Strike For Repeal?

volchitsa · 10-03-2017 09:53AM

Deedsie wrote: »

Before a referendum is held the exact legislation that will replace article 8th needs to be drafted so people know what we are voting for. Change is required 100%.

I don't think I would vote for anything which allowed for the on demand/application abortion of a viable life after 6/7 weeks.

Do you realize that duration of pregnancy is counted from last menstrual period? IOW for the first two weeks of "pregnancy" the woman is not actually pregnant.
So if you mean 6 weeks of pregnancy, you're actually saying that from the day she misses her first period she has a maximum of two weeks both to decide and get it all organized.

And that's not taking into account women who have irregular periods : I have friends who, while actually trying to get pregnant, were sometimes very unsure of what their dates were, because their periods were so irregular. So imagine a young girl, whose periods tend to be irregular anyway : they'd almost certainly have passed the date limit before they even suspected they were pregnant.

Even setting a limit of two weeks after that would still mean there was an effective ban on abortion for many if not most women concerned.

So how would that fulfill your acknowledgment that "change is required, 100%"?
It would be almost no change at all.

munchkin_utd · 10-03-2017 09:55AM

Absolam wrote: »

So, if we repealed the 8th and replaced with legislation as you say, how would you feel about that legislation being replaced without your input 6 months later allowing abortion on demand up to, say, 25 weeks?

sure feck it, why sit at 25 weeks after conception.
Maybe instead do like the romans. They didnt consider a child to be a human till months after birth so no bother at all terminating a childs existance once you got sick of the idea in practice.

Absolam · 10-03-2017 10:02AM

munchkin_utd wrote: »

sure feck it, why sit at 25 weeks after conception.
Maybe instead do like the romans. They didnt consider a child to be a human till months after birth so no bother at all terminating a childs existance once you got sick of the idea in practice.

Sure, you could go all the way and not confer a right to life on anyone until they demonstrate their value to society? Not that I think emulating ancient societies is the best yardstick for future ones, but I suppose there's all sorts of opinions out there.

Butters1979 · 10-03-2017 10:03AM

Absolam wrote: »

So, if we repealed the 8th and replaced with legislation as you say, how would you feel about that legislation being replaced without your input 6 months later allowing abortion on demand up to, say, 25 weeks?

The is exactly the issue. Once we remove something from the constitution and replace it with legislation, that legislation can be changed at any time without a referendum.

With the likes of Zappone and other regressive liberals in our government these days, there would be a push to jack it up to as high as possible. Championed by O'Neill and her type who see abortion as a victory over evil men. I don't trust our government with unborn babies lives if the constitutional protection is removed.

shesty · 10-03-2017 10:04AM

Dropping in from the main page.I know this is AH but a bit of me is secretly glad to see that other people are a bit fed up with the whole thing too. I feel like this is being rammed down my throat!I 100% agree that there are situations where abortions should be allowed.I do not agree with abortion on demand.But it's not a reasonable debate I can have with anyone because (as far as I can see) you are either for it or not, and if you're not then you can be called every name under the sun.

For what it's worth I don't know what way I'd vote but like someone else I wouldn't want to vote on anything until I knew exactly what the proposed changes were.It's nothing to do with religion.For me, it's to do with the fact that in both my pregnancies, I've had early scans- between the two, they were at 5,6,7,8 &9 weeks....and only at about 4.5 weeks have I not seen a heartbeat.On every other scan there has been a heartbeat there, a little person in the making.Irrespective of whether it could or couldn't survive at that point in time, abortion would be stopping that heartbeat.

I understand that my kids are loved and were wanted, and if it wasn't the case, you might feel differently about those heartbeats.But I think the shades of grey are being totally lost (or ignored) in this argument.I can't imagine what it would do to a woman to have to have an abortion.I'm not sure it would be easy to get over, and all those calling for it to be easily available never seem to think of that.I wonder how many partbers would force women into it...what supports would be available for that?.There are a thousand questions being ignored in the din around a hashtag debate, and it's getting really annoying at this point.

Jawgap · 10-03-2017 10:05AM

Reading this thread, listening to all the 'debate' going on elsewhere, digesting the media coverage etc makes me wish that the moratorium of election coverage in the run up to an election extended to cover referendums and that it extend to cover the 24 months (not just the 24 hours) before the vote.

It's a pity such matters have to be discussed and debated in such shrill tones.

Absolam · 10-03-2017 10:05AM

Deedsie wrote: »

Change is required 100% where the child wont survive, mother's health is endangered, rape/incest cases.

Pregnancy itself endangers a mother's health; in the UK allowing that as a reason for abortion has resulted in the version of abortion on demand available there. Would you be happy with the same situation here?

10-03-2017 10:12AM

anna080 wrote: »

I'm 100% pro choice but am starting to dispise the Repeal campaign. I don't identify with their approach and find them far too militant and not open to any genuine convsersation. They're damaging the campaign with their excessive militance. I'm pro choice, and in theory I think it's a great idea to march, but I feel like tomorrow will be hijacked by vain narcissists taking selfies and hashtaging Repeal on Instagram to let the world know omg look how liberal I am you guys.
For me the campaign has lost its core.

Same. I'd vote pro choice but that's as far as I'd go. Wouldn't be taking days off work, wouldn't be changing profile pictures or raising awareness (or in some cases, be seen to be raising awareness). If it comes to it, I'd simply use my privilege of having a vote and do it simply, quietly and respectfully without generating fuss or badgering others.

20Cent wrote: »

Can't get my head around two attitudes found about this.

"I want the 8th repealed but I'm against the strike or repeal campaign."
How the hell do you think there will be a referendum sitting at home thinking about it!

Then there's

"I want repeal but hate the feminists who take selfies in reprleal t shirts so would vote agaist it".
That means you are actually against repeal don't let dislike or otherwise of one side dictate how to vote decide yourself.

Spot on.

Jawgap · 10-03-2017 10:15AM

Omackeral wrote: »

Same. I'd vote pro choice but that's as far as I'd go. Wouldn't be taking days off work, wouldn't be changing profile pictures or raising awareness (or in some cases, be seen to be raising awareness). I'd simply use my privilege of having a vote and do it simply, quietly and respectfully without generating fuss or badgering others.

+1

If most the 'personalities' involved were running for office or if the likes of Amnesty were sponsoring them for office I wouldn't vote for them in a fit......but to my mind the issue is to important to let their posturing deflect the effort to repeal the amendment and, hopefully, replace it with something more humane and modern.

pilly · 10-03-2017 10:45AM

From reading this thread and others I think a referendum to repeal the 8th will fail because people are too unsure of what doing that means.

I know my head is spinning with the numerous different scenarios that could occur afterwards.

In principal though I will vote to repeal the 8th and let the legislation be drawn up from there.

I don't think it's practical for the government to draw up the legislation before the 8th is repealed. It could be a huge waste of time and money.

Can't help thinking if the 8th hadn't been put in there in the first place things would be much simpler.

People honestly don't know what to do at the moment. As a consequence I feel a lot of people will not bother voting at all.

Personally I'm not swayed by the loonies on either side, there are always extremes in any debate like this and then in the middle are the majority of us.

volchitsa · 10-03-2017 11:31AM

Deedsie wrote: »

Change is required 100% where the child wont survive, mother's health is endangered, rape/incest cases.

So not abortion by choice at all then, really?

Which is fair enough, of course, you're entitled to your opinion, but why did you mention 6 or 7 weeks then? Most health issues develop as the pregnancy develops, a limit of 7 weeks (which as I said may actually be 5 weeks) wouldn't allow many if those to be identified.

The same question arises for rape : if you want a 7 week limit, what evidence would you require? Not a court decision, that's for sure, there's not many of those could ever be got within that time frame.

Jawgap · 10-03-2017 11:35AM

pilly wrote: »

From reading this thread and others I think a referendum to repeal the 8th will fail because people are too unsure of what doing that means.

I know my head is spinning with the numerous different scenarios that could occur afterwards.

In principal though I will vote to repeal the 8th and let the legislation be drawn up from there.

I don't think it's practical for the government to draw up the legislation before the 8th is repealed. It could be a huge waste of time and money.

Can't help thinking if the 8th hadn't been put in there in the first place things would be much simpler.

People honestly don't know what to do at the moment. As a consequence I feel a lot of people will not bother voting at all.

Personally I'm not swayed by the loonies on either side, there are always extremes in any debate like this and then in the middle are the majority of us.

quite right....if they did then the 'debate' would quickly shift to make the referendum about the legislation rather than about the Constitution.

munchkin_utd · 10-03-2017 11:40AM

pilly wrote: »

From reading this thread and others I think a referendum to repeal the 8th will fail because people are too unsure of what doing that means.
<snip>

indeed, and if the ultra liberal, allow abortions to a week before birth crowd remain to be the voice for change, then any vote will fall flat on its face because their agenda of abortion on demand, as late as possible regardless of reason, is probably not the widely held view in the country.

MightyMandarin · 10-03-2017 11:41AM

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Here's a question: If life begins at conception as opposed to when the brain forms, then isn't the morning after pill just as much 'murder' as an abortion at 3 or 4 weeks?

There's something that I've yet to have explained to me adequately. Considering contraception is legal already, why is that not enough for people who for whatever reason, just don't want to get pregnant?

I mean assuming you take the two main precautions, a condom and the pill, the chances of becoming pregnant are minute at best.

With regard to abortion on demand, I just have yet to be convinced that aside from the very small percentage of people who have been failed by contraception, abortion is just another form of contraception for people who didn't take the precautions at the time.

ArmaniJeanss · 10-03-2017 11:49AM

Butters1979 wrote: »

The is exactly the issue. Once we remove something from the constitution and replace it with legislation, that legislation can be changed at any time without a referendum.

With the likes of Zappone and other regressive liberals in our government these days, there would be a push to jack it up to as high as possible. Championed by O'Neill and her type who see abortion as a victory over evil men. I don't trust our government with unborn babies lives if the constitutional protection is removed.

Eh, that would be democracy - if people vote for those regressive liberals in enough numbers to give them a majority then surely they'd be entitled to make those changes to the law.

Conversely if enough people then vote for the Des Hanafin/Jack Chambers wing of FF then they'd be entitled to ban abortion completely if they want.

Theres no particular reason for it to have ever been a constitutional issue.

mahamageehad · 10-03-2017 11:52AM

jameorahiely wrote: »

Yes, but it is false to say no other country has an equilivant of the 8th. I wish the repeal crowd would get their facts straight.

We are not the only country with the right to life enshrined in their constitution.
Abortion is not illegal here.

If they can manage to learn those 2 facts it would be a start.

I think we've found something we agree on here jameorahiely. I am pro-choice, but I think some of the more vocal elements of the repeal movement are shrill, unlikeable and misinformed and likely doing more harm than good. This is not about abortion, it's not about feminism and it's not about women's rights. It's about a specific piece of text inserted into the constitution and what removal of that would mean. (Spoiler alert: Abortion will still only be allowed under the current strict guidelines outlined in PLPA2013).

bubblypop wrote: »

As an example of how a embryo can affect a woman's medical treatment.
A number of years ago, I had an ectopic pregnancy. I was told I needed emergency surgery. I was put under general anesthetic & the embryo removed. At no stage was I told that there was any other treatment available to me.
There was, I found out long afterwards. I could have received medication had I been in any other country. In this country they wouldn't give it to me as it targeted the embryo, basically 'terminating' the pregnancy. So I had to have surgery & the after affects of surgery, because of that embryo was equal to me.

That's absolutely shocking, I'm sorry you had to go through that. Maybe the time for using a pill had passed in your case, or there was some other reason it wouldn't work? I'd be hopeful that no doctor would put anyone through unnecessary surgery. Actually though, if it was before the act in 2013 and the preceding courtcase, it's likely that their hands were just tied by the 8th and that makes me really sad.

farmerwifelet wrote: »

for me it breaks down like this - before it has a heart capable of beating its just potential. If it has a beating heart then leave it be. People talk about rights, baby's rights and a woman's right. But with right comes responsibility. If you have the right to have sex and get pregnant you should be responsible enough to not get pregnant if you don't want to. There are many options out there. Seriously how hard is it to use a contraceptive?

But the heart develops before the brain? It's one of the earliest developments. That you should be "responsible" enough not to get pregnant doesn't account for rape or very young kids who weren't educated on what sex means and contraception.

Deedsie wrote: »

I'm definitely in favour of change from the current ridiculous situation.
Also I think the repeal the 8th people maybe in for a shock as to how many people would be reluctant to vote in favour of change without a structured alternative abortion policy in place.

People talking about the right to abort a perfectly viable child at 24 weeks makes me a little sick to be honest.

No offense to you specifically Deedsie, but this is exactly why I'm so frustrated. If the 8th was gone tomorrow, the right to abortion in this country wouldn't change. The PLPA2013 is still law and that only allows for abortion in three specific situations, all of which say abortion should only be available if the alternative is death. We don't need another policy! In time I'd be hopeful that the current policy could be amended to allow edge cases such as rape and FFA. Maybe in a distant future it'll allow free choice before a certain amount of weeks. But none of that is going to happen by repealing the 8th. Repealing the 8th only opens a doorway where those changes may be possible in the future, but that would have to go through our system like any other act. We don't have Executive Orders to bring in something like abortion on demand tomorrow.

Tigger wrote: »

The lady in question was dead so she didn't care and I'll bet you anything that if she wanted that baby then she would have done anything to let it live . If leaving it in her brain dead body had let it gestate then why not. She was already dead so there was no need to let her die.
I have two more points
1 I'm pro choice generally but the rhetoric makes me confused
2 she was turned off under the current situation so
It's a straw man argument to even bring it up.

I'll vote to repeal on 1st trimester and on fatal fetal abnormal cases but not late second trimester unless it's a fata case.
It seems to me
That tats not what's
Being discussed

Respectfully Tigger, it's not what's being discussed because it's irrelevant. You can't repeal on the 1st trimester. It's either there in our constitution in black and white, or it's not. We can legislate to allow abortion in the first trimester, but that's not currently on offer. All repealing the 8th will do is actually allow a discussion about what situation abortion should be allowed. It may be that the government chooses to do nothing if the 8th is repealed, leaving current safeguards in place.

And that case referred to was a tragedy because doctors told the family the baby had no chance of surviving. The family wanted to be able to lay her to rest. Everyone agreed, but their hands were tied by the 8th so that grieving family had to take it to court in order to give her the dignity to be laid to rest. If there was any chance of that baby surviving, I'd have a different view, but I would still defer to the families choice.

Tigger wrote: »

interesting
so if the 8th didnt exist what woulf the cobstitutional situation be?

It would be the same as it was since the constitution was written. The 8th is a relatively new amendment. The PLPA2013 is the relevant legislation.

Deedsie wrote: »

Before a referendum is held the exact legislation that will replace article 8th needs to be drafted so people know what we are voting for. Change is required 100%.

I don't think I would vote for anything which allowed for the on demand/application abortion of a viable life after 6/7 weeks.

No vote is planned so we don't know how the wording would be, but I would be completely against replacing the 8th with anything. It shouldn't have been added in the first place and changing it to something different will likely just lead to our kids and grandkids having the same conversation in the future. The constitution doesn't change with the times, the legislation does (or should at least).

Absolam wrote: »

So, if we repealed the 8th and replaced with legislation as you say, how would you feel about that legislation being replaced without your input 6 months later allowing abortion on demand up to, say, 25 weeks?

This is an understandable worry. However, based on what we've seen in Irish politics in recent years, it's extremely unlikely. It's more likely that we'll see a new or amended bill that allows for abortion in specific circumstances - I'd guess FFA only. Maybe rape/incest but as mentioned previously in this thread, the burden of proof for rape could be problematic. Even if somehow we accidentally vote in the most extreme Dáil of all time and they vote to allow abortion to 25 weeks, the backlash would see them outed in the next election and the next crowd would render the Act void. I do think abortion to 10 or 12 weeks will be allowed at some point in the far future, but I believe that's a long way away. Politicians will stay away from this issue at all costs.

mahamageehad · 10-03-2017 11:58AM

MightyMandarin wrote: »

There's something that I've yet to have explained to me adequately. Considering contraception is legal already, why is that not enough for people who for whatever reason, just don't want to get pregnant?

I mean assuming you take the two main precautions, a condom and the pill, the chances of becoming pregnant are minute at best.

With regard to abortion on demand, I just have yet to be convinced that aside from the very small percentage of people who have been failed by contraception, abortion is just another form of contraception for people who didn't take the precautions at the time.

Firstly, contraceptives can fail, although I'll concede that's very rare.
What about rape? Or should all women be put on the pill the minute they're of childbearing age just in case.

Also, not all abortions are procured by people who are unhappy to be pregnant. What about the couple who have been trying for this baby for a long time, only to be told the baby won't be able to survive outside the womb. Shouldn't they have the choice of whether to carry a stillborn baby to term or to end their heartache early?

volchitsa · 10-03-2017 12:05PM

MightyMandarin wrote: »

There's something that I've yet to have explained to me adequately. Considering contraception is legal already, why is that not enough for people who for whatever reason, just don't want to get pregnant?

I mean assuming you take the two main precautions, a condom and the pill, the chances of becoming pregnant are minute at best.

With regard to abortion on demand, I just have yet to be convinced that aside from the very small percentage of people who have been failed by contraception, abortion is just another form of contraception for people who didn't take the precautions at the time.

The "just dont take risks" argument, however true in one way, doesn't apply to other aspects of our lives - would someone who had a car accident be refused hospital treatment if it was felt he was the one responsible for the accident?

So using it as a reason to punish someone for their carelessness by making them become a parent against their will always seems to me to be the very opposite of caring about children - which one has to assume is the only non religious reason for being pro life.

Butters1979 · 10-03-2017 12:34PM

ArmaniJeanss wrote: »

Eh, that would be democracy - if people vote for those regressive liberals in enough numbers to give them a majority then surely they'd be entitled to make those changes to the law.

Conversely if enough people then vote for the Des Hanafin/Jack Chambers wing of FF then they'd be entitled to ban abortion completely if they want.

Theres no particular reason for it to have ever been a constitutional issue.

Well, it's how representative democracy works, not pure democracy which is how referendums work.

I'm explaining why I'd be against the repeal regardless of what the replacement legislation was at the time. This is a response to those saying wait until we see what legislation will replace it. I don't believe that legislation matters a damn in the long run and in my thinking on a referendum.

If the country votes to repeal then that's what the country wants. I'm not arguing against that.

MightyMandarin · 10-03-2017 12:53PM

mahamageehad wrote: »

Firstly, contraceptives can fail, although I'll concede that's very rare.
What about rape? Or should all women be put on the pill the minute they're of childbearing age just in case.

Also, not all abortions are procured by people who are unhappy to be pregnant. What about the couple who have been trying for this baby for a long time, only to be told the baby won't be able to survive outside the womb. Shouldn't they have the choice of whether to carry a stillborn baby to term or to end their heartache early?

I've already said I think rape, fatal fetal abnormalities and serious risk to the mother's life should be circumstances in which an exception is made.

kylith · 10-03-2017 12:55PM

volchitsa wrote: »

The "just dont take risks" argument, however true in one way, doesn't apply to other aspects of our lives - would someone who had a car accident be refused hospital treatment if it was felt he was the one responsible for the accident?

So using it as a reason to punish someone for their carelessness by making them become a parent against their will always seems to me to be the very opposite of caring about children - which one has to assume is the only non religious reason for being pro life.

Not to mention that due to allergies and sensitivities not everyone can take hormonal contraception.

MightyMandarin · 10-03-2017 12:57PM

volchitsa wrote: »

The "just dont take risks" argument, however true in one way, doesn't apply to other aspects of our lives - would someone who had a car accident be refused hospital treatment if it was felt he was the one responsible for the accident?

So using it as a reason to punish someone for their carelessness by making them become a parent against their will always seems to me to be the very opposite of caring about children - which one has to assume is the only non religious reason for being pro life.

There's a huge difference between stepping into a car and agreeing to have sex with someone. There's also a massive difference in the result as there's effectively a new party to the incident and their rights deserve to be protected imo, at least the most basic one.

It still doesn't justify it for me. The way I see it, if people want to have sex but not kids, there are numerous ways to go about that, and assuming one is taking the adequate precautions to prevent a pregnancy, it shouldn't happen.

Even though it's a major decision to make, if people don't ever see themselves becoming parents, there's always the sterilisation or vasectomy route aswell, to effectively nullify any risk of pregnancy.

kylith · 10-03-2017 12:57PM

MightyMandarin wrote: »

I've already said I think rape, fatal fetal abnormalities and serious risk to the mother's life should be circumstances in which an exception is made.

But that comes back to 'how do you prove rape?' If you wait till there's a conviction then that is the same as not allowing it, and what happens if a conviction can't be gotten? If you take a woman's word for it then there's no difference from abortion on request.

volchitsa · 10-03-2017 01:00PM

kylith wrote: »

Not to mention that due to allergies and sensitivities not everyone can take hormonal contraception.

I think a lot of people don't realize that, anyone who's had a adverse reaction to the pill is banned from ever taking it again, I have a close friend who had deep vein thrombosis because of it and nearly died. Other women have had pulmonary embolism and so on. I think high blood pressure is a no-no as well isn't it?

MightyMandarin · 10-03-2017 01:01PM

kylith wrote: »

But that comes back to 'how do you prove rape?' If you wait till there's a conviction then that is the same as not allowing it, and what happens if a conviction can't be gotten? If you take a woman's word for it then there's no difference from abortion on request.

I already had this discussion on this thread so I'd encourage you to read my previous posts.

Basically, I don't think those issues are important in this debate anyway, and given that the Govt. did a decent job of legislating and providing an adequate process in the 2013 Bill, I think they or any future Govt. would do the same.

kylith · 10-03-2017 01:01PM

MightyMandarin wrote: »

Even though it's a major decision to make, if people don't ever see themselves becoming parents, there's always the sterilisation or vasectomy route aswell, to effectively nullify any risk of pregnancy.

That supposes that just because someone doesn't want a child now that they'll never want one. Should 16 year olds get sterilised?

Also, getting a sterilised during fertile years is practically impossible.

stefanovich · 10-03-2017 01:02PM

nozzferrahhtoo wrote:

Or if I were tomorrow to have sex with a girl of age 15.99999999999999 I could potentially end up on a sex offenders register, but if I cuddle her for 6 hours and wait until midnight it is a-ok??

Age of consent is 17 here so in both cases you would be a sex criminal.

volchitsa · 10-03-2017 01:03PM

MightyMandarin wrote: »

There's a huge difference between stepping into a car and agreeing to have sex with someone. There's also a massive difference in the result as there's effectively a new party to the incident and their rights deserve to be protected imo, at least the most basic one.

It still doesn't justify it for me. The way I see it, if people want to have sex but not kids, there are numerous ways to go about that, and assuming one is taking the adequate precautions to prevent a pregnancy, it shouldn't happen.

Even though it's a major decision to make, if people don't ever see themselves becoming parents, there's always the sterilisation or vasectomy route aswell, to effectively nullify any risk of pregnancy.

I wasn't talking about stepping into a car, I was assuming the person had been negligent in their driving. Because that was your argument about pregnancy.

Now you've changed it back to "because abortion is wrong" which is not the same argument at all. Surely if it's wrong, then the degree of responsibility in getting pregnant doesn't really change anything?

Oh and you wrong about vasectomy and tubal ligature, in young people they're actually not all that reliable at all. May take some years for them to fail, but they often do. My Scottish friend's little brother was born ten years after her mother had a TL, and she was told it's a regular occurrence,over the woman's lifetime.

Absolam · 10-03-2017 01:03PM

Deedsie wrote: »

If a doctor says that if this mother continues with this pregnancy it will endanger her life in my view the mother should be allowed to choose what she wishes to do.

Do you think there's a difference between someone's life being endangered and someone's health being endangered?

mahamageehad · 10-03-2017 01:03PM

MightyMandarin wrote: »

I've already said I think rape, fatal fetal abnormalities and serious risk to the mother's life should be circumstances in which an exception is made.

There's a lot of people posting here, so it's difficult to keep track. The fact is that if you are for abortion in the limited scenarios you described above, you should be voting to repeal the 8th.

MightyMandarin wrote: »

There's a huge difference between stepping into a car and agreeing to have sex with someone. There's also a massive difference in the result as there's effectively a new party to the incident and their rights deserve to be protected imo, at least the most basic one.

It still doesn't justify it for me. The way I see it, if people want to have sex but not kids, there are numerous ways to go about that, and assuming one is taking the adequate precautions to prevent a pregnancy, it shouldn't happen.

Even though it's a major decision to make, if people don't ever see themselves becoming parents, there's always the sterilisation or vasectomy route aswell, to effectively nullify any risk of pregnancy.

I have experience with this actually. A friend of mine has PCOS. This means it'd be difficult for her to get pregnant even if she wanted to and she has lots of other health issues because of it. Since much younger, she has always said she didn't want kids. Now she's 32 and she's still saving it. She asked about getting her tubes tied or even a hysterectomy a few years back in order to reduce her hormonal issues. She was laughed out of two separate doctors offices. They won't touch a healthy young woman with no kids unless in the case of ovarian cancer or something like that. To be fair, most doctors would be reluctant to perform a vasectomy on a 25 year old guy that had no kids too, even though vasectomies are more reversable on average.

Strike For Repeal?

Comments