The 8th amendment(Mod warning in op)

.......

This post has been deleted.

.......

This post has been deleted.

end of the road

WhiteRoses wrote: »

No, sorry, that's your interpretation of the constitution. The constitution doesn't actually specifically say that, at all.

i never claimed the constitution said it. i have been clear that what i stated is defacto due to an actual right. this is very simple to understand.

WhiteRoses wrote: »

The reality is the constitution says sweet f all about sentience and pre-sentience and defacto rights, and you made that up to support your argument.

again i never said it did, you are the one saying that i am saying it did. i made nothing up, i was clear that it is a defacto right.

Loafing Oaf

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Also, he wants to be seen to 'give his TDS' space to come to the 'right' decision on the issue, rather than pressurising them into 'following the leader'.

nozzferrahhtoo

One eyed Jack wrote: »

You do know that instead of assuming my position on things, you could just ask?

What like I did THREE TIMES and you still have not actually answered any of what was asked?

No? No? No? I guess not then.

SusieBlue

end of the road wrote: »

i never claimed the constitution said it. i have been clear that what i stated is defacto due to an actual right. this is very simple to understand.



again i never said it did, you are the one saying that i am saying it did. i made nothing up, i was clear that it is a defacto right.

You didn't say anything about defacto in your original post. You said the pre-sentient have the right to protection in order to become sentient.
So I asked you for the source for the law you were quoting, and you came up empty.
For truth, the below is what you originally posted. I've bolded the bits where you made up the law, to make things easier for you:

end of the road wrote: »

it's not viable to operate on the basis of sentients only. the pre-sentient, as in the unborn, who will (unless circumstances prevent it) will become sentient, have to be given protection, to insure their right to become sentient is upheld as much is practically possible.
the reality in relation to abortion on demand, is that when it is legislated for (at least in terms of countries like britain).....

end of the road

WhiteRoses wrote: »

You didn't say anything about defacto in your original post. You said the pre-sentient have the right to protection in order to become sentient.

i did yes, which is rather different to what you claim i stated. what you are stating is that i stated that the unborn have a constitutional right to be sentient, which is something i have never stated.
the unborn, under the constitution have the right to life as much as is practical. this protection in turn, insures that there is no medical or other interference bar extreme circumstances, to stop the unborn from growing and eventually being born. therefore due to the fact they have constitutional right to life, they have a defacto right to be sentient. the constitution gives the right to life, and the right to be sentient is the defact o right.

SusieBlue

end of the road wrote: »

i did yes, which is rather different to what you claim i stated. what you are stating is that i stated that the unborn have a constitutional right to be sentient, which is something i have never stated.
the unborn, under the constitution have the right to life as much as is practical. this protection in turn, insures that there is no medical or other interference bar extreme circumstances, to stop the unborn from growing and eventually being born. therefore due to the fact they have constitutional right to life, they have a defacto right to be sentient. the constitution gives the right to life, and the right to be sentient is the defact o right.

No they don’t, and that’s all your opinion, absolutely none of that is fact.

end of the road

WhiteRoses wrote: »

No they don’t, and that’s all your opinion, absolutely none of that is fact.

oh yes they do have a right to life, it's not my opinion but fact. the constitution guarantees their right to life and to guarantee such protection "as much as is practical"

Zubeneschamali

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Then not only will I give her the money

So, abortion for your grand-daughter because you have the cash, but not for the same-age girl in a mental hospital, a prison or direct provision.

All because you have drawn some bizarre conclusion that abortion on demand somehow causes income inequality to worsen.

nozzferrahhtoo

Yeah despite his "instead of assuming my position on things, you could just ask" narrative I asked him about that one too and, you guessed it, NOTHING in response.

The claim was "after abortion was legislated for in a society, the gap between those people who are living in poverty and those people who are wealthy, widened enormously" and I did not see anything from him supporting that.

• No mention which countries he was talking about for example.
• No mention of what the gap was before abortion in those countries, compared to what it was after.
• No mention of whether there was already such a trend towards that separation already.
• No mention of the fact that that is a gap widening already worldwide.
• No mention of whether the trend he claimed normalized for trends already there.
• No mention of evidence elevating the claim past the correlation-causation divide.

Nothing. Literally nothing supporting the claim. Not. A. Word. But you know..... you just have to ask about his position....... but when you do..... he claims he just doesn't want to talk to you anyway.

nice_guy80

politics shouldn't have a say in the decisions a doctor and patient make. none.

decisions should be made on the medical needs of the patient and not on society's opinion of what is best for the patient. or what politicians deem they feel is the correct thing for patients.

end of the road

nice_guy80 wrote: »

politics shouldn't have a say in the decisions a doctor and patient make. none.

decisions should be made on the medical needs of the patient and not on society's opinion of what is best for the patient. or what politicians deem they feel is the correct thing for patients.

agreed. however, allowing abortion on demand goes beyond where such a stance is reasonable.

Edward M

nice_guy80 wrote: »

politics shouldn't have a say in the decisions a doctor and patient make. none.

decisions should be made on the medical needs of the patient and not on society's opinion of what is best for the patient. or what politicians deem they feel is the correct thing for patients.

Like a lethal injection maybe?
What about illegal drugs?

nozzferrahhtoo

Edward M wrote: »

Like a lethal injection maybe?
What about illegal drugs?

Well yes, what about them indeed! Voluntary euthanasia between a doctor and the patient, under regulations, would indeed be another example.

And for the most part I do think drugs should be a persons own business in the same way alcohol is. Though we have this umbrella term "drugs" for such a wide range of things that it really makes sense to consider drugs on a case by case basis, but a good majority of them should be legal. Maybe even them all.

I think people's rights to decide what to do with their own body should generally only be curtailed by it's impact on other sentient agents. Abortion in the 0-16 week period does not impact other sentient agents. Because the fetus is not even remotely sentient. It not only lacks it, it lacks many of the prerequisites for it too.

So not sure what you are asking here really. But it does give me a chance to test a point.... if we just wait....

Edward M

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Well yes, what about them indeed! Voluntary euthanasia between a doctor and the patient, under regulations, would indeed be another example.

And for the most part I do think drugs should be a persons own business in the same way alcohol is. Though we have this umbrella term "drugs" for such a wide range of things that it really makes sense to consider drugs on a case by case basis, but a good majority of them should be legal. Maybe even them all.

I think people's rights to decide what to do with their own body should generally only be curtailed by it's impact on other sentient agents. Abortion in the 0-16 week period does not impact other sentient agents. Because the fetus is not even remotely sentient. It not only lacks it, it lacks many of the prerequisites for it too.

So not sure what you are asking here really. But it does give me a chance to test a point.... if we just wait....

That's what I was just testing myself.
Its proper to take in to consideration peoples overall views with regard to all laws regarding what can and can't be done with ones body.

nozzferrahhtoo

Edward M wrote: »

That's what I was just testing myself.
Its proper to take in to consideration peoples overall views with regard to all laws regarding what can and can't be done with ones body.

Indeed, and I do believe drug taking, and lethal injection are personal and/or between a doctor and patient. That is not to say they should not be regulated, controlled, and laws built around them (such as we do with, say, alcohol and things like, say, drunk driving, public intoxication, and so forth).

The arguments against such things are pretty paltry, though the arguments against abortion the most paltry of the three.

One eyed Jack

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

So, abortion for your grand-daughter because you have the cash, but not for the same-age girl in a mental hospital, a prison or direct provision.

All because you have drawn some bizarre conclusion that abortion on demand somehow causes income inequality to worsen.

I was going to suggest you go back and read the posts again, but you'd probably still come to the same conclusion so it's a bit pointless.

In typing out that post, did it occur to you at any stage that I would have a different relationship with the people I know than those with whom I have no relationship whatsoever?

If it hasn't already, it should now.

Zubeneschamali

One eyed Jack wrote: »

did it occur to you at any stage that I would have a different relationship with the people I know than those with whom I have no relationship whatsoever?

EotR keeps telling me that not everyone who supports the 8th is a good Christian, but sometimes I forget.

Edward M

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

EotR keeps telling me that not everyone who supports the 8th is a good Christian, but sometimes I forget.

Well its good to have something circular like religion to blame for peoples consciences, its a criticism that's easily thrown about.

EirWatchr

end of the road wrote: »

the over-population argument is a bit of a red herring really as parts of the world are actually becoming under-populated, and it's not viable to simply bring people from the populated parts to those parts that are under-populated.

And Ireland would be one of those countries heading for under-population if it wasn't for immigration. Ireland's fertility rate is already 0.2 below the population replacement rate of 2.1. The UK-style abortion regime proposed by our short-sighted politicians would further reduce that by a fifth, directing us firmly towards under-population or mass-immigration, but more-immediately increasing the ratio of elderly to young, and all the socio-economic problems that entails.

NuMarvel

EirWatchr wrote: »

And Ireland would be one of those countries heading for under-population if it wasn't for immigration. Ireland's fertility rate is already 0.2 below the population replacement rate of 2.1. The UK-style abortion regime proposed by our short-sighted politicians would further reduce that by a fifth, directing us firmly towards under-population or mass-immigration, but more-immediately increasing the ratio of elderly to young, and all the socio-economic problems that entails.

If you're not in favour of the UK abortion laws, then you're gonna be shocked to find out where the majority of Irish women have abortions.

One eyed Jack

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

EotR keeps telling me that not everyone who supports the 8th is a good Christian, but sometimes I forget.

That's a bit cryptic Zub, sorry.

Zubeneschamali

One eyed Jack wrote: »

That's a bit cryptic Zub, sorry.

I'm not an expert, but I understand that Jesus instructed his followers to look after the poor, the sick, foreigners and those in prison.

Your attitude expressed above is human rights and access to the very best medical care for your friends and relations and screw the poor, the sick, asylum seekers and those in prison.

So you are evidence for EotR's claim that there is no necessary connection between supporting the 8th and being a good Christian.

rainbow kirby

EirWatchr wrote: »

And Ireland would be one of those countries heading for under-population if it wasn't for immigration. Ireland's fertility rate is already 0.2 below the population replacement rate of 2.1. The UK-style abortion regime proposed by our short-sighted politicians would further reduce that by a fifth, directing us firmly towards under-population or mass-immigration, but more-immediately increasing the ratio of elderly to young, and all the socio-economic problems that entails.

You assume Irish women aren't already having abortions.

You're also clearly not aware that Ireiand has Europe's highest fertility rate already.

"In the national interest" is a TERRIBLE reason to force someone to carry to term. We aren't brood mares.

EirWatchr

rainbow kirby wrote: »

You assume Irish women aren't already having abortions.

No I don't. It's part of the reason fertility rate is already below replacement rate.

rainbow kirby wrote: »

You're also clearly not aware that Ireiand has Europe's highest fertility rate already.

But still below the population replacement rate. Several other european countries with even lower rates are already displaying the consequences.

rainbow kirby wrote: »

"In the national interest" is a TERRIBLE reason to force someone to carry to term. We aren't brood mares.

It's a consequence. Choice is a responsibility too.

One eyed Jack

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

I'm not an expert, but I understand that Jesus instructed his followers to look after the poor, the sick, foreigners and those in prison.

Your attitude expressed above is human rights and access to the very best medical care for your friends and relations and screw the poor, the sick, asylum seekers and those in prison.

But I never suggested screw the poor, the sick, asylum seekers and those in prison? This is what I don't get, like what's with the extremes? 'If it's not one it must be the other' kind of thing. I don't point fingers at anyone here and ask what are they doing about the poor, the sick, asylum seekers and those in prison, because I assume each one of us does what we can, where we can, when we can.

Of course I'm going to treat people whom I know differently than those I don't, there's nothing bizarre about that? I mean, if you play it out, and I don't normally do hypotheticals, but even when it concerns medical care for my own family, we're covered by private healthcare. You don't surely expect that I should also provide for my neighbours private healthcare?

I wouldn't expect that of anyone, so I don't know what your deal is there tbh. In the case of my hypothetical granddaughter, do you not think as I mentioned earlier to I think it was bubblypop that I would have instilled in her my own values, as opposed to someone completely unknown to me who may or may not share my values or your values or have a different set of values entirely to both of us, for example suggesting that racism and sexism in this fúcking country killed a rich woman like Savita and I should know my place?

I'm absolutely certain I do know my place, though I don't think that woman and I have the same place in mind :pac:

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

So you are evidence for EotR's claim that there is no necessary connection between supporting the 8th and being a good Christian.

I just don't get this? I'm evidence of someone else's claim that there is no necessary connection between supporting the 8th and being a good Christian? Sure I could have told you that myself. I'm not going to judge anyone who identifies as Christian and has had an abortion? It simply wouldn't be a relevant consideration for me. If someone isn't attempting to pass judgement on me, we're going to get along just fine.

In my experience that philosophy isn't unique to Christians.

NuMarvel

EirWatchr wrote: »

No I don't. It's part of the reason fertility rate is already below replacement rate.

But still below the population replacement rate. Several other european countries with even lower rates are already displaying the consequences.

It's a consequence. Choice is a responsibility too.

I’m not sure if increasing our fertility and replacement rates are public policy goals that would justify denying women bodily autonomy and subjecting them to the risks that our abortion laws hold. But let’s leave that aside for the time being and see if your argument achieves its intended outcome.

If women are having already having abortions, and research shows that there's little difference between abortion rates in regions that ban abortion and regions that don't, then I don't see the basis for assuming that legalising abortion here will make any significant difference to fertility or replacement rates.

But if I’m wrong, it should be easy to illustrate with an example. There were 63,897 births in Ireland in 2016. How many fewer births would there have been if the Committee’s recommendations were law at that time, and what’s your basis for arriving at that number?

pilly

rainbow kirby wrote:

"In the national interest" is a TERRIBLE reason to force someone to carry to term. We aren't brood mares.

Handmaids Tale springs to mind.

Zubeneschamali

One eyed Jack wrote: »

But I never suggested screw the poor, the sick, asylum seekers and those in prison?

Can those people access the care you would get for your grand-daughter?

No.

Why not?

The Eighth Amendment makes it illegal.

Are you going to vote to repeal it?

No.

Why not, aren't they legally/morally allowed the same care you would want for your grand daughter?

No, screw them.

I don't point fingers at anyone here and ask what are they doing about the poor, the sick, asylum seekers and those in prison, because I assume each one of us does what we can, where we can, when we can.

But you aren't going to do what you can. You are doing your best to convince people to keep the 8th in place, and make the care you want for your family illegal for these people. You are trying to stop us doing what we can for these people (on this particular subject).

Of course I'm going to treat people whom I know differently than those I don't, there's nothing bizarre about that?

I'm not saying it is bizarre, I am saying it is morally wrong to keep treatment you (and I) can get for our families illegal for these people.

eviltwin

Voting to keep the 8th, knowing the impact it has on the less fortunate, when you are in the privileged position of being able to travel and willing to do so if your loved one requires an abortion is a disgusting scummy thing to do.

nozzferrahhtoo

EirWatchr wrote: »

No I don't. It's part of the reason fertility rate is already below replacement rate.

But still below the population replacement rate. Several other european countries with even lower rates are already displaying the consequences.

It's a consequence. Choice is a responsibility too.

NuMarvel has already dealt with your post from a useful angle, so I can only add to what they have already said. But one good test for an argument is to try and apply the same argument to other situations. Not least to test oneself for cherry picking arguments in one context that one outright ignore in others..... as that is usually a flag for bias.

While commenting on our "replacement rate" in the subject of abortion therefore, try applying that same line of thinking to contraception. How ridiculous would it feel, or what response do you think you would get from the general public, if you used our "replacement rate" as an argument for reducing access to some types of contraception? I strongly suspect you would be laughed out of the room, assuming you even managed to get out of said room alive.

After all if our low "replacement rate" is indeed a concern, then there are MANY things where that concern lies in the figures other than abortions. The rate of abortions by people living in Ireland (whether they find ways to get them on Irish soil or off) is not exactly high per capita is it?

So it would seem if "replacement rate" is an issue then addressing that issue has many avenues that would be much more effective and relevant than any change bringing abortion in would cause, surely?

seamus

eviltwin wrote: »

Voting to keep the 8th, knowing the impact it has on the less fortunate, when you are in the privileged position of being able to travel and willing to do so if your loved one requires an abortion is a disgusting scummy thing to do.

Classic "do as I say, not as I do" mentality.

Demanding that something is made illegal for everyone else while keeping a back door open for yourself and your family to avoid it, is the height of hypocrisy.

A prime example of someone with a completely messed up moral compass; one that only applies to others and not to themselves. And that is the root of all of the corruption that has beset this country at the hands of the Catholic Church.

Zubeneschamali

And there is always still the risk of a Savita-type situation, where my own daughter is in hospital here and gets less than the best care because of the 8th.

Even if I only cared about my own, that would be reason enough to repeal for me.

One eyed Jack

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Can those people access the care you would get for your grand-daughter?

No.

Why not?

The Eighth Amendment makes it illegal.

Are you going to vote to repeal it?

No.

Why not, aren't they legally allowed the same care you would want for your grand daughter?

No, screw them.

I'm still not saying screw them, my granddaughter is still subject to the same laws as they are.

But you aren't going to do what you can. You are doing your best to convince people to keep the 8th in place, and make the care you want for your family illegal for these people. You are trying to stop us doing what we can for these people (on this particular subject).

I'm not trying to stop you doing anything you want for anyone, I have no doubt you've been doing all you can for them already throughout your life. That's no different to what I've been doing throughout my life, we just appear to have different approaches is all.

I'm not saying it is bizarre, I am saying it is morally wrong to keep treatment you (and I) can get for our families illegal for these people.

But their welfare has more to do with their immigrant status than anything to do with the 8th amendment? It would be logical to do something about that than use their current circumstances to bolster your own lack of an argument to repeal the 8th amendment.

Using your rationale, any woman who votes to keep the 8th amendment in place is immoral, and should feel guilty for not voting the way you would want them to vote. How far do you imagine that's going to fly?

One eyed Jack

seamus wrote: »

Classic "do as I say, not as I do" mentality.

Demanding that something is made illegal for everyone else while keeping a back door open for yourself and your family to avoid it, is the height of hypocrisy.

A prime example of someone with a completely messed up moral compass; one that only applies to others and not to themselves. And that is the root of all of the corruption that has beset this country at the hands of the Catholic Church.

Bit hyperbolic there seamus. I'm not demanding of anyone else any special treatment, nor am I demanding that anyone be exempted from the same laws which apply to all in this country, and if you imagine that the Catholic Church is the root of corruption in this country, I would point out that corruption not only existed in this country long before the existence of the Catholic Church, but that corruption is present and has always been present in humanity ever since we were capable of rational thought.

None of what you describe though is corruption, it's democracy.

Zubeneschamali

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Using your rationale, any woman who votes to keep the 8th amendment in place is immoral, and should feel guilty for not voting the way you would want them to vote.

Not sure why you are singling women out here, I feel the same way about men. I disagree with people who will vote to keep the 8th, but I do not think it makes them immoral, I think we disagree on matters which define our moral views.

But anyone who thinks like you do, that we should vote to keep the 8th and then send our lucky kids to England for the treatment we just voted to keep illegal here for the less fortunate, yes, they are as immoral as you are.

Bannasidhe

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Bit hyperbolic there seamus. I'm not demanding of anyone else any special treatment, nor am I demanding that anyone be exempted from the same laws which apply to all in this country, and if you imagine that the Catholic Church is the root of corruption in this country, I would point out that corruption not only existed in this country long before the existence of the Catholic Church, but that corruption is present and has always been present in humanity ever since we were capable of rational thought.

None of what you describe though is corruption, it's democracy.

As someone who has a passing familiarity with the history of Gaelic Ireland and how Gaelic Irish society functioned I would be interested in your sources for this statement.

SusieBlue

end of the road wrote: »

oh yes they do have a right to life, it's not my opinion but fact. the constitution guarantees their right to life and to guarantee such protection "as much as is practical"

Yes, and your own personal interpretation of "as much as is practical" includes the garbage you were spouting about the right for protection for the pre-sentient.

It never actually said anything about pre-sentient rights. You thinking that's what it means does not make it so. Its merely your opinion.

Zubeneschamali

One eyed Jack wrote: »

But their welfare has more to do with their immigrant status than anything to do with the 8th amendment?

On a tangential matter, is there a reason you are scattering question marks through your recent posts? I hope you are not setting us up for the old "I was only asking questions".

kylith

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I'm still not saying screw them, my granddaughter is still subject to the same laws as they are.

But you'd make sure she got the finest abortionists money can buy, while women who don't have that kind of money and support can go fck themselves and have that baby they can't afford and/or don't want.

pilly

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Not sure why you are singling women out here, I feel the same way about men. I disagree with people who will vote to keep the 8th, but I do not think it makes them immoral, I think we disagree on matters which define our moral views.

But anyone who thinks like you do, that we should vote to keep the 8th and then send our lucky kids to England for the treatment we just voted to keep illegal here for the less fortunate, yes, they are as immoral as you are.

Couldn't agree more, sickens me to the stomach those who campaign to keep the 8th whilst at the same time admitting it's fine they can always go to England as the most immoral of the whole lot.

One eyed Jack

eviltwin wrote: »

Voting to keep the 8th, knowing the impact it has on the less fortunate, when you are in the privileged position of being able to travel and willing to do so if your loved one requires an abortion is a disgusting scummy thing to do.

I would be voting to keep the 8th because I do know the impact that repealing it would have on those less fortunate than we are. Obviously we're going to have a different perspective on what each of us means by that, and I don't think anybody who has their children's best interests in mind is doing anything disgusting or scummy. I would hope that she would never feel she had to have an abortion, and that's the goal I would work towards.

I would also hope that she would never feel she was in a position to pass judgement on anyone whose values were different from her own.

Zubeneschamali

kylith wrote: »

women who don't have that kind of money and support can go fck themselves and have that baby they can't afford and/or don't want.

Or just die already.

Zubeneschamali

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I would be voting to keep the 8th because I do know the impact that repealing it would have on those less fortunate than we are.

Yes, it would allow them to get the treatment your cash can buy for your family.

pilly

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I would be voting to keep the 8th because I do know the impact that repealing it would have on those less fortunate than we are. Obviously we're going to have a different perspective on what each of us means by that, and I don't think anybody who has their children's best interests in mind is doing anything disgusting or scummy. I would hope that she would never feel she had to have an abortion, and that's the goal I would work towards.

I would also hope that she would never feel she was in a position to pass judgement on anyone whose values were different from her own.

You keep going on about how repealing the 8th is going to effect the less well off with no actual definition of how you see that badly effectly them.

I've the height of respect for your arguments normally Jack but you're just talking bs now.

kylith

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I would be voting to keep the 8th because I do know the impact that repealing it would have on those less fortunate than we are. .

Go on then. What impact will it have on the less well off?

eviltwin

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I would be voting to keep the 8th because I do know the impact that repealing it would have on those less fortunate than we are. Obviously we're going to have a different perspective on what each of us means by that, and I don't think anybody who has their children's best interests in mind is doing anything disgusting or scummy. I would hope that she would never feel she had to have an abortion, and that's the goal I would work towards.

I would also hope that she would never feel she was in a position to pass judgement on anyone whose values were different from her own.

Right, so you've adopted a paternalistic, patronising attitude to the poor....you know better about what is good for them ( while knowing nothing about their personal circumstances or motivation for seeking abortion) so no abortion for them but if it happens to be your loved one then it's a different story.

Zubeneschamali

pilly wrote: »

You keep going on about how repealing the 8th is going to effect the less well off with no actual definition of how you see that badly effectly them.

This is Jack's claim that introducing abortion increases income inequality.

He has presented no evidence to support this bizarre notion, and frankly it reads like a desperate effort to base support for the 8th on something other than the arguments made awkward by the fact that he is personally pro-choice.

One eyed Jack

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Not sure why you are singling women out here, I feel the same way about men. I disagree with people who will vote to keep the 8th, but I do not think it makes them immoral, I think we disagree on matters which define our moral views.

But anyone who thinks like you do, that we should vote to keep the 8th and then send our lucky kids to England for the treatment we just voted to keep illegal here for the less fortunate, yes, they are as immoral as you are.

But that's not the way I think? And the reason I use a question mark is because I'm questioning your assumptions you're making that are so black and white, the extremes, 'if it's not one it's the other', because in my experience, people don't generally think like that. They are a whole mixture of conflicting thoughts and emotions and so on. As I've already said, you'll vote whatever way you like on the 8th, as will I, while at the same time working towards the goal for society that no woman would ever feel she was in a position where she had to decide to have an abortion.

You keep making the point as though I couldn't possibly care about the less fortunate simply because I don't share your perspective, and yet it has been demonstrated in other countries where abortion is available that the less fortunate are disproportionately affected by the issue and have higher rates of abortion and higher rates of increased poverty and lower rates of social mobility while the wealthy in that society have lower rates of abortion, and greater increases in wealth and social mobility.

Would you want a woman like this human parasite in your community, profiting off the misery of others?

I wouldn't, tbh, yet she believes she's doing those women a favour and is morally justified in her behaviour.