The 8th amendment(Mod warning in op)

threescompany

WhiteRoses wrote: »

Have you thought about how the 8th amendment affects maternity care for women who are keeping their babies (ie. scans, labour etc) and how it affects their ability to consent?

I don’t really understand what you mean... do you mean if there’s a life threatening situation for the mother? If so, i agree with abortion in this case so again it’s a hard one for me, who has genuine scenarios where abortion is ok sometimes but not others.

EirWatchr

Sorry for delay - a bit busy.

NuMarvel wrote: »

I don't see the basis for assuming that legalising abortion here will make any significant difference to fertility or replacement rates.

But if I’m wrong, it should be easy to illustrate with an example. There were 63,897 births in Ireland in 2016. How many fewer births would there have been if the Committee’s recommendations were law at that time, and what’s your basis for arriving at that number?

Total fertility rate (TFR) is the usual figure used to discuss this, but for the purposes of relative comparison to the figure you cite:

Use the U.K. for comparison (note that the U.K. abortion rate is close to EU average, but that the Oireachtas Committee's recommendations are for an even less restrictive abortion law than the U.K.):

U.K. Abortion rate for 2016 = 0.003 per capita

(Population 65648100, 185596 Abortions, which excludes the 4810 abortions provided to non-residents)
https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/report-on-abortion-statistics-in-england-and-wales-for-2016

Estimated abortions that would have been performed in Ireland, under U.K. abortion conditions:

Ireland population 2016 = 4757976 (CSO)
Est. abortions = 14274 (4757976 * 0.003)

That's 14.8% of the birth rate in 2016.

That's a fairly average impact of abortion on fertility. Research in other countries has resulted in fall estimates of 8% - 20%.
e.g., http://www.nber.org/papers/w5615.pdf,http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12158052
And some EU countries have reported even higher.

Even if you allow for the estimated current abortion rate of people living in Ireland, it still points to an increase of over double - and percentages aside, that's thousands more lives yearly ended by the proposed Committee recommendations.

NuMarvel wrote: »

If women are having already having abortions, and research shows that there's little difference between abortion rates in regions that ban abortion and regions that don't

What is your basis for that?

eviltwin

threescompany wrote: »

I don’t really understand what you mean... do you mean if there’s a life threatening situation for the mother? If so, i agree with abortion in this case so again it’s a hard one for me, who has genuine scenarios where abortion is ok sometimes but not others.

The 8th means that pregnant women - including those who want to have their babies - have no power to consent in their pregnancy care and labour

Riskymove

threescompany wrote: »

Honestly ..... and I’m not being sarcastic. I don’t know. I don’t think I’d be comfortable with forcing them to carry out a pregnancy but it also just didn’t sit well with me when these friends had the abortions . I felt it was irresponsible of them especially when taking contraception is so easy ( and double up on contraception if you really don’t want to get pregnant !)

This is quite a common view.

The issue with it really for me is that it boils down to

"there is something that I disapprove of but doesn't affect me directly. I want it banned so noone can decide to choose it"

This argument would not IMO be accepted in many other issues but for some reason is enough in this one for many people.

Your friends decisions and actions are their own. They have to live the consequences - what has it to do with you?

EirWatchr

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

NuMarvel has already dealt with your post from a useful angle, so I can only add to what they have already said. But one good test for an argument is to try and apply the same argument to other situations. Not least to test oneself for cherry picking arguments in one context that one outright ignore in others..... as that is usually a flag for bias.

While commenting on our "replacement rate" in the subject of abortion therefore, try applying that same line of thinking to contraception. How ridiculous would it feel, or what response do you think you would get from the general public, if you used our "replacement rate" as an argument for reducing access to some types of contraception? I strongly suspect you would be laughed out of the room, assuming you even managed to get out of said room alive.

Everyone is free to ridicule based on their bias, or discuss sensibly. It's no skin off my nose, whichever they opt to do.

As you have mentioned, contraceptive and abortive procedures do both have impact on fertility rate. As regards to contraceptives you mentioned, yes, it is also significant:
"Even in countries with high rates of legal induced abortion, contraceptive use and marital patterns nearly always have a greater impact on
fertility levels than does abortion."
(https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3842663)

It can be difficult to attribute what part of fertility rate drop is directly related to abortion, and varies for regions with different demographics, economic conditions, healthcare, etc.
But if we assume a drop of 10% is directly due to abortion, that would make it responsible for a TFR drop from 1.92 to 1.72.
(Replacement rate is 2.1-2.2. The EU average is 1.5)

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

After all if our low "replacement rate" is indeed a concern, then there are MANY things where that concern lies in the figures other than abortions. The rate of abortions by people living in Ireland (whether they find ways to get them on Irish soil or off) is not exactly high per capita is it?

Induced abortion undeniably (from several research sources) contributes to reducing fertility rate, but indeed, rather than directly causing it, abortion can also be symptomatic of economic changes and shifting social and sexual mores that accompany (or begin) the reduction in fertility rates.

Fertility has been dropping globally, in most countries, since the 1960s. The world is only just above the replacement rate now.
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Total_fertility_rate#/media/File:Trends_in_TFR_1950-2050.png)

It would be difficult to make the case that unrestricted abortion could ever contribute to increasing the fertility rate.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

So it would seem if "replacement rate" is an issue then addressing that issue has many avenues that would be much more effective and relevant than any change bringing abortion in would cause, surely?

An avenue than would provide a more than 10% increase in the birth rate that prohibiting abortion already averts?

Do tell - I'm sure we'd all like to know, particularly those who lives could be spared by it.

You could look, for inspiration, to the costly birth incentives schemes that have had to be introduced by France, Canada, Denmark (to name some) who also hold low restrictions on abortion.

Bannasidhe

threescompany wrote: »

You see, that’s it, I know 3 people and all of them had abortions as it was an unwanted pregnancy resulting from the couples not using contraception. In this instance, I’m not comfortable with this. They made a choice not to use contraception and were irresponsible knowing it may result in an unwanted pregnancy. In an age when contraception is so available I cannot agree with abortion.
If however, someone I know told me they would not survive the pregnancy without an abortion, in this instance I’m ok with abortion. So it really depends on the different situations. I’m very clear in my own head what I agree with but if the wording in the referendum states that abortion will be unrestricted, then that will really complicate the issue for me.

Many years ago my son's ex-girlfriend contacted him to say she was pregnant. The contraception failed. To be perfectly honest at that point in their lives neither of them looked like they would excel in the parenting stakes.
I made an offer - I offered to raise the child if they wished but if she really wanted an abortion I would pay for them both to travel and the procedure. I made that offer because I am pro-choice not pro-abortion. As much as I would have been delighted to raise my grandchild the choice was not mine, it wasn't even my son's - and it was he who stated this. The only person who could make that choice was the very young woman who accidentally got pregnant and we had to accept her choice.

She decided to have the child, and for the first few years things were difficult and sometimes Granny read the riot act. Now, over a decade later my granddaughter is a lovely, intelligent, compassionate, girl on the verge of puberty and the light of my life. And yes, if she had been aborted I would always wonder but that does not change the fact that it was never my decision and I absolutely believe still that only one person had the right to decide because only one person was pregnant.

And should the day come that my granddaughter finds herself in the situation of having a crises pregnancy I will make her the same offer and I will respect what ever decision she makes.

I am pro-choice not because I want women and girls to have abortions. I am pro-choice because I respect the rights of sentient human beings to determine what does and does not happen to their bodies.
It's not my right to sit in judgement.

threescompany

Riskymove wrote: »

This is quite a common view.

The issue with it really for me is that it boils down to

"there is something that I disapprove of but doesn't affect me directly. I want it banned so noone can decide to choose it"

This argument would not IMO be accepted in many other issues but for some reason is enough in this one for many people.

Your friends decisions and actions are their own. They have to live the consequences - what has it to do with you?

Of course, their abortions had nothing to do with me, other than they told me / confided in me. However, as an Irish citizen, i have a say on if I believe something can be legalized or not.... We all have the right to vote regardless of whether or not it affects us directly, whether I’m a 79 year old male or 23 year old female. Like the same sex marriage referendum, it didn’t have anything to do with a lot of the population but everyone’s entitled to their vote!!!

EirWatchr

rainbow kirby wrote: »

"In the national interest" is a TERRIBLE reason to force someone to carry to term. We aren't brood mares.

People subject to any law of the nation could claim it is forcing them. The exceptions to that are the preborn children who's lives were ended by termination - because in the absence of the law protecting them from force, they will never have a voice to claim anything.

The legal permission to abort by personal choice is no guarantee either of freedom for women from forceful oppression in cases where they are coerced to abort but want the child (or have later regrets). They can claim force on them - and not just one victim, but two.

A nation is its people.

While the "national interest" may be a quaint and even derisory term to some in an individualistic culture, the national interest becomes very much personal interest to them later in life if they find the supports of the nation they need in old age are no longer there for them, or the opportunities and freedoms that they once had are unavailable to their own grown children (if they have children).

.......

This post has been deleted.

threescompany

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Many years ago my son's ex-girlfriend contacted him to say she was pregnant. The contraception failed. To be perfectly honest at that point in their lives neither of them looked like they would excel in the parenting stakes.
I made an offer - I offered to raise the child if they wished but if she really wanted an abortion I would pay for them both to travel and the procedure. I made that offer because I am pro-choice not pro-abortion. As much as I would have been delighted to raise my grandchild the choice was not mine, it wasn't even my son's - and it was he who stated this. The only person who could make that choice was the very young woman who accidentally got pregnant and we had to accept her choice.

She decided to have the child, and for the first few years things were difficult and sometimes Granny read the riot act. Now, over a decade later my granddaughter is a lovely, intelligent, compassionate, girl on the verge of puberty and the light of my life. And yes, if she had been aborted I would always wonder but that does not change the fact that it was never my decision and I absolutely believe still that only one person had the right to decide because only one person was pregnant.

And should the day come that my granddaughter finds herself in the situation of having a crises pregnancy I will make her the same offer and I will respect what ever decision she makes.

I am pro-choice not because I want women and girls to have abortions. I am pro-choice because I respect the rights of sentient human beings to determine what does and does not happen to their bodies.
It's not my right to sit in judgement.

That’s a lovely story. Delighted you’ve a grest relationship with your granddaughter & I respect everyone’s right to their opinion.
I think it’s great you aren’t a judgemental person. I TRY not to be, but of course, it’s hard not to judge sometimes.

Riskymove

threescompany wrote: »

However, as an Irish citizen, i have a say on if I believe something can be legalized or not.... We all have the right to vote regardless of whether or not it affects us directly,

I am not talking about your right to vote...I am talking about what you said about your friends and your reasons for your position on the matter

You felt your friends were irresponsible and as as a result perhaps they shouldn't be able to have an abortion here. I am just asking you to reflect on that idea.

Is that really a good enough reason for no one to be allowed to choose regardless of circumstances or reasons?

Is it less irresponsible to force your friends to choose to travel or have an unwanted child?

.......

This post has been deleted.

Martina1991

threescompany wrote:

You see, that’s it, I know 3 people and all of them had abortions as it was an unwanted pregnancy resulting from the couples not using contraception. In this instance, I’m not comfortable with this. They made a choice not to use contraception and were irresponsible knowing it may result in an unwanted pregnancy. In an age when contraception is so available I cannot agree with abortion.

I would be of the same opinion as yourself in that situation. I don't agree with abortion being used when no other precautions were taken to prevent pregnancy.

But the point is, your friends still made the decision to go to England or wherever to have an abortion.

The 8th amendment didn't stop them. It just moved their situation to another country.

As it stands, the 8th affects those not wishing to continue a pregnancy. But it also affects women's maternity care.

I don't agree with the 8th as it stands so I would like to see it repealed and the wording of the legislation to be fair and considerate for the child and the mother.

SusieBlue

threescompany wrote: »

I don’t really understand what you mean... do you mean if there’s a life threatening situation for the mother? If so, i agree with abortion in this case so again it’s a hard one for me, who has genuine scenarios where abortion is ok sometimes but not others.

It means in any circumstances, whatever a doctor decides to do or not do, a woman doesn't have the power to consent or withdraw consent. She has no control over her own body.

For example:
If a woman has an ectopic pregnancy (where the embryo develops in the fallopian tube rather than the womb), a simple tablet can be taken to cause miscarriage with little to no side effects for the woman. This tablet is available in pretty much every other progressive country.
Its worth noting that an ectopic pregnancy is not viable, it will never grow into a baby and is very dangerous for the woman.

However, because of the 8th amendment, this tablet is illegal because it technically causes miscarriage. So instead of taking a simple tablet, a woman has to undergo surgery to REMOVE part or all of her fallopian tube.
Not only does this affect future fertility rates, its extremely invasive and painful and more importantly, totally unnecessary when a tablet can do the same job.

As recently as 2 years ago a woman in this country lost her life while undergoing the same operation, when she could have just taken a tablet.

There is also the case of Sheila Hodgers, a newlywed woman in her 20's who got cancer while pregnant. She was denied any and all treatment that could have saved her life, due to the fact that the treatment may have harmed her baby.
She and her husband begged for an abortion but were refused. She ended up dying a slow, painful death, in agony. Her daughter also died and her husband became a widower in her 20's.

These are just two stories but the effect the 8th has on the safety of pregnant women in this country is a national disgrace. This is so much more than just being about abortion.

.......

This post has been deleted.

BarryD2

Bannasidhe wrote: »

I am pro-choice not because I want women and girls to have abortions. I am pro-choice because I respect the rights of sentient human beings to determine what does and does not happen to their bodies. It's not my right to sit in judgement.

Thank you for your eloquent & honest opinion.That's exactly how and I think many other ordinary Irish citizens feel about the matter.

Will we get the chance to realise this for our wives and daughters? Hopefully but I don't know, the forces aligned behind the present position are much smaller in number, but powerful in positions they hold and willing to use any and I mean any tactics to force their views on all others.

We will see if our politicians have the guts to stand up and allow the people a real say. I wouldn't fancy being an elected representative in these times, they will be hounded. But let them be strong and give us a chance to get this monkey off our backs.

nozzferrahhtoo

EirWatchr wrote: »

Everyone is free to ridicule based on their bias, or discuss sensibly. It's no skin off my nose, whichever they opt to do.

That seems a bit of random filler to just stick in there. Why did you feel the need to bring that up with me? Do you feel there was some level of ridicule in my post or something? Or were you using my post as a spring board to lash out at some other user? I genuinely see no reason for this sentence to be included in your response to me, to be honest.

EirWatchr wrote: »

It can be difficult to attribute what part of fertility rate drop is directly related to abortion

I am sure it can, but that is not the point I was making. I was making a general point about the selective application of "arguments from fertility". That is to say, if one wanted to oppose abortion on the grounds of wanting the fertility of a country to increase...... then there are many other things one should also be opposing on the same grounds. It seems a bit "both sides of the mouth" therefore to take issue with abortion on grounds of population replacement, but not to take issue with something like contraception which likely has a MUCH larger impact on it. I trust therefore you are also campaigning to have a roll back of social and legal attitudes to things like contraception?

But as other users have ALSO pointed out, I do not see wanting a higher fertility rate as a moral grounding for being against abortion. Because we get into "Handmaidens Tale" territory therefore of making it incumbent on women who do not want to have a child, to do so for the good of the society. And I think that is morally and ethically difficult position to justify.

EirWatchr wrote: »

It would be difficult to make the case that unrestricted abortion could ever contribute to increasing the fertility rate.

As above I feel you might be responding a point somewhat different to the one I am making, because certainly nothing I was writing was about INCREASING the fertility rate at all. The point I was making was that of all the things that COULD increase the fertility rate..... assuming the fertility rate actually is of concern rather than it merely being used to argue against abortion........ then the impact of abortion is pretty damn far down that list.

EirWatchr wrote: »

An avenue than would provide a more than 10% increase in the birth rate that prohibiting abortion already averts? Do tell - I'm sure we'd all like to know, particularly those who lives could be spared by it. You could look, for inspiration, to the costly birth incentives schemes that have had to be introduced by France, Canada, Denmark (to name some) who also hold low restrictions on abortion.

As we have seen however prohibiting abortion does not prevent abortion. People merely seek it in other jurisdictions or, worse, perform one on themselves using means physical or medical that are not validated or controlled by a medical professional. Your assumed figures are, just that, assumed.

But I would say the first step to BOTH reducing abortions AND increasing population replacement rates would be hollistic moves that not only reduce the number of people seeking abortions........ but also reduce the number of people seeking not to get pregnant in the first place. And such approaches would involve mediating for the reasons people seek abortions, and contraception in the first place. The economic, for example, reasons that people wish to have small families or no families at all.

There are further assumptions built into your assumed figures that are harmful too. To name but one, is the assumption that each abortion reduces our replacement rates. Take for example the very young girl who gets pregnant and seeks an abortion. She may do so to continue her college career and put off starting a family until later in her life when she is ready. A family that might number 2, 3 4 or how many kids. If she is DENIED an abortion however, this often results in dropping out of college and getting work to make ends meet and so forth. Meaning she may never get to a point where she feels capable or willing to have further children.

It is never a simplistic 1:1 narrative where each abortion results in a single reduction in our population replacement rate. Other narratives are possible to, including the narrative that autonomy over ones own reproduction process lends to a more promising overall contribution to the countries population in the long term.

A string of assumed figures, including the assumption that the abortion rate per capita in a country 13-14 times the population of our own can be validly transferred over when making such calculations.......... is not going to get us where you want to get to........ and as I said it still hits the moral conundrum of assuming each individual has some onus to go through with a pregnancy they do not want in order to feed our supposed need for population replacement.

threescompany

Riskymove wrote: »

I am not talking about your right to vote...I am talking about what you said about your friends and your reasons for your position on the matter

You felt your friends were irresponsible and as as a result perhaps they shouldn't be able to have an abortion here. I am just asking you to reflect on that idea.

Is that really a good enough reason for no one to be allowed to choose regardless of circumstances or reasons?

Is it less irresponsible to force your friends to choose to travel or have an unwanted child?

Fair enough, sorry I misunderstood what you meant.
I’ve alot of thinking to do on this topic. But there are other circumstances that I’m unconscious with ( Down’s syndrome abortions) anyway I’m just ploughing through this referendum myself. I will inform myself and make the right decision as I see fit.

eviltwin

threescompany wrote: »

Fair enough, sorry I misunderstood what you meant.
I’ve alot of thinking to do on this topic. But there are other circumstances that I’m unconscious with ( Down’s syndrome abortions) anyway I’m just ploughing through this referendum myself. I will inform myself and make the right decision as I see fit.

The 12 week window will be too narrow to diagnose DS so that argument is moot.

nozzferrahhtoo

EirWatchr wrote: »

The exceptions to that are the preborn children who's lives were ended by termination - because in the absence of the law protecting them from force, they will never have a voice to claim anything.

The near totality of abortions by choice (often approaching figures like 96 and 98%) occur when the fetus is in the 0-16 weeks range of gestation. At that stage it is not that the fetus is being denied a voice. There is no one there to HAVE a voice in the first place. So a narrative discussing how they do not have a voice, is really a vicarious projection of one's own voice onto an entity that does not require one in the first place.

Riskymove

threescompany wrote: »

Fair enough, sorry I misunderstood what you meant.

In fairness I should have been clearer when I said "what has it got to do with you"


good luck with your decision, whatever it is

threescompany

Thank you all for your comments & opinions. I must say boards has been a lot kinder than some of the Horrendous Facebook discussions I’ve seen online. It was actually depressing reading how some of the different sides were attacking each other.
I will read through all the posts & give this topic plenty of consideration before I vote.

SusieBlue

threescompany wrote: »

Fair enough, sorry I misunderstood what you meant.
I’ve alot of thinking to do on this topic. But there are other circumstances that I’m unconscious with ( Down’s syndrome abortions) anyway I’m just ploughing through this referendum myself. I will inform myself and make the right decision as I see fit.

When it comes to disability and fatal fetal abnormalities, I ask myself, could I bring up a child who will undoubtedly suffer and possibly be in pain? Who will never know independence, even as an adult?
Who may require round the clock care for the rest of his life?
Can I cope with the stress and pressure that comes with raising a child with special needs?
Would it effect my existing children/future children I'd like to have?
I'd have to give up my job to care for this child, am I prepared for having a lower standing of living for myself and my child, possibly relying on welfare, to get by?

I honestly don't know what I'd do. I'd like to think I would progress with the pregnancy, but who knows what my circumstances will be?
That's why the choice is so so important. Not everyone can cope. Not everyone can make the kinds of sacrifices necessary. Is it fair to force a child like this on unable/unwilling parents? Is that in the child's best interests?

Also, I just wanted to commend you on the questions you are asking. Its ok to be undecided, and when you do decide, at least you'll have all the information available to make an informed decision, whatever that may be.

threescompany

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Ignorance requires no forgiveness, and awareness of where one's own ignorance lies deserves praise, never condemnation. Keep it up!



The first thing to be aware of is that "on demand" and "unrestricted" are massively different things. The first means that women be allowed have an abortion for reasons of their own choosing. The latter means there is no restrictions on that choice.

The vast majority of people who want women to have that choice, and countries that offer that choice, have restrictions. Most often in terms of the time limit by which abortion by choice can be sought.

Here in Ireland people who want abortion by choice usually aim for 12, 16 or 20 weeks as the cut off. Some, but much less, aim for 24 which I think is what the UK and parts of the US have.

I myself would be happy with 12, 16 or 20 really. 16 ideally. But I would lose no sleep over 12.

There are some places without such restriction. Canada for example. However it is interesting that EVEN IN a country with no restriction........ the rate at which abortions happen fall in line with where the restrictions would lie in other countries.

Take 2015 for example. There was apparently 100612 abortions in Canada in that year. The number of abortions that took place in or after week 21 was a HALF a %. A little over 500. In fact 91% of abortions in that year were complete by 12 weeks of gestation. Pretty much all of them by 16 weeks.

But a repeal of the 8th would, I am informed, allow us to legislate against abortion by choice, or for it. And if we were to legislate for it I strongly suspect that time limits would be included in that and we would have nothing like the Canadian system, and probably something with more stringent restrictions than the UK or US. But that is just my feeling, rather than anything I can evidence, given the recommendations of the Citizens Assembly.

So I see no reason for someone like yourself not to vote for repeal. But as others have said, more information is not really possible until we know EXACTLY what we will be asked to vote on.

Thanks for all that info.

Bannasidhe

threescompany wrote: »

That’s a lovely story. Delighted you’ve a grest relationship with your granddaughter & I respect everyone’s right to their opinion.
I think it’s great you aren’t a judgemental person. I TRY not to be, but of course, it’s hard not to judge sometimes.

Of course we all judge, and I am far from nonjudgmental (abuse or neglect a child or animal and my wrath knows no bounds) but just as I have made choices with my life that many many people have deeply disapproved of then equally whatever my personal feelings I believe I have to respect other's choices.

Sure, that whole thing wouldn't have even happened but for a choice I made that had other people's judgement coming out of the woodwork. I chose to have a child as an out lesbian and raise that child in a same-sex couple. That child grew into the man who fathered the accidental child and, as much as it may have pained him, was steadfast in his support for whatever decision his ex-girlfriend made. He's also turned out to be a very good father after a shaky start.

We need more respect in this country, not judgement.

NuMarvel

EirWatchr wrote: »

Sorry for delay - a bit busy.



Total fertility rate (TFR) is the usual figure used to discuss this, but for the purposes of relative comparison to the figure you cite:

Use the U.K. for comparison (note that the U.K. abortion rate is close to EU average, but that the Oireachtas Committee's recommendations are for an even less restrictive abortion law than the U.K.):

U.K. Abortion rate for 2016 = 0.003 per capita

(Population 65648100, 185596 Abortions, which excludes the 4810 abortions provided to non-residents)
https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/report-on-abortion-statistics-in-england-and-wales-for-2016

Estimated abortions that would have been performed in Ireland, under U.K. abortion conditions:

Ireland population 2016 = 4757976 (CSO)
Est. abortions = 14274 (4757976 * 0.003)

That's 14.8% of the birth rate in 2016.

That's a fairly average impact of abortion on fertility. Research in other countries has resulted in fall estimates of 8% - 20%.
e.g., http://www.nber.org/papers/w5615.pdf,http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12158052
And some EU countries have reported even higher.

Even if you allow for the estimated current abortion rate of people living in Ireland, it still points to an increase of over double - and percentages aside, that's thousands more lives yearly ended by the proposed Committee recommendations.

You have a big flaw in your calculations: how you express the abortion rate. It isn't expressed per capita, but per 1000 women and girls between 15 and 44. In other words, as a percentage of the part of the population most likely to become pregnant. That way you mitigate against variances in other demographics.

There's no basis for assuming that the population spread of Ireland is the same as other countries, especially when we have a higher birth rate than other EU countries. That means we're likely to have a higher percentage of people under 15 which skews the basis of your assumptions. And before you say it, our birth rate isn't a sign of the effectiveness of an abortion ban; France has the highest and they allow abortion. On the other hand, Malta's is below the EU average and they have a ban on abortion.

Also, I'd question if the UK's rate could be directly applied to Ireland, considering that countries in the UK have significant differences themselves. EG Scotland's rate is a third less than England's.

Finally, I notice you didn't provide current abortion statistics for Ireland. That's the most critical piece of information for your calculations. You can't arrive at a figure at how many more abortions a change will allow if you can't be sure how many abortions are happening in the first place.

threescompany

Thanks , I was nervous about posting as I felt very uninformed.
I agree, having a child with round the clock care, life limiting conditions, etc is an extremely difficult situation. My heart goes out to any parent in this situation. I have a DS sibling and thankfully they are living a very happy life to the full. I know that sadly, other DS children / adults do not have this privilege.
Its hard to walk in other people’s shoes but when people choose to abort DS pregnancies, I can’t help but feel sad & disappointed. I know, who am I to judge but still I can’t help thinking it’s wrong....... anyway thanks for your responses earlier.

thee glitz

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

There is no one there to HAVE a voice in the first place.

Would you agree that the sex of this no-one has already been determined?

nozzferrahhtoo

thee glitz wrote: »

Would you agree that the sex of this no-one has already been determined?

Only in the same way as the size of your bathroom on a blue print has already been determined. That is, at the moment of conception you have a blue print for building a male or female person. But that does not make it a person any more than a blueprint is a house.

But yes sex is pretty much entirely determined from the moment of conception. What's your point?

drkpower

WhiteRoses wrote: »

It means in any circumstances, whatever a doctor decides to do or not do, a woman doesn't have the power to consent or withdraw consent. She has no control over her own body.

For example:
If a woman has an ectopic pregnancy (where the embryo develops in the fallopian tube rather than the womb), a simple tablet can be taken to cause miscarriage with little to no side effects for the woman. This tablet is available in pretty much every other progressive country.
Its worth noting that an ectopic pregnancy is not viable, it will never grow into a baby and is very dangerous for the woman.

However, because of the 8th amendment, this tablet is illegal because it technically causes miscarriage. So instead of taking a simple tablet, a woman has to undergo surgery to REMOVE part or all of her fallopian tube.
Not only does this affect future fertility rates, its extremely invasive and painful and more importantly, totally unnecessary when a tablet can do the same job..

I am pro-choice and have written and lectured on the circumstances where the 8th has an impact on obstetric care.

But the above is simply incorrect, assuming the tablet you are talking about is methotrexate. There is nothing illegal about methotrexate and it is used for early ectopics in Ireland. It is part of numerous hospital guidelines on the management of ectopic pregnancy available online (including the Coombe and HSE hospitals). It is absolutely or relatively contraindicated in certain clinical scenarios, sure, so it certainly isn't used in all ectopic pregnancies. But that applies to its use in any jurisdiction.

The circumstances were the 8th impinges on obstetric care are all too real, but they are limited. Broad brush statements like 'in any circumstances, whatever a doctor decides to do or not do, a woman doesn't have the power to consent or withdraw consent' are both false and dangerous. And that type of approach will only be counter-productive in the debate that gathers pace over the next few months.

Genuine apologies if i picked you up wrong or misinterpreted something in that post.