Men's rights on Abortion?

Calhoun · 31-01-2018 04:27PM

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!

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.

Calhoun · 31-01-2018 04:29PM

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.

I using it as an example of how screwed our system is in Ireland, i can understand why someone would walk away at birth. I don't condone it but i understand.

One eyed Jack · 31-01-2018 04:53PM

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.

I haven't seen any good argument for 1, and since 2 is predicated on 1, then there's no need to address 2 yet.

gozunda · 31-01-2018 05:00PM

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.

Seriously- you did read the post I was replying to? - where the poster was all for men's rights BUT only where those men were apparently anti choice!

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. I'm not even going to bother replying to the rest written after that. Thanks all the same.

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.

Edit: your post made me think of this :rolleyes:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sFBOQzSk14c

nozzferrahhtoo · 31-01-2018 05:00PM

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I haven't seen any good argument for 1

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.

One eyed Jack · 31-01-2018 05:06PM

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.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not suggesting it's an iron clad thing. It's similar to most rights in that they are aspirational rather than absolute, and obviously the rights of the child would have to be regarded within the context of what is or isn't in the best interests of the child. I linked to an article earlier in the thread where in the US this is proving to be problematic in the context of the parental rights in cases where a man who rapes and impregnates a woman and she chooses not to have an abortion - is it in the best interests of the child to deny the child a relationship with their biological parent. There are arguments for and against the idea. Obviously on the face of it I'm against the idea myself, but 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.

Riskymove · 31-01-2018 05:13PM

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.

But men can effectively deny their child a relationship anyway. There may be financial obligations but there is no obligation to have a relationship

One eyed Jack · 31-01-2018 05:14PM

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.

Ah, right, when you said good arguments were made, I wasn't sure what arguments you were referring to. Obviously if I'm not convinced they are a good argument, that's not denying that arguments exist, it's suggesting that the arguments that exist just aren't good.

The arguments aren't the same for abortion because the outcome of an abortion is not the same as the outcome where a woman has given birth. Pretending that a child doesn't exist is not going to make that child disappear or magically not be there.

One eyed Jack · 31-01-2018 05:19PM

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

Of course there's no legal obligation on a parent who does not want a relationship with their child to actually have a relationship with their child, but, that doesn't negate the argument that it is in the best interests of the child that they do have a good relationship with both their biological parents, and that's what anyone working with families in which the parents are separated will generally try and do, is to foster a good relationship for the child or children with both their biological parents.

drunkmonkey · 31-01-2018 05:39PM

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.

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.

One eyed Jack · 31-01-2018 05:40PM

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.

I'm not a dog on the street and I don't agree that any of our systems of law are loaded against men. Even looking at the sentencing guidelines for any crime, they aren't based upon gender. Sentences handed down by judges are based upon the circumstances of each and every individial case.

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 can't argue against an assumption. If that's what people assume then all I can do is provide them with evidence that their assumptions are simply without foundation. For example I'm separated, I'm still in the family home, our child primarily resides with me in the family home, so ehhh, where do you want to go from there?

Even on your point about the family home, my wife and I were cohabiting for seven years before we were married and had a child, and more often nowadays it's become quite common that couples would be cohabiting before they have children, so the family home is considered the family home in most cases long before a couple decides to have children.

I still can understand why they would do it though as its that or years of heartache with our court system.

I can understand why they do it too, and the only thing it has to do with our court system is the fact that the only reason a couple would need to go near a court at all is because they can't agree between themselves to act in the best interests of the child or children involved, so the court has to do the arbitration for them, and in those cases both parents often end up bitter and spiteful because they feel they haven't been treated fairly and they had to give up more than they were prepared to, which is difficult for them because they weren't prepared to give anything, purely out of spite.

That's why I see this "paper abortion" nonsense as nothing more than a poor argument motivated by spite because those men arguing for it have no control over what a woman has entire control over. That's not due to circumstances or gender inequality, it's simply due to a difference in biology between the sexes, and there's no laws you could introduce that would acknowledge that men have an equal amount of responsibility as a woman when she is pregnant. They simply don't.

gozunda · 31-01-2018 05:59PM

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.

Who the frack is 'lopping the head off ffs.?

Have you read any information on the referendum about termination before 12 weeks?

How are you exactly going to canvas 'Junior btw? This referendum is about giving women and couples control over the reproductive rights for many different reasons.

If you wish to derail this - just keep going the way you are. Many other countries allow these rights and havn't imploded because daddy and the fetus 'Junior' have not signed a consent form to allow mammy out of the kitchen with her shoes on :rolleyes:

Helluva way to derail the referendum by introducing white noise and at the same time doing nothing for the reality of the need to campaign for men's rights.

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.

Not talking about the woman's body really?
Where are you going to gestate the fetus then - in a box?

Making this up as a fight between men and women is complete billox. What about the couple's who come together on this issue and decide it is the best thing to do for medical or other reasons. What about rape? What about incest? Does the woman surrender her rights to bodily autonomy automatically once she becomes pregnant voluntarily or otherwise in your world? Deny a living persons rights to the control of their body - that is slavery in everything but name.

Men's rights are just as important but dont pretend to use them so as to deny others

Triceratops Ballet · 31-01-2018 06:00PM

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.

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 · 31-01-2018 06:05PM

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?

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.

njs030 · 31-01-2018 06:08PM

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.

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.

Delirium · 31-01-2018 06:08PM

end of the road wrote: »

nobody is suggesting she should be used as an incubator against her wishes.

That's good to hear....

however many of us believe she shouldn't be able to kill the unborn just because she doesn't want a child either.

..... that didn't last long

Triceratops Ballet · 31-01-2018 06:11PM

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.

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?

Triceratops Ballet · 31-01-2018 06:11PM

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.

Yes this point all too often gets lost/ ignored

end of the road · 31-01-2018 06:13PM

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.

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.

drunkmonkey · 31-01-2018 06:19PM

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.

It's all about the woman and helping her in any way possible have my doubts about the HSE being able to do it in a correct and in a timely manner.
There a f'n disaster from the cradle to the grave to put it mildly.

Repel the 8th get the health services sorted for women and children, Then we look at abortion outside medical or traumatized reasons such as rape incest etc. That needs to happen now.

end of the road · 31-01-2018 06:20PM

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?

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 · 31-01-2018 06:23PM

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.

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 · 31-01-2018 06:26PM

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.

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.

end of the road · 31-01-2018 06:31PM

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.

unfortunately the proposal we are being offered is what we are being offered, and we can only vote on the basis of what is being offered to us.
many of us except that the "blob of cells" or whichever term you wish to use, is a human being which will develop into a person. therefore it has rights and those rights must be protected as much as is practical, and we believe we must vote to insure those rights are upheld.
while you and others do not like that, many of us don't like the unborn being dehumanised and the belief that some hold that they should not have the protections and rights they have currently.

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.

i'm not dancing around it. i do not like women being described as incubators.

drunkmonkey · 31-01-2018 06:32PM

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

No me neither...

Triceratops Ballet · 31-01-2018 06:33PM

we all know what an ultrasound looks like. That picture doesn't change my mind and it doesn't prove any point.

LirW · 31-01-2018 06:36PM

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.

Triceratops Ballet · 31-01-2018 06:37PM

end of the road wrote: »

i'm not dancing around it. i do not like women being described as incubators.

I mean that's the function they are carrying out, if a baby is delivered prematurely it's placed in an incubator which serves the function it's mother did previously. You can call it what you like, would you rather say that you believe a woman should be required to gestate a pregnancy against her wishes, or just stay pregnant?

drunkmonkey · 31-01-2018 06:41PM

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.

You see a mix of cells I see life. A would be father might also see life and feel a duty to protect it.

drunkmonkey · 31-01-2018 06:45PM

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.

This is it knowing what you know and your wife says she doesn't want another one and wants to abort. Your in objection what do you do, who can you turn to. What rights have you.
It's a perfectly healthy blobby baby.

Men's rights on Abortion?

Comments