The 8th amendment(Mod warning in op)

ohnonotgmail

mariaalice wrote: »

I know it a subject people feel passionate about on boards ( and in real life ) but on boards why does it attract so many self righteous nasty people and its both sides.

anonymity allows people to say things they wouldn't say in real life.

frag420

infogiver wrote: »

If you need narcotics to help you to cope with your life on a Monday afternoon in springtime then its most definitely you that needs the hug! But thanks anyway!

Who says I need it, I CHOSE to consume it. I have the day off from work to celebrate some awesome news, I am meeting friends later, life is good!

professore

Samaris wrote: »

Well, it's a pretty common reason to be swayed by something. She was suddenly affected, she suddenly had the cold pit of fear that something had gone wrong, she reacted feeling the panic and alarm that other women feel. Maybe she just felt afterwards "Well, if I felt like that, maybe women getting abortions aren't just doing it like they're buying a carton of milk..maybe I should look into this more."

Sure it is ... but so is any moral stance. For example, if I hold a moral position that you should never hit a woman (as I do). Then I'm in a relationship and my girlfriend annoys the hell out of me - or is horrendously abusive, and I "change my view" and thump her one to get her to shut up and leave me alone? Does that make it OK that now I "understand" why someone would be motivated to hit a woman?

Samaris wrote: »

It's not an unreasonable progression, although yes, it was sparked off by suddenly being placed into that position. And yes, obviously I'm placing emotional reactions on her, but not unreasonable ones from the original post.

Yes I can understand it - it's called rationalising, and we all do it. Some more than others. We have to try and see it for what it is.

Samaris wrote: »

My issue with all the panicked sounds about (AOD?) up-to-delivery-date abortions is that it's all a bit hypothetical. If someone needs an urgent abortion at say, eight months (around then and after that tends to be the delivery of an emergency LIVE birth by C-section or something along those lines*.), it is almost certainly urgent enough not to be for the hell of it. If someone is in the position of needing an urgent abortion to save their live/prevent damage, then what on earth are we all doing putting blocks in their way?

Saving their life is already in the constitution. Preventing damage or disability should be in there too in my opinion - as should fatal fetal abnormalities. However we can't say that we won't have any late term abortions just because someone couldn't be arsed or too out of it going to the hospital earlier if it's legal - of course we will - alcoholic or drug addicted mothers for a start. Not saying it's commonplace, but it for sure does happen. Look at this: http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/health/adults-with-foetal-alcohol-syndrome-fill-our-jails-doctor-calls-for-more-education-on-drinking-while-pregnant-35642031.html

Data due to be discussed by experts today heard that around 600 babies are born with Foetal Alcohol Syndrome (FAS) each year.


Not a big stretch to see that a large percentage of the mothers of these babies might not be too bothered going for a late stage termination. That's what the law is for, to prevent this where possible.

Say what you like, we all know what the most likely procedure needed was in Mrs. Hallapanavar's case, as much as people can shout about improper monitoring (which also contributed, but she seems to have been in that position because the proper procedure was being denied).

I agree with you on this.

Late abortions are very, very rarely carried out for sh*ts and giggles. Late abortions are carried out because something has gone badly wrong.
Women are also rational actors - why would we choose to undergo a difficult, painful, debilitating procedure at eight months rather than a far easier one prior to 12 weeks, unless something serious had happened in the meantime? I won't say it would -never- happen, because human beings can do some remarkably strange things, but it is quite unlikely compared to the far more common scenarios.

Late-term abortions are, for the most part, a red herring that detracts from the essential debate.

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/570040/Updated_Abortion_Statistics_2015.pdf

1.5% of abortions in England and Wales - culturally very similar to ourselves - were 20 weeks and over. There were 191014 in total so that makes 2865 late term abortions. If we take 5000 as the number of Irish abortions often touted, this would equate to 75 late term abortions. So a small but not insignificant number.

*And will someone please explain to me what a day-before-delivery abortion looks like? I strongly suspect it looks like a live birth.

I don't have the stomach to look at the links but they are there if you want to see. I'm sure the pro lifers will have a poster on every lamppost in the country soon.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Late_termination_of_pregnancy#Methods

There are at least three medical procedures associated with late-term abortions:

Dilation and evacuation (D&E)
Early labor induction (sometimes called "induction abortion")
Intact dilation and extraction (IDX or D&X), sometimes referred to as "partial-birth abortion"

daveharnett

Game Face MCGee wrote: »

I really can't get my head around this whole debate.
I've no religious affiliation and I'm a father of 3... I just cant shake it, and when people "celebrate" and are "overjoyed" about getting closer to legal abortion I just feel upset and think "how can you be so happy about this"
not sure if I'm in the minority on this??

In the context of the long slow march toward legal parity for women, the availability of legal abortion is a really significant step. I don't think anybody is feeling/saying "yay for abortions!".

I imagine that "legal, safe and rare" is everybody's preferred outcome (on the repeal end).

Incidentally, I'm not sure if this is bad news for the unborn generations either. I've heard Freakonomics cite research which suggests abortions don't so much "prevent" children as "defer" them until the mother is ready. The massive drop in US crime 16-25 years after abortion was legalized suggests (unsurprisingly) that children of unwilling/unready parents have worse outcomes.

professore

blanch152 wrote: »

Yes, there most certainly is an element of hubris in the Repeal the 8th movement, just like there was in the same-sex marriage campaign. It does go over-the-top with the "celebrate" and "overjoyed". That disappoints, sickens and saddens me too. However, that doesn't mean their message is wrong.

Like you, I am a father of 3. I will be voting to replace the 8th Amendment. It is a very stupid amendment which has caused huge problems both legally and socially. The sooner it is gone, the better.

What should replace it? That is a matter for the Oireachtas to decide.

I agree except I think it should be replaced by clearly defined laws similar to the German ones which we can all vote Yes or No to in a referendum. Not let the Oireachtas decide. Why? The same reason the Oireachtas didn't get to decide when a gay marriage was valid or not - because they would have made some crappy compromise that no-one would be happy with.

professore

infogiver wrote: »

I always wanted a referendum.
I'm almost fanatically democratic and passionate that matters of grave importance should be put before the people.
If it doesn't go the way I voted, so be it, but let the people have their say.

I'm with you. The people will make better decisions than politicians ever will.

pilly

infogiver wrote: »

Your very angry, I don't know why...but anyway... the poster said that people want the law changed.
I pointed out that SOME people want the law changed, and some don't. A referendum will tell us one way or the other.
The best thing to do if you don't like a posters "style" is to block that poster, maybe you didn't realise that.
Or if you find the post breaks any forum rules you should "report" the post.
Replying to me as you did just marks you out as being too rude and aggressive.

I think you definitely pointed out the blatantly obvious info, come on now. :rolleyes:

Someone saying "people" does not signify 100% of the population. There was absolutely no need for you to point this out.

ohnonotgmail

professore wrote: »

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/570040/Updated_Abortion_Statistics_2015.pdf

1.5% of abortions in England and Wales - culturally very similar to ourselves - were 20 weeks and over. There were 191014 in total so that makes 2865 late term abortions. If we take 5000 as the number of Irish abortions often touted, this would equate to 75 late term abortions. So a small but not insignificant number.




I don't have the stomach to look at the links but they are there if you want to see. I'm sure the pro lifers will have a poster on every lamppost in the country soon.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Late_termination_of_pregnancy#Methods

There are at least three medical procedures associated with late-term abortions:

Dilation and evacuation (D&E)
Early labor induction (sometimes called "induction abortion")
Intact dilation and extraction (IDX or D&X), sometimes referred to as "partial-birth abortion"

you need to dig a little bit deeper into the stats you are quoting

Abortions where gestation
is 24 weeks or over account for 0.1% of the total. There were 230 such abortions in 2015 (Table 5 and Table 9a).

which means of the 2865 > 20 weeks abortions, 2635 took place before 24 weeks. After 24 weeks there must be a valid medical reason.

blanch152

professore wrote: »

I agree except I think it should be replaced by clearly defined laws similar to the German ones which we can all vote Yes or No to in a referendum. Not let the Oireachtas decide. Why? The same reason the Oireachtas didn't get to decide when a gay marriage was valid or not - because they would have made some crappy compromise that no-one would be happy with.

In this case, a crappy compromise that no-one would be 100% happy with may actually be the best option as there is very little middle-ground.

pilly

blanch152 wrote: »

In this case, a crappy compromise that no-one would be 100% happy with may actually be the best option as there is very little middle-ground.

True, people are never going to be 100% happy with this no matter which way it goes. And I mean on both sides.

Gay marriage was a much simpler issue, it was a yes or no answer.

Woodville56

blanch152 wrote: »

Game Face MCGee wrote: »

I really can't get my head around this whole debate.
I've no religious affiliation and I'm a father of 3
I can totally see why people want abortions, be it economic, not the right time, situational etc... I totally get why a woman would consider it as a solution. I'm logical in my though process.
but I genuinely get a real pang or guilt or sadness when I think about the child/fetus (whatever side of the fence you sit) being terminated. I just cant shake it, and when people "celebrate" and are "overjoyed" about getting closer to legal abortion I just feel upset and think "how can you be so happy about this"
not sure if I'm in the minority on this??

Yes, there most certainly is an element of hubris in the Repeal the 8th movement, just like there was in the same-sex marriage campaign. It does go over-the-top with the "celebrate" and "overjoyed". That disappoints, sickens and saddens me too. However, that doesn't mean their message is wrong.

Like you, I am a father of 3. I will be voting to replace the 8th Amendment. It is a very stupid amendment which has caused huge problems both legally and socially. The sooner it is gone, the better.

What should replace it? That is a matter for the Oireachtas to decide.

That's what worries me - politicians will sell their souls for a Dail pension if they think theres votes in abortion , besides if a leftist group hold a balance of power in a future Dail and demand a liberal abortion regime, what chance FG/FF to oblige ?
Already FG/FF/SF getting all mouthy about an early referendum. Mother of all divisive debate to follow

blanch152

Woodville56 wrote: »

That's what worries me - politicians will sell their souls for a Dail pension if they think theres votes in abortion , besides if a leftist group hold a balance of power in a future Dail and demand a liberal abortion regime, what chance FG/FF to oblige ?
Already FG/FF/SF getting all mouthy about an early referendum. Mother of all divisive debate to follow

What is worse is another amendment that has multiple unforeseen consequences, just like the last one.

infogiver

pilly wrote: »

I think you definitely pointed out the blatantly obvious info, come on now. :rolleyes:

Someone saying "people" does not signify 100% of the population. There was absolutely no need for you to point this out.

Pilly what would we do if we didn't have you to point out where we go wrong in our posting.

Outlaw Pete

eviltwin wrote: »

... it's because I'm a parent that I'm pro choice. I want my daughter to have the opportunity to have full control of when she becomes a mother..

You say this as if those who are pro life have no regard for your daughter, but they do, and did so long before most of society began to. Let's not forget: most of those with pro choice beliefs would wish that it were legal for you to have been legally able to kill her, still her heartbeat and have her broken remains pulled from you and binned, and up to almost two thirds way through her development in your womb too. So while it's commendable that you want her empowered with a choice that you never had, in your own country at least, it's worth remembering that some of us had concern for her when she was at her most vulnerable and didn't feel that whether she lived or died should be at the mercy of another.

As for FFA...yes, hopefully abortions for those particular situations will be made legal here, should've been so long ago.

spakman

AtomicHorror wrote: »

Game Face MCGee wrote: »

I really can't get my head around this whole debate.
I've no religious affiliation and I'm a father of 3
I can totally see why people want abortions, be it economic, not the right time, situational etc... I totally get why a woman would consider it as a solution. I'm logical in my though process.
but I genuinely get a real pang or guilt or sadness when I think about the child/fetus (whatever side of the fence you sit) being terminated. I just cant shake it, and when people "celebrate" and are "overjoyed" about getting closer to legal abortion I just feel upset and think "how can you be so happy about this"
not sure if I'm in the minority on this??

Probably not, but do you not think you're conflating some stuff here? We can feel sad for the necessity of a given abortion or abortions generally but be happy that women will no longer need to fear the intrusion of the state into their health and life.

But a lot of people want abortions not only when it's a necessity, but when it's inconvenient for them to have a baby.
I don't understand how people can square this in their conscience - they've wilfully ended the life of their child/foetus. I'm not at all religious but ethically, morally, that is just wrong.

ohnonotgmail

infogiver wrote: »

Pilly what would we do if we didn't have you to point out where we go wrong in our posting.

there was nothing with the post you "corrected". the problem was with your assumption as to what it said.

ohnonotgmail

spakman wrote: »

But a lot of people want abortions not only when it's a necessity, but when it's inconvenient for them to have a baby.
I don't understand how people can square this in their conscience - they've wilfully ended the life of their child/foetus. I'm not at all religious but ethically, morally, that is just wrong.

that is something for people to resolve with their own conscience.

Akrasia

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

You say this as if those who are pro life have no regard for your daughter, but they do, and did so long before most of society began to. Let's not forget: most of those with pro choice beliefs would wish that it were legal for you to have been legally able to kill her, still her heartbeat and have her broken remains pulled from you and binned, and up to almost two thirds way through her development in your womb too. So while it's commendable that you want her empowered with a choice that you never had, in your own country at least, it's worth remembering that some of us had concern for her when she was at her most vulnerable and didn't feel that whether she lived or died should be at the mercy of another.

She was even more vulnerable when she was sperm travelling to the egg before fertilisation.

There are millions of things that could have happened to stop a potential person from being born. The fact of our own birth is unbelievable if you think about how many circumstances had to have been just right.

If I had never been born, someone else probably would have been born instead of me. (my parents planned my birth) By my being alive, I have robbed countless potential siblings from a potential existence.

spakman

Akrasia wrote: »

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

You say this as if those who are pro life have no regard for your daughter, but they do, and did so long before most of society began to. Let's not forget: most of those with pro choice beliefs would wish that it were legal for you to have been legally able to kill her, still her heartbeat and have her broken remains pulled from you and binned, and up to almost two thirds way through her development in your womb too. So while it's commendable that you want her empowered with a choice that you never had, in your own country at least, it's worth remembering that some of us had concern for her when she was at her most vulnerable and didn't feel that whether she lived or died should be at the mercy of another.

She was even more vulnerable when she was sperm travelling to the egg before fertilisation.

There are millions of things that could have happened to stop a potential person from being born. The fact of our own birth is unbelievable if you think about how many circumstances had to have been just right.

If I had never been born, someone else probably would have been born instead of me. (my parents planned my birth) By my being alive, I have robbed countless potential siblings from a potential existence.

Oh come on, a sperm or an egg on their own are not and cannot become a human being. But when the sperm has the fertilised the egg, it's a different story.
You're right that there are many ways and reasons why that pregnancy may not be successful, but that's nature and not a wilful act.
Abortion is very much a deliberate act to kill that foetus, so it's not comparable to a miscarriage!

Akrasia

spakman wrote: »

But a lot of people want abortions not only when it's a necessity, but when it's inconvenient for them to have a baby.
I don't understand how people can square this in their conscience - they've wilfully ended the life of their child/foetus. I'm not at all religious but ethically, morally, that is just wrong.

Do you agree with the morning after pill?

infogiver

spakman wrote: »

Oh come on, a sperm or an egg on their own are not and cannot become a human being. But when the sperm has the fertilised the egg, it's a different story.
You're right that there are many ways and reasons why that pregnancy may not be successful, but that's nature and not a wilful act.
Abortion is very much a deliberate act to kill that foetus, so it's not comparable to a miscarriage!

If you can get your head around the mental gymnastics required to detach yourself from what you are quite rightly describing as a "deliberate act to kill", then you could start to see this whole issue as the pro "choice" advocates do.
I've established that it starts with perscapacity.
You can't say "pro abortion " it has to be "pro choice "
Your not having an abortion, your terminating a pregnancy.
Even a 40 week gestation baby is a foetus.
24 weeks gestation babies are "clumps of cells".
I'm too lazy for the mental gymnastics, me.

Akrasia

spakman wrote: »

Oh come on, a sperm or an egg on their own are not and cannot become a human being. But when the sperm has the fertilised the egg, it's a different story.
You're right that there are many ways and reasons why that pregnancy may not be successful, but that's nature and not a wilful act.
Abortion is very much a deliberate act to kill that foetus, so it's not comparable to a miscarriage!

A foetus is not yet a person, neither is a blastocyst or a zygote.

You might consider it immoral to end the foetal development before it has a chance to develop into a person, I think it is immoral to force a woman to be a mother if she does not want to be one.

Family planning is essential for a modern egalitarian civilised society.

I would like children to be born into homes where they are wanted and loved, and the parents have the desire and means and skills to provide a good home for them.

njs030

infogiver wrote: »

If you can get your head around the mental gymnastics required to detach yourself from what you are quite rightly describing as a "deliberate act to kill", then you could start to see this whole issue as the pro "choice" advocates do.
I've established that it starts with perscapacity.
You can't say "pro abortion " it has to be "pro choice "
Your not having an abortion, your terminating a pregnancy.
Even a 40 week gestation baby is a foetus.
24 weeks gestation babies are "clumps of cells".
I'm too lazy for the mental gymnastics, me.

Well the last line is true. You're too lazy to see beyond your own point of view.

As explained many, many, many times a fetus is a medical term.

There's been more than one person on this thread that is anti- abortion for themselves but unselfish enough to see that other women should be allowed a choice other than the one they themselves want.

Akrasia

infogiver wrote: »

If you can get your head around the mental gymnastics required to detach yourself from what you are quite rightly describing as a "deliberate act to kill", then you could start to see this whole issue as the pro "choice" advocates do.
I've established that it starts with perscapacity.
You can't say "pro abortion " it has to be "pro choice "
Your not having an abortion, your terminating a pregnancy.
Even a 40 week gestation baby is a foetus.
24 weeks gestation babies are "clumps of cells".
I'm too lazy for the mental gymnastics, me.

Why do you always focus on the extreme cases. Most abortions happen before 13 weeks where there is no question of any sentience or brain function of the foetus.

Most pro choice people would happily settle for reasonable restrictions on abortion when a foetus is viable outside of the womb, restricted to where there is a risk to the mother or the foetus is incompatible with life as long as there are no restrictions before 12 weeks.

ricero

Liberals are trying to ruin this countries morality. I for one will not vote in abortion to be used as a easy fix for hussies who forget to use contraception

Akrasia

ricero wrote: »

Liberals are trying to ruin this countries morality. I for one will not vote in abortion to be used as a easy fix for hussies who forget to use contraception

Genius. Let's go back to the good old moral days of slavery for unmarried mothers and their 'bastard' children

pilly

infogiver wrote:

Pilly what would we do if we didn't have you to point out where we go wrong in our posting.

Continue to post crap no doubt.

PopePalpatine

ricero wrote: »

Liberals are trying to ruin this countries morality. I for one will not vote in abortion to be used as a easy fix for hussies who forget to use contraception

I wonder if the "Pro-Repealers are shrill and callous" crowd will have a go at your post? Something tells me they won't.

A Little Pony

ricero wrote: »

Liberals are trying to ruin this countries morality. I for one will not vote in abortion to be used as a easy fix for hussies who forget to use contraception

Fully agree. People don't like personal responsibility in society now. It's everyone else fault now.

spakman

PopePalpatine wrote: »

ricero wrote: »

Liberals are trying to ruin this countries morality. I for one will not vote in abortion to be used as a easy fix for hussies who forget to use contraception

I wonder if the "Pro-Repealers are shrill and callous" crowd will have a go at your post? Something tells me they won't.

I assume (and hope) he's a WUM just looking to get a rise. That attitude went out before the turn of the millennium

Akrasia

A Little Pony wrote: »

Fully agree. People don't like personal responsibility in society now. It's everyone else fault now.

Yeah, let's punish irresponsible 'hussies' by forcing them to have a defenseless newborn baby to raise for the next 2 decades. That's a consistent world view

farmer john8

if the scumbag lefty liberals want to abort their own children they can go right ahead and jump on a ferry to the uk and on the way back jump off.they wont dictate to the ordinary decent people of ireland

ohnonotgmail

farmer john8 wrote: »

if the scumbag lefty liberals want to abort their own children they can go right ahead and jump on a ferry to the uk and on the way back jump off.they wont dictate to the ordinary decent people of

Will they be making abortions mandatory??

Calhoun

Anyone hear any of the debates on the radio this morning ? I caught a bit and as expected one of the female commentators basically saying the CA was corrupt and no representative .

Missed the rest of it I'm sure it didn't get any better from there.

Woodville56

Akrasia wrote: »

A Little Pony wrote: »

Fully agree. People don't like personal responsibility in society now. It's everyone else fault now.

Yeah, let's punish irresponsible 'hussies' by forcing them to have a defenseless newborn baby to raise for the next 2 decades. That's a consistent world view

So now abortion is being suggested as saving a defenseless newborn baby an uncertain childhood by killing it in the womb? Such a disingenuous argument , when the real reason is about getting rid of an unwanted pregnancy ?

Demonique

judeboy101 wrote: »

Including FGM, prostitution and womb renting?

FGM isn't a woman choosing to do what she wants with her own body though, it's a choice that's made for young girls by their parents and/or community, they tend not to get a say in the matter.

So it's not comparable to women choosing to get an abortion.


And if a woman wants to be a prostitute or to rent her womb it's her decision

Demonique

infogiver wrote: »

If you are of sound mind and you want FGM for your minor daughter then you should be allowed?

FGM isn't a woman choosing to do what she wants with her own body though which is what the first poster who mentioned it suggested.


If an adult woman wants to mutilate her own genitals and is of sound mind, I suppose she can do what she wants, her daughter's genitals on the other hand? No, leave your daughter's body alone.

Demonique

infogiver wrote: »

What about the body within their body?

If there's a body within their body, they have the right to evict said body.

Demonique

me_right_one wrote: »

Even if that means killing someone else's body?

Yes

Demonique

AtomicHorror wrote: »

IVF.

How does IVF help a woman with an unwanted pregnancy?

Yeah, with IVF eggs are fertilised outside the body and then implanted in the woman's body.

That poster was suggesting we're also able to take an already implanted embryo/fetus from a pregnant woman's body and implant it in another woman's body.

We're not, with surrogate pregnancy the eggs are still fertilised outside the surrogate's body and then implanted

Demonique

AtomicHorror wrote: »

This whole exchange undermines your opinion hugely tbh.



IVF is used for animal breeding. An egg fertilised in a dish and then implanted. Never have I heard of an embryo or fetus being transferred out of one womb and into another, and if that technique existed it would be remarkably risky for mother and unborn both. Far more so than natural birth.

I've heard it happening with horses (allowing thoroughbred mares to have several foals a year), but I haven't been in the horsey community for a long time and don't know how far it's progressed.

But women aren't fecking humans and there's no benefit to transferring an embryo from one woman to another when IVF exists (particularly if there's a risk of the first woman miscarrying before they can transplant to the other woman)

infogiver

notjustsweet wrote: »

Well the last line is true. You're too lazy to see beyond your own point of view.

As explained many, many, many times a fetus is a medical term.

There's been more than one person on this thread that is anti- abortion for themselves but unselfish enough to see that other women should be allowed a choice other than the one they themselves want.

Medical terms are used by medical personnel.
You need to hurry up and correct the tennis player Serena Williams who has released a statement concerning her "unborn child ".
She mustn't realise that she's offending people who resent anything other than medical terminology when referring to the delicate subject of pregnancy.
Something must be done.

spakman

Demonique wrote: »

me_right_one wrote: »

Even if that means killing someone else's body?

Yes

Wow

infogiver

pilly wrote: »

Continue to post crap no doubt.

Well I'm sure we all appreciate your tireless perusing of these forums in your never ending quest to draw posters attention to how very wrong they are.
Keep up the good work.

Demonique

LirW wrote: »

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

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


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

There are quite a few pro-lifers who believe that babies are a gift from god and using birth control is refusing god's gift and is therefore bad.

Zaph

ricero wrote: »

Liberals are trying to ruin this countries morality. I for one will not vote in abortion to be used as a easy fix for hussies who forget to use contraception

What about those hussies who do use contraception but it fails?

PopePalpatine

farmer john8 wrote: »

if the scumbag lefty liberals want to abort their own children they can go right ahead and jump on a ferry to the uk and on the way back jump off.they wont dictate to the ordinary decent people of ireland

You got the "ordinary decent people of Ireland" mixed up there. :pac:

infogiver

Demonique wrote: »

There are quite a few pro-lifers who believe that babies are a gift from god and using birth control is refusing god's gift and is therefore bad.

Are many of these "Gods gift" pro-lifers posting in this thread?
I can't see them at all.

njs030

infogiver wrote: »

Medical terms are used by medical personnel.
You need to hurry up and correct the tennis player Serena Williams who has released a statement concerning her "unborn child ".
She mustn't realise that she's offending people who resent anything other than medical terminology when referring to the delicate subject of pregnancy.
Something must be done.

Are you going to add anything of use or just correct people, make assumptions and judge others?
Or are you in your own words "too lazy" to do anything else?

No one here is offended by terminology other than you, you've been banging on about it since Saturday and I've simply explained why people use the term.
Is it really to hard for you to understand people use different words in life?

I won't be responding to your silly little comments anymore, they add nothing to the discussion and it's repetitive and boring at this stage.

January

Zaph wrote: »

What about those hussies who do use contraception but it fails?

Absolutely no point in arguing with people who speak like that. The answer is no doubt that they should face up to their responsibilities sure they had sex what do they expect