demfad wrote: » Here is a US gov. definition: You would be guilty of assault in any case. If the assault was a 'a pattern of abusive behavior in any relationship that is used by one partner to gain or maintain power and control over another intimate partner' then you would be a perpetrator of domestic violence. If your wife defended herself from your assault physically or verbally , she would be guilty of domestic abuse according to the 'studies' you are championing.
demfad wrote: » Again, a woman fighting off a perpetrator of domestic violence once or on several occasions would herself be deemed a perpetrator of domestic violence.
demfad wrote: » Just to address this. I would see the issue being more with investigation in the first instance. There was a scathing report released about the Gardai in late 2014. The report was particularly scathing on attitudes, recording and investigation of domestic incidents. Here's an Irish Times report. You are not going to get convictions if you are not even recording assaults as crimes. The attitude of the gardai here reflects the wider cultural attitude towards domestic violence. A culture where domestic violence is more likely to occur and more likely to be tolerated.
givyjoe wrote: » S there is a poor attitude full stop (in my personal experience) to victims of crimes. It's not specific to women, or domestic abuse. They often seem to treat everyone with equal disdain (again, my opinion from personal experience)
Zain Fluffy Tourist wrote: » I can't see that happening. Generally WWN roots for the underdog and women, in society, don't exactly need taking down any more pegs.
snotboogie wrote: » That's one way of putting it, another would be that WW carefully treads the line of modern political correctness. They have no problem "punching down" as long as the victim is from the right demographic
givyjoe wrote: » They simply dont want to get involved in these cases as they are so much hassle.
me_right_one wrote: Exactly. WWN supports abortion on demand. Not just termination for medical reasons. Who's the underdog there?
Zain Fluffy Tourist wrote: » I bet any money you're a man. The underdog is the women who are being told by men what they can do with their own bodies, contrary to medical standards everywhere else.
me_right_one wrote: Do what you like with your own body. Leave everyone else's alone, INCLUDING your baby's. And yes. I am a father.
Zain Fluffy Tourist wrote: » Or your foetus? Or your implanted embryo? What's the cut-off? We should illegalize all birth control altogether. Every sperm is sacred. Until they start neutering men, I'm pro-choice.
me_right_one wrote: Ironic you support the notion of a "rape culture", but you see absolutely nothing wrong with killing a baby/foetus/human for reasons other than medical. What if it was a girl?
Zain Fluffy Tourist wrote: » You don't have to carry a child (which can be conceived in a number of traumatic ways, in which a woman has no say) for nine months and push it out of your vagina and then support it.
osmiumartist wrote: Hang on there a minute. You reckon there's no legal or even social pressure for a father to support their children?
Zain Fluffy Tourist wrote: » You don't become a legal guardian if you're not married unless you've lived with the child for twelve months. I know this, because my friends have fallen foul of this stupid law. You're selectively ignoring my other points, which focus on the actual childbearing aspect of giving birth. It took a woman dying in a Galway hospital for us to even change the law to allow women not to be killed by their own foetus and you're telling me the embryo needs MORE protection?
me_right_one wrote: » I see Louise has taken the night off Twitter to come on Boards.
osmiumartist wrote: The findings of the Savita inquiry actually said the laws as they were meant the foetus should have been removed. There was no need to change anything. If you want to go the legal route for responsibility, any mother can give up a baby at any time. Nobody is forced to look after anybody.
Zain Fluffy Tourist wrote: » Alright so we'll just forcibly assault you, surgically implant a bowling ball in your abdomen and see how you enjoy pushing it out through your anus after carrying it for nine months. I'm not even a feminist.
osmiumartist wrote: The findings of the Savita inquiry actually said the laws as they were meant the foetus should have been removed. There was no need to change anything. If you want to go the legal route for responsibility, any mother can give up a baby at any time.
Widdershins wrote: » I'm fairly sure the heart starts beating at around 6 weeks.
Wibbs wrote: and as much of Irish Meeja proves the brain can still be inactive well into adulthood.
osmiumartist wrote: Are you not a feminist? What's your definition of that if you're saying you're not? Did someone suggest childbirth wasn't painful? This seems to be news to you?
Zain Fluffy Tourist wrote: » What are you even talking about anymore? If you decide to get pregnant, you also decide to undergo the bodily changes that happen. If you're raped, they'll happen regardless.
osmiumartist wrote: Again... yeah, and? I already said I was pro-choice. Not taking yes for an answer?
Zain Fluffy Tourist wrote: » Quote where you gave any pro-choice stance please. Genuinely missed that entirely.
Zain Fluffy Tourist wrote: » The underdog is the women who are being told by men what they can do with their own bodies, contrary to medical standards everywhere else.
