American bombshell? Roe vs. Wade....

[mudsticks]

Yes there is UK legislation, and I think it strikes the right balance. Weren't the posters saying 'It should just be between the woman and her doctor' meaning that abortion shouldn't be a legal matter at all, though? That was my interpretation.

The best way to reduce abortion numbers is through sex education and easy access to free contraception.

I think the posters were taking it as read that all this already happens within a legal framework.
So anyone elses proposition that a late term pregnancy could be terminated 'on demand' is just a pointless distraction, either by the deliberately mischievous, or woefully misinformed.

Yes of course to your second part.
But in the US reproductive healthcare is not covered by all insurers.

And if course some people don't have medical insurance at all.

 

[winjim]

I think the posters were taking it as read that all this already happens within a legal framework.
So anyone elses proposition that a late term pregnancy could be terminated 'on demand' is just a pointless distraction, either by the deliberately mischievous, or woefully misinformed.

Yes of course to your second part.
But in the US reproductive healthcare is not covered by all insurers.

And if course some people don't have medical insurance at all.

I can't believe I'm addressing this, but part of the reason it's nonsense goes back to my use of language a few posts ago. The process of labour and childbirth is by definition a termination of pregnancy.

 

[icowden]

I can't believe I'm addressing this, but part of the reason it's nonsense goes back to my use of language a few posts ago. The process of labour and childbirth is by definition a termination of pregnancy.

True Jim. But what happens if the woman discovers at 36 weeks that she is carrying one of these:

I don't think we have properly addressed the alien foetus scenario yet and how this will be affected by Roe vs Wade.

 

[All uphill]

So anyone elses proposition that a late term pregnancy could be terminated 'on demand' is just a pointless distraction, either by the deliberately mischievous, or woefully misinformed.

Well, put me under the heading "woefully misinformed ".

I am all for women (and men) having full control over their bodies, and for viable unborn babies being protected from, say, 23 weeks gestation.

I get that "our bodies, our choice in consultation with professional advice, and subject to consideration of the rights of the unborn child in the third trimester" does not make a good campaigning line, and am sad that we have got to this horribly polarised situation where over-simplified straplines grab the oxygen of publicity .

 

[AuroraSaab]

I think the posters were taking it as read that all this already happens within a legal framework.

My reading of their posts was that they thought it shouldn't take place within a legal framework and they advocated abortion on demand up to the due date. If that's not what they meant, I apologise for misunderstanding their comments.

 

[mudsticks]

Well, put me under the heading "woefully misinformed ".

I am all for women (and men) having full control over their bodies, and for viable unborn babies being protected from, say, 23 weeks gestation.

I get that "our bodies, our choice in consultation with professional advice, and subject to consideration of the rights of the unborn child in the third trimester" does not make a good campaigning line, and am sad that we have got to this horribly polarised situation where over-simplified straplines grab the oxygen of publicity .

I think the problem with 'woefully misinformed' comes about very often, around these issues*.

And is often exploited for emotive headline grabbing purposes ..

*The scariest thing is that it's often men, who have 'no uterus in the game' at all, who are forming opinions and making laws, without bothering to educate themselves at all .

 

[winjim]

I am all for women (and men) having full control over their bodies, and for viable unborn babies being protected from, say, 23 weeks gestation.

The trouble with this argument is that as neonatal care of premature babies improves, access to abortion reduces. Keeping a 23wk gestation prem baby alive is no mean feat and a few years ago they would not have been considered 'viable'.

I'm extremely uncomfortable with notions of viability being used as a time limit for abortion access.

 

[BoldonLad]

If we take as read, that women should have control of their own body, and, that the right to terminate a pregnancy should the woman’s personal free choice. At which point is it felt that the sperm donor (ie father), should have any responsibilities and/or rights?

 

[mudsticks]

If we take as read, that women should have control of their own body, and, that the right to terminate a pregnancy should the woman’s personal free choice. At which point is it felt that the sperm donor (ie father), should have any responsibilities and/or rights?

Responsibilities for having fathered a child??

Rights of control over a woman's body??

Hmmn let us ponder that one for a moment shall we??

 

[mudsticks]

I'm guessing that one reason that two doctors are required to give 'approval' for a termination, is to safeguard against the woman being coerced into having said termination

That's not unheard of either

 

[BoldonLad]

Responsibilities for having fathered a child??

Rights of control over a woman's body??

Hmmn let us ponder that one for a moment shall we??

Ponder away. I am not saying they should have such rights, it was a question, hence the ? Is there a problem with a man asking such a question?

 

[BoldonLad]

I'm guessing that one reason that two doctors are required to give 'approval' for a termination, is to safeguard against the woman being coerced into having said termination

That's not unheard of either

I am sure it isn’t, but, is such coercion a significant factor. (I have absolutely no idea if it is or not). A source rather than an opinion would be preferred.

 

[mudsticks]

I am sure it isn’t, but, is such coercion a significant factor. (I have absolutely no idea if it is or not). A source rather than an opinion would be preferred.

First Google hit ..

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...-coercion-reproduction-abortion-a8834306.html

Consider yourself thoroughly indulged.

Claud.would have probs done a
Lmgtfy on you
(Quite reasonably)

 

[BoldonLad]

First Google hit ..

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...-coercion-reproduction-abortion-a8834306.html

Consider yourself thoroughly indulged.

Claud.would have probs done a
Lmgtfy on you
(Quite reasonably)

That is shocking, IMHO, no-one should be bullied or pressured into either pregnancy, or, termination.

A little surprised that only "partner" pressure appears to be mentioned. I would have thought there may well be wider family pressure as well, but, that might simply make the numbers even higher, and, hence, even more unacceptable (zero being the only acceptable number, in my view).

Any views on the wider aspects of male responsibilities in reproduction and child rearing?, or, are you still pondering?

 

[mudsticks]

That is shocking, IMHO, no-one should be bullied or pressured into either pregnancy, or, termination.

A little surprised that only "partner" pressure appears to be mentioned. I would have thought there may well be wider family pressure as well, but, that might simply make the numbers even higher, and, hence, even more unacceptable (zero being the only acceptable number, in my view).

Any views on the wider aspects of male responsibilities in reproduction and child rearing?, or, are you still pondering?

It mentions wider family pressures later in the article.

But I don't think that was surveyed as such, so wouldn't figure in the numbers I don't suppose..

I have plenty views on the responsibilities that men should take if they've fathered a child, yes.

But it's not all about me..

Let's allow some other folks a say, shall we..??

And anyhows, I have to get ready for my evenings work now 👍🏼