The 8th amendment(Mod warning in op)

optogirl

Deleted User wrote: »

And there goes morals and decency.

You do realise when you abort you are killing unborn life, abortion should not be something taken lightly.

the good news for you is, whatever the outcome, your position does not have to change. That's the wonderful thing about choice.

baylah17

Deleted User wrote: »

I believe once you conceive you are having a child.

Do you also believe in the Tooth Fairy?:rolleyes:

joeyanne

joeyanne wrote: »

CONTRACEPTION FAILS.
How do you still think abstinence is a viable option?
Sex is supposed to be enjoyable, nothing to be ashamed of, and something everyone - even if you don't want children - should be able to experience.
Sex is stress relief, it is fun, it is a way to feel close to someone you love.

Yes Contraception fails, but if you are in a loving relationship you should be in a position to have the child.

Sex is not a right for either partner, it is not a chore, it is not a requirement of a relationship.

The act of Penatrive sex can result in a pregnancy, the only 100% foolproof way to avoid this is to avoid having sex. If you do have sex then there should be a level of responsibility and that includes raising a child.

Cabaal

joeyanne wrote: »

How do you still think abstinence is a viable option?

Its not a viable option at all though thats the funny thing,
The US states which teach abstinence only in schools have the highest rates of teen pregnancy's.

abstinence ignores the very basic urge in basically every creature on this planet.

gallifreya

Deleted User wrote: »

Are you saying that you would have taken abortion had it been available other than having your own children?

You dont need to be rich to raise children, plenty of people of low incomes do this, even those on the dole.

You dont get a medal for having your children, you give love and get love back.

I clearly said I made a choice due to my circumstances. A woman might not need to be rich to raise a child but in my case I definitely needed my job to support my family, my home and my pregnancies. Women's circumstances differ. And abortion was available to me - in the UK. I chose to continue with my pregnancies because I felt able to. No medals required.

baylah17

baylah17 wrote: »

Do you also believe in the Tooth Fairy?:rolleyes:

When do you think life begins?

Or do you think there is a troll inside a woman mixing up some goo and sticking stuff together?

gallifreya

gallifreya wrote: »

I clearly said I made a choice due to my circumstances. A woman might not need to be rich to raise a child but in my case I definitely needed my job to support my family, my home and my pregnancies. Women's circumstances differ. And abortion was available to me - in the UK. I chose to continue with my pregnancies because I felt able to. No medals required.

Im delighted that it all worked out for you, my point is that I would in most circumstances work out for all mothers.

optogirl

optogirl wrote: »

the good news for you is, whatever the outcome, your position does not have to change. That's the wonderful thing about choice.

It's a shame that the unborn life inside the mother's womb does not get a choice and is condemned to death if the mother so chooses.

I guess choice is a limited thing.

kylith

Deleted User wrote: »

I mean becoming pregnant and went on to have a child, I would have thought that was obvious?

Obviously not, since that's not what you said.

Anyway, what does someone having a termination then choosing to subsequently have a baby have to do about anything?

Deleted User wrote: »

How about reading the posts before jumping in with your opinion.

I have already said abortion should be legal for Rape, Incest and Medical Reasons.

And how would that be worked?

On achieving a conviction? That could take years.
On filing a report? We'd see skyrocketing false rape accusations.
On stating that she was raped? What's the difference between that and abortion on request?

Deleted User wrote: »

No, because I think the cost and hassle of going to the UK should be enough of a deterrent to put women off that abortion is something to be taken likely.

So rich women can travel, that's ok by you.

If a woman can't afford to travel for an abortion how can she afford to take care of a baby?

Ave Sodalis

Deleted User wrote: »

Im delighted that it all worked out for you, my point is that I would in most circumstances work out for all mothers.

That is wishful thinking at best. Do you really believe it works out for all mothers? Or even most?

nozzferrahhtoo

Deleted User wrote: »

the only 100% foolproof way to avoid this is to avoid having sex.

Except, as you want to keep ignoring, places that have tried to implement that kind of thinking ended up with MORE unwanted and teen pregnancies. So your "foolproof way" underestimated the ingenuity of fools I guess, as the old adage goes. Abstinence approaches to contraception is the work OF fools, not the prevention of them.

Deleted User wrote: »

If you do have sex then there should be a level of responsibility and that includes raising a child.

Responsibility for an action means examining all the options, and choosing the best one for you and your situation. Preventing one of those options, for no good reason, is not allowing people to take responsibility. It is taking it away from them, and excercising it vicariously on their behalf.

You appear to think "taking responsibility" means "do what irishfreeview wants". Not sure I have any interest in the "do as I would do" mentality there.

kylith

Deleted User wrote: »

Yes Contraception fails, but if you are in a loving relationship you should be in a position to have the child.

But what if you don't want to have a child? Even if you're in a long-term committed relationship. Lots of people like that don't want children, or can't afford children.

Should they all live in celibacy?

Call me Al

Call me Al wrote: »

Why are these pregnancies and babies ok to be murdered, going by your terminology, and not the others conceived using consensual legal sex? Why are they less worthy of life?

Because rape is an evil thing, nobody should be made to suffer.

Medical reasons should always give priority to the mother and sometimes you could be causing more harm than good by allowing a woman to go full term when the child is likely to die or is in serious distress and pain.

Incest really falls for medical reasons.

joeyanne

Deleted User wrote: »

Yes Contraception fails, but if you are in a loving relationship you should be in a position to have the child.

Sex is not a right for either partner, it is not a chore, it is not a requirement of a relationship.

The act of Penatrive sex can result in a pregnancy, the only 100% foolproof way to avoid this is to avoid having sex. If you do have sex then there should be a level of responsibility and that includes raising a child.

You don't seem to understand that some people, even when in a relationship, do not want children. This may be a personal choice, due to medical reasons or any other reason that is NOT your business.

If you do not believe in allowing abortion, then do not get one. But please please be open-minded to the fact that peoples personal choices are not your business, and their choices have nothing to do with you. Nor will their choices affect you personally.

SusieBlue

Deleted User wrote: »

Yes Contraception fails, but if you are in a loving relationship you should be in a position to have the child.

Sex is not a right for either partner, it is not a chore, it is not a requirement of a relationship.

The act of Penatrive sex can result in a pregnancy, the only 100% foolproof way to avoid this is to avoid having sex. If you do have sex then there should be a level of responsibility and that includes raising a child.

Who are you to dictate what every single couple should or should not be in a position to do?

You have no idea of people's circumstances, mental state, finances, living situations, age, general health, genetic conditions, health of the baby...
You can't assume to speak for every single situation by saying "if you are in a loving situation you should be in a position to have a child".

You literally cannot account for every single variable life throws at us. Blanket statements like the above do your cause no good.

kylith

kylith wrote: »

Obviously not, since that's not what you said.

Anyway, what does someone having a termination then choosing to subsequently have a baby have to do about anything?

And how would that be worked?

On achieving a conviction? That could take years.
On filing a report? We'd see skyrocketing false rape accusations.
On stating that she was raped? What's the difference between that and abortion on request?

So rich women can travel, that's ok by you.

If a woman can't afford to travel for an abortion how can she afford to take care of a baby?

I have made my point clear if you want to continue to twist my words that is up to you.

Many women who have low incomes make wonderful parents, it's ignorant to think that you have to be rich to raise and love a child.

nozzferrahhtoo

Deleted User wrote: »

When do you think life begins?

Depends what you mean by "Life". If you mean pure biology then that is one thing, but if you mean in terms of rights, morals, ethics, person hood and actual humanity that is different.

"Life" is not one catch all term that you can switch definitions in and out to suit yourself. You have to be clear what you mean.

Deleted User wrote: »

I guess choice is a limited thing.

Yes, it is limited to agents with the capacity to even REQUIRE a choice. We do not give rocks choice do we? Why give it to a fetus? What attribute does a fetus has that a spider does not that makes you suddenly concerns about it having "choice"?

Deleted User wrote: »

Because rape is an evil thing, nobody should be made to suffer.

Yet you can not offer a way to allow such women to access abortion, which keeping it from others. You have not even TRIED to answer that in fact. Dodge much?

WhiteRoses

WhiteRoses wrote: »

Who are you to dictate what every single couple should or should not be in a position to do?

You have no idea of people's circumstances, mental state, finances, living situations, age, general health, genetic conditions, health of the baby...
You can't assume to speak for every single situation by saying "if you are in a loving situation you should be in a position to have a child".

You literally cannot account for every single variable life throws at us. Blanket statements like the above do your cause no good.

Then dont have Sex, its that easy.

Sex is not a legal right, you have no demand for it as a partner.

Do you think married couples/partners should have legal rights to sex?


Sex is a choice, if you are so Pro-Choice then choose not to have sex instead of choosing to kill a child.

Ave Sodalis

Deleted User wrote: »

I have made my point clear if you want to continue to twist my words that is up to you.

Many women who have low incomes make wonderful parents, it's ignorant to think that you have to be rich to raise and love a child.

Yes, my own mother is one of them. It wasn't all roses and sunshine though, as you're trying to make it out to be. Provided I had any sort of consciousness afterwards (which I wouldn't), would have been fully supportive if she decided to abort me.

emo72

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Yes Contraception fails, but if you are in a loving relationship you should be in a position to have the child.

Sex is not a right for either partner, it is not a chore, it is not a requirement of a relationship.

The act of Penatrive sex can result in a pregnancy, the only 100% foolproof way to avoid this is to avoid having sex. If you do have sex then there should be a level of responsibility and that includes raising a child.

Man I have to say, that's some ancient medieval thinking right there.

Edit, and I'm not being personal, just had to reply to your statement.

pilly

I see all the nutters are coming out of the woodwork now that panic is setting in.

Guy:Incognito

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Why are embryos implanted as a result of rape or incest less deserving of life than those implanted as a result of contraception fail

That's up to the woman concerned to decide. Pro choice is letting people decide for themselves . Pro life is deciding for them.

How many life changing decisions would you like me to make for you? Bearing in mind I know nothing about you?

nozzferrahhtoo

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Depends what you mean by "Life". If you mean pure biology then that is one thing, but if you mean in terms of rights, morals, ethics, person hood and actual humanity that is different.

"Life" is not one catch all term that you can switch definitions in and out to suit yourself. You have to be clear what you mean.



Yes, it is limited to agents with the capacity to even REQUIRE a choice. We do not give rocks choice do we? Why give it to a fetus? What attribute does a fetus has that a spider does not that makes you suddenly concerns about it having "choice"?


Yet you can not offer a way to allow such women to access abortion, which keeping it from others. You have not even TRIED to answer that in fact. Dodge much?

20 years ago a mother in Omagh was carrying a set of twins inside her womb, the IRA killed her and her unborn children. Were they children or just a fetus?

kylith

Deleted User wrote: »

I have made my point clear if you want to continue to twist my words that is up to you.

Many women who have low incomes make wonderful parents, it's ignorant to think that you have to be rich to raise and love a child.

I don't think that. What I do think is ignorant is someone assuming to know enough about everybody else's life an circumstances so as to dictate to them that they have to have a baby that they may well have tried very hard not to have.

Deleted User wrote: »

Then dont have Sex, its that easy.

Sex is not a legal right, you have no demand for it as a partner.

Do you think married couples/partners should have legal rights to sex?


Sex is a choice, if you are so Pro-Choice then choose not to have sex instead of choosing to kill a child.

So, a couple who have been together donkeys years should be celibate unless they want to have a baby. Regardless of financial status, inclination toward having a child, or indeed the fact that they may already have a bunch of children and just don't want to have any more?

And can you PLEASE explain how your mechanic for allowing victims of rape to access abortion while withholding it from everyone else?

baylah17

emo72 wrote: »

Man I have to say, that's some ancient medieval thinking right there.

And posted by one who clearly, pardon the phrase, has never had a good ride.
Sex is as much a recreational activity as it is anything else.

emo72

emo72 wrote: »

Man I have to say, that's some ancient medieval thinking right there.

Edit, and I'm not being personal, just had to reply to your statement.

Im medieval? I want to protect life, you want to kill it.

Bannasidhe

Deleted User wrote: »

Then dont have Sex, its that easy.

Sex is not a legal right, you have no demand for it as a partner.

Do you think married couples/partners should have legal rights to sex?


Sex is a choice, if you are so Pro-Choice then choose not to have sex instead of choosing to kill a child.

Except that a marriage isn't legal until consummated so there is certainly an obligation to have sex as far as the law is concerned.

Do you suggest a newly married couple who want to wait before having children - or don't wish to have children - never 'finalise' their legal requirements to be considered married just to be sure there are no 'accidents'?

I'm getting the distinct impression you aren't thinking this through - that what you really want is women to be punished if they have 'penetrative' sex and don't want children.

baylah17

baylah17 wrote: »

And posted by one who clearly, pardon the phrase, has never had a good ride.
Sex is as much a recreational activity as it is anything else.

Is it a legal right?

Do you have to have sex to exist?

ohnonotgmail

Hard to believe that nearly 6000 posts in that rabid ignorance is still being posted.

Another website i frequent has a tagline that goes

The Straight Dope
Fighting ignorance since 1973. (It's taking longer than we thought.)

aint that the truth.

baylah17

Deleted User wrote: »

20 years ago a mother in Omagh was carrying a set of twins inside her womb, the IRA killed her and her unborn children. Were they children or just a fetus?

And 5 years ago Savita Hallapanavar was sentenced to death by the so called Irish Health system because of the same stone aged views that espouse.