Abortion
 

I had a quick search and couldn't find a topic about this debate on here ... so what are people's views? Morally wrong or acceptable? Should the maximum amount of weeks be raised / lowered / left alone?

Hmm.... - I'll answer first. (I think we may have discussed topic before though)

My body - my decision - nothing else to discuss (in my opinion).

To take it one step further - no male court should have anything to say about it. History shows that males have a bad record when it comes to taking care of their legal offspring - let alone illegal offspring.

In my OPINION - once a fetus has reached a stage where it can survive outside my body on it's own - abortion should not be an option. Before that - it's my decision.

Kathleen

The limit when a foetus is able to survive premature birth is about 6 months. But the limit for a risk limited abortion for the mother is way earlier than that. Somewhere between 12 to 16 weeks would be a more reasonable limit imo.


One could argue that not all women are good mothers either and that the few males that are able to take care of their legal or illegal offspring should not see their advice (or decision) discarded because the majority of them are not as good.

I'll agree that it is the mother's decision in the end, but a responsible and caring future father's advice should be taken into account. Especially, for example, when a handicap is detected early during pregnancy. Taking care of a handicaped child can change a father's life just as much as a mother's life. One parent shouldn't be able to force such a change on the other.


Ponrauil

What Kathleen said.

It's not only males I don't feel comfortable presiding over these issues (whether it is legislatively or judicially), but also women who have never been pregnant or religious fanatics or otherwise mentally obstructed individuals.

The mother should have the say as she is the one that is actually pregnant 24/7 and of course in a perfect world the word of the father to be would be considered. Just like in a perfect world we would all be 100% responsible and able to make life or death decisions.

As for the time limit on abortion - obviously there shouldn't be a limit in cases of high risk to the mother or severe handicap of the child. As for 'healthy' abortions, I'd say the sooner the better and I am ok with the 16 weeks or whatever it is.

Personally, I do not believe that any mother would take a decision like this lightly and to suggest otherwise is preposterous.

How goes that saying .... walk in my shoes for a moon before you judge me or something to that effect...

Well, I'm pretty sure a good definition for alive is having brain functions, so since we need to draw lines, let's draw it at brain waves. All bets should be off for health of the mother, though that should be defined as a clear and present danger to the mother's life or health. Convenience or lack of responsibility should not be listed as a "danger."

Alternatively, each state could be allowed to set a definition of alive, since that's none of the federal government's dang business.

Adrian

What both Kathleen and Maria said.

Couple of weeks ago, there was news around here about a clinic in Barcelona which aborted women who were over 7 months pregnant. That is unacceptable, imo. A child can live when it's born after 7 months of pregnancy.

I really don't like that "In a perfect world" part of your post...


Ponrauil

The idea that the only women should be allowed a say in the legislative process, or indeed, the final say in individual cases is bizarre at best.

The idea that this group should be narrowed even futher to women who have been impregnated is dangerous and nasty - reinforcing the insulting idea that those who choose not to have children are in some way not "real women" (how dare you lump my girlfriend, without doubt the kindest person I have ever met, in with "other mentally-obstructed individuals"?), and robbing a voice from many of those who will be affected by the decisions made.

Like it or not, the issue needs to be discussed in both moral and practical terms and has impacts across the whole of society. As long as there is a process in place (public debate, freedom of information, legislative checks and balances etc.) to ensure every non-insane voice is heard and measured accordingly, it should be of no concern that men have some role in the process. Even a significant one.

As for individual cases - As has been said before, no one has the right to take the decision away from prospective parents themselves before such an age as the foetus could survive and thrive outside the womb. I would feel uncomfortable if I were certain that the foetus were sentient and feeling pain even if if dependent on the mother, but the choice should still, where possible reside with the parents to be.

And yes, i know there are cases where a father would be unfit to play a role in the decision, but this does apply equally to women.

I agree with the women in this thread. As much as I'd like to be a part of the decision making process, and would hope to be a part of it, I couldn't ask anyone to go through a pregnancy, just because I'd want them to.

Ice

huh? What convoluted rationale do you employ? I never said only 'real women' should make these decisions, nor did I insinuate that only women who've been pregnant are 'real women'. In fact, I am very opposed to the usage of 'real women' and any other label that might categorize women. (Ie. a married woman is a Mrs. and the rest is a Miss and the common 'now you're a woman since you are not a virign anymore' makes me want to go into convulsions.

Perhaps you want to re-read the last sentence of my post - I know it wasn't a literal phrase, so I looked it up for you:

"Never judge a man till you've walked a mile in his moccasins."

Unfortunately, kindness isn't an attribute high on the list of competencies when signing law and/or enforcing it. It's a good thing and good for you to have a kind girlfriend, unfortunately it doesn't make anybody or anyone more or less credible in their experiences. :S

As far as decision making: I wouldn't make decisions at my job about issues I had no experience in .. I'd never find that an oddity and I have never met anybody who would find that 'bizarre'. I am too a very kind person, yet I still lack experiences in many areas and wouldn't want to be put in a position to preside over life or death in matters I have no experience in.

I do not like headlines and throw outs like "somebody aborted a baby at 7 months pregnant" because it suggests a certain carelessnes and ignorance. I would like to believe that there were extraordinary circumstances at hand and it wasn't a 'oops changed my mind on this one...'. Though of course as a matter of statistics, bad decisions are part of reality.



"Never judge a man till you've walked a mile in his moccasins."



(how dare you lump my girlfriend, without doubt the kindest person I have ever met, in with "other mentally-obstructed individuals"?), and robbing a voice from many of those who will be affected by the decisions made.

Like it or not, the issue needs to be discussed in both moral and practical terms and has impacts across the whole of society. As long as there is a process in place (public debate, freedom of information, legislative checks and balances etc.) to ensure every non-insane voice is heard and measured accordingly, it should be of no concern that men have some role in the process. Even a significant one.

As for individual cases - As has been said before, no one has the right to take the decision away from prospective parents themselves before such an age as the foetus could survive and thrive outside the womb. I would feel uncomfortable if I were certain that the foetus were sentient and feeling pain even if if dependent on the mother, but the choice should still, where possible reside with the parents to be.

And yes, i know there are cases where a father would be unfit to play a role in the decision, but this does apply equally to women.[/QUOTE]