The 8th amendment(Mod warning in op)

AtomicHorror wrote: »

The rate of road fatalities in Ireland is 3.9 deaths per every 1 billion kilometres of road travel. Per year, the numbers who die on Irish roads represents about 0.003% of the population.

Those sound tiny, yet we legislate, extensively, to try and protect those lives because once you cut through those stats, it actually equals 100-200 real people who die each year and leave behind a lot of pain and sadness.

I'm not suggesting an unwanted pregnancy is comparable to a death, but the odds you're being quite dismissive of also represent substantial numbers of real people. Of the 3000-4000 Irish women who get abortions each year, you're probably looking at 1000-2000 being a result of contraceptive failure, unless our stats are radically out of line with the international norm.

Those numbers are not trivial.

I'm glad we legislate to protect lives here too. Legislation to protect lives is a good thing.

AtomicHorror wrote: »

You can be criminally prosecuted for killing someone by accident however, which was Lexie's point. You've sidestepped it by focusing on the narrowest possible interpretation of her argument.

A habit of yours, which you need to stop.

You can however be prosecuted for deliberately ending one, sidestep that.

conorhal wrote: »

I'm glad we legislate to protect lives here too. Legislation to protect lives is a good thing.

Not addressing the substance of my argument at all.

infogiver

cinnamony wrote: »

I am pro choice but I must admit I'm not sure as to what extent the accidental pregnancy/contraception failed excuse holds in a country like Ireland.

You are usually recommended to use 2 forms of contraception and from what I know (please correct me if I am wrong) contraceptive pills/shots implants etc... are not only easily available but free on the medical card.
Condoms are easily available too in stores etc..

So in these cases I'm not sure if there's a pro choice argument to be made barr that people should be able to do what they want with their bodies..

Looking at Planned Parenthoods own figures (I haven't the full thing to hand) for 2015. (They did 300000 abortions).
92% ticked "Inconvenience" from the list of reasons they wanted to have an abortion.
Rape/Incest was .065%
The rest was birth defects,maternal health concerns etc it's quite interesting.
I'll see if I can find it.

njs030

infogiver wrote: »

Well I called it the "thing in the womb" at 40+ weeks ( so as not to use emotive language) and you are referring to it as a fetus.
Why do we have to play this very silly childish game in which we're not allowed to refer to the thing in the womb as a baby until it's made a journey head first down an inches long canal? Sometimes (in the case of my niece) the journey only took 10 minutes.
Your telling me that ten minutes and 6 inches ago it was a fetus and it's host had an entitlement to end its life but now it's a person and a human being and a baby and a child and heaven and earth must be moved to protect it?
The vaginal canal conferred these rights on this thing?
(I'm trying so hard not to use emotive language. If you've ever given birth it's kinda emotive).

Well I have given birth so silly assumption there.

I'm a mother and still able to see the difference between my happy joyful pregnancy and the fact that not every woman has that and there is a world outside my front door.

Someone's answered you and it's been explained that once the mother has given birth the baby is no longer dependent on her for total survival, at that point they are two separate people. Legally and medically.

Edit to add there's a bit of Donald Trump drama in this with the 9 month termination talk!!

conorhal wrote: »

You can however be prosecuted for deliberately ending one, sidestep that.

What is this Conor? Should I reply with "your ma" now? Sidestep that, good grief.

notjustsweet wrote: »

Not every woman can use hormonal contraception, also some medications interfere with them.
Even when used perfectly there's no contraception 100% safe.
Condoms can break, tear or slip off.

Also, I wonder about if people actually pay attention to the doctor warning them about antibiotics and contraception interacting.

Actually, I encountered an interesting one recently - I had a tooth infection, I went to the dentist and he prescribed antibiotics and I didn't get the "take extra precautions" speech like I would at the doctor - although I don't want children so I don't need to be told. However, this made me wonder about people who do get pregnant when they're on some sort of medication - do they genuinely not know about the interaction? I know there's loads of info about it in the little booklet you get with your contraceptive pill but I'd say few people read that.

qo2cj1dsne8y4k

infogiver wrote: »

You can't murder someone by accident Lexie.

Did you miss where I said manslaughter?

AtomicHorror wrote: »

Not addressing the substance of my argument at all.

If it had any I would.

pilly

I couldn't care less what people call me. If it's pro-abortion that's fine by mean.

Don't understand the arguing back and forth about what each camp is called.

I'm totally pro-abortion and not ashamed of that fact. Simple.

Samsgirl

So, I once had a scan at 7 weeks pregnant. No pregnancy could he located. HCG tests revealed that the embryo is growing. Doc decides that to let this go any further would endanger my life. He essentially terminated an non viable pregnancy.
Happens every day in Ireland, ectopic pregnancy.

notjustsweet wrote: »

Well I have given birth so silly assumption there.

I'm a mother and still able to see the difference between my happy joyful pregnancy and the fact that not every woman has that and there is a world outside my front door.

Someone's answered you and it's been explained that once the mother has given birth the baby is no longer dependent on her for total survival, at that point they are two separate people. Legally and medically.

Yes, and the continued life of the child no longer places the health or life of the mother at risk. Prior to birth, it has to.

volchitsa

conorhal wrote: »

If I lived fifty years ago, a dead baby would still be a dead baby. Opinions and social mores may change, reality doesn't. The reality of abortion isn't an opinion.

But quite clearly, abortion doesn't result in a dead baby, or we'd put their lives above the right to travel, and we don't. And we'd make some sort of effort to bring women to court after they've had an abortion in the UK. And we don't.

infogiver wrote: »

Looking at Planned Parenthoods own figures (I haven't the full thing to hand) for 2015. (They did 300000 abortions).
92% ticked "Inconvenience" from the list of reasons they wanted to have an abortion.
Rape/Incest was .065%
The rest was birth defects,maternal health concerns etc it's quite interesting.
I'll see if I can find it.

I would see someone citing "inconvenience" as the reason for wanting an abortion as referring to the pregnancy and the end result.
Many women who have abortions don't want to be pregnant, it's not just about not wanting a child.

conorhal wrote: »

If it had any I would.

You argued that we don't legislate for rare things or tiny minorities. I showed an example that says we do, and that the seemingly small stats actually equal a significant number of affected people.

infogiver

AtomicHorror wrote: »

You can be criminally prosecuted for killing someone by accident however, which was Lexie's point. You've sidestepped it by focusing on the narrowest possible interpretation of her argument.

A habit of yours, which you need to stop.

Your getting irritated but you don't have the entitlement to tell me to stop anything, block me or report my posts but don't advise me according to your wishes

volchitsa wrote: »

But quite clearly, abortion doesn't result in a dead baby, or we'd put their lives above the right to travel, and we don't. And we'd make some sort of effort to bring women to court after they've had an abortion in the UK. And we don't.

Well it doesn't result in a live one does it?

infogiver wrote: »

Your getting irritated but you don't have the entitlement to tell me to stop anything, block me or report my posts but don't advise me according to your wishes

I'm pointing it out because it means the argument goes nowhere.

I'm assuming good faith on your part here, that you want to have a real discussion and not a slagging match?

pilly

Cupcake_Crisis wrote:

That's all the 8th amendment does, just kicks the ball down the road.

And over to another country.

njs030

Infogiver can you provide a link to that claim about planned parenthood please?
You're supposed to back up claims and statistics.

pilly wrote: »

And over to another country.

You could say the same about FGM.

KKkitty

From my point of view in 2012 I suffered the hell of an ectopic pregnancy in the May and an early miscarriage in the December. Both pregnancies were wanted but as soon as I knew I would never give birth to those babies as a coping mechanism I refused to think of them as babies inside me. I never found out due dates and disconnected myself from those pregnancies. Those pregnancies existed but to get through the rest of my life I can't hold onto them. The same could be said for any woman out there who doesn't want to continue with a pregnancy for whatever reason. I don't feel any malice towards any of those women. I feel proud of them. No one should tell anyone that what they choose to do with their bodies is wrong. Let women choose if they want to terminate their pregnancy.

conorhal wrote: »

You could say the same about FGM.

Travelling for FGM is an offence in Ireland, unlike abortion.

I don't think it gets prosecuted, but at least the law is consistent in this example.

qo2cj1dsne8y4k

I am pro choice, but for me personally anti abortion. I am not someone who could go through abortion, and that's fine for me. But I have no right to tell another woman what to do with her body so that's why I'm pro choice. It's galling that in 2017 we have women being forced into situations they're not ready for or don't want. That's horrific. That sounds as traumatic as forcing a woman who wants their baby to give it up

gctest50 wrote: »

You might see can you find it

Meanwhile 2004

N=?

If you have it?

infogiver

notjustsweet wrote: »

Infogiver can you provide a link to that claim about planned parenthood please?
You're supposed to back up claims and statistics.

Actually here's an even more recent report makes interesting reading, not just planned parenthood, all abortion providers,
Reasons for abortion in the opening paragraph:

http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/policy/abortion/abreasons.html

gctest50 wrote: »

You might see can you find it

Meanwhile 2004

The word "inconvenience" doesn't feature on that list. Is it on the more up-to-date one that the poster has access to?
There's reasons listed there that I'm sure some people would categorise under the heading of "inconvenience" but I wouldn't.

Beyondgone

This whole argument is smug shyte, because England.

njs030

infogiver wrote: »

Actually here's an even more recent report makes interesting reading, not just planned parenthood, all abortion providers,
Reasons for abortion in the opening paragraph:

http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/policy/abortion/abreasons.html

Well no I'd like to see the planned parenthood report you quoted from please.