eviltwin wrote: » An inconvenience is getting a flat tyre, missing the bus, forgetting your wallet..... A pregnancy you don't want is far more than an inconvenience, as January said it's a crisis.
end of the road wrote: » so what is a pregnancy that isn't wanted then if it's not an inconvenience?cards on the table i don't like pregnancy being described as an inconvenience myself as, it's nature, however going on the poster's point, he is just talking in terms of how part of the pro-choice/abortion movement try to make pregnancy out to be as such in the aim of trying to get abortion on demand legislated for.
end of the road wrote: » ...being pregnant while it may be inconvenient...
end of the road wrote: » they are doing it because the pregnancy is inconvenient to them.
end of the road wrote: » ...said right outweighs someone's non-existant/imaginary right to kill it just because it's inconvenient...
Zubeneschamali wrote: » And still, still we get the pro-life crew pointing to reports about Savita's death and claiming that the 8th is not to blame, that the staff missed A or B and didn't do X and Y and that it would all have been grand if they had. Entirely missing the point that A, B, X and Y should have been irrelevant - as soon as staff decided that the pregnancy was ending in miscarriage and the fetus could not be saved, their focus should shift entirely to the mother's health. While here, even now, even today, they must play Russian Roulette with the woman's health until her life is demonstrably at risk. The stuff in the reports, X and Y and so forth, is about how they might have decided her life was at risk earlier than they did which is entirely beside the point that without the 8th, they would not have to wait for that condition in the first place.
Fred Swanson wrote: » This post has been deleted.
WhiteRoses wrote: » What you replied was a cop out. Your original post was completely targeted at and focused on how it’s tough sh*t on the woman and she should know better and she should suffer the consequences. I wanted to know what you feel should happen to the man and you basically replied with a cop out. I’m sure you don’t need me to tell you that a man can walk away from a pregnancy far easier than a woman can. You know, cos the baby is actually inside her. The man can just sail of into the sunset and there isn’t a whole lot the woman can do bar chase him for maintenance. So yeah. It’s clear now that you hate women.
WhiteRoses wrote: » So yeah. It’s clear now that you hate women.
end of the road wrote: » so what is a pregnancy that isn't wanted then if it's not an inconvenience? cards on the table i don't like pregnancy being described as an inconvenience myself as, it's nature, however going on the poster's point, he is just talking in terms of how part of the pro-choice/abortion movement try to make pregnancy out to be as such in the aim of trying to get abortion on demand legislated for.
Martina1991 wrote: » No it is not. That's how YOU label a pregnancy. An inconvenience to bear until the child is born. No person with compassion or empathy would call a pregnancy an inconvenience no matter what side people are on.
Da Boss wrote: » White roses appears to have nothing to say now to my reply??
Da Boss wrote: It’s no inconvenience, that’s a dehumanizing way of describing it however that’s how the pro choice side label a pregnancy
Martina1991 wrote: » I honestly can't take this post seriously. You're calling pregnancy an "inconvenience " now. A lifetime of looking after and paying for a human being is an "inconvenience". You're beyond ignorant.
Da Boss wrote: Regards the inconvenience, the life of the unborn child is much more important than avoiding a bit of inconvenience on the woman. Sure it’s unfortunate, but it’s a risk you take having sex.
WhiteRoses wrote: » Many, many intelligent points have been made to you, and you have ignored them. I'm still waiting on what you recommend the consequences be for the man who gets the woman pregnant. In your opinion, the woman needs to suffer the repercussions if contraception fails. So what should happen to the man, what kind of life limiting state should we force on him for 9 months where he cannot drink, smoke or fly, and must eat a restricted diet? He won't be able to work towards the end, either. The end of the 9 months must also be very painful, possibly involving surgery. And then after that we need to give him something he needs to be responsible for, for another 18 years minimum, that will eat into a lot of his personal time and income and will need his constant attention and care. What are your recommendations for the consequences for him? Because all you seem to be banging on about is how the woman should suffer. She can't get pregnant on her own.
baylah17 wrote: The Eight Amendment to the Constitution was the single biggest catastrophe to beset this state since its foundation. What is notable about the anti-choice anti woman headbangers who now oppose its repeal is that they have the arrogance to repeatedly say it should not be put to the people of this republic to decide on its retention/removal, they oppose the very concept of a referendum at all.
Zubeneschamali wrote: » In fairness, it seems to show that this particular nun was not loopy enough to believe in Limbo, which belief is a large part of the problem, originally. Many catholics believed that from the time they got their little souls to baptism, babies went to a part of Limbo for eternity is they died, so it was vital to save the baby long enough to baptize them so they could go to heaven. (Limbo had another wing where Noah, Moses and co. waited until Jesus died and went to get them, but that's not important right now.)
bubblypop wrote: » I posted this story before on a different thread I think, but I will post again,just in case people don't understand how the 8th amendment can affect women's health. A few years ago I had an ectopic pregnancy. I was approx 7 weeks pregnant, so most definitely a very small bunch of cells. In the hospital I was not informed that there were any options available in my treatment. I had to undergo emergency surgery, where they removed the embryo. Afterwards I spoke with a midwife, who informed me that ectopic pregnancy can be dealt with by way of a pill. This was not an option for me however because the 8th amendment made it illegal for them to 'kill' the embryo. They had to operate & the loss Of The embryo was as a consequence of operating. So, basically instead of giving me a pill, with little side affects I had to go under anaesthetic and undergo an operation which was entirely unnecessary. if it happened in any other country we here would believe them to be backward.
Zubeneschamali wrote: » There's one of them on a poster I've seen up in a few places. "The time it took to book travel to England was all the time it took to change my mind". Wealthy looking white woman with a happy, healthy baby. And posters wouldn't lie, right?
NuMarvel wrote: » This case might have gone differently if the Pro Life Amendment Campaign's suggested text had been inserted. That said: "The State recognises the absolute right to life of every unborn child from conception, and accordingly guarantees to respect and protect such rights by law."
Zubeneschamali wrote: » I don't think that is where that came from. The whole implantation thing is not based on women's health or a definition of life, it is based on the judges best read of what the term "unborn" might mean, legally. They were presented with the dog's dinner of the wording of the 8th, and had to decide what it meant. Could it protect a fertilized cell in a test tube? They decided that no, it could not, that something that had never even been near a womb could not be "unborn". This is not a consequence of judges not caring about life or women's health, it is a consequence of putting language into the Constitution which nobody in Ireland understood.
volchitsa wrote: » It was only with the death of Savita that women really began asking questions about what else the 8th was doing apart from being an ineffective ban on abortion.
One eyed Jack wrote: » Joey if you wanted to view the issue in those terms, then women should be discouraged from ever getting pregnant in the first place as they are immediately putting their lives in danger. In fact, women should just wrap themselves in linen and never leave their abode as they are immediately putting themselves in danger. I would fully expect any woman would tell me to naff off if I suggested such measures in an attempt to claim they could be putting themselves in danger otherwise.
