The 8th amendment(Mod warning in op)

NuMarvel

Da Boss wrote: »

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

I don't think anyone who's gone through a crisis pregnancy is going to care what you think.

Da Boss

Da Boss wrote: »

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.

I take it you're celibate?

eviltwin

end of the road wrote: »

not one requireing abortion as the solution in itself however.

And who are you to say that? Do you know what's right for every pregnant woman? Myself and January have both spoken about our experience with abortion and how it was the right one for us. Now I know you don't agree with those choices and that's fair enough, but don't presume you have the authority to tell either of us it wasn't the best solution for our unique circumstances.

end of the road

NuMarvel wrote: »

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







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.

some of the pro-choice/abortionists imply that it's an inconvenience, so i'm only going on the terms they use. the majority of those of us who are pro-apeal very much trust women, many are in fact women, however the unborn's right to life has to be protected.

NuMarvel wrote: »

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

no, it can call itself what it likes.

NuMarvel wrote: »

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.

and if she really wants it she can get it in england.

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

eviltwin

Da Boss wrote: »

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

Probably is just you. Most people, even those who don't agree with abortion, are wise and mature enough to know that life is not black and white and to appreciate the nuances that makes people choose what to do in a crisis pregnancy. You might get there yourself when you have a bit of life experience behind you.

end of the road

eviltwin wrote: »

And who are you to say that? Do you know what's right for every pregnant woman? Myself and January have both spoken about our experience with abortion and how it was the right one for us. Now I know you don't agree with those choices and that's fair enough, but don't presume you have the authority to tell either of us it wasn't the best solution for our unique circumstances.

killing the unborn is never the right solution unless in extreme circumstances. those who really want an abortion as i said can avail of it in the uk, so it's not needed here when the state is struggling to fund necessary services. not legislating for it would insure the 8th being repealed as most people agree the 8th as a whole has a lot of problems that need to be eradicated. abortion on demand isn't one of those problems however, the fact the 8th prohibits it within the state meaning it's not provided is a good thing for society and the unborn. the fact it is however provided in extreme circumstances is also a good thing.

eviltwin

end of the road wrote: »

killing the unborn is never the right solution unless in extreme circumstances. those who really want an abortion as i said can avail of it in the uk, so it's not needed here when the state is struggling to fund necessary services. not legislating for it would insure the 8th being repealed as most people agree the 8th as a whole has a lot of problems that need to be eradicated. abortion on demand isn't one of those problems however, the fact the 8th prohibits it within the state meaning it's not provided is a good thing for society and the unborn. the fact it is however provided in extreme circumstances is also a good thing.

"just get it in England"

Well done on making yourself look even more clueless than you already have.

eviltwin

eviltwin wrote: »

"just get it in England"

Well done on making yourself look even more clueless than you already have.

ye. "I only care about the lives of the unborn if i have to pay for it otherwise"

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

NuMarvel

end of the road wrote: »

killing the unborn is never the right solution unless in extreme circumstances. those who really want an abortion as i said can avail of it in the uk

The pro life hypocrisy boiled down to it's simplest form. Thanks for that.

Martina1991

end of the road wrote:

and if she really wants it she can get it in england.

You have shown time and time again you only care about the life of unborn children in Ireland. You couldn't care less if abortions are carried out in England.

Therefore you don't care about the unborn in all situations.

You are just self righteous.

Da Boss

If a neighbour is being an “inconvenience “ , you cannot just end his life to sort things to suit yourself, so why is it people think that should the unborn be an “inconvenience “ they can just end their life to suit themselves . Neither are acceptable in any circumstances!! People who seek abortion are selfish and self centered

January

end of the road wrote: »

killing the unborn is never the right solution unless in extreme circumstances. those who really want an abortion as i said can avail of it in the uk, so it's not needed here when the state is struggling to fund necessary services. not legislating for it would insure the 8th being repealed as most people agree the 8th as a whole has a lot of problems that need to be eradicated. abortion on demand isn't one of those problems however, the fact the 8th prohibits it within the state meaning it's not provided is a good thing for society and the unborn. the fact it is however provided in extreme circumstances is also a good thing.

I couldn't afford to go to England. I couldn't afford to have another child. What would you have suggested for me?

uptherebels

end of the road wrote: »

and if she really wants it she can get it in england.

There's that good old nimbyism again

NuMarvel

NuMarvel wrote: »

The pro life hypocrisy boiled down to it's simplest form. Thanks for that.

Yet pro abortion movement seems to think cancer, MRSA , child cancer, lack of hospital beds comes in a distant second when it comes to abortion.

Yes you can get a 2 hour boat to liverpool to get an abortion yet you cant get a hospital bed for a Brain Tumor in Ireland. Children having to travel to the US for cancer treatment as we dont have it here. Who is marching for them.

How about we put abortion on the back burner for a few years and lets get the more important things sorted first.

January

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Yet pro abortion movement seems to think cancer, MRSA , child cancer, lack of hospital beds comes in a distant second when it comes to abortion.

Yes you can get a 2 hour boat to liverpool to get an abortion yet you cant get a hospital bed for a Brain Tumor in Ireland. Children having to travel to the US for cancer treatment as we dont have it here. Who is marching for them.

How about we put abortion on the back burner for a few years and lets get the more important things sorted first.

Children in the UK have to travel for some forms of cancer treatment too. It's not a problem unique to Ireland.

Kids in Ireland have to travel to England to get any type of transplant too but sure I don't see anyone marching for that either...

Abortion services will be incorporated into maternity services. There won't need to be a budget increase for it.

NuMarvel

Da Boss wrote: »

If a neighbour is being an “inconvenience “ , you cannot just end his life to sort things to suit yourself, so why is it people think that should the unborn be an “inconvenience “ they can just end their life to suit themselves . Neither are acceptable in any circumstances!! People who seek abortion are selfish and self centered

This is a red herring, because women don't have abortions because being pregnant is inconvenient. That's just a strawman you built yourself to avoid discussing why women might choose to have an abortion.

January

Da Boss wrote: »

If a neighbour is being an “inconvenience “ , you cannot just end his life to sort things to suit yourself, so why is it people think that should the unborn be an “inconvenience “ they can just end their life to suit themselves . Neither are acceptable in any circumstances!! People who seek abortion are selfish and self centered

Because being pregnant when you hadn't planned to be isn't an inconvenience. We've discussed this.

uptherebels

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Yet pro abortion movement seems to think cancer, MRSA , child cancer, lack of hospital beds comes in a distant second when it comes to abortion.

Yes you can get a 2 hour boat to liverpool to get an abortion yet you cant get a hospital bed for a Brain Tumor in Ireland. Children having to travel to the US for cancer treatment as we dont have it here. Who is marching for them.

How about we put abortion on the back burner for a few years and lets get the more important things sorted first.

Really? Where did the pro choice side say any of those things come second? You see don't see any issue with claiming they should put looking for access to better medical care for pregnant woman on the back burner so they can get better medical care for others?

frag420

end of the road wrote: »

killing the unborn is never the right solution unless in extreme circumstances. those who really want an abortion as i said can avail of it in the uk, so it's not needed here when the state is struggling to fund necessary services. not legislating for it would insure the 8th being repealed as most people agree the 8th as a whole has a lot of problems that need to be eradicated. abortion on demand isn't one of those problems however, the fact the 8th prohibits it within the state meaning it's not provided is a good thing for society and the unborn. the fact it is however provided in extreme circumstances is also a good thing.

Ok so now we know that you are not in the slightest bit against abortion. In fact you support the killing of the unborn by exporting the problem to the UK!!

From now on I shall refer to you as EOTR - Abortion Supporter!!

NuMarvel

Deleted User wrote: »

Yet pro abortion movement seems to think cancer, MRSA , child cancer, lack of hospital beds comes in a distant second when it comes to abortion.

Yes you can get a 2 hour boat to liverpool to get an abortion yet you cant get a hospital bed for a Brain Tumor in Ireland. Children having to travel to the US for cancer treatment as we dont have it here. Who is marching for them.

How about we put abortion on the back burner for a few years and lets get the more important things sorted first.

I heard a variation of this during the marriage equality referendum. Funnily enough, all the people who said there were "more important" things to focus on have said or done nothing about those issues since the referendum.

If you think there should be marches on these or any other issues, there is nothing stopping you organising them. You'd probably even have at least a few pro choicers marching along side you.

end of the road

Fred Swanson wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

because abortion outside extreme circumstances is an unnecessary procedure.

Deleted User wrote: »

Yet pro abortion movement seems to think cancer, MRSA , child cancer, lack of hospital beds comes in a distant second when it comes to abortion.

Yes you can get a 2 hour boat to liverpool to get an abortion yet you cant get a hospital bed for a Brain Tumor in Ireland. Children having to travel to the US for cancer treatment as we dont have it here. Who is marching for them.

How about we put abortion on the back burner for a few years and lets get the more important things sorted first.

exactly. i 100 % agree with this.

January wrote: »

Children in the UK have to travel for some forms of cancer treatment too. It's not a problem unique to Ireland.

Kids in Ireland have to travel to England to get any type of transplant too but sure I don't see anyone marching for that either...

Abortion services will be incorporated into maternity services. There won't need to be a budget increase for it.

other parts of the maternity services would have to work with less though. unless the people having the abortion are told pay for it themselves.

frag420

I have a question for EOTR - Abortion Supporter.

Do you have sex for fun or only just to procreate? Serious question...

January

end of the road wrote: »

other parts of the maternity services would have to work with less though. unless the people having the abortion are told pay for it themselves.

Nope. The money saved from women not actually going full term and giving birth will pay for the abortion services.

You've ignored my question by the way. I couldn't afford to go to England. I couldn't afford another child. What would your suggestion have been for me?

end of the road

end of the road wrote: »

other parts of the maternity services would have to work with less though. unless the people having the abortion are told pay for it themselves.

The vast majority of abortions occur before 12 weeks and are handled by GPs.

end of the road

January wrote: »

Nope. The money saved from women not actually going full term and giving birth will pay for the abortion services.

You've ignored my question by the way. I couldn't afford to go to England. I couldn't afford another child. What would your suggestion have been for me?

you could use the system that is there to help people in such a situation. you are paying into it after all.

Annasopra

Da Boss wrote: »

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.

But you are dictating that women must stay pregnant against their wishes or needs.

Annasopra

end of the road wrote: »

of course not.

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.

Why should the taxpayer for any healthcare at all?

end of the road

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

But you are dictating that women must stay pregnant against their wishes or needs.

the law dictates a lot of things in relation to causing harm or killing.

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

Why should the taxpayer for any healthcare at all?

because it's necessary. killing the unborn bar extreme circumstances is unnecessary however.

Annasopra

end of the road wrote: »

some of the pro-choice/abortionists imply that it's an inconvenience, so i'm only going on the terms they use. the majority of those of us who are pro-apeal very much trust women, many are in fact women, however the unborn's right to life has to be protected.

no, it can call itself what it likes.

and if she really wants it she can get it in england.

I havent seen any trust of women in your posts. You do not trust women to make their own decisions.

NuMarvel

end of the road wrote: »

because abortion outside extreme circumstances is an unnecessary procedure.

Considering you didn't even know what a crisis pregnancy was, I don't think you're qualified to be the arbiter of what procedures are or are not necessary for a woman experiencing a crisis pregnancy.

end of the road wrote: »

exactly. i 100 % agree with this.

Let us know when you've organised the marches so.

end of the road wrote: »

other parts of the maternity services would have to work with less though.

Untrue as you've already been told at least once.

Annasopra

Da Boss wrote: »

If a neighbour is being an “inconvenience “ , you cannot just end his life to sort things to suit yourself, so why is it people think that should the unborn be an “inconvenience “ they can just end their life to suit themselves . Neither are acceptable in any circumstances!! People who seek abortion are selfish and self centered

You know many women who make that decision are far from selfish or self centred at all. They are thinking of the extremely difficult lives of their existing family. They are thinking of the poverty they and their current family are in. They are thinking of how having another mouth to feed can exacerbate that poverty.

Annasopra

end of the road wrote: »

the law dictates a lot of things in relation to causing harm or killing.

because it's necessary. killing the unborn bar extreme circumstances is unnecessary however.

It depends on the situation really. A - not all healthcare is necessary, B - some abortions are necessary to save the Mothers life (in a completely broad sense)

January

end of the road wrote: »

you could use the system that is there to help people in such a situation. you are paying into it after all.

I've already told you that 160 pm and 30 pw is not enough to raise a child on. So tell me again. What would you suggest for me?

frag420

frag420 wrote: »

I have a question for EOTR - Abortion Supporter.

Do you have sex for fun or only just to procreate? Serious question...

Perhaps you missed this question EOTR...here it is again for you!!

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

SusieBlue

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

But let’s be honest here, if a man wants to shirk his responsibilities he can just cut contact and say he doesn’t want to know. Women aren’t afforded the same option. They can’t walk away from what is growing inside of them.

This is why not just nationally, but globally, there are far more single sole custodian mothers than fathers. This is simply a fact.

Women are at a total disasvantage, they have fewer options in a crisis pregnancy than the man, and this is without even bringing abortion into it. You’d hope a man would take responsibility, but if he doesn’t want to, it’s actually very easy for him.

Anyway, I only brought this up because as I said, the difference in your attitude between men and women in this situation is astounding.
Women should know better, women should know the risks, contraception can’t fail and if it does it’s all her own fault, if she’s going to have sex she should be ok with becoming a mother, etc.
As for men, you hope they would step up and take responsibility. That’s it. I haven’t seen you call one single man a killer but many women here?
So basically all the fault, blame, responsibility, repercussions and punishment falls on the woman’s shoulders in your eyes. That’s how I know you hate women.

January

Fred Swanson wrote: »

The pro lifers would tell you to abandon the child to the care of the state.

At the time that wasn't an option for me either because I'm married. Now it wouldn't even be an option, telling 4 children that mammy is having a baby but someone else will take it away when it's born because we can't afford it, not an option for me.

end of the road

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

I havent seen any trust of women in your posts. You do not trust women to make their own decisions.

wrong, full trust of women in my posts, i trust them to make their own decisians. they just cannot kill the unborn within the state unless there is an extreme situation that requires it. just like i can't kill someone unless it is an absolute last resort. try again.

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

You know many women who make that decision are far from selfish or self centred at all. They are thinking of the extremely difficult lives of their existing family. They are thinking of the poverty they and their current family are in. They are thinking of how having another mouth to feed can exacerbate that poverty.

that is why we have a wellfare system. abortion is not needed or required in this country for those cases.

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

It depends on the situation really. A - not all healthcare is necessary, B - some abortions are necessary to save the Mothers life (in a completely broad sense)

yes and i have said that where abortion is necessary to save the mother's life or to prevent disability or where the baby cannot be caried to term that it should be provided.

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

end of the road

January wrote: »

At the time that wasn't an option for me either because I'm married. Now it wouldn't even be an option, telling 4 children that mammy is having a baby but someone else will take it away when it's born because we can't afford it, not an option for me.

you are happy to explain to them that you killed it though.

NuMarvel wrote: »

Considering you didn't even know what a crisis pregnancy was, I don't think you're qualified to be the arbiter of what procedures are or are not necessary for a woman experiencing a crisis pregnancy.

i am qualified to say that killing the unborn is wrong bar extreme circumstances. i'm well aware and always have been aware of what a crisis pregnancy is
the reality is, a large element of the pro-choice/abortion movement try and make pregnancy out to be an inconvenience, so i'm only going on their logic.

January

end of the road wrote: »

yet you are happy to explain to them that you killed it though.

Nope. Because I didn't kill anything. If they ever ask me if I had an abortion I'll be honest with them but right now they're too young to explain it to (although the eldest two do know about the concept of abortion).

You don't have a problem with abortion though do you eotr? If I was able to afford to go to England you'd have been fine with that.

captbarnacles

end of the road wrote: »

you are happy to explain to them that you killed it though.



i am qualified to say that killing the unborn is wrong bar extreme circumstances. i'm well aware and always have been aware of what a crisis pregnancy is
the reality is, a large element of the pro-choice/abortion movement try and make pregnancy out to be an inconvenience, so i'm only going on their logic.

1. You have no idea what a crisis pregnancy is.
2. No, they don't. You are imagining this.

kylith

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

You'd hope he wouldn't walk away? You'd hope??? If contraception fails you'd see a woman forced to carry and give birth to a child she did not want, with the life changing physical, mental, and emotional effects of pregnancy and childbirth, but you'd just hope the man didn't walk away? And that's it?? 'Aw, dude, that's a bit ****ty'??? No forcing him to financially support the child he helped make? No jailing him if he tries to abandon his family? Just 'it gives us a bad name'?

I thought this 'stupid women who get themselves pregnant' bs, as though a man isn't involved at all, had gone out in the 50s, but apparently 24 year olds who consider themselves educated are still coming out with it. It's all 'she, she, she'. If she decides to have sex. She has to be willing to take the risk. It's unfortunate for her.

end of the road wrote: »

however the unborn's right to life has to be protected.





and if she really wants it she can get it in england.

And there we have it. "THE UNBORN'S RIGHT TO LIFE HAS TO BE PROTECTED (unless abortion happens somewhere I can't see it, so I can pretend it's not a thing)"

end of the road wrote: »

killing the unborn is never the right solution unless

Unless she can afford airfare, right?

end of the road

January wrote: »

Nope. Because I didn't kill anything. If they ever ask me if I had an abortion I'll be honest with them but right now they're too young to explain it to (although the eldest two do know about the concept of abortion).

You don't have a problem with abortion though do you eotr? If I was able to afford to go to England you'd have been fine with that.

i wouldn't be fine with as i disagree with it. however i can't stop you.

captbarnacles wrote: »

1. You have no idea what a crisis pregnancy is.
2. No, they don't. You are imagining this.

wrong on both counts.

kylith wrote: »

And there we have it. "THE UNBORN'S RIGHT TO LIFE HAS TO BE PROTECTED (unless abortion happens somewhere I can't see it, so I can pretend it's not a thing)"

no, the life of the unborn must be protected. however the reality is we cannot stop people from traveling abroad to procure abortions.

kylith wrote: »

Unless she can afford airfare, right?

no, extreme circumstances such as a threat of life or disability upon the mother, or the baby not being viable to be caried to term. if she wishes to have an abortion by choice for non-extreme circumstances then there is a facility to allow that to happen.

kylith

end of the road wrote: »

no, extreme circumstances such as a threat of life or disability upon the mother, or the baby not being viable to be caried to term. if she wishes to have an abortion by choice for non-extreme circumstances then there is a facility to allow that to happen.

That's exactly my point. You're perfectly OK with women travelling to have abortions. You say that it's because there's nothing can be done, but you're not picketing airports. You're not demanding that the right to travel be repealed. If a woman has the means to go to the UK for an abortion then that's ok with you.

If anything you are in favour of more extreme abortions that any pro-choice person. By denying women abortions locally and telling them to travel what you're saying is 'I want you to have a more traumatic abortion with a fetus that is later term and more developed than it would have been if you could have gone to your GP when you first decided to terminate, since this way you have to arrange travel and save up to afford it'. The abortion you support is closer to 'killing babies' than the abortion I support, since it occurs closer to viability.

Annasopra

end of the road wrote: »

wrong, full trust of women in my posts, i trust them to make their own decisians. they just cannot kill the unborn within the state unless there is an extreme situation that requires it. just like i can't kill someone unless it is an absolute last resort. try again.

that is why we have a wellfare system. abortion is not needed or required in this country for those cases.

yes and i have said that where abortion is necessary to save the mother's life or to prevent disability or where the baby cannot be caried to term that it should be provided.

There is no trust. You simply do not trust women to make the right decisions for themselves. Your idea that the welfare state provides sufficient protection to bring everyone completely out of poverty is simply laughable too.

Frankly all of your posts on this are just complete nonsensical and full of contradictions.
You say you trust women but you have demonstrated you dont - you dont trust them to decide what is right for them.
You say that abortion shouldnt be available but you are perfectly fine with it being available for women who travel
You claim you dont support abortion abroad really but you are unwilling to really do anything about it. You refuse for example to campaign for reversing the 13th amendment.

Annasopra

kylith wrote: »

That's exactly my point. You're perfectly OK with women travelling to have abortions. You say that it's because there's nothing can be done, but you're not picketing airports. You're not demanding that the right to travel be repealed. If a woman has the means to go to the UK for an abortion then that's ok with you.

If anything you are in favour of more extreme abortions that any pro-choice person. By denying women abortions locally and telling them to travel what you're saying is 'I want you to have a more traumatic abortion with a fetus that is later term and more developed than it would have been if you could have gone to your GP when you first decided to terminate, since this way you have to arrange travel and save up to afford it'. The abortion you support is closer to 'killing babies' than the abortion I support, since it occurs closer to viability.

This also can leave many women forced into aborting when they may have decided differently. Women who have gone and spent thousands can often feel more pressured into abortions and avoid last minute decisions to change their mind.

Yep the current regime means women in Ireland have later term abortions and do not get sufficient post abortion healthcare

end of the road

kylith wrote: »

That's exactly my point. You're perfectly OK with women travelling to have abortions. You say that it's because there's nothing can be done, but you're not picketing airports. You're not demanding that the right to travel be repealed. If a woman has the means to go to the UK for an abortion then that's ok with you.

i'm not okay with it. i cannot stop it, and trying to would be a fruitless exercise. i can only work with the realities and practicalities that exist.

kylith wrote: »

If anything you are in favour of more extreme abortions that any pro-choice person. By denying women abortions locally and telling them to travel what you're saying is 'I want you to have a more traumatic abortion with a fetus that is later term and more developed than it would have been if you could have gone to your GP when you first decided to terminate, since this way you have to arrange travel and save up to afford it'. The abortion you support is closer to 'killing babies' than the abortion I support, since it occurs closer to viability.

i'm not in favour of abortion outside the extreme circumstances that i mentioned. however i do believe that the current situation does stop some abortions from happening which is a good thing for society.