LirW wrote: » For me it's either condoms or progesterone only pill (which I take for a medical issue). Estrogen doesn't work for me because of said issue. When I got the prescription for it my GP told me "well you had a depressive episode before, that stuff can make you pretty depressive". Yay. Fortunately it works quite well for me but it's not particularly uplifting to get that told by your GP. Oh and copper I can't take either because my menstrual flow is too strong for it. Also as far as I'm aware, the person that committed suicide on the trial had a long history of severe mental health issues before. Hormonal birth control can enhance mental health issues in women too, especially if you have a history of depression, which is not too uncommon. But plenty of women get told from their GPs it either gets better or you have to change to something else where again you don't know how it'll work for you. That is usually a year long process for women where they experience discomfort, weight gain, changes in their skin and effects on their mental well-being. It's not a case of "ah shur something will work for everyone". Birth control and their side effects are a huge topic among women because every single woman has to deal with the birth control question somehow. EDIT: And to top that all off, the specific pill I'm taking is in short supply for a few months now, that means I can't get it in the pharmacies close to me. I'm lucky that my pharmacy would give me a knock-off but a lot of pharmacies wouldn't do that. So once they run out, you hope to get it somewhere else and if not, especially in rural areas, you have to get off your birth control temporarily which isn't particularly good for you.
One eyed Jack wrote: » That wasn't the original claim at all though. The original claim had nothing to do with adoption, it related to the numbers of children in care if we had or hadn't abortion in Ireland, and I said there was simply no way of knowing whether it would make any difference, but the evidence from other countries suggests that it doesn't. As for the rest of your post I think you really need to sit down or something. You've already called me a liar and you're still suggesting I'm an "anti-choicer" in spite of all evidence to the contrary. Sure this thread is going nowhere at this stage, I should have known better than to have bothered getting involved again. I'll leave yiz to it.
volchitsa wrote: » You know the side effects aren't worse than early female contraceptive pills right? It's just that male sexual health matters more than female apparently. Thats why abortion isn't allowed even to preserve a woman's health, while the male contraceptive pill has to have fewer side effects to be made available even when a woman's health requires that partner use reliable contraception.
....... wrote: » This post has been deleted.
grahambo wrote: » sondagefaux wrote: » A 'common sense' rant - the best kind of rant! I presume that you don't think children should be raped and that child rape should be a crime. Yes, Child Rape should be a crime sondagefaux wrote: » Did you know that it is possible under Irish law to prevent someone who wants to travel abroad to rape children from leaving the state? Yes, However it's nearly impossible to prove someone has an intention of travelling to places where sex with children is widely available/legal/turned a blind eye too sondagefaux wrote: » Did you know that it is possible under Irish law to prosecute people who return to Ireland after having raped children abroad? Yes, But I do not know how many have been successfully prosecuted sondagefaux wrote: » Given that killing babies, i.e. child murder, is more serious than child rape, do you support changes to the law which would prevent Irish women from travelling abroad to get abortions and enable them to be prosecuted if they return to Ireland after getting an abortion abroad? If not, why not? How do you prove a woman had an abortion or was even pregnant in the first place? Regardless a change in that law would be irrelevant, the case would just be taken to the EU where it would be dismissed as she as an EU citizen. Under you're argument anyone that enters the country regardless of whether they are Irish or not could be prosecuted for a crime under Irish law that was committed in another country. If a French Woman decided to have an abortion in the UK and then traveled to Ireland she could be Prosecuted under Irish Law? I can't see that ever happening. I don't think Abortion is "killing babies", however I also don't think it's "not killing babies". It's somewhere in between, that's the difficulty I suppose.
sondagefaux wrote: » A 'common sense' rant - the best kind of rant! I presume that you don't think children should be raped and that child rape should be a crime.
sondagefaux wrote: » Did you know that it is possible under Irish law to prevent someone who wants to travel abroad to rape children from leaving the state?
sondagefaux wrote: » Did you know that it is possible under Irish law to prosecute people who return to Ireland after having raped children abroad?
sondagefaux wrote: » Given that killing babies, i.e. child murder, is more serious than child rape, do you support changes to the law which would prevent Irish women from travelling abroad to get abortions and enable them to be prosecuted if they return to Ireland after getting an abortion abroad? If not, why not?
mrkiscool2 wrote: » Once again you show a lack of understanding and knowledge. Yes, it is one of the aspects to determine life but you need to have all of the aspects to be considered life. Stop arguing from ignorance. You don't have a clue about science and biology.
WhiteRoses wrote: » You are aware of course, that contraception isn't 100% reliable and can, and has, failed for many people? I genuinely don't know of any person that would choose to avail of such an invasive, emotionally and physically draining procedure such as an abortion, as a form of birth control, or in lieu of birth control. What kind of people do you keep company with if you honestly believe that this is how abortion would be treated? You are making it sound as if going for one is as casual as getting a cup of coffee. You talk about taking responsibility and "copping on". Abortion is just that, for some people. You seem to believe in the old Irish tradition of suffering in misery when there is no need. Not bringing a child you can't care for, can't cope with, can't bring up, into this world is taking responsibility, whether you like it or not. Abortion is not being irresponsible. Its far more responsible than adding another mouth to feed to the social welfare system, some might even say.
LirW wrote: » Women who don't want kids face MAJOR obstacles getting her tubes tied. Doctors wouldn't tie you when you're under 40 or have at least 3 -4 children. I asked for a tubal ligation before the C-section of my second child and the doctor said that's not going to happen since I'm not even 30.
ohnonotgmail wrote: » i see we are back to "the dirty harlots getting what is coming to them" line of discussion.
sondagefaux wrote: » Let's not call them 'prolifers'.
Let's call them what they are - weirdos.
Because they claim to believe that abortion is killing babies but don't want to do everything in their power to prevent Irish women from travelling abroad to get abortions or to prosecute Irish women who have had abortions abroad.
end of the road wrote: » the thing is it actually hasn't, as pro-choice already exists whether the 8th exists or not. the argument that the so-called pro-choice are trying and failing to defend is the argument for the availability of abortion on demand in ireland, an argument they haven't been able to defend or put up a case for.
Hotblack Desiato wrote: » sondagefaux wrote: » Let's not call them 'prolifers'. I agree as the 8th has cost some women their lives. Let's call them what they are - weirdos. Let's not. Anti-choice is accurate and not perjorative. Because they claim to believe that abortion is killing babies but don't want to do everything in their power to prevent Irish women from travelling abroad to get abortions or to prosecute Irish women who have had abortions abroad. Travelling abroad for an abortion is a constitutional right though, and there is very close to zero public appetite to change that. However Customs are seizing hundreds if not thousands of illegally imported abortion pills in the post every year. The packages helpfully have the recipient's name and address on them. The penalty is fourteen years in prison. Yet, number of convictions - ZERO. Because there would be war if they attempted to enforce this law, and they know it.
A court’s decision not to release a woman forced to spend a decade behind bars after having a miscarriage in El Salvador is an outrageous step backward for justice, Amnesty International said. Teodora suffered a stillbirth in 2007, after the rapid onset of serious pain while she was at work. Police arrested her as she lay in a pool of blood. She was later sentenced to 30 years for ‘aggravated homicide’ under El Salvador’s total ban on abortions.
Hotblack Desiato wrote: » Customs are seizing hundreds if not thousands of illegally imported abortion pills in the post every year. The packages helpfully have the recipient's name and address on them. The penalty is fourteen years in prison. Yet, number of convictions - ZERO. Because there would be war if they attempted to enforce this law, and they know it.
end of the road wrote: » because like anything in this country it would be a pointless exercise as the government does what it likes. it barely enforces any of the laws we have as it is
end of the road wrote: » i think you will find i do, more then your good self. but you continue to think otherwise if it makes you feel happy. the facts are. the unborn are human beings, at a certain time they will become alive, and therefore have a right to be allowed to develop into said life. they have a right to be protected from being killed unless it's absolutely necessary.
mrkiscool2 wrote: » No. They are not alive. You have to prove that life does not need to be able to perform homeostasis in order to be alive. Every. single. defintion of life includes the need to perform homeostasis. If something cannot perform homeostasis, it cannot be counted as life. Stop acting like you understand science and biology, you clearly don't. You just assert you do. Do you have a degree in either a. developmental biology b. medicine or c. biology? Or, I'll even be generous, have you studied for 3 years in a third-level institution in any of these courses? If not, then no, you don't know more than me. And you are showing your ignorance too. For the entire of this thread to see.
end of the road wrote: » you don't know what i do and don't know. ignorance isn'ta word that can be registered with me. the unborn baby is a being and life. therefore it has a right to be protected. that is indisputable fact.
mrkiscool2 wrote: » Until you can provide evidence that life doesn't require the ability to carry out homeostasis then we can simply ignore your statements. Because that's all they are, statements. There is no evidence behind them. And it clearly is a disputable fact. I've given you evidence that says it isn't a fact at all and you are just talking our of your ass.
end of the road wrote: » no what you gave me was opinion. you are entitled to it but that is all it was IMO.
drdeadlift wrote: » I get the feeling the majority of the repeal the 8th crowd do not have children.Having children for me made me look at this issue very differently.
volchitsa wrote: » Why do you think they don't have children? I have 3 children and had a termination on my 4th pregnancy, and while it was a very hard decision I am absolutely sure that it was the only one for us.
Edward M wrote: » volchitsa wrote: » Why do you think they don't have children? I have 3 children and had a termination on my 4th pregnancy, and while it was a very hard decision I am absolutely sure that it was the only one for us. And that's fair enough I reckon. Fair play for speaking of your situation. I'm sure, as with an earlier poster, you agonised over that decision, gave it very serious consideration and felt you had no other option. I just feel though that if abortion on demand is brought in, there will be abortions taking place where all other options won't be considered. It has me in a dilemma frankly, while I don't want anyone suffering over their pregnancy, I feel I can't just support abortion on demand just because it is available and may be the easiest option. I don't know if this point of view can be understood, but as I say, I'm in a quandry in my mind over it.
