Should "fathers" have a say if a woman has a termination?

[Sticks]

For the record I do not like the idea of abortions, but it is a fact of life we are stuck with.

So having said that, when a woman gets pregnant and wants to terminate we hear the argument that it is her body and has the right to choose. If the prospective father does not want her to have the abortion, that's tough, he has no say.

But, suppose the couple are going through IVF, if the man withdraws his consent as has happened in recent court cases then the woman is not allowed to continue end of story.

So the suggestion to debate is this

Suppose a woman gets pregnant, as it could be argued that part of the foetus came from the man's sperm contribution, then it's part of the man's body as well. Should the man be legally entitled to insist that the woman have a termination if he does not want to be a father, just like he can withdraw consent on IVF.

Would this not be fair.

[pinkmichk]

i dont agree with abortions either to throw a different side in when i found out i was pregnant my then partner wanted me to get have one i refused cos i dont agree with them so in that side he could have a say if say i agreed with abortions but his viewpoint was a non starter for me cos of what i believe

[NettoSuperstar!]

No the woman has to carry it, give birth...if their relationship is in such a mess that they cant both agree on what to do and the father has to go down the legal route its probably best anyway...thought I'd go extreme on this argument just for the hell...Im not really sure what I think but thought I'd say something!...also what if the woman had been raped and the father was forcing her legally to keep the baby?

[Sticks]

Originally posted by pinkmichk
i dont agree with abortions either to throw a different side in when i found out i was pregnant my then partner wanted me to get have one i refused cos i dont agree with them so in that side he could have a say if say i agreed with abortions but his viewpoint was a non starter for me cos of what i believe

As an aside, what happened in the end did he get aggressive, did he walk out? What did you have and is he interested?


I suppose this argument is really about the anomaly regarding IVF where the father can pull the plug, and there was one case where that was done and the embryos destroyed because the father withdrew consent. It was tragic because the woman had been sterilised by cancer treatment.

With a normal pregnancy the father has no say.

If a woman chooses to terminate the father has no say, but if she chooses to keep the baby, against his wishes, he is legally liable for financial support. so it could be argued that if that is the case, he should, like in IVF have the right to pull the plug and order the woman to have a termination whether she wants to or not.

At present the woman only has the right to make a decision which has long term financial implications for the man. Put that way, is that fair?

[Tom]

Yes. But I'm against abortion anyway unless it *has* to happen (ie health reasons)

If the mother doesn't want it she can get rid of it
If the father doesn't want it, often the mothers still make them keep in touch and pay for it anyway

Sexist.

[supernoodles!]

they should have a say but at the end of the day it should ultimatley be the mothers decision as she has to carry the baby and give birth.I`m totally ani abortion anyway.

[Jake!]

It should bea joint decision, unless theman is a complete arse then obviously a woman would make a better decision.

[Lewis.]

Well, the father should have thought about that before he stuck it in. The woman has to carry and give birth to it, so she should have the final say

[Spike]

I think it would be nice for the father to have a big say in the decision but the final decision should rest with the mother

[Shaun]

Absolutely, no doubt about it. And Lewis - I suppose that the woman in that case (where you say "he shouldn't have stuck it in") is completely innocent too? There's responsibility on both sides in conception.

[Jake!]

Originally posted by Lewiis.Xx
Well, the father should have thought about that before he stuck it in.

Life don't work like that, if a woman puts it out in front of a drunk man d'you think its all his fault then.
And what if they did use contreception but it failed e.g condom split. Or a girl says they are on the pill and they ain't. Things ain't just black and white.

[Sticks]

Originally posted by Lewiis.Xx
Well, the father should have thought about that before he stuck it in.

I did think that could be one counter argument to the motion for debate, but then the counter to this is the woman should have considered contraception as well under "Two to tango" rule

There is still this issue with the difference between IVF and natural birth in law

Maybe the IVF issue is the one that needs looking into

For the record, suppose I got a "girlfriend" pregnant, or a wife pregnant, I would be getting them enrolled in prenatal classes and fixed up with midwives.

[Tom4784]

Definately if the couple is in a relationship or if it was a one off and the dad wants to be involved. I think a father has as much right to the baby as the mother does.

An absent father obviously shouldn't have any say.

[Tom]

If they used contraception and still fell pregnant then the "we were safe" rule shouldn't apply imo- if you're having sex then you should know the risk and you should know that it isn't 100% effective, and should be prepared.

[MrGaryy]

I personally don't think the father should have any major say in it. They should be informed that there is a child and perhaps asked for their opinion but at the end of the day this is the mother's battle and if she chooses to abort then I don't see why she should be stopped.

[pinkmichk]

Originally posted by Sticks
Originally posted by pinkmichk
i dont agree with abortions either to throw a different side in when i found out i was pregnant my then partner wanted me to get have one i refused cos i dont agree with them so in that side he could have a say if say i agreed with abortions but his viewpoint was a non starter for me cos of what i believe

As an aside, what happened in the end did he get aggressive, did he walk out? What did you have and is he interested?




well i didnt change my mind he didnt get aggresive he stayed i went onto have a daughter but then he cheated on me when she was small and left me oh and she was a accident because i was in the small percentage where contraception didnt work as it should
oh and no he isnt interested now he would rather think about himself

[LemonJam]

The man should completley have a say, just because the babys in her womb doesn't mean it's just hers, he created it with her.

[arista]

Originally posted by LemonJam
The man should completley have a say, just because the babys in her womb doesn't mean it's just hers, he created it with her.




So in your eyes it is 50/50.


I guess that seems fair.

[Sticks]

Originally posted by Gazbo
if she chooses to abort then I don't see why she should be stopped.

This is not the scenario

The scenario is that she wants to keep the child and He wants her to have an abortion, so should he have the right by law to force her to have an abortion even if it is against her against her will.

I assume the way it would work, would be on discovering she was pregnant he would get an emergency order from the court, to arrest the woman, to prevent her leaving the country and then on the order of the court she would be made by force to have an abortion, since he has no desire to be a father. To keep things in line with the way IVF works today, where the father can withdraw consent, there would be no appeal allowed by the woman.

After all, so the argument goes, why should the woman alone determine if the man will have by law a long term financial commitment.

Returning to the real world, I do wonder how many terminations have been done, because the man insisted.

[Twilight]

No Its her body her choice and anyway i'm pro-abortion, if you don't want a baby it your choice if you want a abortion have a abortion if you don't want one don't have one.

[Dom:D]

It should be a joint descision,but the whole thing is wrong.

[ange7]

Originally posted by Sticks
Originally posted by Gazbo
if she chooses to abort then I don't see why she should be stopped.

This is not the scenario

The scenario is that she wants to keep the child and He wants her to have an abortion, so should he have the right by law to force her to have an abortion even if it is against her against her will.

I assume the way it would work, would be on discovering she was pregnant he would get an emergency order from the court, to arrest the woman, to prevent her leaving the country and then on the order of the court she would be made by force to have an abortion, since he has no desire to be a father. To keep things in line with the way IVF works today, where the father can withdraw consent, there would be no appeal allowed by the woman.

After all, so the argument goes, why should the woman alone determine if the man will have by law a long term financial commitment.

Returning to the real world, I do wonder how many terminations have been done, because the man insisted.


"The scenario is that she wants to keep the child and He wants her to have an abortion, so should he have the right by law to force her to have an abortion"

???!!!
lol...why would this even be open for debate? Obviously he can't nor does he have any such right. Are you arguing the he ought to have the final choice Sticks?

[Sticks]

Originally posted by ange7

lol...why would this even be open for debate? Obviously he can't nor does he have any such right. Are you arguing the he ought to have the final choice Sticks?

But already in IVF he can pull the plug

I am putting the "what if" scenario of what if he also had the final say in natural pregnancies?

Also the pro-choice lobby always use the "Women's body" argument and therefore I am turning this around as the man could say part of his body went to make the child so in these days of equality he should be able to decide.

I suspect that some terminations have been done because some woman have been bullied into it by men who did not want their partner to come to term.


On personal level if I had a wife/ girlfriend - and had got her pregnant, I would wanting her to keep the child

[ange7]

Originally posted by Sticks
Originally posted by ange7

lol...why would this even be open for debate? Obviously he can't nor does he have any such right. Are you arguing the he ought to have the final choice Sticks?

But already in IVF he can pull the plug

I am putting the "what if" scenario of what if he also had the final say in natural pregnancies?

Also the pro-choice lobby always use the "Women's body" argument and therefore I am turning this around as the man could say part of his body went to make the child so in these days of equality he should be able to decide.

I suspect that some terminations have been done because some woman have been bullied into it by men who did not want their partner to come to term.


On personal level if I had a wife/ girlfriend - and had got her pregnant, I would wanting her to keep the child

No the your confusing the 2 examples... they aren't comparable since in your IVF example no egg has yet been fertilised. Him having the right to withdraw consent of the IVF fertilisation doesn't logically lead to him therefore having the right to choose whether she , once impregnated via IVF or otherwise, has the right to decide on the termination. You see the difference is during conception the man gave his consent ( obviously) but in your IVF example he clearly hasn't.

"Also the pro-choice lobby always use the "Women's body" argument and therefore I am turning this around as the man could say part of his body"

Again not applicable since the "body" referred to here isn't simply the genetic information but the actual human who has to go through the delivery of the baby. It's her body... she has the choice. The argument that it's part of his body too therefore he should have the choice doesn't cut it.

"I suspect that some terminations have been done because some woman have been bullied into it by men who did not want their partner to come to term." Very likely but that isn't argument enough to deny the majority of women their right to choose.

[Marsh.]

Originally posted by TheTwilightPrincess5
No Its her body her choice and anyway i'm pro-abortion, if you don't want a baby it your choice if you want a abortion have a abortion if you don't want one don't have one.

In my eyes that's just like saying 'oh, i don't want my two-year old anymore i think i'll have him killed'

In my view that viewpoint is no different to that of a cold blooded murderer!

[Marsh.]

Abortion at ANY stage of pregnancy is murder of an innocent life!

[Sticks]

My understanding of the IVF case was that it was fertilised embryos that were destroyed because the man withdrew consent.

Originally posted by 08marsh
Abortion at ANY stage of pregnancy is murder of an innocent life!

For the record I am more sympathetic to this viewpoint

That said

If we did have a circumstance when neither party agreed, what is the default position to be. Terminate or full term

Currently it is what the woman decides. If she decides to terminate and the man does not want her to do so, and there have been cases in the past that went to court, after the deed is done, there is no financial implications for either party.

Reverse that

She keeps it, he does not want to, then the man is placed with a long term financial commitment he did not want. That is the situation today.

This could be why some men would like to force their partners to terminate, to evade the financial responsibility and why some feel aggrieved

There is of course the "He should have thought about that before" argument, which is compelling, and there is no excuse for the man not taking responsibility for contraception.

However there has been one case, where a woman retrieved a used condom and inserted the contents into her so she could get pregnant, even though the man did not want to become a father.

What should happen then? Keep things as they are, forced termination or the man is released from any legal obligation to support the child?

[Sticks]

Personally I am not in favour of abortion - As stated if I was the man in this scenario I would be, (If I had one) supporting my wife's / girlfriend's decision to keep the child.

I raise this motion because of something I came across in the media where a man left his wife / partner because she became pregnant and refused to have an abortion, and was resentful because he did not want to be a father

[Twilight]

Originally posted by 08marsh
Originally posted by TheTwilightPrincess5
No Its her body her choice and anyway i'm pro-abortion, if you don't want a baby it your choice if you want a abortion have a abortion if you don't want one don't have one.

In my eyes that's just like saying 'oh, i don't want my two-year old anymore i think i'll have him killed'

In my view that viewpoint is no different to that of a cold blooded murderer! Don't be stupid it's completely different,just because you don't want a baby it doesn't mean your going to kill someone.As for fathers having a say in whether the mother has the baby,what if three weeks after it's born he decides he didn't want to be dad after all.

[Marsh.]

Originally posted by TheTwilightPrincess5
Originally posted by 08marsh
Originally posted by TheTwilightPrincess5
No Its her body her choice and anyway i'm pro-abortion, if you don't want a baby it your choice if you want a abortion have a abortion if you don't want one don't have one.

In my eyes that's just like saying 'oh, i don't want my two-year old anymore i think i'll have him killed'

In my view that viewpoint is no different to that of a cold blooded murderer! Don't be stupid it's completely different,just because you don't want a baby it doesn't mean your going to kill someone.

Excuse me, but i never said that NOT WANTING babies means you will murder someone (I think you're having a blonde moment)
I said terminating a baby you have ALREADY CONCEIVED
IS murder.

[Z]

Absolutely, I think that the man and the woman should come to a joint decision, they can not be divided or, as Sticks highlighted, it can be grossly unfair. I think if they are divided in opinion:

Mother keep v Father abort = Father should have no legal responsibility to pay money for the child. They can choose to if they wish, but there ought to be no legal responsibility, and I think the best way to prevent abuse of that would be for the father to sign a document saying that that is his position.

Father keep v Mother abort = If the mother just does not want the child but would go through childbirth, then there ought to be some kind of document to say that the father has full legal responsibility of the child. If the mother simply doesn't want to go through childbirth, then I think abortion is the only measure that can be taken.

Father abort, Mother abort = Abort.

[Twilight]

Originally posted by 08marsh
Originally posted by TheTwilightPrincess5
Originally posted by 08marsh
Originally posted by TheTwilightPrincess5
No Its her body her choice and anyway i'm pro-abortion, if you don't want a baby it your choice if you want a abortion have a abortion if you don't want one don't have one.

In my eyes that's just like saying 'oh, i don't want my two-year old anymore i think i'll have him killed'

In my view that viewpoint is no different to that of a cold blooded murderer! Don't be stupid it's completely different,just because you don't want a baby it doesn't mean your going to kill someone.

Excuse me, but i never said that NOT WANTING babies means you will murder someone (I think you're having a blonde moment)
I said terminating a baby you have ALREADY CONCEIVED
IS murder. Anyone who was reading this could have worked out i wasn't talking about not wanting a baby.I was talking about not wanting a baby that was ALREADY CONCEIVED DUH i think you got all the blonde dye. oh and BTW i'm not blonde i have brown hair, but come on blonde's are not dumb.

[Marsh.]

Originally posted by TheTwilightPrincess5
Originally posted by 08marsh
Originally posted by TheTwilightPrincess5
Originally posted by 08marsh
Originally posted by TheTwilightPrincess5
No Its her body her choice and anyway i'm pro-abortion, if you don't want a baby it your choice if you want a abortion have a abortion if you don't want one don't have one.

In my eyes that's just like saying 'oh, i don't want my two-year old anymore i think i'll have him killed'

In my view that viewpoint is no different to that of a cold blooded murderer! Don't be stupid it's completely different,just because you don't want a baby it doesn't mean your going to kill someone.

Excuse me, but i never said that NOT WANTING babies means you will murder someone (I think you're having a blonde moment)
I said terminating a baby you have ALREADY CONCEIVED
IS murder. Anyone who was reading this could have worked out i wasn't talking about not wanting a baby.I was talking about not wanting a baby that was ALREADY CONCEIVED DUH i think you got all the blonde dye. oh and BTW i'm not blonde i have brown hair, but come on blonde's are not dumb.

But you implied that i'd said someone who doesn't want their baby will go out and kill someone. I never said that, i said that aborting an unborn child is murder.

(BTW, i never said you were blonde. I said you were having a blonde moment)

[Sticks]

Originally posted by Zee
Mother keep v Father abort = Father should have no legal responsibility to pay money for the child. They can choose to if they wish, but there ought to be no legal responsibility, and I think the best way to prevent abuse of that would be for the father to sign a document saying that that is his position.

The only problem with that is you might get some men who will be having multiple partners and getting them pregnant with impunity, then signing that document and not taking responsibility for their behaviour.

[Twilight]

Originally posted by 08marsh
Originally posted by TheTwilightPrincess5
Originally posted by 08marsh
Originally posted by TheTwilightPrincess5
Originally posted by 08marsh
Originally posted by TheTwilightPrincess5
No Its her body her choice and anyway i'm pro-abortion, if you don't want a baby it your choice if you want a abortion have a abortion if you don't want one don't have one.

In my eyes that's just like saying 'oh, i don't want my two-year old anymore i think i'll have him killed'

In my view that viewpoint is no different to that of a cold blooded murderer! Don't be stupid it's completely different,just because you don't want a baby it doesn't mean your going to kill someone.

Excuse me, but i never said that NOT WANTING babies means you will murder someone (I think you're having a blonde moment)
I said terminating a baby you have ALREADY CONCEIVED
IS murder. Anyone who was reading this could have worked out i wasn't talking about not wanting a baby.I was talking about not wanting a baby that was ALREADY CONCEIVED DUH i think you got all the blonde dye. oh and BTW i'm not blonde i have brown hair, but come on blonde's are not dumb.

But you implied that i'd said someone who doesn't want their baby will go out and kill someone. I never said that, i said that aborting an unborn child is murder.

(BTW, i never said you were blonde. I said you were having a blonde moment) Do you mind if i ask are you male or female.

[Jen]

Originally posted by 08marsh
In my eyes that's just like saying 'oh, i don't want my two-year old anymore i think i'll have him killed'


Up to 24 weeks a "baby" is a cluster of cells that has the potential to be a human being.
murdering a two year old and killing a cluster of cells is NEVER the same thing.
What a stupid thing to say.

[Marsh.]

Originally posted by JDIZZEL
Originally posted by 08marsh
In my eyes that's just like saying 'oh, i don't want my two-year old anymore i think i'll have him killed'


Up to 24 weeks a "baby" is a cluster of cells that has the potential to be a human being.
murdering a two year old and killing a cluster of cells is NEVER the same thing.
What a stupid thing to say.

From conception it is a LIFE, no one has the right to take that away
' a cluster of cells'? how heartless.
Who the hell are you to tell me that it is a stupid thing to say, it is my opinion

[Marsh.]

Originally posted by TheTwilightPrincess5
Originally posted by 08marsh
Originally posted by TheTwilightPrincess5
Originally posted by 08marsh
Originally posted by TheTwilightPrincess5
Originally posted by 08marsh
Originally posted by TheTwilightPrincess5
No Its her body her choice and anyway i'm pro-abortion, if you don't want a baby it your choice if you want a abortion have a abortion if you don't want one don't have one.

In my eyes that's just like saying 'oh, i don't want my two-year old anymore i think i'll have him killed'

In my view that viewpoint is no different to that of a cold blooded murderer! Don't be stupid it's completely different,just because you don't want a baby it doesn't mean your going to kill someone.

Excuse me, but i never said that NOT WANTING babies means you will murder someone (I think you're having a blonde moment)
I said terminating a baby you have ALREADY CONCEIVED
IS murder. Anyone who was reading this could have worked out i wasn't talking about not wanting a baby.I was talking about not wanting a baby that was ALREADY CONCEIVED DUH i think you got all the blonde dye. oh and BTW i'm not blonde i have brown hair, but come on blonde's are not dumb.

But you implied that i'd said someone who doesn't want their baby will go out and kill someone. I never said that, i said that aborting an unborn child is murder.

(BTW, i never said you were blonde. I said you were having a blonde moment) Do you mind if i ask are you male or female.

I will reply if you tell me what relevance it has

[Jen]

Originally posted by 08marsh
Originally posted by JDIZZEL
Originally posted by 08marsh
In my eyes that's just like saying 'oh, i don't want my two-year old anymore i think i'll have him killed'


Up to 24 weeks a "baby" is a cluster of cells that has the potential to be a human being.
murdering a two year old and killing a cluster of cells is NEVER the same thing.
What a stupid thing to say.

From conception it is a LIFE, no one has the right to take that away
' a cluster of cells'? how heartless. What a stupid thing to say.

Actually its proven that it isn't a life and is a cluster of cells. Not the same as murdering a two year old.

[Twilight]

Originally posted by JDIZZEL
Originally posted by 08marsh
In my eyes that's just like saying 'oh, i don't want my two-year old anymore i think i'll have him killed'


Up to 24 weeks a "baby" is a cluster of cells that has the potential to be a human being.
murdering a two year old and killing a cluster of cells is NEVER the same thing.
What a stupid thing to say. I agree with you oh and to 08marsh saying that is not heartless

[Marsh.]

Originally posted by JDIZZEL
Originally posted by 08marsh
Originally posted by JDIZZEL
Originally posted by 08marsh
In my eyes that's just like saying 'oh, i don't want my two-year old anymore i think i'll have him killed'


Up to 24 weeks a "baby" is a cluster of cells that has the potential to be a human being.
murdering a two year old and killing a cluster of cells is NEVER the same thing.
What a stupid thing to say.

From conception it is a LIFE, no one has the right to take that away
' a cluster of cells'? how heartless. What a stupid thing to say.

Actually its proven that it isn't a life and is a cluster of cells. Not the same as murdering a two year old.

It is not PROVEN at all. We are cells too yet we are lives. It is up to individual people whether or not they believe it to be a LIFE (as in have a soul). Do not call me stupid.

[Marsh.]

Originally posted by TheTwilightPrincess5
Originally posted by JDIZZEL
Originally posted by 08marsh
In my eyes that's just like saying 'oh, i don't want my two-year old anymore i think i'll have him killed'


Up to 24 weeks a "baby" is a cluster of cells that has the potential to be a human being.
murdering a two year old and killing a cluster of cells is NEVER the same thing.
What a stupid thing to say. I agree with you oh and to 08marsh saying that is not heartless

Yet again, her comment being heartless is a matter of opinion. Stop acting like a silly little girl (unless of course you are)

[Jen]

Originally posted by 08marsh
Originally posted by JDIZZEL
Originally posted by 08marsh
Originally posted by JDIZZEL
Originally posted by 08marsh
In my eyes that's just like saying 'oh, i don't want my two-year old anymore i think i'll have him killed'


Up to 24 weeks a "baby" is a cluster of cells that has the potential to be a human being.
murdering a two year old and killing a cluster of cells is NEVER the same thing.
What a stupid thing to say.

From conception it is a LIFE, no one has the right to take that away
' a cluster of cells'? how heartless. What a stupid thing to say.

Actually its proven that it isn't a life and is a cluster of cells. Not the same as murdering a two year old.

It is not PROVEN at all. We are cells too yet we are lives. It is up to individual people whether or not they believe it to be a LIFE (as in have a soul). Do not call me stupid.

Do you read about the science behind a human life.. do and come back to me. Oh and I didn't call you stupid, but that particular comment you made was. Just like how you thought me saying the fact that a "baby" is a cluster of cells up to 24 weeks was "stupid".

[Marsh.]

Originally posted by JDIZZEL
Originally posted by 08marsh
Originally posted by JDIZZEL
Originally posted by 08marsh
Originally posted by JDIZZEL
Originally posted by 08marsh
In my eyes that's just like saying 'oh, i don't want my two-year old anymore i think i'll have him killed'


Up to 24 weeks a "baby" is a cluster of cells that has the potential to be a human being.
murdering a two year old and killing a cluster of cells is NEVER the same thing.
What a stupid thing to say.

From conception it is a LIFE, no one has the right to take that away
' a cluster of cells'? how heartless. What a stupid thing to say.

Actually its proven that it isn't a life and is a cluster of cells. Not the same as murdering a two year old.

It is not PROVEN at all. We are cells too yet we are lives. It is up to individual people whether or not they believe it to be a LIFE (as in have a soul). Do not call me stupid.

Do you read about the science behind a human life.. do and come back to me. Oh and I didn't call you stupid, but that particular comment you made was. Just like how you thought me saying the fact that a "baby" is a cluster of cells up to 24 weeks was "stupid".

You just said you didn't call me stupid, yet you just did again.
(talking contradiction)
Like i said before it is a matter of opinion behind a life
(ie. breathing organisms and souls) Am i getting through now or is a layer of peroxide blocking the way

[Jen]

Originally posted by 08marsh
Originally posted by JDIZZEL
Originally posted by 08marsh
Originally posted by JDIZZEL
Originally posted by 08marsh
Originally posted by JDIZZEL
Originally posted by 08marsh
In my eyes that's just like saying 'oh, i don't want my two-year old anymore i think i'll have him killed'


Up to 24 weeks a "baby" is a cluster of cells that has the potential to be a human being.
murdering a two year old and killing a cluster of cells is NEVER the same thing.
What a stupid thing to say.

From conception it is a LIFE, no one has the right to take that away
' a cluster of cells'? how heartless. What a stupid thing to say.

Actually its proven that it isn't a life and is a cluster of cells. Not the same as murdering a two year old.

It is not PROVEN at all. We are cells too yet we are lives. It is up to individual people whether or not they believe it to be a LIFE (as in have a soul). Do not call me stupid.

Do you read about the science behind a human life.. do and come back to me. Oh and I didn't call you stupid, but that particular comment you made was. Just like how you thought me saying the fact that a "baby" is a cluster of cells up to 24 weeks was "stupid".

You just said you didn't call me stupid, yet you just did again.
(talking contradiction)
Like i said before it is a matter of opinion behind a life
(ie. breathing organisms and souls) Am i getting through now or is a layer of peroxide blocking the way

I'm telling your "brain" that I didn't call you stupid but that small insignificant comment you made was, you should never compare having an abortion to murdering a two year old... oh and implying blond jokes when you are suppose to be having a serious argument is not clever... I thought more of you.

[Marsh.]

[/quote]

you should never compare having an abortion to murdering a two year old... [/quote]

Like i said before it is a matter of opinion about what a LIFE is.
And me comparing it to the killing of a two year old was to illustrate how serious and murderous (my belief) abortion is.

I respect that you may not agree with that, but my opinion is not wrong or unjustified, just like your opinion can't be called wrong.

[Twilight]

Originally posted by 08marsh
Originally posted by TheTwilightPrincess5
Originally posted by JDIZZEL
Originally posted by 08marsh
In my eyes that's just like saying 'oh, i don't want my two-year old anymore i think i'll have him killed'


Up to 24 weeks a "baby" is a cluster of cells that has the potential to be a human being.
murdering a two year old and killing a cluster of cells is NEVER the same thing.
What a stupid thing to say. I agree with you oh and to 08marsh saying that is not heartless

Yet again, her comment being heartless is a matter of opinion. Stop acting like a silly little girl (unless of course you are) I am a girl but i take it your man or a boy then, because you would never have to decide whether to terminate a pregnancy or not.Most women and girls do not end there pregnacy without a lot of thinking.They have to do what's best for them.

[Marsh.]

Originally posted by TheTwilightPrincess5
Originally posted by 08marsh
Originally posted by TheTwilightPrincess5
Originally posted by JDIZZEL
Originally posted by 08marsh
In my eyes that's just like saying 'oh, i don't want my two-year old anymore i think i'll have him killed'


Up to 24 weeks a "baby" is a cluster of cells that has the potential to be a human being.
murdering a two year old and killing a cluster of cells is NEVER the same thing.
What a stupid thing to say. I agree with you oh and to 08marsh saying that is not heartless

Yet again, her comment being heartless is a matter of opinion. Stop acting like a silly little girl (unless of course you are) I am a girl but i take it your man or a boy then, because you would never have to decide whether to terminate a pregnancy or not.Most women and girls do not end there pregnacy without a lot of thinking.They have to do what's best for them.

I have never questioned that there are people who really think about it beforehand. I just said i didn't agree and thought it murderous (that is my opinion).
And on your comment of sexes, you have a very
small understanding of the real world.
Just because it is a woman carrying the child doesn't mean that their aren't couples out there who make these decisions together.

''They have to do what's best for them'' selfish attitude
You're right about one thing i would never have to decide about terminating a baby or not because i wouldn't even consider it.

[Twilight]

Originally posted by 08marsh
Originally posted by TheTwilightPrincess5
Originally posted by 08marsh
Originally posted by TheTwilightPrincess5
Originally posted by JDIZZEL
Originally posted by 08marsh
In my eyes that's just like saying 'oh, i don't want my two-year old anymore i think i'll have him killed'


Up to 24 weeks a "baby" is a cluster of cells that has the potential to be a human being.
murdering a two year old and killing a cluster of cells is NEVER the same thing.
What a stupid thing to say. I agree with you oh and to 08marsh saying that is not heartless

Yet again, her comment being heartless is a matter of opinion. Stop acting like a silly little girl (unless of course you are) I am a girl but i take it your man or a boy then, because you would never have to decide whether to terminate a pregnancy or not.Most women and girls do not end there pregnacy without a lot of thinking.They have to do what's best for them.

I have never questioned that there are people who really think about it beforehand. I just said i didn't agree and thought it murderous (that is my opinion).
And on your comment of sexes, you have a very
small understanding of the real world.
Just because it is a woman carrying the child doesn't mean that their aren't couples out there who make these decisions together.

''They have to do what's best for them'' selfish attitude
You're right about one thing i would never have to decide about terminating a baby or not because i wouldn't even consider it. Yes but is that because your a man?

[Marsh.]

Originally posted by TheTwilightPrincess5
Originally posted by 08marsh
Originally posted by TheTwilightPrincess5
Originally posted by 08marsh
Originally posted by TheTwilightPrincess5
Originally posted by JDIZZEL
Originally posted by 08marsh
In my eyes that's just like saying 'oh, i don't want my two-year old anymore i think i'll have him killed'


Up to 24 weeks a "baby" is a cluster of cells that has the potential to be a human being.
murdering a two year old and killing a cluster of cells is NEVER the same thing.
What a stupid thing to say. I agree with you oh and to 08marsh saying that is not heartless

Yet again, her comment being heartless is a matter of opinion. Stop acting like a silly little girl (unless of course you are) I am a girl but i take it your man or a boy then, because you would never have to decide whether to terminate a pregnancy or not.Most women and girls do not end there pregnacy without a lot of thinking.They have to do what's best for them.

I have never questioned that there are people who really think about it beforehand. I just said i didn't agree and thought it murderous (that is my opinion).
And on your comment of sexes, you have a very
small understanding of the real world.
Just because it is a woman carrying the child doesn't mean that their aren't couples out there who make these decisions together.

''They have to do what's best for them'' selfish attitude
You're right about one thing i would never have to decide about terminating a baby or not because i wouldn't even consider it. Yes but is that because your a man?

You're misunderstanding my point (FYI i'm a woman)
I said, regardless of sex, it is narrow minded to think only women have the decision. There are many couples out there who make decisions as big as this together whether good or bad. I said i wouldn't have to make the decision myself because i wouldn't be so cold hearted to even think about terminating an unborn child

[supernoodles!]

you sound like a man in your u2u`s

[Twilight]

Originally posted by 08marsh
Originally posted by TheTwilightPrincess5
Originally posted by 08marsh
Originally posted by TheTwilightPrincess5
Originally posted by 08marsh
Originally posted by TheTwilightPrincess5
Originally posted by JDIZZEL
Originally posted by 08marsh
In my eyes that's just like saying 'oh, i don't want my two-year old anymore i think i'll have him killed'


Up to 24 weeks a "baby" is a cluster of cells that has the potential to be a human being.
murdering a two year old and killing a cluster of cells is NEVER the same thing.
What a stupid thing to say. I agree with you oh and to 08marsh saying that is not heartless

Yet again, her comment being heartless is a matter of opinion. Stop acting like a silly little girl (unless of course you are) I am a girl but i take it your man or a boy then, because you would never have to decide whether to terminate a pregnancy or not.Most women and girls do not end there pregnacy without a lot of thinking.They have to do what's best for them.

I have never questioned that there are people who really think about it beforehand. I just said i didn't agree and thought it murderous (that is my opinion).
And on your comment of sexes, you have a very
small understanding of the real world.
Just because it is a woman carrying the child doesn't mean that their aren't couples out there who make these decisions together.

''They have to do what's best for them'' selfish attitude
You're right about one thing i would never have to decide about terminating a baby or not because i wouldn't even consider it. Yes but is that because your a man?

You're misunderstanding my point (FYI i'm a woman)
I said, regardless of sex, it is narrow minded to think only women have the decision. There are many couples out there who make decisions as big as this together whether good or bad. I said i wouldn't have to make the decision myself because i wouldn't be so cold hearted to even think about terminating an unborn child You must be having a man day then,not every pregnant women has a husband or partner so who helps her make the decision to terminate.At the end of day the women has to carry the baby for nine month's ,then give birth,then alot of the time she's the one left holding the baby.

[ange7]

Originally posted by ange7
Originally posted by Sticks
Originally posted by ange7

lol...why would this even be open for debate? Obviously he can't nor does he have any such right. Are you arguing the he ought to have the final choice Sticks?

But already in IVF he can pull the plug

I am putting the "what if" scenario of what if he also had the final say in natural pregnancies?

Also the pro-choice lobby always use the "Women's body" argument and therefore I am turning this around as the man could say part of his body went to make the child so in these days of equality he should be able to decide.

I suspect that some terminations have been done because some woman have been bullied into it by men who did not want their partner to come to term.


On personal level if I had a wife/ girlfriend - and had got her pregnant, I would wanting her to keep the child

No the your confusing the 2 examples... they aren't comparable since in your IVF example no egg has yet been fertilised. Him having the right to withdraw consent of the IVF fertilisation doesn't logically lead to him therefore having the right to choose whether she , once impregnated via IVF or otherwise, has the right to decide on the termination. You see the difference is during conception the man gave his consent ( obviously) but in your IVF example he clearly hasn't.

"Also the pro-choice lobby always use the "Women's body" argument and therefore I am turning this around as the man could say part of his body"

Again not applicable since the "body" referred to here isn't simply the genetic information but the actual human who has to go through the delivery of the baby. It's her body... she has the choice. The argument that it's part of his body too therefore he should have the choice doesn't cut it.

"I suspect that some terminations have been done because some woman have been bullied into it by men who did not want their partner to come to term." Very likely but that isn't argument enough to deny the majority of women their right to choose.
what?... no reply Sticks

[andyman]

Originally posted by ange7
Originally posted by ange7
Originally posted by Sticks
Originally posted by ange7

lol...why would this even be open for debate? Obviously he can't nor does he have any such right. Are you arguing the he ought to have the final choice Sticks?

But already in IVF he can pull the plug

I am putting the "what if" scenario of what if he also had the final say in natural pregnancies?

Also the pro-choice lobby always use the "Women's body" argument and therefore I am turning this around as the man could say part of his body went to make the child so in these days of equality he should be able to decide.

I suspect that some terminations have been done because some woman have been bullied into it by men who did not want their partner to come to term.


On personal level if I had a wife/ girlfriend - and had got her pregnant, I would wanting her to keep the child

No the your confusing the 2 examples... they aren't comparable since in your IVF example no egg has yet been fertilised. Him having the right to withdraw consent of the IVF fertilisation doesn't logically lead to him therefore having the right to choose whether she , once impregnated via IVF or otherwise, has the right to decide on the termination. You see the difference is during conception the man gave his consent ( obviously) but in your IVF example he clearly hasn't.

"Also the pro-choice lobby always use the "Women's body" argument and therefore I am turning this around as the man could say part of his body"

Again not applicable since the "body" referred to here isn't simply the genetic information but the actual human who has to go through the delivery of the baby. It's her body... she has the choice. The argument that it's part of his body too therefore he should have the choice doesn't cut it.

"I suspect that some terminations have been done because some woman have been bullied into it by men who did not want their partner to come to term." Very likely but that isn't argument enough to deny the majority of women their right to choose.
what?... no reply Sticks So if a woman wants the baby and the man does not want the baby the woman has more legal rights? And when the baby is born the man by law has to support that child with paying child support?

[ange7]

Originally posted by andyman
Originally posted by ange7
Originally posted by ange7
Originally posted by Sticks
Originally posted by ange7

lol...why would this even be open for debate? Obviously he can't nor does he have any such right. Are you arguing the he ought to have the final choice Sticks?

But already in IVF he can pull the plug

I am putting the "what if" scenario of what if he also had the final say in natural pregnancies?

Also the pro-choice lobby always use the "Women's body" argument and therefore I am turning this around as the man could say part of his body went to make the child so in these days of equality he should be able to decide.

I suspect that some terminations have been done because some woman have been bullied into it by men who did not want their partner to come to term.


On personal level if I had a wife/ girlfriend - and had got her pregnant, I would wanting her to keep the child

No the your confusing the 2 examples... they aren't comparable since in your IVF example no egg has yet been fertilised. Him having the right to withdraw consent of the IVF fertilisation doesn't logically lead to him therefore having the right to choose whether she , once impregnated via IVF or otherwise, has the right to decide on the termination. You see the difference is during conception the man gave his consent ( obviously) but in your IVF example he clearly hasn't.

"Also the pro-choice lobby always use the "Women's body" argument and therefore I am turning this around as the man could say part of his body"

Again not applicable since the "body" referred to here isn't simply the genetic information but the actual human who has to go through the delivery of the baby. It's her body... she has the choice. The argument that it's part of his body too therefore he should have the choice doesn't cut it.

"I suspect that some terminations have been done because some woman have been bullied into it by men who did not want their partner to come to term." Very likely but that isn't argument enough to deny the majority of women their right to choose.
what?... no reply Sticks So if a woman wants the baby and the man does not want the baby the woman has more legal rights? And when the baby is born the man by law has to support that child with paying child support?
lol yes she does mate.... this a suprise to you? hehe.
In Sticks IVF example the answer to that question is no because it's proir to conception but in your example andy then answer is yes.

"And when the baby is born the man by law has to support that child with paying child support?"
Mate of course he has to. Are you saying that if he wants the baby terminated then he ought NOT have to pay child support if she decides to have the baby?... dude that's is damaged hehehe. He made all HIS choices during conception ....end of choices for him....SHE can choose if SHE wants to have the baby but he had all the choices he's going to get. That was my point with Sticks' IVF example. In that case there's been no conception so he still has a right over his sperm that's on ice ( lol eww "sperm on ice?" ..."nah vodka and orange thanks" ) .....Andy what is your point exactly?... you saying he ought to have the final choice over whether she aborts or not because he will be financially liable? wow... that's cold even for you..

[andyman]

Lets say a woman got pregnant due to a one night stand, he does not want the baby, she wants to keep the baby.. So legaly she has more rights than he does, but if thats the case then it should end there! If his rights over his seed went soon after conception then he should not pay child support! His rights went before the baby was born so any legal connection to the child should be gone (no child support payments) The legal connection was broken before birth and should stay that way, she wanted it, she pays for it.

[ange7]

Originally posted by andyman
Lets say a woman got pregnant due to a one night stand, he does not want the baby, she wants to keep the baby.. So legaly she has more rights than he does, but if thats the case then it should end there! If his rights over his seed went soon after conception then he should not pay child support! His rights went before the baby was born so any legal connection to the child should be gone (no child support payments) The legal connection was broken before birth and should stay that way, she wanted it, she pays for it.

"His rights went before the baby was born"
do you mean obligations? His obligation don't "go away" because he changes his mind.

"If his rights over his seed went soon after conception then he should not pay child support!"

Again "rights" "obligations" are 2 very different things mate. He still has obligations to support the child irrespective of whether she terminates or not.
But during conception he made a choice.... DONE!!! ... no more choices for him and certainly not in regards to choices over a women's body. What are you thinking?

Here's the problem your having with this. You having trouble understanding that the "point of no return", or the point where you can't undo your choice, is different for men and women. For men it's conception ... for women ( WHO HAVE TO CARRY THE BABY FOR 9 MONTHS) it's a little later. In your example just because he says "oi... I don't want it" doesn't mean he has no obligation to financial support the child. What you seem to be saying is "oh poor man... he made a mistake but can't he have a second bite at the cherry by forcing the women to have an abortion under the threat of ZERO financial support should she decide to have it. ...dude that is soooo fcking COLD!!!

ps how many kids you paying maintenance on champ? hehe

[Sticks]

Ange7, sorry I thought I had replied

The case I was referring to the embryos had been fertilised when the man withdrew consent.

The aside about men bullying women into an abortion was not meant to be an argument just an observation that sometimes a woman's choice could be over ruled

As for the man's contribution that was obviously a potential argument somebody might try on.

BTW can we avoid making this personal and lay off personal insults please on all sides.

[ange7]

Originally posted by Sticks
Ange7, sorry I thought I had replied

The case I was referring to the embryos had been fertilised when the man withdrew consent.

The aside about men bullying women into an abortion was not meant to be an argument just an observation that sometimes a woman's choice could be over ruled

As for the man's contribution that was obviously a potential argument somebody might try on.

BTW can we avoid making this personal and lay off personal insults please on all sides.

where were you personally insulted?

We all know your position on abortion, your morally against it but the idea that men may in some cases force women to abort isn't reason enough to deny the choice from the majority of women.

"The case I was referring to the embryos had been fertilised when the man withdrew consent."

wow so he gave his consent ... w@nked into a test tube ( sorry hehe), gave his further consent during the IVF fertilisation in a petri dish... but then withdrew consent when it was time to implant the fertilised egg in her womb.... is that right? ... I think that is still fair. The reason why women have a later and more final choice is because they have the baby in their bodies... this obviously isn't the case in the IVF example so both the man and the women's rights are equal here.... therefore if one declines then it ought to be off. This still fits.

[Sticks]

Originally posted by ange7
where were you personally insulted?


Not really but I noticed that some of the other posters were hurling insults and it did seem heated between them.


Originally posted by ange7
We all know your position on abortion, your morally against it but the idea that men may in some cases force women to abort isn't reason enough to deny the choice from the majority of women.


I can see how I might be seen a denying the woman's right to choose, however if abortions were illegal I still suspect some men would "Find a way" if they did not want to be dads, to have their way, something neither of us want to see. Actually in the 1980's the reverse case came to court, she wanted to abort and he wanted her to keep it. The court ruled in her favour but one commentator (or possibly a letter writer) asked if that court case had gone the man's way what would have happened in the scenario we are debating

Originally posted by ange7
"The case I was referring to the embryos had been fertilised when the man withdrew consent."

wow so he gave his consent ... w@nked into a test tube ( sorry hehe), gave his further consent during the IVF fertilisation in a petri dish... but then withdrew consent when it was time to implant the fertilised egg in her womb.... is that right?


Crudely put yes that is what happened

Originally posted by ange7
... I think that is still fair. The reason why women have a later and more final choice is because they have the baby in their bodies... this obviously isn't the case in the IVF example so both the man and the women's rights are equal here.... therefore if one declines then it ought to be off. This still fits.

That case did raise issues with natural pregnancies where a woman exercises her right to choose and chooses to have the baby, but the reluctant male trying to use that case as legal precedent to force a termination.

It could be a matter of time before we see that coming

[Marsh.]

Originally posted by TheTwilightPrincess5
Originally posted by 08marsh
Originally posted by TheTwilightPrincess5
Originally posted by 08marsh
Originally posted by TheTwilightPrincess5
Originally posted by 08marsh
Originally posted by TheTwilightPrincess5
Originally posted by JDIZZEL
Originally posted by 08marsh
In my eyes that's just like saying 'oh, i don't want my two-year old anymore i think i'll have him killed'


Up to 24 weeks a "baby" is a cluster of cells that has the potential to be a human being.
murdering a two year old and killing a cluster of cells is NEVER the same thing.
What a stupid thing to say. I agree with you oh and to 08marsh saying that is not heartless

Yet again, her comment being heartless is a matter of opinion. Stop acting like a silly little girl (unless of course you are) I am a girl but i take it your man or a boy then, because you would never have to decide whether to terminate a pregnancy or not.Most women and girls do not end there pregnacy without a lot of thinking.They have to do what's best for them.

I have never questioned that there are people who really think about it beforehand. I just said i didn't agree and thought it murderous (that is my opinion).
And on your comment of sexes, you have a very
small understanding of the real world.
Just because it is a woman carrying the child doesn't mean that their aren't couples out there who make these decisions together.

''They have to do what's best for them'' selfish attitude
You're right about one thing i would never have to decide about terminating a baby or not because i wouldn't even consider it. Yes but is that because your a man?

You're misunderstanding my point (FYI i'm a woman)
I said, regardless of sex, it is narrow minded to think only women have the decision. There are many couples out there who make decisions as big as this together whether good or bad. I said i wouldn't have to make the decision myself because i wouldn't be so cold hearted to even think about terminating an unborn child You must be having a man day then,not every pregnant women has a husband or partner so who helps her make the decision to terminate.At the end of day the women has to carry the baby for nine month's ,then give birth,then alot of the time she's the one left holding the baby.

Having a man day? Please grow up
Did i say every woman? I said there are plenty of women out there who make these decisions with there partners.
A lot of your opinions on my posts have been completely wrong because you misunderstand what i'm typing.
READ PROPERLY and make sure you understand before replying little girl.

[James]

Debate the topic and not each other. I would have thought people weaken their arguments if they resort to criticising the poster and not the argument.

[Twilight]

Originally posted by 08marsh
Originally posted by TheTwilightPrincess5
Originally posted by 08marsh
Originally posted by TheTwilightPrincess5
Originally posted by 08marsh
Originally posted by TheTwilightPrincess5
Originally posted by 08marsh
Originally posted by TheTwilightPrincess5
Originally posted by JDIZZEL
Originally posted by 08marsh
In my eyes that's just like saying 'oh, i don't want my two-year old anymore i think i'll have him killed'


Up to 24 weeks a "baby" is a cluster of cells that has the potential to be a human being.
murdering a two year old and killing a cluster of cells is NEVER the same thing.
What a stupid thing to say. I agree with you oh and to 08marsh saying that is not heartless

Yet again, her comment being heartless is a matter of opinion. Stop acting like a silly little girl (unless of course you are) I am a girl but i take it your man or a boy then, because you would never have to decide whether to terminate a pregnancy or not.Most women and girls do not end there pregnacy without a lot of thinking.They have to do what's best for them.

I have never questioned that there are people who really think about it beforehand. I just said i didn't agree and thought it murderous (that is my opinion).
And on your comment of sexes, you have a very
small understanding of the real world.
Just because it is a woman carrying the child doesn't mean that their aren't couples out there who make these decisions together.

''They have to do what's best for them'' selfish attitude
You're right about one thing i would never have to decide about terminating a baby or not because i wouldn't even consider it. Yes but is that because your a man?

You're misunderstanding my point (FYI i'm a woman)
I said, regardless of sex, it is narrow minded to think only women have the decision. There are many couples out there who make decisions as big as this together whether good or bad. I said i wouldn't have to make the decision myself because i wouldn't be so cold hearted to even think about terminating an unborn child You must be having a man day then,not every pregnant women has a husband or partner so who helps her make the decision to terminate.At the end of day the women has to carry the baby for nine month's ,then give birth,then alot of the time she's the one left holding the baby.

Having a man day? Please grow up
Did i say every woman? I said there are plenty of women out there who make these decisions with there partners.
A lot of your opinions on my posts have been completely wrong because you misunderstand what i'm typing.
READ PROPERLY and make sure you understand before replying little girl. I understood exactly what you said all women who terminate a baby are murderers.And remember you started this because my opinion is different to yours end of.

[Marsh.]

[/quote]I understood exactly what you said all women who terminate a baby are murderers.And remember you started this because my opinion is different to yours end of. [/quote]

NO, there you go again. MISUNDERSTANDING
Like i said, you are entitled to your own opinion BUT your criticisms of my opinions are wrong because you misunderstand.
For example, i said ''terminating an unborn child IS murder''
You replied, ''Don't be stupid, just because someone doesn't want children doesn't mean they are going to go out and kill someone''
I never said that someone who doesn't want children will go out and kill someone.
Now, do you understand my point.

[Twilight]

Originally posted by 08marsh
I understood exactly what you said all women who terminate a baby are murderers.And remember you started this because my opinion is different to yours end of. [/quote]

NO, there you go again. MISUNDERSTANDING
Like i said, you are entitled to your own opinion BUT your criticisms of my opinions are wrong because you misunderstand.
For example, i said ''terminating an unborn child IS murder''
You replied, ''Don't be stupid, just because someone doesn't want children doesn't mean they are going to go out and kill someone''
I never said that someone who doesn't want children will go out and kill someone.
Now, do you understand my point. [/quote]You are not reading or understanding me, i already explained that i didn't mean someone who just didn't want children were going to murder someone.You must live in fairy story land in real life not everything as a happy ending.At the end of day it's up to every women to do the right thing for them.end of i will not reply anymore cos you keep going on about the same thing's over and over again.

[Marsh.]

Originally posted by TheTwilightPrincess5
Originally posted by 08marsh
I understood exactly what you said all women who terminate a baby are murderers.And remember you started this because my opinion is different to yours end of.

NO, there you go again. MISUNDERSTANDING
Like i said, you are entitled to your own opinion BUT your criticisms of my opinions are wrong because you misunderstand.
For example, i said ''terminating an unborn child IS murder''
You replied, ''Don't be stupid, just because someone doesn't want children doesn't mean they are going to go out and kill someone''
I never said that someone who doesn't want children will go out and kill someone.
Now, do you understand my point. [/quote]You are not reading or understanding me, i already explained that i didn't mean someone who just didn't want children were going to murder someone.You must live in fairy story land in real life not everything as a happy ending.At the end of day it's up to every women to do the right thing for them.end of i will not reply anymore cos you keep going on about the same thing's over and over again. [/quote]

What the hell are you talking about since when did i say that i believe everything is like a fairy story with a happy ending.
You sound very immature, what are you... 12 maybe 13.
I didn't say that you said someone who just didn't want children were going to murder someone. You accused me of saying that.

[Lewis.]

Overall you are killing a living thing, so i would say it is murder?

[andyman]

Originally posted by Lewis:)
Overall you are killing a living thing, so i would say it is murder? Is tommy tank mass murder?

[Twilight]

Originally posted by andyman
Originally posted by Lewis:)
Overall you are killing a living thing, so i would say it is murder? Is tommy tank mass murder? Who

[andyman]

Originally posted by TheTwilightPrincess5
Originally posted by andyman
Originally posted by Lewis:)
Overall you are killing a living thing, so i would say it is murder? Is tommy tank mass murder? Who Ermmm... Its ok :bigsmile:

[ange7]

oooo fck .... is that rhyming slang for w@nk? Come on people ...andyman needs to know if he's guilty of murder on an untold scale.

[andyman]

Originally posted by ange7
oooo fck .... is that rhyming slang for w@nk? Come on people ...andyman needs to know if he's guilty of murder on an untold scale. Huge scale... Mass amount! :bigsmile: tommy tankinging, wearing the sausage coat, treat on her face... I could be worse than pol pot and hitler!!! :shocked:

[ange7]

Originally posted by andyman
Originally posted by ange7
oooo fck .... is that rhyming slang for w@nk? Come on people ...andyman needs to know if he's guilty of murder on an untold scale. Huge scale... Mass amount! :bigsmile: tommy tankinging, wearing the sausage coat, treat on her face... I could be worse than pol pot and hitler!!! :shocked:
treat on her face ?..... what kind of birthday parties did you go to as a kid. hehe when is that a treat?

[Sticks]

Can I remind you that this is meant to be a family friendly forum

[andyman]

Originally posted by ange7
Originally posted by andyman
Originally posted by ange7
oooo fck .... is that rhyming slang for w@nk? Come on people ...andyman needs to know if he's guilty of murder on an untold scale. Huge scale... Mass amount! :bigsmile: tommy tankinging, wearing the sausage coat, treat on her face... I could be worse than pol pot and hitler!!! :shocked:
treat on her face ?..... what kind of birthday parties did you go to as a kid. hehe when is that a treat? Women love a facial...

[Sticks]

Can we get back to topic about how much say reluctant fathers should get if their partner or former partner get's pregnant by him.

[andyman]

Originally posted by Sticks
Can I remind you that this is meant to be a family friendly forum :shocked:Purple!

[Sticks]

I am a moderator on BAUT - we use purple when moderating

[andyman]

Well my view on the topic is that the man should own his seed.. The woman only has the egg, the seed is higher in rank!

Plus many women use the man to get pregnant... Child support etc! Why should he pay if only she wanted the child?..

[ange7]

Originally posted by Sticks
Can I remind you that this is meant to be a family friendly forum
lol well tell andyman directly and don't be so indiscriminate.

[ange7]

Originally posted by andyman
Originally posted by ange7
Originally posted by andyman
Originally posted by ange7
oooo fck .... is that rhyming slang for w@nk? Come on people ...andyman needs to know if he's guilty of murder on an untold scale. Huge scale... Mass amount! :bigsmile: tommy tankinging, wearing the sausage coat, treat on her face... I could be worse than pol pot and hitler!!! :shocked:
treat on her face ?..... what kind of birthday parties did you go to as a kid. hehe when is that a treat? Women love a facial...
aww so not only are you a self confirmed "tommy tank" er ( did I phrase that right?) but your single too hehe.p

[Marsh.]

Originally posted by Lewis:)
Overall you are killing a living thing, so i would say it is murder?

Finally, someone with a bit of sense

[Twilight]

Originally posted by 08marsh
Originally posted by Lewis:)
Overall you are killing a living thing, so i would say it is murder?

Finally, someone with a bit of sense :whistle:





:rolleyes:

[Marsh.]

Originally posted by TheTwilightPrincess5
Originally posted by 08marsh
Originally posted by Lewis:)
Overall you are killing a living thing, so i would say it is murder?

Finally, someone with a bit of sense :whistle:

:rolleyes:


:yuk: :yuk: :yuk:

[WATERS]

Yeh

[Twilight]

Originally posted by 08marsh
Originally posted by TheTwilightPrincess5
Originally posted by 08marsh
Originally posted by Lewis:)
Overall you are killing a living thing, so i would say it is murder?

Finally, someone with a bit of sense :whistle:

:rolleyes:


:yuk: :yuk: :yuk: :bored::bored::bored:

[Novo]

Originally posted by andyman
Originally posted by Sticks
Can I remind you that this is meant to be a family friendly forum :shocked:Purple!

You tell them sticks

[Marsh.]

Originally posted by TheTwilightPrincess5
Originally posted by 08marsh
Originally posted by TheTwilightPrincess5
Originally posted by 08marsh
Originally posted by Lewis:)
Overall you are killing a living thing, so i would say it is murder?

Finally, someone with a bit of sense :whistle:

:rolleyes:


:yuk: :yuk: :yuk: :bored::bored::bored:

Bore off "princess :joker:"

[Twilight]

Originally posted by 08marsh
Originally posted by TheTwilightPrincess5
Originally posted by 08marsh
Originally posted by TheTwilightPrincess5
Originally posted by 08marsh
Originally posted by Lewis:)
Overall you are killing a living thing, so i would say it is murder?

Finally, someone with a bit of sense :whistle:

:rolleyes:


:yuk: :yuk: :yuk: :bored::bored::bored:

Bore off "princess :joker:" I'm done with you for now

[Marsh.]

Originally posted by TheTwilightPrincess5
Originally posted by 08marsh
Originally posted by TheTwilightPrincess5
Originally posted by 08marsh
Originally posted by TheTwilightPrincess5
Originally posted by 08marsh
Originally posted by Lewis:)
Overall you are killing a living thing, so i would say it is murder?

Finally, someone with a bit of sense :whistle:

:rolleyes:


:yuk: :yuk: :yuk: :bored::bored::bored:

Bore off "princess :joker:" I'm done with you for now

Ok den, ickle girl! Night night.

[letmein]

Originally posted by Sticks
For the record I do not like the idea of abortions, but it is a fact of life we are stuck with.

So having said that, when a woman gets pregnant and wants to terminate we hear the argument that it is her body and has the right to choose. If the prospective father does not want her to have the abortion, that's tough, he has no say.

But, suppose the couple are going through IVF, if the man withdraws his consent as has happened in recent court cases then the woman is not allowed to continue end of story.

So the suggestion to debate is this

Suppose a woman gets pregnant, as it could be argued that part of the foetus came from the man's sperm contribution, then it's part of the man's body as well. Should the man be legally entitled to insist that the woman have a termination if he does not want to be a father, just like he can withdraw consent on IVF.

Would this not be fair.

What are you talking about, IVF, and she's not allowed to continue?

It's nobodies business. It's the woman's body. End of discussion.

When you came inside her, that was your last warning that you could become a parent.

[letmein]

Originally posted by andyman
Well my view on the topic is that the man should own his seed.. The woman only has the egg, the seed is higher in rank!

Plus many women use the man to get pregnant... Child support etc! Why should he pay if only she wanted the child?..

Because he knocked her up and put her in that position. You don't get to own a woman's body suddenly for 9 months. You want to carry it, and you're male, go ahead and try.

[letmein]

Originally posted by andyman
Originally posted by ange7
Originally posted by ange7
Originally posted by Sticks
Originally posted by ange7

lol...why would this even be open for debate? Obviously he can't nor does he have any such right. Are you arguing the he ought to have the final choice Sticks?

But already in IVF he can pull the plug

I am putting the "what if" scenario of what if he also had the final say in natural pregnancies?

Also the pro-choice lobby always use the "Women's body" argument and therefore I am turning this around as the man could say part of his body went to make the child so in these days of equality he should be able to decide.

I suspect that some terminations have been done because some woman have been bullied into it by men who did not want their partner to come to term.


On personal level if I had a wife/ girlfriend - and had got her pregnant, I would wanting her to keep the child

No the your confusing the 2 examples... they aren't comparable since in your IVF example no egg has yet been fertilised. Him having the right to withdraw consent of the IVF fertilisation doesn't logically lead to him therefore having the right to choose whether she , once impregnated via IVF or otherwise, has the right to decide on the termination. You see the difference is during conception the man gave his consent ( obviously) but in your IVF example he clearly hasn't.

"Also the pro-choice lobby always use the "Women's body" argument and therefore I am turning this around as the man could say part of his body"

Again not applicable since the "body" referred to here isn't simply the genetic information but the actual human who has to go through the delivery of the baby. It's her body... she has the choice. The argument that it's part of his body too therefore he should have the choice doesn't cut it.

"I suspect that some terminations have been done because some woman have been bullied into it by men who did not want their partner to come to term." Very likely but that isn't argument enough to deny the majority of women their right to choose.
what?... no reply Sticks So if a woman wants the baby and the man does not want the baby the woman has more legal rights? And when the baby is born the man by law has to support that child with paying child support?

Yep. And that's biology. Take it up with nature. There's more affect on the woman than the man.

[Fom]

Originally posted by letmein
Originally posted by Sticks
For the record I do not like the idea of abortions, but it is a fact of life we are stuck with.

So having said that, when a woman gets pregnant and wants to terminate we hear the argument that it is her body and has the right to choose. If the prospective father does not want her to have the abortion, that's tough, he has no say.

But, suppose the couple are going through IVF, if the man withdraws his consent as has happened in recent court cases then the woman is not allowed to continue end of story.

So the suggestion to debate is this

Suppose a woman gets pregnant, as it could be argued that part of the foetus came from the man's sperm contribution, then it's part of the man's body as well. Should the man be legally entitled to insist that the woman have a termination if he does not want to be a father, just like he can withdraw consent on IVF.

Would this not be fair.

What are you talking about, IVF, and she's not allowed to continue?

It's nobodies business. It's the woman's body. End of discussion.

When you came inside her, that was your last warning that you could become a parent.

I agree, but I also believe that the idea of terminations is wrong. So I think that if a male does climax inside the woman then the woman needs to take responsibility for not taking the pill or having unprotected sex. It works both ways, if you are not going to be sensible then you shouldn't be having sex. Women need to accept the responsibilities just like men do.
So what if it's your body, it is still your fault.

[Sticks]

Originally posted by letmein
What are you talking about, IVF, and she's not allowed to continue?

It's nobodies business. It's the woman's body. End of discussion.

When you came inside her, that was your last warning that you could become a parent.

There was a court case where a couple going through IVF split up and the man withdrew consent. She had had cancer treatment so this was her only chance for a child, but under the law, which was held up by the courts, the fertilised embryos were destroyed, because the man no longer wanted to be a father.

This is the law relating to IVF, pre-implantation.

This anomaly in the law does prompt the question, if the man has this right to pull the plug on IVF, in these days of equality could it be argued that the man should have the right to insist the woman have a termination.

For the record if I were to have got either a girl friend or a wife pregnant, I would be wanting them to have the child and play a full part in it's life, but I do wonder if this scenario may one day come to pass :shocked: