What a fascinating thread. Reality perceptively coming from keyboards often devoted to anything but.

I'd like to deal with the usual exception - runner who is incapable of respecting women's sovereignty over their own bodies because of what appears to be a couldn't-care-less dismissal of women's human rights to serve some sort of religion (polite word for superstition).

A differentiation of human rights does not start at conception, it starts when consciousness and self-awareness start to develop in the fertilised egg. This does not happen in the first 20 weeks.

Sensible legal systems (as in WA) respect female sovereignty as inviolable when there is no self-aware demand on it from a foetus, and thereafter they impose restrictions which take account of the human rights of the pre-born as well as those of the mother.

For a detailed account of WA law and how it differs from that in the less justice-conscious States study https://www.health.wa.gov.au/publications/documents/Termination_of_Pregnancy_Info_for_Medical_Practitioners_Dec_07.pdf

There could be an additional restriction that would make sense: if someone seeks a third abortion the termination is offered only if sterilisation is performed at the same time.

Hey Emperor Julian,

You mention 'women's sovereignty over their own bodies'.

Now this might be a weird kind of point and I'm not sure if others will agree with me, (or even if I do) but if a woman is anti-abortion then that foetus represents a huge financial liability (or investment) for a man.

The woman can choose to say 'it has no value' or 'it has a great deal of value', either way the man may not have any say in the matter.

If a woman can entrap a man with pregnancy forcing him to work and pay for years to come, why can't a man entrap a woman with pregnancy, that is if we really believe in equality?

The point I'm trying to make (and I don't think I'm doing a very good job) is that if that if an unborn fetus is also an extension of a mans body (growing inside a female) then why does he have no rights in the ultimate decision whether the child lives or dies, whether he is required to simply pay the cost of abortion or pay for a new human being for many years to come?

What right do women have to full sovereignty over their bodies, when it takes two people acting irresponsible to firstly get pregnant and the fetus is just as much a living extension of the man as it is the woman, only growing inside the woman?

Don't everyone go nuts, it's just a hypothetical...

HI AC,

You're right: you didn't make a good job of it.

How's this for an option ? If a bloke doesn't want his pregnant girlfriend or wife to have an abortion, he signs a declaration that, once she has gone through the childbirth, he will thenceforth take over all care of the baby, until it is eighteen ? As well, he will pay for any medical complications affecting the mother ?

Seems a fair deal: the woman goes through the process of carrying a child, birthing it and recovering afterwards, while the bloke undertakes to give up his job, care for the baby 24/7, guide it through its childhood, drop off and pick it up to and from school, makes its lunches, etc., tolerate its 14-16 tantrums (okay, 12-18 tantrums), during or after which time the mother has the option to 're-connect' if she wishes ?

Of course, if she works, she may be required to pay some sort of baby and child maintenance for those eighteen years. But of course, she would be free to marry if she hasn't already, have other children (but see above: fatherly duties) and carry out all the above duties in relation to other children.

If a bloke isn't prepared to take on any of his fatherly duties, then the woman alone should have the option of termination.

How's that sound ?

Joe

AC,

The issue about abortion is the rights of the woman over her own body.

No human being should have the right to remove the human rights of another, whether it be a disabled person or a foetus. Which is why most democratic countries allow abortion to a certain stage. Most countries chose 20 weeks as the maximum termination age as it is generally considered plenty of time for a woman to make a decision to terminate, and after which the foetus might survive without the mother.

Of course the father has no human rights to be infringed, and however unfair it may seem, has some responsibility for the child. The very act of sexual intercourse essentially carries the risk of a pregnancy and the financial consequences.

anyone with a half a bit of intellectual honesty knows that in the vast majority of cases a woman has the right to have sex or to not have sex, she has contraception available in nearly all Western countries. To kill her offspring in the name of rights is repulsive.

Shadowminister wrote;

"His outrageous commentary poked the bear of the left leaning media and resulted in him getting more coverage than anyone else in spite of being outspent by more than 10:1 by Clinton, and their outrage only gained him a stronger following."

Here is a Bloomberg breakdown of the campaign donations and spending. The ratio is 2:1 not 10:1. Shadowminister's alternative fact?
http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/graphics/2016-presidential-campaign-fundraising/