Delirium wrote: » Contraceptives can and do fail for a number of reasons even when used properly.
J C wrote: » True ... all the more reason to behave responsibly, when it comes to sex, in the first place ... starting with the messages that the contraceptive industry promotes ... such as 'safe sex' ... when all it is is Safer Sex ... and in many cases obviously not even that.
Delirium wrote: » It would seem abstinence or sex solely to impregnate are the only options left.
J C wrote: » ... or willingness to accept an unwanted pregnancy if contraceptive use fails .
Delirium wrote: » So irresponsible sex is okay once choices are made you approve of?
J C wrote: » Where did I say that? Irresponsible sex is dangerous as well as being immoral ... sometimes a healthy pregnancy would be the least bad thing that could happen ... an incurable or life altering STD would be significantly worse IMO.
Delirium wrote: » You do realize you're jumping straight to extremes. I still can't believe that abstinence or sex solely for baby-making are the only categories of 'responsible sex'.
Delirium wrote: » Also..... Have a word with the pope :P
J C wrote: » ... fair enough ... but its not advisable ... and if it goes wrong, you will be the author of your own misfortune.
J C wrote: » Neither can I. Like I have already said, responsible sex can also involve contraceptive use ... and the willingness (and the personal circumstances) to accept an unwanted pregnancy if the contraceptive use fails.
pilly wrote: » Grand so, I'm off to post in every other forum that the Christians are banning the pro-choice people. Since its acceptable now to tell blatant lies about moderators.
Do not discuss moderation decisions in a thread. If you have an issue with the actions of a mod, please contact them via PM. If the dispute has not been resolved after this correspondence, the correct procedure is to then PM the C-mods. If the issue remains unresolved, a thread should be started on the Dispute Resolution Forum.
....... wrote: » This post has been deleted.
Timberrrrrrrr wrote: » Many would actually be too poor to stay pregnant but there you go again trying to make it out that women make these decisions on a whim without any thought:rolleyes:
J C wrote: » ... since when is somebody too poor to kill theie unborn child? ... if they really are on the breadline ... they can avail of a wide range of financial supports ranging from lone parent allowance to assistance for social services for everything from a pram to anything else their child may need. Equally, where is the father, in all of this ... shouldn't he also make a personal and financisl contribution to rearing his child? ... and in any event, if a woman cannot countenance rearing her child, for whatever reason ... she can always put it up for adoption/fosterage. Killing it for financial reasons would be an outrage IMO ... as it is totally unnecessary ... but then necessity isn't required for abortion on demand ... which is waht people are being asked to vote on. Abortion rates are inversely correlated with poverty ... and the general fertility rate is inversely correlated with income. Quote :- abortion rates are directly correlated with income. Quote:- "One of the peculiar facts the Brookings Institution pulls out is that the abortion rate is higher for the highest income bracket they looked at, which was 400 percent of the poverty rate. Single women who make $47,000 or more a year abort 32 percent of their pregnancies, whereas single women making $11,670 a year or less abort only 8.6 percent of their pregnancies. Women in the middle abort 11 percent of their pregnancies." ... so it is 'well heeled' women who have the highest abortion rates ... rates that are 4 times higher than for impoverished women. ... with one third of the pregnancies of wealthy women ending in abortion it is no exaggeration to say that they are literally 'too posh to be pregnant'.
poorer women are five times as likely to have unintended births than more affluent women. A huge chunk of the reason, they conclude, is because of the gap in abortion and contraception access
That may seem hard to square with data from the Guttmacher Institute that shows that the majority of abortions are obtained by women living in or near poverty: Nearly 70 percent of abortions are for women who make 200 percent or less of the federal poverty line.
Middle-class women may abort more of their pregnancies, but since they get pregnant way less often, they still have fewer abortions overall.
Delirium wrote: » Sex doesn't become irresponsible because contraceptives fail and an abortion happens.
J C wrote: » The main reason ... possibly the only reason, actually, that contraceptive fail, is because the sex is being conducted under less than ideal circumstances ... with participants drunk, for example ... they won't know or posibly care what they are doing. Sex with a randomer is much more likely to result in condom breakage ... and a 'pump and dump' result for the woman involved ... or possibly the man ... but he isn't also running the risk of becoming pregnant. This grossly irresponsible carry-on isn't at all rare ... its quite common actually. Having drunken sex with randomers, for example ... is most likely to end in disaster ... and its quite common out there, with 30% of 'twenty something' women admitting that they had sex with a stranger, while drunk ... this is the % of women who admit to this behaviour ... so the actual percentage is likely to be significantly higher.77% of women regret a one night stand ... which means that the figure is much higher for the total percentage who have had one-night stands (when you include the women who don't regret the practice. ... and then they expect people to vote to allow them abort their irresponsibly conceived children. Quote:-. "72% said they regret at least one person they dated while 77% wished they'd never had a one-night stand 30% said they were ashamed to admit they'd slept with a stranger when drunk."http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2273255/Drunken-sex-strangers-flaky-friends-savings-The-regrets-20-women-laid-bare.html These are English figure ... but there is no reason to believe that Irish 'comely maidens' and their sex partners, don't match or even exceed these figures.
Timberrrrrrrr wrote: » Abortion patients are disproportionately poor and low incomehttps://www.guttmacher.org/infographic/2016/abortion-patients-are-disproportionately-poor-and-low-income Denial of abortion leads to economic hardship for low-income womenhttps://www.google.co.uk/amp/uk.mobile.reuters.com/article/amp/idUKKBN1F731Z And from.your own source (i see you have been selectively quoting again JC )
Timberrrrrrrr wrote: » So you have no proof of the last part and your just guessing that you are right :rolleyes:
J C wrote: » Yes, wealthier women get pregnant less ... and abort more , when they do ... hardly a badge of honour ... in a society that is on the point of failing to reproduce itself.
Wealthy women are leaving it to their poorer sisters to provide the future citizens of our country ... and all of the sacrifice and cost with rearing children ... and then, with two large incomes coming in (and no children, in many cases) the wealthy couple enjoy an extra tax allowance of €25,550 (equivalent to €5,110 or over €100 per week extra money in their pockets) compared with a couple with children, where one parent stays home to care for them ... not much equality there between these women and these families. It is state endorsed and financially rewarded selfishness on a grand scale.... and now abortion on demand is proposed to allow these same wealthy women and their partners to continue with their childless, selfish lifestyle ... even at that cost of the lives of their unborn children.
... and all the while using poorer women as the reason for abortion on demand ... when the demand for abortion (as measured by the 30% rate of abortion amongst wealthy women) ... is actually driven by wealthy women ... and not poorer women who go through with their pregnancies in over 90% of cases. ... you couldn't make it up !!!
J C wrote: » ... from the behaviour I observe on 'nights out' in Ireland and England ... I think that the 'comely maidens' and their partners would give their English cousins a good run for their money, in the irresponsible 'binge drinking and randomer sex stakes'. The Irish pro-aborts want to abort like the English ... so there is every reason to believe that they are 'bonking' like the English as well.
pilly wrote: » Continue on JC, you're doing a great job at convincing people to repeal. The hatred for women is just dripping off your posts.
Katie Full Leak wrote: » A question... When is it right to kill another human being just because you want to?
Bob_Marley wrote: How about addressing the points properly, instead of always attacking the poster ?
pilly wrote: » Addressing what points exactly Bob? That people have one night stands? Absolutely nothing to do with the 8th unless you're purpose is to stop people having joyful sex? That richer women have abortions? Newsflash, also nothing to do with the 8th because they will continue to do so regardless. Unless the purpose of retaining the 8th is to stop the poor? How can you address ridiculous stuff like that?
NuMarvel wrote: » Judging by the silence of Irish anti-repealers, it's okay when it happens abroad or in secret.
Katie Full Leak wrote: » As an anti repealer...it's not ok full stop. So what's your opinion since youve not given one?
NuMarvel wrote: » My stance is that the poster I replied to is being deliberately incendiary and isn't interested in a proper discussion of the matter. In this country, abortion isn't regarded as the killing of another human being. If it was, anti-repealers would be saying or doing a lot more about the thousands of women who travel or the hundreds who order pills every year.
