The 8th amendment(Mod warning in op)

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.

.......

This post has been deleted.

LirW

grahambo wrote: »

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?

Safety is assessed in the Pearl-Index or the life table method and not the Condom companies.
Both assess how many couples get pregnant in the course of 12 months using one kind of birth control.
That's the reason why there is a variety of percentage over the years but it gives a good indicative.

If the pill is 99,9% effective that means 1 in 1000 couples get pregnant over the course of a year. Just spread that out over the population and you can get an idea how easily something can go wrong.

mrkiscool2

volchitsa wrote: »

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.

Erm, what? Do you even know what happened the first time they trialed the male contraceptive pill? A person killed themselves and others had to be sectioned due to having severe mental health issues. It hasn't been discontinued, however, it has just gone back to be modified to ensure that a. the success rate went up (was only 96% effective) and b. that the severe mental health effects go away.

Also, while women do experience some hormonal changes and other issues, there are a wide range of female contraceptives that all effect different women differently. If one thing doesn't work, another will. So far, we just have the injection or condoms for men.

LirW

mrkiscool2 wrote: »

Erm, what? Do you even know what happened the first time they trialed the male contraceptive pill? A person killed themselves and others had to be sectioned due to having severe mental health issues. It hasn't been discontinued, however, it has just gone back to be modified to ensure that a. the success rate went up (was only 96% effective) and b. that the severe mental health effects go away.

Also, while women do experience some hormonal changes and other issues, there are a wide range of female contraceptives that all effect different women differently. If one thing doesn't work, another will. So far, we just have the injection or condoms for men.

For me it's either condoms or progesterone only pill (which I take for a medical issue). Estrogen doesn't work for me because of said issue. When I got the prescription for it my GP told me "well you had a depressive episode before, that stuff can make you pretty depressive". Yay. Fortunately it works quite well for me but it's not particularly uplifting to get that told by your GP.
Oh and copper I can't take either because my menstrual flow is too strong for it.

Also as far as I'm aware, the person that committed suicide on the trial had a long history of severe mental health issues before.
Hormonal birth control can enhance mental health issues in women too, especially if you have a history of depression, which is not too uncommon. But plenty of women get told from their GPs it either gets better or you have to change to something else where again you don't know how it'll work for you. That is usually a year long process for women where they experience discomfort, weight gain, changes in their skin and effects on their mental well-being.
It's not a case of "ah shur something will work for everyone". Birth control and their side effects are a huge topic among women because every single woman has to deal with the birth control question somehow.

EDIT: And to top that all off, the specific pill I'm taking is in short supply for a few months now, that means I can't get it in the pharmacies close to me. I'm lucky that my pharmacy would give me a knock-off but a lot of pharmacies wouldn't do that. So once they run out, you hope to get it somewhere else and if not, especially in rural areas, you have to get off your birth control temporarily which isn't particularly good for you.

.......

This post has been deleted.

mrkiscool2

LirW wrote: »

For me it's either condoms or progesterone only pill (which I take for a medical issue). Estrogen doesn't work for me because of said issue. When I got the prescription for it my GP told me "well you had a depressive episode before, that stuff can make you pretty depressive". Yay. Fortunately it works quite well for me but it's not particularly uplifting to get that told by your GP.
Oh and copper I can't take either because my menstrual flow is too strong for it.

Also as far as I'm aware, the person that committed suicide on the trial had a long history of severe mental health issues before.
Hormonal birth control can enhance mental health issues in women too, especially if you have a history of depression, which is not too uncommon. But plenty of women get told from their GPs it either gets better or you have to change to something else where again you don't know how it'll work for you. That is usually a year long process for women where they experience discomfort, weight gain, changes in their skin and effects on their mental well-being.
It's not a case of "ah shur something will work for everyone". Birth control and their side effects are a huge topic among women because every single woman has to deal with the birth control question somehow.

EDIT: And to top that all off, the specific pill I'm taking is in short supply for a few months now, that means I can't get it in the pharmacies close to me. I'm lucky that my pharmacy would give me a knock-off but a lot of pharmacies wouldn't do that. So once they run out, you hope to get it somewhere else and if not, especially in rural areas, you have to get off your birth control temporarily which isn't particularly good for you.

Look, I fully agree that birth control is an extremely tough issue and that sometimes women have a lack of choice with it. I think we can all accept that stuff like this isn't perfect. And, for years, due to sexism in society, birth control was primarily focused on women as it was seen as their issue.

But it is getting better and again, the trial had a 75% rate of having no severe side-effects so that is something at least. We are getting their, slowly but surely, and this first male temporary contraceptive will hopefully help. But yeah, there was more than just the guy who had severe mental health issues. One now has issues with his heart and a lot of men suffered severe issues with their mental health, some were even rendered permanently sterile and others had severe impotency issues. So it was more than just "Well, the guy who killed himself was already in a bad way."

Again, apparently there will be a new trial next year so that's promising. And I am personally delighted there will also be male options so the burden isn't just on women to ensure they are being protected from pregnancy. And abortion should be made available for when sh1t goes wrong with contraception.

pilly

One eyed Jack wrote: »

That wasn't the original claim at all though. The original claim had nothing to do with adoption, it related to the numbers of children in care if we had or hadn't abortion in Ireland, and I said there was simply no way of knowing whether it would make any difference, but the evidence from other countries suggests that it doesn't.

As for the rest of your post I think you really need to sit down or something. You've already called me a liar and you're still suggesting I'm an "anti-choicer" in spite of all evidence to the contrary.

Sure this thread is going nowhere at this stage, I should have known better than to have bothered getting involved again. I'll leave yiz to it.

Have you a source for this evidence from other countries please?

Beta Ray Bill

volchitsa wrote: »

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.

I think this could be more down to the fact that it was a different time when the pill was first introduced.
Medicine has come on a long way and what is "acceptable" has changed significantly

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

So you're effectively stuck using progesterone, or waiting until a certain time of the month to have sex or withdrawal (Of which the second two aren't great ways of preventing pregnancy). I accept your situation is exceptionally difficult.

So in terms of protecting yourself against STD's what do you do?

With my last GF before the snip we used withdrawal for nearly 2 years. It worked mind you, but probably just by chance though.

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Not trying to be smart, but I've never had a condom rip on me (Unless I rip it putting it on). My first GF had some issue where she couldn't use the pill and we ended up using condoms all the time. I was with her near 2 years and we had sex at least 2 times a week (24 years old at the time).

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I accept what you are saying, however this is Ireland and like everything else in this country there are a large amount of people that will abuse this.
Abuse of the system is par for the course in this country:

I know of OAP's with half a million pensions that have medical cards.
I know of people falsely claiming they are single mothers to avail of state benefit.
I know of people claiming sick leave (Mental health issues) for years that have nothing wrong with them.
I know of people that have committed insurance fraud and got away with it despite being reported.
Etc
Etc

All of the above I accept, as it's just money at the end of the day. People are riding the hole off the system to get money.

But what we are talking about here is an unborn child, it's not alive yet, but it's not dead either.
The thought of people abusing the system in relation to abortion scares me.

You might think I'm a prick or an arsehole in relation to the above but I genuinely don't have a solution to the problem other than to "Not get pregnant in the first place"

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

It's a f*cking disgrace.
The Church and "know it all" Doctors need to f*ck right off

.......

This post has been deleted.

pilly

I've finally caught up after the holiday, and I have to say, nothing changed. I do enjoy the more intelligent contributions to these threads but it's just getting so tedious having to read someone state the same thing over and over and over.

It's not a discussion, it's not a debate, it's just stating your opinion. That's all fine and well and don't for one minute think I'm saying someone shouldn't state their opinion but not 20 times a day, the same statement, again and again.

If all you have to add is your feelings, fine. Type them and leave it at that.

It's ruining every thread on Boards at the moment.

I've said it in the numerous threads lately about the death of boards.

Dare I say it, it's just borrrrrrrrrrrring.

sondagefaux

grahambo wrote: »

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.

It's somewhere in between? In other words, you think it's a grey area as to whether or not a foetus is a child. So why do you want a black and white solution? A law which permits abortions in some circumstances but prohibits abortions in others is probably the best way to deal with things if you really believe that.

As for the rest, it's not impossible to figure out if a woman who wants to travel abroad is pregnant. It's relatively easy in fact.

How would you know if a woman who was pregnant wanted to get an abortion? Check her phone, laptop etc. Check her luggage for any appointment letters etc. Again not that difficult to do.

A pregnant woman who is travelling abroad but there is no evidence she wants to get an abortion. She is no longer pregnant (this can be checked) on her return to Ireland. Did she have a miscarriage, an abortion or give birth? These can be checked.

As regards child rape, there have been several prosecutions in Ireland of Irish citizens who have travelled abroad and raped children.

Just because a crime is difficult to deal with doesn't mean it should be ignored. You say you don't think abortion is killing babies, although you also say you don't think it isn't either.

For those who see it as killing babies, I'm still struggling to see why they don't seem to mind if Irish women get abortions abroad.

If they're not actually that bothered, why would they care if a woman gets an abortion in Ireland or elsewhere?

PS: French woman who went to the UK, got an abortion, then came to Ireland - can't be prosecuted in Ireland, Irish courts would have no jurisdiction.

end of the road

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

the thing is it actually hasn't, as pro-choice already exists whether the 8th exists or not. the argument that the so-called pro-choice are trying and failing to defend is the argument for the availability of abortion on demand in ireland, an argument they haven't been able to defend or put up a case for.

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

yes, and many many agree with that fact, including those of us on the pro-life side, who would vote to repeal if it wasn't for the high possibility of abortion on demand being availible in the country.

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

the argument that the unborn's right to life, the argument that said life is equal to the mother bar extreme circumstances, and that said right outweighs someone's non-existant/imaginary right to kill it just because it's inconvenient, have all successfully been put forward by a number of posters on this thread. the fact that some have had to resort to attacks on some of these pro-life posters shows that they cannot argue against the facts put forward.

.......

This post has been deleted.

end of the road

mrkiscool2 wrote: »

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.

i think you will find i do, more then your good self. but you continue to think otherwise if it makes you feel happy. the facts are. the unborn are human beings, at a certain time they will become alive, and therefore have a right to be allowed to develop into said life. they have a right to be protected from being killed unless it's absolutely necessary.

WhiteRoses wrote: »

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.

no, abortion bar absolute extreme circumstances is not being responsible. the fact that people are resorting to trying to find problems to make abortion the solution to is one of many things that prove this.
abortion is not the solution to cutting the amount of children on the wellfare system, job creation is the solution, getting people into the work place with jobs that pay an actual living wage which allow them to support their children.

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.

and that absolutely needs to change.

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

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

no, we aren't. no such discussion has happened in this thread. you know that of course. if it had, i would have been one of many to actually call it out.

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

all such posts are in the thread. all those who have argued against abortion on demand have put forward that exact argument or similar in a big or small form.

Hotblack Desiato

sondagefaux wrote: »

Let's not call them 'prolifers'.

I agree as the 8th has cost some women their lives.

Let's call them what they are - weirdos.

Let's not. Anti-choice is accurate and not perjorative.

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.

Travelling abroad for an abortion is a constitutional right though, and there is very close to zero public appetite to change that.

However Customs are seizing hundreds if not thousands of illegally imported abortion pills in the post every year. The packages helpfully have the recipient's name and address on them. The penalty is fourteen years in prison. Yet, number of convictions - ZERO.

Because there would be war if they attempted to enforce this law, and they know it.

Consonata

end of the road wrote: »

the thing is it actually hasn't, as pro-choice already exists whether the 8th exists or not. the argument that the so-called pro-choice are trying and failing to defend is the argument for the availability of abortion on demand in ireland, an argument they haven't been able to defend or put up a case for.

EOTR you still have been unable to reconcile your belief of the rights of the unborn being above all else, with allowing women to travel abroad for abortions without seeking prosecution.

It has been made clear again, and again, and again that the government could easily charge these women and throw them into jail for what you see as being murder. However they don't, and you don't seem to care.

If you really do care about the rights of the unborn, why do you not want the government to enforce a ban on women having abortions abroad, nor pushing the government to prosecute women for obtaining abortion pills in the country?

sondagefaux

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

sondagefaux wrote: »

Let's not call them 'prolifers'.

I agree as the 8th has cost some women their lives.

Let's call them what they are - weirdos.

Let's not. Anti-choice is accurate and not perjorative.

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.

Travelling abroad for an abortion is a constitutional right though, and there is very close to zero public appetite to change that.

However Customs are seizing hundreds if not thousands of illegally imported abortion pills in the post every year. The packages helpfully have the recipient's name and address on them. The penalty is fourteen years in prison. Yet, number of convictions - ZERO.

Because there would be war if they attempted to enforce this law, and they know it.

Anti-choice would be accurate if most of these people weren't so uninterested in ensuring that Irish women couldn't exercise their choice outside the state.

Given that they mostly seem to have given up on preventing women from getting abortions abroad, but continue to obsess about denying them similar rights in Ireland, I'm very comfortable with characterising them as weirdos.

Also having direct personal experience of some of these people in real life helps.

If you'd met the people I have, I think you'd probably agree they ARE weird!

I know that women have a constitutional right to travel abroad for abortions, however there is nothing to stop the 'abortion is killing babies' crowd from campaigning to overturn this.

The refusal to campaign on this issue, and the refusal to acknowledge that anyone who genuinely believes that thousands of babies are being killed every year but does not accept that one of the logical consequences of this is to campaign to make it as difficult as possible for Irish women to get abortions abroad, is weird in my view.

The alternative to these people being weird is that they are are morally bankrupt cowards and hypocrites who won't campaign for the type of restrictions required by the logic of their position because they know that to do so would make them look (even more so) like deranged extremists in the eyes of most Irish people.

Weirdos or morally bankrupt cowards and hypocrites, or both, are fitting terms.

I have no intention of being polite to these people, especially since many of them ARE fundamentalist extremists who would gladly see Ireland's abortion laws operate as in El Salvador if they thought they could get away with it.

This is what too many of these extremists want for Ireland:

A court’s decision not to release a woman forced to spend a decade behind bars after having a miscarriage in El Salvador is an outrageous step backward for justice, Amnesty International said.

Teodora suffered a stillbirth in 2007, after the rapid onset of serious pain while she was at work. Police arrested her as she lay in a pool of blood. She was later sentenced to 30 years for ‘aggravated homicide’ under El Salvador’s total ban on abortions.

https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2017/12/el-salvador-failure-to-release-woman-jailed-after-miscarriage-outrageous-step-backward-for-justice/

Use non-pejorative terms? Nah, extremists don't deserve politeness. They deserve ridicule, scorn and contempt.

end of the road

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Customs are seizing hundreds if not thousands of illegally imported abortion pills in the post every year. The packages helpfully have the recipient's name and address on them. The penalty is fourteen years in prison. Yet, number of convictions - ZERO.

Because there would be war if they attempted to enforce this law, and they know it.

or more likely it's because they don't want to pay for it. they happily enforce laws dispite little support, and they happily don't bother enforcing laws dispite support for those laws being enforced at a 99% majority.
the fact there would be "war" as you put it doesn't stop the government from enforcing the law.

Consonata

end of the road wrote: »

because like anything in this country it would be a pointless exercise as the government does what it likes. it barely enforces any of the laws we have as it is

Do you have any examples of this? And surely any excercise that protects the life of the unborn is in no way pointless?

mrkiscool2

end of the road wrote: »

i think you will find i do, more then your good self. but you continue to think otherwise if it makes you feel happy. the facts are. the unborn are human beings, at a certain time they will become alive, and therefore have a right to be allowed to develop into said life. they have a right to be protected from being killed unless it's absolutely necessary.

No. They are not alive. You have to prove that life does not need to be able to perform homeostasis in order to be alive. Every. single. defintion of life includes the need to perform homeostasis. If something cannot perform homeostasis, it cannot be counted as life. Stop acting like you understand science and biology, you clearly don't. You just assert you do. Do you have a degree in either a. developmental biology b. medicine or c. biology? Or, I'll even be generous, have you studied for 3 years in a third-level institution in any of these courses? If not, then no, you don't know more than me. And you are showing your ignorance too. For the entire of this thread to see.

end of the road

mrkiscool2 wrote: »

No. They are not alive. You have to prove that life does not need to be able to perform homeostasis in order to be alive. Every. single. defintion of life includes the need to perform homeostasis. If something cannot perform homeostasis, it cannot be counted as life. Stop acting like you understand science and biology, you clearly don't. You just assert you do. Do you have a degree in either a. developmental biology b. medicine or c. biology? Or, I'll even be generous, have you studied for 3 years in a third-level institution in any of these courses? If not, then no, you don't know more than me. And you are showing your ignorance too. For the entire of this thread to see.

you don't know what i do and don't know. ignorance isn'ta word that can be registered with me.
the unborn baby is a being and life. therefore it has a right to be protected. that is indisputable fact.

Consonata

end of the road wrote: »

you don't know what i do and don't know. ignorance isn'ta word that can be registered with me.
the unborn baby is a being and life. therefore it has a right to be protected. that is indisputable fact.

This is the thing though. You stand at your podium decrying the murder of babies in the womb, yet when it actually matters in terms of legislation, you won't actually punish women for what you see as murder.

Is it a pure ideological thing, or is it just NIMBYism at its finest?

mrkiscool2

end of the road wrote: »

you don't know what i do and don't know. ignorance isn'ta word that can be registered with me.
the unborn baby is a being and life. therefore it has a right to be protected. that is indisputable fact.

Until you can provide evidence that life doesn't require the ability to carry out homeostasis then we can simply ignore your statements. Because that's all they are, statements. There is no evidence behind them. And it clearly is a disputable fact. I've given you evidence that says it isn't a fact at all and you are just talking our of your ass.

end of the road

mrkiscool2 wrote: »

Until you can provide evidence that life doesn't require the ability to carry out homeostasis then we can simply ignore your statements. Because that's all they are, statements. There is no evidence behind them. And it clearly is a disputable fact. I've given you evidence that says it isn't a fact at all and you are just talking our of your ass.

no what you gave me was opinion. you are entitled to it but that is all it was IMO.

SusieBlue

end of the road wrote: »

no what you gave me was opinion. you are entitled to it but that is all it was IMO.

Says the man who only deals in ‘facts’.

drdeadlift

I get the feeling the majority of the repeal the 8th crowd do not have children.Having children for me made me look at this issue very differently.

LirW

I have kids and if with all the precautions I'm taking would find myself pregnant again, I'm not sure if I'd keep it. We can't afford it, I don't wanna be pregnant again because the last pregnancy was a horror ride from start to the end even though we were so happy to have the baby.
A large number of women terminating a pregnancy are women that already have children.

drdeadlift

If you found yourself in the situation maybe you might find the decision difficult?
I have spoken to my other half about this,i have two kids money is tight right now.If she ended up pregnant again we agreed to keep it neither would consider abortion.Two kids is plenty.

volchitsa

drdeadlift wrote: »

I get the feeling the majority of the repeal the 8th crowd do not have children.Having children for me made me look at this issue very differently.

Why do you think they don't have children? I have 3 children and had a termination on my 4th pregnancy, and while it was a very hard decision I am absolutely sure that it was the only one for us.

Edward M

volchitsa wrote: »

Why do you think they don't have children? I have 3 children and had a termination on my 4th pregnancy, and while it was a very hard decision I am absolutely sure that it was the only one for us.

And that's fair enough I reckon. Fair play for speaking of your situation.
I'm sure, as with an earlier poster, you agonised over that decision, gave it very serious consideration and felt you had no other option.
I just feel though that if abortion on demand is brought in, there will be abortions taking place where all other options won't be considered.
It has me in a dilemma frankly, while I don't want anyone suffering over their pregnancy, I feel I can't just support abortion on demand just because it is available and may be the easiest option.
I don't know if this point of view can be understood, but as I say, I'm in a quandry in my mind over it.

volchitsa

Edward M wrote: »

volchitsa wrote: »

Why do you think they don't have children? I have 3 children and had a termination on my 4th pregnancy, and while it was a very hard decision I am absolutely sure that it was the only one for us.

And that's fair enough I reckon. Fair play for speaking of your situation.
I'm sure, as with an earlier poster, you agonised over that decision, gave it very serious consideration and felt you had no other option.
I just feel though that if abortion on demand is brought in, there will be abortions taking place where all other options won't be considered.
It has me in a dilemma frankly, while I don't want anyone suffering over their pregnancy, I feel I can't just support abortion on demand just because it is available and may be the easiest option.
I don't know if this point of view can be understood, but as I say, I'm in a quandry in my mind over it.

Easier than what? This notion that women won't bother with contraception because "sure you can 'just' have an abortion" is just pro-life propaganda and very deeply anti woman.

I was in a country with abortion a the time, so I didn't even have to travel, but I can tell you there is no way it was physically easier than using contraception, never mind emotionally.

mrkiscool2

end of the road wrote: »

no what you gave me was opinion. you are entitled to it but that is all it was IMO.

Here is some reading for you. Now, if you can't understand any of the words, just ask. Some of those conditions we can also say a fetus doesn't have, but they mostly do. However, they cannot maintain homeostasis until week 17. So yep, it's not an opinion, it's a fact. What you gonna do now, huh? Claim science is wrong about what life is?

Hotblack Desiato

drdeadlift wrote: »

I get the feeling the majority of the repeal the 8th crowd do not have children.Having children for me made me look at this issue very differently.

My wife's experiences with miscarriages and births in Irish hospitals made us both firmly pro-choice.

Also - to the poster who said stuff along the lines of 'I don't agree with abortion on demand because then it'll be just used as contraception' - do you not realise how condescending that sounds. You do not know their circumstances but still feel free to judge the lives and choices of people you will never meet.

NuMarvel

drdeadlift wrote: »

I get the feeling the majority of the repeal the 8th crowd do not have children.Having children for me made me look at this issue very differently.

I don't know about repeal campaigners, but statistics show that roughly half the women who access abortion are already mothers. (UK and US).

Having children may have changed your outlook, but it's obviously not a universal or majority experience for parents. And the choice of those who don't have abortions is respected no matter what happens, repeal is necessary to enable the choice of those who do.

January

It's because I have kids and have experienced the Irish maternity system that I'm pro choice.

Yes I've had an abortion but I was pro choice long before that. I have 3 daughters and I'd hate for them to go through the Irish maternity system like I have. Feeling like they've no power over their own pregnancies. Id also hate them to have to travel or import pills like I did if they found themselves with a pregnancy they either didn't want or couldn't keep. I always want them to have the choice available to them. A choice I didn't have.

Edward M

volchitsa wrote: »

Easier than what? This notion that women won't bother with contraception because "sure you can 'just' have an abortion" is just pro-life propaganda and very deeply anti woman.

I was in a country with abortion a the time, so I didn't even have to travel, but I can tell you there is no way it was physically easier than using contraception, never mind emotionally.

I never mentioned contraception, never said it was easy either.
Do you think I lived in the dark ages and never used contraception?
The main problem I find with pro choice people sometimes is they think they are somehow "cooler" because of their stance or experiences, or maybe they suffer more hardship than others who have agonising decisions to make in life.
I've read all the baloney about it from both sides of the debate, doesent make the possibility of having to vote on it any easier or less hard for me.
I'm not moralising for you or anyone else, I'm speaking my mind on how I might have a hard decision to make as to repeal of the eighth and how I feel abortion on demand might actually make me vote in a way I would rather not, depending on that offer of abortion on demand.

volchitsa

You said this:
/ while I don't want anyone suffering over their pregnancy, I feel I can't just support abortion on demand just because it is available and may be the easiest option. /


I don't understand your point about abortion being "easier" and your reply doesn't make any attempt to answer that.

Could you unpick this fear you've expressed because I really don't get the thinking behind it.

Especially if you didn't mean, as I assumed, the usual claim about "women would used abortion instead of bothering with contraception". So what did you mean about it being "the easiest option" then?

Edward M

volchitsa wrote: »

You said this:
/ while I don't want anyone suffering over their pregnancy, I feel I can't just support abortion on demand just because it is available and may be the easiest option. /


I don't understand your point about abortion being "easier" and your reply doesn't make any attempt to answer that.

Could you unpick this fear you've expressed because I really don't get the thinking behind it.

Especially if you didn't mean, as I assumed, the usual claim about "women would used abortion instead of bothering with contraception". So what did you mean about it being "the easiest option" then?

I mean the easiest way out of a pregnancy.
For some, and maybe a very small percentage, of those that seek abortion on demand it may be used as the first option instead of carrying a pregnancy through to the end when it might be a very possible outcome.
If you want to term that as a late contraception, then ok, that would be it.
I'm not talking the morning after pill sort of thing, but the 10/12 week decision as taking abortion as just an easy option, whether necessary or not.
It would happen I feel, and for that reason I'd be torn as to supporting such legislation.

mrkiscool2

Edward M wrote: »

I mean the easiest way out of a pregnancy.
For some, and maybe a very small percentage, of those that seek abortion on demand it may be used as the first option instead of carrying a pregnancy through to the end when it might be a very possible outcome.
If you want to term that as a late contraception, then ok, that would be it.
I'm not talking the morning after pill sort of thing, but the 10/12 week decision as taking abortion as just an easy option, whether necessary or not.
It would happen I feel, and for that reason I'd be torn as to supporting such legislation.

You should really read the stories of women who have actually gotten abortions. The one thing they will tell you, across the board, is how tough it was to make that decision and how hard it is to go through with it. Hell, some even feel upset about it years after the fact but know it was the right decision.

Abortion is never an easy choice. It's not about making it an easy choice either. It's about ensuring that women can have safe and legal access to it and not have to pay a fortune to get it done in another country and suffer away from home for hours, if not days, before they get home. Or, in the case of FFA's, having to take a ferry as it's the only way to bring their deceased child home.

volchitsa

Edward M wrote: »

I mean the easiest way out of a pregnancy.
For some, and maybe a very small percentage, of those that seek abortion on demand it may be used as the first option instead of carrying a pregnancy through to the end when it might be a very possible outcome.
If you want to term that as a late contraception, then ok, that would be it.
I'm not talking the morning after pill sort of thing, but the 10/12 week decision as taking abortion as just an easy option, whether necessary or not.
It would happen I feel, and for that reason I'd be torn as to supporting such legislation.

So do you mean then that because you personally might disapprove of the reasons a small number of women might have for abortion, you would consider voting to continue a situation where most women can still have abortions for those same reasons, in the UK?

What would that achieve? Those "bad" abortions are happening anyway. The main effect is that another Savita could happen again tomorrow, or another dead woman left to decay on life support machines or teenage girls put in psych wards.

rainbow kirby

drdeadlift wrote: »

I get the feeling the majority of the repeal the 8th crowd do not have children.Having children for me made me look at this issue very differently.

One toddler and 34 weeks pregnant with #2. Have been pro choice pretty much my whole life and having my son only reinforced my belief that nobody should be forced to carry to term or become a parent if they don't want to.

For what it's worth - I've had all my pregnancies in the UK and knowing that the 8th is not a factor in my care has made me feel a lot safer having my children here.

Edward M

volchitsa wrote: »

So do you mean then that because you personally might disapprove of the reasons a small number of women might have for abortion, you would consider voting to continue a situation where most women can still have abortions for those same reasons, in the UK?

What would that achieve? Those "bad" abortions are happening anyway. The main effect is that another Savita could happen again tomorrow, or another dead woman left to decay on life support machines or teenage girls put in psych wards.

For sure what you say makes sense.
I want something to be put in place so that neither side "wins'.
The life of the mother should be paramount in cases such as you mention, if that can be achieved without abortion on demand, that's what I would like to see.
I think I would find it hard to support anything where "bad" abortions are just as legal as totally legitimate ones.
I hope that explains my quandary and thinking at present without making me sound judgemental, which I'm not trying to be!

end of the road

mrkiscool2 wrote: »

It's about ensuring that women can have safe and legal access to it and not have to pay a fortune to get it done in another country

but it's going to cost them a fortune here as well.

volchitsa wrote: »

So do you mean then that because you personally might disapprove of the reasons a small number of women might have for abortion, you would consider voting to continue a situation where most women can still have abortions for those same reasons, in the UK?

What would that achieve? Those "bad" abortions are happening anyway. The main effect is that another Savita could happen again tomorrow, or another dead woman left to decay on life support machines or teenage girls put in psych wards.

2 of those could also happen even if the 8th wasn't in place. Savita died due to incompetents from what i can gather, not because she didn't have an abortion. teens sadly get locked up in psych wards for many varied reasons, they don't get locked up because they want an abortion.

volchitsa

Edward M wrote: »

For sure what you say makes sense.
I want something to be put in place so that neither side "wins'.
The life of the mother should be paramount in cases such as you mention, if that can be achieved without abortion on demand, that's what I would like to see.
I think I would find it hard to support anything where "bad" abortions are just as legal as totally legitimate ones.
I hope that explains my quandary and thinking at present without making me sound judgemental, which I'm not trying to be!

But it is judgmental, and that's not meant as a criticism, I wouldn't dare claim never to be judgmental myself.

But fundamentally your objection is not to abortion but to "abortion for the wrong reasons". That's a good illustration of being judgmental.

Wouldn't it be as easy to make the argument that such unsuitable parents shouldn't be allowed to have children as to say they have to have them to teach them not to take the easy way out?

volchitsa

end of the road wrote: »

but it's going to cost them a fortune here as well.

2 of those could also happen even if the 8th wasn't in place. Savita died due to incompetents from what i can gather, not because she didn't have an abortion. teens sadly get locked up in psych wards for many varied reasons, they don't get locked up because they want an abortion.

The girl whose case came to light a few months ago was wrongly incarcerated for asking for an abortion on suicide grounds.
Not for "varied" reasons.

As for Savita, the expert who wrote the report confirmed only recently that his view was that without the law, she would have lived.

They messed up her care after, true. But if the 8th hadn't been in place she wouldn't have had to wait as she did.

mrkiscool2

end of the road wrote: »

but it's going to cost them a fortune here as well.

Glad to see you've stopped the nonsense of trying to argue with science. Also, how would it cost them a fortune here? Private clinics in the UK are far more expensive but it's the only way Irish women can get the abortion. Plus, there is the cost of having to travel once if lucky, twice if not, and the added cost of a hotel room etc. So no, it won't cost them anywhere near as much.

end of the road

mrkiscool2 wrote: »

Glad to see you've stopped the nonsense of trying to argue with science. Also, how would it cost them a fortune here? Private clinics in the UK are far more expensive but it's the only way Irish women can get the abortion. Plus, there is the cost of having to travel once if lucky, twice if not, and the added cost of a hotel room etc. So no, it won't cost them anywhere near as much.

you are mixing me up with someone else. i didn't argue against science but with science. it will cost anyone wanting an abortion on demand money if it was legalised in ireland because the state is not in a position to pay for it. so the person having the abortion will have to pay in full for it.

Simi

end of the road wrote: »

it will cost anyone wanting an abortion on demand money if it was legalised in ireland because the state is not in a position to pay for it. so the person having the abortion will have to pay in full for it.

Actually the cost of a termination will likely be covered by the state in full in some cases and at least in part in others, if current plans come to fruition.

The current plan is a GP based service, meaning the cost of the pills would be covered in full for the holders of a medical card and at least in part under the drug payment scheme for everyone else. Either way it will be a fraction of the cost of going to a private clinic in the UK.

Of course no draft legislation has actually been published yet, so this is all speculative.

mrkiscool2

end of the road wrote: »

you are mixing me up with someone else. i didn't argue against science but with science. it will cost anyone wanting an abortion on demand money if it was legalised in ireland because the state is not in a position to pay for it. so the person having the abortion will have to pay in full for it.

Until I gave you a link that clearly shows you weren't. You were confusing the chance to become a life with life. By the way, a sperm or egg cell are similar to a fetus in that way, they have the potential to create life, but aren't life themselves. Fun fact.

Well, yes, yes it is. Not that it would be free for everyone, of course, and private clinics would most likely pop up so those who didn't want to wait as long could get it straight away. But it would be by GP referral meaning, at most, it would cost whatever the GP charges.