Abortion - Report of the Joint Committee on the Eighth Amendment of the Constitution

oscarBravo

J C wrote: »

I will explain myself to man or woman as the case may be ... without being derided for it, thank you very much ... and I will not be put off doing so by rude male or female feminists and their false sexist generalizations ... 'mansplaining' indeed.

Oh, feel free to explain yourself to your heart's content. It's when you start explaining to women what a positive thing pregnancy is - whether or not they want to be pregnant - that you enter preaching mode.

And, let's face it: that's fundamentally what the campaign to retain the 8th is. It's one long sermon to women about how it would be nice if they could have bodily autonomy, but once they become pregnant they automatically lose the right to make decisions for themselves, because of other people's - notably men's - beliefs about what's growing inside them.

So, preach away, but don't bother getting huffy when it's pointed out to you that that's what you're doing: you're preaching in a very patronising way to women about how you'd prefer if they were forced to give birth, and isn't pregnancy wonderful anyway.

JDD

J C wrote: »

I see ... you could make the same argument about any bodily function ... and there are positive side-effects to pregnancy as well:-
https://www.thebump.com/a/pregnancy-benefits

Pregnancy may be somewhat uncomfortable ... but the vast majority of women go through with their pregnancies with little or no ill effects - and unlike many other issues with one's body ... pregnancy is something that women and their partners voluntarily enter into ... and it ends after nine months, unlike chronic conditions.
If they don't want to become pregnant ... they shouldn't have unprotected sex and they should take the MAP, if something went wrong.
Carelessly creating a new human life and then killing it is simply wrong.

Sorry. What?

Having gone through three uncomplicated standard pregnancies myself, I can tell you that being pregnant is a crock of sh*t. And nobody tells you that. There's a lot of talk about the pain of labour itself, but nobody really talks about how absolutely sh*t being pregnant is. And I think you should go home to your wife and ask her some honest questions about it. Like the haemorroids, the diarrhea, the numbed hands and feet, the chronic backache, the nausea. 7%-20% of women get pre-natal (not post-natal now) depression. I could go on and on. These are all very standard symptoms in pregnancy. The fact that you don't even seem to know about this speaks volumes.

And that link to pregnancy benefits.... Like, I don't think I should even justify it with a comment but I can't help myself. Bigger f*cking boobs? Shinier hair? Can you even hear yourself? Did you even click on the link?

J C

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Its a fact in your head, it's not a scientific fact (real science, not the makey up one you subscribe to)

... so what does abortion do in your opinion, if it doesn't kill?

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Not an insult JC but a fact that anyone reading the thread can see for themselves.

If we're going to start expressing our mutual disgusts for and against abortion, I don't think it will get us very far.

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

I know you have no issue with contraception, the problem is you seem to have no idea about contraception and the failure rate. You seem to think that every unwanted pregnancy is simply down to carelessness.

... and if contraception fails then people will have to live with the consequences ... it is not right that an unborn human being should suffer death because contraception wasn't used at all or was used incorrectly.
When people have sex, they must accept the fact that a child may be conceived ... and if they are not mature enough or responsible enough to accept such a child then they shouldn't be engaging in sex, in the first place.
The sex drive is something that both men and women have eminent control over ... we are not animals on heat unable to control our instincts and passions.

... a little respect for each other and any child that might be conceived is called for IMO.
... and using abortion as a form of 'contraception' is gravely wrong and selfish ... and it is another form of 'me myself and my pleasure alone ... and forget about the consequences'.

oscarBravo

J C wrote: »

When people have sex, they must accept the fact that a child may be conceived ... and if they are not mature enough or responsible enough to accept such a child then they shouldn't be engaging in sex.

It's funny how "accepting the consequences" is always the woman's problem.

eta: This strangely Puritan perspective of yours might have the faintest suspicion of merit if you were supportive of abortion for rape victims. I'm going to go out on a limb and speculate that you're not, so the idea that anyone who has sex deserves to be pregnant is a pretty flimsy justification for forced birth.

etaa: That should have read "any woman who has sex", of course - why should men who have sex have to face consequences?

Triceratops Ballet

J C wrote:

The 8th can easily be amended to cater for any other 'hard cases' if they are not already covered. In many cases all that is required is legislation or medical protocols ... this has already happened with the POLDPA ... and this should have been enacted thirty years earlier, in line with the 8th.

The 8th can be amended by referendum only, so what? The solution is to keep having referenda ad infinitum to make an inappropriate article of our constitution work, when it would be more logical to just remove it altogether?
Abortion aside the 8th actually comprises the standard of healthcare available to pregnant women, I do not see how anyone can argue in favour of that

Timberrrrrrrr

J C wrote: »

... so what does abortion do in your opinion, if it doesn't kill?

It doesn't kill a human being, you may/will disagree with that but I don't go by your belief I go by my own

If we're going to start expressing our mutual disgusts for and against abortion, I don't think it will get us very far.

... and if it fails then people will have to live with the consequences ... it is not right that an unborn human being should suffer death because contraception wasn't used at all or was used incorrectly.

And yet again showing total ignorance when it comes to contraception! It can be used and used correctly and (shock horror) fail!

When people have sex, they must accept the fact that a child may be conceived ... and if they are not mature enough or responsible enough to accept such a child then they shouldn't be engaging in sex.

So sex should only be used for procreation?

The sex drive is something that both men and women have eminent control over ... we are not animals on heat unable to control our instincts and passions.

Speak for yourself!

... a little respect for each other and any child that might be conceived is called for IMO.

Or an unwanted pregnancy can be terminated with no harm.to any living person.

J C

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Hey ladies! Don't bother going to the salon this week and waste your money, get pregnant instead and you too can have bigger boobs, longer finger nails and shiny hair :rolleyes:

These are the positives ... as described by women who are pregnant ... but they are balanced by some negatives as well.

https://www.thebump.com/a/pregnancy-benefits

J C

oscarBravo wrote: »

It's funny how "accepting the consequences" is always the woman's problem.

Its also her partner's responsibility as well.

Timberrrrrrrr

J C wrote: »

These are the positives ... as described by women who are pregnant ... but they are balanced by some negatives as well.

https://www.thebump.com/a/pregnancy-benefits

Where does it say "as described by women ?

I see one woman's name under the heading.

JDD

Sigh. So we're back to the "you should only have sex for the purposes of procreation" argument.

J C

J C wrote: »

... so what does abortion do in your opinion, if it doesn't kill?

If we're going to start expressing our mutual disgusts for and against abortion, I don't think it will get us very far.

... and if contraception fails then people will have to live with the consequences ... it is not right that an unborn human being should suffer death because contraception wasn't used at all or was used incorrectly.
When people have sex, they must accept the fact that a child may be conceived ... and if they are not mature enough or responsible enough to accept such a child then they shouldn't be engaging in sex, in the first place.
The sex drive is something that both men and women have eminent control over ... we are not animals on heat unable to control our instincts and passions.

... a little respect for each other and any child that might be conceived is called for IMO.
... and using abortion as a form of 'contraception' is gravely wrong and selfish ... and it is another form of 'me myself and my pleasure alone ... and forget about the consequences'.

the only completely safe method is no sex. do you think thats acceptable?
I dont want children, I take every precaution I can. Do you think I ( & my partner) should live without sex until I go through the menopause?

oscarBravo

J C wrote: »

Its also her partner's responsibility as well.

Oh, he has to be pregnant and give birth as well, does he?

Triceratops Ballet

J C wrote:

These are the positives ... as described by women who are pregnant ... but they are balanced by some negatives as well.

What's the point though? Never mind that you don't want to be pregnant or have a baby, your hair will be super shiny so yay for that?!

J C

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Where does it say "as described by women ?

I see one woman's name under the heading.

Its a baby-mom site for women by women
https://www.thebump.com/a/pregnancy-benefits

Quote:-
“It normally takes me forever to grow my hair out, and now it grows like weeds,” says kara29.

My nails have always been flaky and weak, but now they’re spectacular!” says zbra33.

And even though you do hear about pregnancy acne, those hormone shifts could just clear up your skin. They did for johnsgirl73, who says, “I hardly get breakouts now, which is lovely.”

“My favorite perk is no period for sure!” says kara29. No tampons, no problem!

Pregnancy makes some moms-to-be more sensitive down below. The best-case scenario? “Even better orgasms!” says merryme52.

“Do baby kicks count as a symptom? I love those so much!” says all9mos.

J C

J C wrote: »

Its a baby-mom site for women by women
https://www.thebump.com/a/pregnancy-benefits

Quote:-
“It normally takes me forever to grow my hair out, and now it grows like weeds,” says kara29.

My nails have always been flaky and weak, but now they’re spectacular!” says zbra33.

And even though you do hear about pregnancy acne, those hormone shifts could just clear up your skin. They did for johnsgirl73, who says, “I hardly get breakouts now, which is lovely.”

“My favorite perk is no period for sure!” says kara29. No tampons, no problem!

Pregnancy makes some moms-to-be more sensitive down below. The best-case scenario? “Even better orgasms!” says merryme52.

“Do baby kicks count as a symptom? I love those so much!” says all9mos.

are you actually for real???!!!!
so, some women who WANT to be pregnant find something good about being pregnant? well, shock horror!!
of course they do.

It is not an arguement for women to become pregnant, or stay that way if they dont wish to have a child!!
'no periods' 'no tampons' OMG.

( BTW you know there are other ways not to have periods right? I dont have any, and I am not pregnant. oh, & my hair is lovely & shiny &
my nails grow ridiculously fast!! )

J C

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

It doesn't kill a human being, you may/will disagree with that but I don't go by your belief I go by my own

The self-definition of human beings that people wanted to kill or enslave as 'not human' has a long and ignoble tradition.
... so just because somebody finds it convenient to deny the humanity of unborn children, so that they can then be killed with impunity ... doesn't make it factually or ethically right.

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

So sex should only be used for procreation?

... no ... but people shouldn't be totally surprised if it does result in procreation ... and they need to accept the fact that this may occur if they decide to have sex and they are both fertile.

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Or an unwanted pregnancy can be terminated with no harm.to any living person.

I wouldn't call killing an unborn living human being 'no harm' ... unless the meaning of the word 'harm' has lost all meaning.

J C

bubblypop wrote: »

are you actually for real???!!!!
so, some women who WANT to be pregnant find something good about being pregnant? well, shock horror!!
of course they do.

It is not an arguement for women to become pregnant, or stay that way if they dont wish to have a child!!
'no periods' 'no tampons' OMG.

( BTW you know there are other ways not to have periods right? I dont have any, and I am not pregnant. oh, & my hair is lovely & shiny &
my nails grow ridiculously fast!! )

I was just pointing out that the negatives of pregnancy (which were alluded to by a poster) come with some positives as well ... nothing more than that.

oscarBravo

J C wrote: »

... no ... but people shouldn't be totally surprised if it does result in procreation ... and they need to accept the fact that this may occur if they decide to have sex and they are both fertile.

What about people who don't decide to have sex and become pregnant against their will? Do they need to "accept the fact" as well?

JDD

JC, are you from the US?

end of the road

JDD wrote: »

End of the Road, I'm not quite getting my head around your position here. You're saying that you don't believe the legalization of abortion will lead to reduction in the right to life for existing citizens of the state. You also would not vote for repeal even if the right to life of a 13 week+ foetus was enshrined in the constitution, thus putting the strongest barrier against an increase in the limitation dates. So you believe that bestowing the right to life on a foetus from implantation to birth (and specificially from implantation to 12 weeks) is for the greater good?

yes . that is correct. for me there is no difference between a fetus at 12 weeks, and a fetus at 11 weeks, 6 days, 23 hours, 59 minutes, 59 seconds

JDD wrote: »

I mean, you know that a pregnancy - even an uncomplicated one - can take a huge physical and mental toll on a pregnant woman.

i understand that.

JDD wrote: »

End of the Road, may I ask, are you religious? Do you believe the foetus has a soul, and because of that it automatically has a right to life? Because if that's the case, I respect that. I don't agree with it, but I understand your stance a lot more. If it's not because you're religious, I just can't get my head around it.

i'm not religious and i don't believe a fetus has a soul. i simply believe that a fetus has a right to life bar extreme circumstances, whether it is at 1 week or 12 weeks.

Triceratops Ballet wrote: »

Legislation can not be introduced that contravenes anything enshrined in the constitution. Therefore, lobbying to alter the proposed legislation after you have voted to reject the repeal is utterly nonsensical. If the 8th amendment is not repealed then no legislation on abortion no matter how restrictive/liberal can be introduced.
If the pro life side want to see legislative changes that allow for abortion in restricted cases (ffa etc) but not in other cases, there is no scenario in which they can see them introduced without first repealing the 8th amendment.

that may be but realistically it's a risk we are going to have to take, because many of us feel the current proposals go way to far and we want to try to remove any possibility of them being introduced. for us, voting no is the way to do that.

JDD wrote: »

End of the Road, I'm not quite getting my head around your position here. You're saying that you don't believe the legalization of abortion will lead to reduction in the right to life for existing citizens of the state. You also would not vote for repeal even if the right to life of a 13 week+ foetus was enshrined in the constitution, thus putting the strongest barrier against an increase in the limitation dates. So you believe that bestowing the right to life on a foetus from implantation to birth (and specificially from implantation to 12 weeks) is for the greater good?

yes . that is correct. for me there is no difference between a fetus at 12 weeks, and a fetus at 11 weeks, 6 days, 23 hours, 59 minutes, 59 seconds

JDD wrote: »

I mean, you know that a pregnancy - even an uncomplicated one - can take a huge physical and mental toll on a pregnant woman.

i understand that.

JDD wrote: »

End of the Road, may I ask, are you religious? Do you believe the foetus has a soul, and because of that it automatically has a right to life? Because if that's the case, I respect that. I don't agree with it, but I understand your stance a lot more. If it's not because you're religious, I just can't get my head around it.

i'm not religious and i don't believe a fetus has a soul. i simply believe that a fetus has a right to life bar extreme circumstances, whether it is at 1 week or 12 weeks.

Timberrrrrrrr

J C wrote: »

The self-definition of human beings that people wanted to kill a not human has a long and ignoble tradition.
... so just because somebody finds it convenient to deny the humanity of unborn children, so that they can then be killed with impunity ... doesn't make it factually or ethically right.

... no ... but people shouldn't be totally surprised if it does result in procreation ... and they need to accept the fact that this may occur if they decide to have sex and they are both fertile.


I wouldn't call killing an unborn living human being 'no harm' ... unless the meaning of the word 'harm' has lost all meaning.

I wouldn't call an 8 week or 12 fetus a l8ving human be8ng at all but again that boils down to the both of us having a different definition of what constitutes a human being.

Timberrrrrrrr

J C wrote: »

I was just pointing out that the negatives of pregnancy (which were alluded to by a poster) comes with some positives as well ... nothing more than that.

I think you will find that the negatives far outweigh the "positives" that you linked to.

end of the road

Triceratops Ballet wrote: »

Legislation can not be introduced that contravenes anything enshrined in the constitution. Therefore, lobbying to alter the proposed legislation after you have voted to reject the repeal is utterly nonsensical. If the 8th amendment is not repealed then no legislation on abortion no matter how restrictive/liberal can be introduced.
If the pro life side want to see legislative changes that allow for abortion in restricted cases (ffa etc) but not in other cases, there is no scenario in which they can see them introduced without first repealing the 8th amendment.

that may be but realistically it's a risk we are going to have to take, because many of us feel the current proposals go way to far and we want to try to remove any possibility of them being introduced. for us, voting no is the way to do that.

bubblypop wrote: »

the only completely safe method is no sex. do you think thats acceptable?

no

bubblypop wrote: »

I dont want children, I take every precaution I can. Do you think I ( & my partner) should live without sex until I go through the menopause?

of course not.

JDD

yes . that is correct. for me there is no difference between a fetus at 12 weeks, and a fetus at 11 weeks, 6 days, 23 hours, 59 minutes, 59 seconds

do you believe a foetus has a right to life from conception, or from implantation?

volchitsa

J C wrote: »

These are the positives ... as described by women who are pregnant ... but they are balanced by some negatives as well.

https://www.thebump.com/a/pregnancy-benefits

I think you'll find it's more a case of trying to cheer people up.

Bigger boobs are not a genuine benefit, not for the woman anyway. As you would know if you realized how just fking painful they are when they're getting that way. It's actually one of the first symptoms of pregnancy, usually well before morning sickness kicks in. Are you seriously saying you have lived with a woman during several pregnancies and she either never said - or you just didnt listen? - to how unpleasant that is for the woman?

Perhaps she's just a saint.

As for hair and skin, well that's a 50/50 one - some women have terrible spots and/or horrible greasy hair during pregnancy.

But basically the whole idea of it being ok to force someone to be pregnant and to bring a new person into the world because at least she gets bigger, sexier boobs and nice skin is so stupid it's stunning.

J C

volchitsa wrote: »

I think you'll find it's more a case of trying to cheer people up.

Bigger boobs are not a genuine benefit, not for the woman anyway. As you would know if you realized how just fking painful they are when they're getting that way. It's actually one of the first symptoms of pregnancy, usually well before morning sickness kicks in. Are you seriously saying you have lived with a woman during several pregnancies and she either never said - or you just didnt listen? - to how unpleasant that is for the woman?

Perhaps she's just a saint.

As for hair and skin, well that's a 50/50 one - some women have terrible spots and/or horrible greasy hair during pregnancy.

But basically the whole idea of it being ok to force someone to be pregnant and to bring a new person into the world because at least she gets bigger, sexier boobs and nice skin is so stupid it's stunning.

It's certainly no more stunning than arguing that because of morning sickness and stretch marks that unborn children should be killed with impunity up to 12 weeks ... and beyond on request.

end of the road

end of the road wrote: »

no

of course not.

so what do you suggest I do?
I take precautions so I don't get pregnant, but we all know no contraception is 100% safe.
so what do I do, if the worst happens & I become pregnant? remember I dont want children & I dont want to be pregnant.

Timberrrrrrrr

J C wrote: »

It's certainly no more stunning than arguing that because of morning sickness and stretch marks that unborn children should be killed with impunity up to 12 weeks ... and beyond on request.

Who has stated that's a valid reason for abortion? Your comments get more disturbing the closer to the referendum we get!

Timberrrrrrrr

bubblypop wrote: »

so what do you suggest I do?
I take precautions so I don't get pregnant, but we all know no contraception is 100% safe.
so what do I do, if the worst happens & I become pregnant? remember I dont want children & I dont want to be pregnant.

Well according to some on here you should suck it up because you know that sex can lead to pregnancy.

J C

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

I think you will find that the negatives far outweigh the "positives" that you linked to.

... they may well, for some women ... but does this justify relieving the symptoms by killing the unborn human being that is the cause.
Over-stating any negatives from pregnancy doesn't do the credibility of the pro-abortion argument any favours.

Timberrrrrrrr

J C wrote: »

... they may well, for some women ... but does this justify relieving the symptoms by killing the unborn human being that is the cause.
Over-stating any negatives from pregnancy doesn't do the credibility of the pro-abortion argument any favours.

Who has argued that this is a valid reason to procure an abortion?

volchitsa

J C wrote: »

It's certainly no more stunning than arguing that because of morning sickness and stretch marks that unborn children should be killed with impunity up to 12 weeks ... and beyond on request.

The two issues aren't mirror images of each other. Literally nobody has said that someone should end a pregnancy because they might get stretch marks. Never mind force them to end one for that reason.

The point is that being pregnant is not a matter of sitting around for a few months while the fetus does all the work, so forcing someone to remain pregnant against their will is a massive imposition on them.

And someone who can chirpily announce that, "Hey never mind that your rapist is going to become a daddy thanks to your enforced pregnancy, sure look on the bright side, at least you will have shiny skin and big boobs for a few months" is tin-eared to a rare degree.

Triceratops Ballet

end of the road wrote:

that may be but realistically it's a risk we are going to have to take, because many of us feel the current proposals go way to far and we want to try to remove any possibility of them being introduced. for us, voting no is the way to do that.

So you're happy to pay for the lives of the unborn with the health and welfare of women. You're happy to compromise on the health care that women get, to ensure that other women have to travel for abortions, because as long as they don't have them here in Ireland some "greater good" is served.
God forbid you would just lobby for change to the legislation, because in that might mean less women suffer unnecessarily

J C

volchitsa wrote: »

I think you'll find it's more a case of trying to cheer people up.

Bigger boobs are not a genuine benefit, not for the woman anyway. As you would know if you realized how just fking painful they are when they're getting that way. It's actually one of the first symptoms of pregnancy, usually well before morning sickness kicks in. Are you seriously saying you have lived with a woman during several pregnancies and she either never said - or you just didnt listen? - to how unpleasant that is for the woman?

She certainly didn't complain then ... but I'll ask her now ...
... and she tells me that in the first trimester she felt a bit sick ... in the second trimester she felt great and 'on top of the world' ... and in the third trimester she felt like she was slightly obese and 'bloated'.

I asked her to put it in terms that a man could understand ... and she said that in the third trimester it felt something like a combination of a 'bad back' and a bloated stomach from over-indulgence in eating and drinking.
... so it's certainly doesn't justify killing any human being to be rid of it.

Most people with chronic back pain or obesity issues would sing for joy if they could be re-assured it would be all over in 3 months . ... and with a few hours painful workout in a gym, at the end.

volchitsa wrote: »

Perhaps she's just a saint.

... or perhaps she is just your average woman, who finds herself pregnant and ethically sees her pregnancy through to term, on the basis that she cannot countenance killing her own child.

There is a natural instinct in men to be protective of women and to believe them ... but if feminism keep 'crying wolf' and exaggerating various issues ... them men (and other women) may very well ignore them or not believe them ... when they have a really serious problem.

J C

J C wrote: »

... or perhaps she is just your average woman, who finds herself pregnant and ethically sees her pregnancy through to term, on the basis that she cannot countenance killing her own child.

so are you saying that she DIDNT want to be pregnant?
that she DIDNT want a child?

J C

volchitsa wrote: »

The two issues aren't mirror images of each other. Literally nobody has said that someone should end a pregnancy because they might get stretch marks. Never mind force them to end one for that reason.

The point is that being pregnant is not a matter of sitting around for a few months while the fetus does all the work, so forcing someone to remain pregnant against their will is a massive imposition on them.

How is it a massive imposition?

Making them parent their baby after it is born would indeed be a massive (and unnecessary) imposition.

volchitsa wrote: »

And someone who can chirpily announce that, "Hey never mind that your rapist is going to become a daddy thanks to your enforced pregnancy, sure look on the bright side, at least you will have shiny skin and big boobs for a few months" is tin-eared to a rare degree.

Nobody would do so.

Where a rape occurs, it is standard medical practice to offer the MAP to the victim ... so pregnancy or abortion shouldn't be an issue after a rape.

volchitsa

J C wrote: »

She certainly didn't complain then ... but I'll ask her now ...
... and she tells me that in the first trimester she felt a bit sick ... in the second trimester she felt great ... and in the third trimester she felt like she was slightly obese.

I asked her to put it in terms that a man could understand ... and she said that it felt like a combination of a 'bad back' and a bloated stomach from over-indulged in eating and drinking.
... so it's certainly doesn't justify killing any human being to be rid of it.

It's been explained to you why that's not the point. It's not the symptoms of pregnancy that are, in themselves, so bad as to warrant ending the pregnancy, it's that an enforced pregnancy is not a minor issue.

Have you never wondered whether if she was pregnant after a rape she, and you, might not find the same symptoms so easy to minimize?

A wanted pregnancy is one thing, an unwanted one entirely different.

Most people with chronic back pain or obesity issues would sing for joy if they could be re-assured it would be all over in 3 months.

Well that isnt true either, my back is wrecked since my first pregnancy over 20 years ago, and I know lots of women are like that.

And one of my sisters left the maternity in a wheelchair. She got better - until her second - but occasionally women can be left permanently crippled.

Again, a risk people put up with, when they want to have a baby - but not just a minor inconvenience like not getting a seat on the bus. Enforced pregnancy is a human rights abuse.

... or perhaps she is just your average woman, who finds herself pregnant and ethically sees her pregnancy through to term, on the basis that she cannot countenance killing her own child.

You're confusing wanted and unwanted pregnancies again.
Think of that hypothetical rape again, somehow I'm not too sure you would be pushing her to have her rapist's child. Would you?

Maybe I'm wrong, and you'd be telling her that she should be thrilled to be pregnant with another man's child - after all with her big boobs and shiny hair you will really fancy her. Every cloud, eh?

J C

bubblypop wrote: »

so are you saying that she DIDNT want to be pregnant?
that she DIDNT want a child?

I didn't say whether the hypothetical woman wanted to be pregnant or not.
The point is that whether a woman 'wants' to be pregnant or not, most mothers go through with their pregnancy ... and they do so because, the temporary discomfort that they may experience doesn't justify taking the life of their unborn child.

volchitsa

J C wrote: »

How is it a massive imposition?

Making them parent their baby after it is born would indeed be a massive (and unnecessary) imposition.

Nobody would do so.

Where a rape occurs, it is standard medical practice to offer the MAP to the victim ... so pregnancy or abortion shouldn't be an issue after a rape.

You realize the MAP doesnt have anything like the effocacy of the pill, right?
And also that anyone for whom the pill is not recommended cannot take the MAP either?

And of course you're assuming that all rapes involve a single incident of a stranger attacking a woman unexpectedly, when in fact many are through manipulation or other form of abuse, with multiple acts of unwanted intercourse.

The MAP doesnt work in those cases, in fact it can make unplanned pregnancy more likely, because it wrecks your cycle for a while, making it hard to know when fertility is highest.

volchitsa

J C wrote: »

I didn't say whether the hypothetical woman wanted to be pregnant or not.
The point is that whether a woman 'wants' to be pregnant or not, most mothers go through with their pregnancy ... and they do so because, the temporary discomfort that they may experience doesn't justify taking the life of their unborn child.

No, I disagree. Most women in Ireland nowadays, when they continue the pregnancy to the end, it is because they want to do so.

Whether they initially planned to be pregnant or not. That is not the same thing.
And that is the point about choice. The vast majority of women in Ireland already have abortion on demand available to them, but choose not to avail of it.

And an unplanned pregnancy is not necessarily an unwanted one.

end of the road

Triceratops Ballet wrote: »

So you're happy to pay for the lives of the unborn with the health and welfare of women. You're happy to compromise on the health care that women get, to ensure that other women have to travel for abortions, because as long as they don't have them here in Ireland some "greater good" is served.

i'm not happy to compromise on the health care women get, but the reality is i have no choice. as i'm against abortion on demand and do not want to see it introduced in ireland, i have no option but to vote no to try and insure it won't be introduced. i understand you won't like that but it's how i feel.

Triceratops Ballet wrote: »

God forbid you would just lobby for change to the legislation, because in that might mean less women suffer unnecessarily

if lobbying for change in the legislation was guaranteed to bare fruit and prevent abortion on demand then i'd think many of us would probably vote repeal and would lobby. sadly though i reccan it wouldn't and therefore i cannot vote repeal. i'm not interested in making people suffer but as i believe the unborn should continue to have a right to life before 12 weeks and i believe that should remain to be enshrined within the constitution, i have to try and insure such happens via voting no to repeal.

JDD

I asked her to put it in terms that a man could understand ... and she said that in the third trimester it felt something like a combination of a 'bad back' and a bloated stomach from over-indulgence in eating and drinking.


Okay - now I believe that you are either making up your wife, and I’d hate to think that, or for some reason she doesn’t want to tell you the truth, and I’d hate to think that too, or she is literally one of those extremely rare people who have symptomless pregnancies, y’know like the ones who don’t know they’re pregnant until they have contractions. If she was willing to post online I think I’d believe the latter. Otherwise....

Also, you never answered, are you from the US?

Having had three wanted pregnancies I can tell you that the positives are all connected to the excitement and anticipation of having baby at the end of the nine months. That excitement and anticipation can work wonders at lessening the impact of worst of the symptoms. Even then I’d still say pregnancy sucks, and I’ve never found anyone in my wide circle of Mum friends who would tell a different story, though it might take two glasses of wine for them to admit it.

J C

volchitsa wrote: »

It's been explained to you why that's not the point. It's not the symptoms of pregnancy that are, in themselves, so bad as to warrant ending the pregnancy, it's that an enforced pregnancy is not a minor issue.

Have you never wondered whether if she was pregnant after a rape she, and you, might not find the same symptoms so easy to minimize?

A wanted pregnancy is one thing, an unwanted one entirely different.

Please stop conflating rape, with other unwanted pregnancies. Rape is a separate issue ... and the risk of pregnancy after rape is addressed by the MAP.
... I'm glad that you have admitted that the symptoms of pregnancy don't justify abortion ... and are not terribly uncomfortable anyway.

volchitsa wrote: »

Well that isnt true either, my back is wrecked since my first pregnancy over 20 years ago, and I know lots of women are like that.

... and my back is wrecked too ... from the various adventures and misadventures of life ... and I wouldn't change a bit of it, even if I could.

volchitsa wrote: »

And one of my sisters left the maternity in a wheelchair. She got better - until her second - but occasionally women can be left permanently crippled.

All kinds of medical complications can arise with anything, including abortions.

If women are raped and forced to carry any resulting pregnancy to term this would be a human rights issue ... but this isn't why the 8th is being repealed.
Like I have said, the MAP prevents any pregnancy resulting form rape.

Timberrrrrrrr

J C wrote: »

Please stop conflating rape, with other unwanted pregnancies. Rape is a separate issue ... and the risk of pregnancy after rape is addressed by the MAP.
... I'm glad that you have admitted that the symptoms of pregnancy don't justify abortion ... and are not terribly uncomfortable anyway.

... and my back is wrecked too ... from the various adventures and misadventures of life ... and I wouldn't change a bit of it, even if I could.

All kinds of medical complications can arise with anything, including abortions.

If women are raped and forced to carry any resulting pregnancy to term this would be a human rights issue ... but this isn't why the 8th is being repealed.
Like I have said, the MAP prevents any pregnancy resulting form rape.

Lies, Lies and yet more lies from you.

volchitsa

J C wrote: »

Please stop conflating rape, with other unwanted pregnancies. Rape is a separate issue ... and the risk of pregnancy after rape is addressed by the MAP.
... I'm glad that you have admitted that the symptoms of pregnancy don't justify abortion ... and are not terribly uncomfortable anyway.

... and my back is wrecked too ... from the various adventures and misadventures of life ... and I wouldn't change a bit of it, even if I could.

All kinds of medical complications can arise with anything, including abortions.

And enforced abortion would be just as bad as enforced pregnancy.
The problem is you are ignoring the enforced bit, when in fact that is crucial.

If women are raped and forced to carry any resulting pregnancy to term this would be a human rights issue ... but this isn't why the 8th is being repealed.
Like I have said, the MAP prevents any pregnancy resulting form rape.

Except yes it is, among other things. And no, the MAP does not prevent any pregnancy, never mind any resulting from rape. It merely reduces the risk of pregnancy.

J C

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Lies, Lies and yet more lies from you.

You protest too much!!

oscarBravo

J C wrote: »

Like I have said, the MAP prevents any pregnancy resulting form rape.

Why not just tell us the female body has ways of shutting down that sort of thing while you're at it?

And why are you OK with killing unborn babies before implantation?

J C

J C wrote: »

I didn't say whether the hypothetical woman wanted to be pregnant or not.
The point is that whether a woman 'wants' to be pregnant or not, most mothers go through with their pregnancy ... and they do so because, the temporary discomfort that they may experience doesn't justify taking the life of their unborn child.

when did she turn into a hypothetical woman?
you said you asked her about her pregnancy, presumably you were talking about a real life woman.
I presumed your wife/ partner?

Triceratops Ballet

end of the road wrote:

i'm not happy to compromise on the health care women get, but the reality is i have no choice. as i'm against abortion on demand and do not want to see it introduced in ireland, i have no option but to vote no to try and insure it won't be introduced. i understand you won't like that but it's how i feel.

It's not about me or anyone else liking it tbh, it's about reconciling the fact that your moral stance, is actively compromising (potentially) half the population, in order to ensure that abortions don't happen here (not that Irish abortions don't happen, to be clear) how is that serving a greater good? How can you refer to a greater good reconcile yourself with the idea that you are compromising the many, to "save" the few.

J C

J C wrote: »

Please stop conflating rape, with other unwanted pregnancies. Rape is a separate issue ... and the risk of pregnancy after rape is addressed by the MAP.

Like I have said, the MAP prevents any pregnancy resulting form rape.

you do know not every woman can take the MAP?
I cannot