RobertKK wrote: » You are asking someone to go against their own conscience, to support something that is not seen as a choice, to view what someone views as a wrong to be viewed as a right.
frag420 wrote: » And you are demanding that a woman go against her own will, to maintain a pregnancy that they do not want. You want to support something that takes away their choice and because you perceive it to be righteous then they should have no say in the matter!? Can you see the hypocrisy are mouthing?
Martina1991 wrote: » If men could get pregnant abortions would be available like the flu jab.
Out of the 55% who agree that expanding access to abortion should be one of the priorities for the next government, the region who polled highest was Dublin at 61% and at 56%, men are 1% more supportive than women. The age group 55-64 is the most supportive at 64%.
RobertKK wrote: » People who want a clear conscience use what their own conscience tells them, not what someone else tells them what they must support because that is what their conscience tells them. It is not hypocrisy to vote for what one believes. It is internal hypocrisy to go against what one believes, because someone tells them they must do something against their own personal beliefs/opinions. Only a weak person who is easily malleable would do as you say, because you want them to believe what you want them to believe.
dudara wrote: » You don't have to support it, but I do feel that the right to choice needs to be supported. This is a really hard topic and I really do respect those who believe it's a sin and that it's wrong. That's a belief based on faith and I'm not going to knock it. There are others who find the topic unpleasant but don't believe it's necessarily wrong. I think the vast majority of people fall into one of these two camps. For me, choice needs to exist. People's faith and beliefs, their situation will guide them.
B0jangles wrote: » My friend and his wife have two children. The first pregnancy caused her crippling pain in her pelvis - pain which left her unable to walk for the last couple of months of the pregnancy. The second caused agonizing pain and left her bedbound for most of the 9 months. She almost died during the birth. She has been told that having another baby has a high chance of killing her and an almost certain result of leaving her permanently unable to walk. According the the 8th, she can only have an abortion if she is about to die; the nigh-certainty of being left permanently disabled is not considered important enough. Think about that; 'health' is not just talking about minor, passing discomfort, it's talking about basic bodily functions being seriously and permanently damaged. Is keeping your conscience squeaky-clean so vitally important that you're happy accept the undeniable fact that there are people, real born people with lives and families, people who will be left permanently disabled by a pregnancy who are victims right now of the extreme restrictions on abortion access in this country?
newdriverlad wrote: » I have known couples in similar situations and generally the guy had a vasectomy!
Crea wrote: » If only there was no such thing as an unplanned pregnancy. If only contraception didn't fail. If only women didn't become super fertile coming up to the menopause. Next your going to say married people shouldn't have sex which is my 13 year olds recommendation for unplanned pregnancy.
RobertKK wrote: » Out of interest what actions have they taken to avoid pregnancy in the future? It does appear they saw the risk being worth it for the 2nd pregnancy.
January wrote: » What about in cases of ffa or threat to mothers life?
B0jangles wrote: » Pregnancy after vasectomy is rare but it absolutely does happenhttps://www.babycenter.com/400_realistic-possibility-of-pregnancy-after-vasectomy_6646461_877.bchttps://www.webmd.com/sex/birth-control/news/20040505/vasectomies-pregnancy-prevention
newdriverlad wrote: » They can also use other forms of contraception! They chances of them getting pregnant are very very slim.
B0jangles wrote: » Are they zero? Because that's the only level I'd feel safe at if I was in a situation where pregnancy means permanent disability or death to me, and I lived in a country which denies me the right to choose whether or not to take that risk.
RobertKK wrote: » I have a sister who was told she had FFA and the baby would die soon after birth, a nurse in Dublin suggested about getting rid of the pregnancy...she had a good doctor who supported her, the child was born in Dublin, taken to Crumlin and is now living a normal life and plays sports. The arguments used for FFA are as if a diagnosis is black and white, when it is grey.
Tigger wrote: » why would you abort an unplanned baby and the wantvto have a baby after or did you not read what i said ?
Crea wrote: » What ffa was your sisters child diagnosed with? In the cases of chromosomale anomalies there are no shades of grey,
RobertKK wrote: » Basically the heart was so messed up, the baby when born wouldn't live. It has a name but I forget what it was called but it a very rare condition, there were at that time no other known cases in Ireland.
January wrote: » Heart conditions are not FFA's. Still, it should be a women's right to choose whether she gives birth to a baby who could have severe health and medical problems.
judeboy101 wrote: » CS is severe and life limiting
Crea wrote: » My sisters baby was diagnosed with Edwards Syndrome at 30 weeks. She was told her the Ionger she remained pregnant the more likely the baby would die in utero. She begged to be induced early but the doc said it could be construed as an abortion by law. She had to stay pregnant for another 8 weeks at which time she had a number of breakdowns and the baby died. Nothing can be done in these cases until the 8th ammendment is removed.
