Repeal the 8th Bandwagoning

Lady Spangles · 16-03-2017 12:58am

......... wrote: »

How did you decide a fetus was suddenly a person at 20 weeks but not 19.5 weeks ?

What on earth is personhood ?

I said it develops over time, hence the elastic time span. I just go by the recommended cut off point in my homeland. 24 weeks (although I'm more than open to the suggestion that that might be on the high side).

......... · 16-03-2017 12:59am

Lady Spangles wrote: »

I said it develops over time

From when to when ?

Hesthea · 16-03-2017 12:59am

Royce Numerous Goose-step wrote: »

I think the examples you give are very outdated and will change with time (passing of older generations). I haven't experienced either of those examples, but "should have kept your legs closed" is wrong and not a normal response.

You say its outdated but that it will change with time which means that you know it still happens hence its not outdated. Its a reality many mothers have to face on a daily basis.

i am a single mother. I am discriminated for being one. I have been told to keep my legs closed and i have, not so long ago, in the park while my child was playing, two other women referring that way about another mother in the park.

Its not pleasant and its totally hypocritical.

Royce Numerous Goose-step wrote: »

I think that it's unusual to see single fathers. From this website: https://onefamily.ie/policy-campaigns/facts-figures/ only 13.5% of single parent families are headed by the father. I guess it's the norm to see single mothers and unusual for the mother to abandon father and child. I also don't believe it's a man V woman thing, please don't turn it into that, there's too much "Us V them" in society as it is.

Become a women and a single parent too. Try to find a job. Try to rent a house for you and your child and let me know how people treat you after knowing that. I certainly do.

Unfortunately, it is man V woman thing. People keep on stigmatizing single mothers. We are the scourge of society.

When someone talks about single mothers people automatically think we are bums, allergic to work, that we like to party all the time and receive payments from the welfare to splurge anywhere except on our children needs.
Although there might be a small percentage of people like that, majority isn't and yet is labelled like the rest. No matter what you say, no matter how well you do, how many references you have. When you say you are a single mother you become a persona non grata.

Royce Numerous Goose-step wrote: »

I guess it's the norm to see single mothers and unusual for the mother to abandon father and child.

Men abandon their children all the time and yet the fault always befalls on the women. We are always the ones that should have done more, given more, sacrificed more. Why?

What i see is women adopting the attitude that men have regarding life.

Its interesting to see men commenting that a woman shouldn't be able to abort. That she shouldn't have that right. Why does any of you still think like that? Will you help her to raise the child? Even if things don't work out between you two?

If you said yes, congratulations. You are one of the few that will take responsibility over the child that you helped to conceive. But you are just a small minority. Many others say the same but then they decide they need to move on with their lives and, of course, the child is not a priority in their lives.

Even if abortion is legalized that doesn't mean that women will start aborting like if it were the most natural thing in the world. It means that their body is their own. That they will feel safer knowing that if they do get pregnant and something happens (it can range from being abandoned by the father's child or their own family to being sick. From having lost her job and having no way to support herself or the child, there are so many reasons) they have the power to decide what is best for them at that time.

No matter what people say, in the end we are the ones who will have to care and raise the child alone.

I will even give Portugal as an example. Abortion became legal in 2007, they were also against it for the same reasons stated by many of you and guess what?
Abortion became legal and the number of women resorting to it reduced.
All the fears that people had if abortion became legal were for nothing. The proof is in the statistics and the fact that the rate in women dying due to complications after an abortion also reduced significantly.

And if i'm not mistaken, its legal to abort until the 12th week.

......... · 16-03-2017 1:01am

Hesthea wrote: »

You say its outdated but that it will change with time which means that you know it still happens hence its not outdated. Its a reality many mothers have to face on a daily basis.

i am a single mother. I am discriminated for being one. I have been told to keep my legs closed and i have, not so long ago, in the park while my child was playing, two other women referring that way about another mother in the park.

Its not pleasant and its totally hypocritical.

Become a women and a single parent too. Try to find a job. Try to rent a house for you and your child and let me know how people treat you after knowing that. I certainly do.

Unfortunately, it is man V woman thing. People keep on stigmatizing single mothers. We are the scourge of society.

When someone talks about single mothers people automatically think we are bums, allergic to work, that we like to party all the time and receive payments from the welfare to splurge anywhere expect on our children needs.
Although there might be a small percentage of people like that, majority isn't and yet is labelled like the rest. No matter what you say, no matter how well you do, how many references you have. When you say you are a single mother you become a persona non grata.

Men abandon their children all the time and yet the fault always befalls on the women. We are always the ones that should have done more, given more, sacrificed more. Why?

What i see is women adopting the attitude that men have regarding life.

Its interesting to see men commenting that a woman shouldn't be able to abort. That she shouldn't have that right. Why does any of you still think like that? Will you help her to raise the child? Even if things don't work out between you two?

If you said yes, congratulations. You are one of the few that will take responsibility over the child that you helped to conceive. But you are just a small minority. Many others say the same but then they decide they need to move on with their lives and, of course, the child is not a priority in their lives.

Even if abortion is legalized that doesn't mean that women will start aborting like if it were the most natural thing in the world. It means that their body is their own. That they will feel safer knowing that if they do get pregnant and something happens (it can range from being abandoned by the father's child or their own family to being sick. From having lost her job and having no way to support herself or the child, there are so many reasons) they have the power to decide what is best for them at that time.

No matter what people say, in the end we are the ones who will have to care and raise the child alone.

I will even give Portugal as an example. Abortion became legal in 2007, they were also against it for the same reasons stated by many of you and guess what?
Abortion became legal and the number of women resorting to it reduced.
All the fears that people had if abortion became legal were for nothing. The proof is in the statistics and the fact that the rate in women dying due to complications after an abortion also reduced significantly.

And if i'm not mistaken, its legal to abort until the 12th week.

Can you explain then why most abortions carried out in the UK are not for medical reasons ?

Lady Spangles · 16-03-2017 1:02am

......... wrote: »

From when to when ?

I stated a rough time frame in my post. I assume you're capable of going back and reading it.

......... · 16-03-2017 1:03am

Lady Spangles wrote: »

I stated a rough time frame in my post. I assume you're capable of going back and reading it.

So you believe someone becomes a 'person' at 20-24 weeks, but is not a person at 19.5 weeks and it's ok to take their life then to prevent them becoming a 'person', is that correct ?

Hesthea · 16-03-2017 1:10am

......... wrote: »

Can you explain then why most abortions carried out in the UK are not for medical reasons ?

Can you explain why even though people need to abort for medical, financial, psychological (and so on) reasons still can't?

......... · 16-03-2017 1:14am

Hesthea wrote: »

Can you explain why even though people need to abort for medical, financial, psychological (and so on) reasons still can't?

Can you explain why people who need to take human life for their medical, financial, psychological (and so on) reasons should be allowed to ?

retro:electro · 16-03-2017 1:15am

Lady Spangles wrote: »

Shock tactics. The Sex Pistols were famous for them. Regardless, abortions these days involves taking a pill that causes the uterus to reject the embryo/fetus. That's all. There's no coat hangers, jack hammers or whatever other crazy techniques your imagination is conjuring up.

Yep that's it sure. Just pop a pill and off ya go. Like taking a Panadol sure. No suction devices or anesthetic needed, (and in some late cases, cervix dilation is necessary) Nope. Grand like. Spot of shopping then on the way home maybe.
The flippancy in which you describe abortion is disgraceful, really. Would it kill you to have a bit of decency for the women who've went through this and found it incredibly traumatic and a difficult process?

......... · 16-03-2017 1:18am

anna080 wrote: »

Yep that's it sure. Just pop a pill and off ya go. Like taking a Panadol sure. No suction devises or anesthetic needed, (and in some late cases, cervix dilation is necessary) Nope. Grand like. Spot of shopping then on the way home sure.
The flippancy in which you describe abortion is disgraceful, really.

as long as you poison them it's ok.

Lady Spangles · 16-03-2017 1:21am

anna080 wrote: »

Yep that's it sure. Just pop a pill and off ya go. Like taking a Panadol sure. No suction devises or anesthetic needed, (and in some late cases, cervix dilation is necessary) Nope. Grand like. Spot of shopping then on the way home maybe.
The flippancy in which you describe abortion is disgraceful, really.

Early abortions and it's a pill. If a woman can access abortion in her own country then it will be early enough for the pill. And there's really no need to get all angry with me.

Lady Spangles · 16-03-2017 1:22am

......... wrote: »

So you believe someone becomes a 'person' at 20-24 weeks, but is not a person at 19.5 weeks and it's ok to take their life then to prevent them becoming a 'person', is that correct ?

Sure. It's within the time frame so go for it. In the UK it's up to 24 weeks.

retro:electro · 16-03-2017 1:25am

Lady Spangles wrote: »

Early abortions and it's a pill. If a woman can access abortion in her own country then it will be early enough for the pill. And there's really no need to get all angry with me.

You make it sound as easy as eating a pack of Haribo. A bit of empathy and cop on wouldn't go amiss, IMO.

Lady Spangles · 16-03-2017 1:29am

anna080 wrote: »

You make it sound as easy as eating a pack of Haribo. A bit of empathy and cop on wouldn't go amiss, IMO.

I'm not suggesting that. But, for early abortion, a matter of two pills is basically what it is. There's no use being all emotional about it, in fact that's part of the problem. No looks at the bare facts.

https://www.mariestopes.org.uk/women/abortion/abortion-facts/what-abortion

retro:electro · 16-03-2017 1:39am

Lady Spangles wrote: »

I'm not suggesting that. But, for early abortion, a matter of two pills is basically what it is. There's no use being all emotional about it, in fact that's part of the problem. No looks at the bare facts.

https://www.mariestopes.org.uk/women/abortion/abortion-facts/what-abortion

I'm not sure what you think you're showing me here that I'm not already aware of. I'm familiar with the pill method, it may make the process practically easier- but that's all. It's the flippancy with which you describe these things, "it's just a clump of cells", "it's just popping a pill- that's it", you clearly have no regard for the psychological and emotional legacy abortion can entail. It's disrespectful.

I'm not asking you to get emotional about it, just have some respect. Imagine if someone who'd had an abortion abroad read your comments and your flippant description? Do you think she'd feel supported or understood? No. Your language and turn of phrase is so unnecessarily divisive. But it's indicative of the Repeal campaign in general, IMO.

jameorahiely · 16-03-2017 1:55am

Originally Posted by nozzferrahhtoo View Post
No. They really couldn't. There is no criteria you could construct to establish that a person has done "everything possible to make sure you don't become pregnant". How would you establish that a pregnant women sitting across the table from you used condoms 100% of the time she had sex for example? There is simply no way, short of inventing time traveling and making uninvited voyeurism legal, that you are going to establish that

A WOMAN doing everuthing possible to make sure she doesn't get pregnant is relying on the MAN to wear and use a condom properly
There isn't a facepalm big enough for that one

You could have concluded "a woman doing everything possible" to be records from the doctor prescribing the pill or the pharmacy dispensing it? (it doesn't mean she's taking it but at least shes buying it)
Or
Records of the coil or implant being inserted?

You know contraception that a WOMAN has control and responsibility for. But no you mention the most unreliable method that the MAN puts on HIS body.

......... · 16-03-2017 1:58am

Lady Spangles wrote: »

Sure. It's within the time frame so go for it. In the UK it's up to 24 weeks.

so how did you define personhood ?, what specifically made them a person one week, when they were not the week before ?

jameorahiely · 16-03-2017 1:59am

What percentage of failed abortions woukd people be willing to accept. I was reading a report on an abortion clinic amd that particular one clinic had 64 failed abortions in a year period. Interestingly enough only 5 returned to get a second go, the others continued with yhe pregnancy.

So one 1+ failed abortion / week multiplied by all clincs be an acceptable failure rate?

Lady Spangles · 16-03-2017 2:01am

anna080 wrote: »

I'm not asking you to get emotional about it, just have some respect. Imagine if someone who'd had an abortion abroad read your comments and your flippant description? Do you think she'd feel supported or understood? No. Your language and turn of phrase is so unnecessarily divisive. But it's indicative of the Repeal campaign in general, IMO.

That link was more for general info rather than being directed solely at you.

My descriptions may seem flippant to you. But to a woman who is sick of being called a "sociopath" or a "baby killer" because she's had a termination, a bland statement of fact might be reassuring that they're nothing of the sort. On that level, I think you underestimate the growing anger that's currently being felt among women who've been traumatised by a trip to England for a necessary abortion.

Lady Spangles · 16-03-2017 2:04am

......... wrote: »

so how did you define personhood ?, what specifically made them a person one week, when they were not the week before ?

Like I said, I don't. I'm using the UK's 1967 Abortion Act as a guideline. Those guidelines are 24 weeks, which was based on medical science at the time of the act and subsequent amendments. I also stated that I am open to the argument that that cut off point is too high.

The law must state a clear cut off point and that is it. I did not make that law.

retro:electro · 16-03-2017 2:11am

Lady Spangles wrote: »

That link was more for general info rather than being directed solely at you.

My descriptions may seem flippant to you. But to a woman who is sick of being called a "sociopath" or a "baby killer" because she's had a termination, a bland statement of fact might be reassuring that they're nothing of the sort. On that level, I think you underestimate the growing anger that's currently being felt among women who've been traumatised by a trip to England for a necessary abortion.

Those things are being said by people who are against abortion. You are meant to be on their side, and tbh your flippancy is every bit as alienating and insulting. Sometimes I find "my side", the pro- choice side, more annoying and offensive then I do pro-lifers. Making out that you're going in to just pop a tablet and flushing out some cells is totally understating the decided enormity of the decision to abort. It's hard- and it's hard for a reason. Please stop trivialising it.

Lady Spangles · 16-03-2017 2:46am

anna080 wrote: »

Those things are being said by people who are against abortion. You are meant to be on their side, and tbh your flippancy is every bit as alienating and insulting. Sometimes I find "my side", the pro- choice side, more annoying and offensive then I do pro-lifers. Making out that you're going in to just pop a tablet and flushing out some cells is totally understating the decided enormity of the decision to abort. It's hard. Please stop trivialising it.

I'm sorry, but you're just tone policing me now. As I said, I'm trying to avoid being overly emotionally charged here. Of course I have empathy for women seeking terminations. But they don't need my tears. They need me on the streets campaigning for change.

Cupcake_Crisis · 16-03-2017 2:56am

Lady Spangles wrote: »

Sure. It's within the time frame so go for it. In the UK it's up to 24 weeks.

While I completely get where the anger comes from, it's statements like that that fuel the pro life side.

I am completely pro choice, but we have a tendency to neglect the gravity of what we're fighting for. It's a big deal. It's life altering and will stay with you forever, it's not a 'so go for it ' situation. Imo, as long as sections of the pro choice side keep speaking like that the pro life side will continue to eat us alive.

There's debating, and there's debating respectfully. This debate deserves some respect.

Lady Spangles · 16-03-2017 3:03am

Cupcake_Crisis wrote: »

While I completely get where the anger comes from, it's statements like that that fuel the pro life side.

I am completely pro choice, but we have a tendency to neglect the gravity of what we're fighting for. It's a big deal. It's life altering and will stay with you forever, it's not a 'so go for it ' situation. Imo, as long as sections of the pro choice side keep speaking like that the pro life side will continue to eat us alive.

There's debating, and there's debating respectfully. This debate deserves some respect.

And again with the tone policing! The fact that I was being bombarded with increasingly bizarre questions from another user, I'm the one being lectured on using the wrong words.

Look, I'm sorry if you find it offensive. But I have someone lecturing me in a highly superior manner for not being emotional enough and now by you just for saying "go for it". Seriously?! A lot worse than that's been said on this thread.

Cupcake_Crisis · 16-03-2017 3:12am

Lady Spangles wrote: »

And again with the tone policing! The fact that I was being bombarded with increasingly bizarre questions from another user, I'm the one being lectured on using the wrong words.

Look, I'm sorry if you find it offensive. But I have someone lecturing me in a highly superior manner for not being emotional enough and now by you just for saying "go for it". Seriously?! A lot worse than that's been said on this thread.

No doubt it has, but you can either rise above it and make your points ( which are very valid and I agree with most of what you are saying ) in an empathetic way, or you can lower the tone and fuel their fire.

infogiver · 16-03-2017 8:53am

Lady Spangles wrote: »

Early abortions and it's a pill. If a woman can access abortion in her own country then it will be early enough for the pill. And there's really no need to get all angry with me.

If your flippant off hand and insensitive not to mention deliberately obtuse about the ending of a life, then people get angry, and you'll have to just suck it up.

Samaris · 16-03-2017 9:10am

......... wrote: »

Can you explain why people who need to take human life for their medical, financial, psychological (and so on) reasons should be allowed to ?

Given you specify "medical" there, you appear to be on the side that a woman must carry a pregnancy to term, even if it endangers her. Why is that? Why exactly IS the developing human more important than the human already here?

Wibbs · 16-03-2017 10:02am

Lady Spangles wrote: »

...tone policing...

That tells me all I need to know about what worldview you're coming from.

Wibbs · 16-03-2017 10:07am

Lady Spangles wrote: »

Regardless, abortions these days involves taking a pill that causes the uterus to reject the embryo/fetus. That's all.

up to nine weeks. "That's all". After that it's surgical I'm afraid.

anna080 wrote: »

Yep that's it sure. Just pop a pill and off ya go. Like taking a Panadol sure. No suction devices or anesthetic needed, (and in some late cases, cervix dilation is necessary) Nope. Grand like. Spot of shopping then on the way home maybe.
The flippancy in which you describe abortion is disgraceful, really. Would it kill you to have a bit of decency for the women who've went through this and found it incredibly traumatic and a difficult process?

I suspect her gender politics are getting in the way.

Zubeneschamali · 16-03-2017 10:10am

One eyed Jack wrote: »

No, my objection the the repeal of the 8th amendment isn't based on religion, it isn't based on science, it's based on the impression I'm given by ultra-liberal anti-religious leftie fcukwits

and that is why you will fail.

Repeal the 8th Bandwagoning

Comments