Men's rights on Abortion?

The Specialist

drunkmonkey wrote: »

Were already offering a financial incentive for abortion if the yes win, why wouldn't you agree to put one in place for adoption.

What is the financial incentive for abortion? Do you think women are just going to be lining up for them non stop? Your adoption suggestion is pretty disgusting as well - act as an incubator for 9 months and we'll pay you 10k.

drunkmonkey

The Specialist wrote: »

What is the financial incentive for abortion? Do you think women are just going to be lining up for them non stop? Your adoption suggestion is pretty disgusting as well - act as an incubator for 9 months and we'll pay you 10k.

How is it disgusting compared to the alternative I don't get how you could think that way.
The current plan saves nobody at least this might give women a choice who would normally abort for economic reasons. Which is the vast majority of women after the ones who just don't want any more children.

drunkmonkey

drunkmonkey wrote: »

Ok it seems pretty clear were choosing Abortion over Adoption. Let's say between everything it costs the tax payer 10k an abortion how about an adoption grant of 10k for women who choose to let their baby go for adoption rather than death.
The adoption makes a lot more sense for the Government as the hope is they would turn into a tax payer.
Couples are already paying tens of thousands to adopt from outside the state.

10k an abortion!!
Where in the world do you get that figure from??

seamus

We already did the "farming babies for adoption" thing. Unfortunately crop failure was frequent and it put a heavy strain on the farms' septic tanks. We also had an issue where successful crops were frequently sold to wealthy foreign investors rather than brought to domestic consumers.

Facetiousness aside, if someone is pregnant and doesn't want to be, adoption is not a solution.

Triceratops Ballet

drunkmonkey wrote: »

Ok it seems pretty clear were choosing Abortion over Adoption. Let's say between everything it costs the tax payer 10k an abortion how about an adoption grant of 10k for women who choose to let their baby go for adoption rather than death.
The adoption makes a lot more sense for the Government as the hope is they would turn into a tax payer.
Couples are already paying tens of thousands to adopt from outside the state.

that's a bit handmaids tale! You're proposing that women who don't want to be pregnant be paid to have children so they can give them to couples who do want children?

drunkmonkey

bubblypop wrote: »

10k an abortion!!
Where in the world do you get that figure from??

It's a lot more than 10k, your just thinking of the procedure. Everything that comes before, after and what would have been have to be taken into consideration when arriving at a figure.
Did you know with abortion STD rates increase, that's a cost. The birth rates fall, that puts pressure on taxation as they need to find more money to make up for the loss of income earners.
If you wanted to get balding hair put but it's a day long procedure and it costs 10k as there's no state funding. So take out any state assets such as doctors/hospitals/hse services etc used for abortion and 10k is a fraction of the overall cost.

.......

This post has been deleted.

Triceratops Ballet

drunkmonkey wrote: »

It's a lot more than 10k, your just thinking of the procedure. Everything that comes before, after and what would have been have to be taken into consideration when arriving at a figure.
Did you know with abortion STD rates increase, that's a cost. The birth rates fall, that puts pressure on taxation as they need to find more money to make up for the loss of income earners.
If you wanted to get balding hair put but it's a day long procedure and it costs 10k as there's no state funding. So take out any state assets such as doctors/hospitals/hse services etc used for abortion and 10k is a fraction of the overall cost.

women who travel currently pay the cost of an abortion, they typically have to go private because the NHS doesn't cover them and including flights and somewhere to sleep the cost is still well under 10k (it's not cheap but it's not 10k)

JRant

drunkmonkey wrote: »

Were already offering a financial incentive for abortion if the yes win, why wouldn't you agree to put one in place for adoption.

I completely disagree with the government getting involved in either case. If someone wants an elective abortion they should pay for it themselves, including any counselling they may require in the future. If someone wants to put their baby up for adoption then that's their decision also. No way should there be a financial incentive for either.

drunkmonkey

seamus wrote: »

if someone is pregnant and doesn't want to be, adoption is not a solution.

It's not a solution i'd agree but it's an option worth having on the table.
A lot of debate has been about women's rights, we can make a pretty accurate assumption it's poor young women who will be having abortions more than any other group in Ireland so let's take money out of the picture as one of their worries about continuing a baby.
I know plenty of people who spent a lot of money on IVF treatment way more than 10k to have a child. It's small money in the general scheme of things.

If you were given the choice between selling everything you have or dying i'm pretty sure you'd choose life.
In the past we stole baby's this isn't the same. Were saying we'll support you if you decide to keep or adopt the baby.
Everyone on the Yes/No side would agree except for the few that want to see the world burn that saving a life is better than taking one.

.......

This post has been deleted.

RocketRaccoon

An adoption grant of 10k? Could you imagine the dole scroungers and just how much they would take advantage of that! Jacinta down the road would be pregnant ever year ffs.

drunkmonkey

Triceratops Ballet wrote: »

women who travel currently pay the cost of an abortion, they typically have to go private because the NHS doesn't cover them and including flights and somewhere to sleep the cost is still well under 10k (it's not cheap but it's not 10k)

And who carries the can when they get home, the taxpayer? We've seen on some of the debates women are traumatised by abortion for whatever the reason. That could take years of therapy.
Were not having UK style abortion we keep being told, I'd agree were not half as efficient. This is a country that can take 14 men to dig a hole once it's taxpayer funded. 10k is a fair estimate but i'd say wildly on the low side.

Triceratops Ballet

drunkmonkey wrote: »

It's not a solution i'd agree but it's an option worth having on the table.
A lot of debate has been about women's rights, we can make a pretty accurate assumption it's poor young women who will be having abortions more than any other group in Ireland so let's take money out of the picture as one of their worries about continuing a baby.
I know plenty of people who spent a lot of money on IVF treatment way more than 10k to have a child. It's small money in the general scheme of things.

If you were given the choice between selling everything you have or dying i'm pretty sure you'd choose life.
In the past we stole baby's this isn't the same. Were saying we'll support you if you decide to keep or adopt the baby.
Everyone on the Yes/No side would agree except for the few that want to see the world burn that saving a life is better than taking one.

Is it worth it? could it not be seen to be incentivising vunerable women to get pregnant in order to make 10k which might get them out of a desperate situation, or indeed women in a sh1t situation might give up their baby for the 10k only to be devastated by the regret later in life. I don't think commodifying pregnancies is a solution worth having on the table.

drunkmonkey

RocketRaccoon wrote: »

An adoption grant of 10k? Could you imagine the dole scroungers and just how much they would take advantage of that! Jacinta down the road would be pregnant ever year ffs.

She is pregnant every year as it is. I know one girl with 5 kids she's under 25 and 4 different fathers. She thinks her fanny is an ATM from what I can see.
Still she got the free house, all the mickey money. There is no incentive for this girl ever to work and it's all state sponsored.
I hate to say it but these kids may have been better off adopted by some loving parents. I'm not going to say Jacinta would have been better off with abortions.

Triceratops Ballet

drunkmonkey wrote: »

And who carries the can when they get home, the taxpayer? We've seen on some of the debates women are traumatised by abortion for whatever the reason. That could take years of therapy.
Were not having UK style abortion we keep being told, I'd agree were not half as efficient. This is a country that can take 14 men to dig a hole once it's taxpayer funded. 10k is a fair estimate but i'd say wildly on the low side.

Unless someone is on a medical card, chances are they are paying for their own therapy, and even for those on medical cards the mental health services in this country are so choked with demand they aren't getting the level of care and attention you're budgeting for, I'd almost guarantee it.

How is the taxpayer carrying the can?

in terms of how the cost will actually be covered I'd imagine it will be the same as things are now, those on medical card or using the drug payment scheme will either be covered up front or have a monthly cap over which the appointment/prescription is covered and those who aren't on a medical card will pay themselves as they do for other services with their GP or at the well woman clinic. I'd imagine surgical abortions in cases of FFA threat to the life of the mother etc would be covered under maternity services as the woman concerned will already be a patient of a specific maternity hospital

Mark Hamill

JRant wrote: »

What has that got to do with how the "hard cases" have been treated this past 30 years?

Pretty clearly my point is that at the very least the yes side has been campaigning the last 30 years to remove the 8th so as to help those cases.

Whereas the only peep we ever hear from the no side has been in the run up to the various referendums, where they skirt around or brush around these cases (that they admit are hard for them), pretend to offer solutions but then do or say nothing about them until the next referendum comes up.

drunkmonkey

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

A healthy tax paying adult is worth a lot more to the taxpayer than an abortion.
I know I talked earlier about the economic benefits of an abortion but they were all dismissed by the Yes side including yourself.

Plenty of evidence from other countries go research it.

JRant

....... wrote: »

Good lord your figures couldnt be more wrong.

The cost to the taxpayer of a pregnancy, schools, free GP etc and 18 years of child support outweighs the cost of an abortion by $$$$. An abortion costs the price of a GP visit and 2 pills. Under 200 euro.

Oh and show some evidence for the bolded assertions.

Would you have a breakdown of the numbers of abortions carried out in this manner compared to surgical intervention?

From my understanding a large proportion of abortions required some surgical procedure.

Noo

drunkmonkey wrote: »

It's not a solution i'd agree but it's an option worth having on the table.
A lot of debate has been about women's rights, we can make a pretty accurate assumption it's poor young women who will be having abortions more than any other group in Ireland so let's take money out of the picture as one of their worries about continuing a baby.
I know plenty of people who spent a lot of money on IVF treatment way more than 10k to have a child. It's small money in the general scheme of things.

If you were given the choice between selling everything you have or dying i'm pretty sure you'd choose life.
In the past we stole baby's this isn't the same. Were saying we'll support you if you decide to keep or adopt the baby.
Everyone on the Yes/No side would agree except for the few that want to see the world burn that saving a life is better than taking one.

You do realise that adoption laws in ireland aren't that simple. To give up a child for adoption you have to be deemed to be an unfit mother. If you are deemed to be an unfit mother then you have to give up all your children.

So will they get 10k per child? Or will the $10k be a lump some to cover taking away all her children?

Mark Hamill

drunkmonkey wrote: »

Ok it seems pretty clear were choosing Abortion over Adoption. Let's say between everything it costs the tax payer 10k an abortion how about an adoption grant of 10k for women who choose to let their baby go for adoption rather than death.
The adoption makes a lot more sense for the Government as the hope is they would turn into a tax payer.
Couples are already paying tens of thousands to adopt from outside the state.

Wow, where to begin?
1) The choice is not abortion over adoption, it's abortion over pregnancy.
2) Why should we be suggesting to women to be an incubator for 9 months? Would you suggest that to a rape victims face?
3) While we are at it, can the government start giving grants to get people to donate organs? you can live with one kidney and half a liver?
4) Would you accept 10k for 9 months of pregnancy and all the after effects?
5) But lets say all abortions or for social reasons and of otherwise healthy babies. There were ~90 adoptions granted last year. There is ~6000 foster children in Ireland. How is adding 5000 babies to that going to help anyone?

Also where are you getting 10k an abortion from? They only charge £500-£700 to non-residents in the UK for one.

Macha

I've taken these abortion pills for a missed miscarriage last year. They are not expensive and if it's GP-led, it would involve 2 GP visits, the pills plus a follow up appointment to make sure nothing is left in the womb.

I do have to say I find this such a reprehensible argument against access to terminations.

Mark Hamill

JRant wrote: »

Would you have a breakdown of the numbers of abortions carried out in this manner compared to surgical intervention?

From my understanding a large proportion of abortions required some surgical procedure.

The 2016 statistics for England and Wales are here. From the data tables download, Section T5, it reports that there were 164,998 total abortions before week 12 and 109,776 of them are medical (by the pill). It ranges from 90% medical in week 3 and 4 and drops to 13% by week 11, with an average of 66% (with an overall average of 62% medical across all reported weeks) .

JRant

Mark Hamill wrote: »

The 2016 statistics for England and Wales are here. From the data tables download, Section T5, it reports that there were 164,998 total abortions before week 12 and 109,776 of them are medical (by the pill). It ranges from 90% medical in week 3 and 4 and drops to 13% by week 11, with an average of 66% (with an overall average of 62% medical across all reported weeks) .

Much appreciated.

seamus

drunkmonkey wrote: »

Were saying we'll support you if you decide to keep or adopt the baby.

In what way are they not supported now?

Where is this rush of women going to come from who will suddenly decide that adoption is the answer? Where is this pent-up supply of babies for adoption?

drunkmonkey

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Wow, where to begin?
1) The choice is not abortion over adoption, it's abortion over pregnancy.
2) Why should we be suggesting to women to be an incubator for 9 months? Would you suggest that to a rape victims face?
3) While we are at it, can the government start giving grants to get people to donate organs? you can live with one kidney and half a liver?
4) Would you accept 10k for 9 months of pregnancy and all the after effects?
5) But lets say all abortions or for social reasons and of otherwise healthy babies. There were ~90 adoptions granted last year. There is ~6000 foster children in Ireland. How is adding 5000 babies to that going to help anyone?

Also where are you getting 10k an abortion from? They only charge £500-£700 to non-residents in the UK for one.

1) The choice is life over death
2) I'm not suggesting it for special cases like rape. I'm suggesting it for women who chose for economic reasons, whether that's 10k if you adopt or 10k in financial assistance to help you after the baby arrives.
3)That's debatable personally after seeing someone with kidney failure i'd keep mine regardless of cost, I've no issue if someone wants to sell one willingly. I was willing to give one for free but that was a family member.
4)If I was stoney broke and given the choice I might just take the 10k, see point 2.
5)Your logics dictates we kill the 5000 in that point.

So to sum up, kill them all, screw giving an alternative is your main theme.

.......

This post has been deleted.

drunkmonkey

seamus wrote: »

In what way are they not supported now?

Where is this rush of women going to come from who will suddenly decide that adoption is the answer? Where is this pent-up supply of babies for adoption?

Financially there not suppoted what's, the cost of raising a kid here, 100k until their 21 on the last count. To someone with nothing that's winning the lottery money.

Was it 5 Irish babies adopted last year I think, we could do with increasing the supply, were importing the babies and exporting the abortions. It's pretty insane when you think of the logic.

.......

This post has been deleted.

drunkmonkey

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Your very Niave to be playing judge and executioner. We all know a Jacinta.
The point was missed on you obiviously as it was in response to a question from the Yes side who brought Jacinta into it.

We take it your in favour of killing her children, that folks is the mindset of a Yes voter, if her daddy's poor chop the baby up.