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

drunkmonkey

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Do you believe travelling for abortion should be criminalised?

Do you believe travelling to Amsterdam/Spain/Portugal etc should be criminalised as we're allowed break Irish laws there?

SusieBlue

RocketRaccoon wrote: »

And what about the women who terminate a pregnancy despite the wishes of the father of the unborn child?

I've already said earlier in the thread that ideally there would be a scenario where both parents agree on the decision.
But if not, the woman absolutely does have to have the deciding vote. Its her body, so she should have the final say.

I've also said several times I think this is as much an issue for men as it is for women. These laws can effect their wives and daughters. They absolutely should have their say.

Mark Hamill

SusieBlue wrote: »

If contraceptive were 100% effective the amount of unplanned pregnancies would be nil.

But the number of abortions would not be.

SusieBlue

drunkmonkey wrote: »

Do you believe travelling to Amsterdam/Spain/Portugal etc should be criminalised as we're allowed break Irish laws there?

Those rights aren't constitutionally protected. The right to travel to have an abortion, is.

Mark Hamill

drunkmonkey wrote: »

Do you believe travelling to Amsterdam/Spain/Portugal etc should be criminalised as we're allowed break Irish laws there?

Do you believe travelling for abortion should be criminalised?

Triceratops Ballet

RocketRaccoon wrote: »

But yet we constantly have to see some women(mainly feminists) say that men should have zero say in this vote as we cannot have kids.

yeah and I have to constantly read stuff like "if they just kept their legs together they wouldn't be in this situation" or "what did she expect" etc.
They're just opinions, they mean nothing in a real sense. They do not impact your actual right to vote whatever way you want.
People on the internet say outrageous and unreasonable things, I hate to break it to you men don't have the monopoly on having nasty incorrect, and unreasonable sh1t said about them online!

Mark Hamill

drunkmonkey wrote: »

Your life is protected in Ireland. Where in the 13th say that right is not protected while in Ireland.
Christ on a bike if the 13th said it was ok to have an abortion here why are we even having a vote.

The 13th means that the right to life is not protected here. Oh, the act of abortion cannot be legally obtained here, but the 13th specifically allows for Irish women to travel to the UK to get abortions. All the 13th does is put a relatively small financial burden on those seeking abortion. Not much of a protection at all.

drunkmonkey

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Do you believe travelling for abortion should be criminalised?

Do you believe travelling to take drugs should be criminalised?

RocketRaccoon

Triceratops Ballet wrote: »

yeah and I have to constantly read stuff like "if they just kept their legs together they wouldn't be in this situation" or "what did she expect" etc.
They're just opinions, they mean nothing in a real sense. They do not impact your actual right to vote whatever way you want.
People on the internet say outrageous and unreasonable things, I hate to break it to you men don't have the monopoly on having nasty incorrect, and unreasonable sh1t said about them online!

And that was the reason I brought this up today. Should a no vote win then these horrible women will only have themselves to blame.

drunkmonkey

Mark Hamill wrote: »

The 13th means that the right to life is not protected here. Oh, the act of abortion cannot be legally obtained here, but the 13th specifically allows for Irish women to travel to the UK to get abortions. All the 13th does is put a relatively small financial burden on those seeking abortion. Not much of a protection at all.

It does mean it's protected here. How can you read it any other way, it's not protected if you leave the island like every other law.

SusieBlue

Triceratops Ballet wrote: »

yeah and I have to constantly read stuff like "if they just kept their legs together they wouldn't be in this situation" or "what did she expect" etc.
They're just opinions, they mean nothing in a real sense. They do not impact your actual right to vote whatever way you want.
People on the internet say outrageous and unreasonable things, I hate to break it to you men don't have the monopoly on having nasty incorrect, and unreasonable sh1t said about them online!

I see a lot of men losing their heads (particularly this thread) at the possibility of a woman aborting their child without permission.
This is a reasonable concern.

To those same men, if your wife was refused cancer treatment on the grounds of being 8 weeks pregnant, would you be happy for this to be the case, and want her to see through the pregnancy? Or would you like to have the choice of termination, to continue treatment?

If your daughter found herself pregnant at 15, devastated and traumatised after her first fumble with her boyfriend and completely unwilling to continue the pregnancy, how would you support her?
Would you force her to keep the pregnancy, potentially limiting her education and future career plans, her freedom and sacrificing her youth, or would you like her to have the option of an abortion?

I don't deny this is a mens issue. I don't deny men should have their say.
They absolutely should.
But I'm getting sick of seeing the same narrative of the woman aborting the baby unbeknownst to the man as the focus of their vote.

This affects other mens wives. Other mens daughters. And yes, of course, it will effect pregnancies that may be terminated against the mens wishes.

But it would be nice to see a bit of consideration for the other scenarios instead of the one where the man doesn't have control over the womans body over and over again.

Mark Hamill

drunkmonkey wrote: »

Do you believe travelling to take drugs should be criminalised?

I asked my question first.

But to answer yours - no.
1) I don't believe drugs should be criminalised here in the first place.
2) Taking drugs abroad no effect on anyone here - whereas an abortion abroad kills an Irish baby.

But enough whataboutery, would you like to answer my question?

Triceratops Ballet

RocketRaccoon wrote: »

And that was the reason I brought this up today. Should a no vote win then these horrible women will only have themselves to blame.

I don't even know what that means

Mark Hamill

drunkmonkey wrote: »

It does mean it's protected here. How can you read it any other way, it's not protected if you leave the island like every other law.

Actually the right to life is only not protected abroad because a constitution amendment specifically changed the constitution to make it specifically not protected while it was abroad.

This discussion (abortion in general, I mean), is supposed to about saving babies, who since the moment of conception should have the same rights as their mother. Yet time and again, across all the discussions I have in different forums and in the real world, it always seems to really just boil down to keeping abortion out of Ireland. It's not about saving the 4,000 Irish babies aborted yearly in the UK, it's about keeping Ireland "clean" and punishing women. It is, frankly, a disgusting level of self-congratulatory hypocrisy.

end of the road

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

not at all. his signatures have been great. makes one really think.

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

it actually is . the 13th and 14th amendment don't actually change the right to life being absolute in ireland.

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

that doesn't actually matter as those 2 aspects are only part of what makes a human being. the unborn baby is living and is human.

drunkmonkey

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Do you believe travelling for abortion should be criminalised?

No, did you read that article linked to in the times earlier, toches on the road your going down.

Outlaw Pete

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Do you believe travelling for abortion should be criminalised?

I have addressed this many times, as have many on this thread, and it's a waste of time as the question is only ever posed as a means of deflection, given that even IF you, or anyone else, was able to show that someone should really be against women travelling, but isn't, and is therefore inconsistent in their thinking............... so what? That still doesn't do anything for your position (the prochoice position) which is that women should have the legal right to be able to end the life of their developing young, even when there is no significant risk to their health, or indeed, that of the fetus.

NoviGlitzko

@Susie - I'm firmly in the yes bracket. Even if I was a man who was undecided, I think the fact that Irish women who are put in the miserable situation of travelling abroad for what already is a traumatic event should push someone to a yes vote. It's not gonna stop abortions even if the No vote goes through.

The idea that a whatever how many weeks old fetus has as much right to life as the pregnant mother is ridiculous to me. If the mother and father aren't ready for a baby then that's their decision. Maybe I'll have a different view on this whole pro life stuff when I become a parent but I don't think so.

My thought's on men's rights to abortion I've already said. If either the man or woman doesn't want the baby they should have equal say to abortion IMO.

drunkmonkey

NoviGlitzko wrote: »

@Susie - I'm firmly in the yes bracket. Even if I was a man who was undecided, I think the fact that Irish women who are put in the miserable situation of travelling abroad for what already is a traumatic event should push someone to a yes vote. It's not gonna stop abortions even if the No vote goes through.

The idea that a whatever how many weeks old fetus has as much right to life as the pregnant mother is ridiculous to me. If the mother and father aren't ready for a baby then that's their decision. Maybe I'll have a different view on this whole pro life stuff when I become a parent but I don't think so.

My thought's on men's rights to abortion I've already said. If either the man or woman doesn't want the baby they should have equal say to abortion IMO.

That's a bad interpretation of the current law. It does not put the baby's life over the mothers. If there is a threat to the mothers life doctors can act.
It's also worth pointing out that not every mother would chose an abortion over that of her child.

Mark Hamill

end of the road wrote: »

is it down to 53% now? it was at 56% . it's still not good but there is still time to get the facts out there to the people and let them see that voting no is the compassionate choice.

The facts you keep running away from?

end of the road wrote: »

not at all. his signatures have been great. makes one really think.

His signature is daft as a brush. With the 8th amendment, no one has any choice.

end of the road wrote: »

it actually is . the 13th and 14th amendment don't actually change the right to life being absolute in ireland.

Pretty sure we were through this before, the 13th amendment specifically allows women to travel for abortion. While our laws against murder might not specifically say anything about murdering someone abroad being illegal, they don't specifically allow people to travel to commit murder.
If you stopped ducking out of threads when you are wrong then maybe you could pick up on some actual facts to spread around, instead of spouting the same nonsense everywhere.

end of the road wrote: »

that doesn't actually matter as those 2 aspects are only part of what makes a human being. the unborn baby is living and is human.

So is my pinky finger.

end of the road

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

it certainly is a philosophical argument as it is only being used as a last ditch argument as to why a human being fetus at 12 weeks shouldn't be classed as a human being, when sentience is only 1 aspect of what makes a human being.

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

yes, because they are human beings with a right to life, and bodily autonomy is only 1 part of being human. nature intended that the fetus must live in the womb for a time, therefore bodily autonomy is to an extent less important.

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

the yes side are just as good, if not better, at using people's tragedies to be fair.

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

as i said above, because they are human beings with a right to life, and bodily autonomy is only 1 part of being human. nature intended that the fetus must live in the womb for a time, therefore bodily autonomy is to an extent less important. where this changes is where the mother's life is under threat, or she is under the threat of permanent injury or disability.

Mark Hamill

drunkmonkey wrote: »

No, did you read that article linked to in the times earlier, toches on the road your going down.

no, can you give me a link please?

Triceratops Ballet

drunkmonkey wrote: »

That's a bad interpretation of the current law. It does not put the baby's life over the mothers. If there is a threat to the mothers life doctors can act.
It's also worth pointing out that not every mother would chose an abortion over that of her child.

But only if and when there is a threat to her life, not when there is a threat to her health which could if left untreated become a threat to her life.

NoviGlitzko

I thought I should add; If the situation is flipped, I fully believe a man shouldn't expect a woman to carry a baby against her will to full term. I'd imagine a lot of these situation's can be solved with good communication anyway (you'd hope).

SusieBlue

drunkmonkey wrote: »

That's a bad interpretation of the current law. It does not put the baby's life over the mothers. If there is a threat to the mothers life doctors can act.
It's also worth pointing out that not every mother would chose an abortion over that of her child.

On your first point, the law says "where practicable". This is ambiguous at best. The line of where the health and safety of the mother trumps the child's right to life is blurred.
This causes confusion in emergencies.

On your last point - I totally agree. Most, if not the majority of women, will chose their child and chose to give birth, planned or not.
This is reflected in statistics. 63k births in 2016, 4k abortions.

Which leads me to the obvious conclusion that a woman will only seek an abortion when every other avenue is exhausted, and remaining pregnant and having the baby is simply NOT an option.

Mark Hamill

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

I have addressed this many times, as have many on this thread, and it's a waste of time as the questions is only ever posed as a means of deflection, given that even IF, or anyone else, was able to show that someone should be against women travelling, but isn't, and is therefore inconsistent in their thinking............... so what? That still doesn't do anything for your position, which is that women should have the legal right to be able to end the life of their developing young, even when there is no significant risk to their health or that of the fetus.

It's not supposed to do anything for the Yes position, it's supposed to show the hypocrisy in the No side. All of the arguments for the Yes position are supposed to support the Yes position.
Assuming that you aren't actually just deflecting yourself here, can you at least link to one of your posts addressing this issue?

drunkmonkey

Mark Hamill wrote: »

no, can you give me a link please?

https://www.irishtimes.com/life-and-style/health-family/as-an-irish-woman-who-travelled-for-an-abortion-a-yes-vote-will-not-represent-me-1.3502940?mode=amp

end of the road

SusieBlue wrote: »

No it doesn't. She has a constitutional right to travel to the UK for an abortion (as 4k women currently do) and there is absolutely nothing you can do to stop her.

she doesn't have a constitutional right to travel to the UK for an abortion as such, it's more that she has a constitutional right not to be prevented from traveling for any reason by the 8th amendment. being able to travel for an abortion is defacto rather then specific. the fact she would have to travel may be enough in itself to stop her, so his point is valid in some way.

SusieBlue wrote: »

Its also both baffling and disappointing that the thread seems to be more concerned with potential future men being aborted than they are about the effect this country's abortion laws might have on their wife or daughter.
The only time it seems to be shown concern is when an evil woman might be aborting their child without their permission.

the thread is about men's rights on abortion. this would include the right to be born, which is certainly be a fundamental right.

SusieBlue wrote: »

Sorry but I, as a living breathing woman, am not of equal worth to a 10 week old zygote the size of a grape. I am far more valuable. I have a boyfriend and a family who love me, and I shouldn't have to take any risks to my health or life unless I want to.
I shouldn't lose any rights and I shouldn't have compromised healthcare because of the contents of my uterus.

While one depends on the other for survival, they cannot be equal.

you are equal. both of you are valuable. the unborn should not lose their life because a woman simply doesn't want it. that's not a good enough reason.

SusieBlue wrote: »

No, because I'm a born citizen. And I don't think I should lose out on bodily autonomy and my rights because of something the size of a grape.

And as for the bolded, dangling a No vote from yourself as some sort of threat, you can knock yourself out.
I have no doubt that a crisis pregnancy will knock on the door of someone you love some day, because not a single family in this country is untouched.
And when that day comes, you will be glad your wife/sister/daughter/friend can receive adequate treatment because the 8th will (hopefully) be gone.

they can already receive such treatment under the 8th. by being supported to an extent to bring the child into the world and raise it. supports can easily be improved. the ending of a life can't be undone.

SusieBlue wrote: »

Women in Ireland today are in circumstances we can't even comprehend. That we don't know or understand.
They shouldn't be forced to see through a pregnancy just to keep a stranger happy.

they aren't. they are prevented from ending the life of their unborn in ireland because the unborn are human beings and we don't allow the ending of life of human beings unless there is very good reason.

end of the road

RocketRaccoon wrote: »

Aww you're a cute one.

You know exactly what I mean. Certain women have said mens opinions on this do not matter, why should we vote yes? Its a very dangerous game these women have been playing.

those women are a small minority to be fair and nobody should pay them any attention.

RocketRaccoon wrote: »

Why is your life more valuable? Because you've lived for a few years?

I have stated numerous times I won't be voting this Friday but some of the nonsense being spewed here is making me reconsider that and go ahead and tick that No box.

please come out and vote. whichever way you feel is best. it's your constitution as well. that goes for anyone reading the thread. please don't abstain.

RocketRaccoon wrote: »

I've already said I'm a man, my opinion doesn't matter to a lot of yes campaigners. Do you not see the issue in that?

it doesn't matter what a small few idiots think. our opinion is absolutely valid. come out and vote. nothing is going to happen to you because you do.

drunkmonkey

SusieBlue wrote: »

On your first point, the law says "where practicable". This is ambiguous at best. The line of where the health and safety of the mother trumps the child's right to life is blurred.
This causes confusion in emergencies.

On your last point - I totally agree. Most, if not the majority of women, will chose their child and chose to give birth, planned or not.
This is reflected in statistics. 63k births in 2016, 4k abortions.

Which leads me to the obvious conclusion that a woman will only seek an abortion when every other avenue is exhausted, and remaining pregnant and having the baby is simply NOT an option.

The only confusion is on the yes side. If a doctor is confused they need to educate themselves as they have no right being in a maternity ward.

On my last point I wasn't clear I was speaking about if there is a choice to make between the woman and the babys life not every mother will take the option to save themselves over their child if it's viable. That needs to be legislated for. If a woman want's herself terminated or knows she's going to die durning birth. (this probably isn't an issue now with the amount of C sections).

I know how your drawing your conclusion and in a perfect world your right to think that way but people will be doing it for all kinds of reasons, a lot for financial and due to their circumstances. The facts are it will be mainly young and poor women.