Does anyone feel insulted by the abortion proposals?

eviltwin

wolfpawnat wrote: »

This may seem callous, but how do you prove it was rape, you could have girls would again do not want to be pregnant declaring rape, Gardaí called and innocent young men accused of horrific crimes, also these days, with the over the counter access to the MAP rape case pregnancies I would assume (and I have not researched this I might add) would be less. That said, I would never deny a woman who has been put through so much already from a rape the right to do anything she needs to to try and get her life back on track!

Here we go again, always thinking the worst of a woman just because she wants an abortion.

username123

wolfpawnat wrote: »

From what I have seen, they are not free, but are subsidized. I dare say they try not to deal with many of them as it would cost them more, and refer you instead to a private clinic to save them money, and like here, you could only imagine the waiting times. The baby would be born and graduating college before you'd see a consultant!!!!

So it looks like some amount of subsidy/availability on their public health system, dependant on area (and possibly on financial status of patient? - ie, the equivalent of a medical card patient here may avail?).

Purely from a financial pov, it would be cheaper for the government to cover the cost of an abortion than pay child support for 18 years. It would be cheaper again to provide free contraception - although contraception failure is always possible.

wolfpawnat

eviltwin wrote: »

Here we go again, always thinking the worst of a woman just because she wants an abortion.

No, all I am saying is it is open to abuse. I myself do not like the idea of abortion, but I don't see how my personal opinion should affect other women. I just worry for the men who could get horrendous convictions for no reason because some (and I mean a minuscule minority) of women are desperate or callous enough to accuse them of rape to get an abortion. As the mother of a boy, I would worry about it when he gets older. I would be the first to be held for his murder if he ever did such a horrific thing to any girl, but I would worry he could be accused of it if a girl felt it was going to be the only way she could get an abortion.

lazygal

Do people not know the MAP doesn't always work, regardless of whether its taken after a 'legitimate' rape? :rolleyes:

lazygal

wolfpawnat wrote: »

No, all I am saying is it is open to abuse. I myself do not like the idea of abortion, but I don't see how my personal opinion should affect other women. I just worry for the men who could get horrendous convictions for no reason because some (and I mean a minuscule minority) of women are desperate or callous enough to accuse them of rape to get an abortion. As the mother of a boy, I would worry about it when he gets older. I would be the first to be held for his murder if he ever did such a horrific thing to any girl, but I would worry he could be accused of it if a girl felt it was going to be the only way she could get an abortion.

I thought this kind of whataboutery wasn't going to be tolerated in TLL?

eviltwin

wolfpawnat wrote: »

No, all I am saying is it is open to abuse. I myself do not like the idea of abortion, but I don't see how my personal opinion should affect other women. I just worry for the men who could get horrendous convictions for no reason because some (and I mean a minuscule minority) of women are desperate or callous enough to accuse them of rape to get an abortion. As the mother of a boy, I would worry about it when he gets older. I would be the first to be held for his murder if he ever did such a horrific thing to any girl, but I would worry he could be accused of it if a girl felt it was going to be the only way she could get an abortion.

Yes it is but, just like anything that is open to abuse, its usually only a small minority that do it. We don't ban things because a tiny amount try and mess with the system.

You're now saying a woman who would want an abortion would a) lie and say she has been raped and b) implicate an innocent man in order to get an abortion. So basically it reads like you are saying women who seek out abortion because they don't want a baby are so immoral they would think nothing of the above to get their way. I find that really offensive tbh.

wolfpawnat

lazygal wrote: »

Do people not know the MAP doesn't always work, regardless of whether its taken after a 'legitimate' rape? :rolleyes:

It only has an effectiveness of 59%-84% based on how soon after the act it is taken.

http://www.emergencycontraception.ie/

I am just saying that this is the argument being taken by the IMO at their recent debate on the X case legislation. It does not indicate my personal view. And I myself know that shock alone means that after such things happen, you are not always able to think of something as simple as rushing to a clinic for assistance or to a pharmacy for a tablet.

wolfpawnat

eviltwin wrote: »

Yes it is but, just like anything that is open to abuse, its usually only a small minority that do it. We don't ban things because a tiny amount try and mess with the system.

You're now saying a woman who would want an abortion would a) lie and say she has been raped and b) implicate an innocent man in order to get an abortion. So basically it reads like you are saying women who seek out abortion because they don't want a baby are so immoral they would think nothing of the above to get their way. I find that really offensive tbh.

No, laws should NEVER passed based on minuscule minorities, which is why even as someone who does not agree with abortion, I feel there needs to be the option for women to have it.

I have been in the seat when it comes to crisis pregnancies twice, you don't think straight. I can see why some women, if they thought there was an option to get abortion, could choose that route. But again, as I said, they should not have to feel they need to do that, the option should be there for them regardless, even if I don't agree with it.

username123

eviltwin wrote: »

Yes it is but, just like anything that is open to abuse, its usually only a small minority that do it. We don't ban things because a tiny amount try and mess with the system.

I think the point is, restrictive measures such as our government would like to implement leave open the possibility of abuse through desperation. I mean, thats a given right? Its not about morality, its just about the lengths that desperate people may have to go to. Its quite likely whatever the government comes up with will be so restrictive that travel is the better option - if you can afford it.

Being honest about it, if I couldnt afford to travel and the only way to get an abortion was to say I was suicidal - Id see it as ticking a box to get what I wanted and no reflection of my personal morality.It would certainly be a better option for me than having a child I didnt want.

eviltwin

wolfpawnat wrote: »

No, laws should NEVER passed based on minuscule minorities, which is why even as someone who does not agree with abortion, I feel there needs to be the option for women to have it.

I have been in the seat when it comes to crisis pregnancies twice, you don't think straight. I can see why some women, if they thought there was an option to get abortion, could choose that route. But again, as I said, they should not have to feel they need to do that, the option should be there for them regardless, even if I don't agree with it.

Implying that women would lie about rape and actually blame someone just to get an abortion is insulting and offensive and harks back to that old image - that I had hoped was gone - that a woman who has an abortion is someone with no morals who can't be trusted. I've had two crisis pregnancies myself, one abortion, it would never have crossed my mind to lie about the circumstances let alone call an innocent man a rapist.

wolfpawnat

username123 wrote: »

I think the point is, restrictive measures such as our government would like to implement leave open the possibility of abuse through desperation. I mean, thats a given right? Its not about morality, its just about the lengths that desperate people may have to go to. Its quite likely whatever the government comes up with will be so restrictive that travel is the better option - if you can afford it.

Being honest about it, if I couldnt afford to travel and the only way to get an abortion was to say I was suicidal - Id see it as ticking a box to get what I wanted and no reflection of my personal morality.It would certainly be a better option for me than having a child I didnt want.

This is what I have been trying (and failing spectacularly) to say. I have been there, I went to London, I borrowed the money, I know how scared and desperate some girls can be. I can see how the would feel forced to do it. I mean, if you couldn't afford England, you would consider it! We are lucky the cost has been cut for them with the Belfast clinic! I considered it myself this time too.

A child resented and with a mother who cannot/is not able to look after it should be the last thing occurring in 2013 in a developed country!

LittleBook

wolfpawnat wrote: »

Slightly OT and my apologies for this, but I have a question, I have heard some pro-choice women declaring that if abortion, under the X case guidelines or in general, was to be permitted in Ireland, that they expect it to be free. Now surely not everyone believes this? The pill before 9 weeks is £400 sterling in Belfast and procedures increase in cost from there. It would severely eat into any health budget if it were to be free. Surely women would have to pay for it here too?

I would imagine pre and ante-natal care costs the state thousands per baby, surely an abortion would be cheaper and therefore reduce costs.

wolfpawnat

eviltwin wrote: »

Implying that women would lie about rape and actually blame someone just to get an abortion is insulting and offensive and harks back to that old image - that I had hoped was gone - that a woman who has an abortion is someone with no morals who can't be trusted. I've had two crisis pregnancies myself, one abortion, it would never have crossed my mind to lie about the circumstances let alone call an innocent man a rapist.

If you claim rape, Gardaí may get involved. If you say you lied then, you may not get the abortion. You know the government are going to make an abortion even under the X case, as difficult to obtain as possible. All the major political parties declare themselves pro-life so they worry about getting into power again in the next election.

I would never say a woman who has had an abortion has no morals. Women get them for a multitude of reasons, none of which I know or concern me. As I said, I had the option, I had the money and was due to go to the clinic, I couldn't do it. I just couldn't. That's just me, I see them as babies. But again, I will reiterate, MY personal opinion should not affect others!

I am just saying there are some that would/will/are be desperate who would think about it, hence why I said in this thread and in others, another referendum needs to take place.

Morag

The X Case legislation will not include rape victims or incest victims for that to be legislated for the 8th amendment will have to be repealed.

LittleBook

username123 wrote: »

I think the point is, restrictive measures such as our government would like to implement leave open the possibility of abuse through desperation. I mean, thats a given right?

wolfpawnat wrote: »

This is what I have been trying (and failing spectacularly) to say

I hoped so but there's a huge difference between lying to a clinic if you're in a desperate situation and falsely accusing someone of rape to get an abortion.

wolfpawnat wrote: »

This may seem callous, but how do you prove it was rape, you could have girls would again do not want to be pregnant declaring rape, Gardaí called and innocent young men accused of horrific crimes

wolfpawnat wrote: »

I just worry for the men who could get horrendous convictions for no reason because some (and I mean a minuscule minority) of women are desperate or callous enough to accuse them of rape to get an abortion. As the mother of a boy, I would worry about it when he gets older

All a moot point anyway.

wolfpawnat

Morag wrote: »

The X Case legislation will not include rape victims or incest victims for that to be legislated for the 8th amendment will have to be repealed.

And as even a pro-life person, I find this sick. Carrying a rapists child, and even more sick, if that rapist is a member of your own family, is wrong.

I feel this X case legislation is all upside down, they are arguing stupid things and ignoring the things that are beyond important. Children resulting from incest are more likely to have certain congenital birth defects. The child may have no quality of life, which is as important in all this as the mothers welfare!

wolfpawnat

LittleBook wrote: »

I hoped so but there's a huge difference between lying to a clinic if you're in a desperate situation and falsely accusing someone of rape to get an abortion.

As I stated, if she went in and it was allowed under the legislation being discussed and she said she was raped to get the procedure and was given it, grand, no harm no foul, but with the way you know FG would legislate it, they could involve Gardaí and all. Then is when things get bad for all involved. That is what I am trying to say.

If she was allowed it, no questions asked, then that's fine. But as Morag said they are not including it, which I very much am against, would feel it very much relevant to the X case scenario.

Morag

wolfpawnat wrote: »

And as even a pro-life person, I find this sick. Carrying a rapists child, and even more sick, if that rapist is a member of your own family, is wrong.

So in such cases you think women should have the right to an abortion?

wolfpawnat wrote: »

I feel this X case legislation is all upside down, they are arguing stupid things and ignoring the things that are beyond important. Children resulting from incest are more likely to have certain congenital birth defects. The child may have no quality of life, which is as important in all this as the mothers welfare!

They are only legislating for the X Case (risk to life due to self-destruction) and the ABC(right to a speedy process to see if you can have a legal abortion) rulings cos the EU Court of Human Rights is forcing them to do so.

Same as it forced us to decriminalize homosexuality and bring in equal pay legislation.

wolfpawnat

Morag wrote: »

So in such cases you think women should have the right to an abortion?



They are only legislating for the X Case (risk to life due to self-destruction) and the ABC(right to a speedy process to see if you can have a legal abortion) rulings cos the EU Court of Human Rights is forcing them to do so.

Same as it forced us to decriminalize homosexuality and bring in equal pay legislation.

I am pro-life, but I do not think my opinion should affect other women's decisions, even if I don't agree with them. It's none of my business what reason a woman would want an abortion for. But in the case of rape and incest, YES wholeheartedly yes. No woman should ever carry a child that would remind her of such a horrific ordeal, even if she gave it up in the end, if she doesn't want to carry it, she should not have to. I know the feelings from sexual abuse myself, if there was a child conceived... it does not bare thinking about!

I disagree with a lot of the X case discussion. non-viable babies/foetuses should be included too. A woman carrying a child only to go through everything for it to die is worse than many forms of medieval torture in my eyes. I have people asking me randomly "Are you excited" "Do you know what it is" "When are you due" if I was carrying a non viable child, I would be an emotional mess.

Morag

Unfortunately fatal fetal abnormalities and inevitable miscarriages like rape/incest can't be legislated for until the 8th amendment is repealed, they are just not under the remit of the X Case Ruling.

wolfpawnat

Morag wrote: »

Unfortunately fatal fetal abnormalities and inevitable miscarriages like rape/incest can't be legislated for until the 8th amendment is repealed, they are just not under the remit of the X Case Ruling.

And again, I have to say, we need a proper referendum, list everything and let the country sort out this joke. Even if elective abortion was not passed (though it seems it is about 50/50), these other cases need to be.

For the love of god it is 2013. No woman should be forced through such horrendous ordeals. And even the foetus/children shouldn't either!!! If they are none viable or likely to have a painful existence, why the hell are women forced to carry them to term!

And back to the original point, putting any woman, suicidal or not, through the hoops to the tune of SIX psychiatrists and obstetricians is just as cruel!

pwurple

wolfpawnat wrote: »

And again, I have to say, we need a proper referendum, list everything and let the country sort out this joke.

I disagree with you here. Yes, another referendum, but I don't think all the options can be listed and given to the people to decide upon. It's too subjective and changable. The average case should be legislated for, not the extremes.

What would be on the list?
incest?
rape?
mother requires medical treatment that will do harm, like chemo?
fatal condition?
suicide?

Where does this list end? Trying to list every possible thing that can affect a pregnancy is an impossible task.

Who knows what other unusual cases will be added to it in the future, and more importantly who polices these motivations and decides whether the receipient is worthy of the sought-after abortion?

I consider myself to be personally pro-life, but civically pro-choice (Wouldn't have one myself, but still think it should be available for others). I think it should be legal here without interrogating the motivation, up to a certain gestation.

Counselling and proper medical care should be available before and afterwards to make sure the woman isn't being coerced into it by pimps, family or trafficers, and it is of her own free will... but beyond that, it should be available.

Morag

Canada has no law in regards to abortion, it is between a woman and her dr to do what is best for her health.


http://www.irishtimes.com/news/health/taoiseach-says-no-new-rights-will-be-contained-in-abortion-law-1.1372367

Taoiseach Enda Kenny has said “no new rights” will be put in place when the Government legislates for limited abortion.

Speaking in Dundalk, Mr Kenny said the clarification that would be introduced would not change the law and would confirm existing rights ensuring that the lives of the mother and the unborn were given the equal status they had under the Constitution.

“The law is not being changed on abortion. The law is being codified and the law when clarified will deal strictly with the Constitution...will deal with the X case and will do so without bringing any new rights here,” he said.


“No woman in Ireland is entitled to by choice have an abortion unless there is a real and substantial risk to her life as distinct from her health...the law is not being changed. No new rights are being inserted here.”

Mr Kenny described drafts of legislation as “meaningless”, when asked if Minister for Health James Reilly had misled people about the content of the proposed law.

“In the preparation of any piece of legislation there are numerous drafts that are always prepared...all of these are meaningless until the Heads of the Bill are actually presented to Government by the sponsoring Minister and approved by Cabinet,” he said.

He also ruled out a new referendum. “I do not propose to have another referendum.”

wolfpawnat

pwurple wrote: »

I disagree with you here. Yes, another referendum, but I don't think all the options can be listed and given to the people to decide upon. It's too subjective and changable. The average case should be legislated for, not the extremes.

What would be on the list?
incest?
rape?
mother requires medical treatment that will do harm, like chemo?
fatal condition?
suicide?

Where does this list end? Trying to list every possible thing that can affect a pregnancy is an impossible task.

Who knows what other unusual cases will be added to it in the future, and more importantly who polices these motivations and decides whether the receipient is worthy of the sought-after abortion?

I consider myself to be personally pro-life, but civically pro-choice (Wouldn't have one myself, but still think it should be available for others). I think it should be legal here without interrogating the motivation, up to a certain gestation.

Counselling and proper medical care should be available before and afterwards to make sure the woman isn't being coerced into it by pimps, family or trafficers, and it is of her own free will... but beyond that, it should be available.

Very true. We need to cover everything such as incest, chemo treatment, non-viability, etc, but how do we do it without listing them. It's all so bloody complicated.

I am the same as you, not for me, but needs to be available for others without a list 20 miles long of criteria to fit.

And essential after-care too! I was as good as forced into my first situation of arranging the abortion, thankfully I did not do it as it would have been for the wrong reasons and who knows what the results would have been.

username123

You could make a simple list for referenda purposes. This just from Wikipedia:

• Legal on request
• Legal for rape, maternal life, health, mental health, socioeconomic factors, and/or fetal defects
• Illegal with exception for rape, maternal life, health, mental health, and/or fetal defects
• Illegal with exception for rape, maternal life, health, and/or mental health
• Illegal with exception for maternal life, health, and/or mental health
• Illegal with no exceptions

wolfpawnat

username123 wrote: »

You could make a simple list for referenda purposes. This just from Wikipedia:

• Legal on request
• Legal for rape, maternal life, health, mental health, socioeconomic factors, and/or fetal defects
• Illegal with exception for rape, maternal life, health, mental health, and/or fetal defects
• Illegal with exception for rape, maternal life, health, and/or mental health
• Illegal with exception for maternal life, health, and/or mental health
• Illegal with no exceptions

Wow, that actually is a fairly precise way of doing it. I'm shocked it's from Wikipedia.

pwurple

username123 wrote: »

• Legal for rape, maternal life, health, mental health, socioeconomic factors, and/or fetal defects
• Illegal with exception for rape, maternal life, health, mental health, and/or fetal defects

What's the difference between these?

Morag

"socioeconomic factors"

Stating that you can't afford to have a child at this time.

username123

pwurple wrote: »

What's the difference between these?

I dont know.

It could just be a difference in how things are seen in law - in the latter case there could be actual legal punishments? Just conjecturing - dont know.

Was more just illustrating that a reasonably simple list could be compiled that covers most issues for the purposes of a referenda. I mean, other countries seem to be able to handle different issues, why cant we?

meeeeh

List is completely useless for referndums. You would get a result where each option would get up to 25% and no proper majority. Half the time referndums are won by the side that manages to drag enough sheep who don't even know what they are voting for to the polling stations anyway. Next referndum should offer either legalization of abortion for everyone or nothing. Besides why is abortion less of a murder if your daddy is rapist than if he is law abiding citizen (for those who are on the pro life side)? There is no such distinction after you are born.