The 8th amendment(Mod warning in op)

JDD

Edward M - I think you’re falling into the trap of only considering abortion in the case of a young, perhaps unmarried daughter. Fast forward another 20 years. Your daughter has three kids. Her health, but not her life, would be at risk if carrying another child to full term. What would you do then?

kylith

Presage wrote: »

It does differ, the mother had no choice in the matter much like the unborn child has no choice in the matter when it comes to rape.

In the case of consensual sex the mother had a choice in the matter and should be aware that there is a risk of becoming pregnant when having sex. Morality is not simply black and white, it is often a quite complex equation where the balance can be tipped by some minor changes to the assumptions.

So we’re back to ‘people should only have sex if they’re prepared to have a baby’.

Edward M

JDD wrote: »

Edward M - I think you’re falling into the trap of only considering abortion in the case of a young, perhaps unmarried daughter. Fast forward another 20 years. Your daughter has three kids. Her health, but not her life, would be at risk if carrying another child to full term. What would you do then?

No I'm not really. Our first grandchild is due next month BTW.
I know full well abortion covers all ages and reasons.

PhoenixParker

JDD wrote: »

Edward M - I think you’re falling into the trap of only considering abortion in the case of a young, perhaps unmarried daughter. Fast forward another 20 years. Your daughter has three kids. Her health, but not her life, would be at risk if carrying another child to full term. What would you do then?

And this is a very common scenario.
Approximately half of those having abortions already have at least one child.

Edward M

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

The way I would judge parenting for myself, which tends to be the only way I try to judge parenting, I would consider that the wrong choice for me. I would think of it as simply bad parenting and I would be disappointed in myself. To use any power, let alone all of it, to try and motivate or influence their decision in the direction I want them to go is..... in this context.......... a level of parenting I would never want to implement. I would consider myself a failure in that moment.

For me the right path would be to ensure they are fully informed off ALL their options and the implication of each one. I would ensure I inform them of options that might not have considered or even know about. And with options they had considered or known about I would ensure they had explored the implications and potentials of each. Positives and Negatives.

And they would be fully informed of what support I can and would offer for each of those options. What my role would or could be, if any, in each option.

And then the decision would be theirs. At no point in that process would I use any power or influence to attempt to direct which option they go with. I would never offer any support as an incentive like your describe, but offer it as a default given whichever way they go or do not go.

To do it any other way would undermine pretty much every principle and goal I hold as a parent and what I feel it means to me to BE a parent. Which for me is to create autonomous people who choose their own path in life rather than extensions of myself doing the things I would do in their situation for my own reasons. As a parent I want them to know their decisions are their own, and not something they chose because I piled pressure (positive or negative) in such a way as they felt compelled to make the decision I constructed to look like the best one for them in a dirty, contrived and manipulative fashion. I physically shiver in revulsion at even the thought of it.

I had this interaction earlier in the thread with a pro choice supporter, who made a similar post re her son and partner, Banasidhe I think, where she offered incentives to her sons partner about a pregnancy, I said I thought that was imposing a bit on choice myself.
OK, but that's another debate, re parenting.
I'm not the worlds best dad, but I have tried to be the best dad I was or am capable of being, if that doesent meet your approval or high standards so be it.

nozzferrahhtoo

Edward M wrote: »

I'm not the worlds best dad, but I have tried to be the best dad I was or am capable of being, if that doesent meet your approval or high standards so be it.

As I said in the opening of my post, my standards I only apply to myself. The parenting of others neither needs to meet it, nor do I ever apply one to the other generally.

I just know I would feel dirty in myself if I ever contrived to manipulate such serious life choices in my children. Especially by offering things that I feel I should be offering as a parent anyway, in the form of compulsions, incentives and manipulation.

I think I just prefer the dynamic of "These are the things you can expect from me always as a parent, pleasure ensure you factor them into whatever choice you decide to make" over "If you would only make these choices, then here are the things I can offer you as an incentive to do so".

Foah, just shivered again. I do not often feel this much revulsion at envisioning alternative versions of myself. But the thought of operating that dynamic in a relationship with my children is exactly that. Repulsive.

seamus

Presage wrote: »

It does differ, the mother had no choice in the matter much like the unborn child has no choice in the matter when it comes to rape.

It differs from the mother's perspective, not the unborn's.

In the case of consensual sex the mother had a choice in the matter and should be aware that there is a risk of becoming pregnant when having sex. Morality is not simply black and white, it is often a quite complex equation where the balance can be tipped by some minor changes to the assumptions.

So the unborn is irrelevant then. People who become unintentionally pregnant through consensual sex should be forced to carry to term, but those who've been raped...shouldn't.

Why? Bearing in mind that through your statement above you've basically discounted the unborn in your reasoning; it's all about the circumstances of the conception, not the result of it. So why should consensual sex be "punished" when non-consensual shouldn't?

kylith

Presage wrote: »

Nope, the entire equation needs to be considered, it's not balck and white.

Please explain how.

Two people are in a relationship. They want to have sex, but do not want a baby. They use contraception, but it fails. Some people will tell them that they should have thought about that before they had sex, and tough luck; they have to have the baby.

How is that not saying that sex should only be had if they are prepared to have a baby?

nice_guy80

Presage wrote: »

Nope, the entire equation needs to be considered, it's not balck and white.

what equation?
its not maths

we're talking about a woman's body here and her right to have a choice

Edward M

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

As I said in the opening of my post, my standards I only apply to myself. The parenting of others neither needs to meet it, nor do I ever apply one to the other generally.

I just know I would feel dirty in myself if I ever contrived to manipulate such serious life choices in my children. Especially by offering things that I feel I should be offering as a parent anyway, in the form of compulsions, incentives and manipulation.

I think I just prefer the dynamic of "These are the things you can expect from me always as a parent, pleasure ensure you factor them into whatever choice you decide to make" over "If you would only make these choices, then here are the things I can offer you as an incentive to do so".

Foah, just shivered again. I do not often feel this much revulsion at envisioning alternative versions of myself. But the thought of operating that dynamic in a relationship with my children is exactly that. Repulsive.

I don't know your age, nor how long you are a parent.
I do know from experience the first thing a child learns is how to manipulate their parents.
I also know from my own experience that one of the first things I learned was how to manipulate my children, firstly to just get a bit of peace and quiet for myself and my partner or wife.
I have manipulated them all my life, especially when they were younger, to do what I thought was in their best interests, re education particularly.
I never stooped so low as making or forcing any lifestyle decisions on them, I showed them choices, I offered them assistance at every turn.
Did I manipulate them, yes, as their guardian I did offer them things for certain that I thought might help them make decisions that I thought were for their better good.
When they became adults I stepped back and let them make their own decisions on any matter they liked, if I didn't like it I told them so and why, like for instance I told my son if he quit college one time that he would have to either get a job or live on what social welfare was available to him, no financial help from me.
He stayed on, got his degree and is working full time now, I borrowed from the credit union to buy his first car as a reward.
You' feel dirty manipulating your children and shudder at the thought, don't make me laugh,
If there is a parent alive who hasn't manipulated a child I'd like to meet them.

volchitsa

Bringing a child into a young and possibly unstable relationship is not good for the young people involved. All the evidence shows that having a baby when young leads to less good outcomes.

So any forcible incitement is being done for ideological reasons and not for the good of the person being "manipulated". Which is what makes it manipulation rather than tough parenting IMO.

JDD

Edward M wrote: »

No I'm not really. Our first grandchild is due next month BTW.
I know full well abortion covers all ages and reasons.

Well, then in the case where it is not a matter of financial concern, nor is there realistically a prospect of her handing over a child to you to raise, what would you do? Supposing she asked you to mind her children while she travelled with her husband to the UK for a termination? Maybe she wouldn’t ask you knowing your views, so she travels on her own, having to stay the night in a local hotel suffering intense cramps and bleeding on her own. She wouldn’t want
to leave her children for longer than she had to, so she continues to have cramps and bleeding while she gets a taxi to the airport, and on the airplane. Or she decides to order pills over the internet, all the while worrying that if she suffers from any side effects and goes to A&E will they call the guards. Do you think it would be an acceptable situation for your daughter to be faced with?

nozzferrahhtoo

Edward M wrote: »

I have manipulated them all my life, especially when they were younger, to do what I thought was in their best interests, re education particularly.

Edward M wrote: »

You' feel dirty manipulating your children and shudder at the thought, don't make me laugh

This is why I peppered my last two points with reference to words like "context". I clearly am not saying, nor did I intend to imply, that there is no situation where you want to manipulate and compel your children in certain directions.

What I was saying was repulsive to me is a LOT more nuanced and specific than what you describe as mere general parenting. What I was describing, and what you are now describing, are two very different things in many ways.

Edward M

JDD wrote: »

Well, then in the case where it is not a matter of financial concern, nor is there realistically a prospect of her handing over a child to you to raise, what would you do? Supposing she asked you to mind her children while she travelled with her husband to the UK for a termination? Maybe she wouldn’t ask you knowing your views, so she travels on her own, having to stay the night in a local hotel suffering intense cramps and bleeding on her own. She wouldn’t want
to leave her children for longer than she had to, so she continues to have cramps and bleeding while she gets a taxi to the airport, and on the airplane. Or she decides to order pills over the internet, all the while worrying that if she suffers from any side effects and goes to A&E will they call the guards. Do you think it would be an acceptable situation for your daughter to be faced with?[unrelated,

Firstly, I would think and hope that my daughters know they can talk to me about anything, they would know also that my help would be available in all situations now.
Another point, unrelated in a way, but an experience I could have had but thankfully never did, others have had it though.
If my daughters had become pregnant at an early age, under 18 say or much younger even, and abortion had been considered as her option, would or should that give me or her mother the right to choose for her as her legal guardians?
If she wasn't fully developed and we felt that this would harm her physically let alone mentally.
What if she wanted the abortion and we didn't?
So many valid questions to be asked and answered here, there can't be the same answer to them all for every eventual outcome, so on that and other issues I reckon that an abortion service has to be available really, it is the only humanitarian solution really.

Frank Bullitt

So not is Noel Pattern not a nurse, he is also a gobshíte.

Sofiztikated

To be honest, I get why (some) people are ProLife. You want to protect those that have no voice of their own.

To me, I think it stems from them thinking "Well, if my mother had an abortion, I wouldn't be here." But she may also have had a dodgy prawn cocktail before she knew she was pregnant, and the outcome could have been the same. Or another sperm may have made it, and not the one that did, and "you" wouldn't be you.

Pregnancies terminate every day. Both the ones that are wanted, and the ones that aren't. Some people are devestated, some will be glad. And women have been ending pregnancies since day dot. Be it gin and a hot bath, or a pill they bought online, it happens. Why not make it safer for the ones that require it, and support for those that are on the fence?

Look, I say this as a 34 year old married man, who had a pregnancy scare with girlfriend (now wife), and a miscarriage of a much wanted baby, and someone who was told by his mother that, had she known about my condition and the horrors both she and I went through and was easily available, she would have considered an abortion (and that was '83, full swing of the last referendum, and you had stamps like this http://img2.thejournal.ie/inline/1225698/original/?width=373&version=1225698)

Make it safe, make it shameless, and make it not needed.

And lads, it's not like adoption is a bunch of ****ing roses either. There were, what, 16(?) last year, and so much for the Married Gheys adopting all the babbies. It's a long, hard, ****ty process, we don't exactly have a stellar history (to this very day) of looking after children IN care, and you want to dump a load more into care? Please tell me how that's in anyway way kinder than ending a pregnancy before it has a chance to feel pain?

gmisk

Gintonious wrote: »

So not is Noel Pattern not a nurse, he is also a gobshíte.

Sure didnt our lord jesus h christ ride with mary to bethlehem on a velociraptor!

pilly

Edward M wrote: »

I don't know your age, nor how long you are a parent.
I do know from experience the first thing a child learns is how to manipulate their parents.
I also know from my own experience that one of the first things I learned was how to manipulate my children, firstly to just get a bit of peace and quiet for myself and my partner or wife.
I have manipulated them all my life, especially when they were younger, to do what I thought was in their best interests, re education particularly.
I never stooped so low as making or forcing any lifestyle decisions on them, I showed them choices, I offered them assistance at every turn.
Did I manipulate them, yes, as their guardian I did offer them things for certain that I thought might help them make decisions that I thought were for their better good.
When they became adults I stepped back and let them make their own decisions on any matter they liked, if I didn't like it I told them so and why, like for instance I told my son if he quit college one time that he would have to either get a job or live on what social welfare was available to him, no financial help from me.
He stayed on, got his degree and is working full time now, I borrowed from the credit union to buy his first car as a reward.
You' feel dirty manipulating your children and shudder at the thought, don't make me laugh,
If there is a parent alive who hasn't manipulated a child I'd like to meet them.

I agree Edward. Totally.

But... please use paragraphs.

_Dara_

Sierra Eire wrote: »

A simple Google search will agree with me. The majority of abortions are performed on unborn girls because the mothers wanted boys instead. This is a well known trend. I can't provide a link to proof because I don't have enough posts to.

You can give names of articles and research papers. No links required.

So, yup, I’d like to see the evidence that the vast majority (like you said) of abortions carried out in the UK and those of most Irish women travelling over to the UK are abortions of female foetuses.

A little reminder in case you forget: you don’t need to post links, you can provide locations for the evidence in other ways.

eviltwin

My mother in law would have been pro life and aggressively so until me and her son had an abortion. She was completely supportive and minded our daughter when we went and has been our biggest defender. Now she's 100% pro choice. You can't really support something for your loved ones and then deny it for everyone elses loved ones.

amdublin

kylith wrote: »

So we’re back to ‘people should only have sex if they’re prepared to have a baby’.

Sure it's easy. The proponents of the above can even tell you how to do it if needed "keep your legs closed"

david75

Anyone get their cheque from Soros this week?

Mine never came

Neyite

kylith wrote: »

So we’re back to ‘people should only have sex if they’re prepared to have a baby’.

Perhaps the women of Ireland should follow the lead of the Icelandic women and impose a sex strike until May.

Sofiztikated wrote: »

And lads, it's not like adoption is a bunch of ****ing roses either. There were, what, 16(?) last year, and so much for the Married Gheys adopting all the babbies. It's a long, hard, ****ty process, we don't exactly have a stellar history (to this very day) of looking after children IN care, and you want to dump a load more into care? Please tell me how that's in anyway way kinder than ending a pregnancy before it has a chance to feel pain?

Agreed. People who spout about adoption as an alternative are spectacularly missing the point.

Adoption used to be about a childless couple getting to choose a child of their own. In fact back when the mass trafficking of children to America from the homes, more thought and paperwork went into picking out a car than picking up an insta-family.

Now, quite rightly, the focus is on placing a child with the right family for the child. Adoption is a long and costly process for a couple where every single aspect of your lives is scrutinised (and the lives of those in your extended family too) by social workers to ensure that the child has a good life. Anything less is failing the child. One of you is expected to be a full time parent (adoptees often have behavioural or emotional challenges that need extra attention) You are expected (on that single income!) to have a healthy bank account. You are expected to be under a certain age. You would be expected to have no health issues, no mental health issues, no dodgy people in the family and so on.

It's not a matter of handing out babies to anyone who wants one.

Neyite

This morning I got thinking about all this debate. I thought about the few people I know who had diagnosed FFA pregnancies and who choose to carry to term.

One couple has a child now with significant & severe special needs. Another got a few precious days with their baby. Others were born sleeping. In all of those cases, the couples involved got amazing care from hospital staff, or from organisations such as Feilecain. Other professionals in their fields have donated their time or their skills to try to give a couple reeling during incredibly painful time some lasting memories. There were photographers giving them precious photos, seamstresses and knitters making delicate beautiful gowns for their babies to give you just a couple of examples of what folk do for newly bereaved parents.

Down the line, I've seen the difficulty with the actual reality of having a disabled child who survived from a FFA diagnosis. The endless appointments, therapies and hospital stays far away from home. Waiting on multiple waiting lists. Home help. Respite care. Home nursing. Wheelchair ramps. Adaptable cars. Hoists, adult nappies, adaptation of homes and furniture to accommodate a disabled growing child. There are various organisations, charities and HSE outpatient supports that help parents with some of this but it's still a daily struggle.

But I wondered where LoveBoth were in all of that? In the beginning to support people going through that pregnancy? Afterwards when the baby was born?

Not once did I ever hear, out of all of the organisations that supported my friends, that the service or assistance the parents of a special needs baby was provided by LoveBoth. Not so much as a baby hat. I wondered what they actually do for the babies they love so much. Maybe they provide bereavement counselling I thought. Or helped with funeral costs? Or maybe they offer a NICU nurse support so they could briefly bring their baby home for a few days? I was sure that they offer some sort of help...because they love both, right?

So I googled to check. And they don't appear to provide a thing. Not a single link to a support or a service for a crisis pregnancy, rape, FFA, or post-natal supports.

Absolutely nothing. Love Both my arse.

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5

I wonder, the crowd here who reckon "status quo is fine, travelling to England is fine", have ye considered the rather large Brexit shaped hole about to appear in the status quo? If ye voted no, repeal was defeated and from next year on people had to go considerably further afield, would ye be comfortable with your vote?

frag420

Gintonious wrote: »

So not is Noel Pattern not a nurse, he is also a gobsh.

“Fundamentalist Christianity: fascinating. These people actually believe that the world is twelve thousand years old. Swear to God. Based on what? I asked them.

"Well, we looked at all the people in the Bible and we added 'em up all the way back to Adam and Eve, their ages? Twelve thousand years."
"Well, how ****ing scientific, OK. I didn't know that you'd gone to so much trouble there. That's good. You believe the world's twelve thousand years old?"
"That's right."
"OK, I got one word to ask you, a one word question, ready?"
"Uh huh."
"Dinosaurs."

You know, the world's twelve thousand years old and dinosaurs existed, and existed in that time, you'd think it would been mentioned in the ****ing Bible at some point:

And O, Jesus and the disciples walked to Nazareth. But the trail was blocked by a giant brontosaurus... with a splinter in its paw. And the disciples did run a-screamin'. "What a big ****ing lizard, Lord!"
"I'm sure gonna mention this in my book," Luke said.
"Well, I'm sure gonna mention it in my book," Matthew said.
But Jesus was unafraid. And he took the splinter from the brontosaurus paw, and the brontosaurus became his friend. And Jesus sent him to Scotland where he lived in a loch, O so many years, attracting fat American families with their fat ****in' dollars to look for the Loch Ness Monster. And O the Scots did praise the Lord: "Thank you, Lord! Thank you, Lord!"

Neyite

Howard Tasteless Bank wrote: »

I wonder, the crowd here who reckon "status quo is fine, travelling to England is fine", have ye considered the rather large Brexit shaped hole about to appear in the status quo? If ye voted no, repeal was defeated and from next year on people had to go considerably further afield, would ye be comfortable with your vote?

They probably have no issue with that.

They've never cared about the continuity of care, the cost, the fact that only women who have a right to travel and the money to do so could avail of an abortion.

And from the small demographic of boards posters who are NIMBY's they appear to be males so will never be making that cramping bleeding journey home or being out of pocket themselves.

So they aren't going to care if women have more limited options after Brexit than we already do.

robarmstrong

I've just had the following on Facebook with a staunch outspoken pro-lifer.

I asked the following -

Me: Do you think that a woman should be forced to carry a pregnancy full term that she doesn't want or is incapable of supporting just to satisfy your own personal beliefs?

Person: Course they shouldn't, but there is more than herself to think of *goes on about adoption etc*

Me: So you DON'T think a woman should be forced to carry a pregnancy full term that she doesn't want or is incapable of supporting just to satisfy your own personal beliefs? So am I correct that she should have the option/choice of abortion here?

Person: I get where you're coming from but like I said there's more than her to think of there's another HUMAN.

Me : Am I correct, yes or no, am I correct? You've already agreed that a woman with an unwanted pregnancy shouldn't have to carry her belief so what's her choice? You very clearly agreed that she shouldn't have to, so what choice does she have if she ISN'T being forced to keep her unwanted pregnancy, abortion, correct?

Person: *dodges answer with long spiel about adoption again then pulls out this whopper* - abortion is like saying if a parent had a child and suddenly couldn't cope after a few years would you tell them to kill that child?

Me: no I wouldn't, that child has been born, the sub-12 week fetus has not.

Person: Born or not it's the same thing, no difference at all!

Me: So you're equating a couple of years old toddler to a sub-12 week fetus now?


- at this point I got blocked.


you can lead a horse to water....

January

Neyite wrote: »

This morning I got thinking about all this debate. I thought about the few people I know who had diagnosed FFA pregnancies and who choose to carry to term.

One couple has a child now with significant & severe special needs. Another got a few precious days with their baby. Others were born sleeping. In all of those cases, the couples involved got amazing care from hospital staff, or from organisations such as Feilecain. Other professionals in their fields have donated their time or their skills to try to give a couple reeling during incredibly painful time some lasting memories. There were photographers giving them precious photos, seamstresses and knitters making delicate beautiful gowns for their babies to give you just a couple of examples of what folk do for newly bereaved parents.

Down the line, I've seen the difficulty with the actual reality of having a disabled child who survived from a FFA diagnosis. The endless appointments, therapies and hospital stays far away from home. Waiting on multiple waiting lists. Home help. Respite care. Home nursing. Wheelchair ramps. Adaptable cars. Hoists, adult nappies, adaptation of homes and furniture to accommodate a disabled growing child. There are various organisations, charities and HSE outpatient supports that help parents with some of this but it's still a daily struggle.

But I wondered where LoveBoth were in all of that? In the beginning to support people going through that pregnancy? Afterwards when the baby was born?

Not once did I ever hear, out of all of the organisations that supported my friends, that the service or assistance the parents of a special needs baby was provided by LoveBoth. Not so much as a baby hat. I wondered what they actually do for the babies they love so much. Maybe they provide bereavement counselling I thought. Or helped with funeral costs? Or maybe they offer a NICU nurse support so they could briefly bring their baby home for a few days? I was sure that they offer some sort of help...because they love both, right?

So I googled to check. And they don't appear to provide a thing. Not a single link to a support or a service for a crisis pregnancy, rape, FFA, or post-natal supports.

Absolutely nothing. Love Both my arse.

This needs to be shared everywhere.

JDD

Firstly, I would think and hope that my daughters know they can talk to me about anything, they would know also that my help would be available in all situations now.
Another point, unrelated in a way, but an experience I could have had but thankfully never did, others have had it though.
If my daughters had become pregnant at an early age, under 18 say or much younger even, and abortion had been considered as her option, would or should that give me or her mother the right to choose for her as her legal guardians?
If she wasn't fully developed and we felt that this would harm her physically let alone mentally.
What if she wanted the abortion and we didn't?
So many valid questions to be asked and answered here, there can't be the same answer to them all for every eventual outcome, so on that and other issues I reckon that an abortion service has to be available really, it is the only humanitarian solution really.

You know, you sound like a great Dad and I'm sure you daughters probably would come to you for help or support, even if they did know that your beliefs were different to theirs.

It's a difficult question regarding a pregnancy that occurs in a young teenager, whether a parent would have the choice to have the pregnancy terminated or indeed whether their permission would be needed before the pill was prescribed. Perhaps doctors could given some guidance on assessing whether an individual child has the necessary capacity/maturity to consent or refuse medical treatment. I believe they have some similar guidelines regarding the prescription of contraceptives.