Men's rights on Abortion?

_Dara_

_Dara_ wrote: »

I would like to see abortion available up to 12 weeks.

Once you allow abortion, it's going to be difficult to set limits on it long-term. It'll come down to your preference vs other peoples preference, and ultimately if we're going down this road, we should be respecting peoples ability to make the choice for themselves.

But I also think we as a society should work towards reducing the level of abortion. Sex ed will play a big part in this as well as acknowkedging that teenagers are having sex and making it easier for them to access contraception anonymously.

I say anonymously because I hail from a small west of Ireland town where everyone knew everyone. There are many towns like this across the country. A small town really is small in Ireland. I didn’t have sex as a teen at home because the idea of going to my local pharmacy where I knew all the staff to buy contraception was mortifying. But not all teens will abstain. We need to be creative.

I grew up in a big town, and it's pretty much the same as with the smaller towns. You still know everyone, or they'll know your parents.

I lost my virginity at 13 with a girl who was 18. We had very messy awkward and unprotected sex in the woods behind my secondary school. When I returned home, my mother and father were waiting in the kitchen for me, I received the facts of life, along with a serious dosage of guilt, and a large box of condoms. Apparently, someone had seen us having sex, and told my parents. Ahh... Irish towns.

Bringing in the male pill would be a major help. The problem is that many women I've met seem to think that the condom is solely the responsibility of the male, and it's only in relationships that the woman bears the responsibility when taking the pill. We really need to move on to the stage where both genders take responsibility for contraception.

But I agree with you that abortion should be an option for people, but we should be encouraging society to view it was a last resort. However, as abortion becomes more common, I suspect that people will turn to it far more often than needed, especially if the cost is 'reasonable'.

seamus

Deleted User wrote: »

But I agree with you that abortion should be an option for people, but we should be encouraging society to view it was a last resort. However, as abortion becomes more common, I suspect that people will turn to it far more often than needed, especially if the cost is 'reasonable'.

The statistics really don't bear this out tbh.

Abortion is never an easy process, whether it's a pair of pills at 10 weeks or a D&C at 18.

The only places which have seen rises in abortion usage are places where sex education is non-existent or actively suppressed.

Cost of abortion is rarely a major factor, especially when there are few barriers to contraception - that is, allowing girls to obtain contraception from a doctor at any age without parental consent, distributing them freely to students and making all non-hormonal contraceptives purchasable anywhere, off-the-shelf and tax exempt.

A trip to the A&E is free, but people still use seatbelts because that's a whole lot easier.

It is very important that with a repeal of the eighth follows a wide-ranging and mandatory sex education programme beginning at the age of six and carrying all the way through to adulthood.

JRant

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Once you allow abortion, it's going to be difficult to set limits on it long-term. It'll come down to your preference vs other peoples preference, and ultimately if we're going down this road, we should be respecting peoples ability to make the choice for themselves.



I grew up in a big town, and it's pretty much the same as with the smaller towns. You still know everyone, or they'll know your parents.

I lost my virginity at 13 with a girl who was 18. We had very messy awkward and unprotected sex in the woods behind my secondary school. When I returned home, my mother and father were waiting in the kitchen for me, I received the facts of life, along with a serious dosage of guilt, and a large box of condoms. Apparently, someone had seen us having sex, and told my parents. Ahh... Irish towns.

Bringing in the male pill would be a major help. The problem is that many women I've met seem to think that the condom is solely the responsibility of the male, and it's only in relationships that the woman bears the responsibility when taking the pill. We really need to move on to the stage where both genders take responsibility for contraception.

But I agree with you that abortion should be an option for people, but we should be encouraging society to view it was a last resort. However, as abortion becomes more common, I suspect that people will turn to it far more often than needed, especially if the cost is 'reasonable'.

Has there been any indication as to how much this will cost the taxpayer if/when abortion becomes legal here?
I would sincerely hope it is not going to be a free service.

JRant

seamus wrote: »

The statistics really don't bear this out tbh.

Abortion is never an easy process, whether it's a pair of pills at 10 weeks or a D&C at 18.

The only places which have seen rises in abortion usage are places where sex education is non-existent or actively suppressed.

Cost of abortion is rarely a major factor, especially when there are few barriers to contraception - that is, allowing girls to obtain contraception from a doctor at any age without parental consent, distributing them freely to students and making all non-hormonal contraceptives purchasable anywhere, off-the-shelf and tax exempt.

A trip to the A&E is free, but people still use seatbelts because that's a whole lot easier.

It is very important that with a repeal of the eighth follows a wide-ranging and mandatory sex education programme beginning at the age of six and carrying all the way through to adulthood.

Regardless of the result I would like to see those proposals rolled out.

end of the road

Triceratops Ballet wrote: »

Why do you get to decide what is better for these people, can they not be trusted to decide that for themselves?
And don't tell me "that's how democracy works" why is your way "the right way" and any other way isn't

i believe our way is right because it extends the rule of law and our stance on life to the unborn. the pro-choice side would complain if people were allowed to take the life of born citizens for any reason (they would be right and i would be standing with them) but believe it's okay to take the life of the unborn, many believe no reason is needed, which is wrong. we cannot pick and choose what human lives can and cannot be taken unless there is an absolute extreme reason as to why that should happen.

pauldla wrote: »

Love Both have had 35 years to do better. Why has it taken an impending referendum (and a likelihood of defeat) to get them talking about 'doing better'? Where the hell have they been for the last three decades?

where the hell have the opposition been for the last 3 decades also? apart from grass routes campaigners from both sides working on the ground and people doing their own little bits where and when they can, the yes campaign have done nothing either. in fact, they vote in the governments who implement the same failed policies. at least for myself i can say that i don't vote for ff or fg and i make all sorts an election issue when campaigners from political parties come knocking during election time.

The Specialist wrote: »

The No side couldn't give less of a **** about these "people" once they can stop them accessing abortion services. Your idea of "doing better" is to try and defeat this referendum, so you can put your fingers back in your ears safe in the knowledge that women will continue to travel to UK for this.

Here's a news flash to the No side - You don't get to sweep this under the rug anymore, and you won't be putting this to bed on Friday to be ignored for another 20 years.

the no side in general do care about these women. of course, there are individuals on both sides who have an agenda and their only interest is the referendum, but they only represent their own viewpoint. of course, i do want to prevent people from killing their unborn for any reason, i believe there should only be certain reasons where it should be allowed. i will never apologize for that, as i value life from womb to the grave.

Triceratops Ballet wrote: »

Let's pretend this is true for a sec, so? What business is it of yours? What puts you in a position to judge her?

it's the fact she is ending a life as birth control that is the issue. it doesn't need to be directly our business (lots of things in society aren't my business) but they don't need to be, it's about the societal problems they may cause.
but we have to have some sort of rules, law and order and values and if we are consistent, we need to extend those to unborn human beings as well as ourselves, as much as is practical to do so.

Triceratops Ballet

end of the road wrote: »

i believe our way is right because it extends the rule of law and our stance on life to the unborn. the pro-choice side would complain if people were allowed to take the life of born citizens for any reason (they would be right and i would be standing with them) but believe it's okay to take the life of the unborn, many believe no reason is needed, which is wrong. we cannot pick and choose what human lives can and cannot be taken unless there is an absolute extreme reason as to why that should happen.

I accept that you think it's wrong, I guess I'm just not clear on why you think it's wrong, why do you think the unborn are the same as you or I?

the other main thing I don't understand is why some on the prolife side require this to be in the constitution for instance the unborn had no explicit right to life denoted in the constitution prior to 1983, if the 8th is repealed we will just be returning to that position constitutionally speaking. I just don't understand why some feel it has to be explicit in the constitution to uphold the value when a) it wasn't prior to 1983 and b) there are plenty of things forbidden by law that aren't expressly mentioned in the constitution

seamus

seamus wrote: »

The statistics really don't bear this out tbh.

With respect, Western society and it's values are changing at a rather rapid pace. The attitudes towards casual sex, for example, have drastically changed in the last 20 years. Even the idea of introducing Abortion, gay marriage etc, wouldn't have received even close to the support it currently has, had it been looked into 20 years ago. 20 years is not a long time. Basing everything on past statistics, isn't everything... and we should be considering how it will be in the future.

Abortion is never an easy process, whether it's a pair of pills at 10 weeks or a D&C at 18.

Everything can be streamlined, and once Abortion enters the consumer market, convenience will be a priority. Oh, sure, it's still going to be regulated for the next decade or so, but there is no guarantee to say that abortion will not become a service to be gained from private hospitals on your own terms.

A trip to the A&E is free, but people still use seatbelts because that's a whole lot easier.

The problem with such an example, is that many people didn't wear seat belts until the Police could stop you and fine you for it. There will always be groups of people who will do what they want, in the face of common sense.

It is very important that with a repeal of the eighth follows a wide-ranging and mandatory sex education programme beginning at the age of six and carrying all the way through to adulthood.

Agreed.

JRant

JRant wrote: »

Has there been any indication as to how much this will cost the taxpayer if/when abortion becomes legal here?
I would sincerely hope it is not going to be a free service.

I highly doubt that initially it will be, except in extreme cases. At least, I certainly hope it isn't. Still... after some time has passed, I'm sure women's rights groups will seek to have the state pay for it once it becomes legal...

As is often said, we don't get to choose where our tax contributions are spent. Unfortunately.

end of the road

Triceratops Ballet wrote: »

I accept that you think it's wrong, I guess I'm just not clear on why you think it's wrong, why do you think the unborn are the same as you or I?

i believe it is wrong to take their life because they are human beings. the unborn are simply going through the earlier stages of development compared to the born, that is the only real difference between them and us and therefore i believe that they must be protected from harm by law as we are, as much as is practical to do so. i believe that if there is no argument to allow the killing of unborn citizens for any reason then we should be extending that to the unborn as we currently do.

Triceratops Ballet wrote: »

the other main thing I don't understand is why some on the prolife side require this to be in the constitution for instance the unborn had no explicit right to life denoted in the constitution prior to 1983, if the 8th is repealed we will just be returning to that position constitutionally speaking. I just don't understand why some feel it has to be explicit in the constitution to uphold the value when a) it wasn't prior to 1983 and b) there are plenty of things forbidden by law that aren't expressly mentioned in the constitution

it's to enshrine against abortion on demand from being introduced, and enshrine their right to life. to make it difficult to remove their right to life. it's an insurence policy i guess. personally i'd except it not being in the constitution, if instead there was a clause that stated that while the government may legislate for abortion, such legislation must be put to a referendum.

Tell me how

Deleted User wrote:

As is often said, we don't get to choose where our tax contributions are spent. Unfortunately.

We do. We elect the government.

Tell me how

Tell me how wrote: »

We do. We elect the government.

Not going to derail the thread on this. I do completely disagree with you though. Let's just leave it at that.

The Specialist

end of the road wrote: »

i believe it is wrong to take their life because they are human beings. the unborn are simply going through the earlier stages of development compared to the born, that is the only real difference between them and usand therefore i believe that they must be protected from harm by law as we are, as much as is practical to do so. i believe that if there is no argument to allow the killing of unborn citizensfor any reason then we should be extending that to the unborn as we currently do.
.

Sentience is required to be considered human, what you are referring to is a foetus. Is this simple fact really that hard for the No side to grasp? Without sentience, it is a "potential" human life but nowhere close to qualifying as one at 12 weeks. That doesn't suit the emotively charged terminology of the no camp though.

end of the road

The Specialist wrote: »

Sentience is required to be considered human, what you are referring to is a foetus. Is this simple fact really that hard for the No side to grasp? Without sentience, it is a "potential" human life but nowhere close to qualifying as one at 12 weeks. That doesn't suit the emotively charged terminology of the no camp though.

sentience is only 1 aspect that is required to be considered a human being and life. it is far from the only aspect that is needed to be considered a human being and life. therefore a fetus is a human being and a human life.

JRant

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I highly doubt that initially it will be, except in extreme cases. At least, I certainly hope it isn't. Still... after some time has passed, I'm sure women's rights groups will seek to have the state pay for it once it becomes legal...

As is often said, we don't get to choose where our tax contributions are spent. Unfortunately.

I fear you are right. It'll be the usual "free everything" brigade looking to turn this into a 'human right' and get the taxpayers of this country to pony up for it.

The Specialist

end of the road wrote: »

sentience is only 1 aspect that is required to be considered a human being and life. it is far from the only aspect that is needed to be considered a human being and life. therefore a fetus is a human being and a human life.

Absolute idiocy. If something is not sentient, then it cannot feel, think or have any sort of human capability - the kind required for feeling, emotions, reasoning etc. If you are willing to equate a foetus without sentience to being a human, then your microwave is a human. Your car, your shoes, your clothes are human. Do you realise how ****ing ridiculous your logic is?

Calhoun

Nearing the end on this one will there be a moratorium on here also?

Interesting to see the thread on the John Connors in other parts of these boards which fundamentally illustrates what we are up against.

https://www.thesun.ie/tvandshowbiz/2605442/shocked-traveller-actor-john-connors-28-says-hes-being-hit-by-tsunami-of-racism-and-is-now-online-hate-target-after-announcing-his-support-for-eighth-amendment/

Poster child for certain sections of society a week or so back, now a social pariah. Bear in mind the culture this guy is apart of on the whole is very misogynistic and has some questions practices when it comes to animal welfare but none of this was an issue. Only now is he starting to become untouchable.

Makes you wonder what precedence we set by backing one side over another and how this will impact on men.

[Deleted User]

[Deleted User] wrote: »

With respect, Western society and it's values are changing at a rather rapid pace. The attitudes towards casual sex, for example, have drastically changed in the last 20 years. Even the idea of introducing Abortion, gay marriage etc, wouldn't have received even close to the support it currently has.

I think you are confusing Ireland with 'western society '
The rest of Europe didn't have the attitude we did to casual sex or homosexuality.
Ireland's values are changing. And changing for the better.

JRant

JRant wrote: »

Has there been any indication as to how much this will cost the taxpayer if/when abortion becomes legal here?
I would sincerely hope it is not going to be a free service.

All maternity services are free in Ireland.
Take 2 identical women, same age, same socioeconomic status etc.
One takes 2 abortion pills.
One goes through 9 months of pregnancy, medical appointments, scans etc (hope fully everything OK, so no extras)
Has a baby, baby is entitled to medical card. Child allowance is paid until child is 18.
Etc etc etc. And in this example, the women are working & providing for them selves.
Which coats the taxpayer more?

I am NOT suggesting abortion should be brought in to save money, I am merely counter arguing the 'how much will it cost the taxpayer' rubbish.

bubblypop

bubblypop wrote: »

I am NOT suggesting abortion should be brought in to save money, I am merely counter arguing the 'how much will it cost the taxpayer' rubbish.

Until it's brought into practice, we have no feckin clue as to how much it will cost.

pauldla

end of the road wrote: »

where the hell have the opposition been for the last 3 decades also? apart from grass routes campaigners from both sides working on the ground and people doing their own little bits where and when they can, the yes campaign have done nothing either. in fact, they vote in the governments who implement the same failed policies. at least for myself i can say that i don't vote for ff or fg and i make all sorts an election issue when campaigners from political parties come knocking during election time.

Your answer in no way responds to my question. Let me ask it again, in a more refined and direct manner: over the last three decades, what have the anti-choice/pro-life lobby done to 'do better' for the 'hard cases'?

JRant

bubblypop wrote: »

All maternity services are free in Ireland.
Take 2 identical women, same age, same socioeconomic status etc.
One takes 2 abortion pills.
One goes through 9 months of pregnancy, medical appointments, scans etc (hope fully everything OK, so no extras)
Has a baby, baby is entitled to medical card. Child allowance is paid until child is 18.
Etc etc etc. And in this example, the women are working & providing for them selves.
Which coats the taxpayer more?

I am NOT suggesting abortion should be brought in to save money, I am merely counter arguing the 'how much will it cost the taxpayer' rubbish.

Why are you conflating maternity care with abortions, they are 2 completely separate services. You can't have your cake and eat it. All those services are there to assist the mother and baby. Are you saying that maternity services will need to be cut back to allow for abortions because there is a very finite amount of resources available to these hospitals already.

If someone chooses to terminate their pregnancy then they should pay for it themselves unless it's a medical emergency.

JRant

pauldla wrote: »

Your answer in no way responds to my question. Let me ask it again, in a more refined and direct manner: over the last three decades, what have the anti-choice/pro-life lobby done to 'do better' for the 'hard cases'?

About the same as the Yes side I would say, ie the square root of feck all.

JRant

JRant wrote: »

Why are you conflating maternity care with abortions, they are 2 completely separate services. You can't have your cake and eat it. All those services are there to assist the mother and baby. Are you saying that maternity services will need to be cut back to allow for abortions because there is a very finite amount of resources available to these hospitals already.

If someone chooses to terminate their pregnancy then they should pay for it themselves unless it's a medical emergency.

Stop trying to suggest I am saying things that I am not. How would maternity services need to be cut back? Ridiculous.
They are not seperate, where do you think abortions take place in this country now?
I would imagine elective abortion will be paid for privately but I also expect that a number of abortions will be provided for by maternity services

seamus

Deleted User wrote: »

The problem with such an example, is that many people didn't wear seat belts until the Police could stop you and fine you for it. There will always be groups of people who will do what they want, in the face of common sense.

Absolutely. And that's what makes the education and availability piece so important. In this analogy "pregnancy" is the policeman, and unless people understand the effectiveness of contraceptives there's the potential for poor use or misuse.

But we still need the ambulance because sometimes a seatbelt is not enough and because people are fallible and not perfect.

Mark Hamill

JRant wrote: »

About the same as the Yes side I would say, ie the square root of feck all.

We aren't having a referendum on the 8th tomorrow because the no-side compaigned for it.

JRant

bubblypop wrote: »

Stop trying to suggest I am saying things that I am not. How would maternity services need to be cut back? Ridiculous.
They are not seperate, where do you think abortions take place in this country now?
I would imagine elective abortion will be paid for privately but I also expect that a number of abortions will be provided for by maternity services

I haven't seen anything to suggest that elective abortions will have to be paid for privately, have you?

As is likely to happen, there will be campaigns to have this service paid for out of the health budget. We already know all hospitals are stretched, including maternity hospitals. Where are these elective procedures going to take place? As we know from the UK statistics, a large proportion will require some sort of surgery.

So pray tell, if more resources are given over to this where is the funding to come from?

JRant

Mark Hamill wrote: »

We aren't having a referendum on the 8th tomorrow because the no-side compaigned for it.

What has that got to do with how the "hard cases" have been treated this past 30 years?

drunkmonkey

Ok it seems pretty clear were choosing Abortion over Adoption. Let's say between everything it costs the tax payer 10k an abortion how about an adoption grant of 10k for women who choose to let their baby go for adoption rather than death.
The adoption makes a lot more sense for the Government as the hope is they would turn into a tax payer.
Couples are already paying tens of thousands to adopt from outside the state.

JRant

drunkmonkey wrote: »

Ok it seems pretty clear were choosing Abortion over Adoption. Let's say between everything it costs the tax payer 10k an abortion how about an adoption grant of 10k for women who choose to let their baby go for adoption rather than death.
The adoption makes a lot more sense for the Government as the hope is they would turn into a tax payer.
Couples are already paying tens of thousands to adopt from outside the state.

I wouldn't agree with that at all. If someone wants an abortion or adoption let them at it. We shouldn't be offering a financial incentive for either IMO.

drunkmonkey

JRant wrote: »

I wouldn't agree with that at all. If someone wants an abortion or adoption let them at it. We shouldn't be offering a financial incentive for either IMO.

Were already offering a financial incentive for abortion if the yes win, why wouldn't you agree to put one in place for adoption.