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; } } }

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

Comments

end of the road

SusieBlue wrote: »

No, adoption is not an option in this country.
In 2016 only 5 infants were adopted, as per government statistics.

Due to advancements in fertility treatments, many people choosing not to having kids, and the average family getting smaller, there is little to no appetite for adoption.

It is also an extremely long drawn out expensive process so the minority of parents that are seeking to adopt do so internationally, from countries such as Vietnam and Russia.

As well as that in order to surrender your baby, you need to declare yourself an unfit parent to social services. This means any older children you have or any future children you do have will be taken as well.

Truthfully, how many couples do you know that have adopted a newborn or a toddler, over the last 12 months? I don’t know any.

If you want to stop 4K abortions you need to find 4K willing parents to adopt these kids. And that simply isn’t realistic. So really what you’d be doing is putting an extra 4K kids into the foster care system every year.

And you can say what you want about abortion but bringing a child into the world to dump it into state care is cruel. It’s no life for a child.

Regardless none of these scenarios are helpful to a woman who will not or can not stay pregnant.

I really wish people would actually research adoption processes in this country before throwing it out as an alternative willy nilly.

the rules around adoption can be changed to remove those problems. the unborn life that has been ended cannot be restarted.

kanadams123

Calhoun wrote: »

I don't mind women pointing out how it affects them, but as this is a male orientate forum men do have an opinion on it and look at it from a different or wider ranging perspective.

As i said this will probably be a win, you have the government of the day, most of the media and online in Ireland all for it. Its just concerning at times how stuff is going and how it seems like as a man your ability to vote is being marginalized. I guess because of the support the pro-choice side is getting i judge it more harshly because maybe i expect a bit more.

Over the past 24 hours, i have seen old people being ripped into and the piss taken out of them online, we have a minister leading the charge on this and would have been sharing a stage with an activist who is on record saying she is glad a TD died because he was pro-life ( she is actually defending this position now).

Some place Ireland is turning into from a male perspective, assumed rapists, financially locked into looking after a child for 18 years if the woman wants to keep it but your not viewed as been trustworthy enough to have any meaningful impact in the childs life.

Very well said. Totally agree with every word.

SusieBlue

end of the road wrote: »

the rules around adoption can be changed to remove those problems. the unborn life that has been ended cannot be restarted.

Why have no pro life people campaigned to change these rules over the last 35 years then? Since the 8th was put in place?

kanadams123

Ok..i might get some backlash over this metaphor but just read it..it will explain my feelings as pro life!

Imagine you walk into a restaraunt and there is a counter with a selection of dishes.
You come across a dish with some chicken (or another thing you like).
However over the chicken there was some mushroom and brocolli pesto sause poured over it (or something else you dont like)
Now, you would like the chicken, but you hate the pesto on it, and cant scrape it off.
Do you take the dish anyway and eat it?
Most would answer no.

Now..imagaine the restarunt is our constitution, the dishes are the many laws, the chicken dish you came across is the eight amendment.
Pro-choicers take the dish from the restaraunt, as they like both the meat and the pesto, (ie they want to take the 8th from the constitution)
However Pro-lifers are those who dont like the pesto.
The chicken is the bulk of the 8th, which we would like to take from the constitution BUT the pesto is the part of the eight which we do not like (ie abortion possible legalisation) so we leave the whole dish there.

Ie we want to leave the 8th amendment in the constition because of abortion....the same way one would leave the dish in the restaraunt because of the pesto.

AGAIN tbis is a metaphor to clear up my opinion...not a literall comparement.

end of the road

SusieBlue wrote: »

Why have no pro life people campaigned to change these rules over the last 35 years then? Since the 8th was put in place?

how do you know they haven't. maybe they have. the media doesn't cover everything.

SusieBlue

end of the road wrote: »

how do you know they haven't. maybe they have. the media doesn't cover everything.

I would say that if there have been no noticible changes in 35 years the answer is a safe no.

SusieBlue

kanadams123 wrote: »

Ok..i might get some backlash over this metaphor but just read it..it will explain my feelings as pro life!

Imagine you walk into a restaraunt and there is a counter with a selection of dishes.
You come across a dish with some chicken (or another thing you like).
However over the chicken there was some mushroom and brocolli pesto sause poured over it (or something else you dont like)
Now, you would like the chicken, but you hate the pesto on it, and cant scrape it off.
Do you take the dish anyway and eat it?
Most would answer no.

Now..imagaine the restarunt is our constitution, the dishes are the many laws, the chicken dish you came across is the eight amendment.
Pro-choicers take the dish from the restaraunt, as they like both the meat and the pesto, (ie they want to take the 8th from the constitution)
However Pro-lifers are those who dont like the pesto.
The chicken is the bulk of the 8th, which we would like to take from the constitution BUT the pesto is the part of the eight which we do not like (ie abortion possible legalisation) so we leave the whole dish there.

Ie we want to leave the 8th amendment in the constition because of abortion....the same way one would leave the dish in the restaraunt because of the pesto.

AGAIN tbis is a metaphor to clear up my opinion...not a literall comparement.

I think you are overcomplicating it.
A better way to summarise it would be that with a Yes vote, nobody has to eat the bits they don’t like. They can pick and choose which bits they like and not bother with the rest.
A No vote ensures everyone has to eat the same thing, even if they’re allergic to it and it makes it ill. It’s tough luck because the No voters want everyone to live life based on their feelings.

There will be no forced abortions.
I myself will never have an abortion but am pro choice because it isn’t all about me.
It isn’t about my morals, my opinions or my feelings.
It’s about respecting the fact that we can’t legislate to cover for every single minute eventuality a pregnancy might bring, so we are trusting women to make the best choice they can in their own unique circumstances.

end of the road

SusieBlue wrote: »

I would say that if there have been no noticible changes in 35 years the answer is a safe no.

not really tbh. there have been plenty of campaigns for various things over the years that have gone nowhere because the government wouldn't implement change.

SusieBlue wrote: »

There will be no forced abortions.
I myself will never have an abortion but am pro choice because it isn’t all about me.
It isn’t about my morals, my opinions or my feelings.
It’s about respecting the fact that we can’t legislate to cover for every single minute eventuality a pregnancy might bring, so we are trusting women to make the best choice they can in their own unique circumstances.

the fact there won't be forced abortions and an individual may not have an abortion isn't relevant though. the vast majority of us aren't going to do anything to harm others in any way, but we aren't going to remove the legislation preventing people from harming others either, except in the case of the unborn should repeal win. the reality is morals, opinions and feelings will be the main decider in this vote whether people want them to be or not, because people will be deciding their vote on whether they believe abortion should or shouldn't be availible. we don't simply trust women not to harm others, they are subject to the laws of the land. this is nothing to do with trusting women, as i think the vast majority of men and women trust women.

gozunda

kanadams123 wrote: »

From reading through the majority of these posts it looks like pro-life campaigners are being shut down because of the opinions they wish to make, MOST of which are acceptable, valid opinions! (namely @endoftheroad and @DickSwizeler)

From what i have read on this thread the majority of pro-lifers are stating their opinion, to be told they are wrong (now the same thing goes the other way too, but not as much)
Why is it we are not allowed make an opinion without being told we are wrong?

The 8th amendment, and more specifically the abortion side of things is a clear ethical issue! Ethics is defined as whether something is right or wrong. Some people here think it is right and others think it is wrong. That is perfectly acceptable. Some people here need to get over the fact that not everyone will have the same opinion as you and that's OK. That is why we are having what is called a "vote" (or referendum) because not every single person in Ireland, is going to vote yes or vote no. Accept it.

#ProLifeCampaign #VoteNo

You don't think you could be a tad biased there by any chance?

It's called a discussion and whilst everyone is free to post their opinions - it does not hold that opinion will not be held up to scrutiny - no matter what you think ...

Mark Hamill

end of the road wrote: »

it will be illegal for her to have it in ireland however.

I've posted the following before, but you keep betraying the same sentiment, so it still applies:

It seems that, for all your talk about life beginning at conception and abortion killing an innocent baby, you position really boils down to a snobbish NIMBYism.

You don't really care about abortions happening, you just don't want them to happen here. You pretend to have same moral duty to prevent abortions as you would to stop someone killing their own toddler, but then also pretend that some semantic mental gymnastics absolve you of the duty if it happenes abroad at their own cost. Would you really do nothing to stop someone going abroad to kill their toddler, if you knew that was going to happen? Wouldn't you feel a moral duty to stop them? If a foetus is the same as a born baby, why don't you feel the same for Irish abortions abroad?

It is very dissappointing that, in my view, the vast majority of anti-choice crowd boil down to the same position.

Mark Hamill

kanadams123 wrote: »

Why is it we are not allowed make an opinion without being told we are wrong?

Why should anyones opinion be protected from criticism?

kanadams123

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Why should anyones opinion be protected from criticism?

I accept critisism and that you and others don't agree...but no one should be told that there opinion is "wrong". Disagrer with it if you need to, that is what a discussion is...but everyone has there own opinion..and everyone's opinion is right in there own mind, whether you agree or not.
I am open to critisism and i am ok with the fact that you do not have the same opinion as me..but that doesn't necessarly mean it is wrong...same way i don't agree with your opinion, however i never said you were wrong in what you said, as you are entitled to your opinion. I did critisise however as that is what this discussion has turned into.

.......

This post has been deleted.

JRant

bubblypop wrote: »

When it comes to repealing the 8th amendment, I assume most men realise how important it is . I trust men to vote for women.

Just on this point, why the hell should any vote be given based on gender?

People should inform themselves and vote on this issue because of its merits, not genitalia.

SusieBlue

JRant wrote: »

Just on this point, why the hell should any vote be given based on gender?

People should inform themselves and vote on this issue because of its merits, not genitalia.

I think the point being made there was that the 8th directly affects the healthcare for women, the 8th does not have the same impact on bodily autonomy or healthcare on men as it does on women.

El_Duderino 09

SusieBlue wrote: »

I think the point being made there was that the 8th directly affects the healthcare for women, the 8th does not have the same impact on bodily autonomy or healthcare on men as it does on women.

That means when it comes to actually having an abortion it will be down to the woman. But the referendum is a constitutional issue so obviously everyone should be involved. Should only gay people decide on gay marriage? Should only children decide on children's issues? Should only rich people decide on wealth taxes?

[Deleted User]

JRant wrote: »

Just on this point, why the hell should any vote be given based on gender?

People should inform themselves and vote on this issue because of its merits, not genitalia.

What? Seriously?
The 8th amendment affects women, it affects women's health, it allows women to be treated differently to men.
I'm not sure where you are going with your 'not genitalia' quote.
You do know what the 8th amendment is right? You do know what it says?
It's not my fault it's about women, it just is.
I would expect most men would want the women in their lives to have the same right to medical treatment as they do.
I'm not sure why you are trying to make this some anti male thing?

JRant

bubblypop wrote: »

What? Seriously?
The 8th amendment affects women, it affects women's health, it allows women to be treated differently to men.
I'm not sure where you are going with your 'not genitalia' quote.
You do know what the 8th amendment is right? You do know what it says?
It's not my fault it's about women, it just is.
I would expect most men would want the women in their lives to have the same right to medical treatment as they do.
I'm not sure why you are trying to make this some anti male thing?

Yes, seriously, vote on the issue instead basing it on gender.

If you left the passive aggressive nonsense out and actually read what I wrote you may understand the point I was trying to make.

kumate_champ07

bubblypop wrote: »

What? Seriously?
The 8th amendment affects women, it affects women's health, it allows women to be treated differently to men.
I'm not sure where you are going with your 'not genitalia' quote.
You do know what the 8th amendment is right? You do know what it says?
It's not my fault it's about women, it just is.
I would expect most men would want the women in their lives to have the same right to medical treatment as they do.
I'm not sure why you are trying to make this some anti male thing?

If a woman is pregnant with my son and decides to terminate his life even tho there are other viable options, how is that not an issue for men too?

Do we want equality or do we want a society that is defined by biological differences only when it suits a certain gender? Men are stronger than women. Every job that includes physical activities should be automatically given to a man even if a woman has suitable qualifications, or should we base society on how to treat humans, rather than *two different sections? *(or whatever LGBTQXYZ flavor you choose)

LirW

kumate_champ07 wrote: »

If a woman is pregnant with my son and decides to terminate his life even tho there are other viable options, how is that not an issue for men too?

She could be pregnant with your daughter too :pac:

Anyway, it seems you're not aware of the severe impact the 8th has on the maternity care on Ireland, even women that want their kids 100%.
You are not getting a scan in public care until you passed the 12 weeks. Most miscarriages happen before 12 weeks and an undetected miscarriage can be potentially life-threatening for a woman. The reason is to hinder women to decide for a termination, almost all of them happen before 12 weeks.
If women pay for their own scans before 12 weeks an an unviable pregnancy is detected (for example the embryo isn't growing but still has a very slow heartbeat), she can't get a termination for it because the embryo still has a heartbeat but will either die on it's own or before it happens can turn into a nasty infection that can be dangerous. Nothing could turn this embryo into a healthy baby. Imagine the mental impact a woman has that she want's to mourn her lost child but still can't because she's forced to carry it on until it either dies or she gets horribly ill.
This scenario does happen a lot more than you might think, it's suspected that over 50% of all pregnancies are miscarried early on, but a good number of bodies don't reject them.

Also women are overruled in their own decisions, they are on the clock in labour and the 8th is used as a justification for it. This results in a higher rate of C-sections or birth complications which can result in traumatic births and that certainly doesn't have a good effect on a new mother.
Basically if anything goes wrong and you're not having an easy pregnancy, you're f'd. Women are denied important medical care because of the 8th amendment. It impacts women that don't want a pregnancy and women that do want them equally. It is absolutely a medical issue. Step into any maternity ward in the country and listen and witness how women are treated there.

kumate_champ07

LirW wrote: »

She could be pregnant with your daughter too :pac:

Anyway, it seems you're not aware of the severe impact the 8th has on the maternity care on Ireland, even women that want their kids 100%.

You totally missed my point. The baby boy will become a man, therefore it effects men too, not just the sperm donor

You're make a big presumption there, no need to lecture me

This is a thread about mens opinions on abortion in a male orientated forum, thats where my discussion is based. Otherwise Id be in After Hours

kumate_champ07

and whats with the emoticon, am I to consider your attitude as condescending/mocking?

I have no problem with having a daughter

kumate_champ07

I have no problem with abortions for medical reasons, but we are headed towards the same type of system used as other countries which is morally wrong. If you cant see that you are blind. I'm not religious, but I value human life. It should be given a chance to grow up and experience being a human. No other species aborts their own children. Its not very humane

kanadams123

Birth and pregnancy is apart of the nature of life! Whether the baby is wanted or not and even if contraceptive methods were not successful, having a child is a part of the natural cycle of the human race and the unborn should always have the right to life.

________________________________

Vote No---Save the life of the unborn

kumate_champ07

Mr.S wrote: »

....because they can't....

you think they would if they could? because that is what you are assuming with that response

kumate_champ07

and if animals could give themselves abortions would that make it ok? arent we supposed to be the morally superior humans? note my previous usage of the term 'humane'

kumate_champ07

but anyway, back to the discussion on mens rights or have we concluded they have none?

Edward M

kumate_champ07 wrote: »

I have no problem with abortions for medical reasons, but we are headed towards the same type of system used as other countries which is morally wrong. If you cant see that you are blind. I'm not religious, but I value human life. It should be given a chance to grow up and experience being a human. No other species aborts their own children. Its not very humane

Animals frequently reject their offspring and even kill them after birth, being a bit of an would farmer I know that to be true even of farmed animals, but it does happen.

Mark Hamill

kumate_champ07 wrote: »

No other species aborts their own children. Its not very humane

Many many animals practice infanticide for many reasons. Maybe do a simple google search before you say something so clearly wrong?

Mark Hamill

kanadams123 wrote: »

I accept critisism and that you and others don't agree...but no one should be told that there opinion is "wrong".

But by saying this, you are saying my opinion (that no opinion should be protected from criticism) is wrong. So you have just criticised yourself.