Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Men's rights on Abortion?

1…2324262829…61

Comments

  • #752
    looksee
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 29,827 ✭✭✭✭looksee


    nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

    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.

    But at this stage the man has had the input. literally. He should only be able to opt out if he can prove the woman raped him.


  • #753
    ForestFire
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,018 ✭✭✭ForestFire


    looksee wrote: »
    But at this stage the man has had the input. literally. He should only be able to opt out if he can prove the woman raped him.

    Does this work also?

    "But at this stage the woman has had the input. literally. she should only be able to opt out if she can prove the man raped her."
    No I don't think so.


    Why can the man not have any further input to terminate or walk away? The Woman still has?

    After all its just a clump of cells we will have decided if passed.

    I said in previous thread (I think), the woman can get another clump of cells if she wants a baby from a man that also wants it (Or Donor) if she wants, and if she does decide to continue with the cells, that the man rejects, then it is on her own, at that point


  • #754
    end of the road
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 29,537 ✭✭✭✭end of the road


    Triceratops Ballet wrote: »
    What about private institutions then?

    definitely not.
    Triceratops Ballet wrote: »
    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"

    i'm aware you aren't only talking about abortion. the reality is we can only work within what we have and what is being offered for us to vote on. it's not that the 8th working in terms of stopping some abortions is more important, it's that it is the only act we have that prohibits abortions within the irish state. also, it's the fact the proposals on offer don't enable many of us to vote for repeal to deal with the general health care issue, yet insure the protections for the unborn remain bar exceptional circumstances.

    I'm very highly educated. I know words, i have the best words, nobody has better words then me.



  • #755
    Hoboo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,676 ✭✭✭Hoboo


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

    Of course what they want matters. But the unborn didn't make any choice to get into the predicament, why should they be the scapegoat for someone else choices (except of course in certain cases such as incest, extreme foetal abnormality, or when the mothers life is at risk)

    If the choice was adult euthanasia instead of killing the baby, Im confident most would find the courage to meet their responsibilities.


  • #756
    gozunda
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,996 ✭✭✭✭gozunda


    ForestFire wrote: »
    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.


    No DrunkMonkey called it a "Fud" and claimed the the results were fracked because women voted - hence my comment getit?

    I wonder as well ...


  • Advertisement
  • #757
    gozunda
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,996 ✭✭✭✭gozunda


    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.

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

    But don't let that stop you getting up on a leggy horse
    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.

    I was quoting 'you" when you said the poll was a "fud" poll. Chxst on a bike but your memory is very poor :rolleyes: I don't think the women came out "in force" - tbh we have NO idea who or what voted considering that we are all anonymous- even your self!
    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.

    Yes indeed many "sides" :rolleyes: Btw there you go again! "FUD!

    Where are you getting 13%? Do you allow that there are men who are happy to allow that the decision lies with the woman? Or is that a country to far for you?


  • #758
    ForestFire
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,018 ✭✭✭ForestFire


    gozunda wrote: »
    No DrunkMonkey called it a "Fud" and claimed the the results were fracked because women voted - hence my comment getit?

    I wonder as well ...

    Fair enough, I only read what you wrote about the poll.

    But by split the poll out I mean to the three different options in my post, not between men and women.

    Not sure if you mean the same.?


  • #759
    gozunda
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,996 ✭✭✭✭gozunda


    ForestFire wrote: »
    Fair enough, I only read what you wrote about the poll.

    But by split the poll out I mean to the three different options in my post, not between men and women.

    Not sure if you mean the same.?

    Fair enuf. I only replied to DM post about the "fud" poll ...


  • #760
    gozunda
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,996 ✭✭✭✭gozunda


    end of the road wrote: »
    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.

    No you're voting for the rights of some hypothetical "unborn" over and above the lives and health of some very real women who are our sisters, girl friends, wives who have responsibility towards others often other children, family and partners.
    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.

    Her death was caused by those who were scared ****less of standing up against the status quo. Ironically a status quo derived from the same faceless minority that were responsible for the deaths of thousands of (born!) infants by starvation and neglect under the old mother and baby home system. Savita needs to be remembered as an individual murdered by a system you apparently support.
    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.

    Misogyny of ignoring the lives and real life decisions of thousands of women you would consign to very real physical and psychological damage.
    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.

    You are. And btw that is "your" opinion only. A fetus "unborn" whatever you want to call it is not a fully developed "human" or "person". Making a rationale decision based on the woman's circumstances is not 'killing' - it's basic responsibility and is done within a structured environment with the help of health professionals.


  • #761
    end of the road
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 29,537 ✭✭✭✭end of the road


    gozunda wrote: »
    No you're voting for the rights of some hypothetical "unborn" over and above the lives and health of some very real women who are our sisters, girl friends, wives who have responsibility towards others often other children, family and partners.

    once there is a developing fetus in the womb, there are no hypothetical unborn. the unborn is very real.
    gozunda wrote: »
    Her death was caused by those who were scared ****less of standing up against the status quo. Ironically a status quo derived from the same faceless minority that were responsible for the deaths of thousands of infants by starvation and neglect under the old mother and baby home system. Savita needs to be remembered as an individual murdered by a system you apparently support.

    her death was caused by a number of different factors from what i understand, and it's time she was left to rest in peace.
    i don't support any system. i support the unborn continuing to have protections, and i believe that to insure those protections remain, as regretible as it is, i have to vote for the status quo, given the proposals on the table. as i said, i wanted to vote repeal, but given the proposals on the table i'm no longer in a position to vote repeal.
    gozunda wrote: »
    Misogyny of ignoring the lives and real life decisions of thousands of women you would consign to very real physical and psychological damage.

    how so.
    gozunda wrote: »
    You are. And btw that is "your" opinion only. A fetus "unborn" whatever you want to call it is not a fully developed "human" or "person".

    i'm not, and it is fact that a fetus is a human being. it's not a person yet but it is a human being.
    gozunda wrote: »
    Making a rationale decision based on the woman's circumstances is not 'killing' - it's basic responsibility and is done within a structured environment with the help of health professionals.

    i have to disagree. killing an unborn life unless it is for medical reasons, is not rational or basic responsibility.

    I'm very highly educated. I know words, i have the best words, nobody has better words then me.



  • Advertisement
  • #762
    njs030
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,030 ✭✭✭njs030


    end of the road wrote: »
    once there is a developing fetus in the womb, there are no hypothetical unborn. the unborn is very real.



    her death was caused by a number of different factors from what i understand, and it's time she was left to rest in peace.
    i don't support any system. i support the unborn continuing to have protections, and i believe that to insure those protections remain, as regretible as it is, i have to vote for the status quo, given the proposals on the table. as i said, i wanted to vote repeal, but given the proposals on the table i'm no longer in a position to vote repeal.



    how so.



    i'm not, and it is fact that a fetus is a human being. it's not a person yet but it is a human being.



    i have to disagree. killing an unborn life unless it is for medical reasons, is not rational or basic responsibility.


    Are you also interested in their life after birth and currently campaigning for better support for lone parents, better childcare and back to work schemes etc?

    What are you going to do in relation the fathers relationships with their children? Can you outline how?
    All you've said so far is the unborn mustn't pay for mistakes of others, I'd like to hear about your plan for the father please.


  • #763
    Hoboo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,676 ✭✭✭Hoboo


    end of the road wrote: »
    . i support the unborn continuing to have protections, and i believe that to insure those protections remain, as regretible as it is, i have to vote for the status quo, given the proposals on the table. as i said, i wanted to vote repeal, but given the proposals on the table i'm no longer in a position to vote repeal.

    Like so many others, and that is exactly why I don't think it will be repealed, putting the lives of women in danger who need abortions to stay alive, not just to suit their lifestyle. Its a shame.


  • #764
    end of the road
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 29,537 ✭✭✭✭end of the road


    notjustsweet wrote: »
    Are you also interested in their life after birth and currently campaigning for better support for lone parents, better childcare and back to work schemes etc?
    What are you going to do in relation the fathers relationships with their children? Can you outline how?
    All you've said so far is the unborn mustn't pay for mistakes of others, I'd like to hear about your plan for the father please.

    i'm not a politician. i'm not a law maker. there is nothing i can do about these issues. i am in full agreement with, and i am in full support of those who are doing what they can to change these issues.
    Hoboo wrote: »
    Like so many others, and that is exactly why I don't think it will be repealed, putting the lives of women in danger who need abortions to stay alive, not just to suit their lifestyle. Its a shame.

    oh absolutely it is a complete shame and very sad. the government had the opportunity to put forward proposals that would have got lots more support for repeal. they chose not to, so sadly we are where we are and we can only work with and vote on what we can.

    I'm very highly educated. I know words, i have the best words, nobody has better words then me.



  • #765
    njs030
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,030 ✭✭✭njs030


    end of the road wrote: »
    i'm not a politician. i'm not a law maker. there is nothing i can do about these issues. i am in full agreement with, and i am in full support of those who are doing what they can to change these issues.
    .

    The politicians have spoken about the 8th amendment and said it must be changed yet you've been vocal in stating you want it to remain.
    Soooo.... You're not vocal in trying to change the situation for lone parents or help the children of these forced births have better lives.

    Seems hypocritical to me.

    I also asked you what your plan is to force the men to take responsibility as your only interest so far has been in forcing women to be responsible for having sex. It takes two to create a pregnancy.
    Second time I've asked - where's your plan for the male responsibility please?


  • #766
    gozunda
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,996 ✭✭✭✭gozunda


    end of the road wrote: »
    once there is a developing fetus in the womb, there are no hypothetical unborn. the unborn is very real.

    <The "unborn" are unborn>. They are an unknown unlike the very real women who are living and breathing. In the referendum you will be voting on those yet unborn and possibly even unconceived hence they are hypothetical in the this context. The women you do not care about already exist and are leading very real lives ...
    her death was caused by a number of different factors from what i understand, and it's time she was left to rest in peace.

    Because of course Savita stands as reminder of everything that is rotten with the concept of "equal rights of the unborn and the mother" malarkey. She deserves to be remembered.
    i don't support any system. i support the unborn continuing to have protections, and i believe that to insure those protections remain, as regretible as it is, i have to vote for the status quo, given the proposals on the table. as i said, i wanted to vote repeal, but given the proposals on the table i'm no longer in a position to vote repeal.

    As stated your "unborn" are not just unborn - most of your "unborn" will not even be conceived in the lead up to the referendum - as opposed to the many tens of thousands of women now alive of child bearing age. You are supporting vague hypothetical rights and blatently ignoring the very real rights of responsible adults who have a rights to bodily automy, life and to make considered decisions supported by non religous controled medical professionals.
    i'm not, and it is fact that a fetus is a human being. it's not a person yet but it is a human being.
    really.

    That's remains "your" opinion only and has no basis in fact im afraid. That a fetus is genetically human is factually correct-whether or not that defines a 'human being' is another matter entirely.
    i have to disagree. killing an unborn life unless it is for medical reasons, is not rational or basic responsibility.

    Well you stand outside most of the developed world in your bias. Using overtly emotive language is purile. Denying reality helps no-one.


  • #767
    end of the road
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 29,537 ✭✭✭✭end of the road


    gozunda wrote: »
    <You are supporting vague hypothetical rights and blatently ignoring the very real rights of responsible adults who have a rights to bodily automy, life and to make considered decisions supported by non religous controled medical professionals.

    i'm not ignoring those. the reality is there is no right to abortion on demand, and the state not providing abortion on demand does not go against rights or bodily autonomy.

    I'm very highly educated. I know words, i have the best words, nobody has better words then me.



  • #768
    SusieBlue
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,029 ✭✭✭SusieBlue


    end of the road wrote: »
    i'm not ignoring those. the reality is there is no right to abortion on demand, and the state not providing abortion on demand does not go against rights or bodily autonomy.

    It’s already been explained to you about 15 times across 4 different threads that the 8th amendment absolutely does go against bodily autonomy.

    When a woman does not have full control over her body her rights are NOT being upheld.
    It’s as black and white as that.


  • #769
    gozunda
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,996 ✭✭✭✭gozunda


    end of the road wrote: »
    i'm not ignoring those. the reality is there is no right to abortion on demand, and the state not providing abortion on demand does not go against rights or bodily autonomy.


    As discussed before your concept of "on demand" does not exist and is a manifestly a figment of your over active imagination and / or use of emotive terminology. The repeal of 8th amendment will go along way of restoring bodily automy to women - who like Savita Halappanavar and other women - are at very real risk because of it.


  • #770
    end of the road
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 29,537 ✭✭✭✭end of the road


    WhiteRoses wrote: »
    It’s already been explained to you about 15 times across 4 different threads that the 8th amendment absolutely does go against bodily autonomy.

    When a woman does not have full control over her body her rights are NOT being upheld.
    It’s as black and white as that.

    it's not as black and white as that as it involves another human being, the unborn baby. i have agreed that abortion asside, the 8th is problematic and needs to go and there are aspects that do go against rights and bodily autonomy. however the state not providing abortion on demand does not go against those, and in reality abortion on demand is the main decider as to how a number will vote on the day so it is a major part of the debate.

    I'm very highly educated. I know words, i have the best words, nobody has better words then me.



  • #771
    gozunda
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,996 ✭✭✭✭gozunda


    end of the road wrote: »
    it's not as black and white as that as it involves another human being, the unborn baby. i have agreed that abortion asside, the 8th is problematic and needs to go and there are aspects that do go against rights and bodily autonomy. however the state not providing abortion on demand does not go against those, and in reality abortion on demand is the main decider as to how a number will vote on the day so it is a major part of the debate.

    Fixed that for you... however I still don't agree with a single thing you have said.

    Baby's are by definition infants who have been born and "human being" is a term generally used to describe those who also have been born. Neither term is normally used for prenatal fetuses etc

    As for your incorrect use of "on demand" once again let me explain ...
    Definition: Abortion on demand is the concept that a pregnant woman should be able to access an abortion at her request*. “On demand” is used to mean that she should have access to an abortion:

    without a waiting period
    without having to travel to another state or county
    without having to first prove a special circumstance such as rape
    with no further cost-prohibitive restrictions

    https://www.thoughtco.com/abortion-on-demand-3528233

    * In the UK and Europe this normally involves a medical consultation and or referral and does not mean that the woman can just drop down to her local supermarket for one as you appear to be suggesting.


  • Advertisement
  • #772
    SusieBlue
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,029 ✭✭✭SusieBlue


    end of the road wrote: »
    it's not as black and white as that as it involves another human being, the unborn baby. i have agreed that abortion asside, the 8th is problematic and needs to go and there are aspects that do go against rights and bodily autonomy. however the state not providing abortion on demand does not go against those, and in reality abortion on demand is the main decider as to how a number will vote on the day so it is a major part of the debate.

    You just said it doesn’t affect bodily autonomy and now you’re saying there are some aspects that do go against bodily autonomy.

    Make up your mind. You keep contradicting yourself.


  • #773
    njs030
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,030 ✭✭✭njs030


    end of the road wrote: »
    it's not as black and white as that as it involves another human being, the unborn baby. i have agreed that abortion asside, the 8th is problematic and needs to go and there are aspects that do go against rights and bodily autonomy. however the state not providing abortion on demand does not go against those, and in reality abortion on demand is the main decider as to how a number will vote on the day so it is a major part of the debate.

    The UN have said Ireland is wrong and must make abortion legal. Our own politicians have said its wrong.

    You won't be forced into anything you don't want to do, no unborn of yours will ever be aborted so why are you so desperate to control the lives of women you don't know??
    I notice you ignored my question about the men so it clearly is about controlling women.


  • #774
    Triceratops Ballet
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,894 ✭✭✭Triceratops Ballet


    end of the road wrote:
    it's not as black and white as that as it involves another human being, the unborn baby. i have agreed that abortion asside, the 8th is problematic and needs to go and there are aspects that do go against rights and bodily autonomy.

    The 8th amendment only has one aspect and as you rightly state it gos against rights and bodily autonomy.

    end of the road wrote:
    however the state not providing abortion on demand does not go against those, and in reality abortion on demand is the main decider as to how a number will vote on the day so it is a major part of the debate.

    But in your next paragraph it doesn't go against and rights or bodily autonomy?

    It's actually a pretty simple piece of text, it's not layered or multifaceted, unlike the problems it causes. See below:

    The State acknowledges the right to life of the unborn and, with due regard to the equal right to life of the mother, guarantees in its laws to respect, and, as far as practicable, by its laws to defend and vindicate that right.

    It literally says my life is equal in value to an unborn human, a human who has not been born, lived, has no feelings or memories, and would require the support of my body to bring it to a point where it could survive, and you're trying to tell me that a foetus living inside a human woman has no effect on her bodily autonomy.


  • #775
    gozunda
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,996 ✭✭✭✭gozunda


    Triceratops Ballet wrote: »
    The 8th amendment only has one aspect and as you rightly state it gos against rights and bodily autonomy.


    But in your next paragraph it doesn't go against and rights or bodily autonomy?

    It's actually a pretty simple piece of text, it's not layered or multifaceted, unlike the problems it causes. See below:
    The State acknowledges the right to life of the unborn and, with due regard to the equal right to life of the mother, guarantees in its laws to respect, and, as far as practicable, by its laws to defend and vindicate that right.

    It literally says my life is equal in value to an unborn human, a human who has not been born, lived, has no feelings or memories, and would require the support of my body to bring it to a point where it could survive, and you're trying to tell me that a foetus living inside a human woman has no effect on her bodily autonomy.

    I agree with that and would add that until the fetus is viable, the right of equal right to life to the mother as granted with the 8th amendment comes at the expense of the pregnant woman and her rights, simply because the fetus cannot survive except within the woman's body.


  • #776
    end of the road
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 29,537 ✭✭✭✭end of the road


    WhiteRoses wrote: »
    You just said it doesn’t affect bodily autonomy and now you’re saying there are some aspects that do go against bodily autonomy.

    Make up your mind. You keep contradicting yourself.

    nope wrong, i'm not contradicting myself at all. i have always been clear there are parts of the 8th that do cause bodily autonomy issues, and have said i would happily repeal it if there was a different proposal on the table.
    however the main part that i debate is the proposal for unrestricted abortion up to 12 weeks, which is a major part of this debate, and i believe that the state not providing abortion outside medical reasons does not go against bodily autonomy.
    but you know exactly what i'm saying even if you choose to pretend otherwise.
    notjustsweet wrote: »
    The UN have said Ireland is wrong and must make abortion legal. Our own politicians have said its wrong.

    You won't be forced into anything you don't want to do, no unborn of yours will ever be aborted so why are you so desperate to control the lives of women you don't know??
    I notice you ignored my question about the men so it clearly is about controlling women.

    the UN voted saudi arabia on to the women's human rights commission. saudi arabia. one of, if not the most appressive state in the world in relation to women's rights. so they don't get to tell ireland what to do as they have lost their credibility.
    ireland have no obligation to make abortion legal at all regardless of what the UN says. i believe it should be legalised for medical and life saving reasons but ireland actually have no obligation to make it legal at all.
    i'm not interested in controlling women's lives at all, just insuring that the unborn continue to have the protections they have. we aren't controlling women by having laws against killing new borns.
    it is clear that a man can't stop his partner from aborting his child and it would be impossible to bring in a law to allow that to happen. it is also clear that the issue of men being able to walk away is a complex issue that i'm unsure of my viewpoint on at the moment.

    I'm very highly educated. I know words, i have the best words, nobody has better words then me.



  • #777
    njs030
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,030 ✭✭✭njs030


    end of the road wrote: »




    i'm not interested in controlling women's lives at all, just insuring that the unborn continue to have the protections they have. we aren't controlling women by having laws against killing new borns.
    it is clear that a man can't stop his partner from aborting his child and it would be impossible to bring in a law to allow that to happen. it is also clear that the issue of men being able to walk away is a complex issue that i'm unsure of my viewpoint on at the moment.

    Gosh.
    Women being unhappily pregnant is a simple problem. They must be forced into pregnancy and birth against their will.

    Men abandoning their children is a complex issue that needs deep thought....

    What's this attitude called..... Hmmm....?


    Ps.... No ones suggested killing newborns, we already have that law and plan to keep it.


  • #778
    end of the road
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 29,537 ✭✭✭✭end of the road


    notjustsweet wrote: »
    Men abandoning their children is a complex issue that needs deep thought....

    men being able to legally walk away from their children is a complex issue that needs deep thought yes. i would have been of the view that no they shouldn't be able to walk away. but this thread has put forward some good arguments that have made me think a bit, in that if a woman is able to abort her child like some want, then the man should be able to walk away legally and not be a father either. but i would have to give it some serious thought, and it is probably not practical to allow it.
    notjustsweet wrote: »
    Ps.... No ones suggested killing newborns, we already have that law and plan to keep it.

    exactly, correct. that is my point, we don't allow the killing of new borns, so we should not allow the killing of the unborn either unless it is absolutely required such as saving the mother's life among a few examples.

    I'm very highly educated. I know words, i have the best words, nobody has better words then me.



  • #779
    gozunda
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,996 ✭✭✭✭gozunda


    end of the road wrote: »
    men being able to legally walk away from their children is a complex issue that needs deep thought yes. i would have been of the view that no they shouldn't be able to walk away. but this thread has put forward some good arguments that have made me think a bit, in that if a woman is able to abort her child like some want, then the man should be able to walk away legally and not be a father either. but i would have to give it some serious thought, and it is probably not practical to allow it

    exactly, correct. that is my point, we don't allow the killing of new borns, so we should not allow the killing of the unborn either unless it is absolutely required such as saving the mother's life among a few examples.

    Has it ever occured to you that the termination of pregnancy is also a complex issue - and your attitude that that those nasty wimen 'killing unborns' (sic) as you put it it is simplified bs. Did it ever enter your skull that couples ie both men and real women (and not just your nasty murdering winen) may make the decision together to go ahead with a termination. Yes it happens and a lot more frequently than your simplified logic appears to allow for. Even where a real life woman has to make that decision alone based on reasons not excluding rape abuse incest health poverty homelessness etc that remains her decision and you have no right to force your judgement on her or on where applicable any couple.

    A 'new born' child is not the same as an un viable fetus of under 12 weeks. There is NO comparison whatsoever and Medical knowledge agrees. Whather one or more partners walk away pre or post birth is a very different issue - but don't let that stop you in your rambles or judgement of people.

    Btw your take on abortions and fathers is quite hillarious- if a woman terminates a pregnancy then obviously there is no 'child' from which to walk away from! Or are you attempting to use that issue as simply another brick in your badly built wall of logic?


  • #780
    Stoner
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,952 ✭✭✭✭Stoner


    The Specialist wrote:
    Nope, it's 100% a choice for the female in my view.

    I don't agree here. It's not with the female completely, it's just that it can't work any other way imo.

    I also think every child should be supported by both partents and this wanted and unwanted terminology should go out the window.

    If there is a child in the picture it's too late for a parent to decide they are not supporting it, who else will, the state ?

    It's all sounds fine at a high level but it will be abused for financial reasons and place the burden of supporting a child on others.


  • Advertisement
  • #781
    gozunda
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,996 ✭✭✭✭gozunda


    Stoner wrote: »
    I don't agree here. It's not with the female completely, it's just that it can't work any other way imo.

    I also think every child should be supported by both partents and this wanted and unwanted terminology should go out the window.

    If there is a child in the picture it's too late for a parent to decide they are not supporting it, who else will, the state ?

    It's all sounds fine at a high level but it will be abused for financial reasons and place the burden of supporting a child on others.

    It is of note in this debate and as the current law stands the mother is assigned automatic legal parental responsibility for her child. A mother can be charged with child abandonment if they make the decision to leave their child after birth. This does not apply to the father where he does not have sole custody.

    However as regards the rights of a child - in ireland the law recognises that a child has the right to a personal relationship and direct contact with both parents.

    Where there is a child (and not an hypothetical child as used by some to further conflate the the issue of the right to terminate a pregnancy) courts will normally decide in the best interests of the child on parental custody rights, visiting arrangements and the child's place of residence.

    Assigning rights of defacto abandonment to one or either parent goes against the rights of the child and is unlikely to ever be legislated for imo.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement