The 8th amendment(Mod warning in op)

ohnonotgmail

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

It was the referring to themselves in the third person that caught my eye. Most curious behaviour.

Consonata

end of the road wrote: »

no it's not part of her body, it's simply surviving within her body. she is in full control of her body, she just cannot kill the unborn inside her bar extreme circumstances.

I don't understand how you can fit this into your frame of the world, and not be for criminalizing Irish people going abroad for an Abortion.

Could you please elaborate on this properly.

end of the road

mrkiscool2 wrote: »

Nope, it isn't. It doesn't fulfill the condition of being able to carry out homeostasis, which is one of the essential things that quantifies whether something is life or not. Whether you want to believe in science or not, a fetus cannot perform homeostasis itself until week 17 and therefore cannot be considered life until then.

it can be considered life as it is living. homeostasis is only one of the aspects that determine life.

volchitsa wrote: »

She's obviously not in full control of her body if she has to allow another human being (by your argument) full use of her organs. Nobody else has to do that, not even to keep someone alive.

You can keep repeating that she doesn't have a right to refuse, but that is nothing more than your own opinion. Oh and the Catholic Church's, which of course is just a funny coincidence.

it's not my opinion, it's the state's via society, that she has no right to kill the unborn. the fact the catholic church may share the same view as me is not my concern, given that i'm not a follower of any religion.

Consonata wrote: »

I don't understand how you can fit this into your frame of the world, and not be for criminalizing Irish people going abroad for an Abortion.

Could you please elaborate on this properly.

sure. the unborn is a separate entity. it has rights including the right to life. the state has a duty to protect that life as much as it can, however there are limits as to what it can do. it can't stop people from traveling abroad, and it would need evidence of an abortion to bring a successful prosecution, the likely hood of gathering sufficient evidence to allow such prosecution being small.

.......

This post has been deleted.

eviltwin

Travel is one thing but importing tablets is another and while it might not be feasible to challenge those going to the UK, it's entirely possible to charge women with attempted murder if they order illegal pills.

But I don't think anyone wants that's do they? There doesn't seem to be any demand for it anyway.

That's why it's hard to take the pro life position seriously.

Consonata

end of the road wrote: »

sure. the unborn is a separate entity. it has rights including the right to life. the state has a duty to protect that life as much as it can, however there are limits as to what it can do. it can't stop people from traveling abroad, and it would need evidence of an abortion to bring a successful prosecution, the likely hood of gathering sufficient evidence to allow such prosecution being small.

Abortion clinics would have records of who gets an abortion. It would be the easiest thing in the world to check the database of people who obtain an abortion and match it to the defendant.

What other difficulties would there be?

splinter65

volchitsa wrote: »

She's obviously not in full control of her body if she has to allow another human being (by your argument) full use of her organs. Nobody else has to do that, not even to keep someone alive.

You can keep repeating that she doesn't have a right to refuse, but that is nothing more than your own opinion. Oh and the Catholic Church's, which of course is just a funny coincidence.

You’ve won me over.
Tell me what to do with my organs, would ya?
As soon as the dates announced I’m going door to door campaigning for Repeal on the platform “my body my choice”
And when I say “my body my choice” I mean it 100% not this mealy mouthed “12 weeks” nonsense.
Women need control over their bodies from the cradle to the grave, and not just for 12 weeks of the pregnancy, 40+!
No, I’m going to demand that people vote to repeal and any subsequent amendments until we have abortion on demand till term.
I know that’s hardly possible outside China. Or Russia. Or N Korea. Or some other places.
But we led the world in SSM, why not women’s rights!
I’ll tell anyone who argues that they are sexist misogynistic woman hating fascists, brainwashed by the RCC (even the Muslims. And the Jews.).
This softly softly approach just isn’t working.
We need to show them we mean business

Consonata

splinter65 wrote: »

You’ve won me over.
Tell me what to do with my organs, would ya?
As soon as the dates announced I’m going door to door campaigning for Repeal on the platform “my body my choice”
And when I say “my body my choice” I mean it 100% not this mealy mouthed “12 weeks” nonsense.
Women need control over their bodies from the cradle to the grave, and not just for 12 weeks of the pregnancy, 40+!
No, I’m going to demand that people vote to repeal and any subsequent amendments until we have abortion on demand till term.
I know that’s hardly possible outside China. Or Russia. Or N Korea. Or some other places.
But we led the world in SSM, why not women’s rights!
I’ll tell anyone who argues that they are sexist misogynistic woman hating fascists, brainwashed by the RCC (even the Muslims. And the Jews.).
This softly softly approach just isn’t working.
We need to show them we mean business

You really do have arguing in bad faith to a fine art. :rolleyes:

splinter65

Consonata wrote: »

Abortion clinics would have records of who gets an abortion. It would be the easiest thing in the world to check the database of people who obtain an abortion and match it to the defendant.

What other difficulties would there be?

You do realize that patient confidentiality applies to abortion clinics?

splinter65

Consonata wrote: »

You really do have arguing in bad faith to a fine art. :rolleyes:

I.Am.Deadly. Serious.
I have a pussy hat, a Repeal the 8th jumper, and I will not stop till I’ve knocked on every door.

January

Just so everyone knows, no pro choice person would speak the way splinter up there is speaking. There's a militant anti choicer right there.

volchitsa

splinter65 wrote: »

You’ve won me over.
Tell me what to do with my organs, would ya?
As soon as the dates announced I’m going door to door campaigning for Repeal on the platform “my body my choice”
And when I say “my body my choice” I mean it 100% not this mealy mouthed “12 weeks” nonsense.
Women need control over their bodies from the cradle to the grave, and not just for 12 weeks of the pregnancy, 40+!
No, I’m going to demand that people vote to repeal and any subsequent amendments until we have abortion on demand till term.
I know that’s hardly possible outside China. Or Russia. Or N Korea. Or some other places.
But we led the world in SSM, why not women’s rights!
I’ll tell anyone who argues that they are sexist misogynistic woman hating fascists, brainwashed by the RCC (even the Muslims. And the Jews.).
This softly softly approach just isn’t working.
We need to show them we mean business

Strawmanning the other side's argument because you can't defend your own is dishonest.

Democracy doesn't mean a right to dump an unpopular politician at any time, there are rules and limits. Same with a right to abortion. If the woman has effectively had that right for, say, 12 weeks, and chose not to avail of it, then she's in the same position as constituents of an unpopular politician : it's not undemocratic to say it's too late now.

And it's not anti choice to expect a woman to avail of that choice within a limited time.

splinter65

volchitsa wrote: »

Strawmanning another argument because you can't defend your own is dishonest.

Democracy doesn't mean a right to dump an unpopular politician at any time, there are rules and limits. Same with a right to abortion. If the woman has effectively had that right for, say, 12 weeks, and chose not to avail of it, then she's in the same position as constituents of an unpopular politician : it's not undemocratic to say they just have to wait.

What if I don’t even know I’m pregnant till, say 16 weeks?

Consonata

splinter65 wrote: »

What if I don’t even know I’m pregnant till, say 16 weeks?

If the limit is 12 weeks then that is unfortunate, however to not know until week 16 isn't common, considering that 90% of abortions happen within the 12 week limit.

volchitsa

splinter65 wrote: »

I.Am.Deadly. Serious.
I have a pussy hat, a Repeal the 8th jumper, and I will not stop till I’ve knocked on every door.

Like that Iona girl who was photographed at the last pro choice March wearing some deliberately provocative allegedly pro choice slogan.

Lying for Jesus, right?

captbarnacles

splinter65 wrote: »

You do realize that patient confidentiality applies to abortion clinics?

Oh ffs. If the Irish authorities wanted the evidence they could get it and Irish people absolutely can be prosecuted for what they do abroad.

splinter65

volchitsa wrote: »

Like that Iona girl who was photographed at the last pro choice March wearing some deliberately provocative allegedly pro choice slogan.

Lying for Jesus, right?

All I know is I will be going door to door representing the women of Ireland who have been bullied and brutalised by the men in the dresses and the pointy hats too long.
“My Body, My Choice”. Short and snappy.
Sure it’s been said on boards so many times that men shouldn’t even be allowed to vote.
And I’ve even read that any woman over child bearing years shouldn’t be allowed to vote either.
Apparently it’s not relevant to democracy when it’s not affecting everyone.
Here’s where I heard it!
That’ll come in useful when some irrelevant male tries to tell me I’m wrong.

Consonata

splinter65 wrote: »

All I know is I will be going door to door representing the women of Ireland who have been bullied and brutalised by the men in the dresses and the pointy hats too long.
“My Body, My Choice”. Short and snappy.
Sure it’s been said on boards so many times that men shouldn’t even be allowed to vote.
And I’ve even read that any woman over child bearing years shouldn’t be allowed to vote either.
Apparently it’s not relevant to democracy when it’s not affecting everyone.
Here’s where I heard it!
That’ll come in useful when some irrelevant male tries to tell me I’m wrong.

I mean, I query whether arguing in bad faith is allowed in this forum. This poster clearly isn't taking the discussion seriously and is only here to strawman the pro-choice side.

splinter65

Consonata wrote: »

I mean, I query whether arguing in bad faith is allowed in this forum. This poster clearly isn't taking the discussion seriously and is only here to strawman the pro-choice side.

That little flag to the right of each post allows you to report a post you think is breaking forum rules.
But don’t worry, I’m closing out and unfollowing the thread.
But thank you all for the inspiration, gleaned from many hundreds of pro choice posts I’ve read over many threads.
As Liam Gallagher says in every Tweet, as you were.

Da Boss

Martina1991 wrote: »

Are you of the opinion that the state should tell a women what to do with her body.

Nobody has the right to tell someone else what to do in their life.

Well if nobody has the right to tell someone else what to do with their body why are u then hypocritically proposing that u kill and destroy the body of an unborn! That’s interfering with someone else’s body

end of the road

eviltwin wrote: »

Travel is one thing but importing tablets is another and while it might not be feasible to challenge those going to the UK, it's entirely possible to charge women with attempted murder if they order illegal pills.

But I don't think anyone wants that's do they? There doesn't seem to be any demand for it anyway.

That's why it's hard to take the pro life position seriously.

i have said already myself that while we have laws in relation to drugs, anyone importing illegal abortion pills should be treated the same as any other illegal drug importer..

volchitsa wrote: »

Strawmanning the other side's argument because you can't defend your own is dishonest.

Democracy doesn't mean a right to dump an unpopular politician at any time, there are rules and limits. Same with a right to abortion. If the woman has effectively had that right for, say, 12 weeks, and chose not to avail of it, then she's in the same position as constituents of an unpopular politician : it's not undemocratic to say it's too late now.

And it's not anti choice to expect a woman to avail of that choice within a limited time.

it's not fully pro-choice either though.

Da Boss

WhiteRoses wrote: »

You have no right to dictate what I do with my womb.
My body, my life, my choice. It may not be legal here (yet) but it wouldn’t stop me doing what I want with MY body if I deemed it to be necessary.

Laws are required in a society to retain a orderly society . Laws are made to benefit the wider population. If an abortion affected just you it would be fine and perfectly acceptable but it doesn’t as it affects the child temporarily residing in your womb. An abortion would deny the defenseless child the ultimate gift of a life! If you want a abortion cos ur child is unplanned or unwanted, just cop on and use a condom simple as that!!!

eviltwin

end of the road wrote: »

i have said already myself that while we have laws in relation to drugs, anyone importing illegal abortion pills should be treated the same as any other illegal drug importer...

If I import an illegal drug for the specific intention of killing someone and I then proceed to kill that someone, the importation element of the process is the least important is it not?

Surely you'd want to see that person charged with murder, after all, sourcing a drug, ordering it, waiting for delivery, then using the drug shows a clear intent. There's many women who have spoken out publically about taking these pills. They shouldn't be that difficult to track down. Why aren't pro life advocates demanding they face justice. After all an unborn child is as equal as as any of us.

One eyed Jack

....... wrote: »

I see the EOTR bot is back with the endless contradictory NIMBY posts and non engagement in any reasonable discussion.

Such a lot of buzzing noise.

volchitsa wrote: »

Strawmanning the other side's argument because you can't defend your own is dishonest.

....... wrote: »

Your whole post is more endless repitition and contradiction. Yammer yammer yammer goes the bot.

Consonata wrote: »

You really do have arguing in bad faith to a fine art. :rolleyes:

Consonata wrote: »

I mean, I query whether arguing in bad faith is allowed in this forum. This poster clearly isn't taking the discussion seriously and is only here to strawman the pro-choice side.

Lads ye're in no position to complain about non-engagement in any reasonable discussion, strawmanning, dishonesty because you're unable to defend your own argument, endless repetition, arguing in bad faith, etc, etc, when you've all been engaged in exactly the same thing throughout this thread.

I fully expect any snappy retort will accuse me of same, which is just what I'd expect from anyone who has no interest in civil discussion and just wants to browbeat anyone who disagrees with them into submission.

Zerbini Blewitt wrote: »

This is prompted from something on the politics forum thread (but isn’t appropriate to there)

I was just thinking today about one formerly powerful section of the community who might find it hard nowadays to make their voice heard in this national debate.

This would be the segment of people who think that women should be shamed and/or outcast and/or punished for engaging in recreational sex – i.e. the punishment being: to endure a pregnancy against her will.

A fine upstanding stance, no?

This cohort of ‘simple’, plain ‘decent’ people is not very audible at the moment. Why is that? For full disclosure - some of my close family members would be in this group, so I’m just thinking out loud!

Anyway regrettably, these people seem to either half-heartedly argue some other tangential point or stay silent in this debate!!

Could they be muted & cursed by the existence of a better educated electorate or maybe the age of enlightenment being hundreds of years ago!

I just don’t know the reason for the silence when they were a deafening cacophony in decades past?

If this is you, I for one want to hear your voice in this debate. Please Sir/Madam come thee out from the shadows, present yourself and tell us proudly - why punishing women for sex is still the right way to go about things.

This is one of the problems with an authoritarian ego, you assume that people will recognise you as an authority to which they should feel the need to justify themselves. They don't, and that's why you won't hear.from them, because they don't recognise you as having any authority over them.

uptherebels

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Lads ye're in no position to complain about non-engagement in any reasonable discussion, strawmanning, dishonesty because you're unable to defend your own argument, endless repetition, arguing in bad faith, etc, etc, when you've all been engaged in exactly the same thing throughout this thread.

I fully expect any snappy retort will accuse me of same, which is just what I'd expect from anyone who has no interest in civil discussion and just wants to browbeat anyone who disagrees with them into submission.

Ya i've noted before on here, how you don't like people disagreeing with you.

As for being accused, well if the shoe fits:rolleyes:

One eyed Jack

uptherebels wrote: »

Ya i've noted before on here, how you don't like people disagreeing with you.

How long did it take you to figure that out? I could have saved you the trouble and told you straight out I don't like people disagreeing with me. That however doesn't give me a license to treat anyone like dirt simply because I disagree with them. I'll still respect you in the morning

As for being accused, well if the shoe fits:rolleyes:

It doesn't mate, not by a long shot, and that's the fun thing about authoritarianism and feeling brave when you're part of the mob. In order for anyone to respect your authorita, you have to first ensure compliance through making them feel they have something to feel guilty about. Then comes the subjugation and condemnation from the mob because nobody wants to be an outlier.

It's the very same offline, and that whole "formerly powerful section of the community" that another poster urged to "come out of the shadows" and present themselves? I don't know is that poster living in the real world at all when it's blatantly obvious all around them that women are, as they put it "shamed and/or outcast and/or punished for engaging in recreational sex".

Notwithstanding the fact that their point had very little to do with what they referred to as "the national debate" on abortion, they seemed to miss the multitude of threads in just AH alone that shame, outcast and seek to punish women for engaging in casual sex, and the thing is, most of the condemnation comes from other women. I don't know about you but I'm all for women being free to express their sexuality! I could point to numerous recent examples of the phenomenon, but y'know, for now at least I've better things to be doing.

.......

This post has been deleted.

One eyed Jack

....... wrote: »

Jack the pro choice position has been successfully defended by numerous posters on this and many other threads.

That's a matter of opinion, and clearly we're not likely to find agreement on how either of us defines success.

The 8th Amendment has a vast number of negative outcomes for women in this country, up to and including problems with maternity care.

We're in agreement there. Where we appear to disagree is the effect that removing it will have, you see it as something positive, and again, I disagree. We're unlikely to find agreement there either.

You yourself have dismissed evidence from the Citizens Assembly that I provided and thus showed that you are completely unable to accept hard fact. I genuinely do not know what to say to someone who refuses to believe when the evidence is put in front of them - it really is flat earther time.

There are no such things as hard facts when it comes to matters of opinion in areas such as politics, so on that basis I wouldn't so much have dismissed anything that came out of the Citizens Assembly, so much as refused to acknowledge it for the farcical comedy show it was in the first place.

You don't have to say anything btw, just acknowledge that other people who aren't you, will clearly have a different perspective to yours. That's generally how rational adults manage to get along just fine.

Whereas there has been (a) no evidence provided to show that the 8th Amendment should be kept in place due to positive outcomes and (b) no argument yet provided to show that a fetus should have more rights than a living sentient woman.

If such evidence or argument exists, please do elucidate.

No, I won't elucidate any such thing, because that would be tacit acknowledgement that I have to frame my arguments in such a way as to acknowledge that I have to kowtow to your authority. That would be like me asking you to frame your arguments according to existing laws in this country. I don't expect you to btw, but you don't get to tell me how I should make my arguments either.

The 8th has never suggested that the unborn has more rights than the woman btw, but you knew that already, it's just the facts and evidence don't suit your argument.

volchitsa

One eyed Jack wrote: »

....... wrote: »

Jack the pro choice position has been successfully defended by numerous posters on this and many other threads.

That's a matter of opinion, and clearly we're not likely to find agreement on how either of us defines success.

The 8th Amendment has a vast number of negative outcomes for women in this country, up to and including problems with maternity care.

We're in agreement there. Where we appear to disagree is the effect that removing it will have, you see it as something positive, and again, I disagree. We're unlikely to find agreement there either.

You yourself have dismissed evidence from the Citizens Assembly that I provided and thus showed that you are completely unable to accept hard fact. I genuinely do not know what to say to someone who refuses to believe when the evidence is put in front of them - it really is flat earther time.

There are no such things as hard facts when it comes to matters of opinion in areas such as politics, so on that basis I wouldn't so much have dismissed anything that came out of the Citizens Assembly, so much as refused to acknowledge it for the farcical comedy show it was in the first place.

You don't have to say anything btw, just acknowledge that other people who aren't you, will clearly have a different perspective to yours. That's generally how rational adults manage to get along just fine.

Whereas there has been (a) no evidence provided to show that the 8th Amendment should be kept in place due to positive outcomes and (b) no argument yet provided to show that a fetus should have more rights than a living sentient woman.

If such evidence or argument exists, please do elucidate.

No, I won't elucidate any such thing, because that would be tacit acknowledgement that I have to frame my arguments in such a way as to acknowledge that I have to kowtow to your authority. That would be like me asking you to frame your arguments according to existing laws in this country. I don't expect you to btw, but you don't get to tell me how I should make my arguments either.

The 8th has never suggested that the unborn has more rights than the woman btw, but you knew that already, it's just the facts and evidence don't suit your argument.

The problem with that approach ("I dont have to justify my opinion to anyone") is that your opinion effectively requires that pregnant women be allowed fewer human rights than non pregnant ones.

You don't have to justify it of course, but if you can't then you can expect to lose any court case where a woman objects to this loss of rights.

volchitsa

One eyed Jack wrote: »

....... wrote: »

Jack the pro choice position has been successfully defended by numerous posters on this and many other threads.

That's a matter of opinion, and clearly we're not likely to find agreement on how either of us defines success.

The 8th Amendment has a vast number of negative outcomes for women in this country, up to and including problems with maternity care.

We're in agreement there. Where we appear to disagree is the effect that removing it will have, you see it as something positive, and again, I disagree. We're unlikely to find agreement there either.

You yourself have dismissed evidence from the Citizens Assembly that I provided and thus showed that you are completely unable to accept hard fact. I genuinely do not know what to say to someone who refuses to believe when the evidence is put in front of them - it really is flat earther time.

There are no such things as hard facts when it comes to matters of opinion in areas such as politics, so on that basis I wouldn't so much have dismissed anything that came out of the Citizens Assembly, so much as refused to acknowledge it for the farcical comedy show it was in the first place.

You don't have to say anything btw, just acknowledge that other people who aren't you, will clearly have a different perspective to yours. That's generally how rational adults manage to get along just fine.

Whereas there has been (a) no evidence provided to show that the 8th Amendment should be kept in place due to positive outcomes and (b) no argument yet provided to show that a fetus should have more rights than a living sentient woman.

If such evidence or argument exists, please do elucidate.

No, I won't elucidate any such thing, because that would be tacit acknowledgement that I have to frame my arguments in such a way as to acknowledge that I have to kowtow to your authority. That would be like me asking you to frame your arguments according to existing laws in this country. I don't expect you to btw, but you don't get to tell me how I should make my arguments either.

The 8th has never suggested that the unborn has more rights than the woman btw, but you knew that already, it's just the facts and evidence don't suit your argument.

The problem with that approach ("I dont have to justify my opinion to anyone") is that your opinion effectively requires that pregnant women be allowed fewer human rights than non pregnant ones.

You don't have to justify it of course, but if you can't then you can expect to lose any court case where a woman objects to this loss of rights.

volchitsa

No idea why I'm posting double every time today!

sondagefaux

splinter65 wrote: »

Consonata wrote: »

Abortion clinics would have records of who gets an abortion. It would be the easiest thing in the world to check the database of people who obtain an abortion and match it to the defendant.

What other difficulties would there be?

You do realize that patient confidentiality applies to abortion clinics?

You do realise that patients don't have an absolute right to confidentiality? Their rights can be taken away if necessary for a criminal investigation.

mrkiscool2

end of the road wrote: »

it can be considered life as it is living. homeostasis is only one of the aspects that determine life.

Once again you show a lack of understanding and knowledge. Yes, it is one of the aspects to determine life but you need to have all of the aspects to be considered life. Stop arguing from ignorance. You don't have a clue about science and biology.

.......

This post has been deleted.

nice_guy80

I have a vision of the Iona social media bots just splurging nonsense on this thread

.......

This post has been deleted.

sondagefaux

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Nuff said then Jack.

Yet another prolifer who has no argument to make, no facts to present.[/quote]

Let's not call them 'prolifers'.

Let's call them what they are - weirdos.

Why weirdos?

Because they claim to believe that abortion is killing babies but don't want to do everything in their power to prevent Irish women from travelling abroad to get abortions or to prosecute Irish women who have had abortions abroad.

If I genuinely believed that abortion was killing babies, you can be certain that I would do everything possible to prevent Irish women from getting abortions outside of Ireland.

Beta Ray Bill

This:

One eyed Jack wrote: »

T
There are no such things as hard facts when it comes to matters of opinion in areas such as politics, so on that basis I wouldn't so much have dismissed anything that came out of the Citizens Assembly, so much as refused to acknowledge it for the farcical comedy show it was in the first place.

Citizens Assembly... what's the point?
99 non-elected people making recommendations for 4,700,000 people.

Of which nearly a third of the people initially drafted have withdrawn from it's proceedings. They meet in Malahide as far as I am aware, which means people drafted from Kerry, Donegal, Mayo need to travel a long distance to attend the meetings. Personally I wouldn't have time for that. I'd imagine most working people wouldn't.

The only reason they exist is so that the Oireachtas doesn't have to make a hard decision, only: "follow a recommendation" <= Bang of Bertie era Fianna Fáil off that

Regardless, if there is a referendum it will be defeated and the 8th Amendment will remain in place. This is Ireland after all, the Parish pumps will start to work up and down the country urging people to vote against repealing the amendment and it will be defeated unless there is a huge turn out in the major cities where the parish pumps don't really exist.

This wont be like the marriage equality referendum in 2015, it made sense to allow same sex couples to get married as it didn't hurt or affect anyone physically or mentally in anyway. Most families these days have openly gay family member/relatives so could relate to the inequality suffered by same sex couples.
But this referendum is effectively about the life of an unborn child, people won't relate to that the same way.

I know plenty of women who have had abortions and it's all been hush hush. Most of the cases were not due to an abnormality but because they just didn't want to have a child at that point in their lives.

I don't think I'm Pro-Choice or Pro-Life... I'm "Pro-Cop the f*ck on"

Abortion should never be used as a form of birth control.
Morning after pill should be available with no questions asked from every Pharmacy up and down the country and should be free. *
All forms of Contraception should be free. **
In the event the unborn child has significant genetic problem or physical abnormality that would limit the child's life or require full time care for the rest of the child's life, then yes Abortion should be an option.

It's about having the Cop on to manage your own life and being responsible not relying on some social net or religious belief to influence decisions that you've made that will directly affect you.



*, ** - This should also help the Social housing/single mothers issue we have in this country a great deal. If these are in place and the Government said "Starting in 9 months time, there will be no Social housing for new applicant single mothers". You'd find the "housing crisis" would disappear overnight.
Again... It's about being responsible and not relying on some social net.

SusieBlue

grahambo wrote: »

This:




I don't think I'm Pro-Choice or Pro-Life... I'm "Pro-Cop the f*ck on"

Abortion should never be used as a form of birth control.
Morning after pill should be available with no questions asked from every Pharmacy up and down the country and should be free. *
All forms of Contraception should be free. **
In the event the unborn child has significant genetic problem or physical abnormality that would limit the child's life or require full time care for the rest of the child's life, then yes Abortion should be an option.

It's about having the Cop on to manage your own life and being responsible not relying on some social net or religious belief to influence decisions that you've made that will directly affect you.



*, ** - This should also help the Social housing/single mothers issue we have in this country a great deal. If these are in place and the Government said "Starting in 9 months time, there will be no Social housing for new applicant single mothers". You'd find the "housing crisis" would disappear overnight.
Again... It's about being responsible and not relying on some social net.

You are aware of course, that contraception isn't 100% reliable and can, and has, failed for many people?

I genuinely don't know of any person that would choose to avail of such an invasive, emotionally and physically draining procedure such as an abortion, as a form of birth control, or in lieu of birth control. What kind of people do you keep company with if you honestly believe that this is how abortion would be treated?

You are making it sound as if going for one is as casual as getting a cup of coffee.

You talk about taking responsibility and "copping on". Abortion is just that, for some people.
You seem to believe in the old Irish tradition of suffering in misery when there is no need.
Not bringing a child you can't care for, can't cope with, can't bring up, into this world is taking responsibility, whether you like it or not. Abortion is not being irresponsible. Its far more responsible than adding another mouth to feed to the social welfare system, some might even say.

sondagefaux

I don't think I'm Pro-Choice or Pro-Life... I'm "Pro-Cop the f*ck on

A 'common sense' rant - the best kind of rant!

I presume that you don't think children should be raped and that child rape should be a crime.

Did you know that it is possible under Irish law to prevent someone who wants to travel abroad to rape children from leaving the state?

Did you know that it is possible under Irish law to prosecute people who return to Ireland after having raped children abroad?

Given that killing babies, i.e. child murder, is more serious than child rape, do you support changes to the law which would prevent Irish women from travelling abroad to get abortions and enable them to be prosecuted if they return to Ireland after getting an abortion abroad?

If not, why not?

Beta Ray Bill

WhiteRoses wrote: »

You are aware of course, that contraception isn't 100% reliable and can, and has, failed for many people?

That's a fair point:
A) I know women who were on the pill, got sick and got pregnant a few weeks later.
I know people that were told they would never had kids that got pregnant.
C) I know people that got pregnant after the condom ripped.

I get what you're saying, there are cases where it can fail. They are more common than people think.

However that being said, in the case of A and B the morning after pill should be available to people for free.
I accept that the morning after pill probably isn't the healthiest thing to be using regularly. In that case people should refrain from having intercourse until the woman's cycle starts again.

Note also that the Male contraceptive pill/jab isn't far away either, it shouldn't be all up to the woman to take contraceptive drugs.

WhiteRoses wrote: »

I genuinely don't know of any person that would choose to avail of such an invasive, emotionally and physically draining procedure such as an abortion, as a form of birth control, or in lieu of birth control. What kind of people do you keep company with if you honestly believe that this is how abortion would be treated?

They are normal people.
One woman had 4 kids already and didn't want another and was going through a rough time in her marriage.
One woman was 21 and felt she was to young to have kids (This is person is quite a selfish person).
Another had a one nighter with some guy she didn't know .
And one was in an destuctive relationship and although she loved the guy at the time felt she couldn't have a child with him as he has addiction issues

WhiteRoses wrote: »

You are making it sound as if going for one is as casual as getting a cup of coffee.

I'm sorry if that's how I came across, I don't mean to be insensitive. But I'm only explaining based on what I've seen first hand.
I'm a man. I'll never know what it'd be like. So I'll never presume to fully understand what a woman goes through when having an abortion.

WhiteRoses wrote: »

You talk about taking responsibility and "copping on". Abortion is just that.
You seem to believe in the old Irish tradition of suffering in misery when there is no need.
Not bringing a child you can't care for, can't cope with, can't bring up, into this world is taking responsibility, whether you like it or not. Abortion is not being irresponsible. Its far more responsible than adding another mouth to feed to the social welfare system, some might even say.

There is that aspect of it too I suppose, as I said I'm not pro-life nor pro-choice.

But it comes down to the fact that if you don't want to have a child then use contraceptives.
Condoms are 98% effective
Pill is 99.9% effective
Jab is over 99% effective
Condom + Pill/Jab with use of morning after pill if one were to fail should be 99.99999% effective.

I don't want to have any more kids so I've got my balls done. I'm young enough 34, but I know what not having it done puts me at risk of.
The decision directly affects me.
Note: I'm not saying that women that don't want kids should get their tubes tied.

LirW

Women who don't want kids face MAJOR obstacles getting her tubes tied. Doctors wouldn't tie you when you're under 40 or have at least 3 -4 children. I asked for a tubal ligation before the C-section of my second child and the doctor said that's not going to happen since I'm not even 30. It's even worse for women not having children at all, it's basically impossible to get a permanent solution and safe solution.

I also want to say that if contraception is 99% effective the chance that every time you have sex is 1:100 that you'll get pregnant. That's not the highest amount really. It's safe and if you're being north korean army about it that's good, you're doing everything to minimize your chances getting pregnant.

seamus

You seem to be a bit all over the place there grahambo, with all due respect.

You acknowledge that contraception isn't 100% effective, and that there are many circumstances in which someone may become pregnant despite being on contraception, and yet you still appear to be saying that abortion should not be available to them because "if you don't want to have a child then use contraceptives"

The morning-after pill is also not 100% effective and women are only going to take it where they have engaged in risky intercourse. In the first two scenarios you posit, those women would have no reason to think to go get a morning-after pill, and in the last scenario one would need to be aware the condom has split. Micro-tears are possible and semen escapes but neither party notices.

Contraception is not foolproof, people are fallible. "Waiting until the next cycle" sounds easy in a perfect scenario, but very few scenarios are perfect.

If it so happens that a woman has found herself pregnant, regardless of whether she was using contraception, should she not have the right to choose to proceed? If you say no, then basically what you're saying is, "Don't have sex unless you're prepared to have a baby".

Consonata

grahambo wrote: »

However that being said, in the case of A and B the morning after pill should be available to people for free.
I accept that the morning after pill probably isn't the healthiest thing to be using regularly. In that case people should refrain from having intercourse until the woman's cycle starts again.

MAP only works 70% of the time the actual morning after, then that probability rapidly decreases after that.

There are also many cases where you don't know the contraceptive hasn't worked and the MAP is rendered null regardless.

Loafing Oaf

grahambo wrote: »

Note also that the Male contraceptive pill/jab isn't far away either,

It's been five years away for the last 50 years!:P

Beta Ray Bill

sondagefaux wrote: »

A 'common sense' rant - the best kind of rant!

I presume that you don't think children should be raped and that child rape should be a crime.

Yes, Child Rape should be a crime

sondagefaux wrote: »

Did you know that it is possible under Irish law to prevent someone who wants to travel abroad to rape children from leaving the state?

Yes, However it's nearly impossible to prove someone has an intention of travelling to places where sex with children is widely available/legal/turned a blind eye too

sondagefaux wrote: »

Did you know that it is possible under Irish law to prosecute people who return to Ireland after having raped children abroad?

Yes, But I do not know how many have been successfully prosecuted

sondagefaux wrote: »

Given that killing babies, i.e. child murder, is more serious than child rape, do you support changes to the law which would prevent Irish women from travelling abroad to get abortions and enable them to be prosecuted if they return to Ireland after getting an abortion abroad?

If not, why not?

How do you prove a woman had an abortion or was even pregnant in the first place?

Regardless a change in that law would be irrelevant, the case would just be taken to the EU where it would be dismissed as she as an EU citizen.

Under you're argument anyone that enters the country regardless of whether they are Irish or not could be prosecuted for a crime under Irish law that was committed in another country.

If a French Woman decided to have an abortion in the UK and then traveled to Ireland she could be Prosecuted under Irish Law?
I can't see that ever happening.

I don't think Abortion is "killing babies", however I also don't think it's "not killing babies". It's somewhere in between, that's the difficulty I suppose.

.......

This post has been deleted.

Beta Ray Bill

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Point taken, I honestly don't know what the solution is in your case.
Don't they have Latex free Condoms these days?

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Agreed, however I think abstinence and a week or two of restraint/non-vaginal sex are different things

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

It's not my place to Judge anyone. I'm just explaining the reasons.

Consonata wrote: »

MAP only works 70% of the time the actual morning after, then that probability rapidly decreases after that.

There are also many cases where you don't know the contraceptive hasn't worked and the MAP is rendered null regardless.

I get what you are saying but if a woman is on the pill the the effectiveness is 99.9%
If they use a condom as well as the pill that 0.1% chance now is reduced to 0.002% chance.
If the condom were to break and MAP were to be used which is 70% effective you're down to 0.0006% chance of getting pregnant.

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

It's been five years away for the last 50 years!:P

They're testing now, apparently there is bad side effects.

seamus wrote: »

If it so happens that a woman has found herself pregnant, regardless of whether she was using contraception, should she not have the right to choose to proceed? If you say no, then basically what you're saying is, "Don't have sex unless you're prepared to have a baby".

This is reproduction 101 Seamus, it's the primary reason we've evolved to enjoy/have the urge to have sex: To Reproduce.
If you have sex, you accept that it is possible regardless of what contraceptive you use that there is a tiny remote possibility that you could get pregnant.

LirW wrote: »

Women who don't want kids face MAJOR obstacles getting her tubes tied. Doctors wouldn't tie you when you're under 40 or have at least 3 -4 children. I asked for a tubal ligation before the C-section of my second child and the doctor said that's not going to happen since I'm not even 30. It's even worse for women not having children at all, it's basically impossible to get a permanent solution and safe solution.

This is the part where Irish society needs to the Cop the F*ck on. D*ckhead know it all Doctors. If you are in good mental a physical health and requested the above and he refused to perform it, you should be able to sew. It's not up to the Doctor, simple as.

LirW wrote: »

I also want to say that if contraception is 99% effective the chance that every time you have sex is 1:100 that you'll get pregnant. That's not the highest amount really. It's safe and if you're being north korean army about it that's good, you're doing everything to minimize your chances getting pregnant.

They have to say 98% for condoms, they know there is a percentage of them that break, however it is significantly smaller than 2%. Manufacturers need to cover their arses ya know?

ohnonotgmail

i see we are back to "the dirty harlots getting what is coming to them" line of discussion.

volchitsa

You know the side effects aren't worse than early female contraceptive pills right?

It's just that male sexual health matters more than female apparently.

Thats why abortion isn't allowed even to preserve a woman's health, while the male contraceptive pill has to have fewer side effects to be made available even when a woman's health requires that partner use reliable contraception.