The 8th amendment(Mod warning in op)

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5

I don't get the thing where on the one hand discussions like this are unrepresentative of the Irish people who are staunchly and quietly pro-life, or at least will balk at unrestricted access up until 12 weeks, and on the other hand the place will turn into the last days of Rome (but with sh1ts n giggles abortions) if the 8th is repealed. Is the 8th keeping Irish morality correct and so not representative of social mores, or is it representative of those mores and so repealing it will have relatively little effect? Pro-life seem very divided on that point.

joeyanne

Deleted User wrote: »

You are aware of the medical problems associated with abortions, both physical and mental?

But NOBODY is saying you will have an abortion after every time you have sex. YOU are saying you would prefer woman take the morning after pill EVERY time after they have sex.

Not only is it bad to do this, it is extremely costly. It is about ~€40, and not every pharmacy offers this service.

baylah17

Deleted User wrote: »

How many abortions do you think someone can have?

Thats nobodys business but the woman herself.

Ave Sodalis

Bannasidhe wrote: »

A wee miracle.
Like when people used to get married and along would come baby 6 months later.

Solves Donald Trump's problem of it being wrong for a baby to be born in the 9th month...

SusieBlue

Deleted User wrote: »

As I said, if they were desperate to not have children they could have used the morning after pill.

If they really dont want to have children or run the risk of having children then the answer is to not have Penatrive Sex.

Yes, because discouraging people from having sex worked so well in the past (reference: the Magdalene laundries).

As for the MAP its now been explained to you about 5 times why it isn't possible or medically recommended to take it on a regular basis. Please do some research on it because you just sound ignorant.

gallifreya

gallifreya wrote: »

Yes, I had a choice to have sex. Some women don't.

My first son is in the world now due to double contraceptive failure (condom broke, morning after pill failed).

Third son was born at 5.10am and I ‘delivered’ my IUD 20 minutes later. I was able to make a ‘choice’ to continue with both those unplanned pregnancies because my circumstances allowed.

Had I been in a more precarious financial position, if my job hadn’t been secure and didn’t top up maternity leave benefit, or if I didn’t have the support systems necessary to help out with childcare, that choice could have gone the other way. It could have gone the other way purely to survive and not leave my family homeless or destitute. The UK figures show upwards of 50% of abortions are cited due to contraceptive failure.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/07/06/half-abortions-due-failed-contraception-new-report/

Are you saying that you would have taken abortion had it been available other than having your own children?

You dont need to be rich to raise children, plenty of people of low incomes do this, even those on the dole.

You dont get a medal for having your children, you give love and get love back.

nozzferrahhtoo

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

an abortion before 12 weeks IS popping a pill. again, your ignorance is astounding.

Deleted User wrote: »

At 12 weeks its also not a case of popping a pill

Do you often attempt to rebut people by attacking something entirely different to what they actually said? The user clearly said "before" and you simply moved the goal posts over to "at".

Deleted User wrote: »

There is also untold psychological damage that the mother can suffer from including depression.

Yes. And there is also untold psychological damage that the mother can suffer from, including depression, from pregnancy and birth too. Which can be exacerbated by it being a pregnancy and birth she does not, or may never have, wanted.

Deleted User wrote: »

I am shocked that you would prefer people to have an abortion than taking the morning after pill.

Are you often shocked by things people never actually said?

Deleted User wrote: »

How many abortions do you think someone can have?

Well thats EXACTLY where your narrative croaks. Your approach would be to have MAPs being popped after every sexual encounter, just in case. A position born of the same level of information that your 20+ out of date comment about suicide was: None.

Whereas a medical abortion, obtainable in the early months of finding out one is pregnant, would be something only sought when required.

So your non-point of "How many abortions do you think someone can have?" really should be "How many abortions do you think someone would ever REQUIRE?". For most people using contraception the answer is likely to be between zero and none, and for a few others a maximum of ONE.

So to take your "you would prefer people to have an abortion than taking the morning after pill" approach to it it seems YOU would prefer people pump themselves periodically full of harmful drugs in an ongoing basis, than have a single (if even that) medical termination of a pregnancy".

Wow. Just.... wow.

Deleted User wrote: »

You are aware of the medical problems associated with abortions, both physical and mental?

I am aware there is a low PROBABILITY of such things after abortion, but that it is not really that common. However I am aware of the high CERTAINTY of medical probably associated with overuse of something like MAP. More aware, it seems, than you appear to be.

Deleted User wrote: »

Typo, I would vote Yes for medical reasons, Incest and Rape.

Despite having NO IDEA how such a system would, or even could, work?

Deleted User wrote: »

The effects you mention from the morning after pill is also associated with Abortions.

Again: No. It is a POTENTIAL with abortions. But with not that high a rate. The use of MAP, especially with any level of consistency, would be a CERTAINTY of massive harm.

Deleted User wrote: »

however, there is a greater risk of psychological damage with an abortion.

What are the relative rates then? Since you know one is greater than the other, you must have citations and numbers?

Also how much of the psychological damage from abortion is caused BY our erroneous and judgmental attitudes TO abortion? How many women suffer needlessly after abortion because of the outright lies people tell ABOUT abortion?

Deleted User wrote: »

Having lived in the UK I have seen how women use abortions

How have you "seen" it? Are you hanging out outside clinics? Taking polls? That's creepy. Maybe you are only seeing (or inventing) what you want to see. Perhaps instead you can cite ACTUAL FIGURES on how women are using abortion in places like the UK, US, Canada and so forth?

What % of pregnancies end in abortion in those places? What % of those are 2nd, 3rd, 4th time terminations? And what % of abortions are by women who have only one abortion EVER?

Let us see hard date, not biased "I have seen" anecdote nonsense for once.

Deleted User wrote: »

I dont want to see Ireland become the next England with morals and decency being replaced with liberal ideals.

Drop the Partisan generalizations. Politics should be contextual. Attack abortion on it's own merits, not because you have tangentially linked it to some arbitrary label like "liberal". That way intellectual bankruptcy and laziness lies.

Deleted User wrote: »

Also there is the issue that once the law has been repealed there is nothing stopping any govermnet ujpping the age upwards whenever they want, how long until we are at 24 weeks?

That is nothing but fear mongering. There is PLENTY to stop them. Including their own electorate. And no government is going to make such a move without cause or benefit. Could it happen? Sure. Will it happen without good reason and against the will of the electorate? Likely not.

Deleted User wrote: »

What is impossible?

"I have seen young girls abort a child only to have a child 6 months later."

So young girls.... not just one but many of them.... have managed to HAVE a child 6 months after aborting a previous one?

That means in 6 months said girl has managed to:

1) Conceive again
2) Gestate the baby to viability.
3) Give birth.

A process that usually takes 10 months? And you want your anecdote to be taken seriously on this thread, or something?

Deleted User wrote: »

If they really dont want to have children or run the risk of having children then the answer is to not have Penatrive Sex.

And how well do you think Abstinence approached to contraception have worked when put into any kind of practice in our world? You do know the result has been an INCREASE in unwanted and teen pregnancies, right? Or will we chalk that down with suicide laws, and medical effects of MAP, as things you appear to know nothing about, but talk about a lot?

joeyanne

joeyanne wrote: »

But NOBODY is saying you will have an abortion after every time you have sex. YOU are saying you would prefer woman take the morning after pill EVERY time after they have sex.

Not only is it bad to do this, it is extremely costly. It is about ~€40, and not every pharmacy offers this service.

People on average have sex at least once a week, if you don't want children then you either use contraception, the morning after pill or you don't have sex.

Abortion should not be another option to replace contraception or the morning after pill, don't want children then don't have penetrative sex.

Guy:Incognito

Mrs Shuttleworth wrote: »

I'm not a "pro-lifer" actually. I agree with abortion in certain cases and I thought originally that's what would be proposed.

But I can't and won't vote for what's being pushed now, abortion up to twelve weeks without restriction where the front line treatment is a two stage pill with a woman pumping blood out of herself at home. That's criminal medical negligence.

That's not what repealing the 8th does. If it's repealed then it'll be up to the Oireachtas to legislate on abortion in whatever manner they decide on.

January

The MAP is a horrible drug that pumps hormones into your body to stop an egg being produced to fertilize. If an egg has already been released from the ovary then it won't work. It's not recommended that a woman use this drug more than a couple of times in their life time.

In contrast, Misoprostol, the drug most commonly used to perform abortions before 12 weeks gestation is used to treat stomach ulcers and arthritis among other things. It is commonly taken every day by various people.

kylith

Deleted User wrote: »

What is impossible?

Having a termination and then having a child six months later.

Human gestation = 9 months

The MAP messes with your hormones so I would expect a gap of 1-2 months before subsequent conception.

So your scenario: girls giving birth at 4 month's gestation, which is massively likely to lead to the death of the infant.

Unless you're actually incorrect about what happened and the real reason for these births, unless you're lying about them, is that the MAP failed or was taken too late.

baylah17

baylah17 wrote: »

Thats nobodys business but the woman herself.

And there goes morals and decency.

You do realise when you abort you are killing unborn life, abortion should not be something taken lightly.

January

Deleted User wrote: »

And there goes morals and decency.

You do realise when you abort you are killing unborn life, abortion should not be something taken lightly.

Abortion isn't something taken lightly, and I can tell you that as a woman who has had an abortion.

WhiteRoses

WhiteRoses wrote: »

Yes, because discouraging people from having sex worked so well in the past (reference: the Magdalene laundries).

As for the MAP its now been explained to you about 5 times why it isn't possible or medically recommended to take it on a regular basis. Please do some research on it because you just sound ignorant.

Well its very simple, at the moment we dont have abortion on demand, so if someone wants to run the risk of having a child they can either chance having sex and raise the child or they can fund abortion themselves and go to England. Maybe next time they will be a little more careful and take responsibility.

Note I am not talking about those who have been raped, Incest or for medical reasons.

Cabaal

Deleted User wrote: »

Women already have choices;

They choose to have sex.

Rape / Incest victims choose to have sex?

They can choose to use contraception.

Something they had to fight for against the some sort of people that are against the 8th, funny that.

1990 isn't that long ago, and thats when Virgin Media was brought to court for selling "shock horror" condoms.

They can choose to use the morning after pill.

Again, something they had to fight for against the some sort of people that are against the 8th. I know of a few women who have been refused the pill because the person prescribing it refused to do so on religious grounds.....this still happens in modern Ireland.

Incidentally committing suicide is illegal,

What country do you live in?
Suicide was decriminalised in the Republic of Ireland in 1993, so its certainly not illegal to "commit it",

kylith

kylith wrote: »

Having a termination and then having a child six months later.

Human gestation = 9 months

The MAP messes with your hormones so I would expect a gap of 1-2 months before subsequent conception.

So your scenario: girls giving birth at 4 month's gestation, which is massively likely to lead to the death of the infant.

Unless you're actually incorrect about what happened and the real reason for these births, unless you're lying about them, is that the MAP failed or was taken too late.

I mean becoming pregnant and went on to have a child, I would have thought that was obvious?

ohnonotgmail

Deleted User wrote: »

People on average have sex at least once a week, if you don't want children then you either use contraception, the morning after pill or you don't have sex.

Abortion should not be another option to replace contraception or the morning after pill, don't want children then don't have penetrative sex.

and you continue with this ignorant view that you can pop the MAP every time you have sex just in case.

Cabaal

Deleted User wrote: »

And there goes morals and decency.

You do realise when you abort you are killing unborn life, abortion should not be something taken lightly.

You're all for saving the fetus,
So tell me, do you think article 42.2 should be FULLY enforced by the Irish state in relation to when a women attempts to travel for an abortion?

Right now its completely ignored,

Cabaal

Cabaal wrote: »

Rape / Incest victims choose to have sex?



Something they had to fight for against the some sort of people that are against the 8th, funny that.

1990 isn't that long ago, and thats when Virgin Media was brought to court for selling "shock horror" condoms.



Again, something they had to fight for against the some sort of people that are against the 8th. I know of a few women who have been refused the pill because the person prescribing it refused to do so on religious grounds.....this still happens in modern Ireland.




What country do you live in?
Suicide was decriminalised in the Republic of Ireland in 1993, so its certainly not illegal to "commit it",

How about reading the posts before jumping in with your opinion.

I have already said abortion should be legal for Rape, Incest and Medical Reasons.

I also corrected my mistake about suicide and stated the law was changed back in 93.

ohnonotgmail

Deleted User wrote: »

I mean becoming pregnant and went on to have a child, I would have thought that was obvious?

that isnt what you said. you said

I have seen young girls abort a child only to have a child 6 months later.

that is impossible.

January

Cabaal wrote: »

You're all for saving the fetus,
So tell me, do you think article 42.2 should be FULLY enforced by the Irish state in relation to when a women attempts to travel for an abortion?

Right now its completely ignored,

They've already said that women can travel if they want an abortion, just another end of the road type poster.

kylith

Deleted User wrote: »

People on average have sex at least once a week, if you don't want children then you either use contraception, the morning after pill or you don't have sex.

Abortion should not be another option to replace contraception or the morning after pill, don't want children then don't have penetrative sex.

So married couples and people in long term relationships should live in celibacy?

How many times do you have to be told that the MAP is serious medication which can only be given a few times over a lifetime?

joeyanne

Deleted User wrote: »

People on average have sex at least once a week, if you don't want children then you either use contraception, the morning after pill or you don't have sex.

Abortion should not be another option to replace contraception or the morning after pill, don't want children then don't have penetrative sex.

CONTRACEPTION FAILS.
How do you still think abstinence is a viable option?
Sex is supposed to be enjoyable, nothing to be ashamed of, and something everyone - even if you don't want children - should be able to experience.
Sex is stress relief, it is fun, it is a way to feel close to someone you love.

Cabaal

Cabaal wrote: »

You're all for saving the fetus,
So tell me, do you think article 42.2 should be FULLY enforced by the Irish state in relation to when a women attempts to travel for an abortion?

Right now its completely ignored,

No, because I think the cost and hassle of going to the UK should be enough of a deterrent to put women off that abortion is something to be taken likely.

I would like to see abortion legalised for Rape, Medical reasons and those carrying a child within incest. I do not want to see women charged with a crime for travelling to the UK.

nozzferrahhtoo

Deleted User wrote: »

People on average have sex at least once a week, if you don't want children then you either use contraception, the morning after pill or you don't have sex.

Asking them not to have sex is not realistic. Asking people to use MAP after every sexual encounter is even worse. It would be unworkable and highly dangerous.

Also, news flash, the MAP is not 100% effective either. Another thing you appear not to know.

Also who says they are not using contraception? That they ended up pregnant does NOT mean they did not use contraception? And what of the people who did not have sex willingly or, sometimes, even knowingly?

Deleted User wrote: »

Abortion should not be another option to replace contraception or the morning after pill

Then you must be OVERJOYED to note that not one single person ANYWHERE on this thread is suggesting it be such a replacement. Hurray!

ohnonotgmail

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

that isnt what you said. you said



that is impossible.

I believe once you conceive you are having a child.

Cabaal

January wrote: »

They've already said that women can travel if they want an abortion, just another end of the road type poster.

Typical, though at least they bothered to state their double standards instead of dodging the questions like most pre-lifers

baylah17

Deleted User wrote: »

And there goes morals and decency.

You do realise when you abort you are killing unborn life, abortion should not be something taken lightly.

Morals! Who are you to lecture anyone on morality??? You sit there typing out judgemental cold and disgusting tripe about women and then you talk of decency!
When a woman has an abortion she is terminating a potential life, she is not killing anyone.
Away with your hyperbole.

SusieBlue

Deleted User wrote: »

No, because I think the cost and hassle of going to the UK should be enough of a deterrent to put women off that abortion is something to be taken likely.

I would like to see abortion legalised for Rape, Medical reasons and those carrying a child within incest. I do not want to see women charged with a crime for travelling to the UK.

So abortion is fine, so long as it doesn't happen in Ireland. Another "not in my back yard" type opinion.

Call me Al

[Deleted User] wrote: »

How about reading the posts before jumping in with your opinion.

I have already said abortion should be legal for Rape, Incest and Medical Reasons.

I also corrected my mistake about suicide and stated the law was changed back in 93.

Why are these pregnancies and babies ok to be murdered, going by your terminology, and not the others conceived using consensual legal sex? Why are they less worthy of life?

optogirl

Deleted User wrote: »

And there goes morals and decency.

You do realise when you abort you are killing unborn life, abortion should not be something taken lightly.

the good news for you is, whatever the outcome, your position does not have to change. That's the wonderful thing about choice.

baylah17

Deleted User wrote: »

I believe once you conceive you are having a child.

Do you also believe in the Tooth Fairy?:rolleyes:

joeyanne

joeyanne wrote: »

CONTRACEPTION FAILS.
How do you still think abstinence is a viable option?
Sex is supposed to be enjoyable, nothing to be ashamed of, and something everyone - even if you don't want children - should be able to experience.
Sex is stress relief, it is fun, it is a way to feel close to someone you love.

Yes Contraception fails, but if you are in a loving relationship you should be in a position to have the child.

Sex is not a right for either partner, it is not a chore, it is not a requirement of a relationship.

The act of Penatrive sex can result in a pregnancy, the only 100% foolproof way to avoid this is to avoid having sex. If you do have sex then there should be a level of responsibility and that includes raising a child.

Cabaal

joeyanne wrote: »

How do you still think abstinence is a viable option?

Its not a viable option at all though thats the funny thing,
The US states which teach abstinence only in schools have the highest rates of teen pregnancy's.

abstinence ignores the very basic urge in basically every creature on this planet.

gallifreya

Deleted User wrote: »

Are you saying that you would have taken abortion had it been available other than having your own children?

You dont need to be rich to raise children, plenty of people of low incomes do this, even those on the dole.

You dont get a medal for having your children, you give love and get love back.

I clearly said I made a choice due to my circumstances. A woman might not need to be rich to raise a child but in my case I definitely needed my job to support my family, my home and my pregnancies. Women's circumstances differ. And abortion was available to me - in the UK. I chose to continue with my pregnancies because I felt able to. No medals required.

baylah17

baylah17 wrote: »

Do you also believe in the Tooth Fairy?:rolleyes:

When do you think life begins?

Or do you think there is a troll inside a woman mixing up some goo and sticking stuff together?

gallifreya

gallifreya wrote: »

I clearly said I made a choice due to my circumstances. A woman might not need to be rich to raise a child but in my case I definitely needed my job to support my family, my home and my pregnancies. Women's circumstances differ. And abortion was available to me - in the UK. I chose to continue with my pregnancies because I felt able to. No medals required.

Im delighted that it all worked out for you, my point is that I would in most circumstances work out for all mothers.

optogirl

optogirl wrote: »

the good news for you is, whatever the outcome, your position does not have to change. That's the wonderful thing about choice.

It's a shame that the unborn life inside the mother's womb does not get a choice and is condemned to death if the mother so chooses.

I guess choice is a limited thing.

kylith

Deleted User wrote: »

I mean becoming pregnant and went on to have a child, I would have thought that was obvious?

Obviously not, since that's not what you said.

Anyway, what does someone having a termination then choosing to subsequently have a baby have to do about anything?

Deleted User wrote: »

How about reading the posts before jumping in with your opinion.

I have already said abortion should be legal for Rape, Incest and Medical Reasons.

And how would that be worked?

On achieving a conviction? That could take years.
On filing a report? We'd see skyrocketing false rape accusations.
On stating that she was raped? What's the difference between that and abortion on request?

Deleted User wrote: »

No, because I think the cost and hassle of going to the UK should be enough of a deterrent to put women off that abortion is something to be taken likely.

So rich women can travel, that's ok by you.

If a woman can't afford to travel for an abortion how can she afford to take care of a baby?

Ave Sodalis

Deleted User wrote: »

Im delighted that it all worked out for you, my point is that I would in most circumstances work out for all mothers.

That is wishful thinking at best. Do you really believe it works out for all mothers? Or even most?

nozzferrahhtoo

Deleted User wrote: »

the only 100% foolproof way to avoid this is to avoid having sex.

Except, as you want to keep ignoring, places that have tried to implement that kind of thinking ended up with MORE unwanted and teen pregnancies. So your "foolproof way" underestimated the ingenuity of fools I guess, as the old adage goes. Abstinence approaches to contraception is the work OF fools, not the prevention of them.

Deleted User wrote: »

If you do have sex then there should be a level of responsibility and that includes raising a child.

Responsibility for an action means examining all the options, and choosing the best one for you and your situation. Preventing one of those options, for no good reason, is not allowing people to take responsibility. It is taking it away from them, and excercising it vicariously on their behalf.

You appear to think "taking responsibility" means "do what irishfreeview wants". Not sure I have any interest in the "do as I would do" mentality there.

kylith

Deleted User wrote: »

Yes Contraception fails, but if you are in a loving relationship you should be in a position to have the child.

But what if you don't want to have a child? Even if you're in a long-term committed relationship. Lots of people like that don't want children, or can't afford children.

Should they all live in celibacy?

Call me Al

Call me Al wrote: »

Why are these pregnancies and babies ok to be murdered, going by your terminology, and not the others conceived using consensual legal sex? Why are they less worthy of life?

Because rape is an evil thing, nobody should be made to suffer.

Medical reasons should always give priority to the mother and sometimes you could be causing more harm than good by allowing a woman to go full term when the child is likely to die or is in serious distress and pain.

Incest really falls for medical reasons.

joeyanne

Deleted User wrote: »

Yes Contraception fails, but if you are in a loving relationship you should be in a position to have the child.

Sex is not a right for either partner, it is not a chore, it is not a requirement of a relationship.

The act of Penatrive sex can result in a pregnancy, the only 100% foolproof way to avoid this is to avoid having sex. If you do have sex then there should be a level of responsibility and that includes raising a child.

You don't seem to understand that some people, even when in a relationship, do not want children. This may be a personal choice, due to medical reasons or any other reason that is NOT your business.

If you do not believe in allowing abortion, then do not get one. But please please be open-minded to the fact that peoples personal choices are not your business, and their choices have nothing to do with you. Nor will their choices affect you personally.

SusieBlue

Deleted User wrote: »

Yes Contraception fails, but if you are in a loving relationship you should be in a position to have the child.

Sex is not a right for either partner, it is not a chore, it is not a requirement of a relationship.

The act of Penatrive sex can result in a pregnancy, the only 100% foolproof way to avoid this is to avoid having sex. If you do have sex then there should be a level of responsibility and that includes raising a child.

Who are you to dictate what every single couple should or should not be in a position to do?

You have no idea of people's circumstances, mental state, finances, living situations, age, general health, genetic conditions, health of the baby...
You can't assume to speak for every single situation by saying "if you are in a loving situation you should be in a position to have a child".

You literally cannot account for every single variable life throws at us. Blanket statements like the above do your cause no good.

kylith

kylith wrote: »

Obviously not, since that's not what you said.

Anyway, what does someone having a termination then choosing to subsequently have a baby have to do about anything?

And how would that be worked?

On achieving a conviction? That could take years.
On filing a report? We'd see skyrocketing false rape accusations.
On stating that she was raped? What's the difference between that and abortion on request?

So rich women can travel, that's ok by you.

If a woman can't afford to travel for an abortion how can she afford to take care of a baby?

I have made my point clear if you want to continue to twist my words that is up to you.

Many women who have low incomes make wonderful parents, it's ignorant to think that you have to be rich to raise and love a child.

nozzferrahhtoo

Deleted User wrote: »

When do you think life begins?

Depends what you mean by "Life". If you mean pure biology then that is one thing, but if you mean in terms of rights, morals, ethics, person hood and actual humanity that is different.

"Life" is not one catch all term that you can switch definitions in and out to suit yourself. You have to be clear what you mean.

Deleted User wrote: »

I guess choice is a limited thing.

Yes, it is limited to agents with the capacity to even REQUIRE a choice. We do not give rocks choice do we? Why give it to a fetus? What attribute does a fetus has that a spider does not that makes you suddenly concerns about it having "choice"?

Deleted User wrote: »

Because rape is an evil thing, nobody should be made to suffer.

Yet you can not offer a way to allow such women to access abortion, which keeping it from others. You have not even TRIED to answer that in fact. Dodge much?

WhiteRoses

WhiteRoses wrote: »

Who are you to dictate what every single couple should or should not be in a position to do?

You have no idea of people's circumstances, mental state, finances, living situations, age, general health, genetic conditions, health of the baby...
You can't assume to speak for every single situation by saying "if you are in a loving situation you should be in a position to have a child".

You literally cannot account for every single variable life throws at us. Blanket statements like the above do your cause no good.

Then dont have Sex, its that easy.

Sex is not a legal right, you have no demand for it as a partner.

Do you think married couples/partners should have legal rights to sex?


Sex is a choice, if you are so Pro-Choice then choose not to have sex instead of choosing to kill a child.

Ave Sodalis

Deleted User wrote: »

I have made my point clear if you want to continue to twist my words that is up to you.

Many women who have low incomes make wonderful parents, it's ignorant to think that you have to be rich to raise and love a child.

Yes, my own mother is one of them. It wasn't all roses and sunshine though, as you're trying to make it out to be. Provided I had any sort of consciousness afterwards (which I wouldn't), would have been fully supportive if she decided to abort me.

emo72

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Yes Contraception fails, but if you are in a loving relationship you should be in a position to have the child.

Sex is not a right for either partner, it is not a chore, it is not a requirement of a relationship.

The act of Penatrive sex can result in a pregnancy, the only 100% foolproof way to avoid this is to avoid having sex. If you do have sex then there should be a level of responsibility and that includes raising a child.

Man I have to say, that's some ancient medieval thinking right there.

Edit, and I'm not being personal, just had to reply to your statement.