The 8th amendment(Mod warning in op)

Sweetemotion

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Post-independence for 40-ish years we tried the economic policy of having poor people give birth to as many children as possible and far more than they wanted or could reasonably support.

It didn't work well.

Now we get to it.

You don't want poor people.

And a catholic bash :rolleyes:

Doctor Jimbob

Sweetemotion wrote: »

That's genocide. People see that as a good thing?

Ah yeah, it's genocide, thats not hyperbole at all.

markodaly wrote: »

A great argument for abortion, sure we cant support them all.

:rolleyes:

Do you always see things in such black and white terms?

end of the road

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

Ah yeah, it's genocide, thats not hyperbole at all.



Do you always see things in such black and white terms?

it is black and white when it comes to abortion on demand.

Hotblack Desiato

Sweetemotion wrote: »

Now we get to it.

You don't want poor people.

And a catholic bash :rolleyes:

I want people to STOP being poor. So yes there will be no more poor people if we allow them to climb out of poverty.

One of the best ways of stopping people being poor is allowing them to control their fertility.

We have seen this in our own society and we see it all over the world.

The catholic church wants to prevent this, yet claims to promote both human dignity and environmental protection. There is no dignity in popping out a child every year when you don't want to, especially if you cannot afford to feed, clothe and educate them. The environment cannot continue to sustain uncontrolled human population growth. It doesn't compute, but then again, this is a religion we are talking about.

And yes it's perfectly justified to point out the damage that the catholic church has done and is (trying) to continue to do to our society. The RC church was the only church which campaigned for the 8th amendment so it's entirely on topic for this thread.

markodaly

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

Do you always see things in such black and white terms?

Excuse me but your the one of stated that we cannot support more people as they will be a burden.
If the pro choice people have to go down a dystopian future argument akin to Logans run and population control, then they are deeply in trouble to convince people of backing their side.

Doctor Jimbob

end of the road wrote: »

it is black and white when it comes to abortion on demand.

Is it? What if a parent knows they can't support a child, either emotionally, financially, or both? What if someone just doesn't want kids? Don't those people have a right to a happy life as well? If not, do we ban birth control as well? That's also eliminating a potential chance at life, albeit at an earlier stage. Why draw the line?

Again, if my own partner were considering an abortion, I'd really prefer if they didn't go ahead with it. But it's not up to me to make that decision, not alone at least, and it's most certainly not up to me to make that decision for anyone I don't even know.

Hotblack Desiato

markodaly wrote: »

Excuse me but your the one of stated that we cannot support more people as they will be a burden.
If the pro choice people have to go down a dystopian future argument akin to Logans run and population control, then they are deeply in trouble to convince people of backing their side.

So your actual argument is against contraception. Welcome to 1972.

Doctor Jimbob

markodaly wrote: »

Excuse me but your the one of stated that we cannot support more people as they will be a burden.
If the pro choice people have to go down a dystopian future argument akin to Logans run and population control, then they are deeply in trouble to convince people of backing their side.

My point was that people NOW consider less well-off people a burden. I'm not saying I personally consider anyone a burden, or that we shouldnt do our utmost to support anyone who needs it.

If the pro-life crowd have to resort to implying my inane ramblings about potential future scenarios are in any way the main argument of pro-choice people in general, they're in plenty of trouble themselves.

markodaly

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

I want people to STOP being poor. So yes there will be no more poor people if we allow them to climb out of poverty.

One of the best ways of stopping people being poor is allowing them to control their fertility.

We have seen this in our own society and we see it all over the world.

Have we? Abortion makes people richer? Why then are the same poor class of people having abortions. African Americans have for decades have always had higher abortion rates, and most crucially still do to this day. If they have been having more abortions why are they still poorer than the rest of American society? Does not compute.

Poor poor shoddy argument. Also you know you just admitted that abortion is another piece of contraceptive.

markodaly

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

So your actual argument is against contraception. Welcome to 1972.

No, that was the Dr.'s argument. Can't afford more people so better abort them.

Sweetemotion

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

I want people to STOP being poor. So yes there will be no more poor people if we allow them to climb out of poverty.

One of the best ways of stopping people being poor is allowing them to control their fertility.

We have seen this in our own society and we see it all over the world.

The catholic church wants to prevent this, yet claims to promote both human dignity and environmental protection. There is no dignity in popping out a child every year when you don't want to, especially if you cannot afford to feed, clothe and educate them. The environment cannot continue to sustain uncontrolled human population growth. It doesn't compute, but then again, this is a religion we are talking about.

And yes it's perfectly justified to point out the damage that the catholic church has done and is (trying) to continue to do to our society. The RC church was the only church which campaigned for the 8th amendment so it's entirely on topic for this thread.

Posters like this is what is really harming the pro-choice side.

Signature, A picture of repeal, location repeal. Blame the Catholic Church and then make it a class issue about poor people.

Most people don't give a feck about the church. Never have and never will, it's the class issue that gets to people. Most people in Ireland grew up poor and know what it like to be hungry through no fault of the own and trying their best to put food on the table in the 70's and 80's and now we are finally getting through the latest recession. Jumped up little fecks looking to be cool who never went hungry and now want to control their fertility?

I bet you wouldn't wouldn't dare say that about any other race, religion or creed other than the poor Irish.

Doctor Jimbob

markodaly wrote: »

No, that was the Dr.'s argument. Can't afford more people so better abort them.

:rolleyes:

end of the road

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

I want people to STOP being poor. So yes there will be no more poor people if we allow them to climb out of poverty.

One of the best ways of stopping people being poor is allowing them to control their fertility.

We have seen this in our own society and we see it all over the world.

The catholic church wants to prevent this, yet claims to promote both human dignity and environmental protection. There is no dignity in popping out a child every year when you don't want to, especially if you cannot afford to feed, clothe and educate them. The environment cannot continue to sustain uncontrolled human population growth. It doesn't compute, but then again, this is a religion we are talking about.

And yes it's perfectly justified to point out the damage that the catholic church has done and is (trying) to continue to do to our society. The RC church was the only church which campaigned for the 8th amendment so it's entirely on topic for this thread.

people are able to control their fertility. they just aren't able to kill their babies legally in ireland, which is a good thing. what the catholic church believes is what they believe, it has nothing to do with the views of many of us . however, if they support environmental protection, then not supporting baby killing doesn't negate that support. the population control argument is a nonsense argument, as population control happens naturally without baby killing. there is no uncontroled population growth.

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

Is it? What if a parent knows they can't support a child, either emotionally, financially, or both? What if someone just doesn't want kids? Don't those people have a right to a happy life as well? If not, do we ban birth control as well? That's also eliminating a potential chance at life, albeit at an earlier stage. Why draw the line?

Again, if my own partner were considering an abortion, I'd really prefer if they didn't go ahead with it. But it's not up to me to make that decision, not alone at least, and it's most certainly not up to me to make that decision for anyone I don't even know.

there is adoption. or if they really want to kill their baby they can hop to england. in terms of abortion on demand ireland doesn't need to meet that need. it does need to meet the need to have an abortion in extreme circumstances where someone's life is at stake or in the cases where the baby will sadly die anyway.

Doctor Jimbob

Funny how defensive people who don't care about the catholic church get when legitimate criticisms of the church are brought up.

markodaly

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

Funny how defensive people who don't care about the catholic church get when legitimate criticisms of the church are brought up.

There will come a day one day soon that you will not be able to blame the church for the latest fashionable cause. I wonder what will people do then.

Doctor Jimbob

end of the road wrote: »

there is adoption. or if they really want to kill their baby they can hop to england. in terms of abortion on demand ireland doesn't need to meet that need. it does need to meet the need to have an abortion in extreme circumstances where someone's life is at stake or in the cases where the baby will sadly die anyway.

I don't entirely disagree with you, to be fair. I just think we should save people the stress of going to England to do something that's stressful enough for them to begin with. I'd honestly prefer if abortion was once used in extreme circumstances as well, i just don't feel it's my place to judge if someone wants one for other reasons.

Doctor Jimbob

markodaly wrote: »

There will come a day one day soon that you will not be able to blame the church for the latest fashionable cause. I wonder what will people do then.

What are people blaming the church for that isn't the church's fault here?

I'm sure people will blame whoever is to blame. Just like they're doing now.

Sweetemotion

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

What are people blaming the church for that isn't the church's fault here?

I'm sure people will blame whoever is to blame. Just like they're doing now.

You're blaming the church when there is no church there.

end of the road

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

I don't entirely disagree with you, to be fair. I just think we should save people the stress of going to England to do something that's stressful enough for them to begin with. I'd honestly prefer if abortion was once used in extreme circumstances as well, i just don't feel it's my place to judge if someone wants one for other reasons.

they are only going to england. it's not my country's job to save people the stress of killing their baby because it's inconvenient.

Doctor Jimbob

end of the road wrote: »

they are only going to england. it's not my country's job to save people the stress of killing their baby because it's inconvenient.

But if they're going to do it anyway, surely they should be able to get medical care in their own country?

kylith

markodaly wrote: »

Some research says 12 weeks, some say as early as 8, some say at 20 weeks. The fact remains a baby in the womb can feel pain.

You appear to have misunderstood the research. Pain receptors are present in the body from around 8 weeks, however they are not connected to the brain and therefore the fetus can't actually feel pain. It's like if you get a DVD player: you can put as many discs in it as you want, but until you plug it into your TV you won't be watching any movies.

Sweetemotion wrote: »

That source is very weak.

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/05/us/utah-abortion-law-fetal-anesthesia.html

But many doctors reject those claims, saying a fetus’s brain and nervous system are not developed at 20 weeks to feel pain. They cite a wide-ranging 2005 study that found a fetus was unlikely to feel pain until the third trimester of a pregnancy, or about 27 weeks. The American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists said in 2013 that no subsequent research had contradicted that study.

(emphasis mine)

Here's that study: https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/201429

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1440624/

These observations suggest thalamic projections into the cortical plate are the minimal necessary anatomy for pain experience. These projections are complete at 23 weeks' gestation.

Heck, even US anti choice groups say 20 weeks:

the research of Dr. Kanwaljeet “Sunny” Anand, a University of Tennessee professor of pediatrics, anesthesiology, and neurobiology who has promoted the idea that 20 weeks post-conception is the point when a fetus begins to feel pain. His work, which has been the go-to resource for anti-abortion groups,

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/06/science-house-abortion-ban-fetal-pain/

But I'm sure you can post some links to demonstrate how the study accepted by the American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists is 'weak'.

end of the road

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

But if they're going to do it anyway, surely they should be able to get medical care in their own country?

not an abortion on demand no . abortion on demand is not medical care. if something goes wrong due to the abortion then of course we have an obligation to provide care for that but if you want an abortion on demand then we have no obligation to provide it as far as i'm concerned. we have an obligation to provide one only where the mother's life is under threat or where the baby is sadly going to pass away anyway.

markodaly

kylith wrote: »

You appear to have misunderstood the research.
.

. For the first time it was demonstrated that the human fetal stress response was attenuated by the administration of a narcotic. Long-term effects of fetal stress have also been described. Independent groups have implicated fetal stress to exaggerated pain responses in eight week-old infants and have also implicated the fetal stress response as a contributor to pre-term labor.

No, you dont understand basic reading.

uptherebels

markodaly wrote: »

Nope, that article is taking one doctors word on it, seems he as no research published on the matter and is just pushing an agenda.

Meanwhile, peer reviewed research, states that babies can feel pain.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2900087/

did you read the article?
It says baby only twice in the article as far as i can tell. and in both instances referring to a baby that has been born. It says pain only once which is the part you quoted, when talking about an 8 week old infant.

fetal stress doesn't mean pain

Doctor Jimbob

end of the road wrote: »

not an abortion on demand no . abortion on demand is not medical care. if something goes wrong due to the abortion then of course we have an obligation to provide care for that but if you want an abortion on demand then we have no obligation to provide it as far as i'm concerned. we have an obligation to provide one only where the mother's life is under threat or where the baby is sadly going to pass away anyway.

What if the parent(s) can't afford to look after a child? Or aren't mentally/emotionally in a position to do so? I realise adoption is an option, but I think it's unnecessarily cruel to the mother to force her to go through the pregnancy only to have to give it up at the end of it. You're acting as if people choosing to have an abortion are doing so on a whim, but I'm sure for most people who do it's a difficult, often heart wrenching choice.

Why does the unborn get consideration over everyone else involved here? I know this can seem like a cold hearted argument, but can you not see how the pro-life position can seem cold in it's own way? The feelings of the parents don't matter at all to some people,it seems.

I think there's a middle ground between medical emergencies and "abortion on demand" as you put it. I also think most people seeking abortions fall somewhere in that middle ground. Maybe I'm giving the average person too much credit, but that's genuinely how I see it.

end of the road

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

What if the parent(s) can't afford to look after a child? Or aren't mentally/emotionally in a position to do so? I realise adoption is an option, but I think it's unnecessarily cruel to the mother to force her to go through the pregnancy only to have to give it up at the end of it. You're acting as if people choosing to have an abortion are doing so on a whim, but I'm sure for most people who do it's a difficult, often heart wrenching choice.

Why does the unborn get consideration over everyone else involved here? I know this can seem like a cold hearted argument, but can you not see how the pro-life position can seem cold in it's own way? The feelings of the parents don't matter at all to some people,it seems.

I think there's a middle ground between medical emergencies and "abortion on demand" as you put it. I also think most people seeking abortions fall somewhere in that middle ground. Maybe I'm giving the average person too much credit, but that's genuinely how I see it.

both positions will be cold to an extent. it ultimately depends on which one believes to be the worst case to allow. for me allowing the killing of the unborn bar extreme circumstances is a no no . it may cause other problems and i'm sure that is unfortunate for the person concerned but ultimately the life and the right to life of the unborn has to be protected bar extreme circumstances. i would class most abortions as abortion on demand really.

Hotblack Desiato

Sweetemotion wrote: »

Blame the Catholic Church and then make it a class issue about poor people.

You either did not read, did not comprehend, or chose to ignore what I posted. But well done on the senseless irrelevant rant.

Hotblack Desiato

markodaly wrote: »

Have we? Abortion makes people richer? Why then are the same poor class of people having abortions. African Americans have for decades have always had higher abortion rates, and most crucially still do to this day. If they have been having more abortions why are they still poorer than the rest of American society? Does not compute.

Poor poor shoddy argument. Also you know you just admitted that abortion is another piece of contraceptive.

Fertility control absolutely does make people richer. The best way to achieve this is through early and adequate sex education, followed up by widespread (preferably free of charge) access to contraception.

If you want to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies, and hence abortions - and who doesn't? I do - then you should be all for the above.

Zubeneschamali

markodaly wrote: »

Also, its too wide as someone can get an abortion for any reason.

Just like today, then, unless you're in prison or hospital or another institution or on a dodgy visa and can't travel.

Zubeneschamali

end of the road wrote: »

i'm afraid that can't happen as the unborn life has a right to live and a right to be protected from harm.

Not for long.

Zubeneschamali

Sweetemotion wrote: »

Now we get to it.

You don't want poor people.

And a catholic bash :rolleyes:

If you want to boost catholic numbers, abortion would be great - the good catholics will breed like rabbits, and everyone else will be aborting like nobodies business.

In a few years, there'll be no-one left but good catholics!

Of course, we'll be joining Great Poland, but hey.

nozzferrahhtoo

Edward M wrote: »

The I'm right you're wrong attitude is always too prevalent in these type of debates.

I for one have no intention to pedal an "I am right and you are wrong" attitude to discussions such as this. But I DO try to distinguish heavily between people who are asserting their positions, and people who argue and substantiate their positions. I always attempt to do the latter, and there is nothing "shady" about anything I wrote.

end of the road wrote: »

however there is an unborn life who will receive the full effect of the decisian to have an abortion by having their life taken and their right to life removed against their will, so full bodily autonomy can't be given in that circumstance as it's not the actual body being effected but the unborn life inside.

The problem is that you have not yet sat down and argued how and why it even has a "right to life" in the first place. You appear to just want us all to take it on faith that it does. But alas taking things on faith is not in my genetic make up.

I have discussed the concept of rights at length on this and similar threads, and what they are, where they come from, the the basis we have for assigning them to something. And so far all the attributes for assigning it I, and others, have tabled have been things the fetus at 12/16 weeks simply lacks entirely.

markodaly wrote: »

Babies in the womb can feel pain, that is an indisputable fact.

At what stages? around 98% of abortions by choice alone happen in or before week 16. There is no reason to think there is anyone there TO feel pain at that stage, let alone that they actually do.

Having seen you fall over yourself to accuse others of not being able to read, I am not clear that you even read the links you yourself cited. Nowhere in it is it talking about a baby at 12 weeks gestation "feeling pain". Least of all during an abortion.

Rather what such research suggests is that the response of the fetus to stimuli (including pain stimulus) results in a "stress" that has longer term implications as the fetus develops. Nothing is "feeling" the pain, but if the fetus continues to develop after such stimulus it will have implications.

However with abortion not only is nothing there "feeling the pain", but clearly the longer term implications of the effects of stress on the fetus are rather irrelevant doncha think?

volchitsa

markodaly wrote: »

kylith wrote: »

Exactly. A corpse has more right to bodily autonomy than a woman who has become pregnant.

A fetus is not capable of making a decision because it is not fully alive. It has no will to go against. The only will that should matter is that of the woman who is pregnant: the sentient one capable of expressing desires and being affected.

Babies in the womb can feel pain, that is an indisputable fact.

If that is so, why does nobody ever suggest pain relief for babies during birth? My youngest suffered shoulder dystocia through being badly positioned and the midwife having to drag him round as he was actually coming out. He had to have physiotherapy when he was small, thankfully he's grand, but some children have been left with a paralysed arm.  
I was told it couldn't have hurt him because they are sort of anaesthetized by hormones while in the womb - was I lied to?
If so, why have none of the scientists who are supposed to have shown that fetuses can feel pain long before term even wondered about possible pain in babies being born? It doesn't seem like they care. Could that be because it's just more pro-life lies?

splinter65

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Not for long.

Dropped by, saw this, poster literally chomping at the bit to get the abortion machine cranked up, mouth watering, heart thumping with anticipation.
Words fail me.

Zubeneschamali

splinter65 wrote: »

Dropped by, saw this, poster literally chomping at the bit to get the abortion machine cranked up, mouth watering, heart thumping with anticipation.
Words fail me.

Reading comprehension, too.

mrkiscool2

splinter65 wrote: »

Dropped by, saw this, poster literally chomping at the bit to get the abortion machine cranked up, mouth watering, heart thumping with anticipation.
Words fail me.

How do you get that from him saying that a fetus might not have the same rights as the mother from May/June? I don't get how you get that from those few words.

AudreyHepburn

For the record I am pro choice. I don’t believe I have the right to dictate what another woman chooses to do with her body.

That being said I think a complete repeal of the 8th is unreasonable. I don’t want to end up in a situation where you can simply walk in off the street, demand an abortion and be given one then and there. There has to be proper legislation and guidelines in place.

Abortion is not just another form of contraception and I admit that I worry that is how many of the more militant pro choicers see it.

I also do not like the idea that many pro lifers are afraid to speak their opinions out loud. You are completely entitled to your beliefs and should not feel you have to hide them.

I think we need a middle ground in this debate, not an all out ban on abortion but not all out repeal either. Both sides need to be heard.

Mr. CooL ICE

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

I think we need a middle ground in this debate, not an all out ban on abortion but not all out repeal either. Both sides need to be heard.

That's going to be a bit hard to do when one side constantly throws tantrums and walks out of meetings.

AudreyHepburn

Nicolas Cage wrote: »

That's going to be a bit hard to do when one side constantly throws tantrums and walks out of meetings.

I’m not taking that bait sorry.

There are people stomping their feet and acting like children on both sides of the debate and we all know it.

No one should feel like they can’t have an opinion or that that they are constantly being shouted down.

Zubeneschamali

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

That being said I think a complete repeal of the 8th is unreasonable. I don’t want to end up in a situation where you can simply walk in off the street, demand an abortion and be given one then and there.

That's why we have to repeal the 8th and pass some legislation.

With the 8th in place, we are stuck with something like our current regime - 14 years in jail for anyone caught taking abortion pills bought off the internet.

AudreyHepburn

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

That's why we have to repeal the 8th and pass some legislation.

With the 8th in place, we are stuck with something like our current regime - 14 years in jail for anyone caught taking abortion pills bought off the internet.

Agreed. I just think a lot of people want to repeal with no limits and that doesn’t sit well with me.

Crea

There is actually a lot of debate regarding foetal pain. Most of it is around whether they can feel pain at 20 or 24 weeks. It is pretty much accepted in the scientific community that the foetus doesn't have the brain development or neural pathways to feel pain prior to 20 weeks.

volchitsa

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

That's why we have to repeal the 8th and pass some legislation.

With the 8th in place, we are stuck with something like our current regime - 14 years in jail for anyone caught taking abortion pills bought off the internet.

Agreed. I just think a lot of people want to repeal with no limits and that doesn’t sit well with me.

What exactly do you mean by "no limits"? 
I think most people who want the 8th repealed would be perfectly happy with a time limit for abortions for non medical reasons, choice/demand if you like (serious medical issues would be a different matter). Possibly even a limit that is a good deal shorter than the UK 24-week one. I know I would. And I'm not aware of anyone who actively wants abortions to be able to take place at any time up to birth. 

So where are you getting this claim that "a lot of people" want no limits from?

It's a red herring afaict.

mrkiscool2

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

For the record I am pro choice. I don’t believe I have the right to dictate what another woman chooses to do with her body.

That being said I think a complete repeal of the 8th is unreasonable. I don’t want to end up in a situation where you can simply walk in off the street, demand an abortion and be given one then and there. There has to be proper legislation and guidelines in place.

Abortion is not just another form of contraception and I admit that I worry that is how many of the more militant pro choicers see it.

I also do not like the idea that many pro lifers are afraid to speak their opinions out loud. You are completely entitled to your beliefs and should not feel you have to hide them.

I think we need a middle ground in this debate, not an all out ban on abortion but not all out repeal either. Both sides need to be heard.

So, you're not in favor of what the Oireachtas recommended for the referendum? Abortion on demand until 12 weeks and then for any health issues with the mother (fatal abnormality, risk to the mothers life and adverse mental health affects, most specifically suicidal tendencies)

Crea

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

Agreed. I just think a lot of people want to repeal with no limits and that doesn’t sit well with me.

You do know that if the 8th was repealed tomorrow abortion would still be illegal because of our legislation. The law would need to change to allow for abortion on demand. Do you honestly believe our politicians are prepared to do that?

Mr. CooL ICE

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

I’m not taking that bait sorry.

There is no bait. That has literally happened. Multiple times by the same people and in an orchestrated manner.

Edward M

Nicolas Cage wrote: »

There is no bait. That has literally happened. Multiple times by the same people and in an orchestrated manner.

So is the manner some people act in a reason for voting against them?
Look, I'd say the pro side reps are totally over the top, unreasonable even, but like audreyhepburn, I'd have reservations on abortion on demand, no prob for genuine mental or physical illness issues with the mother's health!

Zubeneschamali

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

Agreed. I just think a lot of people want to repeal with no limits and that doesn’t sit well with me.

The constitution is the wrong place to put limits.

Zubeneschamali

volchitsa wrote: »

I think most people who want the 8th repealed would be perfectly happy with a time limit for abortions for non medical reasons, choice/demand if you like (serious medical issues would be a different matter).

I think the proposal is for no limits for rape/incest and no requirement to report or prove rape, so no limits in practice.

The pro-lifers should be OK with that, they are OK with abortion on demand today with its little "as long as it actually doesn't happen on Holy Catholic Soil" condition. A "let on it was rape" clause should add the layer of hypocrisy they seem to favour.

Edward M

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

The constitution is the wrong place to put limits.

But a committee system might not be agreeable to everyone either, who decides on when or what is,the right circumstances or time for an abortion?
If the repeal side go with a wording including a 12 week abortion on demand wording in it, I will be voting no.