tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35770042.post4831926955028155457..comments2023-12-28T05:09:46.498+00:00Comments on Skin Flicks: Abortion - the compromiseUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger94125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35770042.post-39592675344208848092009-04-16T05:42:00.000+01:002009-04-16T05:42:00.000+01:00That's the point, Laura.
How does it feel to be co...That's the point, Laura.<br />How does it feel to be completely disenfranchised over whether you become a parent or not?JC Skinnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07591722111393071007noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35770042.post-36540260787825278342009-04-12T17:17:00.000+01:002009-04-12T17:17:00.000+01:00@jc skinner "men have absolutely no say in the fut...@jc skinner "men have absolutely no say in the future of a pregnancy". <BR/><BR/>But your 4th rule turns the tables entirely and now you have given absolute power over a woman's body to a man who just has to sign a bit of paper.Lauranoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35770042.post-45739713561151681942008-07-29T23:59:00.000+01:002008-07-29T23:59:00.000+01:00I have contributed my own personnel opinions to th...I have contributed my own personnel opinions to this debate lately and found that there seems to be no end in peoples own emotions taking over their logical thoughts. For instance: "Men in their dozens are forced to become fathers every day against their will, often with major psychological, financial, emotional and other ramifications."<BR/><BR/>Let me tell you all, because a man has sex (which is a strong primitive urge that overides the medula oblongatas construct, releasing powerful hormones into the system), he can not control his thoughts never mind his penis in this moment of ecstasy. So women when it comes to pulling out, thats a pipe dream to start, unless the guy is a cyborg!! <BR/><BR/>The damage done to men over the years from the moment he gets a woman pregnant is terrible, I would go as far to say as much damage is done to some men as to a womans body but over a slower time, but deadly all the same. Someone once said to me, when you punch someone you leave a bruise, but when you emotionally damage someone you leave no marks visible, but inside they are hurting for years to come. I now suffer at 38 from HBP and Reumatoid arthritis from stress and anxiety from maintenance bills! I was pratically raped at 15 had a kid at 16 and then had to earn a living like a man in a big world, later I found out the girl was a plant by republicans to blacken me etc, but that is another story.....so girls if it is your body take precautions, if it is your baby pay the price, but if you want the man to have a say then we will glady pay the price but if we don't we won't, problem solved!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35770042.post-18699416227860498352008-07-27T21:12:00.000+01:002008-07-27T21:12:00.000+01:00Sorry, me ire was up and I didn't proof read, subs...Sorry, me ire was up and I didn't proof read, substitute contraception for contraceptive where appropriate because I buggered it several times!<BR/><BR/>OMAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35770042.post-83942238445326681462008-07-27T20:44:00.000+01:002008-07-27T20:44:00.000+01:00JC said,"It is illogical and inconsistent to sugge...JC said,<BR/><BR/>"It is illogical and inconsistent to suggest that a woman is permitted all rights over a pregnancy and any resulting abortion decision or resultant child, while simultaneously holding fathers responsible in law for that child's financial upkeep against their will, not to mention the inconsistency in forcing people to become fathers against their wills."<BR/><BR/>and<BR/><BR/>"The state already enforces fatherhood on men all the time, and imposes, when asked to, financial penalties for something they might not have chosen. In this way men already have the control of their fertility removed."<BR/><BR/>and<BR/><BR/> "Men in their dozens are forced to become fathers every day against their will, often with major psychological, financial, emotional and other ramifications."<BR/><BR/>Sorry, late to the party, wanted to address your argument that men get no say.<BR/><BR/>So, what you are saying is that contraceptive is the woman's responsibility, 100% of the time, that men are incapable of wearing condoms? How is a man's control over his fertility removed if he decides to use contraceptive? And if both parties use contraceptive and there is still a resultant pregnancy, the man has already stated his wish to NOT father a child by his use of contraceptive. He is trying to control his fertility before the horse is even out of the gate. Why are you making it a woman's responsibility wholly on the use of contraceptive? <BR/><BR/>OM, single parent of 2 (divorced), with NO input from ex.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35770042.post-50747847477284859012008-07-26T12:48:00.000+01:002008-07-26T12:48:00.000+01:00the woman has a right to chose, chose to close her...the woman has a right to chose, chose to close her legs.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35770042.post-2211735462367686622008-07-25T03:42:00.000+01:002008-07-25T03:42:00.000+01:00Off to bed myself, but before I do, I'll elabo...Off to bed myself, but before I do, I'll elaborate a little on the aforementioned sordid sexual details :)<BR/><BR/>On not being against the law here or in Britain - that is wrong, and I believe it should be. When we make abortion legal, let's make female-on-male rape illegal too (gotta love that despotism).<BR/><BR/>On the improvability - well, usually, yes. But most crimes of rape struggle with this, and while problematic, the improvability doesn't impact the morality of the act. For the purposes of our comparison, the woman forcing the continuation of sex is the same as the male partner forcing the continuation of pregnancy. While it may be easier to prove the latter's culpability, that doesn't effect the question of the morality of either.<BR/><BR/>And the implausibility - here I would strongly disagree. It is entirely possible for a male partner to wish to stop intercourse and be prevented by a female partner. Incapacitation (through S&M shenanigans, or drink, to name a few possibilities) would probably be needed, but not necessarily. Some men are weak, and some women are strong. And fear or pain does not kill an erection in everybody.<BR/><BR/>Or so Law and Order SVU tells me anyway ;)<BR/><BR/>Anyway, even the implausibility doesn't matter in the context of the question asked - if it happened, would it be wrong? To be honest, the fact that it's an unlikely situation only highlights the fact that men are nearly always in control of their part of the reproductive process.<BR/><BR/>Anyway, beddy-byes.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35770042.post-91949717243709195202008-07-25T03:26:00.001+01:002008-07-25T03:26:00.001+01:00Wolf. I don't see how my position that what happen...Wolf. I don't see how my position that what happens to a person's body is entirely up to that person is 'extreme'. Indeed, you yourself agree with me. Do I think that in the vast majority of cases, women should consult the biological fathers of their fetuses? Yes. And most do. Should they be legally compelled to? Absolutely not. Should they be required to do what the biological father wishes, regardless of their own desires? (and that is the fundamental meaning of Number 4 - it doesn't matter what she wants, what he wants will decide the day) Hell no.<BR/><BR/>Then you just go off on a tangent about child custody and child support. I agree with you on many counts. But it has nothing to do with abortion. I suspect that this is JC's real reason for this post (because I can't imagine he wants to turn women into brood mares, nor that's he's desperately keen for more blog views :) ). Fine. Post on that. But abortion has NOTHING to do with it.<BR/><BR/>"Answer me honestly; if I were to get a woman pregnant by accident, should I not be protected from her demanding support and maintainence for said child?"<BR/><BR/>No, you shouldn't, because while your penis (and where relevant, uterus) is utterly protected from being used against your will to another's benefit, your bank account isn't. Child support is about the CHILD, not the woman and what she did or didn't tell you. Is it unfair that women have nine extra months (well, in practice, three) to decide if they want to continue the reproductive process, while a man's part ends after climax? I suppose. Though as I said earlier, it's not like women have a cushy deal. It's the reality of the biological bits we were born with. You CAN choose not to become a parent - but it means not having sex. Women are involved for longer, so they have longer to opt out.<BR/><BR/>"should I not be protected from that if she then subsequently says I am to have nothing to do with that childs life?"<BR/><BR/>This is totally, totally unrelated to the topic of abortion. (If this is what this post is really about JC, write a post and deal with it head-on). For the record, no, nobody has the right to tell a biological father they cannot have contact with a child they support. Although (and I am in two minds even to bring this up, since it's a rabbit hole I have no interest in going down right now), having lived in England for several years I'm pretty sure that it is NOT the case that a woman can randomly decide to cut a man off from contact with his children, and the man has no legal recourse. I'm pretty sure that the man can request and will be granted the right to see his child (in Ireland, I believe 98% of applications for visitation are granted in some form? Yes? Can England be that different?)<BR/><BR/>It has NOTHING to do with the post anyway, and though it deserves to be debated, this post is not the place.<BR/><BR/>A final general point - I'm confused why you label my opinions 'extreme' and then go on to say that you fundamentally agree with them. I would have thought granting a person one might have had sex with just once, and known for mere hours, control over nine months of one's life, was a far more extreme opinion.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35770042.post-72230878982747280442008-07-25T03:26:00.000+01:002008-07-25T03:26:00.000+01:00To briefly address your question, Dinogirl, that s...To briefly address your question, Dinogirl, that scenario is neither provable in law nor is it actually against the law in Ireland or Britain, unless a case could be made for rape against the man, which let's be real here, is utterly implausible in the context of mutually consensual sex up to the point of near orgasm.<BR/>The rest I'll get back to tomorrow. Night all.JC Skinnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07591722111393071007noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35770042.post-15125101807926576362008-07-25T02:56:00.000+01:002008-07-25T02:56:00.000+01:00DinoGirl. Only at one point did I see JC even come...DinoGirl. Only at one point did I see JC even come close to inferring that women should be forced to do somthing against their will and that was on point 4. (Which I have already said that I don't agree with)<BR/><BR/>please correct me if I am wrong but I think your arguement is going to the extreme on the side of the woman and basically saying that choice abortion is down to her and ONLY to her. At the end of the day; you are correct because it's the womans body HOWEVER I believe that should the father want to be, he should be allowed to be involved in the decision.<BR/><BR/>In england, the law is very biased towards women on this one, for good reason. <BR/><BR/>The trouble is that this tends to go to the extreme and means that women can get away with galvaniseing the man into somthing that he doesn't want. you say "should two people whos reproductive responsibilities not be entitled to the same protections?" well, do you believe this? Answer me honestly; if I were to get a woman pregnant by accident, should I not be protected from her demanding support and maintainence for said child? should I not be protected from that if she then subsequently says I am to have nothing to do with that childs life?Wolfram Blitzenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03546464033275390189noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35770042.post-23557568396250523652008-07-25T01:52:00.000+01:002008-07-25T01:52:00.000+01:00Surely you mean 'single FEMINIST poster', not sing...Surely you mean 'single FEMINIST poster', not single female poster, yes? As many men and women have commented, with differing views on the issues?<BR/><BR/>JC - let's clear something up. For the first time, you seem to be suggesting that fetuses have rights - you are now saying that abortion is a 3-way issue, and a fetus can always be presumed to be against abortion, so as long as one biological parent is in favour, the pregnancy should be carried to term? Is this correct? What do you make of twins in that case? Surely then a twin or triplet pregnancy should never be aborted?<BR/><BR/>The rights of foetuses are ludicrous in any case - I dealt with them in the beginning of my very first comment. Just as I'm not entitled to your kidney, no matter how dependent upon it I may be, no fetus is entitled to a person's uterus.<BR/><BR/>"I still haven't seen a single female poster manage to address the innate inequality of forcing a man to be (or not to be) a father either against his will or without his knowledge."<BR/><BR/>At this point, I must suggest this is because you don't want to see it. For the third (or fourth?) time: ABORTION IS NOT ABOUT ENDING PARENTHOOD. It is about ending PREGNANCY. If it were about ending one's obligation to a child, abortion would mean that parents had the right to smother their living children.<BR/><BR/>"A woman gestates. That's different to the male contribution to fertilisation. The difference in no way undermines the principle of equality."<BR/><BR/>Have you looked up the definition of equality? Let's imagine you run a 3.57 minute mile. I run a 4.25 minute mile. Shall we both receive gold medals? No? How unequal!! Oh but wait, nature has given us different abilities. The fact that you run fater does not mean you should be taxed higher or forced to join an Olympic squad. Likewise the additional reproductive facilities of healthy women do not mean they should be put at the mercy of any body else - be that person the state, a former or current romantic partner, or a gestating fetus.<BR/><BR/>You haven't engaged with this idea at all - save to put the right to "bodily integrity" in scare quotes, as if you aren't quite sure it's a right at all. Come on now, dig in and tell us if you agree with it or not! Should two people whose reproductive responsiblities are so totally different, not be entitled to the same protections?<BR/><BR/><BR/>This is the one question I want you to answer: if a man consents to sex, then changes his mind, decides he doesn't want to risk it, tries to pull out, but is forced to climax by his partner - if this is wrong, and punishable by law (as I believe it is and should be), why is it acceptable for a person to force a woman to continue the reproductive process beyond the point she wishes? Why are you giving men the right to stop, but not women?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35770042.post-19801112633175997942008-07-25T01:36:00.000+01:002008-07-25T01:36:00.000+01:00I gotta say, I've yet to find a post anywhere I ag...I gotta say, I've yet to find a post anywhere I agree more with. well, to an extent, atleast. I have to say; I disagree with Number 4, but I'll get to that in a second<BR/><BR/>I'd say that either you've been reading the laws we have here in england on abortion (since your post seems to follow and stick to them pretty well) OR you have seen what an unwanted pregnancy can do to a woman or a couple. Possibly even both.<BR/><BR/>you are absolutly correct on the fact that no country should dump its problems on another country or state (abortions or otherwise)<BR/><BR/>Over here, we have the "problem" that if a man gets a woman pregnant, he is automatically responsible for paying maintainence on that child and the general upkeep of him or her BUT the mother can deny the father access to his baby. As you said, it takes two to tango and if the mother does not want the child to meet their father, then that should automatically waeve their rights to any payment the father is, under current law, expected to make.<BR/><BR/>Sadly, the above law also applies if a woman tricks a man into getting her pregnant (takes the used condom and inpregnates herself with it) that would be very difficult to get out of since, when the paternaty test is done 9 months later, the condom and all evidence is LONG gone and any court would argue that we all know the risks of having sex, even with protection.<BR/><BR/>Where you and I disagree is Number 4. At the end of the day, it's the womans body that has to carry the child around for nine months. She should not be forced to carry the baby around against her will. It's her body and she has final say in what happens to her body and anything or anyone inside it. If THAT came into effect as a law I can guarentee you that there will be millions of women who would say to themselves "there's more than one way to get rid of a pregnancy" they would just find ways of having a miss carridge.Wolfram Blitzenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03546464033275390189noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35770042.post-2556051738426304062008-07-25T00:46:00.000+01:002008-07-25T00:46:00.000+01:00I am suggesting that the 'bodily integrity' of a w...I am suggesting that the 'bodily integrity' of a woman during pregnancy, in which time she already receives medical and financial support from the Irish state, would be subordinate to the combined rights of a putative father and the putative child together, if the father sought a court order to raise the resulting child.<BR/>The reason for that is because, while pregnancy is nine months long on average, parenthood (and the aftermath of abortion, as any counsellor at the Well Women clinics can tell you) are both for life, and for life for both parties involved.<BR/>I still haven't seen a single female poster manage to address the innate inequality of forcing a man to be (or not to be) a father either against his will or without his knowledge.<BR/>Whatever happened to the old feminist slogan, different but equal?<BR/>A woman gestates. That's different to the male contribution to fertilisation. The difference in no way undermines the principle of equality.JC Skinnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07591722111393071007noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35770042.post-69883387475391486942008-07-24T23:42:00.000+01:002008-07-24T23:42:00.000+01:00And as a postscript: I would argue that "introduc[...And as a postscript: I would argue that "introduc[ing] a concept of equity into the entire arena of fertility" is fundamentally impossible, when the two people involved have such fundamentally different roles, equality of outcome is simply not possible. Women have nine months of physical involvement, men have only a few minutes' worth (or hours ;p ). How can you make these experiences equal? You can't. Biology has made us unequal. I would say that legally we should offer the same rights and protections to men and women as long as their actions are the same. So, men have the right to pull out and end the sex act (and any woman who forces them to continue is a rapist and I would fully support her prosecution). But equally, under your proposal, for a man to force a woman to gestate the foetus his sperm produced is no less a violation. You just don't have the right to force someone's body to do that.<BR/><BR/>I suspect that if you are genuinely serious, your interest is not so much in getting men the right to control their former sexual partner's bodies as absolving them from parental responsibility. In which case, have you considered that the only people likely to lose out in such cases are the children?<BR/><BR/>But this is a side point. The fundamental issue of bodily integrity remains. And you haven't engaged with it :)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35770042.post-67407810466538357482008-07-24T23:08:00.000+01:002008-07-24T23:08:00.000+01:00JC, you're ignoring the entire crux of my argument...JC, you're ignoring the entire crux of my argument :)<BR/><BR/>Yeah, the pro-life lobby argues the foetus has rights. I don't, and neither do you, based on your proposal.<BR/><BR/>"For example, I'm not permitted by law to commit rape, quite rightly, because my exercising of my choice impinges on the rights of another."<BR/><BR/>Exactly - because of the right to bodily integrity, which I believe is the crux of the abortion issue.<BR/><BR/>'We're already into that territory when we discuss the issues of fertility, abortion, and parenthood, as most of the posters here have singularly failed to recognise."<BR/><BR/>Well, abortion is a multi-faceted issue, and I would argue most comments have touched on aspects of this only, because to touch on all is nigh-on impossible.<BR/><BR/>However, I touched on this exactly - I believe abortion has NOTHING to do with the right to opt out of parenting, or being a parent, or creating a life. It is entirely to do with the right to control what your body does for nine months, and I believe that anyone who can become pregnant deserves that control. <BR/><BR/>"I'm suggesting that a woman's right to dictate solely the future of any pregnancy is not logical if it goes hand in hand, as it currently does, with the imposition of fatherhood and concomitant financial responsibilities upon men."<BR/><BR/>Again, I dealt with this specifically. The right to bodily integrity is inalienable. The right to wallet integrity is laughable. You haven't responded to any of my points. Men have the right to opt out of the biological reproductive process at every stage at which they are physically involved. Why would you deny the same right to women?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35770042.post-86244707128132589172008-07-24T21:55:00.000+01:002008-07-24T21:55:00.000+01:00I can only reiterate - I am deadly serious about t...I can only reiterate - I am deadly serious about this proposal. <BR/>It's not a satire, it's not intended to be deliberately provocative or to boost what is already a nice niche healthy regular readership (and it hasn't, particularly.)<BR/>This is my thought experiment designed to introduce a concept of equity into the entire arena of fertility, commencing at the issue of abortion, which remains as I said at the outset a radioactive issue in Ireland that one day is going to have to be addressed.<BR/>Dinogirl, you're not the only person to have defended the argument that a woman's body is hers to do with as she wishes.<BR/>There is a logic to that position, but like all such positions, it is circumvented by one's interactions with others.<BR/>For example, I'm not permitted by law to commit rape, quite rightly, because my exercising of my choice impinges on the rights of another.<BR/>We're already into that territory when we discuss the issues of fertility, abortion, and parenthood, as most of the posters here have singularly failed to recognise.<BR/>The pro-life lobby would argue that the first and most profound infringement is on the life of the zygote/foetus/child-to-be in the case of abortion.<BR/>What I'm arguing is separate to that. I'm suggesting that a woman's right to dictate solely the future of any pregnancy is not logical if it goes hand in hand, as it currently does, with the imposition of fatherhood and concomitant financial responsibilities upon men.JC Skinnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07591722111393071007noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35770042.post-17796762853185730932008-07-24T19:27:00.000+01:002008-07-24T19:27:00.000+01:00Aw, JC, I only saw this now, and I would have resp...Aw, JC, I only saw this now, and I would have responded sooner. Happily it seems my fellow rabid feminists have ably defended our corner ;p<BR/><BR/>Here is why women have the right to terminate a pregnancy without informing the person they believe to be the father. The right to an abortion is NOT about the right not to be a parent. Nothing. It is (I believe, anyway) all about the right to control what happens to your body, and what uses your body is being put to.<BR/><BR/>If I were dying of kidney failure, and you were the only match, JC, no law in the world could compel you to go through a dangerous medical procedure that could risk your life and/or future health, involve taking many months off work, losing a lot of money, perhaps even being fired, to help me. I cannot make you give me one drop of blood. Because it's yours, and I have no claim to it - even if I were your sister or daughter. That's the way it should be (although, of course, in the vast majority of cases, a decent person WOULD do this stuff. But you shouldn't ever be FORCED to).<BR/><BR/>Similarly, every person has the right to prevent a pregnancy, for every stage at which they are bodily involved. For women, the fact is that their physical involvement lasts nine months longer than men's. Let me be very clear: I believe that men should have the right to withdraw from sex at ANY point, just as women do. But once your body is no longer involved: that's it.<BR/><BR/>Unequal? Well, yes, because people with the physical ability to gestate a child are obviously different to those who don't. But just because it's an ability only half the population has, does not mean that it shouldn't be properly protected. It's the tyranny of biology, (and women haven't exactly come up trumps!)<BR/><BR/>Your proposal suggests that putting sperm in a woman gives one (I suppose a lesbian couple could be in this situation) the right to control her body for nine months. It doesn't. Everybody owns their own body (with whatever it is capable of doing) and they decide what happens to it. Not their husband, partner, or one-night stand. This is why absent parents (male or female) can be sued for child support even if they claim not to have wanted a child - child support is about the CHILD, and while there is a right to bodily integrity, there is no right to wallet integrity.<BR/><BR/>That's not to say that wider child custody issues are fair at all, but that's a debate for another day. You're dead wrong on this anyway!<BR/><BR/>So there you go. Though like themajor I'm pretty sure you meant this as a Modest Proposal. I do hope the blog ratings have shot up!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35770042.post-46666666188963044082008-07-23T11:35:00.000+01:002008-07-23T11:35:00.000+01:00http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7520856.stm...http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7520856.stmAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35770042.post-56652823237627444792008-07-23T11:32:00.000+01:002008-07-23T11:32:00.000+01:00Cheers for the shout JC, I was made a father at a ...Cheers for the shout JC, I was made a father at a young age by a woman that was several years older than me. And a lot wiser, I wanted to continue playing japs and americans, but big adult problems became a reality for me at 16 and it left me broken at times, financially and mentally. <BR/><BR/>(Annie) for the record: the whole "women should be more careful or suffer the consequences" rant makes me sick".<BR/><BR/>This rant here is typical of women that can not think outside the pink box, they want to throw all lifes problems at everyone else but not face upto the reality that is looking them in the face. Men do not have babies and if they did the world would be less populated, probably extinction plausible?! We as men only provide the sperm or the seed, and like trees without any direction or strong foundations, we castto the wind. We will sow what we reap, without strong foundations in our schools and homes, with role models and better educational systems in dealing with sex education and the DEARMING of woman that use the womb as a weapon. We can have no equality or peace between the sexes without first a common ground to stand firm on, thin ice is not the optio here with the willy nilly liberals options. <BR/><BR/>So men should arm themselves too, with none payment of financial costs if they do not want the child but are forced to continue with the pregnancy, as it is a woman with racing hormones choice to continue the birth. I suppose this can't be helped as the woman is only following her biological conditioning! <BR/><BR/>We need to create better role models in society to assist the young men of today in making better decisions for the mistakes they have made, like letting hormones rush to their neither regions is a weakness, if we force this onto our youngmen in the media and morally we could make a difference, a small dent probably tbh, but we could stop the strongest urge known to man....PROCREATION.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35770042.post-82291445232842177642008-07-23T11:04:00.000+01:002008-07-23T11:04:00.000+01:00This development might make matters interesting fo...This development might make matters interesting for the residents of the Republic vis-a-vis abortion:<BR/><BR/>http://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/mhqlauidcwmh/JC Skinnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07591722111393071007noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35770042.post-22555095427299557962008-07-23T02:24:00.000+01:002008-07-23T02:24:00.000+01:00One other thing, GI. Under what I proposed there w...One other thing, GI. Under what I proposed there wouldn't be a need to travel for an abortion as they'd be available in Ireland.<BR/>A woman would still be free to procure one here, after first ensuring the putative father was informed.<BR/>But in the unlikely event that he sought and obtained a court order to raise any resulting child from the pregnancy himself, then if she procured an abortion she would obviously be in breach of a court order with the legal ramifications that would follow.<BR/>The only thing I'm seeking to 'take away' from women is the concept that fertility in general is not their sole remit to decide upon without consulting with the men involved, since, as Informer's sad story illustrates, those men are often made fathers against their will and then punitively treated financially as a result of a decision they themselves either did not make or actively disagreed with.JC Skinnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07591722111393071007noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35770042.post-17092095426063187502008-07-23T02:01:00.000+01:002008-07-23T02:01:00.000+01:00On the contrary, I'm one of the few on this debate...On the contrary, I'm one of the few on this debate who isn't entrenched.<BR/>It's self-evident that you are, obviously, just as much as Don.<BR/>There's not a tremendous amount of point in repeating ad infinitum the illogicality at the heart of the pro-abortion on demand camp as regards gender equality. I've done that repeatedly already, not because I'm entrenched but because I genuinely hoped to see people engage with the concept, throw it around, chew on it and perhaps close in on a workable compromise model for dealing with Ireland's abortion issue.<BR/>Some people have managed to do that - Dan for one, Attic Luddite for another.<BR/>I suppose I'd have to say that at least you're a lot more honest than most of that camp, GI, because you freely admit that you don't wish to see genuine equality between genders.<BR/>You're out for what women can get, and that's Western feminism stripped of its token gesture language about equity in a nutshell. Fair enough, but then again logic dictates that you don't get to complain about the existence of, for example, pay inequality between genders.<BR/>To Annie, I'd simply suggest that you're misreading what I wrote.<BR/>Women already reap the consequences of their actions just as men do in the field of fertility as in life in general.<BR/>The issue I've sought to raise is how best that can be legislated for in the context of a significant social problem, acutely expressed by the exporting of pregnant women to other states to procure abortions, but more widely defined, as Dan pertinently did, as a problem of unwanted pregnancy in Ireland.JC Skinnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07591722111393071007noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35770042.post-45026465414901059892008-07-23T01:07:00.000+01:002008-07-23T01:07:00.000+01:00The right to travel for an abortion would be the o...The right to travel for an abortion would be the obvious one JC. And I don't loathe gender equality: there's no such thing.<BR/><BR/>Stupid idea, would solve nothing, no thought for the longer term implications of civil liberities and human rights when the state takes that level of control, an overriding misogyny in totally failing to address the mental and physical health of the woman subsequent to her forced pregnancy and surrendering the child.<BR/>You're entrenched in your position so I'll leave you to it.Green Inkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15049267990087355425noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35770042.post-83604290080946978192008-07-22T23:04:00.000+01:002008-07-22T23:04:00.000+01:00Well you are still being pro-choice, despite a dif...Well you are still being pro-choice, despite a different "voting system" on how it is done. Your way is better than general, abortion on demand stance. But still not acceptable to me.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35770042.post-6462357942584791782008-07-22T22:59:00.000+01:002008-07-22T22:59:00.000+01:00And I've already acknowledged that your position i...And I've already acknowledged that your position is both clear and uncompromising, and because it is the latter, it is unsustainable as a solution to the problem in hand. Just as equally the extremist 'pro-choice' (which of course offers men no choice whatsoever) is no sustainable solution either.JC Skinnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07591722111393071007noreply@blogger.com