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

Wibbs

_Dara_ wrote: »

There are a lot more Yes voters posting. (going by polls) So yeah, if someone makes a contentious statement, it will attract a large response. Should people... hold back from posting? On a messageboard? Okaaay. And for a smaller contingent, no voters punch above their weight when it comes to silliness. It’s impressive.

Funny, at no point did I suggest people should hold back from posting. But if that helps you deflect from my point, be my guest. As for silliness I could with confidence trawl this thread alone for silliness on both sides. That was my point.

_Dara_

Wibbs wrote: »

Get back to me when you understand what legislation is*. What do you think the 9th is? At times like this I agree with the Churchillian position that democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others.

Because Women™ just like Men™ aren't one mind. Some are intelligent, some are idiots, others are vacillating between the two and most are in their own personal camp of thought until the rubber meets the road when life happens.

*FYI legislation deals with laws, the constitution deals with laws and principles of law(among other things). It can be argued it's more important than legislation. Oh and this vote couldn't be any more particular on how legislation will be formed in the future. So yes, you will be voting on legislation. The mind truly boggles.

Of course women aren’t of one mind. Surely that’s the point?

On constitutions, legislation and boggled minds - you said it!

I’m enjoying the attitude emanating from your post right now though.

_Dara_

Wibbs wrote: »

Funny, at no point did I suggest people should hold back from posting. But if that helps you deflect from my point, be my guest. As for silliness I could with confidence trawl this thread alone for silliness on both sides. That was my point.

You used the term ‘rounded upon’. That’s what I was referring to, natch. There are, apparently, on boards many more yes voters. So yeah, no voter posters attract a lot of attention. Or are, as you posit “rounded upon”.

Wibbs

Calhoun wrote: »

The Yes slogan is the equivalent of the male get back to the kitchen, it is condescending BS and implies that men should give up their vote and let the superior female sit beside them make the decisions.

Meh, that's going to far for me. For me, it's just more of this utter nonsense identity politics that's really digging in of late. On all sides. The online world is the extremis of that. A house of echo chamber room rules that breaks out into open hostility in the corridors. Keeps the Mob™ distracted I suppose.

Calhoun

_Dara_ wrote: »

Nope. That example you give is awful. Really awful. And thank you. I genuinely appreciate you providing that.

You have decided that I’m hardened. That’s all you.

You provide me with an example of your father seeing the bad in the negative but the sun shines out of the yes side what am i supposed to think.

For balance ill give you another really bad thing from the no side. Apparently they they setup a website online and was positioning it as a neutral website to bluff people but with some cyber-sleuthing it was traced back to someone in the states and i believe an anti-abortion person.

The thing is for me i expect the no-side to an extent to be hardliners and do bad stuff, it disappointing me so much when i see the yes side doing it. Especially when the yes side can focus on a positive message on improving conditions for woman and their partners, and having to fedex their kids home in a box.

You know what they say you lie with dogs you get fleas, this is what has happened to an extent.

[Deleted User]

Wibbs wrote: »

My feelings pretty much and a major concern of mine. For me anyway it seems daft to vote for legislation when one doesn't know what form that legislation will take. Legislation that we won't get a choice to vote on. Leave it to the government and our judiciary? Yeah, I'm chock full of confidence there. History tends to show they'll either copy chunks of the UK legislation, go with what EU bureaucrats suggest, or make a hames of it. Or all of the above. Of the many branches of Irish civic layers that I have respect for the judiciary and the government do not figure highly in the ranks. And that's an understatement. So I'm very much swinging towards a No vote and it's got feck all to do with the matter of abortion itself.

On that matter I have pretty zero issues with the "abortion pill" and early stage abortions. Beyond that point and when it comes to a healthy developing foetus and a woman not in medical danger my position and line becomes harder and more defined. And I make zero apologies for that. And when I read and not just here about clumps of cells and comparisons with onanistic emissions my position becomes harder still and my eye rolling more vigorous.

Oh Im not so sure about that L. If there's a Brexit stylee "shock" of a No vote - and my prediction, such as it is, it will be close - the Yes side will go full apeshit. If it is a Yes, the No side won't be too happy, though I suspect will drift away more quickly than if it's a No. If it's a No, I'll further bet that we'll be asked again in short order, but if it's a Yes, that'll be that.

As for the "Trust Women" spiel. Last week I had both Yes and No campaigners to my door peddling their position. The Yes lot came out with the above early on. A position I challenged them on, given the No campaigners had called previously and they were also women. So which one's do I "trust"? We're rightfully reminded that women(and men) aren't a hive mind.

I have pretty much all the exact same feelings and experiences just couldn't word them as well :P

I very very much agree with what you said about the Yes side throwing their toys out of the pram if they lose this referendum. There is going to be twitter war, purple haired women screaming in the streets, people with repeal jumpers going nuts etc :pac: (I know the vast majority of the yes side aren't crazies but the loud minority are)

Calhoun

Wibbs wrote: »

Meh, that's going to far for me. For me, it's just more of this utter nonsense identity politics that's really digging in of late. On all sides. The online world is the extremis of that. A house of echo chamber room rules that breaks out into open hostility in the corridors. Keeps the Mob™ distracted I suppose.

It was used at the start in the format, if you remember one of the government TD's using it with her party and nearly causing an internal conflict.

The online world is quite funny, twitter for example has a repeal shield and for the most part it essentially reinforces the echo chamber. Some folk that a few weeks ago were advocating honestly for yes because of what it means to women ect are just now constantly on the attack for the no side.

_Dara_

Deleted User wrote: »

I have pretty much all the exact same feelings and experiences just couldn't word them as well :P

I very very much agree with what you said about the Yes side throwing their toys out of the pram if they lose this referendum. There is going to be twitter war, purple haired women screaming in the streets, people with repeal jumpers going nuts etc :pac: (I know the vast majority of the yes side aren't crazies but the loud minority are)

As someone diagnosed with cancer in my peak child-bearing years, you’re damn straight I’ll be devastated if it’s no. Being pregnant at diagnosis was a very real possibility for me. And my particular treatment was contraindicated with pregnancy. The stakes are very real for many of us. This isn’t a game. It’s sad that the devastation that will be felt will be denigrated as tantrum-throwing. To you, it’s amusing.

Wibbs

_Dara_ wrote: »

Of course women aren’t of one mind. Surely that’s the point?

One would think..

SusieBlue wrote: »

The Yes slogan means to trust women with their own healthcare decisions, for their own lives.
It isn’t advocating trusting every woman on earth with every single possible issue.

Example of cognitive dissonance above.

On constitutions, legislation and boggled minds - you said it!

Maybe this feels like a rebuttal to my point in your head, but it's not. You will be voting on future legislation tomorrow. Specta; the informed voter.

I’m enjoying the attitude emanating from your post right now though.

You appear to be confusing attitude with wry bemusement. Trust me, it's the latter.

[Deleted User]

_Dara_ wrote: »

As someone diagnosed with cancer in my peak child-bearing years, you’re damn straight I’ll be devastated if it’s no. Being pregnant at diagnosis was a very real possibility for me. And my particular treatment was contraindicated with pregnancy. The stakes are very real for many of us. This isn’t a game. It’s sad that the devastation that will be felt will be denigrated as tantrum-throwing. To you, it’s amusing.

I will cast my vote and that is that. I am not saying I find it amusing, I am just hoping that whatever happens both sides respect the outcome of the vote when its all done.

I was only make a light joke. I also said in my original post that I think in extreme cases abortion should be allowed, your case would have been an extreme case.

AllForIt

Scenario: Woman is pregnant but husband doesn't want her to have it. Should the woman be forced to have the abortion based on the rights of the mans wishes? Absolutely not, that would be absurd. If you agree with this then logically you have to agree the answer is the same i.e. no if the situation were the reverse as the OP describes. I do not think the rights of the person who wants to have it superseded the rights of the person who doesn't want to have it.

_Dara_

Wibbs wrote: »

You appear to be confusing attitude with wry bemusement. Trust me, it's the latter.

But we can’t trust anyone, according to you, men or women.

Wibbs

_Dara_ wrote: »

As someone diagnosed with cancer in my peak child-bearing years, you’re damn straight I’ll be devastated if it’s no. Being pregnant at diagnosis was a very real possibility for me. And my particular treatment was contraindicated with pregnancy. The stakes are very real for many of us. This isn’t a game.

I agree.

Me. Earlier. For clarity wrote: »

On that matter I have pretty zero issues with the "abortion pill" and early stage abortions. Beyond that point and when it comes to a healthy developing foetus and a woman not in medical danger my position and line becomes harder and more defined.

I would have no issue with abortion in cases like yours. I do have a concern about how the new legislation will be framed. A framing we have little idea of. I'd feel far better if we had an idea of what legislation was being written up. But we don't and that seems to have been missed by both the Yes and No side.

Wibbs

_Dara_ wrote: »

But we can’t trust anyone, according to you, men or women.

oddly enough a position I find tends towards the prophetic and reliable. Tomorrow the position will out.

_Dara_

Wibbs wrote: »

I agree.

I would have no issue with abortion in cases like yours. I do have a concern about how the new legislation will be framed. A framing we have little idea of. I'd feel far better if we had an idea of what legislation was being written up. But we don't and that seems to have been missed by both the Yes and No side.

It’s safe to say that abortion up to 12 weeks will be legalised. People should take that as a given. That might mean a no vote sadly.

Personally I think it will be a narrow no. SSM, this ain’t.

Calhoun

I think it will pass to be honest, i dont think the no side stands a chance.

_Dara_

Calhoun wrote: »

I think it will pass to be honest, i dont think the no side stands a chance.

I think people are wary because Brexit and Trump were such shockers (on the surface at least). The reality is, we all go into that booth alone. Someone pledging themselves publicly to a certain side might mean diddly squat.

jk23

I think the student vote and even if it’s near half of the women that vote yes then this will get this passed. I am not sure whether to vote or not myself.

Wibbs

What Dara said. The opinion polls are pretty close and I would reckon No voters are less likely to respond publicly to the question than Yes voters. And like she also said this is not the SSM vote. Even on Boards which tends towards the more Yes side on this and the SSM vote the 9th polls are closer. I can certainly see a slim No getting through, or it won't come as a shock anyway.

Wibbs

jk23 wrote: »

I think the student vote and even if it’s near half of the women that vote yes then this will get this passed. I am not sure whether to vote or not myself.

Maybe but a large chunk of the voting demographic are older women(and men) and they're traditionally more likely to be well, traditional in their choices. Students tend to be down the voting stats. We may have patted ourselves on the back over the SSM result, but it was by no means a landslide. And I reckon abortion is a more contentious and polarising subject.

_Dara_

I normally hate people bitching about the liberal elite meeja but I do think people can be shielded by the urban bubble. I live in Dublin but I’m from one of the most conservative counties in the country. My parent’s polling station was 70/30 in favour of rejecting SSM. The county narrowly passed SSM. I would be shocked if it’s not 80/20 at that polling station for No this time round, if only because many people weren’t bothered about voting in the last referendum. I think people from urban areas or who have lived there a long time don’t quite get how conservative some parts of the country are. If my father DOES vote, it’ll be a no and that’s with my health issues and with him agreeing with much of the yes side’s argument. He will still vote no. And my father is not an ogre. I’m partial but he’s a good person. He would definitely be compassionate if a woman he knew had an abortion. But he will still vote no. There are Dara Padres and Madres all over the coubtry,

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

_Dara_

Men should absolutely have a say. I vehemently disagree with people who say men should not have a say. If I had an abortion that my husband didn’t want me to have, the relationship would struggle. But here’s the thing. That’s me. But there are situations where there’s an impasse reached. There has to be a resolution and someone will be on the wrong side of that. If the impasse is down to him wanted the pregnancy to continue and her not, that’s tricky.

And possibly this referendum campaign has alerted more women to the existence of abortion pills, further complicating things.

tom_k

I've been saying to friends and colleagues all week that I'll be glad when this referendum is done but as some of the posters here have stated it may well be far from over.

I believe the narrowness of a Yes result could lead to a serious delay in the implementation of legislation. TDs will look closely at how their constituencies voted and mindful of re-election may balk at passing the proposed legislation as it currently stands. Only one constituency rejected the SSM referendum but many were very close. More than one will reject this vote but the urban constituencies will probably carry it over the line. As posters before me have stated - this is not SSM. The debate is multi faceted - unrestricted up to 12 weeks, rapes or incest resulting in pregnancy, fatal foetal abnormalities - many would be OK with some of these circumstances but not all of them. I think that the whole notion of abortion terrifies many and this may lead to more "No" boxes being ticked than we may expect.

Online at least, it's not easy being a No voter, some have come across as abrasive and condescending but I tip my had to those who have consistently and respectfully represented their side. I especially include EOTR in this, I don't think he's posted a single word on this site that I've agreed with (8th included) but in the face of serious opposition he's held fast and stayed respectful when a lesser guy would've snapped. I'm mostly referring to AH threads on this.

On men's rights, I would happily carry a baby in place of my wife but nature in a fit of misogynistic cruelty has decided that this can't happen, it's a pity as I have plenty of room for one.

I do not view women as incubators but firmly believe that most men love their children in at least equal measure to the mother. I know men who were distraught after miscarriages and stillbirths, there is no way to measure their pain or that of the mother. The small section who would brush aside the opinions of men need to have a good look at themselves. The "Trust women" thing is a bit of a joke as you need to trust men to vote yes too.

Tomorrow I'll probably vote Yes and hope that our government won't make a balls of the legislation. I especially hope that whatever form the legislation takes that we've been presented with the entire truth before we vote.

Sponge25

the_syco wrote: »

So if a man raped a woman, you think that the rapist should be able to prevent the woman from having an abortion?

No, rape and incest is a different story. I reckon the rapist should be charged with an additional crime though for forcing his victim to abort a human life.

gctest50

Sponge25 wrote: »

No, rape and incest is a different story.

I reckon the rapist should be charged with an additional crime though for forcing his victim to abort a human life.

You've it backwards

Some guy rapes a woman

He gets caught, convicted, goes to jail

Turns out she is pregnant from it

He hears about it

Should he be able to prevent her getting a termination ?

end of the road

gctest50 wrote: »

You've it backwards

Some guy rapes a woman

He gets caught, convicted, goes to jail

Turns out she is pregnant from it

He hears about it

Should he be able to prevent her getting a termination ?

the fact he wants to charge the rapist with an offence if the woman aborts the baby would suggest to me that no he most certainly doesn't think the rapist should have any rights what soever in relation to the baby.

Outlaw Pete

SusieBlue wrote: »

You see a zygote as equivalent to a born baby and that’s your right and I respect it -

Again with this zygote business

That’s exactly what it boils down to. I care about the suffering of actual people more than potential ones.

Fetuses at 10-12 weeks gestation are not potential human beings...... they are human beings. No?

At least try and explain to me just why what we see in the above 12-week scan is just, in your eyes, potential human life, rather than an actual human life? I mean, I get that fetuses at this stage of development are not as developed as say a 24 week fetus, but then a newborn isn't as developed as a one year old, so why see this stage of development as not yet being significant enough to warrant being referred to as anything more than a mere zygote or a clump of cells?

Outlaw Pete

Calhoun wrote: »

The yes side i have seen attack men, attack old people, basically prohibit any discussion that doesn't align with their own views which is fairly bad in a democracy.

Seen an example of it tonight on O'Connell St. That lunatic was about with his microphone preaching the word of God. Chap wrecks my head but I felt bad for him tonight as a dozen or so Yes campaigners surrounded him and started chanting, and clapping, hollering. He just stepped down took his amp thing and moved on.

Went for a few drinks with people from work earlier after seeing a film and everyone of us is a soft voter, in that the '12 weeks unrestrictive' aspect of the ref is where most people's thoughts are. Not one person expressed a view that a woman with a ffa should have to carry to term or someone that was raped. A few were still undecided but all leaning towards Yes. Only three of us are Nos and one of those is saying she's a Yes as she doesn't want 'awkwardness'.

gctest50

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Again with this zygote business

Fetuses at 10-12 weeks gestation are not potential human beings...... they are human beings. No?

At least try and explain to me just why what we see in the above 12-week scan is just, in your eyes, potential human life, rather than an actual human life? I mean, I get that fetuses at this stage of development are not as developed as say a 24 week fetus, but then a newborn isn't as developed as a one year old, so why see this stage of development as not yet being significant enough to warrant being referred to as anything more than a mere zygote or a clump of cells?

One at 13 weeks

Miscarried though

:

give you a more accurate picture of what you are looking at :

NSFW ***** pic of 13 week miscarried fetus -

(" wanted " before anyone starts )

https://imgur.com/a9MzDIE