Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Repeal the 8th Bandwagoning
Options
Comments
-
laserlad2010 wrote: »Why not?
The particular post I was responding to was dealing in hypotheticals about: A health risk to the mother and/or the baby I would imagine.
I am saying debating this is beside the point because unless the life of the mother is at risk, abortion in Ireland is unconstitutional.
Not health, not wealth, not convenience, not emotional well-being: life.
Health of the mother is irrelevant unless she will die. Rape, incest, FFA exceptions are right out, there is no point in debating them until the 8th is repealed.0 -
One of the main refrains during the Marriage Equalty debate was 'allowing this affects nobody except the couples who currently can't marry'. People can't say the same about an abortion referendum because people do see actual, physical and deliberate harm being done if abortion on demand became legal here. This would be a totally different framing of the issues.
But the issue fundamentally is that those who believe that life begins at conception will never have their minds changed by those who believe that it doesn't, and the exact same applies in reverse. So really it just comes down to finding out whether the majority of the people do believe this, or do not believe it. If they do, then abortion on demand during any time frame cannot be passed here, if they do not, then it can. Simple as.0 -
hatrickpatrick wrote: »But the issue fundamentally is that those who believe that life begins at conception will never have their minds changed by those who believe that it doesn't
This is not true at all. Plenty of people believe stuff without really thinking about it, and their notions may not make any real sense. Talking about it can show them this is the case.
For example, "Each individual human being's life begins at conception" is not simply an opinion, it is false. Identical twins prove it.0 -
Zubeneschamali wrote: »This is not true at all. Plenty of people believe stuff without really thinking about it, and their notions may not make any real sense. Talking about it can show them this is the case.
For example, "Each individual human being's life begins at conception" is not simply an opinion, it is false. Identical twins prove it.
Sure, but science can't quantify even the existence of a soul, let alone at what point during gestation a soul gets created. So there'll always be a disconnect between what we can prove and what we believe or assume.0 -
Zubeneschamali wrote: »The particular post I was responding to was dealing in hypotheticals about: A health risk to the mother and/or the baby I would imagine.
I am saying debating this is beside the point because unless the life of the mother is at risk, abortion in Ireland is unconstitutional.
Not health, not wealth, not convenience, not emotional well-being: life.
Health of the mother is irrelevant unless she will die. Rape, incest, FFA exceptions are right out, there is no point in debating them until the 8th is repealed.
To a lot of people that is indistinguishable from saying 'we can't deal with any of the issues with immigrants until we first strip them of the basic fundamental rights we enjoy and then build something from there'.
The fact is, as you say, personhood is not recognised in law until you are born. This is necessary to deal with absurdities like charging a pregnant person for two people, designating nationality based on location of conception rather than birth etc.
The right to life is the most basic human right, all other rights are completely meaningless unless you have a right to continue living and developing in the first place. No law should be written that removes the right to life.
We need to settle on a precise time when this right is bestowed on human life before we can ever consider removing it. That is why the repeal campaign is not connecting with people, they cant agree or declare a time when the right to life exists apart from birth. That is not acceptable.0 -
Advertisement
-
hatrickpatrick wrote: »Sure, but science can't quantify even the existence of a soul, let alone at what point during gestation a soul gets created. So there'll always be a disconnect between what we can prove and what we believe or assume.
Well, sure, if you drag souls into it, anything can happen. But the "life begins at conception" people are generally appealing to DNA and biology, and are wrong.
They are actually appealing to Roman Catholic theology and of fairly recent vintage at that, ensoulment was at one time associated with "quickening", when the fetus starts to move on its own, but anyone who wants to quote RCC theology has already lost, so they pretend it is about biology.
We have seen several in this thread.0 -
The right to life is the most basic human right, all other rights are completely meaningless unless you have a right to continue living and developing in the first place. No law should be written that removes the right to life.
We'd better get cracking on repealing the 13th and 14th amendments, so.0 -
I had a baby at 20. I was pregnant at 19, in college and the father wanted no part of it. Obviously at that time I did not have an abortion but I did consider it.
I'm now mid 30s and in a good relationship. I've a good job and a house. None of which I had at 19.
If I fell pregnant now I would have an abortion for health reasons. A pregnancy has the potential to render me physically incapable. It's not always the case but possible and I have my existing child and myself to consider in that equation .
There are women like me, whose health could be seriously affected by a pregnancy and we do what we can to prevent a pregnancy but if it happened I'd like to be able to have an abortion at home instead of wasting thousands on travel not to mention the fact that I would be very upset about being in that position and having to travel etc.
It's not as rare as you'd think.
If you do everything possible to make sure you don't become pregnant, yet still manage to conceive, then IMO, you should have the choice to terminate (but early on in the pregnancy).
I think the law should be amended, but it should be very strict. The rights of the unborn are also very important and shouldn't be dismissed so easily.
There are some really odd arguments on both sides. There should really be a compromise, none of this crap "Woman should carry to full term no matter what" or "woman should chose to have an abortion, no matter what".
There are some reasons why an abortion should be an option, but not because "lol, YOLO, no time for kids, interferes with my social life, lol".0 -
hatrickpatrick wrote: »Sure, but science can't quantify even the existence of a soul, let alone at what point during gestation a soul gets created.
I do not think anything in science suggests "souls" even exist, at least not as they are often defined.hatrickpatrick wrote: »So there'll always be a disconnect between what we can prove and what we believe or assume.
But the question is are any such disconnects important? A couple of users on the thread have pointed out we do not have a complete understanding of sentience and consciousness.
But I simply ask......... is one actually required? Why does it need to be COMPLETE?
I trust..... though I am assuming here...... that we would both sit in front of a large rock and neither of us would even remotely suggest the rock has sentience or consciousness right?
If I am wrong that opens up another interesting discussion. But if I am right in my assumption that neither of us view the rock as being in ANY WAY a sentient entity.......... then we are offering that conclusions WITHOUT a full working knowledge of sentience.
We are doing it because we know ENOUGH about sentience to make that call. We do not need to know everything. Just enough.
So if we can do it with a rock, why can we not point at the fetal development process and say things like "The fetus at 12/16 weeks no more has the faculty of sentience than a rock does?"
Otherwise are we not leaving ourselves open to being accused of modifying our standards of evidence to suit a contextual bias or agenda? When suddenly an argument does not go the way a person might want, their requirements for the standards of evidence on the subject suddenly shoot up in ways it does not anywhere else?
That would be a risky move for anyone not wishing to squander the currency of credibility.0 -
Royce Numerous Goose-step wrote: »
There are some reasons why an abortion should be an option, but not because "lol, YOLO, no time for kids, interferes with my social life, lol".
Do you not think that someone with a flippant attitude like that is completely unsuitable to be a parent? So if they are immature and flippant about contraception and taking responsibility for their own sexual health, your opinion is to force them to carry a baby they don't want and subject a child to that sort of parent, or else if they choose the alternative option, adoption, possibly subject the baby to alcohol/drugs etc in utero because again "yolo not my kid, only preggo cause I can't get an abortion, adoptive parents can look after it if it's sick". Because becoming a parent when they don't want to be one is not going to make them change their attitude.0 -
Advertisement
-
Zubeneschamali wrote: »This is not true at all. Plenty of people believe stuff without really thinking about it, and their notions may not make any real sense. Talking about it can show them this is the case.
For example, "Each individual human being's life begins at conception" is not simply an opinion, it is false. Identical twins prove it.
If you had a bizarre industrial accident in some weird chemical factory in the future and a few cells that came off you developed into a whole human being, would you never have been a person before this happened?
I'm not saying the conception theory of the beginning of life is undeniable, but I don't see identical twins as 'proving' it isn't.0 -
Royce Numerous Goose-step wrote: »If you do everything possible to make sure you don't become pregnant, yet still manage to conceive, then IMO, you should have the choice to terminate (but early on in the pregnancy).
Sure, and on paper as a moral argument that is coherent and well meaning. It is just unworkable in the real world in any way. When someone shows up seeking an abortion, how would you establish that they meet or met the criteria you describe?Royce Numerous Goose-step wrote: »The rights of the unborn are also very important and shouldn't be dismissed so easily.
Sure, but they should also not be assigned "so easily" either. I think the conversation has to be had on what rights are, what we are assigning them to, why, and when in the process they "come on line" so to speak.
And that is not a conversation that can be had on a sound bite, or in the contents of a fortune cookie.Royce Numerous Goose-step wrote: »There are some reasons why an abortion should be an option, but not because "lol, YOLO, no time for kids, interferes with my social life, lol".
If we can not indict an action as immoral, then the reasons people engage in that action are simply not our business.
Eating Mars is not an immoral act for example. But what if I ate them specifically to get fat enough to claim disability allowance. You might (rightly) be derisory of my motivations, but it in no way indicts the act of eating mars bars itself...... nor does it mean we should question any one elses motivations when they seek to buy a mars bar.
Similarly if we decide that abortion is ok, or abortion up to X weeks is ok........ then any individuals reason for seeking one is simply not our concern. It genuinely would be a case of "mind your own business".
But even then I think what you describe is a statistical outlier. I do not genuinely believe, nor deep down do I think YOU really believe, that the choice to have an abortion is GENERALLY that flippant on behalf of the vast majority of people who seek them. Perhaps you do, I can not say, but it does not really seem to be a belief that is well supported. I would more readily suspect abortions are sought for genuine social, economic, medical, resource or family reasons.0 -
In a society so pro life how can there so much discrimination against single mothers? Even when we are compared with single fathers they are better than us, women.
"Ow. You're so brave for taking care of your child", while to women i hear "If you didn't want to get pregnant you should have kept your legs closed"
Why don't i hear the same to men: "you should have kept your "cucumber and company" inside your pants"?
Women are always the problem even though there were 2 persons needed for a child to be conceived. So why there is so much discrimination and hostility? Such a lack of resources and support? Of understanding and empathy?
And why are we still not in power and control of our own body? This is the 21st century and there is still people alien to us telling us how we should live our lives and what we should do with our bodies.
I am in favor of repeal the 8th amendment.0 -
I'm not saying the conception theory of the beginning of life is undeniable, but I don't see identical twins as 'proving' it isn't.
There is only one cell at conception. One life. There are two twins (or three triplets...) This proves that at least one life did not begin at conception.
If you want to get weirder, consider chimerism where non-identical twins in the womb end up as one individual with mixed-up DNA. Did the resulting individual come into being at conception If so, fertilization of which cell?
Or when one twin absorbed the other?
"Life always begins at conception and biology proves it" is not true.0 -
Zubeneschamali wrote: »There is only one cell at conception. One life. There are two twins (or three triplets...) This proves that at least one life did not begin at conception.
If you want to get weirder, consider chimerism where non-identical twins in the womb end up as one individual with mixed-up DNA. Did the resulting individual come into being at conception If so, fertilization of which cell?
Or when one twin absorbed the other?
"Life always begins at conception and biology proves it" is not true.
I think you are more used to debating this with religious people who believe that an individual 'soul' is created at conception. I don't believe in souls. Clearly, without the original conception, none of the subsequent lives would have existed. They can all be traced back to the moment of conception without which they could not have spontaneously existed. Before conception none of them could ever have existed, after conception they will (if all proceeds normally) exist.0 -
Clearly, without the original conception, none of the subsequent lives would have existed.
Without the mothers conception, there would be no subsequent lives. Likewise father, grandparents, every ancestor back to the monkeys. Irrelevant.
At conception, there was only one life. Later, there were two.
They did not both start at conception. This is a simple fact.0 -
Do you not think that someone with a flippant attitude like that is completely unsuitable to be a parent? So if they are immature and flippant about contraception and taking responsibility for their own sexual health, your opinion is to force them to carry a baby they don't want and subject a child to that sort of parent, or else if they choose the alternative option, adoption, possibly subject the baby to alcohol/drugs etc in utero because again "yolo not my kid, only preggo cause I can't get an abortion, adoptive parents can look after it if it's sick". Because becoming a parent when they don't want to be one is not going to make them change their attitude.
I think that's a separate issue though, becoming a parent might change the attitude of this flippant person. If the mother still has the same flippant attitude when the child is born, then the child should be removed from that persons care. The issue here is abortion, not the inability to raise a child.nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »Sure, and on paper as a moral argument that is coherent and well meaning. It is just unworkable in the real world in any way. When someone shows up seeking an abortion, how would you establish that they meet or met the criteria you describe?
I would like to think that people who are more qualified in this field could draft the criteria. If average Joe decides, then it could be dangerous. But just say I could contribute to the criteria, I think in certain cases the choice would be very obvious so the decision would be easy to make. For instance, if the mother is at serious risk, then that person should have the option. Same with the victim of a rape or very young women. These two scenarios might be difficult to decide on as the unborn child is also a victim and should have a right to life. I don't think it's right that a woman can chose to abort a pregnancy due to career goals for instance, or a change of mind.Sure, but they should also not be assigned "so easily" either. I think the conversation has to be had on what rights are, what we are assigning them to, why, and when in the process they "come on line" so to speak.
And that is not a conversation that can be had on a sound bite, or in the contents of a fortune cookie.
I think it would be far easier to assign rights than to dismiss them. I say this as life exists (whatever the stage post fertilization). This is definitely another large part of the overall topic and would need to be discussed at length.If we can not indict an action as immoral, then the reasons people engage in that action are simply not our business.
Eating Mars is not an immoral act for example. But what if I ate them specifically to get fat enough to claim disability allowance. You might (rightly) be derisory of my motivations, but it in no way indicts the act of eating mars bars itself...... nor does it mean we should question any one elses motivations when they seek to buy a mars bar.
Similarly if we decide that abortion is ok, or abortion up to X weeks is ok........ then any individuals reason for seeking one is simply not our concern. It genuinely would be a case of "mind your own business".
I like your mars bar analogy :P. I do believe that getting fat on purpose to get benefits is morally wrong, I don't believe anybody should have the right to step in an tell that person he/she is not allowed to have a mars bar (or other sugary foods), but if the claimant made this known to the DSP then a payment deduction would be in order. It's also quite difficult to compare the two as one involves the life of an unborn child. We are debating on whether that unborn child has a right to life.
I believe the reasons for an abortion are quite important. Not something that's going to be very easy to police or agree on even.But even then I think what you describe is a statistical outlier. I do not genuinely believe, nor deep down do I think YOU really believe, that the choice to have an abortion is GENERALLY that flippant on behalf of the vast majority of people who seek them. Perhaps you do, I can not say, but it does not really seem to be a belief that is well supported. I would more readily suspect abortions are sought for genuine social, economic, medical, resource or family reasons.
I really hope, that the flippant example I gave is extremely rare. However, people are odd and it also wouldn't surprise me.0 -
In a society so pro life how can there so much discrimination against single mothers? Even when we are compared with single fathers they are better than us, women.
"Ow. You're so brave for taking care of your child", while to women i hear "If you didn't want to get pregnant you should have kept your legs closed"
Why don't i hear the same to men: "you should have kept your "cucumber and company" inside your pants"?
Women are always the problem even though there were 2 persons needed for a child to be conceived. So why there is so much discrimination and hostility? Such a lack of resources and support? Of understanding and empathy?
I think the examples you give are very outdated and will change with time (passing of older generations). I haven't experienced either of those examples, but "should have kept your legs closed" is wrong and not a normal response.
I think that it's unusual to see single fathers. From this website: https://onefamily.ie/policy-campaigns/facts-figures/ only 13.5% of single parent families are headed by the father. I guess it's the norm to see single mothers and unusual for the mother to abandon father and child. I also don't believe it's a man V woman thing, please don't turn it into that, there's too much "Us V them" in society as it is.And why are we still not in power and control of our own body? This is the 21st century and there is still people alien to us telling us how we should live our lives and what we should do with our bodies.
I am in favor of repeal the 8th amendment.
I am also in favor of repeal the 8th, but the rights of the unborn child should be protected.0 -
Royce Numerous Goose-step wrote: »I think that's a separate issue though, becoming a parent might change the attitude of this flippant person. If the mother still has the same flippant attitude when the child is born, then the child should be removed from that persons care. The issue here is abortion, not the inability to raise a child.
I would like to think that people who are more qualified in this field could draft the criteria. If average Joe decides, then it could be dangerous. But just say I could contribute to the criteria, I think in certain cases the choice would be very obvious so the decision would be easy to make. For instance, if the mother is at serious risk, then that person should have the option. Same with the victim of a rape or very young women. These two scenarios might be difficult to decide on as the unborn child is also a victim and should have a right to life. I don't think it's right that a woman can chose to abort a pregnancy due to career goals for instance, or a change of mind.
People choose to have abortions based on their inability to raise a child.
You include very young women in your example of people where the decision would be easier to make, why is that? Why do you think the baby of a young girl should be allowed to be terminated whereas you dont agree regarding the baby of a slightly older woman who just doesn't want the child and has a generally ****ty attitude?
I had my first child young, unplanned and not ready, I personally didn't even consider abortion and I'd like to think I did a good job all things considered. A situation where others might have assumed termination is the best option but in actual fact it turned out lovely. During my early 20s I knew that I couldn't care for another baby, if I had an unplanned pregnancy I would more than likely consider termination, because my circumstances wouldnt allow for another child and it would impact negatively on my first child. Whereas you would not deem it acceptable at that stage.
I think it should be up to the individual woman to decide if she is capable or not and judge herself based on what her own circumstances are.0 -
Royce Numerous Goose-step wrote: »I would like to think that people who are more qualified in this field could draft the criteria.
No. They really couldn't. There is no criteria you could construct to establish that a person has done "everything possible to make sure you don't become pregnant". How would you establish that a pregnant women sitting across the table from you used condoms 100% of the time she had sex for example? There is simply no way, short of inventing time traveling and making uninvited voyeurism legal, that you are going to establish that.
And even the way you phrase it is not workable. A person who was doing "everything possible" to avoid being pregnant....... would not be having any sex at all. Is that credible as a policy really?Royce Numerous Goose-step wrote: »I don't think it's right that a woman can chose to abort a pregnancy due to career goals for instance, or a change of mind.
And as I said I do not "think it is right" that a person can eat hundreds of mars bars with the express intention of getting morbidly obese. But my judgement of their motivations should be kept separate of my judgement of their right to do so.
If I can not indict morally the act of abortion, then a persons reason for seeking one (career goals, or not liking the gender of the developing fetus) are simply not my business.Royce Numerous Goose-step wrote: »I think it would be far easier to assign rights than to dismiss them.
I just personally think that seeking a resolution through discourse on this issue should not be done based on what is "easier" but on what we can genuinely argue for. And I have not just seen few, but NO arguments for affording rights, or moral or ethical concern, for the fetuses most people are choosing to abort (over 90% of them in or before week 12 of development and even more by week 16).Royce Numerous Goose-step wrote: »I say this as life exists (whatever the stage post fertilization).
Life exists all over though. In our meat factories. Under our microscopes. In our forests. It seems in every other context we mediate our moral concern for those things on more than it merely just being "life". So I do not think anyone disagrees with you that "life" exists at conception....... but what we mean by "life" at different stages changes........ and what we mean by "life" when specifically discussing concepts like "rights" and "morality" is not what we mean by "life" when observing the underlying biology.
It is, alas, one of the great pitfalls of this particular conversation that we have one word describing many things. And I think it parses the conversation better to distinguish between "life" and "person" as I think it is the latter, not the former, that we are affording rights and moral concern to.Royce Numerous Goose-step wrote: »It's also quite difficult to compare the two as one involves the life of an unborn child.
Oh the comparison is not difficult at all. Once one does not stretch the comparison PAST where it was intended to lie. The comparison should not be extended past the simple fact that ones questionable motives for engaging in an action is not a point upon which to question their right to engage in that action.
So whether it is a morally questionable motive like eating with the express intentional of getting morbidly obese, or aborting with the express intention of, say, having a boy rather than a girl later on........ we can decry their poor motivation...... but not use it as an argument against their right to access the product or service.Royce Numerous Goose-step wrote: »We are debating on whether that unborn child has a right to life.
That is certainly the debate I TRY to have. It is amazing how few anti-choice people want to actually have it though. I have explained at.... I admit.... now nauseating length what I think rights are, and to what and on what basis we assign them........ and how the fetus at relevant stages lacks all the attributes thus identified.
The people who want to assert a right to life earlier than I have laid out (again at terminal length) essentially only do just that. Assert it. When you question them on what basis they can offer for affording such a fetus moral or ethical concern I do not tend to get much in response. Except the usual "Biology tells us a life stats at exception" followed by absolutely no qualifiers or substance.Royce Numerous Goose-step wrote: »I believe the reasons for an abortion are quite important.
And I REALLY REALLY don't. Because from my perspective I am looking at a sentience conscious agent making a choice in relation to a completely non-sentient entity. In that context, and under that view, I can not see any LESS reason to be concerned with their reasons for seeking it.Royce Numerous Goose-step wrote: »I really hope, that the flippant example I gave is extremely rare. However, people are odd and it also wouldn't surprise me.
Oh such people exist I am sure. But I think we both suspect they are rare. I am sure if we wanted, for some weird reason, to find one..... we would even be able to find someone who seeks abortions because they have some weird sexual fetish for having them. No matter how whacky or abhorrent a concept you come up with in this world.......... there is often someone out there who is the living embodiment of it.
But as with most law and policy, I do not think it needs to account for every single statistical non-entity that our neurotic imagination can send careening into consciousness. I think at the very least in the conversation on abortion we can assume the VAST, almost total, majority of people seeking an invasive procedure like abortion have genuine reasons for doing so. If the two sides of this debate can not agree on at least THAT small point, I would find myself descending into pessimism that they could ever agree on anything, if even communicate at all.0 -
Advertisement
-
Outlaw Pete wrote: »Cause scientific consensus has never been wrongheaded....
Why would you think scientific consensus is never questioned?
It is continually being examined, in fact I'd say nothing is subject to more scrutiny than science. 0 -
One eyed Jack wrote: »When are you ever going to get that for many people, their objection to broadening our abortion legislation in this country is not based on anything to do with religion? Your anti-religious... musings, have nothing to do with repealing the 8th amendment. They are another days discussion entirely.
That there are non-religious folk against abortion doesn't detract from the fact that the majority of countries where there is strong opposition to abortion tend to be very religious and often countries with large Catholic populations. Funny that.0 -
Minor observation, as a father of two amazing daughters, but had to go through the harrowing experience of a miscarriage with my partner, just nowhere in any sentence, conversation, written piece or just anywhere, is there mention of the father and his desires/opinions.
It irks me that there is such a craze for equality and in all the hysteria around the 8th amendment, I just don't here a dicky about the father in all of this.
Fathers rights in this country are still archaic. I won't go into any of the details, it's obvious stuff available anywhere. I've no rights to my children because me and my GF are not married. Incredible stuff.
I can actual picture some of the responses that will come to this post already that will probably just further entrench my point.0 -
In a society so pro life how can there so much discrimination against single mothers? Even when we are compared with single fathers they are better than us, women.
"Ow. You're so brave for taking care of your child", while to women i hear "If you didn't want to get pregnant you should have kept your legs closed"
Why don't i hear the same to men: "you should have kept your "cucumber and company" inside your pants"?
Women are always the problem even though there were 2 persons needed for a child to be conceived. So why there is so much discrimination and hostility? Such a lack of resources and support? Of understanding and empathy?
And why are we still not in power and control of our own body? This is the 21st century and there is still people alien to us telling us how we should live our lives and what we should do with our bodies.
I am in favor of repeal the 8th amendment.
This is somewhat what I mean. Sorry but from my experience in cases where couples or partnerships break up and children are involved, the man is usually depicted as the arsehole while the woman is treated as the victim, regardless of the actual circumstances.
I actually have yet to come across a case where the woman, in general perception of the circles around the couple, are treated anything other then the victims and "poor you with the kids" (ironically because of slack rights provided to fathers) when the reality of the fact is there was total justification on the mans part to separate or initiate a split.
Anyway getting of topic, and I personally amn't really vested or currently interested in the 8th stuff( my own **** to deal with) I just find it odd how if there is to be a general conversation around abortion, or any conversation, how it's constantly just honed in on the woman and there is no consideration provided to the man, should the makeup me male/female.0 -
Minor observation, as a father of two amazing daughters, but had to go through the harrowing experience of a miscarriage with my partner, just nowhere in any sentence, conversation, written piece or just anywhere, is there mention of the father
As a father of two amazing daughters, do you think one of your daughters should have to listen to the opinions of the father of an accidental pregnancy after a one-night stand?
Because as the father of two different amazing daughters, I certainly don't.0 -
Minor observation, as a father of two amazing daughters, but had to go through the harrowing experience of a miscarriage with my partner, just nowhere in any sentence, conversation, written piece or just anywhere, is there mention of the father and his desires/opinions.
It irks me that there is such a craze for equality and in all the hysteria around the 8th amendment, I just don't here a dicky about the father in all of this.
Fathers rights in this country are still archaic. I won't go into any of the details, it's obvious stuff available anywhere. I've no rights to my children because me and my GF are not married. Incredible stuff.
I can actual picture some of the responses that will come to this post already that will probably just further entrench my point.
Are you talking about children here or pregnancies? I mean, if you're talking about your own children, then surely you have rights as you are still their father. You can't be ignored or cast aside. The same for any father in the same situation.
But in terms of abortion, then it's really the woman's decision. It's the woman who carries the fetus to term, goes through the pregnancy etc. It's her body, so it's her choice. Likewise, if a man wants his female partner to abort against her will then he can't really force her. Women aren't compelled to obey men just because.0 -
Zubeneschamali wrote: »Well, sure, if you drag souls into it, anything can happen. But the "life begins at conception" people are generally appealing to DNA and biology, and are wrong.
They are actually appealing to Roman Catholic theology and of fairly recent vintage at that, ensoulment was at one time associated with "quickening", when the fetus starts to move on its own, but anyone who wants to quote RCC theology has already lost, so they pretend it is about biology.
We have seen several in this thread.
The problem is I'm not sure if they really are appealing to biology at all - the religious types are appealing to the concept of a soul, and therefore the idea that as soon as an egg has been fertilised, a soul has been created. The concept of a pre-brain, let alone pre-consciousness being having rights or value in this manner doesn't make sense unless one believes in the concept of a soul. So when it comes to arguing over when a soul is created, it's an argument neither side can ever win against the other. Personally I believe in the soul and I do not believe that it exists the moment an egg is fertilised, but I accept that this is just my opinion and that I'm not going to convince anybody who disagrees simply by arguing my own viewpoint, since this is not something science can ever fully answer satisfactorily.0 -
Minor observation, as a father of two amazing daughters, but had to go through the harrowing experience of a miscarriage with my partner, just nowhere in any sentence, conversation, written piece or just anywhere, is there mention of the father and his desires/opinions.
It irks me that there is such a craze for equality and in all the hysteria around the 8th amendment, I just don't here a dicky about the father in all of this.
My view is that the father absolutely should get a say, without question. Where I come unstuck a bit is what happens if there is a difference in opinion? Say if she wants an abortion and he doesn't. At this point, whatever decision is made, it is inherently not equal. It can't be. Where there is a difference of opinion between the mother and father on this issue, equality isn't possible.0 -
Zubeneschamali wrote: »As a father of two amazing daughters, do you think one of your daughters should have to listen to the opinions of the father of an accidental pregnancy after a one-night stand?
Because as the father of two different amazing daughters, I certainly don't.
Well this is the thing. Is that where we are moving the conversation to? Are we talking about abortion as a general topic? There is MANY different scenarios.
A few can probably be addressed with certainty, right now, and I'll always maintain that opinion.
A difficulty with the pregnancy that is likely the pregnancy will not be successful, no problem.
A rape or sexual assault resulting in a pregnancy, no problem.
A teenage pregnancy, getting into moral dilemma ground
A pregnancy after a one night stand, hmmm now it's moving into grey grounds
A pregnancy between a couple who just don't want it, yikes now we are in uncertain territory
I'd imagine in a scenario whereby one of them is in a relationship and a pregnancy does occur and a situation arises where she would like to terminate while the father does not agree, I'd imagine that is a horrendously tricky and delicate situation, but I wouldn't exactly be like "**** what he wants princess, you do what you think is best".0 -
Advertisement
-
My view is that the father absolutely should get a say, without question. Where I come unstuck a bit is what happens if there is a difference in opinion? Say if she wants an abortion and he doesn't. At this point, whatever decision is made, it is inherently not equal. It can't be. Where there is a difference of opinion between the mother and father on this issue, equality isn't possible.
Arguing over a potential fathers' role in abortion is a philosophical and political minefield - personally I think it's better to argue for female autonomy over abortion and for proper male contraception which is something that has been promised for years but has been held up repeatedly due to lack of funding. Now that's an issue where in my view MRAs should use the same arguments feminists use in terms of budgets - that the lack of funding and attention towards male healthcare and research is a political issue that needs to be lobbied on.
I really don't think that arguing for male input into abortion is the right way to go, given that the abortion argument centres around bodily autonomy.0
Advertisement