Men's rights on Abortion?

kumate_champ07 wrote: »

you lost your argument if you dont even know what the definition is

I can't repeat it verbatim no and I'm not in a position to copy and paste it either. But having read it before, I don't have any problems with the current legal definition.

kumate_champ07 wrote: »

you lost your argument if you dont even know what the definition is

A few minutes ago you posted up something like :

" If i was attacked when walking home and murdered the attacker to save myself "

kumate_champ07 wrote: »

............

the definition of murder is 'an unlawful killing'

.

Nope

Manslaughter is an unlawful killing


Murder occurs if a person intended to kill, or cause serious injury to, another person who dies as a result.

kumate_champ07 wrote: »

you left out this part that I wrote at the end
"perhaps its just an acceptable type of murder."

Everyone would leave that bit out mate because it's stupid and not worth engaging with...

kumate_champ07 wrote: »

gctest50 wrote: »

A few minutes ago you posted up something like :

" If i was attacked when walking home and murdered the attacker to save myself "

I didnt write that! whats your point?

I wrote something else structured much better but decided to delete it as theres not much actual discussion here so it was wasted

but whats your point anyway

My point ? you don't know what murder is



See the word like above in the quote box ? - very important word that



or you are trying to "win points" ???? - which would be a bit sad really

kumate_champ07 wrote: »

FYI to anyone who wants to score points against me, I've had enough internet for today so wont be explaining my argument any further or replying for now

Must be time for your tea soon



.

kumate_champ07 wrote: »

......

I wrote something else structured much better but decided to delete it as theres not much actual discussion here so it was wasted

Paste in what you wrote

- it was along the lines of : " if i murdered my attacker " etc

kumate_champ07 wrote: »

anyone with a bit of intelligence would figure out how to find a deleted post,.......

Show me step be step how to find your deleted quote

kumate_champ07 wrote: »

.....

there is a reason I deleted the post in the first place

What reason ?

kumate_champ07 wrote: »

..............

I wrote something else structured much better but decided to delete it as theres not much actual discussion here so it was wasted

.......

You won't paste it in because it was bullsh!t

kumate_champ07 wrote: »

anyone with a bit of intelligence would figure out how to find a deleted post

I'm still waiting for you to show me how to find your deleted post

I would just add to the above that the UK legislation appears to be more akin to a murder or manslaughter charge and has been traditionally levied where (in the relatively few cases it has been used) a pregnant woman has been attacked while pregnant.

The Protection of Life During Pregnancy Actis what would be utilised here to prosecute illegal abortion. The terminology is quite different to that used to describe other forms of unlawful killing.

SusieBlue wrote: »

Its not murder. No matter how many times you try to insist, it simply isn't.

legally no . morally, it's similar.

SusieBlue wrote: »

No it isn't. If it was considered murder, we wouldn't have written it into our constitution to permit women to travel for abortions.
That isn't just allowing it, or sweeping it under the carpet, we actually wrote it into our constitution that this is allowed.

Surely if it were considered murder, we'd be prosecuting these women to the highest point of the law, for the crime of going abroad to cruelly execute an innocent child? Surely nothing would be too much trouble to prevent these callous murders from happening?
Oh wait. We don't.

Because aborting Irish children is absolutely fine, according to the Pro Lifers, so long as it doesn't happen in Ireland.
Which is the biggest load of hypocritical NIMBYism whataboutery ever.

some pro-lifers maybe fine with it as long as it isn't happening in ireland but they don't represent most i wouldn't think. they certainly don't represent me.

SusieBlue wrote: »

Exactly. I don't believe a pre 12 week old fetus is of equal worth to me, unless I decide it to be so.
In other words, if there are risks to my health, wellbeing, or life, and I am happy to continue with a pregnancy, that is on me.
However I should be allowed to avoid those risks if I want to.
At the moment I have no choice. The choice is made for me by the constitution.

As a living, breathing woman my rights, wants, and needs, as well as those of any existing children I have, should be prioritised over that of a potential person. Unless I decide otherwise.
Its no one else's decision but mine to make.

Strangers on the internet know nothing of my life, my past, my health, my circumstances. Which is why its very hard for me to stomach that they would try to force me, or any woman, into a pregnancy she didn't want.
Taking away choices from living people is absolutely not in the best interests of anyone.

the choice is made for you via the constitution as it should be given another life is involved. it's no different to the law deciding you can't kill a newborn, the only difference in real terms is the stage of development that a 12 week fetus is at and a newborn is at. your rights are prioritised over a 12 week fetus and i think most will be fine with that. however your wants are your problem and the unborn should not have it's life ended because of a want or of other children, when there are supports availible to help you. everyone of us has choices taken away from us to help with the smooth functioning and running of society. that is mostly fair enough.

Triceratops Ballet wrote: »

We're not voting on murder though are we?
We're not even voting on abortion, we're voting on the 8th amendment.

effectively we are voting on whether abortion should be legalised though. ideally we would have had 2 separate referendums but i suppose it wasn't possible unfortunately.

cnocbui wrote: »

I really admire your position but it might be a lost cause. Ultimately, if the 8th isn't repealed, women should just emigrate to a civilised country and leave the Irish men to the abortion free society they want.

many women are pro-life believe it or not.

cnocbui wrote: »

People want to change the law so this country joins the rest of the OECD countries that allow abortions and recognise the intrinsic human rights of women.

Only women should have a say in whether they do or don't continue with a pregnancy. Men can also have a say if they find themselves pregnant, before anyone accuses me of insensitivity or bias.

ireland recognises the intrinsic human rights of women by supporting their right to be born in the first place. there is no human right to abortion, abortion seems to be a discretionary right.

eviltwin wrote: »

The legal definition sums it up for me

if the legal definition decides that what is currently murder is no longer murder, would you change your view with it?

eviltwin wrote: »

True but I find it hard to believe not not one person has been charged because the police aren't bothered or are under resourced etc.

Plenty of illegal abortion pills have been seized by customs. It's fairly easy to go to the address and charge the person involved. But even if they did it wouldn't be an attempted murder charge.

charging them would make them a marter. best not tbh.

lawred2 wrote: »

?

No changes are possible without constitutional changes so I'll call bullsh!t on your desire for 'changes'

Why can't you trust your Parliament to legislate?

you can call bull on my desire for changes all you like but the statement you quoted from me is correct. it is the facts as per my viewpoint. i don't want to simply trust the politicians with such a life and death situation, i want it in the constitution.