Percy Judd wrote: » "It's illegal here, but legal over there, and people are going over there, so let's legalize here".
January wrote: » I've looked at a 12 week fetus in real life thanks, I know what they look like and it's not a human like at all.
Percy Judd wrote: » Let me ask you both, as previous poster asked but was not answered. What percentage of pregnancies are a result of rape? And why is abortion being opened up to everyone with no restrictions up to 12 weeks because of these exceptional circumstances? (rape, ffa, etc.) And fyi I don't believe the unborn should pay the price for the actions of a rapist. Look up an image of a 12 week fetus (I know you probably won't, those in favour of abortion are generally afraid of the realities of what they're campaigning for) and tell me that's not a human life. This is the status of a 12 week fetus.
Percy Judd wrote: » Just because someone travels to another country to engage in activities that are illegal in their own country, does not automatically mean those activities should be legalized in their own country. That seems to be the logic here. "It's illegal here, but legal over there, and people are going over there, so let's legalize here". There are lots of differences in laws between countries, if we legalized in Ireland everything that was legal in every other country in the world then the country would not be a very nice place. For instance, age of consent is 13 in Japan, should we lower ours to 13 just because it's legal there? What bothers me about all this is, there's absolutely no focus or attention on preventing unwanted or unplanned pregnancies. The focus now is solely on abortion as the solution. I'm sure women don't like having abortions, and would prefer if the pregnancy never happened. It can't be a nice thing to go through, and can result in psychological damage and guilt afterwards. Why is there no focus on educating both men and women on proper contraception use and the consequences of unprotected sex. Why is abortion being so heavily marketed instead?
seamus wrote: » So your argument is that it's a rape victim's fault if she doesn't go and get the MAP after being raped. You clearly have a black-and-white view of the world that you can't consider the human element in a rape attack - in fact in any kind of assault. Victims often don't and can't be expected to act in a rational manner after they've been violated. Punishing them for failing to have a crystal clear mind and go seek out appropriate treatment though is pretty typical of a pro-life mindset. It's rare you find a vocal pro-life person who is capable of actual empathy.
January wrote: » The MAP is only effective to 95% if taken within 24 hours, it is 89% effective if taken within 72 hours and it goes down from there. If a person doesn't know they've been raped (yes, it happens, people are drugged then raped and only find out days/weeks afterwards, you know possibly when they find out they're pregnant?). So, if they're raped and the morning after pill fails, or they're raped and cannot take the morning after pill because, believe it or not, it is not suitable for every single person in the world to take, then what?
The most dramatic development this week: reflexes. Your baby's fingers will soon begin to open and close, his toes will curl, his eye muscles will clench, and his mouth will make sucking movements. In fact, if you prod your abdomen, your baby will squirm in response, although you won't be able to feel it. His intestines, which have grown so fast that they protrude into the umbilical cord, will start to move into his abdominal cavity about now, and his kidneys will begin excreting urine into his bladder. Meanwhile, nerve cells are multiplying rapidly, and synapses are forming furiously in your baby's brain. His face looks unquestionably human: His eyes have moved from the sides to the front of his head, and his ears are right where they should be. From crown to rump, your baby-to-be is just over 2 inches long (about the size of a lime) and weighs half an ounce.
NuMarvel wrote: » I struggle to see how it's better for the unborn that abortions are carried out overseas than here. No one else has been able to adequately explain it, do you want to take a shot?
Percy Judd wrote: » What? Who doesn't know that sex might result in pregnancy? You're not giving women or rape victims much credit there. Unless the rapist holds his victim captive for 5 days after raping her, then your argument doesn't hold up.
Percy Judd wrote: » Unless the rapist holds his victim captive for 5 days after raping her, then your argument doesn't hold up.
seamus wrote: » So if a rape victim doesn't consider the possibility that she might be pregnant and then later discovers that she is, then tough sh1t? How very humanitarian of you.
Percy Judd wrote: » The morning after pill is effective at preventing pregnancy up to 5 days after intercourse and legal and readily available to rape victims.
A woman, who asked for the morning-after pill, was refused the pill after the pharmacy accused her of lying about being raped. ... Pharmacies are allowed to refuse morning-after pills, along with other medical tablets, if they feel it affects their conscience.Source.
Percy Judd wrote: » We are going the direction of England where 1 in 5 pregnancies end in abortion.
Percy Judd wrote: » The morning after pill is effective at preventing pregnancy up to 5 days after intercourse and legal and readily available to rape victims. Rape is not a valid argument for abortion in my opinion.
January wrote: » Maybe I'm naive but I like to take people at face value, it is possible someone has changed their mind when they realise that the only way rape victims are going to have access to abortion is if they don't have to jump through hoops to get it. Like that awful rape committee thing that was discussed earlier in the thread. If the person is not genuine then oh well, that's their beef.
Sweetemotion wrote: » You have just changed some ones view on the Internet. I have never thought of it like that.
pilly wrote: » You don't actually believe that from someone who was telling people to close their legs in an earlier post?
January wrote: » Have I? I'm absolutely delighted to hear that.
Edward M wrote: » I don't think my position is unique in Ireland. I don't agree with the eighth amendment, I'm voting repeal. I know fully what is the most likely scenario after repeal is passed, I don't agree with abortion on demand either, but the fact that abortion is available by travel anyway, and abortion pills are being imported and used here illegally also. Despite what may be thought of me, I also respect others views, if they feel they are happy with abortion on demand then that's their entitled view also. Our legislators ultimately will make the decision on what comes after repeal, if repeal is passed. I have my views on what that should be, others have theirs. Whatever that ends up as is what I will ultimately have to live with, I might not agree with it, but as a democrat, I think anyway, I will settle for that. I honestly don't care if you think I might be a member of Iona or not.
captbarnacles wrote: » Edward will be voting no and it's obvious at this stage he is not seriously debating it. If he were a fully paid up subscriber to Iona it would not be a shock.
January wrote: » The citizens assembly and the JOC decided on 12 weeks on request so that it allows rape and incest victims to obtain an abortion without having to disclose the reason for the abortion. It's hard to prove rape and it retraumatises victims further having to relive the experience.
Edward M wrote: I know, that's the way I see it though. I don't place the baby's right to life above or even equal to the mothers, the mothers health should always be primary, if she's raped or incestuously abused But I do place the baby's right to life above the woman's choice if her health isn't compromised.
Sweetemotion wrote: » Close your legs.
Sweetemotion wrote: » But it is that simple.
Sweetemotion wrote: » Amend the 8 tomorrow for rape, incest, fatal fetal abnormality and if the mothers life in danger and it would pass by 99%.
ohnonotgmail wrote: » I'm going to row back on this because my memory of the 21st amendment was a little hazy. The 21st amendment did not get rid of capital punishment. There was no constitutional amendment required to get rid of capital punishment. Capital punishment had already been abolished in 1990 by statute. The 21st amendment prevents the government from reintoducing capital punishment.
