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
Comments
-
I'm not trying to offend you, its just odd that a woman who has had an abortion would turn to someone who has an objection to it.
I don't throw stones at women who've had abortions. I realise some people do not agree with my opinions but that doesn't mean I cannot comfort my friends. Yes I disagree with their decisions but I try not to judge people generally.0 -
Except you don't want them to have control over their own body.blacklilly wrote: »As a women who is pro life I find it funny and confusing how people tend to label pro life people as anti woman. I'm all for women!Also I know quite a few women who have had abortions and in each and every case I know of they were not using adequate contraception and a number of them have had more than one abortion
People all too often want to negate personal responsibility due to the inconvenience that pregnancy and parenthood might bring, this is a fact. Abortion on demand allows people become more flippant, men and women included.
That is a sweeping claim that would require a lot of evidence to become convincing. If you know women who have had abortions then you should know that they do not do so on a whim.
The real flippancy comes from the anti women brigade who want to impose their own morality on all women, and force them to carry a foetus for 9 months inside their bodies that they do not want and then go through a childbirth that they do not want.0 -
What a risible response.blacklilly wrote: »Have you any statistics to prove otherwise?
You are trying to sidestep your statement.1 in 3 women in the UK will have had an abortion by the age of 45. Now would you say the majority of these abortion are due to foetal abnormalities , suicide risk or just simply abortion on demand?
You stated that "Abortion on demand allows people become more flippant, men and women included." I see no merit in this assertion and I see no evidence of it.0 -
Neewbie_noob wrote: »Yes, if the woman wants to keep the child and the father doesn't he is forced to pay maintenance.
If the woman wants the child, the father must pay up because he took part in crating it. If she doesn't, then she can delete it because it's her choice. Double standards.
Of course it is double standards ! that is self evident.
But we live in the real world and it is simply nonsense to expect to force a women to carry and deliver a child she does not want inside her.
Your point about the father having to pay no matter how the conception came about is a valid one that is one of the ways men are abused by the family law.0 -
-
Advertisement
-
Regarding more DNA testing for new births:
Three reasons have already been given:
- paternity fraud
- A mother giving up a child for adoption because the father doesn't know he is the father and thus can't object.
- Somebody being told they were the father and then finding out years later they weren't. That's tough for him and indeed the child.
A few other advantages come to mind:
- reduces the risk of people unwittingly marrying or having children with relatives of theirs;
- In terms of medical history. If one is using the wrong parentage, one could make the wrong decisions. And in particular, if one doesn't know about particular risks, that could be a problem.
- Without testing, a father can have doubts about whether they are the real parents and so invest less in a child. Indeed, I recall reading that grandparents invest more time in their grandchildren from their daughters: this was presumed to be because they can be more sure that a person is a genetic relative of theirs
- It would be more easy to find the real biological father i.e. if the presumed father isn't the real father, it should be easier to test who might be the real father the shorter the gap to conception. I, too, know a case where a man was told he was the father, only to find out years later he wasn't the father at all. I'm not sure what happened, but I could imagine it would be a lot harder to locate other "suspects" with the passage of time (they might not be contactable by whatever means one would have had of contacting them earlier).
So I think there are a lot of reasons why more testing at birth could be the default position i.e. the presumed father is tested to see whether he is the father and the State pays for it given the benefits to society.0 -
I'm not sure anyone is suggesting a man could be allowed force a woman to have an abortion.It is also unacceptable that a woman be forced to abort a child because the father does not want it.
The option the OP mentioned is that the father would cut of his rights and responsibilities.0 -
blacklilly wrote: »Have you any statistics to prove otherwise?
I'm not the one making empirical statements without any kind of statistics or data to back them up.0 -
Except you don't want them to have control over their own body.
Hi Piliger, I really think that is the nub of the question. If the threat of suicide relates to control over a womans' body (The 9 Months they are pregnant), then presumably this would have to be proven.
That is, a threat of suicide relating to impending Parenthood, would have to be viewed differently.
And if a woman/girl can be suicidal at the prospect of parenthood, surely a man/boy can also.
I just think its a much more complex question than it is sometimes presented.0 -
Especially such 'flippant' women doing all that crying ... to someone who wants them criminalised.
The friends I have who have had abortions were not using adequate contraception so yes I would describe it as flippant. Considering we all agree the abortion is a difficult decision and one which can cause long term issues for women.
So women have a choice to use contraception correctly but also have the choice to terminate their pregnancy. Mens choice ends once they ejaculate .
*I know and understand that pregnancy can happen even if contraception is being used just using the above as an example.
I don't believe there is a middle ground on this debate, you are either for or against. I'm. not trying to change any ones opinion but rather have a discussion whereby people respect others opinions and do not throw out the usual insults of "anti women" "anti choice" as this does nothing for your argument other then make you look incapable of holding an adult conservation.0 -
Advertisement
-
blacklilly wrote: »The friends I have who have had abortions were not using adequate contraception so yes I would describe it as flippant. Considering we all agree the abortion is a difficult decision and one which can cause long term issues for women.
So women have a choice to use contraception correctly but also have the choice to terminate their pregnancy. Mens choice ends once they ejaculate .
*I know and understand that pregnancy can happen even if contraception is being used just using the above as an example.
I don't believe there is a middle ground on this debate, you are either for or against. I'm. not trying to change any ones opinion but rather have a discussion whereby people respect others opinions and do not throw out the usual insults of "anti women" "anti choice" as this does nothing for your argument other then make you look incapable of holding an adult conservation.
Interesting "friends" you have. Do you know a lot of women who have had abortions? Strange they all got pregnant by not using contraception, did they not learn from one anothers experiences? :rolleyes:0 -
You would be surprised at the amount of people who take a chance on this.
Interesting "friends" you have. Do you know a lot of women who have had abortions? Strange they all got pregnant by not using contraception, did they not learn from one anothers experiences? :rolleyes:
Also there is plenty of statistical evidence from the UK detailing the percentage of women who have had repeat abortions. In fact you are more likely to have an abortion if you have already had one.0 -
blacklilly wrote: »You would be surprised at the amount of people who take a chance on this.
Also there is plenty of statistical evidence from the UK detailing the percentage of women who have had repeat abortions. In fact you are more likely to have an abortion if you have already had one.
The numbers of women who have repeat abortions are small. And a lot of them are sex workers, addicts, victims of abuse etc. This idea that women just don't bother with contraception becuase they have abortion is a myth. Abortion is expensive, its time consuming to organise, its physically and mentally gruelling.
Your comments undermine the difficulty that many women and couples go through in making this decision and the hardship they face having made that decision in a country like ours where such a huge stigma exists.
Your comments are surprising when you claim you have had to help women in the aftermath, are you part of some pro life organisation by any chance? Do you work with Rachels Vineyard?0 -
The numbers of women who have repeat abortions are small. And a lot of them are sex workers, addicts, victims of abuse etc. This idea that women just don't bother with contraception becuase they have abortion is a myth. Abortion is expensive, its time consuming to organise, its physically and mentally gruelling.
Your comments undermine the difficulty that many women and couples go through in making this decision and the hardship they face having made that decision in a country like ours where such a huge stigma exists.
Your comments are surprising when you claim you have had to help women in the aftermath, are you part of some pro life organisation by any chance? Do you work with Rachels Vineyard?
Are you suggesting that sex workers and addicts are not 'women'?
Should we remove these form the discussion.
You seem to view them differently from "women and couples "!0 -
Are you suggesting that sex workers and addicts are not 'women'?
Should we remove these form the discussion.
You seem to view them differently from "women and couples "!
No I don't. Of course they are women :rolleyes: The pro life side likes to refer to multiple abortions as some sort of argument against abortion in Ireland, the implication being that women just don't bother with contraception and use abortion instead. Those women are usually vulnerable. They are not in the best place to take care of their mental and physical wellbeing and need help with the situations they are in, do that and those numbers of repeat abortions will hopefully fall.0 -
The numbers of women who have repeat abortions are small. And a lot of them are sex workers, addicts, victims of abuse etc. This idea that women just don't bother with contraception becuase they have abortion is a myth. Abortion is expensive, its time consuming to organise, its physically and mentally gruelling.
Your comments undermine the difficulty that many women and couples go through in making this decision and the hardship they face having made that decision in a country like ours where such a huge stigma exists.
Your comments are surprising when you claim you have had to help women in the aftermath, are you part of some pro life organisation by any chance? Do you work with Rachels Vineyard?
I wouldn't say I've helped women but I have been there for my friends, listened to their stories and comforted them. No I do not work with Rachel's vineyard why do you think that? Because my opinions differ from yours you think I work for an organisation who even many pro lifers don't agree with. I'm not here to guilt women or make then "repent", I might as well ask you if you work for a profit making abortion provider.0 -
blacklilly wrote: »I wouldn't say I've helped women but I have been there for my friends, listened to their stories and comforted them. No I do not work with Rachel's vineyard why do you think that? Because my opinions differ from yours you think I work for an organisation who even many pro lifers don't agree with. I'm not here to guilt women or make then "repent", I might as well ask you if you work for a profit making abortion provider.
Okay just wanted to check, you sounded like a person I know whose a member of Women Hurt that's all.
No I don't work for an abortion provider
0 -
I don't understand how this has gotten to 8 pages.
This won't happen, for the very simple reason that if it did - everyone would threaten suicide if and when something happened that they didn't like.
The overwhelming majority of people would prefer a father deal with his issues as opposed to the possibility of letting thousands of assholes avoid their parental responsibilities.
Finally - a man quite simply could not satisfy any relational test set by the X-Case so this is definitely a case of myth-busted.0 -
Deleted User wrote: »
The overwhelming majority of people would prefer a father deal with his issues as opposed to the possibility of letting thousands of assholes avoid their parental responsibilities.
Finally - a man quite simply could not satisfy any relational test set by the X-Case so this is definitely a case of myth-busted.
I'd like to set out by saying that I'm not calling you Ignorant!!!
Nor am I interested in a debate about dead-beat Dads.
What is being discussed is the complexity of the proposed X-Case legislation, the potential implications of the legislation.
But also the question of how the suicide clause will be interpreted, and the inherent flaws.
There is no myth, no conspiracy theory!
There is no satisfactory Relational Test decided on in the X-Case.0 -
What is being discussed is the complexity of the proposed X-Case legislation, the potential implications of the legislation.
But also the question of how the suicide clause will be interpreted, and the inherent flaws.
Eh, it's not, actually. What's being discussed is the possibility of suicide risk ever being legal grounds for a man to abdicate all responsibility for a child he doesn't want.
So, related to, but completely separate to the complexities of the X legislation.0 -
Advertisement
-
Eh, it's not, actually. What's being discussed is the possibility of suicide risk ever being legal grounds for a man to abdicate all responsibility for a child he doesn't want.
So, related to, but completely separate to the complexities of the X legislation.
If the legislation allows for termination on the grounds of suicide risk, it will open up the flood gates. This is one of the 'inherent flaws'. The 'implications' are many, one being that we would be unsure of whether the suicide risk pertained to motherhood, or being pregnant.
If it related to motherhood, it seems preposterous to not provide similar protection to men.
Sorry Honey-ec - I'll try to be more succint next time, to avoid your confusion0 -
If the legislation allows for termination on the grounds of suicide risk, it will open up the flood gates. This is one of the 'inherent flaws'. The 'implications' are many, one being that we would be unsure of whether the suicide risk pertained to motherhood, or being pregnant.
This seems to be a common concern for people who are against legislating for X and, I have to say, I find it extremely disturbing. There seems to be a large element of "Those dastardly wimmins will all pretend to be suicidal just so they can have abortions!", as if women don't know what's best for them. To be honest, I really can't see thousands of women faking suicidal tendencies just to access abortions here that would probably still be less hassle to travel abroad for.
And, if a woman does present to her doctor claiming to be suicidal because she's pregnant, quite frankly, that should be enough for anyone. How in God's name does anyone, male or female, prove they're suicidal, other than by killing themselves? "Oh look, she went through with it. Guess she was serious after all."If it related to motherhood, it seems preposterous to not provide similar protection to men.
That's a completely separate issue to the X legislation, and it's a very tricky situation. Yes, there is a double-standard in place in regards to the control women have over reproduction compared to men. But, unfortunately, until men are able to get pregnant and carry children to term, that double-standard will always exist. You can't legislate for the massive gap in biology.0 -
This seems to be a common concern for people who are against legislating for X and, I have to say, I find it extremely disturbing. There seems to be a large element of "Those dastardly wimmins will all pretend to be suicidal just so they can have abortions!", as if women don't know what's best for them. To be honest, I really can't see thousands of women faking suicidal tendencies just to access abortions here that would probably still be less hassle to travel abroad for.
And, if a woman does present to her doctor claiming to be suicidal because she's pregnant, quite frankly, that should be enough for anyone. How in God's name does anyone, male or female, prove they're suicidal, other than by killing themselves? "Oh look, she went through with it. Guess she was serious after all."
That's a completely separate issue to the X legislation, and it's a very tricky situation. Yes, there is a double-standard in place in regards to the control women have over reproduction compared to men. But, unfortunately, until men are able to get pregnant and carry children to term, that double-standard will always exist. You can't legislate for the massive gap in biology.
Dastardly wimmins comment aside (I'm not sure to whom you refer), the suicide issue is massive in that allows for interpretation by people (lawyers/Psychiatrists/judges) who are not doctors. Its not 'about' women pretending to be suicidal, although this is a possibility, of course.
The majority of the people debating this are not engaged in some ant-feminist agenda!
However, to suggest that the issue is one for women alone is ridiculous.
Why can't we legislate for the massive gap in biology?
We can legislate for anything providing there is political will.0 -
Dastardly wimmins comment aside (I'm not sure to whom you refer), the suicide issue is massive in that allows for interpretation by people (lawyers/Psychiatrists/judges) who are not doctors. Its not 'about' women pretending to be suicidal, although this is a possibility, of course.
The majority of the people debating this are not engaged in some ant-feminist agenda!
Because it shouldn't be up to anyone to interpret whether a woman is suicidal or not. If she says she is, that should be the end of the matter. Why the need to second-guess it? I also don't see why people think there should be a distinction between suicide due to the pregnancy itself, or due to the idea of motherhood. What difference does it make? If it's just because she doesn't want to be a mother do you force her to be an incubator for nine months and then give the baby up for adoption?However, to suggest that the issue is one for women alone is ridiculous.
Where did I suggest that?Why can't we legislate for the massive gap in biology?
Because as long as one gender can get pregnant and one can't, there will never, ever be a solution that is fair on both sides. It's physically impossible.0 -
The reason for suicide is important here as abortion is being suggested as a 'medical' intervention to provide relief. In and of itself, that idea is ridiculous. However, it seems to be a halfway house, a situation where those from both sides of the debate can find some merit in termination.Because it shouldn't be up to anyone to interpret whether a woman is suicidal or not. If she says she is, that should be the end of the matter. Why the need to second-guess it? I also don't see why people think there should be a distinction between suicide due to the pregnancy itself, or due to the idea of motherhood. What difference does it make? If it's just because she doesn't want to be a mother do you force her to be an incubator for nine months and then give the baby up for adoption?
Where did I suggest that?
Because as long as one gender can get pregnant and one can't, there will never, ever be a solution that is fair on both sides. It's physically impossible.
But it does raise questions, thats all.
Personally, I am pro-choice in this debate. Thats not to say I share the exact view as every other 'pro-choicer'.
But, for me, the suicide clause raises serious questions.
If a woman wants an abortion because the prospect of motherhood is too painful, stressful, frightening, and suicide seems an option, then maybe abortion is the right way to go.
If a man finds the prospect of parenthood is too painful, stressful, frightening, and suicide seems an option, the answer at present is to say, basically, "Shut up, pull yourself together, get a job and wake up to your responsibilities"
So why legislate for one scenario, and not for another?0 -
I'd like to set out by saying that I'm not calling you Ignorant!!!
Nor am I interested in a debate about dead-beat Dads.
What is being discussed is the complexity of the proposed X-Case legislation, the potential implications of the legislation.
But also the question of how the suicide clause will be interpreted, and the inherent flaws.
There is no myth, no conspiracy theory!
There is no satisfactory Relational Test decided on in the X-Case.
Much of the law is based on meeting tests and standards. Legislation for the X Case will be based on criteria that match X Case scenario's. To avail of services under X Case legislation will require people to demonstrate similar circumstances.
In terms of where the law is, and legislation based on this - a test based approach is the very very likely result.
The bigger question that is being missed in many comments above, is the reasons for the suicidal thoughts. In X Case we are talking about a rape victim. What about other reasons for suicide. These are the reasons it hasn't been legislated yet - lot's of very open questions with many possible answers.
Still - there is no chance the circumstances or entitlements of men will in anyway chance under X Case legislation, with the exception that a man expecting to be a father may find himself in a situation with the mother of the child will avail of an abortion. I'm not getting into right or wrongs, I'm just answering the OP's question that no, there is no way Men will fall under X Case legislation.0 -
Deleted User wrote: »Much of the law is based on meeting tests and standards. Legislation for the X Case will be based on criteria that match X Case scenario's. To avail of services under X Case legislation will require people to demonstrate similar circumstances.
In terms of where the law is, and legislation based on this - a test based approach is the very very likely result.
The bigger question that is being missed in many comments above, is the reasons for the suicidal thoughts. In X Case we are talking about a rape victim. What about other reasons for suicide. These are the reasons it hasn't been legislated yet - lot's of very open questions with many possible answers.
Still - there is no chance the circumstances or entitlements of men will in anyway chance under X Case legislation, with the exception that a man expecting to be a father may find himself in a situation with the mother of the child will avail of an abortion. I'm not getting into right or wrongs, I'm just answering the OP's question that no, there is no way Men will fall under X Case legislation.
Thanks Venjur, although I wasn't suggesting that a man would ever fall under X case legislation.
Really I'm just curious about where these changes willl take us eventually.
The current state of things seem unsustainable.0 -
Thanks Venjur, although I wasn't suggesting that a man would ever fall under X case legislation.
Really I'm just curious about where these changes willl take us eventually.
The current state of things seem unsustainable.
They have been unsustainable for a long time. I'm personally against Abortion unless there is a health issue for the mother, or the pregnancy was as a result of rape or sex without valid consent. I would also be in favor of an abortion if the child had no chance of surviving outside the womb.
If a referendum occurred I would either not vote as I believe others shouldn't be held to my standards, or I would vote no if I thought the law was going to allow later term abortions.
I seem to be in the minority of people that consider themselves atheist yet believe in the above. I just am terrified of a situation where abortion is viewed as a form of birth control, as human beings we should be aiming for something more humane than this. I believe that life begins at conception and I've been called all sorts of things for believing this.
Really both sides of this debate have been pulled to the extremes by vocal minorities.0 -
Deleted User wrote: »They have been unsustainable for a long time. I'm personally against Abortion unless there is a health issue for the mother, or the pregnancy was as a result of rape or sex without valid consent. I would also be in favor of an abortion if the child had no chance of surviving outside the womb.
If a referendum occurred I would either not vote as I believe others shouldn't be held to my standards, or I would vote no if I thought the law was going to allow later term abortions.
I seem to be in the minority of people that consider themselves atheist yet believe in the above. I just am terrified of a situation where abortion is viewed as a form of birth control, as human beings we should be aiming for something more humane than this. I believe that life begins at conception and I've been called all sorts of things for believing this.
Really both sides of this debate have been pulled to the extremes by vocal minorities.
The problem that Pro Choice people, like me, have with your views - with respect - is NOTHING to do with your views. We don't want to change your views. We RESPECT your views. It is to do with your desire to foist your views on everyone else.
Abortion is not something that ANYONE wants. No Pro Choice person is in favour of more abortions. They want less and less and less. But they want the choice to be with the Woman and HER views.
As a Pro Choice man, I do not believe in any way shape or form that life begins at conception. I believe strongly that there is no difference between those cells and the cells I scrape off my nose when it's itchy. None. I do believe that there is a time ..... somewhere late in gestation, when those cells change from non-life to life and hence I am opposed to late term abortions. What exact time that change takes place - I do not know. I don't believe anyone can know. I therefore agree fully with the UK abortion laws and their choice of when abortion is allowed until, although I would be agreeable to choosing to bring it back a week or so.
The whole "Suicide" issue is a fabricated one - fabricated because it represents the extreme. The Anti Abortion lobby are pinned against the wall by it's extreme outcome, while the Pro Choice people try to leverage it in to a widening the debate.
The sad and ridiculous, and even farcical, thing is exactly how others have described it above. Who on earth can decide when suicide is real or fake ? What kind of idiotic basis is this to use as the foundation of Legislation ? The farcical vista of women having to battle with psychiatrists to persuade them how suicidal they are is utterly absurd !!
The people who have this irrational fear of an avalanche of abortions really are living in some kind of personal reality-crisis. Please try to 'think' about it - women do not have abortions like they go for a waxing ! it is a traumatic thing, a deeply emotional thing, a major psychological experience. Women in countries that do have moderate abortion laws do not use abortion as a contraceptive strategy and will not in Ireland.
It all reminds me of the hype that the anti Divorce Campaign created when they made a huge effort to scare the bejaysus out of women in the country, saying that their men will abandon them straight after the referendum. It was absolutely appalling and immoral. Thankfully they failed.
We need some strong leadership here - but with the financial crisis it is very unlikely to happen. We need a leader who will defy the Catholic lobby and bring in as lenient and liberal a law that can possibly squeeze through the Dail and the Courts ........ and let the Anti Abortionists battle it out for years.0 -
Advertisement
-
Because as long as one gender can get pregnant and one can't, there will never, ever be a solution that is fair on both sides. It's physically impossible.
There's a very simple practical solution to all of this. Just don't get into any sexual activity that would have the potential to end in pregnancy or a termination thereof, with someone who clearly doesn't have the same view of you, whether you be for or against abortion.
I do not agree with abortion on demand, and I've never been in a relationship with a girl who agreed with abortion on demand. Therefore, if there had ever been an unplanned pregnancy, we would have had the selflessness and the courage to deal with that event with some due regard to the life of an unborn baby. So in that sense, I am equal in some way, by virtue of who I choose to be in a relationship with.
If on the other hand, I ended up in a relationship with a girl who was pro-abortion, and she found she was pregnant and decided she just didn't want kids and decided to get an abortion, regardless of how I felt about the potential life of a child I had a hand in conceiving, then of course I'm not equal, and of course I'm going to get hurt, (as someone who would love to have kids).
The point I'm making is that in this day and age where people seem to be unable to do "inconvenience", unable to cope with life events that our parents considered themselves to be blessed with, and where technology allows us to casually and coldly reverse "bad" decisions that get made, that may just inconvenience us, without any consideration of the ethics of that reversal, then it falls to every person, I think, to do their utmost to make sure that they protect themselves from the selfishness of others.
But this brings me back to the original point I was making, which is that these unplanned pregnancies are in my view, (from how I see people I know carrying on), in the majority of cases, completely avoidable predicaments that emerge from usually drunken random encounters where contraception is out the window. There is just no excuse in this day and age for anyone needing an abortion for want of contraception I think.0
![[Deleted User]](/applications/dashboard/design/images/defaulticon.png)
Advertisement