Militant Pro-Choicers in Ireland

4leto

Just reading down this thread why is always men who are the most opposed to abortion. If by some miracle I became pregnant I would never consider an abortion. But I do want the choice there for women.

I confess, it is not beyond the realms of possibility I got someone pregnant, I lived abroad and I fkuced around, now if any of those one nighters became pregnant and had an abortion that to me is fine, if they didn't all I know is I am not around to help support that child.

So I can certainly see why it is more a woman's choice then a man's.

mackg

Miniature American flags, this thread is now complete.

Seriously though God wasn't brought into this by the non religious side, he never is, God constantly becomes involved in abortion threads because peoples religious beliefs are a huge part of the anti abortion side of the argument.

Also the old testament is a pretty fucking stupid thing to base any opinion on, the teachings of Jesus are a different matter (although not for me).

Because people want the freedom to 'fool around' and have rampant sex with whoever they please, and then when a baby is on the horizon it's just an inconvenience to them, and they just get rid of it?

Thought that was where you were going with it, that's why I asked your opinion. I doubt many women see aborting a baby as a form of contraception tbh.

On the "sky fairy" thing I have often heard it referred to as the flying spaghetti monster.

I Heart Internet

Ellis Dee wrote: »

I never mentioned the fifth commandment. Don't even recall what it is, and couldn't give a sh1t, either. ;)

Yeah. I didn't say you did. Newsite did I think. I was commenting on the debate not just you. It was the 6th commandment actually. I got it wrong. It says thou shall not kill.
 

Ellis Dee wrote: »

And what is wrong with me using the phrase "sky fairy"

Nothing if you like it. I just find it grates. Tends to be used by wannabe super cool atheists who would wet themselves if Richard Dawkins ever used it (has he?)

Ellis Dee wrote: »

It looks like some believers would like to dictate a lot of things; not only what women do with their bodies and manage their reproductive systems, but also what terminology they must use. The days when writers needed the "imprimatur" of the crossdressers in black before they could publish something are long gone. Live with it! :):)

Yes. The Man is trying to oppress you. That's it.

RichieC

FinnLizzy wrote: »

I consider myself Pro-Choice, but only if it's a last resort (ie. rape, incest, risk of death) and I'm sure there are many like me.

That's not pro choice. which of those situations is a choice?

The King of Moo

4leto wrote: »

Just reading down this thread why is always men who are the most opposed to abortion. If by some miracle I became pregnant I would never consider an abortion. But I do want the choice there for women.

I confess, it is not beyond the realms of possibility I got someone pregnant, I lived abroad and I fkuced around, now if any of those one nighters became pregnant and had an abortion that to me is fine, if they didn't all I know is I am not around to help support that child.

So I can certainly see why it is more a woman's choice then a man's.

I think some men still just don't like the idea of women having control over the bodies and specifically over pregnancy, so banning abortion is a method of taking control over women, I guess.

mackg

RichieC wrote: »

That's not pro choice. which of those situations is a choice?

Incest, check out the marriage equality thread.

Terry

FinnLizzy wrote: »

Yeah. America has always been the definition of what IS liberal and conservative. I thought that there were no groups that could form with parts of each side's manifesto. Then I discover the word Libertarian, but there isn't a strong voice for the Libertarian Party, and Ron Paul is a Republican.

I wouldn't consider myself a text-book liberal, since I'm not mad into the pro choice scene, and PC does (excuse the Daily Mail like turn of phrase) go mad every now and again.

The mixed blessing for Ireland's two mainstream parties is that they don't have a passionate belief in anything anymore. Sinn Fein are the only over-passionate party, and for a lot of bad reasons.

Libertarians are ****ing ****.
Not **** in the strictest sense of the word. In saying that, I wish they were. That way they wouldn't reproduce (are you amazed at how I brought this back on topic?).

Libertarian is a word used by people who really don't give a flying **** about anyone else.

tolosenc wrote: »

By nature, most pro-choicers are quite laissez-faire, as such if militancy was called for, they probably wouldn't care.

I hate to agree with this because of the history of Ireland and the lassiez-faire of the 1840's , but you really nailed it on the head there.

I just have a bit of a problem with the (not really a) famine.

None the less, pro-choice generally don't give a **** if women have abortions.
To quote Jay in Dogma "What a woman does with her body is nobody else's business".

Newsite wrote: »

Against life. The reason it's on a par with murder is the total rejection of God, of life, rejection of one of the fundamental reasons we are on this planet and of how we all came to be.

There's no such thing as God. These are just your religious beliefs.
Not everyone has the same beliefs as you.
Most of us are tolerant of your beliefs, but not of you pushing your beliefs onto us.

Newsite wrote: »

Why do people have abortions?

A more pertinent question is "why do women have abortions?", but let's not get bogged down in semantics.

You wanted a simple answer. Here it is: Because they don't want a child.

Why don't they want a child? Well, that differs from woman to woman, and is not really relevant. On top of that, it's none of your business, nor is it the business of anyone else.

Here's the problem with your argument (and that of all Christians). You all impose your religious beliefs upon other, but that's completely ignoring the First Commandment.

"I am the LORD your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. You shall have no other gods before me. You shall not make for yourself a graven image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth; you shall not bow down to them or serve them."

The way I see it, is that you and other Christian who are against abortion, are trying to act as God by preventing others from living their own lives.

This is a clear breach of the First Commandment.
There is also this: “Do not judge so that you will not be judged” Matthew 7:1
If you are truly Christian, then you shouldn't really be passing judgement on Women who choose to have abortions.

Now I do see that I'm judging you on your misrepresentation of Christianity and your flawed belief structure, but you did cast the first stone. I apologise for retaliating, but I just did it to prove a point about your (in my opinion) misguided and archaic beliefs.

Newsite wrote: »

What is it with Boards posters and the rolling of eyes?

Not too fond of it myself.
I too would like to see it aborted.

bnt

I can hear the militant pro-choicers now: "you will decide what is best for you, or else!"

In case it's not obvious: pro-choice does not imply pro-abortion. I have a hard time imagining that anyone is genuinely pro-abortion. Not even someone working in a family planning clinic, getting paid to perform abortions. They are done because they are necessary, not because anyone likes the idea. In my opinion, of course.

Terry

Sharrow wrote: »

Yes there are militant pro choicer people out there, they were the ones who broke the law to give information and contact numbers to women who needed them before the law was changed.

They are the people who make sure women get to real and reputable places to go for counselling and information, they are the ones who accompany women on trips to the uk, who help pay for trips to the uk, either directly or via Abortion Support Network and don't judge those who have had an abortion harshly.

They are the people who staged the counter protest at the march for life a few months ago.
They also post in online debates debunking the many pro life myths and trying to roll thier eyes too much at the hyperbolic rhetoric used, like in the post above.

Post reported for supplying information about abortion.
Ok, I didn't really report it, but I guarantee some Jackass will.

4leto wrote: »

"Every sperm is sacred".

I like when funny stuff happens.
I woke this morning with that song in my head, but I haven't see that film in years.

Maybe God put it in my head, and then compelled me to log in to boards tonight.

4leto

The King of Moo wrote: »

I think some men still just don't like the idea of women having control over the bodies and specifically over pregnancy, so banning abortion is a method of taking control over women, I guess.

I agree, say tomorrow by some freak of nature the roles were somehow reversed and men are the ones to get pregnant and bear the children, I wonder then how men would feel about abortion.

About half a million women die a year in child birth, also women can develop life long illnesses from pregnancy, it safeish here because of our health system, but pregnancy is still a life threatening condition for women in most countries.

up for anything

Caitlin Moran speaks a lot of sense in How to be a Woman.

I Heart Internet

4leto wrote: »

About half a million women die a year in child birth, also women can develop life long illnesses from pregnancy, it safeish here because of our health system, but pregnancy is still a life threatening condition for women in most countries.

Promoting abortion because of the lack of basic medical services in parts of the world is a weak argument.
I think most people in the developing world would prefer real advances in their health services above more available abortions.

laoch na mona

i would be pro life accept in extreme situations i.e. rape
if it was legal the father should have to consent unless he doesn't care

Haelium

The King of Moo wrote: »

I think some men still just don't like the idea of women having control over the bodies and specifically over pregnancy, so banning abortion is a method of taking control over women, I guess.

Allow me to play devils advocate.

If a man doesn't want a child but the woman does, the man must pay child support.
If a woman doesn't want a child but the woman does, the man is "taking control over women".

The man should either have equal obligation to care for the child or equal choice in having the child.

ash23

ash23 wrote: »

Well you can go to sleep smug in the knowledge that we're all going straight to hell. And we can all go to sleep knowing that we're having a great time in this life because there is nothing after this.
Win-win for everyone.
See, I am pro-choice

Care to join me for a sex fulled Godless party with a side of abortion

Newsite

Newsite wrote: »

Eloquent. Hate the message don't you?



All I'm saying is that the Bible says 'thou shalt not kill'. And for anyone who claims to be a Christian, those words are for you.

Fundamentally what I am saying is that if people did follow the Word of God, there wouldn't be any abortion. No guilt, no suffering, no murder.

But people love themselves and their own lives more than obeying God (and thus having eternal life). Hence, to allow people indulge themselves, we've come up with monstrous practices like abortion.

I'm not here to have an argument with anyone. But these are the standards of God, the standards all Christians are called to adhere to. If you don't, then you can't call yourself Christian.

People hate the truth though.

Good night all.

You have GOT to be trolling!! Are there people really lurking in AH who think like this?? If you're trolling, then yeah you won by annoying me, if not, then seriously dude, get a ride or something a loosen up

Haelium

Starla_o0 wrote: »

Care to join me for a sex fulled Godless party with a side of abortion

Would somebody care to explain to me how the abortion issue is a religious one?

Surely the debate is about when life begins, and the bible does not say much about that*, so why is the division between the strongly religious and the secular?


*I may be wrong, there's probably some vague obscure bull**** about life and sex in there somewhere.

Morag

laoch na mona wrote: »

i would be pro life accept in extreme situations i.e. rape
if it was legal the father should have to consent unless he doesn't care

Hate to break it to you but you are pro choice with strict limits.

laoch na mona

Sharrow wrote: »

Hate to break it to you but you are pro choice with strict limits.

i know that but the father of the unwanted miracle should get a say

Haelium

Haelium wrote: »

Would somebody care to explain to me how the abortion issue is a religious one?

Surely the debate is about when life begins, and the bible does not say much about that*, so why is the division between the strongly religious and the secular?


*I may be wrong, there's probably some vague obscure bull**** about life and sex in there somewhere.

Some God fearing fella brought the bearded one into it. Don't worry, the smart ones know it has nothing to do with religion.

The others think you're going straight to a fire filled afterlife if you even consider being pro-choice

4leto

I Heart Internet wrote: »

Promoting abortion because of the lack of basic medical services in parts of the world is a weak argument.
I think most people in the developing world would prefer real advances in their health services above more available abortions.

Are you for real, have you any idea how much pre and post natal care costs, do you think the developing world could possibly afford, ultra sound, MSI machines, the arsenal of drugs, the expertise as in Doctors, consultant paediatricians, the nurses. When they are usually coping with a HIV epidemic.

Besides I was not promoting abortion as medical solution to the dangers of child birth, that's absurd, I was just pointing out how dangerous the condition of pregnancy is for a woman. Its an area evolution never really coped with, its to do with our massive cortex.

Very few women I know has had an uneventful pregnancy always something that goes wrong, just we are lucky we live here. The Irish empire has the lowest infant mortality rate in the world. Something we can be proud of. And no,, abortion rates are not factored into that equation.

The King of Moo

Haelium wrote: »

Allow me to play devils advocate.

If a man doesn't want a child but the woman does, the man must pay child support.
If a woman doesn't want a child but the woman does, the man is "taking control over women".

The man should either have equal obligation to care for the child or equal choice in having the child.

I think the difference is that before the child is born the situation isn't equal as the woman has to go through with the pregnancy which can lead to a whole lot of issues for her from medical problems in some cases to social ostracisation.
That's why, in my opinion, she should have the final say in terms of abortion, though personally I'd prefer if, in cases of consensual sex within relationships, both father and mother came to a final decision.
That'd be ideal but I wouldn't insist on it.

Once the child's been born, both parents are biologically responsible for it so they should also be responsible for taking care of it.

It's not ideal and there may be cases of a woman getting an abortion against their partner's wishes, which would be terrible, but I think you have to draw a line somewhere.

I Heart Internet

Haelium wrote: »

Allow me to play devils advocate.

If a man doesn't want a child but the woman does, the man must pay child support.
If a woman doesn't want a child but the woman does, the man is "taking control over women".

The man should either have equal obligation to care for the child or equal choice in having the child.

No, no. If the film Mama Mia has thought us anything it's that men are useless, dumb, frivolous things that have no real place in these important matters.

Temptamperu

Newsite wrote: »

I didn't answer as there is only one God. The proof of Whom is all around us.



Eloquent. Hate the message don't you?



All I'm saying is that the Bible says 'thou shalt not kill'. And for anyone who claims to be a Christian, those words are for you.

Fundamentally what I am saying is that if people did follow the Word of God, there wouldn't be any abortion. No guilt, no suffering, no murder.

But people love themselves and their own lives more than obeying God (and thus having eternal life). Hence, to allow people indulge themselves, we've come up with monstrous practices like abortion.

I'm not here to have an argument with anyone. But these are the standards of God, the standards all Christians are called to adhere to. If you don't, then you can't call yourself Christian.

People hate the truth though.

Good night all.

The Bible says lots of things, but its just a book... a very badly written book.
Would your god want a child to suffer because it wasnt wanted? Abused for the same reason? Your God says thou shalt not kill, but didnt he infact kill the first born children of Eygpt?
A zygote is no life, saying it is is like same Sperm is life.
Abortion is none of yours or gods business. A woman is free to choose should her contraceptive fail her and her lover.

Paparazzo

Newsite wrote: »

Why do people have abortions?

Because they don't want the child.

Next.....

Haelium

Temptamperu wrote: »

A woman is free to choose should her contraceptive fail her and her lover.

Why is only the woman free to choose? Why should a man pay for a child that he does not want?

Temptamperu

Haelium wrote: »

Why is only the woman free to choose? Why should a man pay for a child that he does not want?

Because she will be doing the bulk of the work no matter where her decision lies.

I Heart Internet

4leto wrote: »

I Heart Internet wrote: »

Promoting abortion because of the lack of basic medical services in parts of the world is a weak argument.
I think most people in the developing world would prefer real advances in their health services above more available abortions.

Are you for real, have you any idea how much pre and post natal care costs, do you think the developing world could possibly afford, ultra sound, MSI machines, the arsenal of drugs, the expertise as in Doctors, consultant paediatricians, the nurses. When they are usually coping with a HIV epidemic.

Have you any idea what an abortion (not with a coat hanger) costs?

Your's is a miserable, defeatist attitude. And yes, you did seem to be suggesting that the absence of medical care for mothers would best be solved by abortion - not improved medical care. You have done it again above. Medical care is expensive so allow and pay for abortions. I don't buy it.

Haelium

Temptamperu wrote: »

Because she will be doing the bulk of the work no matter where her decision lies.

Does that mean that unemployed people should not be able to vote, considering that the employed do the bulk of the work?

laoch na mona

a mans opinion when it comes to his child is equal to a woman's

The King of Moo

laoch na mona wrote: »

a mans opinion when it comes to his child is equal to a woman's

Not if he raped her or if he doesn't care about her or the child, for example.

Temptamperu

Haelium wrote: »

Does that mean that unemployed people should not be able to vote, considering that the employed do the bulk of the work?

Look both involved have should have a choice but nine times out of ten there aint going to be a man around to make a decision.
And yes the unemployed can vote in my world.

ash23

When a pregnancy can be transferred to a man for him to host the foetus and give birth to the child, there may be an argument for him having a say in abortion.
A woman has to do that now and no woman should be forced to give her body to a child she doesn't want, risk her health and go through childbirth against her will.

Yeah, it sucks for a man to be stuck paying maintenance for a child he didn't want as a result of him not having any say in what happens in the event of an unplanned pregnancy, but paying fiscally to maintain a child is hardly comparable to forcing childbirth and pregnancy on a woman and then having her pay to provide for the child the man is raising.

Temptamperu

ash23 wrote: »

When a pregnancy can be transferred to a man fom him to host the foetus and give birth to the child, there may be an argument for him having a say in abortion.
A woman has to do that now and no woman should be forced to give her body to a child she doesn't want, risk her health and go through childbirth against her will.

Yeah, it sucks for a man to be stuck paying maintenance for a child he didn't want as a result of him not having any say in what happens in the event of an unplanned pregnancy, but paying fiscally to maintain a child is hardly comparable to forcing childbirth and pregnancy on a woman and then having her pay to provide for the child the man raises also.

Men are not obligated by law to support a child, the government takes care of that with our tax money.

lmaopml

laoch na mona wrote: »

a mans opinion when it comes to his child is equal to a woman's

That's debatable - under the current law anyway.

If the child is unborn, then it's non-existent.

Morag

Temptamperu wrote: »

Men are not obligated by law to support a child, the government takes care of that with our tax money.

You are utterly and completely wrong with that statement.
Men are legally expected to maintain their children that is why we have maintenance orders.

ash23

Temptamperu wrote: »

Men are not obligated by law to support a child, the government takes care of that with our tax money.

Eh? Have a wee read of this http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/birth_family_relationships/separation_and_divorce/maintenance_orders_and_agreements.html

There is a legal responsibility in Ireland on parents, whether married or unmarried, to maintain dependent children and on spouses/civil partners to maintain each other in accordance with their means. Maintenance can be paid periodically (i.e., weekly or monthly) or in a lump sum. In Ireland, paying maintenance does not in itself give a parent access or guardianship rights.

Morag

The King of Moo wrote: »

Not if he raped her or if he doesn't care about her or the child, for example.

What if he doesn't care for her but only want to punish her, to force her to have the child and then only to be in the child's life as a way of making her miserable, it happens.

laoch na mona

The King of Moo wrote: »

Not if he raped her or if he doesn't care about her or the child, for example.

obviously but a man who cares about his child shouldn't have his relationship with said child destroyed by a woman who hates him

4leto

I Heart Internet wrote: »

Have you any idea what an abortion (not with a coat hanger) costs?

Your's is a miserable, defeatist attitude. And yes, you did seem to be suggesting that the absence of medical care for mothers would best be solved by abortion - not improved medical care. You have done it again above. Medical care is expensive so allow and pay for abortions. I don't buy it.

A hell of a lot cheaper then you imagine, China carry out millions of them. Up to a certain time its only a course of tablets.

And mine is a realistic position. Developing nations cannot afford proper pre and post natal care, some can't even afford the basic vaccines.

Haelium

4leto wrote: »

A hell of a lot cheaper then you imagine, China carry out millions of them. Up to a certain time its only a course of tablets.

And mine is a realistic position. Developing nations cannot afford proper pre and post natal care, some can't even afford the basic vaccines.

A much more humane alternative would be sterilization.

The King of Moo

laoch na mona wrote: »

obviously but a man who cares about his child shouldn't have his relationship with said child destroyed by a woman who hates him

A situation like that would be terrible, but hard to legislate for. How would you prove definitively that that was the woman's intent, in a case like that?
That's why the best thing to do from a legal point-of-view is to leave the choice to the woman. There'd be too many variables to take into account in each case about intent or consent and it would be a bureaucratic nightmare.

Unfortunately some men who might be good fathers might suffer, but the law can never be perfect, only as good as possible.

Morag

Haelium wrote: »

A much more humane alternative would be sterilization.

Ha have you any idea how impossible that is for women in this country?
You have to be 25 and have 4 kids or over 35 with 2 kids or over 40 if you have no kids to apply to get your tubes tied.

There is no way to get it done privately, you have to go through the process which can take two years before you set a date with a consultant and you have to under go counselling and mental assessment and if you are married you have to have your spouse sign the forums with you, even if you are legally separated.

In the UK you can have it done at 21 with no kids.

Terry

I want to be called "Loretta".

pragmatic1

Haelium wrote: »

Why is only the woman free to choose? Why should a man pay for a child that he does not want?

Because the man doesnt have to carry the kid for nine months and then give birth to it.

laoch na mona

The King of Moo wrote: »

That's why the best thing to do is to leave the choice to the woman.

it is far from the best thing to do

The King of Moo

laoch na mona wrote: »

it is far from the best thing to do

What do you think would be the best thing to do?

laoch na mona

The King of Moo wrote: »

What do you think would be the best thing to do?

give the father equal rights

The King of Moo

laoch na mona wrote: »

give the father equal rights

That'd be great for the fathers who are in relationships with the mothers and would take good care of the child.

But what about the rapists and the deadbeats?


To award equal rights in the decision to both parents you'd have to decide if the fathers deserved a say on a case-by-case basis, which is impractical and impossible to determine in every case.

So you either have to give equal rights to every father, including the lowlifes, or just the mother, and I'd definitely prefer the latter.

laoch na mona

The King of Moo wrote: »

That'd be great for the fathers who are in relationships with the mothers and would take good care of the child.

But what about the rapists and the deadbeats?


To award equal rights in the decision to both parents you'd have to decide if the fathers deserved a say on a case-by-case basis, which is impractical and impossible to determine in every case.

So you either have to give equal rights to every father, including the lowlifes, or just the mother, and I'd definitely prefer the latter.

obviously not rapists
but why should a deadbeat mother have rights and just because the man and woman are not together doesn't mean he isn't untitled to see the child