Wibbs wrote: » While the hyperbole is strong with the differing opinions and I would not say it's like before, but I would say it's equally naive to think there isn't an emerging "groupthink" for the want of a better word in this "brave new world". It is always thus. Each generation/culture is convinced that they're more right than the last/others. Is there progress on more than a few angles? Of course, very much so. However it is still the case in a few environments where not following "Correct think" can and does lead to ostracism and a form of "damnation". EG try working in say Google and being known for being against abortion, or saying you're an egalitarian, but not a feminist. See how long you last in your job holding that kind of opinion.
Wibbs wrote: » Certainly, but as I say one man's dark ages is another man's enlightenment. And it was and is always thus. You might be on the right side of history, but you equally may not. Consider this if this was 1950's Ireland you would almost certainly be voting against any repeal. The "you" in 2050 might well vote it back in.
Wibbs wrote: » I only say all this because just as you may feel it's blindingly obvious what is the Right Thing To Do™, so do those who oppose what you may feel. Might help some on both sides at least begin to appreciate, if not agree with, the strong feelings of the other.
gozunda wrote: » I am fully aware of the spectrum of views out there on this issue however those holding to the status quo imo do so largely as a sense of desperation that the dictate of the few no longer control the lives of the many.
Eric Cartman wrote: » (not to be found 18 years later being doorstepped)
Eric Cartman wrote: » I think its completely up to the woman to decide whether to abort or not. After all she is carrying the child. However I do believe a man should be able to completely walk away, never have his name associated with the child (not to be found 18 years later being doorstepped) , never pay to look after the child and never have access. Both parties should be able to completely opt out of having a child if they choose, but opting in require mutual consent.
drunkmonkey wrote: » Who's controlling who what now? Old timer generation X's like me gonna just shuffle off and give you the keys of the kingdom once we see the tide of youth breaking free from the chains of our desperation. Great to see the younger generation hasn't changed much, still think there going to change the world. A bit less spirited this time but I'll blame Ed for that.
drunkmonkey wrote: » 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.
Calhoun wrote: » Horrible as this is its the other side of a coin in Ireland, in ways it might be the better thing for men of Ireland to do. Just vanish and make no contact even if it means that your let a mortgage collapse and a family home go into repocession. Going by the book as a man in Ireland generally will mean that you will pay for a house you dont live in, pay for maintenance for a child you get to see on the weekends if your lucky. You can have protection orders or be dragged to court ect on very little evidence and be cut out completely. Until we drag our court system out of the past and place equal responsibility and trust in parents things wont get any better as current system does not drive people to go by the book.
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.
littlevillage wrote: » Ahh schucks, I'm sure your're pretty strange too Thanks for the history lesson.... but if you think a man and a woman get the same treatment under the law and in the courts system in Ireland you are very deluded. (and I'm not even referring solely to the one-eyed Family Law courts) also you mis-quoted me. Its "the father" not "her father" Whatever kind of deal your daughter/family made with the father of your daughters child, in the eyes of the law the father is financially responsible for the child up until the child is 18 years of age (and 23 in the majority of cases). So what you are saying is simply untrue. Child maintenance is persued by the courts and Gardai with fairly savage zeal. and even after paying maintenanace, your daughter has the power to block the father from ever laying eyes on his child, is that fair? I can't comment on the gaurdianship question that you bring up, but that seems daft and I suspect you don't have the full story. btw : hope you don't swear like that around the child ??
littlevillage wrote: » Au contraire my friend, Gardai and the Courts Service in Ireland persue errant fathers for maintenance accross the globe. Ireland has aggreements with all EU members, USA, Canada etc. So a father would need to go to fairly serious lengths to avoid paying up. There is only one scenario that I know of where a father can walk away from child maintenance payments... and thats where the mother doesn't give his identity to the State services.
up for anything wrote: » I'm not sure why you quoted me when posting that apart from the appeal to you of being able to vanish.
up for anything wrote: » Why would you agree to abortion in cases of FFA or permanent injury or disability to the mother but not to unrestricted and on demand abortion? I find it strange that with your mindset you can condone killing what you seem to see as a baby in utero for a couple of reasons but not for others. Seems pretty unfair to the exceptions?
seamus wrote: » It's a rather unique scenario, one which has a lot of holes, so it's impossible to guarantee that the outcome would be the same for every man. ... I suppose in the same way that sometimes an abortion "doesn't take", the law will have to account for scenarios where the father's "abortion" doesn't succeed and just proceed from there.
end of the road wrote: » no, such abortions are medically necessary to save the mother's life, or because the baby will not live anyway. abortion on demand is allowing the unborn to be killed simply for unnecessary reasons and i will not vote yes to something that allows it.
gozunda wrote: » Errhh hang on there a dang minute. The last I had it from you you said that 'on demand meant abortion "for whatever reason they liked" AND now your saying it's for "unnecessary reasons" - so which is it this time?
gozunda wrote: » If it is a "necessary reason" of their choosing - is that all right then?
gozunda wrote: » Also exactly how are you privy to what reason someone has made (or may make in the future) as to why they have chosen to have a termination? The person may have many reasons for their decision not excluding health, rape, incest, failed contraception, age, extreme personal difficulties, homelesness, etc etc. Who are you to judge as to why someone may need to take such a decision? Can you not understand that no one can ultimately make that decision except the person themselves. Your approbation is neither required nor sought by those who find themselves in such a predicament.
Calhoun wrote: » Sorry i meant to quote some spiteful grand mother, moaning that she couldn't become guardian to her grandchild or some crap like that.
up for anything wrote: » So in the case of the unborn to the mother who needs an abortion to save her life, does that also go for her health, you're saying the unborn (that's a great term... sounds like we're in horror film) doesn't matter or if it's going to die anyway it doesn't matter but otherwise they matter above and beyond the mother's wishes?
end of the road wrote: the lives of the unborn will always matter, however sometimes we do have to prioritise as we cannot allow mother's to die or become permanently disabled. i could not support that happening. + if the unborn are sadly going to die anyway, it may be best to help them on their way to insure as little suffering as possible. however, if it's not for a genuine medical reason then the unborn's life is equal to the mother, and i see no reason why someone should be allowed to kill that unborn child. if you see that as the unborn trumping the mother's wishes, fine, but the reality is that sometimes things do have to trump the wishes of some for the greater good, unless it's absolutely necessary that it shouldn't. it is unfortunate and regretible i'm not in a position to vote yes to repeal like i would have wanted, as i do agree there are huge issues with the 8th abortion asside. however the proposals being offered are not something i can agree to, and i can only vote on what is being offered.
end of the road wrote: » the lives of the unborn will always matter, however sometimes we do have to prioritise as we cannot allow mother's to die or become permanently disabled. i could not support that happening. + if the unborn are sadly going to die anyway, it may be best to help them on their way to insure as little suffering as possible. however, if it's not for a genuine medical reason then the unborn's life is equal to the mother, and i see no reason why someone should be allowed to kill that unborn child. if you see that as the unborn trumping the mother's wishes, fine, but the reality is that sometimes things do have to trump the wishes of some for the greater good, unless it's absolutely necessary that it shouldn't. it is unfortunate and regretible i'm not in a position to vote yes to repeal like i would have wanted, as i do agree there are huge issues with the 8th abortion asside. however the proposals being offered are not something i can agree to, and i can only vote on what is being offered.
One eyed Jack wrote: » In a case where a woman chooses to continue with her pregnancy, she has every right to seek maintenance from the father to maintain their child.
One eyed Jack wrote: » But a woman can do that already? In the case where a woman gives birth
One eyed Jack wrote: » The man can inform her all he wants that he will not be paying maintenance for his child. The courts will likely decide otherwise if the mother makes an application to the court for maintenance for their child.
One eyed Jack wrote: » The point you made does nothing for your argument that a man should be able to abscond himself from his responsibilities. Right, so I can consider this veto you were talking about earlier for a man who does not want to become a parent is irrelevant then, because you're not talking about anything related to a child that is not there at that point in time. I tell ya, I'm trying to keep up, but your arguments are all over the place.
One eyed Jack wrote: » I think I've finally caught up - you're not arguing that a man should be able to exercise any veto before a child is born. You're arguing that he should only be able to exercise a veto once the child is born. That veto obviously isn't in the childs best interests, because it means depriving the child of support to which they are legally entitled.
end of the road wrote: » both. the plan is to allow abortion up to 12 weeks with no restriction or reason, with a higher duration for medical reasons. essentially, a form of abortion on demand. this means that people will be able to have abortions for non-necessary/essential reasons rather then just medical and necessary reasons. very simple, and clear to understand if you read my posts.
no, for me medical reasons that involve a threat to the mother's life, or of permanent injury or disability to the mother, + cases where the baby will not live to term, are the only reasons to allow termination.
it doesn't matter. as far as i'm concerned the unborn have a right to life unless it is genuinely impossible for their right to life to be upheld because carying them would be a threat to the mother's life, or could cause permanent injury or disability to her. we judge people who do harm to others on a daily basis, the unborn are no different to this.
gozunda wrote: » Do you believe the above reference included you? Read again - that particular reference was directed at organised religion. But Ha! - you believe I'm of the youf' generation. That's very very funny *runs away to check - nope definitely not a youf! As of Midnight tonight the Poll shows that 55% of posters voting believe that the decision regarding abortion is primarily (100%) the choice of women compared to 37% who believe it isn't plus a bunch of spoiled votes ... Better get with it monkey ...
drunkmonkey wrote: The poll is a fud as women have voted in it, it's not reflecting the man stance but at 37% and take the women out of it and I'd say the guys have the majority on this one.
Triceratops Ballet wrote: » "The poll is fudged cos it doesn't say what I want" Do u honestly believe that that the entirety of the opposing views are held by women?
LirW wrote: » I asked my lad last night how he sees that, he thinks it's none of a man's business, especially when you're not in a relationship.
LirW wrote: » Statistically 1 in 5 women experience domestic abuse from their partner at some point in their life. That is approx. 20% of all women in Ireland. If these women get pregnant they often have to face the reality of bringing a child into an extremely toxic situation because who'll guarantee that the violet partner wouldn't take it out on a child too? How should these women be forced telling their men? That can be potentially devastating. I personally know of a case of a woman with an abusive partner who impregnated her and once she was pregnant he'd just spare the abdominal area with his beatings. The legs and face it was instead. In healthy relationships it is in the very most cases a joint decision to terminate a pregnancy. It's the cases when women are genuinely terrified of the man's reaction that they wouldn't tell and that usually has a very good reason.
One eyed Jack wrote: » Nozz you're still ignoring the fact that such an ultimatum could never and would never be enforceable in law
One eyed Jack wrote: » it's about what the courts would determine is in the best interests of the child.
