Mint Chocolate Ice Cream Reigns Supreme! & Abortion.

[NeoThermic]

I've read the whole topic (welcome to the forums Wendryn!), I wasn't going to reply until I saw this:

Equal decision:
Man: "No termination"
Woman: "Termination"
The way you are discussing this, the man's view would win because it is more equal, somehow. Thus, the woman would be forced to carry a fetus she does not want.

You are right, that is a sticky point. I think that, when such impasses are reached, that we should err on the side of life.

Quite frankly I find that viewpoint shocking and disturbing. It isn't a sticky point, if the woman wants a termination, then she has the right to have one. This is what everyone is trying to get you to see, it isn't the man's choice because until the child is born, he has no rights over the child. I'm rather sure if I bothered to look in the legal journals that are upstairs in my uni library, I'd find a nice case that would agree with this. Or if I took some time to search the legal documentation on the UK/US websites.

NeoThermic

[zjoere]

If the mother is in direct danger, then she should be able to take what steps necessary to save her life. But, just the fact that pregnancy is dangerous is not reason in and of itself. Driving is dangerous, flying is dangerous, lot's of things might happen. A competent, licensed medical authority should first feel that there is a grave and pressing threat that if allowed to come to term that the mother will likely die before the rights of the father are terminated.

Who determines that the mother's life is in danger?

A couple having a relationship together assumes the risk that a pregnancy might happen. It is a joint action that has consequences that I feel neither party has a right to terminate prematurely without the consent of the other. If the man or woman does not want a child, then they should not be having such relations. If one does wish to face the consequences, the other should have to deal with them as well since they were a willing partner in the initial creation.

Wendryn and I are married. Are you suggesting that Wendryn and I abstain because we do not want to have a child right now? According to nearly every culture in the world, Wendryn and I have sexual rights to each other because we are married. That would include Mormonism. So, given that we are sanctioned for sexual relations, are you suggesting that if Wendryn became pregnant right now, she should not be allowed to terminate, as we are not quite ready to raise a child yet?

I am offended.

xander

as feud already pointed out: a doctor with alot of degrees in that area.

and as for the second thingy: use a condom or the pill. or both instead of abstaining

EDIT:

know for a fact (both my fathers being doctors supporting this)

[KingAl]

and as for the second thingy: use a condom or the pill. or both instead of abstaining

Feud had already stated that, should contraceptives fail, couples just have to accept it - i.e the alternatives are abstinence or 'acceptable risk' - thus xander's comment is still relevant.

[zjoere]

and as for the second thingy: use a condom or the pill. or both instead of abstaining

Feud had already stated that, should contraceptives fail, couples just have to accept it, thus xander's comment is still relevant.

the chances of contraceptives like the condom or the pill used probably failing are so marginal that i'm ignoring them (if use together the chance of failing is less then 0;001% or so if i remember correctly or even less)

[Xocrates]

Well, you guys made a whole lot of posts during the night, which I failed to read completely , so I'll just clear my position.

When I said that I defend life, I meant it. However I want to make the distinction between having a life and being alive. While I wholeheartedly defend the first, I'm not so clear on the second. To give things a perspective, that means that I'm against abortion without a reason but in favor of euthanasia of terminal patients (but that's another debate. And no, I'm not being contradictory).

I do not think that abortion without a reason should be allowed, but there are several exceptions I freely accept.

However, what truly prevents me from accepting free abortion is that I, as I stated before, do not believe that most people have the mentality, nor most states provide the conditions, that would make such a law acceptable.

I for one do not accept that 20% of pregnancies will voluntarily end while on the other hand I'm living on a country with an aging population, the adoption process in a bureaucratic hell, and the state provides virtually no support to folk with kids.

And then of course, we have the fun factor that abortion is now legal, but stem cell research is forbidden. HA! I say.

EDIT:

know for a fact (both my fathers being doctors supporting this)

Oops, sorry. Around here we say parents the same way we say fathers.

[KingAl]

the chances of contraceptives like the condom or the pill used probably are so marginal that i'm ignoring them

And yet Feud, whom you are defending, evidently isn't - and nor is the real world. A tiny percentage failure is still a huge number over such a large population.

[torq]

Quite frankly I find that viewpoint shocking and disturbing. It isn't a sticky point, if the woman wants a termination, then she has the right to have one. This is what everyone is trying to get you to see, it isn't the man's choice because until the child is born, he has no rights over the child. I'm rather sure if I bothered to look in the legal journals that are upstairs in my uni library, I'd find a nice case that would agree with this. Or if I took some time to search the legal documentation on the UK/US websites.

NeoThermic

+1

[NeoThermic]

I got bothered. Here's the relevant section that applies in this case (emphasis mine):

under s3(1) Children Act 1989, Parental Responsibility "...means all the rights, duties, powers, responsibilities and authority, which by law a parent of a child has in relation to the child and his property". Under s2(1), both the child's father and mother have Parental Responsibility for the child if they are married to each other at the time of the birth. Under s2(2), where the child's mother and father are not married to each other at the time of the birth, the general rule is that the mother has sole Parental Responsibility for the child unless the child is freed for adoption or is the subject of an Adoption Order in favour of another person.

So as far as legal rights go, father has ziltch until birth of said child.

NeoThermic

[zjoere]

the chances of contraceptives like the condom or the pill used probably are so marginal that i'm ignoring them

And yet Feud, whom you are defending, evidently isn't - and nor is the real world. A tiny percentage failure is still a huge number over such a large population.

ok, but since you can't prove wether or not you used a contraceptive (at least as far as i'm aware) you couldn't make the law that abortion would be allowed if contraceptives failed.

and i'm not defending feud. we just happen to agree on a small part of the subject. most of the other times i strongly disagree with wathever feud says

[KingAl]

ok, but since you can't prove wether or not you used a contraceptive (at least as far as i'm aware) you couldn't make the law that abortion would be allowed if contraceptives failed.

So... we shouldn't have a stupid law banning abortion in the first place? That seems more satisfactory than having a law which *unfortunately* affects those for whom it isn't intended.

[zjoere]

ok, but since you can't prove wether or not you used a contraceptive (at least as far as i'm aware) you couldn't make the law that abortion would be allowed if contraceptives failed.

So... we shouldn't have a stupid law banning abortion in the first place? That seems more satisfactory than having a law which *unfortunately* affects those for whom it isn't intended.

but that only is a small group
and a law will always affect one group of people,otherwise you wouldn't need it now would you

[KingAl]

...

Okay, I'll tell that to the 8 million women for whom the Pill has failed, shall I?

Clearly, some people treasure 'potential life' more than actual life.

[zjoere]

...

Okay, I'll tell that to the 8 million women for whom the Pill failed, shall I?

Clearly, some people treasure 'potential life' more than actual life.

grabs calculator:
8 million divided by 6 billion i guess ?
gives: 0.0133...%
6 billion is 600000000 right ?
guess they're just unlucky, tuff but hey learn to live with it.

and where did you get the idea that value potential life more then actual life ?
i have clearly stated in a previous post that i have no problem with abortion if the mother's life or bother their lives are in danger

[KingAl]

Because 6 billion people in the world are women and use the Pill.

[torq]

...

Okay, I'll tell that to the 8 million women for whom the Pill failed, shall I?

Clearly, some people treasure 'potential life' more than actual life.

Some people, it appears, have nothing better to do. I'd advised them to mind their own business. It weren't women in the first place who asked to forbid them abortions. Why men didn't ask what women think of that? I think that life, health and wellbeing of an adult woman is much more valuable than the life of an embrion. It must be up for women to decide. Men really don't have a vote on the matter.