nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Men's rights on Abortion?

drunkmonkey

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

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

optogirl

end of the road wrote: »

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.

What is the issue with 'on demand'. It doesn't mean on a whim which is how many people try to frame it, it means as & when it's needed.

Martina1991

end of the road wrote:

i have said as have others that abortion must be provided where genuinely necessary. 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.

All abortions are necessary to the women who have them.

THOUSANDS of Irish women have abortions every year. The 8th amendment has not stopped them.

The 8th is just a major barrier in the healthcare of our women. It doesn't protect anyone.

lawred2

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

and who will judge that?

silverharp

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I would guess you would think its wrong to abort an 8mth foetus ? so " a life outside the womb" isn't the decider. On your other point most higher animals have some "sentience" , a mature gorilla is arguably more sentient than a 1 wk old baby, depending on how you define it so the future does matter.

I said "cease to be ethical" , I probably have a Rothbardian view in that our technology doesn't allow for the transfer of custodian rights for want of a better term of the foetus from the mother to society, meanwhile the mother ought not be compelled to sustain the foetus either as that is an act of coercion against the mother.

[Deleted User]

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?

So if a woman is pregnant & she doesn't wish to be, then an abortion is genuinely necessary.
Glad you agree at last!!

DickSwiveller

bubblypop wrote: »

So if a woman is pregnant & she doesn't wish to be, then an abortion is genuinely necessary.
Glad you agree at last!!

Couldn't she not get pregnant in the first place? That would be too much responsibility I suppose.

.......

This post has been deleted.

eviltwin

DickSwiveller wrote: »

Couldn't she not get pregnant in the first place? That would be too much responsibility I suppose.

Ideally yes but **** happens and if a woman is pregnant and wants an abortion it should be available here.

SusieBlue

DickSwiveller wrote: »

Couldn't she not get pregnant in the first place? That would be too much responsibility I suppose.

Your ignorance is astounding. Presuming your genius idea were possible, there would be no need for abortion. There would be none happening anywhere in the world. Unfortunately, contraception fails and crisis pregnancies occur.

I realise it furthers your cause to simplify the whole thing by saying she could just "not get pregnant", but real life and reality is very different.

Also I noted how you used "she" instead of "they" or "she and he" - did the woman get pregnant all by herself? What consequences do you feel should fall on the mans shoulders in this scenario?
What do you recommend happens to him?
Remember: It will need to impact his mobility, his bladder control, food and drink choices, earning ability, job performance, travel options, and his health for 9 months.
And it will have to end in hours of excruciating pain and possibly surgery.

So what should happen him?

[Deleted User]

Jesus lads get over it. Once you get someone pregnant that's it, tough ****. Argue it should different all you want, it's not going to happen. If she keeps it and you're lucky she might let you name it, but as with everything it's all completely at her discretion.
You get a girl pregnant tough ****, your job is to figure out what she wants without her saying it and go along with it.

lawred2

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Jesus lads get over it. Once you get someone pregnant that's it, tough ****. Argue it should different all you want, it's not going to happen. If she keeps it and you're lucky she might let you name it, but as with everything it's all completely at her discretion.
You get a girl pregnant tough ****, your job is to figure out what she wants without her saying it and go along with it.

Wtf sort of a contribution is that?

[Deleted User]

lawred2 wrote: »

Wtf sort of a contribution is that?

An accurate, factual one.

wexie

Deleted User wrote: »

You get a girl pregnant tough ****, your job is to figure out what she wants without her saying it and go along with it.

Really?

I would have thought perhaps a better way would be to find out what she wants before you get her pregnant?

But that's just me and I realise I'm kinda old fashioned

[Deleted User]

wexie wrote: »

Really?

I would have thought perhaps a better way would be to find out what she wants before you get her pregnant?

But that's just me and I realise I'm kinda old fashioned

I suppose you're right, everything always goes according to plan, nothing ever goes wrong, all pregnancies are planned and no-one ever changes their mind.

optogirl

Deleted User wrote: »

An accurate, factual one.

spat tea out laughing at this

end of the road

Martina1991 wrote: »

All abortions are necessary to the women who have them.

that doesn't make them necessary however. a lot of abortions are unnecessary. even if the person having the abortion believes it's necessary it doesn't make it so.

Martina1991 wrote: »

THOUSANDS of Irish women have abortions every year. The 8th amendment has not stopped them.

no law, rule or amendment stops everyone from doing something that they were designed to stop. it would be great if they did, but the reality is people go against them.

Martina1991 wrote: »

The 8th is just a major barrier in the healthcare of our women. It doesn't protect anyone.

it does protect some unborn's lives in my view. it's problematic in terms of health care i agree, but as it's removal removes the unborn's right to life from the constitution, then that is thee major issue, given the unborn don't have a voice.

end of the road

Triceratops Ballet wrote: »

So by extension one could say that when weighed up you have decided that the rights of the unborn are more important than the rights of women.

You acknowledge the 8th compromises the rights of pregnant women but will vote against it's repeal in order to protect the unborn thereby putting the unborn first and their mothers second.

Thanks for clarifying

given the proposals, i have no option but to side with the unborn and try to do my bit to insure the unborn's right to life remains within the constitution, given they don't have a voice.

optogirl wrote: »

What is the issue with 'on demand'. It doesn't mean on a whim which is how many people try to frame it, it means as & when it's needed.

the issue with on demand is it allows the killing of the unborn as a reproductive choice. the unborn should not lose their lives as a reproductive choice, because they aren't wanted or some other non-essential reason.

bubblypop wrote: »

So if a woman is pregnant & she doesn't wish to be, then an abortion is genuinely necessary.
Glad you agree at last!!

i don't agree. not wanting to be pregnant isn't in my view a good reason for the unborn to lose their life.

Martina1991

end of the road wrote:

that doesn't make them necessary however. a lot of abortions are unnecessary. even if the person having the abortion believes it's necessary it doesn't make it so.

Says Who? You?

You are the most judgemental person I've come across on boards.

You have absolutley no right to tell a woman in crisis that whats best for her.

[Deleted User]

end of the road wrote: »

that doesn't make them necessary however. a lot of abortions are unnecessary. even if the person having the abortion believes it's necessary it doesn't make it so.

no law, rule or amendment stops everyone from doing something that they were designed to stop. it would be great if they did, but the reality is people go against them.

it does protect some unborn's lives in my view. it's problematic in terms of health care i agree, but as it's removal removes the unborn's right to life from the constitution, then that is thee major issue, given the unborn don't have a voice.

if a woman is pregnant & does not wish to be, then yes, abortion is clearly neccesary.
your view basically protects the unborn of poorer women who cannot afford to travel & those not entitled to leave the country.

SusieBlue

end of the road wrote: »

that doesn't make them necessary however. a lot of abortions are unnecessary. even if the person having the abortion believes it's necessary it doesn't make it so.

no law, rule or amendment stops everyone from doing something that they were designed to stop. it would be great if they did, but the reality is people go against them.

it does protect some unborn's lives in my view. it's problematic in terms of health care i agree, but as it's removal removes the unborn's right to life from the constitution, then that is thee major issue, given the unborn don't have a voice.

You cannot categorically state that these abortions are unnecessary. You know nothing of the circumstances these women find themselves in.
How dare you dismiss what these women have gone through, implying yourself, a stranger on the internet, knows better than they do as to whether they needed an abortion or not.

This reminds me of the time you said that women think they need abortion, but they really don’t. As if they’re imbeciles incapable of making a coherent thought.

Who died and made you the authority on which abortions are needed and which aren’t?
Who are you to determine that? Who are you to even think you should have a say?

Seriously you have some nerve. I genuinely can’t understand why you are allowed to post in such a vitriolic fashion.

JRant

SusieBlue wrote: »

You cannot categorically state that these abortions are unnecessary. You know nothing of the circumstances these women find themselves in.
How dare you dismiss what these women have gone through, implying yourself, a stranger on the internet, knows better than they do as to whether they needed an abortion or not.

This reminds me of the time you said that women think they need abortion, but they really don’t. As if they’re imbeciles incapable of making a coherent thought.

Who died and made you the authority on which abortions are needed and which aren’t?
Who are you to determine that? Who are you to even think you should have a say?

Seriously you have some nerve. I genuinely can’t understand why you are allowed to post in such a vitriolic fashion.

Hilarious, you just did the exact thing you are accusing them of.

I fundamentally disagree with EOTR but nothing in their post was vitriolic and they are completely entitled to post their opinion here. They are just coming at this from a completely different perspective to you and that's fine. Everyone sees the world through a different lens.

SusieBlue

JRant wrote: »

Hilarious, you just did the exact thing you are accusing them of.

I fundamentally disagree with EOTR but nothing in their post was vitriolic and they are completely entitled to post their opinion here. They are just coming at this from a completely different perspective to you and that's fine. Everyone sees the world through a different lens.

No sorry, he is saying that the women who procure abortions think they are necessary but they really aren’t.
That’s exactly wha he said. He doesn’t have a clue why those women got those abortions, but he appears to know for a fact that they aren’t needed.

His OPINION, I don’t have a problem with.
The issue here is that he continuously presents these opinions as facts when that is not the case. He cannot categorically say these abortions weren’t necessary.

JRant

SusieBlue wrote: »

No sorry, he is saying that the women who procure abortions think they are necessary but they really aren’t.
That’s exactly wha he said. He doesn’t have a clue why those women got those abortions, but he appears to know for a fact that they aren’t needed.

His OPINION, I don’t have a problem with.
The issue here is that he continuously presents these opinions as facts when that is not the case. He cannot categorically say these abortions weren’t necessary.

Yes, but none of that is vitriolic, which is what you accused them of.

If you've ever had a discussion with EOTR before you would know that they are many things but vitriolic is not one of them.

end of the road

Martina1991 wrote: »

Says Who? You?

You are the most judgemental person I've come across on boards.

You have absolutley no right to tell a woman in crisis that whats best for her.

i'm not teling a woman in crisis what's best for her though. i'm saying that unless there is an extreme circumstance such as a threat to her life or to her becoming permanently disabled, she should not have the right to take the life of her unborn child. it's no different to the view that it's wrong to take any life except in extreme circumstances, as in one's life is under threat and there is no alternative.

bubblypop wrote: »

if a woman is pregnant & does not wish to be, then yes, abortion is clearly neccesary.
your view basically protects the unborn of poorer women who cannot afford to travel & those not entitled to leave the country.

if some unborn babies are protected from having their lives taken, then of course that is a good thing in my view.

SusieBlue wrote: »

You cannot categorically state that these abortions are unnecessary. You know nothing of the circumstances these women find themselves in.
How dare you dismiss what these women have gone through, implying yourself, a stranger on the internet, knows better than they do as to whether they needed an abortion or not.

This reminds me of the time you said that women think they need abortion, but they really don’t. As if they’re imbeciles incapable of making a coherent thought.

Who died and made you the authority on which abortions are needed and which aren’t?
Who are you to determine that? Who are you to even think you should have a say?

Seriously you have some nerve. I genuinely can’t understand why you are allowed to post in such a vitriolic fashion.

i'm not claiming to be an authority on anything. i'm basing my viewpoint on the stance i'd take in relation to the same child once born, if it was to have it's life taken just because it wasn't wanted or the parents couldn't afford a child. as i would fundamentally disagree with that happening once the child is born and believe it to be 100% wrong, i agree it's wrong before the child is born, as the only difference to me is the stages of development the child is at.

[Deleted User]

end of the road wrote: »

if some unborn babies are protected from having their lives taken, then of course that is a good thing in my view.
.

but only the unborn babies that are born into poverty? what happens once they are born?
that is not important to you, the only thing that is important to you is that they are born?
into unwanted lives.
how considerate

givyjoe

bubblypop wrote: »

but only the unborn babies that are born into poverty? what happens once they are born?
that is not important to you, the only thing that is important to you is that they are born?
into unwanted lives.
how considerate

How considerate? I'm sure an unborn child would think it's pretty inconsiderate to be terminated simply because they're not wanted.
People who can't afford to have children shouldn't be having them, not aborting them after they've conceived. Contraceptive options should be made available to those in financial difficulty to facilitate this. No problem with terminations to protect the life of a mother though.

The above is simply a point of view of course.

manonboard

There is lots of talk about how it only affects poorer people who can not afford to travel.

However, I've not seen any data showing how many people this actually affects. We live in a pretty generous social welfare state, and the boat to the UK is pretty cheap. So i find it a hard to believe reason.

Does anyone have any stats on it? How many people this stops from getting an abortion or claims hinders?
I've been unable to find any showing this area.

*im not interested in believing any opinion, im asking for stats on this.

manonboard

givyjoe wrote: »

How considerate? I'm sure an unborn child would think it's pretty inconsiderate to be terminated simply because they're not wanted. .

I think it was sarcasm

manonboard

SusieBlue wrote: »

Seriously you have some nerve. I genuinely can’t understand why you are allowed to post in such a vitriolic fashion.

Thats a very inaccurate statement. The post was not in any way vitriolic. They have a point that you disagree with. Their post was well explained according to their own ethics, but such accusations by you present you as emotionally unreasonable.

[Deleted User]

givyjoe wrote: »

How considerate? I'm sure an unborn child would think it's pretty inconsiderate to be terminated simply because they're not wanted.
People who can't afford to have children shouldn't be having them, not aborting them after they've conceived. Contraceptive options should be made available to those in financial difficulty to facilitate this. No problem with terminations to protect the life of a mother though.

The above is simply a point of view of course.

because contraception is 100% affective right? you do know that unwanted pregnancy occurs?
contraception fails, unless you are suggesting people only have sex for reproduction?

& to be fair an unborn child doesnt think anything.... I was an unplanned child, my father wanted abortion, my mother didnt.
if I was aborted, I wouldnt know.
we are all of us, all 3 very much pro choice.