The 8th amendment(Mod warning in op)

pilly

One eyed Jack wrote: »

It's not being disingenuous at all, it goes right back to what I've been suggesting and what has been suggested by people regardless of whether they are pro-choice or pro-life (anti-choice then, if you must) all along and what has been suggested by the evidence we have available to us -


1. The vast majority of women who choose to have an abortion do so for socioeconomic reasons
2. The vast majority of women who have abortions do not want to have abortions
3. Both people who are pro-choice and people who are anti-choice want to reduce the numbers of women who feel they have to have abortions
4. I think we can all agree that we wish the 8th weren't either necessary or that it had never been written into the Constitution in the first place
5. I think we can all agree that women opting for unsafe abortions is something none of us want

So, with all that said, it would appear to me at least that one of the ways to resolve this issue is to give women the support and resources they need so that they never have to feel like they aren't in a position where they are forced to make the decision to have an abortion due to a lack of resources and support.

Of course, I'm not naive enough to think that such a policy would or could ever account for the individual wishes of every single woman, but it would apply for vast majority of women, which I think would be a far better way to tackle the underlying cause as opposed to just using abortion as a means to avoid tackling the underlying cause and allowing it to continue.

Whilst I agree in a Uthopian world no woman should ever have to have an abortion we're not living in one.

In fact in Sweden which I would consider to be one of the best in the world in terms of childcare, parental support etc. the abortion rate is still 25% which to me suggests very simply that 25% of pregnancies are accidental and really not wanted.

It's just the reality of it. Socio-economic reasons is kind of a catch all term but it doesn't simply mean "I can't afford the child", it also means "I can't change my life at the moment, I'm happy with the way it is".

dr.fuzzenstein

WhiteRoses wrote: »

I vaguely see the point you are making about living children. But there is no such thing as abortion for children who are already born. In any country. Anywhere in the world. So its irrelevant. We are discussing aborting weeks-old pregnancies, not grown children. There is a massive difference.

That's the point of some people all along.
To them there is zero difference to aborting a weeks old foetus to grabbing a random child off the street and bashing it's skull in with a brick whilst laughing maniacally.
The "abortion of children already born" argument is saying exactly that.

.......

This post has been deleted.

pilly

keano_afc wrote: »

Myself and my wife have 2 kids, and a third on the way. We are barely surviving financially and if I'm honest, I'm struggling to see how we can afford another. And yet, the thought of ending that life is abhorrent to me.


I'm not seeing how options that are there for families that suddenly find themselves in poverty are not also available if a child is taken to term. If a family with 3 kids suddenly find themselves only able to afford 2 (although I'm not entirely sure how that would work), the options available to them are no different to a couple with 2 kids who get pregnant and cant afford a third.

Pro-lifers often argue that it's selfish to have an abortion. In a lot of cases I think it's selfish to go through with the pregnancy. You're bringing another child into the world that you can't afford.

I'm not specifically referring to your case here now but a lot of pro lifers would be the very ones on other threads about homelessness jumping up and down saying we shouldn't give Biddy a "free" house because she has a load of kids she can't afford. It's hypocritical to say the least.

keano_afc

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

That's the point of some people all along.
To them there is zero difference to aborting a weeks old foetus to grabbing a random child off the street and bashing it's skull in with a brick whilst laughing maniacally.

In both scenarios a human life is ended.

Although there might be slightly less laughing in the first example you gave.

keano_afc

pilly wrote: »

Pro-lifers often argue that it's selfish to have an abortion. In a lot of cases I think it's selfish to go through with the pregnancy. You're bringing another child into the world that you can't afford.

I'm not specifically referring to your case here now but a lot of pro lifers would be the very ones on other threads about homelessness jumping up and down saying we shouldn't give Biddy a "free" house because she has a load of kids she can't afford. It's hypocritical to say the least.

Thats a fair point.

As regards selfishness, I know a woman from the UK who has had 6 abortions, all because "it wasnt the right time". She was not taking any form of contraception. To me, thats selfish.

.......

This post has been deleted.

ohnonotgmail

keano_afc wrote: »

Myself and my wife have 2 kids, and a third on the way. We are barely surviving financially and if I'm honest, I'm struggling to see how we can afford another. And yet, the thought of ending that life is abhorrent to me.

and that is a choice you have made. a choice you want to deny to others

keano_afc wrote: »

I'm not seeing how options that are there for families that suddenly find themselves in poverty are not also available if a child is taken to term. If a family with 3 kids suddenly find themselves only able to afford 2 (although I'm not entirely sure how that would work), the options available to them are no different to a couple with 2 kids who get pregnant and cant afford a third.

repealing the 8th is about giving the couple with 2 kids who cant afford any more another option.

.......

This post has been deleted.

keano_afc

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

and that is a choice you have made. a choice you want to deny to others




repealing the 8th is about giving the couple with 2 kids who cant afford any more another option.

And if they find out they cant afford any more after 12 weeks? 24 weeks? 30 weeks?

One eyed Jack

NuMarvel wrote: »

And this can be done while also repealing the Eighth and legislating for increased access to abortion. In the same way, more can be done to improve sex education and access to contraception while also repealing the Eighth and legislating for increased access to abortion.

These aren't either/or situations, both can be done simultaneously, and no one has even hinted that socio-economic issues shouldn’t be addressed. Indeed, you’ll find that pro-choice groups like the NCWI and Amnesty have a history of campaigning on socio-economic issues, whereas anti-repeal groups like Iona don’t.

Actually that's exactly what they are, because in a society of finite resources, we can either give more resources and support to one or the other, and if we give resources and support to one, then there are either none, or fewer available for the other, and when we look at other societies and historically at other countries where abortion has long been available, it appears that prioritising the underlying causes becomes a secondary rather than a primary concern, disproportionately affecting the people for whom abortion was argued as a solution in the first place.

EDIT: I think if you look at the history of Amnesty, you'll find that while they have a history of campaigning on socioeconomic issues, the pro-choice stance is only a recent thing.

pilly

keano_afc wrote: »

Thats a fair point.

As regards selfishness, I know a woman from the UK who has had 6 abortions, all because "it wasnt the right time". She was not taking any form of contraception. To me, thats selfish.

I agree, totally selfish and lazy but you will always have been who abuse any system.

It's like saying we should do away with social welfare because it's a abused by a tiny minority.

.......

This post has been deleted.

ohnonotgmail

keano_afc wrote: »

And if they find out they cant afford any more after 12 weeks? 24 weeks? 30 weeks?

well then the option of abortion is not open to them. that is not a reason to not have the option in the first place. It cannot solve all possible problems. no single solution can.

.......

This post has been deleted.

keano_afc

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I'm asking at what stage of a human beings life is it safe from termination because its a financial inconvenience.

ohnonotgmail

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Actually that's exactly what they are, because in a society of finite resources, we can either give more resources and support to one or the other, and if we give resources and support to one, then there are either none, or fewer available for the other, and when we look at other societies and historically at other countries where abortion has long been available, it appears that prioritising the underlying causes becomes a secondary rather than a primary concern, disproportionately affecting the people for whom abortion was argued as a solution in the first place.

whereas in a society like ours we have made it a primary concern? i dont think we live in the same country at all if you think we have done more to address the underlying issues.

ohnonotgmail

keano_afc wrote: »

I'm asking at what stage of a human beings life is it safe from termination because its a financial inconvenience.

whatever the oireachtas says it is. the proposal is for 12 weeks. Some people would like more.

keano_afc

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

well then the option of abortion is not open to them. that is not a reason to not have the option in the first place. It cannot solve all possible problems. no single solution can.

But this is exactly my point. Why is a termination for financial reasons perfectly fine up to an arbitrary point?

keano_afc

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

whatever the oireachtas says it is. the proposal is for 12 weeks. Some people would like more.

It makes no sense to say its ok to kill a 12wk old unborn child because its unaffordable but its not ok at 13 weeks.

Its either all or nothing. Financial restraints dont make a life more affordable after an arbitrary point.

nozzferrahhtoo

keano_afc wrote: »

I'm simply trying to understand how financial difficulties can be a valid reason for ending a human life, and at what point those difficulties are no longer admissible.

Neither is difficult to understand:

1) A fetus that is in no way a sentient entity is a "human life" in taxonomy terms alone, and little else. There is nothing wrong with terminating it therefore that I can see. And what peoples reasons are for doing so should therefore be none of your business at all. Let alone to "validate" anything.

2) Sentience should be the point when arbitrary reasons for ending the life of another are no longer relevant. At this point there is a valid basis for concerning oneself morally and ethically with the well being of the entity involved.

keano_afc wrote: »

Myself and my wife have 2 kids, and a third on the way. We are barely surviving financially and if I'm honest, I'm struggling to see how we can afford another. And yet, the thought of ending that life is abhorrent to me.

Then don't. No one, that I can see anyway, is demanding that you do. There is no reason you should feel compelled to do it. But YOUR abhorrence to that choice is not a valid basis for claiming no one else should be making it. And it would be nice to live in a world where people wishing to prevent other people from doing something, could put together a coherent reason for that other than the usual cop out I hear of "I have a right to my opinion/vote".

There is a chasm of difference between making a choice for yourself, and denying that choice to others so they make your choice too. Projection? Or are you only happy with your choices when other people make the same ones?

keano_afc wrote: »

If a family with 3 kids suddenly find themselves only able to afford 2 (although I'm not entirely sure how that would work), the options available to them are no different to a couple with 2 kids who get pregnant and cant afford a third.

Except the options available to them SHOULD be different and are. That is the topic of the entire thread. Abortion should be an option one has, and the other does not. And it IS an option one has, and the other has not. The issue is just the pointless and damaging geographic and economic lengths they have to go to to avail of it when it could be offered here ethically and relatively safely in a way that is cheaper and easier for the people concerned.

keano_afc wrote: »

In both scenarios a human life is ended.

Except "Human life" can mean many things in many contexts. And your pretense that this is not so is not going to make all those meanings go away. A fetus at, say, 12 weeks is "Human life" in terms of taxonomy alone really. The same can not be said about, say, a toddler.

Your whole point on this thread seems a fabricated narrative based on pretending the catch all term "human life" is equally applicable in all contexts. But it really isn't and I doubt many are fooled by it except, possibly, yourself as I genuinely can not tell if you are trying to fool WITH that move or have yourself been fooled BY that move. Or both.

keano_afc wrote: »

As regards selfishness, I know a woman from the UK who has had 6 abortions, all because "it wasnt the right time". She was not taking any form of contraception. To me, thats selfish.

Unverifiable and likely fabricated anecdotes do not help much. But I find the anecdote in question more typical of stupidity than selfishness. Medical procedures come with risks. Even "simple" ones like ingrowing toenail removal can at times result in the loss of the entire limb, or even death. Someone who is not taking precautions, and relying on medical intervention, is just plain dumb.

But the level of intelligence of people you choose to associate with is not really relevant to the topic of abortion, or offering abortion services. There are ALWAYS at least a statistical minority of people who abuse themselves, or any service, that is offered out there. Their selfishness, stupidity and/or abuses are not a reason AT ALL to not offer that service however.

The service is either ethical and useful, or it is not. Someone abusing it, or themselves, is not relevant to that evaluation.

keano_afc wrote: »

I'm asking at what stage of a human beings life is it safe from termination because its a financial inconvenience.

And you have been told, and has this thread, many times what possible answers there are to that question. And my own answer, I have said 100s of times before, is that the moment we have solid reason to believe the fetus is a sentient agent....... we need more that arbitrary reasons to terminate it as it should have the same core right to life as any other sentient agent typifying it's species.

keano_afc wrote: »

But this is exactly my point. Why is a termination for financial reasons perfectly fine up to an arbitrary point?

You will have to ask someone postulating an arbitrary point to get an answer to THAT one however. Certainly there is nothing arbitrary about the point I have suggested.

keano_afc wrote: »

It makes no sense to say its ok to kill a 12wk old unborn child because its unaffordable but its not ok at 13 weeks.

It also makes no sense to say you can consent to sex at 16.00000000001 but not at 15.9999999999999 or buy alcohol at 18 but not at 17.9. But alas the demands of reality mean we need SOME temporal lines in the sand in our ethics and laws regardless of how much "sense" they make to you personally.

.......

This post has been deleted.

SusieBlue

keano_afc wrote: »

But this is exactly my point. Why is a termination for financial reasons perfectly fine up to an arbitrary point?

Because, as you know, a lot of people disagree about at which point a life becomes a life. You clearly see it as from conception, which is your prerogative. Not everyone agrees.
Scientific research would say some time around 17 weeks, so I'm inclined to go with that. However we'll have to go with whatever limit the legislation is put at, which will probably be around 12 weeks.

.......

This post has been deleted.

keano_afc

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

And how does that affect affordability?

SusieBlue

keano_afc wrote: »

And how does that affect affordability?

The point is completely flying over your head, you are being intentionally obtuse.

Affordability is just ONE of many reasons a woman may want an abortion.

One eyed Jack

....... wrote: »

Abortion costs less than birth and subsequent child support so from a financial viewpoint it would make far more sense to offer abortion.

An abortion procedure does cost less than giving birth, but that's where the comparison ends. Obviously children need support, but most people do not think of children solely in financial terms, so really the two cannot be so simply compared.

Where is your proof for your second statement bolded?

I've already given it in the thread (and rather lengthy posts they were too!), but I'm on the touch site right now so I'm not going all the way back to try and find the posts.

.......

This post has been deleted.

pilly

keano_afc wrote: »

I'm asking at what stage of a human beings life is it safe from termination because its a financial inconvenience.

12 weeks gestation in my view.

nozzferrahhtoo

keano_afc wrote: »

And how does that affect affordability?

It affects the notion that there is a point during the gestation process when we have ethical arguments to suggest that we require more than arbitrary reasons to terminate the fetus.

If you wish to appeal to the human right to life of a fetus, you have to do so (assuming arguing your point coherently is even of interest to you) first by showing what it is we hang rights on. What attribute exists that gives the "right to life" to any entity in the first place?

What you will realize, if you engage in that channel of inquiry openly and honestly, is that ethics and morality and rights are in the business of dealing with attribute about human life that are entirely absent in the fetus being terminated.

The vast majority (over 90%) of abortions by personal choice happen in or before 12 weeks of gestation. This goes up to the near totality (figures like 98%) by 16 weeks). None of the attributes you can coherently hang a right to life off exist in the fetus at those stages.

So people, yourself seemingly one of them, try to dilute the term "human life" to mere taxonomy and presume/assume that it is coherent to hang human rights off that. It is not. That is just intellectually bankrupt linguistic gymnastics.

.......

This post has been deleted.

dr.fuzzenstein

keano_afc wrote: »

But this is exactly my point. Why is a termination for financial reasons perfectly fine up to an arbitrary point?

How about the morning after pill?
Is this the same a beating some random child on the street to death?

One eyed Jack

....... wrote: »

I never compared the two. You stated that there were finite resources re offering abortions and offering support so people dont have abortions - I simply pointed out that more resources become available if someone avails of abortion - so then the people who chose not to abort could be supported, ie, more money would be available.

But that simply isn't true. People who are socially and economically deprived do not suddenly gain more resources that they didn't have before because abortion becomes available to them. It doesn't change their current circumstances in any way, shape or form whatsoever. I'll put it very simply - if there is nobody to generate wealth, then how do you expect wealth is generated over generations? It's quite simple - the poor who have more abortions remain poor, and the wealthy who have less abortions, become even wealthier.

Although I strongly suspect you have completely misunderstood the "for socioeconomic reasons" reason you are citing, because its not purely financially driven and I know of no study that shows that most women who have abortions would prefer not to have had one over having one. Women may wish not to be in the situation that they have to have one - but thats not the same thing.

But you focused entirely on financial reasoning in your last post, not me! As it happens I do understand both social and economic circumstances, and how those terms apply both at an individual and societal level, and that's why I believe it is misguided to focus solely on the individual needs and wants of individuals when we are talking about an issue that is a societal issue, the greater good, if you will, and as for your "women may not wish to be in a situation that they feel they have to have one", the obvious inference from that statement is that those women would prefer not to have abortions and would prefer to be in a position where they could have children.

If you could provide such at your convenience please because I have seen no evidence of what you state as fact.

I was pretty sure I never stated anything as fact, but thankfully I didn't have to go back too far to provide you with evidence that I never stated any such thing as fact -

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Actually that's exactly what they are, because in a society of finite resources, we can either give more resources and support to one or the other, and if we give resources and support to one, then there are either none, or fewer available for the other, and when we look at other societies and historically at other countries where abortion has long been available, it appears that prioritising the underlying causes becomes a secondary rather than a primary concern, disproportionately affecting the people for whom abortion was argued as a solution in the first place.

Well, isn't that a relief? For a minute there I thought you might have misunderstood what I actually said. Lucky I was able to clear that up for you, isn't it?

.......

This post has been deleted.

One eyed Jack

....... wrote: »

Jack - you seem to be engaging in a bit of goal post moving. My entire last exchange with you was based on your reference to state resources as you posted here:

You even quoted the sentence, but where did you see the word 'State' in that sentence? I said 'in a society of finite resources'. Stop reading what you want to think I wrote and then accusing me of moving any goalposts. They're fine as they are already.

Nothing to do with individual wealth and Im not sure why you thought it was - twas yourself who brought up financial resources in the first place.

Stop that. You, earlier:

....... wrote: »

Abortion costs less than birth and subsequent child support so from a financial viewpoint it would make far more sense to offer abortion.

That is not the obvious inference at all. They would prefer if they had never become pregnant in the first place.

If the reasons they give for terminating their pregnancy are social and economic circumstances, then it would appear to be obvious that if they were living in more favourable social and economic circumstances, they would not choose to have an abortion. This is a far more reasonable interpretation of the data when we see that abortion rates are higher amongst socioeconomically deprived communities than socioeconomically privileged communities. It can even be answered by asking yourself one simple question - during an economic recession, which group do you imagine is hit harder - those who are already socioeconomically disadvantaged, or those who are already socioeconomically advantaged? If we examine factors other than solely financial factors, like socioeconomic factors, then one doesn't need a background in either economics or social studies to observe the bleedin' obvious -


$100,000 income: No big deal anymore

What research leads you to such a conclusion? How does it appear this way? This is simply your opinion generated to suit a narrative.

I've already given you the reason why I'm not going back in the thread to find the posts, and I thought you were allowing me to find it in my own time. Perhaps if you're that impatient you should have been paying attention the first time and you might not now be making claims then that you have seen no evidence when the evidence was first presented.

NuMarvel

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Actually that's exactly what they are, because in a society of finite resources, we can either give more resources and support to one or the other, and if we give resources and support to one, then there are either none, or fewer available for the other, and when we look at other societies and historically at other countries where abortion has long been available, it appears that prioritising the underlying causes becomes a secondary rather than a primary concern, disproportionately affecting the people for whom abortion was argued as a solution in the first place.

As has been pointed out to you before, allowing access to abortion doesn't put an additional burden on resources, because pregnant women who don't have abortions are going to access public services anyway.

And it's clearly not an either/or scenario because Ireland has had an absolute ban on abortion for the last 157 years, but we still have the issues we're talking about. In spades!

.......

This post has been deleted.

.......

This post has been deleted.

One eyed Jack

NuMarvel wrote: »

As has been pointed out to you before, allowing access to abortion doesn't put an additional burden on resources, because pregnant women who don't have abortions are going to access public services anyway.

Are you suggesting that women who have abortions don't need resources? I hope not, I really hope I'm reading that wrong.

And it's clearly not an either/or scenario because Ireland has had an absolute ban on abortion for the last 157 years, but we still have the issues we're talking about. In spades!

"In spades" is a particularly nebulous term, don't you think? I wouldn't consider 3,000 abortions in any given year particularly excessive.

NuMarvel

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Are you suggesting that women who have abortions don't need resources? I hope not, I really hope I'm reading that wrong.

I'm stating that your claim that access to abortion takes away from other services is wrong.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

"In spades" is a particularly nebulous term, don't you think? I wouldn't consider 3,000 abortions in any given year particularly excessive.

Nice try, but I was referring to the social and economic issues that you're claiming we couldn't deal with if we allowed access to abortion, and I'm pointing out that we've had a ban on abortion for nearly 160 years yet we still have these issues.

NuMarvel

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

If mental gymnastics ever becomes an Olympic sport, Ireland is guaranteed a gold if EOTR is on the team.

splinter65

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.

In a report a posted earlier in the thread, when ladies arranging to have an abortion in the state of Minnesota for example where asked to pick from around 15 options as to why they were terminatIng, 68% picked “inconvenient”.
In some states it was higher.

One eyed Jack

NuMarvel wrote: »

I'm stating that your claim that access to abortion takes away from other services is wrong.

I never made that claim, don't expect me to defend something I never claimed in the first place.

Nice try, but I was referring to the social and economic issues that you're claiming we couldn't deal with if we allowed access to abortion, and I'm pointing out that we've had a ban on abortion for nearly 160 years yet we still have these issues.

Oh right, no, I never claimed we couldn't deal with them, I'm suggesting, and have suggested all throughout this thread and the many threads that came before it, that we wouldn't. Best not to try and conflate the two things as though abortion would actually make any difference to the numbers of people living in socioeconomic poverty.

NuMarvel

splinter65 wrote: »

In a report a posted earlier in the thread, when ladies arranging to have an abortion in the state of Minnesota for example where asked to pick from around 15 options as to why they were terminatIng, 68% picked “inconvenient”.
In some states it was higher.

I saw someone claim that in 92% of abortions, women had ticked Inconvenient, but they never provided the report they were referencing and the material they did provide didn't include Inconvenient as a reason at all. It was a judgement the article's author made which the poster then repeated as fact while also misattributing the source.

pilly

I'm not going to quote one of your long posts Jack but it is really getting ridiculous now how you try to talk your way out of having made a silly argument.

Not wanting to have an abortion does not equal wanting to have a baby. Stating that it does is just naïve in the extreme.

And you absolutely did say that providing abortion would take away the resources from society.

Also, you never replied to my post about Sweden?

They've managed to both have a liberal regime for abortion and an extremely well run family centred society whilst still having the same abortion percentage as the UK so that would certainly seem to debunk your theory that providing abortion means we'll all of sudden give up providing any other resources to women.

One eyed Jack

pilly wrote: »

I'm not going to quote one of your long posts Jack but it is really getting ridiculous now how you try to talk your way out of having made a silly argument.

Not wanting to have an abortion does not equal wanting to have a baby. Stating that it does is just naïve in the extreme.

What's naive about suggesting that if a pregnant woman doesn't want to have an abortion, then she wants to have a child?

I'm not aware of any third option.

And you absolutely did say that providing abortion would take away the resources from society.

Yes, that I did say.

Also, you never replied to my post about Sweden?

They've managed to both have a liberal regime for abortion and an extremely well run family centred society whilst still having the same abortion percentage as the UK so that would certainly seem to debunk your theory that providing abortion means we'll all of sudden give up providing any other resources to women.

I never replied to it because I didn't see anything to question. Now that you've given the reason for why you mentioned Sweden all I can simply say is that I disagree with your perspective on Swedish society and I would hope Ireland would never become anything like them. I don't imagine we would though, so I don't see it as anything to be overly bothered about.

nozzferrahhtoo

Isn't it wonderful how vague and labile the phrase "Socio economic reasons" even is in the first place? Easy to imagine it just means "poor people" or something simple like that. And if you could only just get them more money and resources, they would not require an abortion. Improve their circumstances and they will continue with the pregnancy.

But actually it is such a vague term it can mean the exact opposite of that. A person in a very highly paid job, who is certainly not poor or deprived in that sense, might not feel that they can maintain the work-life balance a baby requires and so would also be considered an "economic reason". Or someone with a social life that is important to them and their identity who feels a baby would curtail or even end that life, would be considered a "social reason".

Further we can not simply assume that more abortions happening in "social and economically deprived" areas means that if their circumstances were improved they would no longer want or seek the abortion. The assumption there is that the social and economical circumstances lead them to want to end the pregnancy. An equally valid assumption is that their pregnancy would be unwanted either way, but it is social and economic circumstances that increased their numbers of unwanted pregnancy.

So anyone commenting on the social and economic motivators behind abortion has a lot of work to do being clear about what they think those motivators even mean, and whether the motivators are relevant more (or equally) to wanting the abortion, or ending up with an unwanted pregnancy in the first place. After all that, then they might cite a few of the sources they claim to have lost somewhere along the thread when asked to do so.

pilly

One eyed Jack wrote: »

What's naive about suggesting that if a pregnant woman doesn't want to have an abortion, then she wants to have a child?

I'm not aware of any third option.





Yes, that I did say.





I never replied to it because I didn't see anything to question. Now that you've given the reason for why you mentioned Sweden all I can simply say is that I disagree with your perspective on Swedish society and I would hope Ireland would end up nothing like them. I don't imagine we would though, so I don't see it as anything to be overly bothered about.

Okay, so you really do see life in black and white don't you?

If a woman is pregnant the fact that she does not want an abortion does not mean that she wants a child. She doesn't want either, what do you not understand about that?

pilly

One eyed Jack wrote: »

What's naive about suggesting that if a pregnant woman doesn't want to have an abortion, then she wants to have a child?

I'm not aware of any third option.





Yes, that I did say.





I never replied to it because I didn't see anything to question. Now that you've given the reason for why you mentioned Sweden all I can simply say is that I disagree with your perspective on Swedish society and I would hope Ireland would never become anything like them. I don't imagine we would though, so I don't see it as anything to be overly bothered about.

And what do you see wrong in Swedish society?

One eyed Jack

pilly wrote: »

Okay, so you really do see life in black and white don't you?

If a woman is pregnant the fact that she does not want an abortion does not mean that she wants a child. She doesn't want either, what do you not understand about that?

No, no I don't? I understand that she doesn't want either, but given that one outcome is at least inevitable, obviously she has reasons why she wants to avoid the inevitable, and the most common reasons given are socioeconomic reasons. Tackle the underlying socioeconomic reasons and then you change the inevitable outcome.

pilly wrote: »

And what do you see wrong in Swedish society?

Their liberal regime for one thing. I also don't agree with you that they have an extremely well run family centred society but that's entirely a matter of perspective. I don't imagine we're ever likely to see eye to eye on what we consider to be an extremely well run family centred society, but I would say that Ireland is a lot closer to that ideal from my perspective at least, than Sweden will ever be.