Fairgotoall, Di, Miscobina

Fairgotoall,
It is interesting that there was a court case in QLD (from memory), where the father wanted to stop the mother from having an abortion, so that the child’s life could be saved and he could raise the child. The court overruled the father, and granted the mother her “choice” of abortion. So much for the rights of the father and the child I guess.

Di, Miscobina
You both seem very charming, caring, and intelligent women, who like to have many facts and information available, so that you can make informed decisions regards an issue.

Unfortunately and rather disappointingly, the author has provided very little information regards abortion, despite two articles now on the issue.

I have provided some links to information concerning abortion and unwanted pregnancy in a number of forums

http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/content/2004/s1239275.htm

http://www.stats.govt.nz/products-and-services/Articles/abortions-Sep01.htm

http://www.betterhealthchannel.com.au/bhcv2/bhcarticles.nsf/pages/Contraception_choices_explained?open

http://www.beverlylahayeinstitute.org/articledisplay.asp?id=5435&department=BLI&categoryid=commentary

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,12340287%255E32522,00.html


So can either of you provide any information or verifiable facts regards the following:-

How many abortions are carried out?
Why were they carried out?
What contraception was being used?
What were the possible reasons for the contraception failure, and can it be improved upon?
Was the abortion used as a form of contraception (and some ethnic groups use abortion this way)?
Was counselling carried out before or after the abortion?
Was the father included in that counselling?
What possible negative affects did the abortion have on the mother or father?
Do the mother or father wish for children in the future etc?

Do you think such questions should be answered, or left unanswered by politically suppressing the issue of abortion, or by making a series of un-referenced, un-substantiated remarks?

Deuc,
we probably have crossover from the other current thread on abortion. The starting point being that pregnancy is something which only effects women so men should butt out and have no say in the abortion issue.

The concept that the person who wears the consequences should have the choice appears reasonable.
What is ignored by proponents of that view is that men may be very significantly impacted by a choice to proceed with an unplanned pregnancy.

Whilst a woman has to deal with the issues of carrying the baby for 9 months and the delivery process none of which are trivial I do not believe that it is reasonable to discount the impact on a C$A payee of child support payments over a period of at least 18 years.
Thanks for being fair minded on this issue.

Some such as mscobina argue that men have a choice about the act that led to conception and that she views pregnancy as something men do to women - "If you don't support women's right to choice - don't put her in a position where she may have to exercise it."
If we are talking about rape cases they have a point, for every other situation I fail to see why their argument applies to men but not to women.

I agree that children need protection from dangerous parents. Perhaps it would be more appropriate to say "Unassailable" goes too far, as an abusive or dangerous parent should not have access to a child."
Substantiated abuse and neglect statistics don't single out fathers as the cause of harm to children. The tactic of blaming harm to children on males is reasonably routine but not justified by the statistics.
Two government web sites are worth a look at if you think that comment is difficult to believe

http://www.abusedchildtrust.com.au/content/child_abuse_2.asp# - Qld Child Abuse and Neglect Stats. Previous studies have had the "single female parent families" rate at about 42%, I don't know what has changed in this study.

http://www.kids.nsw.gov.au/files/cdrt_fatal_abuse_neglect2003.pdf - NSW Child Death Review (Page 48 Table 4.3 is of particular note).

>> Brazuca,

A roomful of subjective opinions often reveal an objective truth about that room. A civil society as a whole is as close as we come to objective truth outside of hard scientific fact such as 1+1=2. Of course in marriage these days, 1+1=1.5 so I don’t know – you may have a point …

I guess an objective truth would be if a woman came up to me and said, I’m pregnant with a foetus which you may or may not have contributed to – let’s go and get it tested, and then we can make some choices together. <<

---------------------

Let's forget about any talk of a room for a second, Seeker. If there's more than one subjective opinion -- say, two -- how do we know which one's the right one?

Let's say one individual makes an arbitrary, subjective value-judgement and another individual makes a different arbitrary, subjective value-judgement. Which of these arbitrary, subjective value-judgements is the correct one, or "objective truth"?

mscobina, Di: Consensus is not the goal, rather to allow a disaffected person to see both sides. mscobina, Di and others jeopardize their case. They have failed to argue their position, they merely imply: "get over it and move on; mind your own business, men." Using an identical argument, in the fight for female supremacy in the workplace I might suggest, "Get over it and move on". Ladies, you are clearly intelligent individuals, please show it by arguing your case, not just dismissing the opposition.

Vasectomies are not through Medicare except day-surgery. Insurance prevents most day-surgery vasectomies. Hospital is about $1000. Little assistance for men to control their procreative activities, lots of help for women. Thank you for further demonstrating this point.

A woman does not have the un-questioned right to do as she pleases. She may not rob a person's bank account or commit murder, because it adversely affects other human beings.

So we argue whether a foetus is a human being.

Another, undisputed, human being who's drastically affected is the father.

My claim is not, "Does this affect him more than her?" The issue I've raised is, "Can this affect him?" If we accept the affirmative, men have a legitimate claim to be heard.

Col Rouge: Yes, I failed to notice that she'd deliberately stopped taking contraception. Trusting fool that I was, I should have known to look in the bottom drawer under the pile of used tissues and New Ideas. I opposed the abortion, I suspect her threat was a bluff. I guess my son will thank me one day. I'm not whinging, I'll leave that to the Feminists.

"The Court shall do everything to ensure that complete justice is done in every cause and matter before it" - Judiciary Act 1903 S31. I don't expect fairness, but I expect us to try.

Deuc, you conceded that I "specifically" blamed Feminists. Not all women. A subsection of Feminism claims that women should have a right to behave as they please no matter who that hurts. I like women, women like me. Extreme feminists hate my guts.

Cont'd...

…Cont’d

Deuc: The male pill is a real equivalent to choices which have been available to women for 40 years. When finally available much of my argument is satisfied: men would have a justifiable case to answer for a pregnancy they could have easily stopped. Vasectomy is a permanent option that younger men baulk at. Vasectomy is miles from the convenience, inexpensiveness and reversibility with which a woman may largely control her choice to conceive.

"Unassailable" goes too far, and I used it for impact; identifying that that’s what some people expect for a woman considering abortion. I stand corrected. "Assumptive" is a better word.

If we give women "right to choose", that Feminist cornerstone: "equality", demands we must also give men “right to choose": that is, right to choose a relationship with the child, and to choose whether to give financial support to the child. Unless, of course, Feminists admit to having moved beyond equality to lusting for supremacy.

The taxpayer argument is appealing, but should the person making the choice, and not the taxpayer or another person, face the full reality of that choice, including financially and in the relationships that child is entitled to have? Give the father a legal say, well then it all changes, and if he is allowed a choice, then of course he must also face the consequences. That's called personal responsibility. Give one person the choice and not the other: that's called discrimination.

"Ultimate power and control over women"? Men have rarely had that, it's just more Feminist propaganda which most persons now thoughtlessly accept. With the current imbalance of choice, a person can take thousands of dollars from another person, and place him at increased risk of illness and suicide. (The universally hated CSA was self-implicated in 4,100 gender-unspecified deaths in 2003. 90% of payers are male…)

She may choose. He has no choice. No one, man or woman, should be unilaterally given that power over another human being.

It's all about the right to choose, on both sides. Or are life-choices just a girl thing?

Once again, it has gone over your heads.

I'll try it one more time, and very slowly...

EVERYONE should have a choice.

I never said that men should not have sex.

I said that men who don't respect their partners right to reproductive choice should not participate in a sex act that has the potential to result in an unwanted pregnancy.

Now. Repeat after me:

P r o - C h o i c e
d o e s
n o t
m e a n
a n t i - m a l e.

Thank you.