The 8th amendment referendum - part 4

suicide_circus · 21-05-2018 02:35PM

Cupcake_Crisis wrote: »

Out of curiosity, what’s your stance on men who opt out of parenthood? You know the ones who get women pregnant and decide they want absolutely nothing got to do it, abandon the woman and do everything in their power to avoid contributing to the child’s upbringing?

They are bad people. But that's not what we are voting on this Friday.

....... · 21-05-2018 02:35PM

This post has been deleted.

kylith · 21-05-2018 02:35PM

suicide_circus wrote: »

eviltwin wrote: »

Everyone has a voice in the debate but when it comes down to the actual procedure that's between the woman and her doctor.

And its at that point that a lot of men will pause and think about unrestricted purely choice based non life threatening/rape etc situations. But it's just the inescapable biologocal reality that men rely on women to protect and nurture their children in utero so I suppose it really is just tough sh*t.

On a side note, hopefully after Friday we won't have to see those ghastly repeal tops any more.

The 8th amendment does nothing to stop a woman with the means to travel or order pills from terminating a pregnancy against her partner’s wishes anyway.

Bannasidhe · 21-05-2018 02:35PM

suicide_circus wrote: »

Well I would say that in having the abortion (on choice grounds) the woman would be addicating her parenthood.

That wasn't what I asked you.

You spoke in terms of men relying on women to have their [men's] children. This can be read as if these children are the property of men and the women are simply the means of production.

Is that what you meant or not?

jigglypuffstuff · 21-05-2018 02:36PM

SusieBlue wrote: »

Doing it for economic reasons is perfectly acceptable to me - why bring a child you can't afford into a life of poverty?

Sorry but no...if you've got no financial means to support a child then you've little business engaging in sexual intercourse

The primary biological function of coitus is procreation. If any said individual is too immature to realise that then they should pause and question their actions

This act first ask questions later retrospective nonsense is the reason for innumerable mistakes in every walk of Life

Additionally...if an individual cannot control their carnal desire, perhaps they should engage in s supplementary activity that does not end in procreation.

A little restraint goes a long way, but that's asking too much of some people I guess

Monkey09 · 21-05-2018 02:37PM

spookwoman wrote: »

You have been told contraception is not 100% and if it fails and gets pregnant it can still affect her physical and metal health.
Adoption is still forcing a woman to continue with a pregnancy if she doesn't want to be pregnant.
Forcing a person to go through hell which could affect them for the rest of their life is ok so someone else can have a little bit of happiness are you for real?

I realise that contraception is not 100% effective. However, when used correctly, I believe it is very effective. I'm not sure exactly what the figures are but I believe it is about 99% if not more. The women who are unlucky enough to find themselves pregnant as a result of failed contraception are tiny. We should not change our laws so radically to deal with this very rare occurrence.

January · 21-05-2018 02:37PM

Ah don't have sex if you don't want a baby. Shame, shame, I know your name.

....... · 21-05-2018 02:37PM

This post has been deleted.

SusieBlue · 21-05-2018 02:38PM

Monkey09 wrote: »

How dare I? So expressing my opinion is not allowed now? Laws are in place to ensure people behave in a certain way. For example, there are laws which make it illegal to drink and drive. Are u saying that the people who enacted this law have no right to restrict people from drinking and drinking, if they wish to do so? I have utmost sympathy for any woman who is raped. She deserves every support. However, the baby she is carrying has committed no crime. It should not be forced to pay for it's father's crime.

Having an opinion is fine. Ponitificating about what someone who has been assault should or should not do after being attacked isn't ok. You don't know what you'd do in that situation till it actually happened.

Drink driving effects living born citizens and its rightly illegal, and is no comparison.

Forcing a woman who does not want to carry her rapists baby to remain pregnant is punishing her, she is just as innocent in the matter as the baby that you are so keen to defend.

I disagree with your argument that an unborn baby is not actually a person. At 12 weeks, the baby has a heartbeat, all vital organs, can move, yawn and suck. It deserves the protection of the law.

I'm a grown woman, I have a heartbeat, all vital organs, can move, yawn and everything else you said.
Why are you offering and advocating something the size of a grape have equal rights to me?

nullzero · 21-05-2018 02:38PM

January wrote: »

Yeah, but if my husband had never existed, would I be missing out on anything huge? Don't get me wrong, I love him to bits and my children also but if I'd never met him and met someone else, would my life be much different? Worse/better? I don't know and I won't dwell on it because if she had obtained an abortion, I'd have never known anyway.

I don't know her, she doesn't want anything to do with my husband, which only compounds his feelings of being unwanted, it's hard because he's quite insecure about it.

I think it's an important insight into your thought process.
Your husband does exist,any metaphysical discussions about what may or may not have been are irrelevant.
The situation is what it is and you have benefited for it. Although "would I be missing out on anything huge" perhaps wasn't the most sensitive way to describe the father of your children.
I do appreciate your honesty however.

January · 21-05-2018 02:38PM

Monkey09 wrote: »

I realise that contraception is not 100% effective. However, when used correctly, I believe it is very effective. I'm not sure exactly what the figures are but I believe it is about 99% if not more. The women who are unlucky enough to find themselves pregnant as a result of failed contraception are tiny. We should not change our laws so radically to deal with this very rare occurrence.

Actually, you're wrong there, but I'll let someone else, I think they have a handy spreadsheet they can post, which will explain the ACTUAL failure rates of each contraception for you.

Cupcake_Crisis · 21-05-2018 02:38PM

suicide_circus wrote: »

They are bad people. But that's not what we are voting on this Friday.

But you do see the double standard, right? It’s ok for a man to decide he’s not ready to be a parent, but a woman can’t do that.

I assume you’re actively campaigning for strict punishments for men who opt out of parenthood?

suicide_circus · 21-05-2018 02:39PM

AtomicHorror wrote: »

How do you take responsibility when the law offers you only one path? Moral responsibility requires choice. So that the outcome- be it a good birth, a bad birth, a good termination or a bad one- is an accepted result of the decision made by the person. They are responsible. Otherwise whatever happens are just consequences of obeying the law, and nobody is responsible.

That is what you want- a world in which awful things sometimes happen, but we content ourselves that at least it isn't anyone's fault.

That is sound logic.

The difficulty being that there is a second party (allegedly) involved and taking responsibility for the ending of that life goes beyond the scope of personal responsibility in the usual sense.

Bannasidhe · 21-05-2018 02:40PM

Monkey09 wrote: »

I disagree with your argument that an unborn baby is not actually a person. At 12 weeks, the baby has a heartbeat, all vital organs, can move, yawn and suck. It deserves the protection of the law.

Do stop getting your information from posters stuck up poles.

"Claim:
The 12-week fetus makes purposeful movements (e.g., agitated movement in an attempt to avoid suction cannula).

Facts:
At this stage of pregnancy, all fetal movement is reflexive in nature rather than purposeful, since the latter requires cognition, which is the ability to perceive and know. For cognition to occur, the cortex (gray matter covering the brain) must be present, as well as myelinization (covering sheath) of the spinal cord and attached nerves, which is not the case.

An example of the reflex withdrawal without pain occurs in an anencephalic (absent brain) newborn. Another known example of the reflex movement at this stage of human pregnancy is thumb sucking in utero.

What is termed "frantic activity" by the fetus is a reflex response of the fetus resulting from movement of the uterus and its contents induced by operator manipulation of the suction curette or the ultrasound transducer on the abdomen. This same type of response would likely occur with any external stimulus. A one-cell organism such as an amoeba will reflexively move or display a withdrawal reaction when touched.

The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists
Statement on Pain of the Fetus

We know of no legitimate scientific information that supports the statement that a fetus experiences pain early in pregnancy.
We do know that the cerebellum attains its final configuration in the seventh month and that mylenization (or covering) of the spinal cord and the brain begins between the 20th and 40th weeks of pregnancy. These, as well as other neurological developments, would have to be in place for the fetus to receive pain.
To feel pain, a fetus needs neurotransmitted hormones. In animals, these complex chemicals develop in the last third of gestation. We know of no evidence that humans are different."

http://prochoicechristian1.blogspot....am-is-lie.html

SusieBlue · 21-05-2018 02:40PM

pone2012 wrote: »

Sorry but no...if you've got no financial means to support a child then you've little business engaging in sexual intercourse

The primary biological function of coitus is procreation. If any said individual is too immature to realise that then they should pause and question their actions

This act first ask questions later retrospective nonsense is the reason for innumerable mistakes in every walk of Life

Additionally...if an individual cannot control their carnal desire, perhaps they should engage in s supplementary activity that does not end in procreation.

A little restraint goes a long way, but that's asking too much of some people I guess

I presume you are celibate yourself then, practicing what you preach? And I presume you've never engaged in sex for recreational reasons, ever?

....... · 21-05-2018 02:40PM

This post has been deleted.

January · 21-05-2018 02:41PM

nullzero wrote: »

I think it's an important insight into your thought process.
Your husband does exist,any metaphysical discussions about what may or may not have been are irrelevant.
The situation is what it is and you have benefited for it. Although "would I be missing out on anything huge" perhaps wasn't the most sensitive way to describe the father of your children.
I do appreciate your honesty however.

'The father of my children' isn't the best way to describe the man I've chosen to spend my life with. He's so much more than that to me, but again, if I hadn't met him, if he had never existed, I'm sure I'd have coped without him.

amcalester · 21-05-2018 02:41PM

Monkey09 wrote: »

I disagree with your argument that an unborn baby is not actually a person. At 12 weeks, the baby has a heartbeat, all vital organs, can move, yawn and suck. It deserves the protection of the law.

The Supreme Court has ruled that an unborn baby is not a person, there's a reason why we have birth certs rather than pregnancy certs.

suicide_circus · 21-05-2018 02:42PM

Cupcake_Crisis wrote: »

But you do see the double standard, right? It’s ok for a man to decide he’s not ready to be a parent, but a woman can’t do that.

Oh 100%. A woman will get the rough end of the deal because she is carrying the child that she dosnt want and a man will get the rough end of the deal when the child he does want is aborted.

gmisk · 21-05-2018 02:43PM

suicide_circus wrote: »

On a side note, hopefully after Friday we won't have to see those ghastly repeal tops any more.

And those horrible love both hoodies....and those horrible lie filled No posters...and those graphic posters ICBR love to put up....

Just finishing your sentence for you, you are welcome.

Bannasidhe · 21-05-2018 02:43PM

pone2012 wrote: »

Sorry but no...if you've got no financial means to support a child then you've little business engaging in sexual intercourse

The primary biological function of coitus is procreation. If any said individual is too immature to realise that then they should pause and question their actions

This act first ask questions later retrospective nonsense is the reason for innumerable mistakes in every walk of Life

Additionally...if an individual cannot control their carnal desire, perhaps they should engage in s supplementary activity that does not end in procreation.

A little restraint goes a long way, but that's asking too much of some people I guess

Then why do women have a clitoris?

That little pleasure button has nowt to do with reproduction.

suicide_circus · 21-05-2018 02:44PM

Bannasidhe wrote: »

That wasn't what I asked you.

You spoke in terms of men relying on women to have their [men's] children. This can be read as if these children are the property of men and the women are simply the means of production.

Is that what you meant or not?

Are you for real? Children are property? Means of production? Do you really think that's what I mean? You don't work in academia by any chance?

Cupcake_Crisis · 21-05-2018 02:44PM

suicide_circus wrote: »

Oh 100%. A woman will get the rough end of the deal because she is carrying the child that she dosnt want and a man will get the rough end of the deal when the child he does want is aborted.

The woman gets the raw end of the deal either way. There will always be men who don’t want to be fathers, and women who don’t want to be mothers. That’s just the way it is. But one of those groups has parenthood forced upon them under the 8th amendment.

eviltwin · 21-05-2018 02:44PM

pone2012 wrote: »

Sorry but no...if you've got no financial means to support a child then you've little business engaging in sexual intercourse

The primary biological function of coitus is procreation. If any said individual is too immature to realise that then they should pause and question their actions

This act first ask questions later retrospective nonsense is the reason for innumerable mistakes in every walk of Life

Additionally...if an individual cannot control their carnal desire, perhaps they should engage in s supplementary activity that does not end in procreation.

A little restraint goes a long way, but that's asking too much of some people I guess

I don't want anymore kids. Are you seriously suggesting I have a sexless marriage just in case my contraception fails? Not a chance.

suicide_circus · 21-05-2018 02:45PM

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Then why do women have a clitoris?

That little pleasure button has nowt to do with reproduction.

Eh....sex feels good so humans are more likely to reproduce...no?

gmisk · 21-05-2018 02:45PM

pone2012 wrote: »

supplementary activity

Oh my gird my loins!!!!!! :rolleyes:

Monkey09 · 21-05-2018 02:45PM

....... wrote: »

It is lacking in many faculties that the woman carrying it has and as such should not be afforded rights over and above her bodily autonomy.

Its not conscious, sentient, aware, cannot feel pain, it is not a person, has no relationships or responsibilities in the world, it is simply a potential person.

She is an actual born person who is conscious, aware and sentient.

Now please explain why the fetus should have rights over her right to bodily autonomy and yawning and sucking really dont matter - the woman can do that too.

It can feel pain. I have heard many doctor's have seen babies move away from instruments during an abortion. A baby in the early stages of pregnancy is vulnerable and needs protection. I am not saying that this baby should have rights above those of the mother where the mother's life is in danger. My issue is with ending the life of a human being just because it is not convenient for the woman. That is not right.

nullzero · 21-05-2018 02:45PM

January wrote: »

'The father of my children' isn't the best way to describe the man I've chosen to spend my life with. He's so much more than that to me, but again, if I hadn't met him, if he had never existed, I'm sure I'd have coped without him.

I'm sure you would have.
Thanks for the insight all the same.

suicide_circus · 21-05-2018 02:46PM

gmisk wrote: »

And those horrible love both hoodies....and those horrible lie filled No posters...and those graphic posters ICBR love to put up....

Just finishing your sentence for you, you are welcome.

Haven't seen the hoodies tbh. Don't feel bad, if it's a no vote you can still wear your top.

....... · 21-05-2018 02:46PM

This post has been deleted.

The 8th amendment referendum - part 4

Comments