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

end of the road

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.

to be fair she is young and idealistic and hasn't had life experience so won't get such humour. i'd ask you to please not be hard on her.

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.

you are trying the same thing you tried with me and failed on. making up things that posters don't believe and never said, and trying to make them out to be monsters. this is unreasonable and unfair as they have not done it to you.

Deleted User wrote: »

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

If not it is unacceptable to many.

Hence a referendum.

it provides bodily autonomy for women, protects the rights and life of the unborn as much as is practical, and allows for necessary abortions where medical reasons require it.

meeeeh wrote: »

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.

i will be voting on insuring the protections the unborn have will remain in this country. and yes i will also be voting to insure some type of deterrent against abortion as i believe having people traveling to the uk does act as a deterrent to some, which in turn saves some lives. so that is a good thing as well.

Spanish Eyes wrote: »

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.

no, we won't. we are having our view.

Wibbs

pemay wrote: »

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

Muah!

And after that final daftness, after a pretty long list of same; take three days off from the forum and this thread. Oh and end of the road? Dial back your own daftness while you're at it.

Everyone, on all sides, keep this civil. This topic always brings out the morons, loonies and true believers on both sides, but rest assured neither side's aforementioned will be tolerated for very long.

[Deleted User]

All hail wibbs and free abortions for all

Wibbs

Spanish Eyes wrote: »

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

Isn't that correct.

No it's not. Yes the physical trauma is the woman's alone, but one would have to be exceedingly blinkered and partisan to completely ignore the effect the abortion of a pregnancy can have on the man involved. Though blinkered and partisan seems to be the order of the day on this matter, on both sides of it.

Wibbs

Deleted User wrote: »

All hail wibbs and free abortions for all

Cop on, post something worthwhile, or simply don't post. Easy decision.

Pejayzuz

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

It's not really just semantics, it's forcing a woman to unwillingly carry a pregnancy to term. And men shouldn't have the right of control over a woman's body, that's essentially saying "sure, you can have control over your own body... If this man here is OK with it."
You'd be singing a different, less dismissive tune if you were being told a woman would get to force a vasectomy on you, babe.

Easy Rod

end of the road wrote: »

as i believe having people traveling to the uk does act as a deterrent to some, which in turn saves some lives. so that is a good thing as well.

Who’d that be then? People who can’t afford to travel to the uk for an abortion. That seems like a smart idea to force women with no money to bring an unwanted child into the world. I’m sure that’ll work out well.

CPTM

I feel like nature has given us the final word on this argument a long long time ago, when it gave the pregnancy term solely to the woman to bear. That might not be fair - and both genders have arguments for that, but it's the way it is.

Here's what happens in the real world - The woman either decides to refuse the man's perspective, or the woman makes a decision to listen to the man and take on board his "50%" claim. In either case, the woman is 100% making a decision (after considering all the inputs she's decided to factor in). And no constitution, or amendment, or repeal, or man (or other woman), or police force is stopping that. Maybe in old Ireland, through manipulation and so on, but not the Ireland we live in today.

Hypothetically, if we were to write into the rulebook that the decision to have an abortion needs to be made by both the man and the woman (50/50), then you will have a lot of couples going to get abortions in Dublin, and again, back to the dark times - a lot of single lonely women making very difficult trips across to England. The point I'm making: Women will make the decision themselves regardless of what is in the rulebook, and regardless of anyone thinks 'should' happen. It's more about how much support we give them during that difficult time.

s7ryf3925pivug

As of 2011, the following countries require permission for abortion from a woman's husband: Indonesia, Malawi, Syria, United Arab Emirates, Equatorial Guinea, Kuwait, Maldives, Morocco, South Korea, Saudi Arabia, Japan, Taiwan and Turkey.

No western countries have such laws. A few unsuccessful attempts have been made to block abortions in the courts. I doubt any country offers the right for unmarried prospective fathers.

The notion of rejecting legal responsibility for an unwanted child is called paper abortion. It has been proposed in Denmark and Sweden. I don't think it is possible in any country.

baylah17

Vertigous_ wrote: »

Can you define what bodily autonomy actually means?

The right of a woman to control and regulate her own body, the right NOT to be compelled to carry and unwanted fetus , the right to choose what contraception if any to use.

Triceratops Ballet

Vertigous_ wrote:

So bodily autonomy means nothing for men?

In the context of this thread, a woman's right to control what happens to her body means nothing for men.

In a broader context both sexes have the right to say what happens to their bodies

.......

This post has been deleted.

RocketRaccoon

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I'm only quoting this so I can ask you a question.

Should you fall pregnant in a few years and decide you want to keep the baby, but the father says he doesn't want it. What will you do? Will you still go ahead with the pregnancy? If so, will you chase the man down for maintenance? What about trying to get him to see the child? Will you give his name and details to the child when he/she is older?

This is an open question to any woman on this thread btw.

Calhoun

As long as a man cannot abort his financial obligation to a baby i feel that man have somewhat of a decision in the process.

However as far as the referendum on the 8th is concerned it is a vote on our constitution and like it or not we have an opinion.

Triceratops Ballet

RocketRaccoon wrote:

Should you fall pregnant in a few years and decide you want to keep the baby, but the father says he doesn't want it. What will you do? Will you still go ahead with the pregnancy? If so, will you chase the man down for maintenance? What about trying to get him to see the child? Will you give his name and details to the child when he/she is older?

I'd have the baby. I wouldn't want a a father who didn't want to be involved involved, that would be damaging to the child, and my own mental health. Who needs a life of chasing after someone who has no interest.
If the child asked when they were older I'd tell them the name if they wanted to know,chances are if he wasn't involved I wouldn't have his other details anymore.

Do you think this scenario doesn't happen?

neonsofa

I've seen a few posters mention that a couple should have a discussion about unplanned pregnancies from the beginning as if that would solve the issue. The thing is it is very easy to take a stance when discussing a hypothetical situation when it all seems black and white and you're removed from the situation. It is very different when you are faced with the decision and are experiencing first hand the physical, emotional and mental effects of the situation. Personally I always said I'd have an abortion if I fell pregnant- I didn't ever want children.

Then I found myself pregnant at a young age with my first child. All previous beliefs and discussions went out the window- we had the discussion as a couple prior to that and we used contraception, it failed,we were responsible and yet it still happened as it does for quite a few, despite what others want to believe.
Anyway, as a pregnant woman, my opinion changed. I didn't want an abortion, my partner at the time was in agreement. Throughout the 9 months of pregnancy my decision became more difficult, one week I'd be happy with my decision, the next I'd be feeling regret about not terminating (plus the additional guilt of feeling that way about my own growing baby), so it's never as simple as, agree beforehand so you're both on the same page about what you'd do. It is absolutely worth having the conversation but at the end of the day it can all change when you're actually in the situation.

With regards to "facing up to the consequences",which I think only one poster actually mentioned thankfully- I faced up to mine and became a mother before I was ready. Thankfully things turned out alright for us. But no person should be forced to do so- my mental health suffered greatly as a result of doing so and that was my own choice that I had control over. Post natal depression is difficult enough when your pregnancy was planned or you made your decision to continue with the pregnancy despite it being unplanned, trying to manage PND if forced to carry a baby you do not want with all control and choice taken from you would be horrific. Thats not making a woman face consequences thats a form of punishment imo.

In theory I'd support men being able to sign away their rights and obligations if they wished to end the pregnancy but the woman wished to continue. However OEJ has outlined the issues with that and it wouldn't be possible really. OeJ made great points about the child's rights once it's born so in practical terms it's not feasible I don't think but in principle I'd support the general concept if that makes sense.

In terms of men voting on the issue, rather than having a say in individual cases. They are citizens of the country and therefore have every right to have a say in its constitution. Men also play a part in creating the fetus, so abortion does have an impact on them. Also,every fetus has the potential to become either a woman or a man so I think it is only fair that both genders get to have a say in abortion legislation. It is imo ultimately a woman's right to decide though.

Sorry for the novel there :pac:

s7ryf3925pivug

MayoSalmon wrote: »

If you haven't realise a newborn baby will still die if not cared for so it cannot live on its "own".

You should also note a fetus born at 21 weeks is capable of survival

A preemie that early would need months of medical interventions and monitoring to have a chance at survival.

Preemies up to the 36th week would probably require medical interventions and monitoring for shorter periods. Among other things, they probably won't have developed the skill/ability of breathing or eating sufficiently by themselves.

I agree with you in principal, that at some point before actual birth, a fetus should be considered more than a clump of cells in the mother. However the gestational age of the youngest surviving preemies is not necessarily that point. This has more to do with the rigour and sophistication of medical care than an exact point in their development - I imagine as the science and technology progresses, the age at which they can survive will become lower and lower.

Outside of complicating factors, 12 weeks seems sufficient time for people to find out they're pregnant and make a decision about it.

One eyed Jack

Calhoun wrote: »

As long as a man cannot abort his financial obligation to a baby i feel that man have somewhat of a decision in the process.

Realistically, it will never be legislated for that a man could abdicate his financial responsibility towards his child, that one doesn't even get out of the starting blocks, so how do you propose that a mans wishes to not become a father be enforced, to compel a woman to have an abortion? That's not going to happen either.

SusieBlue

Vertigous_ wrote: »

Asking for an abortion is making someone else perform an operation on your body.

If someone is refused to have their lubgs removed by a medical professional does that mean they don't have bodily autonomy?

Leaving aside the issue of abortion, women don't have the power to consent or withhold consent while receiving maternity care. That in itself is a disgrace.

For example, just one case I know of:
A woman was in the early stages of labour. The baby was not in distress and this was not an emergency situation.
The doctor estimated the baby would be about 10lb in weight, and decided the woman wouldn't be able to deliver the baby herself.
In this very early stage of labour, he performed an episiotomy on her (look it up).
This was despite the fact she was totally opposed to having one, explicitly stating she did not consent and would rather try to deliver by herself first.

The doctor ignored her wishes and did it anyway. The baby was born a tiny 6lb meaning the procedure was wholly unnecessary.

The fact that this is still happening is an absolute disgrace. How would you feel if your sister/friend/wife was in a situation like that where she had zero control over what happened to her body?

SusieBlue

Vertigous_ wrote: »

If you don't want a doctor to have control then don't tell any that you are pregnant, deliver it yourself.

:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

seamus

Vertigous_ wrote: »

If you don't want a doctor to have control then don't tell any that you are pregnant, deliver it yourself.

So you believe that once a patient is admitted to hospital, they should forgo all choices as to their care? If you get admitted for testicular cancer and wake up on the table with your penis completely removed, you wouldn't ask any questions? You'd say, "Ah well sure, he did what he had to do"?

Ignoring the moral and ethical sh1tshow that would be, the basic data shows that patients outcomes are the best when patients are fully informed as to their treatment and are encouraged to collaborate with their care team and make decisions in regards to what happens.

Patients who are not informed about their care and given no opportunity to make decisions, tend to be more likely to die, they take longer to get better, and they feel worse about what has happened in general.

Triceratops Ballet

Vertigous_ wrote:

Asking for an abortion is making someone else perform an operation on your body.

No it's requesting treatment (not always surgical) and consenting to that treatment, and accepting the potential outcome of said treatment. You're not forcing anyone to carry out an abortion, nor are you being forced.

Calhoun

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Realistically, it will never be legislated for that a man could abdicate his financial responsibility towards his child, that one doesn't even get out of the starting blocks, so how do you propose that a mans wishes to not become a father be enforced, to compel a woman to have an abortion? That's not going to happen either.

Why not we are all for equality aren't we? If your going to treat men as sperm donor then you may as well legislate for the option.

We only recently had a post in one of our threads where a woman had unprotected sex with a guy so she could produce a baby without his knowledge, in the case the woman didnt want any help from the guy but what if she did?

.......

This post has been deleted.

nozzferrahhtoo

Apologies for the flood of catch up posts but I was waiting for mod intervention to see if they had any issue with the thread topic varying a little. Seemingly they do not so I feel safe to post now for the time being.

MayoSalmon wrote: »

The foetus/baby has an inherent desire to live.

That majority of abortions by choice, the near totality in fact, happen long before a fetus has a "desire" for anything, or even the faculty with which "desire" could be possible.

The Fetus has no more desire to live than an ameoba has, or rain has a desire to fall. I do not think we benefit from projecting OUR desires onto things that do not share them.

MayoSalmon wrote: »

Ah the sentient argument. So when exactly does the foetus become sentient? 2 weeks, 20 weeks, birth??

We do not know for sure. We have a pretty good idea that the lower limit is at 30 weeks. But we have good cause to doubt ourselves from about 25 weeks and bad cause a little earlier.

My own feeling is there is no point when it become sentient. It is much like how orange turns into red on a rainbow. There is no point where this happens. Rather there is an imperceptible incremental change from one to the other.

Thankfully for the purposes of abortion we do not need to know when it becomes sentient. We simply need to know when it is NOT sentient. And the near totality of choice based abortion happens well within the window where we are as certain as certain gets in science, that the fetus lacks EVERY aspect of the faculty of consciousness and sentience.

MayoSalmon wrote: »

Well a fetus can open its eyes at 18 weeks

What have eyes got to do with it? Not being facetious, I simply can not see a modicum of relevance in your observation here. Perhaps I am just missing it. That happens sometimes

MayoSalmon wrote: »

Because its DNA is 50% man and 50% woman Choice is 100% woman 0% man Quite strange in my opinion

Only if you think DNA is at all relevant to the equation. If you realize it is not, then it very quickly stops seeming strange. The importance of DNA is contextual and I do not think this context affords it any importance at all.

repeal the hate wrote: »

It's actually on you because you're the one validating abortion as an alternative to acting like an adult....

Except abortion is the opposite. Considering all your options, including abortion...... while listening to the opinions of those around you especially those impacted by the decision being made........ before finally choosing the option that best suits your INDIVIDUAL circumstance.......... is the very essence of being an adult.

Too many people want to define "being an adult" as "Do exactly what I would do in a similar situation".

repeal the hate wrote: »

You did make clear that you would see abortion as an acceptable choice to make to prevent an unwanted pregnancy

Not what the user said especially given that abortion does not "prevent unwanted pregnancy". It ENDS one. Big difference there.

Vertigous_ wrote: »

As a corollory to the "My body my choice" argument I presume people which use that argument agree that a man should be allowed to walk around with his penis hanging out, and also to masturbate in public. #Mybodymychoice #bodilyautonomy

They might agree with that if they thought the slogan means what you think it means. The problem here is: it doesn't. The slogan, like all slogans, does not describe the entire position that sits behind it.

The "My body my choice" slogan for most is about the fact that the fetus is not an entity we should be affording rights..... at the point when the fetus is generally (almost entirely) being aborted. Which is in or before week 16 (actually the very VAST majority by week 12).

At that point it IS "her body her choice" because there is noONE else there who's "body" is affected. It is a fetus, not a person. It has none of the attributes to usefully identify it as a person. It is a NObody, even if it is not a noTHING.

Public nudity is a completely different discussion, and actually I have never understood the human issue with nudity at all. But whatever my opinion of nudity is.... it is a conversation involving OTHER people with rights. Abortion of a fetus is not. Big difference there.

Vertigous_ wrote: »

Can you define what bodily autonomy actually means?

Again as I said, you have the right to swing your arms around wildly. That right however ends at my face.

This is essentially the heart of what bodily autonomy means. There are things in this world that should have rights (sentient entities) and things that should not (rocks, table lets, amoeba, the fetus at 12 weeks).

Bodily autonomy means that you should be allowed do anything you want with your body UNTIL such time as your choices impact another entity with rights. At which points, depending on the entity and the level of impact involved, your rights should be curtailed and mediated.

If that is not clear enough then my bad, but ask questions and I will endeavor to do better.

Vertigous_ wrote: »

Asking for an abortion is making someone else perform an operation on your body. If someone is refused to have their lubgs removed by a medical professional does that mean they don't have bodily autonomy?

I think you are conflating two different things there. The right for someone to seek X, and the right of someone else not to offer X.

The abortion debate is mostly about allowing women to LEGALLY seek abortion. Bodily autonomy for them would mean that they are allowed to do so, and are not prevented or legally indicted for doing so.

Now if someone... or even everyone..... refused to offer that service at all then that is a different conversation. If you want your lungs removed, I actually fully believe you should have the right to do so. I do not think anyone should be compelled by your right to do so, to facilitate your.

It is two different things.

To use a less ridiculous, but no less controversial, example than your lung one.... there are people suffering from a genuine condition called apotemnophilia or "Body integrity identity disorder".

For reasons we are only BEGINNING to understand they suffer from nothing more than having a limb they do not want. And they suffer from it GREATELY. Depression. Pain. And so forth. They want, and often travel to other countries to get, that limb removed. And I think that that is their right to do so. They should not be prevented from it, and if a medical service in Ireland wished to offer that service I think it should be allowed.

I do not think anyone should be compelled to OFFER that service however. But I do with the state WOULD offer it.

nozzferrahhtoo

RocketRaccoon wrote: »

And this attitude is exactly the problem. Bad luck for the guy? Grow up.

It is a slightly, but not entirely, crass way to put it, sure, but it is still a valid perspective even if it could be worded better.

I think your heart could appear to be generally in the right place had the mask not slipped later in the thread. That you appear to want to acknowledge that men suffer too, and it is not all about the women. I get that, and this is a good perspective to have. I share it!

But there are two different conversations there, that are overlapping badly.

The first is the Thread Title is about Men's rights. And the majority of posters here think they should have no rights in this context. And I am inclined to agree. The decision to abort, or not abort, is the Woman's alone. And certainly the idea that her partner should have any right to force her to carry a pregnancy, or to abort one she wants, is as unworkable in law as it would be horrific in practice. There is however a conversation there to be had about his rights to separate himself from the process of rearing or financing a child he does not want. And I think there is a middle ground to be found between the two extremes on that conversation. Those claiming that parents can not abdicate rights to their children are simply wrong. People walk away from parenting all the time. And I guess they have not heard of adoption either after which they have given away pretty much all responsibilities over their child.

The second is not about rights but common etiquette. The Man's right to an opinion, to be heard and have his position considered, and to have us acknowledge that a decision that goes against his will affect him emotionally and even financially. And I am mostly on the same page as you on that one. Though I do notice that a lot of the people who admonish women with the "you knew when you had sex that you could get pregnant against your wishes" narrative...... are not so quick to admonish men with the "You knew when you had sex with a woman who had no interest in having a child, that abortion of the fetus you planted was a possibility". Sauce, goose, gander here please.

But the mask slips then, and we move out of EITHER of those conversations, when you shift to lines like these.........

RocketRaccoon wrote: »

It's not about wanting a child, it is about stepping up when the situation arises and not taking the easy way out.

RocketRaccoon wrote: »

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

...... and I would suggest your high horse judgement of it is exactly the WRONG approach to take. It should not be about people choosing the hard or easy way forward just for the sake of it being hard or easy. It should be about people considering all the options and choosing the best one for THEM. Regardless of whether YOU judge their choice to be the easy one or hard one.

"Stepping up" means considering all your options.... the opinions of those around you especially those who will be affected by your decision either way............ and taking the best one on rational grounds having considered it all. THAT is what it means to be a responsible rational adult.

It does NOT mean "Do what I would do / would want you to do". We need to drop and kill off this narrative that "stepping up" means doing what OTHERS would demand of us because it is what THEY would do themselves.

That is before we point out that for many people abortion is NOT the easy way out. Many women who seek abortion are doing so for reasons that, were they otherwise, they would not seek that abortion. But they feel compelled, by others, or by their life situation, or by their own evaluation of their own fitness as a parent, to do so. This is NOT a good thing, but it is a reality alas, and one that belies the nonsense behind you sweepingly declaring it the "easy way out" from horse on high.

The mask however has not just slipped, but has been entirely dropped to the floor and stamped to pieces with lines like this one........

RocketRaccoon wrote: »

Do you want to punish men who want to keep the child by having their baby/fetus murdered?

....... the typical anti-choice rhetoric of screaming "murdered babies/children" at all who disagree with their perspective is one that is getting old fast and the debate only really kicked off some weeks ago. Compounded by the clear canard of claiming "I have no interest either side of this debate".

If you rely on emotive and inaccurate representations of the abortion debate then you are likely only screaming to the converted. And even the converted often find that tripe embarrassing. The "Grow up" line you chose to use might have been misapplied. I like the phrase "clean your own house first, before you run a dust checking finger over anyone elses sideboards". I genuinely do not think people should be shouting "Grow up" at each other when...

RocketRaccoon wrote: »

Plenty of the posters in this thread would have been better off thrust into a sock.

.... coming out with lines like this. Some decorum and maturity please!

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.

Yet the world is FULL of people who take precautions and still require a fix later. People look both ways crossing the road yet STILL suffering injuries despite their caution. People playing sport wear protective gear yet STILL receive injuries on the field.

And guess what, we do not stand over people from our imaginary high horse admonishing them that they just were not careful enough...... or that it is "on them" that they suffered DESPITE their care.

So why is abortion magically the exception to this in a world full of it? Just because YOU personally have an issue with it? Or what?

RocketRaccoon wrote: »

Do you think it's OK for a woman to just get pregnant every other month, wander on down to a clinic and have it terminated?

That does not happen. So it is a moot point. However I genuinely do not see where you think you are going with it. It has nothing to do with abortion, that some MINISCULE number of people would abuse it.

I also believe in your right to eat fattening fast food. I might find you morally questionable were you to decide to eat so much of it, to make yourself intentionally fat so you could claim disability allowance. But I would STILL believe in your right to eat fattening fast food despite your abuse of it, and of morality.

I would say EXACTLY the same thing of the mythical woman you have invented from the depths of imagination.

RocketRaccoon wrote: »

Well then those people should stop having sex.

Abstinence approaches to contraception have been utter failures when and wherever they have been attempted. They result in MORE unwanted pregnancies and teen pregnancies.

Ideals are good things. But not mediating them against reality is not. The ideal that people should only have sex when A) they want children or

they do not but are happy to accept children if they occur........ is on paper very pretty. But reality is not going to work that way. And whatever our personal ideals may be, if we soap box them despite reality..... it is not going to do much but let us hear our own voice.

RocketRaccoon wrote: »

If I found a rattlesnake and kept poking at it, eventually what comes naturally will happen. It would be my own fault, I wouldn't blame someone else and I would face up to that result.

Great. And I assume you would not "face up to it" by simply sitting there passively and allowing the poison to do whatever the hell it wanted inside you. Rather, you would likely seek medical attention and have it removed from you because A) you do not want it in there and

there is no reason on offer to give it the right to be in there.

And while you do all this you would not expect society or the doctors to stand over you tutting that you are taking the easy way out, and it is wrong to take it out of you, because sure you brought in on yerself didntcha?

They do not get on their high horses then, nor should you here. How is abortion any different. I repeat: A) they do not want it in there and

there is no reason on offer to give it the right to be in there.

Always nice when people make my points for me

RocketRaccoon wrote: »

Do you realise how much pain etc women go through after an abortion?

Well firstly it is THEIR choice to undergo that pain. Women have a lot of pain after breast enhancement surgery too. What is your point?

Secondly however it entirely depends on the type of abortion. Medical abortions, which can be performed up to 12 weeks of gestation of the fetus, are not really comparable to surgical abortions in terms of after-care discomfort for example.

Thirdly the level of pain after an abortion is individual. Some people suffer none. Some people suffer lots. The majority suffer something in the middle. As with many things in humanity, there is a bell curve in play.

nozzferrahhtoo

pemay wrote: »

As an aside, I do find amusing the overwhelming need to dehumanise the child/"bunch of cells".

The opposite is true. If you call a spade human, my calling it a spade would not "Dehumanize" it so much as highlight how ridiculous it was for you to "humanize" it in the first place.

As an aside, I do find amusing the overwhelming need to humanize a bunch of cells.

Its a common trick throughout history.

And one I am more than ready, and proud, to stand in opposition against. Using the unlimited power of ACCURATE TERMINOLOGY. (Cue super hero music).

pemay wrote: »

So men should just jog on while the woman decides everything.

Last time I checked the thread was about the woman having sole call over whether to have an abortion or not. Which is ONE thing. But that is "everything" now is it?

If a man wants to be in a relationship where he allows the woman to decide "everything" then that is his choice. But I see no one on this thread advocating for, or recommending, such a dynamic. Nor would I.

Whether the woman chooses abortion, or not, the man still has many things he can exercise choice and control over. So she is not in control of "everything". He can, for example, choose whether to continue in a relationship with her or not.

pemay wrote: »

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

Which is a GOOD thing. The idea that human rights should be something set in stone, forever unchanging, is abhorrent and repellent and horrific to me. I am glad it is not so, and I am glad there are few people (except the people with the unsubstantiated nonsense claim that there is a god) claiming it is so.

end of the road wrote: »

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

Great. So it is agreed that whatever they are they are NOT a baby. I am all for giving rights to BABIES. I am seeing no reason to give any to something you and I see to agree is NOT a baby however.

But you certainly will never find me denying the right to life of babies. Anywhere. Ever.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

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.

Yet I suspect what is in discussion here is really allowing a father to abdicate FINANCIAL responsibility over a child. Because any father, at any time, can simply walk out on pretty much every other responsibility to their child. And many have and do.

So while I feel research that suggests biological parents are actually a benefit is thin on the ground and not even remotely as conclusive as you appear to suggest...... in fact there is no research conclusively showing that a child really benefits from having a mother and father specifically at all..... let alone that they have the original biological ones............. I still question it's relevance here. We ALREADY live in a society where a father or mother can abdicate pretty much all responsibility at any time.

In fact despite you claiming earlier in the thread that "neither men nor women can abdicate their parental responsibilities towards the child or children." they do it all the time. I could walk out of my house tomorrow and go and live alone, and despite an obligation to pay certain financial contributions I would never have to see or hear anything from my children again. And in fact, to mention a second example, adoption does exactly that too. If someone adopts my child, I now have abdicated all parental responsibility to that child going forward.

Therefore....

One eyed Jack wrote: »

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.

....I am not sure the child has that "right" in the first place so the below is not a rebuttal so much as a thinking out loud that I feel is representative of many a lay-person to this discussion. But as a starting point could you point me to the relevant text asserting that right, as I admit ignorance of it here. For example if a woman gets pregnant and has the child as a single parent.... and she knows who the father is..... but refuses to tell anyone at all even the child........ can she be legally compelled to do so? If she can not, then does the "right" you speak of exist anywhere except in your head?

To be honest I have spent so long considering the topic of abortion ITSELF that I have not had time to really delve into the male side of it. So I remain happily agnostic on the subject. However I have a lot of sympathy for the idea that it is unfair that during the abortion window, whatever it might be, the woman has the right to decide not to be a parent but the man does not. I have not delved into HOW to go about it, but the basic idea that during that same window the man can legally say the same, and walk away, is not an idea to dismiss with a simple hand wave or declaration. And the woman carrying the fetus can include her new status as a single mother IN her decision as to whether to abort or not.

Certainly such a system would have to be built so as NOT to allow a situation where the mother went ahead with the pregnancy past the window of abortion, under the impression she would be supported by her partner, only to find out too late she will not. So this MIGHT make it entirely unworkable. Women COULD just pretend not to know they are pregnant until the window has past, and then the man would have no recourse at all.

There is a lot to discuss there, and it could be a well meant but ENTIRELY unworkable issue in the end.......... I have not yet discussed it in depth with anyone myself. But I am certainly far from the "Well the child's rights and well being will be somewhat impacted so nuh-uh" approach to the topic myself. I think we would need a lot more argument to dismiss it than that as people make choices all the time that negatively impact the development of children. So curtailing one choice and not the rest also appears nonsensical if well meant.

Calhoun

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Indeed he should have, the guy was not the wisest but i think on this whole topic we understand that mistakes are made. There is responsibility on both sides to make sure contraception is involved.

If a mistake does happen what happens next? How is it fair if the mother wants to keep the child but the father wants to abort it?

If we don't have an opinion either way then men are essentially sperm donors and should be in a position to walk away.

Skedaddle

My view of this is very firmly pro-choice.

Unless we're at a technological stage where pregnancy occurs in an artificial womb in a gestation centre, there's absolutely no way you can divorce someone's right to bodily integrity and control over her body from pregnancy.

What I find with all of these arguments is that they get to incredible levels of abstraction, moralising and theorising. The reality is that pregnancy and childbirth is far messier as it's a complex biological process and it doesn't always work particularly well and there are all sorts of risk and pragmatic issues to consider.

A chunk of Irish society and a lot of right-wing catholics and other christians have jumped on this notion about life starting at conception. However, when you look at it in terms of reality you're looking at life beyond a particular stage vs what is just potential life that could just fail to flourish anyway and end in miscarriage.

I think the Irish position at present is ludicrous, dogmatic and totally impractical and completely out of line with all of our European neighbours, very few of whom actually take a particularly liberal view of it either. The majority of EU countries have limits of 12 weeks (including France, Germany, Belgium, Luxembourg. Even the Netherlands has a gestational limit of 13 weeks. The UK is actually unusual with the 24-week limit.

I think moving Ireland to what is a fairly conservative but normal position of having abortion available up to 12-weeks is pretty sane and reasonable. Oddly, despite all the ultra-conservative points of view in the USA, the majority of states seem to be a lot more open to late term abortions than European countries are. So, perhaps we would be better off looking at how our European neighbours handle these issues than engaging in the extremities of the US debates which are just utterly toxic and divisive.

I think however, when it comes to abortion choices - it's up to the woman. You're getting back into magdalene laundries and crazy situations if you're forcing people to carry a pregnancy through. I mean, what are you proposing? Some kind of authoritarian far-right state that locks women up for moral reasons? We've been down that particularly horrific road in the past and it's one I'd never like Ireland to travel on again!

Pejayzuz

Calhoun wrote: »

Why not we are all for equality aren't we? If your going to treat men as sperm donor then you may as well legislate for the option.

We only recently had a post in one of our threads where a woman had unprotected sex with a guy so she could produce a baby without his knowledge, in the case the woman didnt want any help from the guy but what if she did?

Tough, kids who are born and alive need care, this situation is never going to be entirely "fair" because women get pregnant and not men, it may not be fair, but it's nature and it's nature we can't avoid just yet, we don't have the tech for men to get pregnant, but we do have the tech to conduct an abortion, so without variation it's always going to be their body and the decision what to do with their body is their choice, no one's forcing vasectomy on you so don't try force pregnancy on them, you just have to accept that, the alternative is you controlling a woman's body, which if you think is an OK thing to do, then you're seriously disturbed.
AFTER the child is born is an entirely different situation, as there's then a living child who needs financial care at the very least, which a single mother may not be able to provide alone, also there's the strong likelihood of instances of a man getting several women pregnant with several children and just legally abandoning the responsibility of living children with the stroke of a pen, if that's your idea of fairness and equality then you're sick.