Percy Judd wrote: » Unless the rapist holds his victim captive for 5 days after raping her, then your argument doesn't hold up.
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.
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?
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.
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?
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.
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: » "It's illegal here, but legal over there, and people are going over there, so let's legalize here".
Percy Judd wrote: » What is it then?
January wrote: » I said it was not human like, that doesn't mean to say it is not human. But it didn't look like this anyway - https://www.google.ie/search?q=12+week+fetus&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiomZremunZAhXMCMAKHU2vAUkQ_AUICigB&biw=1366&bih=637#imgrc=J-ekNKuC1LL94M:
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.)
seamus wrote: » You're conflating two issues. We're discussing rape. The 12-week proposal is separate.
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?
Percy Judd wrote: » 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?
Percy Judd wrote: » What did it look like then?
Percy Judd wrote: » Indeed I'm not. The main arguments on the pro-choice side are these rape, ffa, incest and so on. My point stands these are exceptional circumstances and if 1 in 5 pregnancies in England are terminated, then that's a lot of rape or ffa pregnancies. The truth is most of those abortions are probably just women using it as another form of contraception, deciding they made a mistake and don't want to raise a child so killing them instead (up to 24 weeks.)
pilly wrote: » It's gas the amount of new members Boards are getting out of this referendum. Strange thing is all their posts are vaguely similar. Ummm...........
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.
1. Temporarily stops the release of an egg from the ovary 2. Prevents fertilization 3. Prevents a fertilized egg from attaching to the uterus
Percy Judd wrote: » The main arguments on the pro-choice side are these rape, ffa, incest and so on.
Percy Judd wrote: » The truth is most of those abortions are probably just women using it as another form of contraception
Percy Judd wrote: » What bothers me about all this is, there's absolutely no focus or attention on preventing unwanted or unplanned pregnancies.
Percy Judd wrote: » 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.
January wrote: » BTW You'll never get true statistics anywhere of how many rape cases end up in pregnancy because not every person will reveal whether they were raped or not. Over half the women who travelled to England for an abortion last year had used at least one form of contraception to prevent pregnancy and over half were already parents. This does not sit with the anti-choice argument that women are irresponsible people who are having sex without precautions and using abortion as contraception. (Which you cannot do btw, because contraception prevents pregnancy.)
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?
BattleHardened wrote: » Interesting article in the irish times on sunday:https://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/pro-choice-canvasser-shocked-by-reaction-on-doorstep-1.3422778 Dublin 4 has typically been a liberal area. But there seems to be a disparity between the rich areas of dublin 4 and the poorer areas. The rich areas according to the article were anti-repeal while the poorer areas were pro-repeal. What are the other areas of dublin that could be considered safe in the bag for the pro-repeal side?
splinter65 wrote: » If you don’t want a baby you give it up for adoption and walk away.
JDD wrote: » Now please PLEASE answer these questions and don't just ignore them. I'm married, 41, and have three kids. If I got pregnant again I would have a 60% chance of getting a condition called placenta accretia. It can be fatal in a very small amount of cases, but it could have permanent serious health problems in a larger amount of cases. It can't be diagnosed with any certainty until you are 34 weeks pregnant. Would you allow a termination in the first 12 weeks in those circumstances? Second question. Same scenario but disregard the placenta accretia as a risk. Like most women who have been pregnant (and nearly all who have had multiple pregnancies) I have pelvic floor and abdominal weakness issues. I deal with back and hip pain every day. A fourth pregnancy would exacerbate those issues and I would have to deal with them long after the pregnancy has finished. Would you allow a termination in the first 12 weeks in those circumstances? Last question. I don't want another child. I would have to give up my job as my childcare costs would be astronomical. I love my job, I don't want to be a stay at home mother. My other children would have to make sacrifices, not just economic ones like swimming lessons or day trips, but would get less of my time too. I'm exhausted. My children would certainly pick up on the fact that I was frustrated and trapped at home. Would you truly expect me to carry the pregnancy to full term and give it up for adoption? To explain to everybody at work that I was giving the child up for adoption? Would you expect me to explain to my children that once their baby brother or sister was born I was giving it away because I didn't want it? What do you think that would do their psyche? You know, and I know, full well that that wouldn't happen. You're answer would be "once you have the baby you'd change your mind, all the sacrifices would be worth it". I tell you right now, they would not. Coming from someone who always wanted children, and I made a positive decision to have all three of my children, and yet the pros outweigh the cons by a cats whisker. The pros would not outweigh the cons where I felt forced to have a fourth child. Would you allow a termination in the first 12 weeks in those circumstances? Bear in mind, I've had my tubes tied. I've taken every precaution. But there's a 0.1% chance I could get pregnant. My third child was conceived while I was religiously on the pill, also a 0.1% chance. So it could happen. Would that make any difference - that I took every precaution (apart from never having sex with my husband again)? Please actually answer the questions. Because you are voting on something that will directly affect me.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w6.vanillicon.com/v2/6b0748b4741870baaad828fe92174b3c.svg)
