The 8th amendment(Mod warning in op)

me_right_one

Calhoun wrote: »

I don't get why this is a scumbag attitude, Hellraizer was answering this question in the context of men not having an opinion on abortion. If men are to be excluded from the conversation on abortion and have no rights in the matter at all then the logical equitable solution should be that they have the option to opt out of the child's life.

Otherwise we get into a situation where the woman has the child and the men force then to get an abortion.

Was hellraiser not saying that if a man wants to abort his child, but the woman doesn't, that the man should be able to walk away and not contribute towards the raising of his son / daughter?

gizmo81

How has Ireland moved on? We put women in laundries, now we put them on ferries!

Deleted User wrote: »

you brought up laundries and septic tanks, I was referring to the fact that Ireland has moved on, so your points are out of date. I did not say let's ban abortion as there is no stigma for unmarried women having children, you only quoted part of my post

Calhoun

me_right_one wrote: »

Was hellraiser not saying that if a man wants to abort his child, but the woman doesn't, that the man should be able to walk away and not contribute towards the raising of his son / daughter?

Jimmy put across the question to him and he answered it. These are the type of questions that will be discuss when we move into an are of abortion and possibly abortion on demand.

Why should only one party in the arrangement get to decide what is happening but both are held responsible for the outcome?

gizmo81

It's not a baby!

BigBulldog wrote: »

Most of the pro abortion crowd try and avoid ever thinking about what is involved in the actual procedure. Vacuuming the live baby's brain out of its head, decapitating it and severing all its limbs from its body. Seriously, look up some picture of abortion if you think you can stomach it. The pro abortionists try to dress it up as being just like taking a paracetamol and giving the womb a quick clean out to freshen you back up for the next one. Abortion is one of the most disgusting things on this earth. Physicians who perform it are breaking their hippocratic oath at best and murderers at worst. Advocates for it tend to be neo liberal left wing hipsters; stick to the bashing the angelas and the Pope and complaining about the price of bread and watching 50 shades with the girls.

One eyed Jack

Calhoun wrote: »

Why should only one party in the arrangement get to decide what is happening but both are held responsible for the outcome?

No man is responsible for the outcome of a woman having an abortion? They don't even have to pay backdated maintenance for the duration of her pregnancy.

gizmo81

Men opt out of their children's lives all the time.

Calhoun wrote: »

I don't get why this is a scumbag attitude, Hellraizer was answering this question in the context of men not having an opinion on abortion. If men are to be excluded from the conversation on abortion and have no rights in the matter at all then the logical equitable solution should be that they have the option to opt out of the child's life.

Otherwise we get into a situation where the woman has the child and the men force then to get an abortion.

me_right_one

Calhoun wrote: »

Jimmy put across the question to him and he answered it. These are the type of questions that will be discuss when we move into an are of abortion and possibly abortion on demand.

Why should only one party in the arrangement get to decide what is happening but both are held responsible for the outcome?

Ah here, I know. I still think that, first of all, killing a baby is probably the scummiest thing a person can do. The next scummiest is pedophilia, then rape, and then not paying maintenance. Just saying.

But thankfully, after today's vote NOT to repeal the 8th, we wont be entering into an era of abortion on demand. Funny how boards is almost deserted tonight.

padd b1975

ZeroThreat wrote: »

The opus dei & other assorted god bothering nuts on these forums such as infogiver probably regard scientists as heretics.

There's the rhetoric that's going to win the middle ground.

Well done.

Calhoun

gizmo81 wrote: »

Men opt out of their children's lives all the time.

Not legally they don't, you have to take them to court but in the eyes of the law they are responsible and can be taken to court by the mothers.

Calhoun

me_right_one wrote: »

Ah here, I know. I still think that, first of all, killing a baby is probably the scummiest thing a person can do. The next scummiest is pedophilia, then rape, and then not paying maintenance. Just saying.

But thankfully, after today's vote NOT to repeal the 8th, we wont be entering into an era of abortion on demand. Funny how boards is almost deserted tonight.

Under the existing system not paying maintenance is bad, Hellraizer and Jimmy were arguing the hypothetical future where abortion could be on demand and men would not have a say in the process at all.

gizmo81

And they can sign away their parental responsibility to avoid maintenance.

Calhoun wrote: »

Not legally they don't, you have to take them to court but in the eyes of the law they are responsible and can be taken to court by the mothers.

njs030

Calhoun wrote: »

Not legally they don't, you have to take them to court but in the eyes of the law they are responsible and can be taken to court by the mothers.

I think the word you're looking for is financially. Yes they can be forced to hand over money.

Emotionally and physically, yes some do abandon their children.

Here we go

Zaph wrote: »

Couple of flaws in that plan. First it assumes that the rapist is known, and has been caught so that their sentence could be increased and their access rights removed. Second there's the problem that if the rapist is caught and imprisoned they're not going to have any income for the duration of their incarceration, so there'd be nothing to give to the mother. I'm sorry, but the option for women who become pregnant through rape to have an abortion if they so wish has to be available. Anything else is needlessly cruel and inhumane.

I take your points and yes each case is different in cases where rapist isnt known the extra torture a victim may occur of the DNA donar taking them to court to see child wouldn't be an issue and as much as I'm in favour of rapists being jailed for longer then 18 years unfortunitly they get out what seems excessively early here so any income they make the child is under 18 should be taken and given to child also some may already have money and this should be sold and used to help child again I'm not trying to under state rape just that it seems like a ethical fudge I'm pro life I belive the child to be there own person but if it's from the evil act by some scum we can be ok with it the child is still it's own person it had no act in said vial act

Calhoun

gizmo81 wrote: »

And they can sign away their parental responsibility to avoid maintenance.

They can but they can also still be forced to pay maintenance it really depends on what the mother of the children wants.

Calhoun

notjustsweet wrote: »

I think the word you're looking for is financially. Yes they can be forced to hand over money.

Emotionally and physically, yes some do abandon their children.

Yes but in the context of this discussion we are not talking about emotionally or physically. The only way we can try and maintain some objectivity in this discussion is if we stick to the law.

njs030

Calhoun wrote: »

Yes but in the context of this discussion we are not talking about emotionally or physically. The only way we can try and maintain some objectivity in this discussion is if we stick to the law.

You used the word legally responsible. A fathers legal responsibility if he chooses to leave his child is financial.

I was clarifying that there is nothing more than that.

neonsofa

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Statistical evidence would suggest otherwise. I'm not sure why the inverted commas around "unmarried mothers" either?





Hypothetical arguments are predicated upon assumptions being made. You didn't see me get so precious about the names and locations electro used to make her point. That's because I understood where she was coming from and didn't care to be so precious about it.





You assume you can speak for the minds of all women who have had an abortion? Well while your assumptions would conveniently support your argument, I know enough women who have had abortions who grieve for their unborn, to know different. I don't have to make assumptions in that regard.

Statistical evidence would show that all women experiencing unplanned pregnancies are unmarried mothers? I used inverted commas as you described them as such. The hypothetical women being discussed, you said "as unmarried mothers", they were not presented as unmarried mothers.

Fair point about my comment re not considering themselves to be mothers. There are a select few that would I guess. Although grieving for a what if is not always grieving for a child as a mother, but you are correct in what you're saying in general terms.

One eyed Jack

Howard Tasteless Bank wrote: »

Oh for god's sake. I said pro-life people should spend more time campaigning for education, social inclusion, healthcare etc (show me thousands of them marching every year), and that people at a lower point in the socio economic scale are more affected by the lack of availability of abortion in Ireland.

You came back with some random shíte about the Church (which I never mentioned) providing hospitals, and the differing plights of unmarried mothers (who I never mentioned).

This post hoc rationalisation is not AT ALL convincing. You either didn't read the post, or read things into it that weren't there.

It's not post hoc rationalisation at all. You made the point in your first paragraph as to what you suggested people who are pro-life should be doing. I made the point that they do it already, and were doing it for a long time before the recent pro-choice numbnuts were collecting on O' Connell bridge wearing pussy hats and carrying signs demanding that Enda stay out of their uterus.

The thing is, when any of my friends tell me they're pro-choice, I don't immediately question why they aren't at such behaviour, not particularly because I know they have more class, but because I know they're no different than myself - more interested in the education and welfare of people who are socioeconomically deprived so that their children don't experience second and third generation poverty.

Other people are so far up their own ideology that they can think of nothing else but their own point of view.

One eyed Jack

neonsofa wrote: »

Statistical evidence would show that all women experiencing unplanned pregnancies are unmarried mothers? I used inverted commas as you described them as such. The hypothetical women being discussed, you said "as unmarried mothers", they were not presented as unmarried mothers.

No, that's not what I said. Statistics would suggest that more women who have abortions are unmarried mothers. There wasn't anything more to it than that, though it'd be remiss of me if I pretended that I wasn't aware of the social stigma that Jacinta would more likely face that Sorcha wouldn't, for fear of offending Sorcha and her husbands sensitivities.

Fair point about my comment re not considering themselves to be mothers. There are a select few that would I guess. Although grieving for a what if is not always grieving for a child as a mother, but you are correct in what you're saying in general terms.

If I'm only one person, and I know as many as I do know, that would suggest there's more than a select few, but if you want to play that down too, fine by me. I also already explained what they were grieving for, but the terms wouldn't suit you as you wouldn't regard the unborn as a child. I wouldn't be the kind of arsehole that's going to contradict them though given their circumstances.

Hellrazer

me_right_one wrote: »

That's a pure scumbag attitude. Please don't tell me you're serious

Please don't resort to calling people names.

Everyone on here arguing either for or against the 8th were once a clump of cells>foetus>baby etc. Everyone is unique. There will never be a satisfactory solution to all of this IMO......

neonsofa

One eyed Jack wrote: »

No, that's not what I said. Statistics would suggest that more women who have abortions are unmarried mothers. There wasn't anything more to it than that, though it'd be remiss of me if I pretended that I wasn't aware of the social stigma that Jacinta would more likely face that Sorcha wouldn't, for fear of offending Sorcha and her husbands sensitivities.





If I'm only one person, and I know as many as I do know, that would suggest there's more than a select few, but if you want to play that down too, fine by me. I also already explained what they were grieving for, but the terms wouldn't suit you as you wouldn't regard the unborn as a child. I wouldn't be the kind of arsehole that's going to contradict them though given their circumstances.

You made an assumption that was incorrect, i merely pointed that out, continue to dig if you please but my point has been made.

One eyed Jack

neonsofa wrote: »

You made an assumption that was incorrect, i merely pointed that out, continue to dig if you please but my point has been made.

An assumption from a hypothetical scenario cannot be incorrect if a post-hoc fact was never made explicitly clear in the first place. You're picking at a scabby point in an effort to point score and if point scoring is more important to you than making an actual point based upon statistical evidence, then well done you.

I'll unsubscribe from this thread now and let it descend into the usual echo chamber that these threads do.

infogiver

gizmo81 wrote: »

It's not a baby!

When is it a baby gizmo?

gizmo81

When the mother gives birth.

infogiver wrote: »

When is it a baby gizmo?

volchitsa

conorhal wrote: »

I was typing a response and then realised, 'Ireland = Saudi Arabia'... Yeah, sooo not worth bothering really...unless you can explain to me how a vascetomy and an abortion are in anybody's universe the same thing? You seem to be making the semantic strawman argument that my position on abortion indicates I should somehow think they are.
Nobody equating the two is rational, and by definition, a lunatic is an irrational person, a bit likes somebody equating Ireland with Saudi Arabia.

But I didn't equate them, did I?

I'm just saying that you're assuming that because your position is commonplace, in Ireland, it's normal. But that isn't necessarily the case, as Saudi Arabia shows : people there think their views about women are normal. That doesn't mean they're right.

And not long ago, having a vasectomy was almost as shocking in Ireland as having an abortion. It was certainly illegal. So your belief that only a lunatic fringe thinks different from you isn't nearly as logical as you imagine. If you'd lived 50 years ago you'd think differently about vasectomy.

And like I say, Ireland's position on abortion is seriously out of whack with the rest of the democratic world and with human rights organizations. I think that's evidence that the traditional Irish view is probably wrong.

Like Saudi Arabia - but I still didn't say it was the same as Saudi Arabia. Like Puh-lease.

conorhal

gizmo81 wrote: »

When the mother gives birth.

So 'it's fair game' till then? That's sociopathic.

Larbre34

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Everyone on here arguing either for or against the 8th were once a clump of cells>foetus>baby etc. Everyone is unique. There will never be a satisfactory solution to all of this IMO......

How about letting people have the option to choose the course of action for inside their own bodies for themselves?

Nobody in a liberalised abortion regime is going to force the pro-lifers to change the course of action they would always have followed for themselves or their loved ones, why shouldnt the reverse be true?

As regards todays outcome, I dont think it will change one bit what would have been put to the people, i.e. keep the status quo or repeal, replace and allow the Oireachtas to legislate for enlightened and compassionate reproductive rights. This nonsense of suggesting an amendment to a disfunctional amendment is unsatisfactory to everyone, every side.

conorhal

volchitsa wrote: »

But I didn't equate them, did I?

I'm just saying that you're assuming that because your position is commonplace, in Ireland, it's normal. But that isn't necessarily the case, as Saudi Arabia shows : people there think their views about women are normal. That doesn't mean they're right.

And not long ago, having a vasectomy was almost as shocking in Ireland as having an abortion. It was certainly illegal. So your belief that only a lunatic fringe thinks different from you isn't nearly as logical as you imagine. If you'd lived 50 years ago you'd think differently about vasectomy.

And like I say, Ireland's position on abortion is seriously out of whack with the rest of the democratic world and with human rights organizations. I think that's evidence that the traditional Irish view is probably wrong.

Like Saudi Arabia - but I still didn't say it was the same as Saudi Arabia. Like Puh-lease.

If I lived fifty years ago, a dead baby would still be a dead baby. Opinions and social mores may change, reality doesn't. The reality of abortion isn't an opinion.

gizmo81

I did not give you consent to put words in my mouth. Is consent that alien of a concept to you?

conorhal wrote: »

So 'it's fair game' till then? That's sociopathic.