gormdubhgorm wrote: » I do not wish to control them they have the control after they deliever the baby. They can adopt it to any family they choose. They also have the control to be more careful to avoid unplanned unwanted pregnancies in future. I am not stopping that. I am not controlling nature when a fetus is forming and decide to dump it. I don't believe in controlling that unless it is ABSOLUTELY necessary Simple as that. But those days are gone now. So now it is the hands of the legislators now which worries me...as there will be competing agendas.
gormdubhgorm wrote: » They can adopt it to any family they choose.
gormdubhgorm wrote: » They also have the control to be more careful to avoid unplanned unwanted pregnancies in future.
gormdubhgorm wrote: » I am not controlling nature when a fetus is forming and decide to dump it. I don't believe in controlling that unless it is ABSOLUTELY necessary Simple as that. But those days are gone now.
ELM327 wrote: » But if asked the all encompassing question of "do you agree with abortion on demand - without any reason" a majority still said yes.
gormdubhgorm wrote: » I don't believe in controlling that unless it is ABSOLUTELY necessary
gormdubhgorm wrote: » I do not wish to control them they have the control after they deliever the baby.
gormdubhgorm wrote: » I am not controlling nature when a fetus is forming and decide to dump it.
nozzferrahhtoo wrote: » What I mean is that if someone thinks abortion is ok, they can not then suddenly turn around and say "Except if you want it for this reason I personally do not like". It seems we in Ireland are about to implement open choice based abortion up until 12 weeks. And the majority seems to be ok with that. As such moaning that do not like someones reason for seeking such an abortion is pretty much none of their business. But I realize that would be MY problem not theirs. I realize there is no arguments being offered to indict the morality of terminating any 10 week old fetus. So I have the courage of my convictions to recognize that this means if I am bothered by someone's reasons for seeking one....... then that is my problem not theirs. And it is certainly not my business. I think I am very suspicion when people claim to be ok with X, but then stop being ok with X if they personally do not like the motivations people have for doing X. That tells me they are projecting their own value judgements on others, but reshaping it to look otherwise.
ELM327 wrote: » Yes you may. But if asked the all encompassing question of "do you agree with abortion on demand - without any reason" a majority still said yes.
ELM327 wrote: » I would - for what its worth - answer your question stating NO. "Do you agree with the idea of abortion based on the gender of the baby" as I do not agree with the idea. But I support a woman's right to choose. And I would still vote for abortion on demand (with no term limits or any restrictions) as it's a woman's choice and not that of the general populace. This illustrates the importance of choosing neutral sentences that do not lead the public to answer negatively, as yours certainly would. You'd get the answer you want, but it wouldn't empirically prove your point and would be as such moot.
ELM327 wrote: » Frankly I think it's disgusting that we still attempt to enforce incubation on women after the 12 weeks but that's another story. Coming from the pre-repeal situation, a liberal abortion on demand scheme up to 12 weeks is a vast exponential improvement.
nozzferrahhtoo wrote: » Can they? Could you explain to me the procedures involved in doing that in this country? I know very little about the procedure but I have read on this thread a number of times that there is effectively no such option at all in Ireland.
gormdubhgorm wrote: » Change them!!?? Legislate!
Ideally for me it would be: They can adopt it to any family they choose if unwanted.
They also have the control to be more careful to avoid unplanned unwanted pregnancies in future. I am not stopping that. I am not controlling nature when a fetus is forming and decide to dump it. I don't believe in controlling that unless it is ABSOLUTELY necessary Simple as that.
But those days are gone now. So now it is the hands of the legislators now which worries me...as there will be competing agendas. At the back of my mind the irony never escapes me, that some of those who voted yes may have been unplanned and / or unwanted pregnancies themselves. Amuses me a bit.
Mavis Warm Stranger wrote: » No, they didn't. The voted to repeal the 8th amendment.
Mavis Warm Stranger wrote: » What was not neutral about my question?
Mavis Warm Stranger wrote: » What cut off point would you propose for abortions? Sorry I just read above, you would really support abortion on demand with no term limits?
robarmstrong wrote: » You said you were in physical pain for god knows how long, imagine someone came to you and offered you a pill that would make your pain go away and you could have your life back to normal again. You'd be an out and out waffler if you told me you'd sit there and take the pain, an absolute fibber.
Taytoland wrote: » Said for people of colour too. Babies in the future with disabilities won't exist. So it will be a more purified society.
gormdubhgorm wrote: » I won't respond to your replies about controlling I have coveed that. But as for this comment. It is not entirely true removal of pain completely can be a bad thing. I would suffer pain as much as I could tolerate it - would draw the line at impacting sleep. Pain is natures way of telling you there is something wrong if that was masked completely it could cause further damage. You have to be very careful with pain management for this reason. Plus the tablets to manage pain can have unintended results.
Overheal wrote: » S Back on to other topics, I'd still like to know what personal logic you use that works in both cases: that abortion should be enshrined in the constitution but not matters related to alcohol, when alcohol demonstrably kills at least a thousand a year by several gruesome means, including the death of other living persons by way of vehicular manslaughter along with domestic violence etc. ?
gormdubhgorm wrote: » Alcohol laws are currently already in legislation, and the culture of Ireland's relationship with drink is the problem.
Taytoland wrote: » Babies in the future with disabilities won't exist.
gormdubhgorm wrote: » Ideally for me it would be: They can adopt it to any family they choose if unwanted.
gormdubhgorm wrote: » They also have the control to be more careful to avoid unplanned unwanted pregnancies in future. I am not stopping that.
gormdubhgorm wrote: » I don't believe in controlling that unless it is ABSOLUTELY necessary Simple as that.
gormdubhgorm wrote: » But those days are gone now.
gormdubhgorm wrote: » So now it is the hands of the legislators now which worries me...as there will be competing agendas.
gormdubhgorm wrote: » At the back of my mind the irony never escapes me, that some of those who voted yes may have been unplanned and / or unwanted pregnancies themselves!
gormdubhgorm wrote: » Amuses me a bit.
ELM327 wrote: » Yes... but it was clear what was coming (12 weeks abortion on demand) Additionally, the exit polls stated 52% in favour of abortion on demand.https://static.rasset.ie/documents/news/2018/05/rte-exit-poll-final-11pm.pdf It was a leading question. You asked if you agree with the idea. If you asked "do you support the pregnant mother having a right to make a choice..." then you would get a different answer. No term limits. Free for all. Women's bodies, women's right to choose. If it's after 24 weeks you deliver a live birth. Termination of pregnancy doesn't always lead to an abortion.
On a scale from 0 to 10 where 0 means you strongly believe that there should be a total ban on abortion in Ireland, and 10 means that you strongly believe that Abortion should be freely available in Ireland to any woman who wants to have one, where would you place your view?
Mavis Warm Stranger wrote: » How is "do you agree with" any more leading than "do you support"? Half of voters agreeing with the idea of 12 weeks unrestricted abortion isn't really saying much for your stance? Where in the link does it say that anyway? The closest thing I can find is where the where the mean result was 6.1, which isn't really in your favour either? That's a bit extreme. There is a ridiculous amount of intensive care required for a baby born that prematurely (24 weeks) to survive, let alone avoid serious health complications in the future.
Surely there's a reasonable time limit for a woman to make her decision regarding the pregnancy, and surely it's long before 24 weeks?
Fighting Tao wrote: » So you want to control women for 9 months! So you don't care really what happens once a baby is born. She could choose a family that will treat the child like crap and abuse it but that's ok because you controlled her for 9 months. That old chestnut again. I presume that you are over the age of 11 and therefore know that contraception it is not failsafe. You also know that there are cases of rape etc. But then you want to control of women during pregnancy to force them to give birth to the child of their rapist. But you do want to control women. You are getting confused. One minute you don't want to and the next you do. Make up your mind! Your controlling days are gone for sure and it is no thanks to you. Tbh, it's not surprising that the vast majority of people that are anti-choice are men and women of non-child bearing age. Just because it is unplanned does not mean it was unwanted. Also, just because they may have been unwanted doesn't mean that they have to be anti-choice. Maybe some of those unwanted people had such a bad life that they don't want to force it upon others in the future.
Mavis Warm Stranger wrote: » Did he say anywhere that he wanted to force a rape victim to carry a child? If you want to beat somebody in argument, build up the strongest version of their argument and try to undermine that, rather than reducing and misrepresenting their position to one so extreme that very would agree with it in the first place.
Overheal wrote: » Certainly, and the vast majority of abortions happen well before that. That doesn't mean some don't happen late; evidently, a shorter window would fail to encapsulate the reasons women in the latter case might seek one.
Mavis Warm Stranger wrote: » How is "do you agree with" any more leading than "do you support"?
Mavis Warm Stranger wrote: » Half of voters agreeing with the idea of 12 weeks unrestricted abortion isn't really saying much for your stance? Where in the link does it say that anyway? The closest thing I can find is where the where the mean result was 6.1, which isn't really in your favour either? That's a bit extreme. There is a ridiculous amount of intensive care required for a baby born that prematurely (24 weeks) to survive, let alone avoid serious health complications in the future. Surely there's a reasonable time limit for a woman to make her decision regarding the pregnancy, and surely it's long before 24 weeks?
Mavis Warm Stranger wrote: » What reason might be chosen after 24 weeks?
retro:electro wrote: » How is this a bad thing? Seriously? Do you wish you were disabled?
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://wf.vanillicon.com/v2/f07ee44b0b39bbb635066da4046d9475.svg)
