The 8th amendment(Mod warning in op)

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.