Abortion Discussion, Part the Fourth

Hotblack Desiato

gctest50 wrote: »

Probably this ?

Human Life International

Contraception and its Deadly Consequences

By Fr. Shenan J. Boquet|August 12th 2017

In summary:

Every sperm is sacred.

Women are sluts.

But what else would you expect from the RCC.

In days when sex was expected to carry the risk of pregnancy, an unwanted child was a chance a woman took.

Think Fr. Marx might need some remedial sex education.

smacl

Peregrinus wrote: »

In this case, the proposal is to make contraception available at no cost. But it's already the case that the cost of accessing contraception in Ireland is a tiny fraction of the cost of either carrying a child to term or accessing an abortion, so the financial incentives are already heavily weighted towards encouraging sexually active people to use contraception. I'm dubious about the idea that shifting that cost-benefit calculation a little bit more towards contraception is going to make a huge difference. Whatever the factors are that are stopping people from using contraception, I don't think the desire to save money is likely to be the biggest one.

I think this argument is deeply flawed. Many of those starting to become sexually active will have either no income or limited income so cost of contraception is a major issue. The fact that carrying a pregnancy to term or having an abortion is even more expensive is not particularly relevant as history shows us that a large number of people will take risks here particularly where there may be drink involved. The issue is not one of cost-benefit but rather risk mitigation.

aloyisious

IF the combined Fr Marx and Fr Shenan J Boquet article is the one which provided the paper on which Peregrinus based his/her post, then IMO, a large part of the post is faulty as both priests were using earlier papers from BPAS and IPPF from which they extracted two items about contraceptive usage and turned them about to prove a point about what they claim was the cause for an increased number of abortions; that giving people access to contraceptives and the legal right to use them was what was wrong.

Put differently, both priests were not interested at all in people being educated in how to use contraceptives properly with forethought and afterthought in order for them to prevent conception. Both want the legal right to use contraceptives restricted to rein in humans "hedonistic" desire to copulate as they see the contraceptive reduces the concept of responsibility for their actions in their minds. They wants women to abstain from sex if they are not copulating for the purpose of producing babies for the good of families and society. That point is accentuated by this sentence from Fr. Shenan J. Boquet in his dated document; August 12th 2017, "I’d go much further than that. Contraception doesn’t just let people down; it destroys women, families and society".

Fr Boquet also showed where he was coming from when he described Dr Potts one of the part-authors of the earlier papers he based his on as a death-peddler.

Mark Hamill

gctest50 wrote: »

Probably this ?

This article from them gives the links to the studies (from the British Pregnancy Advisory Service) they say support their claim.

The first study just says that 1in4 women having abortions used contraception, but it failed. All contraception has a failure rate, so this is not especially surprising.
The second link says that while more abortions are performed earlier than 10 weeks (compared to 2005) thanks to improved access, the rate of abortions performed after 20 weeks has not fallen. In cases were contraception was involved but had failed (based on a study of 28 women), the issue was in the women not recognising their pregnancy due to hormonal contraception altering their menstrual cycle. You will notice that this does not mean that these contraception-using women were having abortions they wouldn't have had if they didn't use contraception (and therefore increasing the overall rate of abortion because of the contraception). It means they were having the abortions later than they would have had, because the failed contraception hid the signs. This data does not mean that overall rate of abortion increased.


So, shock horror, a religious pro life group has taken two studies and twisted them to say something they don't say.
Also just shocking that they omit the conclusion of the first study:

Ann Furedi, bpas Chief Executive, said:

“The answer to unsafe abortion is not contraception, it is safe abortion. When you encourage women to use contraception, you give them the sense that they can control their fertility – but if you do not provide safe abortion services when that contraception fails you are doing them a great disservice. Our data shows women cannot control their fertility through contraception alone, even when they are using some of the most effective methods. Family planning is contraception and abortion. Abortion is birth control that women need when their regular method lets them down.”

Peregrinus

smacl wrote: »

I think this argument is deeply flawed. Many of those starting to become sexually active will have either no income or limited income so cost of contraception is a major issue. The fact that carrying a pregnancy to term or having an abortion is even more expensive is not particularly relevant as history shows us that a large number of people will take risks here particularly where there may be drink involved. The issue is not one of cost-benefit but rather risk mitigation.

Mm. Condoms are pretty affordable; I doubt cost is a significant barrier to use, which means that we can't assume that making other forms of contraception cheaper or free would necessarily do much to alter choices or change behaviour. The factors that lead people not to use condoms may also lead them not to use other methods of contraception, even if they were as cheap as condoms.

Making contraception cheaper is a poor solution to the problem of risky behaviour and poor decision-making; wouldn't a sounder approach be to examine the reasons for this behaviour and tackle those? If people are only making their reproductive choices while in drink, doesn't that speak of a deeply conflicted and unhealthy attitude to sexuality? That's not a problem you're going to fix with price reductions.

volchitsa

Peregrinus wrote: »

Mm. Condoms are pretty affordable; I doubt cost is a significant barrier to use, which means that we can't assume that making other forms of contraception cheaper or free would necessarily do much to alter choices or change behaviour. The factors that lead people not to use condoms may also lead them not to use other methods of contraception, even if they were as cheap as condoms.

Making contraception cheaper is a poor solution to the problem of risky behaviour and poor decision-making; wouldn't a sounder approach be to examine the reasons for this behaviour and tackle those? If people are only making their reproductive choices while in drink, doesn't that speak of a deeply conflicted and unhealthy attitude to sexuality? That's not a problem you're going to fix with price reductions.

Lol, I see I was right that the "theory" was actually out of your own head and you didn't need a study at all to get it from, it's just what you already believe.

lazygal

Walkingstik wrote: »

WATCH the video "SILENT SCREAM "on liveleak or bestgore
The way a doctor shreds a child with his steel implements
Really nice what the left want
Hopefully they get the same treatment

And despite what communists call a child in womb he/ she will fight the doctors tools of death

[UNHELPFUL PROSE DELETED BY MOD]

It's like anti choice bingo.

robindch

Walkingstik wrote: »

[UNHELPFUL PROSE DELETED BY MOD]

Now, now, no need for that kind of language. Have a read of the forum charter and get back to a mod if you feel it’s unclear in any way.

Welcome to A+A.

nozzferrahhtoo

Peregrinus wrote: »

The factors that lead people not to use condoms may also lead them not to use other methods of contraception

I think contraceptive methods are so diverse that there is likely only to be a minimal overlap in such factors. Taking a pill daily any time you want contrasted with using a condom "in the heat of the moment" for example are subject to many different factors. Factors that are also much different to, say, having a vasectomy.

Peregrinus wrote: »

Making contraception cheaper is a poor solution to the problem of risky behaviour and poor decision-making

If it was THE solution I would agree. It being one part of a chain of solutions, ideas and initiatives however would seem to me to be much different. Making contraception affordable is a great thing to do. Making it less affordable is dumb ass.

I just would not recommend relying on it alone to have much of an effect. Suffice to say though....

Peregrinus wrote: »

wouldn't a sounder approach

.... these things are not mutually exclusive. I do not see either as "sounder". I see them both as important and we should be doing both. And many other things besides.

nozzferrahhtoo

Walkingstik wrote: »

The way a doctor shreds a child with his steel implements Really nice what the left want

We do not really have a "left" and "right" here in Ireland, are you american?

Really however the vast majority of abortions occur in or before week 12 of gestation. That is.... over 90%. At this point abortion is done medically through pills, not surgically as you describe. What people.... or your imaginary "left"..... generally want is for no abortions to have to occur, but when they do we want them to be early term medical abortions.

Late term abortions, which are usually performed for medical necessity and not by choice at all..... are the exception to the rule. Your little propaganda movie has aimed to deceive you there.

Walkingstik wrote: »

Hopefully they get the same treatment

Nice. So while most pro choice people want to give people the CHOICE of medically, not surgically, terminating a pregnancy.... thus killing a non-sentient fetus that is incapable of suffering or experience of any kind..... you want to tear apart actual living human adults? Does this not say a lot more about you than the "left" you imagine you deride??

Walkingstik wrote: »

And despite what communists call a child in womb he/ she will fight the doctors tools of death

Ah yes I am sure our regular "hit and run" poster will be in at some point to once again get excited that it's tongue moves and it responds to needles. But alas autonomic responses of this sort, which can also be observed in simple ameoeba, are not really indicative of anything much at all.

smacl

Peregrinus wrote: »

Mm. Condoms are pretty affordable; I doubt cost is a significant barrier to use, which means that we can't assume that making other forms of contraception cheaper or free would necessarily do much to alter choices or change behaviour. The factors that lead people not to use condoms may also lead them not to use other methods of contraception, even if they were as cheap as condoms.

Affordable by who? According to this article, most people in this country are becoming sexually active at 16. Of these very many will have no regular income.

Making contraception cheaper is a poor solution to the problem of risky behaviour and poor decision-making; wouldn't a sounder approach be to examine the reasons for this behaviour and tackle those? If people are only making their reproductive choices while in drink, doesn't that speak of a deeply conflicted and unhealthy attitude to sexuality? That's not a problem you're going to fix with price reductions.

It isn't an 'either or' situation though. If we consider it primarily in terms of mitigating risk of unwanted pregnancy we should be supplying better sex education and free access to contraception. Nor for a large group is it bad decision making. We have plenty of people out there struggling just to survive financially that may quite reasonably be sexually active and yet have no available income. Similarly, we have many college students with no income.

In my opinion, a large number of abortions in this country in the past can be attributed to trying and failing to impose a puritanical morality on the younger generation, where a more pragmatic approach is clearly the way forward.

Mark Hamill

Walkingstik wrote: »

The way a doctor shreds a child with his steel implements
Really nice what the left want
Hopefully they get the same treatment

So killing a baby is bad. But killing the left/abortion doctors is good. So is killing a baby that you someone know would grow up to support access to or perform abortions good or bad? I'm just trying to understand your train of thought here.

Igotadose

Mark Hamill wrote: »

So killing a baby is bad. But killing the left/abortion doctors is good. So is killing a baby that you someone know would grow up to support access to or perform abortions good or bad? I'm just trying to understand your train of thought here.

Train of thought? You're being very generous.

Every line that bot posted, is a lie. Every one. But hey, it's *cough*pro-life*cough*(except for the death threats of course). So, lying is what it's about.

Mark Hamill

Mark Hamill wrote: »

So killing a baby is bad. But killing the left/abortion doctors is good. So is killing a baby that you someone know would grow up to support access to or perform abortions good or bad? I'm just trying to understand your train of thought here.

They will have to answer after they rereg again.

lazygal

The relative cost of contraception is a moot point.
We don't always provide something for free simply because it's extremely cheap. We provide it because there is a public good. Vaccines are cheap, on the whole, yet I've never heard a suggestion that parents like me who can easily afford to pay for them should do so.
There is also a wider view that we need to allow people to access the right contraception for them. Sometimes that's cheap condoms, or the coil, or the pill, or natural family planning methods, or sterilisation. A cursory chat with friends about this shows that we've all used more than one method over the years. I used to be on the pill, which was expensive for me given my income and it was a hassle to have to see the GP every six months to renew the script. We then used condoms and natural family planning when we wanted to conceive, now I've had tubal ligation. All came with different costs, all of which suited me and my family at different times of my life. Why shouldn't those choices be facilitated by the state health system as a public good?

Hotblack Desiato

Peregrinus wrote: »

Mm. Condoms are pretty affordable;

Yes if you have a credit card and can afford to buy in quantity online; not so much if you are an unwaged teenager getting a packet of three from a pub vending machine or corner shop.

Actually, last pub I was in I think it was €4 for two!

€2 a ride can add up quickly at that age

If people are only making their reproductive choices while in drink, doesn't that speak of a deeply conflicted and unhealthy attitude to sexuality? That's not a problem you're going to fix with price reductions.

No but we have the usual suspects in religious-run schools to blame for the poor state of sex education here.

aloyisious

Peregrinus wrote: »

Mm. Condoms are pretty affordable; I doubt cost is a significant barrier to use, which means that we can't assume that making other forms of contraception cheaper or free would necessarily do much to alter choices or change behaviour. The factors that lead people not to use condoms may also lead them not to use other methods of contraception, even if they were as cheap as condoms.

Making contraception cheaper is a poor solution to the problem of risky behaviour and poor decision-making; wouldn't a sounder approach be to examine the reasons for this behaviour and tackle those? If people are only making their reproductive choices while in drink, doesn't that speak of a deeply conflicted and unhealthy attitude to sexuality? That's not a problem you're going to fix with price reductions.

Despite how what I'm writing now could be taken as a trite comment on your post, it's almost like you're saying that the failures of humans to use contraceptive devices successfully to prevent conception AS A RESULT of sexual intercourse is down to the user/s not being of sober mind and body. If that is so, then what you seem to be blaming for any increase in the numbers of undesired pregnancies and abortions is the demon drink and not hedonism nor the actual greater availability of condoms and other contraceptive devices, which would if used AND properly employed, prevent any unwanted occurrences. Don't blame the tool [no pun intended] blame the user.

Calina

Condoms tend to have a slightly higher rate of failure due to incorrect usage and tbh, because men aren't the ones to get pregnant, they are somewhat less risk averse about pregnancy avoidance.

It is absolutely not a good argument against birth control for women to suggest we can leave it up to men cos it is cheaper.

Igotadose

A response to the IT article about the free contraception being provided, shamelessly copy/pasted here
...

A chara, – As doctors who are providing abortion services in Ireland, the Start group of doctors wishes to respond to the article “Women to have access to free contraception from 2021, says Minister” (News, October 10th).

We are very disappointed at the lack of funding to provide a comprehensive contraception service in the recent budget proposed by the Government. We believe that providing access to a contraceptive method of the woman‘s choice should be a priority for the Minister for Health and this Government. Delaying this for another year is simply not acceptable.

We are working at the front line of reproductive health care within family medicine in Ireland and we can confirm that cost remains a significant barrier to access for many women, particularly those for whom long-acting reversible contraception (LARC) is their method of choice. Failure to fund this is unfair to women and disproportionately affects those who are disadvantaged

We in Start believe that follow up contraception is a fundamental part of any consultation around abortion. It is becoming very clear to us that cost is proving a substantial barrier to accessing contraception, leading to the initial crisis pregnancy and inadequate follow up contraception afterwards. We feel it is anachronous that the State is providing free termination of pregnancy care but is delaying the introduction of free contraception

In the article, the Minister mentions increasing access to condoms and putting vending machines into a number of locations throughout the country. We agree that this is an excellent proposition to reduce the incidence of STIs (sexually transmitted infections) and we also agree that STIs are at a worrying level in our country.

However, condoms are not very reliable if used on their own for contraception. They are user-dependent and carry a failure rate of anything up to 18 per cent.

volume is 80%volume is gedemptvolume is 80%

The Minister also mentions that most forms of contraception, including LARCs, are provided free to those with medical cards. However, one form of LARC, the copper coil, is not free to anyone, whether or not they have a medical card. The copper coil is the most reliable method of emergency contraception but unfortunately it is not readily available. LARCs are among the most cost-effective methods of contraception but the up-front cost can be very prohibitive to women whose income is just above the medical card threshold. They are also the most effective of all methods, up to 20 times more effective than short-acting methods, such as pills.

By ignoring the evidence put forward by this group and others, including the Irish Family Planning Association and the National Women‘s Council of Ireland, the Minister for Health and this Government are allowing a situation to persist whereby the State is abdicating its responsibility to women who simply want to vindicate their right to reproductive healthcare so they can plan their families and contribute to society without fear of unintended pregnancy. – Yours, etc,
...

Peregrinus

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Yes if you have a credit card and can afford to buy in quantity online; not so much if you are an unwaged teenager getting a packet of three from a pub vending machine or corner shop.

Actually, last pub I was in I think it was €4 for two!

€2 a ride can add up quickly at that age

When I was that age a pack of two would have lasted me, um, a while.

smacl wrote: »

Affordable by who? According to this article, most people in this country are becoming sexually active at 16. Of these very many will have no regular income.

It isn't an 'either or' situation though. If we consider it primarily in terms of mitigating risk of unwanted pregnancy we should be supplying better sex education and free access to contraception. Nor for a large group is it bad decision making. We have plenty of people out there struggling just to survive financially that may quite reasonably be sexually active and yet have no available income. Similarly, we have many college students with no income.

In my opinion, a large number of abortions in this country in the past can be attributed to trying and failing to impose a puritanical morality on the younger generation, where a more pragmatic approach is clearly the way forward.

I recognise that I'm on the hind foot here, having weighed into this conversation with a half-remembered article that I can't cite, and for which I made claims that I have since conceded were overblown. So my credibility is maybe a bit shot. But, still:

1. I don't object to making contraception freely available. Nor do I object to making it freely available, but only to women, though I am curious to know what the thinking here is.

2. I'm just a bit sceptical of the assumption that "this'll reduce the frequency of abortions", which is the point I came in to make.

3. I think policy here ought to be evidence-based. If we want to reduce the frequency of abortions, step 1 is an exploration of the factors that sustain the current frequency.

4. Volchitsa thinks that there may be a religious motivation underpinning my scepticism. Not an unreasonable suspicion, given my form, but actually I think if there's an ideology at work here it's a different one - a political one.

5. I'm suspicious of (or, if you prefer, I dislike) capitalist, neoliberal, consumerist assumptions that reduce human life and human experience to a marketplace, and assume that every problem can be solved by the right price adjustments. And I think those assumptions are particularly misplaced when it comes to matters of sexuality and relationships.

6. In the 1980s and 1990s someone close to me worked extensively in combatting the spread of AIDS (not in Ireland, but in anothe western country). A large part of her work was with the gay community, and a large part of that involved promoting responsible condom use. And it very rapidly became clear that the barriers to condom use were many and varied, were often deeply ingrained, were driven by culture and values, and mostly had little to do with mundane considerations like availablity, accessibility or price.

7. I'm not suggesting that her experience in that field is directly transferrable to the challenge of avoiding unwanted pregnancies, but there are general lessons that are relevant. And one of them, I suggest, is that sexual behaviour and sexual choices are complex personal matters; they're not basically economic transactions, and they are not greatly influenced by immediate economic considerations.

8. None of which is to say that making contraception, or particular forms of contraception, more readily available or cheaper has no role to play here; it may well do. But I think before we can say that, and before we can develop an effective strategy of which that forms a part, we have to do the legwork necessary to understanding exactly what role this measure can best play.

9. I'm not the person who introduced into this conversation the question of the role played by drink, and nor was it me who raised the matter of inculcated guilt, shame etc resulting from poor sex/relationship education. If you accept that these are factors, they are not factors that are addressed by lowering the price of contraception. If (and, I stress, if) for example young women don't go on the pill, or don't seek contraceptive implants, because they are conflicted about acknowledging themselves as active sexual beings, and can only have sex in circumstances they lower their inhibitions with alcohol, or where they can tell themselves that it's an impulse of the moment, lowering the price of the contraceptive pill or contraceptive implants is not going to make much difference to behaviour. That's the kind of issue that needs to explored and addressed before we can say that "this'll reduce the frequency of abortions".

volchitsa

Peregrinus wrote: »

When I was that age a pack of two would have lasted me, um, a while.

Peregrinus wrote: »

I recognise that I'm on the hind foot here, having weighed into this conversation with a half-remembered article that I can't cite, and for which I made claims that I have since conceded were overblown. So my credibility is maybe a bit shot. But, still:

1. I don't object to making contraception freely available. Nor do I object to making it freely available, but only to women, though I am curious to know what the thinking here is.

2. I'm just a bit sceptical of the assumption that "this'll reduce the frequency of abortions", which is the point I came in to make.

3. I think policy here ought to be evidence-based. If we want to reduce the frequency of abortions, step 1 is an exploration of the factors that sustain the current frequency.

4. Volchitsa thinks that there may be a religious motivation underpinning my scepticism. Not an unreasonable suspicion, given my form, but actually I think if there's an ideology at work here it's a different one - a political one.

5. I'm suspicious of (or, if you prefer, I dislike) capitalist, neoliberal, consumerist assumptions that reduce human life and human experience to a marketplace, and assume that every problem can be solved by the right price adjustments. And I think those assumptions are particularly misplaced when it comes to matters of sexuality and relationships.

6. In the 1980s and 1990s someone close to me worked extensively in combatting the spread of AIDS (not in Ireland, but in anothe western country). A large part of her work was with the gay community, and a large part of that involved promoting responsible condom use. And it very rapidly became clear that the barriers to condom use were many and varied, were often deeply ingrained, were driven by culture and values, and mostly had little to do with mundane considerations like availablity, accessibility or price.

7. I'm not suggesting that her experience in that field is directly transferrable to the challenge of avoiding unwanted pregnancies, but there are general lessons that are relevant. And one of them, I suggest, is that sexual behaviour and sexual choices are complex personal matters; they're not basically economic transactions, and they are not greatly influenced by immediate economic considerations.

8. None of which is to say that making contraception, or particular forms of contraception, more readily available or cheaper has no role to play here; it may well do. But I think before we can say that, and before we can develop an effective strategy of which that forms a part, we have to do the legwork necessary to understanding exactly what role this measure can best play.

9. I'm not the person who introduced into this conversation the question of the role played by drink, and nor was it me who raised the matter of inculcated guilt, shame etc resulting from poor sex/relationship education. If you accept that these are factors, they are not factors that are addressed by lowering the price of contraception. If (and, I stress, if) for example young women don't go on the pill, or don't seek contraceptive implants, because they are conflicted about acknowledging themselves as active sexual beings, and can only have sex in circumstances they lower their inhibitions with alcohol, or where they can tell themselves that it's an impulse of the moment, lowering the price of the contraceptive pill or contraceptive implants is not going to make much difference to behaviour. That's the kind of issue that needs to explored and addressed before we can say that "this'll reduce the frequency of abortions".

2&3) Well the evidence is that it does though. I posted a couple of links to that effect, and we have seen nothing except a religious-based opinion piece that misrepresented genuine studies or non religious writers.

4. I wasn't actually accusing you of deliberately sneaking your own religious agenda in, more of wishful thinking. I wasn't being entirely sarcastic when I said you dreamt it. I do think you have misremembered or conflated things because you want them to be true or to exist as you remember them.

5. I agree entirely. I would point out though that the Catholic church's actions in regard to valuing human life have often contradicted their supposed beliefs on this completely. Selling babies, and especially a "better class of babies" for instance. And that's just one example. Even something as minor as the snobbery regularly shown by nuns in convent schools (as a convent-educated girl myself) shows how in their minds money was far a more important quality than mere "humanity".

6. Well sure, but by definition pregnancy couldn't have been a factor there, so of course other factors had a greater effect! Like, d'uh. More seriously, I'm guessing that condoms were already cheap and easily available there, so you don't actually have any evidence that the cost would not be relevant, only that low cost alone was not sufficient to ensure that the target population used them all the time. Basically condom use as protection against possible STD infection is not the same as contraceptive use (of all types) by women trying to avoid pregnancy - in fact you're unwittingly offering an argument against your first point here.

7. This is a sweeping statement, not because it's fundamentally wrong - I would (mostly) agree with it - but you've made literally no case for your belief that cost considerations are irrelevant to contraceptive use by women risking pregnancy. And indeed the evidence shows the opposite. It's much like someone using that same argument to deny that prostitution exists.

8. So why, when you were looking for this study you felt existed, did you not at some point come back and acknowledge that you too had come across multiple studies saying the opposite, and start to consider whether they might be accurate?
Ans: because you're not looking to find out what's true, you're looking to back up your pre existing beliefs. Arguing (and googling) from your conclusion.

9. But nobody was saying that, IIRC they were pointing out issues with your arguments, which is not quite the same thing. What I am saying though is that evidence shows that easy and affordable access to effective contraception reduces abortion rates. Evidence that you are still ignoring in favour of what you want to be the case.

Drumpot

I will day off the bat I’m not particularly religious and have been exploring a lot of philosophical books of late. My questions and views are being expanded so I’m More inquisitive here then making absolute comments.

I’d be curious to know how the rise in the cost of drink/cigarettes has had on under age drinking/smoking and among those who appear to have abortions due to unplanned or unwanted pregnancies.. I’d also be interested in what has been more driving factor on the reduction in smokers, cost of it being less socially acceptable.

I’d also be curious to know why some people can’t afford regular contraception but can drink/smoke as surely if cost really is a factor then we would be seeing a drop in Under age drinking that’s harder to get access to then contraception and the price of these goods is always rising.. I would hazzard a guess that it’s more a case of will in this example and what we value as a society.

I’m not against free contraception services/tools at all, don’t have any skin in the religious context of this discussion but I think education and what we value as a society are more important factors to address. I’d be curious if the statistics used to prove free contraception works, was done when society’s views were changing/progressing. I only know a handful of people who have had abortions and it wasn’t because they didn’t have the resources to prevent getting pregnant. I equally know a good few people who had an unplanned pregnancy and kept the baby who equally had the resources to use contraception. That’s not a representation of everybody of course but it certainly an anecdotal rebuttal to the evidence that suggests otherwise.

I agree with Peregrinus, it’s such a pathetic capitalist way of dealing with such an important topic by monitizing the problem. Yeh, maybe free contraception helps, but to what degree? And will that comes with education ? The easier we make things for people the less they value them. I don’t see this simply as “free contraception is better” and I do lament the absence of follow up lesson that won’t follow because this will be treated as a panacea.

I don’t see the comparison of immunisation jabs and free contraception as valid.. Getting pregnant is not like catching a disease and you can’t infect others with your own pregnancy. The ramifications of a baby does effect others lives but the implication it does in a destructive manner is a disgusting comparison to make. It really feels like the beauty of pregnancy and child birth is being stripped down to a disease that needs to be controlled. It’s such a horrible way to think about what is one of (if not the most) the most beautiful thing we can achieve as humans.

I am adopted and know I was obviously not a planned pregnancy. It was the shame of religious controlled Ireland that forced my mum to give me up (as far as I know). If abortions were easily available I might never of been, the same with contraception so it’s ironic that religion probably saved my life but also forced me into an adoptive family.

Again, I’m not against free contraception, I’m just so disappointed the way people will view pregnancy in the future. I really think a lot of people don’t understand or reflect on what you lose when you argue for something. The abolition of religion, abortions, these all affect our values and one value is replaced with another. I’m not religious but see the benefits of it. I think money, celebrity status and consumerism is the replacement junk values future generations will inherit.

How is that relevant in a topic on abortion? Because there are better ways of bringing in abortion and free contraception that doesn’t involve breaking it down to financial criteria. It shouldn’t be just about making things change, it should be about making the right changes for the right reasons and implementations it with a long term intentioned change.. There is no emotional cost in all this. “Let’s make it as easy as possible to do xyz...

what is the cost of making it easy and socially acceptable to have abortions in all scenarios? Same with free contraception without meaningful education or changes elsewhere? What are the downsides? How does that change how we value life?

I think we are so poor at doing things right. The smoking ban was one of the best progressive changes we have made in the last few decades that benefits everybody, protects those who don’t smoke and sends a negative message about smoking. I just feel like we are going through a period of “let’s change things for choice” , “burn the church” with very little thought of the potential negatives or unintended consequences.

lazygal

How is providing something for free capitalist?

If my father had ejaculated a microsecond later I wouldn't be here either. Just because I happened to be born doesn't mean anyone else shouldn't be able to access abortion or contraception provided via state health care.

Hotblack Desiato

Peregrinus wrote: »

5. I'm suspicious of (or, if you prefer, I dislike) capitalist, neoliberal, consumerist assumptions that reduce human life and human experience to a marketplace, and assume that every problem can be solved by the right price adjustments. And I think those assumptions are particularly misplaced when it comes to matters of sexuality and relationships.

Ah, I remember over thirty years ago when we were being lectured about how it was all about "the profits of the condom purveyors". Haven't heard that in a good while (it's now shifted to the "abortion industry" and claiming PP and BPAS etc. are for-profit organisations.)

Surely the actual capitalist, "neoliberal" (the use of that detestable fake word is a sure indicator of, at best, a poorly thought through argument) response is to keep the cost of vital medications and devices high?

7. I'm not suggesting that her experience in that field is directly transferrable to the challenge of avoiding unwanted pregnancies, but there are general lessons that are relevant. And one of them, I suggest, is that sexual behaviour and sexual choices are complex personal matters; they're not basically economic transactions, and they are not greatly influenced by immediate economic considerations.

Yes but they cannot be separated from economics so long as choices have an economic cost.
You can apply that to the cost of having a child, too.

The discussion on free contraception seems to be focused on condoms and pills (and 17 year olds), neither of these methods are the most suitable or reliable method for long-term contraception in a relationship and pills are not recommended for many women over 35 who may have fifteen years of fertility left.

The cost of long term implantable contraception in Ireland is particularly high, and availability patchy. Female sterilisation is far worse again on both counts.

If you accept that these are factors, they are not factors that are addressed by lowering the price of contraception. If (and, I stress, if) for example young women don't go on the pill, or don't seek contraceptive implants, because they are conflicted about acknowledging themselves as active sexual beings, and can only have sex in circumstances they lower their inhibitions with alcohol, or where they can tell themselves that it's an impulse of the moment, lowering the price of the contraceptive pill or contraceptive implants is not going to make much difference to behaviour. That's the kind of issue that needs to explored and addressed before we can say that "this'll reduce the frequency of abortions".

We already know that much better and earlier sex education is required, for a multitude of reasons and from the evidence of a multitude of other countries. Plus studies which have been carried out on Irish young adults themselves. We can and should and must get onto this straight away, free contraception or not.

Hotblack Desiato

Drumpot wrote: »

I’d also be curious to know why some people can’t afford regular contraception but can drink/smoke as surely if cost really is a factor then we would be seeing a drop in Under age drinking

Irish teenagers are drinking less often than almost all their European peers

IRISH TEENAGERS HAVE one of the lowest rates of regular drinking in Europe and are getting drunk far less than they used to, new research has shown.

The research was carried out by the University of St Andrews on behalf of the European branch of the World Health Organisation and collected data from between 2002-2014.

The study looked at the alcohol consumption of teenagers across 36 countries and found that the sub-region of Ireland/Great Britain showed the largest decrease.

In terms of regular drinking by 15-year-olds, Irish girls were second-lowest in the study with just 3% drinking on a weekly basis – down from 11% in 2002. Only teenage girls in Iceland were seen to drink less.

Irish 15-year-old boys were more likely to drink on a weekly basis but were still among the least likely to do so across Europe at just 5% – down from 14% in 2002. Only boys in Iceland and Norway were found to drink less regularly than their Irish peers.

The study also looked at the level of drunkenness among 15-year-olds, something it defined as being drunk two or more times in a lifetime.

In Ireland the rate was 16% for both boys and girls, a huge drop on 2002 when it was 32% for girls and 33% for boys.

On a subregional basis, Ireland/Great Britain saw the biggest fall in teenage drunkenness over this period, declining from from 50% to 28% in girls and 52% to 27% in boys.

I think education and what we value as a society are more important factors to address.

We still have a large amount of religious control of education, and relationships and sexuality education is where the bad effects of this are felt most keenly. Things are improving, but slowly.

I think money, celebrity status and consumerism is the replacement junk values future generations will inherit.

Money and celebrity - the catholic church know all about both of those. I'm sure you remember the pomp they tried to create about the pope's visit, and the cult of celebrity surrounding him. The head guy may preach against consumerism but he still "lives in an art gallery" as Fr. Dougal put it. This is coming from a church still to financially compensate those it exploited and profiteered from, including slave labour and selling babies - can't get much more capitalist than those.

what is the cost of making it easy and socially acceptable to have abortions in all scenarios?

How is that relevant to discussing contraception? We already have freely available abortion until 12 weeks.

Same with free contraception without meaningful education or changes elsewhere? What are the downsides? How does that change how we value life?

Sounds like the "contraception will destroy family / society / our immortal souls" stuff we got 30+ years ago

What downsides do you envisage? And it's a pretty far right RCC viewpoint to claim that contraception has anything to do with "valuing life".

lazygal

The rates of teenage pregnancy have already fallen over the decades. No reason not to further improve this.
But why is the focus always on teenagers? My consultant said the main people with unplanned pregnancies they saw in Holles Street were women in late 30s and early 40s who thought they were done with children but had an accident. Long term contraception is just as vital as condoms.

Drumpot

lazygal wrote: »

How is providing something for free capitalist?

If my father had ejaculated a microsecond later I wouldn't be here either. Just because I happened to be born doesn't mean anyone else shouldn't be able to access abortion or contraception provided via state health care.

I never said contraception shouldn’t be free, I’m questioning how much of an impact free contraception will have. When you suggest a major issue is cost or Access to contraception, it’s boiling the issue down to finance which is in my view a capitalist mindset. I don’t believe cost is a major issue in western democracy’s, I believe it’s values that most capitalist society’s are losing. The main way we know if something is valued in this world nowadays is how Much resources are pumped into it. I think people demand simple solutions to complex issues and as far as the medical profession is concerned free contraception is probably the maximum amount of information the general public can ingest and understand and make any real difference.

I’m a financial adviser and most people don’t even want me to explain or discuss why they should save, have life protection or manage their finances better. They just want me to tell them what to do. I tell you what though, when people are retiring or have a death in their family , they want to hear about the consequences of their decisions and their options.

It’s the same here, people don’t want to take the responsibility to educate children or people, the simple solution is to abort or throw contraception at the problem. It’s the on demand generation that learns nothing from mistakes of the past. There’s little discussion from “pro abortionists” on the downsides and damage abortions can do to people or families. What about as a society we chose to give people an option to make abortions and/or state aided assistance acceptable alternative? Not the shaming of people because some people do abuse the system by having children. But make our society value pregnancy by giving options, not just one simple solution that a person will potentially pay physically/mentally for the rest of their lives.

It’s clear that many people don’t come here or look to discuss issues, just “win” arguements or point score. Considering this was the only point you chose out of my post proves It. If you don’t objectively view a topic from both sides you aren’t looking to discus, you are looking to convince others you are right. People have come here to “educate”, when they themselves probably haven’t considered all aspects of abortion and the contraception discussion.

This happens very often in these forums. Your post has absolutely no insight or hint that you have reflected on anything i said and yet people have thanked it simply because it brushes aside all my comments with a particularly unwitty response that’s not conductive for debate.

I’m admittedly unsure about abortion but more concerned of how it changes us mentally and how we can adapt it in an ethical and moral manner.

lazygal

You're just posting walls of your point of view and expecting that argument to be taken as entirely valid.
Sex is not something special or sacred or precious. It's a normal biological act. Most of us have it, drunk or sober or in between. Making it safer is always a good thing.
Presenting sex as something special to be valued and treated with particular care is exactly how we learned about it in our Catholic school classes. The bottom line was always don't get pregnant, not here's how to have sex in a safe way.
There's no good argument for not providing free contraception. None.

SusieBlue

Drumpot wrote: »

It’s the same here, people don’t want to take the responsibility to educate children or people, the simple solution is to abort or throw contraception at the problem. It’s the on demand generation that learns nothing from mistakes of the past. There’s little discussion from “pro abortionists” on the downsides and damage abortions can do to people or families. What about as a society we chose to give people an option to make abortions and/or state aided assistance acceptable alternative? Not the shaming of people because some people do abuse the system by having children. But make our society value pregnancy by giving options, not just one simple solution that a person will potentially pay physically/mentally for the rest of their lives.

Are you having a laugh? Abortion has been around since the dawn of time.
So long as women are having unplanned pregnancies, there will be women seeking terminations.
In the past, coat hangers and throwing yourself down the stairs were favoured options. It has nothing to do with the "on demand generation" and its really naive to think this is a new, modern concept.
Abortion has always been in Ireland and will always be in Ireland. The only difference is that we didn't talk about it in the past.

I can show you a study done specifically on over 1k Irish women in 2016, 97% of whom did not regret their choice.
The most commonly reported emotion in the aftermath was "relief" and "happiness". 94% reported feeling grateful for being able to access the termination.

Most studies done on the topic produce similar statistics. Women overwhelmingly do not regret their decision. There will always be a minor few who would undo what they did but that isn't a legitimate reason to take the choice away from everyone else.

Drumpot

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Irish teenagers are drinking less often than almost all their European peers








We still have a large amount of religious control of education, and relationships and sexuality education is where the bad effects of this are felt most keenly. Things are improving, but slowly.




Money and celebrity - the catholic church know all about both of those. I'm sure you remember the pomp they tried to create about the pope's visit, and the cult of celebrity surrounding him. The head guy may preach against consumerism but he still "lives in an art gallery" as Fr. Dougal put it. This is coming from a church still to financially compensate those it exploited and profiteered from, including slave labour and selling babies - can't get much more capitalist than those.




How is that relevant to discussing contraception? We already have freely available abortion until 12 weeks.




Sounds like the "contraception will destroy family / society / our immortal souls" stuff we got 30+ years ago

What downsides do you envisage? And it's a pretty far right RCC viewpoint to claim that contraception has anything to do with "valuing life".

Your own link states exactly what I am saying:

The report points out that cultural characteristics have often been cited to explain differences in drinking motivations among young people and that in “individualistic” countries like Ireland, the Netherlands and the UK there there may be more motivation to do so.


The report points to enforcing age checks and restricting alcohol marketing as methods that could further reduce underage drinking.

Education and cultural values are more important factors then the cost of alcohol.

Your response has turned everything around agaisnt the church? Why is that? I haven’t defended the church, just said the alternative hasn’t really been thought out. You haven’t actually addressed anything I’ve said, just basically responded as if anything is better then the church cause the church is bad...

You have a very binary ability to discuss this topic. I’m far right? Really? Again another tool used to spoil debate, that doesn’t really answer or tell us anything. It’s you just making a broad assumption based on 2 of my posts.

I’m going to answer your question with a question. You see no downsides to abortion?

The only downside I see to free contraception is if we don’t follow it up with education and harnessing a value system that is not simply predicated on making everything easy for people and thinking “pro choice” is the only game in town that matters. . I know some people won’t get what I am trying to say, but I envisage the moral issues that arise from such simplistic solutions will rear their head in future generations. That’s generally always happens when humans make big changes that they haven’t really thought through. I havent seen much capacity for reflection from you or the other posters yet that you guys have actually looked at this topic from all angles. I haven’t either, but I’m trying.

Drumpot

lazygal wrote: »

You're just posting walls of your point of view and expecting that argument to be taken as entirely valid.
Sex is not something special or sacred or precious. It's a normal biological act. Most of us have it, drunk or sober or in between. Making it safer is always a good thing.
Presenting sex as something special to be valued and treated with particular care is exactly how we learned about it in our Catholic school classes. The bottom line was always don't get pregnant, not here's how to have sex in a safe way.
There's no good argument for not providing free contraception. None.

Where did I say to not provide free contaception?

So you think when making decisions on how we will progress as a society that affects our morals or ethics and values and how these may change don’t or shouldn’t play a role? We shouldn’t consider any potential downsides to major changes?

SusieBlue

Drumpot wrote: »

Your own link states exactly what I am saying:



Education and cultural values are more important factors then the cost of alcohol.

Your response has turned everything around agaisnt the church? Why is that? I haven’t defended the church, just said the alternative hasn’t really been thought out. You haven’t actually addressed anything I’ve said, just basically responded as if anything is better then the church cause the church is bad...

You have a very binary ability to discuss this topic. I’m far right? Really? Again another tool used to spoil debate, that doesn’t really answer or tell us anything. It’s you just making a broad assumption based on 2 of my posts.

I’m going to answer your question with a question. You see no downsides to abortion?

The only downside I see to free contraception is if we don’t follow it up with education and harnessing a value system that is not simply predicated on making everything easy for people and thinking “pro choice” is the only game in town that matters. . I know some people won’t get what I am trying to say, but I envisage the moral issues that arise from such simplistic solutions will rear their head in future generations. That’s generally always happens when humans make big changes that they haven’t really thought through. I havent seen much capacity for reflection from you or the other posters yet that you guys have actually looked at this topic from all angles. I haven’t either, but I’m trying.

That's so insulting. We had a referendum, we knew what we were voting for. Repeal won by landslide. The people have spoken so don't try to imply we didn't know what we were doing when we voted Yes.

And women know exactly what they're doing when they seek a termination. They have thought it through and don't need anyone else's interferance or opinion when it comes to their choice about their womb.

Drumpot

SusieBlue wrote: »

Are you having a laugh? Abortion has been around since the dawn of time.
So long as women are having unplanned pregnancies, there will be women seeking terminations.
In the past, coat hangers and throwing yourself down the stairs were favoured options. It has nothing to do with the "on demand generation" and its really naive to think this is a new, modern concept.
Abortion has always been in Ireland and will always be in Ireland. The only difference is that we didn't talk about it in the past.

I can show you a study done specifically on over 1k Irish women in 2016, 97% of whom did not regret their choice.
The most commonly reported emotion in the aftermath was "relief" and "happiness". 94% reported feeling grateful for being able to access the termination.

Most studies done on the topic produce similar statistics. Women overwhelmingly do not regret their decision. There will always be a minor few who would undo what they did but that isn't a legitimate reason to take the choice away from everyone else.

How many woman who regret their decision or have paid for it emotionally will take part in a study? What about those who feel shameful , are they more or less likely to take part in a survey?I’m not discounting the survey, I’m just questioning how accurate it is.

And none of you are actually reading what I write. Where have I said abortions or free contraception should not be available? You are too busy trying to pick out snippets of my comments to prove wrong to engage properly.

I don’t have all the answers, I’m just asking questions nobody seems to of considered. I’m in the middle of this debate and it’s incomprehensible to those who see this as an absolute , clear discussion. I don’t see it that way, but that’s cause I’m ok having my views challanged.

lazygal

Drumpot wrote: »

Where did I say to not provide free contaception?

So you think when making decisions on how we will progress as a society that affects our morals or ethics and values and how these may change don’t or shouldn’t play a role? We shouldn’t consider any potential downsides to major changes?

Depends on the morals, ethics and values. We didn't keep the eighth amendment because it was a horrible indictment of the morals, ethics and values of the Ireland of the 1980s.

lazygal

Drumpot wrote: »

How many woman who regret their decision or have paid for it emotionally will take part in a study? What about those who feel shameful , are they more or less likely to take part in a survey?I’m not discounting the survey, I’m just questioning how accurate it is.

And none of you are actually reading what I write. Where have I said abortions or free contraception should not be available? You are too busy trying to pick out snippets of my comments to prove wrong to engage properly.

I don’t have all the answers, I’m just asking questions nobody seems to of considered. I’m in the middle of this debate and it’s incomprehensible to those who see this as an absolute , clear discussion. I don’t see it that way, but that’s cause I’m ok having my views challanged.

Just Asking Questions isn't particularly helpful though in and of itself when it's framed in terms of the morals, ethics and values you personally want to impose on everyone

SusieBlue

Drumpot wrote: »

How many woman who regret their decision or have paid for it emotionally will take part in a study? What about those who feel shameful , are they more or less likely to take part in a survey?I’m not discounting the survey, I’m just questioning how accurate it is.

And none of you are actually reading what I write. Where have I said abortions or free contraception should not be available? You are too busy trying to pick out snippets of my comments to prove wrong to engage properly.

I don’t have all the answers, I’m just asking questions nobody seems to of considered. I’m in the middle of this debate and it’s incomprehensible to those who see this as an absolute , clear discussion. I don’t see it that way, but that’s cause I’m ok having my views challanged.

It wasn't a survey, it was a study.
Pretty much every other independant study on the topic has produced similar statistics.
Statistically the vast majority of women do not regret their choice, regardless of what that choice is.
Be it continuing with the pregnancy or seeking a termination.
Its very unfortunate that some women do regret having an abortion, and they should receive all the help and support they can, but that isn't a valid reason to take the choice away from everyone else.

Drumpot

lazygal wrote: »

Depends on the morals, ethics and values. We didn't keep the eighth amendment because it was a horrible indictment of the morals, ethics and values of the Ireland of the 1980s.

Yes it does depend on them.

I don’t see much dissuasion on this at all though. All I see is people looking to win an argument with no real capacity to reflect on a wider spectrum.

Abortion and contraception are very much imbedded as issues relating to religious dogmas which is fair. But to consider this more objectively you have to take religion out of the equation and ask yourself if you agree fundamentaly with how we are deciding to change certain practices.

My major issue isn’t that contraception be made available or free or that abortions should not be available, it’s that I don’t believe the consequences of how these decisions will change our values have never been considered. And that’s partly because people value “freedom” to do what they want, instant gratification and as little responsibility as possible for their actions. That’s the society I see, not just in this topic but many other things in life.

Society doesn’t appear to be getting happier, it’s getting more depressed, more anxious, more addicted (binge tv is considered kind of funny) and more disconnected to each other. I’m not suggesting this is because of abortion or anything like that, but it’s because we have replaced grounded if not sometimes misguided or bad values, with junk values. You make something easy and we value it less, it really is that simple. Abortions being the go to solution if it doesn’t suit you (even for trivial reasons) devalues human life in my view. If you think I’m saying people shouldn’t have the right to abortion , just don’t respond to me, you aren’t getting it and probably won’t.

Hotblack Desiato

Drumpot wrote: »

Your response has turned everything around agaisnt the church? Why is that? I haven’t defended the church, just said the alternative hasn’t really been thought out.

But you're mouthing the same ill-thought-through platitudes as those who do. They've been heard here before many a time.

You haven’t actually addressed anything I’ve said, just basically responded as if anything is better then the church cause the church is bad...

You've just done above exactly what you accuse me of doing.

You have a very binary ability to discuss this topic. I’m far right? Really?

I didn't say anything about YOU being far-right.
But it's a fact that even within active followers of the RCC, the linking of contraception with what they call an "anti-life culture" is a right-wing viewpoint within that church.

I’m going to answer your question with a question. You see no downsides to abortion?

To the availability of abortion choice, no, there are no downsides whatsoever.
That's not to say that abortions will never be regretted later in a small number of cases, or that the decision is made for reasons e.g. financial which society could or should engage with and overcome.

I envisage the moral issues that arise from such simplistic solutions will rear their head in future generations.

TBH it's always been the RCC with the simplistic solutions, "Don't have sex until you're married" etc.
They're the ones who actually ignore the fact that life isn't black and white but shades of grey.

The abortion debate showed this, the No side with the simplistic didactic emotive judgemental messaging which ignored the complex real circumstances of people's lives. The Yes side acknowledging that the reasons for a decision are complex and personal.

That’s generally always happens when humans make big changes that they haven’t really thought through. I havent seen much capacity for reflection from you or the other posters yet that you guys have actually looked at this topic from all angles. I haven’t either, but I’m trying.

It's not that big a change, and it's a path this society has been moving down for over 40 years now really. Women and couples have the right to control their fertility and free contraception is a part of this. We all know that much earlier and better sex education is needed as well, this is not an "either-or", but neither does one depend upon the other to proceed.

Drumpot

lazygal wrote: »

Just Asking Questions isn't particularly helpful though in and of itself when it's framed in terms of the morals, ethics and values you personally want to impose on everyone

I’m asking questions that clearly haven’t been considered.

How is asking for questions “imposing my values” on others? I think it’s more people are uncomfortable/unfamiliar with this element of the topic. I’m not absolute on this topic and some of you can’t get your head around it so are trying to Pidgeon hole the topic back to church v freedom (or something like that).

SusieBlue

Drumpot wrote: »

Yes it does depend on them.

I don’t see much dissuasion on this at all though. All I see is people looking to win an argument with no real capacity to reflect on a wider spectrum.

Abortion and contraception are very much imbedded as issues relating to religious dogmas which is fair. But to consider this more objectively you have to take religion out of the equation and ask yourself if you agree fundamentaly with how we are deciding to change certain practices.

My major issue isn’t that contraception be made available or free or that abortions should not be available, it’s that I don’t believe the consequences of how these decisions will change our values have never been considered. And that’s partly because people value “freedom” to do what they want, instant gratification and as little responsibility as possible for their actions. That’s the society I see, not just in this topic but many other things in life.

Society doesn’t appear to be getting happier, it’s getting more depressed, more anxious, more addicted (binge tv is considered kind of funny) and more disconnected to each other. I’m not suggesting this is because of abortion or anything like that, but it’s because we have replaced grounded if not sometimes misguided or bad values, with junk values. You make something easy and we value it less, it really is that simple. Abortions being the go to solution if it doesn’t suit you (even for trivial reasons) devalues human life in my view. If you think I’m saying people shouldn’t have the right to abortion , just don’t respond to me, you aren’t getting it and probably won’t.

You are free to not avail of free contraception and to not seek abortions if you find the idea of both so repugnant.
I respect your right to choose that, I just don't respect your right to inflict that view on everyone else.

You seem to be under the impression that people "haven't thought it through" and don't know what they're doing which isn't the case and is highly insulting.

Nobodies bodily autonomy should be arrested by the personal morals & ethics of strangers. Particularly when they don't agree with them.

The current law allows those who require terminations to avail of them, and those who disagree with them, can continue to live their lives as they did before. Unfortunately a lot of people still haven't accepted that the can't dictate the lives of others but I live in hope that one day they will afford others the same respect they expect themselves.

lazygal

Drumpot wrote: »

I’m asking questions that clearly haven’t been considered.

How is asking for questions “imposing my values” on others? I think it’s more people are uncomfortable/unfamiliar with this element of the topic. I’m not absolute on this topic and some of you can’t get your head around it so are trying to Pidgeon hole the topic back to church v freedom (or something like that).

Who hasn't considered them? Abortion was more debated in Ireland over the years since 1983 than any other issue. You're late to the party if you think it hasn't.

Hotblack Desiato

Drumpot wrote: »

Your own link states exactly what I am saying:

Education and cultural values are more important factors then the cost of alcohol.

It's saying that education and cultural values have often been cited as important factors - which isn't qutie the same thing as saying that they are important factors.

Have our cultural values changed around alcohol much in that time? Looking at adults, I'd say no.

Is education in relation to it better? Hopefully because it used to be terrible.

Anyway the point was you were saying we should be seeing a drop in underage alcohol consumption, implying that we weren't. I showed you a study with evidence that underage alcohol consumption is actually dropping substantially. So can we agree on this and move on? I'm not sure how relevant it is to the discussion of free contraception. Teenagers have other things to spend their money on now apart from alcohol, e.g. phone credit.

end of the road

SusieBlue wrote: »

That's so insulting. We had a referendum, we knew what we were voting for. Repeal won by landslide. The people have spoken so don't try to imply we didn't know what we were doing when we voted Yes.

what's insulting about it?
to be fair, unless you knew what every single person was thinking in the poling booth, then you can't say that "we" as in all people who voted yes, all knew what they were voting for.
they very well may have, a majority of them very well may have, but it's not something that can be said with absolute certainty. there was no excuse for them not to know mind.

SusieBlue wrote: »

And women know exactly what they're doing when they seek a termination. They have thought it through and don't need anyone else's interferance or opinion when it comes to their choice about their womb.

unborn baby, not womb. nobody cares what someone does with their womb specifically.

SusieBlue

lazygal wrote: »

Who hasn't considered them? Abortion was more debated in Ireland over the years since 1983 than any other issue. You're late to the party if you think it hasn't.

We knew exactly what we were voting for. The No side did everything in their power to muddy the waters with fake news, skewed statistics and an emotionally manipulative poster campaign.
The Yes side still won, despite this. To say people didn't know what they were doing or didn't think of the consequences is extremely naive.

SusieBlue

end of the road wrote: »

what's insulting about it?
to be fair, unless you knew what every single person was thinking in the poling booth, then you can't say that "we" as in all people who voted yes, all knew what they were voting for.
they very well may have, a majority of them very well may have, but it's not something that can be said with absolute certainty. there was no excuse for them not to know mind.

That's hilarious seeing as you repeatedly argued the exact opposite in the run up to the referendum, I can pull up the posts if you wish.

unborn baby, not womb. nobody cares what someone does with their womb specifically.

Perfect, then you agree that what a woman does with the her womb is none of your business. I'm glad we agree.

lazygal

SusieBlue wrote: »

We knew exactly what we were voting for. The No side did everything in their power to muddy the waters with fake news, skewed statistics and an emotionally manipulative poster campaign.
The Yes side still won, despite this. To say people didn't know what they were doing or didn't think of the consequences is extremely naive.

Cora Sherlock and pals are still saying this. They clearly learned zilch from their terrible campaign and messaging. Right up to the result being announced they repeated their line about this being about abortion up to 12 weeks. Which was exactly what people knew they voted for.

Drumpot

SusieBlue wrote: »

You are free to not avail of free contraception and to not seek abortions if you find the idea of both so repugnant.
I respect your right to choose that, I just don't respect your right to inflict that view on everyone else.

You seem to be under the impression that people "haven't thought it through" and don't know what they're doing which isn't the case and is highly insulting.

Nobodies bodily autonomy should be arrested by the personal morals & ethics of strangers. Particularly when they don't agree with them.

The current law allows those who require terminations to avail of them, and those who disagree with them, can continue to live their lives as they did before. Unfortunately a lot of people still haven't accepted that the can't dictate the lives of others but I live in hope that one day they will afford others the same respect they expect themselves.

We make what we think are the best decisions at any particular time. But decisions we make have longer term implications on future generations.

You aren’t understanding what I am saying , this is clear when I you suggest I’m horrified at abortions and free contraception, when I’m not. I’m asking questions nobody wants to address , possibly because it’s not something that people consider.

lazygal

Drumpot wrote: »

We make what we think are the best decisions at any particular time. But decisions we make have longer term implications on future generations.

You aren’t understanding what I am saying , this is clear when I you suggest I’m horrified at abortions and free contraception, when I’m not. I’m asking questions nobody wants to address , possibly because it’s not something that people consider.

What questions do people not want to address? We've literally just come out of a 30 year debate on all sides of the abortion argument. It was debated up and down and inside out. Free contraception was considered by the eighth amendment committee too and covered in its report. Who isn't answering your questions?

Hotblack Desiato

You keep saying there are implications. What are they? Where is your evidence that they will happen? Where is your evidence that these implications (implied to be bad) will in fact be bad?

This is tiresome not only because it's been heard so many times before in recent years in relation to abortion, it's been going on for literally decades in relation to contraception. We were endlessly told that widespread access to contraception will destroy society, the family and our immortal souls...

Drumpot

SusieBlue wrote: »

We knew exactly what we were voting for. The No side did everything in their power to muddy the waters with fake news, skewed statistics and an emotionally manipulative poster campaign.
The Yes side still won, despite this. To say people didn't know what they were doing or didn't think of the consequences is extremely naive.

I voted yes.

A person doesn’t have to view this topic as absolute/binary as others. Like I said, it’s clear some of you are unsettled simply because I’m challanging your own long held dogmas on the topic.