The 8th amendment(Mod warning in op)

WHIP IT!

gizmo81 wrote: »

Because the neighbours are happy enough with the knocked up young wan next door we should force her to carry a baby for 9 months?

With every post you make, you push many undecided people further and further away from supporting your ideals... I'm not sure if you're aware of that - but you should be.

gizmo81

If they need to use me as an excuse that's fine. The weak have been using the strong to justify their weakness forever.

WHIP IT! wrote: »

With every post you make, you push many undecided people further and further away from supporting your ideals... I'm not sure if you're aware of that - but you should be.

Calhoun

gizmo81 wrote: »

If they need to use me as an excuse that's fine. The weak have been using the strong to justify their weakness forever.

Hahahah head in the sand missing the point but i am loving the militant stand point keep it up .

pjohnson

conorhal wrote: »

I'm sure in your mind you've caught a demagogue in some wonderful 'gottcha!' moment, but I've never said anything I consider inconsistent. What I said was, I'm not in favor of a change in the constitution. If an amendment was passed by the electorate that allowed for abortion in the case of fatal fetal abnormality I would accept that.
As somebody with a distaste for the commodification of life as yet another disposible product, I see no conflict in the ending of a life that would never survive, and my own personal morality, that objects to ending a life for the sake of convenience.

I don't characterize people who are pro abortion as slavering individuals who "want all babies mounted on pikes or have an insatiable abortion lust", that's just your sad projection of your own prejudices onto my mindset, and what would have saved your favorite strawman Savita Halapinaver's life was an ounce of logic and a competent doctor who bothered to read a chart or answer a page.

And now your rhetoric is back lol.

conorhal

pjohnson wrote: »

And now your rhetoric is back lol.

Yeah...rhetoric..what a terrible thing rhetoric is..... it should probably be banned!

rhetoric
ˈrɛtərɪk/
noun
noun: rhetoric

the art of effective or persuasive speaking or writing, especially the exploitation of figures of speech and other compositional techniques.


Actually, I don't even understand your statement, the weird, bitter, hollow tone of it sure, but the substance of it?

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5

Well this went to shít quicker than usual

WHIP IT!

gizmo81 wrote: »

If they need to use me as an excuse that's fine. The weak have been using the strong to justify their weakness forever.

An excuse for what?

gizmo81

To vote against abortion

WHIP IT! wrote: »

An excuse for what?

WHIP IT!

gizmo81 wrote: »

To vote against abortion

That's the point you might be missing - I don't think people who are ready to vote "against abortion" are looking for, or need, an excuse... but those who are unsure are seeking clarity - and you provide none. This insistence that "Non Repealers are woman-hating God botherers" is doing the Repeal movement immeasurable harm.

Zillah

I've often wondered about pro-lifers' position on the rest of the political spectrum. It's really interesting that they're usually quite right wing - fiscally and socially conservative.

When it comes to paying taxes and those taxes being used to help poor families feed their children, clothe them for school, and give them a leg up for higher education they get quite upset and complain about freeloaders, scumbags, dole queues etc. They really only seem to care about the poor babies before they are born; the moment they enter the world and start living their lives they and their slut single mothers can go die in a tenement for all they care.

Which always leads me to suspect that it doesn't really have anything to do with caring about the poor foetuses. It's about punishing women. You dared to have sex and now you should suffer the consequences. Keep your legs closed next time.

It's the same reason they ranted about the poor children during the Marriage Equality referendum. You can't get away with calling them dirty faggots any more, they know that, so they find some moralistic highground they can get hysterical about and shout that to the world until the cows come home.

You can't tell women they should shut their mouths and wait for their husbands to get them pregnant, they know that too, so they go on about the poor babies, which in reality they couldn't give a fup about.

It's always Helen Lovejoy, essentially.

One eyed Jack

Howard Tasteless Bank wrote: »

I think people who are very opposed to abortion would spend their time much more productively if they campaigned and advocated for social inclusion and mobility, better education, better access to healthcare including contraception etc. Fact remains that Jacinta from Ballybane and Sorcha from Raheny are likely to be very very differently impacted by the same situation: an unwanted pregnancy which they wish to terminate.

Just to pick up on something else you said here electro - I don't know why anyone would make that point as though people who are opposed to abortion don't already proactively campaign and advocate for better education, access to healthcare, social mobility etc, when that's exactly what the RCC and religious orders did do, and still do today in every corner of the world. I understand of course that many here wouldn't agree with either their ideology or their methods and some would prefer they had no involvement at all in education, healthcare and welfare, but it's a moot point to suggest that they should be more concerned with other social issues when they already are and always were since their inception.

Fact also remains that the possible outcomes for Jacinta and Sorcha as unmarried mothers historically, today, and in future generations, will always be different.

pjohnson

Zillah wrote: »

I've often wondered about pro-lifers' position on the rest of the political spectrum. It's really interesting that they're usually quite right wing - fiscally and socially conservative.

When it comes to paying taxes and those taxes being used to help poor families feed their children, clothe them for school, and give them a leg up for higher education they get quite upset and complain about freeloaders, scumbags, dole queues etc. They really only seem to care about the poor babies before they are born; the moment they enter the world and start living their lives they and their slut single mothers can go die in a tenement for all they care.

Which always leads me to suspect that it doesn't really have anything to do with caring about the poor foetuses. It's about punishing women. You dared to have sex and now you should suffer the consequences. Keep your legs closed next time.

It's the same reason they ranted about the poor children during the Marriage Equality referendum. You can't get away with calling them dirty faggots any more, they know that, so they find some moralistic highground they can get hysterical about and shout that to the world until the cows come home.

You can't tell women they should shut their mouths and wait for their husbands to get them pregnant, they know that too, so they go on about the poor babies, which in reality they couldn't give a fup about.

It's always Helen Lovejoy, essentially.

Dont forget the woman doesnt even need to be alive to still be an incubator. They will literally let the woman rot to keep the baby. But "pro life" they scream.

mariaalice

Why does RTE send the religious and social affairs correspondent to report on the constitutional convention and not it political correspondent?.

Calhoun

Zillah wrote: »

I've often wondered about pro-lifers' position on the rest of the political spectrum. It's really interesting that they're usually quite right wing - fiscally and socially conservative.

When it comes to paying taxes and those taxes being used to help poor families feed their children, clothe them for school, and give them a leg up for higher education they get quite upset and complain about freeloaders, scumbags, dole queues etc. They really only seem to care about the poor babies before they are born; the moment they enter the world and start living their lives they and their slut single mothers can go die in a tenement for all they care.

Which always leads me to suspect that it doesn't really have anything to do with caring about the poor foetuses. It's about punishing women. You dared to have sex and now you should suffer the consequences. Keep your legs closed next time.

It's the same reason they ranted about the poor children during the Marriage Equality referendum. You can't get away with calling them dirty faggots any more, they know that, so they find some moralistic highground they can get hysterical about and shout that to the world until the cows come home.

You can't tell women they should shut their mouths and wait for their husbands to get them pregnant, they know that too, so they go on about the poor babies, which in reality they couldn't give a fup about.

It's always Helen Lovejoy, essentially.

Luckily we don't have to wonder about the politics on the other side, the usual SJW high on the victory from the same sex marriage referendum. They sit on their own moralistic high horse judging the lesser mortals of the world.

conorhal

Zillah wrote: »

I've often wondered about pro-lifers' position on the rest of the political spectrum. It's really interesting that they're usually quite right wing - fiscally and socially conservative.

When it comes to paying taxes and those taxes being used to help poor families feed their children, clothe them for school, and give them a leg up for higher education they get quite upset and complain about freeloaders, scumbags, dole queues etc. They really only seem to care about the poor babies before they are born; the moment they enter the world and start living their lives they and their slut single mothers can go die in a tenement for all they care.

Which always leads me to suspect that it doesn't really have anything to do with caring about the poor foetuses. It's about punishing women. You dared to have sex and now you should suffer the consequences. Keep your legs closed next time.

It's the same reason they ranted about the poor children during the Marriage Equality referendum. You can't get away with calling them dirty faggots any more, they know that, so they find some moralistic highground they can get hysterical about and shout that to the world until the cows come home.

You can't tell women they should shut their mouths and wait for their husbands to get them pregnant, they know that too, so they go on about the poor babies, which in reality they couldn't give a fup about.

It's always Helen Lovejoy, essentially.

Well I'm pro-life and would consider myself a classical conservative, that is to say, I believe that both the state and the citizens have rights and responsibilities towards contributing to the benefit of society.

In the states case, that absolutely includes the provision of a basic reasonable standard of living for ALL it's citizens, their education medical care and the provision of critical infrastructure.

You seem to be describing the charateristics of libertarians who's dog eat dog attitude any classical conservative would despise, or sociopaths, because I've never met a person who has told a woman "they should shut their mouths and wait for their husbands to get them pregnant" or suggested "slut single mothers can go die in a tenement for all they care", nor would I want to meet such a person...
The vast majority of conservative individuals I know work hard, pay their taxes, contribute charitably and care about their communities and are very involved and compassionate individuals.

BigBulldog

Most of the pro abortion crowd try and avoid ever thinking about what is involved in the actual procedure. Vacuuming the live baby's brain out of its head, decapitating it and severing all its limbs from its body. Seriously, look up some picture of abortion if you think you can stomach it. The pro abortionists try to dress it up as being just like taking a paracetamol and giving the womb a quick clean out to freshen you back up for the next one. Abortion is one of the most disgusting things on this earth. Physicians who perform it are breaking their hippocratic oath at best and murderers at worst. Advocates for it tend to be neo liberal left wing hipsters; stick to the bashing the angelas and the Pope and complaining about the price of bread and watching 50 shades with the girls.

pjohnson

Calhoun wrote: »

Luckily we don't have to wonder about the politics on the other side, the usual SJW high on the victory from the same sex marriage referendum. They sit on their own moralistic high horse judging the lesser mortals of the world.

What an excellent rebuttal chap. You addressed the points before answering in a rational mature manner. You raise some excellent counterpoints.

One eyed Jack

Zillah wrote: »

I've often wondered about pro-lifers' position on the rest of the political spectrum. It's really interesting that they're usually quite right wing - fiscally and socially conservative.

When it comes to paying taxes and those taxes being used to help poor families feed their children, clothe them for school, and give them a leg up for higher education they get quite upset and complain about freeloaders, scumbags, dole queues etc. They really only seem to care about the poor babies before they are born; the moment they enter the world and start living their lives they and their slut single mothers can go die in a tenement for all they care.

Which always leads me to suspect that it doesn't really have anything to do with caring about the poor foetuses. It's about punishing women. You dared to have sex and now you should suffer the consequences. Keep your legs closed next time.

It's the same reason they ranted about the poor children during the Marriage Equality referendum. You can't get away with calling them dirty faggots any more, they know that, so they find some moralistic highground they can get hysterical about and shout that to the world until the cows come home.

You can't tell women they should shut their mouths and wait for their husbands to get them pregnant, they know that too, so they go on about the poor babies, which in reality they couldn't give a fup about.

It's always Helen Lovejoy, essentially.

Utter nonsense Zillah and hardly worth my while contradicting every single point. It's the equivalent of me suggesting that anyone who is pro-choice has never done anything for anyone but themselves, I wouldn't make that argument though as I know it would be complete bullshìt, and I know far too many people who are pro-choice who work tirelessly in both their own communities and globally, so much so that they simply don't have the time nor the energy to be faffing about on the internet mud slinging amongst themselves and congratulating each other on how right-on they are.

pjohnson

BigBulldog wrote: »

Most of the pro abortion crowd try and avoid ever thinking about what is involved in the actual procedure. Vacuuming the live baby's brain out of its head, decapitating it and severing all its limbs from its body. Seriously, look up some picture of abortion if you think you can stomach it. The pro abortionists try to dress it up as being just like taking a paracetamol and giving the womb a quick clean out to freshen you back up for the next one. Abortion is one of the most disgusting things on this earth. Physicians who perform it are breaking their hippocratic oath at best and murderers at worst. Advocates for it tend to be neo liberal left wing hipsters; stick to the bashing the angelas and the Pope and complaining about the price of bread and watching 50 shades with the girls.

Another excellent rational counterpoint.

Calhoun

pjohnson wrote: »

What an excellent rebuttal chap. You addressed the points before answering in a rational mature manner. You raise some excellent counterpoints.

Just as excellent as the original Pal, thank you very much .

B_Wayne

Calhoun wrote: »

Luckily we don't have to wonder about the politics on the other side, the usual SJW high on the victory from the same sex marriage referendum. They sit on their own moralistic high horse judging the lesser mortals of the world.

I'd classify it as far more 'moralistic' that women are constantly judged for abortions. Any who have been open about their own personal abortion experience tend to be subjected a lot of abuse, being referred to as "murderers" and such. Pro life campaigners regularly promise some form of a doomsday if the eight amendment is repealed. Yet it's the people who want the individual to allow people to choose are the moralisers?

pjohnson

Calhoun wrote: »

Just as excellent as the original thank you very much .

Well one was coherent and the other some vague rambling equating that if you are pro choice you are somehow part of the equality gay pride parade bullcrap.

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5

BigBulldog wrote: »

Most of the pro abortion crowd try and avoid ever thinking about what is involved in the actual procedure. Vacuuming the live baby's brain out of its head, decapitating it and severing all its limbs from its body. Seriously, look up some picture of abortion if you think you can stomach it. The pro abortionists try to dress it up as being just like taking a paracetamol and giving the womb a quick clean out to freshen you back up for the next one. Abortion is one of the most disgusting things on this earth. Physicians who perform it are breaking their hippocratic oath at best and murderers at worst. Advocates for it tend to be neo liberal left wing hipsters; stick to the bashing the angelas and the Pope and complaining about the price of bread and watching 50 shades with the girls.

Giving you the benefit of the doubt that you're not just stirring shít, because this is actually an accurate reflection of the opinions of many pro-life people IME.

Is it that you're deliberately lying, or that you're completely misinformed?

mariaalice

Stereotypes on steroids


Advocates for it tend to be neo liberal left wing hipsters; stick to the bashing the angelas and the Pope and complaining about the price of bread and watching 50 shades with the girls.


Verses

It's really interesting that they're usually quite right wing - fiscally and socially conservative.

When it comes to paying taxes and those taxes being used to help poor families feed their children, clothe them for school, and give them a leg up for higher education they get quite upset and complain about freeloaders, scumbags, dole queues etc. They really only seem to care about the poor babies before they are born; the moment they enter the world and start living their lives they and their slut single mothers can go die in a tenement for all they care.

Which always leads me to suspect that it doesn't really have anything to do with caring about the poor foetuses. It's about punishing women. You dared to have sex and now you should suffer the consequences. Keep your legs closed next time.

Calhoun

pjohnson wrote: »

Well one was coherent and the other some vague rambling equating that if you are pro choice you are somehow part of the equality gay pride parade bullcrap.

No it was in the same rambling labeling of the original post, you just dont agree with my point so you fail to see i was making a similar post.

pjohnson

Calhoun wrote: »

No it was in the same rambling labeling of the original post, you just dont agree with my point so you fail to see i was making a similar post.

Well its totally useless . Unless you are a staunch catholic abortion and gay marriage are in no way similar. But then again that likely explains the militaristic view lol.


Side Q. Is anyone who disagree's with the church automatically an SJW?

Calhoun

B_Wayne wrote: »

I'd classify it as far more 'moralistic' that women are constantly judged for abortions. Any who have been open about their own personal abortion experience tend to be subjected a lot of abuse, being referred to as "murderers" and such. Pro life campaigners regularly promise some form of a doomsday if the eight amendment is repealed. Yet it's the people who want the individual to allow people to choose are the moralisers?

Its still the usual moralistic thought police crap, rather than debating both sides we throw out labels and disparage integrity of the other side so to discount their opinion.

Unfortunately we live in an Ireland where both sides have an opinion and if we don't want to take the other side seriously then so be it but dont expect any middle ground or understanding.

Whats even worse though is that we run the risk of this failing an actual referendum because we make it a taboo subject to be counter to the popular opinion.

One eyed Jack

pjohnson wrote: »

Well its totally useless . Unless you are a staunch catholic abortion and gay marriage are in no way similar. But then again that likely explains the militaristic view lol.


Side Q. Is anyone who disagree's with the church automatically an SJW?

A better question - is anyone able to express an opinion without it being preceded by "as a...", and following that, is anyone able to express an opinion without being labelled as a... ?

Hellrazer

I'm after reading every single post in this thread and you know what really gets on my nerves.
For the record I am pro choice/ pro abortion.I don't really care what you call it.

Anyway what gets on my nerves is that reading this thread and the other threads and what you see protesting in Dublin city center on a Saturday afternoon is that it appears that the majority of anti abortion protesters are male.

What right does any man have to even be anti abortion or better still tell any woman what they can or cannot do with their own body.Youre not the one that has to "put up" with a fetus or baby living inside of you that you don't know whether you can provide for it.Whether you can give it the life that it deserves.Men can walk away and not even have to be involved if they don't want to be.

Btw i have 4 kids.Im not sure economically we could afford another one and if my wife did decide to terminate a pregnancy I would support that decision. But we decided a few years ago that i would get a vascectomy having decided our family was large enough.
Next thing you know the anti brigade will be trying to ban vascectomy for killing a few million potential "babies" ,"fetuses" whatever.

Calhoun

pjohnson wrote: »

Well its totally useless . Unless you are a staunch catholic abortion and gay marriage are in no way similar. But then again that likely explains the militaristic view lol.


Side Q. Is anyone who disagree's with the church automatically an SJW?

Exactly my point these are two different subjects, the tactics of labeling and belittling people will not get this to be a success, damage is done overall when we take that approach.

No not everyone who disagrees with the church is an SJW, I dont agree with the church myself on this issue. Folk who spend there time labeling others and equating those with a different opinion to them to be advocates of what happened in the mother and baby homes however would be.

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5

Hellrazer wrote: »

I'm after reading every single post in this thread and you know what really gets on my nerves.
For the record I am pro choice/ pro abortion.I don't really care what you call it.

Anyway what gets on my nerves is that reading this thread and the other threads and what you see protesting in Dublin city center on a Saturday afternoon is that it appears that the majority of anti abortion posters are male.

What right does any man have to even be anti abortion or better still tell any woman what they can or cannot do with their own body.Youre not the one that has to "put up" with a fetus or baby living inside of you that you don't know whether you can provide for it.Whether you can give it the life that it deserves.Men can walk away and not even have to be involved if they don't want to be.

Btw i have 4 kids.Im not sure economically we could afford another one and if my wife did decide to terminate a pregnancy I would support that decision. But we decided a few years ago that i would get a vascectomy having decided our family was large enough.
Next thing you know the anti brigade will be trying to ban vascectomy for killing a few million potential "babies" ,"fetuses" whatever.

Pregnancy is magic and babies are fun, women only love being pregnant. It's no big deal at all, minor inconvenience at most. And of course there's the piece of cake solution of giving birth and then giving the baby up for adoption, that's a really easy straightforward thing to do.

If you need to confirm any of this, just check with the men at the pro life rallies, they know all about this stuff.

neonsofa

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Fact also remains that the possible outcomes for Jacinta and Sorcha as unmarried mothers historically, today, and in future generations, will always be different.

From what i can see, that poster didn't actually mention jacinta and sorcha's marital status, just that they were in the same situation regarding an unplanned pregnancy.

conorhal

pjohnson wrote: »

Well one was coherent and the other some vague rambling equating that if you are pro choice you are somehow part of the equality gay pride parade bullcrap.

Well of course you're not, but I have found some of the lefty crowd do like to conflate equality and repeal into the same broad spectrum of 'rights' and you are either for all or against all.
I actually lost a friend over it.
For the record I voted for marriage equality. I did on a pride march however take issue with a friend for tweeting repeal posters along the route, #round2! (not exactly that but it was the sentement)

I explained to her that these were two different issue. She was quite shocked that I could be in favor of gay marriage and yet pro-life. I was shocked that such a thing didn't even compute with her, and yet as far as she was concerned I had somehow betrayed a liberal cause in conjunction with all liberal causes and thus become a 'deplorable'.
I don't mind saying that it was a very sad moment in my life because we had been very close, but like that she drifted away.

Calhoun

Hellrazer wrote: »

I'm after reading every single post in this thread and you know what really gets on my nerves.
For the record I am pro choice/ pro abortion.I don't really care what you call it.

Anyway what gets on my nerves is that reading this thread and the other threads and what you see protesting in Dublin city center on a Saturday afternoon is that it appears that the majority of anti abortion protesters are male.

What right does any man have to even be anti abortion or better still tell any woman what they can or cannot do with their own body.Youre not the one that has to "put up" with a fetus or baby living inside of you that you don't know whether you can provide for it.Whether you can give it the life that it deserves.Men can walk away and not even have to be involved if they don't want to be.

Btw i have 4 kids.Im not sure economically we could afford another one and if my wife did decide to terminate a pregnancy I would support that decision. But we decided a few years ago that i would get a vascectomy having decided our family was large enough.
Next thing you know the anti brigade will be trying to ban vascectomy for killing a few million potential "babies" ,"fetuses" whatever.

Why would a citizen of this country voting on a referendum item not have a right or opinion? Can men really walk away? legally they cannot and will assume responsibility of the child if the mother wants to keep it?

heybaby

Zillah wrote: »

I've often wondered about pro-lifers' position on the rest of the political spectrum. It's really interesting that they're usually quite right wing - fiscally and socially conservative.

When it comes to paying taxes and those taxes being used to help poor families feed their children, clothe them for school, and give them a leg up for higher education they get quite upset and complain about freeloaders, scumbags, dole queues etc. They really only seem to care about the poor babies before they are born; the moment they enter the world and start living their lives they and their slut single mothers can go die in a tenement for all they care.

Which always leads me to suspect that it doesn't really have anything to do with caring about the poor foetuses. It's about punishing women. You dared to have sex and now you should suffer the consequences. Keep your legs closed next time.

It's the same reason they ranted about the poor children during the Marriage Equality referendum. You can't get away with calling them dirty faggots any more, they know that, so they find some moralistic highground they can get hysterical about and shout that to the world until the cows come home.

You can't tell women they should shut their mouths and wait for their husbands to get them pregnant, they know that too, so they go on about the poor babies, which in reality they couldn't give a fup about.

It's always Helen Lovejoy, essentially.

Give any old testament worshipping troll a keyboard and watch the bile spew forth. Top marks for your 16000 plus posts, couldnt be bothered scrolling through any of them if this vitriol is indicative of your usual contributions.

Cant figure out who you hate more, women or gays, perhaps you hate both equally, ah no sure its obvious equality isn't in your vernacular.

I tend to find those liberal hating venom spouting left loathing trolls are obsessed with womens' bodies and not in a healthy way, you know, like a creepy way.

Your obsession with sexuality is more than slightly unnerving too. Your mentality, jaundiced as it is, is sadly a reflection of old ireland, the one countless victims are still recovering from and sadly has a bit of a way to go before completely dying out, but it will happen, of that you can be certain.

I welcome any move away from the past when women and gays were treated like dogs by moralising hypocritical bible bashers. Ignorance, fear and hypocrisy are the pillars of the old testament, old ireland and trolls, take a deep breath, change is coming regardless of your bile.

One eyed Jack

Hellrazer wrote: »

What right does any man have to even be anti abortion or better still tell any woman what they can or cannot do with their own body.Youre not the one that has to "put up" with a fetus or baby living inside of you that you don't know whether you can provide for it.Whether you can give it the life that it deserves.Men can walk away and not even have to be involved if they don't want to be.

I have no right whatsoever to tell an individual woman what she can and cannot do with her own body. I have a constitutionally protected right to freedom of expression, and the right to engage in the democratic process regarding any decisions which would affect Irish society. That's why we have elections and referendums, and if you're advocating a position where you would exclude men from the democratic process, you may well be shooting yourself in the foot as statistics suggest that far more men are pro-choice than women!

Unless you want to whittle it down to only pregnant women get to vote, and even then I'm not sure that would help your cause!

Next thing you know the anti brigade will be trying to ban vascectomy for killing a few million potential "babies" ,"fetuses" whatever.

I'm pretty sure that without an egg being fertilised by sperm, there's no chance of either having the potential to develop beyond their current state.

Ben Gadot

Genuine question: what's a professional pollster

jimmycrackcorm

Hellrazer wrote:

What right does any man have to even be anti abortion or better still tell any woman what they can or cannot do with their own body.Youre not the one that has to "put up" with a fetus or baby living inside of you that you don't know whether you can provide for it.Whether you can give it the life that it deserves.Men can walk away and not even have to be involved if they don't want to be.

Does that mean that men have a choice not to pay child support for children born that they didn't want?

Obviously the reality is that many do walk away, but if women are only going to be allowed the choice whether or not a child is born once pregnant then surely men should legally be allowed to have a choice in the same timeframe refuse responsibility for it?

One eyed Jack

neonsofa wrote: »

From what i can see, that poster didn't actually mention jacinta and sorcha's marital status, just that they were in the same situation regarding an unplanned pregnancy.

True, but in the context of what we were talking about (socioeconomic factors), their marital status of course contributes to their decision as to whether or not to consider abortion or continuing their pregnancy and having the child or children -

Howard Tasteless Bank wrote: »

Fact remains that Jacinta from Ballybane and Sorcha from Raheny are likely to be very very differently impacted by the same situation: an unwanted pregnancy which they wish to terminate.

Hellrazer

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

Does that mean that men have a choice not to pay child support for children born that they didn't want?

Yes I'd agree completely.You have to have equal rights here.If a man doesn't want the child and the mother did then yeah he shouldn't have to pay support.

Obviously the reality is that many do walk away, but if women are only going to be allowed the choice whether or not a child is born once pregnant then surely men should legally be allowed to have a choice in the same timeframe refuse responsibility for it?

Well they can't have it both ways.

conorhal

Hellrazer wrote: »

I'm after reading every single post in this thread and you know what really gets on my nerves.
For the record I am pro choice/ pro abortion.I don't really care what you call it.

Anyway what gets on my nerves is that reading this thread and the other threads and what you see protesting in Dublin city center on a Saturday afternoon is that it appears that the majority of anti abortion protesters are male.

What right does any man have to even be anti abortion or better still tell any woman what they can or cannot do with their own body.Youre not the one that has to "put up" with a fetus or baby living inside of you that you don't know whether you can provide for it.Whether you can give it the life that it deserves.Men can walk away and not even have to be involved if they don't want to be.

Btw i have 4 kids.Im not sure economically we could afford another one and if my wife did decide to terminate a pregnancy I would support that decision. But we decided a few years ago that i would get a vascectomy having decided our family was large enough.
Next thing you know the anti brigade will be trying to ban vascectomy for killing a few million potential "babies" ,"fetuses" whatever.

It gets on your nerves that men support abortion as per your own support for it? That's a bit bizzare and neurotic. I assume as a man you won't be excercising your democratic mandate in a referendum so since it's none of your business? (yeah I am being utterly facetious here).

As a father, I'm sure you understand that a father has quite a lot invested in their children and abortion both involves and effects fathers. As a citizen you also have an investment in the society you live in and it's common morality, and as a responsible adult, you clearly understand and ensure you manage your own fertility. I'm wondering who, bar a tiny lunatic fringe however are advocating a ban on vascectomy. You say it , but I think you're making some sweeping assumptions and false assumptions about people here.

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5

One eyed Jack wrote: »

True, but in the context of what we were talking about (socioeconomic factors), their marital status of course contributes to their decision as to whether or not to consider abortion or continuing their pregnancy and having the child or children -

Plenty of married women with children have abortions at all points on the social ladder.

Hellrazer

Calhoun wrote: »

Why would a citizen of this country voting on a referendum item not have a right or opinion? Can men really walk away? legally they cannot and will assume responsibility of the child if the mother wants to keep it?

Of course you are entitled to a vote and an opinion but you see the whole male thing isnt about not wanting abortion.In my opinion it's about control and trying to control what a woman does with her body.

And of course they can walk away.We all know plenty of I really hate the term "unmarried mother's" and we all know lads that have literally screwed around and have kids with different women and never get involved or pay support.

neonsofa

One eyed Jack wrote: »

True, but in the context of what we were talking about (socioeconomic factors), their marital status of course contributes to their decision as to whether or not to consider abortion or continuing their pregnancy and having the child or children -

It can contribute to anybodys decision but unplanned pregnancies happen within marriages too regardless of socio economic factors. Fact is, the poster was talking about unplanned pregnancies and socioeconomic factors, not "unmarried mothers".

WHIP IT!

Hellrazer wrote: »

Of course you are entitled to a vote and an opinion but you see the whole male thing isnt about not wanting abortion.In my opinion it's about control and trying to control what a woman does with her body.

And of course they can walk away.We all know plenty of I really hate the term "unmarried mother's" and we all know lads that have literally screwed around and have kids with different women and never get involved or pay support.

Do we?? How many do you know? Genuine question. I know exactly none.

njs030

WHIP IT! wrote: »

Do we?? How many do you know? Genuine question. I know exactly none.

In your whole life you've never met someone who's mother was single?
Or know a woman bringing up a child alone?

One eyed Jack

Howard Tasteless Bank wrote: »

Plenty of married women with children have abortions at all points on the social ladder.

I know that, but rather than assume 'plenty', statistically the fact is that more women who have abortions are unmarried.

neonsofa wrote: »

It can contribute to anybodys decision but unplanned pregnancies happen within marriages too regardless of socio economic factors. Fact is, the poster was talking about unplanned pregnancies and socioeconomic factors, not "unmarried mothers".

You think being unmarried or married isn't a socioeconomic factor?

Ok then.

Calhoun

Hellrazer wrote: »

Of course you are entitled to a vote and an opinion but you see the whole male thing isnt about not wanting abortion.In my opinion it's about control and trying to control what a woman does with her body.

And of course they can walk away.We all know plenty of I really hate the term "unmarried mother's" and we all know lads that have literally screwed around and have kids with different women and never get involved or pay support.

That is your opinion, what about the woman that want abortion what do they want? Do you not think there is any credit to the argument that from their philosophical view point that its the potential life of an unborn being extinguished?

I am being flippant here as based on a feeling you have branded the other side as control freaks.

They cannot under the law walk away, in reality they do but that is because we dont enforce the responsibility like we should. So under the eyes of the law you are tied to this decision from inception, should you not have an opinion on it?

LirW

I also want to throw in that if there is this strong mentality of pro-life, why don't they actually fight for easier access to permanent birth control solutions for women? All women get for wanting her tubes to be tied is being belittled, unless she hits a certain age (that is in fact quite high) or has quadrillion kids.
Also it's proven by now that a lot of women suffer some form of negative side effect from hormonal birth control, but they still have to put up with it, especially in long term relationships because there is a lack of options and permanent solutions are usually met with hesitation from doctors. In that case men have it a bit easier to get a vasectomy.
Before I had my daughter 2 months ago, it happened a few times to me that midwives, doctors and people were telling me "oh, you'll change your mind, see you in a few years". Oh absolutely not, I have two, two is fine, in fact I'm done. I by the way got refused for tubal ligation straight when I asked for it in the hospital.

For the fact, that people are screaming for every precious life, where is the awareness to not let that happen in the first place?


Also why is there never a talk about some kind of a "compromise?" In a lot of countries on the mainland, abortion is technically illegal but brought in the system that it's not illegal until you're full 12 weeks pregnant (In cases of foetal abnormalities you can terminate a pregnancy up until week 25 or so).

WHIP IT!

notjustsweet wrote: »

In your whole life you've never met someone who's mother was single?
Or know a woman bringing up a child alone?

I played it a bit fast and loose with the 'bold' function there... I was referring to this part of Hellrazer's quote:

"...we all know lads that have literally screwed around and have kids with different women and never get involved or pay support."