Calhoun wrote: » I don't get why this is a scumbag attitude, Hellraizer was answering this question in the context of men not having an opinion on abortion. If men are to be excluded from the conversation on abortion and have no rights in the matter at all then the logical equitable solution should be that they have the option to opt out of the child's life. Otherwise we get into a situation where the woman has the child and the men force then to get an abortion.
Deleted User wrote: » you brought up laundries and septic tanks, I was referring to the fact that Ireland has moved on, so your points are out of date. I did not say let's ban abortion as there is no stigma for unmarried women having children, you only quoted part of my post
me_right_one wrote: » Was hellraiser not saying that if a man wants to abort his child, but the woman doesn't, that the man should be able to walk away and not contribute towards the raising of his son / daughter?
BigBulldog wrote: » Most of the pro abortion crowd try and avoid ever thinking about what is involved in the actual procedure. Vacuuming the live baby's brain out of its head, decapitating it and severing all its limbs from its body. Seriously, look up some picture of abortion if you think you can stomach it. The pro abortionists try to dress it up as being just like taking a paracetamol and giving the womb a quick clean out to freshen you back up for the next one. Abortion is one of the most disgusting things on this earth. Physicians who perform it are breaking their hippocratic oath at best and murderers at worst. Advocates for it tend to be neo liberal left wing hipsters; stick to the bashing the angelas and the Pope and complaining about the price of bread and watching 50 shades with the girls.
Calhoun wrote: » Why should only one party in the arrangement get to decide what is happening but both are held responsible for the outcome?
Calhoun wrote: » Jimmy put across the question to him and he answered it. These are the type of questions that will be discuss when we move into an are of abortion and possibly abortion on demand. Why should only one party in the arrangement get to decide what is happening but both are held responsible for the outcome?
ZeroThreat wrote: » The opus dei & other assorted god bothering nuts on these forums such as infogiver probably regard scientists as heretics.
gizmo81 wrote: » Men opt out of their children's lives all the time.
me_right_one wrote: » Ah here, I know. I still think that, first of all, killing a baby is probably the scummiest thing a person can do. The next scummiest is pedophilia, then rape, and then not paying maintenance. Just saying. But thankfully, after today's vote NOT to repeal the 8th, we wont be entering into an era of abortion on demand. Funny how boards is almost deserted tonight.
Calhoun wrote: » Not legally they don't, you have to take them to court but in the eyes of the law they are responsible and can be taken to court by the mothers.
Zaph wrote: » Couple of flaws in that plan. First it assumes that the rapist is known, and has been caught so that their sentence could be increased and their access rights removed. Second there's the problem that if the rapist is caught and imprisoned they're not going to have any income for the duration of their incarceration, so there'd be nothing to give to the mother. I'm sorry, but the option for women who become pregnant through rape to have an abortion if they so wish has to be available. Anything else is needlessly cruel and inhumane.
gizmo81 wrote: » And they can sign away their parental responsibility to avoid maintenance.
notjustsweet wrote: » I think the word you're looking for is financially. Yes they can be forced to hand over money. Emotionally and physically, yes some do abandon their children.
Calhoun wrote: » Yes but in the context of this discussion we are not talking about emotionally or physically. The only way we can try and maintain some objectivity in this discussion is if we stick to the law.
One eyed Jack wrote: » Statistical evidence would suggest otherwise. I'm not sure why the inverted commas around "unmarried mothers" either? Hypothetical arguments are predicated upon assumptions being made. You didn't see me get so precious about the names and locations electro used to make her point. That's because I understood where she was coming from and didn't care to be so precious about it. You assume you can speak for the minds of all women who have had an abortion? Well while your assumptions would conveniently support your argument, I know enough women who have had abortions who grieve for their unborn, to know different. I don't have to make assumptions in that regard.
Howard Tasteless Bank wrote: » Oh for god's sake. I said pro-life people should spend more time campaigning for education, social inclusion, healthcare etc (show me thousands of them marching every year), and that people at a lower point in the socio economic scale are more affected by the lack of availability of abortion in Ireland. You came back with some random shíte about the Church (which I never mentioned) providing hospitals, and the differing plights of unmarried mothers (who I never mentioned). This post hoc rationalisation is not AT ALL convincing. You either didn't read the post, or read things into it that weren't there.
neonsofa wrote: » Statistical evidence would show that all women experiencing unplanned pregnancies are unmarried mothers? I used inverted commas as you described them as such. The hypothetical women being discussed, you said "as unmarried mothers", they were not presented as unmarried mothers.
Fair point about my comment re not considering themselves to be mothers. There are a select few that would I guess. Although grieving for a what if is not always grieving for a child as a mother, but you are correct in what you're saying in general terms.
me_right_one wrote: » That's a pure scumbag attitude. Please don't tell me you're serious
One eyed Jack wrote: » No, that's not what I said. Statistics would suggest that more women who have abortions are unmarried mothers. There wasn't anything more to it than that, though it'd be remiss of me if I pretended that I wasn't aware of the social stigma that Jacinta would more likely face that Sorcha wouldn't, for fear of offending Sorcha and her husbands sensitivities. If I'm only one person, and I know as many as I do know, that would suggest there's more than a select few, but if you want to play that down too, fine by me. I also already explained what they were grieving for, but the terms wouldn't suit you as you wouldn't regard the unborn as a child. I wouldn't be the kind of arsehole that's going to contradict them though given their circumstances.
neonsofa wrote: » You made an assumption that was incorrect, i merely pointed that out, continue to dig if you please but my point has been made.
gizmo81 wrote: » It's not a baby!
infogiver wrote: » When is it a baby gizmo?
conorhal wrote: » I was typing a response and then realised, 'Ireland = Saudi Arabia'... Yeah, sooo not worth bothering really...unless you can explain to me how a vascetomy and an abortion are in anybody's universe the same thing? You seem to be making the semantic strawman argument that my position on abortion indicates I should somehow think they are. Nobody equating the two is rational, and by definition, a lunatic is an irrational person, a bit likes somebody equating Ireland with Saudi Arabia.
gizmo81 wrote: » When the mother gives birth.
[Deleted User] wrote: » Everyone on here arguing either for or against the 8th were once a clump of cells>foetus>baby etc. Everyone is unique. There will never be a satisfactory solution to all of this IMO......
volchitsa wrote: » But I didn't equate them, did I? I'm just saying that you're assuming that because your position is commonplace, in Ireland, it's normal. But that isn't necessarily the case, as Saudi Arabia shows : people there think their views about women are normal. That doesn't mean they're right. And not long ago, having a vasectomy was almost as shocking in Ireland as having an abortion. It was certainly illegal. So your belief that only a lunatic fringe thinks different from you isn't nearly as logical as you imagine. If you'd lived 50 years ago you'd think differently about vasectomy. And like I say, Ireland's position on abortion is seriously out of whack with the rest of the democratic world and with human rights organizations. I think that's evidence that the traditional Irish view is probably wrong. Like Saudi Arabia - but I still didn't say it was the same as Saudi Arabia. Like Puh-lease.
conorhal wrote: » So 'it's fair game' till then? That's sociopathic.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w2.vanillicon.com/v2/23cbe5e5e50cebb31e4a86160a77c62d.svg)
