Is it still 1971 in Ireland? The contraceptive train still runs - Under another name.

statesaver

One eyed Jack wrote: »

If a woman seeks an abortion, she hasn't taken anything from a man, she has made a decision for herself.

If a man wants to be a father, he has plenty more opportunities to find someone who is willing to give birth to a child for him.

So if she keeps the child the guy can be chased for child maintenance ( if he wants nothing to do with the child ) but if she seeks an abortion it's touch shít for the guy ( if he wants become a father ). :rolleyes:

DeadHand

Celly Smunt wrote: »

I clearly forgot that women don't choose to have sex and it was only a mans choice to have a child.

They both made their choices (hopefully) so as adults they live with the consequences.

Isn't a woman having the total entitlement of having an abortion forcing the father to have an abortion (obviously not physically)? How is that not inherently evil?

Her body, her risk, her life, her choice.

It's tragic to deny a willing father his chance at fatherhood. Is it inherently evil? I don't know. Depends on your perspective, your morality. One for the philosophers.

It's still not nearly as sinister as forcing an abortion on a willing mother. Will she be hunted down by the police? Will she be strapped down? Sedated?

The biological nature of pregnancy means total equality is impossible in this area. Since it's the woman's body in question, hers must be the deciding voice.

Celly Smunt

ALiasEX wrote: »

And the physical and mental health of the woman?

Is more important than a mans?....

Cantremember

Yes it is still 1971 in Ireland. In parts it is still 1951. Never underestimate the forces of backwardness.

Pocoyo

At the minute the only thing that makes me feel proud to be irish are our abortion laws.

One eyed Jack

statesaver wrote: »

So if she keeps the child the guy can be chased for child maintenance ( if he wants nothing to do with the child ) but if she seeks an abortion it's touch shít for the guy ( if he wants become a father ). :rolleyes:

Are they the same guy?

RDM_83 again

I can never understand how people who are really strongly pro-choice can be so strongly against the idea of a "paper abortion" for men? It often seems to boil down to well the man knew that he could cause pregnancy by having sex so its his responsibility, just think of what your actually saying there, would you tell a woman to keep her legs closed or accept that there is a risk you'l end up with a kid at the end if contraception fails and your just going to have to deal with it

If your allowing abortion due to potential impacts after pregnancy, which is generally the pro-choice view, why wouldn't you apply that thinking to men. Forced abortion is a different and far more extreme argument

One eyed Jack

RDM_83 again wrote: »

I can never understand how people who are really strongly pro-choice can be so strongly against the idea of a "paper abortion" for men? It often seems to boil down to well the man knew that he could cause pregnancy by having sex so its his responsibility, just think of what your actually saying there, would you tell a woman to keep her legs closed or accept that there is a risk you'l end up with a kid at the end if contraception fails and your just going to have to deal with it

If your allowing abortion due to potential impacts after pregnancy, which is generally the pro-choice view, why wouldn't you apply that thinking to men. Forced abortion is a different and far more extreme argument

Because the idea of a "paper abortion" is just as stupid as it sounds.

That simple really.

RDM_83 again

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Because the idea of a "paper abortion" is just as stupid as it sounds.

That simple really.

Why I get your point if your pro-life, but if your actually pro-choice you must recognize that being forced into parenthood and all that this entails because of anothers wishes is pretty "anti-choice".

Acacia

RobertKK wrote: »

It is not very cryptic. The same company that made Zyklon B is the same company that gave us the abortion pill.
Trains were used to bring people to be gassed at concentration camps, a train was used today to bring a product designed by the same company that produced Zyklon B.
Two of their killing products, and the idiots today probably didn't see how tasteless it was to use a train...given the association between the abortion pill, and the company that produced the gas for gas chambers in WW2.
In both cases their victims had to be trapped for their product to work.

Possibly the most ridiculous, pathetic post I have ever read on After Hours.

And that's really saying something.

To try to use the systematic murder of 6 million people to suit your own agenda... I find it quite disgusting, tbh.

Wompa1

statesaver wrote: »

So if she keeps the child the guy can be chased for child maintenance ( if he wants nothing to do with the child ) but if she seeks an abortion it's touch shít for the guy ( if he wants become a father ). :rolleyes:

Yeah, don't think that matters much to women trying to fight for womens rights. And why should it, in fairness.

Us men need to get as organized as the ladies. We've got a lot of problems in the rights departments ourselves. And some just general well being policies we should be chasing

Wompa1

RDM_83 again wrote: »

Why I get your point if your pro-life, but if your actually pro-choice you must recognize that being forced into parenthood and all that this entails because of anothers wishes is pretty "anti-choice".

I think it's a fair point. A man should be able to opt out too. Give the ladies and the lads an opt out option.

Pocoyo

Acacia wrote: »

Possibly the most ridiculous, pathetic post I have ever read on After Hours.

And that's really saying something.

To try to use the systematic murder of 6 million people to suit your own agenda... I find it quite disgusting, tbh.

Trying to take the high moral ground while supporting infanticide.... irony!! :rolleyes:

lazygal

Pocoyo wrote: »

Trying to take the high moral ground while supporting infanticide.... irony!! :rolleyes:

Infanticide is a defence to a charge of murder, not something one is accused of. It's a defence because of the recognised extreme difficulties some women face after birth which lead them to kill their born children.
Killing an unborn child is a completely different thing and is treated as such in Irish law.

RDM_83 again

lazygal wrote: »

Infanticide is a defence to a charge of murder, not something one is accused of. It's a defence because of the recognised extreme difficulties some women face after birth which lead them to kill their born children.
Killing an unborn child is a completely different thing and is treated as such in Irish law.

I agree with what you are saying but I think infanticide isn't a defense , its a lesser criminal charge like Murder vs Manslaughter, due to at least some sort of recognition since the 19th century of post natal issues

One eyed Jack

RDM_83 again wrote: »

Why I get your point if your pro-life, but if your actually pro-choice you must recognize that being forced into parenthood and all that this entails because of anothers wishes is pretty "anti-choice".

Why? Because there's no comparison between a woman having a right to an abortion, and a man wanting to abdicate his responsibility towards his child.

He has no obligation towards the child's mother, but he still has an obligation towards his child.

Acacia

Pocoyo wrote: »

Trying to take the high moral ground while supporting infanticide.... irony!! :rolleyes:

Where did I support infanticide in my previous post?

Please enlighten me.

I'd like the exact quote please, or you can retract what you have just accused me of.

Pocoyo

lazygal wrote: »

Infanticide is a defence to a charge of murder, not something one is accused of.

WRONG!!!

One eyed Jack

Pocoyo wrote: »

WRONG!!!

What's with the smugness?

Acacia

Still waiting for proof of that rather serious accusation you leveled at me, Pocoyo... or I should I take your lack of response as an answer?

BBJBIG

Celly Smunt wrote: »

And what about the choice of the father? Disregarded?

Daddy gets to pay the Bills

PopePalpatine

Pocoyo wrote: »

Abortion is an old distasteful practice that is increasingly becoming more and more unpopular in developed countries,Abortion on demand is seen for what it is,Cold blooded murder and the evidence in the states shows that public opinion is turning against this practice,the more people see the effects that abortion has on its victims mentality and how some of the babies are murdered is horrifying them.

The majority of these people opposed to abortion are forward thinking people that support gay marriage and other just rights that bring equality.

You're going to need a lot of citations to back all of this up. As for your claim that anti-choicers support gay marriage...you're just talking out of your arse. The most prominent on the anti-choice side such as the Iona Institute, Youth Defence and the RCC hierarchy have been adamant in their opposition to gay marriage, with YD frequently conflating homosexuality with paedophilia.

Wompa1

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Why? Because there's no comparison between a woman having a right to an abortion, and a man wanting to abdicate his responsibility towards his child.

He has no obligation towards the child's mother, but he still has an obligation towards his child.

The argument can be made, that he doesn't want anything to with the 'child' before it becomes a child. When he says no, it's not a viable life...right, that's the other side of the argument when it comes to abortion. It's not a child, it's a fetus.

PopePalpatine

Acacia wrote: »

Possibly the most ridiculous, pathetic post I have ever read on After Hours.

And that's really saying something.

To try to use the systematic murder of 6 million people to suit your own agenda... I find it quite disgusting, tbh.

The irony here is that Youth Defence have some quite unpalatable friends.

forgotten password

its a rat-trap baby

One eyed Jack

Wompa1 wrote: »

The argument can be made, that he doesn't want anything to with the 'child' before it becomes a child. When he says no, it's not a viable life...right, that's the other side of the argument when it comes to abortion. It's not a child, it's a fetus.

Well you go right ahead and make that spurious argument that doesn't have anything to do with whether a woman has a right to an abortion or not. It's a completely separate issue, and not one you'll gain much support for either - a father's right to be a deadbeat dad?

Yeah, good one, can see the father's rights groups getting behind that one alright...

Acacia

PopePalpatine wrote: »

The irony here is that Youth Defence have some quite unpalatable friends.

That does not surprise me at all.

BetterThanThou

I personally like the idea of a "paper abortion", however, I think it should only be an option up until the point where abortion is no longer an option, after that, the man has no choice, this would give the woman an option to terminate the pregnancy if she's not willing to raise the child on her own. On the other hand, I feel if a woman wants an abortion, while the man doesn't, I think the woman should be forced to remain pregnant, but have all rights and responsibilities taken away and given to the man.

Cienciano

Not many people píss me off as much as that abortion crowd. The ones that have posters up of aborted foetuses.

lazygal

Cienciano wrote: »

Not many people píss me off as much as that abortion crowd. The ones that have posters up of aborted foetuses.

If you're referring to Youth Defence the posters are usually photos of miscarried or stillborn foetuses, not abortions. Truth and Youth Defence occupy very different spaces.