Isn't it about time the Mens' Rights Movement stopped being treated like a joke?

[Deleted]

Actually, abortion can be an issue of equal rights.
Men have the right to do whatever they want with their bodies.
But, women do not. They are constantly told they can not decide for themselves. They are told they need to be 'informed' about their decision. They need to have a waiting period to 'really think about it'.
People worry more about the possible 'child' she may give birth to than her actual rights. The fetus has more rights than she does more often than not. One example is the recent death of the woman in Britain. She needed a life saving abortion, but the child still 'had a heartbeat' and it's life was more important than hers. She ended up dying because the child's heartbeat didn't end for like 2 days and she got an infection I think.
It is a matter of her having the right to her body and to make her own decisions about it.

Well... In England, on the NHS:

Under UK law, an abortion can usually only be carried out during the first 24 weeks of pregnancy as long as certain criteria are met (see below).

The Abortion Act 1967 covers the UK mainland (England, Scotland and Wales) but not Northern Ireland. The law states that:

abortions must be carried out in a hospital or a specialist licensed clinic
two doctors must agree that an abortion would cause less damage to a woman's physical or mental health than continuing with the pregnancy

There are also a number of rarer situations when the law states an abortion may be carried out after 24 weeks. These include:

if it is necessary to save the woman's life
to prevent grave permanent injury to the physical or mental health of the pregnant woman
if there is substantial risk that if the child were born, s/he would have physical or mental abnormalities as to be seriously handicapped

Generally, an abortion should be carried out as early in the pregnancy as possible, ideally before 12 weeks.

So since 1967, if it was needed to save her life it should've / would've happened. The news article you're talking about NEVER mentioned what SHE wanted. Only what her family wanted. If she denied the abortion they couldn't do anything. There's NO evidence other than her family / husbands word. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-20321741 - Tell me where it says she said she wanted the abortion. But in any case, it was Ireland, not the UK. I'm not 100% sure on their laws, don't get me wrong, but if she wanted the abortion and they denied her that is certainly something that needs to be changed. But I'll repeat again - You only ever read the words of her husband, and nothing was actually said from her mouth, so to speak. He could be looking to sue the hospital for a quick buck, simple as.

[starlord]

If that makes you feel better about it ok...

its what the law says. if you feel different thats up to you. many do, which also makes abortions status as the "easy button" according to some pretty ridiculous.

[Moadar]

its what the law says. if you feel different thats up to you. many do, which also makes abortions status as the "easy button" according to some pretty ridiculous.

It should be up to the woman what to do until the late 2nd trimester or whenever the baby is considered to be viable.

[starlord]

It should up to the woman what to do until the late 2nd trimester or whenever the baby is considered to be viable.

thats the way it is. didnt think it was necessary to go into detail.

[DuckieMage]

Well... In England, on the NHS:



So since 1967, if it was needed to save her life it should've / would've happened. The news article you're talking about NEVER mentioned what SHE wanted. Only what her family wanted. If she denied the abortion they couldn't do anything. There's NO evidence other than her family / husbands word. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-20321741 - Tell me where it says she said she wanted the abortion. But in any case, it was Ireland, not the UK. I'm not 100% sure on their laws, don't get me wrong, but if she wanted the abortion and they denied her that is certainly something that needs to be changed. But I'll repeat again - You only ever read the words of her husband, and nothing was actually said from her mouth, so to speak. He could be looking to sue the hospital for a quick buck, simple as.

While I never read that article, the one I read spoke that she wasn't a resident of Ireland, nor was she catholic. To my knowledge, she had a miscarriage. The child would not have lived. The physicians knew that, but under the law, they couldn't because it still had a heartbeat. She said she didn't live there and she wasn't catholic, but it didn't matter.

Isn't the UK.... also Ireland? I might be getting stuff mixed up. I hadn't said Ireland specifically, because I wasn't 100% sure on the country.
We don't have all the information. The article I read [and being at work, don't have the link] implied that she had wanted the abortion done.

[Moadar]

thats the way it is. didnt think it was necessary to go into detail.

Details are important with abortion. Otherwise people jump to the conclusion that everyone agrees with shoving a screw driver into a babys head while part of it is still in the mother.

[DuckieMage]

thats the way it is. didnt think it was necessary to go into detail.

Well, the law[made during Roe V Wade] in the US is the first trimester is free for all. Second trimester is still legally allowed, but is more regulated by the government. The third trimester allows the state to make it legal or illegal as long as it has a provision for if the woman's life is on the life.
The Casey vs PP changed it and made states have alot more power to control abortion, such as adding in the 24 hour waiting period and forcing women to have state approved information shoved down their throats. It's essentially using the 'undue burden' idea added in during the Casey case to give itself power by saying these processed aren't a 'burden' to women.

---------- Post added 2012-11-28 at 05:17 AM ----------

Details are important with abortion. Otherwise people jump to the conclusion that everyone agrees with shoving a screw driver into a babys head while part of it is still in the mother.

That is not how abortions are handled. That is completely wrong and serious miss-information. Most abortions, to my knowledge, are handled with hormones that trigger the woman to start her menstrual cycle.

[Deleted]

While I never read that article, the one I read spoke that she wasn't a resident of Ireland, nor was she catholic. To my knowledge, she had a miscarriage. The child would not have lived. The physicians knew that, but under the law, they couldn't because it still had a heartbeat. She said she didn't live there and she wasn't catholic, but it didn't matter.

Isn't the UK.... also Ireland? I might be getting stuff mixed up. I hadn't said Ireland specifically, because I wasn't 100% sure on the country.
We don't have all the information. The article I read [and being at work, don't have the link] implied that she had wanted the abortion done.

You said Britain. That article follows what you wrote pretty much to the word except it is Ireland. To teach you a bit about the UK, NORTHERN Ireland is part of the UK, not Ireland itself. You learn something new every day huh? That article also IMPLIES that she wanted the Abortion, but only from the husband. She also wasn't Catholic, she was Indian. Use your head. This IS the Article you are on about, no question about it. Try reading it first.

To point the facts out to you:

You

She ended up dying because the child's heartbeat didn't end for like 2 days and she got an infection I think.

Article

"They said unfortunately she can't because it's a Catholic country," Mr Halappanavar said.

"Savita said to her she is not Catholic, she is Hindu, and why impose the law on her.

"But she said 'I'm sorry, unfortunately it's a Catholic country' and it's the law that they can't abort when the foetus is live."

The baby's heartbeat stopped on the Wednesday.

You

She needed a life saving abortion, but the child still 'had a heartbeat' and it's life was more important than hers.

Article

Her husband told the BBC that it was refused because there was a foetal heartbeat.

And note, that the whole Article, and everything about this case has been said from her Husbands point of view. This is the case you were talking about, no doubt in my mind, except yours was on an American site. Because you're American and read American sites. There is no evidence she wanted the abortion. If anything, there is evidence she wanted this child more than she was worrying about herself. You're just reading the article in such a way that it benefits your argument. You're taking the word of a single man who just lost his wife and is more than likely looking for a quick buck, as said before.

[Destruktion]

Giving the man the ability to walk away takes a choice away from the mother (i.e. raise the kid with bio dad physically or financially present).

That's not a choice that the mother has the right to make.

It adds nothing to the situation. You haven't made anything equal, you've just rearranged things so men have it a bit easier.

Exactly. Men have it a bit easier, and women have the same choice they've had from the beginning, only the man is no longer in the equation.

Part of being a man is accepting that a women is right....ALL THE TIME.

Apparently that has never been truer.

[Laize]

"i want to give my children the best possible future so i will have them when im better equipped to handle them"

your turn.

A man makes the same decision. The woman is just the one who decides whether the kid lives or dies. That doesn't mean the man should be obligated to support her poor choice.

"i dont give any fucks about children i father".

that'll go over well in family courts & opinion.

It worked well in Roe vs Wade.

[PizzaSHARK]

That's not a choice that the mother has the right to make.

Are you disagreeing with the concept of child support?

---------- Post added 2012-11-27 at 11:28 PM ----------

A man makes the same decision. The woman is just the one who decides whether the kid lives or dies. That doesn't mean the man should be obligated to support her poor choice.

Choosing to abort the pregnancy is always a poor choice?

[Wells]

Hey look at Laize equating a clump of cells and a child still.

[DuckieMage]

You said Britain. That article follows what you wrote pretty much to the word except it is Ireland. To teach you a bit about the UK, NORTHERN Ireland is part of the UK, not Ireland itself. You learn something new every day huh? That article also IMPLIES that she wanted the Abortion, but only from the husband. She also wasn't Catholic, she was Indian. Use your head. This IS the Article you are on about, no question about it. Try reading it first.

To point the facts out to you:

I'm going to say, that your reply seems more than a little hostile, and I don't get why you might be hostile towards me.
Maybe they are the same article. I can't be sure, as I told you I am at work and do not have access to the article I had read [that could be the same as yours]. I do not remember the article completely, just the main idea of it. I won't say it is, or isn't the article.
Yes, I understand I said the wrong country. I said Britain, instead of Ireland. That is my fault and I apologize for it.

I'm more likely to believe that she wanted [edited-spelling] the abortion, when the article[your article (and possible mine)] says several times she asked for it to be terminated because she had pain and said she was miscarrying. It says her family says she asked for an abortion several times. "Savita Halappanavar's family said she asked several times for an abortion before she died. Photograph courtesy of the Irish Times", "Savita Halappanavar's family said she asked several times for her pregnancy to be terminated because she had severe back pain and was miscarrying.", "He said she continued to experience pain and asked a consultant if she could be induced."

Yes, we can say maybe he's lying and all he wants is a quick buck. However, I am more likely to think that if they were lying, it would have easily been disproved and wouldn't be 'under investigation.'
I may be reading this wrong, but so can you.
We may never know what truly happened. However, in my opinion, it seems more likely she wanted the abortion and was denied.

[Destruktion]

Are you disagreeing with the concept of child support?

The context here is an opt-out for men during the early stages of pregnancy. So no, I am not disagreeing with child support.

[Laize]

Are you disagreeing with the concept of child support?

No. I'm disagreeing with the concept of child support insofar as the man didn't want the child in the first place.

Choosing to abort the pregnancy is always a poor choice?

Considering there's such a thing as adoption? I think so. I think it remains the woman's choice to make poor decisions, however. Whatever poor decisions she makes, though, should not oblige a man to finance them.

Also because I thought this was pertinent to the meta-discussion.

[DuckieMage]

A man makes the same decision. The woman is just the one who decides whether the kid lives or dies. That doesn't mean the man should be obligated to support her poor choice.

It's not a kid.
It's not a child.
It's not a baby.
It's a fetus.
Until probably the 3rd trimester, it can not survive outside the uterus.
It is apart of the woman. It lives off the women.

Until a man can carry a baby to term in his own body, I don't believe a man should be able to deny a woman the right to an abortion.
After, he won't be the one suffering for 9 months.

[Deleted]

I'm going to say, that your reply seems more than a little hostile, and I don't get why you might be hostile towards me.
Maybe they are the same article. I can't be sure, as I told you I am at work and do not have access to the article I had read [that could be the same as yours]. I do not remember the article completely, just the main idea of it. I won't say it is, or isn't the article.
Yes, I understand I said the wrong country. I said Britain, instead of Ireland. That is my fault and I apologize for it.

I'm more likely to believe that she wanted [edited-spelling] the abortion, when the article[your article (and possible mine)] says several times she asked for it to be terminated because she had pain and said she was miscarrying. It says her family says she asked for an abortion several times. "Savita Halappanavar's family said she asked several times for an abortion before she died. Photograph courtesy of the Irish Times", "Savita Halappanavar's family said she asked several times for her pregnancy to be terminated because she had severe back pain and was miscarrying.", "He said she continued to experience pain and asked a consultant if she could be induced."

Yes, we can say maybe he's lying and all he wants is a quick buck. However, I am more likely to think that if they were lying, it would have easily been disproved and wouldn't be 'under investigation.'
I may be reading this wrong, but so can you.
We may never know what truly happened. However, in my opinion, it seems more likely she wanted the abortion and was denied.

I apologize for coming off potentially hostile. I suppose that's just part of my writing style, it isn't intentional, I was merely aiming for a discussion. But the fact remains that you do not know for sure that she asked for it.

He said Savita had been "on top of the world" before experiencing difficulties.

"It was her first baby, first pregnancy and you know she was on top of the world basically," he said.

Says to me that she wanted this child. As you said, we may well never truly know what happened. But there was also a recent article where a man who was locked up for 9 years for 'molesting his daughter' was released after she admitted it was a lie (I may have the time wrong, it was something like that). Taking the word of one group of people (In this case the womans family), or reading the words of one person in particular leads to rather large gaps in information, and are therefore unsuitable for the argument you're trying to prove. But believe me when I say if it is found to be true then Irish law needs to be rewritten, because it is disgusting. But again, without her consent there really is nothing they could have done. We do not know the full story yet.

Sorry again if I caused any offense.

[Kasierith]

Also because I thought this was pertinent to the meta-discussion.

The clashing between the male-dominated public sphere and the female-dominated domestic sphere, while also a topic of great importance, is not an issue that should be brought up in such a manner. It is fundamentally different from the topics that we have been addressing so far.

[Laize]

It's not a kid.
It's not a child.
It's not a baby.
It's a fetus.
Until probably the 3rd trimester, it can not survive outside the uterus.
It is apart of the woman. It lives off the women.

Until a man can carry a baby to term in his own body, I don't believe a man should be able to deny a woman the right to an abortion.
After, he won't be the one suffering for 9 months.

Listen here. I've explained this several times. You can draw whatever arbitrary line you wish between a living child and a fetus but killing is killing.

I don't oppose abortion, so let's get that cleared up right now.

But you can't tell me something isn't alive just because it's dependent on another woman. As I pointed out before, a tapeworm is entirely dependent on its host. Remove it from the host and it dies. A tapeworm is still a living thing. Simply because you choose to call it "life" only when it's viable outside the mother doesn't make you right. It means you're justifying a killing to yourself to make you feel better. And you know what? I'm cool with that. If that's what you need to do then do it.

Just be aware it does no one any favors. It only fuels the cognitive dissonance needed to justify taking a life while, in the same breath, supporting its quality of life outside the womb.

Again, just because it's a fetus does not mean it's not a living member of species homo sapiens. If it's acceptable to revoke their right to life (which is is) then I don't see what the big deal is over its quality of life outside the womb.

[Wells]

No one is saying a fetus isn't alive Laize, that's just a weak ass strawman. What we're saying is that there is a fundamental difference between a fetus and a child. You keep ignoring that with your derpy little counter argument. Its not an "arbitrary line" its a real functional difference.