Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Skye333)
    Sure it's not fair, but it's their sacrifice, how many times is it the man compeletely looks after the child? You'd lose out on 9 months too. And what about the risk of the actual process, not your risk....
    Woaah, if you wanna play that card then who is it that goes to work only to be FORCED to pay the mother, on top of the benefits she gets for sitting at home watching the jeremy Kyle show...

    You make "looking after the child" seem like some sort of punishment..
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by kevin_123)
    Hang on a minute, there is a big difference between: 1 - Not being able to stop your child being killed. 2 - Not having the option to kill your own child.

    Would oyu not agree?
    Course I agree. That wasn't your original point.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by missygeorgia)
    Course I agree. That wasn't your original point.
    I argued that womant wont feel what men feel. You argued that in some countries they do. I then argued that there is a difference in the feelings felt (which you just agreed on) therefore you just contradicted your own argument ..

    You: In some countries they do
    Me: It's not the same
    You: I agree

    "In some countries they do" becomes invalid as you just agreed it's not the same, therefore the feelings those women have in "some countries" can not be compared to my argument because you just agreed that it's not the same..
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Who's N?)
    Because men don't have to carry the baby for 9 months or give birth to it.
    my arguement to that its nine months vs the rest of the mans life
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Pink Bullets)
    The answer is simple.

    An individual (and his/her doctors; and his/her next of kin if they are physically or mentally incapable of making a decision themself) is the only person allowed to make the decision to have/not have surgery on their own body.

    The same is true whether this individual is male or female.

    There is no grey area here.
    An abortion is hardly your usual elective surgery. The grey area exists due to the question of whether the baby has rights, and therefore whether the other parent has part of the say in the matter.

    Whereas I think it's difficult to justify how a father could ever force the mother into having or not having the abortion (unless maybe it was possible to graft the foetus into a carrying mother).

    However, I find it unfair that if the mother decides she wants to keep it, that she can force the father into having to support the child financially, even if he was in favour of abortion and had no desire to have children.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by kevin_123)
    I argued that womant wont feel what men feel. You argued that in some countries they do. I then argued that there is a difference in the feelings felt (which you just agreed on) therefore you just contradicted your own argument ..

    You: In some countries they do
    Me: It's not the same
    You: I agree

    "In some countries they do" becomes invalid as you just agreed it's not the same, therefore the feelings those women have in "some countries" can not be compared to my argument because you just agreed that it's not the same..
    Or this:

    there is a big difference between: 1 - Not being able to stop your child being killed. 2 - Not having the option to kill your own child.
    There is a big difference, but you didn't make that distinction in your first post- you were referring to 'having someone else decide whether your child lives or dies' (or something). This is 'different from not being able to stop your child being killed'. The first one applies to countries where abortion is illegal, the second doesn't.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Even if the father does not want the baby, the bottom line is a woman can't be forced to lie down on a table and have her body essentially mutilated against her will. A man has no say in the outcome of a pregnancy (for or against) primarily because he would suffer no physical concequence either way. If a woman wants it, she gets it - you can't tie her down and get it out on behalf of any male. I don't get why the OP didn't think of that...
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    It's the woman's body the has to change, and if she doesn't want it to then that's upto her.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    G, some of you seem like spiders while mating. The father is in constant danger. Tbh there are three lives in such a situation so lets reason with three. There are 3 people. One of them is unconscious. Should either one of other two be handed a weapon and the right over the unconscious person's life?
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by theBOON)
    G, some of you seem like spiders while mating. The father is in constant danger. Tbh there are three lives in such a situation so lets reason with three. There are 3 people. One of them is unconscious. Should either one of other two be handed a weapon and the right over the unconscious person's life?
    Yeah, if the unconscious person is living inside one of their bodies...
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Keep your rosaries off my ovaries.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I don't think a man should have to pay child support if he asks the woman to abort the pregnancy or put the child up for adoption. You say a woman has a right over her own body, but doesn't the man have a right over his own wallet?

    I do however think men can take more responsibilty for their own fertility. I had a vasectomy as soon as I turned 18; exactly 16 days after my 18th birthday infact. You'd have to go private unless you're over about 25, not for legal reasons but because they think you'll change your mind but it certainly ca be done.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by missygeorgia)
    Yeah, if the unconscious person is living inside one of their bodies...
    Nice morals there. How is it that the unconscious person has less rights that the other two just because it's of concern to them? So if one day your mother knocks on my door and hands you to me giving me the full responsibility over you should I just get rid of you because you'll majorly disturb my life? I wouldn't just that you know.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by theBOON)
    Nice morals there. How is it that the unconscious person has less rights that the other two just because it's of concern to them? So if one day your mother knocks on my door and hands you to me giving me the full responsibility over you should I just get rid of you because you'll majorly disturb my life? I wouldn't just that you know.
    If I was a parasite that sucked nutrients from your body, caused you physical pain, and turned you into a swollen, hormonal monstrosity, then yes.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by yodude888)
    Why is it that if a woman wants an abortion but the father doesn't... she's still allowed to have the abortion?

    Yet, if the man wants his baby aborted and the mother doesn't... she's still allowed to have the baby, AND ask the father to pay out for child support.

    If the baby is a shared responsability, why is there such heavy discrimination against fathers and their right to ALSO decide what happens to their genetic material?
    Abortion, in British law, is a medical procedure carried out either for physical or mental health reasons. It is not, at least in theory, permitted as a method of "family planning" nor is it available on demand. No-one in Britain has a "right" to an abortion.

    In most cases, abortion is technically and legally justified - insofar as it can be - in terms of the effect of pregnancy on the mother's mental health.

    (Original post by Ilora-Danon)
    Because men aren't shoving 6lbs of human through their vaginas because, they don't have vaginas.

    No vagina = not your decision to make!
    It's not the woman's decision to make, ultimately, in theory. It is a medical professional's decision which she can then act on or decline.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Salome2)
    If I was a parasite that sucked nutrients from your body, caused you physical pain, and turned you into a swollen, hormonal monstrosity, then yes.
    Given that argument do you, at least in principle, support the idea of involuntary euthanasia against people who may be considered a burden on society?
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Salome2)
    So what you're saying is that if I were to get pregnant (not that I would ever allow such a travesty to occur), I could not go to a doctor and ask for an abortion? Forgive my general ignorance, but I'm a foreigner.
    Well, you could ask for one - you can ask for anything you like, but you require two doctors to give their permission for an abortion to take place, which requires a medical justification under the 1967 Abortion Act. Essentially it can only be given if continuing the pregnancy would damage the physical or mental health or the mother or any other of her children, or in some cases of severe foetal abnormalities/deformities/whatever you want to call it. This only applies to some parts of the UK - in Northern Ireland abortion is still completely criminal, except to save the life of the mother.

    (Original post by Salome2)
    :nah: I don't mean parasitic at a metaphoric level. I mean if they literally latched onto me and were sucking the nutrients out of my body, then I'd seriously consider it. Wouldn't you?
    If I happened to get pregnant, I think sucking nutrients would be the least of my worries. What hole the thing intended to come out would probably be the central concern.

    I quite liked my metaphor actually - it's a fairly close one, after all: why should sapping nutrients be any different than, say, sapping taxpayer's money?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    The only reason that abortion is justified is on the grounds that "a foetus isn't a life in itself, it's an extention of the mother", if, in the eyes of the law, there were any kind of admission that a 'foetus' were acutally a human - a human life automonus of the mother - then abortion wouldn't be legal because it would be akin to killing another human.

    Either you accept that abortion is killing a being that is an extention of the mother (like a wart or a tumor) + therefore nobody but the mother's decisions to make, or it's nobody's decision to make (it's a life in itself, a foetus has its own rights, it's a human) - and therefore abortion is wrong - no ifs, no buts.

    Either way, the father is irrelvent.

    (apologies, haven't read the thread at all, sorry if this is repeating things that have already been said which i assume it is)
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Vampyrcorn)
    The only reason that abortion is justified is on the grounds that "a foetus isn't a life in itself, it's an extention of the mother", if, in the eyes of the law, there were any kind of admission that a 'foetus' were acutally a human - a human life automonus of the mother - then abortion wouldn't be legal because it would be akin to killing another human.
    Well, legally speaking, that's not the case. Abortion is a criminal offence. It is only when an abortion is conducted under the exceptions given in the Abortion Act that it is permissible, with the due permission of the state and under several conditions.

    Presumably if the law saw a foetus as possessing none of the characteristics of independent life, then abortion would be entirely unregulated.

    Either you accept that abortion is killing a being that is an extention of the mother (like a wart or a tumor) + therefore nobody but the mother's decisions to make, or it's nobody's decision to make (it's a life in itself, a foetus has its own rights, it's a human) - and therefore abortion is wrong - no ifs, no buts.
    I admire your consistency and application of logic, but in my experience you'll generally find that the vast majority of people don't accept either of those conclusions. It's all far woollier.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by L i b)

    Presumably if the law saw a foetus as possessing none of the characteristics of independent life, then abortion would be entirely unregulated.
    I think the reason abortion is regulated is because its a medical procedure, and to avoid illegal unregulated abortions taking place as per before the procedure was legalised.
 
 
 
Poll
Do you think parents should charge rent?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.