Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Risk to life, including suicide?

Options
1…910121415

Comments

  • Options
    #332
    The Corinthian
    Closed Accounts Posts: 19,777 ✭✭✭✭The Corinthian


    clairefontaine wrote: »
    They might be doing it because they don't want to be pregnant.
    Anyone who seeks an abortion clearly is doing it because they don't want to be pregnant - so you'll need to be more specific.
    Or maybe they've already had four c sections and don't want the risks with another one or maybe they have an auto immune disease and can't deal with a pregnancy because their body will be under attack
    Rev Hellfire did cite medical reasons, in fairness.
    or maybe they don't want to risk their lives in Irish maternity care.
    If your answer to not wanting to risk your life in Irish maternity care is an abortion, rather than having it abroad, pregnancy is probably the least of your problems, TBH.

    Anyhow, all this and Zombrex's argument are effectively straw men; distractions. The proposed legislation cites only that the threat of suicide is a sufficient reason to merit a termination - doesn't matter what has engendered that threat; be it financial stress, fear or phobia of pregnancy, or whatever. All that matters is that there's a recognised threat of suicide.

    It's also important to note that this legislation is written in the context of the foetus is a human being - so arguing that a post-partum legal abortion is not the same as a foetal termination doesn't hold; legally they're both people.

    As such, the same argument can easily be used to allow 'legal abortion' in the case of a father being suicidal. Not that I can ever see it happening, if only because it would cost the government too much as child maintenance is used to offset social welfare payments to single mothers.

    Nevertheless, as I argued earlier, to judge that simply giving into the demands of a suicide risk is a means to treat suicidal tendencies is utterly moronic. The whole bill is just another dumb approach to resolving the political mess that the X Case left us twenty-odd years ago.


  • Options
    #333
    clairefontaine
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,390 ✭✭✭clairefontaine


    The Corinthian wrote: »
    Anyone who seeks an abortion clearly is doing it because they don't want to be pregnant - so you'll need to be more specific.

    Rev Hellfire did cite medical reasons, in fairness.

    If your answer to not wanting to risk your life in Irish maternity care is an abortion, rather than having it abroad, pregnancy is probably the least of your problems, TBH.

    Anyhow, all this and Zombrex's argument are effectively straw men; distractions. The proposed legislation cites only that the threat of suicide is a sufficient reason to merit a termination - doesn't matter what has engendered that threat; be it financial stress, fear or phobia of pregnancy, or whatever. All that matters is that there's a recognised threat of suicide.

    It's also important to note that this legislation is written in the context of the foetus is a human being - so arguing that a post-partum legal abortion is not the same as a foetal termination doesn't hold; legally they're both people.

    As such, the same argument can easily be used to allow 'legal abortion' in the case of a father being suicidal. Not that I can ever see it happening, if only because it would cost the government too much as child maintenance is used to offset social welfare payments to single mothers.

    Nevertheless, as I argued earlier, to judge that simply giving into the demands of a suicide risk is a means to treat suicidal tendencies is utterly moronic. The whole bill is just another dumb approach to resolving the political mess that the X Case left us twenty-odd years ago.

    I don't know what a post partum abortion is.

    I'm sure the clause will come with a stint in psychiatric care too.

    The state probably sees the social welfare bill as compensating for little or no maintenance from the fathers not the other way around.

    But I agree that the whole current bill look like a three ring circus. Absolute mess.


  • Options
    #334
    The Corinthian
    Closed Accounts Posts: 19,777 ✭✭✭✭The Corinthian


    clairefontaine wrote: »
    I don't know what a post partum abortion is.
    Legal abortion in this case. The main reason I used that terminology was to head off the usual argument used that they're not the same thing because one is a (born) person, while the other is an (unborn) non-person - legally they're both people under Irish law.
    I'm sure the clause will come with a stint in psychiatric care too.
    Is that included in the legislation? Has anyone even suggested this?
    The state probably sees the social welfare bill as compensating for little or no maintenance from the fathers not the other way around.
    The state sees the bottom line. Let's be clear about that.

    If the state could politically get away with forcing single mothers to go out and get jobs, they'd do that in a heartbeat. All that matters is the budget deficit/surplus at the end of the day.
    But I agree that the whole current bill look like a three ring circus. Absolute mess.
    Indeed.


  • Options
    #335
    clairefontaine
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,390 ✭✭✭clairefontaine


    I'm sorry I'm still unclear on what a post partum abortion is. Do you mean partial birth or literally after birth, ending the life?

    No they have not covered psych care in the legislation but if you present to a psychiatrist as self harming or suicidal, psych treatment is in the cards, perhaps even some time in a ward. And if you already have children, then social workers will be all over you and your kids too.

    And as the HSE are making complete asses of themselves IMO with this legislation, the same people are running mental health services.

    It's so nuts the legislators need the psych treatment.

    Also I don't know why you specified single mothers and social welfare. Married women have abortions too and unplanned children.

    They can only force them to get jobs when they can enforce maintenance enough to cover childcare and that is never going to happen.


  • Options
    #336
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    The Corinthian wrote: »
    The discussion has moved on in the last six months Zomb. You may want to address more recent arguments.

    Certainly. But the other older arguments were not retracted or changed, so I address them as well. Working to pay child support is not an abuse of bodily autonomy any more than feeding your children is.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #337
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    Rev Hellfire wrote: »
    With the exception of abortion on medical ground, that's exactly what women are doing. They're terminating the pregnancy because they don't want to have the child.

    It is not what they are doing. If the foetus some how survives the procedure the woman can't turn around and throw it down a flight of stairs because she has a "right" not to have children.

    The moral/legal justification for abortion is that the foetus is in the woman's body and the woman has the moral/legal right to remove the foetus even if such a procedure results in the death of the foetus.
    Rev Hellfire wrote: »
    And if being suicidal because you are unwilling to become a parent is valid grounds for a woman then by extension it is equally true for a male.

    Abortion is not the right to refuse to become a parent. It is the right to refuse to consent to another person using your body.

    And the man already has the same right.


  • Options
    #338
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    iptba wrote: »
    I do realize that you seem to use a mocking style of argument which isn't particularly appealing.

    I save that for people who absolutely refuse to listen to the point being made or realize that they have made a mistake.

    As I've already explained 10 times already, abortion is granted under the right to bodily privacy, a right the man already has and has always had.

    The rather ridiculous attempt to make out that abortion is actually the State given the woman the right to some how abandon her children and therefore the man should have the same right is not only nonsensical (as in objectively and obviously not true), but also incredibly insulting to the children involved.
    iptba wrote: »
    I haven't worked out whether this is to do white knighting/chivalry/you being a feminist/having a penchant for arguing against men's rights or whether you would equally be inclined to use the same style to support men's rights or challenge a feminist position in another context.

    If anyone argued men do not have the right to bodily privacy I would argue just as strongly against them.

    What I can't stand is people trying to use abortion to argue men have the right to abandon their children under some ridiculous idea that abortion is actually the State granting women the right to do the same thing.

    You don't have the right to abandon your children, sorry :rolleyes:


  • Options
    #339
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    Rev Hellfire wrote: »
    So basically what I said its either for a medical reason or simply that they don't want to have a child. Glad you agree.

    Rev if you are arrested by the police do you believe you have the right to silence and to avoid self incrimination?


  • Options
    #340
    MaxWig
    Registered Users Posts: 1,025 ✭✭✭MaxWig


    Zombrex wrote: »
    The rather ridiculous attempt to make out that abortion is actually the State given the woman the right to some how abandon her children and therefore the man should have the same right is not only nonsensical (as in objectively and obviously not true), but also incredibly insulting to the children involved.





    What I can't stand is people trying to use abortion to argue men have the right to abandon their children under some ridiculous idea that abortion is actually the State granting women the right to do the same thing.

    You don't have the right to abandon your children, sorry :rolleyes:

    Thats the nub of the thread.

    The prospect of motherhood causing suicidality, which in turn is grounds for an abortion is the idea I was interested in.

    I see no reason why the prospect of fatherhood could not equally cause suicidality, if we are granting that the prospect of motherhood can.

    Furthermore, if the prospect of fatherhood causes a man to become suicidal, I see no reason why he should not be provided the opportunity to legally avoid all rights and responsibilities relating to the child.

    I don't believe it would provide much comfort to the individuals involved. However, I do believe the opportunity should be there.

    While I take your point that abortion is not 'the same' as abandoning a child, it is, in essence, abandoning prospective motherhood.


  • Options
    #341
    clairefontaine
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,390 ✭✭✭clairefontaine


    MaxWig wrote: »
    Thats the nub of the thread.

    The prospect of motherhood causing suicidality, which in turn is grounds for an abortion is the idea I was interested in.

    I see no reason why the prospect of fatherhood could not equally cause suicidality, if we are granting that the prospect of motherhood can.

    Furthermore, if the prospect of fatherhood causes a man to become suicidal, I see no reason why he should not be provided the opportunity to legally avoid all rights and responsibilities relating to the child.

    I don't believe it would provide much comfort to the individuals involved. However, I do believe the opportunity should be there.

    While I take your point that abortion is not 'the same' as abandoning
    a child, it is, in essence, abandoning prospective motherhood.

    You know, the legislation is so irrational to start with, you may as well throw this into the pot with it. And also let's throw in if your long term illness is also making you suicidal, we'll have an exemption for euthanasia too.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #342
    iptba
    Registered Users Posts: 4,876 ✭✭✭iptba


    MaxWig wrote: »
    Zombrex wrote:
    You don't have the right to abandon your children, sorry :rolleyes:

    While I take your point that abortion is not 'the same' as abandoning a child, it is, in essence, abandoning prospective motherhood.
    Add in the fact that women can put their child up for adoption, and it can be argued that women have such a right also.

    But I suppose we shouldn't speak once the great Zombrex has spoken.


  • Options
    #343
    clairefontaine
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,390 ✭✭✭clairefontaine


    Adoption is not considered abandonment.

    Leaving a child and walking away with the child having no parents is abandonment. Like at a fire station or just leaving the house one day and the child to fend for themselves. A parent can get in big trouble for that.

    Some states forgive this, others don't. Some will punish you and others won't.

    So if you really want to follow that argument, what you might propose is that a biological father can give his fatherhood up for adoption, and secure an adoptive father for his child and abdicate with that all rights. And of course it would have to through adoption screenings etc. far different scenario to riding off into the sunset Scott free.


  • Options
    #344
    iptba
    Registered Users Posts: 4,876 ✭✭✭iptba


    clairefontaine wrote: »
    Adoption is not considered abandonment.
    I was responding to the words somebody else used. Adoption allows one give up one's responsibilities to a child. Something a woman can do and a man can't, it seems to me.


  • Options
    #345
    clairefontaine
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,390 ✭✭✭clairefontaine


    iptba wrote: »
    I was responding to the words somebody else used. Adoption allows one give up one's responsibilities to a child. Something a woman can do and a man can't, it seems to me.

    No it doesn't. You are still obliged to secure parenting for your child. That is a big responsibility.


  • Options
    #346
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    MaxWig wrote: »
    Furthermore, if the prospect of fatherhood causes a man to become suicidal, I see no reason why he should not be provided the opportunity to legally avoid all rights and responsibilities relating to the child.

    I would imagine if a father is genuinely suicidal and unable to work he would not be expected to pay maintenance for the period of his depression.

    And I would guess the same rules apply for the mother, if she is suicidal she doesn't have to pay a maintenance order.

    So again what are you actually asking for here?


  • Options
    #347
    iptba
    Registered Users Posts: 4,876 ✭✭✭iptba


    clairefontaine wrote: »
    So if you really want to follow that argument, what you might propose is that a biological father can give his fatherhood up for adoption, and secure an adoptive father for his child and abdicate with that all rights. And of course it would have to through adoption screenings etc. far different scenario to riding off into the sunset Scott free.
    If a woman puts a child up for adoption, nobody guarantees the child will have both a mother and a father - single people can adopt.


  • Options
    #348
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    iptba wrote: »
    Add in the fact that women can put their child up for adoption, and it can be argued that women have such a right also.

    As can men.

    You should be relieved that actually men have all the same rights as women. But I suspect you won't be. :rolleyes:


  • Options
    #349
    clairefontaine
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,390 ✭✭✭clairefontaine


    iptba wrote: »
    If a woman puts a child up for adoption, nobody guarantees the child will have both a mother and a father - single people can adopt.

    The bio parents have a say in that. They can choose from a selection of screened candidates, most of whom are married because marriage demonstrates more stability in they eyes of the courts and adoption agencies.

    If you want fathers to have the same privileges then they have the same protocols that go with them.

    Have you actually thought all this through?


  • Options
    #350
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    I would also point out that 24 pages in no one has managed to point out what right women have with relation to abortion that men don't have.

    That to me would say something about the true motivations here.


  • Options
    #351
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    clairefontaine wrote: »

    Have you actually thought all this through?

    I think the answer to that is obvious. This whole thread smacks of nonsense knee jerking.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #352
    MaxWig
    Registered Users Posts: 1,025 ✭✭✭MaxWig


    Zombrex wrote: »
    I would imagine if a father is genuinely suicidal and unable to work he would not be expected to pay maintenance for the period of his depression.

    And I would guess the same rules apply for the mother, if she is suicidal she doesn't have to pay a maintenance order.

    So again what are you actually asking for here?

    Well I'm not talking about money or maintenance, I can assure you.

    If you are suggesting that depression and suicidality related to prospective parenthood is transitory, it follows that abortion might be unwise. It is after all, irreversible.

    I am talking about the power to decide whether you are to be a parent or not.
    Of course a woman should have that choice.
    I believe a man should also.
    I would never suggest that a prospective father should have the right to tell a woman what she should do with her body.
    But he should have the right to tell that woman whether or not he will have any relation to that child, or her - legal, financial etc..

    On a whim a woman should be able to decide she is aborting the pregnancy. Two days later she may change her mind. 2 days later she may change her mind again etc...
    The rest of that prospective father's life is determined by the choice that the prospective mother makes.

    It is often suggested that the abortion debate is simply about a woman's right to govern her own body.
    It is but its also about parenthood, family, economics and much, much more.

    Let push the choice mandate forward, but let rebalance as we go


  • Options
    #353
    iptba
    Registered Users Posts: 4,876 ✭✭✭iptba


    Zombrex wrote: »
    As can men.

    You should be relieved that actually men have all the same rights as women. But I suspect you won't be. :rolleyes:
    Women can not tell the father she's pregnant with his child and put the child up for adoption.


  • Options
    #354
    clairefontaine
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,390 ✭✭✭clairefontaine


    iptba wrote: »
    Women can not tell the father she's pregnant with his child and put the child up for adoption.

    Thats only if she is single.


  • Options
    #355
    iptba
    Registered Users Posts: 4,876 ✭✭✭iptba


    clairefontaine wrote: »
    Thats only if she is single.
    Yes, it wouldn't apply in all circumstances.


  • Options
    #356
    MaxWig
    Registered Users Posts: 1,025 ✭✭✭MaxWig


    Zombrex wrote: »
    I would also point out that 24 pages in no one has managed to point out what right women have with relation to abortion that men don't have.

    That to me would say something about the true motivations here.

    Sorry, I'm unsure what the question relates to?


  • Options
    #357
    clairefontaine
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,390 ✭✭✭clairefontaine


    iptba wrote: »
    Yes, it wouldn't apply in all circumstances.

    So are you also suggesting that married and single men be able to vacate paternity?


  • Options
    #358
    iptba
    Registered Users Posts: 4,876 ✭✭✭iptba


    clairefontaine wrote: »
    So are you also suggesting that married and single men be able to vacate paternity?
    Have big doubts about married men, but the possibility for single men should be explored more fully, I think.


  • Options
    #359
    clairefontaine
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,390 ✭✭✭clairefontaine


    iptba wrote: »
    Have big doubts about married men, but the possibility for single men should be explored more fully, I think.

    Why? And should they have to be seen by a panel of Psychiatrists and an obstetrician?


  • Options
    #360
    iptba
    Registered Users Posts: 4,876 ✭✭✭iptba


    clairefontaine wrote: »
    iptba wrote:
    Have big doubts about married men, but the possibility for single men should be explored more fully, I think.
    Why? And should they have to be seen by a panel of Psychiatrists and an obstetrician?
    Answering the first part would take a while and I've other things I want to do at the moment (may come back) but just to point out that with abortion, the panel of Psychiatrists and an obstetrician part only comes in to play if a woman doesn't travel abroad for an abortion. Nor does it apply with adoption. Nor if soon after sex, she takes the morning-after pill.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #361
    iptba
    Registered Users Posts: 4,876 ✭✭✭iptba


    I decided to read back and see where Zombrex was coming from.

    For anyone who doesn't recall, which I suspect is most people as we are talking about messages from six months ago, this is their position:
    Zombrex wrote: »
    HellFireClub wrote:
    Yes, but if I understand you correctly, you believe that an abortion should be available for a woman at any stage in her pregnancy, for any reason or for no particular reason at all, in line with your stated belief that she should be allowed full and unfettered control over that body at all times, do I understand you correctly there?
    You do. I suspect the point you are failing to understand is that abortion does not equal "kill your unborn baby".

    A woman has the right to remove the foetus from her body. That is where her right to bodily privacy ends. The foetus if it is too premature might not survive outside of the woman's body, or if it is mature enough, it might survive outside of the woman's body. Either of those outcomes are independent to the abortion.


Advertisement