Abortions for 3,735, minature flags for nobody

stinkle

The Golden Miller wrote: »

It's nothing to do with women's rights in my opinion. If anything, it's more along the line or "fcuk the man and babies rights"

Abortion has nothing to do with women's rights? Are you also saying that women have abortions just to spite men and "babies"?

lazygal

The Golden Miller wrote: »

It's nothing to do with women's rights in my opinion. If anything, it's more along the line or "fcuk the man and babies rights"

Yes women have abortions because they hate men and babies, in that order. How would you stop your pregnant girlfriend accessing abortion?

The Golden Miller

lazygal wrote: »

How is it equality if the man gets to decide whether a woman can have an abortion?

Because then they both have a say in the matter, and if either wants it kept it will be kept, so the same applies to both, hence equality. Just in the same way if he wants rid of it and she wants to keep it, then she gets the final say. You understand? Jesus, like groundhog day for dummies in here. Honestly do you have any opinions or decent contributions to make?

Samaris

The Golden Miller wrote: »

It's nothing to do with women's rights in my opinion. If anything, it's more along the line or "fcuk the man and babies rights"

Well, your opinion, and that of Ireland in general in regards to this issue does seem to be "fcuk the incubator's rights".

Ah, like Irish referenda. The rights go to whoever agrees with your point of view?

lazygal

The Golden Miller wrote: »

Because then they both have a say in the matter, and if either wants it kept it can be kept, so the same applies to both, hence equality. Just in the same way if he wants rid of it and she wants to keep it, then she gets the final say. You understand? Jesus, like groundhog day for dummies in here. Honestly do you have any opinions or decent contributions to make?

What if she.wants an abortion. Why does the man get to decide she remains pregnant? And how can he force her to remain pregnant?

stinkle

The Golden Miller wrote: »

Because then they both have a say in the matter, and if either wants it kept it will be kept, so the same applies to both, hence equality. Just in the same way if he wants rid of it and she wants to keep it, then she gets the final say. You understand? Jesus, like groundhog day for dummies in here. Honestly do you have any opinions or decent contributions to make?

If she wants it and he doesnt he has the option to walk away. No adverse effects on his body or mental health. The woman doesn't have that option.

The Golden Miller

stinkle wrote: »

Abortion has nothing to do with women's rights? Are you also saying that women have abortions just to spite men and "babies"?

No I'm not at all. Where did you pull that from the once again try and misrepresent what I'm saying. You were talking about woman's rights. It's not a woman's right issue at all. I sarcastically said, going by the hardcore feminists we obviously have in here, took the piss out of their anti-men's views

stinkle

The Golden Miller wrote: »

No I'm not at all. Where did you pull that from the once again try and misrepresent what I'm saying. You were talking about woman's rights. It's not a woman's right issue at all. I sarcastically said, going by the hardcore feminists we obviously have in here, took the piss out of their anti-men's views

you said "**** the men and babies". That reeks of spite.

The Golden Miller

stinkle wrote: »

If she wants it and he doesnt he has the option to walk away. No adverse effects on his body or mental health. The woman doesn't have that option.

And what are these effects? Gonna go talking about exceptions again?

stinkle

The Golden Miller wrote: »

And what are these effects? Gonna go talking about exceptions again?

Labour. Mastitis. C-section - major abdominal and uterine surgery. Post-natal depression.

Kiwi in IE

The Golden Miller wrote: »

Because then they both have a say in the matter, and if either wants it kept it will be kept, so the same applies to both, hence equality. Just in the same way if he wants rid of it and she wants to keep it, then she gets the final say. You understand? Jesus, like groundhog day for dummies in here. Honestly do you have any opinions or decent contributions to make?

You have not explained how you think the man should be able to enforce that a woman continues with a pregnancy against her wishes?

The Golden Miller

lazygal wrote: »

What if she.wants an abortion. Why does the man get to decide she remains pregnant? And how can he force her to remain pregnant?

Because it's half HIS. And if it is the other way around, she gets the final say. Because neither should be robbed of a baby, if they are prepared to raise it. You understand?

NachoBusiness

eviltwin wrote: »

I'm surprised given your views above that you would but you wouldn't do that if you didn't empathise with people so apologies for my earlier comment.

No bother, cheers.. the reason I would vote for early stage abortions / first trimester (along also with any stage with regards to health of mother or child) is that other developed countries that have tried to ban abortions where travel to another country wasn't as easy as it is here, have failed spectacularly. Brazil and Chile most notably. Ideally I would prefer that health of either the mother or child was only reason an abortion was ever considered but that is never going to happen.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2iiGe-U5K-8

inocybe

The Golden Miller wrote: »

Because it's half HIS. And if it is the other way around, she gets the final say. Because neither should be robbed of a baby, if they are prepared to raise it. You understand?

Ok let's accept this. I also would like to hear your ideas on how you would go about forcing her to remain pregnant.

lazygal

The Golden Miller wrote: »

And what are these effects? Gonna go talking about exceptions again?

Perineal tearing
Mastitis
Incontinence
Post natal depression
Dental problems
Stretch marks
Uterine rupture
C section scarring
UTIs
Gestational diabetes
SPD
Post natal infections


Many women suffer from all, some or one of the above, myself included. Stop.pretending pregnancy labour and birth have no short medium or long term effects on women.

The Golden Miller

inocybe wrote: »

Ok let's accept this. I also would like to hear your ideas on how you would go about forcing her to remain pregnant.

If it became law, and she breaks the law, she faces jail time

lazygal

The Golden Miller wrote: »

Because it's half HIS. And if it is the other way around, she gets the final say. Because neither should be robbed of a baby, if they are prepared to raise it. You understand?

No I don't. Why should I remain pregnant when I don't want to be because my husband wants a baby?

lazygal

The Golden Miller wrote: »

If it became law, and she breaks the law, she faces jail time

So we should jail.pregnant women who try to travel for abortions?

inocybe

The Golden Miller wrote: »

If it became law, and she breaks the law, she faces jail time

abortion is already against the law - seen anyone in prison lately for having one?

Kiwi in IE

The Golden Miller wrote: »

If it became law, and she breaks the law, she faces jail time

But it is law already. Abortion is illegal in Ireland. Are you saying that you want to make it illegal for women to travel abroad for abortions? How would this be enforced?

The Golden Miller

lazygal wrote: »

Perineal tearing
Mastitis
Incontinence
Post natal depression
Dental problems
Stretch marks
Uterine rupture
C section scarring
UTIs
Gestational diabetes
SPD
Post natal infections


Many women suffer from all, some or one of the above, myself included. Stop.pretending pregnancy labour and birth have no short medium or long term effects on women.

And if I walked outside I could be killed. Lets abort all babies incase someone suffers from stretch marks. My word. Are you dead after all that?

The Golden Miller

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

But it is law already. Abortion is illegal in Ireland. Are you saying that you want to make it illegal for women to travel abroad for abortions? How would this be enforced?

No I'm saying for the law to change that if a man doesn't consent, she can be charged when she sets foot back in the country

inocybe

The Golden Miller wrote: »

No I'm saying for the law to change that if a man doesn't consent, she can be charged when she sets foot back in the country

how would you prove she didn't have a miscarriage?

stinkle

The Golden Miller wrote: »

And if I walked outside I could be killed. Lets abort all babies incase someone suffers from stretch marks. My word. Are you dead after all that?

WHat does that comment have to do with the very real problems faced by women undergoing pregnancy and childbirth? You said you got your girlfriend pregnant - maybe you should brush up on what you guys are letting yourselves in for.

The Golden Miller

inocybe wrote: »

how would you prove she didn't have a miscarriage?

I dunno. I don't make laws. All laws can be abused. Should we have no laws at all so?

Kiwi in IE

The Golden Miller wrote: »

No I'm saying for the law to change that if a man doesn't consent, she can be charged when she sets foot back in the country

Do you think this will encourage women who are not in stable relationships to even tell the man that they are pregnant? I surely wouldn't say a word if I didn't want to be pregnant and I thought he would try and charge me on my return from England. Since it is her body, she is under no obligation to even tell him. So how would she be charged in this case?

The Golden Miller

stinkle wrote: »

WHat does that comment have to do with the very real problems faced by women undergoing pregnancy and childbirth? You said you got your girlfriend pregnant - maybe you should brush up on what you guys are letting yourselves in for.

Delivering a healthy baby trumps minor problems ( some more serious than others I accept) a woman may hypothetically encounter in my opinion

inocybe

The Golden Miller wrote: »

I dunno. I don't make laws. All laws can be abused. Should we have no laws at all so?

not stupid unworkable ones, no.

The Golden Miller

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

Do you think this will encourage women who are not in stable relationships to even tell the man that they are pregnant? I surely wouldn't say a word if I didn't want to be pregnant and I thought he would try and charge me on my return from England. Since it is her body, she is under no obligation to even tell him. So how would she be charged in this case?

You're right. Some people are just selfish and inconsiderate

The Golden Miller

inocybe wrote: »

not stupid unworkable ones, no.

In you're opinion. I'm sure it would be a major deterrent, especially by law if a father had to be informed of any hospital visits in relation to pregnancy

stinkle

The Golden Miller wrote: »

Delivering a healthy baby trumps minor problems ( some more serious than others I accept) a woman may hypothetically encounter in my opinion

Are you saying they're all minor problems? How do you decide which are more worthy than others?

The Golden Miller

stinkle wrote: »

Are you saying they're all minor problems? How do you decide which are more worthy than others?

I don't, but if it's not life threatening, then the babies delivery by c-section etc trumps

inocybe

The Golden Miller wrote: »

In you're opinion. I'm sure it would be a major deterrent, especially by law if a father had to be informed of any hospital visits in relation to pregnancy

That would work well - who's to say who the father is?

_Whimsical_

lazygal wrote: »

Perineal tearing
Mastitis
Incontinence
Post natal depression
Dental problems
Stretch marks
Uterine rupture
C section scarring
UTIs
Gestational diabetes
SPD
Post natal infections


Many women suffer from all, some or one of the above, myself included. Stop.pretending pregnancy labour and birth have no short medium or long term effects on women.

I'm not going to suggest labour is easy or that motherhood is,it's really difficult, having a child you don't want would be awful but if you are to go at it from that angle having an abortion can have longterm health effects too,
Google says :
Potential, more serious complications following an abortion.
Heavy or persistent bleeding.
Infection or sepsis.
Damage to the cervix.
Scarring of the uterine lining.
Perforation of the uterus.
Damage to other organs.
Death.

They aren't reasons to not have an abortion for most people though, and the trials and traumas of motherhood aren't a great reason to not have a baby either if you believe that a foetus is a living child.

Kiwi in IE

The Golden Miller wrote: »

In you're opinion. I'm sure it would be a major deterrent, especially by law if a father had to be informed of any hospital visits in relation to pregnancy

So are you saying that a woman who refuses to name the father should be refused antenatal treatment?

stinkle

_Whimsical_ wrote: »

I'm not going to suggest labour is easy or that motherhood is but if you are to go at it from that angle having an abortion can have longterm health effects too,
Google says :
Potential, more serious complications following an abortion.
Heavy or persistent bleeding.
Infection or sepsis.
Damage to the cervix.
Scarring of the uterine lining.
Perforation of the uterus.
Damage to other organs.
Death.

They aren't reasons to not have an abortion for most people though, and the trials and traumas of motherhood aren't a great reason to not have a baby either if you believe that a foetus is a living child.

Thats surgical abortion? And did Dr Google pull thsoe stats from reputable clinics or is that also from DIY situations? Im fairly sure medical abortions (ie pill) are the method of choice for 1st trimester terminations - the most common.

The Golden Miller

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

So are you saying that a woman who refuses to name the father should be refused antenatal treatment?

Of course not, but it will be noted that they are obviously pregnant, and if they then abort they could be in trouble. I dunno. I just threw out the idea. Maybe something better could be put in place

stinkle

The Golden Miller wrote: »

I don't, but if it's not life threatening, then the babies delivery by c-section etc trumps

you are aware that women are only supposed to have so many sections, right? and it's not a walk in the park either.

_Whimsical_

stinkle wrote: »

Thats surgical abortion? And did Dr Google pull thsoe stats from reputable clinics or is that also from DIY situations? Im fairly sure medical abortions (ie pill) are the method of choice for 1st trimester terminations - the most common.

American Pregnancy Association good enough for you ?:)


http://americanpregnancy.org/unplanned-pregnancy/abortion-side-effects/

Is there really a need for the tone?

The Golden Miller

stinkle wrote: »

you are aware that women are only supposed to have so many sections, right? and it's not a walk in the park either.

Maybe then they will have to have a natural birth? Who knows? If they wanted it themselves they would be fine to go through with whatever, but when it's the father it's fine to rob him of his child?

stinkle

_Whimsical_ wrote: »

American Pregnancy Association good enough for you ?:)


http://americanpregnancy.org/unplanned-pregnancy/abortion-side-effects/

Is there really a need for the tone?

What tone? Thanks for the source - you omitted the <1/100 1st trimester and 1/50 late term figures though. So not really a big deal, especially as late term cases would involve FFA as opposed to just waking up one day at 6 months pregnant and deciding to have an abortion for the craic. There's usually very good reason for taking action so late.

stinkle

The Golden Miller wrote: »

Maybe then they will have to have a natural birth? Who knows? If they wanted it themselves they would be fine to go through with whatever, but when it's the father it's fine to rob him of his child?

Vaginal birth after caesarian isn't always an option. And while many women might want that, it's a big gamble. Yes if the woman wants to continue with pregnancy for 9 months and deal with the physiological changes then great, go for it. It has no effect on the man's health or well being. If she doesnt then she should have the choice not to. Again, no effect on man's health or wellbeing.

The Golden Miller

stinkle wrote: »

Vaginal birth after caesarian isn't always an option. And while many women might want that, it's a big gamble. Yes if the woman wants to continue with pregnancy for 9 months and deal with the physiological changes then great, go for it. It has no effect on the man's health or well being. If she doesnt then she should have the choice not to. Again, no effect on man's health or wellbeing.

Apart from the well being of his child? Physiological issues only effect women these days?

stinkle

The Golden Miller wrote: »

Apart from the well being of his child? Physiological issues only effect women these days?

do you know what physiological means? Look it up

_Whimsical_

stinkle wrote: »

What tone? Thanks for the source - you omitted the <1/100 1st trimester and 1/50 late term figures though. So not really a big deal, especially as late term cases would involve FFA as opposed to just waking up one day at 6 months pregnant and deciding to have an abortion for the craic. There's usually very good reason for taking action so late.

Well I was responding to a post where there were no incidences given for problems occurring in pregnancy. I wouldn't consider the severity of those side effects at that incidence to be no big deal really, it's a procedure that carries risks, not a walk in the park either.

The Golden Miller

stinkle wrote: »

do you know what physiological means? Look it up

Sorry read it as psychological. Does a man's psychological well being not count either though? We hear enough about the psychological issues woman face, never a lot about the man

_Whimsical_

stinkle wrote: »

do you know what physiological means? Look it up

Oh there's the tone again.

It's obviously just a typo or predictive text blip, you know what he/she means. That sort of thing makes you look a little unnecessarily nasty.

stinkle

_Whimsical_ wrote: »

Well I was responding to a post where there were no incidences given for problems occurring in pregnancy. I wouldn't consider the severity of those side effects at that incidence to be no big deal really, it's a procedure that carries risks, not a walk in the park either.

I never said it was a walk in the park. it'd be great to have a choice and weigh up the pros and cons and make an educated decision though. Especially without having fear of breaking the law hanging over you, or added stress such as travel issues. Grown women should be allowed make their decision in consultation with their medical team. And minors who get pregnant too.

stinkle

_Whimsical_ wrote: »

Oh there's the tone again.

It's obviously just a typo or predictive text blip, you know what he/she means. That sort of thing makes you look a little unnecessarily nasty.

He clearly doesn't, as its a term I used in the post he quoted and is parroting back. I used it in relation to labour and pregnancy and the toll they take on the female anatomy. Is there a reason you're attacking me and not my posts BTW? I've gone to the bother of using correct terminology and reason

_Whimsical_

stinkle wrote: »

I never said it was a walk in the park. it'd be great to have a choice and weigh up the pros and cons and make an educated decision though. Especially without having fear of breaking the law hanging over you, or added stress such as travel issues. Grown women should be allowed make their decision in consultation with their medical team. And minors who get pregnant too.

Well I definitely agree that having an abortion should not be illegal under our current laws,and never should have been. Performing one should be illegal as things stand. I don't believe that any woman decides to have one lightly,and some do so absolutely heartbrokenly. They shouldn't fear any penalty.