Men's rights on Abortion?

drunkmonkey

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

So killing is the solution, nice one Adolf.

drunkmonkey

drunkmonkey wrote: »

Financially there not suppoted what's, the cost of raising a kid here, 100k until their 21 on the last count. To someone with nothing that's winning the lottery money.

Was it 5 Irish babies adopted last year I think, we could do with increasing the supply, were importing the babies and exporting the abortions. It's pretty insane when you think of the logic.

The cost hasn't seemed to be an obstacle to your friend Jacinta, with her free house & Mickey money.........
Sure the babies worth more if she keeps them herself!

RocketRaccoon

drunkmonkey wrote: »

Your very Niave to be playing judge and executioner. We all know a Jacinta.
The point was missed on you obiviously as it was in response to a question from the Yes side who brought Jacinta into it.

We take it your in favour of killing her children, that folks is the mindset of a Yes voter, if her daddy's poor chop the baby up.

I asked the question, I'm not a yes voter.

seamus

drunkmonkey wrote: »

Financially there not suppoted what's, the cost of raising a kid here, 100k until their 21 on the last count. To someone with nothing that's winning the lottery money.

Are you talking about children or adoptions?
I agree that not enough support is provided. Working parents in particular need way more state support for their children.

But I thought you were talking adoption?

Was it 5 Irish babies adopted last year I think, we could do with increasing the supply, were importing the babies and exporting the abortions. It's pretty insane when you think of the logic.

Yes, it is pretty insane to think of babies as export/import commodities with a "balance of trade" that can be manipulated through financial legislation. Seriously, listen to yourself.

Mark Hamill

drunkmonkey wrote: »

1) The choice is life over death
2) I'm not suggesting it for special cases like rape. I'm suggesting it for women who chose for economic reasons, whether that's 10k if you adopt or 10k in financial assistance to help you after the baby arrives.
3)That's debatable personally after seeing someone with kidney failure i'd keep mine regardless of cost, I've no issue if someone wants to sell one willingly. I was willing to give one for free but that was a family member.
4)If I was stoney broke and given the choice I might just take the 10k, see point 2.
5)Your logics dictates we kill the 5000 in that point.

So to sum up, kill them all, screw giving an alternative is your main theme.

1) I thought the choice was abortion over adoption? Would you like to pick a spot for your goalposts?
2) And how will that not create a market for adoption then? Women choosing to get pregnant just to sell their babies? I wonder would much of the no-side be happy with a society that sees babies as commercial commodities?
3) Ah, so we would have to go higher than 10k to get you to give a kidney, but 10k is fine for a woman to go through pregnancy?
4) See my point 2
5) My logic dictates nothing, it just recognises that the 5000 are already being aborted and that if adoption is presented as the counter option, adoption needs to account for nearly doubling of orphans that will arise.

To sum it all up, you don't know anything about the adoption system, adoption numbers, number of foster care or basic economics, but any ill-considered "alternative" is better than abortions that will happen anyway.

drunkmonkey

We are running a deficit at the cost of Irish babies life though. Can we do more to balance things I think we both know they can .
We are treating them as a disposable commodity in the debate though.

Won't get into working parents as we don't want to be seen to agree on too much.

Macha

drunkmonkey wrote: »

We all know a Jacinta.

We take it your in favour of killing her children, that folks is the mindset of a Yes voter, if her daddy's poor chop the baby up.

Sorry but I don't know any Jacintas and even if I did, I don't get what that has to do with the referendum.

I would vote Yes so that Irish women have access to better healthcare when they're pregnant. There have been some real horror stories that have come out about women getting sick when they're pregnant and being denied certain treatments. My son, who has a serious medical condition, doesn't just need me to be alive, he needs me to be healthy so I can fight for the medical treatment he needs. My partner also needs and wants me to be alive and healthy.

SusieBlue

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I'm pretty sure another group had an idea similar to that before, except they sold the children to wealthy Americans....

Mark Hamill

drunkmonkey wrote: »

Was it 5 Irish babies adopted last year I think, we could do with increasing the supply, were importing the babies and exporting the abortions. It's pretty insane when you think of the logic.

You might want to read the rest of the data before you comment on the situation.
Yes, in 2016 there were only 5 babies adopted in Ireland.
Altogether in Ireland there were 89 adoptions of Irish children (65 family adoptions, 19 long term foster adoptions and 5 baby).
There was also on 54 babies adopted from abroad.

So lets assume that there are still 14 times more Irish people looking for babies abroad than get to adopt them (14*54=756) and hell, lets assume its the same situation for adoptions here (14*89=1,246).
Add up all those who adopted and who want to adopt and you get ...
2,145.
There are ~6000 children in foster care.

So even if everyone looking to adopt got an Irish kid, the number would still be ~4000 in foster care.
And then you want to add ~5000 to that number every year (the current number of Irish abortions per annum).

Maybe do some research and think before speaking before talking nonsense.

The Specialist

drunkmonkey wrote: »

Your very Niave to be playing judge and executioner. We all know a Jacinta.
The point was missed on you obiviously as it was in response to a question from the Yes side who brought Jacinta into it.

We take it your in favour of killing her children, that folks is the mindset of a Yes voter, if her daddy's poor chop the baby up.

Clear to see someone failed biology (like 99.9% of the No side). What you are referring to is a foetus.

drunkmonkey

The Specialist wrote: »

Clear to see someone failed biology (like 99.9% of the No side). What you are referring to is a foetus.

The doctor called them babies every time we went to them, call it a Mexican taco for all I care if it makes you feel better about killing something that's alive.

The Specialist

drunkmonkey wrote: »

The doctor called them babies every time we went to them, call it a Mexican taco for all I care if it makes you feel better about killing something that's alive.

How do you feel after masturbating, you mass murderer?

Turnipman

The Specialist wrote: »

Clear to see someone failed biology (like 99.9% of the No side). What you are referring to is a foetus.

The Nazis referred to the Jews as rats. Presumably they too would have failed their biology exams.

Wibbs

The Specialist wrote: »

Clear to see someone failed biology (like 99.9% of the No side). What you are referring to is a foetus.

The Specialist wrote: »

How do you feel after masturbating, you mass murderer?

I've no particular skin in this game, haven't commented either way and to be frank the zealots on both sides are giving me a pain in my arse, but if you're comparing the products of a **** with a gestating foetus you're another who has as you put it "failed biology". Put it another way at what point do you see a difference between the two? Two weeks, twenty weeks, thirty?

Having read and listened and watched over the last months my general take has been both the Yes and No crowd are often as not as bad as each other and I would suspect the majority who are soft Yes/No voters feel the same. For me the sooner this bloody referendum is done and dusted the better. Regardless of the result.

end of the road

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.

it's not about cost as such, but value for money. abortion on demand brings no value for money. whereas a child and it's associated costs while costing the tax payer more, will bring value for money in most cases via their contributions to society.

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'?

the exact same as the pro-choice lobby. nothing. the pro-choice have abortion on demand as their only solution. both them and the other lobbiests vote in the same old same old politicos.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

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

and why did they campaign for the referendum? abortion on demand. not for the hard cases.

Outlaw Pete

Jenneke87 wrote: »

TBH, I'm voting yes simply because once it's in then it can be researched better without this idea that Ireland is somehow different from everywhere else. Once it's in, then changes to the law will occur without the need for a referendum, and the emotional aspect can be removed with a more systematic approach taken. Hopefully, (and past experience tells me that this is unlikely), proper research and analysis on the issue with Irish cases, will provide a better guide for how Abortion should be implemented for Irish women.

I honestly don't see how it can be prevented at this stage, and will be brought up again & again until it's passed.

I see your point but I feel the right to life is very much something which should remain in our constitution as otherwise every general election you will have the developing fetus being used as something of a party political football. Each party promising to dial back, or further, whatever legislation is that the last lot implemented.

Sponge25

I've never understood how men have no choice whether there off spring lives or dies.

RocketRaccoon

Sponge25 wrote: »

I've never understood how men have no choice whether there off spring lives or dies.

Because we don't have ovaries or some nonsense. Either way, our opinions don't count.

Triceratops Ballet

Sponge25 wrote: »

I've never understood how men have no choice whether there off spring lives or dies.

Of course they do, plenty of men make the decision and go with their partners to England. They do that by choice.

.......

This post has been deleted.

Sponge25

RocketRaccoon wrote: »

Because we don't have ovaries or some nonsense. Either way, our opinions don't count.

We do have testicles which enable the creation of a foetus. We ought to have 50pc say. So what if the female carries the baby, nature decreed this not men.

SusieBlue

Sponge25 wrote: »

I've never understood how men have no choice whether there off spring lives or dies.

Firstly, men are very important in this referendum. `
The implications from these laws can affect their wives and daughters, not just prospective future children that an ex partner may abort, as is commonly discussed here.

Secondly, I believe a man should absolutely have a say in a pregnancy in which he is the father. His input is very valuable and should be considered. Ideally, both parties can come to a mutual agreement.
But as the woman has to carry the pregnancy, and give birth, she must have the deciding vote, if they can't agree.

Thirdly, I don't think anyone, man or woman, should get to have a choice in a strangers pregnancy. A pregnancy that has nothing to do with them. A pregnancy that will have zero effect on their life.

And this is the problem with the No side - they are exploiting and taking advantage of situations like this to make a collective CHOICE for the whole of society.
A choice that should absolutely be up to the individual woman and her partner to decide.

_Dara_

Wibbs wrote: »

I've no particular skin in this game, haven't commented either way and to be frank the zealots on both sides are giving me a pain in my arse, but if you're comparing the products of a **** with a gestating foetus you're another who has as you put it "failed biology". Put it another way at what point do you see a difference between the two? Two weeks, twenty weeks, thirty?

Having read and listened and watched over the last months my general take has been both the Yes and No crowd are often as not as bad as each other and I would suspect the majority who are soft Yes/No voters feel the same. For me the sooner this bloody referendum is done and dusted the better. Regardless of the result.

The Yes campaign hasn’t been perfect for sure. But some of the stunts pulled by the No campaign put them way out in front: quotations from fake healthcare professionals, planting people at Repeal with banners featuring blatantly inflammatory slogans, distributing a booklet modelled aesthetically on official government booklets etc. Very underhand stuff and, honestly, quite desperate. I haven’t seen anything that compares from the Yes campaign. Saying that one side is as bad the other is fluent but doesn’t stand up to much scrutiny.

My father is voting no and he has much bigger problems with the No campaign. Really hates the lot of them and has found the Yes campaign much less objectionable. He has found the No campaign so offputting that he is actually considering abstaining. He told me that earlier and, believe me, he always votes.

RocketRaccoon

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Stop the bull****!!

Feminists continue to say mens opinions don't matter in this referendum!

RocketRaccoon

_Dara_ wrote: »

The Yes campaign hasn’t been perfect for sure. But some of the stunts pulled by the No campaign put them way out in front: quotations from fake healthcare professionals, planting people at Repeal with banners featuring blatantly inflammatory slogans, distributing a booklet modelled aesthetically on official government booklets etc. Very underhand stuff and, honestly, quite desperate. I haven’t seen anything that compares from the Yes campaign. Saying that one side is as bad the other is fluent but doesn’t stand up to much scrutiny.

My father is voting no and he has much bigger problems with the No campaign. Really hates the lot of them and has found the Yes campaign much less objectionable. He has found the No campaign so offputting that he is actually considering abstaining. He told me that earlier and, believe me, he always votes.

While I agree that some folk on the No side have been disgraceful, I find a lot on the Yes side to be just as bad. That Facebook page "in her shoes" I think it's called is at least 80% bull and just made up stories to try and stir up emotional reactions and it is pathetic.

_Dara_

RocketRaccoon wrote: »

While I agree that some folk on the No side have been disgraceful, I find a lot on the Yes side to be just as bad. That Facebook page "in her shoes" I think it's called is at least 80% bull and just made up stories to try and stir up emotional reactions and it is pathetic.

I can think of nothing the Yes campaign has done to match any of the above examples I gave. These are things that are definitely 100% underhand, whereas you can’t say whether the ‘In Her Shoes’ stories are bullshit. It’s speculation.

The Yes campaign have let themselves down with a small number of their canvassers. But the No campaign is toe-to-toe with them there.

So saying one is as bad as the other rolls off the tongue but that’s about it.

If my very politically active father is considering abstaining and not voting no because of the no campaign’s antics, it’s bad.

SusieBlue

RocketRaccoon wrote: »

While I agree that some folk on the No side have been disgraceful, I find a lot on the Yes side to be just as bad. That Facebook page "in her shoes" I think it's called is at least 80% bull and just made up stories to try and stir up emotional reactions and it is pathetic.

That is absolutely not true. If you read the comments on most of those posts, the person who the story is about usually ‘outs’ themselves by saying thanks for the support.

Arlette who was on the Pat Kenny show last night, her story was featured on it. She’s a real person. She is just one of many examples I can think of.

RocketRaccoon

SusieBlue wrote: »

That is absolutely not true. If you read the comments on most of those posts, the person who the story is about usually ‘outs’ themselves by saying thanks for the support.

Arlette who was on the Pat Kenny show last night, her story was featured on it. She’s a real person. She is just one of many examples I can think of.

I didn't say all. A lot of the stories on there are made up, there's no doubt whatsoever in my mind about that.

Outlaw Pete

SusieBlue wrote: »

Thirdly, I don't think anyone, man or woman, should get to have a choice in a strangers pregnancy. A pregnancy that has nothing to do with them. A pregnancy that will have zero effect on their life.

You say that you don't think anyone, male or female, should have a say in another's decision to terminate a pregnancy, and your reasoning for that is because it would have 'zero effect' on their life........... but, if somebody decides to do something neglectful to a newborn child (for example) that also would have zero effect on a stranger's life..... does that therefore then mean that such crimes are none of society's business as a result? Of course not, and so why then, just because the baby is within a woman's womb, should that then be considered to be the case?

In my view neglect is neglect, whether it's a newborn or a baby at 12 weeks gestation in the womb.

Hell, it's not so long ago in Ireland that we had the images of very prematurely born babies plastered across the back of cigarette packets, in an effort to try and alert us to the dangers that smoking has on babies developing in the womb and yet here we are set to make it legal to end their lives even when there is no substantial risk of life to the woman.

And this is the problem with the No side - they are exploiting and taking advantage of situations like this to make a collective CHOICE for the whole of society.

And what about the collective CHOICE you (the Yes voters) are making for the developing human being in the womb? What of them? What of their body automony? You all speak of being forced to remain pregnant? But what about being forced to die? We all have one life and bar none, all of us where at that 12 week stage of development, where we could only move very minimally and do very little, and to be in Ireland at that stage of development was one of the safest places on the planet to be, and still is, lucky us, but yet tomorrow many people in this country will walk into a Poll booth and strike down a law which very likely has played a part in their very existence.

JRant

_Dara_ wrote: »

The Yes campaign hasn’t been perfect for sure. But some of the stunts pulled by the No campaign put them way out in front: quotations from fake healthcare professionals, planting people at Repeal with banners featuring blatantly inflammatory slogans, distributing a booklet modelled aesthetically on official government booklets etc. Very underhand stuff and, honestly, quite desperate. I haven’t seen anything that compares from the Yes campaign. Saying that one side is as bad the other is fluent but doesn’t stand up to much scrutiny.

My father is voting no and he has much bigger problems with the No campaign. Really hates the lot of them and has found the Yes campaign much less objectionable. He has found the No campaign so offputting that he is actually considering abstaining. He told me that earlier and, believe me, he always votes.

To be honest Dara, I'm with Wibbs on this one. I have a pain in my face listening to the smug condescending arrogant aßholes on both sides of this debate. The level of hostility displayed at times has also been something to behold.

Whatever way this falls on Friday we have not heard anything like the end of it unfortunately. There will be triumphant bleats from whatever side wins and that will be even more insufferable than what we've seen so far.