Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Feminism: chat

Original poster

Abortion to be reduced to 20 weeks

505 replies

avenueone · 02/10/2012 22:51

There is a story on the front page of the Telegraph tomorrow (paper review) saying that in brief due to babies? being able to survive from a younger age it should be reduced.
I personally don't think this is an argument as I doubt they could survive without medical intervention. I feel it is just another attempt to undermine a woman's right to choose what we do with out bodies. Sorry no link but there should be one around tomorrow and I will try and post it.

OP posts:
twofingerstoGideon · 12/10/2012 08:07

Cristina Odone perpetuating some myths on Question Time last night:

?plenty of medical and scientific breakthroughs that show us that the foetus is viable between 20-24 weeks, they survive at 20 weeks . There are thousands and thousands of Britons alive that have not only survived but thrived as premature babies who were born between 20-24 weeks

Was she deliberately lying or woefully misinformed? I'm heartily sick of the religious right presenting bullshit as if it were fact.

larrygrylls · 12/10/2012 08:40

Emmeline,

Not so. Woman and man have sex, contraception fails. Woman wants baby, man does not. Consequence: woman has baby, man pays for 18 years +. Woman does not want baby, man does. Consequence: woman has early abortion (not trivial, but not major life trauma either). "Privilege", if you want to use that word, resides with the woman, not the man.

Twofingers,

Did Cristina really say that? That is woefully misinformed and she should correct it. Apparently in the U.S, survival rates of 23 week olds is 53% so it is coming down but that neglects the fact that I suspect most of those will be severely handicapped. I think the record is something like 21 weeks and that is a one in a million +.

Trills · 12/10/2012 08:50

Someone has to make the decision, larry.

If two people disagree on something that is a yes/no question, someone has to be given the "privilege" of having the deciding vote. You can't compromise and have half a baby.

It's sad if a man wants a baby and the woman does not, but giving the woman the choice is (IMO) the least-worst option.

larrygrylls · 12/10/2012 08:54

Trills,

I actually agree with you that the woman should decide. Definitely the least worst option. On the other hand, I would tend to go with the option being keep the baby with sole responsibility if the father does not want it, or have an abortion. 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.

twofingerstoGideon · 12/10/2012 08:54

Yes, larrygrylls, she most certainly did. It's on iplayer if you want to watch...

Trills · 12/10/2012 08:57

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".

twofingerstoGideon · 12/10/2012 08:58

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...

Trills · 12/10/2012 09:00

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 · 12/10/2012 09:05

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.

larrygrylls · 12/10/2012 09:08

Trills,

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

Trills · 12/10/2012 09:08

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".

TheDoctrineOfSnatch · 12/10/2012 09:17

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.

slug · 12/10/2012 09:28

"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.

larrygrylls · 12/10/2012 09:30

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.

twofingerstoGideon · 12/10/2012 09:30

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.

slug · 12/10/2012 09:30

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

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

twofingerstoGideon · 12/10/2012 09:32

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

Why?

TheDoctrineOfSnatch · 12/10/2012 09:35

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.

larrygrylls · 12/10/2012 09:39

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?

EmmelineGoulden · 12/10/2012 09:42

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.

larrygrylls · 12/10/2012 09:58

Emmeline,

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

TheDoctrineOfSnatch · 12/10/2012 10:04

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.

larrygrylls · 12/10/2012 10:19

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.

TheDoctrineOfSnatch · 12/10/2012 10:24

Get back to me when you lactate, larry.

larrygrylls · 12/10/2012 10:31

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

Swipe left for the next trending thread