Men's rights on Abortion?

nozzferrahhtoo · 04-02-2018 12:01AM

drunkmonkey wrote: »

Has it occurred to you it's you that's stifiling any debate.

Like I said to an earlier person on the thread, when something happens around me, I suspect I am the common denominator. When it is happening to lots of people, I do not. So no would be the quick answer to your question.

drunkmonkey wrote: »

Who in there right mind could be bothered when your just going to bounce on them with your hard left stance.

I do not identify with the left or right. I do not even use that partisan imported US language to be honest. We are not a country divided into left and right like the US. I see no reason to import their political language for this. On some issues I would fall left, others right, and others smack in the middle.

drunkmonkey wrote: »

Sometimes it's good to listen

Hard to listen to people who are not talking. That is what I was talking to CruelCoin about, or did you not notice? He said "40% of the votes and that side represents a tiny amount of the posts here."

drunkmonkey wrote: »

Be open to the idea that you may or may not change your mind on certain things.

I could not be more open to new ideas, or a change in my ideas, if I tried. Already very open to it. But you can have all the openness in the world and that will not change anything if no one is talking.

So what is it you want me to be open to exactly? What points or ideas do you think I have missed? I have been open to the abortion debate for decades now for example.

I even, before I had decided my position on abortion, put a whole day aside to go talk to the people who had those stalls against abortion at central bank in dublin. Remember them? I wanted to spend a day with them, listen to all they had to say. Openly consider ALL Their arguments for the whole day. Everything they had.

What did they have? "Look at these pictures". And when i said I had seen the pictures, and was hoping they would lay out the entire anti abortion position for me they told me "Just look at the pictures maaaaaaaaaan" in an empty headed drawl.

That has pretty much been all I have gotten so far on the subject from them really. So what do you want me to be open to? More pictures? I warrant I have seen more of them than nearly anyone on this forum.

gozunda · 04-02-2018 12:32AM

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

You are of course free to tell me I said things I know I did not, and tell me I made implications I know I did not. When you are finished spreading falsehoods * though you might consider asking me what my position on things is, rather than telling me what they are.
Again though: What I AM making is an appeal to the common denominator. As I said, if many people were failing to understand all my posts, the common denominator would be me. If ONE person is failing to understand a lot of my posts, then the common denominator is them.
It really is that simple. I never ONCE said or indicated that people think my arguments are wonderful. I simply never said it. You made this up. What I DID say is that so far in all the time I have been debating this issue mos people UNDERSTAND the arguments I am offering. A very different thing to what you are putting in my mouth ENTIRELY.

Just because I have pointed out flaws in your logic and / or arguments - does not mean I do not 'understand them. And try a leave your 'denominator' (sic) outside the door where it belongs. You are repeating yourself ad nauseum now - it doesn't make what you are saying any more valid than previously.

But do get down off your leggy horse will ya - just once! The gist of your repeated euology is that blah blah 'everyone understands me (according to yourself) so I must me right and therefore I will weather no criticism from you - you understand nothing blah blah - Ive been here debating / yaking for ever so I'm great and you're making this all etc etc etc

I have tried to make my criticism of your arguments / logic as clear as possible - if you can't deal with that? I can't help you.

Yep, the only one getting personal so far has been you. So you can keep your old pots. You have not understood my arguments at all, and if you think you have then remember you just said yourself " no one is in a position to judge themselves no matter how wonderful they think they might be.". But I can quote, and have quoted, points where you have painted my argument EXACTLY opposite to how I presented them. Such as when you claimed I assign rights to the fetus I very clearly on many occasions said I think have no rights.

I have replied only to what you have written AND if you would like to see one of your personal comments- I have marked one of the most recent in bold* the first paragraph above for you. Happy now?

Hard to hurt with you just imagining you rebutted my argument when you simply did not. Nor are you capable of offending me. This is not a comment about you, but about me. I can not BE offended by a nameless faceless stranger on an internet forum. You could try, but you would fail. It just can not be done. The argument still stands unrebutted in that if we afford abortion in cases of rape we have to establish whether a woman has actually been raped or not. And this is very hard to do. The three main ways we can do it is if she gets someone convicted of rape, if she merely accuses someone of rape, or if we merely take her word for it. What part of that do you imagine you have found a flaw in? Because you certainly have not shown a flaw in it on THIS thread. If you have no methodology by which to ascertain who was raped, then how do you imagine we can afford raped women abortion while witholding it from not raped women?
At least both of us agree that we think ALL women should have access to it. So the rape angle is not an issue for you OR for me. But what you think the flaw in it is not clear to me or, I somewhat suspect, to you.

I think will take the shovel off you now because the hole is just getting a bit all over the place at this point. Just be careful you don't fall in to it ...

Ps. I see you have just made another fan in the post below my previous one with your approach to the current issue. Well done you ....

ForestFire · 04-02-2018 12:35AM

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

The argument still stands unrebutted in that if we afford abortion in cases of rape we have to establish whether a woman has actually been raped or not. And this is very hard to do. The three main ways we can do it is if she gets someone convicted of rape, if she merely accuses someone of rape, or if we merely take her word for it.

What part of that do you imagine you have found a flaw in? Because you certainly have not shown a flaw in it on THIS thread. If you have no methodology by which to ascertain who was raped, then how do you imagine we can afford raped women abortion while witholding it from not raped women?
.

Can I just take up this point from a practical point of view, as I'm not even sure I would restrict my beliefs this much.

But if I understand the question correctly,

Then for an abortion to be carried out, on the grounds of rape, an official complaint and prosecution must be undertaken.

You receive the abortion up front, as would be necessary, but if you fail to proceed with a prosecution, there is consequences. Of what I don't know.

Now none of that might be practical as it forces women into prosecutions and I'm not sure if that's a good or a bad thing?

Also the result of the prosecution would be irrelevant as that fact you proceeded showed you were at least honest about the claim.

nozzferrahhtoo · 04-02-2018 12:46AM

I will edit out the pointless posturing guff from your post and reply to the rest:

gozunda wrote: »

Just because I have pointed out flaws in your logic and / or arguments - does not mean I do not 'understand them.

gozunda wrote: »

I have replied only to what you have written

Except that was not a personal comment, it was an accurate description of what is happening here. You are spreading falsehoods of claiming I said things I did not.

The problem is I just demonstrated one example of many where you did not understand them AND You have not actually pointed out flaws in them either. I can repeat it: You claimed for example "does not have the rights you are assigning it" when I nowhere EVER assigned it any.

So quite demonstrably you are misunderstanding me, misrepresenting me, and digging down on that position. Which is not helpful. AGAIN here is my position, which is quite the opposite of what you claimed it was:

1) I do not think the fetus at 0-16 weeks has or should have any rights.
2) I think women should have access to abortion in that period therefore.
3) Some people think only women who have been raped should have.
4) I think that is a bad argument because
A) It negates the arguments they use to suggest no other women should have it and

It is very difficult to ascertain, when a woman shows up for an abortion, that she was or was not raped.

Now you can keep pretending I said things I did not, or that you found flaws you did not, OR you could address the 4 points above and explain exactly where you imagine the flaws are. Because not one post from you I have re-read over has a single sentence that rebuts any of that.

nozzferrahhtoo · 04-02-2018 12:53AM

ForestFire wrote: »

Then for an abortion to be carried out, on the grounds of rape, an official complaint and prosecution must be undertaken. You receive the abortion up front, as would be necessary, but if you fail to proceed with a prosecution, there is consequences. Of what I don't know. Now none of that might be practical as it forces women into prosecutions and I'm not sure if that's a good or a bad thing? Also the result of the prosecution would be irrelevant as that fact you proceeded showed you were at least honest about the claim.

I am not sure I understand the above post I am afraid. Most likely my bad. But I am not sure that proceeding with a prosecution does show you were honest about the claim? Alas a lot of people make false accusations all the time and proceed with them. Some back down and admit it, but many don't.

We already have enough false accusations of rape in our world. I do not think we require a situation where we are offering incentives for more of them. That is the aspect of it that concerns me.

Also one of the important words in "crisis pregnancy" is the word crisis. I think "crisis" could inform us that maybe some women in such a situation might be desperate, or not thinking ENTIRELY rationally, or might be compelled into action they might not consider in ordinary circumstances.

So I do not think tying abortion to prosecution, or initiation of criminal proceedings, is a safe approach really.

And this is before we consider situations outside the "norm" of rape, whatever is "normal" in rape that is. What of women who do not know, or are not sure, they were raped? What about stealthing? What about contraception sabotage? What about threats against a women that make her feel unable to report a rape? What about women who were raped but do not WANT to take it to criminal proceedings because they wish to put it all behind them and move on, without having to trot out and relive the whole affair in front of legal professionals and/or a jury? They just want the spawn of the hateful little rapist out of them, but they do not want to drag it through the courts or the police stations?

gozunda · 04-02-2018 01:09AM

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

I will edit out the pointless posturing guff from your post and reply to the rest:
Except that was not a personal comment, it was an accurate description of what is happening here. You are spreading falsehoods of claiming I said things I did not.

That IS a personal comment. Repeated x2. I have quoted you saying exactly what I pointed out you said. If you ignore that - There is nothing I can do for you.

The problem is I just demonstrated one example of many where you did not understand them AND You have not actually pointed out flaws in them either. I can repeat it: You claimed for example "does not have the rights you are assigning it" when I nowhere EVER assigned it any. So quite demonstrably you are misunderstanding me, misrepresenting me, and digging down on that position. Which is not helpful. AGAIN here is my position, which is quite the opposite of what you claimed it was:
1) I do not think the fetus at 0-16 weeks has or should have any rights.
2) I think women should have access to abortion in that period therefore.
3) Some people think only women who have been raped should have.
4) I think that is a bad argument because
A) It negates the arguments they use to suggest no other women should have it and
It is very difficult to ascertain, when a woman shows up for an abortion, that she was or was not raped.Now you can keep pretending I said things I did not, or that you found flaws you did not, OR you could address the 4 points above and explain exactly where you imagine the flaws are. Because not one post from you I have re-read over has a single sentence that rebuts any of that.

Just because you won't take any criticism of your arguments or logic - you throw a tantrum and claim others dont understand you (see other poster who criticised your arguments). You also have a nasty habit of ignoring what has been written when you don't like it and demand to be answered again :rolleyes:

Sadly you have repeated yourself again and again. I addressed the points above previously. Go read the original posts which you have clearly ignored. No idea why you cant take any criticism. But hey it's a debate - no need to get worked up you know ....

nozzferrahhtoo · 04-02-2018 01:12AM

Calling a spade a spade is not a personal comment. If you claim a falsehood and I call it out, it is not a personal comment it is a statement of accuracy. If you ignore that there is nothing I can do for you.

I am happy to take critique of my positions but notice I have now asked you to do so a few times and you still are not doing it. There is nothing here I have ignored and imagining me getting worked up when I have not, does not move anything forward.

So which part of my position do you think the flaw is? I think we agree on 1 and 2? So is the issue in 3? 4? 4a? 4b?

ForestFire · 04-02-2018 01:12AM

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

I am not sure I understand the above post I am afraid. Most likely my bad. But I am not sure that proceeding with a prosecution does show you were honest about the claim? Alas a lot of people make false accusations all the time and proceed with them. Some back down and admit it, but many don't.

We already have enough false accusations of rape in our world. I do not think we require a situation where we are offering incentives for more of them. That is the aspect of it that concerns me.

Also one of the important words in "crisis pregnancy" is the word crisis. I think "crisis" could inform us that maybe some women in such a situation might be desperate, or not thinking ENTIRELY rationally, or might be compelled into action they might not consider in ordinary circumstances.

So I do not think tying abortion to prosecution, or initiation of criminal proceedings, is a safe approach really.

And this is before we consider situations outside the "norm" of rape, whatever is "normal" in rape that is. What of women who do not know, or are not sure, they were raped? What about stealthing? What about contraception sabotage? What about threats against a women that make her feel unable to report a rape? What about women who were raped but do not WANT to take it to criminal proceedings because they wish to put it all behind them and move on, without having to trot out and relive the whole affair in front of legal professionals and/or a jury? They just want the spawn of the hateful little rapist out of them, but they do not want to drag it through the courts or the police stations?

My theory was a normal women would not risk a false rape claim, just for an abortion?

If it was proven false there would be separate repercussions for that anyway?

Anyway that was just a theory, if there was to be a restriction., which seems unlikely anyway.

I think personal I would like to see the 12 weeks (or whatever final number) to remain as a protection in the constitution, with only the proved exception cases after this.

I know people have argued against this, and that is what I have to resolve now.

nozzferrahhtoo · 04-02-2018 01:17AM

ForestFire wrote: »

My theory was a normal women would not risk a false rape claim, just for an abortion?

What is "normal" here though. As I said in a crisis pregnancy things are out of the ordinary. A raped woman is already not a "normal" woman because being raped is not "normal" for women in the first place. A horrific experience like that has already thrown their lives into the abnormal. Territory they simply have never been in before. Their entire world has been upended.

And pressure is on if time frames are short. For example if we had abortion until 12 weeks, most women do not find out they ARE pregnant in the first week. IT might be some weeks later. How much time will she have left to think rationally about it? Let alone go filing criminal complaints and obtain an abortion in a timely manner?

And what of women, as I said, who have no wish to pursue a legal prosecution? They have been raped, they hate that, and they want to just move on. Then they find they are pregnant? And rather than give them the relief they desire, we say "no sorry, you have to go through the courts and relive all this crap again, in seeking a prosecution because otherwise no abortion for you"?

I see where you are coming from. But the idea of trying to implement a situation like that on already hurt and vulnerable women is horrific to me. Especially when there is no argument forthcoming as to why we should not just give ALL Women abortion options until week 12 at the minimum anyway.

ForestFire · 04-02-2018 01:23AM

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

What is "normal" here though. As I said in a crisis pregnancy things are out of the ordinary. A raped woman is already not a "normal" woman because being raped is not "normal" for women in the first place. A horrific experience like that has already thrown their lives into the abnormal. Territory they simply have never been in before. Their entire world has been upended.

And pressure is on if time frames are short. For example if we had abortion until 12 weeks, most women do not find out they ARE pregnant in the first week. IT might be some weeks later. How much time will she have left to think rationally about it? Let alone go filing criminal complaints and obtain an abortion in a timely manner?

And what of women, as I said, who have no wish to pursue a legal prosecution? They have been raped, they hate that, and they want to just move on. Then they find they are pregnant? And rather than give them the relief they desire, we say "no sorry, you have to go through the courts and relive all this crap again, in seeking a prosecution because otherwise no abortion for you"?

I see where you are coming from. But the idea of trying to implement a situation like that on already hurt and vulnerable women is horrific to me. Especially when there is no argument forthcoming as to why we should not just give ALL Women abortion options until week 12 at the minimum anyway.

By normal woman, I meant a woman not raped.

Don't disagree with what you say, just trying to offer some sort of theory, but it seems unlikely this type of option will be considered anyway.

pilly · 04-02-2018 03:56AM

pemay wrote:

I was simply looking for the most basic starting point, yes its fair, or no it isn't.

Simple answer? No it's not fair. Tough.

nozzferrahhtoo · 04-02-2018 08:15AM

ForestFire wrote: »

By normal woman, I meant a woman not raped.

Ah yes my apologies. It was getting late and I was only up because of a sick child. So I was not parsing the obvious here out of tiredness. I should have seen that is what you meant.

But I would still say something similar. A crisis pregnancy is not a NORMAL situation, so a woman in such a situation is not a "normal" woman in that sense.

We do not know what she has, or has not, got going on in her life or how desperate an unwanted pregnancy might make her. And there are many women, despite the claims of at least one user on this thread, who would not find it "simple" to just jump on a vehicle to the UK.

So to be honest, I have no idea what lengths such a woman would go to to obtain an abortion out of desperation or need or compunction or compulsion. And if you tell a person in a desperate situation "You can have what you need, if only you go and tell those people over there you were raped" then I think all bets could be off.

ThunbergsAreGo · 04-02-2018 08:33AM

In this pro equality world I think it is fair both parents are able to opt out of parenthood (which is what abortion can be - not ready, wrong time etc). But this will not be the case and the choice will be left solely to one gender whether to either proceed with the pregnancy and claim supported for a child the other side never wanted or to get rid of a child when all the other side has ever wanted is a baby (obviously extreme cases here)

Those saying it is a woman's body somewhat miss that those 9 months are only a tiny portion of that child's potential life.

gozunda · 04-02-2018 09:50AM

ForestFire wrote: »

Can I just take up this point from a practical point of view, as I'm not even sure I would restrict my beliefs this much.

But if I understand the question correctly,

Then for an abortion to be carried out, on the grounds of rape, an official complaint and prosecution must be undertaken.

You receive the abortion up front, as would be necessary, but if you fail to proceed with a prosecution, there is consequences. Of what I don't know.

Now none of that might be practical as it forces women into prosecutions and I'm not sure if that's a good or a bad thing?

Also the result of the prosecution would be irrelevant as that fact you proceeded showed you were at least honest about the claim.

The situation as detailed previously is hypothetical and a crazy idea imo. For a de facto rape to be proven to access an abortion - it would not be necessary to force a person thru the ordeal of a court case or 'conviction' whether they wished for a conviction or otherwise. If anything to force someone to do so would be demeaning and unnecessary considering the nature of the alledged offence.

Obviously a court case would be another step in deciding whether an accused is guilty of committing the crime of rape against a defendant where necessary if a case is brought.

Whether 'rape' has been committed may be decided on a balance of probalities and or medical and other evidence. There are also clear cases such as statutory rape where this is more easily proven. Cases which could not be proven in this manner would obviously be in the minority and therefore not be a general barrier to proving 'rape' rather than 'conviction in the majority of cases. The 'what if' brigade will always try to throw curve balls to deflect from the obvious and the rational

Few if any women in my experience would ever select to claim rape (as suggested by one poster) just to put themselves through the psychological ordeal and the ignominy of such a situation e.g. registering a 'rape' and then having to going through a public prosecution to access an abortion - the result of which woud be highly uncertain - all for the purpose of accessing such services in the glare of the attention and scrutiny all the above would cause.

Yes most women imo with the aid of friends or family and yes indeed even by themselves in some cases would certainly opt to take a cheap flight to another jurisdiction rather than go through something as horrendous as the above to secure an abortion. Thousands already do every single year from this country.

And as you point out what if the person fails to gain an abortion under such a system and what of the consequences as you detailed?

Well for one - if refused on the basis that the rape was not proven - that would mean they would be forced to go through with a pregnancy against their will. Would there be other legal consequences or ramifications? Evidently some would suggest locking up those perfidous and deranged women in the very institutions that populated this country in the last centuary.

So no it's is highly unlikely that any woman pregnant, having been raped or not would select to go through something like that just to try and get an abortion. Under the present system many woman who have been raped are even reluctant to seek prosecutions due to the horrendous system that such a course entails. The whole idea is simply rubbish / deranged imo and forms no basis for logical argument whatsoever

One eyed Jack · 04-02-2018 09:55AM

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

A crisis pregnancy is not a NORMAL situation, so a woman in such a situation is not a "normal" woman in that sense.

We do not know what she has, or has not, got going on in her life or how desperate an unwanted pregnancy might make her. And there are many women, despite the claims of at least one user on this thread, who would not find it "simple" to just jump on a vehicle to the UK.

So to be honest, I have no idea what lengths such a woman would go to to obtain an abortion out of desperation or need or compunction or compulsion. And if you tell a person in a desperate situation "You can have what you need, if only you go and tell those people over there you were raped" then I think all bets could be off.

And yet for all your waffle, that's the same person you expect a man should be able to spring it on her that he has no interest in being involved in his childs life and put her in a position where she has to choose between an abortion and raising a child on her own.

Women aren't normal when they're pregnant?
Women would be incentivised to claim they were raped?

And you'll still attempt to argue that men should have the right to absolve themselves of any responsibility for their children :rolleyes:

nozzferrahhtoo · 04-02-2018 09:58AM

gozunda wrote: »

Whether 'rape' has been committed may be decided on a balance of probalities and or medical and other evidence.

Indeed, but the easier you make it the more like "abortion on demand" it becomes. Take a woman who genuinely does not know she was raped for example. She just finds herself pregnant. So there is not much in the way of "medical or other evidence" to go on. Just her word for it really.

gozunda wrote: »

Few if any women in my experience would ever select to claim rape (as suggested by one poster) just to put themselves through the psychological ordeal

That depends how much they want or need an abortion though. And the easier it is to make a claim of rape, the more likely it is someone would claim it to access abortions that would otherwise be denied them.

So we either make it very hard to claim rape, which is pretty awful an approach as you seem to 100% agree, or we make it much easier which just pushes it towards effectively "abortion on demand".

So, it seems sensible to leave rape out of it and just give ALL women abortion on demand, no?

gozunda wrote: »

Yes most women imo with the aid of friends or family and yes indeed even by themselves in some cases would certainly opt to take a cheap flight to another jurisdiction

I too agree they are more likely to "opt" for it if it is an option for them. I would not assume it IS an option for them though. Many people just do not have the money, time, resources, or personal physical or mental health to undergo such. Especially if their world has actually been turned upside down by rape.

You talk about women who would not want to go through the process of making a legal complaint of rape if they had not been raped. What of the women who WERE raped who also do not want to make such a complaint. It goes both ways.

And this is before we think of the situation of people obtaining medical interventions in other countries to which they should be having follow up medical advice and more. But instead we have them rushing back to a plan? No, much better to just give them the free and open option to have abortion here on their own soil, in their own area.

gozunda wrote: »

So no it's is highly unlikely that any woman pregnant, having been raped or not would select to go through something like that just to try and get an abortion. Under the present system many woman are reluctant to seek prosecutions due to the horrendous system that such a course entails

So we are agreed then, the whole concept of "Abortion is bad except in the cases of rape" is bad reasoning, a bad idea, unworkable in a way that would actually benefit the women involved, and just leaves a pointless system open to abuse.

nozzferrahhtoo · 04-02-2018 10:00AM

One eyed Jack wrote: »

And yet for all your waffle, that's the same person you expect a man should be able to spring it on her that he has no interest in being involved in his childs life and put her in a position where she has to choose between an abortion and raising a child on her own.

Women aren't normal when they're pregnant?
Women would be incentivised to claim they were raped?

And you'll still attempt to argue that men should have the right to absolve themselves of any responsibility for their children :rolleyes:

Yet the only one waffling is you as "women are not normal when they're pregnant" is not at all what I said. That you need to ignore most of my post, and then distort one piece of it to reply to instead is very telling. IF you are going to warp and distort my words entirely, it might be an idea not to quote what I actually said for all to see while doing it.

What I DID say was that a "crisis pregnancy" is not a normal situation so in THAT regard we are not dealing with a "normal woman" in the sense we are dealing with a woman in a situation that is A) not normal in general and

not normal for HER particularly either.

And yes I do keep arguing a point that thus far you have failed to address or rebut. Why wouldnt I?

gozunda · 04-02-2018 10:08AM

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Indeed, but the easier you make it the more like "abortion on demand" it becomes. Take a woman who genuinely does not know she was raped for example. She just finds herself pregnant. So there is not much in the way of "medical or other evidence" to go on. Just her word for it really.
That depends how much they want or need an abortion though. And the easier it is to make a claim of rape, the more likely it is someone would claim it to access abortions that would otherwise be denied them. So we either make it very hard to claim rape, which is pretty awful an approach as you seem to 100% agree, or we make it much easier which just pushes it towards effectively "abortion on demand".
So, it seems sensible to leave rape out of it and just give ALL women abortion on demand, no?
I too agree they are more likely to "opt" for it if it is an option for them. I would not assume it IS an option for them though. Many people just do not have the money, time, resources, or personal physical or mental health to undergo such. Especially if their world has actually been turned upside down by rape. You talk about women who would not want to go through the process of making a legal complaint of rape if they had not been raped. What of the women who WERE raped who also do not want to make such a complaint. It goes both ways. And this is before we think of the situation of people obtaining medical interventions in other countries to which they should be having follow up medical advice and more. But instead we have them rushing back to a plan? No, much better to just give them the free and open option to have abortion here on their own soil, in their own area. So we are agreed then, the whole concept of "Abortion is bad except in the cases of rape" is bad reasoning, a bad idea, unworkable in a way that would actually benefit the women involved, and just leaves a pointless system open to abuse.

No I'm not even reading that. In my opinion you have recused yourself from any debate imo as a result of previous and ongoing ridiculous responses to criticism of your arguments from a number of posters and for one I refuse to engage with rubbish dressed up as something else. Repeatedly ignoring what has been posted by posters and demanding to be answered again and again when you dont like what has been said. Claiming one thing and doing the exact opposite. The arrogance there really is palpable. Thanks all the same.

nozzferrahhtoo · 04-02-2018 10:14AM

No one says you have to reply to me. You can stop any time you like. But lets not pretend it is on me. Calling something rubbish, especially something you have not rebutted, does not magically make it rubbish.

I am happy to have responses and critique of my positions though. It is positions that I do NOT hold that I am not so welcoming. For example when I said the fetus has no rights and you went on to talk about the rights I was allocating to it...... total distortion. Or when I said it is harder for men to prove rape than women, you went off on one about RAPE being harder for women. Totally missing the point. So the ridiculous aspects of our conversation have not come from me.

However Nozzferrahhtoo's tongue in cheek "First law of forum posting" suggests that the probability of a user replying to you goes UP in relation to the number of times they have hinted they will not. Observe............

One eyed Jack · 04-02-2018 12:08PM

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

What I DID say was that a "crisis pregnancy" is not a normal situation so in THAT regard we are not dealing with a "normal woman" in the sense we are dealing with a woman in a situation that is A) not normal in general and not normal for HER particularly either.

Crisis pregnancies are normal in that there is nothing unusual or uncommon about them, and secondly, a woman experiencing a crisis pregnancy doesn't make her abnormal. Using your rationale, the logical conclusion of your argument is that a woman in those circumstances lacks the mental capacity to be party to any legally binding agreement, which would mean that she would be in no position to agree to a contract with the man who impregnates her which would absolve him of any responsibility towards their child or children which she would give birth to.

You still have yet to address the fact that if a woman chooses to give birth, then the onus is on both parents to maintain that child or children, and any contract which would absolve the father of any responsibility would be a violation of the fathers duty to maintain their child or children.

And yes I do keep arguing a point that thus far you have failed to address or rebut. Why wouldnt I?

What point have you made that has been worth rebutting? Your argument so far solely consists of some imaginary right you imagine exists. The right not to become a parent doesn't exist. Why would you keep arguing that it does? Beats the hell out of me to be honest, only you can explain where you got that idea, which so far you haven't even attempted to do, so there's nothing for me to rebut.

nozzferrahhtoo · 04-02-2018 01:30PM

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Crisis pregnancies are normal in that there is nothing unusual or uncommon about them

Over a population sure, they are not statistically the norm as in they are a minority compared to wanted pregnancies but I am talking about individuals too here. In that in the AVERAGE woman's life they tend to have somewhere between 0 and 1 of them...... usually 0. And as such they are far from "Normal" and a person in a crisis is acting and thinking far from "normal". So your appraisal here is about as accurate as your "we are done here" comment from earlier. That is to say: Not very.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

and secondly, a woman experiencing a crisis pregnancy doesn't make her abnormal. Using your rationale, the logical conclusion of your argument is that a woman in those circumstances lacks the mental capacity to be party to any legally binding agreement

By "logical conclusion" you appear to mean "something I just made up for you which you never once implied or said" as nothing I said suggests any such conclusion. You really are on a roll of distortions today, though your "pregnant woman are not normal" distortion definitely breaks all your previous records for distortion and blatancy I have to admit.

There is a chasm of difference however between a crisis influencing your normal rational thinking and choices, and it being compromised to the massively exaggerated extent you just leapt to. ALL I am saying, having once again pulled your words out of my mouth, is that a crisis CAN lead people to consider options they might not otherwise consider.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

You still have yet to address the fact that if a woman chooses to give birth, then the onus is on both parents to maintain that child or children

Except I directly addressed it, which is quite different from not addressing it. Maybe if you were not ignoring the vast majority of my posts, and the vast majority of the content of what few posts you do deign to reply to, you might have seen it. My point is that it is NOT such an onus on the parents. Rather it is an onus on the parents to decide together and separately how to proceed.

And as much as it triggered you at the time, I gave you a clear example of this. When a female reporter and a one night stand she met in the world, both agreed she would get pregnant with him and he would subsequently have nothing to do with the child. An example that basically dances a merry dance on your unsubstantiated assertions here.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

What point have you made that has been worth rebutting?

Well it did not take you long to fall back on your old reliable did it? When you can not rebut something I say, you just move to this "Not worth rebutting" canard that you usually dodge with. Same crap, different day, as they say.

One eyed Jack · 04-02-2018 07:01PM

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Over a population sure, they are not statistically the norm as in they are a minority compared to wanted pregnancies but I am talking about individuals too here. In that in the AVERAGE woman's life they tend to have somewhere between 0 and 1 of them...... usually 0. And as such they are far from "Normal"

I don't know where you get your information, sounds like you just made that up to be honest, because in just the US alone in 2011, 45% of pregnancies were unintended. That's nearly half of all pregnancies. That's a lot more than "usually" 0 for what you term "the average woman's life", and as such, makes unintended pregnancy normal -

Less than half (45%) of pregnancies were unintended in 2011, as compared with 51% in 2008. The rate of unintended pregnancy among women and girls 15 to 44 years of age declined by 18%, from 54 per 1000 in 2008 to 45 per 1000 in 2011. Rates of unintended pregnancy among those who were below the federal poverty level or cohabiting were two to three times the national average. Across population subgroups, disparities in the rates of unintended pregnancy persisted but narrowed between 2008 and 2011; the incidence of unintended pregnancy declined by more than 25% among girls who were 15 to 17 years of age, women who were cohabiting, those whose incomes were between 100% and 199% of the federal poverty level, those who did not have a high school education, and Hispanics. The percentage of unintended pregnancies that ended in abortion remained stable during the period studied (40% in 2008 and 42% in 2011). Among women and girls 15 to 44 years of age, the rate of unintended pregnancies that ended in birth declined from 27 per 1000 in 2008 to 22 per 1000 in 2011.

Source: Declines in Unintended Pregnancy in the United States, 2008–2011, New England Journal of Medicine

I have no idea how you quantify an average woman, but you sure as hell aren't talking statistically.

and a person in a crisis is acting and thinking far from "normal". So your appraisal here is about as accurate as your "we are done here" comment from earlier. That is to say: Not very.

My appraisal is far from accurate? Again you just made up that a woman experiencing an unintended pregnancy would act far from normal. Again I have no idea how you're quantifying normal, we appear to have very different definitions, but if a woman is thinking irrationally, then legally they lack the minimum decision making capacity to enter into a contract, and therefore cannot, so any contract they would sign in that time could easily be dismissed by the courts as nor legally binding given what you assume is their diminished mental capacity.

My appraisal of the conclusion of your argument is perfectly accurate, in spite of your protests to the contrary. My appraisal has a factual legal basis, whereas you appear to be just making it up as you go along, and time and time again you can easily be proven wrong.

By "logical conclusion" you appear to mean "something I just made up for you which you never once implied or said" as nothing I said suggests any such conclusion. You really are on a roll of distortions today, though your "pregnant woman are not normal" distortion definitely breaks all your previous records for distortion and blatancy I have to admit.

I haven't distorted anything you've said. Go back and read your own post again, by virtue of an unintended pregnancy, somehow you manage to conclude that this renders a woman irrational and abnormal. That's exactly what you said implies, and I've demonstrated that you blatantly made that up, because the facts suggest otherwise. The conclusion of your argument though, is that any contract between the woman and the man who impregnates her would not be legally binding due to the woman being considered of diminished mental capacity at the time the contract was made.

That's not to mention that it would still be over-ruled due to the Courts considering the welfare of the child or children to be the primary consideration in circumstances where a woman has given birth and a man wants to absolve himself of any responsibility for that child or children.

There is a chasm of difference however between a crisis influencing your normal rational thinking and choices, and it being compromised to the massively exaggerated extent you just leapt to. ALL I am saying, having once again pulled your words out of my mouth, is that a crisis CAN lead people to consider options they might not otherwise consider.

I think you ought to look up the concept of diminished mental capacity as it applies in law before you make claims that simply defy facts. The fact is that if it can be demonstrated by the Courts that a woman is suffering from diminished mental capacity due to her pregnancy, that has all sorts of legal implications, not the least of which being that it would be determined that she was in no position to be party to the kind of contract you appear to be arguing for. That is the logical conclusion of your argument that a crisis CAN lead to people to consider options they might not otherwise consider, like an abortion because they are being put in a position by the man who impregnates them where they have to make a decision between an abortion, and giving birth to a child. That's coercion btw, in case you hadn't realised, and that would render any contract void.

Except I directly addressed it, which is quite different from not addressing it. Maybe if you were not ignoring the vast majority of my posts, and the vast majority of the content of what few posts you do deign to reply to, you might have seen it. My point is that it is NOT such an onus on the parents. Rather it is an onus on the parents to decide together and separately how to proceed.

You appear to be talking about before a woman gives birth, so you're still not addressing the question. After a woman has given birth, is the point you consistently keep avoiding, and if you don't want to address it that's fine. I'm not going to draw any inferences about your motivations from that, unlike the way you draw inferences from my ignoring the majority of your posts and accuse me of "running away" when I've already explained to you a number of times now that I am not obliged to address your posts in any manner in which you deem appropriate.

Currently, there is in law an onus on both parents of a duty of care towards their children, and moreso on the woman when the parents are unmarried because she is automatically the childs legal guardian, whereas the father is not. There is far more effort being made to address that, than there will ever be efforts made to absolve the father of any responsibility towards their child, rendering their child illegitimate in law and having no rights of succession to the fathers estate in the event of his death.

You clearly haven't given your argument much thought, as the scenario you're arguing for was one we had previously in history, and it was addressed due to the fact that it was argued successfully that a father has a duty to maintain his children, due to the fact that far too many men simply absolved themselves of any responsibility towards their children.

And as much as it triggered you at the time, I gave you a clear example of this. When a female reporter and a one night stand she met in the world, both agreed she would get pregnant with him and he would subsequently have nothing to do with the child. An example that basically dances a merry dance on your unsubstantiated assertions here.

You keep using that word, and in the context you're using it, you don't appear to understand what it means. A trigger is a stimulus that evokes a negative emotional reaction in someone experiencing post traumatic stress disorder. I do not experience any such disorder, so your characterisation that I would be triggered by anything you've written, frankly appears to be yet another notion that appears to have been concocted in your own imagination.

Your example is simply irrelevant to what we are discussing. In that case the woman and the man made a conscious decision which has no standing in law, and at any time after the child was born, either of them could renege on the agreement, because the Court would consider the best interests of the child, and the man could well have found himself in a position where he would be obliged to maintain his child. It was an irresponsible notion on both their behalf and they appear to have given the decision as much thought as you've given to your arguments.

Yours is actually the example that dances a merry go round on your own assertions because you're asserting that a man should have the right first of all not to become a parent, the man in your example appears to have wanted willingly to become a parent, and second of all, under current Irish law, he has as a parent a duty to maintain that child, no matter what agreement they came to between themselves. If she were to apply to the Courts for maintenance from the father, there's every possibility she would be granted it. If the man were to apply for guardianship, there's every chance he would be granted it.

You're falling a long way short of the self-congratulatory slam dunk yet. You still have yet to present an argument which would justify a father having the right to regard his child as illegitimate and on that basis absent himself from the childs life and absolve himself of any responsibility towards his child or children.

Well it did not take you long to fall back on your old reliable did it? When you can not rebut something I say, you just move to this "Not worth rebutting" canard that you usually dodge with. Same crap, different day, as they say.

Well extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and claims that are made without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence, so when you claim that a man has a right not to be a parent, without any evidence to substantiate your claim, you really can't be surprised that I would regard such a claim with the effort required to dismiss it, which, doesn't require any effort on my part really. That's not dodging anything, it's simply saying to you that you don't have an argument. I don't feel the need to say that to you because I figure it's something that as an adult you should be able to figure out for yourself. If you were a child I might feel compelled to explain the illegitimacy of your position, but you're not a child. I have determined you to be an adult, at least capable of rational thought, and on that basis I regard you as at least being capable of understanding that your argument isn't worth entertaining, and you need to go back to the drawing board and formulate a more compelling argument before you should expect it to be entertained not just by me, but by any mentally capable, rational adult in full possession of their critical mental faculties.

I really shouldn't have to keep reminding you at this stage that people simply aren't as stupid as you need them to be, which is probably why while you imagine that you have a legitimate argument, you actually don't. You still have yet to address the actual argument presented in the opening post, which has nothing to do with whether or not a woman has a right to terminate her pregnancy, the proposal is that men should have a right to absolve themselves of any responsibility towards their children. That means children who are born, nothing to do with when a woman is pregnant, so put that scenario away because that's not what is being suggested, and carry on from the point where a woman has given birth, and the man is now by definition, a father.

nozzferrahhtoo · 04-02-2018 07:53PM

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I don't know where you get your information, sounds like you just made that up to be honest, because in just the US alone in 2011, 45% of pregnancies were unintended.

Come back with the goalposts there son, I did not say unwanted, I said crisis. Your ongoing need to change what I said into something else is getting old at this point. But a little catch up for you, you said "Crisis pregnancies are normal" not "unwanted pregnancies are normal" and I replied to that. Do keep up with your own posts even if you can not keep up with mine.

I am sure MANY pregnancies are unintended. But they are not crisis ones as many of the people who were not getting pregnant intentionally are MORE than happy to find they are.

So perhaps focus a little less on where I get the information for my claims and a little more on keeping up with what my claims ACTUALLY ARE would you?

However I will have to read your full study to see what they are saying here as in one line they say "45% in 2011" and in the next line they say "45 per 1000 in 2011". Given that 45 in 1000 is NOT 45%...... I think I need to read the full study to understand the summary you have posted.

Further your study is based in the US and I am talking about Ireland here. So perhaps cherry pick your figures with a little less agenda huh? For example here is a Crisis Pregnancy Study for Ireland which has the figure more at 1 in 8.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

My appraisal is far from accurate? Again you just made up that a woman experiencing an unintended pregnancy would act far from normal. Again I have no idea how you're quantifying normal

Well the first thing I would quantify as "normal" is "not being in a crisis". A quite sound starting definition doncha think? Being, you know, the OPPOSITE of each other and all. Or do you want to pretend, along with all the other denials of reality, that a word meaning "a dramatic emotional or circumstantial upheaval in a person's life." can be made a synonym of "normal"???

That is what crisis means, or did you not notice? People in a crisis tend to act out of the ordinary, or consider options they might not otherwise consider in a normal situation. If you want to ignore human nature and reality along with everything else I have written so far, then fine with me. I am happy to highlight that as much as I am happy to highlight when you blatantly misrepresent my posts and what I said in them.

Again though people think irrationally all the time. Not EVERY compromise of someones rationality negates their legal consent. LOVE for example leads people to sign up to things in moments of compromised rationality, that are often legally binding and not easy to negate or reverse. This is not a 0-1 black-white thing here where you are either in FULL hold of your rational senses 100% or you lack decision making capacity in law.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I haven't distorted anything you've said.

Except you blatantly demonstrably did. I said this:

"A crisis pregnancy is not a NORMAL situation, so a woman in such a situation is not a "normal" woman in that sense."

And you changed it to this:

"Women aren't normal when they're pregnant?"

The distortion was blatant enough, but to sit there and now claim you never did it is gob-smacking in its sheer gall.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Go back and read your own post again, by virtue of an unintended pregnancy, somehow you manage to conclude that this renders a woman irrational and abnormal.

AGAIN to replace your words with my own in my mouth, what I am saying is that people in a CRISIS are wont to consider options they might not otherwise consider, and take choices they might not otherwise take. This is not some shock fantasy dredged out of my imagination, this i just basic human nature. We see it in many areas.

If you want to imagine "implications" of your own invention to rebut instead, then you are arguing with yourself, not with me. And you are simply accusing me of making up things that came from YOU not ever from me.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

That's not to mention that it would still be over-ruled due to the Courts considering the welfare of the child or children to be the primary consideration in circumstances where a woman has given birth and a man wants to absolve himself of any responsibility for that child or children.

Which brings us back full circle to the argument I made, and you simply ignores, in multiple posts before you pretended we were "done here". So let me simply question AGAIN your claim about what is, and is not, in the best interests of a child. Here it is again, feel free to dodge it AGAIN:

You have taken essentially two approaches to this, so lets seperate the two.

1) The child has some imaginary "right" to a relationship with their parents, and children benefit somehow from a relationship specifically with a biologically conected parent.

You have not, when asked multiple times, shown any research to back up the latter claim.
You have not, when asked multiple times, shown any law or right like the one you imagine. Rather you quoted UN Mandates which say something quite different.
You have not deal at all with the concept of the HARM a relationship that is forced on an unwilling participant could potentially cause.
You have not at all dealt with the wealth of research (cited to you on a previous thread on parenting but dismissed by you for no other reasons or reasoning than "because liberal") showing the opposite claim to yours is true.

2) The child benefits from the forced income source

You have not dealt with the fact the child benefits from AN income, where it comes from is irrelevant. We already have social welfare and parental support systems. You MAY want to do away with those systems, but no one else I have encountered does.
As other users have noted it is quite easy to dodge much, and sometimes all, of those payments anyway.
The system is not good at forcing people to pay, but manages to (as we were told above) let the court threaten homeless and penniless people with jail which I am sure made the judge feel powerful but benefits no one else at all.
Who exactly is being forced to pay up anyway? I am a pretty average personal morally. I am the same as most other people. And If I left tomorrow I would not need a law to compel me to ensure my children are financially supported. I would do that ANYWAY based on common morals that most people hold, and an investment in my own children that most people hold.

So the law here appears to be not that effective, only applicable to the kind of people in society who likely would not have the moral holding to the law in the first place, and requires parents in situations of low money to pursue those payments in a way that is likely a drain on their already stretched time and resources. Who you think, and in what numbers, are ACTUALLY benefiting from this status quo is really not clear to me.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

You appear to be talking about before a woman gives birth, so you're still not addressing the question.

Well at least you are catching up with SOME of my points. I have told you a few times that what I am talking about is indeed a situation BEFORE birth where a man could express his desire to become, or not become, such a parent. A decision that would affect the situation AFTER birth. So while dodging so much of my stuff that "you don't want to address" you are simply pretending I am not addressing things that are in fact the very core of everything I have been saying and you have been ignoring. So it is not me that you should be writing lines like "clearly haven't given your argument much thought" about as everything you post shows you have not been giving it any thought and barely know what you are replying to or talking about.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

You keep using that word, and in the context you're using it, you don't appear to understand what it means. A trigger is a stimulus that evokes a negative emotional reaction in someone experiencing post traumatic stress disorder.

I am using it in the more modern sense when someone gets uppity and haughty at people saying or doing something that upsets them emotionally. A dictionary might help you here. For example "(of a response) caused by particular action, process, or situation.". Pretending words have only one meaning and definition so you can pretend I am saying something different to I actually am, is not likely to help much here. Nor is feigning ignorance of how many people, how often, use that word on this very forum in the same way I just did.

The point of the example is that the father has no duty of care to the child unless the woman specifically chases him for it. The law or state itself is unlikely to ever do so. In fact they are unlikely to be ABLE to do so in many of the few situations in which they might even attempt to try. Such is the efficacy of the status quo you hold so dear. After all when you earlier INVENTED a "right to a relationship" with a parent and then failed to cite any law to support the existence of such a right, you also failed to show law that could compel a woman to reveal the identify of such a man.

That you do not trust women to make decisions in the best interests of their own children, or that you do not feel women can make it on their own and an absent father means she has to chose "abortion or poverty" is a level of misogyny that I can not reach and certainly do not feel we need enshrined in laws that are based on such fantasies.

But you are once again citing the current law at me as if I do not know it, to go around addressing my point. I KNOW what the current law is. I am discussing what I think about that law. So you can simply not negate a point of "I do not think current law should say X" with "Well current law says X". You are merely then filling out your posts with facts that are already inherent in what I was saying.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Well extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence

You have not shown it IS an extraordinary claim yet. You just pretend it is to further the "not worth replying to" dodge you usually use when you do not want to reply to something you cant reply to.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

so when you claim that a man has a right not to be a parent, without any evidence to substantiate your claim

Again do keep up. I am claiming he SHOULD have that right not that he DOES have that right. Again I know what the current law is. So pretending my claims about what they should be are actually me claiming what they ARE is just more of your distortion tactics in play. If you want to address someones argument about how something could or should be, you can not do it by pretending they are saying that is how things ARE. If you were a child I might feel compelled to explain the illegitimacy of your position, but you're not a child. I have determined you to be an adult, at least capable of rational thought, and on that basis I regard you as at least being capable of understanding that distinction.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

the proposal is that men should have a right to absolve themselves of any responsibility towards their children. That means children who are born, nothing to do with when a woman is pregnant

Again missing that distinction in my argument. So I can clarify the basics you are struggling with once again. I am talking about not JUST children who are born, but a right and procedure a man could and perhaps even should have long BEFORE the child is born.

So while YOU might want to pretend it has "nothing to do with when a woman is pregnant" you might want to catch up and realize that MY position that I have been espousing has.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

You still have yet to address the actual argument presented in the opening post, which has nothing to do with whether or not a woman has a right to terminate her pregnancy, the proposal is that men should have a right to absolve themselves of any responsibility towards their children.

You should read the real OP rather than the one you just imagined out of nowhere. The OP wrote:

"Do we get a look in anywhere or can a man/boyfriend/fiance/husband legally challenge a woman's decision to abort?"

So the OP was very much about womans rights to terminate a pregnancy, and not at all about "men should have a right to absolve themselves of any responsibility towards their children. You are, once again, distorting what other people wrote into something of your own invention.

You have quite literally just invented a whole "Opening post" out of nowhere that is entirely different to the one that is actually the opening post of this thread. Here I will help you out and quote the ENTIRE opening post for you........

drunkmonkey wrote: »

Do we get a look in anywhere or can a man/boyfriend/fiance/husband legally challenge a woman's decision to abort?

I've put in a poll to see what you think

........... and you can show me where in that post the OP discusses "the proposal is that men should have a right to absolve themselves of any responsibility towards their children." and how the OP is "nothing to do with whether or not a woman has a right to terminate her pregnancy" because it appears to me you have that EXACTLY backwards. On both counts. But I somewhat suspect you are no more likely to own and retract that error openly and honestly than you were with the one where you distorted my words into pregnant women not being normal.

Wibbs · 04-02-2018 09:36PM

One eyed Jack wrote: »

And yet for all your waffle...

Indeed. The last few pages have been a litany of ridiculously bloody long excessively multiquoted posts from both yourself and Nozzferrahhtoo. This is how threads end up being a snooze fest between a few posters and it puts off other voices who just couldn't be bothered getting in the middle of that. It's not just in this forum I've seen this same carry on with this topic and from yourselves.

The mods are in agreement on this point. And it stops now. Others may want to discuss it and we as moderators intend to accommodate them. That's our role.

One eyed Jack and Nozzferrahhtoo, you have made your points, so please do NOT post in this thread again.

Thank you.

P.S. any further posts will be deleted. If you don't get the memo, temporary bans will be doled out.

There are a couple of others who get into similar and we're keeping an eye.

iptba · 30-03-2018 03:55PM

A private debate among Fine Gael politicians became heated in Leinster House after a female TD was accused of preaching to her male colleagues.

Party chairman Martin Heydon was forced to intervene after what one minister described as the "setting off of a bomb" by Marcella Corcoran Kennedy.

The Offaly TD had urged male members of the party to trust their female counterparts and support the repeal of the Eighth Amendment.

She added that women will be the ones having to make hard choices in the future.

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/abortion-referendum/fine-gael-tds-rage-at-being-preached-to-by-female-colleague-in-abortion-debate-36758627.html

iptba · 10-04-2018 09:34PM

iptba wrote:

A private debate among Fine Gael politicians became heated in Leinster House after a female TD was accused of preaching to her male colleagues.

Party chairman Martin Heydon was forced to intervene after what one minister described as the "setting off of a bomb" by Marcella Corcoran Kennedy.

The Offaly TD had urged male members of the party to trust their female counterparts and support the repeal of the Eighth Amendment.

She added that women will be the ones having to make hard choices in the future.
https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/abortion-referendum/fine-gael-tds-rage-at-being-preached-to-by-female-colleague-in-abortion-debate-36758627.html

MEN: Your YES Matters
https://www.facebook.com/events/366595747188515/

I have no strong opinions on abortion but can understand why people could have strong opinions on the issue on either side.

But I find it interesting that some people seem to argue that men shouldn't have an opinion but then say men should have an opinion and it should be "yes".

I think if the genders were reversed, there would be a strong reaction against such an approach.

Calhoun · 10-04-2018 10:01PM

iptba wrote: »

MEN: Your YES Matters
https://www.facebook.com/events/366595747188515/

I have no strong opinions on abortion but can understand why people could have strong opinions on the issue on either side.

But I find it interesting that some people seem to argue that men shouldn't have an opinion but then say men should have an opinion and it should be "yes".

I think if the genders were reversed, there would be a strong reaction against such an approach.

Indeed i am kinda conflicted, was always pro-choice but a key turning point for me was this video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=764CcBSboi0 . Something as important as a referendum vote and it seems like part of one side wants me to shut up that my opinion doesnt matter.

Its going to be down to the wire with me to be honest, i am trying to keep an open mind and stay out of the BS as much as possible.

Blue Magic · 10-04-2018 11:42PM

The snowflake, neo-liberalist, apologist left are in for a land. In their world, everyone wants this. This referendum will be damn tight.

Tbh, I'm undecided but leaning towards Repeal. So tough and do emotive. The problem With prolife debate is that it's all based on emotional blackmail and religion. Two things which I can't stand

end of the road · 11-04-2018 01:44AM

Blue Magic wrote: »

The snowflake, neo-liberalist, apologist left are in for a land. In their world, everyone wants this. This referendum will be damn tight.

Tbh, I'm undecided but leaning towards Repeal. So tough and do emotive. The problem With prolife debate is that it's all based on emotional blackmail and religion. Two things which I can't stand

i'm seeing very little religion involved in the pro-life debate myself. the campaign is certainly getting some religious funding however.
i think both campaigns are operating on emotional blackmail, that's just the nature of the game though given abortion is at the centre of the debate and vote whether people want it to be or not. i think it's ultimately what will decide the outcome rather then the merits of repealing the 8th itself.

end of the road · 11-04-2018 01:53AM

iptba wrote: »

MEN: Your YES Matters
https://www.facebook.com/events/366595747188515/

I have no strong opinions on abortion but can understand why people could have strong opinions on the issue on either side.

But I find it interesting that some people seem to argue that men shouldn't have an opinion but then say men should have an opinion and it should be "yes".

I think if the genders were reversed, there would be a strong reaction against such an approach.

i completely agree, and not a chance would such a suggestion be made.

if you are thinking of not voting because you feel you don't have a right to vote because you are a man, i'm telling you now that you do have a right to vote and please do so.

Men's rights on Abortion?

Comments