nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Men's rights on Abortion?

drunkmonkey

Do we get a look in anywhere or can a man/boyfriend/fiance/husband legally challenge a woman's decision to abort?

I've put in a poll to see what you think

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

[Deleted User]

pemay wrote: »

Yeah, you should be running the UN with such obvious impartiality hahaha

well, the UN already sanctioned Ireland under human rights violations, so

Triceratops Ballet

pemay wrote:

But as a general idea, I suppose if there was conflict about a man/woman wanting/not wanting a child, then a system could be designed with the likes of adjudicators. It would have to be a massively integrated system of course.

So the adjudicators would hear both sides, inspect all supporting evidence, and decide, and they're free to decide right this woman, must stay pregnant because this man wants the child?

An adjudication like that would be utterly impossible to impose without out first stripping women of their human rights.

[Deleted User]

ForestFire wrote: »

The problem with the thread, and the vote, is there are two very different senario to be considered and the discussion is often mixing the two.

1. Father wants child, mother does not.
I think most will agree, if ref is passedon, it is her choice in the end, however unfair it might be.

2. Mother wants child father does not. In this case why should father not have option to request abortion, and if not granted (or possible) request not being part of child life, both physically and financillay. Saying this already happens does not answer the question. Should it be accepted and allowed and if not why not.

Because pregnancy is something that happens to her body

Because abortion is a procedure carried out on her body

It's actually as simple as that.

pemay

Triceratops Ballet wrote: »

So the adjudicators would hear both sides, inspect all supporting evidence, and decide, and they're free to decide right this woman, must stay pregnant because this man wants the child?

An adjudication like that would be utterly impossible to impose without out first stripping women of their human rights.

Hence the complexity.

I mean, take a step back for a second. What are you actually looking for here?

I suggest some kind of financial incentive......you reply "that's ridiculous hur hur!"

I suggest an adjudication system....."that's impossible hur hur!"

As I stated a good few posts back, it would be an exercise in stupidity for me to suggest anything whatsoever, because all you have to essentially say is "well that doesn't exist, so its stoopid!"

Yeah I think I'll skip that

pemay

bubblypop wrote: »

well, the UN already sanctioned Ireland under human rights violations, so

So.....we are bad people according to the UN, therefore it would be logical to install an irish person with incredible bias as its new leader.

Makes sense, even as a joke.

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5

pemay wrote: »

Hence the complexity.

I mean, take a step back for a second. What are you actually looking for here?

I suggest some kind of financial incentive......you reply "that's ridiculous hur hur!"

I suggest an adjudication system....."that's impossible hur hur!"

As I stated a good few posts back, it would be an exercise in stupidity for me to suggest anything whatsoever, because all you have to essentially say is "well that doesn't exist, so its stoopid!"

Yeah I think I'll skip that

Yeah it is so annoying when people keep pointing out the problems with nonsense you feel strongly about, isn't it. Those stupid people, they're the stupid ones.

I don't think it's fair that women have periods and have to pay for tampons and men don't. So I think men should be kicked in the abdomen every month and their pay should be docked to cover the sanitary products of the women in their life. But I'm not going into details because someone would just come up with some reasons why I'm wrong and pointing out things about biology and I can't be fcuked with that. I'm great at winning debates I am.

Triceratops Ballet

pemay wrote:

You see theres difference between me asking a simple yes/no question (and receiving gymnastics in reply), and then being asked to propose a world-first solution for a highly complex issue.

It only becomes a simple question when you ignore the reality of a situation. In reality, you can't ignore the biological differences, no matter how much you want to because you think it proves a point.

It's not at all unreasonable to ask someone who proposes change to outline how they envision that change taking place.
You're not being asked for a blueprint to serve as the foundation of government policy. Just a few sentences, on how you think it might work, so others can understand the point you're trying to make.

pemay

Ephraim Squeaking Sympathy wrote: »

Yeah it is so annoying when people keep pointing out the problems with nonsense you feel strongly about, isn't it. Those stupid people, they're the stupid ones.

I don't think it's fair that women have periods and have to pay for tampons and men don't. So I think men should be kicked in the abdomen every month and their pay should be docked to cover the sanitary products of the women in their life. But I'm not going into details because someone would just come up with some reasons why I'm wrong and pointing out things about biology and I can't be fcuked with that. I'm great at winning debates I am.

You should try out for the Olympic squad. Either the self-denial 100 meters, or the pathetic come-back jump.

Wibbs

Pemay, dial back the snarky posts at other users or you won't last long. Stick to the topic and posts, not the posters.

end of the road

bubblypop wrote: »

if they are not alive then it is not death.
stop piling on the drama!!

they are alive. they are developing and slowly becoming a baby.

bubblypop wrote: »

really?
sorry, but until it can live on its own outside the womb, then it is not alive.

yes they are. a baby doesn't suddenly become alive once it leaves the womb. it's heart beats long before birth and it kicks. the baby still needs care outside the womb and it is possible for a baby born at 21 weeks to survive. therefore it's alive

bubblypop wrote: »

but you agree, sex is not just for procreation. its important in a loving relationship.
so, if contraception fails, why should they be punished with something they never wanted?

they aren't being punished. there is no proscribed punishment of that nature within the legislation of the state.
of course sex isn't about just pro-creation and it is important in a loving relationship.

meeeeh

pemay wrote: »

Yeah, you should be running the UN with such obvious impartiality hahaha

You think this is about hating men? You are so blinded you can't even see I am making fun of the whole issue because it's completely unworkable. Church and state were trying to prevent women having abortions since I don't know when. Some Latin American countries treat abortions as murders and yet they still happen. When the whole repressive might of the state can't prevent an abortion, how do you think potential father could? You can demand a say, you can feel aggrieved if your wishes are disregarded but in the end one person will be making a decision (although the whole radiator thing might work).

pemay

Triceratops Ballet wrote: »

It only becomes a simple question when you ignore the reality of a situation. In reality, you can't ignore the biological differences, no matter how much you want to because you think it proves a point.

It's not at all unreasonable to ask someone who proposes change to outline how they envision that change taking place.
You're not being asked for a blueprint to serve as the foundation of government policy. Just a few sentences, on how you think it might work, so others can understand the point you're trying to make.

But I wasn't asking for the reality of the situation. I know the reality of the situation.

I was simply looking for the most basic starting point, yes its fair, or no it isn't.

If you think its fair, then why on earth would I try to convince you of how to fix a problem......that you don't even acknowledge as a problem?

As for a few sentences...lets run it off. Disagreement.....system of adjudication that decides impartially on the complex future of events....lets say the woman is forced to carry the pregnancy through because the father will be there to take the child of her hands.......financial incentive, or perhaps re-written coda of UN declarations, constitution.....it would require several different systems to function at once, and many new systems too.

Theres a few off-hand raw ideas. Now you get to point out why they aren't official policy already (ie the obvious), then I check my sanity for bothering to reply......and back to square one where you probably feel like you've achieved a victory of sorts

Ive given it to you on silver plate.

Or maybe you have counter ideas? (that don't involve the redundant answer: "we just shouldn't bother!")

end of the road

bubblypop wrote: »

well, the UN already sanctioned Ireland under human rights violations, so

this is the same UN who elected saudi arabia to the women's human rights commission to be fair.

Triceratops Ballet wrote: »

nail on the head

abortion is not contraception, and there is no evidence to show it is used as such.

well, we are being told it's not contraception. that's what i was getting at.

pemay

meeeeh wrote: »

You think this is about hating men? You are so blinded you can't even see I am making fun of the whole issue because it's completely unworkable. Church and state were trying to prevent women having abortions since I don't know when. Some Latin American countries treat abortions as murders and yet they still happen. When the whole repressive might of the state can't prevent an abortion, how do you think potential father could? You can demand a say, you can feel aggrieved if your wishes are disregarded but in the end one person will be making a decision (although the whole radiator thing might work).

I think theres some serious issues going on in your head with men, yes.

meeeeh

pemay wrote: »

So.....we are bad people according to the UN, therefore it would be logical to install an irish person with incredible bias as its new leader.

Makes sense, even as a joke.

Oh no, it would be even worse. I'm not Irish, I come from a country that already had reasonably liberal abortion laws. You'd be snookerd...

pemay

meeeeh wrote: »

Oh no, it would be even worse. I'm not Irish, I come from a country that already had reasonably liberal abortion laws. You'd be snookerd...

Phew, that stupid joke was a close one, eh?

One eyed Jack

ForestFire wrote: »

2. Mother wants child father does not. In this case why should father not have option to request abortion

Because even to consider it, you would very quickly run into the issue of violations of human rights.

and if not granted (or possible) request not being part of child life, both physically and financillay. Saying this already happens does not answer the question. Should it be accepted and allowed and if not why not.

While some might argue that such an option may even be in the best interests of the child that they wouldn't have such a deadbeat in their lives, research suggests that it's actually better for children to develop a relationship with their biological parents. The effect of your argument is legislation which would support the denial of a childs right to a relationship with one of their biological parent.

There isn't any scenario where society would ever encourage a system where men can abdicate their responsibilities towards their children, and that is a good thing, for men, for women, for children, for society, that deadbeat men have always been, and will continue to be, squarely in a minority in society and subjected to condemnation.

MayoSalmon

So again if men were to abdicate aka would be in favour of an abortion but the woman choose not to their considered a deadbeat.

However when women abdicate aka have an abortion and the man doesn't agree with that, there's nothing to see.

The double standard is appalling

Triceratops Ballet

pemay wrote:

If you think its fair, then why on earth would I try to convince you of how to fix a problem......that you don't even acknowledge as a problem?

I don't think it's fair, but I don't see a solution that doesn't strip the woman of her human rights.

Honestly the only way I can see it working is if science finds an alternative way to incubate pregnancies. Then there is a possibility of a 50/50 outcome.

One eyed Jack

MayoSalmon wrote: »

So again if men were to abdicate aka would be in favour of an abortion but the woman choose not to their considered a deadbeat.

However when women abdicate aka have an abortion and the man doesn't agree with that, there's nothing to see.

The double standard is appalling

You invented the double standard by conflating two different scenarios and calling them both abortion. With an abortion, there is no child born. If a woman were to abdicate her responsibilities towards her children I'd equally consider her a deadbeat as a mother which the child would be better off without (and again research suggests otherwise).

Where's the double standards now?

Triceratops Ballet

MayoSalmon wrote:

So again if men were to abdicate aka would be in favour of an abortion but the woman choose not to their considered a deadbeat.

MayoSalmon wrote:

However when women abdicate aka have an abortion and the man doesn't agree with that, there's nothing to see.

If you look at any thread on the topic, you'll see plenty of people with negative opinions of women who chose abortion. PLENTY.

pemay

Triceratops Ballet wrote: »

I don't think it's fair, but I don't see a solution that doesn't strip the woman of her human rights.

Honestly the only way I can see it working is if science finds an alternative way to incubate pregnancies. Then there is a possibility of a 50/50 outcome.

Human rights are just a bunch of words. Somebody will eventually change them.

Like the way it is perceived unfair by some for women to not have abortions, and we might alter our constitution based on that.

Just swapping one inequality, in a way, for another.

SusieBlue

It’s very easy to be nonchalant and casual about human rights when it isn’t your bodily autonomy under threat.

meeeeh

MayoSalmon wrote: »

So again if men were to abdicate aka would be in favour of an abortion but the woman choose not to their considered a deadbeat.

However when women abdicate aka have an abortion and the man doesn't agree with that, there's nothing to see.

The double standard is appalling

Ah come on...

In one case there is a child to be taken care of and in the other there is none. Once you have an actual human being involved (not some possibility of human being in the womb) that needs to be taken care of then situation changes. It not even about biology it's maths:

0 baby =/= 1 baby

Triceratops Ballet

pemay wrote:

Just swapping one inequality, in a way, for another.

Except people opposed to abortion will still have the option not to have one. So it's just equality of outcome for individuals.

pemay

WhiteRoses wrote: »

It’s very easy to be nonchalant and casual about human rights when it isn’t your bodily autonomy under threat.

Its all semantics at the end of the day, babe. A womans body, a childs right to life, a mans right to be legally included yadda yadda. Everyone has their own angle and their own perceived rights to be protected.

So lets try it on for size. Its very easy for a woman to be nonchalant and casual about fathers rights when you aren't the father......

Etc

pemay

Triceratops Ballet wrote: »

Except people opposed to abortion will still have the option not to have one. So it's just equality of outcome for individuals.

And "equality of outcome" is a very bad thing. Check it out.

[Deleted User]

pemay wrote: »

Its all semantics at the end of the day, babe. A womans body, a childs right to life, a mans right to be legally included yadda yadda. Everyone has their own angle and their own perceived rights to be protected.

So lets try it on for size. Its very easy for a woman to be nonchalant and casual about fathers rights when you aren't the father......

Etc

You're still refusing to acknowledge that you're asking for the man in your scenario to have a say in forcing an unwilling woman to full term

Why would you consistently avoid stating this when it is the end point of everything you are saying

pemay

Deleted User wrote: »

You're still refusing to acknowledge that you're asking for the man in your scenario to have a say in forcing an unwilling woman to full term

Why would you consistently avoid stating this when it is the end point of everything you are saying

I certainly haven't refused anything of the sort.

Yes, that would be the logical outcome.

And whats wrong with that?

meeeeh

pemay wrote: »

Its all semantics at the end of the day, babe. A womans body, a childs right to life, a mans right to be legally included yadda yadda. Everyone has their own angle and their own perceived rights to be protected.

So lets try it on for size. Its very easy for a woman to be nonchalant and casual about fathers rights when you aren't the father......

Etc

Niw I might be wrong but you don't become a father (or mother) until the child is actually born?