thee glitz wrote: » With no hint of irony :pac: Progressively?
robbiezero wrote: » Cheers for that. That is a good explanation. The "full" is a bit confusing in the slogan.
....... wrote: » This post has been deleted.
nozzferrahhtoo wrote: » None at all, but nice of you to dodge the entire post by barely taking exception to one line in it.
thee glitz wrote: » Fair enough, but that's also a poor reason. We don't just always get what we want. I doubt travelling to the UK makes an abortion unsafe (it's inherently unsafe for the baby btw), not that we should be too concerned with what they do anyway.
kylith wrote: » Of course they make it unsafe. If a woman cannot afford to stay in the UK until everything has run its course she must travel home while, essentially, having a miscarriage. Travel during this time is not recommended as there is always some risk of haemorrhage.
Women who order pills online cannot be 100% sure of what is in them, making them unsafe. If she then needs medical help (even if the pills are genuine there is some risk attached to all medications) she may be afraid to go to a doctor for fear of Irish law and it's 14 year penalty.
thee glitz wrote: » It's really the travelling (back) then when women put themselves at risk. So maybe don't take them? I don't think doctors are allowed to report that anyway, possibly they're compelled to but I haven't heard of any cases of it. It's the dealers that should be prosecuted.
kylith wrote: » thee glitz wrote: » It's really the travelling (back) then when women put themselves at risk. So maybe don't take them? I don't think doctors are allowed to report that anyway, possibly they're compelled to but I haven't heard of any cases of it. It's the dealers that should be prosecuted. Do you think that a woman would spend thousands and endure the pain of an abortion if she did not feel that it was the only option for her? This isn't a shopping trip, you know.
captbarnacles wrote: » Well there is few here who think pregnancy is about as demanding as making toast so likely they view having an abortion as even more trivial.
thee glitz wrote: » I can only deduce that you have, again, misinterpreted my post, and can't speculate as to if this was willful. If the removal of the 8th amendment would help prevent undue harm to women, it would be better to remove abortion on demand as a possible result of doing so. This is not being contemplated - what's happening is the shameless wrapping of a 'we must prevent women dying' cloak around the push for a liberal abortion regime.
Besides which - why would anyone want someone who didnt want to be pregnant be forced to (a) endure the pregnancy and (b) raise the child - thats not a good outcome for ANYONE.
Im sorry you do not believe the testimony of the various medical professionals on why travelling for abortion services is unsafe for women. The Citizens Assembly website has lots of useful links with the various testimonies from medical experts. Everyone agrees that its unsafe for women to split medical care across two jurisdictions, particularly when those jurisdictions are separated by a sea - requiring a flight to get to. You can choose to dismiss all of this evidence. But that does not mean that the evidence is not there. Even without the evidence and testimonies though - its a bit of a no brainer. Travelling immediately after a surgical procedure isnt good for anyone. Travelling while the uterus may be more susceptible to infection is risky. Travelling after taking new medication is risky. Not being able to share your medical records from a different jurisdiction with your GP leads to a break in continuation of care. There is testimony from the master of the rotunda that a woman died while travelling back after having an abortion. So I doubt travelling to the UK makes an abortion unsafe is an uninformed, ignorant and offensive remark in light of all of the evidence and testimony given at the Citizens Assembly.
I doubt travelling to the UK makes an abortion unsafe
thee glitz wrote: » We're poles apart - why not Love Both? a) I'm not (condoning) forcing anyone to become pregnant. b) A fair point, hopefully maternal instincts would kick in. I wouldn't be thrilled about leaving my child in the care of a pro-choicer. It does seem to be the travelling back... but ok, I've learned a bit today, not usually concerning myself with how or when complications arise from when people subvert the law. What's really offensive is that testimony was entertained which relates to actions undertaken outside our jurisdiction, outside because it's illegal here. That is an affront to the state.
thee glitz wrote: » a) I'm not (condoning) forcing anyone to become pregnant. b) A fair point, hopefully maternal instincts would kick in. I wouldn't be thrilled about leaving my child in the care of a pro-choicer.
Women are forced to travel for abortions
No woman would travel if she should avail of the service at home. So she does not choose to travel, she does not "put herself" at risk. She travels because she has no other choice.
Would you prefer girls sticking knitting needles up their vaginas, killing themselves, taking scalding baths while down bottles of gin and risking alcohol poisoning, back street abortionists and girls dying giving birth alone in fields? Because thats what we used to have.
Your posts are quite offensive to women you know. As well as being uninformed and ignorant.
captbarnacles wrote: » I doubt anyone whoever describes pregnancy as an inconvenience has ever spoken to a pregnant woman.
....... wrote: » Who is using it as a reason?
....... wrote: » Youre sure it happens that pregnancies can be inconvenient yet you dont know who is using it as a reason for an abortion? Im not really sure what you are trying to say tbh.
Edward M wrote: » I'm saying that abortion on demand can lead to a situation where just plain inconvenience can be used as a good enough reason for abortion.
career, finances, relationship issues,
kylith wrote: » Would you consider having to give up a career/your career meaning that childcare would not be feasible due to working hours, not being able to financially support a child, or being in a shitty/abusive relationship 'inconvenient' or 'pretty major considerations when it comes to deciding whether you would be able to adequately care for a child'?
Edward M wrote: » Of course.
Bannasidhe wrote: » Abortion on demand is already here. It's bought on the internet. It comes in pill form. Who knows what the hell is in some of those pills? Who knows what unexpected and dangerous side effects may occur? Do you want this to continue unregulated? Do you want girls and women to continue to play Russian Roulette with a tablet? Or are you against the convenience of being able to go to a trained specialist who will take a full medical history and do some tests before prescribing a safe and regulated dosage? The choice is stark and clear. Unregulated abortion on demand via the internet or regulated in accordance with best medical practice. Cos Edward - being agin it ain't gonna stop it.
kylith wrote: » So you agree that your examples of things that could make a pregnancy/child 'inconvenient' are actually major considerations to take into account when deciding if you can look after a child. Which means that they are not trivial reasons to have an abortion, yes?
Edward M wrote: » I said what I said as my feelings, my view on it, I don't judge others on my take of things, I personally have a view on it, shared by my wife BTW, but that's incidental. I'm sure the vast majority of abortions are for the right reasons in the mind of the person involved, but I don't think my conscience will allow me to vote for a right to abortion where even a tiny percentage might just be done as a dismissive inconvenience. I might have to abstain this time?
