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

The 8th Amendment Part 2 - Mod Warning in OP

Options
1…8788909293…325

Comments

  • Options
    #2672
    ForestFire
    Registered Users Posts: 2,313 ✭✭✭ForestFire


    Sofiztikated wrote: »
    There's no real need for discussion on it HERE, as it doesn't have any bearing on the 8th, good, bad, or indifferent.

    If a woman can choose not to continue to be a mother before 12 weeks, then should a father have the same option before 12 weeks? Remember there is no Baby, no Life, no issue if the referendum passes?

    If she decides to continue she still has the choice without the Father, who chooses not to.

    I think in these cases it would be clear it would be an unplanned pregnancy?
    Sofiztikated wrote: »
    There's more of an issue if a father ISN'T listed on the birth cert, and he wants access to his children.

    But neither that, nor your issue has anything to do with the 8th.
    Pherekydes wrote: »
    Of course they can. Men and women, married and single, can, and do, walk away from their responsibilities all the time.

    That has nothing to do with repealing the 8th, though.

    This whole line in the thread is, ahem, stupefying.
    B0jangles wrote: »
    What you are arguing for is not comparable to abortion, you are arguing for legalized child abandonment.

    Before 12 weeks, is it no classified as just a fetus, or clump of cells as some describe, with no rights? The mother could still continue if she wanted too alone.
    Pherekydes wrote: »
    It's not linked to the 8th, and you're [deliberately] derailing the thread.
    Parklife1988 wrote: »
    Perfect choice of username. Impenetrabley stupid irrelevant sideshow argument.

    Why is there such a reluctance to discuss Fathers issues, call the poster names, and try to shut down the debate. If this was the other way around, it would be you not answering the question and partaking in the debate.

    Also claiming it was discussed at length before is nonsense, so has everything else at this stage???


  • Options
    #2673
    Stupify
    Registered Users Posts: 568 ✭✭✭Stupify


    B0jangles wrote: »
    No she doesn't, not in this country - that's what this whole campaign is about.

    Exactly, and when it's passed, because I believe it will pass, then this needs to happen at the same time.

    If we are advocating for choice, we should be advocating for a mans choice too.


  • Options
    #2674
    B0jangles
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,951 ✭✭✭B0jangles


    Stupify wrote: »
    Exactly, and when it's passed, because I believe it will pass, then this needs to happen at the same time.

    Is it not enough to give women control over their own bodies or does there always have to be something in it for you to make it worthwhile?

    Also, I don't think any of the many other contries with legal abortion found it necessary to make it legal for men to pretend-abort their children so they don't have to help feed and clothe them.


  • Options
    #2675
    Parklife1988
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 26 ✭Parklife1988


    Stupify wrote: »
    Exactly, and when it's passed, because I believe it will pass, then this needs to happen at the same time.


    Start that movement. You’re effectively looking for legislation to be introduced where any men who impregnated a woman can have a legal right to force her to give birth against her will.
    It is pretty much what we have on the current legislation but its the state forcing them to give birth but In what universe are you going to find enough support to make this happen? Because it isn’t this one.

    You cannot force a woman to give birth even if you are the father. This is what you’re suggestIng.


  • Options
    #2676
    Stupify
    Registered Users Posts: 568 ✭✭✭Stupify


    B0jangles wrote: »
    Is it not enough to give women control over their own bodies or does there always have to be something in it for you to make it worthwhile?

    Also, I don't think any of the many other contries with legal abortion found it necessary to make it legal for men to pretend-abort their children so they don't have to help feed and clothe them.

    Sure it is enough, but there's no reason this can't be discussed alongside it.

    I'm sure there are men in those countries that feel hard done by that they don't have a choice in their forced fatherhood.

    Why should a man who never wanted those kids be forced to help feed and clothe them? If a mother wants the child and the man doesn't she should be prepared to take care of them herself.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #2677
    ForestFire
    Registered Users Posts: 2,313 ✭✭✭ForestFire


    B0jangles wrote: »
    Is it not enough to give women control over their own bodies or does there always have to be something in it for you to make it worthwhile?

    Also, I don't think any of the many other contries with legal abortion found it necessary to make it legal for men to pretend-abort their children so they don't have to help feed and clothe them.

    This is a bit tongue in cheek, but I think highlights an important point and not directed at you really.

    Why do you call it "Children"? You are just making it over emotive to win you argument. (Like the pro-life side say unborn baby)

    We are talking about a fetus only with no rights and no sentience remember.


  • Options
    #2678
    B0jangles
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,951 ✭✭✭B0jangles


    ForestFire wrote: »
    This is a bit tongue in cheek, but I think highlights an important point and not directed at you really.

    Why do you call it "Children"? You are just making it over emotive to win you argument. (Like the pro-life side say unborn baby)

    We are talking about a fetus only with no rights and no sentience remember.

    Because in the situation Stupify is describing the pregnancy is completed and the child is born; he wants to create a legal fiction that pretends that the child does not exist.


  • Options
    #2679
    Stupify
    Registered Users Posts: 568 ✭✭✭Stupify


    Parklife1988 wrote: »
    Start that movement. You’re effectively looking for legislation to be introduced where any men who impregnated a woman can have a legal right to force her to give birth against her will.
    It is pretty much what we have on the current legislation but its the state forcing them to give birth but In what universe are you going to find enough support to make this happen? Because it isn’t this one.

    You cannot force a woman to give birth even if you are the father. This is what you’re suggestIng.

    How did you arrive at that conclusion? Nowhere did I advocate that at all, or anywhere near that, I advocated where the father does not want a child he should be allowed step out with no responsibility to that child, not that he can force a woman to give birth to his child.

    You're mad if you think I was advocating for men to be allowed force women to give birth against their will, please show me what I was saying that led you to believe this.


  • Options
    #2680
    Stupify
    Registered Users Posts: 568 ✭✭✭Stupify


    B0jangles wrote: »
    Because in the situation Stupify is describing the pregnancy is completed and the child is born; he wants to create a legal fiction that pretends that the child does not exist.

    Not at all, I'm talking about before the child is born. Same as when a woman will be able to decide if she wants the child or not.


  • Options
    #2681
    ForestFire
    Registered Users Posts: 2,313 ✭✭✭ForestFire


    B0jangles wrote: »
    Because in the situation Stupify is describing the pregnancy is completed and the child is born; he wants to create a legal fiction that pretends that the child does not exist.

    I not sure he is, but maybe I am taking him up wrong.

    The point i am discussing and discussed before was..

    The right of a father/man, within the first 12 weeks, to say he does not want this pregnancy and the potential child.

    If the Mother/Women has the right, in the first 12 weeks, should the father also have the right to not be involved.

    Whether that results in the women deciding to abort or to continue, is still her choice.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #2682
    Stupify
    Registered Users Posts: 568 ✭✭✭Stupify


    ForestFire wrote: »
    I not sure he is, but maybe I am taking him up wrong.

    The point i am discussing and discussed before was..

    The right of a father/man, within the first 12 weeks, to say he does not want this pregnancy and the potential child.

    If the Mother/Women has the right, in the first 12 weeks, should the father also have the right to not be involved.

    Whether that results in the women deciding to abort or to continue, is still her choice.

    This is exactly what I was saying, choice for both.

    I would just like the father to be considered when legislation is put in place if/when the referendum is passed.


  • Options
    #2683
    B0jangles
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,951 ✭✭✭B0jangles


    He does have that right, in all practical ways - no-one can force him to be a parent to a child if he does not want to be involved. I know a good many people whose fathers never wanted any contact with them. Is the right being sought not just rubberstamping the existing reality?


  • Options
    #2684
    Stupify
    Registered Users Posts: 568 ✭✭✭Stupify


    B0jangles wrote: »
    He does have that right, in all practical ways - no-one can force him to be a parent to a child if he does not want to be involved. I know a good many people whose fathers never wanted any contact with them. Is the right being sought not just rubberstamping the existing reality?

    But he can be forced to pay for that child. A man who has made clear before birth (same period as a woman is allowed decide) that he wants no part in the childs life should not be forced to pay for that child.


  • Options
    #2685
    B0jangles
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,951 ✭✭✭B0jangles


    Stupify wrote: »
    But he can be forced to pay for that child.

    Not really, not if he really doesn't want to.


  • Options
    #2686
    Stupify
    Registered Users Posts: 568 ✭✭✭Stupify


    B0jangles wrote: »
    Not really, not if he really doesn't want to.

    Yeah, then he can go to jail or have his wages garnished.


  • Options
    #2687
    swampgas
    Registered Users Posts: 3,540 ✭✭✭swampgas


    Stupify wrote: »
    Yeah, then he can go to jail. The point is, he is legally required to when he shouldn't be.

    And how will keeping or repealing the 8th amendment affect this situation?


  • Options
    #2688
    ForestFire
    Registered Users Posts: 2,313 ✭✭✭ForestFire


    B0jangles wrote: »
    He does have that right, in all practical ways - no-one can force him to be a parent to a child if he does not want to be involved. I know a good many people whose fathers never wanted any contact with them.

    No he is legally responsible for the child support.

    Practical - Like flying to the UK?
    Force - The law and courts?

    We know there are illegal ways around this but the questions are-

    1) Should he be afforded the right (Before 12-weeks)?
    2) Should this be legally binding as part of new laws?

    Why is there an issue with this if we have decided (Referendum passed) that there is no child or life before 12 weeks.


  • Options
    #2689
    Stupify
    Registered Users Posts: 568 ✭✭✭Stupify


    swampgas wrote: »
    And how will keeping or repealing the 8th amendment affect this situation?

    Repealing the 8th will give woman a choice to abort in this country, at long last.

    Men should also have a similar choice.


  • Options
    #2690
    ForestFire
    Registered Users Posts: 2,313 ✭✭✭ForestFire


    swampgas wrote: »
    And how will keeping or repealing the 8th amendment affect this situation?

    If we repeal the 8th, we are giving the women the right to end a pregnancy for any reason before 12 weeks.

    As part of this should the man also have this option, not to be involved?


  • Options
    #2691
    swampgas
    Registered Users Posts: 3,540 ✭✭✭swampgas


    Stupify wrote: »
    Repealing the 8th will give woman a choice to abort in this country, at long last.

    Men should also have a similar choice.

    So not related to the 8th at all then, but a separate issue? Gotcha.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #2692
    Stupify
    Registered Users Posts: 568 ✭✭✭Stupify


    swampgas wrote: »
    So not related to the 8th at all then, but a separate issue? Gotcha.

    I see it as related, repealing the 8th will bring the choice of abortion into this country for women, it should also bring with it a choice for men too.


  • Options
    #2693
    B0jangles
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,951 ✭✭✭B0jangles


    Stupify wrote: »
    I see it as related, repealing the 8th will bring the choice of abortion into this country for women, it should also bring with it a choice for men too.

    Were you one of those kids who absolutely had to get a present on other people's birthdays just so you didn't feel left out?


  • Options
    #2694
    Stupify
    Registered Users Posts: 568 ✭✭✭Stupify


    B0jangles wrote: »
    Were you one of those kids who absolutely had to get a present on other people's birthdays just so you didn't feel left out?

    Seriously, if you don't want to talk about this you don't have to, nobody is forcing you to. I don't see why I should be made feel ashamed for wanting a choice instead of having something forced on me.


  • Options
    #2695
    Sofiztikated
    Registered Users Posts: 6,995 ✭✭✭Sofiztikated


    swampgas wrote: »
    And how will keeping or repealing the 8th amendment affect this situation?

    It smells like "Well, women could be FORCED to have abortions, so NO ABORTIONS!" to me.

    I'm all for a man being able to say at that point, "I am against this pregnancy, and want to legally distance myself from it." At the end of the day, it's the woman's choice, and she should consider all options. But as I mentioned, I see it as being part of the adoption legislation.

    A man doesn't go through the change of pregnancy. A woman does. That's why it should be her choice. Repeal the 8th. Then if you want to push to change the adoption, go right ahead.


  • Options
    #2696
    Oldtree
    Registered Users Posts: 8,104 ✭✭✭Oldtree


    Stupify wrote: »
    Repealing the 8th will give woman a choice to abort in this country, at long last.

    Men should also have a similar choice.

    But men don't have a womb and just because you have happily donated a single sperm dosn't confer any rights to you, so I'm not really following you???


  • Options
    #2697
    Stupify
    Registered Users Posts: 568 ✭✭✭Stupify


    Oldtree wrote: »
    But men don't have a womb and just because you have happily donated a single sperm dosn't confer any rights to you, so I'm not really following you???

    Should I have the right to not to be a father?


  • Options
    #2698
    Stupify
    Registered Users Posts: 568 ✭✭✭Stupify


    Oldtree wrote: »
    But men don't have a womb and just because you have happily donated a single sperm dosn't confer any rights to you, so I'm not really following you???

    I want men to have the same choice as women will have, to able to not have a child if they don't want, I don't want this at the expense of women's right but joined with it.

    Women have the right to their own body and nobody should be able to force them to carry to term or to abort, but a man should be allowed "abort" in the sense he should be able to waive his rights to the child and not pay any maintenance for it.


  • Options
    #2699
    B0jangles
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,951 ✭✭✭B0jangles


    Stupify wrote: »
    Seriously, if you don't want to talk about this you don't have to, nobody is forcing you to. I don't see why I should be made feel ashamed for wanting a choice instead of having something forced on me.

    The 8th amendment directly affects the lives of all Irish women in very direct and tangible ways - it affects how we are treated by the medical profession whether or not we're even pregnant. Once a woman becomes pregnant in Ireland she loses legal control over her own body - her body is effectively put under state control for the duration of the pregnancy.

    Is that not terrible enough? Is knowing that your fellow citizens are being denied such a basic right not enough, or do you really and truly not think it worth fighting for unless there is something in it for you personally?


  • Options
    #2700
    Stupify
    Registered Users Posts: 568 ✭✭✭Stupify


    B0jangles wrote: »
    The 8th amendment directly affects the lives of all Irish women in very direct and tangible ways - it affects how we are treated by the medical profession whether or not we're even pregnant. Once a woman becomes pregnant in Ireland she loses legal control over her own body - her body is effectively put under state control for the duration of the pregnancy.

    Is that not terrible enough? Is knowing that your fellow citizens are being denied such a basic right not enough, or do you really and truly not think it worth fighting for unless there is something in it for you personally?

    Excuse me B0jangles, but you are attributing things to me that I have not said.

    Nowhere did I say that unless it benefits me personally I won't fight for it, I have already said a few times that I was in support of repealing the 8th, I will always want people in this country to have a choice with regards their own body.

    Can men not also be discussed though? I want to have a choice too, will you fight for my right to that choice B0jangles?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #2701
    Oldtree
    Registered Users Posts: 8,104 ✭✭✭Oldtree


    Stupify wrote: »
    Should I have the right to not to be a father?
    Stupify wrote: »
    I want men to have the same choice as women will have, to able to not have a child if they don't want, I don't want this at the expense of women's right but joined with it.

    Women have the right to their own body and nobody should be able to force them to carry to term or to abort, but a man should be allowed "abort" in the sense he should be able to waive his rights to the child and not pay any maintenance for it.

    Ah I see what you are saying. But the difficulty is proving or disproving fatherhood rights before birth, in this case before 12 weeks, so I dont see how such a right could be implemented.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement