The 8th amendment(Mod warning in op)

CzechChick

good

volchitsa

me_right_one wrote: »

What are you on about? That isnt the issue. Of course the rape victim should be helped / supported / compensated. Nobody's saying they shouldnt

If necessary by strapping her down and force feeding her for a few months until the pregnancy is over though. Right?

I hope no-one I care about ever needs help from any pro lifers.

Kitsunegari

me_right_one wrote: »

So killing the baby is your solution?

Yes, she should have that choice as bringing a child of rape to full term can have serious mental consequences for the mother.

Women should have the right to do what they want with their bodies. There is a generation of people that still exist that think that everybody should be forced to live by their own beliefs.

I don't believe in a free-for-all abortion system but I find it quite sick the mentality of those that want to force their belief system onto others knowing the long term damage such a mentality has. It's quite disgusting that these holier-than-thou types still exist in such large droves. I'm not sure why you think you have the moral authority over what a woman can do with her body.

volchitsa

pilly wrote: »

I've never understood why abortion is not allowed in the North actually?

Religion.

Fundamentalist Protestants are as homophobic and misogynistic as anything that Catholic Church has to offer. Maybe more so. Paisley's Save Ulster from Sodomy campaign was the envy of the Catholic Church in the north. If he'd wanted their active cooperation he'd have had it, but he neither wanted nor needed them for it.

njs030

me_right_one wrote: »

So killing the baby is your solution?

I think the person who is currently alive and can walk and talk and has feelings should be our priority.
I genuinely can't understand how anyone can call themselves pro life but not care about the lives of women who have suffered a life altering attack, but care more about a bundle of cells.

Sofiztikated

me_right_one wrote: »

The repeal side wanted to remove the 8th so that Ireland would have an abortion-on-demand system. They didnt realise that repealing it would not automatically lead to such a system, but they were correct insofar as it would be a step towards it.

The outcome from yesterday means that the unborn still have EQUAL right to life as anyone else. This rules out abortion-on-demand completely. It is now off the table.

What is left to decide is when it will be ok to abort for reasons other than medical (which was legalised in 2013). The CA will likely recommend a referendum on an amendment to the 8th which will allow lawful abortion in certain non-medical cases, ie incest and rape.

I am pro-life. I do not see this as a good outcome, although at least it smashes any ambitions of abortion-on-demand ever being legal. I would rather see children conceived in rape being adopted, and having adopted a child myself, I would have no problem saving that person from a death that was not of their making, and which they had no choice in.

The Repeal side wanted the 8th Amendment removed, so that abortion could be legislated for. The details of said legislation would have then had to be worked out. You'll find that Repeal supporters would have differing opinions as to what the legislation would have said.

You're the one saying Repeal = Mandatory abortions.

Sofiztikated

me_right_one wrote: »

So killing the baby is your solution?

Having the choice would be the solution.

If the rape victim wanted to carry the pregnancy to term, they would still be able to.

If the rape victim wanted to terminate the pregnancy, they would be able to.

masculinist

Barbie! wrote: »

For the record if it comes to a vote I'll vote to repeal it cause I think women should have a right to choose what they do with their own bodies.

So you think its your body right up until the day you give birth ? I see two bodies. If that second body was put there through rape or molestation .i.e against the will of the first body, or if it was endangering your life then I can understand the need to remove it and I'd not blame you. However if that second body , that second life was put there due to the consenting behavior of the mother then I'm not convinced because I see a life there for whom you'd be fully ethically responsible in my view.

If someone punched a pregnant lady in the stomach and she had a miscarriage , I'd fully believe that person to have committed murder. Similarly I would have a dim view of someone pregnant who was drinking , smoking and taking various drugs etc. How would you view this ? Its a big nothing if the baby is born with fetal alcohol syndrome with disabilities and significantly lower IQ ?

jaja321

me_right_one wrote: »

The outcome from yesterday means that the unborn still have EQUAL right to life as anyone else. This rules out abortion-on-demand completely. It is now off the table.

This is not the case. In fact abortion with out restrictions as to the reason is one of the options being voted on today in terms of recommendations to the oireachtas.

njs030

masculinist wrote: »

So you think its your body right up until the day you give birth ? I see two bodies. If that second body was put there through rape or molestation .i.e against the will of the first body, or if it was endangering your life then I can understand the need to remove it and I'd not blame you.

So you do believe it should be amended.

masculinist

notjustsweet wrote: »

So you do believe it should be amended.

Don't selectively quote me.

As a male , if someone came along, hit me over the head and I woke up with a strange baby inside me through some sort of alien technology , I'd be under considerable stress, want it taken out asap and morally I would view the responsibility for this as being fully on the shoulders of the criminal who did this. Now you see the thought experiment, therefore I would agree with any victim of rape or molestation where the life created was not chosen being given that choice.

However I do not agree with opening the floodgates,e.g abortion being given on demand to promiscuous women or otherwise who happily choose to take the risk in a country where many types of contraception exist. I have no problem with promiscuity. I am very thankful to the many promiscuous women I have met in my life. However when a life is created , then its time to behave like a responsible adult. We all wish we could live life without consequences. It would be great craic indeed but I can't get away from the fact that murder is murder. And many of the sjws and feminists and the funding for such people comes from an ideology which fully supports on demand abortion right up to the 9th month.
And if a woman decides to keep the baby and approach a man for child support, the typical feminist response is that its ''her body'' but not ''his wallet'' and to tell him to ''keep it in his pants'' , a command which can easily backfire as you might see.

njs030

masculinist wrote: »

Don't selectively quote me.

As a male , if someone came along, hit me over the head and I woke up with a strange baby inside me through some sort of alien technology , I'd be under considerable stress, want it taken out asap and morally I would view the responsibility for this as being fully on the shoulders of the criminal who did this. Now you see the thought experiment, therefore I would agree with any victim of rape or molestation where the life created was not chosen being given that choice.

However I do not agree with opening the floodgates,e.g abortion being given on demand to promiscuous women or otherwise who happily choose to take the risk in a country where many types of contraception exist. I have no problem with promiscuity. I am very thankful to the many promiscuous women I have met in my life. However when a life is created , then its time to behave like a responsible adult. We all wish we could live life without consequences. It would be great craic indeed but I can't get away from the fact that murder is murder. And many of the sjws and feminists and the funding for such people comes from an ideology which fully supports on demand abortion right up to the 9th month.
And if a woman decides to keep the baby and approach a man for child support, the typical feminist response is that its ''her body'' but not ''his wallet'' and to tell him to ''keep it in his pants'' , a command which can easily backfire as you might see.

I replied and then deleted it because wow.

Promiscuous women?? But you're happy to have sex with them.
Hypocrite.

somefeen

We've been arguing about this for what, 20 years now?

At this point I just want the government to make SOME decision other than carry on as usual.
Pick an option, run with it. If people aren't happy modify it later.

masculinist

notjustsweet wrote: »

I replied and then deleted it because wow.

Promiscuous women?? But you're happy to have sex with them.
Hypocrite.

Lets be logical here now . What exactly is your problem ? Are you judging promiscuous women ? Because I was not. I even went so far as to praise them. However if a life is created through a consensual action then its time to be an adult and take responsibility. And that is very different from a non consenting situation. And why the name calling ? I have never been a hypocrite. Not even once.
This is why sjws and feminists are so difficult to have a logical discussion with. They only see what they want to see. And when they cant find a logical argument , they resort to name calling.

qo2cj1dsne8y4k

Every time I have sex, I consent to sex only, not with the condition this may produce a child. To say "well she had consensual sex, now let her live with it", is kind of punishing a woman, no?

njs030

masculinist wrote: »

Lets be logical here now . What exactly is your problem ? Are you judging promiscuous women ? Because I was not. I even went so far as to praise them. However if a life is created through a consensual action then its time to be an adult and take responsibility. And that is very different from a non consenting situation. And why the name calling ? I have never been a hypocrite. Not even once.
This is why sjws and feminists are so difficult to have a logical discussion with. They only see what they want to see. And when they cant find a logical argument , they resort to name calling.

Your assumptions are appalling.

Promiscuous women want abortion on demand? So could married women get abortions? If someone was a virgin and got pregnant after her first time is she then allowed?

You're a hypocrite because you use the word promiscuous and "praise" them as if you have some kind of right to sit in judgement on women.
Yet you're happy to take what you want from them. That is hypocrisy.


I assume though that if one of these women you judge to be promiscuous but good enough to have sex with did get pregnant and didn't want to be a mother you'd pay all her bills, make sure she wasn't struggling because of your consensual actions and take the child away after birth? As it's time to be an adult.

circadian

It never ceases to amaze me how some people are obsessed with what others do with their bodies.

If you don't want to avail of abortion then don't. It doesn't mean others shouldn't be allowed to make that choice themselves.

masculinist

LexieOnRale wrote: »

Every time I have sex, I consent to sex only, not with the condition this may produce a child. To say "well she had consensual sex, now let her live with it", is kind of punishing a woman, no?

Every time you have sex , you know you risk creating a life. Knowing the consequences and taking responsibility for them is called being an adult.
Feminists have no problem telling a man on the hook for child support that he should ''keep it in his pants'' or ''man up'' . Adult women, particularly the feminists being offended at a requirement to ''woman up'' and take responsibility for their actions seem to be the hypocrites here.

volchitsa

notjustsweet wrote: »

Your assumptions are appalling.

Promiscuous women want abortion on demand? So could married women get abortions? If someone was a virgin and got pregnant after her first time is she then allowed?

You're a hypocrite because you use the word promiscuous and "praise" them as if you have some kind of right to sit in judgement on women.
Yet you're happy to take what you want from them. That is hypocrisy.


I assume though that if one of these women you judge to be promiscuous but good enough to have sex with did get pregnant and didn't want to be a mother you'd pay all her bills, make sure she wasn't struggling because of your consensual actions and take the child away after birth? As it's time to be an adult.

Why do I get the impression that only the promiscuous women get saddled with the baby by posters like the one you're replying to?

I bet he has no plans to force fathers to bring up the child if the mother doesn't want it, never mind do so himself!

As for "consensual sex" meaning consensual parenthood, it's laughable, or it should be. Are you consenting to get lung cancer every time you smoke? Or to get sunburn if you don't buy the most effective sun creams when on holiday and use them without fail? So if you get sun stroke or lung cancer, the doctor tells you to live with it? :rolleyes:

masculinist

notjustsweet wrote: »

Your assumptions are appalling.

Promiscuous women want abortion on demand? So could married women get abortions? If someone was a virgin and got pregnant is she then allowed? It's actually the worst argument against abortion I've heard.

You're a hypocrite because you use the word promiscuous and "praise" them as if you have some kind of right to sit in judgement on women.
It sounds like you're quite promiscuous yourself actually.

I assume though that if one of these women you judge to be promiscuous but good enough to have sex with did get pregnant and didn't want to be a mother you'd pay all her bills, make sure she wasn't struggling because of your consensual actions and take the child away after birth? As it's time to be an adult.

Again you only see what you want to see. You've created a false argument so you can argue with yourself. I have the right to judge anyone I want and vice versa. However I have not done so despite all your conniptions. Men are mercilessly judged all the time. Thankfully by not all women but theres a certain type of women who want all the benefits of living in a civilized adult society and none of the responsibilities. My children want for nothing. So less of the false accusations please eh ?
I can see now that victims of rape dont seem to be your main priority here otherwise you would have found some common ground. You are more concerned with abortion on demand of a life created by consent by a responsible adult. And I cannot support that.

Ken.

masculinist wrote: »

So you think its your body right up until the day you give birth ? I see two bodies. If that second body was put there through rape or molestation .i.e against the will of the first body, or if it was endangering your life then I can understand the need to remove it and I'd not blame you. However if that second body , that second life was put there due to the consenting behavior of the mother then I'm not convinced because I see a life there for whom you'd be fully ethically responsible in my view.

If someone punched a pregnant lady in the stomach and she had a miscarriage , I'd fully believe that person to have committed murder. Similarly I would have a dim view of someone pregnant who was drinking , smoking and taking various drugs etc. How would you view this ? Its a big nothing if the baby is born with fetal alcohol syndrome with disabilities and significantly lower IQ ?

Just for the record and before I reply to the above, everyone here knows i'm a man right? Was Ken,changed my name for SSF.


As I have previously stated I believe that a woman's body is hers right up to the minute of birth.

If a person caused a woman to have a miscarriage it's assault.

Drinking,smoking etc. As long as its within the law fire ahead. My mother smoked and drank while pregnant with all her children and there is not one of us under 6 foot tall and fully healthy.

qo2cj1dsne8y4k

masculinist wrote: »

Every time you have sex , you know you risk creating a life. Knowing the consequences and taking responsibility for them is called being an adult.
Feminists have no problem telling a man on the hook for child support that he should ''keep it in his pants'' or ''man up'' . Adult women, particularly the feminists being offended at a requirement to ''woman up'' and take responsibility for their actions seem to be the hypocrites here.

As a woman, faced with an unplanned pregnancy I'd ask myself the following

- do I have the fathers support?
- do I want it?
- can I afford it?
- is this the right time?
- is having an abortion an option?

If I answer no more than I answer yes, should I be forced to put my body, my physical and mental health through 9 months of stress and torture?

AtomicHorror

me_right_one wrote: »

The repeal side wanted to remove the 8th so that Ireland would have an abortion-on-demand system. They didnt realise that repealing it would not automatically lead to such a system, but they were correct insofar as it would be a step towards it.

They knew full well what repeal would mean legally. They've been talking about the successor legislation for months.

me_right_one wrote: »

The outcome from yesterday means that the unborn still have EQUAL right to life as anyone else. This rules out abortion-on-demand completely. It is now off the table.

You haven't understood at all.

They've recommended a version of repeal and replace that is functionally the same as repeal, except that it preserves the right to travel and information. It's actually even better than repeal.

The equal right to life is not in the recommendation- it is to be specifically defined in legislation that the Oireachtas can revise through the legislative process. The right to life is to be removed from the constitution under the CA recommendation.

Read ballot 3.

me_right_one wrote: »

What is left to decide is when it will be ok to abort for reasons other than medical (which was legalised in 2013). The CA will likely recommend a referendum on an amendment to the 8th which will allow lawful abortion in certain non-medical cases, ie incest and rape.

No, referendum is already required in their recommendation. What's left is the recommendation on the legislation the Oireachtas will put in place after repeal and replace. Legislation they will be able to change later based on the Oireachtas' interpretation of the will of the people. This is what the Coalition to Repeal wanted.

me_right_one wrote: »

I am pro-life. I do not see this as a good outcome, although at least it smashes any ambitions of abortion-on-demand ever being legal.

It really doesn't. I really don't think your side has understood what's happening here. The worst possible outcome for you.

masculinist

Barbie! wrote: »

As I have previously stated I believe that a woman's body is hers right up to the minute of birth.

Theres 2 bodies there right up to the moment of birth. its not a question of belief

somefeen

masculinist wrote: »

Lets be logical here now . What exactly is your problem ? Are you judging promiscuous women ? Because I was not. I even went so far as to praise them. However if a life is created through a consensual action then its time to be an adult and take responsibility. And that is very different from a non consenting situation. And why the name calling ? I have never been a hypocrite. Not even once.
This is why sjws and feminists are so difficult to have a logical discussion with. They only see what they want to see. And when they cant find a logical argument , they resort to name calling.

You seem to be the one who is failing to grasp logic.
From what I've extracted from your posts you have one point; that abortion should be available where the pregnancy was the result of rape or is a threat to the mother's life.
Why you feel the need to wrap such a basic point in fluff and absurd analogies is beyond me. As is your belief that you are being selectively quoted when asked a basic question that is at the heart of the debate.

While we're at it, calling someone a hypocrite is a true or false statement that can be argued. Name calling is using a term like 'SJW' for people you don't agree with.
You are a hypocrite if you believe 'promiscuous' women should not be allowed abortion but 'promiscuous' men should be allowed to walk away without responsibility.
Maybe that is not your belief, but you seem to have put more effort into appearing intelligent and enlightened with your writing than you did on being clear.

gizmo81

Do you see what you are doing here, you are forcing victimhood onto women to assuage your morality.

As long as the woman is a victim abortion is ok but she be damned if she is in total control of herself, her body and her decisions.

masculinist wrote: »

So you think its your body right up until the day you give birth ? I see two bodies. If that second body was put there through rape or molestation .i.e against the will of the first body, or if it was endangering your life then I can understand the need to remove it and I'd not blame you. However if that second body , that second life was put there due to the consenting behavior of the mother then I'm not convinced because I see a life there for whom you'd be fully ethically responsible in my view.

If someone punched a pregnant lady in the stomach and she had a miscarriage , I'd fully believe that person to have committed murder. Similarly I would have a dim view of someone pregnant who was drinking , smoking and taking various drugs etc. How would you view this ? Its a big nothing if the baby is born with fetal alcohol syndrome with disabilities and significantly lower IQ ?

njs030

volchitsa wrote: »

Why do I get the impression that only the promiscuous women get saddled with the baby by posters like the one you're replying to?

I bet he has no plans to force fathers to bring up the child if the mother doesn't want it, never mind do so himself!

As for "consensual sex" meaning consensual parenthood, it's laughable, or it should be. Are you consenting to get lung cancer every time you smoke? Or to get sunburn if you don't buy the most effective sun creams when on holiday and use them without fail? So if you get sun stroke or lung cancer, the doctor tells you to live with it? :rolleyes:

You must be psychic!!! No response to my questions....the usual twisting and changing the subject.

masculinist wrote: »

Again you only see what you want to see. You've created a false argument so you can argue with yourself. I have the right to judge anyone I want and vice versa. However I have not done so despite all your conniptions. Men are mercilessly judged all the time. Thankfully by not all women but theres a certain type of women who want all the benefits of living in a civilized adult society and none of the responsibilities. My children want for nothing. So less of the false accusations please eh ?
I can see now that victims of rape dont seem to be your main priority here otherwise you would have found some common ground. You are more concerned with abortion on demand of a life created by consent by a responsible adult. And I cannot support that.

Come back to me when you can answer what was asked without your nasty comments please.

masculinist

LexieOnRale wrote: »

As a woman, faced with an unplanned pregnancy I'd ask myself the following

- do I have the fathers support?
- do I want it?
- can I afford it?
- is this the right time?
- is having an abortion an option?

If I answer no more than I answer yes, should I be forced to put my body, my physical and mental health through 9 months of stress and torture?

What about a man facing an unplanned pregnancy ? What if he cant afford it and if its not the right time for him ? What if he doesnt have the mothers support in things like access , and access to his wallet etc ? Thats 18 plus years of torture for him or even longer if the kid goes to college.
The feminists who demand he either ''keeps it in his pants'' or ''mans up'' and pays child support dont have any demands of adult women who consented to that situation and are morally and ethically responsible for it.

gizmo81

Wrong, birth is the start of life as a physically separate being.

masculinist wrote: »

Theres 2 bodies there right up to the moment of birth. its not a question of belief

masculinist

somefeen wrote: »

You seem to be the one who is failing to grasp logic.
From what I've extracted from your posts you have one point; that abortion should be available where the pregnancy was the result of rape or is a threat to the mother's life.
Why you feel the need to wrap such a basic point in fluff and absurd analogies is beyond me. As is your belief that you are being selectively quoted when asked a basic question that is at the heart of the debate.

While we're at it, calling someone a hypocrite is a true or false statement that can be argued. Name calling is using a term like 'SJW' for people you don't agree with.
You are a hypocrite if you believe 'promiscuous' women should not be allowed abortion but 'promiscuous' men should be allowed to walk away without responsibility.
Maybe that is not your belief, but you seem to have put more effort into appearing intelligent and enlightened with your writing than you did on being clear.

I'm pointing out the facts and in each case the fact that an innocent baby could be harmed because of the pasttimes of responsible literate adults who are completely responsible for the consequences of their own actions is completely ignored in an extremely sinister way in favor of silly ad hominems and unintellectual crap.
As for the sjw/feminist stuff. Thats exactly what they stand for . Its all overt the web, their websites, forums and facebook groups telling men to ''man up'' and '' keep it in their pants'' if a condom fails. However telling women to ''woman up'' and be responsible for the life they created or ''keep their panties on'' causes hypocritical fits of violent rage. I'm not judgemental at all. However I am pointing out the double standard.

gizmo81 wrote: »

Do you see what you are doing here, you are forcing victimhood onto women to assuage your morality.

As long as the woman is a victim abortion is ok but she be damned if she is in total control of herself, her body and her decisions.

The only morality I have expressed on this thread is the one of
''Thou shalt not kill''

Nothing else is relevant but you are avoiding it.

notjustsweet wrote: »

Come back to me when you can answer what was asked without your nasty comments please.

I never went anywhere near you . I commented on the thread and you had nothing to say of any substance. Instead you avoided the real argument and decided the personal was the way to go. I can only tolerate hormonal type arguments from women who are actually pregnant. They can beat on me all day. However you're on here advocating for abortion while getting all emotional about everything except the innocent life of a baby. I can meet you half way on the issue of rape , molestation , forced pregnancy, minors, mentally incapacitated etc. However thats as far as it goes.

qo2cj1dsne8y4k

masculinist wrote: »

What about a man facing an unplanned pregnancy ? What if he cant afford it and if its not the right time for him ? What if he doesnt have the mothers support in things like access , and access to his wallet etc ? Thats 18 plus years of torture for him or even longer if the kid goes to college.
The feminists who demand he either ''keeps it in his pants'' or ''mans up'' and pays child support dont have any demands of adult women who consented to that situation and are morally and ethically responsible for it.

I 100% agree it's not fair to force a man into being a dad if it's something he isn't ready for. You'll get no arguement out of me on that. However, what's his options? Force the pregnant woman into an abortion? That's not right.

Given the fact the foetus is 100% reliant on the mothers body to form, be nurtured, kept safe and delivered from her - it's the mothers choice.
Now, I would hope it's something she didn't rush into, that she talked it through with her partner and took his feelings and opinions on board before making a decision but ultimately a man does not have to go through the physical trauma of pregnancy or childbirth, nor the mental stress that goes with it. The woman is 100% alone here.

We have no right to push her to put her body through that and it isn't comparable to a man having to open his wallet for the next 18 years, I'm sorry

professore

Barbie! wrote: »

me_right_one wrote: »

Even if that means killing someone else's body?

Woman's body-Woman's choice. The fetus is not a person till its born. Up to about 25 weeks it wouldn't survive without the mother so it is part of her and if she doesn't want that part of her anymore thats her choice.

Last I checked a baby can't survive without a parent for several years after birth ... Can't even talk for several years. Does that make it ok to kill it?

pilly

masculinist wrote:

What about a man facing an unplanned pregnancy ? What if he cant afford it and if its not the right time for him ? What if he doesnt have the mothers support in things like access , and access to his wallet etc ? Thats 18 plus years of torture for him or even longer if the kid goes to college. The feminists who demand he either ''keeps it in his pants'' or ''mans up'' and pays child support dont have any demands of adult women who consented to that situation and are morally and ethically responsible for it.

There is no answer to that question though is there?

On the subject of giving birth there is an inequality that will never be changed unless science changes matters.

jaja321

Majority of CA vote for abortion without restriction as to reason. A far more progressive vote than many on the repeal side could have hoped for.

masculinist

LexieOnRale wrote: »

ultimately a man does not have to go through the physical trauma of pregnancy or childbirth, nor the mental stress that goes with it. The woman is 100% alone here.

We have no right to push her to put her body through that and it isn't comparable to a man having to open his wallet for the next 18 years, I'm sorry

I wouldn't agree with that. When I heard the news that I was going to become a dad, the little finger in one of my hands went numb immediately and for months. Doctors still have no explanation. My blood pressure , heart rate , body fat, bloodwork etc is perfect. I then cut back a lifestyle where I went away for the weekend, Prague , Berlin , etc etc 15 or more times a year to working every hour I could get so she can have a nice home and go to a nice school, afterschools etc. I then went and looked for huge levels of life insurance because I cant go wandering around the world carefree about what I leave behind any longer. I took responsibility for my baby.

The level of stress is directly related to what type of person you are. People who dont care about their kids dont have any stress. And feminists think the worst of men who are supposed to ''man up'' and ''keep it in their pants''. But a woman can just walk away any time she wants, drop the kid into an orphanage etc while being offended at any suggestion that she has a responsibility towards anyone but herself .

qo2cj1dsne8y4k

masculinist wrote: »

I wouldn't agree with that. When I heard the news that I was going to become a dad, the little finger in one of my hands went numb immediately and for months. Doctors still have no explanation. My blood pressure , heart rate , body fat, bloodwork etc is perfect. I then cut back a lifestyle where I went away for the weekend, Prague , Berlin , etc etc 15 or more times a year to working every hour I could get so she can have a nice home and go to a nice school, afterschools etc. I then went and looked for huge levels of life insurance because I cant go wandering around the world carefree about what I leave behind any longer. I took responsibility for my baby.

The level of stress is directly related to what type of person you are. People who dont care about their kids dont have any stress. And feminists think the worst of men who are supposed to ''man up'' and ''keep it in their pants''. But a woman can just walk away any time she wants, drop the kid into an orphanage etc while being offended at any suggestion that she has a responsibility towards anyone but herself .

Did you want the baby?

njs030

masculinist wrote: »

I can only tolerate hormonal type arguments from women who are actually pregnant.

With yet another personal dig - because it doesn't seem you can write a post without one- I'm done with discussing it with you.

judeboy101

Unrestricted abortions up to 12 weeks, good bye special olympics

somefeen

masculinist wrote: »

I can only tolerate hormonal type arguments from women who are actually pregnant.

...can you tolerate them from men? Because I can guarantee that reading the above increased the testosterone levels in my blood by a significant level.
If this is the way you speak then its fairly obvious that any argument you have for/against abortion or a father's choice to take or not take responsibility is based purely on your own sexism.

AtomicHorror

judeboy101 wrote: »

Unrestricted abortions up to 12 weeks, good bye special olympics

Odd, all the countries with abortion still seem to send athletes to the Special Olympics.

masculinist

LexieOnRale wrote: »

Did you want the baby?

I wanted to be a good dad and take responsibility for the consequences of my actions which I did.

I think women should do the equivalent, to be good mothers and take responsibility for their actions. If they think their partner isnt a good person or cant support a child then they need to reconsider the morality of creating an innocent human life with the intentions of snuffing it out because it doesnt suit their lifestyle and pasttimes. The typical sjw/feminist argument is to immediately switch to personal attacks. If you disagree with them then youre a terrible person. Emotional arguments wont sway intelligent people who matter. Logic should swing the decision and nothing else.

Theres an awful lot of ad hominem and intentionally misread posts on this thread coupled with emotional claims of being ''insulted'' by an expectation that adult women should be responsible adults. Maybe this overemotional reaction is due to guilt which cant be expressed because its ignored - guilt at creating an innocent human life with the intentions of snuffing it out because it doesnt suit their lifestyle and pasttimes. Maybe some have already had an abotion and dont want to face the reality of what they did . Its all irrelevant to the fact that at some point you have to face the facts that theres 2 bodies at stake and when that second body was invited in then this isnt some sort of game or situation where one can avoid moral and ethical responsibility for the consequences of decisions. You may be able to avoid legal responsibility but you'll always know in your own conscience whether it was the right decision or not.

BabyCheeses

jaja321 wrote: »

Majority of CA vote for abortion without restriction as to reason. A far more progressive vote than many on the repeal side could have hoped for.

Majority support abortion up to 12 weeks without reason. Support in cases of rape and FFA. I think there's going to be a meltdown but not as the OP thought.

tigger123

masculinist wrote: »

I wanted to be a good dad and take responsibility for the consequences of my actions which I did.

I think women should do the equivalent, to be good mothers and take responsibility for their actions. If they think their partner isnt a good person or cant support a child then they need to reconsider the morality of creating an innocent human life with the intentions of snuffing it out because it doesnt suit their lifestyle and pasttimes. The typical sjw/feminist argument is to immediately switch to personal attacks. If you disagree with them then youre a terrible person. Emotional arguments wont sway intelligent people who matter. Logic should wing the decision and nothing else.

Theres an awful lot of ad hominem and intentionally misread posts on this thread coupled with emotional claims of being ''insulted'' by an expectation that adult women should be responsible adults. Maybe this overemotional reaction is due to guilt which cant be expressed because its ignored - guilt at creating an innocent human life with the intentions of snuffing it out because it doesnt suit their lifestyle and pasttimes. Maybe some have already had an abotion and dont want to face the reality of what they did . Its all irrelevant to the fact that at some point you have to face the facts that theres 2 bodies at stake and when that second body was invited in then this isnt some sort of game or situation where one can avoid responsibility.

On the one hand you're criticizing people for not entering into an online debate in a mature manner, and on the other hand you're deliberately using
language to goad those who would argue against you.

infogiver

AtomicHorror wrote: »

Odd, all the countries with abortion still seem to send athletes to the Special Olympics.

Just not Downs Syndrome

January

infogiver wrote: »

Just not Downs Syndrome

Well that's wrong too.

njs030

Assembly votes for abortion with 'no restrictions'
http://www.rte.ie/news/2017/0423/869597-the-citizens-assembly-reconvenes-in-dublin/

Up to 12 weeks.

AtomicHorror

BabyCheeses wrote: »

Majority support abortion up to 12 weeks without reason. Support in cases of rape and FFA. I think there's going to be a meltdown but not as the OP thought.

Yeah, OP could not gave gauged this worse. The smirking comment about amending the repeal t-shirts must ring pretty hollow.

Annasopra

somefeen wrote: »

We've been arguing about this for what, 20 years now?

About 35.

judeboy101

AtomicHorror wrote: »

Odd, all the countries with abortion still seem to send athletes to the Special Olympics.

north korea and sudan have abortion ( better abortion than our own regime) but dont do Special olympics So it cant be ALL countries, can it?

masculinist

tigger123 wrote: »

On the one hand you're criticizing people for not entering into an online debate in a mature manner, and on the other hand you're deliberately using
language to goad those who would argue against you.

Ridiculous nonsense. You should engage with the argument. Not attempt to censor it . This is actually an extremely serious issue despite your lack of respect.