The 8th amendment(Mod warning in op)

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.

If only there were some way to avoid unwanted/unplanned pregnancies.
Nope, I'm all out of ideas.
Legalized abortion is the only answer.

ohnonotgmail

Percy Judd wrote: »

If only there were some way to avoid unwanted/unplanned pregnancies.
Nope, I'm all out of ideas.
Legalized abortion is the only answer.

so we are back to a woman keeping her knees together?

I'm assuming if the 8th is repealed and 12-week unrestricted abortion is brought in, this will be administered using Mifepristone/misoprostol.
Can any pro-abortion people (I'm using that term since I've been labelled the provocative 'anti-choice') so why not fight fire with fire, explain to me how exactly Mifepristone terminates a fetus?
Like not wanting to see what a 12-week old fetus looks like, another inconvenient detail the pro-abortion side conveniently ignore/divert attention away from.

This drug is a progesterone blocker, which deprives the developing baby of essential nutrients and causes him/her to die of starvation. Two days later, the woman is to take 400 mg of a second drug, misoprostol, (prostaglandin) to induce contractions that will expel the dead baby.

JDD

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

Where, in my post, did I describe a foetus as a child?

If only there were some way to avoid unwanted/unplanned pregnancies.
Nope, I'm all out of ideas.
Legalized abortion is the only answer.

So your answer to my question is to stop having sex with my husband until I go through the menopause. That's actually your answer. Okay. Thanks.

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

so we are back to a woman keeping her knees together?

If she's that adamant about not wanting any more children, then the pill or coil combined with male contraception (and her age) will ensure no unplanned pregnancy.

But no, that's too much effort. Abortion is the answer. Right?

Ave Sodalis

Percy Judd wrote: »

Like not wanting to see what a 12-week old fetus looks like, another inconvenient detail the pro-abortion side conveniently ignore/divert attention away from.

Was there not several pages just shortly gone by there that addressed exactly which you claim was ignored?

Ave Sodalis wrote: »

Was there not several pages just shortly gone by there that addressed exactly which you claim was ignored?

Not really, all I can see is 1 poster describing the 12 week fetus as similar in appearance to a rubber alien toy. Google the images for yourself. This isn't just some unwanted cancerous growth you can destroy, it's another tiny human being with it's own heartbeat, head, arms, legs, fingers, toes, synapses formed in the brain, intestine, responds to stimulus ,etc.

ohnonotgmail

Percy Judd wrote: »

If she's that adamant about not wanting any more children, then the pill or coil combined with male contraception (and her age) will ensure no unplanned pregnancy.

But no, that's too much effort. Abortion is the answer. Right?

even for married woman? Does the church not believe she has a duty to her husband?

Percy Judd wrote: »

I'm assuming if the 8th is repealed and 12-week unrestricted abortion is brought in, this will be administered using Mifepristone/misoprostol.
Can any pro-abortion people (I'm using that term since I've been labelled the provocative 'anti-choice') so why not fight fire with fire, explain to me how exactly Mifepristone terminates a fetus?
Like not wanting to see what a 12-week old fetus looks like, another inconvenient detail the pro-abortion side conveniently ignore/divert attention away from.

You've been told what a 12 week fetus looks like from a person who is pro-choice.

Nobody is ignoring what an abortion does or how it happens btw, we believe that the right of the mother is more important than the right of a fetus.

SusieBlue

The adoption theory has been done to death, anyway. It just isn't a realistic or adequate way of dealing with the issue.

If we want to use adoption as an alternative to stop circa 4k abortions each year, we need to find 4k willing parents to adopt these kids.

We have had huge advancements in fertility treatments which means many couples struggling to conceive have other options. The average family size is decreasing on a regular basis.
Adoption is a rarity, only 5 domestic adoptions occurred in Ireland in 2016.

So the reality is that we will actually have an extra 4k children stuck in foster care. A foster care system that cannot cope with what they are already dealing with. And the only people who will suffer and bear the burden are the children resigned to this fate through no fault of their own.
A life in foster care, hoping to be adopted is no life for a child.

Its a moot point anyway because it doesn't solve the issue of women who do not want or cannot remain pregnant. Women are not vessels for supplying children to those who cannot have them. She should not have to gestate a pregnancy for someone else's gain.

Percy Judd wrote: »

If she's that adamant about not wanting any more children, then the pill or coil combined with male contraception (and her age) will ensure no unplanned pregnancy.

But no, that's too much effort. Abortion is the answer. Right?

Again, you're assuming that every woman can use the pill or the coil. In some cases there are women who cannot use any form of contraception.

January wrote: »

Again, you're assuming that every woman can use the pill or the coil. In some cases there are women who cannot use any form of contraception.

What % of women cannot use the pill or coil?

JDD

Percy Judd wrote: »

If she's that adamant about not wanting any more children, then the pill or coil combined with male contraception (and her age) will ensure no unplanned pregnancy.

But no, that's too much effort. Abortion is the answer. Right?

I was on the pill before my last pregnancy, conceived at the age of 40. What can I say, I appear to be incredibly f***** fertile. You're correct, we could increase the chances of me not getting pregnant by using condoms. But given lightening has stuck me once, forgive me if I don't believe in the absolute of saying you'll absolutely never get pregnant if you double up on the contraception.

WhiteRoses wrote: »

The adoption theory has been done to death, anyway. It just isn't a realistic or adequate way of dealing with the issue.

If we want to use adoption as an alternative to stop circa 4k abortions each year, we need to find 4k willing parents to adopt these kids.

We have had huge advancements in fertility treatments which means many couples struggling to conceive have other options. The average family size is decreasing on a regular basis.
Adoption is a rarity, only 5 domestic adoptions occurred in Ireland in 2016.

So the reality is that we will actually have an extra 4k children stuck in foster care. A foster care system that cannot cope with what they are already dealing with. And the only people who will suffer and bear the burden are the children resigned to this fate through no fault of their own.
A life in foster care, hoping to be adopted is no life for a child.

Its a moot point anyway because it doesn't solve the issue of women who do not want or cannot remain pregnant. Women are not vessels for supplying children to those who cannot have them. She should not have to gestate a pregnancy for someone else's gain.

Yep, there is no other solution except legalized abortion. If only there was some way to prevent or minimize unplanned/unwanted pregnancies.. hmm.. And before anyone says the government is considering free contraception, this is already free in England and 1 in 5 pregnancies there are terminated.

Percy Judd wrote: »

If she's that adamant about not wanting any more children, then the pill or coil combined with male contraception (and her age) will ensure no unplanned pregnancy.

But no, that's too much effort. Abortion is the answer. Right?

Did you even read the post?
She has taken every precaution. Nothing is 100%

Experience_day

JDD wrote: »

Where, in my post, did I describe a foetus as a child?

.

Your quote:

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?

So you recognise it will become a child.....you mention the fact it would someone's brother or sister........

Yet try and draw a distinction between a foetus and a child? Some mind boggling gymnastics there!

SusieBlue

Percy Judd wrote: »

Yep, there is no other solution except legalized abortion. If only there was some way to prevent or minimize unplanned/unwanted pregnancies.. hmm..

Do you honestly believe that every woman who has procured an abortion has never heard of or used contraception?
You are aware that contraception can fail?

And I also note how you have no concern for the lives these children will be born into, you aren't pro life, you are pro birth.
Who cares what happens to the child so long as the woman gets punished by forcing her to carry a child she doesn't want, is that it?

bubblypop wrote: »

Did you even read the post?
She has taken every precaution. Nothing is 100%

No she hasn't. You are wrong. She was just on the pill.

Percy Judd wrote: »

Yep, there is no other solution except legalized abortion. If only there was some way to prevent or minimize unplanned/unwanted pregnancies.. hmm.. And before anyone says the government is considering free contraception, this is already free in England and 1 in 5 pregnancies there are terminated.

Well that should show you how often contraception fails then

Experience_day wrote: »

Your quote:

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?

So you recognise it will become a child.....you mention the fact it would someone's brother or sister........

Yet try and draw a distinction between a foetus and a child? Some mind boggling gymnastics there!

Does anybody not recognise that a foetus may become a child?
Everyone knows that !
But it's not a child when it's a twelve week old foetus

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

Percy Judd wrote: »

What % of women cannot use the pill or coil?

Am I the encyclopedia of knowledge or something like that? It doesn't matter what percentage of women cannot use the pill or coil (or the injection, the implanon, the nuva ring, the evra patch... why are you so fixated on the pill and the coil?) but there is a percentage that cannot, and also a percentage that are allergic to condoms also. It may be a small percentage but it's still a percentage of the population that cannot control their fertility using conventional birth control methods. So what's their option? Let me guess, close their legs?

Percy Judd wrote: »

No she hasn't. You are wrong. She was just on the pill.

She said she has her tubes tied now.
Still not 100%

.......

This post has been deleted.

gctest50

Percy Judd wrote: »

If she's that adamant about not wanting any more children, then the pill or coil combined with male contraception (and her age) will ensure no unplanned pregnancy.

But no, that's too much effort. Abortion is the answer. Right?

So if you buy a new car with ABS, Traction Control, Lane departure, good tyres etc - you won't need any of that insurance then ?

Experience_day wrote: »

Your quote:

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?

So you recognise it will become a child.....you mention the fact it would someone's brother or sister........

Yet try and draw a distinction between a foetus and a child? Some mind boggling gymnastics there!

That's silly logic.
If someone has 3 children, and 1 of them is killed. The other 2 children will obviously have more time/attention/money available from their parents. It doesn't give you the right to kill off 1 of your children.

JDD

Yet try and draw a distinction between a foetus and a child? Some mind boggling gymnastics there!

No. I was very careful with that. Every time I mentioned child in my post, it was in reference to a born child. I knew someone would jump on that, so I was very careful. It wasn't gymnastics, it was an accurate description of my beliefs.

No she hasn't. You are wrong. She was just on the pill.

So if I had also used condoms and the condom split, would you have been okay with me getting a termination.

And by the way, you didn't answer Question 1 or Question 2. Don't avoid them please.

Percy Judd wrote: »

That's silly logic.
If someone has 3 children, and 1 of them is killed. The other 2 children will obviously have more time/attention/money available from their parents. It doesn't give you the right to kill off 1 of your children.

That's a ridiculous analogy only used by a forced birther.

bubblypop wrote: »

Well that should show you how often contraception fails then

No it doesn't. It shows how careless English women are about not using contraception and getting pregnant knowing they can easily abort if they decide to have unprotected sex and become pregnant.