Conference vaxcat::ef97

    
    I don't have any strong personal beliefs on abortion and feel it's best
    left to the individuals concerned but when they disagree who should
    have final say and in such cases how can a law be passed which by
    necessity needs to look at each case on it's own merits.
    
    There is the obvious case of a womam pregnant by a rape and the rapsit
    then insisting that the child be born? This has point has been risen on
    the numerous radio phone ins I've heard.
    
    The one point of view I haven't heard is where the man wants the child
    aborted but the woman doesn't.
    
    I feel that what we have now, which is effectively abortion on demand,
    is adequate and that ultimately a man should not have a say.
    
    Chris

    I feel that what we have now, which is effectively abortion on demand,
    is adequate and that ultimately a man should not have a say.
    
Chris,

I would have to diagree with the last part - that a man should not have a say.

A man and a woman take equal part in causing a child to be conceived (I'm not
talking here about cases like rape & so forth).  They are expected to take
equal responsibility for bringing that child up.  So it seems logical that
they should have equal say in whether the child is born (again, issues such as
the health of the parents notwithstanding).

Consider turning the case around - if a man and a woman conceive a baby, the
man strongly wants the child to be aborted and the woman wants the child to be
born.  Should the man be expected to provide for the child in that case?

If you say that the man should be expected to (at least) contribute to the
provision for the child, yet stick to your position that the man should have
no say in whether the child is born, that essentially puts men in the position
of having responsibility without rights - the perogative of the slave through
the ages.

regards,
//alan

>If you say that the man should be expected to (at least) contribute to the
>provision for the child, yet stick to your position that the man should have
>no say in whether the child is born, that essentially puts men in the position
>of having responsibility without rights - the perogative of the slave through
>the ages.

	My personal view of this is that this is the way it is currently.
	The woman has all the power in this situation and the man has zero.
	I don't agree with this, but it's difficult to for me to suggest an
	equitable solution. Perhaps if the man doesn't want to support
	a child, he becomes responsible for preventative methods, he keeps
	his kit in his pants or he pays - sobering thoughts.
	If she doesn't want kids, she becomes responsible, as above. I believe 
	that the woman should always have power over her body (she wants 
	an abortion [for whatever reason] - she gets one, likewise, she has the
	right to carry her baby through to term).
	
	I think where there is a disagreement - one party has changed their
	mind - the case should be heard as any other case should be heard in the
	civil courts, and judged on its merits. 

R.

    
    The way I see this particular case...
    
    She got pregnant while they were still together.  They have since split
    up and she's decided that she doesn't want the responsibility of
    another child, being a single parent, and probably doesn't want the
    hassle of chasing him for maintenance, etc, since she knows him, and
    probably sees all the difficulties of it. 
    
    He just wants his baby.
    
    I think there are a lot of unanswered questions about this case, and I
    think that the two of them are simply using the unborn child to get at
    and make things difficult for each other.  This is most definitely
    wrong in my opinion since it's a human life we're talking about. 
    
    I sympathise with both, but if they can't make their marriage work,
    what hope is there for either of them to bring up a happy child ?  And
    if she doesn't want the child, why should she carry it for the next
    nine months on behalf of a man she's separated from ? 
    
    Julie.
    

    Whilst the genetic material may be supplied on a 50-50 basis, the
    equality stops right there. All the rest of the problems are the
    woman's. The morning sickness, no joke I can assure you as I suffer
    from it all the time, the backache, all the other problems right
    through to labour and delivery. 

    Despite all that the medical profession can do there are still quite a
    number of deaths in childbirth.
    
    So when you look at it from that perspective it is the woman's life
    that is on the line, and if she doesn't want to go through with it,
    then it is her decision and no one else.

    As to the lost of a potential human life, so what. The human race is
    breeding like flies. The last thing that we need is more, unwanted,
    humans. We cannot even give a decent life to the ones that we already
    have.

    Jamie.

    I have some opinions on this being female and also 1/2 of a happ[y
    partnership.
    
    1.  When a man has the same risks with Gestational Diabetes, liver,
    kidney failure, hypertension, damage to joints, carpal tunnel syndrome,
    sprung tailbone, risk of abdominal surgery, risk of being cut or torn
    in a VERY tender area, numbness interfering with certain pleasurable
    persuits for weeks to months, transfusion, bleeding out, cross
    tranfusion with incompatable blood (I was the one to get jaundice with
    the last kidlet) prior to placental seperation..........  Oh and minor
    things like death.  Then I will say that he has an equal place in the
    decision making on a pregnancy.  
    
    2.  Before doing the horizontal bop with ANYONE, things such as what to
    do if a pregnancy occurs, STD statuses, etc. should have been talked
    out, as well as BOTH parties using contraception in the case of a
    heterosexual encounter.  I don't care what the Dr said, sterility seems
    to cure itself at the most awkward times, wrap those parts!
    
    3.  If you are male and have strong objections to the idea of abortion,
    don't indulge in casual sex with women who may not feel the way you
    do.  In fact, if life is that precious, realize that no contraceptive
    method is 100% other than abstinence (and according to myth, that has
    failed at least once)  Likewise if you are female.
    
    4.  Thinking and talking before you bounce may not be the most romantic
    thing in the world, but neither is dealing with an unplanned pregnancy. 
    No matter what happens, lives will be changed forever and once the
    unplanned is started the options for both parties are limited
    regardless of belief.
    
    meg

Meg,

Your points are well taken, however I still find the conclusion that you
suggest to be slightly scary.

Essentially what we're saying is that when a man and a woman make the joint
decision to have intercourse, and jointly fail to use proper contraception:

The woman has sole choice over whether the child is born.  The man has no
ability to stop the birth or to cause it to happen.  If the man is desperate
to have a child, the woman may choose to stop hime from having tat child.  If
the woman chooses to bear the child, the man has no way to stop her and is
expected to take significant responsibility for the child.

It seems to be a situation where women have complete power, and men have none.
It certainly doesn't fit my definition of equality.

regards,
//alan

    Where one body deals with all the physical consequences, as well as the
    majority of financial and emotional consequences, there cannot be
    "equality."  Maternal mortality is still a real risk in the world.  The
    number of men who die causing a pregnancy is statistically
    insignificant, especially if you discount jealous partners with
    bludgeons, knives or firearms.  
    
    If you aren't 100% sure of your partner's intentions and fail to wrap
    your rascal after deciding to go through with intercourse you are
    not being a responsible adult, IMO.  I am a firm believer in double
    contraception in most cases where people are not ready to agree to
    commit to each other and a family.  It prevents all kinds of heart and
    body rending decisions.  
    
    Take it from someone who experienced it twice.  Blood incompatabilities
    are not a joke.  The second time did (temporarily, thank mom) enough
    damage to my liver while trying to deal with it that my plasma protein
    level dropped to the point where cell walls were about to start
    leaking, and yellow really isn't my color, particularly in skin tone. 
    I had picked up an infection from a spider bite and between the two,
    started into septacemia and a near death experience within a week of
    Atlehi's birth.  She was a wanted, if accidental addition to our
    household, and I would willingly risk it all over again (but would also
    insist that her cord be clamped earlier, and that she be held below my
    heart level until her cord was clamped to avoid cross-transfusing) for
    her or another child between Frank and myself, but asking me to risk
    that sort of thing again to assuage someone else's idea of life isn't
    something I would risk, for me or a child.  I certainly wouldn't insist
    on that risk for another person.  A placental tear at the wrong time
    could do the same thing or worse and endanger both myself and a fetus.  
    
    Jamie's "pet pathologist" could probably explain this more thouroughly
    and with more accuracy than I did, as I was a bit more than out of it
    while it was going on for me.  
    
    meg
    

    >The woman has sole choice over whether the child is born.  The man has
    >no ability to stop the birth or to cause it to happen.

    Congratulations. You have finally understood the legal situation with
    regard to abortion in the UK and expressed it in a nutshell. That is
    the way it is, and that is the way it should be. The man's contribution
    is minimal and his say in the outcome is zero.

    Jamie.