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.
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.
Triceratops Ballet wrote: » What about private institutions then?
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"
Triceratops Ballet wrote: » it's about protecting the unborn but tough luck on the women carrying them, what they want doesn't matter?
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.
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.
Show me where I said men's opinions don't matter? Of course they matter.
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.
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 ...
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.?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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".
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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. .
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 restrictionshttps://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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
notjustsweet wrote: » Men abandoning their children is a complex issue that needs deep thought....
notjustsweet wrote: » Ps.... No ones suggested killing newborns, we already have that law and plan to keep it.
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.
The Specialist wrote: Nope, it's 100% a choice for the female in my view.
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.
