The 8th Amendment Part 2 - Mod Warning in OP

Annasopra · 14-04-2018 03:42PM

Nettle Soup wrote: »

I actually reckon nobody will take any notice or be swayed by any of the posters. This issue has been thrashed out so much that people know its way more complex than an 80s style poster.

These posters are not 80s style at all!

Madscientist30 · 14-04-2018 03:44PM

amdublin wrote: »

petalgumdrops wrote: »

Because a poster implied unless I.was an illegal immigrant or a refugee that I had the choice to travel

I'm completely confused!

I'm assuming you did have the choice to travel.

Are you saying you didn't??

I understood that she was not in a (financial?) position to travel and that is why she is saying the 8th saved her baby, cause she would have had a termination in Ireland otherwise (though it is not clear whether she or the doctors would have rechecked before proceeding).

Triceratops Ballet · 14-04-2018 03:45PM

Petalgumdrops, I don't think anyone is trying to have a go at you, I think people are genuinely confused, I know I am.

You say the 8th saved your baby, which is fair enough and obviously the fact that your baby was born in good health is fantastic.
What is not clear is HOW the 8th saved your baby, it seems to me that good medicine and sound decision making saved your baby, those things exist independently of the 8th amendment so I can't see the link.

Madscientist30 · 14-04-2018 03:46PM

petalgumdrops wrote: »

pjohnson wrote: »

Your posts have never explained how not?

Should every woman who acceses or doesn't access a termination need to give a litany of reasons. If I had accesed a termination would you be pressing me to justify.

The irony of advocing choice but needing an explanation on the grounds I couldn't travel.

I

I dont think people are demanding an explanation. Your reasoning/story is just a bit unclear and people are trying to understand what you mean when you say the 8th saved your baby.

horseburger · 14-04-2018 03:46PM

Ave Sodalis wrote: »

And I counter argued it, which has not been addressed.

On an Irish matter, he has the freedom to talk about it but I don't believe any foreign representative has any place to be talking at an official capacity.

We have gone over this in the last few pages.

This has been answerd for you repeatedly.

No, and I'm not sure where you got that idea. I just don't like when people ignore or don't actually answer questions directed at them. Something you are still doing.

You are pretty good at ignoring points yourself.

You state that Anthony Levatino, who, as a doctor, carried out abortions, is not in a position to speak in an official capacity, about the referendum.

Do you also argue that organisations that provide abortion services should not give opinions on current Irish laws on abortion?

I don't argue that people from outside Ireland shouldn't give opinions on Irish laws on abortion in an official capacity.

The organization BPAS has commented on Irish laws on abortion:

This item below, posted by the Abortion Rights Campaign in 2013, includes the following paragraphs:

"For many of our followers the BPAS notice was an act of solidarity with women in Ireland who have travelled, or who will be obliged to travel to one of their clinics to access abortion services. For other supporters BPAS were directly calling our Government to action, questioning it’s ability to care for women in Ireland by saying – ‘We’ll care for your women until your government does’.

"Those who hold opposing anti-choice views were naturally outraged by the BPAS Notice. They questioned its legality, given Ireland’s strict abortion laws, and in particular – those laws governing access to information on Abortion services. They demanded to know what gave BPAS the right to comment on Irish abortion laws? They declared that the only possible motive for BPAS’ involvement in the Irish abortion debate was financial gain".

"With regards the legality – the BPAS notice was perfectly legal. As the notice did not contain a phone number, an invitation to donate money or details about the services it provides – it is not what the Advertising Standards Authority for Ireland (ASAI) would class as an advertisement nor does it break any laws by providing information on abortion services".

"As to BPAS’ right to comment – many of the 4,000 women a year who travel to the UK to have an abortion do so in a BPAS clinic. BPAS are a registered charity in the UK which provides reproductive health services. These services include – contraception advice and vasectomy, pregnancy testing and counselling and abortion treatments. The staff in BPAS clinics meet women who have travelled from Ireland every day, and are thus uniquely positioned to comment on situation. They have an insight into the extra burden of stress travelling places on those coming from Ireland compared to the ‘normal’ stresses faced by those who access abortion services from within the UK".

"BPAS have stated publicly that they would prefer it if people in Ireland who want to access abortion services could do so in Ireland. They see the hardship travelling to the UK inflicts on those in their care and they hear first hand the extraordinary logistical difficulties people are required to navigate in order to travel. Be it accessing money; time off work or organising child-care – the stresses heaped on people in an already stressful situation are exacerbated by having to travel from Ireland . BPAS are also acutely aware that many will face difficulty accessing the follow up medical care they need".

https://www.abortionrightscampaign.ie/2013/11/15/bpas-serves-notice-to-the-irish-government/

The BPAS spokesperson, Dr Patricia Lohr Medical Director, who addressed the Oireachtas Committee and the Citizens' Assembly, in an official capacity, to detail the services provided by BPAS, is from neither Ireland or the UK. She is from America, as is Anthony Levatino.

Have you a problem with Dr Patricia Lohr being from America, speaking in an official capacity about British laws on abortion, where she detailed how Irish citizens avail of the BPAS services in Britain?

Would you have argued that she should not have addressed either the Citizens' Assembly on the Eight Amendment or the Oireachtas Committee on the Eight Amendment, on the basis that she was not from Britain or Ireland and she was speaking in an official capacity representing BPAS?

Here is the report prepared by Dr Patricia Lohr, BPAS Medical Director, that was submitted for consideration, to the Citizens' Assembly, dated 4th February 2017:

https://www.citizensassembly.ie/en/Meetings/Dr-Patricia-Lohr-Paper.pdf

https://www.citizensassembly.ie/en/Meetings/Dr-Patricia-Lohr-powerpoint.pdf

https://www.citizensassembly.ie/en/Meetings/Third-Meeting-of-the-Citizens-Assembly-on-the-Eighth-Amendment-of-the-Constitution.html

Here is her statement and presentation to the Oireachta Committee dated 22nd November 2017:

http://www.oireachtas.ie/viewdoc.asp?DocID=37332&&CatID=127&StartDate=01 January 2017&OrderAscending=0

https://media.heanet.ie/p/20171122+Joint+Committee+on+Eighth+Amendment+of+the+Constitution/HbnSmB

http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/Debates%20Authoring/DebatesWebPack.nsf/committeetakes/EAJ2017112200001?opendocument

http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/Debates%20Authoring/DebatesWebPack.nsf/committeetakes/EAJ2017112200002?opendocument#G00050

http://www.oireachtas.ie/parliament/media/committees/eighthamendmentoftheconstitution/Opening-Statement-by-Dr.-Patricia-Lohr,-British-Pregnancy-Advisory-Service(BPAS).pdf

https://beta.oireachtas.ie/en/debates/debate/joint_committee_on_the_eighth_amendment_of_the_constitution/2017-11-22/3/

petalgumdrops · 14-04-2018 03:48PM

amdublin wrote: »

Forgive me, did you want to travel?

As explained before after my CVS yes I did want to travel. Do I really need to keep saying this, are you equally pushing people for their reasons why they did/didnt travel.

14-04-2018 03:49PM

petalgumdrops wrote: »

the crux of the issue for me is that at some point the unborn need to be protected(my opinion)
.

What do you mean by this though? Do you mean protection from terminations?
When do you feel the unborn should get the right to life?
I believe any viable premature baby that is born gets every medical treatment available.

Madscientist30 · 14-04-2018 03:53PM

petalgumdrops wrote: »

NuMarvel wrote: »

I would suggest they properly research the aspect they are concerned about, especially with regard to the basis of that concern. I would also suggest they consider what practical difference their vote would make in relation to that concern, and also if there were other ways to address their concern.

What would you suggest?

I completely agree with you.

But some people will want or feel that the unborn should have some rights. Should they dismiss this because of the greater good.

My position is I support so much of repeal but the crux of the issue for me is that at some point the unborn need to be protected(my opinion)

Perhaps I feel the amendent has the potential to become too liberal as the politicians will have future decision making - that is a fact. Whether there is appetite for that is not really significant.

The unborn does get rights as it develops further and achieves sentience, the capacity to survive outside the womb etc. That is why late term abortions are banned in pretty much all jurisdictions except in very specific circumstances.

petalgumdrops · 14-04-2018 03:54PM

Conspectus wrote: »

Mod-horseburger, you have been answered several times. So either drop it or do not post in this thread again.

Could you apply this to all those asking me to justify why I could/ couldn't travel?

pjohnson · 14-04-2018 03:54PM

petalgumdrops wrote: »

Should every woman who acceses or doesn't access a termination need to give a litany of reasons. If I had accesed a termination would you be pressing me to justify.

The irony of advocing choice but needing an explanation on the grounds I couldn't travel.

I

It appears you are claiming you wanted an abortion but couldn't get one, and luckily the baby is ok (congratulations btw).

You seem then to be saying that the 8th prevented you from traveling? Which isn't something the 8th does......

If you want to keep the 8th fine but the reasoning you try to use is absent. YOU saved your baby. Not the 8th? Unless you think it is illegal for a pregnant person to travel?

petalgumdrops · 14-04-2018 03:56PM

Madscientist30 wrote: »

The unborn does get rights as it develops further and achieves sentience, the capacity to survive outside the womb etc. That is why late term abortions are banned in pretty much all jurisdictions except in very specific circumstances.

But the supreme court have said that ourside of the 8th they are unsure if there will be any protection for the unborn.

Triceratops Ballet · 14-04-2018 04:01PM

petalgumdrops wrote:

But the supreme court have said that ourside of the 8th they are unsure if there will be any protection for the unborn.

There was no explicit protection for the unborn prior to 1983 either though, and yet abortion was still illegal

Madscientist30 · 14-04-2018 04:01PM

petalgumdrops wrote: »

Conspectus wrote: »

Mod-horseburger, you have been answered several times. So either drop it or do not post in this thread again.

Could you apply this to all those asking me to justify why I could/ couldn't travel?

Ah come on. People do not want to know why, as has already been posted above and you seem to have ignored. They are trying to figure out whether you couldnt or wouldnt travel, an important distinction with you declaring the 8th saved your baby.

NuMarvel · 14-04-2018 04:07PM

petalgumdrops wrote: »

But some people will want or feel that the unborn should have some rights. Should they dismiss this because of the greater good.

My position is I support so much of repeal but the crux of the issue for me is that at some point the unborn need to be protected(my opinion).

Perhaps I feel the amendent has the potential to become too liberal as the politicians will have future decision making - that is a fact. Whether there is appetite for that is not really significant.

In fairness, much of this has been addressed already, but I'll give it one last go.

The unborn will still have rights and protections. Those rights and protections will be set out in legislation. Legislation, not the constitution, is the appropriate place because the constitution isn't equipped to properly deal with complex matters. And balancing the rights of the unborn and the woman in a matter that spans ethical, medical, and legal boundaries is by any definition a complex matter.

Also, the political appetite for change is a significant factor, because otherwise we'd have to put ALL of our laws into the constitution. For example, I think we'd all agree that the age of consent is a pretty serious issue yet no one's ever even suggested we put it into the constitution to prevent politicians lowering it. Why? Because we know there is no desire for change. I see no reason why the rights of the unborn are any different.

And all of this has to be viewed in the context of international experience of when women have abortions. Because it's clear from countries like Britain and the Netherlands, countries that have limits well into the second trimester, the majority of women, more than 90%, still have abortions within the first 12 weeks. So even if politicians removed all limits, in practical terms there would be no difference. When women can access abortion early, they have abortions early.

But even if none of that convinces you, weigh it up against the consequence of a No vote. Women are still going to have abortions, most of them by traveling abroad. Those women will have abortions a little later than their British counterparts, because it takes longer to make all the necessary arrangements. So the No vote that you cast to prevent later abortions will actually end up being the cause of them.

Madscientist30 · 14-04-2018 04:09PM

petalgumdrops wrote: »

Madscientist30 wrote: »

The unborn does get rights as it develops further and achieves sentience, the capacity to survive outside the womb etc. That is why late term abortions are banned in pretty much all jurisdictions except in very specific circumstances.

But the supreme court have said that ourside of the 8th they are unsure if there will be any protection for the unborn.

No constitutional protection, there will still be legislative protection under the POLDPA which will be the law governing abortion in Ireland until other legislation is introduced. That is the way it is in pretty much every other developed country in the world. What is your specific fear of what will happen once the 8th is gone, that makes you feel we need to keep the current farcical situation going?

Annasopra · 14-04-2018 04:11PM

professore wrote: »

I don't think anyone is suggesting to put the minutiae of it in the constitution. Just a position on the rights of the unborn child in relation to the mother - so no future governments can make abortion legal up to birth or ban it entirely. A guideline to prevent bad legislation.

For example - up to 12 weeks the fetus has no rights. A non viable fetus has no rights. The mother has the right to decide if they wish to abort this fetus. Something along those lines.

It was considered by Citizens Assembly. The advice given by constitutional.experts was that it was too complex and would end up tying the courts in knots again like the 8th.

NuMarvel · 14-04-2018 04:12PM

petalgumdrops wrote: »

But the supreme court have said that ourside of the 8th they are unsure if there will be any protection for the unborn.

Please quote the part of the court's judgement where they said this, please.

petalgumdrops · 14-04-2018 04:14PM

Triceratops Ballet wrote: »

Petalgumdrops, I don't think anyone is trying to have a go at you, I think people are genuinely confused, I know I am.

You say the 8th saved your baby, which is fair enough and obviously the fact that your baby was born in good health is fantastic.
What is not clear is HOW the 8th saved your baby, it seems to me that good medicine and sound decision making saved your baby, those things exist independently of the 8th amendment so I can't see the link.

By virtue of the fact termination was not available to me and my own personal circumstances meant I couldn't

But in terms of the birth, I have read arguments from prople how the 8th impacts on maternity care as a whole. Unwanted episoitomy, inductions, forced interventions. I can tell you 100% that I did not want the interventions I received but the 8th giving equal care to the mother and the unborn ensure that both my life and my sons was spared. Some people have referred to this as "good health care and responsible monitoring from my doctor" but I did not want the 3 gels I received, the forced breaking of my waters while I was 1cmthe two days I spent in labour I didn't want that BUT my placenta was not functioning (blood flow, baby losing weight) had I have said my body my choice and refused needed Intervention then my baby would have died.

I have no idea how close I came to losing him a nightmare pregnancy ,a nightmare birth but my baby at the point of induction needed to be born he needed to come had I have continued with the 5 weeks I had left in my pregnancy my son would not be here. So yes... affording equal right to life of the mother and the unborn means my baby is here. Nobody WANTS to go through a horrific childbirth experience but because of it I have him.

Annasopra · 14-04-2018 04:17PM

petalgumdrops wrote: »

Abortions under the 8th for FFA are not permissible. Think you are referring to when I said I would like an amendment to make separately to allow for them.

You just said that the government can legislate though

petalgumdrops · 14-04-2018 04:19PM

NuMarvel wrote: »

Please quote the part of the court's judgement where they said this, please.

https://www.google.ie/amp/s/www.irishtimes.com/opinion/supreme-court-has-given-us-a-clear-choice-in-abortion-referendum-1.3424134%3fmode=amp

ProfessorPlum · 14-04-2018 04:24PM

petalgumdrops wrote: »

https://www.google.ie/amp/s/www.irishtimes.com/opinion/supreme-court-has-given-us-a-clear-choice-in-abortion-referendum-1.3424134%3fmode=amp

William Binchy? Really??

pitifulgod · 14-04-2018 04:24PM

petalgumdrops wrote: »

By virtue of the fact termination was not available to me and my own personal circumstances meant I couldn't

But in terms of the birth, I have read arguments from prople how the 8th impacts on maternity care as a whole. Unwanted episoitomy, inductions, forced interventions. I can tell you 100% that I did not want the interventions I received but the 8th giving equal care to the mother and the unborn ensure that both my life and my sons was spared. Some people have referred to this as "good health care and responsible monitoring from my doctor" but I did not want the 3 gels I received, the forced breaking of my waters while I was 1cmthe two days I spent in labour I didn't want that BUT my placenta was not functioning (blood flow, baby losing weight) had I have said my body my choice and refused needed Intervention then my baby would have died.

I have no idea how close I came to losing him a nightmare pregnancy ,a nightmare birth but my baby at the point of induction needed to be born he needed to come had I have continued with the 5 weeks I had left in my pregnancy my son would not be here. So yes... affording equal right to life of the mother and the unborn means my baby is here. Nobody WANTS to go through a horrific childbirth experience but because of it I have him.

There are plenty that haven't had a pleasant outcome as well as a result of the 8th. Basically you support prevent choice because of your circumstance. Thousands of women are currently being driven out of the country because of the current legal status. The experience is scarring and shaming as a result.

petalgumdrops · 14-04-2018 04:26PM

ProfessorPlum wrote: »

William Binchy? Really??

Lawyers for choice also told me this but the message they sent me was shot down and accused of spreading fear. That's the problem wirh pro life and pro choice cannot see the argument of the middleman

NuMarvel · 14-04-2018 04:33PM

petalgumdrops wrote: »

https://www.google.ie/amp/s/www.irishtimes.com/opinion/supreme-court-has-given-us-a-clear-choice-in-abortion-referendum-1.3424134%3fmode=amp

That's not the court's judgement, that's an opinion piece by one of the No side's lawyers. One, by the way, has a history of being wrong when it comes to the effects of the 8th. I really hope that's not the legal source you're relying on!

ProfessorPlum · 14-04-2018 04:39PM

petalgumdrops wrote: »

Lawyers for choice also told me this but the message they sent me was shot down and accused of spreading fear. That's the problem wirh pro life and pro choice cannot see the argument of the middleman

To be fair, William binchy is hardly the middleman! He is also responsible in a large part for the 8th amendment - and it didn’t do what he had intended it to!

The Supreme Court said that the rights of the unborn that were written in the constitution were confined to the 8th amendment, and didn’t include the rights that are attributed to the child.
This is IMO a good thing, be cause had they ruled another way, it potentially could have implied that s foetus had more rights than a pregnant woman.
It’s also worth remembering that most of the rights that you and I have are not written in the constitution at all - they are inferred, written in legislation, or come from the courts through case law.

Given the government proposal that terminations of viable pregnancies would be achieved by early delivery, and the fact that this is also echoed in the POLDPA, I don’t think there is much to fear from the idea that we will be legalising abortion up to 40 weeks.
In any case, in countries with no term limits, abortion rates are much the same as in countries with strict term limits, so even if we somehow did legislate in that way, which to be clear I think is far beyond the realms of possibility, there’s no reason to think we would actually see many late term abortions.

ProfessorPlum · 14-04-2018 04:44PM

petalgumdrops wrote: »

By virtue of the fact termination was not available to me and my own personal circumstances meant I couldn't

But in terms of the birth, I have read arguments from prople how the 8th impacts on maternity care as a whole. Unwanted episoitomy, inductions, forced interventions. I can tell you 100% that I did not want the interventions I received but the 8th giving equal care to the mother and the unborn ensure that both my life and my sons was spared. Some people have referred to this as "good health care and responsible monitoring from my doctor" but I did not want the 3 gels I received, the forced breaking of my waters while I was 1cmthe two days I spent in labour I didn't want that BUT my placenta was not functioning (blood flow, baby losing weight) had I have said my body my choice and refused needed Intervention then my baby would have died.

I have no idea how close I came to losing him a nightmare pregnancy ,a nightmare birth but my baby at the point of induction needed to be born he needed to come had I have continued with the 5 weeks I had left in my pregnancy my son would not be here. So yes... affording equal right to life of the mother and the unborn means my baby is here. Nobody WANTS to go through a horrific childbirth experience but because of it I have him.

It’s not really any of my business, so don’t feel you need to answer.

But do you really mean that if the 8th wasn’t in place, you would have let your son die rather than agreed to an early induction?

NuMarvel · 14-04-2018 04:47PM

petalgumdrops wrote: »

Lawyers for choice also told me this but the message they sent me was shot down and accused of spreading fear. That's the problem wirh pro life and pro choice cannot see the argument of the middleman

It was shot down because you provided no verifiable source to back it up, and it contradicted what they have said in public. And Binchy is by no means a "middleman".

Here's a letter from members of Lawyers For Choice, amongst others, published in the Irish Times on the matter. Here's the relevant part that contradicts what you've said (emphasis added):

Last month, in the MM case, the Supreme Court confirmed that, before birth, the foetus does not enjoy any constitutional rights other than the right to life under the Eighth Amendment. This does not mean that, if the referendum passes in May, the Constitution would prevent the Oireachtas from legislating to protect foetal life before birth. Irish law already makes this clear. Rights are not the only constitutional tools for protecting important societal values. In 2009, in Roche v Roche, the Supreme Court held that embryos created by the IVF treatment process did not enjoy constitutional rights but are entitled to respect. In MM itself the Court said that the State is entitled, through legislation, to give effect to the respect that is due to foetal life as a dimension of the common good.

petalgumdrops · 14-04-2018 04:47PM

ProfessorPlum wrote: »

To be fair, William binchy is hardly the middleman! He is also responsible in a large part for the 8th amendment - and it didn’t do what he had intended it to!

The Supreme Court said that the rights of the unborn that were written in the constitution were confined to the 8th amendment, and didn’t include the rights that are attributed to the child.
This is IMO a good thing, be cause had they ruled another way, it potentially could have implied that s foetus had more rights than a pregnant woman.
It’s also worth remembering that most of the rights that you and I have are not written in the constitution at all - they are inferred, written in legislation, or come from the courts through case law.

Given the government proposal that terminations of viable pregnancies would be achieved by early delivery, and the fact that this is also echoed in the POLDPA, I don’t think there is much to fear from the idea that we will be legalising abortion up to 40 weeks.
In any case, in countries with no term limits, abortion rates are much the same as in countries with strict term limits, so even if we somehow did legislate in that way, which to be clear I think is far beyond the realms of possibility, there’s no reason to think we would actually see many late term abortions.

But what if 15 or 18weeks as choice is too liberal for some. The middleman being the voter like myself that supports unrestricted to 12 weeks, unrestricted for health grounds and ffa but my conscience would say that at a point the rights of the unborn must transcend choice. Why is that wrong? Wht is that not a valid reason for having concerns about repeal. We will never vote on this again.

volchitsa · 14-04-2018 04:49PM

petalgumdrops wrote: »

Triceratops Ballet wrote: »

Petalgumdrops, I don't think anyone is trying to have a go at you, I think people are genuinely confused, I know I am.

You say the 8th saved your baby, which is fair enough and obviously the fact that your baby was born in good health is fantastic.
What is not clear is HOW the 8th saved your baby, it seems to me that good medicine and sound decision making saved your baby, those things exist independently of the 8th amendment so I can't see the link.

By virtue of the fact termination was not available to me and my own personal circumstances meant I couldn't

But in terms of the birth, I have read arguments from prople how the 8th impacts on maternity care as a whole. Unwanted episoitomy, inductions, forced interventions. I can tell you 100% that I did not want the interventions I received but the 8th giving equal care to the mother and the unborn ensure that both my life and my sons was spared. Some people have referred to this as "good health care and responsible monitoring from my doctor" but I did not want the 3 gels I received, the forced breaking of my waters while I was 1cmthe two days I spent in labour I didn't want that BUT my placenta was not functioning (blood flow, baby losing weight) had I have said my body my choice and refused needed Intervention then my baby would have died.

I have no idea how close I came to losing him a nightmare pregnancy ,a nightmare birth but my baby at the point of induction needed to be born he needed to come had I have continued with the 5 weeks I had left in my pregnancy my son would not be here. So yes... affording equal right to life of the mother and the unborn means my baby is here. Nobody WANTS to go through a horrific childbirth experience but because of it I have him.

The problem is that you aren't being clear how the 8th did all that - are you really saying that if you had been somewhere that abortion was available you would have refused interventions to save you son's life? I genuinely cannot understand what you mean.
I have given birth in a country where abortion is available and I don't see how that makes any of the things you describe more or less likely?

pjohnson · 14-04-2018 04:50PM

petalgumdrops wrote: »

By virtue of the fact termination was not available to me and my own personal circumstances meant I couldn't

But in terms of the birth, I have read arguments from prople how the 8th impacts on maternity care as a whole. Unwanted episoitomy, inductions, forced interventions. I can tell you 100% that I did not want the interventions I received but the 8th giving equal care to the mother and the unborn ensure that both my life and my sons was spared. Some people have referred to this as "good health care and responsible monitoring from my doctor" but I did not want the 3 gels I received, the forced breaking of my waters while I was 1cmthe two days I spent in labour I didn't want that BUT my placenta was not functioning (blood flow, baby losing weight) had I have said my body my choice and refused needed Intervention then my baby would have died.

I have no idea how close I came to losing him a nightmare pregnancy ,a nightmare birth but my baby at the point of induction needed to be born he needed to come had I have continued with the 5 weeks I had left in my pregnancy my son would not be here. So yes... affording equal right to life of the mother and the unborn means my baby is here. Nobody WANTS to go through a horrific childbirth experience but because of it I have him.

This still has nothing to do with the 8th amendment?

The 8th Amendment Part 2 - Mod Warning in OP

Comments