Who should decide the legality of abortion?

[WillowIX]

If I understand Hunter´s first post we are not discussing the ethics of abortion, rather who has the final decision if an abortion should take place (assuming it is legal/possible) to do so. The abortion poll is probably on page 2 or 3 of this forum if we would like to continue that discussion.

IMO it is the woman who must have the final say! If a man has the final vote, he would not have to endure anything during pregnancy (not counting mood swings and doing midnight shopping ( [img]graemlins/blueblink.gif[/img] ). If a woman feels that she do not want to keep her child, no man has the right to tell her she must continue her pregnancy. (Note: I am not talking about abortion laws here, rather I am assuimng abortion is legal)

[Bardan the Slayer]

Originally posted by The Hunter of Jahanna: I am not argueing for the rights of the unborn, SirK. I am argueing that men have no business telling women what to do with their bodies. So far all I have gotten by way of responses is men telling women what they can and cant do with their bodies. Ironic, isnt it?

No, you seem unable to make the distinction [img]smile.gif[/img]

When you abort a baby, you are *not* letting the woman do what she wants with her body. You are letting the woman do with the body of the child she carries inside her.

No man is telling a woman what to do with their body. We would simply like a fair say in the life or death of our child. It takes 2 to make a baby (and the Child Support Agencies love that phrase). Men are assumed to be responsible for the financial upkeep of their child, but have no rights at all about the life or death of their unborn?

If a woman is pregnant, there is no matter of 'ownership'. She does not 'own' the baby because it is inside her. The baby belongs to nobody, because it is an individual human being.

An unborn baby is not simply "a part of the woman's body, like a kidney"

Look at it this way. If you had a child of, say, 6 months old who had been born, then had an accident and was on a life support machine. Would the mother have the right to arbitrarily turn off the machine? Of course not - she'd be killing another human being. The fact that the child's life support machine is the woman's body makes no difference.

Oh, this is also why I think that people who murder pregnant women should be charged with 2 murders.

[Bardan the Slayer]

Originally posted by WillowIX: If a woman feels that she do not want to keep her child, no man has the right to tell her she must continue her pregnancy.

I notice you refer to it as "her" child, and the man is faceless. Men tend to love their children just as much as women do. A man is just as responsible for the chil;d as the woman is. Without the man, no conception. No man, no baby. Yet all the physical and emotional ties between a man and his child are ignored.

Yes, the woman suffers the effects of pregnancy. Yes, they can be difficult. That is why we have contraception. It's not 100% effective, but it's rather close. Does this give her the right to abort without even consulting with the father?

I would be damn annoyed if a woman suddenly announced "I took the decision to kill our child because it was making my ankles puffy (or 'I don't want stretchmarks), and as a woman, it's my right to make that decision regardless of what you say."

In all other aspects, a man is held as accountable as the father of the child, yet has no say in it's life or death? Disgraceful.

[Algurgazan]

i think bardan's right on that one... and i don't think abortion should be legal anyway... but if someone has to have the choice, then i think its a 50/50 choice. but when rape or something is concerned the women has the choice - of course.

[WillowIX]

Originally posted by Bardan the Slayer: I notice you refer to it as "her" child, and the man is faceless. Men tend to love their children just as much as women do. A man is just as responsible for the chil;d as the woman is. Without the man, no conception. No man, no baby. Yet all the physical and emotional ties between a man and his child are ignored. Of course I refer to it as child! I have been pregnant twice so I have some knowledge of how women tend to think/feel during pregnancies. And I do not believe it is possible to compare a man´s ties with a coming child with a womans! To fully understand the feeling of having a spark of life inside your body you have to experience it first hand. And in my post there is no remark as to the man´s attachments should be ignored. Actually it is not entirely true that a man is needed for a conception to occur. Yes it is easier to use sperm when performing an artificial insemination, but in no means necessary. This is not the case with an oocyte. That would of course imply that no man is necessary for a conception to take place. Yes, the woman suffers the effects of pregnancy. Yes, they can be difficult. That is why we have contraception. It's not 100% effective, but it's rather close. Does this give her the right to abort without even consulting with the father? I would be damn annoyed if a woman suddenly announced "I took the decision to kill our child because it was making my ankles puffy (or 'I don't want stretchmarks), and as a woman, it's my right to make that decision regardless of what you say." In all other aspects, a man is held as accountable as the father of the child, yet has no say in it's life or death? Disgraceful. I think you misunderstood my post Bardan. A final say does indeed imply a discussion of the matter. And I would also like to point out that I strongly believe in a discussion with a professional therapist before a decision is made. No matter what you say I still believe that the woman have the final say. The puffy ankles remark is only offensive so I will refrain from a retort to that.

.

[ 02-09-2003, 05:17 PM: Message edited by: WillowIX ]

[Sir Krustin]

Hunter and Willow: I don't tell a woman what to do with her body - she has already made the decision when she had sex.

What we're arguing here is whether or not someone should suffer the consequences of their actions.

Bardan's comment on "puffy ankles" may in fact be somewhat offensive, but it really is the crux of the argument - women today don't want an inconvenience in their lives - I call this "The McDonalds generation - have it your way"

Terminating a human life - legally or illegally - should not be the end result of a discussion about how inconvenient said pregnancy is.

[WillowIX]

Originally posted by Sir Krustin: Hunter and Willow: I don't tell a woman what to do with her body - she has already made the decision when she had sex. What we're arguing here is whether or not someone should suffer the consequences of their actions. That must be comforting words to a woman who was raped or was unlucky with her contraceptive! Can we then assume some other things as well? Oh please! Bardan's comment on "puffy ankles" may in fact be somewhat offensive, but it really is the crux of the argument - women today don't want an inconvenience in their lives - I call this "The McDonalds generation - have it your way" An inconvinience? Yeah that must be it! All women who decide to have an abortion base their decision on physical strain and appearance. I take it no man has ever argued for an abortion. Generalization is IMHO not a very good argument. I must say it is a wonder I decided to give birth since I got pregnant during my university studies. Terminating a human life - legally or illegally - should not be the end result of a discussion about how inconvenient said pregnancy is.

Note: The increase of abortions is not from career women getting pregnant. Rather it is youths using abortion as a contraception. IMO that is not "advisable" (in lack of stronger word ).

[ 02-09-2003, 04:34 PM: Message edited by: WillowIX ]

[Sir Krustin]

Originally posted by WillowIX: Quote: Originally posted by Sir Krustin: Hunter and Willow: I don't tell a woman what to do with her body - she has already made the decision when she had sex.

That must be comforting words to a woman who was raped or was unlucky with her contraceptive! Can we then assume some other things as well? Oh please! [/QUOTE]Read what I said again. Since when is being unlucky with a contraceptive have anything to do with deciding to have sex in the first place?

The woman decides to have sex; she shouldn't be surprised when pregnancy occurs. It's part of the risk of having sex, even with modern contraceptives.

The comment about rape is a valid one, but two wrongs don't make a right - the unborn child never asked to be conceived and it certainly didn't ask to be killed!

Bardan's comment on "puffy ankles" may in fact be somewhat offensive, but it really is the crux of the argument - women today don't want an inconvenience in their lives - I call this "The McDonalds generation - have it your way" An inconvinience? Yeah that must be it! All women who decide to have an abortion base their decision on physical strain and appearance. I take it no man has ever argued for an abortion. Generalization is IMHO not a very good argument. I must say it is a wonder I decided to give birth since I got pregnant during my university studies.

So you decided to keep the child in spite of the effect it would have on your studies, I applaud your decision.

There are potential mothers who decide the other way. Women who don't want to sacrifice a career to a childbirth, or simply don't want to be tied down. Inconvenience can mean a lot of things, I wasn't necessarily talking about appearance.

edit>Willow, I'm saddened you're turning this into a man vs. woman debate, I thought you would be better than that. The fact is I know lots of women who think the same way I do. And you know what? They all believe in abstinence before marriage! [img]tongue.gif[/img]

[ 02-09-2003, 04:36 PM: Message edited by: Sir Krustin ]

[WillowIX]

Sir K, we are straying off topic here. I do not believe Hunter wanted a discussion about the legitimacy of abortion. Rather who should make the decision if an abortion would take place.

Originally posted by Sir Krustin: Read what I said again. Since when is being unlucky with a contraceptive have anything to do with deciding to have sex in the first place? The woman decides to have sex; she shouldn't be surprised when pregnancy occurs. It's part of the risk of having sex, even with modern contraceptives. But in todays society sex does not equal pregnancy. That is what contraceptives are for. Modern contraceptives minimizes the risk to almost zero. Unfortunately some people find it amusing in punching holes in condoms. So I still do not think "suffer the consequences" is a valid answer. The comment about rape is a valid one, but two wrongs don't make a right - the unborn child never asked to be conceived and it certainly didn't ask to be killed! Had I been raped and therby pregnant I am very uncertain if I would have kept that child. But this discussion is more suited for the old abortion thread since you and I are straying off topic. (Not that I mind LOL). So you decided to keep the child in spite of the effect it would have on your studies, I applaud your decision. There are potential mothers who decide the other way. Women who don't want to sacrifice a career to a childbirth, or simply don't want to be tied down. Inconvenience can mean a lot of things, I wasn't necessarily talking about appearance. Women who don´t want to sacrifice their career would of course be more careful when having sex, at least the women I know. (Read my note above, they would otherwise fall in the latter category). Oh and I don´t think you mean pregnancy as the prime factor, rather the time after conception. Or? edit>Willow, I'm saddened you're turning this into a man vs. woman debate, I thought you would be better than that. Actually Sir K, IMO it was you who brought that into this discussion with a rather blatant generalization about women.

Perhaps we ought to put a PG13 to this thread LOL! Oh and Sir K, did you ever tell us who you are talking to in that car?

[ 02-09-2003, 05:01 PM: Message edited by: WillowIX ]

[The Hunter of Jahanna]

Look at it this way. If you had a child of, say, 6 months old who had been born, then had an accident and was on a life support machine. Would the mother have the right to arbitrarily turn off the machine? Of course not - she'd be killing another human being. The fact that the child's life support machine is the woman's body makes no difference

This happens all of the time. It is what is refered to as "pulling the plug". It happens to adults, so why not a fetus too?

Anyway, this is still getting away from the topic at hand, which is why should men have a say in it? Whether people think abortion is right or wrong has nothing to do with it.

Also, everyone Please Play NICE!! I dont want to get this thread locked up.