The 8th amendment(Mod warning in op)

January

drkpower wrote: »

January wrote: »

I'm not demeaning anyones experience. She could not have identified an embryo on a pad at that stage of gestation. As Neyite said its the size of a sesame seed.

This person was obviously devastated by what happened to her but there's no way she knew what she was burying was an embryo but if it brought her some peace to think that she was burying her miscarried baby then she should be left to do what she felt she needed to do.

She may have had an early pregnancy scan, so wouldn't have needed to have identified anything visually. The story posted came from a thread about pregnancy loss in IVF when people know - very very early - when they are pregnant, and - surprise surprise - can be devastated with such losses. You don't need to see humanoid features to suffer such loss.

You have rightly decried people for judging you and your choices. You shouldn't be so quick to judge the experiences of others.

Again where have I judged anyone? She couldn't have identified what was on the pad so she couldn't have known what she buried. I'm not judging her for burying anything but she may not have buried what she thought was an embryo.

Andrew Beef

There’s a saying that hard cases make bad law; never has that been truer than in relation to abortion. The outliers (e.g. rape and incest) cannot dominate the agenda. And there will be stories (like that woman burying the foetus in her garden) that will melt hearts and make us throw logic out the window.

JDD

Andrew Beef wrote: »

There’s a saying that hard cases make bad law; never has that been truer than in relation to abortion. The outliers (e.g. rape and incest) cannot dominate the agenda. And there will be stories (like that woman burying the foetus in her garden) that will melt hearts and make us throw logic out the window.

I actually agree with that. I think the legal choice should be either available abortion to twelve weeks, or completely outlawed. Making exceptions for anything other than FFA just makes the whole system open to abuse to the point it becomes an absurdity.

Andrew Beef

Andrew Beef wrote: »

The Rape Committee solutions stands; my only ancillary observation is that looking at the maths of it, only circa 14 babies are born as a result of rape each year so that’s the scale of the issue. On that basis, there’s no way that 14 cases should be the trojan horse for abortion on demand.

One of the most shocking stats is that 1 in 5 pregnancies in the UK ends in abortion; do we really want a society like that where abortion is a method of contraception?

Your rape committe idea of putting women on trial so they could get an abortion is disgusting.
You still haven't answered the question why a pregnancy from rape has less of a right to life than any other pregnancy?

And where does it say that abortion in England is used as contraception? Any idea how many Irish pregnancies end in abortion?
You do know what contraception is right? By definition, abortion cannot be a contraceptive.

captbarnacles

JDD wrote: »

I call troll. Or, a pro-choice poster taking just enough of an offensive pro-life view so as to swing undecideds lurking on the thread. I don’t agree with your tactics mate.

I snarkily suggested the idea of a 'committee' to decide which women were lying earlier in the thread.....and here we are.

Andrew Beef

bubblypop wrote: »

Andrew Beef wrote: »

The Rape Committee solutions stands; my only ancillary observation is that looking at the maths of it, only circa 14 babies are born as a result of rape each year so that’s the scale of the issue. On that basis, there’s no way that 14 cases should be the trojan horse for abortion on demand.

One of the most shocking stats is that 1 in 5 pregnancies in the UK ends in abortion; do we really want a society like that where abortion is a method of contraception?

Your rape committe idea of putting women on trial so they could get an abortion is disgusting.
You still haven't answered the question why a pregnancy from rape has less of a right to life than any other pregnancy?

And where does it say that abortion in England is used as contraception? Any idea how many Irish pregnancies end in abortion?
You do know what contraception is right? By definition, abortion cannot be a contraceptive.

20% of pregnancies in the UK end in abortion; are they all rape and incest cases?! That’s abortion as a form of contraception.

January

Andrew Beef wrote: »

bubblypop wrote: »

Andrew Beef wrote: »

The Rape Committee solutions stands; my only ancillary observation is that looking at the maths of it, only circa 14 babies are born as a result of rape each year so that’s the scale of the issue. On that basis, there’s no way that 14 cases should be the trojan horse for abortion on demand.

One of the most shocking stats is that 1 in 5 pregnancies in the UK ends in abortion; do we really want a society like that where abortion is a method of contraception?

Your rape committe idea of putting women on trial so they could get an abortion is disgusting.
You still haven't answered the question why a pregnancy from rape has less of a right to life than any other pregnancy?

And where does it say that abortion in England is used as contraception? Any idea how many Irish pregnancies end in abortion?
You do know what contraception is right? By definition, abortion cannot be a contraceptive.

20% of pregnancies in the UK end in abortion; are they all rape and incest cases?! That’s abortion as a form of contraception.

Abortion cannot be used as contraception as conception has already occurred.

Andrew Beef

That’s semantics; it can be used as a form of retrospective contraception.

Andrew Beef

Andrew Beef wrote: »

20% of pregnancies in the UK end in abortion; are they all rape and incest cases?! That’s abortion as a form of contraception.

So you actually know what contraception is?
No one said abortions in the UK are anything other than unwanted pregnancies. Including unwanted Irish pregnancies!
You know, the right we have enshrined in the constitution, the right to travel?

Andrew Beef

Andrew Beef wrote: »

That’s semantics; it can be used as a form of retrospective contraception.

There's no such thing.
Contraception is the prevention of pregnancy.

rainbow kirby

Andrew Beef wrote: »

One of the most shocking stats is that 1 in 5 pregnancies in the UK ends in abortion; do we really want a society like that where abortion is a method of contraception?

I'd rather have it out in the open and a safe, legal and free option than the current situation in Ireland where it's a mishmash of travel and pills ordered illegally.

has anyone told him the miscarriage rate

January

And this is what we're arguing with folks... Retrospective contraception is a thing. Yup.

pilly

Andrew Beef wrote:

The Rape Committee solutions stands; my only ancillary observation is that looking at the maths of it, only circa 14 babies are born as a result of rape each year so that’s the scale of the issue. On that basis, there’s no way that 14 cases should be the trojan horse for abortion on demand.

Yeah, thankfully we're living in 2018 so that's not gonna happen.

2wsxcde3

Andrew Beef wrote: »

20% of pregnancies in the UK end in abortion; are they all rape and incest cases?! That’s abortion as a form of contraception.

Women travelling to the UK for abortions in a way are victims as much as anything else of the media and leftist pushing people into having sex. Young people nowadays feel like there is something wrong with them if they are not having sex. They then have sex and of course things go wrong and they end up pregnant. We've gone from one extreme (with no sex allowed) to the other extreme (you're weird unless you're having lots of sex).

The older you get, the better and better an idea only having sex inside marriage seems. No STIs, no cancer causing HPV, no unwanted pregnancies, no timewasters (of men who are only after one thing) ...and you know the person you're dating is genuine as they are willing to wait till marriage.

Timberrrrrrrr

2wsxcde3 wrote: »

Women travelling to the UK for abortions in a way are victims as much as anything else of the media and leftist pushing people into having sex. Young people nowadays feel like there is something wrong with them if they are not having sex. They then have sex and of course things go wrong and they end up pregnant. We've gone from one extreme (with no sex allowed) to the other extreme (you're weird unless you're having lots of sex).

The older you get, the better and better an idea only having sex inside marriage seems. No STIs, no cancer causing HPV, no unwanted pregnancies, no timewasters (of men who are only after one thing) ...and you know the person you're dating is genuine as they are willing to wait till marriage.

Ha ha ha!!! Are you serious? Do you think older people (30's/40's/50's) dont have sex fir fun/pleasure and wait for marriage?

2wsxcde3

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Ha ha ha!!! Are you serious? Do you think older people (30's/40's/50's) dont have sex fir fun/pleasure and wait for marriage?

No. I'm just saying it is a good idea. It keeps life simple.

Timberrrrrrrr

2wsxcde3 wrote: »

No. I'm just saying it is a good idea. It keeps life simple.

For simple people maybe

JDD

Sorry what? There are unwanted pregnancies within a marriage. In fact married women in there late 30’s/40’s are the fastest growing group seeking abortions. Abortions for under 25s is going down, due to better education and access to contraception.

2wsxcde3

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

For simple people maybe

The simpler you can keep life the better. But we live in a culture that is hell bent on making life as complicated for people as possible.

pilly

2wsxcde3 wrote:

No. I'm just saying it is a good idea. It keeps life simple.

Hmmm, and extremely boring.

SusieBlue

2wsxcde3 wrote: »

Women travelling to the UK for abortions in a way are victims as much as anything else of the media and leftist pushing people into having sex. Young people nowadays feel like there is something wrong with them if they are not having sex. They then have sex and of course things go wrong and they end up pregnant. We've gone from one extreme (with no sex allowed) to the other extreme (you're weird unless you're having lots of sex).

The older you get, the better and better an idea only having sex inside marriage seems. No STIs, no cancer causing HPV, no unwanted pregnancies, no timewasters (of men who are only after one thing) ...and you know the person you're dating is genuine as they are willing to wait till marriage.

Women don’t need you to save them from themselves.
We are more than capable of making responsible, informed decisions for ourselves without the guidance of yourself, thanks very much.

Once again, why the obsession with other people’s bedroom activities?!?
Sex is to be enjoyed.
It’s a very important part about of any healthy relationship.
Why are you trying to control what kind of sex other people have? Why do you care?

pilly

WhiteRoses wrote:

Once again, why the obsession with other people’s bedroom activities?!? Sex is to be enjoyed. It’s a very important part about of any healthy relationship. Why are you trying to control what kind of sex other people have? Why do you care?

It's the exact same attitude the nuns had and do you know why they had that attitude?

Because they were JEALOUS.

Timberrrrrrrr

2wsxcde3 wrote: »

The simpler you can keep life the better. But we live in a culture that is hell bent on making life as complicated for people as possible.

Lifes only as difficult as you choose to make it

You claimed older people wait for marraige before having sex, i would like to see evidence for this claim please.

2wsxcde3

WhiteRoses wrote: »

Why are you trying to control what kind of sex other people have? Why do you care?

Isn't the media dictating the kind of sex lives people live? Sex and the city etc etc. Its a fact that young people nowadays feel under pressure to give the impression they are sexually active even when they aren't. That's not healthy.

The media and the left want to sexualise young people in order to make them think along more liberal lines and consequently make them more likely to vote for a liberal abortion regime. The media tries to control the sex lives of young people by making them believe there is something wrong with them unless they are having sex.

SusieBlue

2wsxcde3 wrote: »

Isn't the media dictating the kind of sex lives people live? Sex and the city etc etc. Its a fact that young people nowadays feel under pressure to give the impression they are sexually active even when they aren't. That's not healthy.

Sex and the City last aired in 2004 so you’re about 14 years late with that analogy.

I don’t think so, I think people have more freedom to explore their sexuality and experiment in a way they couldn’t before.
People aren’t under pressure to marry and have the 2.0 kids by the age of 25 any more.
None of this is a bad thing.

But this also has nothing to do with the referendum.
Still throwing sh*t at the wall to see what sticks, it seems.

Andrew Beef

I think, to be fair, that the issue isn’t the fornication per se; it the refusal to deal with the occasional consequences, i.e. a baby. It is not right to fornicate left, right, and centre, only to end the life of an unborn child just because it doesn’t suit. Fornication should not take place unless both participants are willing to accept that life may be created.

david75

2wsxcde3 wrote: »

Isn't the media dictating the kind of sex lives people live? Sex and the city etc etc. Its a fact that young people nowadays feel under pressure to give the impression they are sexually active even when they aren't. That's not healthy.

Nobody is forcing or dictating to anyone in society to anything.
Except this current campaign which is dicatating to women what they can’t do with their bodies and forcing them to be incubators

Martina1991

2wsxcde3 wrote: »

But the media and the left need to sexualise young people in order to make them think along more liberal lines and consequently they will be more likely to vote for a liberal abortion regime. The media tries to control the sex lives of young people by making them believe there is something wrong with them unless they are having sex.

Give one example of any of this.

By the way Liberal means:
1. Willing to respect or accept behavior or opinions different from one's own; open to new ideas.

2.(of education) concerned with broadening a person's general knowledge and experience, rather than with technical or professional training.

How does being liberal make young people sex mad.

SusieBlue

Andrew Beef wrote: »

I think, to be fair, that the issue isn’t the fornication per se; it the refusal to deal with the occasional consequences, i.e. a baby. It is not right to fornicate left, right, and centre, only to end the life of an unborn child just because it doesn’t suit. Fornication should not take place unless both participants are willing to accept that life may be created.

‘Fornicate????’
You sound the Westboro Baptist Church now, that’s the word they use!

Anyway, I would consider bringing a baby into the world to be a bit more serious than an ‘occasional consequence’.
A child should be much more significant and important than an occasional inconvenience, as you so nicely dismissed it as.

Do you think it’s in the very best interests of any child to be born to a mother who does not want him, and is forced into motherhood?
Is that a good precedent for a happy, healthy, loving childhood?

Or do you just want to punish the woman for ‘fornicating’ and enjoying sex?

2wsxcde3

WhiteRoses wrote: »

I don’t think so, I think people have more freedom to explore their sexuality and experiment in a way they couldn’t before.

The "freedom" is just an illusion. Are young people free to say they intend to wait until marriage to have sex? No they are not. They are immediately looked upon by their piers as being weird (the same piers that have been brainwashed by the media and don't realize it).

There is no freedom when it comes to sex for young people. You have to do things the way other people do it, the way dictated by the media and the left. And that means you are weird unless you are having sex.

rainbow kirby

The older you get, the better and better an idea only having sex inside marriage seems. No STIs, no cancer causing HPV, no unwanted pregnancies, no timewasters (of men who are only after one thing) ...and you know the person you're dating is genuine as they are willing to wait till marriage.

No unwanted pregnancies just because you are married? What are you smoking?

January

I was married when I had an abortion. (ó still am married just as an FYI to the same person). I was not married when I had my very unplanned pregnancy that I decided to keep (same father still). Unplanned pregnancies happen to married people too.

SusieBlue

2wsxcde3 wrote: »

The "freedom" is just an illusion. Are young people free to say they intend to wait until marriage to have sex? No they are not. They are immediately looked upon by their piers as being weird (the same piers that have been brainwashed by the media and don't realize it).

There is no freedom when it comes to sex for young people. You have to do things the way other people do it, the way dictated by the media and the left. And that means you are weird unless you are having sex.

More lies. Of course they are free to wait until they marry if they so wish.

I am in my mid 20’s and I have never felt this pressure you speak of, either from men, my friends, or society as a whole.

I don’t know where you are getting these notions from, I certinaly don’t go around discussing my sex life with my colleagues and acquaintances, how do you know for sure all these people are having all this sex?

Who is going around forcing all these young people into having sex they don’t want?

And what has this got to do with the referendum?

Andrew Beef

January wrote: »

I was married when I had an abortion. (ó still am married just as an FYI to the same person). I was not married when I had my very unplanned pregnancy that I decided to keep (same father still). Unplanned pregnancies happen to married people too.

If it’s not too personal a line of questioning, and please feel free not to answer, why did you have an abortion and do you regret it at all?

2wsxcde3

WhiteRoses wrote: »

More lies. Of course they are free to wait until they marry if they so wish.

I am in my mid 20’s and I have never felt this pressure you speak of, either from men, my friends, or society as a whole.

I don’t know where you are getting these notions from, I certinaly don’t go around discussing my sex life with my colleagues and acquaintances, how do you know for sure all these people are having all this sex?

Who is going around forcing all these young people into having sex they don’t want?

And what has this got to do with the referendum?

If a 25 year old today says they intend on waiting till marriage to have sex ...the sniggering would start. No one is free to say that today.

Andrew Beef

WhiteRoses wrote: »

Andrew Beef wrote: »

I think, to be fair, that the issue isn’t the fornication per se; it the refusal to deal with the occasional consequences, i.e. a baby. It is not right to fornicate left, right, and centre, only to end the life of an unborn child just because it doesn’t suit. Fornication should not take place unless both participants are willing to accept that life may be created.

‘Fornicate????’
You sound the Westboro Baptist Church now, that’s the word they use!

Anyway, I would consider bringing a baby into the world to be a bit more serious than an ‘occasional consequence’.
A child should be much more significant and important than an occasional inconvenience, as you so nicely dismissed it as.

Do you think it’s in the very best interests of any child to be born to a mother who does not want him, and is forced into motherhood?
Is that a good precedent for a happy, healthy, loving childhood?

Or do you just want to punish the woman for ‘fornicating’ and enjoying sex?

“Fornication” is a term for extra-martial sex.

To answer your question, a woman being forced into motherhood is the lesser of two evils compared with the killing of an unborn child.

If women (and men) want to fornicate, they must accept the possibility of a baby being conceived.

Abortion is a “get out of jail free” card that neither the male nor the female protaganists should be allowed.

captbarnacles

The latest two prolifers to the thread are clearly on a wind-up. Rape committees and no sex before marriage to thwart the liberals?

SusieBlue

2wsxcde3 wrote: »

If a 25 year old today says they intend on waiting till marriage to have sex ...the sniggering would start. No one is free to say that today.

Can you back up that with a link to prove what your saying, or is this just more anecdotal stories?

2wsxcde3

WhiteRoses wrote: »

Can you back up that with a link to prove what your saying, or is this just more anecdotal stories?

You don't need a link for the obvious.

SusieBlue

Andrew Beef wrote: »

“Fornication” is a term for extra-martial sex.

To answer your question, a woman being forced into motherhood is the lesser of two evils compared with the killing of an unborn child.

If women (and men) want to fornicate, they must accept the possibility of a baby being conceived.

Abortion is a “get out of jail free” card that neither the male nor the female protaganists should be allowed.

Grand for you to say that, as a man who can walk away and never have motherhood forced upon him.
You can’t also be pontificating about the importance of the unborn when in your last post you referred to a baby as an ‘occasional consequence’.
It isn’t a bout of flu or a flat tyre, this is a human being we’re talking about.

I care about the woman more than the unborn. Her health, wellbeing, wants and needs are far superior to that of a fetus.

Can you please explain to me why my wants and needs are less significant to that of a 10 week old zygote?
Would you yourself be willing to die for a 10 week old zygote? Would it be worth risking your life?

JDD

No one sniggers. Really. A liberal way of thinking means you accept all comers. My colleague is Mormon. Not married yet and I’d say in her early 20s. In the pub before Christmas another colleague mixed up Mormons and jehovahs witnesses, so she set him straight. She got way more increduelty on the fact that she can’t drink coffee rather than she was was waiting until marriage to have sex. Honestly not an eyelid was blinked.

SusieBlue

2wsxcde3 wrote: »

You don't need a link for the obvious.

No proof then, just as I thought.
It’s ok to have an opinion but you can’t go around claiming everyone is riding all around them as fact. It isn’t true.

david75

The PLC bots are becoming blatantly obvious at this stage.

Same circular nonsensical points, endless nimbyism, little grasp of what the referendum is actually about and knock out blow, Nobody in the real world has even used the word fornication for about 20 years.

Annasopra

2wsxcde3 wrote: »

We now have two straight men getting married in order to defraud the tax man. That's only after two years. Same sex marriage is still in experimental mode and its already throwing up problems.

No
We have a gay man marrying his straight best friend in order to avoid inheritance tax. It could happen with a straight couple and could have happened with a gay civil partnered couple. There is no experimental mode. There is no fraud. There is no problem. Wrong, wrong and wrong again.

JDD

Andrew I don’t know how to quote your post on my phone, but given that fornication can’t occur inside a marriage, does that mean a married woman could obtain an abortion?

2wsxcde3

WhiteRoses wrote: »

No proof then, just as I thought.
It’s ok to have an opinion but you can’t go around claiming everyone is riding all around them as fact. It isn’t true.

I didn't say everyone is riding all around them. I said young people feel under pressure to give the impression they are having sex, or at the very least to give the impression that they have had sex at some point in their lives already. That's the default position young people have to take nowadays.

Annasopra

2wsxcde3 wrote: »

The "freedom" is just an illusion. Are young people free to say they intend to wait until marriage to have sex? No they are not. They are immediately looked upon by their piers as being weird (the same piers that have been brainwashed by the media and don't realize it).

There is no freedom when it comes to sex for young people. You have to do things the way other people do it, the way dictated by the media and the left. And that means you are weird unless you are having sex.

Your McCarthyite reds under the bed stuff is very odd.

Orion

Andrew Beef wrote: »

“Fornication” is a term for extra-martial sex.

To answer your question, a woman being forced into motherhood is the lesser of two evils compared with the killing of an unborn child.

If women (and men) want to fornicate, they must accept the possibility of a baby being conceived.

Abortion is a “get out of jail free” card that neither the male nor the female protaganists should be allowed.

So what about a married couple who don't want children? No contraception is 100% effective.

What about a woman who's raped? Has she fornicated despite it being forced on her?

Orion

david75 wrote: »

The PLC bots are becoming blatantly obvious at this stage.

Same circular nonsensical points, endless nimbyism, little grasp of what the referendum is actually about and knock out blow, Nobody in the real world has even used the word fornication for about 20 years.

Except for Michelle Mulherin.

http://www.thejournal.ie/td-fornication-most-likely-cause-of-unwanted-pregnancies-422895-Apr2012/