Men's rights on Abortion?

Triceratops Ballet · 31-01-2018 01:11AM

pemay wrote:

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......

Who's nonchalant about fathers rights, fathers should have rights to their kids. They should have all the rights and obligations mothers have by law.

Their individual rights however do not and can not supersede the rights of another individual.

pemay · 31-01-2018 01:13AM

Triceratops Ballet wrote: »

Who's nonchalant about fathers rights, fathers should have rights to their kids. They should have all the rights and obligations mothers have by law.

Their individual rights however do not and can not supersede the rights of another individual.

Hence the difficulty when a child is conceived between TWO individuals.

My semantics point still stands.

meeeeh · 31-01-2018 01:13AM

pemay wrote: »

I certainly haven't refused anything of the sort.

Yes, that would be the logical outcome.

And whats wrong with that?

Just make sure you have radiators in the house...

31-01-2018 01:13AM

pemay wrote: »

I certainly haven't refused anything of the sort.

Yes, that would be the logical outcome.

And whats wrong with that?

I think you'll find when the dust settles that it's the part that most people can't support.

I won't debate what's wrong with it. Up to each individual to decide if there's anything wrong with it at all obv.

eviltwin · 31-01-2018 01:13AM

pemay wrote: »

I certainly haven't refused anything of the sort.

Yes, that would be the logical outcome.

And whats wrong with that?

You really see nothing wrong with the decision about a woman's healthcare being taken out of her hands and given to her partner?

pemay · 31-01-2018 01:16AM

meeeeh wrote: »

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

Semantics shemantics.

Do you become a mother the very second a child is born or conceived? Seconds can be devised down to infinitesimal numbers, so which number do you pick?

Conception at 3.04pm and 11 seconds and infinity plus 3? or plus 5?, infinity plus infinity?

Semantics.

pemay · 31-01-2018 01:17AM

eviltwin wrote: »

You really see nothing wrong with the decision about a woman's healthcare being taken out of her hands and given to her partner?

I did not say that.

I am advocating for the inclusion of the same two individuals who conceived the child in deciding the future of the child also.

Youd probably love to keep going on the "man only" angle, but it isn't what I said, am saying, or will ever say.

31-01-2018 01:18AM

pemay wrote: »

Semantics shemantics.

Do you become a mother the very second a child is born or conceived? Seconds can be devised down to infinitesimal numbers, so which number do you pick?

Conception at 3.04pm and 11 seconds and infinity plus 3? or plus 5?, infinity plus infinity?

Semantics.

Once it's born

No semantics

pemay · 31-01-2018 01:19AM

Deleted User wrote: »

I think you'll find when the dust settles that it's the part that most people can't support.

I won't debate what's wrong with it. Up to each individual to decide if there's anything wrong with it at all obv.

And that's a big problem.

pemay · 31-01-2018 01:19AM

Deleted User wrote: »

Once it's born

No semantics

And what time was that?

SusieBlue · 31-01-2018 01:19AM

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

Babe????? Are you having a laugh????? Don’t be so bloody patronising.

If you can’t respectfully engage in debate without being condescending and taking the p*ss then you shouldn’t bother. How can you expect anyone to take you seriously.

31-01-2018 01:20AM

pemay wrote: »

And what time was that?

Different for each one, as a rule toots.

eviltwin · 31-01-2018 01:22AM

pemay wrote: »

I did not say that.

I am advocating for the inclusion of the same two individuals who conceived the child in deciding the future of the child also.

Youd probably love to keep going on the "man only" angle, but it isn't what I said, am saying, or will ever say.

But ultimately the man has the final say. And that will force the woman into nine months of healthcare she does not want. It's saying that her wishes are second to his and it's completely unenforceable.

pemay · 31-01-2018 01:23AM

meeeeh wrote: »

Just make sure you have radiators in the house...

Still pushing the woman being tied to a radiator. Oh those poor things!

What can you do, meeeeeh? Can you free them from the tyranny?

Will you be the hero, and feel like your life has a point after all? Get back at that man who did bad by you, or perhaps the mother who was beaten by your father, or perhaps subjugate yourself into somebodies panties with all the signalling?

Hard to say, so many potential options!

Keep posting ridiculous things and you'll get ridiculous answers.

31-01-2018 01:25AM

pemay wrote: »

And that's a big problem.

What? Other people deciding for themselves what's right or wrong?

Very healthy thing imo. It's a narrow character that's threatened by it.

pemay · 31-01-2018 01:26AM

WhiteRoses wrote: »

Babe????? Are you having a laugh????? Don’t be so bloody patronising.

If you can’t respectfully engage in debate without being condescending and taking the p*ss then you shouldn’t bother. How can you expect anyone to take you seriously.

I am having a laugh, well spotted (and expected)

Sure half the eejits here cant even read, but I've crossed the line now, and now everything is super serious and deadly. golly gosh.

Why don't you have a sense of humour instead? We're both nameless, faceless people to each other.

pemay · 31-01-2018 01:28AM

Deleted User wrote: »

What? Other people deciding for themselves what's right or wrong?

Very healthy thing imo. It's a narrow character that's threatened by it.

Yeah......one person deciding is super preferable to the other person deciding.

Great pick-up there. Completely the opposite of what I have said about twenty times, and probably about twenty times that other posters have tried to force the "man only" thing on my posts.

Yep, narrow is right

SusieBlue · 31-01-2018 01:29AM

pemay wrote: »

I am having a laugh, well spotted (and expected)

Sure half the eejits here cant even read, but I've crossed the line now, and now everything is super serious and deadly. golly gosh.

Why don't you have a sense of humour instead? We're both nameless, faceless people to each other.

I don’t think there’s anything humorous about this referendum at all?
There is nothing more dismissive or patronising than a man tacking the word ‘babe’ on the end of the sentence.
Not to worry though, your misogyny is shining through. You clearly just have a problem with women in general and are just using fathers rights to soapbox your hatred.

meeeeh · 31-01-2018 01:29AM

pemay wrote: »

Still pushing the woman being tied to a radiator. Oh those poor things!

What can you do, meeeeeh? Can you free them from the tyranny?

Will you be the hero, and feel like your life has a point after all? Get back at that man who did bad by you, or perhaps the mother who was beaten by your father, or perhaps subjugate yourself into somebodies panties with all the signalling?

Hard to say, so many potential options!

Keep posting ridiculous things and you'll get ridiculous answers.

And yet you still didn't come up with one single idea how the whole thing would work without forcing your partner/wife/shag of the day to do something she doesn't want. There is no other way but force.

One eyed Jack · 31-01-2018 01:32AM

pemay wrote: »

I did not say that.

I am advocating for the inclusion of the same two individuals who conceived the child in deciding the future of the child also.

Youd probably love to keep going on the "man only" angle, but it isn't what I said, am saying, or will ever say.

But the entire premise of the thread is that the couple simply cannot agree on deciding the future of the child, and in that scenario, the woman who is carrying the child will ultimately have the final say, and that's whether you want to look at it philosophically, legally, biologically, any way you want to look at it at all, ultimately all the responsibility for the future of that child rests with the woman.

In order for men to gain recognition of their equal right to a say in the future of that child, you would have to be able to demonstrate that they have an equal responsibility as a woman, towards that child who is not yet born, and you simply cannot do that, ever, because biology stands in your way.

end of the road · 31-01-2018 01:33AM

WhiteRoses wrote: »

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

well, unfortunately that is the position the government have put people in by proposing unrestricted abortion up to 12 weeks. there is full agreement that the 8th does cause problems in terms of bodily autonomy and human rights, however the decisian to legislate for abortion on demand and unrestricted up to 12 weeks, something which the lack of provision of within the state does not go against human rights and bodily autonomy, has meant that many of us have no option but to vote no to repeal to protect the life of the unborn. there was a middle ground which would have got our vote, and the government decided not to take it.

31-01-2018 01:36AM

pemay wrote: »

Yeah......one person deciding is super preferable to the other person deciding.

Great pick-up there. Completely the opposite of what I have said about twenty times, and probably about twenty times that other posters have tried to force the "man only" thing on my posts.

Yep, narrow is right

You're not even responding to your own quotes correctly at this stage. Shift change soon?

pemay · 31-01-2018 01:37AM

WhiteRoses wrote: »

I don’t think there’s anything humorous about this referendum at all?
There is nothing more dismissive or patronising than a man tacking the word ‘babe’ on the end of the sentence.
Not to worry though, your misogyny is shining through. You clearly just have a problem with women in general and are just using fathers rights to soapbox your hatred.

I beg to differ, there are many, many, many more patronising things in life than someone purposefully, tongue-in-cheek, typing out the 4 letters to spell "babe".

But maybe your one of those bubble babies or something, immunocompromised in someway. I really don't know!

Oh the misogyny......oh my gaawwwd......

So tiresome and predictable. But with a tinge of amusement that keeps me watching

Youre saying that I have a problem with women, but you'll gladly digitally masturbatethe poster "meeeeee", who has an out and out genuine schism between the sexes. I wouldn't expect any less, ha!

31-01-2018 01:37AM

end of the road wrote: »

well, unfortunately that is the position the government have put people in by proposing unrestricted abortion up to 12 weeks. there is full agreement that the 8th does cause problems in terms of bodily autonomy and human rights, however the decisian to legislate for abortion on demand and unrestricted up to 12 weeks, something which the lack of provision of within the state does not go against human rights and bodily autonomy, has meant that many of us have no option but to vote no to repeal to protect the life of the unborn. there was a middle ground which would have got our vote, and the government decided not to take it.

Does your middle ground provide for the bodily autonomy of the woman involved?

If not it is unacceptable to many.

Hence a referendum.

pemay · 31-01-2018 01:41AM

Deleted User wrote: »

You're not even responding to your own quotes correctly at this stage. Shift change soon?

Fortunately, I do as please because I'm stinking wealthy. No shifts for the rest of my life, unless I choose.

Youre right though, the weak attacks on my sensible arguments are starting to blur together into one giant blur of nonsense, its like trying to recognise one individual fly out of a swarm buzzing round the shyte that is their "arguments."

Am I condescending enough yet, should I dial it up?

eviltwin · 31-01-2018 01:41AM

One eyed Jack wrote: »

But the entire premise of the thread is that the couple simply cannot agree on deciding the future of the child, and in that scenario, the woman who is carrying the child will ultimately have the final say, and that's whether you want to look at it philosophically, legally, biologically, any way you want to look at it at all, ultimately all the responsibility for the future of that child rests with the woman.

In order for men to gain recognition of their equal right to a say in the future of that child, you would have to be able to demonstrate that they have an equal responsibility as a woman, towards that child who is not yet born, and you simply cannot do that, ever, because biology stands in your way.

I suspect the logic of this post will go right over his head.....

pemay · 31-01-2018 01:42AM

Ah to be fair, you've all entertained me. Goodnight, and sleep tight, babes

Muah!

meeeeh · 31-01-2018 01:42AM

end of the road wrote: »

well, unfortunately that is the position the government have put people in by proposing unrestricted abortion up to 12 weeks. there is full agreement that the 8th does cause problems in terms of bodily autonomy and human rights, however the decisian to legislate for abortion on demand and unrestricted up to 12 weeks, something which the lack of provision of within the state does not go against human rights and bodily autonomy, has meant that many of us have no option but to vote no to repeal to protect the life of the unborn. there was a middle ground which would have got our vote, and the government decided not to take it.

Except you won't be deciding on the protection of unborn. You will be deciding weather to ad a cost of plane ticket to the abortion or weather that pill will be taken with or without medical supervision. That unborn you are protecting is already gone.

31-01-2018 01:43AM

pemay wrote: »

Am I condescending enough yet, should I dial it up?

Oh carry on how you like. It's no skin off my nose if you have to switch to another login.

Spanish Eyes · 31-01-2018 01:50AM

No man will ever have to go through the trauma of an abortion. EVER.

Isn't that correct.

So maybe men on the pro life side should shut the feck up now.

Men's rights on Abortion?

Comments