Men's rights on Abortion?

Wibbs · 01-02-2018 11:05AM

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 just a bit of a logic fail. I voted Yes in support of divorce in the referendum(both. I'm old

), but wasn't married. Should I have not? Oh and before the "well divorce could affect you down the line", so could a partner having an abortion, whether I agreed with it or not.

Though it seems according to some men aren't affected by it, so another reason they shouldn't hold an opinion, unless it's the "correct opinion". One poster earlier on..

Spanish Eyes wrote: »

No man will ever have to go through the trauma of an abortion. EVER.

Isn't that correct.

She/he seems to be of the opinion that men will suffer no "trauma" over an abortion. Physically, of course not, but mentally? Do men suffer the emotional consequences of a miscarriage? Of course they bloody do. My mother lost a few pregnancies and even as a kid I saw my father's grief hang heavy in the air and he was from a time when stiff upper lip was to the fore. So why wouldn't they feel the emotions around an abortion? Even if it's relief, or if they were happy to become fathers the loss of that opportunity would surely have an impact? Apparently not.

That worldview right there really grinds my bloody gears TBH. One would swear men regardless of their view, have no and should have no real engagement in such matters.

Triceratops Ballet · 01-02-2018 11:14AM

drunkmonkey wrote: »

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?

I'm pointing out that there are men here in this thread saying that they believe it's up to the woman and you're discounting that because it's not what you want to believe.

drunkmonkey · 01-02-2018 11:25AM

Triceratops Ballet wrote: »

I'm pointing out that there are men here in this thread saying that they believe it's up to the woman and you're discounting that because it's not what you want to believe.

The only thing your pointing out is men's rights and opinions don't matter. That's fine but as a man I beg to differ.

LirW · 01-02-2018 11:29AM

I think you don't understand my point. It doesn't have to do with domestic abuse in men, that is a separate matter that I highly appreciate and think it needs more attention.

My point is: Domestic abuse in women also happens on a level where women are controlled and have their birth control tossed or are raped. That isn't uncommon and it all happens in an intact marriage. If these women get pregnant they know exactly what could or will happen to them once the man knows about the pregnancy. She'll also face the uncertainty of the child's destiny, how can she be sure the father will spare the kid?
There are plenty of cases of babies dying because they were shaken too hard.
These women face a decision of bringing a child into a serious situation that could be potentially dangerous for the child. She gets her portion of the sh1t anyway.
In these situations it's not appropriate to inform the father, the autonomy that the woman has left needs to be protected.

I think a lot of people come from very sheltered situations that they can't imagine that there are seriously vile human beings out there. Don't get me wrong, I see where you're coming fron (not agreeing with it) but the world isn't all nice and ponies and roses.
There are parts of the world where the father is in charge of the women, the children and everything. I think we all know how women are treated there.

El_Duderino 09 · 01-02-2018 11:30AM

You have rights and you have desires.

The man had the right to express his desire for the woman to have a termination or to carry it to birth. They can chat about it and he has every right to try to change her mind.

The woman has the right to bodily autonomy which means she can take the man's desire into consideration when she makes her decision on how to express her right to carry it to birth or have a termination.

The one carrying the foetus has the ultimate decision on whether to continue to carry it or not. It seems unfair but if you were to give them both an equal say it would mean allowing the RIGHT to bodily autonomy to be equalled by a DESIRE to have a baby/termination.

One eyed Jack · 01-02-2018 11:30AM

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

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.

I'm not taking the piss. I'm just not taking your argument seriously. There's a difference. If I were only interested in taking the piss, I wouldn't even bother entertaining you because I know already that such an ultimatum would never be workable first of all, so because that doesn't even get out of the starting blocks, we never get to point number 2.

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.

I'm not making anything up. The best interests of the child would to be determined in each and every case depending upon the circumstances of each case. That's why I'm also not going to entertain your attempts to try and wedge in any wider point when the intent of what I posted couldn't have been clearer - an overwhelming amount research suggests that it is in the best interests of the child that they have a relationship with both their biological parents, as opposed to having none with one or both, but each case would still be determined on it's own set of circumstances. If you think I'm suggesting that the child be placed in any situation which is not in their best interests, then it shouldn't be too hard for you to figure out why I'm not inclined to take your arguments seriously.

Triceratops Ballet · 01-02-2018 11:32AM

drunkmonkey wrote: »

The only thing your pointing out is men's rights and opinions don't matter. That's fine but as a man I beg to differ.

Show me where I said men's opinions don't matter? Of course they matter.

Legally though a woman can't be forced to bear a child for a man, so while his opinion may matter, and can be given consideration it's not legally enforceable. Which if you actually read my posts is what i've been saying all along.

Riskymove · 01-02-2018 11:43AM

drunkmonkey wrote: »

The only thing your pointing out is men's rights and opinions don't matter. That's fine but as a man I beg to differ.

yes Men's opinions and rights matter

but if you are thinking that a man could force a woman to bear a child (or indeed force her to have an abortion) then that means the woman's rights don't matter

once you make it that both people must agree then it means that one may be forced to do what they don't want to. the consequences and impact for the woman in such a situation would be far greater than the man imo

drunkmonkey · 01-02-2018 11:49AM

Triceratops Ballet wrote: »

Show me where I said men's opinions don't matter? Of course they matter.

But you believe they should have no rights. That's fine and that's why we have a fud poll as you were allowed vote.

nozzferrahhtoo · 01-02-2018 12:11PM

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I'm not taking the piss. I'm just not taking your argument seriously. There's a difference.

It has nothing to do without taking it seriously. You have claimed (while ignoring my entire post) that I have ignored something I not only did not ignore, but I made EXPLICIT in at least two posts.

It is not my points you are not taking seriously therefore, but actual reality itself.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I know already that such an ultimatum would never be workable first of all

Nothing you have presented has substantiated such "knowing" though. As I said I strongly have my doubts about how workable such a system would be. But nothing I know, or have been shown by you, moves anything from doubt to certainty. At most you appear to conflate "not workable" with "no one would want it" which clearly are not the same thing.

The biggest "not workable" argument I can think of, and it is indeed a doozy, would be the problem of time windows. There is no way to ensure the male will know, during the required time window, that a pregnancy has occurred. The woman might hide it or, more likely, might not even know herself.

But all that does is tell me that if it is workable, it has to be in a more general approach rather than a per pregnancy one. I can think of a few workable approaches on THAT line, but none that sit comfortably with me yet. More thought and conversation needed, but certainly what is not needed is the mere empty assertion it could not be made workable. I see nothing yet to support that. Least of all from you.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I'm not making anything up.

So you claim, but I am not likely to take your word for it. And when you make a claim you refuse ENTIRELY to back up despite being asked multiple times (such as the biological parent relationship research one) you leave no option open to me BUT to assume you are simply making it up. And if you give people only one option, you can not blame them for taking only that option.

And if you dodge those issues by merely screaming "silly" or "I am not going to entertain you" at them, then you only compound the impression you can not substantiate anything you say.... you certainly do not fool anyone into alleviating it. Except, I suppose, yourself.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

an overwhelming amount research suggests that it is in the best interests of the child that they have a relationship with both their biological parents

Great. So cite it. For once. "Research shows" is a rhetorical move people often make in forums. And they make it because often it works. Because people do not know whether research shows that or not, or would not know how to parse the research if they were shown it.

I suffer from NEITHER of those issues, so I am more than able to call people on the "Research Shows" move. This might be inconvenient for you, but that is hardly going to concern me is it? Research has shown NOTHING unless you can actually show your research.

And I can show mine if asked. I can show you research, for example, showing you that children raised by lesbian parents fare as well and sometimes BETTER than the children in the dynamic you describe. Showing your claim about their "best interests" is not only not substantiated, but often directly contradicted.

Sticking the head in the sand repeating a "research shows research shows" mantra is not going to modify the real world to your benefit.

gozunda · 01-02-2018 12:50PM

drunkmonkey wrote: »

But you believe they should have no rights. That's fine and that's why we have a fud poll as you were allowed vote.

To be fair that's not what the poster has stated whatsoever.

I don't think you should get too caught up in your fud poll. You have no idea of the ratio of male / female ratio who have voted. Didn't come out as you expected? Well thats just tough. Life is tough as well.

One eyed Jack · 01-02-2018 01:11PM

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

The biggest "not workable" argument I can think of, and it is indeed a doozy, would be the problem of time windows. There is no way to ensure the male will know, during the required time window, that a pregnancy has occurred. The woman might hide it or, more likely, might not even know herself.

But all that does is tell me that if it is workable, it has to be in a more general approach rather than a per pregnancy one. I can think of a few workable approaches on THAT line, but none that sit comfortably with me yet. More thought and conversation needed, but certainly what is not needed is the mere empty assertion it could not be made workable. I see nothing yet to support that. Least of all from you.

It couldn't be made workable because you're saying one minute that you're not suggesting any veto could be exercised prior to the child being born, so that immediately rules out any possibility of addressing "time windows". That leaves the only scenario possible is that the man could only possibly exercise a right once a child is born, and no prior arrangement can be made in law before then, so it simply isn't workable during pregnancy.

The second reason it wouldn't be workable, is because the welfare of the child and the childs best interests are regarded as the priority, and in the case I presented already, this was demonstrated by the unanimous agreement of five Supreme Court judges, so while you may imagine that your scenario is workable, the reality is that a more general approach already exists that is based upon the principle of regarding what is in the best interests of the child. The best interests of the parents in that scenario are not the primary concern, and that is why no man would ever be granted the right to issue an ultimatum to a woman he impregnates prior to their child being born, that would relieve him of his financial responsibility towards their child.

nozzferrahhtoo · 01-02-2018 01:19PM

One eyed Jack wrote: »

It couldn't be made workable because you're saying one minute that you're not suggesting any veto could be exercised prior to the child being born, so that immediately rules out any possibility of addressing "time windows".

No. It does not. There is a likely scenario for there to be a time window, for example, where a woman in the future in Ireland can get an abortion by choice. This might be, for example, 12 weeks if the Citizens Assembly ideas are adopted.

So DURING that time the people involved can discuss this and the man may say "Well I have no interest in becoming a father or the formation of a child and want nothing to do with it". At which point a woman could say.... given the man should have NO control over her choice to abort or not........... "I want to continue with this child on my own, and finance it's future on my own" or "I do not want to do this alone, I think I will choose abortion."

The only REAL issue with making that workable I am seeing so far is the fact one or both of them might not know during that time window that the woman is pregnant. So whatever workable solution is possible would have to be more general, rather than a per pregnancy basis. But nothing is inherently and absolutely unworkable about it that justifies dismissing it with a mere assertion.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

The second reason it wouldn't be workable, is because the welfare of the child and the childs best interests are regarded as the priority

Again yes, that is the discussion that has to be had. IS IT actually in the best interest of the child? I listed a HOST of reasons to quetsion that which you, in adherence to your usual MO, merely ignored in posts like the one I am happy to copy and paste for you here:

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.

ForestFire · 01-02-2018 01:27PM

gozunda wrote: »

To be fair that's not what the poster has stated whatsoever.

I don't think you should get too caught up in your fud poll. You have no idea of the ratio of male / female ratio who have voted. Didn't come out as you expected? Well thats just tough. Life is tough as well.

So 37% of men and women believe and support that men should have an input and you think the poll is a FUD and not as expected?

This poll also includes the 3 options below all rolled into one:-

1)Men to request to continue the pregnancy (Most Controversial)
2)Men Request to abort (Controversial)
3)Men to have the option to not be part of the pregnancy (less Controversial)

I wonder what the results would be if the poll was split out.

drunkmonkey · 01-02-2018 01:44PM

gozunda wrote: »

To be fair that's not what the poster has stated whatsoever.

I don't think you should get too caught up in your fud poll. You have no idea of the ratio of male / female ratio who have voted. Didn't come out as you expected? Well thats just tough. Life is tough as well.

It is when they deliberately left out the word "rights" when asked a direct question. They answered the easy bit, yea sure men should have an opinion, twas big of them.

It's not a fud poll if it was only answered by who it was directed to, which was men. That's why it was posted here to try and avoid female participation because as a direct question to men their opinions weren't relevant. Men could have an opinion on the woman's role and rights but it wasn't directed at women but they've came out in force to say we should be seen and not heard when it comes to protection of our unborn child.

There's many sides to this debate, and people are split in all directions. All we can take from the fud pole is the majority of men would like some rights. Yes I'm saying over 13% of women voted in the poll and 13% of them thought men should have no rights based on the comments from the women who've gave their 2 cent so far.

One eyed Jack · 01-02-2018 01:52PM

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

No. It does not. There is a likely scenario for there to be a time window, for example, where a woman in the future in Ireland can get an abortion by choice. This might be, for example, 12 weeks if the Citizens Assembly ideas are adopted.

So DURING that time the people involved can discuss this and the man may say "Well I have no interest in becoming a father or the formation of a child and want nothing to do with it". At which point a woman could say.... given the man should have NO control over her choice to abort or not........... "I want to continue with this child on my own, and finance it's future on my own" or "I do not want to do this alone, I think I will choose abortion."

The only REAL issue with making that workable I am seeing so far is the fact one or both of them might not know during that time window that the woman is pregnant. So whatever workable solution is possible would have to be more general, rather than a per pregnancy basis. But nothing is inherently and absolutely unworkable about it that justifies dismissing it with a mere assertion.

You're still ignoring the issue where a woman chooses to continue her pregnancy, and gives birth to a child that must be provided for. Introducing legislation to relieve a man of his responsibility towards his children would place an unfair burden of responsibility on the mother, and that's why legislation was introduced that required fathers to support their children. It would simply be irresponsible to introduce legislation to reverse that responsibility.

Again yes, that is the discussion that has to be had. IS IT actually in the best interest of the child?

Yes, it is, and that's why the legislation requiring fathers to support their children was introduced. The fact that a pregnant woman can choose to avail of an abortion is irrelevant to the question of whether or not it is in the best interests of a child that their parents provide for their children's needs, and because fathers a long time ago were able to abscond from their responsibilities towards their children and force those women and children into poverty and destitution, legislation was introduced to ensure that men could not abscond from their responsibilities.

Your arguments so far aren't in any way convincing enough to suggest that allowing men to abscond from their responsibilities towards their children is in any way acting in the childs best interests.

Triceratops Ballet · 01-02-2018 01:53PM

drunkmonkey wrote: »

It is when they deliberately left out the word "rights" when asked a direct question. They answered the easy bit, yea sure men should have an opinion, twas big of them.

It's not a fud poll if it was only answered by who it was directed to, which was men. That's why it was posted here to try and avoid female participation because as a direct question to men their opinions weren't relevant. Men could have an opinion on the woman's role and rights but it wasn't directed at women but they've came out in force to say we should be seen and not heard when it comes to protection of our unborn child.

There's many sides to this debate, and people are split in all directions. All we can take from the fud pole is the majority of men would like some rights. Yes I'm saying over 13% of women voted in the poll and 13% of them thought men should have no rights based on the comments from the women who've gave their 2 cent so far.

It wasn't only directed at men though, there's nothing to indicate that the votes or opinions of women weren't welcome. If you wanted a valid poll of men's opinions you wouldn't have included Atari Jaguar as an option, and you would have requested that only men respond. Now you want to change what the poll means when it doesn't say what you wanted it to.

The truth is you know as well as I do that any right men may have in this regard is not in any way legally enforceable, because the rights of men do not supersede the rights of women in this country.

nozzferrahhtoo · 01-02-2018 02:03PM

One eyed Jack wrote: »

You're still ignoring the issue where a woman chooses to continue her pregnancy, and gives birth to a child that must be provided for.

Amazing how you keep finding me ignoring things I in reality addressed DIRECTLY. How can someone be ignoring something they DIRECTLY talked about? It would be nice if you would at least TRY to make sense, rather than engage in a need to use the word "ignore" even when it does not apply. Especially when the one DEMONSTRABLY ignoring things on the thread is only you.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Introducing legislation to relieve a man of his responsibility towards his children would place an unfair burden of responsibility on the mother

Not in the scenario I described it would not no, because the woman has the choice "Continue this pregnancy alone, or do not continue it at all". The burden therefore is not unfair, it is ENTIRELY HER CHOICE to take it on or not. Burdens you CHOOSE to take on, are not unfair. What would be unfair is to give the man any chance to "abscond" at a point AFTER her ability to choose not to go through with the pregnancy. That WOULD be unfair, but that is precisely NOT what I am envisioning.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Yes, it is

Do you have any more to back that up rather than merely declaring it is though? Your "thats why" that follows this is missing the point and the question. Your "thats why" is discussing the implications of it being true, where I am questioning IS it true. And merely declaring "yes it is" does not evidence the truth of it at all.

You keep ignoring it but I am happy to keep pasting it until such time as I am informed I am not permitted to:

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.

Metroid diorteM · 01-02-2018 02:17PM

I’ve followed this thread and many interesting points have been made which all lead me to the conclusion that article 8 is the best we have and should be preserved to avoid the unanswerable mess visible from this thread.

Human life begins at conception. Abortion is murder.

nozzferrahhtoo · 01-02-2018 02:20PM

Metroid diorteM wrote: »

I’ve followed this thread and many interesting points have been made which all lead me to the conclusion that article 8 is the best we have and should be preserved to avoid the unanswerable mess visible from this thread.

Human life begins at conception. Abortion is murder.

Yea I somewhat suspect the last paragraph in your post belies the fallacious nature of the first. It is unlikely anything about this thread helped form an opinion you already did not quite vehemently hold.

However it would be nice to check what "murder" actually means, and learn why it does not apply to zygotes.

Further there is biology in play at conception and little more. Certainly nothing that holds up anything but the most basic definition of "Human Life".

One eyed Jack · 01-02-2018 02:21PM

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Not in the scenario I described it would not no, because the woman has the choice "Continue this pregnancy alone, or do not continue it at all". The burden therefore is not unfair, it is ENTIRELY HER CHOICE to take it on or not. Burdens you CHOOSE to take on, are not unfair. What would be unfair is to give the man any chance to "abscond" at a point AFTER her ability to choose not to go through with the pregnancy. That WOULD be unfair, but that is precisely NOT what I am envisioning.

And if she chose to go through with the pregnancy, then it's not just a question of her rights or his rights, it's a question of the rights of the child and the welfare of the child and acting in the best interests of the child.

That's why you'd be laughed at if you tried to suggest that men should have a right to issue an ultimatum to a pregnant woman which would mean she would be faced with the prospect of being forced into choosing between an abortion or poverty on the basis that he has no interest in supporting his child.

nozzferrahhtoo · 01-02-2018 02:24PM

One eyed Jack wrote: »

And if she chose to go through with the pregnancy, then it's not just a question of her rights or his rights, it's a question of the rights of the child and the welfare of the child and acting in the best interests of the child.

Yup and I, for one, trust women to make that decision. To look at their own life and circumstances and say to THEMSELVES "Yes I can go through with this pregnancy and act in the best interests of MY child".

I think a woman is more than capable of acting in the best interests of the child, including if she decides it's best interests is never to be formed. I do not need to use law to hold their hand and make their decisions for them.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

choosing an abortion or poverty

If those WERE the only two choices you would have a point. But they aren't so you don't. Many women are MORE than capable of supporting a child as a single parent without even remotely suffering from poverty. Women are not delicate little morsels that can not survive without a big benign man to help them get by in life you know. They are fully autonomous and self sufficient these days.

You might remember, for example, the choice a woman made that somewhat triggered you in the past to become a single mother and do it all by herself alone with no input from the man. She wrote an article about it remember? Her choices were not "Abortion or poverty". Her choice was "I will become a mother ON MY OWN ENTIRELY".

That you seem not to be able to trust women to make their own decisions on the welfare of their own potential children OR to provide for them on their own...... is a level of demeaning misogyny I am afraid I can not join you at.

ForestFire · 01-02-2018 02:25PM

One eyed Jack wrote: »

And if she chose to go through with the pregnancy, then it's not just a question of her rights or his rights, it's a question of the rights of the child and the welfare of the child and acting in the best interests of the child.

That's why you'd be laughed at if you tried to suggest that man should have a right to issue an ultimatum to a pregnant woman which would mean she would be faced with the prospect of being forced into choosing between an abortion or poverty on the basis that he has no interest in supporting his child.

But we are talking about a clump of cells when this decision is to be made.

If the man requests that he does not want to be a father, whats the issue with him saying no to the clump of cells?

If the women wants a baby she can make a new clump of cells?

If she want to keep her current clump of cells against the mans wishes, he should have the legal option not to be involved?

Hoboo · 01-02-2018 02:27PM

ForestFire wrote: »

But we are talking about a clump of cells when this decision is to be made.

If the man requests that he does not want to be a father, whats the issue with him saying no to the clump of cells?

If the women wants a baby she can make a new clump of cells?

If she want to keep her current clump of cells against the mans wishes, he should have the legal option not to be involved?

We are all just clumps of cells.

One eyed Jack · 01-02-2018 02:38PM

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Yup and I, for one, trust women to make that decision. To look at their own life and circumstances and say to THEMSELVES "Yes I can go through with this pregnancy and act in the best interests of MY child".

I think a woman is more than capable of acting in the best interests of the child, including if she decides it's best interests is never to be formed. I do not need to use law to hold their hand and make their decisions for them.

Again, whether or not a woman chooses for herself to have an abortion is not the issue. The issue is whether men should have the right to abscond from their responsibilities towards their children who are born.

If those WERE the only two choices you would have a point. But they aren't so you don't. Many women are MORE than capable of supporting a child as a single parent without even remotely suffering from poverty. Women are not delicate little morsels that can not survive without a big benign man to help them get by in life you know. They are fully autonomous and self sufficient these days.

You might remember, for example, the choice a woman made that somewhat triggered you in the past to become a single mother and do it all by herself alone with no input from the man. She wrote an article about it remember? Her choices were not "Abortion or poverty". Her choice was "I will become a mother ON MY OWN ENTIRELY".

That you seem not to be able to trust women to make their own decisions on the welfare of their own potential children OR to provide for them on their own...... is a level of demeaning misogyny I am afraid I can not join you at.

They are the only two choices for women who are not able to afford to support a child on their own, that's exactly why those women have to go to court to apply for maintenance orders, because the father is unwilling to provide for their child.

You're arguing that a man should have the right to issue an ultimatum to a woman he impregnates that she either raise the child on her own, or have an abortion, because he has no interest in supporting his child, and you want to point fingers at me for demeaning misogyny?

We're done here :pac:

ForestFire · 01-02-2018 02:39PM

Hoboo wrote: »

We are all just clumps of cells.

With an equal to right to life? I'm confused now.

I though we were saying that pre-12 weeks there will be no right to life, There is no baby, its merely a clump of cells.

nozzferrahhtoo · 01-02-2018 02:47PM

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Again, whether or not a woman chooses for herself to have an abortion is not the issue. The issue is whether men should have the right to abscond from their responsibilities towards their children who are born.

My points are about the man registering that "absconding" BEFORE the child is born however. I am surprised I have to remind you of that a second time.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

They are the only two choices for women who are not able to afford to support a child on their own

So not the choice for women then. Just the choice for a sub set of women you cherry pick to fit what you want it to fit. I believe ALL women should be able to make that choice. "CAN I provide for this child on my own". And I trust them A) to make that choice and

to be able to provide for children without the help of a man.

Do only women who can not provide for a child alone apply for maintenance from the absent men? Or do women who can/could provide for a child get to apply for it also?

One eyed Jack wrote: »

You're arguing that a man should have the right to issue an ultimatum to a woman

Nope. I am arguing that a man should be able, within a certain time frame, to absent himself from the process ENTIRELY. That is not an ultimatum. It is him saying "I want nothing to do with this and no input at all". You do not get to declare no input AND issue ultimatums at the same time. Issuing ultimatums IS an input.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

you want to point fingers at me for demeaning misogyny?

I do. The idea that women can not make decisions THEMSELVES in the best interest of their own children or potential children is a form of misogyny. The idea that a women without a man must only choose abortion or poverty.... rather than acknowleding a third option that many women are MORE than capable of doing things on their own.... is too.

I absolutely find that misogyny. Mostly fitting definition 2: "dislike of, contempt for, or ingrained prejudice against women.". Because thinking a woman could not avoid poverty on her own, or is not capable of making decisions on the welfare of their own offspring is JUST that. Contempt.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

We're done here

I do not believe we are. Time will tell. Not much of it either I warrant.

end of the road · 01-02-2018 05:30PM

Triceratops Ballet wrote: »

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.

because i believe it is not the duty of the state to facilitate non-medical abortions.

Triceratops Ballet wrote: »

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.

it is about protecting the unborn, however the reality is there are going to be some cases, medical reasons, where abortion will be necessary even if i don't agree with it, and in those circumstances it does need to be provided.

Triceratops Ballet wrote: »

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

because it is possibly deterring some abortions from happening, and that for me is a good thing.

end of the road · 01-02-2018 05:36PM

gozunda wrote: »

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.

except the proposals i wanted wouldn't see any women dying, because it would offer abortions where the mother's life will be under threat.
given the proposals offered i'm at peace with the way i'm going to vote. i wanted to vote a different way as i hoped different proposals would be put forward, but it wasn't to be, so i will have to vote a different way on what i believe is best.
yes i remember Savita, her death was tragic, but it was caused by a number of different factors from what i understand. i won't be thinking about her when i vote however, as it is wrong for her to be used as part of this debate. she needs to be allowed to rest in peace.

gozunda wrote: »

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.

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"

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

what misogyny. there is no misogyny in my posts. being against the killing of the unborn unless absolutely necessary is not misogyny. i would respectfully ask you to please withdraw that accusation.

alpahaeagle wrote: »

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.

i haven't saw anyone telling a woman what to do with their body. she can do what she likes with her body. the debate is about the developing body inside the woman, as they are a human being in their own right and are developing into a person, and whether the woman should be allowed to kill that unborn human being inside her.

Triceratops Ballet · 01-02-2018 05:42PM

end of the road wrote: »

because i believe it is not the duty of the state to facilitate non-medical abortions.

What about private institutions then?

end of the road wrote: »

it is about protecting the unborn, however the reality is there are going to be some cases, medical reasons, where abortion will be necessary even if i don't agree with it, and in those circumstances it does need to be provided.

it's about protecting the unborn but tough luck on the women carrying them, what they want doesn't matter?

end of the road wrote: »

because it is possibly deterring some abortions from happening, and that for me is a good thing.

So it's only possibly deterring some abortions? you've no idea if it's effective, or how it's effective, and you acknowledge that is causes problems for the general healthcare offered to women who are pregnant, but it possibly works so that's more important than providing healthcare choices to pregnant women (and I'm not only talking about abortion)
Also the greater good you claimed is serves is actually only your own opinion on what is "good"

Men's rights on Abortion?

Comments