Men's rights on Abortion?

DickSwiveller wrote: »

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: »

And i don't know of too many 1month old babies that can play tennis.

Cant belive you are basing weather a child is a child on their ability to play tennis??
And tbh...i can't play tennis myself

Lol - There's a very bad echo in here or are ye related?

But don't take the remark re tennis to heart ..

I was being pedantic as given in the online definition and example I quoted Ok?

Quote: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...

Of course you are free to call whatever what you like If you wish. Doesn't change the recent decision of the High Court I linked to above regarding the unborn not being a child ....

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

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

DickSwiveller wrote: »

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

I agree that ^ is all semantics ...

DickSwiveller wrote:

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

It's not semantics, it's fact.

There are two lives to be considered, and I don't think the protection of the least viable of those should trump the protection of the other

DickSwiveller

Triceratops Ballet wrote: »

It's not semantics, it's fact.

There are two lives to be considered, and I don't think the protection of the least viable of those should trump the protection of the other

What do you mean the protection of the other?

DickSwiveller wrote:

What do you mean the protection of the other?

Really?
The constitutional protection offered to one being should not trump the constitutional protection offered to another.
Ie the lives of the unborn are not more valuable or worthy of protection than the women who carry them

Triceratops Ballet wrote: »

Really?
The constitutional protection offered to one being should not trump the constitutional protection offered to another.
Ie the lives of the unborn are not more valuable or worthy of protection than the women who carry them

the constitutional protection of the unborn does not trump the constitutional protection of the woman. the constitutional protection for the unborn is their basic right to life only, and that is where practical, rather then outright.

end of the road wrote:

the constitutional protection of the unborn does not trump the constitutional protection of the woman. the constitutional protection for the unborn is their basic right to life only, and that is where practical, rather then outright.

And yet women keep having to go to the high court to have that right respected, or you know they just die or go to England.
I know that you know the hse policy on consent doesn't apply to pregnant women because it's been said repeatedly, what do you think about that?

Triceratops Ballet wrote: »

And yet women keep having to go to the high court to have that right respected, or you know they just die or go to England.
I know that you know the hse policy on consent doesn't apply to pregnant women because it's been said repeatedly, what do you think about that?

in relation to women going to court, the courts have mostly, if not fully, sided with those women. it's interpretation that is the issue from what i can see.

end of the road wrote:

in relation to women going to court, the courts have mostly, if not fully, sided with those women. it's interpretation that is the issue from what i can see.

The courts siding with them is irrelevant though, they shouldn't be put in a position where they have to take a case to the highest court in the land in order to have their wishes about their medical care respected.
It's caused by the 8th amendment and the subsequent hse policy on consent actively excluding pregnant women.

I'm sure they have no interest in fighting court cases against pregnant women but hospitals are compelled to act within the constraints of the law and so have their hands tied

Triceratops Ballet wrote: »

The courts siding with them is irrelevant though, they shouldn't be put in a position where they have to take a case to the highest court in the land in order to have their wishes about their medical care respected. It's caused by the 8th amendment and the subsequent hse policy on consent actively excluding pregnant women.

I'm sure they have no interest in fighting court cases against pregnant women but hospitals are compelled to act within the constraints of the law and so have their hands tied

Another Irish solution to an 'uniquely' Irish problem or so some would maintain....

Triceratops Ballet wrote: »

The courts siding with them is irrelevant though, they shouldn't be put in a position where they have to take a case to the highest court in the land in order to have their wishes about their medical care respected.
It's caused by the 8th amendment and the subsequent hse policy on consent actively excluding pregnant women.

I'm sure they have no interest in fighting court cases against pregnant women but hospitals are compelled to act within the constraints of the law and so have their hands tied

people have to go to court on lots of different issues though. it's unfortunate that it has to happen in some cases but sometimes a decisian from a court is good for clarity.

end of the road wrote: »

people have to go to court on lots of different issues though. it's unfortunate that it has to happen in some cases but sometimes a decisian* from a court is good for clarity.

So so wrong on so many levels ...

*Btw is that supposed to be 'diocesan' or 'decision'?

end of the road wrote:

people have to go to court on lots of different issues though. it's unfortunate that it has to happen in some cases but sometimes a decisian from a court is good for clarity.

Good for whom, and clarity on what?

Do you need a court to verify for you that it isn't right to carry out a medical procedure on someone against their wishes?

This post has been deleted.

DickSwiveller

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

What is sick is your endless propoganda and dehumanising of the unborn child.

DickSwiveller wrote:

What is sick is your endless propoganda and dehumanising of the unborn child.

What are your thoughts on taking pregnant women to court to force medical treatment on them

Mark Hamill

Hey, end of the road, a few questions for you that I think you might have missed the last time we discussed abortion:

If human life begins at conception-
- Why do you think this in the first place?
- Shouldn't all miscarriages be investigated like any other sudden death?
- We would try to stop someone travelling to kill their toddler so shouldn't we try to stop someone from travelling for abortion, even if we might not expect our attempts to stop them to work?

Not against contraception in general but abortion as contraception is bad because a foetus is a potential baby, only limited by time-
- A sperm and an egg are potential foetus in much the same way, so why aren't you against all contraception?

Given that there are still 1000s of abortions yearly for Irish women -
- Is the 8th Amendment really the best way to stop abortions? Why aren't you campaigning to improve it?

This post has been deleted.

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

the fact one is sentient and the other not for a time is irrelevant. it means nothing as both are still alive and both have a right to life. both mother and baby have rights as it should be. it is not sick to care about the rights of both and one who does so is not a woman hater but a woman lover. what is sick is to dehumanise the unborn as some have been doing.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Hey, end of the road, a few questions for you that I think you might have missed the last time we discussed abortion:

If human life begins at conception-
- Why do you think this in the first place?
- Shouldn't all miscarriages be investigated like any other sudden death?
- We would try to stop someone travelling to kill their toddler so shouldn't we try to stop someone from travelling for abortion, even if we might not expect our attempts to stop them to work?

Not against contraception in general but abortion as contraception is bad because a foetus is a potential baby, only limited by time-
- A sperm and an egg are potential foetus in much the same way, so why aren't you against all contraception?

Given that there are still 1000s of abortions yearly for Irish women -
- Is the 8th Amendment really the best way to stop abortions? Why aren't you campaigning to improve it?

it is not practical or viable to investigate all miscarriages. yes ideally we should stop people going abroad to kill their unborn child but practicality and legality get in the way, even if the 13th was repealed that wouldn't change. all contraception operates on the basis of trying to prevent pregnancy in the first place unlike abortion, which kills. no law is going to be 100% successful in stoping what it is implemented to stop, however the 8th is likely stopping abortions due to the expence of having to travel to britain. if it stops some abortions, it's a success. it makes abortions time consuming and expensive for those who do decide to procure an abortion in britain, meaning it is also successful.

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

one can dehumanise that which is human, dispite it yet not having attained 1 particular characteristic that some have to scrape the barrel to attribute as the only one which decides that one has humanity to justify their abortion on demand agenda. the unborn being non-sentient for a small time doesn't change the reality they are human, based on having all of the other characteristics needed such as DNA, possibility to develop, and the rest. the only right the unborn have is the right to life, and that is only as much as is practical. they therefore don't have any rights over the women in which they are sleeping and living, the woman ultimately has more of a right.

Pyr0

A man can have an opinion on the possibility of an abortion, yes! But it's ultimately up to the woman at the end of the day.

end of the road wrote:

the fact one is sentient and the other not for a time is irrelevant. it means nothing as both are still alive and both have a right to life. both mother and baby have rights as it should be. it is not sick to care about the rights of both and one who does so is not a woman hater but a woman lover. what is sick is to dehumanise the unborn as some have been doing.

You don't talk much about the rights of the woman though, you said here you care about the rights of both but you didn't say where you stand on the hse policy on consent excluding women, or why you think it's just that heavily pregnant women have to pursue high court cases to have their rights respected. This referendum is about repealing the 8th amendment which is directly responsible for those things.

You are free to lobby for different legislation or no legislation after a repeal, as I'm sure you know simply repealing the 8th will not legalise abortion

This post has been deleted.

Triceratops Ballet wrote: »

You don't talk much about the rights of the woman though, you said here you care about the rights of both but you didn't say where you stand on the hse policy on consent excluding women, or why you think it's just that heavily pregnant women have to pursue high court cases to have their rights respected. This referendum is about repealing the 8th amendment which is directly responsible for those things.

You are free to lobby for different legislation or no legislation after a repeal, as I'm sure you know simply repealing the 8th will not legalise abortion

of course pro-life probably will lobby if repeal is successful but a no vote insures abortion on demand can't and won't be introduced.

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

we value human life on the basis of it being human, and seeing it as a superior form of life rightly or wrongly. we don't value it on the basis of it being sentient, as animals are sentient also. a fetus is very much non-sentient for a time only, it becomes sentient long before been born. the fetus has an absolute right to life because it's a human being, and there is no 100% tangible proof that it cannot feel pain a lot earlier then one would think, so in my view that is why it is right to prevent abortion on demand. a fetus is not given rights above the woman that caries it. it's only given the right to life, and that is only where it is practical.

end of the road wrote:

of course pro-life probably will lobby if repeal is successful but a no vote insures abortion on demand can't and won't be introduced.

But still no mention of the rights of the woman...

Triceratops Ballet wrote: »

But still no mention of the rights of the woman...

i have mentioned and considered the rights of the woman and have provided a solution for it. i have said as have others that abortion must be provided where genuinely necessary. if that isn't considering the rights of the woman then what is?
i have said that if this had been proposed, instead of abortion on demand up to 12 weeks, then a lot of no votes for repeal would be yes votes instead. i truely believe that based on people i know and have spoken to who will also be voting no like me

silverharp

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

We don't routinely kill people that are in comas , its their future prospects that matter. Likewise 1 one week old born baby has less clue about its existence than your pet cat, it is its future prospects that that give it protection.

My thought experiment would be if medicine reached the point where it could transfer a foetus at a few weeks into an artificial womb then abortion would cease to be ethical

end of the road wrote:

i have mentioned and considered the rights of the woman and have provided a solution for it. i have said as have others that abortion must be provided where genuinely necessary. if that isn't considering the rights of the woman then what is? i have said that if this had been proposed, instead of abortion on demand up to 12 weeks, then a lot of no votes for repeal would be yes votes instead. i truely believe that based on people i know and have spoken to who will also be voting no like me

I never asked you about the rights of the woman to obtain an abortion. I'm asking about the 8th amendment and the implications of same on the medical care of women. I'm asking why you think it's acceptable or just that women have had to take cases to the high court to have their wishes re medical care during pregnancy respected, and why it is ok that they have no rights to consent to medical treatment during pregnancy

Triceratops Ballet wrote: »

I never asked you about the rights of the woman to obtain an abortion. I'm asking about the 8th amendment and the implications of same on the medical care of women. I'm asking why you think it's acceptable or just that women have had to take cases to the high court to have their wishes re medical care during pregnancy respected, and why it is ok that they have no rights to consent to medical treatment during pregnancy

fair enough. i don't believe it is okay or exceptible that women have to go to court or be refused an ability to consent to, or not consent to treatment. however as much as that is the case, preventing abortion on demand has been made the greater issue for me via the government's proposals.

This post has been deleted.