Do you think a referendum on abortion would be passed?(not how you'd vote)

Martypants1

AtomicHorror wrote: »

Here's a better analogy.

A man and a woman need to get to point X. It is an urgent journey and not a trivial one. It's too far to walk or cycle, but they have a car. The car has two seats, but the driver-side seatbelt is damaged and will not work well in the event of a crash.

The man cannot drive, but the woman can. There are no laws in the local jurisdiction about use of seatbelts, so the choice to use it or not is up to the individual. The road conditions and traffic are mostly known, and the relationship between the man and woman is amiable.

After thoroughly discussing the risks, they agree they will use the car to get to point X.

After about 10 minutes however, the woman becomes very nervous. She is driving responsibly, the roads continue to be no more or less busy than expected, and the man continues to be amiable. However, the reality of the risk she now faces becomes clearer to her, now that she can see roadside obstacles passing at speed, and g-forces of the car as it accelerates. She is now very worried about the risk of harm coming to her, even though the conditions generally have not changed from when she made her decision to drive. Only her perspective has changed.

In one version of your world, she now has no choice. She must drive on, and accept the consequences, regardless of what they may be.

In another version of your world, she can only stop the car with the consent of her partner.

In my world, she is the one at greater risk, she is in the drivers seat, her perspective is different to what it was previously, and she can stop whenever the hell she likes.

Getting pregnant isn't an urgent thing? Women have plenty of time to make themselves aware of the risks that every woman takes in childbirth. The standard risk during childbirth doesn't change, that's why it's standard.

Risk doesn't change in your scenario but you are kind of implying it does.

What if the womans perspective changed 1 day before child birth. Is it ok to abort then because I find it disturbing.

Electric Sheep

Selene Dry Apartment wrote: »

I would be very confident that nobody I know has had one or even considered one.

Some poster was telling me about stats a while back and how my friends couldn't possibly all be having church wedding because the stats said x or y yet I've been to about 15 wedding in the last 2 years and out of that only one was not a catholic church wedding and the wedding itself was someone I actually didn't really know it was a friend of a friend. In 31 years I'm alive that's the only civil ceremony where I've even sort of known the people involved never mind attended and most of the weddings I've been to are in the last few years not way back.



There are thousands of couples in the country trying to adopt there would be no need for me to volunteer, along with the fact it would be much better for the child to distanced from the birth mother if they were giving the child up for adption.

So you wouldn't offer, even if it was the only way to persuade someone close to you not to abort?

Electric Sheep

Electric Sheep wrote: »

So you wouldn't offer, even if it was the only way to persuade someone close to you not to abort?

It would be a situation I would have to assess if it ever happened but ideally no I would not be offering to adopt the child. It would never be a scenario though where these were the only two options and you know that as well as I do. Creating these convoluted scenarios is really pointless in this whole debate.

bodice ripper

Selene Dry Apartment wrote: »

You do realise that there are just as many women as men opposed to getting rid of the 8th amendment and to abortion in general. Of course this doesn't suit the pro abortion agenda as can be seen from this thread where most of the arguments are focused on the fact people arguing here are men, they would be left with a lot less to say if was a woman arguing the points because a lot of the points they are using can only be used towards a man.

Yeah, we should probably have a vote or something...

And if you think all the pro choice women refusing to put out (because in doing so we are apparently consenting to potentially dying...) wouldn't be noticed, you are wrong.

osarusan

Selene Dry Apartment wrote: »

I would be very confident that nobody I know has had one or even considered one.

Have you considered the possibility that they might not be too keen to share that piece of information with you personally?

bodice ripper

bodice ripper wrote: »

And if you think all the pro choice women refusing to put out (because in doing so we are apparently consenting to potentially dying...) wouldn't be noticed, you are wrong.

Off with them, should be an entertaining protest if nothing else.

bodice ripper

Selene Dry Apartment wrote: »

Off with them, should be an entertaining protest if nothing else.

I don't doubt that for a second.

bodice ripper

Nice ninja edit

volchitsa

Martypants1 wrote: »

You don't understand risk it seems.

I'll make it simple for you. Climbing a ladder, there's a risk right? Imagine this is the standard risk of childbirth. You can fall off and die right?

Now, imagine you've climbed the ladder and your 2 arms fall off. The risk is greater yeah?

In my opinion (which was really simple to begin with) is, if you climb the ladder in the first instance and a man doesn't want an abortion and the woman does then tough ****, the circumstances that you knew before climbing the ladder have stayed the same.


You seem to think I am contradicting myself by making them out to be the same thing.

Your two arms fall off??? WTF? And you say I don't understand risk?

Are you for real? :rolleyes:

Try finding an even slightly plausible analogy. The car journey one looks comparable, but if you don't like it, why don't you suggest an alternative - but preferably one that doesn't require an alternative universe in which people are actually Lego figures!

volchitsa

Martypants1 wrote: »

Getting pregnant isn't an urgent thing? Women have plenty of time to make themselves aware of the risks that every woman takes in childbirth. The standard risk during childbirth doesn't change, that's why it's standard.

This is simply not true, the "standard risk" you keep talking about is really an average risk, and individual women run widely varying risks, which can't always be measured in advance, sometimes even from one pregnancy to the next. Where the placenta implants, for instance, changes the risk of haemorrhage, and yet it's not an illness, it's just one of those things that nobody can predict.

Martypants1 wrote: »

Risk doesn't change in your scenario but you are kind of implying it does.

The poster said exactly the opposite : nothing has changed except the woman's realization that the risk was greater than she was willing to take.

I'm not sure how far this analogy deserves to be pushed, but it's a heck of lot less silly than one where someone's two arms suddenly fall off just when they're up a stepladder!

Martypants1 wrote: »

What if the womans perspective changed 1 day before child birth. Is it ok to abort then because I find it disturbing.

That's usually called giving birth at that point. How would an "abortion" one day before birth change anything for a woman who suddenly found the risks too frightening? She's giving birth no matter what at that point, you're not even making sense here.

beach_walker

Selene Dry Apartment wrote: »

You do realise that there are just as many women as men opposed to getting rid of the 8th amendment and to abortion in general.

I'd say its more women than men tbh judging from pro-life marches, and anecdotal experiences.

Martypants1

volchitsa wrote: »

Your two arms fall off??? WTF? And you say I don't understand risk?

Are you for real? :rolleyes:

Try finding an even slightly plausible analogy. The car journey one looks comparable, but if you don't like it, why don't you suggest an alternative - but preferably one that doesn't require an alternative universe in which people are actually Lego figures!

Jesus Christ.

You can't read between the lines at all it seems.

Okay, replace the arms falling off to an earthquake. FFS.

One eyed Jack

volchitsa wrote: »

Someone who's anti-abortion isn't going to have an abortion though, are they?

Ahh now, you must surely know, have known women who were anti-abortion until they found themselves actually in that position where they were faced with an unwanted pregnancy and changed their minds on the issue? I'd be a special sort if I were to have reminded them of their previous declarations to the contrary. But anyway, rather than reduce the discussion to discussing our personal experiences, I figure if we were to base it on say religious affiliation for example, is probably the easiest way to assume a woman would be anti-abortion (bear in mind these are statistics from the US) -

"More than seven in 10 U.S. women obtaining an abortion report a religious affiliation (37% protestant, 28% Catholic and 7% other), and 25% attend religious services at least once a month. The abortion rate for protestant women is 15 per 1,000 women, while Catholic women have a slightly higher rate, 22 per 1,000."

Source: "Are you IN THE KNOW?", GUTTMACHER INSTITUTE

"Religious Characteristics

Almost three-quarters of women obtaining abortions in 2008 reported a religious affiliation. The largest proportion were Protestant (37%),* and most of the rest said that they were Catholic (28%) or that they had no religious affiliation (27%). One in five abortion patients identified themselves as born-again, evangelical, charismatic or fundamentalist; 75% of these were Protestant (not shown). The proportion of abortion patients lacking a religious affiliation increased significantly, from 22%, in 2000.

Protestants were underrepresented among abortion patients, and the relative abortion rate for this group was lower than the rate for all women (abortion index, 0.75). While the Catholic Church has strong proscriptions against abortion, the relative abortion rate for Catholic women was no different from that for all women (1.04). Women with no religious affiliation had a relative abortion rate one and one-half times that of all women (1.59). The abortion indices for Protestant and Catholic women changed little between 2000 and 2008.

Attendance at religious services is sometimes regarded as an indicator of an individual’s adherence to religious doctrines. In 2008, 15% of women having abortions reported attending religious services once a week or more, 13% attended 1–3 times a month and 32% attended less frequently; 41% never attended religious services (not shown). According to the General Social Survey (see Appendix 1), 23% of U.S. women aged 18–44 in 2006 and 2008 reported that they never attended religious services, and 24% that they attended once a week or more. Thus, tentative evidence suggests that women obtaining abortions attend religious services less frequently than all women."

Source: Characteristics of U.S. Abortion Patients, 2008, GUTTMACHER INSTITUTE

volchitsa wrote: »

So the answer matters when someone who is anti-abortion thinks his opinion is worth enforcing on people who don't think it's a child at that point. That's why they need to be able to justify their beliefs.

Nobody actually has to justify their beliefs (although it certainly makes it easier to understand where they're coming from if they do), but when it comes to living in a democratic society where everyone is entitled to enforce their opinion at least on whoever they want through democratic procedures such as a referendum to change the Constitution, well, we're kinda stuck with having to acknowledge that even the most ill-informed, or the most well informed, get to vote. They don't even have to justify themselves and their decisions, to anyone, but like I said - it makes it easier to understand where they're coming from if they choose to do so.

volchitsa wrote: »

Your answer seems to be because that's what they believe. That's not really good enough any more.

Unfortunately, it really is. The only difference between the two perspectives is literally that both parties are basing their opinion on what they believe, based upon evidence that satisfies their criteria to support or vote against a proposal in a referendum. If people wrap up what they believe in a humanitarian point of view, and argue from the perspective of human rights, well then it becomes very difficult to argue against.

AtomicHorror wrote: »

Do you really not see what we're doing? You think we're trying to convince you?

I don't really understand the point of a discussion and people putting forward their opinions if they aren't trying to convince people one way or the other. If the point is that nobody is trying to convince anyone of anything, well there's a very good job of it being done so far IMO.

AtomicHorror wrote: »

The hardline will never move- it'll die naturally with its membership over time. That's okay.

I wouldn't be too sure about that. The figures have remained pretty stable over the last couple of decades (depending upon how the questions are phrased and so on), but somewhere in the region of 70% anyway are in favour of legislating for abortion in limited circumstances, while the numbers of hardline if you like, those who are opposed to abortion under any circumstances, has always been low, and will likely remain so -

"Referenda in 1992 and in 2002 rejected proposals to further restrict access to abortion. No referendum has ever been held to offer Irish people the opportunity to make access to abortion less restrictive; opinion polls, however, consistently indicate public support for less restrictive abortion regulation."

Source: Abortion in Ireland: Public Opinion

And if we were to look across the pond (the other direction, Stateside) -

Do you think abortion should be legal under any circumstances, legal only under certain circumstances, or illegal in all circumstances?

Source: Abortion, Gallup Poll


"PRINCETON, N.J. -- Half of Americans consider themselves "pro-choice" on abortion, surpassing the 44% who identify as "pro-life." This is the first time since 2008 that the pro-choice position has had a statistically significant lead in Americans' abortion views.

For most of the past five years, Americans have been fairly evenly divided in their association with the two abortion labels. The only exception between 2010 and 2014 was in May 2012, when the pro-life position led by 50% to 41%.

Prior to 2009, the pro-choice side almost always predominated, including in the mid-1990s by a substantial margin. While support for the pro-choice position has yet to return to the 53% to 56% level seen at the time, the trend has been moving in that direction since the 2012 reading.

While Gallup does not define the pro-choice and pro-life terms for Americans, their answers to a separate question about the legality of abortion indicate that those favoring the pro-choice label generally support broad abortion rights, while pro-life adherents mostly favor limited or no abortion rights."

Source: Americans Choose "Pro-Choice" for First Time in Seven Years

AtomicHorror wrote: »

We're only interested in your arguments.

Personally speaking, I find that very difficult to believe, given the amount of posters that have entertained nox so far despite hearing anything even closely resembling an argument. I make it a policy not to entertain people who's minds are not for changing on the issue as it's a personal decision, quite like their morals are as individual to them as their opinions, so if they come out with a hardline statement, I think it's just better off to say "fair enough" and leave it at that, rather than waste my time and ending up giving myself a brain aneurysm.

AtomicHorror wrote: »

We want to dismantle them so that nobody else accepts them.

You'd be surprised how many people tend to accept the most baseless nonsense as long as it makes sense to them personally. It's the basis for promoting lies to gullible people - because they'll believe and accept anything that sounds about right. Look at the amount of nonsense that's been posted in the thread already and to be perfectly honest, there's been nothing dismantled, but plenty of people accepting blatant falsehoods as fact, and letting it slide because to them it sounds about right.

AtomicHorror wrote: »

And it's not difficult, by the way. It just requires persistence because you keep repeating the same nonsense in different ways.

It appears to be presenting incredible difficulty to dismantle an opinion that is based upon personal morals. Persistence hasn't succeeded so far, and is unlikely to succeed, and there are quite a few contributors now who have repeated the same nonsense in different ways.

seamus wrote: »

This is exactly the reason why society, the law (and especially the constitution!) needs to stay the f*ck out of women's reproductive choices.

Absolute ignorance and naivety like this. This isn't a personal jab at you colossus-x, I imagine this level of cluelessness is pretty standard across the population and yet for some reason lots of them think the state (and by extension, they) should have a say.

Given the rest of the post content, you can't have failed to miss the irony of the part in bold. No, it's not a personal jab seamus but I know for a fact that you know far better than that, and exactly why the society, the law (and especially the Constitution!) can't stay the f*ck out of women's reproductive choices, let alone why the State (and by extension the people of Ireland) has a say (whether we like it or not!).

jeamimus wrote: »

You cannot put use logic against religious or irrational beliefs. This is why such discussions are always futile.

That depends on the religious beliefs you're talking about and in what context really. Jewish and Islamic law is pretty much in line with some people's opinions here who have espoused a pro-choice position. Christian law, or Canon law, that's a bit trickier alright, depending upon which particular denomination you're talking about.

As we've seen already though, the word 'rational' can be used in many different contexts as it pertains to an individual's choices for themselves and what they may consider a rational behaviour course of action, and what they may consider an irrational behaviour or course of action for someone else. 'Rational' is entirely subjective. That's why discussions may at times be futile, but they aren't always so. With regard to the issue of abortion and a change to the Irish constitution, people may consider it a rational course of action to abandon or entirely ignore a post if it meanders on too long... awkward.

AtomicHorror wrote: »

We do not write laws based on your disgust. But thank you for clarifying the basis. It is invalid.

Actually, we do... or at least most of our laws anyway are predicated on how abhorrent or acceptable we find a particular behaviour in society. There's been plenty written about this method of law-making and particularly in recent years, there has been plenty of questions asked regarding whether morality should form the basis of our laws. I have to go back to the previous post I made to show just how much the judgement in the A, B, C v Ireland case was predicated on morality and the Court having to be cognissant of Irish society's position on the issue of abortion -


"The fact that abortion derogates from the legal protection of life before birth and is not a right per se explains perfectly the way the Court used the doctrine of the “margin of appreciation” in A. B. & C. v. Ireland. It has not been understood by some commentators and therefore needs to be explored further.

In A. B. & C., the Court considered that a broad margin of appreciation should be accorded to Ireland because of the “acute sensitivity of the moral and ethical issues raised by the question of abortion or as to the importance of the public interest at stake”. The Court did “not consider that this consensus [amongst a substantial majority of the contracting States of the Council of Europe towards allowing abortion on broader grounds than accorded under Irish law decisively narrows the broad margin of appreciation of the State”.

In a dissenting opinion, six judges expressed their disagreement with the decision of the Grand Chamber on this point. They considered that the existence of a consensus on abortion among Member States of the Council of Europe should have been used to narrow the width of the margin of appreciation enjoyed by Ireland, in order to straighten the dynamic interpretation of the Convention towards the development of a right to wider access to abortion. This opinion has been shared by several commentators of this judgment.

The dissenting judges pointed out that it is “the first time that the Court has disregarded the existence of a European consensus on the basis of “profound moral views”. They argued that the fact that these “moral views” “can override the European consensus, which tends in a completely different direction, is a real and dangerous new departure in the Court’s case-law”. They cannot accept that “profound moral views” may impede the dynamic extension of human rights created by the Court through its interpretation of the Convention as a “living instrument in the light of present-day conditions. Such understanding of the margin of appreciation of the States, if applied, would severely hinder the possibilities of activism in moral and sensitive matters. Restraint was again shown by the Grand Chamber shortly after A. B. & C. v. Ireland in another ruling on bioethics."


Source: "Abortion and the European Convention on Human Rights", Irish Journal of Legal Studies

To say it was controversial, is at least an understatement.

Martypants1

volchitsa wrote: »

This is simply not true, the "standard risk" you keep talking about is really an average risk, and individual women run widely varying risks, which can't always be measured in advance, sometimes even from one pregnancy to the next. Where the placenta implants, for instance, changes the risk of haemorrhage, and yet it's not an illness, it's just one of those things that nobody can predict.


The poster said exactly the opposite : nothing has changed except the woman's realization that the risk was greater than she was willing to take.

I'm not sure how far this analogy deserves to be pushed, but it's a heck of lot less silly than one where someone's two arms suddenly fall off just when they're up a stepladder!


That's usually called giving birth at that point. How would an "abortion" one day before birth change anything for a woman who suddenly found the risks too frightening? She's giving birth no matter what at that point, you're not even making sense here.

It's no wonder the pro choice (of which I am) are seen as condescending, just like with the marriage equality one.

There's so many groupings in this debate that it shouldn't be a yes/no referendum.

I'm getting attacked for saying:

- if a man and woman agree to an abortion then that's ok

- that if a womans life/health is at risk due to complications during pregnancy then an abortion is ok. (same for fatal foetul, rape cases)

- that the rights of a man need to be discussed

volchitsa

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Ahh now, you must surely know, have known women who were anti-abortion until they found themselves actually in that position where they were faced with an unwanted pregnancy and changed their minds on the issue? I'd be a special sort if I were to have reminded them of their previous declarations to the contrary.

Yes, sure, I'm aware of that too - but I'm not sure what your point is in the context of my reply to the poster.

(But since you went to all that trouble getting stats, I'll add an anecdote I came across recently from the director of an abortion clinic iirc who mentioned that they regularly had women who had been protesters outside their clinic coming in for abortions and that these women were quite often more demanding than the rest, expecting special treatment because they were "pro-life"! (Examples were: expecting to be taken straightaway, and not to have to have the mandatory counseling sessions before the termination or expecting to be taken in through the back door so as not to have to see protestors, and expecting not to have to sit in the waiting room with the "sluts" - and that was actually the word used apparently!)

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Nobody actually has to justify their beliefs (although it certainly makes it easier to understand where they're coming from if they do), but when it comes to living in a democratic society where everyone is entitled to enforce their opinion at least on whoever they want through democratic procedures such as a referendum to change the Constitution, well, we're kinda stuck with having to acknowledge that even the most ill-informed, or the most well informed, get to vote. They don't even have to justify themselves and their decisions, to anyone, but like I said - it makes it easier to understand where they're coming from if they choose to do so.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Unfortunately, it really is. The only difference between the two perspectives is literally that both parties are basing their opinion on what they believe, based upon evidence that satisfies their criteria to support or vote against a proposal in a referendum. If people wrap up what they believe in a humanitarian point of view, and argue from the perspective of human rights, well then it becomes very difficult to argue against.

Yes ok, that's sort of true, in that the ballot box is secret, so who knows what people will do there. That wasn't what I was referring to though.

I was referring to the debate itself, because I am old enough to remember the 1983 referendum, and as a teen back then (though being in the North I wouldn't have had a vote anyway) what was really striking was that the church expected, and mostly got, the last word - "because the church says it's wrong" was the clincher for so many people that that effectively put an end to any questions about why it should be so.

That's what's changed - not the fact that when it comes down to it we all vote as we decide and don't have to explain it, nor that some people are still not amenable to discussion, but that there is no longer a general "trump card" that can be slapped down on the table in the way "the church says" used to be back then.

RDM_83 again

Well it I knew it wouldn't be popular on this thread

Let look at the post I replied to: what does it say

AtomicHorror wrote: »

Do you think there's a realistic danger of surgery becoming just another form of contraception, anywhere, ever?

Now maybe I am just not as smart as the people on this thread (which has done the usual circle-jerk thing these threads do).
But when I read anywhere, ever, I don't think well clearly the poster actually just means Ireland, and Ireland that retains the same politics as it has now.

If I wrote

Christian Fundamentalist Terrorists could never happen anywhere, ever

I would have the same posters that are defending blatantly factually inaccurate posting on me like a ton of bricks, their wouldn't be this well actually they were only talking about Ireland, not anywhere,ever

osarusan wrote: »

I don't think that really addresses what Atomic Horror said.

In a country where access to condoms, pills, and other methods of contraception is restricted or they are unavailable, women will resort to abortion if it is available.

But in such cases, abortion is not 'just another form of contraception'. 'Just another' means one of several/many, and that was clearly not the case in Russia, as the article explains.


To address the point, you would have to find a society in which condoms, pills, IUD, and the other methods of contraception are freely available, but where a significant number of women eschew these methods, and use abortion instead.

That would demonstrate that abortion was widely chosen as just another form of contraception, rather than being the only option.

The reason Eastern Europe is something thats worth looking at is because even though they now have access to contraception they still have very high rates of abortion.
But anyway if I post that you will say something like, "that doesn't really count as they are a hangover from the Soviet Era"

So you know what I will look to another example
Greenland- in Greenland, this place that is Socially democratic, and has a good public healthcare system the abortion rate hovers around 50% of pregnancies, now tell me thats not an example of abortion being used as a contraceptive :cool:

AtomicHorror wrote: »

Also, RDM, was this really necessary?

----

If you show me an example of the type osarusan describes, then I'll take this on the chin.

See above RE Greenland

The reason I post like this is because some on the Pro-choice side are solely interested in posting to the crowd often with limited knowledge while disparaging those that have hesitancies about aspects of abortion as backwards/women hating (they can generally be quickly spotted by the use of terms like Anti-Choicers even though the vast majority of those that are pro-choice support some restrictions on abortion on demand).
The stats about abortion in Eastern Europe are a widely known thing, if your going to talk about this subject you can't just restrict yourself to Ireland.

It does nothing to convince the far wider group of people that are not in the completely pro-choice camp and just serves to turn these threads in to the same old circle-jerk. Win the middle not play to the benches.

I don't expect any thanks for this but everything I have wrote has been completely correct unfortunately its only cool to puncture hyperbole if its those pests on the other side.

AtomicHorror

Martypants1 wrote: »

AtomicHorror wrote: »

Here's a better analogy.

A man and a woman need to get to point X. It is an urgent journey and not a trivial one. It's too far to walk or cycle, but they have a car. The car has two seats, but the driver-side seatbelt is damaged and will not work well in the event of a crash.

The man cannot drive, but the woman can. There are no laws in the local jurisdiction about use of seatbelts, so the choice to use it or not is up to the individual. The road conditions and traffic are mostly known, and the relationship between the man and woman is amiable.

After thoroughly discussing the risks, they agree they will use the car to get to point X.

After about 10 minutes however, the woman becomes very nervous. She is driving responsibly, the roads continue to be no more or less busy than expected, and the man continues to be amiable. However, the reality of the risk she now faces becomes clearer to her, now that she can see roadside obstacles passing at speed, and g-forces of the car as it accelerates. She is now very worried about the risk of harm coming to her, even though the conditions generally have not changed from when she made her decision to drive. Only her perspective has changed.

In one version of your world, she now has no choice. She must drive on, and accept the consequences, regardless of what they may be.

In another version of your world, she can only stop the car with the consent of her partner.

In my world, she is the one at greater risk, she is in the drivers seat, her perspective is different to what it was previously, and she can stop whenever the hell she likes.

Getting pregnant isn't an urgent thing? Women have plenty of time to make themselves aware of the risks that every woman takes in childbirth.

Well, I would disagree as it sometimes is, but the point is moot. The journey is not analogous to conception, it is analogous to the months of pregnancy itself.

Martypants1 wrote: »

The standard risk during childbirth doesn't change, that's why it's standard.

Risk doesn't change in your scenario but you are kind of implying it does.

Where in my analogy to I imply the risk has changed? Quote it please.

Martypants1 wrote: »

What if the womans perspective changed 1 day before child birth. Is it ok to abort then because I find it disturbing.

Yes, it is because it is still her risk and her choice. Whether you find it disturbing doesn't really come into it, unless you are pregnant. Then it matters a lot, as you will have to factor it into the balance of risks when making your own choice.

Is that it then? That was your dismantlement of my analogy?

osarusan

RDM_83 again wrote: »

I don't expect any thanks for this but everything I have wrote has been completely correct unfortunately its only cool to puncture hyperbole if its those pests on the other side.

Lose the persecution complex FFS, you gave a bad example and it got pointed out to you.

RDM_83 again wrote: »

The reason Eastern Europe is something thats worth looking at is because even though they now have access to contraception they still have very high rates of abortion.
But anyway if I post that you will say something like, "that doesn't really count as they are a hangover from the Soviet Era"

I have no idea what the abortion rate is in Eastern Europe. Or the availability of contrqception. But the example you gave was Russia, and the very link you provided explained why it wasn't really a good example.

Do you accept that or not? That the example you gave wasn't great?

RDM_83 again wrote: »

Greenland- in Greenland, this place that is Socially democratic, and has a good public healthcare system the abortion rate hovers around 50% of pregnancies, now tell me thats not an example of abortion being used as a contraceptive

I don't know anything about Greenland either, but from doing a little reading, it seems like a much better example.
There do seem to be reasons beyond simple choice, including, shockingly, some ignorance as to how contraceptives should be used, and I wonder how much of the statistics relate to traditional Inuit communities

However, several cultural concerns may be considered: lack of consistent contraception use, short- and long-term consequences of abortion procedure, the husband’s wish not to have a child, and a gap between what the women know about contraception and what the health communities believe they can teach them (12,13). In addition, Greenlandic families have a strong influence on whether or not a woman has an abortion (14,15).

But with all that said, the abortion rate is still shockingly high:

The total abortion rate in Greenland differs markedly from other Nordic countries. In 2012, the total abortion rate in Greenland was 2,000 abortions per 1,000 women (aged 15–49 years). In comparison, the total abortion rate in other Nordic countries (Faroe Island, Norway, Denmark, etc.) was less than 700 abortions per 1,000 women (aged 15–49 years) in the same period,

freshpopcorn

Going back to the marriage referendum the majority of the people I knew who voted No were religious people. Lovely people but they didn't support same sex marriage.
I also knew religious people who voted Yes because they were just trying to keep people they knew happy.
One thing in my experience with these people and they've in common they believe abortion is morally wrong. They see it as killing a baby in the womb.
The only thing that might have swayed them is if the mothers life was at risk and that isn't a problem anymore. These people are good to vote and it might sway it for the No side.

Unlike the marriage referendum I couldn't see this turning into a happy joyfull occasion with funny videos on Youtube. It's a completely different debate and it would be tight enough.

AtomicHorror

RDM_83 again wrote: »

Well it I knew it wouldn't be popular on this thread

Let look at the post I replied to: what does it say

Now maybe I am just not as smart as the people on this thread (which has done the usual circle-jerk thing these threads do).
But when I read anywhere, ever, I don't think well clearly the poster actually just means Ireland, and Ireland that retains the same politics as it has now.

Actually, I agree with you- this is a fair criticism. I used hyperbole and it was an overreach. The example you gave (Soviet Russia) was very much unlike Ireland and very unlikely to ever arise here, but I grant my post that you were responding to was too much of an absolute statement. I left myself open on that one. It's not a good argument for a similar scenario in Ireland however.

What do you think though, is there a realistic possibility of such a scenario here in Ireland?

I would consider it negligible.

RDM_83 again wrote: »

The reason Eastern Europe is something thats worth looking at is because even though they now have access to contraception they still have very high rates of abortion.
But anyway if I post that you will say something like, "that doesn't really count as they are a hangover from the Soviet Era"

They probably are, to be fair.

RDM_83 again wrote: »

So you know what I will look to another example
Greenland- in Greenland, this place that is Socially democratic, and has a good public healthcare system the abortion rate hovers around 50% of pregnancies, now tell me thats not an example of abortion being used as a contraceptive :cool:

I always assumed that was an artefact of the low population size and pregnancy rate in Greenland, the variance probably being enough to explain it away. But since you posted it I had a look at the stats and they're pretty solid.

So that's definitely a strong point in your favour.

I'll have a closer look at Greenland as an example when I have time later.

RDM_83 again wrote: »

I don't expect any thanks for this but everything I have wrote has been completely correct unfortunately its only cool to puncture hyperbole if its those pests on the other side.

On the contrary, you can get thanks from me. You've at least made me stop to think, and perhaps others will too.

AtomicHorror

Hey Marty, not wanting to get diverted with the analogy argument, we aren't finished with your self-contradiction:

Martypants1 wrote: »

You're putting words in my mouth now.

Am I? Then let me use your words:

Martypants1 wrote: »

I'm all for abortion in cases like rape, fatal foetul, womans health is at risk.

And I am all for abortion if a woman and a man have a baby and decide they want to abort.

Martypants1 wrote: »

When a woman has sex, she accepts standard childbirth risks. She shouldn't claim her health is at risk in this instance as there is risks for every birth.

You agree with abortion where both parties want it. This is in addition to abortion in circumstances where there is a (presumably doctor-defined) risk to the woman's health (and rape and fetal abnormality).

So given that where there is a doctor-defined health risk, a rape or abnormality, a woman may terminate without the man's consent, in what circumstances are the man and woman allowed to mutually agree to an abortion?

You've ruled out the woman reversing her decision based on the normal health risks of childbirth, so what conditions allow mutually agreed abortion?

Kinda skipped over this one.

bodice ripper

IIRC Greenland has a problem with incest.

AtomicHorror

bodice ripper wrote: »

IIRC Greenland has a problem with incest.

Seems like there are contraception access and sex ed issues there too, but must dig a bit more.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15736665

volchitsa

AtomicHorror wrote: »

Seems like there are contraception access and sex ed issues there too, but must dig a bit more.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15736665

Anyone ever read "Miss Smylla's feeling for snow"? Great book, and I learned all I know about Greenland from it as well!

(Seriously though, what I do know is that it's practically all Inuit/Native American population, with all the social problems a Native American reservation has, and freezing weather with 24 hour nights in winter as well.

Not a society that's going to be your typical European country, even with Scandinavian-style health care (and if the author of the Miss Smylla book is to be believed, the Greenlanders get a much rougher deal than the average Danish citizen in lots of ways. A bit like picking stats from an Aboriginal settlement in Australia and using them to decide whether or not to emigrate to Aus.)

Ronald Wilson Reagan

“I've noticed that everyone who is for abortion has already been born.”

RDM_83 again

volchitsa wrote: »

Anyone ever read "Miss Smylla's feeling for snow"? Great book, and I learned all I know about Greenland from it as well!

(Seriously though, what I do know is that it's practically all Inuit/Native American population, with all the social problems a Native American reservation has, and freezing weather with 24 hour nights in winter as well.

Not a society that's going to be your typical European country, even with Scandinavian-style health care (and if the author of the Miss Smylla book is to be believed, the Greenlanders get a much rougher deal than the average Danish citizen in lots of ways. A bit like picking stats from an Aboriginal settlement in Australia and using them to decide whether or not to emigrate to Aus.)

Look you might not like it* but abortion can still be used by some as a form of contraception, you could even hypothesis that this is partially the case in some Western European countries, look at Sweden (and too a lesser extent the UK), both of these are countries with easy access to contraceptives (heavily subsidized or free) but the abortion rates close to the Eastern European averages, compare this too the rates in Germany, Belgium or Finland, these countries aren't that different and definitely aren't sexually repressed or backwards compared to the former but the rates are approximately half.

Now I know the fact that abortion can be used by some as a "contraceptive" method isn't a good argument to keep the status quo in relation to Ireland (figure runs at 20% for repeat abortions for Irish traveling to the UK) to me though its a good argument to introduce the German system with "choice " but mandatory counseling and a (very short) waiting period.

*Actually if your strongly pro-choice does it matter if a woman is using abortion as a contraceptive, if abortion is just a procedure and its completely an individuals choice which shouldn't be restrained by wider society isn't it ethically neutral?

bodice ripper

Ronald Wilson Reagan wrote: »

“I've noticed that everyone who is for abortion has already been born.”

"Why is it that most of the people who are against abortion are people you wouldn’t want to **** in the first place?"


You know, if we are throwing amusing but meaningless quotes around...

RDM_83 again

bodice ripper wrote: »

"Why is it that most of the people who are against abortion are people you wouldn’t want to **** in the first place?"


You know, if we are throwing amusing but meaningless quotes around...

Its Always Sunny in Philadelphia has an episode that nicely plays the idea of portraying your views on abortion in order to get laid (and I would well believe its true to a lesser extent in real life)

bodice ripper

RDM_83 again wrote: »

Its Always Sunny in Philadelphia has an episode that nicely plays the idea of portraying your views on abortion in order to get laid (and I would well believe its true to a lesser extent in real life)

No woman needs to worry about abortion with me.

*and that's not my quote - that's George Carlin.

volchitsa

RDM_83 again wrote: »

Look you might not like it* but abortion can still be used by some as a form of contraception, you could even hypothesis that this is partially the case in some Western European countries, look at Sweden (and too a lesser extent the UK), both of these are countries with easy access to contraceptives (heavily subsidized or free) but the abortion rates close to the Eastern European averages, compare this too the rates in Germany, Belgium or Finland, these countries aren't that different and definitely aren't sexually repressed or backwards compared to the former but the rates are approximately half.

Some evidence for this please? My understanding is that most Scandinavian countries have rather lower rates than the UK and USA but I haven't looked at figures recently.

Remember that the original point was about surgery being seen as preferable to taking a pill. So I do hope you haven't done anything disingenuous like include the figures for medical abortions as part of your claim that women are quite likely to opt for surgery instead of taking a pill?

Now I know the fact that abortion can be used by some as a "contraceptive" method isn't a good argument to keep the status quo in relation to Ireland (figure runs at 20% for repeat abortions for Irish traveling to the UK) to me though its a good argument to introduce the German system with "choice " but mandatory counseling and a (very short) waiting period.

I don't think the UK system is a particularly good one for a country setting up abortion services today, it was simply one of the first and from what I know of them several of the more recent ones may well work better. 24 weeks seems late to my mind except in exceptional cases.

*Actually if your strongly pro-choice does it matter if a woman is using abortion as a contraceptive, if abortion is just a procedure and its completely an individuals choice which shouldn't be restrained by wider society isn't it ethically neutral?

It doesn't have to be an ethical objection. Purely practical ones are sufficient IMO. In the same way as earlier abortions are to be preferred to later ones, for the woman's sake as much as anything else.