Skedaddle wrote: » 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 wrote: » 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.
Calhoun wrote: » What if the man doesn't want the woman to go ahead and would like them to abort? but the woman wants to have the child. I don't see how its sick to ask these questions when we are going to legislate for a way out of unwanted pregnancy. If you cannot debate and tease these arguments out your exactly whats wrong with campaign on both sides. Also are you a pro-choice shill who joined up just to battle against the patriarchy? Seemingly the only way a man can protect themselves is by being careful in the first instance but then breaking the law if they dont want to contribute to an unwanted child.
MayoSalmon wrote: » If women’s partial responsibility for pregnancy does not obligate them to support a fetus, then men’s partial responsibility for pregnancy does not obligate them to support a resulting child. Really as simple as that and pro-choicers can't have it both ways
baylah17 wrote: 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 wrote: » In principle the idea that a man can waive his parental rights and obligations, seems like a fine idea. I'm just not sure how it works in practice. As when the child is born (and old enough) it also has a right to know where it came from. practically speaking the tax payer will be picking up the financial slack, through the provision of creche facilities etc.
Calhoun wrote: » Would you say the same if it was an anonymous sperm donor ? As for.thr tax side of it , if one person is deciding to go ahead without support then should they not carry that burden ?
ancapailldorcha wrote: » Meaningless soundbytes. There's no choice in who carries the baby. It's always the mother. It's her body so it has to be her choice. Both parties are responsible for getting her pregnant in the first case. However, once the child is born both parents have an obligation to support it. There's no reason why it should just be the mother as with the pregnancy. Your claim otherwise is a simple false equivalency.
MayoSalmon wrote: » Men should be given the opportunity to decide whether or not to accept the rights and responsibilities of fatherhood the same way why women are.
MayoSalmon wrote: » Just because the woman carries the child should not supercede this.
MayoSalmon wrote: » Women have control of their lives after an unplanned conception but men are routinely forced to give up control, forced to be financially responsible for choices only women are permitted to make, forced to relinquish reproductive choice.
RocketRaccoon wrote: » 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.
eviltwin wrote: » My husband and I have discussed this. If I were unlucky enough to get pregnant then i would have an abortion. He's in agreement with that. If he changed his mind I'd still have the abortion. If he felt that he couldn't stay with me that's his choice to make. I'd still expect maintenance for our two children and expect he continued to be part of their life.
littlevillage wrote: » My own opinion is that if the Abortion referendum is carried fathers will have absolutely zero input and will actually be required to pony up the cash should the woman request an Abortion....should the mother even deem them worthy of informing.
Triceratops Ballet wrote: » is the opinion that fathers will have to "pony up" based on anything?
littlevillage wrote: » I don't aggree with this and would like some kind of input from the father, supported in law.... maybe not an outright veto in a case where there is a disagreement....but certainly something more than a casual observer.
Mr.H wrote: » If you don't want a child and don't use protection you are immature and have absolutely no right to have a kid or an opinion.
Triceratops Ballet wrote: » It's not me saying it, I believe there are laws that give people the legal right to find out about their biological parents.
nozzferrahhtoo wrote: » As I said to OEJ, I am myself ignorant of that specific law. So I was hoping someone in the know could point me towards it. For example if a single mother knows who the father is, and refuses to tell the child, is there any legal way to compel her to reveal? If not, then how true is it to claim that children have a "right" to know? Or are we using "rights" to mean actual rights AND basic etiquette combined?
neonsofa wrote: » 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:
nozzferrahhtoo wrote: » I fear it might be a bigger leap than you suspect. But I will wait and hope one of the boards.ie legal eagles clarifies it I know when I have hit the limits of my knowledge and expertise
gozunda wrote: » Hypothetical points of view and the reality of pregnancy don't make good companions imo. Voting against the right to choice simply imposes a notional morality potentially robbing both men and / or women of the option of making the best decision allowing that the woman must endure pregnancy and it's direct consequences. I personally do not wish to see any more cases of woman dying or enduring unwanted or unviable pregnancies because of the status quo.
drunkmonkey wrote: » 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
Owlette wrote: » I'm glad u asked this question, I was always wondering if the man wanted to keep the baby what would happen. I would b 100% in favour of the male having as much equal rights as a woman. After all women are fighting for equality on everything. I think abortion is totally wrong in the 1st place. Imagine to b able abort a baby up.to 12 weeks old just doesn't bear thinking about. I'm a mother now of a baby a week old and everytime I look at my baby I say how could someone even think about getting rid. There is other options rather than abortion it's so wrong. Our lady said and I quote "as long as there is the killing of the child in the womb there will never be peace in the world". Next they will start getting rid of the older generation. And now pubs opening Good Friday. We have gone v liberal altogether..so yes the man father /boyfriend/partner etc should have as much right as the woman to keep the child.
seamus wrote: » to the best of my knowledge there is no overriding constitutional or human right to know who ones parents are.
seamus wrote: » If a child chose to live with their father and the mother refused to reveal his identity, a court may be able to issue warrants to search her personal documentation and interview friends and family to try and discover it.
nozzferrahhtoo wrote: » So I am/was right in suspecting that "a childs right to a relationship with one of their biological parent" is entirely fabricated then? That was the main issue I was attempting to get under/at.
