The 8th amendment(Mod warning in op)

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

"close to 100%"? So not 100% then. and if a woman just happens to fall into the fraction of a percent then that is just tough **** is it?

The unborn receiving capital punishment is not the answer either.

.......

This post has been deleted.

ohnonotgmail

Percy Judd wrote: »

Because I disagree with abortion I should just leave the discussion?
That's the general consensus around here.
Pro-life posters are ganged up on, shouted down and told to leave because they disagree with the heavily pro-abortion contingent on this website.

No because your arguments are woefully ignorant.

ohnonotgmail

Percy Judd wrote: »

I know the contraception pill is 99% effective when used correctly.
I know condoms are 98% effective when used correctly.
Combined gives close to 100% effectiveness at preventing pregnancy.

"close to 100%"? So not 100% then. and if a woman just happens to fall into the fraction of a percent then that is just tough **** is it?

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Because I disagree with abortion I should just leave the discussion?
That's the general consensus around here.
Pro-life posters are ganged up on, shouted down and told to leave because they disagree with the heavily pro-abortion contingent on this website.
Ironic that the people opposed to killing the unborn are seen as the evil ones. What a sad reflection on modern society.

Percy Judd wrote: »

I know the contraception pill is 99% effective when used correctly.
I know condoms are 98% effective when used correctly.
Combined gives close to 100% effectiveness at preventing pregnancy.

Close to but not exactly 100% and again, not everyone can use them.

eviltwin

Percy Judd wrote: »

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.

This kind of stupid and flippant remark is typical of people who know fcuk all about abortion.

If you had an abortion you wouldnt say it's an alternative to contraception. In every possible way contraception is the better option.

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

No matter how careful a woman is all methods of contraception have a failure rate. The fact that you dont know this is worrying.

I know the contraception pill is 99% effective when used correctly.
I know condoms are 98% effective when used correctly.
Combined gives close to 100% effectiveness at preventing pregnancy.

.......

This post has been deleted.

ohnonotgmail

Percy Judd wrote: »

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.

No matter how careful a woman is all methods of contraception have a failure rate. The fact that you dont know this is worrying.

SusieBlue

Percy Judd wrote: »

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

Or it shows responsible women dealing with a crisis pregnancy that they do not have the means (mentally, physically, financially or emotionally) to carry, in a way they see fit. Its their health, their life, not yours.

Percy Judd wrote: »

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

63 percent of women who travelled to England from Ireland last year were using at least one form on contraception. Contraception fails. That doesn't mean women should be forced to carry a pregnancy to term.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 ?

.......

This post has been deleted.

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%

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?

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

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

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

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.

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?

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!

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%

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.

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.