January wrote: » No it is not, it's about being able to decide when you're ready to parent, whether you have children already or not. As early as possible, as late as necessary. Taking into account that 92% of abortions happen before 12 weeks of pregnancy and 0.2% happen after 20 weeks and only for reasons of FFA and/or threat to the mother's life.
Tigger wrote: » a couple that have a child and then abort a healthy baby and then have a child later is an example of abortion on demand as contraception which is a far cry from abortion for medical reasons for either the fetous or the mother i suppose id be oknwith abortion on demand only at a early stage but ive realised that evn that concession seems to be a bridge to far for some of the repealers
AnGaelach wrote: » That's fear-mongering nonsense. Abortions where the mother's life is at risk are legal. How you think she's going to know that not getting an abortion now will mean the next pregnancy will mean her death, is beyond me. Are women clairvoyant? Nah, you're alright. I was on the moderate pro-life side of this debate, you can check my post history if you don't believe me. I would have voted to lessen the restrictions but after some of the stunts and the highly combative stance the pro-choice crowd has taken, I'm simply voting no to changing it.
B0jangles wrote: » Do you hear what you are saying? That a woman who 100% knows that she will either be left disabled or dead by another pregnancy should still not have the right to end that pregnancy because 'it isn't a right'.
B0jangles wrote: » How about we make it a right?
AnGaelach wrote: » You're not denied the right, because it isn't a right... Whereas the right to life is a right, and you seek to deny that to the unborn simply because you want the ability to deny it.
January wrote: » Because circumstances can and do change. Just because you have an unplanned, unwanted pregnancy and abort it does not mean you don't get to choose to plan a pregnancy at a later date.
nice_guy80 wrote: » I would prefer if people wouldn't try to impose their beliefs on others
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.
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.
judeboy101 wrote: » CS is severe and life limiting
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.
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.
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.
Crea wrote: » What ffa was your sisters child diagnosed with? In the cases of chromosomale anomalies there are no shades of 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 ?
newdriverlad wrote: » They can also use other forms of contraception! They chances of them getting pregnant are very very slim.
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
January wrote: » What about in cases of ffa or threat to mothers life?
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.
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.
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?
