The 8th amendment(Mod warning in op)

JDD

Most women don't know they're pregnant before 8 weeks.

I don't think that's true. If you were on the pill, you'd know you were possibly pregnant at 5 weeks, because you wouldn't have got your period during the 7 day break from the pill. If you weren't on the pill you'd still know at 5 to 6 weeks as you'd cop that you hadn't got your period in a long time. If you have irregular periods then yes, it could take a bit longer to realise that you might be pregnant, but as the above posters have said, worst case scenario you could get the pill within three days of deciding to have an abortion.

JDD

Hoboo wrote: »

In reality though politicians have often made decisions regardless of public support. The last 10 years alone has proven that.

I'm not a fan of the government holding the cards in this instance.

Economic decisions, yes, because basically they're always unpopular unless you're reducing taxes. Politicians are used to being vilified over that, they're immune to it. But social issues are different. I can't remember one instance in my lifetime where an Irish government have introduced a more liberal regime in any facet of public life without a push from the public, or the ECHR, to do so. They don't have to 'balance the books' when it comes to social issues, so it's just not in their interest to make unpopular decisions.

pilly

rainbow kirby wrote: »

Yep, 4-6 weeks is fairly standard if your cycle is regular. I found out at 7 weeks with my first son and that was considered late.

4 weeks is ridiculous tbh, unless you knew you'd had highly risky sex you wouldn't be taking a pregnancy test at 4 weeks.

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5

pilly wrote: »

4 weeks is ridiculous tbh, unless you knew you'd had highly risky sex you wouldn't be taking a pregnancy test at 4 weeks.

Assuming you got pregnant in the middle of a four week cycle, at four weeks pregnant you'd be about two weeks late, would you not check at that point?

My cycle isn't very regular, I'll know what week to expect a period but not what day. I'd still be checking if it didn't show up that week.

Edit: That said, at very busy times, it can be surprisingly easy to lose track of what happened when, I can imagine it's very possible to get into the second month of pregnancy before you really start paying attention.

seamus

Hoboo wrote: »

In reality though politicians have often made decisions regardless of public support. The last 10 years alone has proven that.

I'm not a fan of the government holding the cards in this instance.

I guess the question though is what's your alternative?

You can't put it in the constitution; we've already been down that road.

What makes this instance any different to another where the government legislates? Why are the government to be given the power on all other aspects of healthcare law, criminal law, human rights legislation, but on abortion law for some reason they just can't be trusted?

pilly

Howard Tasteless Bank wrote:

Edit: That said, at very busy times, it can be surprisingly easy to lose track of what happened when, I can imagine it's very possible to get into the second month of pregnancy before you really start paying attention.

Very possible. Especially if you're using contraception and you're not worried about it. Some women don't get any periods.

CruelCoin

pilly wrote: »

Very possible. Especially if you're using contraception and you're not worried about it. Some women don't get any periods.

My partner would fall under this.

Rod in arm, she hasn't had a period in years.

Cheers for the clarifications guys, but the short answer to my question is yes, there will be no delays?

January

CruelCoin wrote: »

My partner would fall under this.

Rod in arm, she hasn't had a period in years.

Cheers for the clarifications guys, but the short answer to my question is yes, there will be no delays?

A 3 day delay for the pill is being planned.

pilly

CruelCoin wrote: »

My partner would fall under this.

Rod in arm, she hasn't had a period in years.

Cheers for the clarifications guys, but the short answer to my question is yes, there will be no delays?

There will be no long delays. They couldn't possibly say to someone who looks for an abortion at 8 or 9 weeks to come back in a month as it would put them outside the proposed law.

It may become somewhat dodgy if someone decides bang on 12 weeks.

seamus

CruelCoin wrote: »

Cheers for the clarifications guys, but the short answer to my question is yes, there will be no delays?

In terms of health resourcing, no there shouldn't be any waiting list or delays.

In theory it's the kind of thing a pharmacist should be able to dispense with a short consultation, but this is something that most western countries have thus far been very slow to allow, though the medical recommendation is that it would be perfectly viable and safe.

Nevertheless obtaining a prescription is nothing more than a standard GP consultation, so there shouldn't be any significant impact on local resources.

PhoenixParker

Howard Tasteless Bank wrote: »

Assuming you got pregnant in the middle of a four week cycle, at four weeks pregnant you'd be about two weeks late, would you not check at that point?

My cycle isn't very regular, I'll know what week to expect a period but not what day. I'd still be checking if it didn't show up that week.

Edit: That said, at very busy times, it can be surprisingly easy to lose track of what happened when, I can imagine it's very possible to get into the second month of pregnancy before you really start paying attention.

At four weeks pregnant your period is due. Two weeks late is 6 weeks pregnant.

markodaly

Bannasidhe wrote: »

It's giving those who are currently abroad an opportunity to determine the kind of Ireland they will return to.

I am of the generation that voted against the 8th and promptly got the hell out of Ireland as what I personally experienced while campaigning for choice convinced me that there was no place in 80s Ireland for anyone who was even slightly liberal in their world view. I wasn't alone. I worked, lived... and played... among people from all parts of the Republic who felt ourselves to be in exile. It says a lot that a generation found Thatcher's Britain more welcoming than our native land.
It's no coincidence that most of us returned after the election of Mary Robinson as we sensed change was in the air. We voted for divorce. We voted for the right to travel and get information. We voted for the Ireland we wanted and now another generation need to know this is their chance.

PLC know that and are afraid.

Let us be honest here, the reason most people left Ireland was for economic reasons not social reasons. I am sure it played a part for some, but getting a job was foremost in peoples thinking.

Also, the election of Mary Robinson was at a time where the Celtic Tiger was about to unleash itself. Again, economic reasons bringing people back.

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

markodaly

seamus wrote: »

I guess the question though is what's your alternative?

You can't put it in the constitution; we've already been down that road.

What makes this instance any different to another where the government legislates? Why are the government to be given the power on all other aspects of healthcare law, criminal law, human rights legislation, but on abortion law for some reason they just can't be trusted?

We amended the Constitution to get rid of capital punishment, did we not? See Criminal law.

Most of our human rights legalisation has been imported from the EU, we have had no say in it.

ohnonotgmail

markodaly wrote: »

Let us be honest here, the reason most people left Ireland was for economic reasons not social reasons. I am sure it played a part for some, but getting a job was foremost in peoples thinking.

Also, the election of Mary Robinson was at a time where the Celtic Tiger was about to unleash itself. Again, economic reasons bringing people back.

Robinson was elected president in 1990. the celtic tiger didnt even start until 4 or 5 years later.

ohnonotgmail

markodaly wrote: »

We amended the Constitution to get rid of capital punishment, did we not? See Criminal law.

Most of our human rights legalisation has been imported from the EU, we have had no say in it.

No we didnt.

markodaly

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

Robinson was elected president in 1990. the celtic tiger didnt even start until 4 or 5 years later.

Was 'about to' unleash itself.

ohnonotgmail

markodaly wrote: »

Was 'about to' unleash itself.

well except things were still pretty **** economically.

markodaly

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

No we didnt.

Em, yes we did.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twenty-first_Amendment_of_the_Constitution_of_Ireland

The Twenty-first Amendment of the Constitution of Ireland introduced a constitutional ban on the death penalty and removed all references to capital punishment from the text. It was effected by the Twenty-first Amendment of the Constitution Act, 2001, which was approved by referendum on 7 June 2001 and signed into law on 27 March 2002.

ohnonotgmail

markodaly wrote: »

Em, yes we did.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twenty-first_Amendment_of_the_Constitution_of_Ireland

i stand corrected.

markodaly

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

well except things were still pretty **** economically.

Yes, GDP growth rates of 8.5% is terrible.

https://countryeconomy.com/gdp/ireland?year=1990

:pac:

ohnonotgmail

markodaly wrote: »

Yes, GDP growth rates of 8.5% is terrible.

https://countryeconomy.com/gdp/ireland?year=1990

:pac:

there is more to an economy than gdp growth rates. I was just about to finish college in 1990. jobs were thin on the ground. We still had 56000 people emigrate that year and net migration for 3 of the 4 years after that.

seamus

markodaly wrote: »

We amended the Constitution to get rid of capital punishment, did we not? See Criminal law.

We amended it to ban it outright. Which is a different thing than saying, "I don't trust the government to legislate properly for it". You wouldn't put a clause in the constitution saying, "The death penalty is banned except in <x> circumstances". That's asking for a whole world of trouble.

By all means, if someone never wants abortion, then that's the kind of thing you stick in the constitution to tie future governments' hands.

But if you support the use of abortion in any circumstances, howsoever limited, then it doesn't make sense to try and encapsulate that in a constitutional document. It will fail. We know this because it already has failed.

Most of our human rights legalisation has been imported from the EU, we have had no say in it.

That's just not correct. We're signed up directly to a number of international agreements which informs our legislators' obligations, but it doesn't write the legislation for us.

Bannasidhe

markodaly wrote: »

Let us be honest here, the reason most people left Ireland was for economic reasons not social reasons. I am sure it played a part for some, but getting a job was foremost in peoples thinking.

Also, the election of Mary Robinson was at a time where the Celtic Tiger was about to unleash itself. Again, economic reasons bringing people back.

I reckon I know who I worked with and hung out with in London in the 80s. We were the Irish Queers and the Lefties - the same people who 'manned' the Abortion Info lines - and yes - we left for social reasons and there was a lot of us because if you were gay or socially liberal Ireland was no place for you. Edit to add : or if you wanted a divorce, or to raise your 'illegitimate' child, or were a survivor of one of Ireland's many institutions designed to make life hell for the socially unacceptable.

And again - given I was there and these were my peers - I remember how Robinson's election caused us to decide it was time to bring the fight back home.

I didn't say it was all the Irish. I said it was the Irish I worked, lived among, and played with, and we were both politically and socially very aware.

It's not always about economics.

Edward M

Bannasidhe wrote: »

I reckon I know who I worked with and hung out with in London in the 80s. We were the Irish Queers and the Lefties - the same people who 'manned' the Abortion Info lines - and yes - we left for social reasons and there was a lot of us because if you were gay or socially liberal Ireland was no place for you. Edit to add : or if you wanted a divorce, or to raise your 'illegitimate' child, or were a survivor of one of Ireland's many institutions designed to make life hell for the socially unacceptable.

And again - given I was there and these were my peers - I remember how Robinson's election caused us to decide it was time to bring the fight back home.

I didn't say it was all the Irish. I said it was the Irish I worked, lived among, and played with, and we were both politically and socially very aware.

It's not always about economics.

I know loads, including myself for a while, who left for economic reasons only, I would venture to say at least 90% did it for economic reasons.
Of course a fair few would have left because of lifestyle choices also, and the reasoning behind a lot of it was because of the laws regarding sexual orientation.
But I would venture to say very very few women or men left because if they got pregnant they could get an abortion in the UK.
A good few may have left to have an abortion and stayed, but honestly, are you trying to say that women left here with the premeditated intention of having an abortion if they got pregnant?

nozzferrahhtoo

Edward M wrote: »

A good few may have left to have an abortion and stayed, but honestly, are you trying to say that women left here with the premeditated intention of having an abortion if they got pregnant?

I do not know if any comprehensive study has been done on reasons why people left the country so I am not sure anyone is in the position to answer your question with anything but anecdote.

Anecdote is not evidence of course but I can offer my own. I know people who DID leave for kind of that reason but not how you phrased it. Rather they left because they considered all the pros and cons of being pregnant and having children in Ireland, including evaluating unfortunate scenarios where abortion might be required but not attainable, and overall decided Ireland was not the place to be pregnant and (hopefully, ultimately) have children in. They wanted to be pregnant in a country where they had more control over their own reproductive autonomy and choices.

Abortion was however only ONE factor in that. There was plenty more. I certainly know that I myself, here in Germany, have benefited mightily from the medical system here with both our pregnancies and children. Just this year I decided on a whim to go to specialists on eyes, others on ears, others on teeth, others on the nose and throat, one on back and posture development, one on nutrition, one on feet and so on and so on. Basically decided to have EVERYTHING checked. The sum cost of this to me out of my pocket at the time? Zero euro and zero cent. We also have 14 months pain (75% of salary) parental leave to split between us as we saw fit. Herself took a few months while I worked nearly a full year on half days. All great stuff.

So I would not put it as crassly as "women left here with the premeditated intention of having an abortion if they got pregnant" but I would say many factors, including abortion, have indeed come into peoples decision to take their reproductive plans and life journey elsewhere. We can but hope that a repeal in the upcoming election mediates at least SOME of that. But it certainly will not be everything.

Edward M

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

I do not know if any comprehensive study has been done on reasons why people left the country so I am not sure anyone is in the position to answer your question with anything but anecdote.

Anecdote is not evidence of course but I can offer my own. I know people who DID leave for kind of that reason but not how you phrased it. Rather they left because they considered all the pros and cons of being pregnant and having children in Ireland, including evaluating unfortunate scenarios where abortion might be required but not attainable, and overall decided Ireland was not the place to be pregnant and (hopefully, ultimately) have children in. They wanted to be pregnant in a country where they had more control over their own reproductive autonomy and choices.

Abortion was however only ONE factor in that. There was plenty more. I certainly know that I myself, here in Germany, have benefited mightily from the medical system here with both our pregnancies and children. Just this year I decided on a whim to go to specialists on eyes, others on ears, others on teeth, others on the nose and throat, one on back and posture development, one on nutrition, one on feet and so on and so on. Basically decided to have EVERYTHING checked. The sum cost of this to me out of my pocket at the time? Zero euro and zero cent. We also have 14 months pain (75% of salary) parental leave to split between us as we saw fit. Herself took a few months while I worked nearly a full year on half days. All great stuff.

So I would not put it as crassly as "women left here with the premeditated intention of having an abortion if they got pregnant" but I would say many factors, including abortion, have indeed come into peoples decision to take their reproductive plans and life journey elsewhere. We can but hope that a repeal in the upcoming election mediates at least SOME of that. But it certainly will not be everything.

No offence to you, but I think most of that you say about abortion being available is crap, as if the need arose even here, you could still travel.
The main gist of the rest is economics.

Bannasidhe

Edward M wrote: »

I know loads, including myself for a while, who left for economic reasons only, I would venture to say at least 90% did it for economic reasons.
Of course a fair few would have left because of lifestyle choices also, and the reasoning behind a lot of it was because of the laws regarding sexual orientation.
But I would venture to say very very few women or men left because if they got pregnant they could get an abortion in the UK.
A good few may have left to have an abortion and stayed, but honestly, are you trying to say that women left here with the premeditated intention of having an abortion if they got pregnant?

You're doing it again Ed. Reading things I never wrote. My only reference to abortion was the helpline.
I did say that unmarried mothers left so they could raise their children - the very opposite of what you seemed to think I said.

I was very clear in my original post about this that I was referring to the circles I moved in - not the entire Irish experience. I have no idea what the Irish experience in, for example, Kilburn was because I only set food in the place once and thought I has accidentally ended up in Roscommon c1979.

Jeez - could people please read all the words in a post.

Edward M

Bannasidhe wrote: »

You're doing it again Ed. Reading things I never wrote. My only reference to abortion was the helpline.
I did say that unmarried mothers left so they could raise their children - the very opposite of what you seemed to think I said.

I was very clear in my original post about this that I was referring to the circles I moved in - not the entire Irish experience. I have no idea what the Irish experience in, for example, Kilburn was because I only set food in the place once and thought I has accidentally ended up in Roscommon c1979.

Jeez - coul:cool:d people please read all the words in a post.

But why, I mean where did they come from?
I had a child with my first partner in the 80s, in rural Cavan, we lived together for 4 years after the child was born, we had no problems or our daughter either.
I really would like to know where in Ireland this wasn't possible at that time?

nice_guy80

family stigmas and pressures differ for everyone

nice_guy80

family stigmas and pressures differ for everyone

Bannasidhe

Edward M wrote: »

But why, I mean where did they come from?
I had a child with my first partner in the 80s, in rural Cavan, we lived together for 4 years after the child was born, we had no problems or our daughter either.
I really would like to know where in Ireland this wasn't possible at that time?

Ask the women who found themselves in the Laundries.

Like this woman who found herself in Bessborough in 1984.
http://www.thejournal.ie/readme/bessborough-mother-and-baby-home-story-1563790-Jul2014/

Has it occurred to you that people thought you were married? Either way, are you sure if your partner had been alone in rural Cavan with a child she would have had no problems?

nozzferrahhtoo

Edward M wrote: »

No offence to you, but I think most of that you say about abortion being available is crap, as if the need arose even here, you could still travel.

That is one of those "Check your privilege at the door" things I am afraid. Many people can not simply travel when it comes to abortion. They can not afford the time, the time off work, the money, the loss of earnings, or much more. Many people already have children they can not simply leave. And many people do not want to face such a journey alone, or an abortion alone, and so want.... nay need.... to take someone with them. Which doubles all the issues I list above.

Further those people who seek an abortion for other reasons during an otherwise wanted pregnancy, often find those reasons preclude ease of travel. If there is a medical issue for example the last thing one wants, and often the last think one is capable of, is travel.

Worse, if there are any complications from the abortion the woman in question might be en route back to Ireland and therefore in no position to seek medical advice. Or they might BE back in Ireland when the complications occur.... and have to go to a doctor who knows nothing of the medical history and events involved.

Perhaps you simply popped over to London or something sometime in your life for a concert or some such. I know I did many times, especially in college when I saw 9 david gray gigs in 7 days around the entire UK for example. But I know my privilege and I know it does not compare to the hardships of others. And just because a jaunt to london is simple for me, I do not assume it is for others with entirely different medical, ethical, financial, familial, and resource concerns in play. So you shouldn't either.

Edward M

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Ask the women who found themselves in the Laundries.

Like this woman who found herself in Bessborough in 1984.
http://www.thejournal.ie/readme/bessborough-mother-and-baby-home-story-1563790-Jul2014/

Has it occurred to you that people thought you were married? Either way, are you sure if your partner had been alone in rural Cavan with a child she would have had no problems?

But that's intolerance, that still exists, abortion won't change that.

pilly

Edward M wrote:

But that's intolerance, that still exists, abortion won't change that.

Of course it will Edward, because women won't be left alone with a child they don't want.

Don't act all naive now because we know you're not.

Edward M

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

That is one of those "Check your privilege at the door" things I am afraid. Many people can not simply travel when it comes to abortion. They can not afford the time, the time off work, the money, the loss of earnings, or much more. Many people already have children they can not simply leave. And many people do not want to face such a journey alone, or an abortion alone, and so want.... nay need.... to take someone with them. Which doubles all the issues I list above.

Further those people who seek an abortion for other reasons during an otherwise wanted pregnancy, often find those reasons preclude ease of travel. If there is a medical issue for example the last thing one wants, and often the last think one is capable of, is travel.

Worse, if there are any complications from the abortion the woman in question might be en route back to Ireland and therefore in no position to seek medical advice. Or they might BE back in Ireland when the complications occur.... and have to go to a doctor who knows nothing of the medical history and events involved.

Perhaps you simply popped over to London or something sometime in your life for a concert or some such. I know I did many times, especially in college when I saw 9 david gray gigs in 7 days around the entire UK for example. But I know my privilege and I know it does not compare to the hardships of others. And just because a jaunt to london is simple for me, I do not assume it is for others with entirely different medical, ethical, financial, familial, and resource concerns in play. So you shouldn't either.

Perhaps I worked there for two years, I found parts of London very racist, intolerant and indeed troublesome for Irish immigrants.
Racism was rife in it in my experience.

nozzferrahhtoo

Edward M wrote: »

Perhaps I worked there for two years, I found parts of London very racist, intolerant and indeed troublesome for Irish immigrants.
Racism was rife in it in my experience.

So I guess you can add that also to the list of reasons why it is not as simple as "Ah sure ya just have to travel a bit" as a response to the concerns of which we speak.

Edward M wrote: »

But that's intolerance, that still exists, abortion won't change that.

On the contrary. Giving people more autonomy and choices over their own situations very much does help them in combating, dealing with, or even ending forms of intolerance.

ohnonotgmail

markodaly wrote: »

We amended the Constitution to get rid of capital punishment, did we not? See Criminal law.

Most of our human rights legalisation has been imported from the EU, we have had no say in it.

markodaly wrote: »

Em, yes we did.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twenty-first_Amendment_of_the_Constitution_of_Ireland

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

i stand corrected.

I'm going to row back on this because my memory of the 21st amendment was a little hazy. The 21st amendment did not get rid of capital punishment. There was no constitutional amendment required to get rid of capital punishment. Capital punishment had already been abolished in 1990 by statute. The 21st amendment prevents the government from reintoducing capital punishment.

ohnonotgmail

Edward M wrote: »

But why, I mean where did they come from?
I had a child with my first partner in the 80s, in rural Cavan, we lived together for 4 years after the child was born, we had no problems or our daughter either.
I really would like to know where in this wasn't possible at that time?

dublin 1987. My sister was pressurised to get married by both families to get married when she became pregnant. Just because it didnt happen to you it is willfully ignorant to think it didnt happen to others.

Edward M

Aborting babies doesent end intolerance.
Intolerance is a systemic societal failure, the need for abortion is one too.
I know plenty single mothers, I don't know one I've ever heard of being ostracised, punished or made leave where she is from because of it.
I think a lot are making out that the attitudes in Ireland are still the same as the last century to suit their argument.
What part of Ireland are you posters referring to here, I know that is not the case where I live anymore anyway.

amdublin

In 1985 (dublin) my aunt went home and told her parents (my grandparents) she was pregnant. First she was asked when's the wedding. Second she was driven down to the church to meet with the parish priest.

*This isn't about abortion. Just an illustration of the Ireland not too long back

Edit.
Ps. My aunt went on to not marry the father, and have my cousin. With a lot of support from.siblings. My grandparents finally came round to the little baby.

nozzferrahhtoo

Edward M wrote: »

Aborting babies doesent end intolerance.

No one said it does. Read what I wrote again. I will use underline to help you parse it this time:

Giving people more autonomy and choices over their own situations very much does help them in combating, dealing with, or even ending forms of intolerance.

Intolerance, like bullying, is often exercised on easy and/or visible targets. Like Minorities. The more choice and autonomy an individual, or group, have the more tools they have to combat, and sometimes even end, that dynamic.

Edward M wrote: »

I know plenty single mothers, I don't know one I've ever heard of being ostracised, punished or made leave where she is from because of it.

They say anecdote is not evidence. I would say a LACK of anecdote is even less so. Just because no one YOU know has suffered this dynamic does not mean no one ever does. I myself have positive anecdote of it, even if you do not. But I tend to offer anecdote to describe evidence, never AS evidence.

Edward M

I'm not offering it as evidence, I'm just conversing.

Edward M

amdublin wrote: »

In 1985 (dublin) my aunt went home and told her parents (my grandparents) she was pregnant. First she was asked when's the wedding. Second she was driven down to the church to meet with the parish priest.

*This isn't about abortion. Just an illustration of the Ireland not too long back

Edit.
Ps. My aunt went on to not marry the father, and have my cousin. With a lot of support from.siblings. My grandparents finally came round to the little baby.

I can easily understand that amdublin.
You know the way people sympathise with someone on a family death, like down here we shake their hand at the wake or at the church, we say either, sorry for your loss, or sorry for your troubles, that's just the way we do it.
When news got out at home that we were expecting our baby that time, our next door neighbours went in to my parents house at home, shook their hands and said, sorry to hear about your troubles.
My old man was a bit of a character, he just smiled and said, it was no trouble to us at all.
My mother and father weren't thrilled by the pregnancy, but never offered us anything but support, same the other side too.
I know we were lucky that way, there were two of us involved, but abortion never entered the equation, in fact the first time she told me she was pregnant my partners words were, I'm pregnant, if you don't like it tough, but I'm having the baby.

amdublin

Choice is good Edward M.

If a woman wants to continue her pregnancy (for wahtever reason) then great, if she doesnt (for whatever reason) fine. Abortion happens every day for Irish women - abroad in the UK or taking pills in unsafe circumstance (not under medical care or advice)

Abortion is a personal decision for each person to make themselves.

Let's end this farce and way of treating women once and for all.

Edward M

amdublin wrote: »

Choice is good Edward M.

If a woman wants to continue her pregnancy (for wahtever reason) then great, if she doesnt (for whatever reason) fine. Abortion happens every day for Irish women - abroad in the UK or taking pills in unsafe circumstance (not under medical care or advice)

Abortion is a personal decision for each person to make themselves.

Let's end this farce and way of treating women once and for all.

But I can't get the baby out of my head in the middle of all that.

amdublin

Edward M wrote: »

But I can't get the baby out of my head in the middle of all that.

I can't get it out of my head that you have said you will vote yes to repeal.

Yet you throw out things like this every now again (a complete and utter probirther line, let's call a spade a spade)

retro:electro

Edward M wrote: »

But I can't get the baby out of my head in the middle of all that.

The “baby” is out of your control regardless of a successful repeal or not, as many women would likely be going across the water anyway.
You can make their lives a little bit easier though by ensuring they don’t have to leave their country to seek medical help.

Edward M

amdublin wrote: »

I can't get it out of my head that you have said you will vote yes to repeal.

Yet you throw out things like this every now again (a complete and utter probirther line, let's call a spade a spade)

I know, that's the way I see it though.
I don't place the baby's right to life above or even equal to the mothers, the mothers health should always be primary, if she's raped or incestuously abused
But I do place the baby's right to life above the woman's choice if her health isn't compromised.

PhoenixParker

Edward M wrote: »

But I can't get the baby out of my head in the middle of all that.

Would you go through an 8 month procedure to donate an organ to a real live human being who won't survive without it?

For the first three months you take a pill that makes you vomit daily, feel exhausted. Your performance at work will be affected but convention is you don't tell anyone.

Then you move to a second set of medication. This results in weight gain of 10-15kg on average, causes frequent urination, difficulty sleeping, difficulty walking. You may get symptoms like not being able to walk for more than ten minutes due to hip pain, high blood pressure, diabetes which could well persist after the operation. You may end up hospitalised for days or weeks but either way you'll have frequent appointments resulting in missing work.

Then you'll go in for the operation. If you're lucky it'll go smoothly and they'll manage it by sticking a thick tube up your penis. It'll probably rip it a little but anaesthetic is discouraged. If that's not suitable you'll have major abdominal surgery and a six week driving ban. The government will pay you €270/week to cover all your expenses while you recover.

Would you do all that (and more) to save the life of a real life, living human being with a family and friends?

More importantly do you believe the government has the right to compel everybody in the country from 13 year olds to single parents struggling with young kids to go through that?

If not, why would you force someone to do it for a foetus?