One eyed Jack wrote: » It's a bit rich btw your asking me to stick to provable facts and a few serious studies when most of your argument as regards the repeal of the 8th amendment consists of a mere handful of high profile anecdotes
volchitsa wrote: » I don't think anyone who is not absolutely on their uppers should allow someone to look after their seven children on a regular basis and not pay them. Grandparents sometimes do it because they're their grandchildren, but if the parents can afford to pay anything at all I think it would be a decent gesture to show the grandparents are not being taken for granted. As for non related people doing it for nothing, well I suspect you're taking family legend for reality. If the neighbours were so wealthy that extra money was useless to them, it's a bit off to expect them to commit to raising not one or two but seven children. And the reality is that most people were not that well off really.
Truly bizarre. And yes, you were posting long posts earlier about single parents not expecting the state to help with child care. Like here :
As for being "determined" to make you and your parents "look bad", you posted that, not me, I didn't ask you to. No determination from me, just a personal reaction to your personal anecdote. You want to police people's reactions to your posts, but it doesn't work like that.
And if it bothers you, you can always change your posting style. Hey you could even try sticking to provable facts and a few serious studies instead.
Bannasidhe wrote: » Good Man. You keep going as you are. Sure you are doing the pro-choice side great favours with your (ever shifting) position and (strident I said it so it's true) demeanour. The comment about likes is particularly good. Very Trumpesque. I'm sure you'll get bigly likes too someday.
volchitsa wrote: » I don't think anyone who is not absolutely on their uppers should allow someone to look after their seven children on a regular basis and not pay them. Grandparents sometimes do it because they're their grandchildren, but if the parents can afford to pay anything at all I think it would be a decent gesture to show the grandparents are not being taken for granted. As for non related people doing it for nothing, well I suspect you're taking family legend for reality. If the neighbours were so wealthy that extra money was useless to them, it's a bit off to expect them to commit to raising not one or two but seven children. And the reality is that most people were not that well off really. Truly bizarre. And yes, you were posting long posts earlier about single parents not expecting the state to help with child care. Like here : [ As for being "determined" to make you and your parents "look bad", you posted that, not me, I didn't ask you to. No determination from me, just a personal reaction to your personal anecdote. You want to police people's reactions to your posts, but it doesn't work like that. And if it bothers you, you can always change your posting style. Hey you could even try sticking to provable facts and a few serious studies instead.
volchitsa wrote: » Hey you could even try sticking to provable facts and a few serious studies instead.
One eyed Jack wrote: » No, you haven't read that right. You appear to have missed the bit where I said that my neighbour never took a penny off my parents. To most people that would imply that my parents offered her money, but she wouldn't take it. Not to you of course, unsurprisingly. And no, I'm not here lecturing anyone about taking responsibility for their children, I'm here having a discussion, in which you seem desperate to make sure that not just I, but now my parents, are painted out to be terrible people. I would expect any grown adult would simply laugh at such childish nonsense, as I'm doing now. You'll just have to take my word for that too though.
One eyed Jack wrote: » Stall on there, I don't want to make women do anything. Each and every woman has a mind of their own, and I would want each and every woman to have the freedom and the resources to decide for themselves, what is best for themselves, and support them in acting in what they believe is acting in their best interests. To that end, no, I don't believe that just giving anyone money is actually helping them. In case it hasn't been made clear already and as January has been at pains to point out - child benefit of what is it now €140, or a tax free allowance of €30 per month is a mere pittance, as are any of the other welfare payments from the State such as OFPA, DCA, etc, the list goes on. Suffice to say - they don't actually teach anyone that they are perfectly capable of generating and maintaining their own wealth and therefore not being dependent upon the State. Again though - that starts before a woman is ever pregnant, and doesn't just apply to pregnant women either. There are a number of men, albeit thankfully a minority, who claim that because they cannot afford to support their children that they should either be absolved of any financial responsibility, or imagine that the State should provide for their children. They too, should be taught how to generate wealth so that should they ever find themselves in a position where they have fathered a child, they don't immediately assume that responsibility for their child is entirely either the mothers responsibility, or the responsibility of the State.
One eyed Jack wrote: » Neither of those scenarios are based upon the account I gave, and any faux outrage or stroppiness you imagine is also entirely something you've made up yourself to try and apply it to me. But I'm ok with that as your assertions don't change my position, nor my demeanour for that matter, in any way, shape or form whatsoever. Gets you a few likes though, that's important :pac:
eviltwin wrote: » And none of that has anything at all to do with keeping/repealing the 8th.
Bannasidhe wrote: » Saying it happened is not evidence. Geez. It really isn't that hard. No, it shouldn't be this tedious but some people will insist that just because they stated it then it's true. Two scenarios: Woman :" I'm pregnant and I don't know what to do...(insert personal information here)". Clinic : " Abortion might be your best option..." Woman: " I'm pregnant and I don't know what to do...(insert personal information here)". 'Clinic' : " Well if you have an abortion there is a very real chance you'll get breast cancer and become a child abuser." You presented one of those as a bad thing to make some point or other about something. You did not give any evidence the bad thing you were referring to actually happened. It may have but we don't know. If it did then what happens is the woman says "No, I don't want an abortion" so that is ruled out as an option and the remaining options can be considered. It's hardly as if the FPC said "you have to have an abortion and that's that no choice!" Seriously, woman goes to FPC, is told (presumably having outlined her circumstances) that abortion might be the best option for her is hardly outrageous. It's not like they told her if she didn't have an abortion she'll abuse the child now is it? Like I said - faux outrage on your part that you decided to share and when called on it you get all stroppy. All you have done really is undermine your own position by demonstrating you make claims you can't substantiate. But if you are ok with that so am I.
volchitsa wrote: » I was going to skip out the rest of that post, but I happened to notice this, which is irrelevant to the discussion but like... WTF??Have I read you right? Your parents worked and expected a neighbour to look after you for nothing?? Hey, my parents both worked, in the 70s when most mothers still stayed home, and they always paid for someone to look after us. Always. And here you are lecturing about people needing to take responsibility for their children. But you know what, your neighbours shouldn't have had to provide free labour for your parents. You don't think that was a free subsidy? And you're even complaining because today's pensions wouldn't be enough for those neighbours - so who do you think pays the pensions? Your parents were doubly subsidized, by the neighbours and by the state. And earning a decent wage I'm sure too.(I'm still wondering if you meant something else? I can't get my head around it.)
One eyed Jack wrote: » These women were already aware that abortion was an option. I hadn't thought I needed to spell that out too. I didn't say that anyone "listed the options available" either by the way, in your usual way of ignoring what I actually said and substituting it with whatever suits you. I said they were advised that they might be better off to have an abortion. They weren't looking to be told that they might be better off to have an abortion when they were looking for advice on continuing their pregnancy. You keep missing that bit, and whether it's on purpose or by accident I'm still not sure yet. I don't particularly care one way or the other if you aren't willing to accept my word as good enough. I do care however when you either by mistake or on purpose, misrepresent what I've actually said.
One eyed Jack wrote: » No I didn't? I offered that as evidence before you ever posted about fake abortion clinics! I was making the point in relation to young women who went to family planning clinics looking for advice about continuing their pregnancy, not looking for advice about abortion. In case it isn't yet clear - that's not the kind of advice they went there looking for, and that's not the kind of advice they wanted. Geez, plain english, it really isn't that hard, and it shouldn't be this tedious.
....... wrote: » How is listing the options available giving advice they didnt want? Are you suggesting that by informing a woman that abortion is a choice this is advice she doesnt want to hear?
One eyed Jack wrote: » I offered evidence of it. You don't accept my word is good enough and that's fair enough. I didn't question a single person who gave their accounts of their experiences
One eyed Jack wrote: » Plenty of women still can't go to the UK and we don't hear of women doing any of the things you mention above?
One eyed Jack wrote: » It appears that abortion being illegal does in fact tend to put women off the idea of considering abortion
One eyed Jack wrote: » I would be more in favour of a system that provides intervention and support long before any woman would ever get to that point, before they ever even were to become pregnant in the first place.
One eyed Jack wrote: » I would want each and every woman to have the freedom and the resources to decide for themselves
One eyed Jack wrote: » Again though - that starts before a woman is ever pregnant, and doesn't just apply to pregnant women either.
One eyed Jack wrote: » Yeah that last exchange with nozz was just painful
One eyed Jack wrote: » in a Catholic ethos school, I really wouldn't expect they'll be inviting anyone other than a religious group in to give talks on relationships and sex education.
One eyed Jack wrote: » Personally, I would suggest it's best left to the parents.
One eyed Jack wrote: » And that's why I preceded what I said with 'not necessarily', because generally the 8th isn't an obstruction to the vast, vast majority of women who are pregnant and want to continue their pregnancy and give birth and want to raise a child. That's one of the reasons I think at least from my experiences of talking to women and young girls about these issues that they simply can't relate to some of the issues raised by the existence of the 8th amendment - because it's never been an issue that they have personally been affected by, so they aren't aware of the potential issues for others. They can go all the way through pregnancy and never have to even think about the 8th amendment. I'm not going to say whether that's right or wrong, I'm just going to say I'm not in the business of scaremongering people.
Plenty of women still can't go to the UK and we don't hear of women doing any of the things you mention above? It appears that abortion being illegal does in fact tend to put women off the idea of considering abortion, and making it legal would then naturally of course mean that women would consider it.
They're slowly cottoning onto that idea in the States whereas in Ireland where we are about 20 years behind the social curve, there's now talks of introducing tax relief for hiring child minders while both parents go out to work to try and ease the financial burden of childcare. Both my parents worked and we were all practically raised by our neighbour who never took a penny from my parents, but who managed to take care of all seven of us on a State pension! Of course with every generation, expectations rise, and it would be nothing short of a miraculous achievement were a pensioner able to do that today :pac:
Bannasidhe wrote: » No. You didn't. You said "I am aware of..." That's not evidence. That is unsubstantiated hearsay.Then you claimed that because anti-abortionist 'clinics' tell lies then obvs actual family planning clinics advise abortions. Well, yes they do - as an option.
....... wrote: » This post has been deleted.
One eyed Jack wrote: » That's entirely one possibility, not the only one, which is why I didn't specify gender but rather referred to anyone who would exploit someone in that situation for their own benefit. I'm aware of it happening where young women experiencing crisis pregnancies have approached family planning clinics for advice regarding their pregnancy only to be advised that they might be better off having an abortion. That's not the kind of advice they had in mind.
One eyed Jack wrote: » I offered evidence of it.
....... wrote: » Jack - just to say that your mysterious experience does not = evidence. You still havent even told us about this unlikely experience that gives you so much exposure to crisis pregnancies yet leaves you so ignorant on then negative effects of the 8th Amendment.
kylith wrote: » If someone you admit is not dense cannot work out what you are getting at perhaps you could state it again in plain English.
Ok, so you think that counselling services will push women toward abortions, despite offering no evidence of that, and there being hard evidence of the exact opposite. I have copypasted an article from the times below so no-one will have to deal with the paywall: TLDR: Crisis pregnany ‘counsellor’ tells woman that abortion will give her cancer, turn her into an abuser, lies about abortifactant pill, shows pictures of 20 week termination.
Untrue. Because of the 8th a pregnant woman can have procedures such as episiotomies and c-sections performed without their consent. They can have their membranes ruptured, which is against medical best practise, to speed labour. If they try to refuse they can be brought to court. Pregnant women who are diagnosed with cancer can have treatment delayed until the cancer has spread sufficiently to be a risk to her life. Women who need medication to stay healthy may be denied that medication if they become pregnant.
No-one wants to have an abortion because it’s a terribly unpleasant procedure. No-one wants to have a root canal or a double bypass either, but if they feel that they need it they will have it. Before Irish women could travel to the UK they threw themselves down stairs, gave themselves alcohol poisoning, took scalding baths, and ruptured membranes with knitting needles. Abortion not being legal does not stop women from getting abortions, it makes abortions less safe. Since abortions being illegal doesn’t stop women having abortions wouldn’t it be better if those abortions could be done safely and legally, so that those women can get proper aftercare should anything go wrong, without having to fear legal issues?
So, you want to make women have children they can’t afford, when they don’t want to have them, but you’re also against giving them enough money that they can feel that abortion isn’t the only option for a pregnancy they can’t afford?
That’s good, not all do. And it’s a common remark on threads here about the wages gap that of course women shouldn’t expect to earn as much as men if they’re going to take all that time off to have children.
It’s still relevant to this debate. Women who never want to have children cannot be electively sterilised, and are then denied abortion in Ireland if their contraception fails.
Studies, which have already been quoted, show that more and better sex ed is linked to lower teenage pregnancy.
And if that education is lacking in the family where can they get it except school?
Currently a lot of schools draft in Accord, a Catholic agency, to do sex education. Getting a religious group in to do this is patently ridiculous.
Where are condoms available free of charge? I have never seen this outside of one free one at college rag week.
And for women who don’t qualify for a medical card things like the pill, coil, or implant is quite expensive.
end of the road wrote: » i explained why such protections should be there. the unborn doesn't magically appear at 16 weeks, it has to develop to that stage.
end of the road wrote: » if the unborn are to be protected then it is best they are protected from the start of their development.
end of the road wrote: » i haven't made any point for you. the fact is the baby has to develop, so it has to be given protection from implantation to insure that bar extreme circumstances, it's rights to grow and develop are upheld and it is not terminated via medical means.
end of the road wrote: » a nonsense argument that has no basis in terms of this discussion.
end of the road wrote: » no fail from me at all, i have given reasons why the unborn must receive protection bar extreme circumstances.
end of the road wrote: » there is no right to abortion on demand in this state nor should there.
end of the road wrote: » sentients isn't the only level on which we judge life in ireland, we recognise the rights of the would be sentient as well, to insure it can become sentient.
end of the road wrote: » your thought experiment is nonsense and has no validity, hence rightly it is ignored.
