The 8th amendment(Mod warning in op)

Bannasidhe

rainbow kirby wrote: »

I'm almost 37 weeks right now. Anyone who says that within earshot of me can expect a slap. :pac:

You should threaten to sit on them cos you ain't gonna be getting up again quickly and will probably urinate on them while trying.

And CONGRATULATIONS!

Edward M

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Ah - the just suck it up and get on with it argument.

Funny how it's not used to suggest that viagra should not be available on the State's bill. We have children and the elderly languishing in misery on hospital trolleys due to lack of funds (among other things in our disastrous so-called health service) while paying €4 million a month to help men get erections. https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/health/irish-taxpayers-foot-4m-medical-card-bill-for-monthly-viagra-30885209.html

Many men can't get it up - why can't they just get on with not getting it on?

That's a great argument, I'm with you on that.
Ask their partners how they feel about it also.

Bannasidhe

Edward M wrote: »

That's a great argument, I'm with you on that.
Ask their partners how they feel about it also.

Sure that's why the good lord invented vibrators.

Edward M

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Sure that's why the good lord invented vibrators.

, shur they save men a lot of hard work too.

thee glitz

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

You really do struggle with the concept of analogy don't you? I am not saying there is a plan in the gender being determined, or that someone has such a plan. I was likening how gender is being set from the outset TO the "plan" in my blue print analogy.

I don't. You said

I am pointing out that the gender of a human being decided at the moment of conception is the plan

If something is set, it is not a plan. A plan can change, can go unused, but something set refers to an actual outcome, something which exists independently of the "plan".

That you do not understand the analogy, or over extend it past it's purpose, is not a fault in the analogy. The fact remains it IS deceptive and dishonest to pretend one of us has more concern than the other about the value of "Human Life". I suggest we do not, we just differ in what we each believe constitutes what is to BE valued in "Human Life". And I suggest that the source of that value comes from more than mere DNA.

I don't mean to say that you don't, under any circumstances, value human life, but seem to not value the capacity to develop consciousness and the inevitability of sentience, which you cling to. It must be determined that there is human life which has no value, at a stage every one of us were once at.

Not so. I am appealing to aspects of human life from which the very concept of "value" is even derived. Nothing to do with me at all, but nice try all the same.

This is straight-up I am but I'm not waffle.

If consciousness and sentience were removed from this universe tomorrow, what do you think would be of value anymore, and what do you think would be DOING the valuing?

What a very sad hypothetical situation. The capacity to regain consciousness and sentience would be valued, and maybe you'd be there not valuing it?

I think the very thing that brings the concept of "value" into the universe is for that reason itself inevitably of value. Without consciousness and sentience in the universe there would be nothing to value, nothing to do the valuing. It is, purely by definition, the foundation of anything worth valuing or to do valuing with. And it is the ONLY attribute that differentiates us in any meaningful way from any other animal on this planet. So yes I do find value in humanity for that reason. Not for the reason that their DNA happens to be what we define as "Human". So it is NOT right to say I "don't see intrinsic value in it". I see MUCH intrinsic value in one definition of "Humanity". I just see no intrinsic value in Humanity as a biological concept alone. A Huge difference.

I'm pretty sure animals value things too. Again, you go to lengths to show your humanity, to come back to the same point.

The only clutching at straws going on is coming from you and your nonsense claim that Genetic Gender is suggestive of "an identity". If you want to make excuses to leave, that is fine by me. But inventing excuses that attempt to make it look like this is MY failure, rather than your own, ain't gonna fly.

I am not making determination on the value of individual lives either, so you also made that up. I AM making claims about what it is that we should value in humanity as a whole, and that there is nothing about a fetus in the 0-16 weeks window that anyone (least of all you) has shown to be worthy of value at all. The dismissal by little more than assertion of my arguments is a mere cover for the fact you have offered no counter arguments related to value of your own at all.

You've timed it well! I indeed can't to go back and forth over this indefinitely, especially with your lengthy, wandering posts (which I suspect are copy/paste enabled, but somewhat appreciate). Certainly, I will have time to again. Perhaps you'll consider why your (or anyone's) opinion on the value a human life is important anyway.

thee glitz

Bannasidhe wrote: »

'Relative' importance? Sweetest divine :rolleyes:.

Surely it is of utmost importance that women don't die or suffer unduly.

Can you seriously not see that even using terms like 'relative' places women in a less than equal position when it comes to how their welfare is considered?

I can only deduce that you have, again, misinterpreted my post, and can't speculate as to if this was willful.

If the removal of the 8th amendment would help prevent undue harm to women, it would be better to remove abortion on demand as a possible result of doing so. This is not being contemplated - what's happening is the shameless wrapping of a 'we must prevent women dying' cloak around the push for a liberal abortion regime.

nozzferrahhtoo

thee glitz wrote: »

I don't. You said If something is set, it is not a plan. A plan can change, can go unused, but something set refers to an actual outcome, something which exists independently of the "plan".

You are still missing the point of the analogy which was only to point out that a value in a blue print, does not make the blue print a house, in the same way as a value in the DNA of a fetus or zygote does not make it a human individual. The analogy has no other purpose than that, and is not negates by your over extending it or failing to understand it.

Your ENTIRE point here is only coming across as saying the fact that it's gender is determined is somehow suggestive of an individual. It is not. No more than it is in an earthworm or a cow. What makes you an individual as in an individual human PERSON is little to do with your DNA (After all many people share theirs with an identical twin and share much of it with their direct relatives) and pretty much everything to do with your being an individual instance of human sentience.

thee glitz wrote: »

I don't mean to say that you don't, under any circumstances, value human life, but seem to not value the capacity to develop consciousness and the inevitability of sentience, which you cling to. It must be determined that there is human life which has no value, at a stage every one of us were once at. This is straight-up I am but I'm not waffle. What a very sad hypothetical situation. The capacity to regain consciousness and sentience would be valued, and maybe you'd be there not valuing it?

Yes, there is a point we were all at before which we had no attributes to which we could meaningfully assign general value, or moral and ethical concern. That is exactly my position yes. I value human life above all else currently, but in doing so I distinguish between "human life" in terms of pure biological taxonomy, and "human life" in terms of the attributes that constitute what it meaningfully IS to be "human".

Also it is not that I do not value the "capacity to develop consciousness" at all. I very much do. If I built a General Artificial Intelligence tomorrow, I do not think I have any moral or ethical compunction to actually turn it on. But I very, very very very, much would want to. Because I recognize both the capacity to develop a new consciousness, and the value in doing so IN GENERAL.

But we are not talking about IN GENERAL here with abortion. Rather we are talking about curtailing the well being, choices, options, freedoms and wishes of an actual living sentient consciousness (the pregnant woman) in deference to a not just slightly but ENTIRELY non-sentient blob of meat. All because some people imagine some ethical and moral conundrum in an imaginary onus to realize it's potential.

And other than assertion of that moral position, I have seen literally nothing offered in argument for taking it seriously or as at all important.

thee glitz wrote: »

I'm pretty sure animals value things too. Again, you go to lengths to show your humanity, to come back to the same point. You've timed it well! I indeed can't to go back and forth over this indefinitely, especially with your lengthy, wandering posts (which I suspect are copy/paste enabled, but somewhat appreciate). Certainly, I will have time to again. Perhaps you'll consider why your (or anyone's) opinion on the value a human life is important anyway.

But I have already explained why my position on it is important. Because my position on what we value is predicated first and foremost on that aspect of humanity that ALLOWS us to value anything in the first place. A rather relevant foundation don't you think? And pointless personal comments about ME and my post style, put in only for filler and no utility, aside there is certainly a difference between me offering that grounding in my position.......... and people like eotr simply asserting theirs and running away and ignoring posts that question it.

If you think in general "animals value things" then I can only ask you what you think that means and what you think their "valuing" consists of first and foremost, before going on to discuss how that differs from what it consists of in humans. Because if you think it is somehow the same thing....... I can not wait to see you explain how.

Hannibal_Smith

thee glitz wrote: »

Pro abortion rights campaigners seemingly refuse to contemplate (even the possibility of) a situation where women's lives could be saved, unless it also allows abortion whyever.

This literally made me LOL. Of course there are situations where a pregnant woman's life can be saved without abortion!

thee glitz

Hannibal_Smith wrote: »

This literally made me LOL. Of course there are situations where a pregnant woman's life can be saved without abortion!

The situation I was (obviously) referring to was the removal of the 8th.

robbiezero

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Apologies if this is a stupid question, but will a 12 week limit on abortion as proposed by the Oireachtas committee restrict "full bodily autonomy"?

nozzferrahhtoo

robbiezero wrote: »

Apologies if this is a stupid question, but will a 12 week limit on abortion as proposed by the Oireachtas committee restrict "full bodily autonomy"?

To a point yes! The phrase I like to use in answer to that point is "I have the full right to swing my arms around wildly, but that right ends where your face begins".

I think the position of pro-choice people who believe in a term limit (usually of the form of 12, 16, 20, 24 weeks) is that a woman has full bodily autonomy over her own PERSON up until the point where they feel ANOTHER person comes into the equation.

So just like I have fully bodily autonomy to swing my fists around, up to where your face is, a woman should have fully bodily autonomy up to the point another PERSON can be said to be effected by her choices.

And the moment another sentient PERSON with rights comes into the equation..... an individuals choices have to be progressively and meaningfully curtailed and mediated.

But there is nothing going on in the fetus at 12, 16, even 20 weeks that can meaningfully ground a conversation about the existence of another person with rights.

.......

This post has been deleted.

thee glitz

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

put in only for filler and no utility

With no hint of irony :pac:

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

And the moment another sentient PERSON with rights comes into the equation..... an individuals choices have to be progressively and meaningfully curtailed and mediated.

Progressively?

robbiezero

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

To a point yes! The phrase I like to use in answer to that point is "I have the full right to swing my arms around wildly, but that right ends where your face begins".

I think the position of pro-choice people who believe in a term limit (usually of the form of 12, 16, 20, 24 weeks) is that a woman has full bodily autonomy over her own PERSON up until the point where they feel ANOTHER person comes into the equation.

So just like I have fully bodily autonomy to swing my fists around, up to where your face is, a woman should have fully bodily autonomy up to the point another PERSON can be said to be effected by her choices.

And the moment another sentient PERSON with rights comes into the equation..... an individuals choices have to be progressively and meaningfully curtailed and mediated.

But there is nothing going on in the fetus at 12, 16, even 20 weeks that can meaningfully ground a conversation about the existence of another person with rights.

Cheers for that. That is a good explanation. The "full" is a bit confusing in the slogan.

thee glitz

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

A lot of people view abortion as being wrong, except justifiable under a limited set of circumstances. They would
be inclined to vote against a motion to repeal the 8th, but could be persuaded to vote for it if it wasn't a vote
towards abortion in demand. Without the facility to do so, the risk of a no-strings referendum on repealing the 8th
failing is greater. These are separate issues, but presented as an all or nothinq question, which doesn't serve democracy.
We can do better than this.

No one is wrapping anything but even you must admit - the 8th is a failure. Beside the side effects of affecting womens maternity care and the extreme failures such as Savita, or the poor woman who was kept as a zombie on life support because there was a fetal heartbeat - but, it doesnt even stop abortions - they happen anyway, either in Ireland illegally, or women travel for them - both of which cases risk womens health and life. So it does nothing positive - at all!

Sure there are problems with the 8th, but it does make abortion on demand illegal. Perhaps greater effort could
be put into enforcing our laws and it might save some (more?) lives... The argument that abortion on demand
should be legal because it's available elsewhere is a poor one. What if it became illegal in Britain (and technically it is)?
Why 12 weeks if somewhere else allows more?

captbarnacles

Actually I think most people would agree with abortion in cases if rape and given the timeframes to try and prove that and the lunacy of tasking someone with deciding if the complainant was 'really' raped there must be a window to allow it. My guess is that it will be a close vote but that will sway it to repeal.

.......

This post has been deleted.

nozzferrahhtoo

thee glitz wrote: »

With no hint of irony :pac: Progressively?

None at all, but nice of you to dodge the entire post by barely taking exception to one line in it.

As for "progressively" by this I mean, the more impact ones choices has, the more such choices need to be mediated and curtailed. If ones choices as a sentient agent impact another sentient agent, then the requirement to curtail or mediate those choices should scale progressively with the level of that impact.

robbiezero wrote: »

Cheers for that. That is a good explanation. The "full" is a bit confusing in the slogan.

Yeah, I have yet to meet a slogan that fully explains the nuance of the position behind it. They are all confusing and misleading really.

thee glitz

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Fair enough, but that's also a poor reason. We don't just always get what we want. I doubt travelling to the UK makes an abortion unsafe (it's inherently unsafe for the baby btw), not that we should be too concerned with what they do anyway.

thee glitz

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

None at all, but nice of you to dodge the entire post by barely taking exception to one line in it.

Aww I'm not dodging it, just got stuffs to do.

kylith

thee glitz wrote: »

Fair enough, but that's also a poor reason. We don't just always get what we want. I doubt travelling to the UK makes an abortion unsafe (it's inherently unsafe for the baby btw), not that we should be too concerned with what they do anyway.

Of course they make it unsafe. If a woman cannot afford to stay in the UK until everything has run its course she must travel home while, essentially, having a miscarriage. Travel during this time is not recommended as there is always some risk of haemorrhage.

Women who order pills online cannot be 100% sure of what is in them, making them unsafe. If she then needs medical help (even if the pills are genuine there is some risk attached to all medications) she may be afraid to go to a doctor for fear of Irish law and it's 14 year penalty.

.......

This post has been deleted.

thee glitz

kylith wrote: »

Of course they make it unsafe. If a woman cannot afford to stay in the UK until everything has run its course she must travel home while, essentially, having a miscarriage. Travel during this time is not recommended as there is always some risk of haemorrhage.

It's really the travelling (back) then when women put themselves at risk.

Women who order pills online cannot be 100% sure of what is in them, making them unsafe. If she then needs medical help (even if the pills are genuine there is some risk attached to all medications) she may be afraid to go to a doctor for fear of Irish law and it's 14 year penalty.

So maybe don't take them? I don't think doctors are allowed to report that anyway, possibly they're compelled to but I haven't heard of any cases of it. It's the dealers that should be prosecuted.

.......

This post has been deleted.

kylith

thee glitz wrote: »

It's really the travelling (back) then when women put themselves at risk.



So maybe don't take them? I don't think doctors are allowed to report that anyway, possibly they're compelled to but I haven't heard of any cases of it. It's the dealers that should be prosecuted.

Do you think that a woman would spend thousands and endure the pain of an abortion if she did not feel that it was the only option for her? This isn't a shopping trip, you know.

captbarnacles

kylith wrote: »

thee glitz wrote: »

It's really the travelling (back) then when women put themselves at risk.



So maybe don't take them? I don't think doctors are allowed to report that anyway, possibly they're compelled to but I haven't heard of any cases of it. It's the dealers that should be prosecuted.

Do you think that a woman would spend thousands and endure the pain of an abortion if she did not feel that it was the only option for her? This isn't a shopping trip, you know.

Well there is few here who think pregnancy is about as demanding as making toast so likely they view having an abortion as even more trivial.

kylith

captbarnacles wrote: »

Well there is few here who think pregnancy is about as demanding as making toast so likely they view having an abortion as even more trivial.

Yeah, pre-eclampsia, urinary incontinence, high blood pressure, vaginal tearing, blood clots the size of golf balls, and severe morning sickness (to name but a few complications of pregnancy) are 'inconveniences'.

Bannasidhe

thee glitz wrote: »

I can only deduce that you have, again, misinterpreted my post, and can't speculate as to if this was willful.

If the removal of the 8th amendment would help prevent undue harm to women, it would be better to remove abortion on demand as a possible result of doing so. This is not being contemplated - what's happening is the shameless wrapping of a 'we must prevent women dying' cloak around the push for a liberal abortion regime.

What part of the 'on demand' is a moot point did you not understand? It already here. It's happening. It comes in pill form. It can be bought on-line. It cannot be stopped.

All this so called point of principle about 'on demand' is doing is failing to accept what is already happening. You cannot stop it. All you can do is ensure that women will continue to buy it on line, risk their lives, and a prison sentence, and not one embryo will be 'saved'.

You say 'liberal abortion regime' likes it's a bad thing - outsourcing our problems and failing to provide our citizens with proper health care because we cannot accept reality - that's the actual bad thing.

thee glitz

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

We're poles apart - why not Love Both?

Besides which - why would anyone want someone who didnt want to be pregnant be forced to (a) endure the pregnancy and (b) raise the child - thats not a good outcome for ANYONE.

a) I'm not (condoning) forcing anyone to become pregnant.
b) A fair point, hopefully maternal instincts would kick in. I wouldn't be thrilled about leaving my child in the care of a pro-choicer.

Im sorry you do not believe the testimony of the various medical professionals on why travelling for abortion services is unsafe for women.

The Citizens Assembly website has lots of useful links with the various testimonies from medical experts. Everyone agrees that its unsafe for women to split medical care across two jurisdictions, particularly when those jurisdictions are separated by a sea - requiring a flight to get to. You can choose to dismiss all of this evidence. But that does not mean that the evidence is not there.

Even without the evidence and testimonies though - its a bit of a no brainer. Travelling immediately after a surgical procedure isnt good for anyone. Travelling while the uterus may be more susceptible to infection is risky. Travelling after taking new medication is risky.
Not being able to share your medical records from a different jurisdiction with your GP leads to a break in continuation of care.

There is testimony from the master of the rotunda that a woman died while travelling back after having an abortion.

So

I doubt travelling to the UK makes an abortion unsafe

is an uninformed, ignorant and offensive remark in light of all of the evidence and testimony given at the Citizens Assembly.

It does seem to be the travelling back... but ok, I've learned a bit today, not usually concerning myself with how or when complications arise from when people subvert the law. What's really offensive is that testimony was entertained which relates to actions undertaken outside our jurisdiction, outside because it's illegal here. That is an affront to the state.

ohnonotgmail

thee glitz wrote: »

We're poles apart - why not Love Both?



a) I'm not (condoning) forcing anyone to become pregnant.
b) A fair point, hopefully maternal instincts would kick in. I wouldn't be thrilled about leaving my child in the care of a pro-choicer.



It does seem to be the travelling back... but ok, I've learned a bit today, not usually concerning myself with how or when complications arise from when people subvert the law. What's really offensive is that testimony was entertained which relates to actions undertaken outside our jurisdiction, outside because it's illegal here. That is an affront to the state.

But it is not illegal outside the state nor it is illegal to travel outside the state to procure an abortion so there is no affront to the state. You find the information disturbing because it exposes your own ignorance so you try to discredit it.

.......

This post has been deleted.

Mr. CooL ICE

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

thee glitz wrote: »

a) I'm not (condoning) forcing anyone to become pregnant.
b) A fair point, hopefully maternal instincts would kick in. I wouldn't be thrilled about leaving my child in the care of a pro-choicer.

a) = you did not answer the question. Nice try.
b) = it sounds like you're insinuating pro choice people cannot be trusted with children. Please clarify if I've read you wrong

thee glitz

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

What's disingenuous?

Women are forced to travel for abortions

This is! Ever forced a woman yourself?

No woman would travel if she should avail of the service at home. So she does not choose to travel, she does not "put herself" at risk. She travels because she has no other choice.

Do you mean that undue harm would come upon her if she doesn't? Because no reasonable person would want allow that.

Would you prefer girls sticking knitting needles up their vaginas, killing themselves, taking scalding baths while down bottles of gin and risking alcohol poisoning, back street abortionists and girls dying giving birth alone in fields? Because thats what we used to have.

No - I'd sooner have that kinda thing illegal.

Your posts are quite offensive to women you know. As well as being uninformed and ignorant.

Your post is offensive to common sense, and pro-life supporters in general.

.......

This post has been deleted.

Mr. CooL ICE

Mod: Lads, a reminder. It is unfair to discuss users which cannot post here to defend themselves.

Remember the "don't be a dick" rule.

Edward M

captbarnacles wrote: »

I doubt anyone whoever describes pregnancy as an inconvenience has ever spoken to a pregnant woman.

Just for the record, I didn't describe pregnancy as an inconvenience. I said it shouldn't be considered one or used as a reason for abortion.
I'm married with kids, my wife and I are still talking to each other, shocking isn't it.

.......

This post has been deleted.

Edward M

....... wrote: »

Who is using it as a reason?

I dont know.
I'm sure it happens, career, finances, relationship issues, many reasons pregnancies can be inconvenient.

.......

This post has been deleted.

Edward M

....... wrote: »

Youre sure it happens that pregnancies can be inconvenient yet you dont know who is using it as a reason for an abortion?

Im not really sure what you are trying to say tbh.

I'm saying that abortion on demand can lead to a situation where just plain inconvenience can be used as a good enough reason for abortion.

kylith

Edward M wrote: »

I'm saying that abortion on demand can lead to a situation where just plain inconvenience can be used as a good enough reason for abortion.

career, finances, relationship issues,

Would you consider having to give up a career/your career meaning that childcare would not be feasible due to working hours, not being able to financially support a child, or being in a shitty/abusive relationship 'inconvenient' or 'pretty major considerations when it comes to deciding whether you would be able to adequately care for a child'?

Edward M

kylith wrote: »

Would you consider having to give up a career/your career meaning that childcare would not be feasible due to working hours, not being able to financially support a child, or being in a shitty/abusive relationship 'inconvenient' or 'pretty major considerations when it comes to deciding whether you would be able to adequately care for a child'?

Of course.

Bannasidhe

Edward M wrote: »

I'm saying that abortion on demand can lead to a situation where just plain inconvenience can be used as a good enough reason for abortion.

Abortion on demand is already here. It's bought on the internet. It comes in pill form.
Who knows what the hell is in some of those pills?
Who knows what unexpected and dangerous side effects may occur?

Do you want this to continue unregulated?
Do you want girls and women to continue to play Russian Roulette with a tablet?

Or are you against the convenience of being able to go to a trained specialist who will take a full medical history and do some tests before prescribing a safe and regulated dosage?

The choice is stark and clear.
Unregulated abortion on demand via the internet or regulated in accordance with best medical practice.

Cos Edward - being agin it ain't gonna stop it.

kylith

Edward M wrote: »

Of course.

So you agree that your examples of things that could make a pregnancy/child 'inconvenient' are actually major considerations to take into account when deciding if you can look after a child.

Which means that they are not trivial reasons to have an abortion, yes?

Edward M

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Abortion on demand is already here. It's bought on the internet. It comes in pill form.
Who knows what the hell is in some of those pills?
Who knows what unexpected and dangerous side effects may occur?

Do you want this to continue unregulated?
Do you want girls and women to continue to play Russian Roulette with a tablet?

Or are you against the convenience of being able to go to a trained specialist who will take a full medical history and do some tests before prescribing a safe and regulated dosage?

The choice is stark and clear.
Unregulated abortion on demand via the internet or regulated in accordance with best medical practice.

Cos Edward - being agin it ain't gonna stop it.

Could say the same about cocaine, heroine and many other drugs.
I'm a democrat here, I have a vote on it coming up, if its passed I hold my hands up to the democratic decision on it, it probably won't get my vote, because of MY conscience, much as I'd like to see the eighth repealed, but not a no limit abortion policy up to any set period.

Edward M

kylith wrote: »

So you agree that your examples of things that could make a pregnancy/child 'inconvenient' are actually major considerations to take into account when deciding if you can look after a child.

Which means that they are not trivial reasons to have an abortion, yes?

I said what I said as my feelings, my view on it, I don't judge others on my take of things, I personally have a view on it, shared by my wife BTW, but that's incidental.
I'm sure the vast majority of abortions are for the right reasons in the mind of the person involved, but I don't think my conscience will allow me to vote for a right to abortion where even a tiny percentage might just be done as a dismissive inconvenience.
I might have to abstain this time?

kylith

Edward M wrote: »

I said what I said as my feelings, my view on it, I don't judge others on my take of things, I personally have a view on it, shared by my wife BTW, but that's incidental.
I'm sure the vast majority of abortions are for the right reasons in the mind of the person involved, but I don't think my conscience will allow me to vote for a right to abortion where even a tiny percentage might just be done as a dismissive inconvenience.
I might have to abstain this time?

I appreciate that you have your opinions on it, but I'm sure you can acknowledge that your dismissive inconvenience is another's life changing crisis.

thee glitz

kylith wrote: »

Do you think that a woman would spend thousands and endure the pain of an abortion if she did not feel that it was the only option for her? This isn't a shopping trip, you know.

What distinguishes being 'the only option for her' from 'the option she's sure she wants'?

Hannibal_Smith

Edward M wrote: »

I said what I said as my feelings, my view on it, I don't judge others on my take of things, I personally have a view on it, shared by my wife BTW, but that's incidental.
I'm sure the vast majority of abortions are for the right reasons in the mind of the person involved, but I don't think my conscience will allow me to vote for a right to abortion where even a tiny percentage might just be done as a dismissive inconvenience.
I might have to abstain this time?

I think that's what every one is doing and it's exactly as you say. You vote how your conscience allows. It's tricky and not straight forward at all. Should the 8th be repealed? On it's own merit? It seems from this thread anyhow that people think it should be repealed. But the reason for keeping it there is to hold back what might come after it.

Conscience is very much apart of every one's vote on this one, I would think, which is why it becomes so emotive. I've read it a few times on this thread that people are forgetting there's a baby involved. But equally I wonder do people remember there is a woman involved. You yourself have said she should just get on with it. That's a horrible way to treat a woman. Maybe the view is it's a horrible thing to kill a baby, but how can it be resolved? How can both lives be equal when at the moment the baby's existence will override the wishes of the woman it is dependent on?

kylith

thee glitz wrote: »

What distinguishes being 'the only option for her' from 'the option she's sure she wants'?

I'm unsure of what you're asking here. Could you clarify?