The 8th amendment(Mod warning in op)

conorhal

Hellrazer wrote: »

I'm after reading every single post in this thread and you know what really gets on my nerves.
For the record I am pro choice/ pro abortion.I don't really care what you call it.

Anyway what gets on my nerves is that reading this thread and the other threads and what you see protesting in Dublin city center on a Saturday afternoon is that it appears that the majority of anti abortion protesters are male.

What right does any man have to even be anti abortion or better still tell any woman what they can or cannot do with their own body.Youre not the one that has to "put up" with a fetus or baby living inside of you that you don't know whether you can provide for it.Whether you can give it the life that it deserves.Men can walk away and not even have to be involved if they don't want to be.

Btw i have 4 kids.Im not sure economically we could afford another one and if my wife did decide to terminate a pregnancy I would support that decision. But we decided a few years ago that i would get a vascectomy having decided our family was large enough.
Next thing you know the anti brigade will be trying to ban vascectomy for killing a few million potential "babies" ,"fetuses" whatever.

It gets on your nerves that men support abortion as per your own support for it? That's a bit bizzare and neurotic. I assume as a man you won't be excercising your democratic mandate in a referendum so since it's none of your business? (yeah I am being utterly facetious here).

As a father, I'm sure you understand that a father has quite a lot invested in their children and abortion both involves and effects fathers. As a citizen you also have an investment in the society you live in and it's common morality, and as a responsible adult, you clearly understand and ensure you manage your own fertility. I'm wondering who, bar a tiny lunatic fringe however are advocating a ban on vascectomy. You say it , but I think you're making some sweeping assumptions and false assumptions about people here.

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5

One eyed Jack wrote: »

True, but in the context of what we were talking about (socioeconomic factors), their marital status of course contributes to their decision as to whether or not to consider abortion or continuing their pregnancy and having the child or children -

Plenty of married women with children have abortions at all points on the social ladder.

Hellrazer

Calhoun wrote: »

Why would a citizen of this country voting on a referendum item not have a right or opinion? Can men really walk away? legally they cannot and will assume responsibility of the child if the mother wants to keep it?

Of course you are entitled to a vote and an opinion but you see the whole male thing isnt about not wanting abortion.In my opinion it's about control and trying to control what a woman does with her body.

And of course they can walk away.We all know plenty of I really hate the term "unmarried mother's" and we all know lads that have literally screwed around and have kids with different women and never get involved or pay support.

neonsofa

One eyed Jack wrote: »

True, but in the context of what we were talking about (socioeconomic factors), their marital status of course contributes to their decision as to whether or not to consider abortion or continuing their pregnancy and having the child or children -

It can contribute to anybodys decision but unplanned pregnancies happen within marriages too regardless of socio economic factors. Fact is, the poster was talking about unplanned pregnancies and socioeconomic factors, not "unmarried mothers".

WHIP IT!

Hellrazer wrote: »

Of course you are entitled to a vote and an opinion but you see the whole male thing isnt about not wanting abortion.In my opinion it's about control and trying to control what a woman does with her body.

And of course they can walk away.We all know plenty of I really hate the term "unmarried mother's" and we all know lads that have literally screwed around and have kids with different women and never get involved or pay support.

Do we?? How many do you know? Genuine question. I know exactly none.

njs030

WHIP IT! wrote: »

Do we?? How many do you know? Genuine question. I know exactly none.

In your whole life you've never met someone who's mother was single?
Or know a woman bringing up a child alone?

One eyed Jack

Howard Tasteless Bank wrote: »

Plenty of married women with children have abortions at all points on the social ladder.

I know that, but rather than assume 'plenty', statistically the fact is that more women who have abortions are unmarried.

neonsofa wrote: »

It can contribute to anybodys decision but unplanned pregnancies happen within marriages too regardless of socio economic factors. Fact is, the poster was talking about unplanned pregnancies and socioeconomic factors, not "unmarried mothers".

You think being unmarried or married isn't a socioeconomic factor?

Ok then.

Calhoun

Hellrazer wrote: »

Of course you are entitled to a vote and an opinion but you see the whole male thing isnt about not wanting abortion.In my opinion it's about control and trying to control what a woman does with her body.

And of course they can walk away.We all know plenty of I really hate the term "unmarried mother's" and we all know lads that have literally screwed around and have kids with different women and never get involved or pay support.

That is your opinion, what about the woman that want abortion what do they want? Do you not think there is any credit to the argument that from their philosophical view point that its the potential life of an unborn being extinguished?

I am being flippant here as based on a feeling you have branded the other side as control freaks.

They cannot under the law walk away, in reality they do but that is because we dont enforce the responsibility like we should. So under the eyes of the law you are tied to this decision from inception, should you not have an opinion on it?

LirW

I also want to throw in that if there is this strong mentality of pro-life, why don't they actually fight for easier access to permanent birth control solutions for women? All women get for wanting her tubes to be tied is being belittled, unless she hits a certain age (that is in fact quite high) or has quadrillion kids.
Also it's proven by now that a lot of women suffer some form of negative side effect from hormonal birth control, but they still have to put up with it, especially in long term relationships because there is a lack of options and permanent solutions are usually met with hesitation from doctors. In that case men have it a bit easier to get a vasectomy.
Before I had my daughter 2 months ago, it happened a few times to me that midwives, doctors and people were telling me "oh, you'll change your mind, see you in a few years". Oh absolutely not, I have two, two is fine, in fact I'm done. I by the way got refused for tubal ligation straight when I asked for it in the hospital.

For the fact, that people are screaming for every precious life, where is the awareness to not let that happen in the first place?


Also why is there never a talk about some kind of a "compromise?" In a lot of countries on the mainland, abortion is technically illegal but brought in the system that it's not illegal until you're full 12 weeks pregnant (In cases of foetal abnormalities you can terminate a pregnancy up until week 25 or so).

WHIP IT!

notjustsweet wrote: »

In your whole life you've never met someone who's mother was single?
Or know a woman bringing up a child alone?

I played it a bit fast and loose with the 'bold' function there... I was referring to this part of Hellrazer's quote:

"...we all know lads that have literally screwed around and have kids with different women and never get involved or pay support."

Hellrazer

conorhal wrote: »

It gets on your nerves that men support abortion as per your own support for it? That's a bit bizzare and neurotic. I assume as a man you won't be excercising your democratic mandate in a referendum so since it's none of your business? (yeah I am being utterly facetious here).
.

See there we go again.Read the first couple of lines of my post.
I said that i am pro choice/pro abortion I don't care what you call it.

I posted that knowing full well that someone would come along soon and twist what i said.

So I'll say it again.
I am pro choice.Youll say pro abortion.Whatever.Im not getting hung up on it or whatever you want to call it.

I support a woman's choice to do whatever she wants to herself.Whether that's abortion or something else.
Nothing bizarre or neurotic about that.

One eyed Jack

Hellrazer wrote: »

Yes I'd agree completely.You have to have equal rights here.If a man doesn't want the child and the mother did then yeah he shouldn't have to pay support.

That's not equal rights. If a woman has an abortion, and I really shouldn't have to explain such an obvious point - then there is no child requires support from either the woman or the man. If a woman does not have an abortion, then both parents are equally obliged to support the child.

neonsofa

One eyed Jack wrote: »

You think being unmarried or married isn't a socioeconomic factor?

Ok then.

That's not what I said.

The poster was referring to two women who were experiencing the same situation- unplanned pregnancies. You assumed that the women being discussed were unmarried mothers. The marital status of the women was never mentioned but you automatically assumed they would be unmarried mothers.

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I know that, but rather than assume 'plenty', statistically the fact is that more women who have abortions are unmarried.





You think being unmarried or married isn't a socioeconomic factor?

Ok then.

It was entirely irrelevant to the point you claimed to be refuting, stop digging. We all have little Freudian inferences from time to time.

volchitsa

conorhal wrote: »

It gets on your nerves that men support abortion as per your own support for it? That's a bit bizzare and neurotic. I assume as a man you won't be excercising your democratic mandate in a referendum so since it's none of your business? (yeah I am being utterly facetious here).

As a father, I'm sure you understand that a father has quite a lot invested in their children and abortion both involves and effects fathers. As a citizen you also have an investment in the society you live in and it's common morality, and as a responsible adult, you clearly understand and ensure you manage your own fertility. I'm wondering who, bar a tiny lunatic fringe however are advocating a ban on vascectomy. You say it , but I think you're making some sweeping assumptions and false assumptions about people here.

Why do you think it's acceptable to describe anyone supporting a ban on vasectomy as a lunatic fringe, but not those who were prepared to forcefeed a young woman to make her continue her pregnancy?

Aren't they a lunatic fringe as well? But that was our own HSE, the ones who want to hand the National Maternity over to a religious order that abused children and hasn't even paid their debts for that.

All the human rights groups that I know of are very clear that sedating and force feeding someone who isn't a criminal is completely unacceptable.

The harsh truth is that Ireland is in a similar position to Saudi Arabia : views that are/were commonplace here are clearly "lunatic fringe" in most democracies.

One eyed Jack

neonsofa wrote: »

That's not what I said.

The poster was referring to two women who were experiencing the same situation- unplanned pregnancies. You assumed that the women being discussed were unmarried mothers. The marital status of the women was never mentioned but you automatically assumed they would be unmarried mothers.

And what's your point exactly?

I assumed they were unmarried mothers based upon the fact that more women who have abortions are unmarried mothers. Or should I have accounted for the fact that as Hellrazer suggests - their imaginary husband would have no influence whatsoever in his wife's decision to abort their unborn.

It's a good thing it's all hypothetical and is no reflection of reality whatsoever then really.

conorhal

volchitsa wrote: »

Why do you think it's acceptable to describe anyone supporting a ban on vasectomy as a lunatic fringe, but not those who were prepared to forcefeed a young woman to make her continue her pregnancy?

Aren't they a lunatic fringe as well? But that was our own HSE, the ones who want to hand the National Maternity over to a religious order that abused children and hasn't even paid their debts for that.

All the human rights groups that I know of are very clear that sedating and force feeding someone who isn't a criminal is completely unacceptable.

The harsh truth is that Ireland is in a similar position to Saudi Arabia : views that are/were commonplace here are clearly "lunatic fringe" in most democracies.

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.

neonsofa

One eyed Jack wrote: »

And what's your point exactly?

I assumed they were unmarried mothers based upon the fact that more women who have abortions are unmarried mothers. Or should I have accounted for the fact that as Hellrazer suggests - their imaginary husband would have no influence whatsoever in his wife's decision to abort their unborn.

It's a good thing it's all hypothetical and is no reflection of reality whatsoever then really.

My point is that there is an assumption that women experiencing unplanned pregnancies are "unmarried mothers" and that isn't true.

How about just not making any assumptions and just discussing the situation (hypothetical or otherwise) as it is presented, that they were women experiencing an unplanned pregnancy- something that can happen to any woman whether married or single, or young or older, rich or poor.
Women, not "unmarried mothers". Especially considering the fact they may choose to terminate and therefore would no longer consider themselves mothers.

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5

One eyed Jack wrote: »

And what's your point exactly?

I assumed they were unmarried mothers based upon the fact that more women who have abortions are unmarried mothers. Or should I have accounted for the fact that as Hellrazer suggests - their imaginary husband would have no influence whatsoever in his wife's decision to abort their unborn.

It's a good thing it's all hypothetical and is no reflection of reality whatsoever then really.

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.

Brussels Sprout

Zillah wrote: »

Which always leads me to suspect that it doesn't really have anything to do with caring about the poor foetuses. It's about punishing women. You dared to have sex and now you should suffer the consequences. Keep your legs closed next time.

It's the same reason they ranted about the poor children during the Marriage Equality referendum. You can't get away with calling them dirty faggots any more, they know that, so they find some moralistic highground they can get hysterical about and shout that to the world until the cows come home.

I read an interesting take on this the other day. It was in an American context but it's probably fairly universal. The question was: Why was it that for social conservatives Abortion and Same Sex Marriage were the two main bones of contention. After all there are plenty of other sins that people commit. What was so special about these two?

The answer in this theory was that the leading lights in these communities (as in most communities) would have been heterosexual men. For them these two acts were ones that they didn't have to worry about committing. It's easy to be high and mighty about a sin if you know that you're never going to personally commit it yourself. Adultery and theft are two of the 10 commandments but somehow they don't get a look in with all the fire and brimstone talk about abortion and homosexuality.

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5

Brussels Sprout wrote: »

I read an interesting take on this the other day. It was in an American context but it's probably fairly universal. The question was: Why was it that for social conservatives Abortion and Same Sex Marriage were the two main bones of contention. After all there are plenty of other sins that people commit. What was so special about these two?

The answer in this theory was that the leading lights in these communities (as in most communities) would have been heterosexual men. For them these two acts were ones that they didn't have to worry about committing. It's easy to be high and mighty about a sin if you know that you're never going to personally commit it yourself. Adultery and theft are two of the 10 commandments but somehow they don't get a look in with all the fire and brimstone talk about abortion and homosexuality.

Sexual repression leads to sexual obsession is also the thing. In relation to SSM, I'd say most people when they think of it don't immediately start thinking about dicks and butts, but it was a strikingly common motif in the 'arguments' against it, particularly from more conservative commentators. Sex this, willy that, bum the other. Could not get gay sex off their minds, god love them.

That's a pretty interesting take though, hadn't come across that before.

me_right_one

Hellrazer wrote: »

Yes I'd agree completely.You have to have equal rights here.If a man doesn't want the child and the mother did then yeah he shouldn't have to pay support.

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

Here we go

I'd be prolife but can see how ffa cases make sence it just prelongings pain for everyone involved. I usually see ffa linked with rape on this I'm Not sure yes rape is a horrible crime.And Irish law, sentencing , make having a child afterwords near unimaginable the idea the scum would have rights to child is sickinging and futher increase a victims torture.Bur I would be much more in favour of incresesd sentencing, rights to see child removed, the state getting all medical information that effects mother and child, mantinice taken form source by the state. To be given to mother with the mother having zero contact with
Said scum unless she wanted it of course. For whatever reason In no way am I trying to down play the physical and emotional pain of rape on a person. I just see abortion as punishing the wrong person. So I ask what's people's who are pro life but would be ok with ffa and rape there opinion on this

One eyed Jack

neonsofa wrote: »

My point is that there is an assumption that women experiencing unplanned pregnancies are "unmarried mothers" and that isn't true.

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

How about just not making any assumptions and just discussing the situation (hypothetical or otherwise) as it is presented, that they were women experiencing an unplanned pregnancy- something that can happen to any woman whether married or single, or young or older, rich or poor.
Women, not "unmarried mothers".

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.

Especially considering the fact they may choose to terminate and therefore would no longer consider themselves mothers.

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.

Calhoun

Brussels Sprout wrote: »

I read an interesting take on this the other day. It was in an American context but it's probably fairly universal. The question was: Why was it that for social conservatives Abortion and Same Sex Marriage were the two main bones of contention. After all there are plenty of other sins that people commit. What was so special about these two?

The answer in this theory was that the leading lights in these communities (as in most communities) would have been heterosexual men. For them these two acts were ones that they didn't have to worry about committing. It's easy to be high and mighty about a sin if you know that you're never going to personally commit it yourself. Adultery and theft are two of the 10 commandments but somehow they don't get a look in with all the fire and brimstone talk about abortion and homosexuality.

So it was the Patriarchy all along, damn misogynists.

Zaph

Here we go wrote: »

Bur I would be much more in favour of incresesd sentencing, rights to see child removed, the state getting all medical information that effects mother and child, mantinice taken form source by the state.

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.

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5

Calhoun wrote: »

So it was the Patriarchy all along, damn misogynists.

Neither of those terms were referred to, at all. Did you mean to quote a different post or...

Calhoun

me_right_one wrote: »

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

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.

Calhoun

Howard Tasteless Bank wrote: »

Neither of those terms were referred to, at all. Did you mean to quote a different post or...

They didnt have to be but i am sure what ever gender studies article it came from it was implied.

Heterosexual males after all.

One eyed Jack

Brussels Sprout wrote: »

I read an interesting take on this the other day. It was in an American context but it's probably fairly universal. The question was: Why was it that for social conservatives Abortion and Same Sex Marriage were the two main bones of contention. After all there are plenty of other sins that people commit. What was so special about these two?

The answer in this theory was that the leading lights in these communities (as in most communities) would have been heterosexual men. For them these two acts were ones that they didn't have to worry about committing. It's easy to be high and mighty about a sin if you know that you're never going to personally commit it yourself. Adultery and theft are two of the 10 commandments but somehow they don't get a look in with all the fire and brimstone talk about abortion and homosexuality.

Well that's pure bullsh*t.

That's not to mention the fact that according to some posters on here, when they're not engaging in all the gay sex, they're all fiddling kids of either gender, or they're knocking up the wimminz and passing them on to the nunz to sell de baybeez 2 de fordinerz for de dollah dollah.

Ahh, that must be why they're opposed to abortion - cutting off a vital revenue stream, not to mention the horrendous amounts of money they make from having all the other bases covered from baptisms to burials!!

Jesus wept.