The 8th amendment(Mod warning in op)

conorhal wrote: »

It gets on your nerves that men support abortion as per your own support for it? That's a bit bizzare and neurotic. I assume as a man you won't be excercising your democratic mandate in a referendum so since it's none of your business? (yeah I am being utterly facetious here).
.

See there we go again.Read the first couple of lines of my post.
I said that i am pro choice/pro abortion I don't care what you call it.

I posted that knowing full well that someone would come along soon and twist what i said.

So I'll say it again.
I am pro choice.Youll say pro abortion.Whatever.Im not getting hung up on it or whatever you want to call it.

I support a woman's choice to do whatever she wants to herself.Whether that's abortion or something else.
Nothing bizarre or neurotic about that.

WHIP IT!

notjustsweet wrote: »

In your whole life you've never met someone who's mother was single?
Or know a woman bringing up a child alone?

I played it a bit fast and loose with the 'bold' function there... I was referring to this part of Hellrazer's quote:

"...we all know lads that have literally screwed around and have kids with different women and never get involved or pay support."

LirW

I also want to throw in that if there is this strong mentality of pro-life, why don't they actually fight for easier access to permanent birth control solutions for women? All women get for wanting her tubes to be tied is being belittled, unless she hits a certain age (that is in fact quite high) or has quadrillion kids.
Also it's proven by now that a lot of women suffer some form of negative side effect from hormonal birth control, but they still have to put up with it, especially in long term relationships because there is a lack of options and permanent solutions are usually met with hesitation from doctors. In that case men have it a bit easier to get a vasectomy.
Before I had my daughter 2 months ago, it happened a few times to me that midwives, doctors and people were telling me "oh, you'll change your mind, see you in a few years". Oh absolutely not, I have two, two is fine, in fact I'm done. I by the way got refused for tubal ligation straight when I asked for it in the hospital.

For the fact, that people are screaming for every precious life, where is the awareness to not let that happen in the first place?

Also why is there never a talk about some kind of a "compromise?" In a lot of countries on the mainland, abortion is technically illegal but brought in the system that it's not illegal until you're full 12 weeks pregnant (In cases of foetal abnormalities you can terminate a pregnancy up until week 25 or so).

Hellrazer wrote: »

Of course you are entitled to a vote and an opinion but you see the whole male thing isnt about not wanting abortion.In my opinion it's about control and trying to control what a woman does with her body.

And of course they can walk away.We all know plenty of I really hate the term "unmarried mother's" and we all know lads that have literally screwed around and have kids with different women and never get involved or pay support.

That is your opinion, what about the woman that want abortion what do they want? Do you not think there is any credit to the argument that from their philosophical view point that its the potential life of an unborn being extinguished?

I am being flippant here as based on a feeling you have branded the other side as control freaks.

They cannot under the law walk away, in reality they do but that is because we dont enforce the responsibility like we should. So under the eyes of the law you are tied to this decision from inception, should you not have an opinion on it?

Howard Tasteless Bank wrote: »

Plenty of married women with children have abortions at all points on the social ladder.

I know that, but rather than assume 'plenty', statistically the fact is that more women who have abortions are unmarried.

neonsofa wrote: »

It can contribute to anybodys decision but unplanned pregnancies happen within marriages too regardless of socio economic factors. Fact is, the poster was talking about unplanned pregnancies and socioeconomic factors, not "unmarried mothers".

You think being unmarried or married isn't a socioeconomic factor?

Ok then.

njs030

WHIP IT! wrote: »

Do we?? How many do you know? Genuine question. I know exactly none.

In your whole life you've never met someone who's mother was single?
Or know a woman bringing up a child alone?

WHIP IT!

Hellrazer wrote: »

Of course you are entitled to a vote and an opinion but you see the whole male thing isnt about not wanting abortion.In my opinion it's about control and trying to control what a woman does with her body.

And of course they can walk away.We all know plenty of I really hate the term "unmarried mother's" and we all know lads that have literally screwed around and have kids with different women and never get involved or pay support.

Do we??

How many do you know? Genuine question. I know exactly none.

neonsofa

One eyed Jack wrote: »

True, but in the context of what we were talking about (socioeconomic factors), their marital status of course contributes to their decision as to whether or not to consider abortion or continuing their pregnancy and having the child or children -

It can contribute to anybodys decision but unplanned pregnancies happen within marriages too regardless of socio economic factors. Fact is, the poster was talking about unplanned pregnancies and socioeconomic factors, not "unmarried mothers".

Calhoun wrote: »

Why would a citizen of this country voting on a referendum item not have a right or opinion? Can men really walk away? legally they cannot and will assume responsibility of the child if the mother wants to keep it?

Of course you are entitled to a vote and an opinion but you see the whole male thing isnt about not wanting abortion.In my opinion it's about control and trying to control what a woman does with her body.

And of course they can walk away.We all know plenty of I really hate the term "unmarried mother's" and we all know lads that have literally screwed around and have kids with different women and never get involved or pay support.

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5

One eyed Jack wrote: »

True, but in the context of what we were talking about (socioeconomic factors), their marital status of course contributes to their decision as to whether or not to consider abortion or continuing their pregnancy and having the child or children -

Plenty of married women with children have abortions at all points on the social ladder.

conorhal

Hellrazer wrote: »

I'm after reading every single post in this thread and you know what really gets on my nerves.
For the record I am pro choice/ pro abortion.I don't really care what you call it.

Anyway what gets on my nerves is that reading this thread and the other threads and what you see protesting in Dublin city center on a Saturday afternoon is that it appears that the majority of anti abortion protesters are male.

What right does any man have to even be anti abortion or better still tell any woman what they can or cannot do with their own body.Youre not the one that has to "put up" with a fetus or baby living inside of you that you don't know whether you can provide for it.Whether you can give it the life that it deserves.Men can walk away and not even have to be involved if they don't want to be.

Btw i have 4 kids.Im not sure economically we could afford another one and if my wife did decide to terminate a pregnancy I would support that decision. But we decided a few years ago that i would get a vascectomy having decided our family was large enough.
Next thing you know the anti brigade will be trying to ban vascectomy for killing a few million potential "babies" ,"fetuses" whatever.

It gets on your nerves that men support abortion as per your own support for it? That's a bit bizzare and neurotic. I assume as a man you won't be excercising your democratic mandate in a referendum so since it's none of your business? (yeah I am being utterly facetious here).

As a father, I'm sure you understand that a father has quite a lot invested in their children and abortion both involves and effects fathers. As a citizen you also have an investment in the society you live in and it's common morality, and as a responsible adult, you clearly understand and ensure you manage your own fertility. I'm wondering who, bar a tiny lunatic fringe however are advocating a ban on vascectomy. You say it , but I think you're making some sweeping assumptions and false assumptions about people here.

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

Does that mean that men have a choice not to pay child support for children born that they didn't want?

Yes I'd agree completely.You have to have equal rights here.If a man doesn't want the child and the mother did then yeah he shouldn't have to pay support.

Obviously the reality is that many do walk away, but if women are only going to be allowed the choice whether or not a child is born once pregnant then surely men should legally be allowed to have a choice in the same timeframe refuse responsibility for it?

Well they can't have it both ways.

neonsofa wrote: »

From what i can see, that poster didn't actually mention jacinta and sorcha's marital status, just that they were in the same situation regarding an unplanned pregnancy.

True, but in the context of what we were talking about (socioeconomic factors), their marital status of course contributes to their decision as to whether or not to consider abortion or continuing their pregnancy and having the child or children -

Howard Tasteless Bank wrote: »

Fact remains that Jacinta from Ballybane and Sorcha from Raheny are likely to be very very differently impacted by the same situation: an unwanted pregnancy which they wish to terminate.

jimmycrackcorm

Hellrazer wrote:

What right does any man have to even be anti abortion or better still tell any woman what they can or cannot do with their own body.Youre not the one that has to "put up" with a fetus or baby living inside of you that you don't know whether you can provide for it.Whether you can give it the life that it deserves.Men can walk away and not even have to be involved if they don't want to be.

Does that mean that men have a choice not to pay child support for children born that they didn't want?

Obviously the reality is that many do walk away, but if women are only going to be allowed the choice whether or not a child is born once pregnant then surely men should legally be allowed to have a choice in the same timeframe refuse responsibility for it?

Ben Gadot

Genuine question: what's a professional pollster

Hellrazer wrote: »

What right does any man have to even be anti abortion or better still tell any woman what they can or cannot do with their own body.Youre not the one that has to "put up" with a fetus or baby living inside of you that you don't know whether you can provide for it.Whether you can give it the life that it deserves.Men can walk away and not even have to be involved if they don't want to be.

I have no right whatsoever to tell an individual woman what she can and cannot do with her own body. I have a constitutionally protected right to freedom of expression, and the right to engage in the democratic process regarding any decisions which would affect Irish society. That's why we have elections and referendums, and if you're advocating a position where you would exclude men from the democratic process, you may well be shooting yourself in the foot as statistics suggest that far more men are pro-choice than women!

Unless you want to whittle it down to only pregnant women get to vote, and even then I'm not sure that would help your cause!

Next thing you know the anti brigade will be trying to ban vascectomy for killing a few million potential "babies" ,"fetuses" whatever.

I'm pretty sure that without an egg being fertilised by sperm, there's no chance of either having the potential to develop beyond their current state.

heybaby

Zillah wrote: »

I've often wondered about pro-lifers' position on the rest of the political spectrum. It's really interesting that they're usually quite right wing - fiscally and socially conservative.

When it comes to paying taxes and those taxes being used to help poor families feed their children, clothe them for school, and give them a leg up for higher education they get quite upset and complain about freeloaders, scumbags, dole queues etc. They really only seem to care about the poor babies before they are born; the moment they enter the world and start living their lives they and their slut single mothers can go die in a tenement for all they care.

Which always leads me to suspect that it doesn't really have anything to do with caring about the poor foetuses. It's about punishing women. You dared to have sex and now you should suffer the consequences. Keep your legs closed next time.

It's the same reason they ranted about the poor children during the Marriage Equality referendum. You can't get away with calling them dirty faggots any more, they know that, so they find some moralistic highground they can get hysterical about and shout that to the world until the cows come home.

You can't tell women they should shut their mouths and wait for their husbands to get them pregnant, they know that too, so they go on about the poor babies, which in reality they couldn't give a fup about.

It's always Helen Lovejoy, essentially.

Give any old testament worshipping troll a keyboard and watch the bile spew forth. Top marks for your 16000 plus posts, couldnt be bothered scrolling through any of them if this vitriol is indicative of your usual contributions.

Cant figure out who you hate more, women or gays, perhaps you hate both equally, ah no sure its obvious equality isn't in your vernacular.

I tend to find those liberal hating venom spouting left loathing trolls are obsessed with womens' bodies and not in a healthy way, you know, like a creepy way.

Your obsession with sexuality is more than slightly unnerving too. Your mentality, jaundiced as it is, is sadly a reflection of old ireland, the one countless victims are still recovering from and sadly has a bit of a way to go before completely dying out, but it will happen, of that you can be certain.

I welcome any move away from the past when women and gays were treated like dogs by moralising hypocritical bible bashers. Ignorance, fear and hypocrisy are the pillars of the old testament, old ireland and trolls, take a deep breath, change is coming regardless of your bile.

Hellrazer wrote: »

I'm after reading every single post in this thread and you know what really gets on my nerves.
For the record I am pro choice/ pro abortion.I don't really care what you call it.

Anyway what gets on my nerves is that reading this thread and the other threads and what you see protesting in Dublin city center on a Saturday afternoon is that it appears that the majority of anti abortion protesters are male.

What right does any man have to even be anti abortion or better still tell any woman what they can or cannot do with their own body.Youre not the one that has to "put up" with a fetus or baby living inside of you that you don't know whether you can provide for it.Whether you can give it the life that it deserves.Men can walk away and not even have to be involved if they don't want to be.

Btw i have 4 kids.Im not sure economically we could afford another one and if my wife did decide to terminate a pregnancy I would support that decision. But we decided a few years ago that i would get a vascectomy having decided our family was large enough.
Next thing you know the anti brigade will be trying to ban vascectomy for killing a few million potential "babies" ,"fetuses" whatever.

Why would a citizen of this country voting on a referendum item not have a right or opinion? Can men really walk away? legally they cannot and will assume responsibility of the child if the mother wants to keep it?

conorhal

pjohnson wrote: »

Well one was coherent and the other some vague rambling equating that if you are pro choice you are somehow part of the equality gay pride parade bullcrap.

Well of course you're not, but I have found some of the lefty crowd do like to conflate equality and repeal into the same broad spectrum of 'rights' and you are either for all or against all.
I actually lost a friend over it.
For the record I voted for marriage equality. I did on a pride march however take issue with a friend for tweeting repeal posters along the route, #round2! (not exactly that but it was the sentement)

I explained to her that these were two different issue. She was quite shocked that I could be in favor of gay marriage and yet pro-life. I was shocked that such a thing didn't even compute with her, and yet as far as she was concerned I had somehow betrayed a liberal cause in conjunction with all liberal causes and thus become a 'deplorable'.
I don't mind saying that it was a very sad moment in my life because we had been very close, but like that she drifted away.

neonsofa

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Fact also remains that the possible outcomes for Jacinta and Sorcha as unmarried mothers historically, today, and in future generations, will always be different.

From what i can see, that poster didn't actually mention jacinta and sorcha's marital status, just that they were in the same situation regarding an unplanned pregnancy.

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5

Hellrazer wrote: »

I'm after reading every single post in this thread and you know what really gets on my nerves.
For the record I am pro choice/ pro abortion.I don't really care what you call it.

Anyway what gets on my nerves is that reading this thread and the other threads and what you see protesting in Dublin city center on a Saturday afternoon is that it appears that the majority of anti abortion posters are male.

What right does any man have to even be anti abortion or better still tell any woman what they can or cannot do with their own body.Youre not the one that has to "put up" with a fetus or baby living inside of you that you don't know whether you can provide for it.Whether you can give it the life that it deserves.Men can walk away and not even have to be involved if they don't want to be.

Btw i have 4 kids.Im not sure economically we could afford another one and if my wife did decide to terminate a pregnancy I would support that decision. But we decided a few years ago that i would get a vascectomy having decided our family was large enough.
Next thing you know the anti brigade will be trying to ban vascectomy for killing a few million potential "babies" ,"fetuses" whatever.

Pregnancy is magic and babies are fun, women only love being pregnant. It's no big deal at all, minor inconvenience at most. And of course there's the piece of cake solution of giving birth and then giving the baby up for adoption, that's a really easy straightforward thing to do.

If you need to confirm any of this, just check with the men at the pro life rallies, they know all about this stuff.

pjohnson wrote: »

Well its totally useless . Unless you are a staunch catholic abortion and gay marriage are in no way similar. But then again that likely explains the militaristic view lol.

Side Q. Is anyone who disagree's with the church automatically an SJW?

Exactly my point these are two different subjects, the tactics of labeling and belittling people will not get this to be a success, damage is done overall when we take that approach.

No not everyone who disagrees with the church is an SJW, I dont agree with the church myself on this issue. Folk who spend there time labeling others and equating those with a different opinion to them to be advocates of what happened in the mother and baby homes however would be.

I'm after reading every single post in this thread and you know what really gets on my nerves.
For the record I am pro choice/ pro abortion.I don't really care what you call it.

Anyway what gets on my nerves is that reading this thread and the other threads and what you see protesting in Dublin city center on a Saturday afternoon is that it appears that the majority of anti abortion protesters are male.

What right does any man have to even be anti abortion or better still tell any woman what they can or cannot do with their own body.Youre not the one that has to "put up" with a fetus or baby living inside of you that you don't know whether you can provide for it.Whether you can give it the life that it deserves.Men can walk away and not even have to be involved if they don't want to be.

Btw i have 4 kids.Im not sure economically we could afford another one and if my wife did decide to terminate a pregnancy I would support that decision. But we decided a few years ago that i would get a vascectomy having decided our family was large enough.
Next thing you know the anti brigade will be trying to ban vascectomy for killing a few million potential "babies" ,"fetuses" whatever.

pjohnson wrote: »

Well its totally useless . Unless you are a staunch catholic abortion and gay marriage are in no way similar. But then again that likely explains the militaristic view lol.

Side Q. Is anyone who disagree's with the church automatically an SJW?

A better question - is anyone able to express an opinion without it being preceded by "as a...", and following that, is anyone able to express an opinion without being labelled as a... ?

B_Wayne wrote: »

I'd classify it as far more 'moralistic' that women are constantly judged for abortions. Any who have been open about their own personal abortion experience tend to be subjected a lot of abuse, being referred to as "murderers" and such. Pro life campaigners regularly promise some form of a doomsday if the eight amendment is repealed. Yet it's the people who want the individual to allow people to choose are the moralisers?

Its still the usual moralistic thought police crap, rather than debating both sides we throw out labels and disparage integrity of the other side so to discount their opinion.

Unfortunately we live in an Ireland where both sides have an opinion and if we don't want to take the other side seriously then so be it but dont expect any middle ground or understanding.

Whats even worse though is that we run the risk of this failing an actual referendum because we make it a taboo subject to be counter to the popular opinion.

pjohnson

Calhoun wrote: »

No it was in the same rambling labeling of the original post, you just dont agree with my point so you fail to see i was making a similar post.

Well its totally useless . Unless you are a staunch catholic abortion and gay marriage are in no way similar. But then again that likely explains the militaristic view lol.

Side Q. Is anyone who disagree's with the church automatically an SJW?