Men's rights on Abortion?

gozunda · 31-01-2018 11:08PM

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.

If there are exaggerated statements or claims not meant to be taken literally then we must have a number of very convincing trolls running around on this thread lol. My point made previously detailed that we happilly no longer subject to a single point of authoritarian and coercive influence to which we are obliged to listen to or else face damnation. Certainly there will always be generational differences with regard to ideas but I do believe that the changes we are experiencing are for the better for individual rights and autonomy.

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.

Just as few if any would select to go back to wartime Germany - no-one in their right mind would wish DeValera's catholic run Island on anyone else and certainly not for the reasons detailed in this thread.

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.

I am fully aware of the spectrum of views out there on this issue however at least some of 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 · 31-01-2018 11:32PM

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 · 01-02-2018 12:26AM

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.

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.

seamus · 01-02-2018 12:28AM

Eric Cartman wrote: »

(not to be found 18 years later being doorstepped)

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.

In a lot of cases, the woman will know who he is and will encounter him on a semi-regular basis. Do you make it illegal for her to talk to him? Or just when she has the child with her? If the child inadvertently finds out that Mick who runs the local is their Daddy, there's nothing you can to stop the child doorstepping him at 18.

What about her family? What about his family? Should they all be banned from contacting each other?

It's something that is probably workable in a large number of cases. I know of at least one guy who's effectively done this by just not acknowledging the child and not telling his family. And the mother has no interest in engaging him if he's not interested.
But there will always be the other cases that can't fit into the framework, and can't reasonably be legislated for.

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.

ancapailldorcha · 01-02-2018 12:40AM

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.

This topic has come up before. Rightly or wrongly, this isn't currently on the table whereas improving things for women is. I strongly believe that the eighth is causing nothing but harm to women and helping noone but Ryanair and British abortion clinics.

It's a horrible situation for a father to be in but unfortunately gender equality isn't a part of our biology. If this legal abortion were to pass, something I cannot envision ever happening, would he be able to just change his mind? It'd be incredibly easy for him to find his way back into the child's life whereas a woman undergoing a surgical procedure is irreversible. It raises a lot of ethical questions but without any sort of political impetus, it isn't going to happen.

gozunda · 01-02-2018 01:08AM

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.

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 ...

up for anything · 01-02-2018 01:12AM

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.

It's time the monkey stopped drinking. At last a good reason to wear a burqa.

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.

I'm not sure why you quoted me when posting that apart from the appeal to you of being able to vanish.

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.

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?

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 ??

Apologies for the misquote. I did spot it when I read the preview before posting and intended to change it to the correct quote wording but completely forgot but please, explain why you think that other members of the woman's family should have their wishes considered by the woman?

Aw shucks, you're right. I am more than a little strange.

As for being deluded about the courts in this country. I don't think so. However, you are missing my point about how long that you can even mistakenly think that the courts in this country have been slanted towards favouring women rather than men. As for your misapprehension about women having the power to block men from seeing their children despite the men paying maintenance - I think you will find that is entirely wrong. Maintenance and access are very firmly separated in the law. However, it seems that the law finds it very difficult on one hand to actually make the person responsible for paying maintenance cough up and on the hand finds it just as difficult to make the person who should be allowing access facilitate it, therefore, leaving both sides, and it is not always the man paying maintenance and the woman allowing access, to act unfairly and against the best interests of their child or children.

My daughter made no deal with the father, or his family, of her child as he and they scarpered thereby showing that they didn't want to make a deal. Sady child maintenance is not pursued by either the courts or the guards or any government department with any kind of zeal.

As for your comment on what I said about the GUARDianship question which you feel is daft and maybe not the full story (because I'm not the full shilling?). You could be right. Sure what the fuck would the staff in Dolphin House know about matters such as that!

Despite it being none of your pious busybodied business, I swear like a trooper round the child but they know better than to repeat it until I'm dead or they reach 21 whichever comes first.

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.

Bollocks! Where did you get that fairy story from?

Calhoun · 01-02-2018 01:40AM

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.

Sorry i meant to quote some spiteful grand mother, moaning that she couldn't become guardian to her grandchild or some crap like that.

end of the road · 01-02-2018 01:42AM

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?

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.

One eyed Jack · 01-02-2018 01:51AM

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.

There is precedent for where a father changes their mind though, I don't know do you remember this case from a few years back -

A sperm donor today won a landmark court battle to get access to his son who is being raised by a lesbian couple.

The Supreme Court ruled that, while the man was not entitled to guardianship, he has natural rights over the three-year-old child.

Five judges unanimously found it was in the best interest of the boy’s welfare to remain in contact with his biological father.

The court previously heard that the man donated his sperm to the lesbian couple, who were his friends, so one of them could have a baby.

It was the couple’s preference that the child would have knowledge of his biological father while the donor – a 41-year-old gay man – would be like a “favourite uncle”.

But their friendship deteriorated and he started court action two years ago when the couple revealed they planned to move to Australia for a year with the boy.

The Supreme Court overturned an earlier High Court decision that the man was not entitled to access to the child.

In her judgment, Ms Justice Susan Denham found that the sperm donor has rights as a natural father and added that he had formed a bond with the child when he was born.

“There is benefit to a child, in general, to have the society of his father,” she said.

“I am satisfied that the learned High Court judge gave insufficient weight to this factor.

“The basic issue is the welfare of the child,” she added.

The judge urged the parties to agree to terms of access before the case is dealt with back in the High Court.

Ms Justice Denham also found the lesbian couple were not a family under the Constitution of Ireland and said their relationship may not be weighed as such in the balance against the father.

Sperm donor wins landmark case over access to son

gozunda · 01-02-2018 03:12AM

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.

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?

If it is a "necessary reason" of their choosing - is that all right then?

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.

end of the road · 01-02-2018 03:29AM

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?

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.

gozunda wrote: »

If it is a "necessary reason" of their choosing - is that all right then?

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.

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.

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.

up for anything · 01-02-2018 03:38AM

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.

... forget it....

up for anything · 01-02-2018 03:38AM

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.

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 · 01-02-2018 04:09AM

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?

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.

Triceratops Ballet · 01-02-2018 09:05AM

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.

So you're open to abortion in Ireland in cases where there is no chance of survival anyway. So
If women are going to travel for abortion anyway, then why not let them do it here. The result is the same.

Your judgement is not actually about abortion at all or protecting the unborn you want to make judgements on the reasons women have for choosing abortion.

Tell me, what is the greater good that is served by the status quo?

gozunda · 01-02-2018 09:23AM

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.

And that my little eotr is exactly what has got us into this fine mess whereby women are dying because something "unborn" has been given equal "rights" - frequently over and above the mothers right to bodily integrity and life.

How many women are you willing to see die because you hold your 'unborn' rights above those of real living women? Think of that if you vote.

You remember this do you?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2232676/Savita-Halappanavar-dies-Irish-doctors-refuse-abortion-saying-This-Catholic-country.html

Woman are not incubators for an every sperm is sacred creed. That's the point. Your "greater good" is risible in that it is only 'your' greater good - An imaginery place that can become hell for anyone else.

nozzferrahhtoo · 01-02-2018 09:38AM

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.

Yeah, again with the describing current reality to me when I am talking about changes to it. I am fully aware of the situation NOW. What I am doing is debating questions about what the situation could or should be, or whether certain aspects of the current system are justified or effective.

So quoting the status quo back at me is just talking past my points, probably willfully. I know already the way things ARE, I am discussing WHY they are that way and SHOULD or COULD they be other than they are.

I am talking about a system where given certain preconditions she should not have that right. Because it was made clear to her, at a period when she could terminate the pregnancy, that the man has no interest in being a father.

As i said the question then breaks down into two parts 1) What are the arguments for such a system and 2) Would such a system by workable at all. My doubts lie MUCH more heavily with "2" than "1" here.

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.

The bits you are introducing into them are all over the place, and nothing I have actually said. So you only have yourself to blame in this regard. Again I am talking about a veto a man could register BEFORE there is a child, which will come into effect when there IS a child. What about that MASSIVELY simply sentence you A) think is all over the place and

are unable to understand is really a mystery to me.

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.

Except the "childs best interests" is a line of reasoning you have yet to support. You have taken essentially two approaches to this, so lets seperate the two.

1) The child has some imaginary "right" to a relationship with their parents, and children benefit somehow from a relationship specifically with a biologically conected parent.

You have not, when asked multiple times, shown any research to back up the latter claim.
You have not, when asked multiple times, shown any law or right like the one you imagine. Rather you quoted UN Mandates which say something quite different.
You have not deal at all with the concept of the HARM a relationship that is forced on an unwilling participant could potentially cause.
You have not at all dealt with the wealth of research (cited to you on a previous thread on parenting but dismissed by you for no other reasons or reasoning than "because liberal") showing the opposite claim to yours is true.

2) The child benefits from the forced income source

You have not dealt with the fact the child benefits from AN income, where it comes from is irrelevant. We already have social welfare and parental support systems. You MAY want to do away with those systems, but no one else I have encountered does.
As other users have noted it is quite easy to dodge much, and sometimes all, of those payments anyway.
The system is not good at forcing people to pay, but manages to (as we were told above) let the court threaten homeless and penniless people with jail which I am sure made the judge feel powerful but benefits no one else at all.
Who exactly is being forced to pay up anyway? I am a pretty average personal morally. I am the same as most other people. And If I left tomorrow I would not need a law to compel me to ensure my children are financially supported. I would do that ANYWAY based on common morals that most people hold, and an investment in my own children that most people hold.

So the law here appears to be not that effective, only applicable to the kind of people in society who likely would not have the moral holding to the law in the first place, and requires parents in situations of low money to pursue those payments in a way that is likely a drain on their already stretched time and resources. Who you think, and in what numbers, are ACTUALLY benefiting from this status quo is really not clear to me.

Whereas what I am discussing is whether there is a possibility to not force people into situations they do not want to be in, without good reason to be doing so, while allowing the mother the knowledge and CHOICE to say "Yes I am happy to continue this pregnancy alone without the support of the sperm source that got me there".

gozunda · 01-02-2018 09:40AM

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 it can't be both. That's clearly ridiculous. Who are you to say what is "necessary / essential"? It has already been detailed where a someone may elect have a termination - that person may have many reasons for their decision not excluding health, rape, incest, failed contraception, age, extreme personal difficulties, homelesness, etc etc. You are also using that term "on demand" again - which has been shown to be complete billox and emotive garbage. Who are YOU to judge what is necessary / essential- unless you are setting your self up as a moral arbitrator.

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.

Well just as well you are not in need of such services then - isn't it? "For me" - no this referendum is not "about you"

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.

That's your opinion only. It does not make it fact. More importantly most people do not 'judge' others - that is a function of the courts. I have yet to see a fetus on its own arranged before a court. So yes indeed the "unborn" and "people" as you call them are not the same. The apparent misogyny in your post is truly frightening

One eyed Jack · 01-02-2018 09:45AM

Nozz you're still ignoring the fact that such an ultimatum could never and would never be enforceable in law, because it's not about what the child's biological parents would agree between themselves, it's about what the courts would determine is in the best interests of the child.

drunkmonkey · 01-02-2018 10:20AM

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 ...

Ah so it's religion, on your side then on that one but they seem to be getting stronger not weaker and it's not just god fearing folk that might vote no. You can be pro life on your own morals you don't need to be guided by anyone or any god.

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.

LirW · 01-02-2018 10:25AM

But why would you women dismiss from a vote that involves without exception the body of a woman?

Would be the same to give women a say about for example sterilizing men on a wide base because of overpopulation.

Triceratops Ballet · 01-02-2018 10:31AM

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.

"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 · 01-02-2018 10:35AM

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.

drunkmonkey · 01-02-2018 10:36AM

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?

More than 13% yes, to put it another way do you believe men don't care or want any say when they have an opposing view to the woman?

drunkmonkey · 01-02-2018 10:38AM

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.

That's the word within a "relationship" not suggesting a man should be entitled to rights outside it but within it maybe yes.

LirW · 01-02-2018 10:45AM

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.

alpahaeagle · 01-02-2018 10:54AM

At the end of the day, The woman is the one who carries the child and goes thru a hell of a lot of pain when having the child. All we do is have a bit of fun.
So does a man have the right to tell a woman that she can not have an abortion---NO.

Its the woman thats gets pregant ( yes we have a role in that) but after that until the child is born our job is done (beside caring for the mother of the child.).

No one has the right to tell me what to do with my body so why should I be able to tell a woman what she can do with hers.

drunkmonkey · 01-02-2018 10:56AM

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.

Ah here come on, 29% of women report domestic abuse, 5% of men do. The level of abuse is pretty similar from both the women as it is the man.
So it's easy swing that point right back at you.
Men are less likely to speak up, there the real victims here.

nozzferrahhtoo · 01-02-2018 11:02AM

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Nozz you're still ignoring the fact that such an ultimatum could never and would never be enforceable in law

Now you are really just openly taking the piss. How am I ignoring that? I said very clearly in at least two earlier posts that I see the whole thing as being split into A) The argument for it and

Whether it is workable or enforcable or possible.

It was YOU in post #604 openly saying you will be ignoring Part B of that, and now you are claiming that I am ignoring it? For shame.

I have done the opposite of ignoring it. I OPENLY and CLEARLY said that the main arguments I have against my own position on this are couched ENTIRELY in the problems with it being workable and unenforceable.

So what is happening here is YOU have ignored the entire post I just wrote and are projecting that onto a pretense that I am ignoring things I am doing the exact opposite of ignoring.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

it's about what the courts would determine is in the best interests of the child.

Yes and that is why, as I said, a huge part of the discussion has to be around what actually IS in the best interests of the child. And such a discussion should not allow people like yourself to wantonly make things up, and then run away when asked for the evidence for. Like your claims about research related to parental relationships with specifically biologically related parents.

Men's rights on Abortion?

Comments