Savita dies due to refusal to terminate an unviable foetus.*Mod warning Post #1*

Berlin at night

Curly Judge wrote: »

If being pro-abortion means that its proponents think abortion is good in all circumstances does it then follow that being pro-chemotherapy mean its proponents think it's a good thing in all circumstances?

Can I butt in here as I'm pro-abortion. Yes, abortion is a good thing in all cases as I've stated before, whether it be rape, incest rape, risk to the mother, or simply not ready for a child, it is without a doubt a good thing. Its safe, painless, and quick, and allows the person to quickly get on with their life free of a mountain of stress. Nobody gets hurt, its a no brainer. An absolute no brainer. It eliminates a small problem that without abortion would have been a serious problem. The sooner we get it brought in over here the flammin' better.

For the anti-abortion radicals, they don't have to have an abortion if they don't want one, and can keep their unwanted noses out peoples business and quit getting in the way of progress.

It really is that simple.

Twee.

We need to legislate for safety. Just because abortion is banned doesn't mean it doesn't happen, and I'm not talking about going to England. People order pills online or do other things to induce miscarriage, things that are not safe. Banning abortion does not get rid of it, only forces people to try organise it some other way. More than 1800 pills seized at customs in recent years http://www.independent.ie/health/health-news/women-warned-of-dangers-from-illegal-abortion-pills-sold-online-3225551.html

Curly Judge

Berlin at night wrote: »

Can I butt in here as I'm pro-abortion. Yes, abortion is a good thing in all cases as I've stated before, whether it be rape, incest rape, risk to the mother, or simply not ready for a child, it is without a doubt a good thing. Its safe, painless, and quick, and allows the person to quickly get on with their life free of a mountain of stress. Nobody gets hurt, its a no brainer. An absolute no brainer. It eliminates a small problem that without abortion would have been a serious problem. The sooner we get it brought in over here the flammin' better.

For the anti-abortion radicals, they don't have to have an abortion if they don't want one, and can keep their unwanted noses out peoples business and quit getting in the way of progress.

It really is that simple.

Very simple for you perhaps? Not quite so simple for the unborn child!
I would agree that abortion for rape, incest and verifiable health issues should be legislated for.
Abortion to mitigate a slight social inconvenience is wrong...wrong...wrong!
It is an abrogation of everything that makes us human and should be resisted.
As a mere male I'm constantly amazed as to why a woman can end up with an unwanted pregnancy what with all the contraceptive devices available today, including the morning after pill. I can't help but think that drink has a lot to do with it.
As the old Irish priest said in Lake Woebegone Day: "A girl who doesn’t want to go to Denver shouldn't get on the train".

Macha

Curly Judge wrote: »

Very simple for you perhaps? Not quite so simple for the unborn child!
I would agree that abortion for rape, incest and verifiable health issues should be legislated for.
Abortion to mitigate a slight social inconvenience is wrong...wrong...wrong!
It is an abrogation of everything that makes us human and should be resisted.
As a mere male I'm constantly amazed as to why a woman can end up with an unwanted pregnancy what with all the contraceptive devices available today, including the morning after pill. I can't help but think that drink has a lot to do with it.
As the old Irish priest said in Lake Woebegone Day: "A girl who doesn’t want to go to Denver shouldn't get on the train".

Judgmental much? As a "mere male", perhaps you might realise that this sort of stuff happens all the time. It's called life.

As for the train analogy, Jesus wept.

Curly Judge

Macha wrote: »

Judgmental much? As a "mere male", perhaps you might realise that this sort of stuff happens all the time. It's called life..

Except that in this case it's death. For the baby!

Macha wrote: »

As for the train analogy, Jesus wept.

I'd say he's weeping all right!

Macha

Curly Judge wrote: »

Except that in this case it's death. For the baby!

Foetus. There's a reason we say someone is 1 year old, a year after their birthday.

Curly Judge wrote: »

I'd say he's weeping all right!

Probably at the ignorance of such a comment. The heartlessness shown by people who claim to worship a loving god never ceases to amaze.

Jack B. Badd

Curly Judge wrote: »

As a mere male I'm constantly amazed as to why a woman can end up with an unwanted pregnancy what with all the contraceptive devices available today, including the morning after pill. I can't help but think that drink has a lot to do with it.
As the old Irish priest said in Lake Woebegone Day: "A girl who doesn’t want to go to Denver shouldn't get on the train".

Firstly, contraception isn't solely the responsibility of women. It takes two people to result in a pregnancy, wanted or otherwise & both parties should be responsible, though it is the woman who will deal with all of the physical consequences of a pregnancy.

Secondly, contraception is available in Ireland but not free. There is a not insignificant cost associated, unlike in other countries. For 4 years in Ireland I paid €10+ per month for the pill whereas for 4 years in the UK, I received the same from the NHS without having to pay a penny. Given that I was on a tight budget while in Ireland, that was significant for me.

Thirdly, not all contraceptives are freely available especially the permanent ones. I had my tubes tied this year in the UK, given that I'm childfree & under 30, discussions with other Irish women have lead me to believe that I'd be waiting at least another decade to qualify for sterilisation in Ireland (if at all).

Fourthly, Irish education regarding contraception has very recently been woefully inadequate. As I attended a convent school, our teachers could not teach us anything significant about the good methods of contraception (i.e. those ones with a very low failure rate). Instead we got a talk on abstenance from a Catholic group - it was a joke! Sex ed may be better for younger generations but they're not the only ones who can get pregnant.

Fifthly, contraceptives fail sometimes. Even the good methods, even when used correctly. None of them has 0% failure rate & you don't always know they've failed within the 3 days available to take the MAP. Which, by the way, isn't 100% successful either!

As for "getting on the train", you're kidding, right? Do you honestly think men abdocate their responsibility when it comes to sex just because they can't get pregnant? That's simultaneously hilarious & pathetic!

Curly Judge

Macha wrote: »

Foetus. There's a reason we say someone is 1 year old, a year after their birthday.

Okay.
Foetus then.........If it makes you feel better about discarding a viable human being?

Macha wrote: »

Probably at the ignorance of such a comment. The heartlessness shown by people who claim to worship a loving god never ceases to amaze.

Actually I'm an atheist.
It was you who brought Jesus into the argument.

username123

Curly Judge wrote: »

Okay.
Foetus then.........If it makes you feel better about discarding a viable human being?

What is your preferred solution to unwanted pregnancy then?

Im assuming you are intelligent enough to accept that unwanted pregnancy is a realistic problem and not something we can solve by simply saying 'stop having sex' or 'use better contraception'. If it were that easy we wouldnt have 5000 women a year seeking safe abortion in the UK and elsewhere.

sambuka41

Jack B. Badd wrote: »

Secondly, contraception is available in Ireland but not free. There is a not insignificant cost associated, unlike in other countries. For 4 years in Ireland I paid €10+ per month for the pill whereas for 4 years in the UK, I received the same from the NHS without having to pay a penny. Given that I was on a tight budget while in Ireland, that was significant for me.

+ 1

It's very expensive, my pill is €14 a month, then at least once every 5/6 months I have to pay €60 to my GP for a 2 minute blood pressure check before he will give me a prescription. (despite the fact that my blood pressure has never been an issue in all the years im taking it and a nurse could do same and tell him results but he doesn't want me to sue him for mal practice :rolleyes:)

I bartered him down to €35 in past, but that was only because I was out of work (not long enough to have medical card before anyone says), I was trying to be responsible with my health and ensure I wasn't faced with an unwanted pregnancy but at that cost, I can see why some people can't afford to always be safe. :mad:

Curly Judge

username123 wrote: »

What is your preferred solution to unwanted pregnancy then?

No abortion in this country on the grounds of social inconvenience!
Abortion to be allowed on the grounds of rape, incest, verifiable medical and mental health reasons and the option to be available on the grounds of an unviable fetus.
No abortion purely on demand.
If, after the above exceptions, women want to get involved in abortion abroad that is entirely their affair.

username123 wrote: »

Im assuming you are intelligent enough to accept that unwanted pregnancy is a realistic problem and not something we can solve by simply saying 'stop having sex' or 'use better contraception'. If it were that easy we wouldnt have 5000 women a year seeking safe abortion in the UK and elsewhere.

That's exceedingly kind of you!
I'll do you the courtesy of assuming you are equally intelligent.

Curly Judge

sambuka41 wrote: »

+ 1

It's very expensive, my pill is €14 a month, then at least once every 5/6 months I have to pay €60 to my GP for a 2 minute blood pressure check before he will give me a prescription. (despite the fact that my blood pressure has never been an issue in all the years im taking it and a nurse could do same and tell him results but he doesn't want me to sue him for mal practice :rolleyes:)

I bartered him down to €35 in past, but that was only because I was out of work (not long enough to have medical card before anyone says), I was trying to be responsible with my health and ensure I wasn't faced with an unwanted pregnancy but at that cost, I can see why some people can't afford to always be safe. :mad:

So..... 65 cent per day is too much to invest in your hobby?
Twenty Major cost over 10 times more.
When our family reached a size we felt was enough I went and invested in our hobby by having the SNIP.
I would suggest that both options are cheaper than an abortion.

username123

Curly Judge wrote: »

No abortion in this country on the grounds of social inconvenience!
Abortion to be allowed on the grounds of rape, incest, verifiable medical and mental health reasons and the option to be available on the grounds of an unviable fetus.
No abortion purely on demand.
If, after the above exceptions, women want to get involved in abortion abroad that is entirely their affair.

Oh ok, so your answer is abortions abroad are ok. Pro-choice depending on geography. Strange, fairly inconsistent view. An Irish solution to an Irish problem.

Can I ask - what difference does it make if they seek the abortions abroad or at home?

Macha

username123 wrote: »

Can I ask - what difference does it make if they seek the abortions abroad or at home?

The perceived moral high ground.

Ellsbells

Jack B. Badd wrote: »

For 4 years in Ireland I paid €10+ per month for the pill whereas for 4 years in the UK, I received the same from the NHS without having to pay a penny.

I find it astounding that you think the public should pay for your contraception?!?!??!?!? :mad:

username123

Macha wrote: »

The perceived moral high ground.

Im interested to know the posters thoughts on this. I thought that they were not in favour of abortion, but given their last post, it seems that its ok, so long as its somewhere else. So Im just wondering at the reason or explanation for that. I would have thought that if abortion is wrong, its wrong regardless of geography. I mean, its either wrong or it isnt, right?

username123

Ellsbells wrote: »

I find it astounding that you think the public should pay for your contraception?!?!??!?!? :mad:

Why? I thought abortion was a society problem? If that is so then surely preventing unwanted pregnancies is a public health issue?

sambuka41

Curly Judge wrote: »

So..... 65 cent per day is too much to invest in your hobby?
Twenty Major cost over 10 times more.
When our family reached a size we felt was enough I went and invested in our hobby by having the SNIP.
I would suggest that both options are cheaper than an abortion.

So 65 cent per day is too much to ask our government to invest in women's health? As was stated earlier there are other countries that value choice for women and invest in their medical care including contraception. If that's envested in properly then there is less of a need for abortion.

I pay highly for my choice (on a side note I would consider sex a basic human need not a hobby)

I was answering in response to others claiming that there should be no unwanted pregnancies as there is contraception. That's deluded, there absolutely are and our approach to sex and contraception is a big part of that, and another of the reasons is the cost of contraception. There are a lot more people living on the dole in this country and the cost of contraception is expensive. People can't afford it but still have the human need for sex and intimacy

username123

+1 sambuka.

Im afraid someone cant have it every way with any kind of realism. If you are against abortion then it is logically consistent for the society you live in to assist in contraceptive choices in order to prevent the need for abortion.

Saying 'dont have sex' or 'get your own contraception even if you are broke' just isnt a realistic answer.

Sex is a basic human function. Without it there would be no human race - at all.

Jack B. Badd

Ellsbells wrote: »

I find it astounding that you think the public should pay for your contraception?!?!??!?!? :mad:

Why? I contribute towards other people's children via tax despite the fact that I have none & will never have them. I have absolutely no problem with that as that's what the tax system & living in a society is about. In return, yes I expect others to contribute to my (and other peoples', including most parents) access to contraception. Neither I nor anyone else is an island, there are costs & benefits of living in a society - one being that we contribute to each other & the group as a whole via taxation.

Besides which, as mentioned, unwanted pregnancy is a wider social issue & part of the solution must come from society as a whole.

Fysh

Curly Judge wrote: »

Very simple for you perhaps? Not quite so simple for the unborn child!
I would agree that abortion for rape, incest and verifiable health issues should be legislated for.
Abortion to mitigate a slight social inconvenience is wrong...wrong...wrong!
It is an abrogation of everything that makes us human and should be resisted.
As a mere male I'm constantly amazed as to why a woman can end up with an unwanted pregnancy what with all the contraceptive devices available today, including the morning after pill. I can't help but think that drink has a lot to do with it.
As the old Irish priest said in Lake Woebegone Day: "A girl who doesn’t want to go to Denver shouldn't get on the train".

As a male poster, I'd suggest you dial back your desire to tell other people how they should cope with a life-changing situation that, by definition, you're never going to experience first hand.

No form of contraception developed to date is 100% effective, and Ireland's position of not subsidising contraception (along with its inconsistent-at-best approach to sexual health education) contributes to a social environment whereby people will have sex without being in a position whereby, should a pregnancy occur, they are able to carry that pregnancy to term and raise the resultant child.

If you were genuinely pro-life, your concern would extend beyond the birth of said infant and into ensuring that it was going to be raised by people willing and able to do so well, with a stable home environment and a steady income that could cover the myriad costs involved in raising a child.

You don't appear to be of that mindset, based on what I can see of your posts - you seem to be mostly interested in being exceptionally judgemental towards people who dare to have sex without being married and ready to have a child.

Curly Judge wrote: »

So..... 65 cent per day is too much to invest in your hobby?
Twenty Major cost over 10 times more.
When our family reached a size we felt was enough I went and invested in our hobby by having the SNIP.
I would suggest that both options are cheaper than an abortion.

Ellsbells wrote: »

I find it astounding that you think the public should pay for your contraception?!?!??!?!? :mad:

1) Getting the snip as a woman in Ireland is far from easy, to the extent that this is largely another area of Irish exports. If you want to get the snip before the age of 40 or before you've had kids, you're at the mercy of your GP and unlikely to get very far. So yeah, good call on that one.
2) Having sex is not a hobby, and pretending that it should be treated as such ignores the substantial number of people able to have sex and therefore potentially become pregnant. Given that people who become pregnant without having the means to support a child then become burdens of the state, it makes more sense to invest in full-spectrum family planning (including contraceptive availability) than it does to ignore the situation until the children have been born and then complain about the likes of child welfare. The latter approach does, however, fit wonderfully with the ludicrous absence of logic known as "Irish solutions to Irish problems".
3) We fund via taxation any infrastructure or service deemed to be necessary or of substantial public benefit. If you object to the idea of publicly funding contraceptives, do you also object to government child welfare payments on the same basis? If so, how do you rationalise this with your claim to be concerned for the child in question?

Curly Judge

username123 wrote: »

Oh ok, so your answer is abortions abroad are ok. Pro-choice depending on geography. Strange, fairly inconsistent view. An Irish solution to an Irish problem.

Can I ask - what difference does it make if they seek the abortions abroad or at home?

You'll have to excuse me if I don't allow you to whoosh me down that particular cul-de-sac.
"If you are against abortion why don't you stop people going abroad for abortions".
Or.
"How dare you try to stop people going abroad for abortions"

Nice throw but no coconut,I'm afraid.

Ellsbells

Fysh wrote: »

3) We fund via taxation any infrastructure or service deemed to be necessary or of substantial public benefit. If you object to the idea of publicly funding contraceptives, do you also object to government child welfare payments on the same basis? If so, how do you rationalise this with your claim to be concerned for the child in question?

So you think because I have an issue with using abortion as a form of the contraception that I should agree to the public paying for contraception when there are people on hospital beds in corridors for 2 days, vital operations arent being performed, when parents have to fund raise for vital equipment for kids hospitals in the country and when the country is on their knees :rolleyes:

Fysh

Ellsbells wrote: »

So you think because I have an issue with using abortion as a form of the contraception that I should agree to the public paying for contraception when there are people on hospital beds in corridors for 2 days, vital operations arent being performed, when parents have to fund raise for vital equipment for kids hospitals in the country and when the country is on their knees :rolleyes:

1) Abortion is, by definition, not a form of contraception. It is a method of dealing with a pregnancy, rather than preventing a pregnancy.

2) The cost of funding cheap contraceptive access would be offset in the medium to long term against the costs of child welfare. The costs of welfare payments towards raising a child are far higher than the costs of subsidising contraception, and that's before you consider the intangible costs like the number of children raised by parents who weren't prepared to have children in unstable household environments.

What I am getting at here is that a big-picture perspective supports the idea of prevention being better and cheaper than dealing with the after-effects. If the current state of the country is so bad that it can't afford to subsidise contraception, then by definition it can also not afford the considerably higher cost of ongoing child welfare for those whose pregnancies were unplanned.

Ellsbells

Fysh wrote: »

can also not afford the considerably higher cost of ongoing child welfare for those whose pregnancies were unplanned.

Are you assuming that all unplanned pregnancies are to people on welfare or who will end up on welfare?

Fysh

Ellsbells wrote: »

Are you assuming that all unplanned pregnancies are to people on welfare or who will end up on welfare?

I think you're assuming that the only people who need child benefit payments are people who are also on benefits. Which would mean you're missing the point of the name - ie it is a payment intended to ensure that the child can be adequately cared for. Hell, there's no guarantee that planned pregnancies don't end up with the parents claiming child welfare due to a change in conditions, given the current economic climate. You may be interested to read more about it at Citizens Information. (While you're at it, you might want to look up the definition of the word "contraceptive" since you don't seem to have copped that, by definition, an abortion does not qualify...)

Not all unplanned pregnancies happen in households which are unable to meet the extensive costs of raising a child, but it's very disingenuous of you to claim that the country's broke and can't afford to subsidise contraception while ignoring the fact that lack of subsidised contraception access contributes to unplanned pregnancies, which in turn contributes to an increase in the overall child welfare budget paid out by the state.

username123

Curly Judge wrote: »

You'll have to excuse me if I don't allow you to whoosh me down that particular cul-de-sac.
"If you are against abortion why don't you stop people going abroad for abortions".
Or.
"How dare you try to stop people going abroad for abortions"

Nice throw but no coconut,I'm afraid.

I wasnt trying to go down any cul-de-sac, I asked you a simple question, what difference does it make if people have abortions at home or abroad?

No cul-de-sac - just interested in why you see a difference there.

username123

Ellsbells wrote: »

So you think because I have an issue with using abortion as a form of the contraception that I should agree to the public paying for contraception when there are people on hospital beds in corridors for 2 days, vital operations arent being performed, when parents have to fund raise for vital equipment for kids hospitals in the country and when the country is on their knees :rolleyes:

Abortion is not a form of contraception. A pregnancy has already happened by the time an abortion is on the cards.

You cannot have it all ways. Society either helps prevent pregnancies or it has to deal with the outcome of not preventing them in the form of child benefit, orphanages, social supports etc. Contraception costs far far less by comparison.

drkpower

username123 wrote: »

I wasnt trying to go down any cul-de-sac, I asked you a simple question, what difference does it make if people have abortions at home or abroad?

No cul-de-sac - just interested in why you see a difference there.

Or perhaps Curly might answer this question: Should a person be prevented from travelling to another jurisdiction if they are intending to murder an irish citizen in that other jurisdiction? And if so, why the distinction vis-a-vis travelling to another jurisdiction to murder an unborn child?

Morag

Curly Judge wrote: »

No abortion in this country on the grounds of social inconvenience!
Abortion to be allowed on the grounds of rape, incest, verifiable medical and mental health reasons and the option to be available on the grounds of an unviable fetus.
No abortion purely on demand.
If, after the above exceptions, women want to get involved in abortion abroad that is entirely their affair.

So you are pro abortion, you are an advocate for abortion legislation under the terms you have outlined above?