Joeytheparrot wrote: » You suggested abortion pills make abortion here accessible. That isnt true considering they are illegal.
Sweetemotion wrote: » If you know protection doesn't always work. Then you should know to always take the MAP Babies don't just appear from thin air.
Flying Fox wrote: » If that's a serious statement, then you really need to get yourself educated. Contraception is generally reliable but from time to time it can fail, it's not as black and white as "well you should have taken the MAP so deal with the consequences".
Thirdfox wrote: » If you know about the X case then you would know that the family in question was already in England and (for some reason I cannot understand) complied with the Gardai's request to come back to Ireland.
Thirdfox wrote: » So the SC's judgment is clearly unenforceable
Sweetemotion wrote: » You've just said "Protection doesn't always work" that looks black and white to me, from your own words. Why are all these people who don't want to get pregnant not getting pregnant?
maxsmum wrote: » But tough if you don't want it; let others do what they need to do for their situation. Jesus. I don't want to live in a country where people don't know how to use alcohol responsibly or where people don't clean up dog crap but such is life, worry about your own conscience and you'll be fine.
LirW wrote: » I'm really talking from a purely scientific point of view...It is so much easier to resent people we don't know for their decision to terminate a pregnancy. A lot of people that see abortion as the elimination of life will genuinely never be in the situation where you are truly desperate. Most know they have the support of family, friends and the state. But not everyone has. For example plenty of these people won't ever be victim of domestic violence that involves complete control about ones sexuality. It's not an uncommon practice to dictate the birth control intake of the abused and get them pregnant on purpose. Twisted individuals that want pure control over someone else. You wouldn't wanna bring up a child in this environment. But could you go to the police and declare this as rape? This is where it starts to get difficult. But this is why I personally think it is very important to give all women the choice to decide against carrying a pregnancy to term. Because life isn't black and white. And you never know what's going on behind the curtain of ones relationship, personal life, health or mental health. These issues can be very complex. And while unfortunately there will be a minority of women using abortion as some form of birth control, it's a tough thing to even think about for the majority of women.
Kiwi in IE wrote: » Do you prefer the current culture? Where abortion still happens, only women have to travel to obtain it, only the very poor or sick have no access, and every now and then a tradgedy happens, or a disgraceful situation where a woman's human rights have been breached is dragged through the European Human Rights Court, making the country look like a theocratic, misogynistic backwater on the international stage?
Thirdfox wrote: » And I too have tried to look at it from a scientific (with a humanist bent) view - spiritual doesn't fact in the argument at all in my household. The scientific view is one that throws up 1 of my 2 key problems with abortion - that of imposing an arbitrary limit on the availability of abortions. As I've posted on the humanities side of boards (I'm not usually found perusing AH to be honest!) while as a lawyer, I understand the need for arbitrary time limits on certain activities - drinking age, driving age, voting age, age of consent etc. for human life - I find this arbitrariness highly troubling. Why is a 12 week 0 day 0 hour 0 minute 1 second foetus "unabortable"? What has intrinsically changed from 1 second ago that made this "thing" deserving of legal protection and not 1 second ago? For the drinking age - you can say bad luck, come back next year when you're old enough...for the time of determining when life is deserving of legal protections how do we decide, what are the distinctions (other than arbitrary) and do I trust the Irish politicians to be able to make that decision?
NuMarvel wrote: » What's hard to understand? The girl had been raped, she and her parents wanted to get an abortion, and they'd ask the Gardaf doing so would jeopardise any criminal case. It's completely understandable why they'd comply with the Gardan that instance. We must have different definitions of clearly, because you haven't shown that at all. The relevant SC judgement was that the 8th could be used to prevent travel. How have you shown that this judgement was "clearly unenforceable"?
Kiwi in IE wrote: » Car brakes don't always work either, but it'd be a bit silly to blame someone who'd been in an accident because of failed brakes and say "well you should have taken the bus this morning".
Sweetemotion wrote: » That's just being ridiculous.
Flying Fox wrote: » Because protection works the vast majority of the time. Take an example of a woman on the pill, in a relationship and having sex around twice a week. You're suggesting she should take the MAP every time she has sex just because there is slight chance her contraception will fail. A slight chance means roughly 1% chance of failure over the course of a year. Do you have any idea how unsafe it would be to take the MAP eight times a month? Or should she just keep her legs closed, wait til marriage and then pump out a baby a year til the menopause?
Specialun wrote: » they have access to the pills no. ie they can get them. i didnt say legally accessible
Flying Fox wrote: » It's really not. Suggesting the use of emergency contraception on a regular basis is though.
Sweetemotion wrote: » It is. I'm not driving my car in the morning knowing my brakes are defective. That would be stupid.
Kiwi in IE wrote: » Just as ridiculous as saying that a pregnant woman who had used contraception that failed, should have taken the morning after pill if she didn't want to be pregnant, even though she likely didn't know that the contraception had failed until she did the pregnancy test.
Sweetemotion wrote: » If I had known my brake line could have been the night before, do you think I would trust the brakes? Would you?
Consonata wrote: » The point is you don't know if its been broken.
Flying Fox wrote: » Seriously, how is this so hard to understand?
Thirdfox wrote: » What's hard to understand? The girl was in the UK already - the Gardai had no power to make her return to Ireland. We must have different definitions of clearly indeed - isn't the fact that the X case came up a clear example that the 8th amendment (as understood by the SC in the X case) is unenforceable? The girl had already travelled to the UK so how does this show anything other than the unenforceability of the SC's interpretation of the 8th amendment? The 8th didn't prevent the girl from travelling to the UK and the X case only went up to the SC because the family travelled back to Ireland voluntarily. Is it clearer to you now?
Sweetemotion wrote: » The point is I know it could have because of something I did.
Consonata wrote: » Because we need to set arbitrary time limits in order to legislate effectively. For the age to vote for example, nothing meaningful has changed between 17 and 18. Its just thats the time when you can vote. As a Lawyer, How do you propose to legislate for abortion if not by an arbitrary time limit?
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://wc.vanillicon.com/v2/cb3e473e130edbea92f4060567c2cc7f.svg)
