Andyman, only the mother can be trusted with the choice to abort, some men are just not capable. You are living proof. And I don't mean that as an attack.

Since the bulk of the consequences affect the mother she certainly *should* have the right to make the choice, to the relatively minor detriment of anyone else. Choosing to abort is taking responsibility, choosing not to abort is taking responsibility. Blaming the victim is not taking responsibility. Taking away women's rights to appease some psychotic men is not taking responsibility, it's an irrational and deplorable non-solution. Don't try telling me you aren't blaming women this time, it's obvious to any reasonable person.

"[T]he greatest enemies of men are other men." Where to start?
Col, might I suggest leaving this thread to die? Not much point sticking around for ad hominems, misrepresentations and reiterating arguments.

BOAZ_David, you are quite right that there are huge differences and that there are many rules in Sharia (IIRC interest payments are illegal for many Muslims) and that's the point -- when you have a truly absolute reference you must base everything on it and there is no way to change the "precedent". I still think that the Xian concept is less absolute because different people can apply the principles in different ways. Where extremist/fundamentalist Xianity does exist the interpretations seem to be held as absolute truth, including the anti-abortion view.

R0bert, again I agree mostly, but I do think you missed my point re: side effects. As you rightly said many would seek custody for the benefit of the child, but they already do so, and my point was that there would be more applying for custody who don't actually care about the child. Big issues are certainly of larger concern and are dealt with by the courts, but with shared parenting the day-to-day issues are of increased concern/dispute.

Deuc says “Choosing to abort is taking responsibility, choosing not to abort is taking responsibility. Blaming the victim is not taking responsibility. Taking away women's rights to appease some psychotic men is not taking responsibility, it's an irrational and deplorable non-solution”.

Unconditional abortion, no-fault divorce, child residency and property settlement laws do not exactly show women to be responsible or accountable. If we also examine the outcomes in single parent families headed by mothers, responsibility does not come to the forefront of such families’ attributes.

“Psychotic men” should never be “appeased”, but according to Deuc, there are either no such women, or if there are, appeasement is the only “rational” option.

How does Deuc and her co-hort, justify men being held responsible for things they have no choice over. Yes, both men and women have an equal choice on contraception and sex. Men have no further choices. How does this group reconcile their stand with recent events relating to Kathy Donnelly and Tony Abbott?

We need more research (and debate) on this type of reproductive behaviour (and others, such as abortion) – my subjective opinion is that this is not an isolated incident, but that it occurs in significant numbers. If we must only make fathers accountable, then let’s do it in more rational ways. Let’s have paternity testing at each birth, and let’s note on each birth certificate whether “father” means biological. Let’s also give some leeway to men who do not wish to become fathers. I’m not talking about enforced abortions here – let the mother make her choice in accordance with her current freedoms. Let’s just not be irrational about forcing men into fatherhood, just as we do not enforce motherhood.

"Psychotic": what Deuc thinks of men is irrelevant. My argument isn't.

Deuc's "Some men are just not capable": by logical implication "some men are capable". Should capable men be given some input? Not "domination", "total control", "taking away women's rights" as variously misquoted to bolster weak arguments... just INPUT?

Not even into the actual abortion, _IF_ the man has options regarding consequences! He currently has no legal choices.

Are some WOMEN "just not capable" of deciding about abortion?

My concern remains: the specific case of a deceptive mother generating financial or emotional penalties against the father.

"The bulk of the consequences affect the mother": by her choice. Very significant consequences exist for others: they have a legitimate right to be heard, even if they were silly enough to have sex with a woman.

Deuc's argument, only bulk consequences should be considered, suggests that we shouldn't support minorities because the community at large suffers the bulk of societal problems.

Double standard: women have their choices, men take their chances.

An even-minded person will see I do not blame "women"... just some women (and some men). The genders are to blame in probably equal numbers; and usually BOTH parties are to blame to some extent.

The issue is the different reaction when a woman vs. a man is to blame. I've merely focussed on circumstances where women have behaved badly. It is especially these cases that are neglected and need examination.

This doesn't imply that I discount women in difficulty, it merely reflects the350wordlimit.

"Blame the victim"? Deuc apparently means the woman. Why does Deuc think the woman is a victim when she can choose one or the other path? Does this attitude (female victimhood) denigrate women in the same way that patriarchal societies have in the past?

Does equality of women mean they must abandon their "victim" status?

Victims have no choice. By this definition, is it sometimes the father who is the real victim?

Isabellberners,
“Increasingly fathers’ rights are a topic in courts in regard to a reluctance to become fathers, manifested in often deadly assault on women and their unborn children”

Now judging by the number of court cases regards this, then these types of assaults must be extremely rare, considering the approx 250,000 children born each year.

However your statement can of course be looked at in another way, which occurs up to 100,000 times per year in Australia alone (ie called abortion):-

“Increasingly mothers’ rights are a topic in courts in regard to a reluctance to become mothers, manifested in often deadly assault by women on their unborn children.”

So if the mother has reluctance to be a mother, she simply has an abortion, and some believe that right paramount, although the father could assume full custody of the child if it was born, and the mother may never need see the child again. I say could, but the courts have never granted it.

Also
“a common ground between pro-choice and anti-abortion positions, and this is one area: a shared opposition to forcible abortion. That's my hope anyway!”

Is this really? I can’t see you mentioning this in the article.

But how much forcible abortion actually takes place, and if it does take place, who is forcing whom? I would think no one knows, as so little research has been undertaen into abortion, and the only way that research can be undertaken reliably, is for the mother and the father to be both involved.

But iwbhmb waiting for the mother and the father to be included in that research, if Social Science research into fathers is anything like it has been in the past.

It's very interesting, coming back into this debate after a week of chocolate. Col, regardless of what the others are saying, it's not uterus awe, it's just plain speaking. You are the only one making any real sense whilst the others bang on about aborted toddlers, murderers and single millionaire mums and blah blah blah. You got to the nub of the matter about it and the other can choose not to pick up on it. I think Col Rouge is French for "tres, tres succint". Let's meet on the euthanasia page! And I don't want to find out Timkin's real identity. The nightmare could be that I may know him!

It is remarkable how people tiptoe around the Kathy Donnelly debacle. One night’s protected sex with Bill, against Vatican Roulette with “the love of her life”, Tony.

Ladies, this is where abortion holds a distinctive advantage over relinquishment – you will be answerable to no one - ever. You can tell your own story in which you are the heroine-victim, and can rest assured that your integrity and that of motherhood will remain safely intact. No chance of ever being found out, neither any of subsequent infanticide. You will not be burdened with thoughts about how this child is doing from day to day, no worries about someone turning up at your doorstep at 27, 37 or 47. No need to involve Bill.

The father not having a choice to raise the child on his own will ensure that you retain that higher moral ground. You can legally force the abortion onto him and the child and you can still call him a bastard. Your life-style and/or career will not be disturbed. You will not have to pay child-support (although that is no different to relinquishing).

Case closed. Abortion wins.

As for other valid reasons for abortion, perhaps another time.