The 8th amendment(Mod warning in op)

eviltwin

rainbow kirby wrote: »

In fairness, there's very little supervision needed for an early medical abortion beyond possibly making sure the pills are taken properly.

My concern is the illegality and how that might stop a woman seeking assistance if something went wrong.

Thirdfox

markodaly wrote: »

I have no idea what you mean with this.

I imagine the poster wants to say that "up to" means that's just the limit and that many/most/some/all etc. people will be procuring abortions much earlier than this limit.

Then adding in the joke about no need for waiting if not inclined.

One question I wonder about from the pro-choice side (and some of my pro-choice friends confirmed it to me) is if medical science advances forward so that a 10, 8, 6, X week old foetus is viable independently from the mother and outside of the womb would they then agree to set the limit for abortion at the new date of viability - and that one day this could well reach 0 (or human reproduction is no longer inside wombs etc. etc.) at which point abortion would be illegal per se as the foetus is independently viable from day 0.

If that is the case, this sort of limited abortion and constant rolling back of the limit as medical science improves and advances may be one I could agree to but other than that I am firmly in the "pro-life" side (the name which I find silly as I would say that no-one's anti-life but equally nor are people wrong to see it as something other than "choice").

markodaly

Thirdfox wrote: »

I imagine the poster wants to say that "up to" means that's just the limit and that many/most/some/all etc. people will be procuring abortions much earlier than this limit.

Ok, well I guess its splitting hairs but the main point still stands that the 12 week limit will be too high for many.

Thirdfox

LirW wrote: »

All these scenarios of raping a child or murdering someone are somewhat irrelevant because in the end it's a medical procedure that needs to be performed or supervised by a medical professional.
It's not the same case with smoking a joint, stabbing someone or raping a child.

The issue is that plenty of other countries in the west give the environment it needs to be safe.

That all really is comparing pears and apples.

But you stating it as a medical procedure does not make it one per se. I agree it's not the same as smoking a joint, I'd argue it is much more important than that - though in the hierarchy of importance I'd personally place it slightly under murder, above statutory rape laws and much much higher than drug classification laws. But that's just me and I am cognisant that not everyone feels the same way as I do. I'd just hope that you can also realise that not everyone feels like it's a simple medical procedure either.

Kiwi in IE

markodaly wrote: »

Abortion on demand for up to 12 weeks, too high for me personally. I would imagine many would think the same. There should be caveats to who and why you can avail of it.

Why should it have anything thing to do with who and why you can avail of it? Is your objection to abortion about 'killing babies' or not? If so, what difference does who and why make? If not, what is your objection about?

LirW

I'm really talking from a purely scientific point of view. It is a huge ethical question and this is why this topic is so loaded.
I'm somewhat detached to that because I grew up and carried my first pregnancy in a country that has abortion on demand up to 12 weeks. Since my pregnancy was unexpected you go through your options and decide what's best for yourself, I was pretty young. I chose to keep it.
My mother had an abortion when I was young, it doesn't change the way I think about her and see her.

It changes a lot if someone quite close to you had one and they're still the same lovely person, despite having their reasons for their decision.
It is so much easier to resent people we don't know for their decision to terminate a pregnancy.

I also couldn't understand when I was very young how someone could do that. Until I was in the situation to think about what's best for myself and can I support a child. Even though I decided to keep it, I was grateful that there was the option. It is a big deal and the average woman puts a lot of thought into that.

If I'd get pregnant again, despite being on a North Korean army schedule to take my BC, I wouldn't want another child. We couldn't support it the way it deserves it and it wouldn't be fair on my other 2. I'm doing my best to prevent it but it's not 100% safe.

But I don't wanna get carried away in personal anecdotes here.

NuMarvel

professore wrote: »

I agree, "other countries do it" is a poor argument.

Just as well that wasn't my argument.

Thirdfox wrote: »

Interesting - I wasn't in the country when the 13th was debated - what did people think they were voting on specifically for this wording to be added?
...
I see from the Wiki link:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thirteenth_Amendment_of_the_Constitution_of_Ireland

That the exact words of the amendment are
“This subsection shall not limit freedom to travel between the State and another state.”

This wording does not in Volchitsa's words "specifically voted to allow women to travel to terminate pregnancies".

In fact it does something quite different - it is saying that the 8th amendment does not interfere with the freedom to travel. As a result of the X case - the SC would have left the police with an unenforceable legal protection as unless you can read minds it is impossible to know why someone chooses to travel to another state.

This is quite different to what Volchitsa suggested.

I find it hard to believe that someone would suggest that the X case wasn't on people's mind when they voted on the 13th Amendment. That was the only reason we were having a referendum on the issue in the first place. Or are we to believe that it was purely coincidental that the government held a referendum on the issue of travel in the same year that the Supreme Court found the 8th could be used to prevent travel?

And the power of the 8th (pre 13th) to prevent travel clearly wasn't unenforceable; it's why there was an X Case to begin with.

baylah17

markodaly wrote: »

Abortion on demand for up to 12 weeks, too high for me personally. I would imagine many would think the same. There should be caveats to who and why you can avail of it.

There is a caveat
It's only available to women

markodaly

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

Why should it have anything thing to do with who and why you can avail of it? Is your objection to abortion about 'killing babies' or not? If so, what difference does who and why make? If not, what is your objection about?

Lots of questions there, do you want me to write a thesis to convince you or do you want to have an argument to confirm your already held beliefs?

Put simply I do not want a culture of abortion become the norm in Ireland where 25% of pregnancies are aborted which is the norm elsewhere.

Thirdfox

LirW wrote: »

All these scenarios of raping a child or murdering someone are somewhat irrelevant because in the end it's a medical procedure that needs to be performed or supervised by a medical professional.
It's not the same case with smoking a joint, stabbing someone or raping a child.

The issue is that plenty of other countries in the west give the environment it needs to be safe.

That all really is comparing pears and apples.

And just to try and give some idea of how the issue is set out from my viewpoint - I'm proud to live in a country where we have a constitutional protection eliminating the death penalty.

Abortion, in some cases, feels like a death penalty to a human entity/foetus/growth/thing (whatever label you wish to place on it) - and on one that has committed no crime other than to exist (even if people were pro-death penalty they might see a distinction here).

So while you see medical procedure, I see an unfortunate state-sanctioned destruction of a "thing" - and hey we allow state-sanctioned destruction of things, even living things like dogs and cats...but I see a difference when it's human.

Of course, my arguments go much further than this - but this is just an attempt to give you a glimpse of "how the other side" sees it. And maybe then, you can understand why actually some people (who you can still believe are mistaken) have significant reservations on abortion and don't see it as just clipping your toenails or even removing kidney stones (I'm not suggesting you view it as such but I'm trying to give you the sense of how big of a gap I see the two).

maxsmum

markodaly wrote: »

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

Why should it have anything thing to do with who and why you can avail of it? Is your objection to abortion about 'killing babies' or not? If so, what difference does who and why make? If not, what is your objection about?

Lots of questions there, do you want me to write a thesis to convince you or do you want to have an argument to confirm your already held beliefs?

Put simply I do not want a culture of abortion become the norm in Ireland where 25% of pregnancies are aborted which is the norm elsewhere.

But tough if you don't want it; let others do what they need to do for their situation.
Jesus. I don't want to live in a country where people don't know how to use alcohol responsibly or where people don't clean up dog crap but such is life, worry about your own conscience and you'll be fine.

Thirdfox

NuMarvel wrote: »

I find it hard to believe that someone would suggest that the X case wasn't on people's mind when they voted on the 13th Amendment. That was the only reason we were having a referendum on the issue in the first place. Or are we to believe that it was purely coincidental that the government held a referendum on the issue of travel in the same year that the Supreme Court found the 8th could be used to prevent travel?

And the power of the 8th (pre 13th) to prevent travel clearly wasn't unenforceable; it's why there was an X Case to begin with.

If you know about the X case then you would know that the family in question was already in England and (for some reason I cannot understand) complied with the Gardai's request to come back to Ireland. There wouldn't be an X case (but of course there would probably have been another one like it some time afterwards) if the family didn't voluntarily return to the country.

So the SC's judgment is clearly unenforceable - would the Gardai have flown over to the UK and renditioned the girl back to Ireland? You are seeing the argument you'd like to see - when it has been put forward that there are alternative interpretations of what the 13th amendment wanted to do (which is to roll back from the unenforceable SC judgment).

And nice strawman again - I would be grateful if you could point out where I suggested the X case wasn't on people's minds when voting on the 13th amendment? I wouldn't believe that either! But that's not what I said was it?

LirW

Thirdfox wrote: »

And just to try and give some idea of how the issue is set out from my viewpoint - I'm proud to live in a country where we have a constitutional protection eliminating the death penalty.

Abortion, in some cases, feels like a death penalty to a human entity/foetus/growth/thing (whatever label you wish to place on it) - and on one that has committed no crime other than to exist (even if people were pro-death penalty they might see a distinction here).

So while you see medical procedure, I see an unfortunate state-sanctioned destruction of a "thing" - and hey we allow state-sanctioned destruction of things, even living things like dogs and cats...but I see a difference when it's human.

Of course, my arguments go much further than this - but this is just an attempt to give you a glimpse of "how the other side" sees it. And maybe then, you can understand why actually some people (who you can still believe are mistaken) have significant reservations on abortion and don't see it as just clipping your toenails or even removing kidney stones (I'm not suggesting you view it as such but I'm trying to give you the sense of how big of a gap I see the two).

I do see it that this is an ethical predicament.
But unfortunately life can be a real b1tch and it is not all black and white and ponies and roses.

A lot of people that see abortion as the elimination of life will genuinely never be in the situation where you are truly desperate. Most know they have the support of family, friends and the state. But not everyone has.
For example plenty of these people won't ever be victim of domestic violence that involves complete control about ones sexuality. It's not an uncommon practice to dictate the birth control intake of the abused and get them pregnant on purpose. Twisted individuals that want pure control over someone else. You wouldn't wanna bring up a child in this environment. But could you go to the police and declare this as rape? This is where it starts to get difficult.

Other women simply don't have the cushion to fall back on. Women have mental health issues or addiction problems that could damage the unborn due to drugs and medication. The prospect for these babies is a childhood of neglect.


There is a variety of reasons why women are forced to think about this scenario and this is where it gets really difficult. A lot of people that are pro-life will very likely never find themselves in such awful situations. They know what they can fall back on and struggle to see how someone could choose to abort a child. And honestly I don't blame them a bit for their thinking.

But this is why I personally think it is very important to give all women the choice to decide against carrying a pregnancy to term. Because life isn't black and white. And you never know what's going on behind the curtain of ones relationship, personal life, health or mental health. These issues can be very complex. And while unfortunately there will be a minority of women using abortion as some form of birth control, it's a tough thing to even think about for the majority of women.

Thirdfox

maxsmum wrote: »

But tough if you don't want it; let others do what they need to do for their situation.
Jesus. I don't want to live in a country where people don't know how to use alcohol responsibly or where people don't clean up dog crap but such is life, worry about your own conscience and you'll be fine.

Again - this is why we have laws prohibiting murder and the such - because while you can choose to live with a clean conscience and never choose to kill anyone it doesn't mean you cannot/should not intervene in the prevention of others'.

I'm not equating murder and abortion here - I'm trying to help you see that your argument of "you don't do it but let others who want to go ahead" doesn't work in actual fact. The state does intervene even in situations that do not affect people personally. It is an important power and should be used sparingly but in cases of life/death I think most people would agree this is one of the areas where the state, or the populace, should have a position - be it in statutory or constitutional law.

Kiwi in IE

markodaly wrote: »

Lots of questions there, do you want me to write a thesis to convince you or do you want to have an argument to confirm your already held beliefs?

Put simply I do not want a culture of abortion become the norm in Ireland where 25% of pregnancies are aborted which is the norm elsewhere.

Do you prefer the current culture? Where abortion still happens, only women have to travel to obtain it, only the very poor or sick have no access, and every now and then a tradgedy happens, or a disgraceful situation where a woman's human rights have been breached is dragged through the European Human Rights Court, making the country look like a theocratic, misogynistic backwater on the international stage?

Annasopra

Specialun wrote: »

ah sure if its illegal then it never ever happens. my mistake. the pro abortion poster mentioned drugs too but yet you didnt pull him/her up on it..

You suggested abortion pills make abortion here accessible. That isnt true considering they are illegal.

Sweetemotion

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

You suggested abortion pills make abortion here accessible. That isnt true considering they are illegal.

The morning after pill which can be taken up to 5 days after having unprotected sex is available without prescription.

LirW

The morning after pill is not an abortion pill though. Also the effect wears off with every hour that you wait to take it.
My sister has a 3 month old morning after pill at home now. She took it literally the morning after.

Sweetemotion

Sweetemotion wrote: »

The morning after pill which can be taken up to 5 days after having unprotected sex is available without prescription.

Protection doesn't always work. If you think you're protected you're not going to take the MAP.

Sweetemotion

Flying Fox wrote: »

Protection doesn't always work. If you think you're protected you're not going to take the MAP.

If you know protection doesn't always work. Then you should know to always take the MAP

Babies don't just appear from thin air.

Specialun

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

You suggested abortion pills make abortion here accessible. That isnt true considering they are illegal.

they have access to the pills no. ie they can get them. i didnt say legally accessible

Sweetemotion

Sweetemotion wrote: »

If you know protection doesn't always work. Then you should know to always take the MAP

Babies don't just appear from thin air.

If that's a serious statement, then you really need to get yourself educated.

Contraception is generally reliable but from time to time it can fail, it's not as black and white as "well you should have taken the MAP so deal with the consequences".

Sweetemotion

Flying Fox wrote: »

If that's a serious statement, then you really need to get yourself educated.

Contraception is generally reliable but from time to time it can fail, it's not as black and white as "well you should have taken the MAP so deal with the consequences".

You've just said "Protection doesn't always work" that looks black and white to me, from your own words.

Why are all these people who don't want to get pregnant not getting pregnant?

NuMarvel

Thirdfox wrote: »

If you know about the X case then you would know that the family in question was already in England and (for some reason I cannot understand) complied with the Gardai's request to come back to Ireland.

What's hard to understand? The girl had been raped, she and her parents wanted to get an abortion, and they'd ask the Gardaí if doing so would jeopardise any criminal case. It's completely understandable why they'd comply with the Gardaí in that instance.

Thirdfox wrote: »

So the SC's judgment is clearly unenforceable

We must have different definitions of clearly, because you haven't shown that at all. The relevant SC judgement was that the 8th could be used to prevent travel. How have you shown that this judgement was "clearly unenforceable"?

LirW

Because in most cases BC works. But with every single method there is a small percentage that it won't work.
Pearl index gives you an example of how many couples out of hundred got pregnant using a particular kind of BC in the course of a year.
The normal combination pill is set between 0.1 and 1. That means between 1 in 1000 and 1 in 100 will get pregnant despite taking the pill.

Now how many couples are there in Ireland?

Consonata

Sweetemotion wrote: »

You've just said "Protection doesn't always work" that looks black and white to me, from your own words.

Why are all these people who don't want to get pregnant not getting pregnant?

Because contraception does have a high level of protection. It just doesn't always work. Condoms split/aren't put on properly. Pill can sometimes be ineffective.

markodaly

maxsmum wrote: »

But tough if you don't want it; let others do what they need to do for their situation.
Jesus. I don't want to live in a country where people don't know how to use alcohol responsibly or where people don't clean up dog crap but such is life, worry about your own conscience and you'll be fine.

Would your conscience be fine if we still had state sanctioned death penalty or corporal punishment? I honestly do not get this line of argument. That anyone is concerned about a topic, they are told to not worry as you can live in your own silo'd reality and forget about the outside world. Its really a way to tell others shut up.

Many people will be concerned over how we legislate for the 8th amendment. If you find that un-settling, tough, take your own advice and worry about your own conscience and you will be fine.

Thirdfox

LirW wrote: »

I'm really talking from a purely scientific point of view...It is so much easier to resent people we don't know for their decision to terminate a pregnancy.

A lot of people that see abortion as the elimination of life will genuinely never be in the situation where you are truly desperate. Most know they have the support of family, friends and the state. But not everyone has.
For example plenty of these people won't ever be victim of domestic violence that involves complete control about ones sexuality. It's not an uncommon practice to dictate the birth control intake of the abused and get them pregnant on purpose. Twisted individuals that want pure control over someone else. You wouldn't wanna bring up a child in this environment. But could you go to the police and declare this as rape? This is where it starts to get difficult.

But this is why I personally think it is very important to give all women the choice to decide against carrying a pregnancy to term. Because life isn't black and white. And you never know what's going on behind the curtain of ones relationship, personal life, health or mental health. These issues can be very complex. And while unfortunately there will be a minority of women using abortion as some form of birth control, it's a tough thing to even think about for the majority of women.

And I too have tried to look at it from a scientific (with a humanist bent) view - spiritual doesn't fact in the argument at all in my household. The scientific view is one that throws up 1 of my 2 key problems with abortion - that of imposing an arbitrary limit on the availability of abortions. As I've posted on the humanities side of boards (I'm not usually found perusing AH to be honest!) while as a lawyer, I understand the need for arbitrary time limits on certain activities - drinking age, driving age, voting age, age of consent etc. for human life - I find this arbitrariness highly troubling. Why is a 12 week 0 day 0 hour 0 minute 1 second foetus "unabortable"? What has intrinsically changed from 1 second ago that made this "thing" deserving of legal protection and not 1 second ago? For the drinking age - you can say bad luck, come back next year when you're old enough...for the time of determining when life is deserving of legal protections how do we decide, what are the distinctions (other than arbitrary) and do I trust the Irish politicians to be able to make that decision?

If there are people who resent others for getting an abortion then I feel sorry for them - why spend energy resenting someone when you could channel that energy into helping others and being constructive. Another thing I generally find myself in agreement with with pro-choicers is that we all want to minimise abortions as much as we can.

Just as with rape cases (which other posters rightly point out some "pro-lifers" seem to make an exception for) I did consider the pain and anguish a mother would go through giving birth to a baby caused by a heinous criminal act. But, and this is the humanist side of things, the crime is committed by the rapist, and not of the child. I can't see how someone can square the circle of allowing abortions in rape cases but not in "normal" cases - it's either all or nothing. Either the act itself is wrong or it's not and should be freely available.

And I would turn this around and ask - why set the limit at 12 weeks? If abortion should be freely available why not 24 weeks? 28 weeks? 35 weeks? There is a reason why 2nd trimester seems to be the max in most countries - but this goes back to point 1 of the arbitrary time limits. So 24 week 1 second is "unabortable" but 23 weeks 6 days is fine etc.

I work in law - I know that unfortunately life isn't perfect, and that black and white doesn't describe the world we live in. But on something as intrinsic as human life, its genesis and meaning/value in the end I've got to make the call that I feel is right.

Of course, criminals should be prosecuted - and mothers should be helped make a potentially difficult choice of either raising a child or putting the child up for adoption if unable or unwilling to care for it. It is my understanding that Irish couples adopt babies from abroad because of a severe shortage of Irish babies being put up for adoption. I personally would never resent anyone for feeling like abortion is an only choice, but I would perhaps try and persuade them to see that abortion is (to my knowledge) never the only choice.

My 2nd key problem with abortion (and something tangentially touched on in your post) is the lack of father's rights when it comes to abortion and the decision to abort. To my (admittedly limited) knowledge on this aspect of abortion law, no country currently takes into account the wishes of the father when deciding if a child is to be aborted or not. And now I would ask you to consider the same thing as you stated above - you may not know of a father who would wish to keep a child after the mother decides to abort it but would that make his pain any less in such a case? I am quite certain that if abortion is legalised in Ireland that it would not break new ground in this area and abortion will be solely at the choice of the person carrying the child. Perhaps you would argue that this is the correct legal view the state should take but I would not agree. To me, if I had a child with someone and knowing that prior to 12/24/X weeks they could decide to abort it without any consent required by myself feels abhorrent. If it's about the balance of responsibility/pain/suffering - surely my rights as a father who is willing to raise a child as a single father should be taken somewhat into account when choosing if a child is to be kept or not? It isn't in any country that I know of (but I'd be happy to be informed otherwise - here's a quick Wiki result - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paternal_rights_and_abortion#Men_and_abortion_in_law ) and of course there is a potentially huge argument for whether fathers should have any rights over their foetuses in the first instance.

So, without being happy with 1. the arbitrary/fictitious time limit of humanity (this is the major concern for me) and 2. the paternal rights issue (the minor concern) I cannot see myself voting to legalise abortion in Ireland.

Kiwi in IE

Sweetemotion wrote: »

You've just said "Protection doesn't always work" that looks black and white to me, from your own words.

Why are all these people who don't want to get pregnant not getting pregnant?

Car brakes don't always work either, but it'd be a bit silly to blame someone who'd been in an accident because of failed brakes and say "well you should have taken the bus this morning".

nice_guy80

great

gives women the choice, hopefully

simple as

markodaly

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

Do you prefer the current culture? Where abortion still happens, only women have to travel to obtain it, only the very poor or sick have no access, and every now and then a tradgedy happens, or a disgraceful situation where a woman's human rights have been breached is dragged through the European Human Rights Court, making the country look like a theocratic, misogynistic backwater on the international stage?

Oh great. Yes, let us worry what others think of us first and foremost. Yes, that should be the primary issue here. When people use words like theocratic, misogynistic backwater to describe Ireland they lose the argument from the get go.

Also, highly ironic coming from a Kiwi, as big a backwater one cannot compare to.

Sweetemotion

Sweetemotion wrote: »

You've just said "Protection doesn't always work" that looks black and white to me, from your own words.

Why are all these people who don't want to get pregnant not getting pregnant?

Because protection works the vast majority of the time.

Take an example of a woman on the pill, in a relationship and having sex around twice a week. You're suggesting she should take the MAP every time she has sex just because there is slight chance her contraception will fail. A slight chance means roughly 1% chance of failure over the course of a year. Do you have any idea how unsafe it would be to take the MAP eight times a month? Or should she just keep her legs closed, wait til marriage and then pump out a baby a year til the menopause?

Consonata

Thirdfox wrote: »

And I too have tried to look at it from a scientific (with a humanist bent) view - spiritual doesn't fact in the argument at all in my household. The scientific view is one that throws up 1 of my 2 key problems with abortion - that of imposing an arbitrary limit on the availability of abortions. As I've posted on the humanities side of boards (I'm not usually found perusing AH to be honest!) while as a lawyer, I understand the need for arbitrary time limits on certain activities - drinking age, driving age, voting age, age of consent etc. for human life - I find this arbitrariness highly troubling. Why is a 12 week 0 day 0 hour 0 minute 1 second foetus "unabortable"? What has intrinsically changed from 1 second ago that made this "thing" deserving of legal protection and not 1 second ago? For the drinking age - you can say bad luck, come back next year when you're old enough...for the time of determining when life is deserving of legal protections how do we decide, what are the distinctions (other than arbitrary) and do I trust the Irish politicians to be able to make that decision?

Because we need to set arbitrary time limits in order to legislate effectively. For the age to vote for example, nothing meaningful has changed between 17 and 18. Its just thats the time when you can vote.

As a Lawyer, How do you propose to legislate for abortion if not by an arbitrary time limit?

Thirdfox

NuMarvel wrote: »

What's hard to understand? The girl had been raped, she and her parents wanted to get an abortion, and they'd ask the Gardaf doing so would jeopardise any criminal case. It's completely understandable why they'd comply with the Gardan that instance.



We must have different definitions of clearly, because you haven't shown that at all. The relevant SC judgement was that the 8th could be used to prevent travel. How have you shown that this judgement was "clearly unenforceable"?

What's hard to understand? The girl was in the UK already - the Gardai had no power to make her return to Ireland.

We must have different definitions of clearly indeed - isn't the fact that the X case came up a clear example that the 8th amendment (as understood by the SC in the X case) is unenforceable? The girl had already travelled to the UK so how does this show anything other than the unenforceability of the SC's interpretation of the 8th amendment?

The 8th didn't prevent the girl from travelling to the UK and the X case only went up to the SC because the family travelled back to Ireland voluntarily. Is it clearer to you now?

Sweetemotion

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

Car brakes don't always work either, but it'd be a bit silly to blame someone who'd been in an accident because of failed brakes and say "well you should have taken the bus this morning".

That's just being ridiculous.

Sweetemotion

Sweetemotion wrote: »

That's just being ridiculous.

It's really not. Suggesting the use of emergency contraception on a regular basis is though.

Sweetemotion

Flying Fox wrote: »

Because protection works the vast majority of the time.

Take an example of a woman on the pill, in a relationship and having sex around twice a week. You're suggesting she should take the MAP every time she has sex just because there is slight chance her contraception will fail. A slight chance means roughly 1% chance of failure over the course of a year. Do you have any idea how unsafe it would be to take the MAP eight times a month? Or should she just keep her legs closed, wait til marriage and then pump out a baby a year til the menopause?

If you don't want to get pregnant so much there are plenty of ways to still have fun and produce no life and if there is doubt. Then take the MAP.

Kiwi in IE

Sweetemotion wrote: »

That's just being ridiculous.

Just as ridiculous as saying that a pregnant woman who had used contraception that failed, should have taken the morning after pill if she didn't want to be pregnant, even though she likely didn't know that the contraception had failed until she did the pregnancy test.

Consonata

Sweetemotion wrote: »

That's just being ridiculous.

Morning after pill only has 70% effectiveness if taken the Morning After so clearly it is possible to still be pregnant even after that.

And you don't always realise in every case that the contraception didn't work. Sometimes **** happens and its void.

Annasopra

Specialun wrote: »

they have access to the pills no. ie they can get them. i didnt say legally accessible

Yeah and then throw them in Jail? For upto 14 years?

Sweetemotion

Flying Fox wrote: »

It's really not. Suggesting the use of emergency contraception on a regular basis is though.

It is. I'm not driving my car in the morning knowing my brakes are defective.

That would be stupid.

Kiwi in IE

Sweetemotion wrote: »

It is. I'm not driving my car in the morning knowing my brakes are defective.

That would be stupid.

People are not using contraception knowing it will fail either.

Sweetemotion

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

Just as ridiculous as saying that a pregnant woman who had used contraception that failed, should have taken the morning after pill if she didn't want to be pregnant, even though she likely didn't know that the contraception had failed until she did the pregnancy test.

If I had known my brake line could have been the night before, do you think I would trust the brakes?

Would you?

Consonata

Sweetemotion wrote: »

If I had known my brake line could have been the night before, do you think I would trust the brakes?

Would you?

The point is you don't know if its been broken.

Sweetemotion

Sweetemotion wrote: »

It is. I'm not driving my car in the morning knowing my brakes are defective.

That would be stupid.

As has already been pointed out by several posters on this thread, you won't know contraception will fail before you have sex. In the case of the pill, you won't know until weeks later when your period doesn't arrive. Seriously, how is this so hard to understand?

Sweetemotion

Consonata wrote: »

The point is you don't know if its been broken.

The point is I know it could have because of something I did.

Consonata

Flying Fox wrote: »

Seriously, how is this so hard to understand?

I believe the phrase is selective understanding.

Annasopra

Thirdfox wrote: »

What's hard to understand? The girl was in the UK already - the Gardai had no power to make her return to Ireland.

We must have different definitions of clearly indeed - isn't the fact that the X case came up a clear example that the 8th amendment (as understood by the SC in the X case) is unenforceable? The girl had already travelled to the UK so how does this show anything other than the unenforceability of the SC's interpretation of the 8th amendment?

The 8th didn't prevent the girl from travelling to the UK and the X case only went up to the SC because the family travelled back to Ireland voluntarily. Is it clearer to you now?

What?

Are you not fully aware of the X Case at all?

Consonata

Sweetemotion wrote: »

The point is I know it could have because of something I did.

You do realise you cannot take the MAP after every sexual activity. That isn't remotely healthy.

Thirdfox

Consonata wrote: »

Because we need to set arbitrary time limits in order to legislate effectively. For the age to vote for example, nothing meaningful has changed between 17 and 18. Its just thats the time when you can vote.

As a Lawyer, How do you propose to legislate for abortion if not by an arbitrary time limit?

You see that I addressed the age to vote time limit arbitrariness in my paragraph already? Mainly goes back to - missed the voting age by a day - the world isn't going to end (in all likelihood)...missed the abortion cut off date by a day/week/whatever leeway they give it - it could be the end of the foetus (or not).

No need for a capital L in lawyer - the profession isn't a proper noun - and indeed the only alternative to arbitariness is an even more unappealing subjectiveness i.e. at the discretion of the consulting physician or by some other arbitrary "human" definition - has the foetal heart started beating, brain activity etc.

But you may have missed my point which is I cannot distinguish when a human should be legally protected from abortion and when it should not - and that is one of the main reasons I am unable to vote for its legalisation.

And I should clarify - abortion obviously is already legal in Ireland (under the terms of the X case), but I currently cannot support the expansion of abortion.