1216 packs of abortion pills seized in 2009

bronte

ninjasurfer1 wrote: »

A bit unfair imho. Why not:

If a woman decides to have the baby against his wishes, he is absolved of any maintenance costs incurred by HER decision.

Agreed.

ninjasurfer1 wrote: »

If a woman decides to get rid of the baby against his wishes, he should have an input.

Discuss...:-)

If it's that important to the guy, he should make it explicitly clear to the woman before he sleeps with her.
She then has the option to run for the hills walk away.

Sulmac

ninjasurfer1 wrote: »

Playing devil's advocate, and I'll probably get slaughtered for this, but there is yet to be a mention of a (potential) fathers rights.

Current situation:
If a woman decides to have the baby against his wishes, he has no choice and he gets landed with maintenance costs.

If a woman decides to get rid of the baby against his wishes, he has no input.

A bit unfair imho. Why not:

If a woman decides to have the baby against his wishes, he is absolved of any maintenance costs incurred by HER decision.

If a woman decides to get rid of the baby against his wishes, he should have an input.

Discuss...:-)

Interesting argument in favour of "male abortion":

Melanie McCulley, a South Carolina attorney coined the term male abortion in 1998, suggesting that a father should be allowed to disclaim his obligations to an unborn child early in the pregnancy. Proponents hold that concept begins with the premise that when an unmarried woman becomes pregnant, she has the option of abortion, adoption, or parenthood; and argues, in the context of legally recognized gender equality, that in the earliest stages of pregnancy the putative (alleged) father should have the same human rights to relinquish all future parental rights and financial responsibility—leaving the informed mother with the same three options.

McCulley states:

'When a female determines she is pregnant, she has the freedom to decide if she has the maturity level to undertake the responsibilities of motherhood, if she is financially able to support a child, if she is at a place in her career to take the time to have a child, or if she has other concerns precluding her from carrying the child to term. After weighing her options, the female may choose abortion. Once she aborts the fetus, the female's interests in and obligations to the child are terminated. In stark contrast, the unwed father has no options. His responsibilities to the child begin at conception and can only be terminated with the female's decision to abort the fetus or with the mother's decision to give the child up for adoption. Thus, he must rely on the decisions of the female to determine his future. The putative father does not have the luxury, after the fact of conception, to decide that he is not ready for fatherhood. Unlike the female, he has no escape route'.

McCulley's male abortion concept aims to equalize the legal status of unwed men and unwed women by giving the unwed man by law the ability to 'abort' his rights in and obligations to the child. If a woman decides to keep the child the father may choose not to by severing all ties legally.

The legal concept was tried in Dubay v. Wells and was dismissed. This was not surprising, since legislation in the various jurisdictions currently sets forth guidelines for when child support is owed as well as its amount. Accordingly legislation would be required to change the law to implement McCulley's concept.

strobe

ninjasurfer1 wrote:

A bit unfair imho. Why not:

If a woman decides to have the baby against his wishes, he is absolved of any maintenance costs incurred by HER decision.

bronte wrote: »

Agreed.

Really Bronte? Do you realise the amount of impoverished single mother families that could lead to? If every man that got a girl pregnant could just decide to absolve themselves of any legal responsibility on the spot?

Not that this should matter, just curiosity, so don't answer if you don't want to but, are you a man or a women?

ninjasurfer1 wrote:

If a woman decides to get rid of the baby against his wishes, he should have an input.

bronte wrote:

If it's that important to the guy, he should make it explicitly clear to the woman before he sleeps with her.
She then has the option to run for the hills walk away.

But what about the "unless you find yourself in the situation you won't know how you will feel" line that keeps being repeated? No one knows for sure if sex will lead to pregnancy, contraception is not 100% effective.

coffee_cake

Jakkass wrote: »

It destroys the fused zygote by stopping it from lining in the womb. Therefore, as I would see it is an abortifacient, just at the earliest possible stage.

Preventing it from attaching to the lining is a lot different to destroying it after it's attached, the former is still prevention.
Of course I can't google the details at work (shouldnt be in this thread really), I can't remember the full thing offhand, but I'll come back to this

philologos

I wouldn't agree, as the life has already begun by the fusion of the sperm and the zygote. Prevention would be stopping this act from occurring as I would see it rather than stopping the formed zygote from attaching to the lining of the womb.

bronte

strobe wrote: »

Really Bronte? Do you realise the amount of impoverished single mother families that could lead to? If every man that got a girl pregnant could just decide to absolve themselves of any legal responsibility on the spot?

Simply trying to spread a little equality that the males in this forum so often cry for.

strobe wrote: »

Not that this should matter, just curiosity, so don't answer if you don't want to but, are you a man or a women?

I'm a woman.

strobe wrote: »

But what about the "unless you find yourself in the situation you won't know how you will feel" line that keeps being repeated? No one knows for sure if sex will lead to pregnancy, contraception is not 100% effective.

Like I said, if the man feels that he should have an input into whether the woman has an abortion or not, he should make that explicitly clear to her before he sleeps with her...giving her the option to walk away.
If you're saying he may only discover too late his true feelings on the matter, then I would suggest all males who are remotely interested in being sexually active have a seriously long think about their feelings before engaging in sex.

You can't just land something like that on somebody and expect them to be happy about it.

Chuchoter

ninjasurfer1 wrote: »

Playing devil's advocate, and I'll probably get slaughtered for this, but there is yet to be a mention of a (potential) fathers rights.

Current situation:
If a woman decides to have the baby against his wishes, he has no choice and he gets landed with maintenance costs.

If a woman decides to get rid of the baby against his wishes, he has no input.

A bit unfair imho. Why not:

If a woman decides to have the baby against his wishes, he is absolved of any maintenance costs incurred by HER decision.

If a woman decides to get rid of the baby against his wishes, he should have an input.

Discuss...:-)

First situation (him not wanting to pay benefits) is completely fair, but the man should never, ever be able to meet or see his child. The second one, however, although he should have an input, the womans opinion frankly is more important because at the end of the day, she'll be the one who is pregnant/giving birth/having the child in general.

At Einhards point, pain is the most basic level of consciousness. Braindead people do not feel pain, because the only part of them left working is the brain stem. I don't consider them living people either.

I also think the organ donor point is very valid. You are being asked to give up your body to someone else. I am not an incubator, I'm a person.

strobe

bronte wrote: »

Simply trying to spread a little equality that the males in this forum so often cry for.

.........well ok, that's your position I guess. I personally think it is extremely poorly thought through though. I can't see any other result of that other than there being significantly more financially struggling single families around. Significantly more women getting abortions who otherwise would have kept the children. And significantly more unwanted pregnancies occurring exacerbating the two situations above. If coupled with legalised pregnancy I think it would be an unmitigated disaster for society that would get progressively worse year on year. I think you would also have a very hard time finding anyone that thought about it properly who would agree with you.

I sincerely hope you are never somehow in a position to help facilitate it and I think you should really reconsider, think about it for a while and decide if you still feel the same.

strobe

bronte wrote: »

Like I said, if the man feels that he should have an input into whether the woman has an abortion or not, he should make that explicitly clear to her before he sleeps with her...giving her the option to walk away.
If you're saying he may only discover too late his true feelings on the matter, then I would suggest all males who are remotely interested in being sexually active have a seriously long think about their feelings before engaging in sex.

You can't just land something like that on somebody and expect them to be happy about it.

Whoa, what happened to spreading a little equality?

Would you apply that in the reverse? Women should take it apon themselves to inform any man they intend to sleep with that if they get pregnant they are keeping the baby no matter what, before they have sex for the first time? I think you are being a little idealistic and unrealistic to say the least.

Not to mention if I was so inclined I could use the above argument in terms of saying "well if women don't know whether or not they want a baby they shouldn't have sex". I am under no circumstances making that argument, I think it's bloody stupid. But don't be surprised if your post above gets quoted by other people in that context. I don't think they could resist to be honest.

bronte

strobe wrote: »

.........well ok, that's your position I guess. I personally think it is extremely poorly thought through though. I can't see any other result of that other than there being significantly more financially struggling single families around. Significantly more women getting abortions who otherwise would have kept the children. And significantly more unwanted pregnancies occurring exacerbating the two situations above. If coupled with legalised pregnancy I think it would be an unmitigated disaster for society that would get progressively worse year on year. I think you would also have a very hard time finding anyone that thought about it properly who would agree with you.

I sincerely hope you are never somehow in a position to help facilitate it and I think you should really reconsider, think about it for a while and decide if you still feel the same.

Hey, the likelyhood of this ever becoming reality is slim to nada.
Women can't even get the morning after pill in Ireland for heavens sake!
Men complain constantly about the fact that they have no choice but to pay maintenance for children they didn't agree to have .
What is the alternative?

Chuchoter

strobe wrote: »

Whoa, what happened to spreading a little equality?

Would you apply that in the reverse? Women should take it apon themselves to inform any man they intend to sleep with that if they get pregnant they are keeping the baby no matter what, before they have sex for the first time? I think you are being a little idealistic and unrealistic to say the least.

Not to mention if I was so inclined I could use the above argument in terms of saying "well if women don't know whether or not they want a baby they shouldn't have sex". I am under no circumstances making that argument I think it's bloody stupid. But don't be surprised if your post above gets quoted by other people in that context. I don't think they could resist to be honest.

If two people are sleeping together, and she is 100% anti adoption and abortion, thats the kind of thing I'd want to know if I was with her, so yeas she should be expected to tell him.

shebango

bronte wrote: »

Women can't even get the morning after pill in Ireland for heavens sake!

They can, in fact. Not sure when this changed but they defo can.

bronte

strobe wrote: »

Whoa, what happened to spreading a little equality?

Would you apply that in the reverse? Women should take it apon themselves to inform any man they intend to sleep with that if they get pregnant they are keeping the baby no matter what, before they have sex for the first time? I think you are being a little idealistic and unrealistic to say the least.

Idealistic? It's called being a responsible adult.
I have always informed any partner of my views.
If they have a problem, they can walk away. None have.

strobe wrote: »

Not to mention if I was so inclined I could use the above argument in terms of saying "well if women don't know whether or not they want a baby they shouldn't have sex". I am under no circumstances making that argument, I think it's bloody stupid. But don't be surprised if your post above gets quoted by other people in that context. I don't think they could resist to be honest.

I can always stick 'em on ignore.

scientific1982

bronte wrote: »

Hey, the likelyhood of this ever becoming reality is slim to nada.
Women can't even get the morning after pill in Ireland for heavens sake!
Men complain constantly about the fact that they have no choice but to pay maintenance for children they didn't agree to have .
What is the alternative?

The morning after pill is available in Ireland.

bronte

shebango wrote: »

They can, in fact. Not sure when this changed but they defo can.

scientific1982 wrote: »

The morning after pill is available in Ireland.

Sorry, I meant over the counter in a chemist like in England. D'oh!

coffee_cake

strobe wrote: »

Whoa, what happened to spreading a little equality?

Would you apply that in the reverse? Women should take it apon themselves to inform any man they intend to sleep with that if they get pregnant they are keeping the baby no matter what, before they have sex for the first time? I think you are being a little idealistic and unrealistic to say the least.

Not that I'm agreeing with the suggestion, but given that abortion is illegal here, I think it's safe to take it that "keeping the baby" IS the default state, no informing required
Of course ideally they should both discuss it before doing it, but hey

bronte wrote: »

Women can't even get the morning after pill in Ireland for heavens sake!

Ehm... what?
edit: oh, OTC. Yeah, though... in a way I can understand it, it's a massive hormone dose, not like painkillers, and while I'd like to think we're all intelligent and educated on the subject...

Einhard

crayolastereo wrote: »

At Einhards point, pain is the most basic level of consciousness. Braindead people do not feel pain, because the only part of them left working is the brain stem. I don't consider them living people either.

Congenital Analgesia is a medical condition which prevents the sufferer feeling pain. Feeling pain is not the most basic level of consciousness, or else the people who suffer from this condition would have to be declared non-sentient.

I think you're equating pain with sentience merely because you don't wish to inflict suffering on anything (a good thing obviously), rather than a true belief that the foetus becomes "human" when it starts reacting to stimuli at 26 weeks or thereabouts.

I also think the organ donor point is very valid. You are being asked to give up your body to someone else. I am not an incubator, I'm a person.

And opponents of abortion believe the foetus is, to a greater or lesser degree, a person too. Or at least a human.

bronte

bluewolf wrote: »

Ehm... what?
edit: oh, OTC. Yeah, though... in a way I can understand it, it's a massive hormone dose, not like painkillers, and while I'd like to think we're all intelligent and educated on the subject...

Sorry! Didn't mean to freak you out!

I understand where you're coming from and agree with you that it shouldn't be taken lightly and certainly not often...but the current stance in Ireland goes out of it's way to make a bad situation even more stressful and upsetting for women.

strobe

bronte wrote: »

Hey, the likelyhood of this ever becoming reality is slim to nada.
Women can't even get the morning after pill in Ireland for heavens sake!
Men complain constantly about the fact that they have no choice but to pay maintenance for children they didn't agree to have .
What is the alternative?

I realise it's a hypothetical situation unlikely to come to pass, I was just amazed anyone would give the answer you gave. But to be fair it did come up in a conversation I had before so I'm not answering it off the cuff as you might be.

The alternative? Well I'm a pragmatist. What is best for the greater number of people and for society in general is that if a man fathers a child (or a woman mothers one) he/she should be legally required to support it. Full stop. Is it "fair" that a woman get's to decide whether or not to keep the baby but the man doesn't get to decide whether or not to financially support the child? Maybe not. But we are adults living in the real world here. "Fair" is for when you are playing marbles.

Einhard

strobe wrote: »

The alternative? Well I'm a pragmatist. What is best for the greater number of people and for society in general is that if a man fathers a child he should be legally required to support it. Full stop. Is it "fair" that a woman get's to decide whether or not to keep the baby but the man doesn't get to decide whether or not to financially support the child? Maybe not. But we are adults living in the real world here. "Fair" is for when you are playing marbles.

I'd agree with that. Life isn't fair sometimes, and you just have to live with it. However, I think that, in light of the above, it's not too much to ask that fathers are regarded as equal when it comes to family law, which is not the situation at present on these islands.

Nevyn

Jakkass wrote: »

I disagree with the MAP because it is an abortifacient, it does the same thing as any other procedure, that is denies the right to life to the unborn.

Claptrap.
The M.A.P. is not an abortifacient, if it was it would be illegal.

senordingdong wrote: »

Well atleast illeagal pills have been stopped from entering the country.

What makes you think customs got all of them?
I would not be surprised if they only got 1/3 of them.

bronte

strobe wrote: »

I realise it's a hypothetical situation unlikely to come to pass, I was just amazed anyone would give the answer you gave. But to be fair it did come up in a conversation I had before so I'm not answering it off the cuff as you might be.

The alternative? Well I'm a pragmatist. What is best for the greater number of people and for society in general is that if a man fathers a child (or a woman mothers one) he/she should be legally required to support it. Full stop. Is it "fair" that a woman get's to decide whether or not to keep the baby but the man doesn't get to decide whether or not to financially support the child? Maybe not. But we are adults living in the real world here. "Fair" is for when you are playing marbles.

Coolio...we differ then.

A lot of men would disagree with your thinking....(ones that were trapped etc. which happens a disturbing amount.)

strobe

Einhard wrote: »

I'd agree with that. Life isn't fair sometimes, and you just have to live with it. However, I think that, in light of the above, it's not too much to ask that fathers are regarded as equal when it comes to family law, which is not the situation at present on these islands.

I agree 100%.

Einhard

strobe wrote: »

I agree 100%.

That's no fun.

strobe

bronte wrote: »

A lot of men would disagree with your thinking....(ones that were trapped etc. which happens a disturbing amount.)

Not a lot of the responsible intelligent ones I would wager. The fact a lot of the irresponsible ones would disagree is kind of the basis to my entire objection to the idea. But like you say, let's agree to disagree.

drkpower

Thaedydal wrote: »

Claptrap.
The M.A.P. is not an abortifacient, if it was it would be illegal.

It's not illegal because the pre-implantation embryo is not the 'unborn' for the purposes of our constitution and has no protection in Irish law (or at least noone knows if it has any protection).

Whether it is an abortifacient depends on what you define as an abortion and what you define as a pregnancy, and that debate could go on all night. But that is a painful useless debate.

K-9

strobe wrote: »

Not a lot of the responsible intelligent ones I would wager. The fact a lot of the irresponsible ones would disagree is kind of the basis to my entire objection to the idea. But like you say, let's agree to disagree.

I've seen this argument before and it has been very well debated on here, though I see the logic of it, I'm just not for that type of equality, so I'm with you on that. We have a big enough problem with Deadbeat Dads as it is, without recognising it on a legal basis. I just think it opens up a whole other can of worms, probably much bigger, that the one we have!

Then again, I'm pro choice but personally, anti Abortion so that is probably why I just can't countenance it.

As for the OP, when is a Government party going to actually legislate on this to reflect majority opinion, because the current laws certainly don't. Unfortunately they are running scared of the extremists on both sides of the debate and tbh, I don't blame them. I just hate the Irish solution to an Irish problem in this case.

ninjasurfer1

strobe wrote: »

Really Bronte? Do you realise the amount of impoverished single mother families that could lead to? If every man that got a girl pregnant could just decide to absolve themselves of any legal responsibility on the spot?

But if the woman presses ahead against the mans stated wishes on fatherhood, should it be his concern over whether she chooses to impoverish herself if she proceeds with the pregnancy?

Could it not possibly reduce the number of single parent families if the mother knows she is financially on her own from day one? She may decide against having the baby...?

strobe

ninjasurfer1 wrote: »

But if the woman presses ahead against the mans stated wishes on fatherhood, should it be his concern over whether she chooses to impoverish herself if she proceeds with the pregnancy?

Could it not possibly reduce the number of single parent families if the mother knows she is financially on her own from day one? She may decide against having the baby...?

See these posts where I expand a bit. http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=68728614&postcount=219 http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=68729050&postcount=230

I can expand more on that if you want. Let us know.

Napper Hawkins

Einhard wrote: »

I invited it it by taking exception to being characterised as a fascict? Or because I have the temerity to have a contrary opinion?



Nobody's denying you your opinion, and nobody, except you, has resorted to personal abuse in this debate. I suggest you need to grow up and understand that having a differing viewpoint doesn't warrant ad hominem attack.



It's not about winning.
Grow up.

Incidentally, are you serious that understood the , and my point, yet still deliberately chose to misrepresent them, purely to have a go? Wow. Says it all really.

You see, this is where you're mistaken. You assume that I'm just going to jump down anyones throat for having a different opinion to my own.

You're wrong, because that is what you are doing and assuming that I'm as bad as you are because you are used to defending your position against people who aren't articulate enough to truly convince you of their argument.

I mean, seriously, you've told me to grow up twice now in the same post.

I'm sorry but I can really picture you just frothing at the mouth in a rage that someone had the utter gall to say something that's a little too close to the bone for your liking.

I didn't call you a fascist, but your knee jerk reaction says to me that being seen as one seems to be a very real fear for you based on your views and I'm also going to go ahead and assume that somebody in the past, unlike me, straight up DID accuse you of it. Who knows?

Yes, I deliberately chose to misrepresent your 'point' as I felt it was daft so I threw one of equal measure right back at you!

You also say things like "Wow. Says it all really" and "Funny how that works!" as if you've just got it all sown up and that you needn't waste anymore of your precious time with a pathetic serf like me.

I need to grow up? Maybe I do. But you sir, are atop a giant steed so very high up in the heavens that the people below just look like ants!