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

Abortion For Men

12467…17

Comments

  • #92
    padd b1975
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,852 ✭✭✭✭padd b1975


    BeerWolf wrote: »
    how about the man in question doesn't stick his dick in unprotected next time ?

    Since when did contraception become an exclusively male responsibility???


  • #93
    magicbastarder
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 52,194 CMod ✭✭✭✭magicbastarder


    takamichinoku wrote: »
    She had to agree to the waiving though?
    it was by mutual consent.


  • #94
    GarIT
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,671 ✭✭✭GarIT


    magicbastarder wrote: »
    again, the proposed solution made by some posters here is that when a couple conceive accidentally, the best solution appears to be allowing the man to walk away with no obligations, leaving the woman to deal with the hard choices.

    pregnancy is an unequal game, and no amount of foostering around with imaginary laws is going to change that.

    Why can't we have equal rights where either or both parents can decide they don't want the child. The woman can put the child up for adoption, why can't a man declare that it is his wish that the child be aborted or adopted and after that he is no longer legally related to the child. Even in that situation the mother holds all the cards, she decides what to do.

    What you have been suggesting is that when a child is conceived the man is entered into a legally binding contract where he is responsible for the child if the female want's to keep it but the female isn't obligated to be responsible for the child if the male wants to keep it.


  • #95
    shruikan2553
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,113 ✭✭✭shruikan2553


    magicbastarder wrote: »
    the argument was made that men should be allowed legally disown any responsibility for the child, regardless of the woman's wishes:



    what argument was being made if i misinterpreted this?

    On my phone so can multiquote but the gist of what you said is that people are saying the "best solution" is for men to abandon women leaving them with all the work. Nobody said that was the best solution and you seem to think there are no consequences for the men.


  • #96
    Ignorant etc.
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 227 ✭✭Ignorant etc.


    magicbastarder wrote: »
    OR; buy a strapon and let her pound on him.

    Not as much pleasure for her as having her sphincter tickled!


  • Advertisement
  • #97
    magicbastarder
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 52,194 CMod ✭✭✭✭magicbastarder


    GarIT wrote: »
    What you have been suggesting is that when a child is conceived the man is entered into a legally binding contract where he is responsible for the child if the female want's to keep it but the female isn't obligated to be responsible for the child if the male wants to keep it.
    it's not just what i am suggesting, i believe it is the case at the moment.

    the situation above arises because of the inequality in how babies are born. it'd be reversed if men were the ones who got pregnant, and the inequality is currently biologically inescapable.


  • #98
    nc19
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,395 ✭✭✭nc19


    BeerWolf wrote: »
    It's the woman's body... she gets the final say - how about the man in question doesn't stick his dick in unprotected next time ?

    What about times when the woman got pregnant in spite of the mans wishes? Like she told him she was infertile or on the pill or whatever because she wanted a baby and he didnt???

    not exactly fair in these cases for the man to b financially bound to that child for 18 yrs


  • #99
    Ignorant etc.
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 227 ✭✭Ignorant etc.


    nc19 wrote: »
    What about times when the woman got pregnant in spite of the mans wishes? Like she told him she was infertile or on the pill or whatever because she wanted a baby and he didnt???

    not exactly fair in these cases for the man to b financially bound to that child for 18 yrs

    I think in those cases, if the man can prove it, he may have a case fit for court. I'm sure I heard of something like that before, probably in America, but I can't be certain.


  • #100
    Riskymove
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,900 ✭✭✭✭Riskymove


    brooke 2 wrote: »
    In a relatively recent case
    here in Ireland, a girl who told her boyfriend she was pregnant sent him into
    such paroxysms of rage that he murdered her. He had wanted to resume a
    relationship with a former girlfriend. He is now in jail.

    on an aside..she wasn't actually pregnant

    tbh, the discussion above includes the idea that we should be considering why a man would react so badly to the idea of making a woman pregnant?


  • #101
    GarIT
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,671 ✭✭✭GarIT


    magicbastarder wrote: »
    it's not just what i am suggesting, i believe it is the case at the moment.

    the situation above arises because of the inequality in how babies are born. it'd be reversed if men were the ones who got pregnant, and the inequality is currently biologically inescapable.

    Also biologically speaking the man has no physical bind to the child why should he have a legal one. Why make two people suffer on the basis that one has to anyway.


  • Advertisement
  • #102
    magicbastarder
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 52,194 CMod ✭✭✭✭magicbastarder


    GarIT wrote: »
    Also biologically speaking the man has no physical bind to the child why should he have a legal one. Why make two people suffer on the basis that one has to anyway.

    Are you serious?


  • #103
    Ignorant etc.
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 227 ✭✭Ignorant etc.


    GarIT wrote: »
    Also biologically speaking the man has no physical bind to the child why should he have a legal one. Why make two people suffer on the basis that one has to anyway.

    You're either female or you aren't a father yet. If you are male, come back and repeat the first part of that sentence when you become a Dad.


  • #104
    brooke 2
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,472 ✭✭✭brooke 2


    Riskymove wrote: »
    on an aside..she wasn't actually pregnant

    tbh, the discussion above includes the idea that we should be considering why a man would react so badly to the idea of making a woman pregnant?

    True. But he thought she was.

    He reacted so badly because he believed he would be lumbered with the
    responsibility of looking after a child. IIRC, he was also concerned about
    a claim which might be made on his family's farm. Am not 100% sure about
    that.


  • #105
    Riskymove
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,900 ✭✭✭✭Riskymove


    brooke 2 wrote: »
    He reacted so badly because he believed he would be lumbered with the
    responsibility of looking after a child. IIRC, he was also concerned about
    a claim which might be made on his family's farm. Am not 100% sure about
    that.

    well...exactly

    but, as is being discussed, why should there be such an impact for an unplanned pregnancy

    he obviously got so out of his mind with fear that he carried out this terrible deed

    there needs to be some middle ground


  • #106
    Ignorant etc.
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 227 ✭✭Ignorant etc.


    For those who believe the man should have the option to legally negate his rights and responsibilities to the child, when would you allow for that? Any time the man didn't want the child or in special circumstances? If special circumstances, what kind of special circumstances?

    If she had tricked him by telling him she was on contraception or barren?

    If she had raped him?

    If the child had an alternative of a better father?

    If he had engaged her services as a prostitute?

    If they were making a porno?


  • #107
    GarIT
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,671 ✭✭✭GarIT


    magicbastarder wrote: »
    Are you serious?

    It's no different from the point you made in reverse. Males and females are biologically different. Why should laws regarding males be made to make males have the same responsibility of females while those same laws can't provide men the same rights.

    Why do we have laws telling men what do to when we can let biology suggest how things should go as you have suggested. Women physically get pregnant, naturally they get both the rights and responsibilities. Men aren't physically bound to the child so biology dictates that a man has no rights or responsibilities.

    Neither parent should be forced to keep a child after birth, that's why adoption exists, if a woman can waive her rights and responsibilities by adoption why cant a man.


  • #108
    GarIT
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,671 ✭✭✭GarIT


    Ignorant etc. wrote: »
    You're either female or you aren't a father yet. If you are male, come back and repeat the first part of that sentence when you become a Dad.

    I said physical didn't I. The child is physically in the woman but not in the man, therefore the male is not physically attached.


  • #109
    pq0n1ct4ve8zf5
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,070 ✭✭✭✭pq0n1ct4ve8zf5


    In principle it does seem like a good idea that fathers would get an opt-out clause from all rights and responsibilities, though obviously the idea of a man being able to compel a woman to either have an abortion or continue with a pregnancy is mental.

    Principle is one thing though, practice another. There are a couple scenarios off the top of my head where the rights of the child and the rights of the father further down the line come into conflict like. And time is a bit of an issue with pregnancy. Say a woman finds out she's pregnant at ten weeks, if the father doesn't want to be involved she would have an abortion, if he agrees to at least child support she wouldn't. How long does he get to make this huge decision and how long should she be expected to wait? Say a woman finds out she's pregnant at 20 something weeks (it does happen)? Is he compelled to give child support even though he wouldn't have been if she'd found out earlier? Say he suspects she knew earlier and deliberately concealed it, what options does he have?


  • #110
    Maximus Alexander
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,080 ✭✭✭✭Maximus Alexander


    magicbastarder wrote: »
    i'm still trying to get my head around this attitude.
    so men can do the 'well, we had consensual sex, and you have conceived my child, but i'm turning my back on you to deal with the physical, emotional, and financial fallout while i walk off into the sunset whistling contentedly'?

    and (some!) men claim they're the ones at a disadvantage.

    Abortion means that the woman can say 'well, we had consensual sex, and you I have conceived your child, but I am choosing to abort it without your consent'.

    With legal abortion, there is no way around this, since of course the OP's suggestion is barbaric beyond belief. So, a woman could choose to terminate an unwanted pregnancy, but a man would have no such right.

    The suggestion that Wibbs is advocating would effectively allow a man to have an 'abortion' without physically terminating the the pregnancy.

    It could be implemented such that during the period that the woman is allowed to abort, a man is also allowed a similar right to waive all rights and responsibilities to the child. What the woman does after that would remain her own decision.


  • #111
    Ignorant etc.
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 227 ✭✭Ignorant etc.


    GarIT wrote: »
    I said physical didn't I. The child is physically in the woman but not in the man, therefore the male is not physically attached.

    So you say the father has no physical attachment whatsoever to the child? The child is his flesh and blood. Half of the child's gene set come from the father. There is very much a physical connection. If you are talking about the child being inside one parent then that stops at birth (well in most cases, I did once know a weird man who got up to dirty things with his Mammy, but I don't think that's what you intended).


  • Advertisement
  • #112
    Export
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 429 ✭✭Export


    they're called condoms


  • #113
    Ignorant etc.
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 227 ✭✭Ignorant etc.


    Export wrote: »
    they're called condoms

    What are?


  • #114
    GarIT
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,671 ✭✭✭GarIT


    Ignorant etc. wrote: »
    So you say the father has no physical attachment whatsoever to the child? The child is his flesh and blood. Half of the child's gene set come from the father. There is very much a physical connection. If you are talking about the child being inside one parent then that stops at birth (well in most cases, I did once know a weird man who got up to dirty things with his Mammy, but I don't think that's what you intended).

    I don't think you're understanding physical or attached. Yes they share genes but they are not tied together. Genes would be a mental attachment and a physical similarity but not a physical attachment.


  • #115
    nc19
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,395 ✭✭✭nc19


    Ignorant etc. wrote: »
    Why can't it be enough of a reward to give life to another person? There are alternatives to raising the child, like giving it for adoption, without having to murder it.

    If I suddenly decided, you know what, I'm fed up being a Dad, and I did something vile to my 5-year-old son then I would quite rightly be thrown in jail. But pro-choice want it to be OK to do that to an unborn child.

    Also, I'd love a pro-choice apologist to answer me this. Supposing your mother had elected for an abortion when she was pregnant with you, do you think that would have been a great idea?

    I wouldnt have been able to think but I understand if my mother did do it it would have been an extremely hard decision to make

    btw, I dont apologise for being pro choice.

    also, using a 5 yr old as a replacement for a foetus is ridiculous and what we have come to expect from the god bothering pro lifers


  • #116
    magicbastarder
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 52,194 CMod ✭✭✭✭magicbastarder


    GarIT wrote: »
    It's no different from the point you made in reverse. Males and females are biologically different. Why should laws regarding males be made to make males have the same responsibility of females while those same laws can't provide men the same rights.
    A question for you. Let's say you were one of a couple who had just conceived accidentally and against your wishes. In this scenario, would you prefer to be the woman and pregnant, or the man and potentially a father? Under current laws.


  • #117
    suicide_circus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,802 ✭✭✭✭suicide_circus


    The_Valeyard wrote: »
    what if the male is suicidal as he does not want a child or responsibility of caring for this child?

    Tough shiite I'd imagine.


  • #118
    GarIT
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,671 ✭✭✭GarIT


    magicbastarder wrote: »
    A question for you. Let's say you were one of a couple who had just conceived accidentally and against your wishes. In this scenario, would you prefer to be the woman and pregnant, or the man and potentially a father? Under current laws.

    Woman everytime. I'd choose the physical and emotional suffering over the 100k+ financial burden restricting you for the next 23 years. (Maintenance is paid until 23 or until the child leaves full time education and is 18)

    A female can have an abortion or adoption and move on with their lives, a man is stuck for 23 years if the female chooses.


  • #119
    GarIT
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,671 ✭✭✭GarIT


    suicide_circus wrote: »
    Tough shiite I'd imagine.

    Currently that's how it is but is it right?


  • #120
    Ignorant etc.
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 227 ✭✭Ignorant etc.


    nc19 wrote: »
    I wouldnt have been able to think but I understand if my mother did do it it would have been an extremely hard decision to make

    btw, I dont apologise for being pro choice.

    also, using a 5 yr old as a replacement for a foetus is ridiculous and what we have come to expect from the god bothering pro lifers

    I think the extremely hard decision part is missing the boat. Being from the UK, I know a lot of women over there and lets say I know an awful lot of them go out riding on a frequent basis and don't exactly pay attention to whether they're using a "saddle" or not, all with the big idea that if anything should happen they can just go to the doctors and get it sorted, easy-peasy. That is the kind of attitude that makes me pro-life. They want their rights but think nothing of their responsibilities.

    You don't have that attitude in Ireland because abortion isn't generally allowed. I do suspect that when abortion finally does become freely available, some Irish pro-choicers will find that they get more than they bargained for. It also leads to a total liberation of sex. The Irish, in fairness, are generally not as sex mad as a lot of people in Britain, ye tend to be more faithful and ye tend to be more selective if you get my drift.

    I don't think a 5-year-old is a ridiculous example btw. We were all foetuses once.

    By the way, I am pro life, but I'm also an atheist so I'm not sure which God I'm bothering. I do like Ganesh. Boy's body and elephant's head, quite cool and about as realistic as all the other Gods.


  • Advertisement
  • #121
    B0jangles
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,950 ✭✭✭B0jangles


    GarIT wrote: »
    Woman everytime. I'd choose the physical and emotional suffering over the 100k+ financial burden restricting you for the next 23 years. (Maintenance is paid until 23 or until the child leaves full time education and is 18)

    A female can have an abortion or adoption and move on with their lives, a man is stuck for 23 years if the female chooses.

    You do realise that there is as much of a financial burden on the mother of the child?


Advertisement