The 8th amendment(Mod warning in op)

January

Graces7 wrote: »

A quiet question please. Do you think aborting a child or rape will remove the suffering from the rape? I just googled and many deeply regretted aborting in these circumstances. It added to the suffering from the rape.

For some women yes it will remove the suffering from the rape, not totally, but yes, it will remove suffering for some.

qo2cj1dsne8y4k

Graces7 wrote: »

I see your point but we are coming at it from a different direction. You say foetus; we say baby. /

You say baby in your situation and don’t worry what’s going on with another persons body. I am personally anti abortion for me myself in my situation however under consultants medical advice I cannot/should not get pregnant. I have profound hypothyroidism which is in myxodema stage and my body is unable to absorb the medication. They will eventually fix it I hope but if I was to get pregnant tomorrow I wouldn’t have a choice in what I’d have to do, because my body is physically incapable of growing a healthy or even semi healthy baby. If I found myself pregnant with this condition I would abort and id be devastated doing it but it is what it is.

pitifulgod

RobertKK wrote: »

My wording was not the best but there has been cases in the past where the child was the proof that the woman was raped. The unborn is an innocent life in the rape just like the woman who was raped is.
I am not going to pretend i can imagine the depth of the horror you went through, but that sounds horrific and I am sorry to read that, hope you are ok.

This is a general comment and not aimed at you, I don’t think it is nice for people either who were born from the result of rape to see people say they shouldn’t have been allowed to live. The pro choice side seem to always argue that rape is like a clear cut reason for abortion. The message it sends out to the children who are the result of a rape is damaging.

I think everyone who supports choice, supports choice in that scenario. Nobody expects a woman to follow a certain route. I don't think anyone should be forced into a pregnancy against their will. I also think that it's incredibly warped to treat a child as a potential piece of evidence. You also will not prove rape unless the conception was prior to legal age of consent, you would need far more evidence to prove anything otherwise.

Regardless of it not being directed at Erica, women who have faced that scenario are going to be particularly affected by what you just posted. You've given no consideration towards how a 9 month pregnancy affects a woman mentally and physically, it does that regardless of a rape btw. The fact that this needs to be explained to you is worrying.

Call me Al

ForestFire wrote: »

I haven't once metioned india china...

So again, can you answer my question? A simple yes or no if you prefer.


(And as I said I already answered yours if you care to look)

No no you really didn't answer my question. Not even that yes or no.
Unless you're sticking to your point that you don't have to answer what you don't want to. But please be honest about your double standards.


"Do you hold only certain posters on here responsible for Tuam? While others can absolve themselves, when in fact nobody here is ikely anyway responsible and it's no relevant to this vote."

'With regard to Tuam I hold the church, now active within the pro-life campaign, responsible for what went on there. And I feel that their moral authority to advise and guide anyone on how to vote on matters of family planning and women's reproduction is non-existent as a result of this and so many many other crimes against their parishoners, my fellow-citizens.

robarmstrong

Graces7 wrote: »

You have no idea what I have endured in this very area and situation in a long life and come to peace about it, to be in the position on this in my old age. ( love that expression "with child")

You are the very definition of "wisdom does not necessarily come with age".

You really did deflect my question though.

Do you or do you not believe that a woman who has already been forced to have intercourse should be forced to have that unwanted pregnancy due to rape? It's a simple yes or no answer.

Do you not think being forced to have intercourse against her consent is more than enough without having to carry that unplanned pregnancy full term because you're forcing her to keep the baby in line with your completely skewed views?

B0jangles

Here's the thing Grace; when a woman or child becomes pregnant as a result of a rape, she doesn't want your prayers or your tears no matter how saintly they make YOU feel about yourself.

She wants real, material help that will actually DO something about her situation - and it should be entirely up to HER to decide whether that help should be in accessing abortion services or help in carrying on with the pregnancy, the birth and, of course, in dealing with the trauma of the rape.

erica74

RobertKK wrote: »

Rape is used as a hard case when in fact a huge majority of abortions have nothing to do with rape.
The proposed legislation is for extreme no reason abortions up to 12 weeks and then longer for other reasons.
It goes far beyond hard cases and asks people to trust politicians...who say they will not respect the vote if retain the 8th win and will rerun the referendum.
It is in the Irish times today that the proposed abortion legislation is causing problems for the repeal campaigners as it goes way beyond the hard cases.

NO REASON???
I am someone who thinks that abortions sought after rape make up only a small percentage of the abortions sought by Irish women in the UK so you don't need to tell me about it.
Any woman's reason for having an abortion should never be anybody else's business, ever.

Like Shoesdayschild, I have been advised against having a child because of problems with my health and all of the medication I'm on being contraindicated in pregnancy. My sister suffers from serious problems with her mental health and has been advised it wouldn't be in her best interests to have a child.

david75

Graces7 wrote: »

I see your point but we are coming at it from a different direction. You say foetus; we say baby. /

A foetus is neither sapient nor sentient. It is not a baby. It has not formed any of the awareness or ability to be aware that a baby has.

So to call it a baby is incorrect both in terms of physiology and accuracy.

January

Graces7 wrote: »

I see your point but we are coming at it from a different direction. You say foetus; we say baby. /

We say foetus because it is the scientifically correct way to describe what is inside the body of the woman at that specific moment in time. It is not a baby, yet.

applehunter

January wrote: »

We say foetus because it is the scientifically correct way to describe what is inside the body of the woman at that specific moment in time. It is not a baby, yet.

Dehumanize.

Then kill.

erica74

I hope it doesn't seem like I'm taking over this thread but something else just occurred to me about my situation when I was a child. My brother sexually abused me, my mother had (and still has) SEVERE mental health issues with very staunch anti choice views and my dad was (and still is) an alcoholic. The thought that I may have ended up pregnant when I was a child in a seriously dangerous family situation actually scares me.
Imagine me pregnant with my brother's baby and my psychotic mother forcing me to continue with the pregnancy and probably hiding me away and telling everyone I was away on holiday somewhere because she was always so concerned with what the neighbours thought and then I give birth to a baby, who probably has lots of health problems because he/she was born of incest. My mind is running away with me here but the thought is actually scary.

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1

Graces7 wrote: »

I see your point but we are coming at it from a different direction. You say foetus; we say baby. /

And embryo? Or Zygote? All babies?

ForestFire

Call me Al wrote: »

No no you really didn't answer my question. Not even that yes or no.
Unless you're sticking to your point that you don't have to answer what you don't want to. But please be honest about your double standards.


"Do you hold only certain posters on here responsible for Tuam? While others can absolve themselves, when in fact nobody here is ikely anyway responsible and it's no relevant to this vote."

'With regard to Tuam I hold the church, now active within the pro-life campaign, responsible for what went on there. And I feel that their moral authority to advise and guide anyone on how to vote on matters of family planning and women's reproduction is non-existent as a result of this and so many many other crimes against their parishoners, my fellow-citizens.

Yes yes I did, and I've told you twice now I did, but you want it your way don't you. It was a one word amswer also, just as you requested, but after I answered. Its not far back post 9898 if your having difficulty.

And you have not answered my question with a yes or no but deflected to the church again.

People came on here accusing anyone pro life of responsible for Tuam and this is what I defended.

Do you think posters here are responsible for Tuam? Pro life is not the church!

I am an neither of these either, as I have made clear on this thread previously

January

applehunter wrote: »

Dehumanize.

Then kill.

You know, you can come into the thread, post this, then run out and only come back to repeat it evermore and it still won't be true.

Ken.

Mod- Ok folks, You can debate the point without attacking someone personally. Knock it off.

Locking this thread as it is approaching 10k posts. I will open a new one in a few minutes. Same rules will apply there.

Ken.

New thread, read the op, https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=106464634#post106464634