Abortion debate thread

Zombrex · 13-07-2013 12:29AM

lmaopml wrote: »

I will never vote for a party that would ask a person to vote and tell them what way they should or else there are consequences.....

That is how every single party works here Imaopml.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whip_(politics)#Ireland

lmaopml · 13-07-2013 12:43AM

Zombrex wrote: »

That is how every single party works here Imaopml.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whip_(politics)#Ireland

Sure Zombrex, the party whip may be taken away from somebody who doesn't follow a party line they signed up to.

It's a little different when it wasn't part of their mandate in the first place, and they sold themselves that way to gain power.....that's the truth. Look it up, the brochure is glossy!

There is a difference between economic policy and 'ethics' and they knew that when looking to get into power - and the Government have crossed the 'ethic' line as regards how powerful they believe themselves to be when consulting the people is at the bottom of the agenda and making decisions for them is at the fore.

They are well out of place - it's not their decision, and ultimately they knew it, but then being bought cheap is clearly what happens on a sunny day in July.

maguic24 · 13-07-2013 12:56AM

eireannBEAR wrote: »

she was a hero,she made the ultimate gesture of compassion and empathy.

oh and btw it will be awhile before FG or any other party touches this subject again. the hassle it caused them was unreal and the issue only served to divide the country so id drop that pipe dream now if i were you.

Are you are a fortune teller now? Do you have stats to show that it divided the country? As far back as 1992, people voted against reversing the 'x' case decision. With the weakening of the catholic church, the country is moving in the direction of becoming more liberal rather than conservative. If you have facts that state otherwise, I would love to see them!

http://irishpoliticalmaps.blogspot.ie/2012/12/referendum-1992-abortion-and-x-case.html

nagirrac · 13-07-2013 01:05AM

Zombrex wrote: »

Abortions should only be carried out by trained medical professionals.

From the same argument you just used above that justified a mother allowing her child to die by not surrendering her organs to save it.

No idea, the argument for bodily integrity has been around for thousands of years.

As I thought, you want a society where there are no restrictions on abortion. At least you are honest, most with your extreme view dodge the question. At this point there is little point in further discussion as over the years I have found that the two extremes of this debate are irreconcilable but also unfortunately both a hazard to making progress on social issues due to their intransience.

Allowing a child to die if it can be saved is unethical, I am by no means saying refusing to donate a kidney to your dying child is justified, please don't put words in my mouth. They may exist but I have never met nor heard of a parent who would not donate a kidney to save their child and in many cases a stranger's child. What I am saying is that if the parent is unwilling to donate, the state should do everything else possible to save the child, as obviously the state cannot force someone to give up an organ. In the same way the state cannot stop someone terminating a pregnancy in any circumstance if that is their choice. It doesn't mean the state has to agree with that choice, and no civilized modern state would legislate for the kind of unrestricted provision of abortion you are suggesting.

What the state should be doing is doing everything to make mid to late term abortion a thing of the past. Mandatory sex education in schools, easy or free access to contraceptives, easy or free access to early terminations, high quality health care for all including early screening of abnormalities, and yes the thing that seems always forgotten, but perhaps the most important, mandatory personal responsibility education in schools.

On the bodily integrity question as it relates to unrestricted access to abortion, regardless of stage of the pregnancy and justification for the termination, this was first proposed publically by Judith Thomson in 1971 and heard by the Supreme Court in the US. They didn't listen to her and the argument carries even less weight today.

lmaopml · 13-07-2013 01:07AM

maguic24 wrote: »

Are you are a fortune teller now? Do you have stats to show that it divided the country? As far back as 1992, people voted against reversing the 'x' case decision. With the weakening of the catholic church, the country is moving in the direction of becoming more liberal rather than conservative. If you have facts that state otherwise, I would love to see them!

http://irishpoliticalmaps.blogspot.ie/2012/12/referendum-1992-abortion-and-x-case.html

Nobody will ever have 'stats' that mean anything much, because clearly it's been taken out of the peoples hands completely. The decision is made for us, and onwards we go with our 'democratic' Government.

Bty, I actually am quite offended at the idea, or widely publicised notion that one is 'ruled' by a foreign state if one is Catholic and Irish. I think it's highly insulting considering I lived here all my life and so too have my ancestors, and I am as Irish as any Atheist who put his foot on this soil and has a voice. The absolute cheek to assume so much about another who happens to be Irish and Christian.

maguic24 · 13-07-2013 01:35AM

lmaopml wrote: »

Nobody will ever have 'stats' that mean anything much, because clearly it's been taken out of the peoples hands completely. The decision is made for us, and onwards we go with our 'democratic' Government.

Bty, I actually am quite offended at the idea, or widely publicised notion that one is 'ruled' by a foreign state if one is Catholic and Irish. I think it's highly insulting considering I lived here all my life and so too have my ancestors, and I am as Irish as any Atheist who put his foot on this soil and has a voice. The absolute cheek to assume so much about another who happens to be Irish and Christian.

Where did I say you were ruled by a foreign state? Ireland in the past has been heavily influenced by the Catholic Church, just look at the 1947 constitution. As a result of the presence of the church, people tended to be more conservative. Whether you find that offensive or not, that's the truth. Contraception was only legalised in this country in 1985 and divorce in 1991 ffs. The main objection to both was the catholic church and the people influenced by the catholic church! As time passed, the position of the church has become weaker and weaker, with people turning away from the church. The weaker the church gets the more liberal we become. Just look at history! Do you find history offensive? I also assume if you identify as 'christian' than you are hardcore. Anti-contraception, anti-gay, anti-sex outside marriage, mother belongs in the home, etc, which all point to conservatism rather than liberalism. There's no such thing as halfway crooks, you're either a catholic/christian or you're not. You can't just decide to believe in what part of the bible suits you and go around telling everyone your a christian, it's pure hypocrisy!! :rolleyes:

Corkfeen · 13-07-2013 01:37AM

lmaopml wrote: »

Sure Zombrex, the party whip may be taken away from somebody who doesn't follow a party line they signed up to.

It's a little different when it wasn't part of their mandate in the first place, and they sold themselves that way to gain power.....that's the truth. Look it up, the brochure is glossy!

There is a difference between economic policy and 'ethics' and they knew that when looking to get into power - and the Government have crossed the 'ethic' line as regards how powerful they believe themselves to be when consulting the people is at the bottom of the agenda and making decisions for them is at the fore.

They are well out of place - it's not their decision, and ultimately they knew it, but then being bought cheap is clearly what happens on a sunny day in July.

Part of their mandate is to uphold the constitution and legislate for the people. I find it particularly disgusting that no party has been willing to legislate on a matter that we've voted on twice over the past twenty years. I also find it rather contemptible that Kenny and FG effectively stated that they weren't going to do their job. It undermines the constitution and the very idea of the Republic.

Our governments have behave disgracefully,they were unwilling to touch a hot issue that should have been resolved years ago because they'd upset a couple of thousand people. Ireland does not have best maternal healthcare in the world, that is a fact. No matter what soundbytes pro-life groups will spout, it's perfectly average.

Those of you who think that's the end of the abortion debate. It's not and frankly it shouldn't be.Why is it that 1500 women who suffer from fatal foetal abnormalities are forced to bare the child for 9 months or go to the UK? Some people in this thread have argued that women choose to engage in intercourse, however what about a rape victim? We'll just force them to go through with the pregnancy too even if it's against their wishes? To be perfectly blunt, it's a sickening situation to allow and that's why I believe things will have to change and the public appears to support it.

lmaopml · 13-07-2013 02:30AM

Corkfeen wrote: »

Part of their mandate is to uphold the constitution and legislate for the people. I find it particularly disgusting that no party has been willing to legislate on a matter that we've voted on twice over the past twenty years. I also find it rather contemptible that Kenny and FG effectively stated that they weren't going to do their job. It undermines the constitution and the very idea of the Republic.

..and that Constitution upholds the rights the unborn child.

Our governments have behave disgracefully,they were unwilling to touch a hot issue that should have been resolved years ago because they'd upset a couple of thousand people. Ireland does not have best maternal healthcare in the world, that is a fact. No matter what soundbytes pro-life groups will spout, it's perfectly average.

I will agree with you that our Governments have behaved disgracefully towards the public. As far as the current bill is concerned it has been tagged with the 'suicide' question and passed by TD's and not by the people. It's blatantly obvious to anybody with eyes and ears, that in every single country that suicide is a means to obtain abortion that it has made abortion on demand the norm in that society. Ireland may not get every single thing right, but I am not proud that we have decided to follow the EU in this case and particularly not proud that our Government seems to sell us down the swanny river of human rights as defined by our overlords. I'm not anti EU, in fact I voted for Lisbon twice, I've also voted for Labour, but never again after this because I think it crosses the margin between democracy and selling people out.

Those of you who think that's the end of the abortion debate. It's not and frankly it shouldn't be.Why is it that 1500 women who suffer from fatal foetal abnormalities are forced to bare the child for 9 months or go to the UK? Some people in this thread have argued that women choose to engage in intercourse, however what about a rape victim? We'll just force them to go through with the pregnancy too even if it's against their wishes? To be perfectly blunt, it's a sickening situation to allow and that's why I believe things will have to change and the public appears to support it.

Those of us who are women who 'think' that a child is a human being are not willing to say any less. It's not fair to ask an entire nation of women to say their child is a disposable cell and to enshrine that in law - neither is it fair to put that on other women or other physicians. Hard cases make bad laws - the last fifty years testify to it - abortion has done nothing to contribute towards reducing suicide victims and the facts are that it is not a treatment for a person who is suicidal.

Actually, the people who are most likely to commit suicide are young men. This particular legislation was okay'd by the people, but certainly not to the extent that abortion would be a treatment for suicide which it clearly isn't.

That is a fact. People have been duped and cheated by savy politicians into creating some kind of minority notion of what is for the common good - and not what the people think is 'for' the common good - they've been blind sided imo and they know it.

Manach · 13-07-2013 07:02AM

I would mention to Corkfeen that the government seem to have been very reticent about their initial impetus that was driven by their ECHR obligations, which to me seem to thus undermine the Irish consitution - which it in itself is totally eviscerated by the EU olbigations. Playing the nationalist card is a tad unbeleiveable.

13-07-2013 09:37AM

lmaopml wrote: »

I will agree with you that our Governments have behaved disgracefully towards the public. As far as the current bill is concerned it has been tagged with the 'suicide' question and passed by TD's and not by the people.

The only purpose of the legislation was to fix the suicide question, and make our laws representative of the constitution and the will of the people

lmaopml wrote: »

It's blatantly obvious to anybody with eyes and ears, that in every single country that suicide is a means to obtain abortion that it has made abortion on demand the norm in that society.

Name another country that have introduced a suicide clause (not a mental health one, but one which specifically addressed the risk to the life of the mother from suicide)

lmaopml wrote: »

People have been duped and cheated by savy politicians into creating some kind of minority notion of what is for the common good

Two referendums make a mockery of you calling it a "minority notion"

lmaopml wrote: »

It's a little different when it wasn't part of their mandate in the first place, and they sold themselves that way to gain power.....that's the truth. Look it up, the brochure is glossy!

Took your advice, looked it up:

Fine Gael Manifesto wrote:

http://www.rte.ie/news/2011/0215/finegaelmanifesto.pdf
European Court of Human Rights Judgement on Abortion: We will establish an all-party committee, with access to medical and legal expertise, to consider the implications of the recent ruling of the ECHR and to make recommendations.

Seems to be pretty much exactly what they did

Manach wrote: »

I would mention to Corkfeen that the government seem to have been very reticent about their initial impetus that was driven by their ECHR obligations, which to me seem to thus undermine the Irish consitution - which it in itself is totally eviscerated by the EU olbigations. Playing the nationalist card is a tad unbeleiveable.

It was in their manifesto that that was the reason they were doing it. And how does the ECHR ruling undermine the constitution, when the law's conflict with the constitution is the reason we're in this situation in the first place?

Corkfeen · 13-07-2013 10:25AM

Also, a few additions , 'abortion on demand is not possible until the 8th amendment is repealed. The bill is absurdly strict and treats the woman like a criminal conspiring against the state so I have no clue how people could conclude this is abortion on demand... It encourages women to keep going to the UK, that's about it.

Nobody has claimed that abortion is a cure for suicidal ideation however is it really fair to force a woman to bare a foetus when she's under such psychological strain?

Lmaopml, do you really hold women in such little regards that you believe they all will be feigning suicidality?

Just because you don't agree, doesn't mean the vast majority of the country isn't in in favour of the bill... Public support has only increased since the last referendum.

eireannBEAR · 13-07-2013 10:37AM

Corkfeen wrote: »

Lmaopml, do you really hold women in such little regards that you believe they all will be feigning suicidality?

some women or other people pressuring them too, yes.
but at least under this law that doesnt look to possible as its extremely restrictive.
so im happy enough,the only people who will easily access the suicide clause under this are people who have a history of suicidal ideation. it will be to much trouble for any one else.

Morbert · 13-07-2013 01:16PM

Why would a woman feign suicidal tendencies when they can freely get an abortion in the UK?

lmaopml · 13-07-2013 11:59PM

28064212 wrote: »

The only purpose of the legislation was to fix the suicide question, and make our laws representative of the constitution and the will of the people

I think you are forgetting the fact that the Constitution protects the life of the unborn - it doesn't represent the unborn as a disposable thing.

Name another country that have introduced a suicide clause (not a mental health one, but one which specifically addressed the risk to the life of the mother from suicide)

O Gee, you could have a look at any country that implements the right to termination of the unborn on any particular mental health problem, including suicide, which is by definition a mental health problem - and not only that, but abortion has not proved a remedy for suicide. You would think that having fifty odd years of experience evaluating other countries who went down this route that it's kind of obvious that abortion does nothing help mental health, it does nothing to stop suicide, and it certainly does nothing to contribute to any kind of common good in any society.

Two referendums make a mockery of you calling it a "minority notion"

That's why our politicians have hid behind a 'whip'? They know darn well that the SC interpretation is not inline with public interpretation - and not allowing a free vote on economic policy is one thing, but using the whip on a moral and ethical issue is quite another - especially when evidence suggests it's built on sand.

Took your advice, looked it up:

Seems to be pretty much exactly what they did

What they did is sell people out, even their own politicians who understood that they could promise that their party does not represent abortion for all cases of suicide - those people read public opinion well - Irish people are not heartless, anything but - realists maybe, given the example of the introduction of Abortion and protection of life that already existed, but physicians needed protection to make that judgment - however the reduction of the unborn as merely a commodity that is wanted or no, whether they have Downs, or Cleft Pallet etc. they are ultimately disposable.

I don't think this is the opinion of Irish people, and I know our Government doesn't believe so either considering they believe introducing the 'whip' in moral circumstances is okay - that people should lose their job, and others must crawl in order to keep it.

It was in their manifesto that that was the reason they were doing it. And how does the ECHR ruling undermine the constitution, when the law's conflict with the constitution is the reason we're in this situation in the first place?

Yes, it is, and for a very good reason - because we are not a nation of hill billies who think it's okay to undermine the unborn child. Also, that's it's not okay to seperate women from their unborn child - globally speaking, women are very less off for the introduction of terminating their child. Women are bought and sold these days, and in some countries being a woman fetus means that you are worthless by virtue of your gender.

I am not anti women, I am pro-women, I am pro-life, I am pro the life of the child with special needs. I am most certainly not pro cowardice.

lmaopml · 14-07-2013 01:50AM

One hundred and sixty five amendments suggested by TD's and 'only' those proposed by 'one' minister, the minister for Health have been upheld.

That must be a record in anti listening to others.

Minister Reilly is indeed a one man band, that is immune to anything beyond his own nose and his own power and opinions to the exclusion of all others to the extreme - quite obviously.

Not many would regard 165 to 1 as great odds, unless it was their very own self that decides the outcome. Finding oneself in difficult circumstances never equates to selling up everybody.

We've done it before, we've worked through harder things than living in apparent comfort but worried up to our eyeballs about the future of our children who are being victimised and the road we take - that road is as uncertain as the road the minister treads with all his rebuking of the many in favour of his very own opinon which he apparently regards as the most high one.

I think he over states his value, and his opinion - and 'shut up' seems to have worked with at least 150 who take home a wage in the Dail. Never mind having a mind or an opinion at all if one is a TD, and the people well they count as merely numbers that one seeks to gain power.

Zombrex · 14-07-2013 10:29AM

lmaopml wrote: »

Sure Zombrex, the party whip may be taken away from somebody who doesn't follow a party line they signed up to.

It's a little different when it wasn't part of their mandate in the first place, and they sold themselves that way to gain power.....that's the truth. Look it up, the brochure is glossy!

There is a difference between economic policy and 'ethics' and they knew that when looking to get into power - and the Government have crossed the 'ethic' line as regards how powerful they believe themselves to be when consulting the people is at the bottom of the agenda and making decisions for them is at the fore.

They are well out of place - it's not their decision, and ultimately they knew it, but then being bought cheap is clearly what happens on a sunny day in July.

This bill was in the program for government, and is supported by 80% of the electorate.

It would be unethical of them not to enact it.

Zombrex · 14-07-2013 10:34AM

nagirrac wrote: »

As I thought, you want a society where there are no restrictions on abortion. At least you are honest, most with your extreme view dodge the question.

My extreme view is that your view, that "of course" the state should not force a parent to surrender use of an organ without consent, should be applied to women.

Yes, radical I know, the idea that women should have the same rights as everyone else.

nagirrac wrote: »

What I am saying is that if the parent is unwilling to donate, the state should do everything else possible to save the child, as obviously the state cannot force someone to give up an organ.

Really. That is "obvious" is it. Not you know an extreme view that is barely worth discussing?

I presume you mean obvious the state cannot force someone to give up an organ unless that person is a woman and that organ is her womb. Because, you know, reasons.

nagirrac wrote: »

In the same way the state cannot stop someone terminating a pregnancy in any circumstance if that is their choice.

The state does stop this, they stop it by making it illegal and punishing the woman who does it.

nagirrac wrote: »

On the bodily integrity question as it relates to unrestricted access to abortion, regardless of stage of the pregnancy and justification for the termination, this was first proposed publically by Judith Thomson in 1971 and heard by the Supreme Court in the US. They didn't listen to her and the argument carries even less weight today.

If you think Judith Thomson invented this argument you need to pay closer attention.

The argument for bodily integrity, which you yourself support, has been around for thousands of years. The "extreme" view presented here is simply that woman should also have that right.

14-07-2013 12:02PM

lmaopml wrote: »

I think you are forgetting the fact that the Constitution protects the life of the unborn - it doesn't represent the unborn as a disposable thing.

That's a meaningless soundbite, and in no way responds to what I said. So, again: The only purpose of the legislation was to fix the suicide question, and make our laws representative of the constitution and the will of the people. This legislation is constitutional, where our previous legislation was not

lmaopml wrote: »

O Gee, you could have a look at any country that implements the right to termination of the unborn on any particular mental health problem, including suicide, which is by definition a mental health problem

Again, did not answer the question. Abortion being allowed for specifically in the case where suicide represents a threat to the life of the mother is not the same as being allowed for on any mental health problem. Again: Name another country that have introduced a suicide clause (not a mental health one, but one which specifically addressed the risk to the life of the mother from suicide)

lmaopml wrote: »

That's why our politicians have hid behind a 'whip'? They know darn well that the SC interpretation is not inline with public interpretation

That is utter nonsense. We have had two referendums especially for the SC interpretation, and both of them endorsed that interpretation.

lmaopml wrote: »

What they did is sell people out, even their own politicians who understood that they could promise that their party does not represent abortion for all cases of suicide - those people read public opinion well - Irish people are not heartless, anything but - realists maybe, given the example of the introduction of Abortion and protection of life that already existed, but physicians needed protection to make that judgment - however the reduction of the unborn as merely a commodity that is wanted or no, whether they have Downs, or Cleft Pallet etc. they are ultimately disposable.

More soundbites. You claimed that FG somehow cheated, and didn't announce their intentions with regard to abortion. I've shown that they quite clearly did, and followed through with exactly what they said they were going to do. Are you going to retract your claim?

lmaopml wrote: »

Yes, it is, and for a very good reason - because we are not a nation of hill billies who think it's okay to undermine the unborn child. Also, that's it's not okay to seperate women from their unborn child - globally speaking, women are very less off for the introduction of terminating their child. Women are bought and sold these days, and in some countries being a woman fetus means that you are worthless by virtue of your gender.

I am not anti women, I am pro-women, I am pro-life, I am pro the life of the child with special needs. I am most certainly not pro cowardice.

You haven't answered a single point I made. Manach claimed that the ECHR undermined the constitution. Again: how does the ECHR ruling undermine the constitution, when the law's conflict with the constitution is the reason we're in this situation in the first place?

MrPudding · 15-07-2013 07:58AM

28064212 wrote: »

Again, did not answer the question.

Did you actually expect anything other than a restatement of personal beliefs accompanied with a side of ignoring evidence and questions? This is fairly standard, particularly when the evidence contradicts the afore mentioned personal beliefs.

MrP

lazygal · 15-07-2013 08:58AM

lmaopml wrote: »

Yes, it is, and for a very good reason - because we are not a nation of hill billies who think it's okay to undermine the unborn child. Also, that's it's not okay to seperate women from their unborn child - globally speaking, women are very less off for the introduction of terminating their child. Women are bought and sold these days, and in some countries being a woman fetus means that you are worthless by virtue of your gender.

I am not anti women, I am pro-women, I am pro-life, I am pro the life of the child with special needs. I am most certainly not pro cowardice.

Do you think a woman who has a special needs child can't be prochoice? Do you think a woman who wouldn't have an abortion herself be prochoice for others? We separate women from their unborn children all the time. Look at the monitoring of Savita's unborn child compared to how she was monitored. We were incredibly adept at separating the woman from her born child in years gone by in religious settings.

I'm pro life, and prochoice, and prowomen, which I why I want a liberal abortion regime. I don't see why one woman 'deserves' an abortion and another doesn't - if you don't want to continue a pregnancy, that's not something you should have to justify.

Being pregnant is crap. No one should be forced to do it unless it is freely of their choosing. I don't have a right to anyone else's blood or organs to maintain my right to life, and neither does a foetus. If I don't have that right to override someone's bodily integrity to keep me alive, why does a foetus?

I think its cowardly to deny the reality that there is an abortion rate in Ireland and if we didn't have the express right to a medical procedure for women in another close jurisdiction who's regime is nicely liberal women in Ireland would be dying or injuring themselves as they did for millennia before safe abortion was a reality.

Zombrex · 15-07-2013 11:06AM

lmaopml wrote: »

I am not anti women, I am pro-women, I am pro-life, I am pro the life of the child with special needs. I am most certainly not pro cowardice.

It takes a certain type of cognitive dissonance to say you are "pro-women" while at the same time arguing for the restriction of the rights of women.

lazygal · 15-07-2013 11:14AM

Zombrex wrote: »

It takes a certain type of cognitive dissonance to say you are "pro-women" while at the same time arguing for the restriction of the rights of women.

I've found arguments in favour of being prowomen while enforcing pregnancy on women and denying them access to abortion usually refer to gender selective abortion. Which is illegal in many countries, but seems to be viewed as legitimate grounds for arguing that abortion shouldn't be allowed at all.

I don't think enforced pregnany is prowoman in the slightest. Having been pregnant I believe this even more fervently.

hinault · 15-07-2013 12:12PM

lazygal wrote: »

Being pregnant is crap.

Telling.

lazygal · 15-07-2013 12:24PM

hinault wrote: »

Telling.

How so? How do/did you find pregnancy?

maguic24 · 15-07-2013 12:31PM

hinault wrote: »

Telling.

She's not the first person to say that and she won't be the last! Try watching 1 born every minute, put ya right off getting pregnant.

hinault · 15-07-2013 12:34PM

lazygal wrote: »

How so? How do/did you find pregnancy?

I haven't.

I have enough sisters/sisters-in-law/friends/acquaintances who have experienced difficult pregnancies who would never describe their experience of pregnancy as "being crap"

The fact that you describe being pregnant as crap remains telling however.

maguic24 · 15-07-2013 12:39PM

hinault wrote: »

I haven't.

I have enough sisters/sisters-in-law/friends/acquaintances who have experienced difficult pregnancies who would never describe their experience of pregnancy as "being crap"

The fact that you describe being pregnant as crap remains telling however.

Morning sickness, stretch marks, looking like a whale, weight gain, swollen ankles and having to squeeze a baby out of your vagina...seems pretty crap to me!!

I imagine the bundle of joy you receive at the end is worth it but the whole pregnancy thing beforehand...pretty crap if you ask me....

greenpilot · 15-07-2013 12:40PM

...of course the big elephant in the room is the fact which keeps getting ignored. 85% of the electorate supports the bill. That's basically the end if the argument and no amount of demonstrating is going to change that. This is a Democracy, not a Theocracy.

lazygal · 15-07-2013 12:43PM

hinault wrote: »

I haven't.

I have enough sisters/sisters-in-law/friends/acquaintances who have experienced difficult pregnancies who would never describe their experience of pregnancy as "being crap"

The fact that you describe being pregnant as crap remains telling however.

How else would I describe it? It is crap, especially with the hot weather and a lively child and a fulltime job to combine with it, not to mention back pain, morning sickness, a restricted diet, a restricted range of activities, medical appointments and the surgery I'll need to safely deliver the baby playing on my mind.

There's a group of pregnant women I'm in an online group with who'd also describe pregnancy as crap. Its not all joy, sunshine and glow, you know. Neither is birth or labour. I make no apology for not sugarcoating it for you.

You must have a very sheltered existence if you've never heard a woman describe pregnancy in a negative way.

hinault · 15-07-2013 12:50PM

lazygal wrote: »

How else would I describe it? It is crap, especially with the hot weather and a lively child and a fulltime job to combine with it, not to mention back pain, morning sickness, a restricted diet, a restricted range of activities, medical appointments and the surgery I'll need to safely deliver the baby playing on my mind.

There's a group of pregnant women I'm in an online group with who'd also describe pregnancy as crap. Its not all joy, sunshine and glow, you know. Neither is birth or labour. I make no apology for not sugarcoating it for you.

You must have a very sheltered existence if you've never heard a woman describe pregnancy in a negative way.

It's interesting that when you get called about describing being pregnant as crap, that only then do you go on to qualify what you mean by describing pregnancy as being crap.

As I said your initial comment is very telling.

Abortion debate thread

Comments