Men's rights on Abortion?

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.

I see an ultrasound, a scan of what a human foetus looks like at an early stage of gestation. A woman carrying it might see her life destroyed, and want to end the pregnancy.

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.

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".

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Pretending that a child doesn't exist is not going to make that child disappear or magically not be there.

Great. But you might want to take that up with someone who has advocated pretending the child does not exist. As no one here did, it is unusual to bring it up here.

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

So this "right" you referred to earlier to have that relationship was indeed fabricated and does not in any way exist. Not in reality, and not in the text you cited earlier and have since ignored posts about.

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

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.

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?

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.

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.

Your clear lack of data on what actually happens in the abortion of a fetus at 12 weeks aside, I am not sure why you would be surprised that in the absence of any argument from you FOR giving the father a say....... people often feel there is no reason not to give the father a say.

You hardly think we should give him one "because reasons" do you? If you feel he should have a say then you need to explain why. Not just declare he should, or throw out pointlessly emotive non-descriptions of the abortion procedure.

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.

Oh look, more people making up "rights" no one actually has. Could you cite the exact law enshrining the rights you refer to please that shows specifically the father having this right?

drunkmonkey wrote: »

No me neither...

And what you think that picture actually does or says is.... what exactly? Picture do not ACTUALLY speak 1000 words like the old cliche suggests. They require context and substance first.

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.

Then do, but leave OTHER people to make their decision to protect it or not themselves.

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.

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.

So the current laws do not protect women in their current form and are therefore not for the "greater good of society then?

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.

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?

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?

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.

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.

agreed. however not providing abortions outside medical reasons isn't going against that.

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?

abortion will be unrestricted up to 12 weeks, people can go and have one for whatever reason they like. on demand is another way of refering to this, as people are able to have abortions for whatever reason up until the 12 weeks.

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.

Definitely Ireland is not a "magical fairy social justice land" lol. I think It's quite clear we are living in the wake of a extremely conservative and religious society whose talons remain buried deeply in the moral psyche of many.

Imo some of the posts on this thread are truly deeply scary in what they advocate in support of a misogynistic and twisted world view ...

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Then do, but leave OTHER people to make their decision to protect it or not themselves.

we don't leave people make their own decisian to protect born lives or not themselves. we have laws to insure they protect born lives, so the current constitutional protections for the unborn are perfectly legitimate.

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.

you have been offered plenty of reasons, but as you don't see the unborn as human, then no argument is going to convince you. but that doesn't change the reality that the unborn is human, it is a life, it will develop into a person, therefore it has rights. a human shaped mannequin in Pennys isn't relevant and cannot be compared to a human being unborn child.

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.

Nobody is curtailing any mans rights that they don't have in the first place. You have yet to establish a convincing argument as to why a man should have the right to abdicate a responsibility he doesn't have in the first place before a child is born, and then establish why he should have a right to abdicate his responsibility towards his child when they are born.

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.

It is generally better for a child to have a relationship with both their biological parents. I'm not even going to argue that with you because to deny it is just ridiculous.

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.

What's to discuss? Obviously if something is detrimental to a child's well-being, it isn't in their best interests.

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.

No, the intention is to act in the best interests of the child. It's the most basic principle in family law. I don't have to prove that forcing a man to pay maintenance for his children is in the childs best interests because it's obvious that the child benefits from provisions being made for their welfare.

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".

Nobody is removing that right from him. He has every right to say it at least. When he actually becomes a father though, then the rights of the child become relevant and the man no longer has the right not to become a father. He is 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.

I've already pointed out to you that the argument has nothing to do with other types of parenting configurations. It is solely about whether or not the welfare of children is better served by comparing the outcomes of having both biological parents present and involved in the childs life, versus the effects on a child who does not have a relationship with either one of 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.

I don't either. However, I see plenty of good for the child in forcing their parents to at least pay maintenance for their children, and you have yet to muster an argument to suggest that it is not in the childs best interests that their parents be forced to pay to maintain their own children. The same would apply if a woman were in a position where she would be compelled to pay maintenance if the child primarily resides with the father and the father requires the payment to maintain the child.

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.

So the question should be: there is a chance 12 weeks will be voted through, can we give the would be fathers power to stop abortion since state won't.

This is not about rights of fathers, it is how to keep as much of 8th amendment even if it is repelled.

The answer is the same, it won't work. It's morally despicable but it is also not workable.

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.

You are concerned as to the rights of those not even yet conceived and unborn and yet have no concerns of a womans rights without whom their would be no gestational pregnancy.

Therin lies the most part of the issue. Women are central to the issue of pregnancy and the consequences that it entails. You may as well say that you are only interested in your rights to swing your fist as you wish - with no concern as to whether someone else's face might be in the way.

Your posts to my mind scarily lack any apparent understanding or empathy. However I do not get that you are in anyway 'confused on the matter' at hand at all...