The 8th amendment(Mod warning in op)

eviltwin

January wrote: »

Cora Sherlock is on something... 'the first thing the new Oireachtas Committee charged with looking at the issue must do is examine how the Citizens' Assembly was allowed to operate in such a one-sided and chaotic way'

HA.

I'd say she and her followers are really shaken by the recommendations. They weren't expecting it at all.

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5

eviltwin wrote: »

I'd say she and her followers are really shaken by the recommendations. They weren't expecting it at all.

I'm f*ckin shaken tbh. Very pleasantly surprised in my fellow Irish men and women. The sense of momentum in the repeal movement has been striking and great to witness, but I wasn't sure to what degree it was reflecting wide spread changing attitudes.

I'm sure Cora and Leo and all the other 'orrible ***** will piss and moan and spread their hate to the end of their days, but this is another nail in the coffin of everything those fundy shítheads stand for. I'm delighted.

somefeen

masculinist wrote: »

Your white knighting is very sexist and infantilizes the person I was trying to have a rational discussion with . To answer your question , I don't tolerate idiots unless they are well meaning idiots. I'm discussing the rights of an unborn baby not to be murdered under the law and all you care about is attacking me personally which doesn't make you well meaning and certainly makes you look like a person who is not serious or credible.

Ah don't make me laugh.
You're not trying to have a rational discussion with anyone. If you were you might cut the nonsense and spell out your point in a few simple sentences, you certainly wouldn't claim another poster was hormonal (Somehow that's not a personal attack, but me telling you that you are a sexist is?)

Now you are trying to call me an idiot but also wrapping that up in nonsense in the hope you can get away with it.
If white knighting is the act of being a man and pointing out the sexist language and behaviour of another man well, then yep, guilty as charged. Somehow in your logic this makes me sexist.

Its annoying actually because you could have gotten a debate going on an interesting topic i.e if abortions are available on demand should men be allowed shirk responsibility. Buuuuut no. You were more interested in running around in circles with your "logic" and using provocative and sexist language to make a.....emmm..I was gonna say make a point...but y'know.

I'll let you continue to 'discuss' now without my input. Hope the aul' red pill didn't taste to bad.

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

pjohnson

eviltwin wrote: »

I'd say she and her followers are really shaken by the recommendations. They weren't expecting it at all.

The poor things. Getting dragged into reality against their will.

Calhoun

Howard Tasteless Bank wrote: »

I'm f*ckin shaken tbh. Very pleasantly surprised in my fellow Irish men and women. The sense of momentum in the repeal movement has been striking and great to witness, but I wasn't sure to what degree it was reflecting wide spread changing attitudes.

I'm sure Cora and Leo and all the other 'orrible ***** will piss and moan and spread their hate to the end of their days, but this is another nail in the coffin of everything those fundy shítheads stand for. I'm delighted.

It could be exactly what they want, they now get to play the full on narrative they have been running with.

If it goes to a referendum it is now crystal clear that is full on abortion rather than the middle ground of the medical item.

Its going to be an interesting and pretty divisive item when the referendum does hit.

RobertKK

There will be a referendum, and it is going to be war from all sides.

volchitsa

eviltwin wrote: »

I'd say she and her followers are really shaken by the recommendations. They weren't expecting it at all.

I'm so happy and relieved this evening. I just really hope now that the rest of the country shows the same willingness to think about the issues and not follow the bloody bishops!
But I have a lot more hope that they will than I did even a couple of years ago.
I was in despair after the Ms Y fiasco. Today I'm relieved and hopeful that my country won't continue to shame itself over its unforgivable treatment of women.

Calhoun

Yah the behavior on both sides will be the determining factor, who ever keeps a cool head and debates in a reasonable manner should carry it.

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5

Calhoun wrote: »

It could be exactly what they want, they now get to play the full on narrative they have been running with.

The one where the gay neoliberal feminists will be having abortion parties 3 days before their due date if we give an inch or the one where people aren't agreeing with them so the whole thing is obviously unfair and imbalanced?

Parchment

volchitsa wrote: »

I'm so happy and relieved this evening. I just really hope now that the rest of the country shows the same willingness to think about the issues and not follow the bloody bishops!
But I have a lot more hope that they will than I did even a couple of years ago.
I was in despair after the Ms Y fiasco. Today I'm relieved and hopeful that my country won't continue to shame itself over its unforgivable treatment of women.

I am totally pro choice but i dont see the referendum going in favour of the pro choice vote.

Calhoun

Howard Tasteless Bank wrote: »

The one where the gay neoliberal feminists will be having abortion parties 3 days before their due date if we give an inch or the one where people aren't agreeing with them so the whole thing is obviously unfair and imbalanced?

I would say the first one is the route the will take. They are going to press the life of the unborn button quite hard.

RobertKK

The thing is nothing has been passed and are simply recommendations.

Do people think FG will be being alienating their voters if they are the ones responsible for a referendum with abortion on request?
Do they think FF will do the same?

They can simply leave it at serious health risks, rape and FFA.

If they wanted it to fail they could go extreme and have no limits on the reasons. Just think all this joy is a bit premature for those who support abortion as an option for whatever reason.

Calhoun

RobertKK wrote: »

The thing is nothing has been passed and are simply recommendations.

Do people think FG will be being alienating their voters if they are the ones responsible for a referendum?
Do they think FF will do the same?

They can simply leave it at serious health risks, rape and FFA.

If they wanted it to fail they could go extreme and have no limits on the reasons. Just think all this joy is a bit premature for those who support abortion as an option for whatever reason.

That is the middle ground i think they will come back to, no matter what they do both sides are going to be unhappy. As the article will be kept in the constitution there will be something put into it that will keep their core support happy.

The other thing to consider is the lawsuits, we saw the suits that came with the gay marriage referendum be interesting to see what they do this time.

tigger123

RobertKK wrote: »

The thing is nothing has been passed and are simply recommendations.

Do people think FG will be being alienating their voters if they are the ones responsible for a referendum with abortion on request?
Do they think FF will do the same?

They can simply leave it at serious health risks, rape and FFA.

If they wanted it to fail they could go extreme and have no limits on the reasons. Just think all this joy is a bit premature for those who support abortion as an option for whatever reason.

Fine Gael would never have put this to the Citizen's Assembly without having a plan ready to go, whatever the result is.

They know they have to act on it (and put it to a referendum).

Woodville56

RobertKK wrote: »

There will be a referendum, and it is going to be war from all sides.

I can't see a referendum of the people approving an amendment proposing the broad liberalisation in abortion law as proposed by the Citizens Assembly - abortion in cases of rape of incest probably would succeed but abortion on demand with no gestation time limits, abortion for social economic reasons ? I don't think so. I really don't expect the Irish voting public will go
down that road if that's what's proposed in a referendum.

volchitsa

:confused

RobertKK wrote: »

The thing is nothing has been passed and are simply recommendations.

Do people think FG will be being alienating their voters if they are the ones responsible for a referendum with abortion on request?
Do they think FF will do the same?

They can simply leave it at serious health risks, rape and FFA.

If they wanted it to fail they could go extreme and have no limits on the reasons. Just think all this joy is a bit premature for those who support abortion as an option for whatever reason.

You seem to think that most pro choice people will only be happy with an unlimited abortion regime practically up to birth - but you're completely wrong. Most people I know would be perfectly satisfied with abortion for personal reasons being available for the first trimester only, because that is when the vast majority of such abortions take place anyway.

After that date, serious health reasons and FFA may be necessary, but that can be legislated for separately.

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5

RobertKK wrote: »

The thing is nothing has been passed and are simply recommendations.

Do people think FG will be being alienating their voters if they are the ones responsible for a referendum?
Do they think FF will do the same?

They can simply leave it at serious health risks, rape and FFA.

If they wanted it to fail they could go extreme and have no limits on the reasons. Just think all this joy is a bit premature for those who support abortion as an option for whatever reason.

Yeah premature joy is pretty annoying...

RobertKK wrote: »

But all the repeal gear, Unal Mullally's repeal the 8th book, the t-shirts, etc will have to be replaced or amended too...

Assuming that the CA is representative of the country, this is good news, I wouldn't be confident of unrestricted access being passed in a referendum but really the whole debate the last year or so has just been a string of pleasant surprises so who knows. Getting access for women with FFA pregnancies and serious health problems would still be good news. (Making an exception for rape is a stupid unworkable idea). Any progress is good as far as I'm concerned.

tigger123

I doubt FG will tackle it in the lifetime of this Govt tbh. They'll push it out till after the election, knowing full well they might not be in Govt and FF/SF/whoever will have to pick it up.

RobertKK

tigger123 wrote: »

Fine Gael would never have put this to the Citizen's Assembly without having a plan ready to go, whatever the result is.

They know they have to act on it (and put it to a referendum).

They are non binding recommendations.

RobertKK

Howard Tasteless Bank wrote: »

Yeah premature joy is pretty annoying...



Assuming that the CA is representative of the country, this is good news, I wouldn't be confident of unrestricted access being passed in a referendum but really the whole debate the last year or so has just been a string of pleasant surprises so who knows. Getting access for women with FFA pregnancies and serious health problems would still be good news. (Making an exception for rape is a stupid unworkable idea). Any progress is good as far as I'm concerned.

You do know that everything proposed is non binding recommendations?

That is why it is premature joy.

Calhoun

volchitsa wrote: »

:confused

You seem to think that most pro choice people will only be happy with an unlimited abortion regime practically up to birth - but you're completely wrong. Most people I know would be perfectly satisfied with abortion for personal reasons being available for the first trimester only, because that is when the vast majority of such abortions take place anyway.

After that date, serious health reasons and FFA may be necessary, but that can be legislated for separately.

The problem with that and what i think Robert is calling out is that the other side will not be happy with anything.

What this really comes down to is how well general Ireland understands the subject, its not as clear cut as the marriage referendum, there are ranging opinions and view points on this.

I heard one political commentator saying that the pro-life are in with a chance as they can push the abortion on demand topic, saying that this is where it will end up. With the citizens assembly recommending it to them it feeds right into their hands.

Regardless if it comes to a referendum it will be a messy affair.

spakman

Woodville56 wrote: »

RobertKK wrote: »

There will be a referendum, and it is going to be war from all sides.

I can't see a referendum of the people approving an amendment proposing the broad liberalisation in abortion law as proposed by the Citizens Assembly - abortion in cases of rape of incest probably would succeed but abortion on demand with no gestation time limits, abortion for social economic reasons ? I don't think so. I really don't expect the Irish voting public will go
down that road if that's what's proposed in a referendum.

I would be appalled if they did. How could anyone see it as "progressive" to allow abortion at any stage of gestation and for any or no reason!?

Calhoun

tigger123 wrote: »

I doubt FG will tackle it in the lifetime of this Govt tbh. They'll push it out till after the election, knowing full well they might not be in Govt and FF/SF/whoever will have to pick it up.

Indeed, their core voted in my eyes would be very conservative. Does them no favors to bring it in.

professore

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 i drink I consent to ingesting alcohol but I don't consent to getting drunk. Your statement is equally logical.

eviltwin

RobertKK wrote: »

The thing is nothing has been passed and are simply recommendations.

Do people think FG will be being alienating their voters if they are the ones responsible for a referendum with abortion on request?
Do they think FF will do the same?

They can simply leave it at serious health risks, rape and FFA.

If they wanted it to fail they could go extreme and have no limits on the reasons. Just think all this joy is a bit premature for those who support abortion as an option for whatever reason.

They can't ignore it, they went to the trouble of passing it to the CA, they have to address it somehow.

I think people have every right to be happy with today's developments. I doubt we'd have seen this result a few years ago, people are seeing a change in this country's attitude to social issues and see that as a good thing.

No one expects full, on demand abortion to pass but any woman who can be helped here, one less woman who has to make the journey to the UK is a great result.

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5

RobertKK wrote: »

You do know that everything proposed is non binding recommendations?

That is why it is premature joy.

I am pleased that the citizens assembly came to those conclusions, that, in and of itself is pleasing to me.

Yes I do realise that the recommendations are non binding and that the CA was just a meaningless delay tactic that wouldn't actually cause anything to happen, I'm still happy at what they decided.

It's joy about something, taking place after the thing has happened. It's really not premature. For that I'd refer to your own post from the first page.

tigger123

Interesting that a selection of citizens that listened to fair, balanced and non hysterical debate ended up with this result.

professore

I would have preferred a clearly defined definition of when abortion is allowed and when it's not and have that as the referendum vote, rather than this which is a choice between no change and referring it to the Dail, where I will have zero say on what gets legislated. Very unsatisfactory.

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5

tigger123 wrote: »

Interesting that a selection of citizens that listened to fair, balanced and non hysterical debate ended up with this result.

Thing is though, that's not what the general population will get in the run up to a vote, unfortunately. It's not going to be pleasant at all.

hatrickpatrick

Howard Tasteless Bank wrote: »

Thing is though, that's not what the general population will get in the run up to a vote, unfortunately. It's not going to be pleasant at all.

Unfortunately you're right. However, in all honesty, how much is that going to matter in this case? The issue is so contentious and such a sacred cow for people regardless of who's side they're on that I just can't imagine anybody being swayed by campaigning. Can you? Do you see a poster, a radio or TV ad, a debate etc changing anyone's pre-existing views on this? Do you see current undecideds, who IMO are the only ones who will potentially be convinced in such a manner, numbering anywhere near enough to swing the result in one direction or another?

In my view, this very simply will come down to whether the majority of the population is pro choice or not. The campaign, despite being inevitably massive, pervasive and ugly as you have predicted, will matter very little in terms of actually influencing the outcome.

I could be wrong in my assertion that on-the-fencers will be an extreme rarity in this, but I certainly can't think of a single person I know or have heard of in the media or elsewhere who hasn't had their mind made up on this for years and years, and in such a manner that nothing, not even God himself appearing in the clouds and making a declaration on the subject, would convince them to change it.

professore

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Howard Tasteless Bank wrote: »

Thing is though, that's not what the general population will get in the run up to a vote, unfortunately. It's not going to be pleasant at all.

Unfortunately you're right. However, in all honesty, how much is that going to matter in this case? The issue is so contentious and such a sacred cow for people regardless of who's side they're on that I just can't imagine anybody being swayed by campaigning. Can you? Do you see a poster, a radio or TV ad, a debate etc changing anyone's pre-existing views on this? Do you see current undecideds, who IMO are the only ones who will potentially be convinced in such a manner, numbering anywhere near enough to swing the result in one direction or another?

In my view, this very simply will come down to whether the majority of the population is pro choice or not. The campaign, despite being inevitably massive, pervasive and ugly as you have predicted, will matter very little in terms of actually influencing the outcome.

I could be wrong in my assertion that on-the-fencers will be an extreme rarity in this, but I certainly can't think of a single person I know or have heard of in the media or elsewhere who hasn't had their mind made up on this for years and years, and in such a manner that nothing, not even God himself appearing in the clouds and making a declaration on the subject, would convince them to change it.

Yep think you're spot on there.

AtomicHorror

professore wrote: »

Every time i drink I consent to ingesting alcohol but I don't consent to getting drunk. Your statement is equally logical.

Oh bloody hell. Really?

I can't even

Calhoun

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Unfortunately you're right. However, in all honesty, how much is that going to matter in this case? The issue is so contentious and such a sacred cow for people regardless of who's side they're on that I just can't imagine anybody being swayed by campaigning. Can you? Do you see a poster, a radio or TV ad, a debate etc changing anyone's pre-existing views on this? Do you see current undecideds, who IMO are the only ones who will potentially be convinced in such a manner, numbering anywhere near enough to swing the result in one direction or another?

In my view, this very simply will come down to whether the majority of the population is pro choice or not. The campaign, despite being inevitably massive, pervasive and ugly as you have predicted, will matter very little in terms of actually influencing the outcome.

I could be wrong in my assertion that on-the-fencers will be an extreme rarity in this, but I certainly can't think of a single person I know or have heard of in the media or elsewhere who hasn't had their mind made up on this for years and years, and in such a manner that nothing, not even God himself appearing in the clouds and making a declaration on the subject, would convince them to change it.

The only thing i think this posts misses is the level people are at on this discussion.

Do we have the pro-life v pro-choice, or is there actually a third grouping which is middle of the ground and support abortion in the case of certain conditions and not the whole way.

If that is the case, i think they are to play for if a referendum comes up.

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Unfortunately you're right. However, in all honesty, how much is that going to matter in this case? The issue is so contentious and such a sacred cow for people regardless of who's side they're on that I just can't imagine anybody being swayed by campaigning. Can you? Do you see a poster, a radio or TV ad, a debate etc changing anyone's pre-existing views on this? Do you see current undecideds, who IMO are the only ones who will potentially be convinced in such a manner, numbering anywhere near enough to swing the result in one direction or another?

In my view, this very simply will come down to whether the majority of the population is pro choice or not. The campaign, despite being inevitably massive, pervasive and ugly as you have predicted, will matter very little in terms of actually influencing the outcome.

I could be wrong in my assertion that on-the-fencers will be an extreme rarity in this, but I certainly can't think of a single person I know or have heard of in the media or elsewhere who hasn't had their mind made up on this for years and years, and in such a manner that nothing, not even God himself appearing in the clouds and making a declaration on the subject, would convince them to change it.

I was pro-life when I was younger. People do change their minds. People who have previously been pro-life may be edging towards not being pro-the-eighth in light of the cases which have been in the news the last few years.

And I'd say there are plenty of people who are in principle supportive of abortion in certain cases, but who would be susceptible to scaremongering, the 'open the flood gates' notion.

AtomicHorror

RobertKK wrote: »

The thing is nothing has been passed and are simply recommendations.

The government wants this whole affair to have been someone else's decision. I don't think you're going to enjoy where this leads.

RobertKK wrote: »

Do people think FG will be being alienating their voters if they are the ones responsible for a referendum with abortion on request?
Do they think FF will do the same?

Did you come away from this with the impression that there'll be a referendum on abortion on demand?

The referendum, if the CA are followed, will ask if 40.3.3 should go unchanged or should allow Oireachteas to legislate without restriction.

RobertKK wrote: »

They can simply leave it at serious health risks, rape and FFA.

If I were betting, I'd say that's probably how they'll legislate at first (though if they're spinless enough, they'll fully implement what the CA recommends and just blame the will of the people!). But the door will be open for successive governments to go much further without future referenda.

RobertKK wrote: »

If they wanted it to fail they could go extreme and have no limits on the reasons. Just think all this joy is a bit premature for those who support abortion as an option for whatever reason.

You were pretty quick to gloat when you though this was coming up good for you.

AtomicHorror

Howard Tasteless Bank wrote: »

I was pro-life when I was younger. People do change their minds. People who have previously been pro-life may be edging towards not being pro-the-eighth in light of the cases which have been in the news the last few years.

And I'd say there are plenty of people who are in principle supportive of abortion in certain cases, but who would be susceptible to scaremongering, the 'open the flood gates' notion.

As was I, to my shame. My education and research in biology made me moderately pro-choice, my conversations with pro-choice advocates and women friends made me strongly pro-choice. People change, with the right arguments.

Academic

AtomicHorror wrote: »

As was I, to my shame. My education and research in biology made me moderately pro-choice, my conversations with pro-choice advocates and women friends made me strongly pro-choice. People change, with the right arguments.

Absolutely. For me the question is: how many people are likely to change their minds between now and whenever the referendum is held?

That's one reason, among other obviously good ones, why I'm interested in what people think the timetable will be.

Morgans

I think its the most beautiful irony Ive come across in some time. That the OP is accusing the pro-choice/repeal activists of premature joy with the non binding recommendations from the CA given that the opening post was outlining (with a tone of glee) of how twitter was in meltdown from the repeal activists disappointed with the results of the CA 24 hours ago.

The pro-life activists seemed to think that the CA was another hurdle that the establishment was placing in the way of the overwhelming wishes of the people. Turns out that the results can only help the pro-choice cause and politics of FF/FG will need to explain to those pro-choice voters why they abandoning the recommendations of their own process. Far less leeway than previous and may in fact provide the excuse for those TDs who didnt want to declare their position previously.

Frank O. Pinion

I think you should not get an abortion unless you need one. In which case you better get one. I mean, seriously, if you need an abortion, you better get one. Don't f*ck around. And hurry, not getting an abortion that you need is like not taking a sh*t, that's how bad that is. It's like not taking a sh*t.

Calhoun

Morgans wrote: »

I think its the most beautiful irony Ive come across in some time. That the OP is accusing the pro-choice/repeal activists of premature joy with the non binding recommendations from the CA given that the opening post was outlining (with a tone of glee) of how twitter was in meltdown from the repeal activists disappointed with the results of the CA 24 hours ago.

The pro-life activists seemed to think that the CA was another hurdle that the establishment was placing in the way of the overwhelming wishes of the people. Turns out that the results can only help the pro-choice cause and politics of FF/FG will need to explain to those pro-choice voters why they abandoning the recommendations of their own process. Far less leeway than previous and may in fact provide the excuse for those TDs who didnt want to declare their position previously.

I think from what has been seen online the pro-life campaign were under the impression that this would happen. There have already been some things about pro-life submission not been allowed to present ect.

FF/FG will have to also deal with the narrative of your killing a baby compared to the narrative of we are doing this to prevent another Savita case.

This is far from over im afraid, it requires a government that has backbone and if anything over the past couple of years this group have shown they dont have it.

Academic

May I be frank?

I think triumphalism from either side of the debate is not only distasteful but also wildly premature. Moreover it contributes nothing to the quality of the discussion.

But hey, that’s just me.

Morgans

Academic wrote: »

May I be frank?

I think triumphalism from either side of the debate is not only distasteful but also wildly premature. Moreover it contributes nothing to the quality of the discussion.

But hey, that’s just me.

I dont think that's particularly frank.

I think the tone in this debate especially has always been vitriolic, especially those who remember the 80s referendums. It would be great to reverse time 40 years and to have nothing but the highest quality of discourse, and its evident just how much the pro-choice activists have had to do that this is seen as a victory. They are allowed to respond in whatever way they seem fit. I dont feel the need to judge them for that.

But hey, that's just me.

RobertKK

The OP:

RobertKK wrote: »

Meltdown on twitter by Repealthe8th people.

RobertKK wrote: »

But all the repeal gear, Unal Mullally's repeal the 8th book, the t-shirts, etc will have to be replaced or amended too...

Also the OP:

RobertKK wrote: »

They are non binding recommendations.

RobertKK wrote: »

That is why it is premature joy.

There are not enough :rolleyes:'s in the world....

martingriff

Academic wrote: »

May I be frank?

I think triumphalism from either side of the debate is not only distasteful but also wildly premature. Moreover it contributes nothing to the quality of the discussion.

But hey, that’s just me.

No you are Jack:P

Back on topic I agree the quality of debate is unfortunately lacking from a few with the moderates been shouted down. From the only the religious would vote this down to the your only want perfect non disabled people in the world. The government always knew there would be a referendum but was hoping the assembly would put a nice easy question up for the referendum. When the referendum will happen will there be 1 or 2 questions. 2. Repel yes or no.
1. Abortion for up to 12 months or reasons

I am very much pro choice but the "repeal the 8th crowd" sicken me hole even more than Iona do :mad:

professore

AtomicHorror wrote: »

professore wrote: »

Every time i drink I consent to ingesting alcohol but I don't consent to getting drunk. Your statement is equally logical.

Oh bloody hell. Really?

I can't even

Can't even what? If you have sex there is a chance you will get pregnant. You can't consent to getting pregnant. It either happens or it doesn't. You consent to have sex, which can cause you to get pregnant if you're female. If you make nonsensical statements expect to be called out on them.

professore

AtomicHorror wrote: »

Howard Tasteless Bank wrote: »

I was pro-life when I was younger. People do change their minds. People who have previously been pro-life may be edging towards not being pro-the-eighth in light of the cases which have been in the news the last few years.

And I'd say there are plenty of people who are in principle supportive of abortion in certain cases, but who would be susceptible to scaremongering, the 'open the flood gates' notion.

As was I, to my shame. My education and research in biology made me moderately pro-choice, my conversations with pro-choice advocates and women friends made me strongly pro-choice. People change, with the right arguments.

How do you define the difference between moderately pro choice and strongly pro choice in scientific terms?

Delirium

professore wrote: »

Can't even what? If you have sex there is a chance you will get pregnant. You can't consent to getting pregnant. It either happens or it doesn't. You consent to have sex, which can cause you to get pregnant if you're female. If you make nonsensical statements expect to be called out on them.

So everyone who has sex, man or woman, is consenting to having a child?????

pilly

Delirium wrote:

So everyone who has sex, man or woman, is consenting to having a child?????

Of course. Sure sex is only for procreation don't you know?

Stating that having sex is consenting to being pregnant is like saying stepping outside your door in the morning is consenting to being killed in an accident.