8th amendment referendum part 3 - Mod note and FAQ in post #1

ohnonotgmail

antiskeptic wrote: »

I know. It was tongue in cheek. The idea that adoption is not a realistic option (among a suite of possible options shy of abortion) because of all these darn laws getting in the way.





Yet we've had a Supreme Court Ruling which liberalized the law under the 8th. And the 2013 Act which both liberalized the law and provided more clarity in what to do in cases where the mothers life could be at risk.

Have we wrung the knackers out of the 8th?

Even if adoption was made as simple as absolutely possible it would not be a realistic option for all women with an unplanned pregnancy. Some women just wouldn't want to continue being pregnant.

Just her

January wrote: »

No medical expenses but the expenses of travelling to and from the hospital for appointments, for maternity clothes, for taking the time off to give birth and recover afterwards (let's say 6 weeks, especially if you have to have a cesarean).

No loss of earnings? Really?

I don't live far from the hospital, are you talking petrol expenses to go to hospital appointments? I'd credit all women that have opted for abortion that it didn't come down to hospital petrol expenses. My friend gave me some maternity clothes and I bought a few pieces in sales.

Neyite

Aniya Moldy Trowel wrote: »

That's why I said I'd like to see a conversation around adoption and fostering.

From what I understand, adoption in the past was centred around what a couple wanted. They wanted children and trotted off to get them and the criteria for being eligible to adopt was quite simple.

But this was not child-focused, and had it's flaws. Lots of adults who were adopted have had negative experiences or had their birth details shrouded, shredded or destroyed.

These days, applying for adoption and fostering is a gruelling process that takes several years (and rightly so!) to ensure that only the people who are capable and who are going to give that child a good, loving home get approved for adoption. Not just some do-gooder who wants one.

So there's lots of criteria. You need to be a homeowner, so not renting. (no security for the child) Children must have their own bedrooms so no sharing. You must be under 35 (or 40, I'm not sure which but I've heard both agest cited) One must be a stay at home parent. You must be financially secure (particularly if there are no domestic children available for adoption and you need to travel abroad to adopt, you'll need about 30k) You will be excluded if you are still planning your own biological children. Obviously stuff like any criminal convictions, any health issues, or any mental health issues you've had in the past or are currently experiencing will be a factor in your suitability. Your wider family gets vetted, because the child will be part of that family so if you've got some dodgy relatives, it could go against you.

Assuming that you are one of the vanishingly few couples who meet all those criteria, and manage to get through the 3 years or so it takes to get approved, women who choose to continue a pregnancy generally keep their babies due to our good social welfare system. Anyone that wants to conceal a pregnancy (for example a woman from a religious family) adoption isn't much of an option now when adopted people have the right to find out their birth details and can go searching for their mother or father in 18 years time - often to only get rejected again.

The state can't force parents to give up their parental rights to their children so these children languish in foster care all their childhoods.

Older children who've experienced trauma as babies and toddlers before being taken into care often develop behavioural issues that require intensive help and a lot of time for the adoptive /foster parent and some just simply can't cope and the adoption arrangement can break down. You can read a few adoptive parent forums to get a feel for the kinds of issues they encounter during and after the process.

I hope I've helped shed some light on why adoption is not the easy option, even though it does sound lovely in theory.

erica74

antiskeptic wrote: »

I know. It was tongue in cheek. The idea that adoption is not a realistic option (among a suite of possible options shy of abortion) because of all these darn laws getting in the way.

And what are the other possible options for a woman who no longer wants to be pregnant?

ohnonotgmail

Just her wrote: »

I don't live far from the hospital, are you talking petrol expenses to go to hospital appointments? I'd credit all women that have opted for abortion that it didn't come down to hospital petrol expenses. My friend gave me some maternity clothes and I bought a few pieces in sales.

Well that is absolutely brilliant for you but not all women are so lucky.

eviltwin

Aniya Moldy Trowel wrote: »

In what way? Do I think someone should be forced to completely change their life around for an unwanted baby? No.
Do I think they should be allowed to end the life of that baby? No


That's why I said I'd like to see a conversation around adoption and fostering.

You can talk about it all you want but adoption and fostering would never have been an option for me. It won't be an option for a lot of women. They will find a way to end their pregnancy, either by taking a pill without the correct supervision or travelling abroad. Why can't we provide that care here?

SusieBlue

Just her wrote: »

I don't live far from the hospital, are you talking petrol expenses to go to hospital appointments? I'd credit all women that have opted for abortion that it didn't come down to hospital petrol expenses. My friend gave me some maternity clothes and I bought a few pieces in sales.

You're missing the point. Things worked out for you, you had a positive experience with little to no bumps on the road, that's great.
That doesn't mean its the same case for everyone and it doesn't mean other women should be denied their choice.

.......

This post has been deleted.

January

Just her wrote: »

I don't live far from the hospital, are you talking petrol expenses to go to hospital appointments? I'd credit all women that have opted for abortion that it didn't come down to hospital petrol expenses. My friend gave me some maternity clothes and I bought a few pieces in sales.

Well isn't that fantastic for you? Not meaning to sound rude but not everyone's circumstances are the same. No, I wouldn't reckon women have abortions because of petrol expenses getting to and from hospital but we weren't talking about that, you said there was no loss of earnings from being pregnant, but you were being disingenuous there weren't you?

eviltwin

Just her wrote: »

I wonder how do parents tell their other children if they aborted a sibling, or what effect that has on them, or is it usually forever kept a secret....

I told my daughter, she's an adult before anyone goes off on one. She remembers well the hardship we were living in at the time and understands why I did it. She's pro choice and non judgemental anyway. She's appreciative of the impact it's had on her life, she's opportunities now that wouldn't have been possible if I'd continued with that pregnancy.

erica74

Just her wrote: »

I don't live far from the hospital, are you talking petrol expenses to go to hospital appointments? I'd credit all women that have opted for abortion that it didn't come down to hospital petrol expenses. My friend gave me some maternity clothes and I bought a few pieces in sales.

It all really worked out for you. Every woman I know who has been pregnant has had expense (financial and otherwise) far above and beyond what you describe.

neonsofa

Just her wrote: »

I don't live far from the hospital, are you talking petrol expenses to go to hospital appointments? I'd credit all women that have opted for abortion that it didn't come down to hospital petrol expenses. My friend gave me some maternity clothes and I bought a few pieces in sales.

It sounds like you had a positive experience. Many women don't. I ended up being monitored closely as there were some complications which meant regular trips into town to the hospital and to the local gp, then multiple unexpected stays in hospital on drips due to chronic "morning" sickness and other issues. If i was working at the time I'd have probably been out of work for approximately 5 months of the pregnancy (the whole "you'll feel grand in 2nd semester" thing never happened for me despite all the promises!) because I actually didn't have energy to do anything due to illness. It would be great if all pregnancies were straight forward and the only change was a bigger belly and a healthy glow (I didn't even get the pregnant lady glow! Lol) but sometimes they're not a straight forward experience

Just her

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

Well that is absolutely brilliant for you but not all women are so lucky.

Are you off the opinion that petrol expenses and maternity clothes are a factor in the decision? I feel like this is going off on a tangent from the real topic....

Just her

erica74 wrote: »

It all really worked out for you. Every woman I know who has been pregnant has had expense (financial and otherwise) far above and beyond what you describe.

Well the original post I was replying to was in relation to adoption, so I was just talking about the expenses of pregnancy up until birth

erica74

Just her wrote: »

Well the original post I was replying to was in relation to adoption, so I was just talking about the expenses of pregnancy up until birth

So was I.

neonsofa

Just her wrote: »

Well the original post I was replying to was in relation to adoption, so I was just talking about the expenses of pregnancy up until birth

As are the other posters from what I can see.

January

Just her wrote: »

Are you off the opinion that petrol expenses and maternity clothes are a factor in the decision? I feel like this is going off on a tangent from the real topic....

You're still being disingenuous.

Nobody is saying that petrol costs and maternity clothes are a real factor in the decision. You quoted that you didn't have any loss of earnings from being pregnant and giving birth, that's fantastic for you but lots of others do and if you already cannot afford to go through pregnancy and birth to just give the baby up for adoption at the end then it's definitely a factor.

ohnonotgmail

Just her wrote: »

Are you off the opinion that petrol expenses and maternity clothes are a factor in the decision? I feel like this is going off on a tangent from the real topic....

I never said it was. There is a lot more to being pregnant that the cost of petrol and maternity. You seem to think that because you found your pregnancy so easy that other women should be forced to remain pregnant when they dont want to.

antiskeptic

January wrote: »

No medical expenses but the expenses of travelling to and from the hospital for appointments, for maternity clothes, for taking the time off to give birth and recover afterwards (let's say 6 weeks, especially if you have to have a cesarean).

No loss of earnings? Really?

In the vast majority of cases, people get pregnant because they willingly engaged in an activity in which pregnancy was a possibility.

It seems a bit churlish to be decrying the cost of a maternity dress, a consequence arising out of a choice you made.

c68zapdsm5i1ru

Neyite wrote: »

From what I understand, adoption in the past was centred around what a couple wanted. They wanted children and trotted off to get them and the criteria for being eligible to adopt was quite simple.

But this was not child-focused, and had it's flaws. Lots of adults who were adopted have had negative experiences or had their birth details shrouded, shredded or destroyed.

These days, applying for adoption and fostering is a gruelling process that takes several years (and rightly so!) to ensure that only the people who are capable and who are going to give that child a good, loving home get approved for adoption. Not just some do-gooder who wants one.

So there's lots of criteria. You need to be a homeowner, so not renting. (no security for the child) Children must have their own bedrooms so no sharing. You must be under 35 (or 40, I'm not sure which but I've heard both agest cited) One must be a stay at home parent. You must be financially secure (particularly if there are no domestic children available for adoption and you need to travel abroad to adopt, you'll need about 30k) You will be excluded if you are still planning your own biological children. Obviously stuff like any criminal convictions, any health issues, or any mental health issues you've had in the past or are currently experiencing will be a factor in your suitability. Your wider family gets vetted, because the child will be part of that family so if you've got some dodgy relatives, it could go against you.

Assuming that you are one of the vanishingly few couples who meet all those criteria, and manage to get through the 3 years or so it takes to get approved, women who choose to continue a pregnancy generally keep their babies due to our good social welfare system. Anyone that wants to conceal a pregnancy (for example a woman from a religious family) adoption isn't much of an option now when adopted people have the right to find out their birth details and can go searching for their mother or father in 18 years time - often to only get rejected again.

The state can't force parents to give up their parental rights to their children so these children languish in foster care all their childhoods.

Older children who've experienced trauma as babies and toddlers before being taken into care often develop behavioural issues that require intensive help and a lot of time for the adoptive /foster parent and some just simply can't cope and the adoption arrangement can break down. You can read a few adoptive parent forums to get a feel for the kinds of issues they encounter during and after the process.

I hope I've helped shed some light on why adoption is not the easy option, even though it does sound lovely in theory.

Thanks. It does seem as if there needs to be a real focus on how the adoption process is handled so that it is child focussed but not so cumbersome that it becomes unrealistic.

Likewise I think laws around the fostering process need to be reviewed. There must be a middle ground between forcing potentially good parents who just need respite, to give up their child; and leaving children in an insecure limbo for most of their childhood.

antiskeptic

January wrote: »

nobody is saying that petrol costs and maternity clothes are a real factor in the decision. You quoted that you didn't have any loss of earnings from being pregnant and giving birth, that's fantastic for you but lots of others do and if you already cannot afford to go through pregnancy and birth to just give the baby up for adoption at the end then it's definitely a factor.

Legislation could resolve that much.

ohnonotgmail

antiskeptic wrote: »

In the vast majority of cases, people get pregnant because they willingly engaged in an activity in which pregnancy was a possibility.

It seems a bit churlish to be decrying the cost of a maternity dress, a consequence arising out of a choice you made.

so we are back to the keep your legs closed argument?

ohnonotgmail

Aniya Moldy Trowel wrote: »

Thanks. It does seem as if there needs to be a real focus on how the adoption process is handled so that it is child focussed but not so cumbersome that it becomes unrealistic.

Likewise I think laws around the fostering process need to be reviewed. There must be a middle ground between forcing potentially good parents who just need respite, to give up their child; and leaving children in an insecure limbo for most of their childhood.

none of this is any use to a pregnant woman who does not want to be pregnant.

kylith

January wrote:

No medical expenses but the expenses of travelling to and from the hospital for appointments, for maternity clothes, for taking the time off to give birth and recover afterwards (let's say 6 weeks, especially if you have to have a cesarean).

No loss of earnings? Really?

Me: I’m pregnant.
HR: Congratulations! We don’t pay maternity.

Googling how much maternity benefit is was a bit depressing.

Just her

....... wrote: »

Just to say the context of petrol expenses being worked in was because I said that I wouldnt want a pregnancy and then give up a baby for adoptions and listed numerous reasons why.

I cant imagine it ever comes down to just one reason. Unless you want to lump the reasons into why someone doesnt want to be a parent into just "doesnt want to".[/quote
Another poster picked that out of my reply post to you and I was then replying to them

erica74

antiskeptic wrote: »

In the vast majority of cases, people get pregnant because they willingly engaged in an activity in which pregnancy was a possibility.

It seems a bit churlish to be decrying the cost of a maternity dress, a consequence arising out of a choice you made.

Ah yeah, it's the cost of a maternity dress that has 9 women every day seeking abortion services, 2 families a week going to the UK because of FFA.

So just keep your legs closed if you can't afford to shop in mothercare?

You really are not listening. I don't know why I keep trying to educate you.

Robyn_14

Debate on Newstalk now...our good friend Maria Steen is on

antiskeptic

erica74 wrote: »

And what are the other possible options for a woman who no longer wants to be pregnant?

My own view is that

a) nothing is done here to enable an environment which does it's best to prevent unwanted pregnancies. And nothing is done to minimize pregnancies turning into crisis pregnancies. Unwanted is a function of both these things. Then there is the obstacles of giving a baby up for adoption

b) people who have sex cannot escape from under the responsibility that comes with engaging in an activity which can result in a pregnancy.

Combined, I conclude legislation under the constitution to deal with hard cases / legislation to resolve the issues at a).

This won't resolve things to everyone's satisfaction. In which case I point to a combination of b) and the fact that nothing can be done to please everyone.

So: as good as it can be made for those who don't want the baby. And a lot of baby's not being aborted with it being made as good as it can be for them.

Just her

SusieBlue wrote: »

You're missing the point. Things worked out for you, you had a positive experience with little to no bumps on the road, that's great.
That doesn't mean its the same case for everyone and it doesn't mean other women should be denied their choice.

I was replying to a poster who asked me specifically about expenses

Just her

January wrote: »

Well isn't that fantastic for you? Not meaning to sound rude but not everyone's circumstances are the same. No, I wouldn't reckon women have abortions because of petrol expenses getting to and from hospital but we weren't talking about that, you said there was no loss of earnings from being pregnant, but you were being disingenuous there weren't you?

No I was replying to a post about adoption so I was talking about the expenses up until birth