Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

B1093 – Abortion Equality Bill 2016 (Second Reading) Watch

    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    I'm just gonna go and abstain, righhhht over here.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheDefiniteArticle)
    No. Anyone who votes in favour of this cannot reasonably call themselves either liberal or left-wing. The issue is this amounts to the child being punished for happening to have dysfunctional parents. This spits in the face of equality of opportunity, disproportionately targets the working classes and the unfortunate (due to demographic effects), and basically causes about 50 years of regression in social development.

    Here are several policy ideas which are more reasonable than this garbage:
    • Making the father able to force the mother to abort (the fact that this is more reasonable shows just quite what moronic trash this is)
    • Forcing marriage for couples with child (also ridiculous)
    • Allowing the father to elect before conception, and then and only then allowing him to remove himself from responsibility
    • Government funding in place
    • Requiring the father's payments to be an interest-free loan, repayable at a modest rate once the child turns 18 (my personal favourite of these)
    These are fair points and I may even change my vote based on these. I would be interested to first though hear joecphillips response to these points.
    • Political Ambassador
    • PS Reviewer
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    I am almost certain I posted something like this a few years ago, possibly in one of the private forums :holmes:

    Needless to say I support the idea, but not the execution. Something like this requires more thought about how we can better support single mothers, which is an ongoing issue.

    I think the male should be able to abdicate responsibility early in the pregnancy, but care needs to be taken with how we govern the process.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by iEthan)
    Nay - already discussed this with you, but I simply feel that this bill is not something I personally agree with. I also cannot accept that any responsible person could 'abort' responsibility for their child via letter.
    What about the women who have an abortion, i.e. abort responsibility for their child?
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ByronicHero)
    I am almost certain I posted something like this a few years ago, possibly in one of the private forums :holmes:

    Needless to say I support the idea, but not the execution. Something like this requires more thought about how we can better support single mothers, which is an ongoing issue.

    I think the male should be able to abdicate responsibility early in the pregnancy, but care needs to be taken with how we govern the process.
    If the woman thinks she will really struggle as a single mother, she should just abort the baby if the father gives up responsibility.
    • Political Ambassador
    • PS Reviewer
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Unown Uzer)
    If the woman thinks she will really struggle as a single mother, she should just abort the baby if the father gives up responsibility.
    I agree, but it is naive to think that all women will make what we consider the rational choice. Whilst we must protect the fathers rights, we can't forget that a woman has the supreme right over her own body, and many will feel like they can't have an abortion for all kinds of ethical or religious reasons, and may similarly not want to have the child adopted. Thus, it is important to properly plan to support single mothers. They already need more support, and it is reasonable to assume that these kinds of provisions would increase their numbers.

    I would explain more fully, but I don't care enough :lol:
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    In certain circumstances it is also in the mother and child's interests for this to be the case, so aye!
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheDefiniteArticle)
    The issue is this amounts to the child being punished for happening to have dysfunctional parents. [/list]
    That's what abortion does in general. This just gives both parents the right to be terrible people, as opposed to just the mother.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Quamquam123)
    These are fair points and I may even change my vote based on these. I would be interested to first though hear joecphillips response to these points.
    Firstly it is nice to see Labour members defending thatcher's policies

    His favourite idea "Requiring the father's payments to be an interest-free loan, repayable at a modest rate once the child turns 18" still leaves men at a disadvantage in having to be financially on the hook for a decision that women can make unilaterally.

    "Government funding in place" Is government funding not an issue for the government? I've said I'm personally not against that but I can not include it in this bill as that would guarantee its failure and the prime minister has said the government would write a bill to cover this issue.

    "Allowing the father to elect before conception, and then and only then allowing him to remove himself from responsibility" this is impractical and i would ask should a woman have to say before conception that she intends to abort? I say it is impractical because then you would have to deal with the issue of this in today's society and the attitude to sex, if this was 50 years ago great but it isn't.

    I would question why they think that forcing a woman to take a drug or forcing them to get married is more reasonable than just being able to walk away.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ByronicHero)
    I agree, but it is naive to think that all women will make what we consider the rational choice. Whilst we must protect the fathers rights, we can't forget that a woman has the supreme right over her own body, and many will feel like they can't have an abortion for all kinds of ethical or religious reasons, and may similarly not want to have the child adopted. Thus, it is important to properly plan to support single mothers. They already need more support, and it is reasonable to assume that these kinds of provisions would increase their numbers.

    I would explain more fully, but I don't care enough :lol:
    Don't these rules also work that way against men? Most religions and society says that it is a mans duty to provide for his family, so what you are suggesting will be reasons why some men won't use this.
    • Political Ambassador
    • PS Reviewer
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by joecphillips)
    Don't these rules also work that way against men? Most religions and society says that it is a mans duty to provide for his family, so what you are suggesting will be reasons why some men won't use this.
    Sure, but what's your point?

    It is all very well and good to moralise and say what should and shouldn't happen, but the purpose of the law here necessarily needs to be to enshrine proper safeguards against the expected outcome of the legislation. It simply isn't sensible to not consider that there might be a greater number of single mothers as a result of this bill.

    Women shouldn't be forced to have abortions and men shouldn't be forced to support a child they don't want. Beyond this, we must think about what is best for the child. People are so often short sighted about these things. It is partially the same argument that makes benefit sanctions, benefit cards, maximum supported children policies and the like so harmful.

    I support the general idea; like I said, I am sure I introduced this idea here before in some capacity.

    You need, at the very least, to address what happens where the woman hides the pregnancy, where paternity is assumed but proved false and other outside cases.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ByronicHero)
    Sure, but what's your point?

    It is all very well and good to moralise and say what should and shouldn't happen, but the purpose of the law here necessarily needs to be to enshrine proper safeguards against the expected outcome of the legislation. It simply isn't sensible to not consider that there might be a greater number of single mothers as a result of this bill.

    Women shouldn't be forced to have abortions and men shouldn't be forced to support a child they don't want. Beyond this, we must think about what is best for the child. People are so often short sighted about these things. It is partially the same argument that makes benefit sanctions, benefit cards, maximum supported children policies and the like so harmful.

    I support the general idea; like I said, I am sure I introduced this idea here before in some capacity.

    You need, at the very least, to address what happens where the woman hides the pregnancy, where paternity is assumed but proved false and other outside cases.
    That last point has been addressed 2(1)(b) addresses this and there are already rules regarding assumed paternity
    • Political Ambassador
    • PS Reviewer
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by joecphillips)
    That last point has been addressed 2(1)(b) addresses this and there are already rules regarding assumed paternity
    No it doesn't, at least not fully.

    The mother might not know about the pregnancy until past the abortion deadline and then decline to allow the father to abdicate responsibility. Is this an intended consequence? If so, what do you think the issues might be with women claiming not to have known? What do you think about this?

    Some women don't know they are pregnant until they have the child.

    Beyond this, everything else I've said stands.

    I'm not an MP though, so you don't have to persuade me :awesome:

    I'd just personally need there to be fewer holes before I'd want this passed (well done for introducing an important idea though).
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    joecphillips, ultimately you're still seeing this from the perspective of the mother and father existing in a vacuum. That is not the case. The child is more important than either.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    Regardless of how each of us vote on this bill, I think we can all agree that it's extremely thought provoking. I've gone from one side of this to the other and back again in a matter of moments.

    For that, I commend my Liberal colleague for bringing this matter before the House.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Aye this has my full support
    • Wiki Support Team
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    This bill is in cessation.
    • Wiki Support Team
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Division! Clear the lobbies!
 
 
 
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: January 15, 2017
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Will you be richer or poorer than your parents?
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • 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

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