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?
Comments
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
That maybe an "idea" but the norm in most developed countries is that development is not fixed so termination before 12 weeks is allowed because of that very fact.
But I am not talking about it being fixed or development
I am talking about the concept that an entity someone feels has rights in any other situation, suddenly does not because of a crime it had nothing to do with.
And that, as you point out, rape happens before a conception only makes that worse. So now it is not "X loses rights because of a crime Y commits on Z" but "X loses rights because of a crime Y commits on Z before X even existed". Talk about "Sins of the Fathers" stuff there.
But it simply does not parse coherently for me:
Person1: Here is a fetus. Do you think it has a right to life?
Person2: Yes it does.
Person1: Actually the mother was raped.
Person2: Now it doesn't.Forcing a woman who has been rapped and impregnated against her will to commit mentally and physically to a full term pregnancy that may or may not result in a possible life (No pregnancy is guranteed) is barbaric and ignores the rights of the victim in this crime
I 100% agree! We are entirely on the same page there. I think you might have missed the fact that I agree with you, just because I think one of the arguments often offered FOR this position is a terrible one. I am disagreeing with the argument, not the conclusion. I think the conclusion can be reached with good arguments.0 -
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
What the frack is average rape???? Each case to its merits and on the basis of medical and other evidence. If there was proper access to termination - then THERE IS NO NEED to 'prove' rape one way or the other and further demean those that have actually been raped.
In your need to shout a lot and use the word "frack" in every post, you seem to be entirely ignoring and missing the fact that I agree with most of what you are saying. I WANT proper access to termination. That is the whole point I have been making since the start of our little conversation......... that we have GOOD arguments for providing all inclusive access to abortion and that the "rape" argument is a bad one for a multiple of reasons, and is also superfluous to requirements AS an argument.The point is WHY would any woman cry 'Rape' (as you indicated in your previous post) when she could simply get on a plane if she had not been 'raped and wanted an abortion? You are making no sense whatsoever on this point.No the women would just get on a frigging plane! Why do that to herself? An incentive - seriously?Jezus chrzt - why are you making up bizarre scenarios about the perfidity of women when again all any woman has to do is to get on a friggin plane to access an abortion rather than making something up and then notifying all and sundry that not only was she 'raped' but she is now pregnant and wishes to have an abortion!
Seriously maybe tone down the emotion a bit. You are making yourself look somewhat shrill here.
You not understanding a point does not make a point lack sense. If I wanted a tatoo and I could have it down the road merely by saying the right thing at the right time, or I could spend 100s of euro to travel to the UK for it..... I would feel heavily compelled to say the right thing at the right time.
Also you say "she could simply" as if this is some universal. A LOT of people do not find a quick trip to the UK all that simple. Check your privilege at the door if you would. There are people in situations that have not the money, or even if they have the money they do not have the time or resources, to simply go on such an unplanned trip on a whim. Especially if there are people in her life she might have to explain that absence to, who she would much rather keep the reasons for her trip private. Further many people want loved ones around them during a time like that. But nah, its "simple" to go on a lonely trip isn't it?
If you present a woman in a desperate situation, who wants to avoid all that, a more simple "out"..... then I think you can expect many of them to take it.
Further it is not "simple" to go to another country for medical interventions. There can be complications, emotional issues, follow up requirements and more. There is nothing SIMPLE about it. You really are making the trip to another country for a medical intervention sound like it is nothing more than going to London for a fun shopping trip. I have to assume you have little or no direct experience with abortion or people who have actually had them, or what they go through before, during and after.You appear oddly fixated on rape.
Yea it is funny in a conversation that YOU started with me ON THAT SUBJECT, I might be talking ABOUT that subject? Wow, the world is a funny place huh? YOU started a conversation with me about a point related to rape, and I am having a conversation with you ON that subject, and suddenly I am "fixated"?
Yea. I am. Always. Fixated on staying on topic in a conversation. As well I should be.Forget the 'requirement' to be raped in order to access a termination and simply bring in abortion up to and including 12 weeks. Problem solved.Introduce termination up to and including 12 weeks and forget about breaking bottles on stones ...
Do keep up please, that IS my point and always has been. I genuinely have no idea at this point how you are missing that.No I disagree - the context of your post clearly proposed the above reply.
No. It seriously and really and demonstrably did not. I made a comment about the relative difficulties for men to prove rape over women proving it. And you went off on a completely different point about the difficulty of being raped and having to carry a pregnancy. That had not just little but ABSOLUTELY nothing to do with what I was saying. Not in what I wrote. Not in the context. Not at all.how is male rape relevant to that point
Again it would be REALLY helpful if you were to keep up with the conversation before replying to it further. I replied to a post about male rape. The EXACT line I replied to was "He should only be able to opt out if he can prove the woman raped him.".
And at that point you started replying to me directly. You replied to post #782 which was a reply to post #752.
So how is male rape relevant? It is relevant because it was ENTIRELY the topic of the conversation you just butted into!
At this point I would recommend, request, even BEG you to go back to post 752 and catch up on this conversation, and where it started. Because you have demonstrably lost the run of it entirely. For example the fact you ask me " are you referring to rapes by males or by females" is proof 100% positive that you have entirely missed the point that started the entire conversation in #752 in the first place.
Go back, take a deep breath, start again, and catch up on the thread. As I think you are experiencing a lot of extreme negative emotions in this conversation that there is no reason for you to have to experience.0 -
-
nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »But I am not talking about it being fixed or development I am talking about the concept that an entity someone feels has rights in any other situation, suddenly does not because of a crime it had nothing to do with.
So you talking completely hypothetically then? The entity does not have the rights you are assigning it at early stages of development in developed countries with medically approved abortion services. The point is therefore moot! And importantly the rape (the crime) happens BEFORE any conception and therefore your entity does not exist at that point in time. Early access to emergency birth control after a rape will even stop implantation if fertilisation has taken place. Is that denying the fertlised eggs rights?And that, as you point out, rape happens before a conception only makes that worse. So now it is not "X loses rights because of a crime Y commits on Z" but "X loses rights because of a crime Y commits on Z before X even existed". Talk about "Sins of the Fathers" stuff there.
Well you can hardly have conception before the act - can you! I believe you are reading way to much into your own imagination. With an end possibility the result of the crime of rape (ie conception) is not of a development stage that the "sins of the father's' as you put it - are even relevant.But it simply does not parse coherently for me:
Person1: Here is a fetus. Do you think it has a right to life?
Person2: Yes it does.
Person1: Actually the mother was raped.
Person2: Now it doesn't.
Now I think you are just making it up lol. Who is person 2 who is evidently schizophrenic? The person with that type of "right to life" belief ain't going to change their mind cos of anything like rape ...I 100% agree! We are entirely on the same page there. I think you might have missed the fact that I agree with you, just because I think one of the arguments often offered FOR this position is a terrible one. I am disagreeing with the argument, not the conclusion. I think the conclusion can be reached with good arguments.
erh ok....0 -
nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »In your need to shout a lot and use the word "frack" in every post, you seem to be entirely ignoring and missing the fact that I agree with most of what you are saying. I WANT proper access to termination. That is the whole point I have been making since the start of our little conversation......... that we have GOOD arguments for providing all inclusive access to abortion and that the "rape" argument is a bad one for a multiple of reasons, and is also superfluous to requirements AS an argument.
Seriously maybe tone down the emotion a bit. You are making yourself look somewhat shrill here.
You not understanding a point does not make a point lack sense. If I wanted a tatoo and I could have it down the road merely by saying the right thing at the right time, or I could spend 100s of euro to travel to the UK for it..... I would feel heavily compelled to say the right thing at the right time.
Also you say "she could simply" as if this is some universal. A LOT of people do not find a quick trip to the UK all that simple. Check your privilege at the door if you would. There are people in situations that have not the money, or even if they have the money they do not have the time or resources, to simply go on such an unplanned trip on a whim. Especially if there are people in her life she might have to explain that absence to, who she would much rather keep the reasons for her trip private. Further many people want loved ones around them during a time like that. But nah, its "simple" to go on a lonely trip isn't it?
If you present a woman in a desperate situation, who wants to avoid all that, a more simple "out"..... then I think you can expect many of them to take it.
Further it is not "simple" to go to another country for medical interventions. There can be complications, emotional issues, follow up requirements and more. There is nothing SIMPLE about it. You really are making the trip to another country for a medical intervention sound like it is nothing more than going to London for a fun shopping trip. I have to assume you have little or no direct experience with abortion or people who have actually had them, or what they go through before, during and after.
Yea it is funny in a conversation that YOU started with me ON THAT SUBJECT, I might be talking ABOUT that subject? Wow, the world is a funny place huh? YOU started a conversation with me about a point related to rape, and I am having a conversation with you ON that subject, and suddenly I am "fixated"?
Yea. I am. Always. Fixated on staying on topic in a conversation. As well I should be.
Do keep up please, that IS my point and always has been. I genuinely have no idea at this point how you are missing that.
No. It seriously and really and demonstrably did not. I made a comment about the relative difficulties for men to prove rape over women proving it. And you went off on a completely different point about the difficulty of being raped and having to carry a pregnancy. That had not just little but ABSOLUTELY nothing to do with what I was saying. Not in what I wrote. Not in the context. Not at all.
Again it would be REALLY helpful if you were to keep up with the conversation before replying to it further. I replied to a post about male rape. The EXACT line I replied to was "He should only be able to opt out if he can prove the woman raped him.".And at that point you started replying to me directly. You replied to post #782 which was a reply to post #752So how is male rape relevant? It is relevant because it was ENTIRELY the topic of the conversation you just butted into!
At this point I would recommend, request, even BEG you to go back to post 752 and catch up on this conversation, and where it started. Because you have demonstrably lost the run of it entirely. For example the fact you ask me " are you referring to rapes by males or by females" is proof 100% positive that you have entirely missed the point that started the entire conversation in #752 in the first place.
Go back, take a deep breath, start again, and catch up on the thread. As I think you are experiencing a lot of extreme negative emotions in this conversation that there is no reason for you to have to experience.
^^^ That is a helluva lot of verbage that really doesn't make a lot of sense tbh. You appear to be saying one thing and arguing another. May I suggest you stick to one or the other. If my exasperation is showing I apologise - however your varied tortuous scenarios are doing the opposite of your claim of looking for good arguments to support the provision of adequate abortion services all women and couples. I can't help you there.0 -
So you talking completely hypothetically then?
We do not have abortion. So all the conversations on this thread are essentially hypothetical at this time.The entity does not have the rights you are assigning it at early stages of development in developed countries with medically approved abortion services.
Man, I am getting this really surreal hitchikers guide to the galaxy kind of feeling like I am talking to you, but you are replying entirely to someone else in your head.
I am on record on this thread, and many others on boards.ie, as very very very clearly stating I do not think the fetus at 0-16 weeks has ANY rights, and that no one ANYWHERE on this forum is putting forward an argument as to why it might or should have any.
And yet here you are telling me it "does not have the rights you are assigning it"? Where in the good name of Terry Tate Office Linebaker did I assign it any such thing? Could you quote me please or should I just repeat my request in the post above that you step away, go back a few pages, and catch up on a conversation you have clearly ENTIRELY lost the run of?
I can help though. Here is my position on abortion:
1) I do not think the fetus at 0-16 weeks has any rights.
2) I believe therefore all women should be able to abort such for any reasons.
3) SOME People think the fetus has rights, but that raped women should be able to abort them.
4) I think this a TERRIBLE argument for abortion because:
A) It is immensely difficult to establish she was raped in a timely and coherent fashion and
IF you think a fetus does have rights, there is no good moral argument so far for eliminating them because of a crime it had no part in, and did not even exist during.
And, to bring the conversation full circle, I feel ALL those points in one way or another apply to men who were raped too.
So my message to ANYONE who wants raped women to have access to abortion: You need to vote for allowing ALL women to have abortion. It is the only sensible and workable and coherent way to go about it.Early access to emergency birth control after a rape will even stop implantation if fertilisation has taken place.
Two issues with that though is such drugs are not 100%. You can take them and simply fail to interrupt proceedings. It is relatively rare of course, but so are bursting condoms.
The second is that not everyone who is raped KNOWS they were raped. Usually this occurs in the presence of alcohol or some other drug for example. Sometimes a woman who is the victim of "stealthing" may not know it either.Now I think you are just making it up lol. Who is person 2 who is evidently schizophrenic? The person with that type of "right to life" belief ain't going to change their mind cos of anything like rape ...
Search the forum for the words "rape" and "abortion". There are many people who believe exactly that. That abortion should not be allowed except in cases of rape. Hell we had one already today.0 -
-
nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »We do not have abortion. So all the conversations on this thread are essentially hypothetical at this time.
There is absence of abortion services and then there is setting out the scenario of assigning rights to something that doesn't exist at the time of a rape. Understand the difference?Man, I am getting this really surreal hitchikers guide to the galaxy kind of feeling like I am talking to you, but you are replying entirely to someone else in your head. I am on record on this thread, and many others on boards.ie, as very very very clearly stating I do not think the fetus at 0-16 weeks has ANY rights, and that no one ANYWHERE on this forum is putting forward an argument as to why it might or should have any. And yet here you are telling me it "does not have the rights you are assigning it"? Where in the good name of Terry Tate Office Linebaker did I assign it any such thing? Could you quote me please or should I just repeat my request in the post above that you step away, go back a few pages, and catch up on a conversation you have clearly ENTIRELY lost the run of?
I can help though. Here is my position on abortion:
1) I do not think the fetus at 0-16 weeks has any rights.
2) I believe therefore all women should be able to abort such for any reasons.
3) SOME People think the fetus has rights, but that raped women should be able to abort them.
4) I think this a TERRIBLE argument for abortion because:
A) It is immensely difficult to establish she was raped in a timely and coherent fashion and IF you think a fetus does have rights, there is no good moral argument so far for eliminating them because of a crime it had no part in, and did not even exist during.
And, to bring the conversation full circle, I feel ALL those points in one way or another apply to men who were raped too.
So my message to ANYONE who wants raped women to have access to abortion: You need to vote for allowing ALL women to have abortion. It is the only sensible and workable and coherent way to go about it.
Two issues with that though is such drugs are not 100%. You can take them and simply fail to interrupt proceedings. It is relatively rare of course, but so are bursting condoms.
The second is that not everyone who is raped KNOWS they were raped. Usually this occurs in the presence of alcohol or some other drug for example. Sometimes a woman who is the victim of "stealthing" may not know it either.
Search the forum for the words "rape" and "abortion". There are many people who believe exactly that. That abortion should not be allowed except in cases of rape. Hell we had one already
:rolleyes: I'll leave it with you ...0 -
-
-
Advertisement
-
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement