Men's rights on Abortion?

the_syco

Sponge25 wrote: »

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.

So if a man raped a woman, you think that the rapist should be able to prevent the woman from having an abortion?

_Dara_

JRant wrote: »

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.

I have no interest in triumphalism myself. But if it’s a yes, I’ll be ecstatic and boards will be hearing about it. That might be construed as triumphalism but that would be wrong.

On the two campaigns, like I said, I haven’t seen any Yes campaign examples that match the worst of the no side antics.

drunkmonkey

You'll be estactic, it's a pretty sad thing to be celebrating the loss of a life and your first human right.

_Dara_

Yes, I will be happy. Additions to my statement are yours and yours alone.

SusieBlue

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

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 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.

Pete we’ve had the same argument on several threads, we are never going to agree.
You see a zygote as equivalent to a born baby and that’s your right and I respect it - but I don’t respect your notion of inflicting that view on all of society.
That’s exactly what it boils down to. I care about the suffering of actual people more than potential ones.

end of the road

SusieBlue wrote: »

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.

they already don't get to have a choice in a stranger's pregnancy. the law simply says that someone cannot kill their unborn child in ireland unless there is a good reason to do so. huge huge difference.

SusieBlue wrote: »

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.

yes, we are preventing the choice to kill others for any reason. what's the problem. the same happens for me, for you, for everyone on this thread, for everyone on this site and in the whole country. in our case the law extends to the unborn.
and quite frankly, both campaigns are exploiting and taking advantage, make no mistake about it.

SusieBlue wrote: »

A choice that should absolutely be up to the individual woman and her partner to decide.

it already is where required. that is what the poldpa does.

SusieBlue

end of the road wrote: »

they already don't get to have a choice in a stranger's pregnancy. the law simply says that someone cannot kill their unborn child in ireland unless there is a good reason to do so. huge huge difference.



yes, we are preventing the choice to kill others for any reason. what's the problem. the same happens for me, for you, for everyone on this thread, for everyone on this site and in the whole country. in our case the law extends to the unborn.
and quite frankly, both campaigns are exploiting and taking advantage, make no mistake about it.



it already is where required. that is what the poldpa does.

I look forward to never discussing this issue with you again after tomorrow.

Calhoun

_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.

Just because you don't see something doesn't mean its not there. Although i know why you don't see it. At least your father honest as he understands things are bad on the no side where as your happy to overlook the yes because its who you are voting for.

the_syco

end of the road wrote: »

the law simply says that

The law simply says that we can lock teenagers into a lunatic asylum until the baby is due, force feed them, and force them to give birth.

_Dara_

Calhoun wrote: »

Just because you don't see something doesn't mean its not there. Although i know why you don't see it. At least your father honest as he understands things are bad on the no side where as your happy to overlook the yes because its who you are voting for.

Elaborate. You said you know why so it shouldn’t be an issue.

Oh and I’m all ears, by the way. If you or others have Yes campaign equivalents to citing fake health care workers, planting people at marches and emulating the look of official government documents, I’d genuinely love to see those examples. You’re insinuating that I’m blind to them so they must exist, right?

RocketRaccoon

_Dara_ wrote: »

Elaborate. You said you know why so it shouldn’t be an issue.

Oh and I’m all ears, by the way. If you or others have Yes campaign equivalents to citing fake health care workers, planting people at marches and emulating the look of official government documents, I’d genuinely love to see those examples. You’re insinuating that I’m blind to them so they must exist, right?

This is a genuine question as you've mentioned it a few times. Who are the plants at these marches?

end of the road

SusieBlue wrote: »

I look forward to never discussing this issue with you again after tomorrow.

i will be glad when it's all over whatever happens. it's been a long long few months.

the_syco wrote: »

The law simply says that we can lock teenagers into a lunatic asylum until the baby is due, force feed them, and force them to give birth.

no it doesn't. it says that in certain circumstances someone can be sectioned under the mental health act for their own safety and or the safety of the public. i'm sure it's one of the most horrible things to happen or witness and i wouldn't wish it on my worst enemy and i hope i never ever experience or have to witness it. but i believe that the vast vast majority of medical professionals who would section someone only ever have the best interests of their patient at heart. if they have been found not to have been following the correct procedure then rightly they will be punished.

_Dara_

RocketRaccoon wrote: »

This is a genuine question as you've mentioned it a few times. Who are the plants at these marches?

It will take me a moment to find the information so bear with me.

RocketRaccoon

_Dara_ wrote: »

It will take me a moment to find the information so bear with me.

No problem, not starting an argument BTW. I am just curious.

_Dara_

RocketRaccoon wrote: »

This is a genuine question as you've mentioned it a few times. Who are the plants at these marches?

Right, here we go. A Youth Defense public face was spotted at a Repeal rally holding a banner with a blatantly inflammatory slogan. There was a photo of her acting as a steward at the last pro-life march but I can’t find it at the moment. It was posted on boards. And the lady in question has written from a pro-life perspective in the Irish Times. But yet marched in a pro-choice march in a Repeal jumper? There is also a video of her walking by with the banner so we’re not talking photoshop here.

https://twitter.com/daithigor/status/779726277032968192?s=20

https://twitter.com/ArtimusFoul/status/979400308483862528?s=20

the_syco

end of the road wrote: »

it says that in certain circumstances someone can be sectioned under the mental health act for their own safety and or the safety of the public

The law stated that if the woman was suicidal, she could get an abortion. What actually happened was she was locked up and forced to give birth to the child.

I was leaning towards a no when this referendum was first announced, I then bounced over on to the Yes side for a few weeks and now with the referendum tomorrow I think I'll be voting no. I am not necessarily against abortion but I don't think its clear what exactly is going to be legislated for if the eighth is repealed

I have constantly been changing my mind and I am very open minded on this issue. If the guarantee was that if the eighth is repealed then legislation will be brought in so that any woman who was in danger, had a still born, victim of incest.. etc would be eligible for an abortion I’d be okay with that. Unlimited Abortion makes me feel uneasy (even as an atheist).

Anyway I can’t wait until this freaking Referendum is over and I can stop hearing the constant whinging from both sides. Sweet Mary Christ I am sick of both sides in this Referendum. This time tomorrow night its all over

Calhoun

_Dara_ wrote: »

Elaborate. You said you know why so it shouldn’t be an issue.

Oh and I’m all ears, by the way. If you or others have Yes campaign equivalents to citing fake health care workers, planting people at marches and emulating the look of official government documents, I’d genuinely love to see those examples. You’re insinuating that I’m blind to them so they must exist, right?

Well i did elaborate, i said because your for that side your basically ignoring the bad **** it does.

Just because one side does something bad doesn't mean it excuses the other. Particularly when one side has popular support in both government, media and most online platforms.

The yes side i have seen attack men, attack old people, basically prohibit any discussion that doesn't align with their own views which is fairly bad in a democracy.

No im insinuating that your basically absolving one side because in your eyes it isnt so bad but its despicable from both sides.

Wibbs

Deleted User wrote: »

I am not necessarily against abortion but I don't think its clear what exactly is going to be legislated for if the eighth is repealed

My feelings pretty much and a major concern of mine. For me anyway it seems daft to vote for legislation when one doesn't know what form that legislation will take. Legislation that we won't get a choice to vote on. Leave it to the government and our judiciary? Yeah, I'm chock full of confidence there. History tends to show they'll either copy chunks of the UK legislation, go with what EU bureaucrats suggest, or make a hames of it. Or all of the above. Of the many branches of Irish civic layers that I have respect for the judiciary and the government do not figure highly in the ranks. And that's an understatement. So I'm very much swinging towards a No vote and it's got feck all to do with the matter of abortion itself.

On that matter I have pretty zero issues with the "abortion pill" and early stage abortions. Beyond that point and when it comes to a healthy developing foetus and a woman not in medical danger my position and line becomes harder and more defined. And I make zero apologies for that. And when I read and not just here about clumps of cells and comparisons with onanistic emissions my position becomes harder still and my eye rolling more vigorous.

This time tomorrow night its all over

Oh Im not so sure about that L. If there's a Brexit stylee "shock" of a No vote - and my prediction, such as it is, it will be close - the Yes side will go full apeshit. If it is a Yes, the No side won't be too happy, though I suspect will drift away more quickly than if it's a No. If it's a No, I'll further bet that we'll be asked again in short order, but if it's a Yes, that'll be that.



As for the "Trust Women" spiel. Last week I had both Yes and No campaigners to my door peddling their position. The Yes lot came out with the above early on. A position I challenged them on, given the No campaigners had called previously and they were also women. So which one's do I "trust"? We're rightfully reminded that women(and men) aren't a hive mind.

_Dara_

Calhoun wrote: »

Well i did elaborate, i said because your for that side your basically ignoring the bad **** it does.

Just because one side does something bad doesn't mean it excuses the other. Particularly when one side has popular support in both government, media and most online platforms.

The yes side i have seen attack men, attack old people, basically prohibit any discussion that doesn't align with their own views which is fairly bad in a democracy.

No im insinuating that your basically absolving one side because in your eyes it isnt so bad but its despicable from both sides.

I asked for concrete examples.

Both sides have had a minority of rude, attacking canvassers. However the stunts I’ve outlined above push the No campaign far ahead and I haven’t even listed them all.

I said I’m all ears. Seriously, anything will do. The worst I’ve seen is a video of a Yes campaigner stopping a No campaigner from putting up a poster and yes, he pushed the guy. But that’s matched by people being filmed taking down Yes posters and attacking the people who asked them why.

Give me examples that match any of the underhanded No campaign stunts I mentioned upthread. Seriously, anything at all. You say these examples exist so what’s the issue?

Don’t assume that because I’m voting one way that I’m blind and think the campaign I support is flawless. Maybe that’s how you roll. Don’t assume it’s the same for everyone.

So, I maintain: saying that the campaigns have been as bad as each other is demonstrably not true and just a glib, lazy statement.

_Dara_

Wibbs wrote: »

My feelings pretty much and a major concern of mine. For me anyway it seems daft to vote for legislation when one doesn't know what form that legislation will take. Legislation that we won't get a choice to vote on. Leave it to the government and our judiciary? Yeah, I'm chock full of confidence there. History tends to show they'll either copy chunks of the UK legislation, go with what EU bureaucrats suggest, or make a hames of it. Or all of the above. Of the many branches of Irish civic layers that I have respect for the judiciary and the government do not figure highly in the ranks. And that's an understatement. So I'm very much swinging towards a No vote and it's got feck all to do with the matter of abortion itself.

On that matter I have pretty zero issues with the "abortion pill" and early stage abortions. Beyond that point and when it comes to a healthy developing foetus and a woman not in medical danger my position and line becomes harder and more defined. And I make zero apologies for that. And when I read and not just here about clumps of cells and comparisons with onanistic emissions my position becomes harder still and my eye rolling more vigorous.

Oh Im not so sure about that L. If there's a Brexit stylee "shock" of a No vote - and my prediction, such as it is, it will be close - the Yes side will go full apeshit. If it is a Yes, the No side won't be too happy, though I suspect will drift away more quickly than if it's a No. If it's a No, I'll further bet that we'll be asked again in short order, but if it's a Yes, that'll be that.



As for the "Trust Women" spiel. Last week I had both Yes and No campaigners to my door peddling their position. The Yes lot came out with the above early on. A position I challenged them on, given the No campaigners had called previously and they were also women. So which one's do I "trust"? We're rightfully reminded that women(and men) aren't a hive mind.

When have we ever got to vote on legislation? Why would anyone expect to?

Of course the No campaign will melt away if it’s a yes. Nothing has changed for them. The stakes are low.

Wibbs

Both are peddling the guilt trip politics in pretty much equal amounts. The Nays have us "killing babies" and so forth the Yays have us "not trusting women" and so forth. Consider this; look at how self admitting No voters are rounded upon on the various threads on this here Boards. Which side tends to garner more vitriol and accusations of stupidity? Even though there's lots of that to be getting on with among some on both sides.

Wibbs

_Dara_ wrote: »

When have we ever got to vote on legislation? Why would anyone expect to?

I hate to break it to you, but you'll be voting on it tomorrow. You will be agreeing to or disagreeing with Irish legislation. You vote on it anytime there's a constitutional referendum.

_Dara_

Wibbs wrote: »

I hate to break it to you, but you'll be voting on it tomorrow. You will be agreeing to or disagreeing with Irish legislation. You vote on it anytime there's a constitutional referendum.

Nope. We’re voting on the constitution, not any particular legislation. I hate to break THAT to you.

SusieBlue

The Yes slogan means to trust women with their own healthcare decisions, for their own lives.
It isn’t advocating trusting every woman on earth with every single possible issue.

_Dara_

Wibbs wrote: »

Both are peddling the guilt trip politics in pretty much equal amounts. The Nays have us "killing babies" and so forth the Yays have us "not trusting women" and so forth. Consider this; look at how self admitting No voters are rounded upon on the various threads on this here Boards. Which side tends to garner more vitriol and accusations of stupidity? Even though there's lots of that to be getting on with among some on both sides.

The trust women thing. I don’t use that personally but if you’re asking, then, yup, I trust the No campaign women to make the right decisions for themselves and their reproductive health. Why wouldn’t I?

Wibbs wrote: »

Both are peddling the guilt trip politics in pretty much equal amounts. The Nays have us "killing babies" and so forth the Yays have us "not trusting women" and so forth. Consider this; look at how self admitting No voters are rounded upon on the various threads on this here Boards. Which side tends to garner more vitriol and accusations of stupidity? Even though there's lots of that to be getting on with among some on both sides.

There are a lot more Yes voters posting. (going by polls) So yeah, if someone makes a contentious statement, it will attract a large response. Should people... hold back from posting? On a messageboard? Okaaay. And for a smaller contingent, no voters punch above their weight when it comes to silliness. It’s impressive.

Calhoun

_Dara_ wrote: »

I asked for concrete examples.

Both sides have had a minority of rude, attacking canvassers. However the stunts I’ve outlined above push the No campaign far ahead and I haven’t even listed them all.

I said I’m all ears. Seriously, anything will do. The worst I’ve seen is a video of a Yes campaigner stopping a No campaigner from putting up a poster and yes, he pushed the guy. But that’s matched by people being filmed taking down Yes posters and attacking the people who asked them why.

Give me examples that match any of the underhanded No campaign stunts I mentioned upthread. Seriously, anything at all. You say these examples exist so what’s the issue?

Don’t assume that because I’m voting one way that I’m blind and think the campaign I support is flawless. Maybe that’s how you roll. Don’t assume it’s the same for everyone.

So, I maintain: saying that the campaigns have been as bad as each other is demonstrably not true and just a glib, lazy statement.

I am not google for you and i have been posting on this thread enough that i have given examples already. There was a video i linked a week or so back of a black lady telling men they need to shut up and do what their woman tell them to, or how about the social media engineered bull**** about men getting a vasectomy?

I will give you another as i am feeling generous though, the pro-choice advocate Janet Ni Shuilbhean saying she was glad that a couple of pro-lifers died on twitter was pretty horrible to be fair.

As i said when one side has the wind at their back so to speak and you still have to resort to attacking elderly people or anyone that doesn't agree with you something is seriously not right.

I maintain that you are so hardened to the yes side that you don't even want to think of them as doing bad things and would rather paper over it.

Calhoun

SusieBlue wrote: »

The Yes slogan means to trust women with their own healthcare decisions, for their own lives.
It isn’t advocating trusting every woman on earth with every single possible issue.

The Yes slogan is the equivalent of the male get back to the kitchen, it is condescending BS and implies that men should give up their vote and let the superior female sit beside them make the decisions.

Wibbs

_Dara_ wrote: »

Nope. We’re voting on the constitution, not any particular legislation. I hate to break THAT to you.

Get back to me when you understand what legislation is*. What do you think the 9th is? At times like this I agree with the Churchillian position that democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others.

_Dara_ wrote: »

The trust women thing. I don’t use that personally but if you’re asking, then, yup, I trust the No campaign women to make the right decisions for themselves and their reproductive health. Why wouldn’t I?

Because Women™ just like Men™ aren't one mind. Some are intelligent, some are idiots, others are vacillating between the two and most are in their own personal camp of thought until the rubber meets the road when life happens.




*FYI legislation deals with laws, the constitution deals with laws and principles of law(among other things). It can be argued it's more important than legislation. Oh and this vote couldn't be any more particular on how legislation will be formed in the future. So yes, you will be voting on legislation. The mind truly boggles.

_Dara_

Calhoun wrote: »

I am not google for you and i have been posting on this thread enough that i have given examples already. There was a video i linked a week or so back of a black lady telling men they need to shut up and do what their woman tell them to, or how about the social media engineered bull**** about men getting a vasectomy?

I will give you another as i am feeling generous though, the pro-choice advocate Janet Ni Shuilbhean saying she was glad that a couple of pro-lifers died on twitter was pretty horrible to be fair.

As i said when one side has the wind at their back so to speak and you still have to resort to attacking elderly people or anyone that doesn't agree with you something is seriously not right.

I maintain that you are so hardened to the yes side that you don't even want to think of them as doing bad things and would rather paper over it.

Nope. That example you give is awful. Really awful. And thank you. I genuinely appreciate you providing that.

You have decided that I’m hardened. That’s all you.