Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

The 8th amendment(Mod warning in op)

1305306308310311332

Comments

  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,514 ✭✭✭Virgil°


    Percy Judd wrote: »
    Unless the rapist holds his victim captive for 5 days after raping her, then your argument doesn't hold up.

    And if he does? Then what? Just deal with it? A rape comittee?:rolleyes: Its exactly the opposite i'm afraid. In this case the exceptions make your position untenable.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 68,190 ✭✭✭✭seamus


    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.
    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.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 23,862 ✭✭✭✭January


    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?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 49 Percy Judd


    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?

    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?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 49 Percy Judd


    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?

    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.
    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.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 23,862 ✭✭✭✭January


    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?

    You're wrong there, both free contraception and better sexual health education is being proposed by the government as an add-on to any legislation they are bringing into effect.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 40,912 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    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.

    that has already been explained within the last 2 pages. The citizens assembly explained it in their report.


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 9,005 ✭✭✭pilly


    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...........


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 23,862 ✭✭✭✭January


    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.

    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.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 49 Percy Judd


    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.

    What is it then?


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,686 ✭✭✭✭Zubeneschamali


    Percy Judd wrote: »
    "It's illegal here, but legal over there, and people are going over there, so let's legalize here".

    The point is that it was illegal for people to travel to the UK for an abortion, or to circulate information about abortion in the UK, and we changed the Constitution to make it legal.

    Yet we still kept it illegal here, because "Not while you're under my roof, young lady!", that's why.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 23,862 ✭✭✭✭January


    Percy Judd wrote: »
    What is it then?

    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:


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 49 Percy Judd


    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:

    What did it look like then?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 68,190 ✭✭✭✭seamus


    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.)
    You're conflating two issues. We're discussing rape. The 12-week proposal is separate.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 23,862 ✭✭✭✭January


    It's hard to describe without sounding crass tbh. Have you seen one? I'd liken it to one of those little aliens you used to get in pods with slime around it years ago when we were kids.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 49 Percy Judd


    seamus wrote: »
    You're conflating two issues. We're discussing rape. The 12-week proposal is separate.

    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.)


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,279 ✭✭✭NuMarvel


    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?

    It isn't just because someone travels. It's that no one wants to stop them. To the point that we voted to put the freedom to travel for an abortion above the unborn's right to life, as I said in the part of the post you edited out.

    That's what makes abortion different from most other illegal activities in Ireland; it's the only one where being able to do it abroad is constitutionally protected.

    Tell me, if you knew someone was going to have an abortion abroad, would you try to stop them?
    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?

    Education and increased access to contraceptives were recommendations of both the Citizen's Assembly and the Joint Oireachtas Committee, so you're wrong on that point. And many campaigners for repeal have called for these measures for some time.

    The only people who say nothing about these are anti-repealers. And some of them, eg the Catholic Church are outright opposed to them.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,653 ✭✭✭✭amdublin


    Percy Judd wrote: »
    What did it look like then?

    I'm going to go out on a limb and assume that the poster had a miscarriage around 12 weeks. It seems wrong to me to ask them to describe what they miscarried. Why no empathy?

    Why does it feel like prolifers are all about punishing women over and over.

    But hey if you're into that sort of thing. My mam told me about a miscarriage she had at the age of 24 at six months gestation. She said she went to the bathroom and she felt like her insides had fallen out of her and she was so petrified scared because she thought she was dying. I didn't ask her what it looked like sorry.


  • Posts: 18,749 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    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.)

    The main argument on the pro choice side is that women should have the right to choose what to do with their own body.
    The main argument on the pro repeal side is that the 8th amendment is detrimental to the health of women.
    Maybe you should read this thread & understand some of the issues that come into being because of the 8th.

    Oh & abortion cannot be used as contraception, I suggest a dictionary.
    FYI, not all women can take the morning after pill, I know I cannot


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,920 ✭✭✭✭Frank Bullitt


    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...........

    You would think they would have just used the same ones they used to argue against same sex marriage.

    Silly billies.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,109 ✭✭✭Oldtree


    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.

    The morning after pill does the following 3 things (yes I looked it up to educate myself)
    1. Temporarily stops the release of an egg from the ovary

    2. Prevents fertilization

    3. Prevents a fertilized egg from attaching to the uterus

    Yes, a fertilised egg and fertilisation occurs in the fallopian tubes. So is this or is this not an abortion that you agree with?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,363 ✭✭✭nozzferrahhtoo


    Percy Judd wrote: »
    The main arguments on the pro-choice side are these rape, ffa, incest and so on.

    If you say so. It is not my main argument. In fact it is not one of my arguments AT ALL. My ENTIRE pro-choice argument in fact does not mention rape, ffa, or incest at all. And in fact I have no moral or ethical issues with incest at all. Nor has anyone, on long threads on that subject, suggested why I might or should.

    I do not think rape ffa and incest are required to make a solid and coherent argument on the subject of pro choice abortion whatsoever.
    Percy Judd wrote: »
    The truth is most of those abortions are probably just women using it as another form of contraception

    How can that be "truth" when abortion, simply by definition, can NOT be a form of "contraception". Is it possible you are not actually aware of what contraception actually means?
    Percy Judd wrote: »
    What bothers me about all this is, there's absolutely no focus or attention on preventing unwanted or unplanned pregnancies.

    Isn't there? A lot of people, myself included, have focused on it quite a lot, including on this very thread.

    In fact I have written quite long appeals to both sides of the abortion debate explaining how we should not, as emotive as abortion is as a topic, lose sight of the common ground we share on both sides of abortion. Which is that generally everyone, on both sides of that issue, actually want less abortions happening.

    And I have discussed at great length how in my experience (as I can only speak for myself here) the push back I get against initiatives aimed at reducing unwanted pregnancies comes FROM the people who are against abortion. Which seems to make no sense to me.

    But for example we have people against abortion, including one vocal but very poorly argues one on this thread, who want to do away with social welfare, single parent allowance, and child allowance. So the very financial aid that would help women who feel financially pressured into abortion as their only option.......... is to be removed but abortion is too. Talk about having your cake AND eating it AND making sure no one else can eat it too. All from the selfish mouth of someone who simply does not want to see HIS tax money spent in any way on OTHER peoples kids.

    Another example is how people like myself push for longer, more comprehensive and MUCH earlier sexual education as part of the core school curriculum. Why is it whenever I suggest such a thing almost the ONLY people who say it is a bad idea..... usually under some non-sequitur nonsense about protecting the "innocence" of children (still do not see the connection myself)........ are people who are themselves against abortion. Why do I almost never see pro-choice people complain about sex education in kids?

    We also heavily tend to suggest things like removing VAT from contraceptives and morning after solutions, and making them easier to access. And also push for a consciousness raising campaign for parents to teach them that "the talk" with their kids needs not to be "THE talk" but an ongoing iterative conversation that starts from an early age and goes on for years.

    So I do not think "The focus now is solely on abortion as the solution.". Abortion is not the solution. Abortion is a CHOICE. And those of us who are pro-choice but ALSO want little or no abortions happening also concentrate heavily on making sure there are other useful choices that are accessible.

    The question is why do people push back against those solution and suggestions and why, in my experience at least, does that push back come from people AGAINST abortion. How can they be against abortion AND the solutions to reducing it at the same time.
    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.

    I am intimately aware of the stages of the entire gestation process myself. Not just the pictures of it, but the processes, changes, stages, and much more. So, for me at least, your "I know you probably won't" simply does not apply at any level whatsoever. I am probably more informed on the subject than all but 10 or 12 users on this forum.

    And I simply see no moral or ethical issues with abortion of a 12 week gestated fetus. So rather than tell us "go look it up", how about YOU go look it up, and tell me what attributes specifically (rather than a general description you offered) should be triggering the concerns you appear to think should be triggered.

    I certainly do not see why "reflexes" is a mediation point for anything at all. Though we do have a user around here who was mightily impressed by a paper on how the tongue waggles when you play music at the fetus. Unfortunately in trying to describe what the movement LOOKS like the author says it looks like "trying to speak".

    But alas the user appears to have read that as the fetus WAS trying to speak, rather than making movements similar to those of trying to speak. And got rather emotive on the subject of abortion as a result.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 23,862 ✭✭✭✭January


    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.)

    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.)


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,677 ✭✭✭PhoenixParker


    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.)

    The fact that most are already parents suggests that most of those availing of UK abortion services are more than familiar with the development levels of fetuses at various stages of gestation, contrary to the pro-life statements made above.

    In general it's the pro life side who I've seen making incorrect statements about how menstruation and pregnancy work. Basic things like weeks gestation, eg stating that a woman who is 12 weeks pregnant has possibly known of her pregnancy for 12 weeks, irregular cycles and how common they are. Or the big one for me seeming to believe that pregnancy, childbirth and raising an additional child are merely inconvient (because women get abortions for "convenience reasons") instead of the overwhelming, permanently life altering reality.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,210 ✭✭✭Pedro K


    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?

    Did you read the report of the joint Oireachtas committee?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25 BattleHardened


    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?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,279 ✭✭✭NuMarvel


    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?

    It broadly was similar during canvasses for the marriage equality referendum. We got a better reception in the working class areas; Ringsend, Irishtown, etc than in the more illustrious addresses. I think there was a noticeable difference in the tallies for individual polling stations in the constituency as well, though even the lowest results were still clearly yes.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 21,730 ✭✭✭✭Fred Swanson


    This post has been deleted.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,580 ✭✭✭JDD


    splinter65 wrote: »
    If you don’t want a baby you give it up for adoption and walk away.

    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.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 359 ✭✭Experience_day


    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.


    So you recognise as a child (your words) but would still weigh up your job as being more important than its life?


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement