The 8th amendment(Mod warning in op)

mrkiscool2

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

That's also wrong. Had a very frustrating discussion on a Breda O'Brien article on Facebook with people who think women should have abortion to term. There are people who believe it should be to term, which is madness.

Annasopra

Boulevardier wrote: »

Right now that's true, they would not.

However the right-to-choose groups would favour it, and it could be brought in by a future government which includes, say Labour.

No. This is utter nonsense. No pro choice campaigners want unrestricted abortion upto full term.

Annasopra

mrkiscool2 wrote: »

That's also wrong. Had a very frustrating discussion on a Breda O'Brien article on Facebook with people who think women should have abortion to term. There are people who believe it should be to term, which is madness.

To be fair people arguing for this are in a tiny minority and not allied to any serious group at all on this issue. Pro choice campaigners are simply not looking for full term abortions. It is bunkum and drivel suggesting they are.

mrkiscool2

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

To be fair people arguing for this are in a tiny minority and not allied to any serious group at all on this issue. Pro choice campaigners are simply not looking for full term abortions. It is bunkum and drivel suggesting they are.

I fully agree they are in the minority but I think it's wrong to say no-one is arguing for it. We have to, as the pro-choice side, acknowledge that argument and thoroughly reject it!

end of the road

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

No. This is utter nonsense. No pro choice campaigners want unrestricted abortion upto full term.

unfortunately it's not nonsense. a good number of pro-choice want unrestricted abortion up to term.

Hannibal_Smith

end of the road wrote: »

unfortunately it's not nonsense. a good number of pro-choice want unrestricted abortion up to term.

What would you consider to be a good number? I'm not sure ive heard anyone wanting this. Sure what is it, week 26 the baby can survive outside the womb? So the baby isn't dependent on the mother for life any longer, so what would even the thinking behind it be? I would imagine it's nothing more than scaremongering.

Timberrrrrrrr

end of the road wrote: »

unfortunately it's not nonsense. a good number of pro-choice want unrestricted abortion up to term.

And a number of pro-life people would be in favour of strapping a pregnant girl (yes girl) to a bed for 9 months and forcing her to give birth to an unwanted child

Thankfully the idiots on both sides (forced pregnancy to birth/unrestricted abortion to full term) are in the tiny minority.

end of the road

Hannibal_Smith wrote: »

What would you consider to be a good number? I'm not sure ive heard anyone wanting this. Sure what is it, week 26 the baby can survive outside the womb? So the baby isn't dependent on the mother for life any longer, so what would even the thinking behind it be? I would imagine it's nothing more than scaremongering.

sadly it's not scaremongering. such extremists exist. i don't get the thinking behind it myself but then again i don't get the thinking in relation to wanting unrestricted abortion full stop.

Bannasidhe

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

And a number of pro-life people would be in favour of strapping a pregnant girl (yes girl) to a bed for 9 months and forcing her to give birth to an unwanted child

Thankfully the idiots on both sides (forced pregnancy to birth/unrestricted abortion to full term) are in the tiny minority.

end of the road wrote: »

sadly it's not scaremongering. such extremists exist. i don't get the thinking behind it myself but then again i don't get the thinking in relation to wanting unrestricted abortion full stop.

As Timberrrrrrrr pointed out - extremists exist on both side but are in the minority. Sadly, it's a reality that we have already had a young pregnant rape victim force fed when she went on hunger strike and a brain dead woman kept alive against the express wishes of her family. Your extremists are already being extreme, our extremists are keyboard warriors who no one - including the vast majority of pro-choice supporters - will ever allow to decide anything.

Hannibal_Smith

end of the road wrote: »

sadly it's not scaremongering. such extremists exist. i don't get the thinking behind it myself but then again i don't get the thinking in relation to wanting unrestricted abortion full stop.

Have you got a link? I'd be interested in reading the thoughts behind it.

I don't understand how you can't understand the thinking behind wanting the 8th repealed. It has been explained so many times to you throughout the thread. But hey ho, you can only explain to those willing to listen.

nozzferrahhtoo

Hannibal_Smith wrote: »

Have you got a link? I'd be interested in reading the thoughts behind it.

I have only talked with three people EVER who think women should be able to terminate the pregnancy up to term. And of those three, three of them were on this forum. And of those three, one of them seems to have done a COMPLETE about turn on the issue and gone to the opposite extreme of claiming women should not have any abortions in this country, and the unborn should have a right to life, and the women themselves should get no social welfare of any kind. Figure that out if you can.

So it is hard to take any of them seriously. Especially when I asked all three of them what exactly the termination would entail, and what implications it would have for the fetus at each stage.... and none of the three answered. Though one of them did go on for awhile about how much he imagined Hilary Clinton agreed with him.

So I too am skeptical about what a "good number" actually means. Because really, it seems to be statistically a non-existent number. Statistically there really is no one calling for this at all, let alone a "good number".

Itssoeasy

I'm happy that the speakers in the Dail so far from all parties and none bar Ruth coppinger have tried to be positive. Was Catherine Connolly ever a member of a political party ? I know she's an indepedent but I've always been very impressed with any speeches she has given in the Dail. Jesus even mick Wallace is trying to address the 8th amendment committee report. The world is gone mad.

end of the road

Hannibal_Smith wrote: »

Have you got a link? I'd be interested in reading the thoughts behind it.

I don't understand how you can't understand the thinking behind wanting the 8th repealed. It has been explained so many times to you throughout the thread. But hey ho, you can only explain to those willing to listen.

i can understand simply wanting to repeal the 8th itself and no more. i would personally like to vote to repeal it myself but i can't due to the likely hood of abortion on demand being legislated for.

HandsomeBob

Have to say fair play to Colette Kelleher. Summed up my feelings nicely in the subject.

Itssoeasy

Even Michael Healy Rae is given a different opinion to others but you can't say he's trying to give his honest opinion.

Hannibal_Smith

end of the road wrote: »

i can understand simply wanting to repeal the 8th itself and no more. i would personally like to vote to repeal it myself but i can't due to the likely hood of abortion on demand being legislated for.

On what basis would you like it repealed? Take out the possible legislative changes after. What would your reasons be for repealing the 8th?

Da Boss

Good to see more tds , according to the independent at least, are pro life than pro choice.

Kurtosis

Da Boss wrote: »

Good to see more tds , according to the independent at least, are pro life than pro choice.

The two aren't mutually exclusive.

mrkiscool2

Da Boss wrote: »

Good to see more tds , according to the independent at least, are pro life than pro choice.

Don't know where you are getting those facts from but here is an actual poll. Of the half that responded, half are in favor of repeal with unrestricted access to week 12.

Annasopra

end of the road wrote: »

sadly it's not scaremongering. such extremists exist. i don't get the thinking behind it myself but then again i don't get the thinking in relation to wanting unrestricted abortion full stop.

It is scaremongering. Even you yourself calling them extremists proves it. The posts from Boulevardier suggesting that abortion upto full term would be legislated for and that pro choice groups favour such legislation is complete and utter scaremongering drivel. Boulevardier is making stuff up and you are jumping into back him up!!!

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5

I think the confusion or wilfull misunderstanding about full term/third trimester abortions is coming from the fact that some pro choice individuals and groups are in favour of something similar to the Canadian model, where there are no legal restrictions in place regarding when a pregnancy can be terminated, as long as a doctor or doctors sign off on it.

Obviously babies are routinely being ripped from the womb and torn to shreds on the due date in Canada, because that's how women and doctors reacted.

Annasopra

Howard Tasteless Bank wrote: »

I think the confusion or wilfull misunderstanding about full term/third trimester abortions is coming from the fact that some pro choice individuals and groups are in favour of something similar to the Canadian model, where there are no legal restrictions in place regarding when a pregnancy can be terminated, as long as a doctor or doctors sign off on it.

Obviously babies are routinely being ripped from the womb and torn to shreds on the due date in Canada, because that's how women and doctors reacted.

The confusion/wilfull misunderstanding is a deliberate attempt to scaremonger and muddy the waters. Nothing else.

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

The confusion/wilfull misunderstanding is a deliberate attempt to scaremonger and muddy the waters. Nothing else.

I'd actually be in favour of it myself, not that I think there's a hope in hell. Just pointing out where it's probably coming from.

I mean you never know, people might actually be that hard of reading rather than deliberately misrepresenting things.

end of the road

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

It is scaremongering. Even you yourself calling them extremists proves it. The posts from Boulevardier suggesting that abortion upto full term would be legislated for and that pro choice groups favour such legislation is complete and utter scaremongering drivel. Boulevardier is making stuff up and you are jumping into back him up!!!

it's not scaremongering. Boulevardier has made nothing up. a large element of the pro-choice want unrestricted abortion right up to term and they will push hard for that.

Bannasidhe

end of the road wrote: »

it's not scaremongering. Boulevardier has made nothing up. a large element of the pro-choice want unrestricted abortion right up to term and they will push hard for that.

Proof that a large element or retract.

If you do neither than you most certainly are scaremongering.

Martina1991

end of the road wrote:

it's not scaremongering. Boulevardier has made nothing up. a large element of the pro-choice want unrestricted abortion right up to term and they will push hard for that.

Prove it.

I think you'd find it hard to find one poster from this thread saying they'd like to see unrestricted abortion up to term.

I certainly wouldn't. Post 26 weeks a fetus has a good chance of surviving.

I think a 12 week limit is reasonable as it gives the potential mother time to make an informed decision.

captbarnacles

Name one case where a healthy pregnancy was aborted at late term Canada or England.

A termination of pregnancy at that stage is a surgical removal.

Hannibal_Smith

end of the road wrote: »

it's not scaremongering. Boulevardier has made nothing up. a large element of the pro-choice want unrestricted abortion right up to term and they will push hard for that.

Stop making things up! I've already asked you what you mean by good numbers. You've given nothing to back it up. Now I'll ask you what you mean by large element...will you answer that? Where are you getting your information from?

threescompany

I’ve never posted on a repeal the 8th/ abortion thread as I’ve felt overwhelmed by the information & was afraid I’d be told to go figure the answer out for myself!! But this is a genuine question & please forgive my ignorance.
Ok, I believe abortion is ok in all circumstances except on demand / unrestricted.
So where am I with this referendum??
I feel I lie somewhere in the middle of the spectrum & in certain cases abortion is allowed but absolutely not unrestricted..... so I suppose I’m pro life. Does this mean I vote not to repeal the 8th as it’s up to twelve weeks unrestricted...... I find it all confusing. Help!! Thanks 😊

Annasopra

end of the road wrote: »

it's not scaremongering. Boulevardier has made nothing up. a large element of the pro-choice want unrestricted abortion right up to term and they will push hard for that.

Stop. Just stop lying.

Timberrrrrrrr

end of the road wrote: »

it's not scaremongering. Boulevardier has made nothing up. a large element of the pro-choice want unrestricted abortion right up to term and they will push hard for that.

Evidences that "a large element of the pro-choice want unrestricted abortion right up to term"


Edit: ugh, just realised who.i was replying too, no use asking for evidence of those claims:rolleyes:

Annasopra

threescompany wrote: »

I’ve never posted on a repeal the 8th/ abortion thread as I’ve felt overwhelmed by the information & was afraid I’d be told to go figure the answer out for myself!! But this is a genuine question & please forgive my ignorance.
Ok, I believe abortion is ok in all circumstances except on demand / unrestricted.
So where am I with this referendum??
I feel I lie somewhere in the middle of the spectrum & in certain cases abortion is allowed but absolutely not unrestricted..... so I suppose I’m pro life. Does this mean I vote not to repeal the 8th as it’s up to twelve weeks unrestricted...... I find it all confusing. Help!! Thanks ��

It is not clear yet what the referendum question is so its difficult to answer that.

It looks like the question will be a simple repeal.

The thing is under the current constitution it would be impossible to legislate for abortion in cases of rape or fatal foetal abnormality and in cases where the womans health is at serious risk. So effectively if you want abortion for those circumstances a repeal is necessary.

If you repeal then you of course open up the possibility that unrestricted abortion may be legislated for.

If the referendum is just a simple repeal that does not necessarily mean legislation to allow unrestricted abortion will happen though.

My advice to you is wait ubtil the question is clearer.

threescompany

Thank you so much for your reply. That makes sense but still I find it all a very complex emotive topic. I know exactly how I feel about this on a personal level but nonetheless it’s a complicated issue when it’s raised in a public forum. Thanks though.

Oldtree

It could not have been put better,

These are not faceless women. They are our friends and neighbours, sisters, cousins, mothers, aunts, wives.

He forgot to mention daughters.

It is incumbent upon us to care for our loved ones at home at a very difficult time for them.

Number of women from each county who travelled to the UK for an abortion in 2016, as read into the Dáil record by Health Minister Simon Harris.



The Minister noted that more than 1,200 of the women who went to the UK were aged between 30 and 39 and 1,500 were aged between 20 and 29. Another 255 were aged 40 or over.

Ten were girls under the age of 16, while 230 were teenagers.

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/politics/these-are-not-faceless-women-health-minister-lists-number-from-every-county-who-travelled-to-uk-for-abortion-as-debate-begins-36500350.html

Mr. CooL ICE

end of the road wrote: »

it's not scaremongering. Boulevardier has made nothing up. a large element of the pro-choice want unrestricted abortion right up to term and they will push hard for that.

Mod: EOTR, unless you can back up this claim with some form of hard evidence, you can consider yourself threadbanned.

PM me if you want clarification. Until the above request is satisfied, do not post here again.

eviltwin

threescompany wrote: »

Thank you so much for your reply. That makes sense but still I find it all a very complex emotive topic. I know exactly how I feel about this on a personal level but nonetheless it’s a complicated issue when it’s raised in a public forum. Thanks though.

Personalise it. Think of a woman or couple you know telling you they have a crisis pregnancy and they want an abortion. Think about what you would want for them and let that guide you.

This really comes down to people and I find it's easier to find where you stand if you ignore the rhetoric and focus on the impact on the people we know.

pilly

Nicolas Cage wrote:

Mod: EOTR, unless you can back up this claim with some form of hard evidence, you can consider yourself threadbanned.

About time it was said.

pilly

threescompany wrote:

I’ve never posted on a repeal the 8th/ abortion thread as I’ve felt overwhelmed by the information & was afraid I’d be told to go figure the answer out for myself!! But this is a genuine question & please forgive my ignorance. Ok, I believe abortion is ok in all circumstances except on demand / unrestricted. So where am I with this referendum?? I feel I lie somewhere in the middle of the spectrum & in certain cases abortion is allowed but absolutely not unrestricted..... so I suppose I’m pro life. Does this mean I vote not to repeal the 8th as it’s up to twelve weeks unrestricted...... I find it all confusing. Help!! Thanks 😊

I don't really understand your question, perhaps you can clarify.

You're okay with abortion in what circumstances?

threescompany

eviltwin wrote: »

Personalise it. Think of a woman or couple you know telling you they have a crisis pregnancy and they want an abortion. Think about what you would want for them and let that guide you.

This really comes down to people and I find it's easier to find where you stand if you ignore the rhetoric and focus on the impact on the people we know.

You see, that’s it, I know 3 people and all of them had abortions as it was an unwanted pregnancy resulting from the couples not using contraception. In this instance, I’m not comfortable with this. They made a choice not to use contraception and were irresponsible knowing it may result in an unwanted pregnancy. In an age when contraception is so available I cannot agree with abortion.
If however, someone I know told me they would not survive the pregnancy without an abortion, in this instance I’m ok with abortion. So it really depends on the different situations. I’m very clear in my own head what I agree with but if the wording in the referendum states that abortion will be unrestricted, then that will really complicate the issue for me.

nozzferrahhtoo

threescompany wrote: »

please forgive my ignorance.

Ignorance requires no forgiveness, and awareness of where one's own ignorance lies deserves praise, never condemnation. Keep it up!

threescompany wrote: »

Ok, I believe abortion is ok in all circumstances except on demand / unrestricted. So where am I with this referendum??

The first thing to be aware of is that "on demand" and "unrestricted" are massively different things. The first means that women be allowed have an abortion for reasons of their own choosing. The latter means there is no restrictions on that choice.

The vast majority of people who want women to have that choice, and countries that offer that choice, have restrictions. Most often in terms of the time limit by which abortion by choice can be sought.

Here in Ireland people who want abortion by choice usually aim for 12, 16 or 20 weeks as the cut off. Some, but much less, aim for 24 which I think is what the UK and parts of the US have.

I myself would be happy with 12, 16 or 20 really. 16 ideally. But I would lose no sleep over 12.

There are some places without such restriction. Canada for example. However it is interesting that EVEN IN a country with no restriction........ the rate at which abortions happen fall in line with where the restrictions would lie in other countries.

Take 2015 for example. There was apparently 100612 abortions in Canada in that year. The number of abortions that took place in or after week 21 was a HALF a %. A little over 500. In fact 91% of abortions in that year were complete by 12 weeks of gestation. Pretty much all of them by 16 weeks.

But a repeal of the 8th would, I am informed, allow us to legislate against abortion by choice, or for it. And if we were to legislate for it I strongly suspect that time limits would be included in that and we would have nothing like the Canadian system, and probably something with more stringent restrictions than the UK or US. But that is just my feeling, rather than anything I can evidence, given the recommendations of the Citizens Assembly.

So I see no reason for someone like yourself not to vote for repeal. But as others have said, more information is not really possible until we know EXACTLY what we will be asked to vote on.

eviltwin

threescompany wrote: »

You see, that’s it, I know 3 people and all of them had abortions as it was an unwanted pregnancy resulting from the couples not using contraception. In this instance, I’m not comfortable with this. They made a choice not to use contraception and were irresponsible knowing it may result in an unwanted pregnancy. In an age when contraception is so available I cannot agree with abortion.
If however, someone I know told me they would not survive the pregnancy without an abortion, in this instance I’m ok with abortion. So it really depends on the different situations. I’m very clear in my own head what I agree with but if the wording in the referendum states that abortion will be unrestricted, then that will really complicate the issue for me.

Would you be more comfortable forcing them to carry a pregnancy they don't want?

threescompany

pilly wrote: »

I don't really understand your question, perhaps you can clarify.

You're okay with abortion in what circumstances?

My question was How should I vote in the referendum? If I’m in agreement for abortion in some circumstances but not others. A previous poster explained the wording has not yet been clarified so it’s still unclear if it’s unrestricted abortion or not but hopefully I will have more clarity when the wording is confirmed.

Agree with abortion in the following circumstances;
- If a woman’s life is in danger / she will not survive pregnancy
- FFA ( if the woman / couple choose to terminate pregnancy)
- Incest
- Rape


Disagree with abortion in following circumstances;
- pregnancy resulting in unprotected pregnancy / failed contraception
- genetic / screen testing for chromosomal disorders / congenital disorders

Thanks

eviltwin

threescompany wrote: »

My question was How should I vote in the referendum? If I’m in agreement for abortion in some circumstances but not others. A previous poster explained the wording has not yet been clarified so it’s still unclear if it’s unrestricted abortion or not but hopefully I will have more clarity when the wording is confirmed.

Agree with abortion in the following circumstances;
- If a woman’s life is in danger / she will not survive pregnancy
- FFA ( if the woman / couple choose to terminate pregnancy)
- Incest
- Rape


Disagree with abortion in following circumstances;
- pregnancy resulting in unprotected pregnancy / failed contraception
- genetic / screen testing for chromosomal disorders / congenital disorders

Thanks

How do you legislate for abortions in the case of rape?

SusieBlue

threescompany wrote: »

You see, that’s it, I know 3 people and all of them had abortions as it was an unwanted pregnancy resulting from the couples not using contraception. In this instance, I’m not comfortable with this. They made a choice not to use contraception and were irresponsible knowing it may result in an unwanted pregnancy. In an age when contraception is so available I cannot agree with abortion.
If however, someone I know told me they would not survive the pregnancy without an abortion, in this instance I’m ok with abortion. So it really depends on the different situations. I’m very clear in my own head what I agree with but if the wording in the referendum states that abortion will be unrestricted, then that will really complicate the issue for me.

I suppose the way I think of it were that if those couples hadn't been able to terminate the pregnancy and were forced to have the child, at that point in time do you think they could have been good parents?
Could they have given the child a stable home? Were they finished with their education, employed, and financially stable? Would they have had support from their families?
Do you think they would give a child a good life, at that exact point in time?

Would you really trust two people who aren't even responsible enough to wear a condom with rearing another human being?

If you answered "no" to any of those, then I think you can be pretty confident that they made the right decision by terminating.

Remember this: By forcing a woman/couple to continue with a pregnancy they do not want, the only person being punished is the child. A child should be born to two loving, stable parents. The only person that will suffer is the child.

nozzferrahhtoo

threescompany wrote: »

They made a choice not to use contraception and were irresponsible knowing it may result in an unwanted pregnancy. In an age when contraception is so available I cannot agree with abortion.

I think I would be uncomfortable with that kind of thinking myself. Mainly because I realize that people are irresponsible in many areas of their lives. And in those other areas we help them get out of their bad situation when they get there. We do not stand over them saying "Well you got yourself into this mess............"

So I see no reason to do that with abortion. For me it pays to think about the ethics of abortion in and of itself, rather than the ethics of how people got to the point of requiring one. Otherwise one risks voting on the abortion issue not from a point of rationality, but from a point riding up on a moral high horse. And that is generally not a good way to form laws.

threescompany wrote: »

I’m very clear in my own head what I agree with but if the wording in the referendum states that abortion will be unrestricted, then that will really complicate the issue for me.

Alas what can often happen is that the cases "in our own head" are not ones that we can work with without a more unrestricted form of abortion.

For example, consider the case most often brought up in abortion debates: Rape/Incest. Even some very strident anti abortion campaigners admit to a requirement for abortion there. I wonder do you too?

But think it out. How would that work? How could a raped woman seek an abortion? I see only three ways:

1) She must seek and gain a conviction for rape. But this is not unworkable because A) The guilty party might be found innocent and the sheer length of time it can take to obtain such a conviction.

2) She must file a rape charge at least. This is almost as bad as it would be an incentive for women, who really want or need an abortion, to file false charges against men. Which, even if withdrawn or retracted later on and not pursued..... can still be a social and career death sentence for the accused.

3) We simply take the woman's word for it. Which would work but, given NOT raped women could then just claim rape...... you essentially have "Abortion on demand" already. FUNCTIONALLY it would be no different.

So quite often formulating a comprehensive and functional abortion-by-choice system makes MUCH more sense than a "no abortion" system with a series of loop holes, exceptions, caveats, and appeals.

SusieBlue

threescompany wrote: »

My question was How should I vote in the referendum? If I’m in agreement for abortion in some circumstances but not others. A previous poster explained the wording has not yet been clarified so it’s still unclear if it’s unrestricted abortion or not but hopefully I will have more clarity when the wording is confirmed.

Agree with abortion in the following circumstances;
- If a woman’s life is in danger / she will not survive pregnancy
- FFA ( if the woman / couple choose to terminate pregnancy)
- Incest
- Rape


Disagree with abortion in following circumstances;
- pregnancy resulting in unprotected pregnancy / failed contraception
- genetic / screen testing for chromosomal disorders / congenital disorders

Thanks

Have you thought about how the 8th amendment affects maternity care for women who are keeping their babies (ie. scans, labour etc) and how it affects their ability to consent?

Loafing Oaf

threescompany wrote: »

I feel I lie somewhere in the middle of the spectrum & in certain cases abortion is allowed but absolutely not unrestricted..... so I suppose I’m pro life. Does this mean I vote not to repeal the 8th as it’s up to twelve weeks unrestricted...... I find it all confusing. Help!! Thanks ��

Every indication is that the referendum will be on straight repeal of the 8th amendment from the constitution and that well in advance of the referendum the government will outline the legislation with which it proposes to replace the amendment. It also seems highly likely that this legislation will be along the lines recommended by the committee, i.e. legalising abortion on demand/ request up till the 12th week of pregnancy. I guess it will be a personal judgement for you which takes precedence, your desire to permit abortion in 'exceptional circumstances' or your opposition to 'unrestricted' abortion...

threescompany

eviltwin wrote: »

Would you be more comfortable forcing them to carry a pregnancy they don't want?

Honestly ..... and I’m not being sarcastic. I don’t know. I don’t think I’d be comfortable with forcing them to carry out a pregnancy but it also just didn’t sit well with me when these friends had the abortions . I felt it was irresponsible of them especially when taking contraception is so easy ( and double up on contraception if you really don’t want to get pregnant !) I absolutely acknowledge there’s been valid points made here - is it fair on the child to be born to parents who aren’t ready and don’t want the baby. This is a difficult one.

threescompany

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

Every indication is that the referendum will be on straight repeal of the 8th amendment from the constitution and that well in advance of the referendum the government will outline the legislation with which it proposes to replace the amendment. It also seems highly likely that this legislation will be along the lines recommended by the committee, i.e. legalising abortion on demand/ request up till the 12th week of pregnancy. I guess it will be a personal judgement for you which takes precedence, your desire to permit abortion in 'exceptional circumstances' or your opposition to 'unrestricted' abortion...

Thank you for your reply.... i suppose I have more thinking to do!

eviltwin

threescompany wrote: »

Honestly ..... and I’m not being sarcastic. I don’t know. I don’t think I’d be comfortable with forcing them to carry out a pregnancy but it also just didn’t sit well with me when these friends had the abortions . I felt it was irresponsible of them especially when taking contraception is so easy ( and double up on contraception if you really don’t want to get pregnant !) I absolutely acknowledge there’s been valid points made here - is it fair on the child to be born to parents who aren’t ready and don’t want the baby. This is a difficult one.

I appreciate it's a difficult call for some people but if you don't agree with allowing people to access abortion you are effectively forcing them to continue with a pregnancy they don't want. I look at the people I love and I know I wouldn't want that for them so I can't expect it for other women.