Kidchameleon wrote: » It is stupid in the sense that it is easy to prevent pregnancy - I and most other responsible adults have gone our whole adult lives without any unplanned pregnancy's.
Kidchameleon wrote: » It is not dissimilar to driving without a seat belt, it is just silly and irresponsible, in my opinion.
volchitsa wrote: » The claim I am making (and I suspect evil twin too, by default) is that abortion is never the preferred option for women when they have a genuine alternative. When they are able to make an informed choice and have easy and reliable access to other methods of birth control.
eviltwin wrote: » I was talking in an Irish context. I don't know the first thing about access to contraception in Russia or anywhere else.
volchitsa wrote: » For an Irish woman I can't see how abortion after abortion would be preferably to reliable contraception which is relatively easy to come by.
volchitsa wrote: » That's so different from the situation in Ireland that to use a comparison to Russia in a discussion about Ireland without pointing that out is IMO either disingenuous or ill informed.
robindch wrote: » Can't really disagree with that.Fair enough and thanks for the clarification. I understood from your original post that you were making a general claim and not one restricted to Ireland where alternate means of contraception are easily, and cheaply, available.I certainly agree that abortion is not preferable, though I do know a couple of women here in Ireland who didn't take the pill, despite it being easily available - at least as they should have if they wished to avoid an unintended pregnancy - and who subsequently had abortions of one kind or another abroad.
volchitsa wrote: » robindch wrote: » [...] I do know a couple of women here in Ireland who didn't take the pill, despite it being easily available - at least as they should have if they wished to avoid an unintended pregnancy - and who subsequently had abortions of one kind or another abroad. I find it so odd that this sort of thing is so regularly trotted out in various forms, but only ever for pregnancy, as though not using contraception meant a woman actually wanted to get pregnant - but when someone has an accident of some other sort, even if they've been desperately careless, nobody ever implies they chose to have that accident do they? [...] They're not being professionally negligent, they just made a mistake in their private sex lives - it happens. So what?
robindch wrote: » [...] I do know a couple of women here in Ireland who didn't take the pill, despite it being easily available - at least as they should have if they wished to avoid an unintended pregnancy - and who subsequently had abortions of one kind or another abroad.
robindch wrote: » There is a non-zero chance, in the cases which I'm aware of at least, that the women concerned were not always seeking to avoid becoming pregnant with the same enthusiasm that they claimed they were.
Republican Senator Clyde Chambliss, arguing in favour of the Alabama bill, said the whole point was "so that we can go directly to the Supreme Court to challenge Roe versus Wade." The high court, now with a majority of conservative justices after Republican President Donald Trump appointed two, could possibly overturn Roe v. Wade, the 1973 landmark decision establishing a woman’s right to an abortion.
All 27 Republican senators are men.
Charles Ingles wrote: » Reading about Alabama and the new stringent abortion law's, maybe this could be the start of the tide turning. Abortion should only be used in extreme circumstances such as rape or FFA. I worry what our abortion rates in Ireland will be in 10 or 20 years.
smacl wrote: » The men of Alabama don't even want it allowed in the cases of rape or incest. I can't see it making its way outside of the bible belt.
Charles Ingles wrote: » Yes I seen that the law seem quite stringent, there has to be a middle ground.
volchitsa wrote: » And none of the people arguing for this exception during the referendum campaign were ever able to describe a satisfactory way of identifying those cases without further traumatising the rape victim and within a reasonable time frame. It's the main reason why our own government decided there had to be a period when TOP would be available for "personal reasons".
Charles Ingles wrote: » I've always asked for a trust based system for these cases. I'm a strong pro-life advocate but that doesn't mean my sympathy isn't with women. Abortion only in extreme and rare cases
Cabaal wrote: » The religious right wet dream in Alabama has now happened,
Kidchameleon wrote: » There can be failures with contrception, they are not 100% effective of course. If you want to avoid pregnancy I would always reccomend using at least two methods. In my opinion, most unplanned pregnancys can be avoided.
volchitsa wrote: » So anyone could just say they'd been raped and they'd be allowed a termination? Given that women risk prison in some countries to get abortions, and in Ireland for decades had to go through all sorts of expenses and complications to travel for one, don't you think a significant number would just lie?
Igotadose wrote: » Kidchameleon wrote: » There can be failures with contrception, they are not 100% effective of course. If you want to avoid pregnancy I would always reccomend using at least two methods. In my opinion, most unplanned pregnancys can be avoided. Here's a related question: should there be any restrictions on women's sterilization? In my view, absolutely not ever no reason for it. It's certainly a way to avoid unplanned pregnancy.
lazygal wrote: » I've had tubal ligation. It has a failure rate of 3 per 1000. No contraception is 100% effective.
Charles Ingles wrote: » Lying is the wrong words you never know what people are going through.
Abortion on demand is a bad idea though numbers will increase year on year if abortion is seen as a form of birth control
volchitsa wrote: » robindch wrote: » There is a non-zero chance, in the cases which I'm aware of at least, that the women concerned were not always seeking to avoid becoming pregnant with the same enthusiasm that they claimed they were. So you mean they were conflicted about whether or not they wanted/could look after a baby and at some point acted like women have had to do for most of human history, ie said "fecckit I'll take the risk" and then, like many women in past generations too, when faced with an actual pregnancy decided in the end to terminate it?
Igotadose wrote: » Not the point to my question, though. There are arbitrary restrictions placed on a woman's right to surgery. The reason, is sexism, just like what all the anti-abortion arguments come down to. Same is true in the US, and for sure the religious organizations REALLY hate women's sterilization.
robindch wrote: » That's one possible motivation and one would have to ask the women concerned to say whether your assessment of their motivation is accurate or not. To be more specific about the facts - here in Ireland, there exists a number of women whom I know, who - despite the easy availability of contraception - decided to tell their partners, or allow their partners to continue assuming, that they were using contraception when they were not using contraception, or were not using it reliably. The women concerned became pregnant and a number of them subsequently had an abortion abroad. A number of these women did not have an abortion abroad and went on to give birth. These are the facts and I am not speculating upon the motivations of the individuals concerned. I know these facts from conversations with the men and women concerned, and from comments which the men and women concerned made to their own friends and family and I have no reason to doubt them.
volchitsa wrote: » I'm puzzled as to what your point is.
volchitsa wrote: » The claim I am making [...] is that abortion is never the preferred option for women when they have a genuine alternative. When they are able to make an informed choice and have easy and reliable access to other methods of birth control.
