One eyed Jack wrote: » You won't address any of the issues you've raised though by suggesting that men should be able to abdicate their responsibilities towards their children. Surely if your argument consists of the fact that you're claiming men are denied access to their children, then how is abandoning their children supposed to address that? You're suggesting that going by the book as a man in Ireland generally will mean you will pay for a house you don't live in, pay maintenance for a child you don't get to see, be subjected to protection orders on the basis of very little evidence, and cut out completely. The judicial system already does place equal responsibility on both parents for their children's welfare, because the courts are acting in the best interests of the child, not in the best interests of the parents, so it's absolutely not true to say that solely by virtue of the fact that they are a man, men are treated unfairly by the courts. There's obviously more to it than that, and I have never once heard a parent of either sex admit they were treated fairly by the courts. The courts already place equal responsibility and trust in both parents, but what you're arguing for in relation to giving men the right to abandon their children, is the right to abandon their responsibilities towards their children, and why should anyone trust anyone who would want to do such a thing? That's why the courts have to enforce orders to at least make fathers financially responsible for their children, because it is in the best interests of the child. What you're suggesting is simply spiteful because a minority of men can't have everything their own way. That's not equality!
Triceratops Ballet wrote: » What you seem to be talking about here is different, and is not the same as signing away rights at birth. Parents are required to support their born children. Opting out and letting the mortgage collapse after a relationship breakdown is very different to opting out post conception pre birth.
nozzferrahhtoo wrote: » So the questions left seem to be: 1) Is there good argument for allowing a man, within a certain time window, to officially disavow himself from attaining responsibilities to a child he does not want and does not yet actually have. 2) If so, then is such a system workable and realistic in reality? Especially given a woman could simply keep the pregnancy secret until such a time window has passed. I think the answer to 1 is yes, and the answer to 2 is that I genuinely do not know.
drunkmonkey wrote: » Some % weight should be given to the one fighting for survival, hence dad and junior should have some say in the outcome. Given a full 50% to the woman isn't fair on the other two. Again I'll say that's within an existing relationship when the risks are known.
drunkmonkey wrote: » I've seen what abortion can do to a man. He can grieve a lot more than the woman and has no say whatsoever. If someone has lost a child, parent, best friend they'll understand grief and it's long lasting effect. One who's also seen a 12 week scan will also understand the huge ramifications of what's about to happen to everyone involved. Yes the 8th needs to be replaced, full 12 weeks for any reason will be a lot tougher sell. I find it kind of contemptuous the pro side are all about getting out the younger vote as the key to winning. A lot won't fully grasp what there about to do, if you look at the first row of the protestors I'd say the average age is 20. I'm not sure how I voted the last time I think on the yes side as I was fully individual rights, tbh I can't even remember what the deal we were actually voting for was but looking back i'm glad it didn't happen as there's people in my life now I suspect wouldn't have made it past 12 weeks. I honestly don't know what way to vote, will wait until we have the full details. I don't think it'll stop trips to the UK or further afield depending on how far along the woman is gone, it's a little island and some women will want the privacy going gives.
One eyed Jack wrote: » I haven't seen any good argument for 1
seamus wrote: » A parent being able to legally disassociate oneself from the child wouldn't necessarily contravene this article; especially since the convention doesn't actually make a distinction between biological or non-biological parents and also explicitly recognises and protects cultural differences in regards to how children may be raised. So it's far from an iron-clad thing.
One eyed Jack wrote: » whether that is actually in the best interests of the child, I couldn't say in all circumstances it is, and that's where the situation gets even more complicated.
nozzferrahhtoo wrote: » Except you have, you just do not accept the argument. Many of the arguments for 1 are the same as for abortion. Which is that no one should be forced to be a parent if they do not want to be one. You might not AGREE with that assessment, but it does not make the argument disappear or magically not be there.
Riskymove wrote: » But men can effectively deny their child a relationship anyway. There may be financial obligations but there is no obligation to have a relationship
gozunda wrote: » Btw who the frack is 'Junior??? A bunch of cells a fetus? Hows that going to work out? And you're saying for a woman - having a 50% contribution to her own body isnt fair? Seriously? Tell you what just go back and reintroduce slavery whilst your at it ok.
Calhoun wrote: » Hold on men having it their own way in Ireland, don't make me laugh the dogs on the street know that most of our systems of law are loaded against them. You only have to look at the sentencing guidelines of male versus female to get an understanding of that.
What i am suggesting is if you are a man in Ireland it is generally assumed you will leave the family home, it cannot be sold until the children are 18 and if you have to pay maintenance on top of that it is hard to support yourself. You are correct though because in the example i was talking about the person left early on they would not have gotten to a stage of family home.
I still can understand why they would do it though as its that or years of heartache with our court system.
drunkmonkey wrote: » Junior is the baby, fetus, blob what ever you want to call it but the one you want to lop the head off without giving the father a say.
drunkmonkey wrote: » This isn't the woman's body were taking about this is the one inside her and a father's right to protect that life. Slavery is alive and well doesn't need my help.
drunkmonkey wrote: » Junior is the baby, fetus, blob what ever you want to call it but the one you want to lop the head off without giving the father a say. This isn't the woman's body were taking about this is the one inside her and a father's right to protect that life. Slavery is alive and well doesn't need my help.
Triceratops Ballet wrote: » The fact is the foetus is inside the womans body so of course it relates to her body to suggest it doesn't is ridiculous, she shouldn't be used as an incubator against her wishes. If the foetus could be removed and incubated separately, grand, easy solution. But it can't. So she gets a say. Are you proposing that the father gets his share of the say and the entirety of the babys say and can force her to remain pregnant? think that through logically and tell me how it works, what happens to the woman and baby?
end of the road wrote: » nobody is suggesting she should be used as an incubator against her wishes.
however many of us believe she shouldn't be able to kill the unborn just because she doesn't want a child either.
end of the road wrote: » nobody is suggesting she should be used as an incubator against her wishes. however many of us believe she shouldn't be able to kill the unborn just because she doesn't want a child either.
notjustsweet wrote: » What a lot of people here are forgetting is that the 8th amendment isn't just about abortions. It covers a women's rights to healthcare choices during pregnancy too so actually it's entirely about a woman's body.
Triceratops Ballet wrote: » saying she shouldn't be able to have an abortion because she doesn't want a child IS requiring her to stay pregnant and act as human incubator against her wishes. I don't see how those two things can possibly be separated. You don't suggest she should be used as an incubator against her wishes. Great let her have an abortion so, but no she can't just have an abortion because she doesn't want a child. That literally makes no sense? What is she to do then?
end of the road wrote: » the thing is many of us aren't forgetting it. we are very aware of it, hence our regret at having to vote no to repeal, because of the likely hood of abortion on demand being legislated for. if there were no plans to legislate for abortion on demand and it was simple repeal of the 8th then i, and i suspect many others who will vote no, would actually vote yes instead. there is no debate that the 8th itself needs to go but with what is being offered some of us have no option but to vote no because we want the protections for the unborn to remain.
end of the road wrote: » that is the ultimate question, because the unborn are entitled to the rights and protections they currently have and i believe it is right those should remain within our constitution for the greater good of society. i would be okay with the existing abortion in extreme circumstances legislation being extended to take in things such as FFA or a threat of permanent injury or disability to the mother, but unrestricted and on demand up to 12 weeks as proposed i believe is wrong and should not happen within this state.
LirW wrote: » I can't get my head around that people want to protect the life of an unborn blob of cells before 12 weeks and are perfectly cool with it that hundreds of women all across the country have to go through unnecessary medical procedures that they can't give consent to. Imagine it would be your sister or, god forbid, your wife that would suffer from medical neglect or even die because the 8th is still in place.
Triceratops Ballet wrote: » So you do want to women to act as incubators against their will. Like if that's what it is don't dance around it. Have the courage of your convictions and say it. If a woman is pregnant and doesn't want to be, that's just tough luck. She can just put up with it, because her life should be dictated by the foetus inside her.
LirW wrote: » I can't get my head around that people want to protect the life of an unborn blob of cells before 12 weeks
end of the road wrote: » i'm not dancing around it. i do not like women being described as incubators.
Triceratops Ballet wrote: » we all know what an ultrasound looks like. That picture doesn't change my mind and it doesn't prove any point.
LirW wrote: » Thanks, I have 2 myself, I know what an ultrasound looks like, yet I value existent life higher than potential life. And I'm saying potential because there is no way that an embryo can survive outside of the womb under 500g weight, which is usually reached around week 24.
