Odhinn wrote: » ...the miss Y case in 2014, the dead woman kept alive on a respirator.....
Hotblack Desiato wrote: » Do you mean the one 34 years ago where many of the Yes voters have since died? The one that everyone currently of reproductive age had no say in?
volchitsa wrote: » You misunderstand. You said that we could have a new law which would give the 12 week old fetus "the same rights as everyone else". That isn't actually the case at the moment, (despite what prolife at the time thought they were doing) because of the clause that says "as far as is practicable". If we did as you suggested, that is exactly what would happen : I'm not allowed to kill you to save my own life (let's say I need your liver) so a woman with a fetus over 12 weeks would not be allowed to kill it in order to save her own life either. Otherwise it wouldn't have the same rights as everyone else.
markodaly wrote: » Yet, you are prepared to hand them the keys to determine the how the unborn are treated.
markodaly wrote: Which was resolved as per the law. Moving the goal posts though.
Hotblack Desiato wrote: » Yeah cause if you get cancer when you're pregnant it's obviously your own fault :rolleyes:
Shenshen wrote: The woman who has just been diagnosed with cancer and has to delay the chemo that might save her life because she also found out she's pregnant? end of the road wrote: the third one would definitely come under the abortion in extreme circumstances, which i am willing to support even though i don't agree with abortion, as the mother's life is ultimately under threat
end of the road wrote: the third one would definitely come under the abortion in extreme circumstances, which i am willing to support even though i don't agree with abortion, as the mother's life is ultimately under threat
Hotblack Desiato wrote: Or maybe she was 'asking for it' if she got raped.
You have a low opinion of women but so do many of your fellow travellers.
Edward M wrote: » ACH, that's not very fair. People have concerns about abortion on demand, based on a whim rather than a necessity.
Where did anyone say that anyone raped was asking for it.
There are probably a great amount of unwanted pregnancies where more responsible behaviour would have prevented them.
Edward M wrote: » Maybe I worded it wrongly. Based on just wanting to get rid of the baby perhaps because it brings complications in to their life they don't want. Such as perhaps, career, finances and just plain being tied down to baby minding. There can be many reasons for it, I'd need a page to list them all and you know it. The post was in response to a fairly accusing post, an unhelpful post really that points to ignorance of anyone who opposes abortion on demand. Just to edit, abortion on demand up to 12/16 weeks, which ever, doesent have to be based on anything other than any whim as I originally said!
thee glitz wrote: » wtf is this
Odhinn wrote: » Right. If a woman is prepared to terminate a pregnancy because she doesn't want to be tied down to baby minding, does that really strike you as somebody that should have a child?
Hotblack Desiato wrote: » You suggested that abortion is the result of 'personal irresponsibility' whatever that is.
Edward M wrote: » She doesent have to rear the child though, she can put it up for adoption.
Odhinn wrote: » There are people who have suffered untold horror in their early lives because of unsuitable mothers and the failure of the state to provide any decent alternative. If somebody unsuitable for motherhood has the abortion option open, it help solve the problem.
Hotblack Desiato wrote: » The idea that women would seek abortion on a whim is idiotic, and highly offensive. That bit about how personal responsibility can prevent unwanted pregnancy. Personal responsibility does not prevent rape. Perilously close to 'slut shaming' but let's run with it. Much earlier and better sex education is needed along with better access to contraception - preferably free. Catholics who are oh so concerned about abortion are blocking the things which reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies.
thee glitz wrote: » It's your phrase...
Also, my views make me a traveller, thus explaining my low opinion of women?
thee glitz wrote: » And there's probably a high correlation between unsuitable mothers and women who would have an abortion for selfish reasons.
Edward M wrote: » I've lived over fifty years, in different times growing up I know, but I've seen young girls going to england all my life, not always their own choice even, forced to by family and uncaring boyfriends who didn't want the stigma or the responsibility at the time. I've also seen young women, helped by family and their baby's father, sometimes even when the relationship had ended, have and bring up happy children with the mother being happy in the situation they are in. I just feel that the foetus, which I believe to be a human form, should have to suffer the consequences of irresponsible behaviour that leads to their conception. I know, you think that's me showing disrespect for women and the choices some make, that's not true though, I presume the amount of abortions would be small percentage wise as compared to birth, but abortion on demand would I believe lead to a small percentage of girls aborting on no more than a whim and the fact that they just can.
Hotblack Desiato wrote: » Why should she be forced to complete a pregnancy to get to that point?
end of the road wrote: » Hotblack Desiato wrote: » Why should she be forced to complete a pregnancy to get to that point? because the unborn have a right to live.
volchitsa wrote: » Based on what exactly? 5apart from the law which ca be changed). Because if it is that self evident, then why aren't there autopsies every time a woman has a miscarriage? It seems to be more about preventing a woman from deciding about her own pregnancy rather than any actual concern for the unborn.
markodaly wrote: » Laws are easily change but the constitution is not. As I said, there is no protection for the unborn if the 8th is repealed, so a law could be brought in where anyone can abort a baby up to the day before they are due for any reason.
markodaly wrote: » People do not trust the politicians as much you think they do. So, there should be an additional amendment protecting the life of the unborn, from 12 weeks. Saying, leave it in the hands of future politicians is not good enough.
end of the road wrote: » because the unborn have a right to live.
Hotblack Desiato wrote: » Nope the 'personal responsibility' phrase was yours. Care to clarify?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fellow_traveller :rolleyes: this is a common English language phrase, I am not buying into your claim to not know what it means.
Hotblack Desiato wrote: » Again the low opinion of women. What is the evidence for your rush to judgment?
end of the road wrote: » volchitsa wrote: » Based on what exactly? 5apart from the law which ca be changed). Because if it is that self evident, then why aren't there autopsies every time a woman has a miscarriage? It seems to be more about preventing a woman from deciding about her own pregnancy rather than any actual concern for the unborn. no it's about concern for the unborn, and insuring their rights and protections remain.
end of the road wrote: » no it's about concern for the unborn, and insuring their rights and protections remain.
NuMarvel wrote: » That right is already subject to a number of exceptions, eg a woman's' freedom to travel for an abortion elsewhere. At the very least, a woman's right to bodily autonomy early in the pregnancy should have the same status as being able to get on a boat or a plane.
volchitsa wrote: » So women who drink too much can be arrested? Or smokers? Or women who go horse riding or eevn cycling and have an accident - what about the rights of their unborn? Zilch?
Odhinn wrote: » No, they were problems which had to be resolved through the courts because of the amendment, and the end in the miss y case was exactly the debacle predicted some years ago.
