Abortion in Ireland: 2 years on

eviltwin

downinbigsmoke wrote: »

Then why are they forced to spend to spend a tenner a box on cigarettes that should cost a euro?

For that matter, why do I have to spend $15 on wine I can buy in France for $1.50?

Nothing to do with health that’s for sure !

bfa1509

ELM327 wrote: »

Voted to repeal and would do so again, it's a womans body and as a man my only role is to facilitate whatever choice a woman wants to make.

Masculinity 200,000 BC - 2020 AD

RIP

Bannasidhe

Niner leprauchan wrote: »

How does a woman in a coma make such a request? Surely the change in law has zero effect in that case?

The woman was brain dead but her body was kept artificially alive, against the wishes of her next of kin, to protect a fetus.
Now she would be allowed to peacefully die and her family could mourn her properly. Not have to watch as machines kept her heart beating when she was long dead.

cournioni

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

The same number were going abroad to get them before. What were you doing to improve the lives or help these women all these years? Or do you not really care about them or the pregnancies?

I’ll start by saying, what a horrifically uninformed post this is.

What was I doing? Paying substantial taxes for a start. I would imagine my contribution would be a significant help to a mother, father and their baby.

I absolutely care about all life. It shouldn’t be a choice to kill an unborn baby if it isn’t medically necessary. Taking a healthy life away should never be a choice.

Guy:Incognito

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

This adoption stuff was flippantly thrown out by the no side at the time too, without much understanding of adoption in Ireland.

People seem to have this movie view of adoption that you just hand the child over to someone in the hospital and a few days later the child is nicely homed with a rich couple on their mansion that dote on the child 24/7 and everyone is happy.

Luckily we did away with the churches system of taking kids from mothers and selling them on.

It could be that simple though and doesn't require a referendum.

There's thousands of couples in Ireland that spend 50000+ adopting from abroad because adoption in Ireland is almost impossible. So make it possible. The answer to adoption being difficult isn't abortions ffs!

Ultimately I don't agree with the 'none of my business' argument. It was the same attitude that ironically, resulted in much of our shameful past treatment of unmarried mother's and their children as you yourself state.

It's the same attitude that continuous to see neighbors ignore the screams from next door.

I can't and won't try to change people's minds on this issue, if you don't see it as a child then you don't see it as a child. Medical Science backs you. If you think the mothers desire overrules all else then that's your position but don't say you voted yes so you could absolve yourself of social responsibility.

Dunne1995

Dunne1995 wrote: »

Delighted to see this right being exercised. I voted yes so that women would abort if they wanted to and that is what's happening based on the figures reported.

Glad to be on the right side of history for this and the marriage referendum

Your delighted to see abortions are happening? That's some statement.

Bannasidhe

cournioni wrote: »

What was I doing? Paying substantial taxes for a start. I would imagine my contribution would be a significant help to a mother, father and their baby.

I absolutely care about all life. It shouldn’t be a choice to kill an unborn baby if it isn’t medically necessary. Taking a healthy life away should never be a choice.

That is not how taxes work. No matter how substantial you feel they are.

As you believe taking away a healthy life should never be a choice may I ask how you feel about refugees seeking entry to Europe via boat? Declining to rescue the occupants of a sinking boat is making the choice to take away many healthy lives - including children.

I am not trying to trick you, honestly, I just wish to know if you hold that position in all circumstances regardless of other factors.

mc25

I was a bit shocked when I saw the figures first, but I'd vote the same way (yes) again in a heartbeat. The constitution was never the right place to decide this, now if people want to change the laws we can go through proper democratic means.

And I would have no issue with the government doing a review or report on these figures, if anything that would help the discussions.

I am disappointed that nothing seems to have been done RE contraception, I think if we had taken the opportunity back then the figures would look a lot different today.

elainers

downinbigsmoke wrote: »

I've never quite understood this argument. We have a State because we all instinctively know in our bones that some people should not be trusted.

Try making this argument for any other issue. "Trust Glanbia, they don't make flippant decisions about saliva and milk" (actually... I've heard things)

"Trust smokers, they don't want to harm their lungs!"

If you’re saying some people shouldn’t be trusted, are you suggesting we legislate for the few who can’t be and make the law on that basis?

Generally that’s a bad way to make laws. Hence why a law based on abortion for hard cases doesn’t work well.

The reason this is such an emotive issue is there are two conflicting rights in this situation. A right to bodily autonomy of the woman and a right to life of the foetus. Independent of each other both rights would be upheld. But they’re not independent of each other in the case of pregnancy.

Interestingly in any other scenario where these two rights compete, the right to bodily integrity takes precedence. For example if person A’s kidney is the only thing that would allow Person B to live, it’s still up to Person A whether he/she wants to donate.

Ultimately I choose to trust the woman in pregnancy will weigh all the facts and come to the right decision. Sometimes the right decision, the best outcome is an abortion. Especially if the woman would parent a child how he/she deserves.

Bannasidhe

Niner leprauchan wrote: »

It could be that simple though and doesn't require a referendum.

There's thousands of couples in Ireland that spend 50000+ adopting from abroad because adoption in Ireland is almost impossible. So make it possible. The answer to adoption being difficult isn't abortions ffs!

Ultimately I don't agree with the 'none of my business' argument. It was the same attitude that ironically, resulted in much of our shameful past treatment of unmarried mother's and their children as you yourself state.

It's the same attitude that continuous to see neighbors ignore the screams from next door.

I can't and won't try to change people's minds on this issue, if you don't see it as a child then you don't see it as a child. Medical Science backs you. If you think the mothers desire overrules all else then that's your position but don't say you voted yes so you could absolve yourself of social responsibility.

So women who do not want to be pregnant should act as incubators with the toll that takes on their bodies?
Pregnancy is not some 9 month picnic with no side effects or long term consequences.


We are back to the 'should a person be forced to donate a kidney to save a life?' argument.

No is also the answer to both.

mc25

downinbigsmoke wrote: »

I know at least one girl my age who will tell you that an unwanted pregnancy was the best thing that ever happened to her! I think many people who abort their children would have felt the same way giving it time. Abortion is the easy way out, we need to live in a society that makes it as easy for parents as non-parents.

I sincerely apologise in advance for this question, but are you really this naive? That's not how it works in real life and your anecdata is not convincing.

cournioni

Bannasidhe wrote: »

That is not how taxes work. No matter how substantial you feel they are.

As you believe taking away a healthy life should never be a choice may I ask how you feel about refugees seeking entry to Europe via boat? Declining to rescue the occupants of a sinking boat is making the choice to take away many healthy lives - including children.

I am not trying to trick you, honestly, I just wish to know if you hold that position in all circumstances regardless of other factors.

Of course that’s not how taxes work, which is why the word “contribution” is in there.

A life is a life, of course you should never decline to rescue a sinking boat! That is a given. The ideal scenario is that they don’t have to get on the boat in the first place, but if they are and in the event of the boat going down you do what you have to to save the people on board.

SusieBlue

Niner leprauchan wrote: »

It could be that simple though and doesn't require a referendum.

There's thousands of couples in Ireland that spend 50000+ adopting from abroad because adoption in Ireland is almost impossible. So make it possible. The answer to adoption being difficult isn't abortions ffs!

Ultimately I don't agree with the 'none of my business' argument. It was the same attitude that ironically, resulted in much of our shameful past treatment of unmarried mother's and their children as you yourself state.

It's the same attitude that continuous to see neighbors ignore the screams from next door.

I can't and won't try to change people's minds on this issue, if you don't see it as a child then you don't see it as a child. Medical Science backs you. If you think the mothers desire overrules all else then that's your position but don't say you voted yes so you could absolve yourself of social responsibility.

The appetite for adoption is minute here. Couples would rather get IVF and go through other fertility treatments to have a baby themselves.
Do you really think there 6,666 couples per year, every year, looking to adopt a baby here?

Bearing in mind the fact that many couples are opting not to have kids at all, and the average family size is shrinking with every passing year?

So taking the first statistic at face value, do you really think that there’d be 6,666 loving suitable adoptive homes for these kids, and the kids born next year, and the year after? Or would it be fair to say a large amount of these kids will end up stuck in the foster system because there isn’t enough demand for adoption any more?

Adoption is a solution for someone who doesn’t want to be a parent, not for someone who doesn’t want to carry a pregnancy.

Antares35

I voted no and if asked to vote again I would vote yes. I still think it's horrible and couldn't live with having one myself but that's just for me and not every woman is the same. What really changed it for me was being pregnant twice in the interim.

The first time, I lost the baby. When I went to the Rotunda to be checked following the private scan where no heartbeat was found, I was sent home to miscarry naturally. They couldn't give me medication to bring it on, or a D&C because of the restrictions imposed by the 8th. I was at a stage where it was possible the fetus was still alive but the heartbeat wasn't detectable (however I knew my dates and knew if it was measuring that small then it has ceased). Anyway the result was that I miscarried alone at home in a huge amount of pain, physically and emotionally. Nothing really prepares you for it. I have the 8th to thank for that. The medical personnel were acting in accordance with it and their hands were tied.

The second time I got pregnant was unplanned (but not unwanted). My wee girl is snoring her little brains out here beside me. She is six weeks old and the love of me and her daddy's life. However pregnancy and childbirth were the worst things I ever dealt with. Pregnancy brought back some mental health issues I experienced in the past. I was terrified of giving birth and worried about everything from my career progression to how my relationship with my partner would change. It turns out I was right to worry about birth... It was as bad as it gets without actually dying. I felt torn in two. The pain was immeasurable and my body is still a wreck. And I'm in my thirties with a partner, decent support system and a good career - what if I was 17, alone, single, broke, scared etc. I used to believe that adoption was the answer - oh sure just have it and adopt. But as someone pointed out before, adoption is an alternative to parenting not pregnancy.

There's also just a general abhorrence I have for how women and children have been treated in this country for years. As a survivor of sexual abuse too, I anger easily in terms of how vulnerable people have been treated here by the church, mother and baby institutions etc. I suppose after a while I saw the 8th amendment as an extension of all of these bad things - removing bodily integrity and autonomy and making life difficult for those who are weaker by nature of their circumstances etc.

So, that's basically how I went from a firm no to a yes. Like I said, it would never be for me, but I can make my own choice and thankfully other women can now too.

bfa1509

Bannasidhe wrote: »

So women who do not want to be pregnant should act as incubators with the toll that takes on their bodies?
Pregnancy is not some 9 month picnic with no side effects or long term consequences.


We are back to the 'should a person be forced to donate a kidney to save a life?' argument.

No is also the answer to both.

Should a father who wanted his girlfriend to have an abortion be forced to pay child support?

Bannasidhe

cournioni wrote: »

Of course that’s not how taxes work, which is why the word “contribution” is in there.

A life is a life, of course you should never decline to rescue a sinking boat! That is a given. The ideal scenario is that they don’t have to get on the boat in the first place, but if they are and in the event of the boat going down you do what you have to to save the people on board.

I respect your position as you are being consistent.

May I ask if you think abortion should be allowed in any circumstances?

bfa1509

mc25 wrote: »

I sincerely apologise in advance for this question, but are you really this naive? That's not how it works in real life and your anecdata is not convincing.

So if we polled all the women who would have had an abortion if it was legal but who went on to have their baby - what percentage of them do you think would say "I wish I had an abortion"

Maybe he isn't as naive as you think.

SusieBlue

bfa1509 wrote: »

Should a father who wanted his girlfriend to have an abortion be forced to pay child support?

Men already have an ‘out’. There are significantly more single mothers than fathers. Men can and do opt out of parenthood all the time. Maintenance payments aren’t even strictly enforced here.

Where there is a living child that needs support and care the law will always insist that maintenance should be paid to support that child.
And rightly so, too.

Bannasidhe

bfa1509 wrote: »

Should a father who wanted his girlfriend to have an abortion be forced to pay child support?

And now we have the a woman's body = a man's wallet argument.

It may surprise you to learn that men can and do walk away from supporting children they helped conceive. Quite often.
Also that handing over money does not = parenting.
Nor is giving birth even remotely like opening a wallet.

Completely ridiculous comparison.

The choice is that of the woman who is pregnant. She may seek advice naturally. But it is her choice whether she wishes to be pregnant or not.

If a man wants to have sex and not be a father perhaps he should make sure he uses double contraceptive protection. I hear it's nearly 100% effective.
Perhaps he could get a micro-chip that releases hormones.

Bannasidhe

Bannasidhe wrote: »

So women who do not want to be pregnant should act as incubators with the toll that takes on their bodies?
Pregnancy is not some 9 month picnic with no side effects or long term consequences.


We are back to the 'should a person be forced to donate a kidney to save a life?' argument.

No is also the answer to both.

They are already pregnant for starters, generally not as a result of force. 9 months is also not a lifetime and the effects are generally not fatal. Pregnancy is now a safe event overall and abortion carries those same risks and it's own. Sorry, that argument holds no water.

Nothing the woman goes through is worse than death. Nothing. It's that simple to me. Outside of medical requirements, I don't agree with abortion. That's not belittling pregnancy by the way or birth but abortion isn't any kinder physically to the woman. That said, neither is as harsh on the woman as it is on the baby / foetus / cells.

As for kidneys, there's a difference. An obvious difference. No one is demanding women be surrogates nor is it one life for another. Both mother and child can and likely will live.

I think though that while we may not agree on when and how abortion should be allowed take place, we can agree that no one feeling the need or desire to seek an abortion would be the best scenario, yes? Apart from one user who seemed to delight in the fact that they are happening.

Bannasidhe

Bannasidhe wrote: »

And now we have the a woman's body = a man's wallet argument.

It may surprise you to learn that men can and do walk away from supporting children they helped conceive. Quite often.
Also that handing over money does not = parenting.
Nor is giving birth even remotely like opening a wallet.

Completely ridiculous comparison.

The choice is that of the woman who is pregnant. She may seek advice naturally. But it is her choice whether she wishes to be pregnant or not.

If a man wants to have sex and not be a father perhaps he should make sure he uses double contraceptive protection. I hear it's nearly 100% effective.
Perhaps he could get a micro-chip that releases hormones.

Hmmm, couldn't the same argumentapply to a woman that doesn't want to be pregnant?

bfa1509

Bannasidhe wrote: »

And now we have the a woman's body = a man's wallet argument.

It may surprise you to learn that men can and do walk away from supporting children they helped conceive. Quite often.
Also that handing over money does not = parenting.
Nor is giving birth even remotely like opening a wallet.

Completely ridiculous comparison.

The choice is that of the woman who is pregnant. She may seek advice naturally. But it is her choice whether she wishes to be pregnant or not.

If a man wants to have sex and not be a father perhaps he should make sure he uses double contraceptive protection. I hear it's nearly 100% effective.
Perhaps he could get a micro-chip that releases hormones.

Niner leprauchan wrote: »

Hmmm, couldn't the same argumentapply to a woman that doesn't want to be pregnant?

Exactly. The argument above was the very one I was expecting. A completely shrouded perspective.

cournioni

Bannasidhe wrote: »

I respect your position as you are being consistent.

May I ask if you think abortion should be allowed in any circumstances?

Thanks.

I think it should be allowed where there is a medical issue where there is a threat to the health of the mother or child. Rape cases also. Outside of those, absolutely not.

What I feared the referendum vote would achieve would be that people could choose to end the life of a healthy unborn based on a purely selfish decision by parents and without due consideration for the unborn as the protections weren’t there to protect it. The statistics that have been released confirm those fears to be legitimate.

downinbigsmoke

elainers wrote: »

If you’re saying some people shouldn’t be trusted, are you suggesting we legislate for the few who can’t be and make the law on that basis?

Generally that’s a bad way to make laws. Hence why a law based on abortion for hard cases doesn’t work well.

The reason this is such an emotive issue is there are two conflicting rights in this situation. A right to bodily autonomy of the woman and a right to life of the foetus. Independent of each other both rights would be upheld. But they’re not independent of each other in the case of pregnancy.

Interestingly in any other scenario where these two rights compete, the right to bodily integrity takes precedence. For example if person A’s kidney is the only thing that would allow Person B to live, it’s still up to Person A whether he/she wants to donate.

Ultimately I choose to trust the woman in pregnancy will weigh all the facts and come to the right decision. Sometimes the right decision, the best outcome is an abortion. Especially if the woman would parent a child how he/she deserves.

I disagree with you there. The vast majority of people aren't thieves but we have strict laws and a very sophisticated law enforcement infrastructure aimed at preventing theft. Most laws are aimed precisely a tiny minority of people. Likewise most women aren't going to abort a child without good reason, but some people are. And there are definitely bad reasons to abort a child, as anybody rational will admit (for example, on the basis of gender).

As for the bodily autonomy and organs argument- I've heard it before and think it's the only pro-choice argument without any redeeming features whatsoever. Dead people lack human rights. Not just some of them, all of them. Any we do accord them come purely out of respect for their living relatives. Their "bodily autonomy" should never trump somebody's right to life. The fact we don't have an opt-out organ donation system is a disgrace (though I'm told it's partially a logistic issue).

Tokyo

Mod: Moved to Current Affairs. Please note that the local charter now applies.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

cournioni wrote: »

Thanks.

I think it should be allowed where there is a medical issue where there is a threat to the health of the mother or child. Rape cases also. Outside of those, absolutely not.

What I feared the referendum vote would achieve would be that people could choose to end the life of a healthy unborn based on a purely selfish decision by parents and without due consideration for the unborn as the protections weren’t there to protect it. The statistics that have been released confirm those fears to be legitimate.

Hmmm. Then you do think that some foetuses are worth more than others. Either you think a foetus is worth saving or you don’t, surely? Somebody who believes in abortion for any reason has a much more consistent position than you do.

cournioni

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

Hmmm. Then you do think that some foetuses are worth more than others. Either you think a foetus is worth saving or you don’t, surely? Somebody who believes in abortion for any reason has a much more consistent position than you do.

All healthy unborn babies are “worth” saving. I was asked what my opinion was on when abortion should be “allowed”, whether you think my opinion is consistent or not doesn’t matter one bit. It’s as black and white as it can possibly be.

Lyan

Mods are deleting opinions they don't agree with in this thread. It's useless to have a discussion here.

uptherebels

cournioni wrote: »

Thanks.

I think it should be allowed where there is a medical issue where there is a threat to the health of the mother or child. Rape cases also. Outside of those, absolutely not.

What I feared the referendum vote would achieve would be that people could choose to end the life of a healthy unborn based on a purely selfish decision by parents and without due consideration for the unborn as the protections weren’t there to protect it. The statistics that have been released confirm those fears to be legitimate.

You must have missed the thousands of abortions that were happening via pills and travel before repeal. All the referendum vote did was stop us exporting the issue and forcing women to order pills on the net.

Tokyo

Lyan wrote: »

Mods are deleting opinions they don't agree with in this thread. It's useless to have a discussion here.

Seeing as I'm finding opinions from both sides in this thread, your argument doesn't hold water.