Men's rights on Abortion?

Calhoun wrote: »

Were they not elected to vote on such issues? its part and parcel of the current structures we have in place in our democracy.

There is irony there alright, our democracy affords them the opportunity to be anti-democratic! But they represent the public, a fair whack of said public would like a referendum after waiting 35 years. To vote to deny the right of citizens to have a say in how the country is run will always leave a sour taste.

[Deleted User]

sheepintheback wrote: »

Yes...i don't think it is fair to "force" anyone to do anything, ie "force" someone to carry a pregnancy through to term.
BUT, ontop of that i find it unfair that some people here think that men have NO SAY WHATSOEVER in the birth of his child.

Hence my post that i will vote no...because apealling the 8th amendment (in my opinion) will cause a "ripple effect"..ie abortion legalised in Ireland...which will make it easier for more women to abort (if a women is willing to travel to UK, then i think she is more certain about the decision..which is totally fair, as long as the father has knowledge)
Because the appeal of the 8th amendment may lead to legal abortion in Ireland, again this is my opinion, i think the level of abortions will increase in Ireland as there is less trouble involved than travelling to another Europeean Country.
Because of this POSSIBLE increase in abortion rates, then it is highlybprobable some of these abortions will be done without the knowlege of the father...this goes against my personal opinions that fathers should have a say.

Can you see the "ripple effect" I am on about now?

I will say this again because i think ye completly dismissed this part in a previous post.
I am sorry if I insulted anyone, this us mearly my opinion. And i agree that my first post on this thread was totally out of order, i was just initially livid and i apologise for that. But my initiall post is still reflected in this one, but not as angry. I still think it is unfair for a women to make the decision to abort, if the father wants the child.

I know there is no imediate compromise, as i also think it is unethical to force it onto the woman to carry the child. But that doesnt change my opinion on her aborting a mans child, and getting rid of a mans chance to be a father.
I dont have an alternative.

I hope this clears things up now?
Again i apologise......

So basically, no problem with abortion as such, women can travel to get one overseas, Just not in this country.

Just thinking about men who don't want women to have abortions is extremely narrow view of something as wide reaching as the 8th amendment. It affects women's health, women are not related equally when they are pregnant.
I think you should really do some more reading before you vote.
Whatever way you wish to vote is fair enough, but do it knowing all the facts. It's not just abortion = yes or no.

Calhoun wrote: »

Don't get me wrong either the pro-life side are no better but they don't have backing of government, most of main stream media and a good chunk of the online community.

If i was to read it right now id say its the pro-choice sides to loose.

I think it's closer to 50:50 and at this point I would be hesitant to call it for either.

Martina1991

sheepintheback wrote:

.ie abortion legalised in Ireland...which will make it easier for more women to abort (if a women is willing to travel to UK, then i think she is more certain about the decision..which is totally fair, as long as the father has knowledge) Because the appeal of the 8th amendment may lead to legal abortion in Ireland, again this is my opinion, i think the level of abortions will increase in Ireland as there is less trouble involved than travelling to another Europeean Country.

You think having services here would make it "easier" for women to have an abortion. Like a woman will be easily persuaded or pushed into a clinic without serious consideration.

Having to book a flight and make arrangements to the UK doesn't mean a woman has put more thought into her decision.

You seem to think that the number of abortions will sky rocket if they're available here. But that's an opinion and not based on fact.

mzungu wrote: »

There is irony there alright, our democracy affords them the opportunity to be anti-democratic! But they represent the public, a fair whack of said public would like a referendum after waiting 35 years. To vote to deny the right of citizens to have a say in how the country is run will always leave a sour taste.

They consider the unborn child a human being and aren't in favour of letting people decide whether it should permissible to kill it or not. It's really not that difficult.

bubblypop wrote: »

So basically, no problem with abortion as such, women can travel to get one overseas, Just got in this country.

Just thinking about men who don't want women to have abortions is extremely narrow view of something as wide reaching as the 8th amendment. It affects women's health, women are not related equally when they are pregnant.
I think you should really do some more reading before you vote.
Whatever way you wish to vote is fair enough, but do it knowing all the facts. It's not just abortion = yes or no.

Thanks, i will do so. But it is the amount of posts in this thread saying that men dont have a right of opinion in this matter that made me say what i said..not to cause such an argument.
This point also is only ONE of the reasons i wish to vote No, its an ethical issue, as i am sure you are aware.
There are many advantages and dissadvantages to appealing the 8th amendment but in my case, i belive there is more dissadvantages, hence why i will vote no..the point i have mentioned in previous posts, is just one of them.

Martina1991

sheepintheback wrote:

But it is the amount of posts in this thread saying that men dont have a right of opinion in this matter that made me say what i said..not to cause such an argument.

It may be one of your reasons for voting no but strangers saying men don't have a right to an opinion doesn't make it true.

Of course men have a right to their opinion and their vote.

This referendum is not just about abortion. It's also about the damage the 8th has on our maternity services.

What are your opinions on that?

lawred2

Imagine thinking that many ladies are having children simply because they couldn't be bothered finding the few quid to go to England.

And if the abortions were available down the road they'd be down there in a shot..

Fairly dim and misogynistic view to hold of women that a few quid is all that's stopping them having abortions. It's also a massive fail in logic given that being a parent is the most expensive decision most people will ever make..

It's certainly more than the cost of a Ryanair flight to London, Manchester or Liverpool.

DickSwiveller wrote: »

They consider the unborn child a human being and aren't in favour of letting people decide whether it should permissible to kill it or not. It's really not that difficult.

Which is my point, it was an anti-democratic move on their part (possibly mixed in with a wee bit of parish pump and an eye on the next election). It's funny, usually we have pro-life groups (Maria Steen et al.) claiming pro-choice groups are against free speech and out to stifle discussion, but when their own do it and wish to deny the public a vote we have radio silence. We hear so much about supposed pro-choice tactics turning people off voting, but stuff like this seems to get a free pass (I'm not aiming that at you BTW, just a general comment).

If ye don't agree with my point of view and my opinions then i respect that, i apologised and ye still don't seem to be understanding what i am trying to say. I am not asking for ye to agree with me..its everyones personal opinion...

Look guys, i didn't post to cause such an argument..so im gonna stop posting in this thread ...for now. I still stand by my opinions though.

P.s..there is probably something wrong with this post also...so im done.

mzungu wrote: »

Which is my point, it was an anti-democratic move on their part (possibly mixed in with a wee bit of parish pump and an eye on the next election). It's funny, usually we have pro-life groups (Maria Steen et al.) claiming pro-choice groups are against free speech and out to stifle discussion, but when their own do it and wish to deny the public a vote we have radio silence.

Did you read my post? The reason they voted against the holding of a referendum is because they believe the unborn child is a human being deserving of protection. If a majority in the country were demanding a referendum on whether we should introduce slavery then no right minded TD would vote for the referendum to be held.

DickSwiveller wrote: »

Did you read my post? The reason they voted against the holding of a referendum is because they believe the unborn child is a human being deserving of protection. If a majority in the country were demanding a referendum on whether we should introduce slavery then no right minded TD would vote for the referendum to be held.

I know well what their position was and I disagree with it. The repeal of the eight and slavery are in no way comparable. Equating the two to make it seem like they made a moral choice is disingenuous.

mzungu wrote: »

I know well what their position was and I disagree with it. The repeal of the eight and slavery are in no way comparable. Equating the two to make it seem like they made a moral choice is disingenuous.

Of course it is a moral choice. Why do you assume it isn't?

DickSwiveller wrote: »

Of course it is a moral choice. Why do you assume it isn't?

When they cast their votes in the ballot box in May is their chance to exercise their moral choice with the rest of us. Voting to deny the citizens of the country a chance to have the referendum is not. It is still in no way comparable with slavery. The eighth brings into focus women's healthcare, which they voted not to give them a say in.

Calhoun

mzungu wrote: »

I think it's closer to 50:50 and at this point I would be hesitant to call it for either.

We will see i get a general sense that the pro-choice have it already, funds coming out their behind now with the recent go fund me, most of the politicians are canvassing for it and allot of media pieces coming out on it.

Very visible presence on all the online platforms i use.

Calhoun wrote: »

We will see i get a general sense that the pro-choice have it already, funds coming out their behind now with the recent go fund me, most of the politicians are canvassing for it and allot of media pieces coming out on it.

Very visible presence on all the online platforms i use.

I'm not sure how representative social media is. Twitter, for example, is basically a left wing electronic mob. In the run up to the last general election, figures show that those engaged in politics on twitter/facebook where heavily backing labour. Yet they lost the election.

end of the road

Calhoun wrote: »

We will see i get a general sense that the pro-choice have it already, funds coming out their behind now with the recent go fund me, most of the politicians are canvassing for it and allot of media pieces coming out on it.

Very visible presence on all the online platforms i use.

to be fair, none of this would really prove that pro-choice have it. the pro-choice gofundme seems to be made up of a lot of 20/50 euro and more donors, some making multiple donations, so that would add up rather quickly. i wouldn't worry about social media, from my experience there is a number of very vocal individuals who will be very visible in terms of this campaign in terms of posting across various pages.

Calhoun

Well i meant more from the perspective of presence, they also aren't camping Mcdonalds ect with posters that shock children.

sheepintheback wrote: »

Yes...i don't think it is fair to "force" anyone to do anything, ie "force" someone to carry a pregnancy through to term.BUT, ontop of that i find it unfair that some people here think that men have NO SAY
WHATSOEVER in the birth of his child.
Hence my post that i will vote no...because apealling the 8th amendment (in my opinion) will cause a "ripple effect"..ie abortion legalised in Ireland...which will make it easier for more women to abort (if a women is willing to travel to UK, then i think she is more certain about the decision..which is totally fair, as long as the father has knowledge)
Because the appeal of the 8th amendment may lead to legal abortion in Ireland, again this is my opinion, i think the level of abortions will increase in Ireland as there is less trouble involved than travelling to another Europeean Country.
Because of this POSSIBLE increase in abortion rates, then it is highlybprobable some of these abortions will be done without the knowlege of the father...this goes against my personal opinions that fathers should have a say.
Can you see the "ripple effect" I am on about now?
I will say this again because i think ye completly dismissed this part in a previous post.
I am sorry if I insulted anyone, this us mearly my opinion. And i agree that my first post on this thread was totally out of order, i was just initially livid and i apologise for that. But my initiall post is still reflected in this one, but not as angry. I still think it is unfair for a women to make the decision to abort, if the father wants the child.
I know there is no imediate compromise, as i also think it is unethical to force it onto the woman to carry the child. But that doesnt change my opinion on her aborting a mans child, and getting rid of a mans chance to be a father.
I dont have an alternative.
I hope this clears things up now?
Again i apologise......

As previously explained the point of this thread I thought was not that men shouldn't have a vote rather the final decision whether a pregnancy comes down to the person who Is actually pregnant because you can neither force to carry a pregnancy thru to term or force them to have an abortion.

Remember it's not a child until it's born and it is not 'her or 'his child - it takes two for conception to take place but without the woman being willing or forced to gestate the fetus- nothings doing Ok?

Do some people have different opinions to you? Certainly. Do you have to happy about that? No. Does that make you right? No. As for a 'ripple effect (sic) Possible- unknown . Probable - who knows. It's just as possible / probable the opposite will happen.

Generalising and calling women 'hypocritical' is not a good attitude imo. That said I am guessing you back some real world knowledge and possibly have yet to have any type of meaningful or long term relationship with a women judging by your age / LC exams etc.

My best advice would be to go talk to others and research the status quo has meant to the physical and mental health of women in this country over the last 40 years and what the impacts of forcing women to travel abroad has been. Perhaps try and think a little less about your dreams of being a parent of twins and 7 kids or whatever you're into yourself.

gozunda wrote: »

As previously explained the point of this thread I thought was not that men shouldn't have a vote rather the final decision whether a pregnancy comes down to the person who Is actually pregnant because you can neither force to carry a pregnancy thru to term or force them to have an abortion.

Remember it's not a child until it's born and it is not 'her or 'his child - it takes two for conception to take place and without the woman being willing or forced to gestate the fetus- nothings doing Ok?

Do some peopke have different opinions to you? Certainly. Do you have to happy about that? No. Does that make you right? No. As for a 'ripple effect (sic) Possible- maybe. Probable - who knows. It's just as probable the opposite will happen.

Generalising and calling women 'hypocritical' is not a good attitude imo. That said I am guessing you back some real world knowledge and possibly have yet to have any type of meaningful or long term relationship with a women judging by your age / LC exams etc.

My best advice would be to go talk to others and research the status quo has meant to the physical and mental health of women in this country over the last 40 years and what the impacts of forcing women to travel abroad has been. Perhaps try and think a little less about your dreams of twins and 7 kids or whatever you're into yourself.

What a load of nonsense.

DickSwiveller wrote: »

What a load of nonsense.

So says DickSwiveller ...

Definition of 'Child'

A young human being below the age of puberty or below the legal age of majority.

"she'd been playing tennis since she was a child"

The term 'child' is generally used to describe a human after its birth.

Biologically, a child (plural: children) is a human being between the stages of birth and puberty

"Do some people have different opinions to you? Certainly. Do you have to happy about that? No. Does that make you right? No."

If you havnt read my most recent post..look back at it..this is what i was trying to say you know?

I never said i was right...i EMPHASISED clearly that it was ONLY my opinion SEVERAL TIMES.

And im sorry to point out at this stage that you are the hypocrit now...
"Do you have to be happy about that? No" is what you said...i already said i respected others opinions, including yours.

YOU are the one who is not happy just because someone else doesnt agree with you..not me. I respect how you feel...as i said before. Not everyone has to agree with you...as you stated yourself....

gozunda wrote: »

So says DickSwiveller ...

The term 'child' is generally used to describe a human after its birth.

That's a technical definition. 99 per cent of people would say a baby due in one day is a child.

DickSwiveller wrote: »

That's a technical definition. 99 per cent of people would say a baby due in one day is a child.

I would disagree. I don't know too many fetuses who can play tennis ...

And not according to the recent High Court case regarding same

The High Court determination that the unborn is a child… is also reversed.

*

Hence the use of the term the 'unborn' in this referendum....

*[url] http://www.thejournal.ie/eighth-amendment-referendum-wording-3892018-Mar2018/[/url]

DickSwiveller wrote: »

That's a technical definition. 99 per cent of people would say a baby due in one day is a child.

Agree

gozunda wrote: »

I would disagree. I don't know too many fetuses who can play tennis ...

And not according to the recent High Court case regarding same

*

Hence the use of the term the 'unborn' in this referendum....

*[url] http://www.thejournal.ie/eighth-amendment-referendum-wording-3892018-Mar2018/[/url]

I don't know too many 1 month old children who can play tennis either. If you had a sister who was due in 1 day, would you ask her: "Are you looking forward to your fetus being born?" This constant dehumanisation of babies is stomach churning.

sheepintheback wrote: »

"Do some people have different opinions to you? Certainly. Do you have to happy about that? No. Does that make you right? No."

If you havnt read my most recent post..look back at it..this is what i was trying to say you know?

I never said i was right...i EMPHASISED clearly that it was ONLY my opinion SEVERAL TIMES.

And im sorry to point out at this stage that you are the hypocrit now...
"Do you have to be happy about that? No" is what you said...i already said i respected others opinions, including yours.

YOU are the one who is not happy just because someone else doesnt agree with you..not me. I respect how you feel...as i said before. Not everyone has to agree with you...as you stated yourself....

Now now theres no need to be calling people names and going all SHOUTY. And btw you completely missed the point I was making. So rather than dragging this out further - I'll just say best of luck in the leaving cert exams.

Triceratops Ballet

DickSwiveller wrote:

That's a technical definition. 99 per cent of people would say a baby due in one day is a child.

That would be relevant if the proposed legislation were to allow termination of pregnancy by abortion up to week 40but that's not what the legislation proposes. People don't call foetuses of 12 weeks gestation children.

Triceratops Ballet wrote: »

That would be relevant if the proposed legislation were to allow termination of pregnancy by abortion up to week 40but that's not what the legislation proposes. People don't call foetuses of 12 weeks gestation children.

It's all semantics. The question is: Is it a human life deserving of protection.