The 8th Amendment Part 2 - Mod Warning in OP

I think Stupify's point is a fair one. If abortion should be a legal option for a woman who does not want to be a mother, then a man should also have the legal option to decide not to be a father at similar stages of the pregnancy.

At the same time though I dont see how it is relevant to repealing the 8th? If some men want to pursue getting that right to legally renounce parental responsibilities during the early stages of an unplanned pregnancy then they and their supporters (male and female) can surely campaign for it and if it gets enough support it can be legislated for. Why does it have to be tied into legislating for abortion? It is a seperate issue. And parents can already give up their rights in certain circumstances anyway.

Madscientist30 wrote: »

But if a woman decides to continue with a pregnancy and needs state support we are happy to pay that? Both situations are the result of individual choices so why would the state support one (the woman wants to be a mother) and not the other (the man doesnt want to be a father). I mean, morally it would leave a bad taste in my mouth but legally, it seems fair.

But if the father does not want to pay child support and contribute to the upkeep for his child the shortfall has to be made up from somewhere or the child will suffer.

kylith wrote: »

And you don’t think that the pressure to save the money and book the clinic and the hotel and the clinic puts pressure in the woman to rush into a decision, and that having done all that she then may feel pressured into going ahead with it even if she’s unsure? Whereas having a few weeks to think it over and the procedure being less expensive and available from a local gp would actually give her more time to consider her options and decide what is right for her?

Of course it does. I am aware of a case where a woman went through all that; booked everything - went to UK. Was mulling it over; thinking that an abortion might be the wrong decision then felt pressured into it because she just didnt have time or financial resources to go home, think it through more and then go back agsin to UK.

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

In ways this deserves a glib response given to women all the time. If he doesnt want the responsibility then he shouldnt have sex.

So then deserve the same answers as well and everyone is okay if we all agree and pass the referendum?

Are men not allowed go out and enjoy themselves?
Men like to have sex too you know?
Why should their life be dictated too, when they have taken all precautions?
Contraceptives is not 100% effective, even 2 forms, and 1 in 100 will still end up getting a woman pregnant through no fault of their own.

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

I think Bannasidhe hit the nail on the head here this is just about some mens desire to put their wallet first. Its irrelevant really to anything to do with the 8th. Fair enough if some men want to campaign for financial abandonment of responsibility - leave them to it though. Pretty much nothing to do with the 8th or the 36th amendment.

How is it abandomment for men but not women, if it is done before 12 weeks?

I don't understand this, we keep saying there is no child so there is nothing to abandon?

And just to be clear I do not think or expect this to be part of the immediate referendum needs, but something that needs to but discussed and expanded upon if/When the 8th is repealed.

As you and others have said there are more important decisions to be made initially and I have no problem with that.

But we can discuss the concepts and rights and wrongs openly now as part of the overall debate and where we might eventually go.

I agree that it has nothing directly to do with the 8th so it's a seperate thread maybe, but I think there is a point there. Lots of fathers find themselves in very difficult situations too and I think it is a discussion that follows naturally in societies where abortion is now freely available. This was a good read mobile.abc.net.au/news/2016-12-04/financial-abortion-men-opt-out-parenthood/8049576

Anyway, apologies, it was just nice to actually have a new point to debate in this thread instead of going around and around in the same circles!

Pherekydes wrote: »

This angle of men's rights issue is nothing to do with the 8th.

The 8th amendment states: "The states 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."

Nowhere does it mention men or fathers.

Let's get back on track and drop the sideshow.

But the 8th will be gone in this dicussion, so it doesn't matter what it says.

And legislation to replace it is what we are discussing, which is part of this overall referendum.

Every pregnancy has 2 people legally involved and therefore it is revelavant to what happens when the 8th is removed and how current and future legislation will be put in place.

ForestFire wrote: »

But the 8th will be gone in this dicussion, so it doesn't matter what it says.

And legislation to replace it is what we are discussing, which is part of this overall referendum.

Every pregnancy has 2 people legally involved and therefore it is revelavant to what happens when the 8th is removed and how current and future legislation will be put in place.

It really doesn't.
The 8th is not just about Abortion - it impacts on women's healthcare in an insidious and sometimes fatal way and overrides any rights to bodily autonomy until either a baby is born or it is proven the women isn't pregnant. As such it has zero impact on men apart from making them helpless bystanders.

The issue of father's rights - to be there or not - doesn't come into play until after birth and is therefore a separate issue and not relevant to a discussion on the 8th - it's a diversion.

I am not saying this is not a discussion that isn't important far from it. Unlike, I imagine, most posters here I have experience of the 'want nothing to do with this child' aspect as the 'father' of my son didn't. And that was grand with me. We agreed that before hand and he never contributed anything to 'his son' bar a lick of an ice cream. I supported my son myself and he was able to walk away. With my blessing.

I have also seen my son struggle to pay maintenance for his children during periods of unemployment (he never missed a payment). I stood by him in Court as he fought for Guardianship, Access etc. My partner and I drove him hundreds of miles on weekends after their mother moved to a different county so he could have his children for weekends.

I also saw my aunt struggle to raise 6 children on her own - 2 from her first marriage, 2 from her second marriage and 2 step-children when both her husbands turned out to be deadbeats. And yes, that is what they were. Employed deadbeats who decided once the divorce papers were signed their role ended. She worked to support her family.

I spent days in Court with a friend who was seeking a judicial separation (amicably) as she and her husband tried to explain to the judge that their child was going to live full-time with his father and that my friend didn't need or want any financial support from her husband and that she would be paying maintenance for her child.
The absolute sh*t she had to listen to from busybodies about how she wasn't a real woman for abandoning her son was unreal. She wasn't abandoning him, she recognised his father was the better full time parent and as he worked from home better placed to provide stable care. She has a wonderful relationship with her now adult son and her ex-husband.

So, I get that this is an important discussion but it has nothing to do with Repealing the 8th.

Edward M wrote: »

It doesent include miscarriages, that was posted earlier.
One pro choice poster lost his rag when that was pointed out.
One in Five pregnancies excluding miscarriages end in abortion in England and Wales, less in Scotland.

One question I had after that discussion was whether miscarriage treatment is included in abortion stats in the U.K.
Not every miscarriage requires treatment but for the significant portion that do, the treatment is the same as an abortion.

I can't find a definitive answer but if it is the case, it would massively increase the apparent abortion rate in the UK.

seamus wrote: »

I hope that's the hill they die on.

Not likely, even if they don't get much support with that line. If the result of repealing the 8th would be abortion without reason to 12 weeks, and later if 2 docs sign off on a health risk (and concerns were raised in the UK around pre-signed forms), then support among moderates will veer towards a no vote.

The yes campaign will fall on pushing it too far - ideal for strong no supporters.

PhoenixParker wrote: »

One question I had after that discussion was whether miscarriage treatment is included in abortion stats in the U.K.
Not every miscarriage requires treatment but for the significant portion that do, the treatment is the same as an abortion.

I can't find a definitive answer but if it is the case, it would massively increase the apparent abortion rate in the UK.

The treatment is the same. Once you begin to miscarry and depending on the gestation week, it's possible you'd be offered medication to speed up the process of expelling the products of conception. That medication is the same as the ones offered in the case of abortion.

You would be offered the same abortificant medication and procedures here in Ireland provided they have established there is no heart beat, and you haven't began to miscarry two weeks after that scan.

I can't imagine whoever compiled the statistics quoted trawled through each medical record to establish whether there was a heartbeat at the time the medication or procedure began. If they did, I'm sure that the stats would be drastically different.

1 in 4 pregnancies end in a natural miscarriage. Once a miscarriage begins, losing the pregnancy is inevitable. Other jurisdictions help a woman manage that process safely to avoid sepsis or infection. That's not abortion.

But as usual, the PLC are happy to misrepresent actual facts in order to scaremonger.

thee glitz wrote: »

I respect your respectful disagreeing with me.

What I'd like to know is, if a No vote prevails, will there be a re-run of the referendum with tighter proposed legislation to follow? It would seem that, depending on it, repeal would gain more support and surely the re-run would be passed. Against this, it wouldn't be right to have a re-run any time soon a-la-nice or Lisbon.

This is a rerun.

It's a rerun of a rerun.