nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Abortion Discussion, Part Trois

PopePalpatine

I didn't know whether to post this here or in the Sanctimony of Pro-Lifers thread in t'udder forum - a BBC article on Paraguay's "epidemic" of child pregnancies. Paraguay only allows for abortion if the mother's life is at risk. On average, two girls aged 14 and under become pregnant in Paraguay every day.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

Delirium

so it's exploiting a group of people to respond to another poster who mentioned said group?

Second Toughest in_the Freshers

Your quote was the nearest at hand, im sure there are more.

Kiwi in IE

Cabaal wrote: »

Religious groups can't have it both ways, You can't both condemn people for getting pregnant and also be against safe sex.

I felt a need to repost this! To make sure it has been see by all who need to see it.

frostyjacks

Cabaal wrote: »

Wow,
You are making completely baseless and false comments about this women now. You might as well be suggesting its also possible she murders puppys in her spare time and then baths in their blood.

Although this women is in the media she deserves some level respect and your comments are completely uncalled for and out of order.

Second off, she's not a criminal, she has no conviction for what she has done and as such to call her a criminal is misleading on your part. So with all due respect you should withdraw that remark and your other comment

By definition, someone who commits a crime is a criminal. She hasn't been convicted yet, although justice always catches up with people.

lazygal

frostyjacks wrote: »

By definition, someone who commits a crime is a criminal. She hasn't been convicted yet, although justice always catches up with people.

How many times has justice caught up with women who've taken abortion pills in the Republic of Ireland?

lazygal

Cabaal wrote: »

Imagine that, what are the odds of two ignorant organizations existing in the one building?

And in a building owned by a young priests' association, no less.

http://www.cylex.ie/reviews/viewcompanywebsite.aspx?firmaName=st.+joseph+s+young+priests+society&companyId=11019214

A lot of 'charities' seem to end up in 23 Merrion Square.

Kiwi in IE

frostyjacks wrote: »

By definition, someone who commits a crime is a criminal. She hasn't been convicted yet, although justice always catches up with people.

She won't be convicted either. That woman's conviction would be the end of the 8th Amendment, so it's not something 'pro life' groups are going to be calling for if they have any sense at all.

Cabaal

frostyjacks wrote: »

By definition, someone who commits a crime is a criminal. She hasn't been convicted yet, although justice always catches up with people.

No women has ever been convicted for using abortion pills in Republic Of Ireland, unless you know something the Department of Justice doesn't know?

Also, you and I know that this will never ever go to court, even the pro life groups would be against that happening.

Kiwi in IE

I wonder about a mass act of civil disobedience as a protest? If thousands of women all imported a dose of abortion pills at the same time, via parcel motel and then be very open and public about the fact we have obtained them. What could the authorities do? Arrest thousands of woman at once? Civil disobedience has to some extent worked in the case of water charges.

Cabaal

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

I wonder about a mass act of civil disobedience as a protest? If thousands of women all imported a dose of abortion pills at the same time, via parcel motel and then be very open and public about the fact we have obtained them. What could the authorities do? Arrest thousands of woman at once? Civil disobedience has to some extent worked in the case of water charges.

Well, the Gardai and Customs did nothing when women recently brought pills back from the North and one women took the pills on camera for the whole world to see in the train station.

While it might technically be illegal, if they didn't charge anyone in that very public situation they are never going to do it.

http://www.thejournal.ie/abortion-pills-2-1750266-Oct2014/

even a TD took them

?width=500&version=1750354

robdonn

Cabaal wrote: »

Well, the Gardai and Customs did nothing when women recently brought pills back from the North and one women took the pills on camera for the whole world to see in the train station.

While it might technically be illegal, if they didn't charge anyone in that very public situation they are never going to do it.

http://www.thejournal.ie/abortion-pills-2-1750266-Oct2014/

even a TD took them

Is it illegal if they're not pregnant? Or, at least, as harsh a crime?

Kiwi in IE

Cabaal wrote: »

Well, the Gardai and Customs did nothing when women recently brought pills back from the North and one women took the pills on camera for the whole world to see in the train station.

While it might technically be illegal, if they didn't charge anyone in that very public situation they are never going to do it.

http://www.thejournal.ie/abortion-pills-2-1750266-Oct2014/

even a TD took them

That's great, I missed that when it happened. Just goes to prove that even the law doesn't take that law seriously. The 8th Amendment already makes Ireland a appear to be women's rights and equality backwater. Politicians and 'pro life' groups can't afford for the international spotlight to be shone on it at times outside of when it has been forced into the limelight because it has caused real tradgedy.

Cabaal

robdonn wrote: »

Is it illegal if they're not pregnant? Or, at least, as harsh a crime?

Its illegal to bring the pills into the country,
As for if they are pregnant or not, well unless they tested the women before hand they'd have no way of knowing.

So you could easily argue that at the very least they should investigate the matter, question the women and perhaps have a doctor examine her to make sure she didn't take the pills for an abortion.

After all, if you are going to claim the importation and use of the pills is illegal then you need to properly enforce the law....right?

[Deleted User]

robdonn wrote: »

Is it illegal if they're not pregnant? Or, at least, as harsh a crime?

I couldn't imagine that it is.

Kiwi in IE

Deleted User wrote: »

I couldn't imagine that it is.

Yes, but the law could not be sure that those women were not pregnant unless they had been tested.

Seeing as it's potentially an act of 'murder', you would at least think the police would investigate? If someone put up a video on YouTube and it looked like there was even a very slim possibility that a real child had been killed, do you think that the authorities would fail to investigate, never mind allow one of the perpetrators to remain as a TD? The 8th Amendment is a joke!

Shrap

frostyjacks wrote: »

By definition, someone who commits a crime is a criminal. She hasn't been convicted yet, although justice always catches up with people.

No. I've way more of a problem with your appalling comment reposted here:

frostyjacks wrote: »

It's also possible that it had been planned, given that she went behind the man's back, and that they're no longer together. We're only getting the criminal's side of the story, remember.

You are attributing lying and malicious intent to her getting pregnant and having an abortion, because anyone who breaks the law would be a malicious liar? Or is it just to women who have abortions that you make these attributions? Do you say the same of every Irish woman (10 per day at the very least) who has an abortion? They are your family, your friends, your work colleagues, the people you meet in every walk of your life - do you genuinely go around the place hating on all women? Hard to believe that (although I can see it's perfectly possible).

[Deleted User]

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

Yes, but the law could not be sure that those women were not pregnant unless they had been tested.

Seeing as it's potentially an act of 'murder', you would at least think the police would investigate? If someone put up a video on YouTube and it looked like there was a possibility that a real child had been killed, do you think that the authorities would fail to investigate, never mind allow one of the perpetrators to remain as a TD? The 8th Amendment is a joke!

Trampolining could equally be an act of 'murder' though. Which shows the problem with the 8th too.

The PR stunt above was a good one imo, but it really was just a PR stunt at the end of the day.

Kiwi in IE

frostyjacks wrote: »

She didn't elaborate on the circumstances around the conception.

Do you think she should have?

robindch

frostyjacks wrote: »

We're only getting the criminal's side of the story, remember.

Referring to somebody as a "criminal" when they've not been convicted of a criminal offence, or who has not done something for which criminal sanctions are applicable, is an unhelpful debating strategy and I would suggest you drop the term and use something less inflammatory.

eviltwin

frostyjacks wrote: »

It's also possible that it had been planned, given that she went behind the man's back, and that they're no longer together. We're only getting the criminal's side of the story, remember.

Even if any of your wild assumptions are true so what? Her reasons are her own business, nothing to do with anyone else and completely irrelevant. As for calling her a criminal, don't make me laugh.

robindch

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

Civil disobedience has to some extent worked in the case of water charges.

But on the back, IMHO, of a campaign of what I could charitably refer to as questionable utility and dubious honesty.

inocybe

Cabaal wrote: »

Its illegal to bring the pills into the country,
As for if they are pregnant or not, well unless they tested the women before hand they'd have no way of knowing.

So you could easily argue that at the very least they should investigate the matter, question the women and perhaps have a doctor examine her to make sure she didn't take the pills for an abortion.

After all, if you are going to claim the importation and use of the pills is illegal then you need to properly enforce the law....right?

The medication is only illegal because it's off prescription. There are plenty of 'abortion pills' being prescribed every day in Ireland to people with arthritis and other conditions.

The Black Oil

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

I wonder about a mass act of civil disobedience as a protest? If thousands of women all imported a dose of abortion pills at the same time, via parcel motel and then be very open and public about the fact we have obtained them. What could the authorities do? Arrest thousands of woman at once? Civil disobedience has to some extent worked in the case of water charges.

I don't know. I don't think think this form of protest is part of the Irish psyche at all. At least not on social issues, on a large scale.

lazygal

inocybe wrote: »

The medication is only illegal because it's off prescription. There are plenty of 'abortion pills' being prescribed every day in Ireland to people with arthritis and other conditions.

And abortions are routinely performed during the management of miscarriages. Often using the abortion pill, for early miscarriages.

Lurkio

frostyjacks wrote: »

Going by the actual statistics, less and less Irish women are having abortions. It's on a downward curve.

Yes, but why do you think its "on the way out"?

silverharp

Lurkio wrote: »

Yes, but why do you think its "on the way out"?

are teenagers having less sex

http://www.theguardian.com/society/2016/mar/10/are-teenagers-having-less-sex-and-is-social-media-to-blame

The rate of teenage pregnancy in England and Wales has halved in 16 years and currently stands at its lowest level since records began 50 years ago.

Newly released figures from the Office for National Statistics show that 23 young women under the age of 18 out of every 1,000 became pregnant in 2014, compared with 47 out of 1,000 in 1998. The estimated number of teenage pregnancies fell from 24,306 in 2013 to 22,653 in 2014.

So teenagers appear to be having less unprotected sex. But why?

The impact of technology

One theory put forward to explain the drop is that teenagers are spending more time in their bedrooms on social media and less time meeting up, getting drunk and doing things they may later come to regret.

Prof David Paton, an economist at Nottingham University Business School, told the Telegraph: “It does potentially fit in terms of timing. People [appear to be] spending time at home – rather than sitting at bus stops with a bottle of vodka they are doing it remotely with their friends ... Nobody really knows why we’ve got this sudden change around about 2007 to 2008.”

Lurkio

silverharp wrote: »

are teenagers having less sex

.......the world is too strange a place for me to dismiss the possibility out of hand.

MrPudding

frostyjacks wrote: »

By definition, someone who commits a crime is a criminal. She hasn't been convicted yet, although justice always catches up with people.

No, that is a definition failure, or being generous, an over simplification. Someone convicted of committing a crime is, by definition, a criminal. We have this little none principle of innocent until proven guilty.

One may have committed an act that may be criminal but it is for the courts to decide if it was criminal. So your description of this woman as a criminal is, in addition to repugnant and dickish, is inaccurate.

MrP

frostyjacks

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

Do you think she should have?

It would have given us a more rounded version of events. There was a lot of unanswered questions in that article. Did she seek advice from crisis pregnancy organisations? If not, why not? Has she still not told the father what she did to his baby? Does she ever think about the baby? Why does she think the law doesn't apply to her? Like I said, we only get one side of the story in these media campaigns.

Absolam

Cabaal wrote: »

Religious groups can't have it both ways, You can't both condemn people for getting pregnant and also be against safe sex.

Is there a reason why you can't? Only.. it does seem that people do.