Abortion - Report of the Joint Committee on the Eighth Amendment of the Constitution

2wsxcde3

Edward M wrote: »

Imagine if a heart patient was told, no sorry, die or go abroad, or get help online, we can't help you here?

THAT is what is being said to children under the age of 18 in Ireland who need a heart transplant! They are being told go to the UK or die:

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/children-are-falling-through-the-cracks-but-simon-harris-ignored-me-grieving-mum-whose-son-10-died-36445407.html

After the tragic death, it took 10 days for the schoolboy's body to be returned home by ferry and the family paid for his removal from Belfast port to his Dublin home. The mother wrote to Mr Harris hoping he would be able to help protect other families from having to fork out thousands of euro on travel to the UK and to ensure all children, including those who die, are taken home by the Air Corps. "I sent an email to Minister Harris on October 4 and still no response," Ms Coyne said. "He can continue to sit in a room with his experts but there's no one more expert than me and my family on the cracks in the health system for transplant patients - we've been through it and we need to fill the cracks but we need the minister to help us." She added: "I'm annoyed Minister Harris hasn't answered me because this is an important issue. My son died and I can't bring him back, but I can help others."

Sound familiar? This is the real "compassionate" Simon Harris showing his true colors.

SusieBlue

2wsxcde3 wrote: »

THAT is what is being said to children under the age of 18 in Ireland who need a heart transplant! They are being told go to the UK or die:

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/children-are-falling-through-the-cracks-but-simon-harris-ignored-me-grieving-mum-whose-son-10-died-36445407.html

I'm still failing to see the link between this and the abortion referendum.

.......

This post has been deleted.

end of the road

Edward M wrote: »

But they can be gotten online, you admit that, even say where they can be gotten.
We know that women travel for abortion, that's freely admitted also.
The comparisons you make about sending other medical conditions abroad for help is not really a comparison that is fair at all.
I would say its regrettable these conditions can't be successfully treated here from start to finish, but I wouldn't call that exporting these conditions at all.
Rather I would say its seeking help and getting it, the best outcome for the patient sought, from start to finish.
Comparing that to just turning a blind eye to something is not in the least bit a fair comparison.
Imagine if a heart patient was told, no sorry, die or go abroad, or get help online, we can't help you here?

abortion is in most cases a non-medical issue that is being sent abroad because there is only a small demand for them in ireland. so it is quite similar to sending those needing other treatments abroad for the help, if we take at face value the claim that it wouldn't be economical to have specialist treatment here (by the way, health is a service that is technically not economically viable anyway) but necessary.
the link between the 2 is that we have people complaining because people have to travel to england for an abortion on demand, yet we have people genuinely requiring treatment who also have to go abroad and yet there is nothing about it.

oscarBravo

Geuze wrote: »

The woman who doesn't want the baby is relieved of the baby.

Abortion isn't just about not wanting a baby; it's about not wanting to be pregnant.

end of the road wrote: »

abortion is in most cases a non-medical issue that is being sent abroad because there is only a small demand for them in ireland.

Wow. There's literally not a single true thing in that sentence.

Gunmonkey

end of the road wrote: »

abortion is in most cases a non-medical issue that is being sent abroad because there is only a small demand for them in ireland.

Or...now hear me out...or could it be because its FUC***G ILLEGAL HERE

One is a matter of legal availability, the other a physical availability....or is the reason theres no kids treatment here because its illegal under Irish law? Oh wait I get it now, you want these kids getting treatment here to be made illegal, is that it? Is that how it connects to abortion?

Both are based on necessity but based off different factors:
-economic for the kids treatment (our health service has hundreds on trollies each day as is, this service would put more pressure on the HSE)
-legal for abortions (would have very little economic impact, could be handled at GP level through medication or maybe some short hospital visits for specialist cases)

Or will you now start banging on about how there are people on trollies in hospitals because of the abortion referendum! Or the housing shortage because we are short just that €20m to house everyone in this country for life!

end of the road

Gunmonkey wrote: »

Or...now hear me out...or could it be because its FUC***G ILLEGAL HERE

One is a matter of legal availability, the other a physical availability....or is the reason theres no kids treatment here because its illegal under Irish law? Oh wait I get it now, you want these kids getting treatment here to be made illegal, is that it? Is that how it connects to abortion?

Both are based on necessity but based off different factors:
-economic for the kids treatment (our health service has hundreds on trollies each day as is, this service would put more pressure on the HSE)
-legal for abortions (would have very little economic impact, could be handled at GP level through medication or maybe some short hospital visits for specialist cases)

Or will you now start banging on about how there are people on trollies in hospitals because of the abortion referendum! Or the housing shortage because we are short just that €20m to house everyone in this country for life!

any funds spent on abortion on demand have things worth while they could be spent on. only medical abortions should be tax payer funded with anyone wanting an abortion for lifestyle reasons funding it themselves.

2wsxcde3

2wsxcde3 wrote: »

If abortion pills are coming in to Ireland in bulk packages (as demonstrated by customs), who exactly is buying abortion pills in bulk?

The theory was that unscrupulous distributors were selling these on the black market in Ireland. This explanation might have made sense in 2010 or 2011 etc when abortion pills were not widely known of in Ireland and so a black market could exist. But abortion pills are well known now. Women can get them online themselves without going to a black market. This is especially so as she would not know the quality of the pill she would be getting on the black market. She could trust abortion pills from Women on Web though. And critically, they can be got for free on Women on Web (if a woman tells them she can't afford to pay them).

So if a woman can get these pills for free online, then no black market for abortion pills should exist in Ireland. So who is bulk buying abortion pills online and delivering them to Ireland? There is now a very real possibility that the pro-choice side are bulk buying abortion pills online and having them delivered to the Rep. of Ireland in order to give the impression that 1000's of women in Ireland are using these. And this would have to be done in order to counteract the inconvenient fact that there has been a continuous drop in the number of Irish women travelling to the UK each year to get an abortion despite Irelands expanding population size in this time. The numbers have been dropping since 2001, long before the availability of abortion pills online.

Can anyone on the pro-choice side explain who are bulk buying abortion pills online and having them delivered to Ireland? They can't be back alley distributors as there can't be a black market for abortion pills in Ireland in 2018 as women can get them for free online now from Women on Web.

.......

This post has been deleted.

2wsxcde3

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Yes they are. You don't have to pay if you can't afford it. That's what they say.

.......

This post has been deleted.

eviltwin

end of the road wrote: »

any funds spent on abortion on demand have things worth while they could be spent on. only medical abortions should be tax payer funded with anyone wanting an abortion for lifestyle reasons funding it themselves.

Abortion pills will cost the tax payer a hell of a lot less than maternity care, 18 years child benefits etc so go away with that utter crap. You tried that argument in another thread and it didn't work there either. If you are going to argue your case at least use facts and not rubbish.

Hoboo

WhiteRoses wrote: »

Infants are only put up for immediate adoption if they are orphans and no relatives are willing to adopt them.

Domestic Infant adoption is essentially the process whereby a child is placed with an alternative set of parents. All legal rights, responsibilities and duties are transferred to the new parents and the birth parents relinquish all their legal rights and duties in relation to the child. A child cannot be placed for adoption with a couple without the prior approval of the Adoption Authority. A child may only be placed by Tusla - The Child and Family Agency or an accredited body. Only couples with valid Declarations of Eligibility and Suitability may be considered for the placement of the child.

Where a child is placed for adoption by its birth mother (usually) and is to be adopted into a family other than the one it was born to.............When an infant is placed for adoption, the parent(s) are given the opportunity to outline their preferences of the type of family they would like the infant to be placed with. For example the parent(s) may wish the infant to be brought up in a rural area, or a county other than where they live themselves; they may express a preference for a couple who have a child already and so their child will have a sibling.


Im not making this up.

Hoboo

eviltwin wrote: »

Abortion pills will cost the tax payer a hell of a lot less than maternity care, 18 years child benefits etc so go away with that utter crap. You tried that argument in another thread and it didn't work there either. If you are going to argue your case at least use facts and not rubbish.

'A hell of a lot less'. That's fairly factual alright.

.......

This post has been deleted.

.......

This post has been deleted.

eviltwin

Hoboo wrote: »

'A hell of a lot less'. That's fairly factual alright.

Why is why I posted it. What's the cost to the taxpayer of the abortion pill Vs the cost of maternity care

SusieBlue

Hoboo wrote: »

Domestic Infant adoption is essentially the process whereby a child is placed with an alternative set of parents. All legal rights, responsibilities and duties are transferred to the new parents and the birth parents relinquish all their legal rights and duties in relation to the child. A child cannot be placed for adoption with a couple without the prior approval of the Adoption Authority. A child may only be placed by Tusla - The Child and Family Agency or an accredited body. Only couples with valid Declarations of Eligibility and Suitability may be considered for the placement of the child.

Where a child is placed for adoption by its birth mother (usually) and is to be adopted into a family other than the one it was born to.............When an infant is placed for adoption, the parent(s) are given the opportunity to outline their preferences of the type of family they would like the infant to be placed with. For example the parent(s) may wish the infant to be brought up in a rural area, or a county other than where they live themselves; they may express a preference for a couple who have a child already and so their child will have a sibling.


Im not making this up.

I actually mentioned nothing in my post about parents voluntarily putting babies up for adoption in infancy, I only covered the cases where parents have failed in their duty of care and cases where both parents are dead and no willing relative will take on the child.
Your point is completely irrelevant anyway because as has been pointed out 3/4 times now, there were only 5 such adoptions in Ireland last year.

2wsxcde3

2wsxcde3 wrote: »

The citizens assembly cost money. The May referendum costs money. We're talking €20m+. Thats how this whole abortion debate has cost us a specialist ward to help children who suffer from arthritis.

The connection between children travelling in pain to the UK to get treatment and women travelling to the UK to have an abortion is valid. They are both travelling to the UK for a service that doesn't exist in Ireland. But the media seem to have prioritized women wanting an abortion over sick children. No mention at all of the sick children.

When did your campaigning for this ward start or is it something you have only had an interest in since the abortion referendum came up

Rezident

Sounds like a legal technicality - unborn babies don't have a birth cert yet so, legally, we can kill them.

If only unborn babies could hire a lawyer.

SusieBlue

Hoboo wrote: »

'A hell of a lot less'. That's fairly factual alright.

Well when you weigh up the cost of maternity care, labour and birth, 18 years of childrens allowance and the cost of educating a child for 13 years versus the cost of one tablet, it kind of makes sense and speaks for itself that the tablet will be significantly cheaper and cost the tax payer less.

Rezident

The committee was clearly biased so I would expect the report to be the same.

Creative use of language really does work on people - it's called neurolinguisticprogramming (NLP). It works really well. Take 'pro-choice' - the fact that the pro-abortion movement cannot even use the word 'abortion' itself, is one indication that abortion might not be ok.

Next change the words to less emotive words like 'terminate' and foetus' and a percentage of a population will be swayed, despite the fact that it doesn't change a thing that is happening in the real world, it just cleverly changes how people represent it to themselves. It works. Just don't think about it too much.

Now people who think that killing unborn babies might not be ok are being called "anti-choice" by the extremists! It's like something from a dystopian horror movie. There truly is little hope left for this species, I predict the human race will be gone within 50 years, probably less, the planet will be relieved to hear, this is the end.

Hoboo

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

There was no mention of any figures? How you do maths with no figures is beyond me. A hell of a lot less is not factual. Do you not understand basic English :rolleyes:

Hoboo

WhiteRoses wrote: »

I actually mentioned nothing in my post about parents voluntarily putting babies up for adoption in infancy, I only covered the cases where parents have failed in their duty of care and cases where both parents are dead and no willing relative will take on the child.

Ill leave you to try backtrack out of the hole you dug. Hoboo out.

SusieBlue

Hoboo wrote: »

Ill leave you to try backtrack out of the hole you dug. Hoboo out.

I didn't dig any hole, you were the one claiming there were plenty of adoptions taking place and offered this as a solution to abortion.
When it was pointed out that only 5 domestic adoptions happened last year you didn't have much to say. You were the one digging yourself a hole with your misinformation about adoption.
Not to mention your comment about euthanising pregnant women.

.......

This post has been deleted.

end of the road

eviltwin wrote: »

Abortion pills will cost the tax payer a hell of a lot less than maternity care, 18 years child benefits etc so go away with that utter crap. You tried that argument in another thread and it didn't work there either. If you are going to argue your case at least use facts and not rubbish.

actually we don't know that abortion pills will cost the tax payer a hell of a lot less then those. it is speculated that they might, and it may at a stretch be the case, but at the moment it's just speculation. it is likely that they will cost a bit less, but it is not a good reason to allow abortion on demand in ireland, as there is no reason that i have come across to allow it. if costs of children to the state are such a concern that we have to introduce abortion on demand as the non-solution to the issue, then those who want an abortion on demand should fund it themselves, with only medical abortions receiveing tax payer funding
child benefits, along with maternity care, is actually better value for money for society and the tax payer, as that child is quite likely to grow up and contribute to society, in turn bettering the country in which they live.

Rezident wrote: »

The committee was clearly biased so I would expect the report to be the same.

Creative use of language really does work on people - it's called neurolinguisticprogramming (NLP). It works really well. Take 'pro-choice' - the fact that the pro-abortion movement cannot even use the word 'abortion' itself, is one indication that abortion might not be ok.

Next change the words to less emotive words like 'terminate' and foetus' and a percentage of a population will be swayed, despite the fact that it doesn't change a thing that is happening in the real world, it just cleverly changes how people represent it to themselves. It works. Just don't think about it too much.

Now people who think that killing unborn babies might not be ok are being called "anti-choice" by the extremists! It's like something from a dystopian horror movie. There truly is little hope left for this species, I predict the human race will be gone within 50 years, probably less, the planet will be relieved to hear, this is the end.

dehumanisation is a tactic societies and governments have used a plenty in the past to gain support for removing rights from those they saw as lesser.

uptherebels

Rezident wrote: »

The committee was clearly biased so I would expect the report to be the same.

Creative use of language really does work on people - it's called neurolinguisticprogramming (NLP). It works really well. Take 'pro-choice' - the fact that the pro-abortion movement cannot even use the word 'abortion' itself, is one indication that abortion might not be ok.

Next change the words to less emotive words like 'terminate' and foetus' and a percentage of a population will be swayed, despite the fact that it doesn't change a thing that is happening in the real world, it just cleverly changes how people represent it to themselves. It works. Just don't think about it too much.

Now people who think that killing unborn babies might not be ok are being called "anti-choice" by the extremists! It's like something from a dystopian horror movie. There truly is little hope left for this species, I predict the human race will be gone within 50 years, probably less, the planet will be relieved to hear, this is the end.

Just because the committee didn't support your views doesn't make it biased;)

Also why are you and many in the anti choice movement deliberately unable to realise the difference between being pro choice and pro abortion? and yes its anti choice not pro life because for most anti choicers, as seen on here, their concerns for life stop at birth or the border which ever happens first

.......

This post has been deleted.

Zubeneschamali

Rezident wrote: »

I predict the human race will be gone within 50 years, probably less.

This is perhaps a slight overreaction to Ireland changing its laws to match the rest of the civilized world.