Abortion to be reduced to 20 weeks

"I think the physical risk of early abortion really is minimal"

Minimal it may be, but it is still more physical risk than a man would face.

What are the limitations you refer to, larry?

Twofingers,

A lot of that is historical. In any event, we attempt to legislate around this issue, with greater or lesser success.

I do think that we should take one of two approaches, though. Either we are basically animals and we accept that the female and males have different roles or we say that we are more evolved than that and, although we have different bodies, we try to work around the advantages and limitations of both sexes to give them more choices and more equal roles across the board. What I find surprising is how few on this board will accept that, and most feel that a woman should accrue all the rights due to her physical body but accept none of the limitations.

Sorry that was off-topic, but seeing as you brought it up, larry, I felt compelled to call you on it.

We have concepts such as maternity leave to allow a woman to get around the physical disadvantage of having children and to make her an equal player in the workplace.

You are kidding right? About women being 'equal players' in the workplace. Are you actually aware of how many women end up in relatively low-paid part-time jobs because of childcare issues, despite their qualifications, skills and experience?
Are you aware of the earnings gap that still exists between men and women, which is partly due to women taking career breaks to look after children?

Get back to me when you can asexually reproduce, TheDoctrine.

Get back to me when you lactate, larry.

TheDoctrine,

I think you have to be careful not to use the additional abilities of the female body to give women more rights but to carefully legislate to equalise the constraints of females due to pregnancy, birth and breast feeding. We have concepts such as maternity leave to allow a woman to get around the physical disadvantage of having children and to make her an equal player in the workplace. Similarly, with men and women being equally responsible for their children, it seems fair to override the biological imperative somewhat to allow a man some say in the birth and feeding of his child.

There can be no equivalence. A man may prefer that his child is breast fed but it isn't his body providing the sustenance, therefore the woman's view carries more weight.

Emmeline,

I think the physical risk of early abortion really is minimal (of the order of

Larry When men and women have sexual intercourse women take on a physical risk that men do not. Abortion is still a physical risk, less so than the physical risk of bearing a baby to term, but still a physical risk. Men never take on that physical risk. And they are not required by law to take on any of the expense of pregnancy whether carried to term or aborted. You seem to be talking about pregnancy as a minor blip on the way to a child, a sort of binary switch, rather than a significant physical ordeal.

I'm not suggesting there is an equivalence in the decision making during pregnancy. There is a dfference.

But laws limiting abortion mean we force onto another what we do not bear ourselves and that is a much greater imposition than the idea someone should be able to make some else share some of the consequences of a dual action.

TheDoctrine,

My post had a clear nexus to yours. I cannot see any link between my point and your reply at all. Are you sure it was to me?

Larry your point makes no sense in response to mine.

If you take a job that has a 5% chance of international travel, there is no point bitching when you are handed a plane ticket one day. There was a small but definite possibility when you took the job that travel was part of the deal and you took the decision knowing that.

what he did was way in excess of any moral obligation that he had

Why?

"Apparently in the U.S, survival rates of 23 week olds is 53% "

More misinformation and outright lies. It's 10%.

Twofingers,

Both parties should be equally responsible for contraception. Why should that reside solely with the man? She has to carry the entire burden because she has chosen to keep the child against the man's wishes. She has a choice.

Of course both parties need to take equal responsibility for contraception, but if someone is adamant about not wanting to take responsibility for any contraceptive failure then they should probably abstain altogether. Accidents happen. When they do, both people have to take responsibility for the outcome. Paying for the upbringing of a child you have fathered should not be optional.

As for the 'she has a choice' [about continuing the pregnancy to term]: yes, she does, but if she feels unable to have a termination (her body, her decision) then the man must share the responsibility for any subsequent offspring. Complaining about 'not really wanting' to have a baby after the event is immature and frankly ridiculous.

TheDoctrine,

If the law were not up for discussion, there would be zero points on having any threads on this kind of issue. As the law is, you are entirely correct. But, in the same sense as pro lifers and pro choicers and everything in between discuss the morals of abortion at different points, I can put my perspective on what is fair rather than the current law and interpret the current law in terms of to whom I see the privilege attaching.

I know of one father whose daughter was hidden from him for the first seven years of his life and then contact denied for a further six years. After that the mother decided he should be involved. He stepped up to the plate, paid for private schooling for her and treated her as a full sibling to his other children. I think he did exactly the right thing and should be applauded for it. That does not mean that he was not treated appallingly and, in my view, what he did was way in excess of any moral obligation that he had.

"will have to pay for 18 years at least"

Ha Ha Ha. A very brief peruse of these boards will tell you that is about as much bullshit as everything else you've stated Larry.

Larry

At the end of the day pregnancy is not a 50:50 situation. The man and the woman have an equal opportunity before sex to prevent conception - by not having penetrative sex, using contraception etc. in the case of accident, the woman has a second chance to decide. The man takes his first decision about penetrative sex ON THAT BASIS, knowing that is his one decision point. It's not hidden from him that that is the case.

I think that because abortion is such an emotive issue (and because so many people feel that it is morally wrong) it is not really possible to say "she didn't have to have the baby".

Trills,

I take your point where the man's volition is contested. What if they both accept that contraception was an accident?

Twofingers,

Both parties should be equally responsible for contraception. Why should that reside solely with the man? She has to carry the entire burden because she has chosen to keep the child against the man's wishes. She has a choice.

I think it would be pretty much impossible to prove legally whether the man "wanted" a baby at the time of conception, so we can't legislate that men only pay for intentional babies. The legal bring-in-the-CSA stance has to assume that men should pay to help support children they have fathered.

Which brings it down to a question of morals - is it right to ask a man to pay for and be involved with a child who he didn't want to exist in the first place? I think that's a whole different thread. (an interesting one, but one that's liable to get pretty heated)

larrygrylls I don't feel it is fair to say I am having your baby that you do not want, but you still have to pay.

Really? If a man feels that strongly about not wanting children he can take precautions against that eventuality. If those precautions fail, why should the woman carry the entire financial burden of raising a child? Enough women do that, anyway; even in cases where having children was a joint decision. Strange how some men believe that contributing is optional...

I suppose there are four options, where the two people involved disagree

1 - woman decides
2 - man decides
3 - if at least one parent wants an abortion, get an abortion
4 - if at least one parent wants a baby, have a baby

#1 definitely "least worst".