March for Choice 29th September

Micky Dolenz · 03-09-2012 3:11pm

MistyCheese wrote: »

Would like to. But don't. If a woman decides to have an abortion but the potential father doesn't want her to, he cannot stop her. If a woman decides not to have an abortion but the potential father wants her to, he can't force her.

I'm aware of that. A lot of father's in Ireland have no automatic right to their live children, however about their unborn ones.

The only choice some feel they have is to vote no on change to abortion law.

im invisible · 03-09-2012 3:19pm

Piste wrote: »

I'll be going. I may even bring a placard.

careful now!

kraggy · 03-09-2012 3:23pm

PucaMama wrote: »

but doesnt that leave women open to being pushed into having an abortion? the reality is that it IS her body and a man cant control it.

The reality is also that it's his flesh and blood as well as hers.

Napper Hawkins · 03-09-2012 3:43pm

kraggy wrote: »

The reality is also that it's his flesh and blood as well as hers.

It's his ****ing sperm which he has millions more where that came from.
How often does the average guy toss one off?

The idea of a man getting sobby about "my poor lickle sperm, it could've been a person!" is ridiculous. It's not a person, it's a potential person. You big jessy.
BIG difference.

Current woman doesn't want to have your kid? Find one who does.
Men can do that. Women have to decide whether to carry the yoke or not for 9 months and (and this is the important bit, ladies & gentlemen, boys & girls!):

It's her ****ing body. You have no say if she doesn't want to go through with that and **** any man or woman who would force a woman to carry a fetus she doesn't want.

End of discussion.

kraggy · 03-09-2012 3:52pm

Napper Hawkins wrote: »

It's his ****ing sperm which he has millions more where that came from.
How often does the average guy toss one off?

The idea of a man getting sobby about "my poor lickle sperm, it could've been a person!" is ridiculous. It's not a person, it's a potential person. You big jessy.
BIG difference.

Current woman doesn't want to have your kid? Find one who does.
Men can do that. Women have to decide whether to carry the yoke or not for 9 months and (and this is the important bit, ladies & gentlemen, boys & girls!):

It's her ****ing body. You have no say if she doesn't want to go through with that and **** any man or woman who would force a woman to carry a fetus she doesn't want.

End of discussion.

Are you telling me a 22 week old foetus is just a bit of sperm? That's 5 months of growth with most features developed.

And don't call me a jessy. Firstly, it shows your intelligence if you have to resort to name-calling. Secondly, it's against the rules. Post reported.

Lastly, you don't get to say when the discussion is over sunshine. It's a public forum.

PucaMama · 03-09-2012 4:22pm

Napper Hawkins wrote: »

It's his ****ing sperm which he has millions more where that came from.
How often does the average guy toss one off?

The idea of a man getting sobby about "my poor lickle sperm, it could've been a person!" is ridiculous. It's not a person, it's a potential person. You big jessy.
BIG difference.

Current woman doesn't want to have your kid? Find one who does.
Men can do that. Women have to decide whether to carry the yoke or not for 9 months and (and this is the important bit, ladies & gentlemen, boys & girls!):

It's her ****ing body. You have no say if she doesn't want to go through with that and **** any man or woman who would force a woman to carry a fetus she doesn't want.

End of discussion.

i agree he cant tell her what to do. but i dont agree with this "potential person" rubbish. it is a person, just still developing. noone without a very very good reason should be able to wake up and say "just doesnt suit me to be pregnant". its not just a fetus she doesnt want. its another life. is it that difficult to give it the life it deserves? have it and give it to a couple who appreciates it. :mad:

Morag · 03-09-2012 4:48pm

PucaMama wrote: »

is it that difficult to give it the life it deserves?

Yes for some people it is

PucaMama wrote: »

have it and give it to a couple who appreciates it. :mad:

Which is not possible if you are married, children of married couples can not be adopted.

Pregnancy is a public condition once a woman gets half way through it and privacy goes out the window, often women who give up the baby get treated like monsters by people in their life. There is not the ammount of support there would need to be to make adoption a more viable choice for women and even then that won't help those for whom continuing the pregnancy causes a great risk to their life.

PucaMama · 03-09-2012 4:54pm

Sharrow wrote: »

Yes for some people it is

Which is not possible if you are married, children of married couples can not be adopted.

Pregnancy is a public condition once a woman gets half way through it and privacy goes out the window, often women who give up the baby get treated like monsters by people in their life. There is not the ammount of support there would need to be to make adoption a more viable choice for women and even then that won't help those for whom continuing the pregnancy causes a great risk to their life.

if you are married then i would think your are able to provide a stable enough environment to have a child? why should it be so difficult?

Morag · 03-09-2012 5:03pm

PucaMama wrote: »

if you are married then i would think your are able to provide a stable enough environment to have a child? why should it be so difficult?

So married people are never homeless, or addicts or alcoholics or have uterine cancer or pre clampsia or have other health issues which are not compatible to pregnancy?

Really so what your saying is if you get married all that magically disappears?

Millicent · 03-09-2012 5:09pm

PucaMama wrote: »

if you are married then i would think your are able to provide a stable enough environment to have a child? why should it be so difficult?

Abusive homes, debt-ridden families, marital rape, already strained relationships, drug/alcohol addictions, personal illnesses -- just a few of any number of factors that can make a pregnancy unthinkable for some married people.

ETA: Have a read of this for some of the countless reasons women have abortions.

Napper Hawkins · 03-09-2012 5:11pm

kraggy wrote: »

Are you telling me a 22 week old foetus is just a bit of sperm? That's 5 months of growth with most features developed.

And don't call me a jessy. Firstly, it shows your intelligence if you have to resort to name-calling. Secondly, it's against the rules. Post reported.

Lastly, you don't get to say when the discussion is over sunshine. It's a public forum.

1. No. I've also been fairly clear (in some of the many, many previous abortion threads) on what I reckon the cut off point should be and it's definitely earlier than 5 months. Still not my right nor yours to tell a woman what to do with her body.

2. That's hilarious that you would call my intelligence into question because I called you a name, then report it. Never happened in real life no? I can picture you running to teacher everytime someone said something mean to you. Anyway, I broke the rules, so fair enough.

3. Sunshine? That sounds like name calling!

rainbow kirby · 03-09-2012 5:11pm

PucaMama wrote: »

if you are married then i would think your are able to provide a stable enough environment to have a child? why should it be so difficult?

Ever heard of marital rape or reproductive coercion?

Napper Hawkins · 03-09-2012 5:15pm

PucaMama wrote: »

i agree he cant tell her what to do. but i dont agree with this "potential person" rubbish. it is a person, just still developing. noone without a very very good reason should be able to wake up and say "just doesnt suit me to be pregnant". its not just a fetus she doesnt want. its another life. is it that difficult to give it the life it deserves? have it and give it to a couple who appreciates it. :mad:

That is all the reason anyone needs. Sorry if you don't like it.

PucaMama · 03-09-2012 5:16pm

Sharrow wrote: »

So married people are never homeless, or addicts or alcoholics or have uterine cancer or pre clampsia or have other health issues which are not compatible to pregnancy?

Really so what your saying is if you get married all that magically disappears?

children in abusive families and as another poster pointed out in families with lots of debt have the option of foster care. (i have known people in this situation) pre eclampsia? my mother had that. and shes fine, 5 children later.

PucaMama · 03-09-2012 5:17pm

Napper Hawkins wrote: »

That is all the reason anyone needs. Sorry if you don't like it.

not in ireland. sorry if you dont like it.

PucaMama · 03-09-2012 5:18pm

rainbow kirby wrote: »

Ever heard of marital rape or reproductive coercion?

in marital rape, divorce. child can now be adopted.

Millicent · 03-09-2012 5:22pm

PucaMama wrote: »

in marital rape, divorce. child can now be adopted.

Ah, so it's all that easy. If only all those women impregnated against their will by a spouse over the years had known it was just that simple. Amazing.

Morag · 03-09-2012 5:25pm

PucaMama wrote: »

in marital rape, divorce. child can now be adopted.

Nope doesn't work that way even it they get divorced the child can't be adopted.

Millicent · 03-09-2012 5:27pm

PucaMama wrote: »

children in abusive families and as another poster pointed out in families with lots of debt have the option of foster care.

Your attitude is very strange. Rather than someone taking responsibility after falling pregnant and ending a pregnancy that will result in a child they can't take care of, you seem to be actively suggesting that people pass that responsibility to other people -- to the state, to faceless adopting parents. I don't understand the view that, in order to keep a family together, you would split up a whole existing family to foster care rather than terminate a potential new member.

PucaMama · 03-09-2012 5:30pm

Millicent wrote: »

Your attitude is very strange. Rather than someone taking responsibility after falling pregnant and ending a pregnancy that will result in a child they can't take care of, you seem to be actively suggesting that people pass that responsibility to other people -- to the state, to faceless adopting parents. I don't understand the view that, in order to keep a family together, you would split up a whole existing family to foster care rather than terminate a potential new member.

its not wrong to want to give a child to adoptive parents instead of terminateing it.

and if they had other children why could they not look after this one

haveing an abortion is avoiding responsibility, not takeing it.

Napper Hawkins · 03-09-2012 5:30pm

PucaMama wrote: »

not in ireland. sorry if you dont like it.

You're right, I don't. Neither, apparently, does Europe.

You know that whole human rights thing they're currently breathing down our governments necks with? Yeah.

Watch this space.

Millicent · 03-09-2012 5:33pm

PucaMama wrote: »

its not wrong to want to give a child to adoptive parents instead of terminateing it.

and if they had other children why could they not look after this one

haveing an abortion is avoiding responsibility, not takeing it.

Really? You can't contemplate the economic, emotional or practical differences in cost in having 2 children instead of 1?

How is it avoiding responsibility? Your posts smack of "you got yourself knocked up, you made your bed, now lie in it", tbh. I hope you're never in the difficult situation of having to make such a choice.

ETA: As to your first sentence, I never said it was wrong, just said your attitude was strange. I'm hardly very pro-choice if I'm judging women who have babies adopted, now am I? :rolleyes:

Napper Hawkins · 03-09-2012 5:43pm

PucaMama wrote: »

its not wrong to want to give a child to adoptive parents instead of terminateing it.

and if they had other children why could they not look after this one

haveing an abortion is avoiding responsibility, not takeing it.

To live in your black and white world eh?

The opposite is also true. People are different. You get that, yes?

suicide_circus · 03-09-2012 5:44pm

Will there be any not babies terminated during the actual march?

PucaMama · 03-09-2012 5:44pm

Millicent wrote: »

Really? You can't contemplate the economic, emotional or practical differences in cost in having 2 children instead of 1?

How is it avoiding responsibility? Your posts smack of "you got yourself knocked up, you made your bed, now lie in it", tbh. I hope you're never in the difficult situation of having to make such a choice.

ETA: As to your first sentence, I never said it was wrong, just said your attitude was strange. I'm hardly very pro-choice if I'm judging women who have babies adopted, now am I? :rolleyes:

well to me haveing a child isnt the end of the world. yes it might cost but so? money shouldnt mean more than a child. i no i might sound strange to some but its just how i see it.

Millicent · 03-09-2012 5:45pm

suicide_circus wrote: »

Will there be any not babies terminated during the actual march?

Wut?

Millicent · 03-09-2012 5:46pm

PucaMama wrote: »

well to me haveing a child isnt the end of the world. yes it might cost but so? money shouldnt mean more than a child. i no i might sound strange to some but its just how i see it.

And what of the women to whom it might be the end of the world? Who don't have good supports or financial means or may be in a dangerous relationship or have health issues?

Do we decide all life's issues based on what suits you? That's not how society works.

suicide_circus · 03-09-2012 5:48pm

Millicent wrote: »

Wut?

Well like during the pro cannabis marches people smoke spliffs as a sign of defiance against, as they see it, an injust law....just wondering if the equivalent can be expected at this march?

DuPLeX · 03-09-2012 5:50pm

Lapin wrote: »

Demonique wrote: »

There will be a March for Choice on September 29th at the Spire taking place at 2pm

Is anyone going?

I nominate this as the most uninformitave opening post of the year.

Shouldnt it be called a March for abortion?

PucaMama · 03-09-2012 5:52pm

Millicent wrote: »

And what of the women to whom it might be the end of the world? Who don't have good supports or financial means or may be in a dangerous relationship or have health issues?

Do we decide all life's issues based on what suits you? That's not how society works.

in ireland , mothers arent left without money. we see that every day.

the dangerous relationships and health issues have already been discussed.

March for Choice 29th September

Comments