[snapdragon]

I think it will take a very long time for other countries to follow Canada's lead, but I'm confident it will happen eventually. Just a few years ago, the idea that same sex marriage would ever be lawful anywhere in the world was unthinkable. Yet , here we are. One by one their enemies have fallen.

The problem with Boycey's point of view, which is a very common one, is that it is taking control of a woman's body out of her hands and giving it to lawyers, for no real reason other than what I call the yuk factor, though I'm not sure why he's brought men into it. Pregnancy doesn't affect men's bodies and abortion is just about bodily sovereignty.

It's as if the foetus exists independently of her. It's assuming she cannot be trusted to make decisions for herself. Its a sad leftover from the old days of complete patriarchy, when women owned nothing, not even themselves.

Back in the day, it was thought to be the right thing to do. Women weren't considered capable of looking after themselves. They needed men to do it. They didn't have the right sort of brains to become doctors or lawyers, for instance. Dammit, it's only been recently they've been considered able enough to become vicars!

Patriarchy still rules in much of the world. There's a long way to go. They often mean well, but it needs kicking into touch. We all know that, really.

Abortion should be considered a private health matter in the same way as any other medical procedure. Nothing ese is right.

What we, as individuals, feel about abortion is our own business.

What we feel changes the more we learn about it, anyway. Late stage abortions sound horrendous, until you look at the reasons the woman or girl is having it done.
Then we can approve, so we give the okay for it go ahead. How disgustingly patronising is that?
Why do we feel it's our business to approve?

A good start would be to stop equating an unborn entity with a cute little baby kicking and giggling on a rug in a TV advert, or a born child requiring financial support. It isn't.

Whatever the hopes and dreams, or resentments and dread of the potential parents, it isn't.

It's inside a woman's body and her organs sustain its life to the detriment of her health and physical well being. If she dies, the foetus dies.

Oh, yes it does, despite some people claiming it can be saved. Not if it's inside the woman, it can't. It has to be delivered when it becomes a person who can be treated independently as a patient - if it has gestated long enough and has been delivered soon enough after the woman's death for that to be a possibility.

Lecture over. I've shot my bolt on the subject, unless somebody has a question to ask or wants clarification.

[Drlee]

It's as if the foetus exists independently of her. It's assuming she cannot be trusted to make decisions for herself. Its a sad leftover from the old days of complete patriarchy, when women owned nothing, not even themselves.

And there it is. The absurd notion that the convenience of the mother is the overriding concern. Talk about hyperbole.

A good start would be to stop equating an unborn entity with a cute little baby kicking and giggling on a rug in a TV advert, or a born child requiring financial support.

Heartless position to take but typical of the feminist self-centered position which equates male privilege with selfishness.

At some point the unborn baby is precisely that which you do not wish to face. It is a feeling human being just a few centimeters away from kicking and giggling. That is if the mother does not have it killed and yanked from her womb. Do try to at least read some science.

[Pants-of-dog]

@Drlee

This convenience meme is dumb.

Your emotional language is meant to convey that women are getting late term abortions on a whim.

When asked to provide evidence that women are doing this, you have been unable to.

[Zamuel]

This convenience meme is dumb. Your emotional language is meant to convey that women are getting late term abortions on a whim.When asked to provide evidence that women are doing this, you have been unable to.

You're right Pod, on all counts. 3rd term abortions are rare. In all the cases I can find they relate to either a clear danger to the mother, or the expected birth of a seriously deformed or mentally challenged baby. IMHO, no ones judgement but the mother's is valid in such cases.

Zam

[Drlee]

When asked to provide evidence that women are doing this, you have been unable to.

Not true. I posted it earlier. Now read for comprehension.

You're laziness is tiring.

[Wellsy]

@Wellsy
You mention fathers in a negative context, as ditching their children, shirking responsibilities, and so on. That is quite biased and furthermore not what we have been discussing in this thread.

So to elucidate us on your points of view, clearly and concisely, I am asking you:

1. Do you agree with late-term abortions ! I am talking after 24 weeks or more.
2. Do you agree that women can decide about aborting or keeping the baby without input from the father, but in case she decides to keep it, demand child support without significant participation of the father in the raising of the children ?

A yes or no will suffice.

Thank you.

I mention a negative demographic in that the law is for minimumum standards that are to be enforced rather than highest standards of morality. Many fathers without adversarial courts are able to use lawyers and settle child custody and support concerns. So I don't think it's biased in misrepresenting simply by not having to pay compliment to the fathers who don't need legal intervention to give such a minimum of support to their biological offspring.
But correct, it had come about from a derail of the main thread.

1) Mmm I would have to give it more thought in regards to what is typical of development at 24 weeks as I am not concerned with an arbitrary time limit as much as a point of whether the child is viable outside of the mother and haven't attended to the thread in much detail nor looked into it to refresh my understanding. But I do speculate at brief thought that it is unpersuasive for someone to argue for abortion when the child is viable on the basis of bodily rights/autonomy. Although what constitutes a viable pregnancy also becomes an arbitrary game of probability also so doesn't necessarily put it on much better ground.
2) Yes I do agree that a woman can have an abortion without input from the father without any legal imposition or consequence otherwise. Socially we might implore that a woman do so as it can have a significant impact on men to find out that they could have had a child and it was aborted without their knowing. But I do not readily see a just basis on which to argue that the man has a legal ability to over ride a woman's choice that would not already be over ridden by points about the developing child.

[One Degree]

I believe 30% of babies survive delivered between 24-25 weeks.
What about a child with Down Syndrome or other defect? The father wants the baby but the mother doesn’t?

[Decky]

When the father is carrying the child in his womb then it will be his choice. If not then I don't really see what it has to do with him.

[Pants-of-dog]

Not true. I posted it earlier.

No, you did not. Ypu pisted evidence that late term abortions were happening, but there was no indication that they were elective.

Now read for comprehension.

You're laziness is tiring.

Son, these types of comments are unnecessary and just make you look immature.

[One Degree]

When the father is carrying the child in his womb then it will be his choice. If not then I don't really see what it has to do with him.

A child is half of each parent from conception to death. I don’t see how being at summer camp or being in the womb alters this. Their location is irrelevant to the interests of the parents both physically and emotionally. You are using the womb to deny the father has the same emotional attachment as the mother.

Edit: I ultimately end up going with a woman’s right to choose as the lesser evil. This does not mean it should be accepted without realizing how unfair it is. Such a decision should be made with full honesty.

[Drlee]

No, you did not. Ypu pisted evidence that late term abortions were happening, but there was no indication that they were elective.

Oh. I see. You believe these women were kidnapped and forcibly aborted.

Very tiring.

[Pants-of-dog]

Oh. I see. You believe these women were kidnapped and forcibly aborted.

Very tiring.

No, I argued that these late term abortions were medically necessary, and therefore not elective or done because of “inconvenience” as you argued.

I did not say that they were forced to abort their children.

[AFAIK]

I don't understand the free-choice absolutists. If a woman chooses not to have an abortion for, say, 180 days in a row; why is it so unreasonable to say that she is now committed to carrying the child to term and delivering it (absent extenuating circumstances)? She's had plenty of oppourtunity to abort during the first and second trimester.

An analogy:

A man and woman live together for many years. The legislator passes a law stating that after one year of cohabitation you will be considered to be in a common law marriage with various rights and responsibilities. One day the man wakes up and decides he'd rather be single so kicks his partner out leaving her homeless and destitute. The woman requests palimony, the man goes to court, the court strikes down the legislation, lawmakers fail to pass new legislation. Everyone lives happily ever after.

[Sivad]

Edit: I ultimately end up going with a woman’s right to choose as the lesser evil. This does not mean it should be accepted without realizing how unfair it is. Such a decision should be made with full honesty.

The woman should have the only say but it is kind of fucked up that men get stuck with kids they don't want. I relentlessly pressured this one girl to have an abortion, there was no fucking way I was gonna get stuck having a kid with her. Fuck that "I'll respect your decision" bullshit, I was a total asshole about it and I don't regret it at all. Had to be done.

[Drlee]

Medically necessary late term abortion are almost never required. That said. They are quite common in California. One 2015 study interviewed 4800 women who had received them in California. But POD would have us believe that they only have them for the health of the mother. Here are the facts from another study in California.

Why Women Get Late-Term Abortions

There are many reasons why a woman might consider having a late-term abortion. In a 2013 US study, researchers investigated reasons women gave for seeking out a late-term abortion. Fifty-five percent of the women in the study reported seeking a late-term abortion because they had trouble deciding whether to have an abortion. Twenty-two percent reported financial barriers that caused them to not seek an abortion earlier and 21 % reported that they had only recently discovered that they were pregnant. Other reasons included transportation problems, being uninformed about how to get an abortion and social pressures to continue with pregnancy. Of the women surveyed who were under 18 years old, 26.9 % delayed seeking out an abortion due to the fear of telling their parents they were pregnant.8Outside of the United States, the cost of an abortion and the difficulty of accessing a proper medical center are common reasons that women report for getting a late term-abortion.9

A woman may also undergo a late-term abortion because of an undiagnosed medical condition. If a woman finds that her baby has fatal or serious health problems, she may want to terminate the pregnancy. Also, if a woman fears that her health is in danger because of issues such as diabetes or heart problems, she may want to terminate the pregnancy to save her own life.10

So you see POD, your argument that free choice at all stages of pregnancy is fine because (You Claim) that I can't present evidence that women are a) having them and b) for the health of the mother when they do, is fallacious. Now I have proved you wrong. Women in significant numbers (10's of thousands of them in the US) are having late term abortions and a great many of them for reasons that could be categorized as convenience by an objective observer.

So please drop your line of argument now. It has been disproved.

These come from a UCSB study and from the CDC.

[Sivad]

a great many of them for reasons that could be categorized as convenience by an objective observer.

An extremely dimwitted observer maybe, but sensible people would view it as practical necessity.

[Drlee]

Nonsense.

Lack of transportation is not a "sensible necessity". Neither is fear of telling your parents. Of course there are those who do not believe that sentient, feeling babies are not human. For them there is no hope.

[Sivad]

Nonsense.

Lack of transportation is not a "sensible necessity".

Transportation might not be a problem in your privileged world but it's a huge obstacle for many Americans, and in a lot of cases it's not like any ride will do, you have to find someone you can trust to be discreet where strong social taboos are in place. Not everybody has a ride or a confidant.

Neither is fear of telling your parents.

Again, for a lot people it's not a fear of simple disapproval, they can be kicked out, disowned, beaten, humiliate. Some parents are not all love and understanding, some parents are extremely severe so the fear is completely rational.

Of course there are those who do not believe that sentient, feeling babies are not human. For them there is no hope.

Late term abortions are a grey area, the hardware is fully formed but the nervous system still isn't fully online so there would only be minimal sentience and certainly no self-awareness, but still, it is a viable human life.

[Kaiserschmarrn]

Yes, that was the best I could do as well. The rest were articles describing several cases of infanticide as an argument for repealing the law you mentioned and replacing it with a more serious law.

Suffice it to say that infanticide is qualitatively different from late term abortion in two distinct ways:
1. It does not involve the right to security of person, i.e. the body of the pregnant person is not being used.
2. While rare, infanticide occurs. So far, elective late term abortions do not happen.

Do we have data on all late term abortions in Canada and why they were carried out? Have there been cases where a women wanted a late term elective abortion but doctors refused to carry it out, sending her on to another doctor multiple times until she gave up? Have there been cases where a women was referred to a mental health service because she wanted a late term elective abortion?

It seems extremely unlikely that while mothers do commit infanticide, they are somehow immune against elective late term abortions.

Sorry, I sincerely believed that you had replied to @Godstud with this rebuttal when he discussed some of the possible negative impacts from bans on abortion.

Best to read the full exchange between Godstud and me. I was pointing out to him that the laws in most European countries are neither like Ireland's nor Canada's and that Ireland will almost certainly implement a restricted model. He then expressed the hope that Ireland will be "more progressive" because of the tragedies that would otherwise happen. At that point I replied that this wasn't true, i.e. I was just refuting his assertion.

My argument never was that we need to wait for an event to occur before we legislate.

Again, my argument is not based on this. My argument is based in security of person. The fact that healthy unborn babies are not being killed is a refutation of a possible criticism of the argument.

That was my impression of your position when we started this exchange, i.e. even if lots of women went for elective late term abortions you'd be in favour.

Suffice it to say that I am not compelled by the state to donate my blood or organs or the use of these in order to protect my child.

And since this is the case, it is incorrect to say that the unborn baby is being deprived of their rights, since this is not a right enjoyed by anyone.

You are not forced to undergo a medical procedure to keep your child alive and neither is a pregnant women. That's the correct equivalent situation in my view.

It is also qualitatively different to require somebody to do nothing as opposed to do something in order to keep another human being alive. We only require from a pregnant women after a certain number of weeks has passed that she does not actively kill the unborn unless she has a very good reason. In most developed countries we don't even punish pregnant women if they put the health of the unborn child at risk by, say, taking drugs, whereas if this happened to a born child it would certainly get the authorities involved. Overall, a pregnant woman is probably less restricted physically than a parent with a born child, especially if we compare the nine months of pregnancy and the first nine months after birth when your presence and attention is pretty much constantly required.

I have no idea how you built this strawman out of anything we have said.

I'm just taking the silly argument that people have the "right to do with their bodies what they want" to its absurd conclusion. We don't and the vast majority of rights are not absolute.

An extremely dimwitted observer maybe, but sensible people would view it as practical necessity.

According to the quoted text, more than half of them couldn't make their mind up. That's pretty much the definition of elective late term abortion.

Edit: Drlee's text seems to be from here.

[snapdragon]

The woman should have the only say but it is kind of fucked up that men get stuck with kids they don't want. I relentlessly pressured this one girl to have an abortion, there was no fucking way I was gonna get stuck having a kid with her. Fuck that "I'll respect your decision" bullshit, I was a total asshole about it and I don't regret it at all. Had to be done.

...and they say romance is dead.

edit: Did you used to be married to me?