Men's rights on Abortion?

pemay wrote: »

Never mind about that for now. How about instead of losing sight of the main argument (perhaps on purpose), how about get to the basics instead?

Is it fair for man-made implements to confer 100% control of an unborn child (of a man and woman!) to just the woman?

Is that fair?

I think enforcement is an essential aspect of the debate, what is the point in letting me have a say if there is no way to prevent the woman having the abortion anyway?

WhiteRoses wrote: »

You’ve already said you don’t care either way and that you won’t be voting?

I won't be voting, I said people like her would make me want to vote against it.

repeal the hate

Ephraim Squeaking Sympathy wrote: »

No, you're the one who reads that as me thinking the act of getting an abortion is as of much significance as putting on a condom or taking my pill, if I'm reading you right? Completely inaccurate, and coming from your own head.

nice strawman, I never claimed you see it as equating in significance to using a condom or taking a pill.
You did make clear that you would see abortion as an acceptable choice to make to prevent an unwanted pregnancy which might came about solely because you put your quest for sexual pleasure above responsible behaviour.

I generally get my thoughts, concepts and values from my head, what body part do you suggest? Or is my head just an inconsequential disposable bunch of cells?

end of the road

bubblypop wrote: »

the taxpayer currently pays for abortions in ireland when they occur. maternity care is free

correct, for medical abortions. i have no problem with that as they are necessary to save the mother's life.

Triceratops Ballet

RocketRaccoon wrote: »

I won't be voting, I said people like her would make me want to vote against it.

"people like her"? women who are not afraid to admit their willingness to assert their bodily autonomy?

One eyed Jack

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I've been trying to see the angle here.

The few vocal posters in favour of conflating father's rights and alimony with the bodily autonomy of a pregnant woman......I don't believe for a second that these posters are anything but stirring a pot here.

The problem they have is with abortion - the positions taken to ensure that it is a problem for them -without ever being ~the~ problem- are ludicrous. The links between abortion and the issues they are linking it to in this thread are ludicrous.

They are literally just attempting to convince readers of this forum- no secret that uh the posters here are predisposed to uh certain uh leanings - that the right to abortion is somehow *another trick women are pulling on them*

I can only surmise that we have a few logins here on a mission to persuade boards MRA about the upcoming referendum

Anyone want to fess up? What's the going rate lads? Ye posting from Ireland even?

I sincerely hope the readers see through it. The ability of Irish women not to have to carry an unwanted pregnancy to term has to be seen as a matter of women's health or we are seriously in a pit of madness.

I can't speak for any of the other regular contributors here snoop, but that one certainly comes as news to me tbh.

pemay

Ephraim Squeaking Sympathy wrote: »

But crossing the road when you don't want to get hit by a car is exactly as much of an oxymoron as me having sex when I don't want to be a parent.

Well fair play, you're consistent.

Laws are rather influenced by nature you know. Physics, biology, etc. We didn't as a society just pull this situation out of our arses because, lol, fcuk men.

Of course it's unfair, that's the second time you've set that up as some kind of "gotcha"

It's very unfair. Life's very unfair. This is the least worst scenario.

Youre crossing that line into semantic nonsense now. NO, crossing the road is NOT the same as smoking. You know that, no able-minded person would deny such a thing unless they were out to be contrarian. So forget all that.

And then, instead of just admitting the very simple point that nature is not responsible for man-made legal contraptions, you have to go and fudge your way through it by hiding half an admission beneath a half truth. Forget that too.

And now let me tell you why my question is evolving into a "gotcha". Its because several people here are deliberately flip-flopping between definitions to hide being truthful. Those are the people turning a siple question into a "gotcha"

How many times have I asked now, and only received an obtuse flim-flam of an half answer?

Its getting funny, seeing people twisting and turning to avoid their own conclusions.

Triceratops Ballet wrote: »

"people like her"? women who are not afraid to admit their willingness to assert their bodily autonomy?

Someone who isn't enough of an adult to face up to the result of their actions.

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5

repeal the hate wrote: »

nice strawman, I never claimed you see it as equating in significance to using a condom or taking a pill.
You did make clear that you would see abortion as an acceptable choice to make to prevent an unwanted pregnancy which might came about solely because you put your quest for sexual pleasure above responsible behaviour.

I generally get my thoughts, concepts and values from my head, what body part do you suggest? Or is my head just an inconsequential disposable bunch of cells?

So how am I advocating using abortion *as* contraception by saying I'd use it as a last resort if necessary? Or what were you claiming when you said that?

I could certainly have a better sex life if I just disregarded the risk of pregnancy, I don't. I'm responsible, and if despite my best efforts I get pregnant I'll continue to be responsible and end the pregnancy.

RocketRaccoon wrote: »

Someone who isn't enough of an adult to face up to the result of their actions.

You may not like it but having an abortion is facing up to the result of your actions.

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5

Triceratops Ballet wrote: »

"people like her"? women who are not afraid to admit their willingness to assert their bodily autonomy?

Boards wouldn't let me call myself electro~baby~murdering~slut~cúnt

end of the road wrote: »

correct, for medical abortions. i have no problem with that as they are necessary to save the mother's life.

None of your business why any medical procedure takes place. You'd be the first to correct anyone who thought paying tax gave them a say in the specific decisions made by professionals on the ground.

eviltwin wrote: »

You may not like it but having an abortion is facing up to the result of your actions.

It's not, in the long term it is taking the easy and selfish way out.

bodice ripper

RocketRaccoon wrote:

Someone who isn't enough of an adult to face up to the result of their actions.

Or, just maybe, a woman who doesn't share your particular set of morals.

RocketRaccoon wrote: »

It's not, in the long term it is taking the easy and selfish way out.

It's as valid an option as any other. Just because you see it as selfish doesn't make it so.

repeal the hate

Ephraim Squeaking Sympathy wrote: »

So how am I advocating using abortion *as* contraception by saying I'd use it as a last resort if necessary? Or what were you claiming when you said that?

I could certainly have a better sex life if I just disregarded the risk of pregnancy, I don't. I'm responsible, and if despite my best efforts I get pregnant I'll continue to be responsible and end the pregnancy.

I admire your honesty about it.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I can't speak for any of the other regular contributors here snoop, but that one certainly comes as news to me tbh.

I think you might be reading that wrong but I admit my hyphenation is tricky!

The attempt is being made to convince the forum of that opinion I don't feel that it is the belief.

I do think the forum is pretty much known for feeling that men are hard done by versus their female counterparts and this strategy is revised with this in mind.

One eyed Jack

RocketRaccoon wrote: »

Someone who isn't enough of an adult to face up to the result of their actions.

Aren't adult women facing up to the results of their actions when they become pregnant, and because they don't want to be pregnant, they have an abortion, and then they face up to the consequences of their actions in those circumstances too. No matter what way you look at it, you may not agree with their actions, but you'd simply be wrong to suggest that adult women aren't facing up to the consequences of their actions simply because you disagree with their actions.

Triceratops Ballet

RocketRaccoon wrote: »

It's not, in the long term it is taking the easy and selfish way out.

not having a baby because you don't want to is no more selfish than having a baby because you do want one.

eviltwin wrote: »

It's as valid an option as any other. Just because you see it as selfish doesn't make it so.

It is far from valid. If you are using contraception and happen to get pregnant then it is absolutely ridiculous to terminate the pregnancy just because you don't want a child. Face up to the result of your actions ffs.

Spanish Eyes

DNA tests are the business. They were not around when women were placed in the Magdalen laundries.

Most men will play their part now, but many don't and won't.

What is the solution for men just walking away now?

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Aren't adult women facing up to the results of their actions when they become pregnant, and because they don't want to be pregnant, they have an abortion, and then they face up to the consequences of their actions in those circumstances too. No matter what way you look at it, you may not agree with their actions, but you'd simply be wrong to suggest that adult women aren't facing up to the consequences of their actions simply because you disagree with their actions.

They're not. It's the easy way out, they will go through a bit of pain and suffering for a few weeks afterwards and then it'll be the same thing again when they get pregnant the next time. When would it stop? Where is the line?

RocketRaccoon wrote: »

It is far from valid. If you are using contraception and happen to get pregnant then it is absolutely ridiculous to terminate the pregnancy just because you don't want a child. Face up to the result of your actions ffs.

Having an abortion is facing up to your actions.

Having a baby you don't want is the responsible option now.

Honest to fúck......

RocketRaccoon wrote: »

It's not, in the long term it is taking the easy and selfish way out.

you see it as selfish, it doesn't make it so.
maybe bringing a child into the world when you have no means to properly care for the child is selfish?
i don't have children, and I never will, a guy a work with thinks that is selfish.
people think all kinds of mad things!

Spanish Eyes

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Aren't adult women facing up to the results of their actions when they become pregnant, and because they don't want to be pregnant, they have an abortion, and then they face up to the consequences of their actions in those circumstances too. No matter what way you look at it, you may not agree with their actions, but you'd simply be wrong to suggest that adult women aren't facing up to the consequences of their actions simply because you disagree with their actions.

What facing up to their actions did the man have to do? Just wondered there.

pemay

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Unless you missed it, you must also acknowledge that the reason a woman has 100% of control over her pregnancy is because she also carries 100% of the responsibility for her pregnancy.

The laws aren't granting her anything that she can't do already, they are acknowledging that she can do those things because due to her biology, she already has 100% control over whether she wishes to remain pregnant or not. A man has 0% control because he has 0% of the responsibility of maintaining or ending a woman's pregnancy.

But, for the umpteenth time, we are NOT talking about nature, we are talking about society.

Nature didn't open an abortion clinic in England. People did. People also decide the legalities of such.

Therefore it is a cop-out to say "its just nature!" while at the same time "but we have to have a referendum, we have to design such and such a legal contraption "etc

The answer, plain to see for everyone, including those dancing around the simple question, is that it is inherently UNFAIR to LEGALLY grant 100% control to one person out of two.

If my eyes roll back any further in my head I'll audition for the next exorcist film!