Her Body, Her Choice....Her Responsibility?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

One eyed Jack

Tell me how wrote: »

I think it is false to suggest that all abortion decisions will be made solely in terms of needing to just end a pregnancy without being affected by considerations of what will be the scenario if the child is born.

I believe that some abortions will be carried out because of the females concerns as to the changes in her life, her readiness for a child or her incapacity to look after the child when it is born. She is abdicating her responsibility in this way through availing of an abortion.

Why then, should a man not have the same right?

You're presenting a false equivalence by equating the welfare of a child that is yet to be born, with the welfare of a child that is born. You're asking why should a man not have a right to do something that women don't have a right to do. They aren't the same circumstances so different rights are taken into consideration, including the rights of the child that is also now part of the balancing of rights of all the people involved.

Also, I think it is much more common that couples refer to their pregnancies as "we are expecting" not just I am expecting. It is again misleading, (in my view) to suggest men do not become invested in the thoughts of being a father until the child is born.

It can be as common as you like, it's still meaningless in a legal context when you are determining the rights of individual human beings. I agree with you that it is misleading to suggest that men do not become invested in the thoughts of becoming a father until the child is born, but until the child is actually born, then men neither have any rights, nor do they have any responsibilities towards a child that hasn't been born yet.

Consider for example that what you're suggesting was granted to men, that their investment in the child yet to be born was taken into consideration by law. Should they also have a legal remedy if the woman they impregnated either miscarries the child, or smokes or drinks during their pregnancy? Should they be entitled to seek compensation from the woman if the unborn child they were expecting is not delivered?

The answer in my opinion is no, because human beings, whether or not they are born, are not legally considered anyone's property. You have yet to address the issue of the rights of the child in relation to whether or not their father should or should not have to support them and provide for them. Because the father cannot force a woman either to avail of an abortion, or to give birth against her will, there is no equivalent that could grant a man the same right to an abortion as the woman has during the time she is pregnant, not we, she, regarded as a completely separate entity from the man who impregnates her.

padz

iptba wrote: »

Working on the assumption that the posited father may not be the biological father.

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2005/aug/11/childrensservices.uknews

One in 25 fathers is not biological parent - study


https://canadiancrc.com/Newspaper_Articles/Globe_and_Mail_Moms_Little_secret_14DEC02.aspx

or one in ten

Mr.H

Let's say a man and a woman have sex. She becomes pregnant. Let's then say she does not want the child as she doesn't want a child. Simple as. Under the new laws she can haven abortion without even telling him.

Let's look at it the other way. The man doesn't want the child. He may also not be able to afford it or simply doesn't want kids. He has no say either way. Legally he does have to pay for the child.

You can say he chose to have sex with her but then you are putting a different set of rules on the guy. If I said that the woman didn't have to have sex with him, you would say I hate women.

I am just glad to be in a happy relationship where we agree on what we want. Neither of us will ever be burdened with the worry that the other one wants something different.

padz

it seams that in the past women were the custodians of reproduction for the most part, and as such chose a suitable mate,.....now with all these recent changes it'll more than likely shift as to where men are the ones doing the vetting

erudec

Woodward wrote: »

The results are in, the amendment will be repealed and Ireland will have abortion on demand. While I personally am happy (no offense to the No voters), it does bring to the table the question of 'what next?' in intergender relations around the issue of parenthood and responsibility. Do you think there will (or should be) a push towards something along the lines of 'financial abortion', where the man has the opportunity to opt out of future obligations towards the child should the woman choose to continue the pregnancy? Essentially the argument is that consenting to sex no longer carries the risk of pregnancy for the woman, ie she can opt out of parenthood by getting an abortion, so men should be granted the same opportunity by relinquishing future obligations while abortion is still possible and introducing a 'parenthood by consent only' model for society. Personally I do not think this would be a positive change for society but I do find the concept interesting and support for it seems to be growing, at least online as far as I can tell.

There's some logic to it.

I myself have never had sex with a "bad boy" irresponsible, dangerous, vaguely criminal type, but I have felt a few urges in my time.

I suppose that back in the caveman times, that type of personality would have been a good hunter, and would intimidate other males.

Also, 100,000 years ago, mortgages didn't exist, and the entire tribe, uncles, aunts, cousins and all would have looked after the children. So maybe the fact that the bad boy types are useless at childcare (and seemingly allergic to it) would have been fine.

The state is no good at getting these bad boys into paid regular work, and they don't often do it well.

But it definitely seems to be a problem that being completely unsuited to the father/breadwinner role is no obstacle at all to having several children by several mothers, and even when these men try to become stable workers and fathers, results are mixed at best.

I would never see myself employing such a man in any role at all: he's too likely to be a liability.

Robotics is taking away all the paid roles that low intelligence men used to rely on: simple repetitive tasks. So more than ever the problem persists.

A baby is born and a lone parent is definitely a poor substitute for a family. But the man whose offspring it is, is completely unsuited for the job. His natural tendencies usually leads to the mother divorcing him in short order.

The right wing is not usually reliable when they quote statistics, but the numbers on fatherless children, especially sons, are conclusive.

padz

erudec wrote: »

There's some logic to it.

I myself have never had sex with a "bad boy" irresponsible, dangerous, vaguely criminal type, but I have felt a few urges in my time.

I suppose that back in the caveman times, that type of personality would have been a good hunter, and would intimidate other males.

Also, 100,000 years ago, mortgages didn't exist, and the entire tribe, uncles, aunts, cousins and all would have looked after the children. So maybe the fact that the bad boy types are useless at childcare (and seemingly allergic to it) would have been fine.

The state is no good at getting these bad boys into paid regular work, and they don't often do it well.

But it definitely seems to be a problem that being completely unsuited to the father/breadwinner role is no obstacle at all to having several children by several mothers, and even when these men try to become stable workers and fathers, results are mixed at best.

I would never see myself employing such a man in any role at all: he's too likely to be a liability.

Robotics is taking away all the paid roles that low intelligence men used to rely on: simple repetitive tasks. So more than ever the problem persists.

A baby is born and a lone parent is definitely a poor substitute for a family. But the man whose offspring it is, is completely unsuited for the job. His natural tendencies usually leads to the mother divorcing him in short order.

The right wing is not usually reliable when they quote statistics, but the numbers on fatherless children, especially sons, are conclusive.

The breadwinner role is pretty much on its last legs, it was prob good for a while in the late 90s/early 2000s , but theres been so much of a shift in economics & technology & society(marriage ref and the 8th).... the relationship model has to be drastically changed for it to stay relevant..... i think gay men will prob father children with straight working women and co parent.. ...and straight men will eventually opt for a vasectomy or parent at a distance in some codified way like the good friday agreement

if anything the exclusivity of marriage between men and women & the 8th amendment protecting the place of the child were the only two things men and women had going for them..... now we ALL have to look at things differently

El_Duderino 09

Tell me how wrote: »

El_Duderino 09 wrote:

Yep women have a choice. It took decades of activism and campaigning. It’s a long road ahead to get a change to the laws. Those who want it should probably get cracking.

Do you think that men should have the choice?

I think it’s a very interesting question. I have never even thought about it until recently so I’m not convinced one way or the other. I think it’s up to those who strongly believe men should have the right, to make their case.

Abortion took decades of campaigning, raiding awareness, making the case and changing attitudes.

Attitudes don’t change over night.

Gwen Cooper

Being pregnant and being a parent are two different things.

In my eyes, it goes a little bit like this:

Step 1: Meeting the person
Step 2: Having sex with the person
Step 3: Getting pregnant
Step 4: Birth
Step 5: Parenting

You can't get to step 2 without making it to step 1 first. Having sex leads to pregnancy, pregnancy leads to parenting. It's not the same thing. The man can't get pregnant, so he doesn't have a right to make the choice, as pregnancy doesn't affect his own body. The woman has to go through the pregnancy, it does affect her body, and he has the right to choose what happens with her own body.

If the choice is made and the pregnancy is terminated, it will not lead to parenting.

If the choice is made for the pregnancy to be continued, a baby will be born and the man and the woman become parents. Both the woman and the man then have equal parental rights and responsibilities.

Also, imagine that the man goes through with the financial abortion and gives up all the rights and responsibilities he would have as a parent. The kid grows up, decides he wants to meet his father. Would his mother be legally obliged not to give the father's details to the kid? And what if the father sees the woman with the kid in town, seeing the child for the first time, realises that he made a horrible mistake and decides that he actually wants to be his father? Would that be allowed?

Not even mentioning the effects on that kid's mental health once he finds out that his dad doesn't want to have anything to do with him.

Cyrus

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

I think it’s a very interesting question. I have never even thought about it until recently so I’m not convinced one way or the other. I think it’s up to those who strongly believe men should have the right, to make their case.

Abortion took decades of campaigning, raiding awareness, making the case and changing attitudes.

Attitudes don’t change over night.

surely someone who is pro choice has already convinced themselves of this, its the same arguments that they made for abortion just from a mans perspective.

El_Duderino 09

Cyrus wrote: »

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

I think it’s a very interesting question. I have never even thought about it until recently so I’m not convinced one way or the other. I think it’s up to those who strongly believe men should have the right, to make their case.

Abortion took decades of campaigning, raiding awareness, making the case and changing attitudes.

Attitudes don’t change over night.

surely someone who is pro choice has already convinced themselves of this, its the same arguments that they made for abortion just from a mans perspective.

That’s just not how people make decisions and form attitudes, I’m afraid.

Why the resistance to simply doing it the normal way with a long term campaign to gain public support?

And why has nobody suggested starting by cleaning and beautifying your room?

Cyrus

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

That’s just not how people make decisions and form attitudes, I’m afraid.

Why the resistance to simply doing it the normal way with a long term campaign to gain public support?

And why has nobody suggested starting by cleaning and beautifying your room?

no resistance at all, im sure if people feel strongly about this it will happen, personally i am happily married with kids of my own so its not an issue for me.

Anyway as i said the repeal side have done the heavy lifting, they have effectively argued for this albeit unwittingly

and i have no idea what your cleaning and beautifying point is, it must be good you keep making it, please enlighten me

El_Duderino 09

Cyrus wrote: »

no resistance at all, im sure if people feel strongly about this it will happen, personally i am happily married with kids of my own so its not an issue for me.

Anyway as i said the repeal side have done the heavy lifting, they have effectively argued for this albeit unwittingly

and i have no idea what your cleaning and beautifying point is, it must be good you keep making it, please enlighten me

I suppose it’s up to those people to make their case. If the heavy lifting has been done for then by the repeal activists, then it should be less difficult for them to make their case.

Clean your Room is a reference to Jordan Peterson who is in vogue with right wing types and anti feminist types and anti PC types. They bang on about him as if he’s the answer to something. His big idea is that you shouldn’t look outside for solutions. You should work on self improvement and start by cleaning and beautifying your room. but when there’s an actual problem, his supporters forget all that guff because it’s, well, guff. Grand in theory but useless as a marzipan dildo in real life. Not even worth a mention in this discussion so far, apparently.

Gwen Cooper

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Clean your Room is a reference to Jordan Peterson who is in vogue with right wing types and anti feminist types and anti PC types. They bang on about him as if he’s the answer to something. His big idea is that you shouldn’t look outside for solutions. You should work on self improvement and start by cleaning and beautifying your room. but when there’s an actual problem, his supporters forget all that guff because it’s, well, guff. Grand in theory but useless as a marzipan dildo in real life. Not even worth a mention in this discussion so far, apparently.

OT, but I'm constantly being told by my ex that the key to curing my depression is cleaning my room. Needless to say, good old Jordan is his everything, and as soon as I disagree with something, I'm being compared to that woman from the infamous Channel 4 interview.

Funny enough, his room is absolutely spotless, and yet his life is a total mess. I wonder why.

I had no idea that "Clean your room" is a running joke on the internet until now. All the undiscovered memes that are waiting for me. Oh, it's going to be another productive day at work.

Cyrus

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Clean your Room is a reference to Jordan Peterson who is in vogue with right wing types and anti feminist types and anti PC types. They bang on about him as if he’s the answer to something. His big idea is that you shouldn’t look outside for solutions. You should work on self improvement and start by cleaning and beautifying your room. but when there’s an actual problem, his supporters forget all that guff because it’s, well, guff. Grand in theory but useless as a marzipan dildo in real life. Not even worth a mention in this discussion so far, apparently.

sounds like utter manure.

so your assertion is that anyone putting this theory forward is either right wing, anti feminist or anti PC(whatever that is) or all three together? Again a little bizarre given the train of thought is so close to the pro choice arguments

Cyrus

Gwen Cooper wrote: »

OT, but I'm constantly being told by my ex that the key to curing my depression is cleaning my room. Needless to say, good old Jordan is his everything, and as soon as I disagree with something, I'm being compared to that woman from the infamous Channel 4 interview.

Funny enough, his room is absolutely spotless, and yet his life is a total mess. I wonder why.

I had no idea that "Clean your room" is a running joke on the internet until now. All the undiscovered memes that are waiting for me. Oh, it's going to be another productive day at work.

id stop talking to your ex if i was you, sounds like someone to avoid

Gwen Cooper

Cyrus wrote: »

id stop talking to your ex if i was you, sounds like someone to avoid

I'm bombarding him with Clean your room memes as we speak. I'm sure he will stop talking to me first.

El_Duderino 09

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Clean your Room is a reference to Jordan Peterson who is in vogue with right wing types and anti feminist types and anti PC types. They bang on about him as if he’s the answer to something. His big idea is that you shouldn’t look outside for solutions. You should work on self improvement and start by cleaning and beautifying your room. but when there’s an actual problem, his supporters forget all that guff because it’s, well, guff. Grand in theory but useless as a marzipan dildo in real life. Not even worth a mention in this discussion so far, apparently.

It's almost like you're inventing something to argue against and had to keep saying it until someone took the bait. And even then it was someone who didn't understand the reference rather that the right wing types you apparently imagine being everyone who disagrees with you on this forum. Seriously low quality posting.

El_Duderino 09

Deleted User wrote: »

It's almost like you're inventing something to argue against and had to keep saying it until someone took the bait. And even then it was someone who didn't understand the reference rather that the right wing types you apparently imagine being everyone who disagrees with you on this forum. Seriously low quality posting.

Thanks Buttonwtf.

I suppose I’d say there are 2 main points.

1 is that the way to bring about the change in the OP is to actively campaign for external change to the laws.

2 is that naturally Peterson would propose the exact opposite and would suggest self improvement starting with cleaning your room.

It’s clear that Peterson isn’t even being considered as part of this discussion because this is a real would issue and Peterson’s message would be useless.

The Bishop Basher

Deleted User wrote: »

It's almost like you're inventing something to argue against and had to keep saying it until someone took the bait.

I got that too. It was a bit cringe..

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

It’s clear that Peterson isn’t even being considered as part of this discussion because this is a real would issue and Peterson’s message would be useless.

I don't agree with a lot of stuff Peterson comes out with but his basic message on this one is bang on.

You either don't understand his point or you're deliberately misrepresenting him.

Either way it makes you appear as if you haven't a clue what you're talking about.

If you're going to debate Peterson's points, at least do it honestly..

El_Duderino 09

Rennaws wrote: »

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

It’s clear that Peterson isn’t even being considered as part of this discussion because this is a real would issue and Peterson’s message would be useless.

I don't agree with a lot of stuff Peterson comes out with but his basic message on this one is bang on.

What’s his message on this one?

TheDoc

irishrebe wrote: »

What part of it is bizarre? It took 30 years for the state to decide that a woman was able to choose whether she wanted to be a mother or not. Why wouldn't it potentially take another 30 to decide if a man is able to choose whether or not he wants to be a father? Fine, maybe the way society is moving quickly it could take less time, but it would certainly be a long process. There is no straw man.

You know I can see where you are coming from, but as per usual I find in these discussions or debates, there is like the "putting on a pedestal" one issue over another, or treating them as separate entities that cannot or have not being going in tandum.

Groups for single fathers, groups representing men in these type of situations and lobbying TD's and government etc. has been going on a long time, if not in tandum with abortion discussions.

It's sad to see the harsher elements of gender brought into the entire repeal discussion. Of course there is a gender difference, and that is fine, but again you couldn't even broach the subject of "But what if during consensual sex a pregnancy occurs, where the man wants to father the child but the mother wants to terminate" and that instantly turns into, mostly, men being shouted down as misogynist pieces of **** or sexist pigs.

It seems we are literally unable to have grown up debates anymore that look at various aspects of a scenario, without someone or some group getting too emotional and throwing out labelling terms.

I'm a father of two wonderful girls, with my girlfriend of over 10 years. Marriage isn't on our radar, yet under the states eyes I'm not treated the same or provisioned the same frameworks as a father who is part of a married couple.

I've paperwork at home that I need to complete, go to court, and go through a jumping through hoop exercise to ensure I'm recognised in all regards as their father, but more importantly they are recognised as my inheritents should anyhing happen to me. Should anything happen to my GF tomorrow, the state would apportion duty of care to her parents, not me.

It's this stuff that people are talking about, it's these scenarios groups have been campaigning for alongtime for, and it's the ridiculous situations that are allowed take place that annoy so many people. And unfortunately, they seem to create these gender entrenchments are arguments.

That the 8th is repealed was brilliant. It's another positive step in disolving the archaic Church influences in our laws and policies. I'm hopeful down the line we also tackle the equality in parental rights between married and unmarried couples, that parents are just recognised as parents, and not "married" couples and what essentially is another group being treated like sinners from the 40's.

Like I have to laugh, it seems to just suit the state in certain arguments. When it comes to my children, inheritance, guardianship and a few others it's "Oh well sorry you are not married, so technically the state really only recognises the mother until you go through these court hoops" but when it comes to social welfare, tax breaks/incentives and anything to do with finance and revenue it very quickly turns into "oh well you are a couple living together with children, so we cant treat you seperately".

It's a bit of a laughing stock

TheDoc

GingerLily wrote: »

Just worth adding, most Irish women do not want an abortion themselves, we voted for choice, not to celebrate abortions.

I could never ask a women to abort a child, just like I could never ask a women to keep a crisis pregnancy, there's a serious lack of empathy on this forum, it's disgusting.

As in my previous post above, it's probably more so you, or others, not realising there is multiple scenarios here.

Of course there is empathy in these situations and scenarios, don't be silly. But where there likely isnt any empathy or sympathy, is in the scenario where a man wants to explore options of fatherhood where the woman does not, or where a termination has taken place with no conversation with the father.

I know you might "say" that it doesn't need one and be all about the womans body and choice. And to be fair that is clearly a significant part if not a major part.

But there is clearly a situation of expectation in a functioning, or even disfunctioning relationship that some form of conversation would take place before any decision is made.

I think we have moved passed the point of any joint discussion or decision. I know people will say we voted on woman having the choice, but there has been a seedy undertone that some groups view it as giving woman entire ownership. Again, not black and white.

Campaigns are campaigns, they are constructed PR machine to sway people to one side or the other. It wasn't really in either sides benefit to discuss or broach the scenario of the male or fathers role in anything since the Yes side had established via a number of groups/areas a base of feminism and an underlying message of womans rights, so the no side focused on the actual foetus element as youd expect they would.

But just because it wasn't part of a campaign strategy doesn't mean it's not a scenario worth engaging or discussing, and it also doesn't instantly mean those broaching it are sexist/misogynist animals either.

El_Duderino 09

TheDoc wrote: »

You know I can see where you are coming from, but as per usual I find in these discussions or debates, there is like the "putting on a pedestal" one issue over another, or treating them as separate entities that cannot or have not being going in tandum.

Groups for single fathers, groups representing men in these type of situations and lobbying TD's and government etc. has been going on a long time, if not in tandum with abortion discussions.

I’m a men’s rights supporter and I’ve never even heard of this question of men abdicating their paternal responsibility before the last few weeks. I would believe you that there has been some lobbying going on, but it needs a lot more. And it needs a lot greater volume to reach the country as a whole, and it needs greater discussion to even begin to change minds and gather widespread support.

There’s no way around it. It’s time to sh1tor get off the pot. If people feel passionately about the issue, then they need to get organised and get active.

Abortion campaigners were not always treated nicely and I would expect to the same to be the case for this issue. It would take lots of time and discussion to get support from the general public.

Gwen Cooper

TheDoc wrote: »

I've paperwork at home that I need to complete, go to court, and go through a jumping through hoop exercise to ensure I'm recognised in all regards as their father, but more importantly they are recognised as my inheritents should anyhing happen to me. Should anything happen to my GF tomorrow, the state would apportion duty of care to her parents, not me.

What? That doesn't make any sense. I'm not arguing because I don't know, I'm just surprised if that's the case. I'm not Irish and in the country I'm coming from the father has to give his permission for his name to be put on the kid's birth certificate, which makes him legally the child's father. I think that in my country the kid's parents are also named in the kids passport, or maybe the other way round - the kid is named in the parent's passport. Either way, unless you join the family later on or unless there was some legal dispute, I don't see a reason why you should be running around courts, completing any documents. That's just ridiculous. Ireland keeps surprising me every day...

iptba

padz wrote: »

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2005/aug/11/childrensservices.uknews

One in 25 fathers is not biological parent - study


https://canadiancrc.com/Newspaper_Articles/Globe_and_Mail_Moms_Little_secret_14DEC02.aspx

or one in ten

Non-negligible frequencies.

iptba

Sleeper12 wrote: »

Anyone can have these tests done. I had a test with Ancestry.com DNA tests aren't a big deal.

I don't have time to check the website but checking the ancestry of your own DNA isn't a paternity test on its own.

iptba

Sleeper12 wrote: »

Don't sleep with a woman that you don't trust to tell you the truth. She could have HIV for gods sake. A pregnancy might be the least of your worries.

All sorts of individuals including married people have affairs or sleep with more than one partner in a particular period. Is there some validated way of picking a partner so you can be 100% sure they will never have an affair?

iptba

iptba wrote: »

Sleeper12 wrote:

Anyone can have these tests done. I had a test with Ancestry.com DNA tests aren't a big deal.

I don't have time to check the website but checking the ancestry of your own DNA isn't a paternity test on its own.

I'm not a lawyer but some random threads I have found on the Internet suggest you need the mother's permission or a court ruling/similar to have a paternity test in Ireland.

Outlaw Pete

I think parents have a responsibility when they create a little human.

It's true a woman has a way out that a man does not but that's neither here nor there for me, so I wouldn't support financial abortions being legal for that reason.