I agree. Someone else said in another thread that women will be having abortions JUST BECAUSE. Like that makes an ounce of logical sense. As if women are going to rush to get pregnant so they can have an abortion because it's the latest thing.
Jaysus, the outcry was bad enough when Deirdre Barlow was behind bars & she was a fictional character.
Were a woman convicted of procuring an illegal abortion in this state:
(1) The world's media would be encamped laughing at the little religious state which tries to pretend it's progressive. We'd become a laughing stock & be compared to Iran.
(2) We would have created a martyr instantly & handed victory to the repeal side.
(3) Tourism & our attractiveness for FDI would take a major whack.
(4) World leaders would actively question our attitude to women's human rights.
(5) The reputation damage would take decades to recover from.
The DPP is in a difficult spot, if they bring a case forward they know the likelihood of prosecution, there is no political will for the backlash.
Back of the radiator, the Irish solution to the Irish problem.
I don't disagree about the DPP, but the real solution is obviously to repeal the 8th and the PLDPA properly.
Well it's happened twice in northern Ireland
One woman had an abortion herself, the other ordered pills for her daughter.
Although they didn't go to prison there was a conviction which they will have on their records.
Given the very restrictive conditions the exist at present I think that is a safe assumption. A total of 25 legally-permitted abortions were carried out in Ireland in 2016. Of that total number, the procedures were carried out for a range of reasons:
- 8 procedures were due to a risk of physical illness
- 1 was due to a risk from suicide
- 16 were carried out because of emergencies arising from physical illnesses.
If the recommendations of the Citizen’s Assembly are adopted you could expect 10-20 abortions per 1,000 women between ages of 15-44 per annum. Obviously this will represent a big increase.
The rate of unwanted pregnancies however will probably will remain about the same. If it is repealed, the choices available to these women, will increase.
Bit of detail here:
Now she wasn't Mr. Wolf in the clean up department.
Plus her housemates were a gang of squealers.
I know they reckon they catch about 10% of drugs coming in through the post although how they arrive at that figure I'm not sure.
People are obviously buying in quantity based on the above figures.
I wonder if they are making a few quid on the black market.
If the figures doubled between 2011 & 2014 it would be difficult to guess where we stand now.
I'd say more people are aware of this route nowadays.
Women buy in pills to keep them safe if they or a family member/friend needs to use them. Up to 5 women per day are now using abortion pills at home, according to Dr. Abigail Aikens who spoke to the JOC about the use of the pills.
You might want to go re-read this post here then, as it might explain some of the logic involved.
Except it is backed up. The poster is just pointing out something that I cited sources for in this post here. Which is that making abortion illegal has little to no effect on the number of abortions happening.
So his assertion is substantiated. Your counter assertion is not. And I do not think I have to insult your intelligence, or mine, by explaining the qualitative difference between a substantiated assertion, and an unsubstantiated one, do I?
Yeah I'll read it in a couple of years when we have actual figures. I'll be glad to point out to you then how wrong you were.
Don't bother with another essay in reply. Not even pro-choice are interested in your patronising tone any longer.
Sooner its gone the better. The situation as it is is moronic. Women aren't just incubators. Its their body.
I will leave the personal insults out of the reply, as there is no need for them. Insults demean only the insulter, never the target.
The post I linked to refers to actual figures. So I am not clear what you mean here. Perhaps you mean actual figures from Ireland? Well clearly we do not have them yet, as it has not happened yet.
But the figures from the citations I made are very real and show little effect of it being made legal. So it is not like we are completely devoid of figures here. The 2007 article for example was done in collaboration with WHO and Guttmacher together and were published in Lancet.
“We now have a global picture of induced abortion in the world, covering both countries where it is legal and countries where laws are very restrictive,” Dr. Paul Van Look, director of the W.H.O. Department of Reproductive Health and Research, said in a telephone interview. “What we see is that the law does not influence a woman’s decision to have an abortion. If there’s an unplanned pregnancy, it does not matter if the law is restrictive or liberal.”
But what making it legal DID do, they noted, was influence the dangers involved. Making it legal resulting in making it much safer.
You're patronising tone insults every day but do carry on.
The wonderful thing about the internet is it allows us to communicate with many more people. The downside of this however is that we can not always put the tone into our posts that we wish to convey. We lack the context of expression and vocal inflections and more. Over the years I have removed tone from a lot of what I write, and write it in an emotionless way.
For many people this works. For a minority they insert the tone themselves where I have not. And then project that on to me like it is my fault. It is not.
If you find you have to throw insults or make it personal, rather than reply to the content of a post I have made though, then the fault is with you not with me. But that is of course your choice.
To return to the topic then. You claimed it is not logical for you to assume anything but an increase in the numbers should abortion be made legal. However this comment comes in the context of two things:
1) We have actual data compiled on a global rather than local scale showing consistently that it actually does have little to no effect.
2) Some logical reasons have actually been presented to you to suggest why this might be so. Such as people against abortion being more willing to support initiatives to reduce abortion, when they have failed to keep abortion illegal.
So you have numbers AND logical reasoning on offer here. So where you feel the lack of logic of plausibility now lies is unclear to me and I suspect, if you pause to consider it, to you too. And I invite you to consider that fact openly and dispassionately rather than getting personal for no good reason. Or you could simply not reply at all. To my knowledge no one is forcing you to.