by Cyclone
well basically no. The ultimate decision to abort will always be the womans, it's her body. The only influence a man can have on that is what the woman chooses to give him.

May be for the law to work properly both mother and father need to be present as some arguements may not hold up in the presence of the father , there fore being an illigal termination.

Originally posted by jonsastar
May be for the law to work properly both mother and father need to be present as some arguements may not hold up in the presence of the father , there fore being an illigal termination.

what arguments might not hold up? and what if the father is not available?

Originally posted by Cyclone
what arguments might not hold up? and what if the father is not available?

There are cases that may not hold up.

Read the 1967 abortion act and use your loaf.

Also the father if he is unavailable could send a note or fax.

But he should be informed of what is happening at the very least.

Of course in the cases where the father is not known there should be a warning that another abortion is not an option.

In some cases where a woman has had more than one termination she should be warned that if it happens again she will be prosecuted for human rights offences.

Originally posted by jonsastar
There are cases that may not hold up.

Read the 1967 abortion act and use your loaf.

Also the father if he is unavailable could send a note or fax.

But he should be informed of what is happening at the very least.

Of course in the cases where the father is not known there should be a warning that another abortion is not an option.

In some cases where a woman has had more than one termination she should be warned that if it happens again she will be prosecuted for human rights offences.

so you try by the backdoor to get back to your original point of forcing women to carry children they do not want.

I meant not available as in, not known, or doesn't give a stuff.

If the 'lifestyle' abortion is achieved through the psychological part of the reasons to allow abortions then nothing any man says has any bearing on it. No one can speak for my state of mind and I can't speak for anyone elses. Not until my psychic powers develop more fully.

Originally posted by Cyclone
so you try by the backdoor to get back to your original point of forcing women to carry children they do not want.



Not trying through the back door more like I have spotted a breach in the wall of the law.

Where the argument of the woman in question could be proved false if the father was present.

I am not saying that there are many women out there lying there t*ts off so they can carry on with there easy life but I think there needs to be some one present who is trustworthy of the law who can prove her statement to be true.

At the end of the day the female of the species is made that way for a reason, and that reason is not to halt procreation but to aid procreation.

And no I an not a neanderthal, thats just how it is , that is the point of the female whether you like it or not it has been proven that the female organs are for reproduction, there is no built in termination organs.

Honest.

It's alright arguing for fathers rights in abortion cases, however, it's easy for the bloke to bugger off when the baby is actually born even if, when faced with the possibility of aborting their unborn child, when first learning of the pregnancy, they pledge their utmost support and undying love. Me thinks this issue goes back to the question of adequate education, i mean in today's society, it's not exactly difficult to obtain many different forms of contraception is it? I accept that some accidents can happen ie split condoms etc but there is the morning after pill. Abortion is reactive when unwanted pregnancy occurs. Health promotion and education is the key. Why not, to quote monty python, stick one of those little rubber things on yer jon thomas?! Unless the view that every sperm is sacred is held!

Originally posted by missnorks
Unless the view that every sperm is sacred is held!

Thats a whole different can of worms.

Apparently there is enough sperm in one man to repopulate the whole planet.

It would be interesting to see.:)

And take part :) :) :)

That would indeed be an interesting spectacle to witness!!!!::heyhey:
Lets hear the catholic view on this.

Originally posted by missnorks
It's alright arguing for fathers rights in abortion cases, however, it's easy for the bloke to bugger off when the baby is actually born even if, when faced with the possibility of aborting their unborn child, when first learning of the pregnancy, they pledge their utmost support and undying love. Me thinks this issue goes back to the question of adequate education, i mean in today's society, it's not exactly difficult to obtain many different forms of contraception is it? I accept that some accidents can happen ie split condoms etc but there is the morning after pill. Abortion is reactive when unwanted pregnancy occurs. Health promotion and education is the key. Why not, to quote monty python, stick one of those little rubber things on yer jon thomas?! Unless the view that every sperm is sacred is held!

and what if it splits and the woman refuses to take the morning after pill?

I think you are just coming back to your original argument of forcing your will onto women when you don't want them to abort your child.
There is no way that someone can contradict the statement that having a child will harm the mental health of the mother, so your loophole is not a loophole at all, and would require a change in the law to be exploited even if it were.
The male of species is made to go out and hunt for meat, does that mean that you're off out with a rock later to club other unfortunate mammals? Or maybe you'll be searching for fruit and grubs.
What's that, the human race has moved on and we have other choices. You can go to the supermarket and buy a steak and a woman can have an abortion.

It's a circular argument at best and at worst just sounds stupid.

Originally posted by jonsastar
Not trying through the back door more like I have spotted a breach in the wall of the law.

Where the argument of the woman in question could be proved false if the father was present.

I am not saying that there are many women out there lying there t*ts off so they can carry on with there easy life but I think there needs to be some one present who is trustworthy of the law who can prove her statement to be true.

At the end of the day the female of the species is made that way for a reason, and that reason is not to halt procreation but to aid procreation.

And no I an not a neanderthal, thats just how it is , that is the point of the female whether you like it or not it has been proven that the female organs are for reproduction, there is no built in termination organs.

Honest.

Originally posted by Cyclone
You can go to the supermarket and buy a steak and a woman can have an abortion.

ex freakin actly.

couldn't have put it better myself except perhaps to substitute 'steak' with the word 'quorn'. but i wouldn't want to start a whole new argument. :|

Originally posted by Cyclone
and what if it splits and the woman refuses to take the morning after pill?

I think thats the whole epitomey of this argument, being that as a male and if an accident happens, the whole decision is pretty much taken right out of his hands and there should be some mechanism where we can have the right to say no.

If she doesn't want to take the morning after pill then you can consider yourself well and truely trapped and the issue of abortion is unliklely to arise. Would imagine that any woman who refuses to take morning after pill actually wants the resulting pregnancy to progress. Lets get a few facts straight here as well, the age of viabillty is not 21 weeks as previously postulated by zebra. Baby's of 21 weeks are unable to breathe even aided- the lung tissue is simply not there. Ever tried to intubate a baby below 23 weeks? ET tubes simply aren't made this small and the pressures required to ventilate such tiny stiff lungs would cause pnuemothoraces galore in the immediate period and complications of chronic lung disease in the long term, thats assuming they could be intubated in the first place. It is true that some babies of 23-24 weeks gestation do survive but they have multiple problems which extend far beyond the neonatal period should they survive. They have virtually no immune system, very little surfactant (substance required to lubricate the lung tissue to prevent the lungs collapsing on expiration) and the very real possibility of intra ventricular heamorrhage (bleeding of the brain) which can lead to cerebral palsy and in severe bleeds, complete disablement and blindness-due to high oxygen concentration required to keep them alive when born so early. The problems of extreme prematurity are multifactorial and far reaching.

Originally posted by youngmcgill
I think thats the whole epitomey of this argument, being that as a male and if an accident happens, the whole decision is pretty much taken right out of his hands and there should be some mechanism where we can have the right to say no.

and my proposed solution is that the male registers his desire not to have a child, if the woman chooses to have it then she is solely responsible for it.

Originally posted by Cyclone
and my proposed solution is that the male registers his desire not to have a child, if the woman chooses to have it then she is solely responsible for it.

agreed

As a woman, I totally agree cyclone. If she chooses to have it and the man makes his intentions abundantly clear from the start then it's her look out. She can't then go running to the CSA for child support claiming to be a victim. Personal choice is exactly that.

Depends whether or not the said man used protection. If he didn't use a condom he can't really complain.

If he did and it split, and the woman goes ahead with the pregnancy against his wishes, then she should be solely responsible.

Suppose not! Then said man should learn to keep it in his pants, punk!

Originally posted by missnorks
Suppose not! Then said man should learn to keep it in his pants, punk!

or said women should learn to keep her legs closed?

It takes too to tango.

That's a can of worms!!

Originally posted by missnorks
Suppose not! Then said man should learn to keep it in his pants, punk!

Or perhaps the woman should learn to shut her legs?

Originally posted by Cyclone
or said women should learn to keep her legs closed?

It takes too to tango.

Ditto, just seen this one!

Granted it does take 2 to tango( unless you've gone on the rob with a turkey baster and a jazz mag!) but that's a bit like the chicken and the egg argument. Y not all be sensible and say if he refuses to wear a condom then no party, likewise if she says you don't need a condom then no party. Just say no!!:|