The 8th amendment(Mod warning in op)

SusieBlue

bubblypop wrote: »

I posted this story before on a different thread I think, but I will post again,just in case people don't understand how the 8th amendment can affect women's health.

A few years ago I had an ectopic pregnancy. I was approx 7 weeks pregnant, so most definitely a very small bunch of cells.
In the hospital I was not informed that there were any options available in my treatment. I had to undergo emergency surgery, where they removed the embryo.
Afterwards I spoke with a midwife, who informed me that ectopic pregnancy can be dealt with by way of a pill.
This was not an option for me however because the 8th amendment made it illegal for them to 'kill' the embryo. They had to operate & the loss Of The embryo was as a consequence of operating.

So, basically instead of giving me a pill, with little side affects I had to go under anaesthetic and undergo an operation which was entirely unnecessary.

if it happened in any other country we here would believe them to be backward.

That is absolutely awful. I can't believe you were put through that when there was a far less invasive option available.

Zubeneschamali

volchitsa wrote: »

Funny none of these women ever seem to feel strongly enough about this to come out and say so themselves isn't it?

There's one of them on a poster I've seen up in a few places. "The time it took to book travel to England was all the time it took to change my mind". Wealthy looking white woman with a happy, healthy baby.

And posters wouldn't lie, right?

One eyed Jack

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

Indeed and so we get doctors tying themselves in knots trying to work out the legal practicality of whether to abort in order to save the womans life. So effectively what happens in a number of cases is that the 8th puts womens lives in danger.

Joey if you wanted to view the issue in those terms, then women should be discouraged from ever getting pregnant in the first place as they are immediately putting their lives in danger. In fact, women should just wrap themselves in linen and never leave their abode as they are immediately putting themselves in danger.

I would fully expect any woman would tell me to naff off if I suggested such measures in an attempt to claim they could be putting themselves in danger otherwise.

Loafing Oaf

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

And the same will happen when the 8th is finally gone. No-one will miss it.

I'm dying to see how the pro-lifers on here and politics.ie react the following day if the referendum is passed (if their heads haven't exploded). I don't see how they can pretend that 'the fight goes on' in any meaningful sense. With contraception, divorce, etc. you would say they let that one go and move on to the next battle, but I don't see that there is a 'next battle' of any consequence. So what, stop worrying and learn to love secular liberalism?

Annasopra

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Joey if you wanted to view the issue in those terms, then women should be discouraged from ever getting pregnant in the first place as they are immediately putting their lives in danger. In fact, women should just wrap themselves in linen and never leave their abode as they are immediately putting themselves in danger.

I would fully expect any woman would tell me to naff off if I suggested such measures in an attempt to claim they could be putting themselves in danger otherwise.

It's not about how I view it. It is the reality that because doctors have to wait until a womans life is more than 50% in danger until they can give her a life saving abortion. It is reality. The 8th puts womens lives in danger.

Annasopra

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

I'm dying to see how the pro-lifers on here and politics.ie react the following day if the referendum is passed (if their heads haven't exploded). I don't see how they can pretend that 'the fight goes on' in any meaningful sense. With contraception, divorce, etc. you would say they let that one go and move on to the next battle, but I don't see that there is a 'next battle' of any consequence. So what, stop worrying and learn to love secular liberalism?

Unfortunately the fight will go on on this one. Repeal doesnt mean anything in 1 sense because we will still be in a situation where the Protection of life during pregnancy act is law.

volchitsa

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Wasn't it determined though in that case that the frozen embryos did not meet the conditions for the protection of life of the unborn on the basis that the term only applies to embryos which have implanted in the womb?

Well of course it was. It's well accepted that life begins at implantation. Right?
Well actually no.

Nothing new happens at implantation that would justify anyone considering that the entity was now worthy of being considered more of a human being than it had been just before that.

What would have happened, had the judgment followed the logic of those who voted for the 8th, would have been that Irish IVF clinics would have found their success rates slashed, as they would have had to drop practices like multiple embryo creation or implantation followed by multifetal reduction (basically you implant 3 or more embryos, hoping one or two will implant, and if four or more do so, then you hold on for a while in case some abort spontaneously, and then abort the excess number, on the (correct) grounds that the woman cannot safely bring so many babies to term and that she or they are likely to die. But it was a choice made at the start of the pregnancy, to increase success rates.)

After all, we can't have important things like business profits being put at risk by mere unborn babies can we? Great little country to do business in after all.

So let's wait till the embryos have implanted and pretend we think that's when life begins. Much handier, and who cares about women's health after all. Meh.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I don't think there's any attempt to reduce a woman's human rights on the basis that she is pregnant, but rather it's an attempt to weigh up the right to life of both the unborn and the pregnant woman in question and find a balance between the two competing rights.

I don't think attributing a competing legal right for the unborn is a good idea though - no other country I know of has such legislation, het they manage to limit or even ban abortion without it, and competing rights necessarily mean that one of the two loses out when their rights come into conflict.

Again, money talks : that's a handy little earner for lawyers, but not good for women's healthcare. It was actually planned that the two should have the same rights (hence William Binchy's pro-life objection to the chosen wording which as he pointed out effectively brought legal abortion into the country). But since we've moved away from the Catholic tradition of preferring to save the "innocent" baby over the "fallen" woman, it's no longer acceptable to any but a tiny minority to have a law which genuinely treats the two as equal.

But that is what was intended by the originators of the amendment at the time.

And it would be logical, if appalling. As it is though, we have developed a nonsensical legal mishmash where the fetus has some of the rights of a person but not all. It complicates medical decisions with legal issues unnecessarily, but hey, they don't call them the Four Goldmines for nothing.

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

Zubeneschamali

Da Boss wrote: »

They have yet to acknowledge a single genuine argument.for the retention of the eight amendment. They have yet to make any reference to the unborn child.

I voted against the 8th in the original referendum because it was a mad thing to put in the Constitution. The sequence of disasters which have followed it since have justified that view.

The whole "right to life of the unborn" was stupid right from the start, and lots and lots of people pointed it out back then (including FG then in Government who didn't want to use that wording - for good reason).

NollagShona

I was wondering what #MeToo was giving D Quinn and those at Iona towers such torment. Then I’ll realised- it gives women a voice! Let’s their side be heard

Loafing Oaf

Fred Swanson wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Yes, I'm assuming repeal of POLDPA will be part of the legislative package proposed to replace the 8th. I don't see how you could have any sunstantive liberalisation of the law otherwise...

Zubeneschamali

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Joey if you wanted to view the issue in those terms, then women should be discouraged from ever getting pregnant in the first place.

To parrot a common pro-life argument back to you - if we take that route, how many people would never have been born? Women should be getting pregnant all the time, one after another, so that all those lives get their one chance on earth.

A bit like 1930s catholic Ireland with the families of 13 kids, right?

Funny, that.

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

NuMarvel

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

I voted against the 8th in the original referendum because it was a mad thing to put in the Constitution. The sequence of disasters which have followed it since have justified that view.

The whole "right to life of the unborn" was stupid right from the start, and lots and lots of people pointed it out back then (including FG then in Government who didn't want to use that wording - for good reason).

Peter Sutherland, who passed away yesterday, was the attorney general at the time and was very much against it, not least because of the dangers of trying to put complex matters into a constitution:

Peter Sutherland in 1983
The overall reason, which crops up in almost every facet of any attempted solution is that the subject matter of the amendment sough is of such complexity, involves so many matters of medical and scientific, moral and jurisprudential expertise as to be incapable of accurate encapsulation into a simple constitution-type provision.

Words which one would expect in normal usage to be quite clear in their simplicity, in the context of a proposed amendment, take on complex but vital ambiguities which make their use in a constitution not only undesirable but dangerous in their uncertainty.

volchitsa

bubblypop wrote: »

I posted this story before on a different thread I think, but I will post again,just in case people don't understand how the 8th amendment can affect women's health.

A few years ago I had an ectopic pregnancy. I was approx 7 weeks pregnant, so most definitely a very small bunch of cells.
In the hospital I was not informed that there were any options available in my treatment. I had to undergo emergency surgery, where they removed the embryo.
Afterwards I spoke with a midwife, who informed me that ectopic pregnancy can be dealt with by way of a pill.
This was not an option for me however because the 8th amendment made it illegal for them to 'kill' the embryo. They had to operate & the loss Of The embryo was as a consequence of operating.

So, basically instead of giving me a pill, with little side affects I had to go under anaesthetic and undergo an operation which was entirely unnecessary.

I hadn't come across this before, bubblypop, and yes it's appalling. I hope you recovered fully.

I think this is part of the problem facing the pro repeal movement : in the years after the 8th was passed, women often weren't even able to know when and how the legal situation had affected the general maternity care they were getting, because no-one around them knew any different. Their friends and relatives all experienced the same sorts of care, so they thought that was all there was. And medical staff who may have known differently certainly weren't going to cause trouble for themselves.

It was only with the death of Savita that women really began asking questions about what else the 8th was doing apart from being an ineffective ban on abortion. It was certainly a wake-up call for me in any case. But a lot of people still don't get it. The propaganda has been very effective for so long that it's hard for people who aren't directly concerned to question it.

bubblypop wrote: »

if it happened in any other country we here would believe them to be backward.

Yes indeed. And perhaps we would be right.

Zubeneschamali

volchitsa wrote: »

So let's wait till the embryos have implanted and pretend we think that's when life begins. Much handier, and who cares about women's health after all. Meh.

I don't think that is where that came from. The whole implantation thing is not based on women's health or a definition of life, it is based on the judges best read of what the term "unborn" might mean, legally.

They were presented with the dog's dinner of the wording of the 8th, and had to decide what it meant. Could it protect a fertilized cell in a test tube? They decided that no, it could not, that something that had never even been near a womb could not be "unborn".

This is not a consequence of judges not caring about life or women's health, it is a consequence of putting language into the Constitution which nobody in Ireland understood.

NuMarvel

Fred Swanson wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

The govt will have decided what to do if the 8th is repealed before the referendum is held, possibly even before it's called. And they'll almost certainly publish draft or outline legislation before the referendum. Repeal/changes to the PLDP Act will be part of that.

Fred Swanson wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Never mind that. I can see someone bringing a challenge to the results of the referendum if repeal is passed, ala the two lads after the marriage equality referendum.

volchitsa

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Joey if you wanted to view the issue in those terms, then women should be discouraged from ever getting pregnant in the first place as they are immediately putting their lives in danger. In fact, women should just wrap themselves in linen and never leave their abode as they are immediately putting themselves in danger.

I would fully expect any woman would tell me to naff off if I suggested such measures in an attempt to claim they could be putting themselves in danger otherwise.

As in your personal anecdote about choosing to take a risk with your life, the one which you appear to think somehow justifies a woman's health being considered unimportant, and doctors deciding when her life is in sufficient danger for him/her to intervene, you're missing the whole point of choice.

I may choose to risk my life because I want a baby. People choose to risk their lives bungee jumping, or just speeding to get somewhere a bit faster, so what's the problem. And nobody is going to ask you your advice on the matter, so yes of course you can expect to be told to naff off if you decide to give it unasked.

(However if you decide to come bungee-jumping with me, and as we are standing at the bridge, ready to jump, you change your mind, it doesn't matter that I've paid out for the material and the transport, I still have no right to push you over the edge. )

Zubeneschamali

volchitsa wrote: »

It was only with the death of Savita that women really began asking questions about what else the 8th was doing apart from being an ineffective ban on abortion.

And still, still we get the pro-life crew pointing to reports about Savita's death and claiming that the 8th is not to blame, that the staff missed A or B and didn't do X and Y and that it would all have been grand if they had.

Entirely missing the point that A, B, X and Y should have been irrelevant - as soon as staff decided that the pregnancy was ending in miscarriage and the fetus could not be saved, their focus should shift entirely to the mother's health.

While here, even now, even today, they must play Russian Roulette with the woman's health until her life is demonstrably at risk. The stuff in the reports, X and Y and so forth, is about how they might have decided her life was at risk earlier than they did which is entirely beside the point that without the 8th, they would not have to wait for that condition in the first place.

NuMarvel

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

I don't think that is where that came from. The whole implantation thing is not based on women's health or a definition of life, it is based on the judges best read of what the term "unborn" might mean, legally.

They were presented with the dog's dinner of the wording of the 8th, and had to decide what it meant. Could it protect a fertilized cell in a test tube? They decided that no, it could not, that something that had never even been near a womb could not be "unborn".

This is not a consequence of judges not caring about life or women's health, it is a consequence of putting language into the Constitution which nobody in Ireland understood.

This case might have gone differently if the Pro Life Amendment Campaign's suggested text had been inserted. That said:

"The State recognises the absolute right to life of every unborn child from conception, and accordingly guarantees to respect and protect such rights by law."

Of course, under this text, the X Case could have gone very differently as well, as this proposal makes no reference to the woman's right to life (so much for pro life) and makes the unborn's right to life an absolute right.

Zubeneschamali

NuMarvel wrote: »

This case might have gone differently if the Pro Life Amendment Campaign's suggested text had been inserted. That said:

"The State recognises the absolute right to life of every unborn child from conception, and accordingly guarantees to respect and protect such rights by law."

And in the other direction, FG's suggested wording:

3° Nothing in this Constitution shall be invoked to invalidate, or to deprive of force or effect, any provision of a law on the ground that it prohibits abortion.

rainbow kirby

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

There's one of them on a poster I've seen up in a few places. "The time it took to book travel to England was all the time it took to change my mind". Wealthy looking white woman with a happy, healthy baby.

And posters wouldn't lie, right?

She's possibly the definition of "full of sh1t". Member of Youth 2000 who had a "whoops" in college, she never would have even considered abortion. She's one of the spokespeople the Pro-Life Campaign likes to trot out whenever they need someone with a young/female/media-friendly face.

captbarnacles

bubblypop wrote: »

I posted this story before on a different thread I think, but I will post again,just in case people don't understand how the 8th amendment can affect women's health.

A few years ago I had an ectopic pregnancy. I was approx 7 weeks pregnant, so most definitely a very small bunch of cells.
In the hospital I was not informed that there were any options available in my treatment. I had to undergo emergency surgery, where they removed the embryo.
Afterwards I spoke with a midwife, who informed me that ectopic pregnancy can be dealt with by way of a pill.
This was not an option for me however because the 8th amendment made it illegal for them to 'kill' the embryo. They had to operate & the loss Of The embryo was as a consequence of operating.

So, basically instead of giving me a pill, with little side affects I had to go under anaesthetic and undergo an operation which was entirely unnecessary.

if it happened in any other country we here would believe them to be backward.

We had the same 6 years ago in Holles St. We wanted methroxate so tube could be preserved and we'd have same chance of having another child but they refused and wouldn't offer a reason why they had to remove it. Sometimes it is necessary if there is scar tissue in the tube from infection but there was none. It was only afterwards we realised it was probably because the Catholic church position was that in tube removal the embryo's removal is considered incidental rather than by design when using chemo. Utterly ridiculous.

As an aside a nun came up to us after the operation and asked did we want the material they removed during the operation put in in the 'graveyard of lost souls' where they would pray for it. I was dumbstruck. I considered it a tumour that was going to kill my wife.

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

Zubeneschamali

Fred Swanson wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

In fairness, it seems to show that this particular nun was not loopy enough to believe in Limbo, which belief is a large part of the problem, originally.

Many catholics believed that from the time they got their little souls to baptism, babies went to a part of Limbo for eternity is they died, so it was vital to save the baby long enough to baptize them so they could go to heaven.

(Limbo had another wing where Noah, Moses and co. waited until Jesus died and went to get them, but that's not important right now.)

Bannasidhe

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

In fairness, it seems to show that this particular nun was not loopy enough to believe in Limbo, which belief is a large part of the problem, originally.

Many catholics believed that from the time they got their little souls to baptism, babies went to a part of Limbo for eternity is they died, so it was vital to save the baby long enough to baptize them so they could go to heaven.

(Limbo had another wing where Noah, Moses and co. waited until Jesus died and went to get them, but that's not important right now.)

The Vatican announced in 2007 that since they couldn't actually find any mention of Limbo in the Bible meaning there was only a theoretical possibility it existed so move along please, Mercy of God will mind the babbies but still Baptism is important cos ineffable context... It's all in this statement - which is also a stunning example of trying to reach a word count -

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/cti_documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20070419_un-baptised-infants_en.html

pilly

baylah17 wrote:

The Eight Amendment to the Constitution was the single biggest catastrophe to beset this state since its foundation. What is notable about the anti-choice anti woman headbangers who now oppose its repeal is that they have the arrogance to repeatedly say it should not be put to the people of this republic to decide on its retention/removal, they oppose the very concept of a referendum at all.

That's because they know it will be repealed.

Da Boss

WhiteRoses wrote: »

Many, many intelligent points have been made to you, and you have ignored them.

I'm still waiting on what you recommend the consequences be for the man who gets the woman pregnant. In your opinion, the woman needs to suffer the repercussions if contraception fails.
So what should happen to the man, what kind of life limiting state should we force on him for 9 months where he cannot drink, smoke or fly, and must eat a restricted diet? He won't be able to work towards the end, either.
The end of the 9 months must also be very painful, possibly involving surgery. And then after that we need to give him something he needs to be responsible for, for another 18 years minimum, that will eat into a lot of his personal time and income and will need his constant attention and care.

What are your recommendations for the consequences for him? Because all you seem to be banging on about is how the woman should suffer. She can't get pregnant on her own.

When a couple or whoever have protected sex, risk of pregnancy is always there. It’s made clear on a box of condoms, and the getting pregnant,as unlikely as it is, is the risk you take.therefore if you take the risk you have to be willing to accept the resulting child should it happen. No doubt pregnancy may be an inconvenience but that’s the case with every pregnancy, planned or not, that’s nature and nobody can change that. Regards the inconvenience, the life of the unborn child is much more important than avoiding a bit of inconvenience on the woman. Sure it’s unfortunate, but it’s a risk you take having sex.

Martina1991

Da Boss wrote:

Regards the inconvenience, the life of the unborn child is much more important than avoiding a bit of inconvenience on the woman. Sure it’s unfortunate, but it’s a risk you take having sex.

I honestly can't take this post seriously. You're calling pregnancy an "inconvenience " now.

A lifetime of looking after and paying for a human being is an "inconvenience".

You're beyond ignorant.

Da Boss

Martina1991 wrote: »

I honestly can't take this post seriously. You're calling pregnancy an "inconvenience " now.

A lifetime of looking after and paying for a human being is an "inconvenience".

You're beyond ignorant.

It’s no inconvenience, that’s a dehumanizing way of describing it however that’s how the pro choice side label a pregnancy

end of the road

Martina1991 wrote: »

I honestly can't take this post seriously. You're calling pregnancy an "inconvenience " now.

A lifetime of looking after and paying for a human being is an "inconvenience".

You're beyond ignorant.

that's what much of the pro-choice movement are making it out to be. he is only using their terms.

Martina1991

Da Boss wrote:

It’s no inconvenience, that’s a dehumanizing way of describing it however that’s how the pro choice side label a pregnancy

No it is not. That's how YOU label a pregnancy. An inconvenience to bear until the child is born.

No person with compassion or empathy would call a pregnancy an inconvenience no matter what side people are on.

Da Boss

White roses appears to have nothing to say now to my reply??

captbarnacles

Nobody who has ever lived with a pregnancy or seen someone go through labour would ever, ever label it an inconvenience.

That's just spoken out of ignorance.

SusieBlue

Da Boss wrote: »

White roses appears to have nothing to say now to my reply??

What you replied was a cop out. Your original post was completely targeted at and focused on how it’s tough sh*t on the woman and she should know better and she should suffer the consequences.

I wanted to know what you feel should happen to the man and you basically replied with a cop out.

I’m sure you don’t need me to tell you that a man can walk away from a pregnancy far easier than a woman can. You know, cos the baby is actually inside her. The man can just sail of into the sunset and there isn’t a whole lot the woman can do bar chase him for maintenance.

So yeah. It’s clear now that you hate women.

end of the road

Martina1991 wrote: »

No it is not. That's how YOU label a pregnancy. An inconvenience to bear until the child is born.

No person with compassion or empathy would call a pregnancy an inconvenience no matter what side people are on.

so what is a pregnancy that isn't wanted then if it's not an inconvenience?
cards on the table i don't like pregnancy being described as an inconvenience myself as, it's nature, however going on the poster's point, he is just talking in terms of how part of the pro-choice/abortion movement try to make pregnancy out to be as such in the aim of trying to get abortion on demand legislated for.

January

end of the road wrote: »

so what is a pregnancy that isn't wanted then if it's not an inconvenience?
cards on the table i don't like pregnancy being described as an inconvenience myself as, it's nature, however going on the poster's point, he is just talking in terms of how part of the pro-choice/abortion movement try to make pregnancy out to be as such in the aim of trying to get abortion on demand legislated for.

In my case it was a crisis. Not an inconvenience.

end of the road

WhiteRoses wrote: »

So yeah. It’s clear now that you hate women.

oh come on. there is no need for these hysterical claims. they are unnecessary and they do nothing for the debate. if there were people on here who hate women i'd be the first to call them out on it and i'd enjoy every moment of it.
disagreeing with abortion on demand doesn't mean people hate women.

eviltwin

An inconvenience is getting a flat tyre, missing the bus, forgetting your wallet.....

A pregnancy you don't want is far more than an inconvenience, as January said it's a crisis.

Da Boss

WhiteRoses wrote: »

What you replied was a cop out. Your original post was completely targeted at and focused on how it’s tough sh*t on the woman and she should know better and she should suffer the consequences.

I wanted to know what you feel should happen to the man and you basically replied with a cop out.

I’m sure you don’t need me to tell you that a man can walk away from a pregnancy far easier than a woman can. You know, cos the baby is actually inside her. The man can just sail of into the sunset and there isn’t a whole lot the woman can do bar chase him for maintenance.

So yeah. It’s clear now that you hate women.

I don’t see your point, if a woman is willing to consent to sex she must be aware of risk of pregnancy and be willing to take risk. If a pregnancy occurs it would be unfortunate for the woman should she not plan it but it’s the risk she takes, it’s not a punishment and the man doesn’t need to recieivr a punishment, nor the woman. However I’d hope a man wouldn’t just walk away on the woman, if he does it gives us men a bad name I think

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

Da Boss

Fred Swanson wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I’m not dictating anyone, I just hold the belief that nobody has the right to end the life of another, Be in the unborn or anyone.

Billy86

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

And still, still we get the pro-life crew pointing to reports about Savita's death and claiming that the 8th is not to blame, that the staff missed A or B and didn't do X and Y and that it would all have been grand if they had.

Entirely missing the point that A, B, X and Y should have been irrelevant - as soon as staff decided that the pregnancy was ending in miscarriage and the fetus could not be saved, their focus should shift entirely to the mother's health.

While here, even now, even today, they must play Russian Roulette with the woman's health until her life is demonstrably at risk. The stuff in the reports, X and Y and so forth, is about how they might have decided her life was at risk earlier than they did which is entirely beside the point that without the 8th, they would not have to wait for that condition in the first place.

Let's not forget the pregnant zombie whose whole family, father-to-be included were pleading, eagerly pleading for the horror show to end while their former lover/daughter because a freak of modern science, an essentially rotting corpse being kept pumped with fluids to keep a pulse going in hopes of being able to rip whatever remained inside of her.

She sheer unadulterated terror and revulsion from friends abroad that I showed that story to I don't think I've seen from any of them before. It really was creepy enough as to be directly out of a David Cronenberg film.

NuMarvel

end of the road wrote: »

so what is a pregnancy that isn't wanted then if it's not an inconvenience?
cards on the table i don't like pregnancy being described as an inconvenience myself as, it's nature, however going on the poster's point, he is just talking in terms of how part of the pro-choice/abortion movement try to make pregnancy out to be as such in the aim of trying to get abortion on demand legislated for.

Siri, find me examples of when EOTR referred to pregnancy or having a baby as an inconvenience in this thread.

end of the road wrote: »

...being pregnant while it may be inconvenient...

end of the road wrote: »

they are doing it because the pregnancy is inconvenient to them.

end of the road wrote: »

...said right outweighs someone's non-existant/imaginary right to kill it just because it's inconvenient...

A look through the thread finds that inconvenience is most often used by anti-repealers, not pro choicers. Presumably in an attempt to portray a woman who chooses an abortion as being lazy or selfish, which is once again basically saying, you don't trust women.

end of the road

eviltwin wrote: »

An inconvenience is getting a flat tyre, missing the bus, forgetting your wallet.....

A pregnancy you don't want is far more than an inconvenience, as January said it's a crisis.

not one requireing abortion as the solution in itself however.

NuMarvel

eviltwin wrote: »

An inconvenience is getting a flat tyre, missing the bus, forgetting your wallet.....

A pregnancy you don't want is far more than an inconvenience, as January said it's a crisis.

Maybe EOTR and DB think the Crisis Pregnancy service should be renamed the Inconvenient Pregnancy Service?

Martina1991

Da Boss wrote:

I don’t see your point, if a woman is willing to consent to sex she must be aware of risk of pregnancy and be willing to take risk. If a pregnancy occurs it would be unfortunate for the woman should she not plan it but it’s the risk she takes, it’s not a punishment and the man doesn’t need to recieivr a punishment, nor the woman. However I’d hope a man wouldn’t just walk away on the woman, if he does it gives us men a bad name I think

Do you think people should only have sex for the purpose of procreation?

A woman faced with an unplanned pregnancy is a life changing distress.

It's a decision I'm sure no women takes lightly without serious consideration.

An unwanted unplanned pregnancy is a no win situation and I would not judge anyone for having an abortion or continuing the pregnancy.

Da Boss

Martina1991 wrote: »

Do you think people should only have sex for the purpose of procreation?

A woman faced with an unplanned pregnancy is a life changing distress.

It's a decision I'm sure no women takes lightly without serious consideration.

An unwanted unplanned pregnancy is a no win situation and I would not judge anyone for having an abortion or continuing the pregnancy.

Well id judge someone differently if I knew they’d intentionally end the life of another, maybe that’s just me though

NuMarvel

end of the road wrote: »

not one requireing abortion as the solution in itself however.

Incorrect. A crisis pregnancy is any pregnancy "which is neither planned nor desired by the woman concerned, and which represents a personal crisis for her". And abortion is one of the choices that can be discussed during crisis pregnancy counseling.

end of the road

Martina1991 wrote: »

Do you think people should only have sex for the purpose of procreation?

of course not.

Martina1991 wrote: »

A woman faced with an unplanned pregnancy is a life changing distress.

It's a decision I'm sure no women takes lightly without serious consideration.

An unwanted unplanned pregnancy is a no win situation and I would not judge anyone for having an abortion or continuing the pregnancy.

sure, however i don't see why, as well as being expected to put up with it if it was legislated for, i should be expected to pay for it as well.