drunkmonkey wrote: » 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 wrote: » 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.
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.
One eyed Jack wrote: » 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.
One eyed Jack wrote: » Pretending that a child doesn't exist is not going to make that child disappear or magically not be there.
One eyed Jack wrote: » 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
One eyed Jack wrote: » it is in the best interests of the child that they do have a good relationship with both their biological parents
drunkmonkey wrote: » No me neither...
gozunda wrote: » That remains 'your' opinion only Your views are not necessarily representative of the majority in this state - the referendum will hopefully soon rectify this state of affairs. The European Commissioner of Human Rights stated in a report in December 2017 clearly stated that "Ireland's abortion laws pose a risk to women's health" so our current laws are evidently NOT for "the greater good of society' whatever your own opinions on the matter. Whilst I'm here - let's clarify what exactly you're getting at ... It is not "unrestricted"if termination occurs before 12 weeks What exactly do you mean by "on demand" and where / how does this happen?
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.
notjustsweet wrote: » May I point out this scan photo is dated 12 weeks and 3 days so it's past the point that termination would be possible.
notjustsweet wrote: » What would you do? Genuinely what rights do you think a man should have over his wife, over his one night stand, over his girlfriend? Do you really, genuinely think there should be a society where men have control over women's bodies?
nozzferrahhtoo wrote: » Nor, I note, have you offered a SINGLE Reason why I should/might.
ForestFire wrote: » Yes but 3 days is not going to make much of a difference to this picture.(although progression at this age is rapid) I do think it is important whatever way people vote they look into the facts and reality of what they are voting on. It you see this picture as a not a baby with rights or still just a group of cells, that is perfectly fine. Let's vote with open minds to all the facts with a clear conscience.
drunkmonkey wrote: » No idea would fight tooth and nail if it's something I wanted though. Again this thread is about a growing life and a man's role in protecting it.
end of the road wrote: » the european human rights commission's statement is likely in relation to cases where the life of the mother is at risk, or there is a threat of permanent injury or disability. i believe we can deal with that via the existing laws which allow for abortion in exceptional circumstances. FFA should also be included, along with other cases where the baby will not live to term or cannot be caried to term. there is no actual human right to an abortion so the irish state has no obligation to provide abortions just because people want one.
gozunda wrote: » Reading back over the last couple of pages of posts - I just had a moment there and was transported back to the divorce referendum in 1995 when the "no" side frequently used the argument of "but what if one of the partners doesn't want a divorce" - This argument was in effect advocating that the spouse seeking separation would be forced to remain in an either unhappy or abusive relationship. I see this nasty argument again rear it's head (imo most likley by the same or similar conservative interests) in this referendum - where it is proposed to force women through pregnancies against their will. It's like we are in sone horrible time warp - I really do despair of this country at times ...
gozunda wrote: » So the current laws do not protect women in their current form and are therefore not for the "greater good of society then?
gozunda wrote: » For your information- there is a human right to bodily integrity- both the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights detail this.
gozunda wrote: » Of note you failed to answer my questions Here they are again: What do you mean by "unrestricted" - the referendum clearly states that will not be unrestricted What do you mean by "on demand" - where and how does this happen?
notjustsweet wrote: » This thread is about if a man has a right to have control over a woman's body. You seem to think you do want that so I'm asking why. What about a woman's right to have control of her body?
Calhoun wrote: » You see the thing is we don't all live in a magical fairy social justice land where everyone has the same opinion and thinks and agrees the same. To reach that level of indoctrination we need to go back under a regime, where any outside thought is shut down. I really despair when folk on any side of an argument for something as important as a referendum want to shut discussion down because people don't agree with their world view. Its this thinking that creates a divide and leave little middle ground for people to make a journey towards.
nozzferrahhtoo wrote: » Then do, but leave OTHER people to make their decision to protect it or not themselves.
nozzferrahhtoo wrote: » However I do not see a mix of cells or just "life" either. I see something vaguely human shaped that ALL of our science on the subject says is an empty shell comprising of nothing even remotely conscious or sentient. And I see it INSIDE an actual person with rights, choices, and well being for me to be concerned with instead. I see no more reason to feel any moral or ethical concern for a human shaped fetus than I do a human shaped mannequin in Pennys. The "ooo look at it's little fingers" or "look at its tongue waggle if you play it music" tripe has no effect on me emotionally OR intellectually. Nor should it. Nor, I note, have you offered a SINGLE Reason why I should/might.
nozzferrahhtoo wrote: » Except they are. Men have rights, and choices and freedoms. If we wish to curtail them we need to explain why. And so far you have not done so except to claim we are doing so for the best interests of the child.
But you have not shown it IS for the good of the child. You have declared without citation (even when asked for some) that "research suggests that it's actually better for children to develop a relationship with their biological parents" and have simply ignored the entire last post on the subject.
And you have not addressed at all the effects on the child of having a parent who does not want such a relationship but is being compelled into it by law or against their will.
So I am not going to buy "the best interests of the child" if the argument is merely asserted and not supported. Perhaps their INTENTION in forcing a father to be in a relationship, financial or otherwise, has laudable motivations but I am seeing nothing at all on this thread suggesting this attains the goals in mind.
But AGAIN we are not talking about a father here, or a child. I am talking about the fetus. The man is, perhaps, not a father at all yet and has no child. The question is why, aside from pure assertion, do we wish to remove his right to say "I do not want to become a father".
Except you are still refusing to cite the research you claim shows that, despite me having in past discussions shown research that shows the opposite. In fact children of adoptive parents, gay parents, and so forth do every bit as well (sometimes even better) that children parented, and/or with a relationship with their biological parents.
Further you say here "GOOD" relationship. I see nothing GOOD in the foundations about a relationship that is forced against their will on one or both parties.
end of the road wrote: » parts of the 8th aren't for the greater good no . but the parts that protect the unborn are for the most part, for the greater good of society.
end of the road wrote: » abortion will be unrestricted up to 12 weeks, people can go and have one for whatever reason they like.
end of the road wrote: » on demand is another way of refering to this, as people are able to have abortions for whatever reason up until the 12 weeks.
drunkmonkey wrote: No idea would fight tooth and nail if it's something I wanted though.
drunkmonkey wrote: » Hey I started the thread it's about should a man have a say in whether their unborn child lives, dies or should they be allowed any weight in the decision.To be perfectly honest I don't care about the woman's opinion or rights in the context of this thread. It's asked at men for men to have there say. I'm confused on the matter that's why I asked for men's opinions as I feel. we have no say or just vote no it you don't agree which I'm not sure is the right thing to do either.
Triceratops Ballet wrote: » Up to what point would you fight tooth and nail? face to face discussion? mediation? Arbitration? Legal injunction?
drunkmonkey wrote: » Were gone past the face to face discussion, so yes all the rest if it was my partner and child.
up for anything wrote: » You're pretty strange.
"This is Ireland, the land of the Matriarchs." How long has it been the land of the Matriarchs? Since marital rape was made illegal in 1990? Or perhaps since only two cases have been successfully prosecuted in Ireland in the 28 years since 1990? Would it have been since 1970 when women no longer had to give up their jobs in the civil service or banks when they got married? Or perhaps since the last Magadalene Laundry closed in 1996? Or 1974 when women were allowed collect the Childrens Allowance? Or when women won the right to sit on a jury in 1976? Or when the Family Home Protection Act of 1976 came into being so a husband couldn't sell the family home out from under his family even when his wife was the only person paying the mortgage? Or since the Kerry Babies case apology a couple of weeks ago? Or perhaps when you bring to bear that "any woman who requests an abortion against the wishes of her father or INDEED OTHER MEMBERS OF HER FAMILY" (whatever the fuck they have to do with it) who might suffer from mood swings (ooooh if you have your period you're fucked legally except then you wouldn't be pregnant) or depression or suffers from a mental illness which can be treated or "makes a rash out of character decision can be forced to have a full pyschological wellness assessment" (is that by the panel of six psychiatrists?) and then what... let's reopen the Magdalene Laundries only this time to force women to bear babies they don't want. Land of the Matriarchs, my hole! :mad:
My daughter kept her baby and the child's father got to opt out at 13 weeks into the pregnancy when she turned down Ed Sheeran tickets in return for an abortion. He's stayed well clear since as have his parents (except for a couple of tourist visits). However, if I as his grandmother and his second main carer want to apply for guardianship of him she would have to seek his 'father's' permission or failing to find him his parents' permission! Also if the father decides at any time that he wants back in then all he has to do is apply to the courts for visitation to start with. Very fucking matriarchal.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://wb.vanillicon.com/v2/bb1b435feca4d036f6db42bb67252c40.svg)
