Abortion/ *Note* Thread Closing Shortly! ! !

Rev Hellfire

pauldla wrote: »

The final say has to rest with the woman. Of course the man will contribute to the decision, but it's up to her.

And if the women decides to go ahead the male has no right to decline, and by decline I mean divorce himself of all rights and responsibilities to the child?

I suspect such a clause would help the pro-choice side no end.

fatmammycat

Neewbie_noob wrote: »

But there's legal obligations in Ireland to pay maintenance and the female can drag the gentleman kicking and screaming through the courts to extort money from him for his flesh and blood, yet at a whim she could snuff away the life of this innocent child growing inside of her without even the prior knowledge of the man.

So? Her body her business. If the 'gentleman' doesn't want his offspring aborted he should carefully choose where he spills his seed. Likewise if he doesn't want to go to court. None of these situations should allow him control over a woman's body.

pauldla

Neewbie_noob wrote: »

But there's legal obligations in Ireland to pay maintenance and the female can drag the gentleman kicking and screaming through the courts to extort money from him for his flesh and blood, yet at a whim she could snuff away the life of this innocent child growing inside of her without even the prior knowledge of the man.

At a whim? WTF?

Nothing happens in an abortion clinin on a whim, my friend, I can assure you of that.

pauldla

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

And if the women decides to go ahead the male has no right to decline, and by decline I mean divorce himself of all rights and responsibilities to the child?

I suspect such a clause would help the pro-choice side no end.

Interesting point, but that's a seperate issue, is it not?

fatmammycat

pauldla wrote: »

At a whim? WTF?

Nothing happens in an abortion clinin on a whim, my friend, I can assure you of that.

Look at the language Pauldla, 'whim' for the woman, feckless creatures that we are, and 'innocent child' for the fetus, 'gentleman' for the dudes. See a pattern anywhere?

Bannasidhe

Neewbie_noob wrote: »

But there's legal obligations in Ireland to pay maintenance and the female can drag the gentleman kicking and screaming through the courts to extort money from him for his flesh and blood, yet at a whim she could snuff away the life of this innocent child growing inside of her without even the prior knowledge of the man.

Bad enough it's "females" and "gentleman" but On a Whim????

Are you trying to be offensive or does it come naturally?

Neewbie_noob

fatmammycat wrote: »

So? Her body her business. If the 'gentleman' doesn't want his offspring aborted he should carefully choose where he spills his seed. Likewise if he doesn't want to go to court. None of these situations should allow him control over a woman's body.

Can you not understand my simple logic ??

Her body her business ? If she wants total autonomy over the innocent child growing inside of her and she wants to have the right to destroy the precious gift from God growing inside of her (which is a HUGE sin btw, although I can't speak for God), then shouldn't the man have the right to relinquish all responsibilities??

Neewbie_noob

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Bad enough it's "females" and "gentleman" but On a Whim????

Are you trying to be offensive or does it come naturally?

There's no need to pick at what I'm saying, I'm replying to a few different threads at once here, so sorry if my typing is not perfectly eloquent.

fatmammycat

Neewbie_noob wrote: »

Can you not understand my simple logic ??

Her body her business ? If she wants total autonomy over the innocent child growing inside of her and she wants to have the right to destroy the precious gift from God growing inside of her (which is a HUGE sin btw, although I can't speak for God), then shouldn't the man have the right to relinquish all responsibilities??

No, your logic is flawed. But now that you've dribbled god and sin into the equation I understand your position, even as I disagree with it.

eviltwin

Neewbie_noob wrote: »

Can you not understand my simple logic ??

Her body her business ? If she wants total autonomy over the innocent child growing inside of her and she wants to have the right to destroy the precious gift from God growing inside of her (which is a HUGE sin btw, although I can't speak for God), then shouldn't the man have the right to relinquish all responsibilities??

You seem to forget that in many cases the man is nowhere to be found or the man is around and in support of the decision. When you ban abortion on the basis that some men might lose a child they would willingly raise you also deny those men and women.

Rev Hellfire

pauldla wrote: »

Interesting point, but that's a seperate issue, is it not?

Thought it was a more practical version of what they where trying to suggest, their gripe is male rights. That's the only workable manner in which it could really be done in an equatable manner.

Bannasidhe

Neewbie_noob wrote: »

There's no need to pick at what I'm saying, I'm replying to a few different threads at once here, so sorry if my typing is not perfectly eloquent.

I am not picking at your typing I am picking at your terminology - why not 'lady' and 'gentleman' or 'female' and 'male'. Your language implies you do not think much of females - I find that offensive.

pauldla

Neewbie_noob wrote: »

There's no need to pick at what I'm saying, I'm replying to a few different threads at once here, so sorry if my typing is not perfectly eloquent.

It's not your typing, dude, it's what you're typing.

"Females" and "Gentlemen"? As others have noted, an interesting choice of terms.

Anyhow, if he is a gentleman he'll stand by his woman no matter what. Problem solved.

Hotblack Desiato

Neewbie_noob wrote: »

This country really isn't as pro-life as people make them out to be. If they really were, then the government could (and should) open up a bi-lateral agreement with the UK in which a woman would have to have a legal waiver signed by the biological father (regardless or marital status, unless the father is completely absentee or unfit) in order or for the abortion to be carried out. They could also go one step further and criminalise leaving the country for abortions. The latter could be very hard to police, but basically any woman who leaves Ireland pregnant and returns back to Ireland otherwise, should be treated as a criminal, unless she can prove the baby died via miscarriage. I know what I am saying sounds draconian, but it's the only way to maintain our pro-life country.

This would be unconstitutional, even if we hadn't voted 20 years ago to give women the explicit right to travel out of Ireland for an abortion.

Do you honestly think that if the Irish people thought it unacceptable 20 years ago to turn the country into the world's largest female open prison, they would be any more likely to find that acceptable today?

Neewbie_noob

eviltwin wrote: »

You seem to forget that in many cases the man is nowhere to be found or the man is around and in support of the decision. When you ban abortion on the basis that some men might lose a child they would willingly raise you also deny those men and women.

say what ?? what are you trying to say here??

Nodin

fatmammycat wrote: »

Look at the language Pauldla, 'whim' for the woman, feckless creatures that we are, and 'innocent child' for the fetus, 'gentleman' for the dudes. See a pattern anywhere?

Told yez before, if aborion was brought in here, there'd be such a dash for it, they'd forget to get pregnant before joinin the que. Wimmin - mad for the baby killin.

pauldla

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

Thought it was a more practical version of what they where trying to suggest, their gripe is male rights. That's the only workable manner in which it could really be done in an equatable manner.

So, does this mean giving men the legal right to desert as a trade off for abortion?

Wow!

IMO, once the toothpaste is out of the tube it's a whole new ballgame.

Neewbie_noob

pauldla wrote: »

So, does this mean giving men the legal right to desert as a trade off for abortion?

Wow!

IMO, once the toothpaste is out of the tube it's a whole new ballgame.

If women want to have the absolute right to abortion (against the wishes of the gentleman), then the gentlemen should have the right to unconditionally and fully desert. Does anyone agree?

Nodin

Neewbie_noob wrote: »

say what ?? what are you trying to say here??

......that your argument is narrow and neglects the cases he mentioned, I'd imagine.

Your notion that women should be prevented from leaving the country to have an abortion strikes me as one of the more mysogynistic notions to come from the "pro-life" camp, and would probably annoy me if I hadn't had the misfortune to hear it before. It's also (thankfully) unconstitutional, and would never pass muster at either the national or European level.

28064212

Neewbie_noob wrote: »

If women want to have the absolute right to abortion (against the wishes of the gentleman), then the gentlemen should have the right to unconditionally and fully desert. Does anyone agree?

"Men" should have the same rights after the birth as "ladies" do.

If you want to bring in legislation giving men the right to desert, then women should have the same right. But none of that has any bearing on the abortion discussion

fatmammycat

Nodin wrote: »

......that your argument is narrow and neglects the cases he mentioned, I'd imagine.

Your notion that women should be prevented from leaving the country to have an abortion strikes me as one of the more mysogynistic notions to come from the "pro-life" camp, and would probably annoy me if I hadn't had the misfortune to hear it before. It's also (thankfully) unconstitutional, and would never pass muster at either the national or European level.

Alarming isn't it? the whole notion that women are people too, escapes some so easily.

Ickle Magoo

Neewbie_noob wrote: »

If women want to have the absolute right to abortion (against the wishes of the gentleman), then the gentlemen should have the right to unconditionally and fully desert. Does anyone agree?

I do...tho I don't see how they tie in together.

I also suspect if you reduce financial inducements to carry on with a pregnancy the numbers of abortions will rise and so many anti-choicers would not support such a move.

pauldla

Neewbie_noob wrote: »

If women want to have the absolute right to abortion (against the wishes of the gentleman), then the gentlemen should have the right to unconditionally and fully desert. Does anyone agree?

"If you don't abort that baby, I'll abandon you."

Is that what you mean?

Rev Hellfire

pauldla wrote: »

So, does this mean giving men the legal right to desert as a trade off for abortion?

Yes, why not ?
If we assume abortion is morally ok, then the choice remains totally the womans to inform the male within the early term and gain their consent to accept responsibility otherwise they raise the child on their own if they wish to keep it.

Can't see any issues with it really. Where do you see the problem?

I'm excluding rape from this since it would naturally muddy the waters.

Neewbie_noob

The fairest and most equitable solution is as follows:

If a woman gets pregnant outside marriage (or inside for that matter). The baby should have to be carried to term. She has the following options:

• Give the baby up for adoption (with the consent of the gentleman)
• Give the baby up for foster care for a few years (with the express legal consent of the gentleman)
• Keep the baby and carry to term and raise it herself with the gentleman
• If the mother of the child doesn't want to have anything to do with her own flesh and blood then, instead of aborting it the man should be able to have sole guardianship over the child

UK abortion providers should not serve any Irish Passport holders or anyone coming from the 6 counties - where the termination of innocent babies is also prohibited.

Importation of abortifacients such as pills to indice miscarriage after a week or tow gestation should be a punishable offence, such as the importation of narcotics. It really is a simple solution.

Mickeroo

pauldla wrote: »

"If you don't abort that baby, I'll abandon you."

Is that what you mean?

No, not as an ultimatum like that, I think it more likely to be a case where the man and woman are not a couple to begin with. Woman wants to have the child, the man doesn't, should the man still be held responsible for raising the child when it's born?

Kooli

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

Yes, why not ?
If we assume abortion is morally ok, then the choice remains totally the womans to inform the male within the early term and gain their consent to accept responsibility otherwise they raise the child on their own if they wish to keep it.

Can't see any issues with it really. Where do you see the problem?

I'm excluding rape from this since it would naturally muddy the waters.

Would that also include ANY parenting situation? Even if abortion wasn't discussed or he didn't want an abortion?
Do you mean generally changing regulations so that any man can leave his partner/child and abdicate all responsibility?

Or do you just mean in cases where there is official legal recognition somehow that he wanted her to have an abortion?

Neewbie_noob

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

I'm excluding rape from this since it would naturally muddy the waters.

Even if the child is a product of rape then it should not be aborted because of the sins of the "man" who raped her. Two wrongs don't make a right.

Nodin

Neewbie_noob wrote: »

The fairest and (......) a simple solution.

Why are men "gentlemen" and women just women in your posts?

Ickle Magoo

Neewbie_noob wrote: »

The fairest and most equitable solution is as follows:

If a woman gets pregnant outside marriage (or inside for that matter). The baby should have to be carried to term.

Hmmm, I don't think you understand what fair and equitable means...

Is your solution fair on the woman that wants an abortion? To give a child up for adoption? Fair on a child to languish in care? Fair on the democratic process or majority electorate that guaranteed women safe passage to procure an abortion?

Neewbie_noob wrote: »

UK abortion providers should not serve any Irish Passport holders or anyone coming from the 6 counties - where the termination of innocent babies is also prohibited.

So now not only should we ignore the Irish democratic system we should also be trying to control women from a different jurisdiction?

I can't believe your being serious now.

Neewbie_noob wrote: »

Importation of abortifacients such as pills to indice miscarriage after a week or tow gestation should be a punishable offence, such as the importation of narcotics. It really is a simple solution.

Yes, ignore democracy, ignore human rights and slunk back to the contraceptive control of the 1950's...simples.