Abortion in Ireland: 2 years on

ELM327

keano_afc wrote: »

I voted No, and nothing has changed in 2 years. Abortion is still an appalling act of violence against a human being. The figures dont shock me at all. Horrifically sad, but not surprising.

There's only one human being involved, the woman.
There's also a potential human being. A sperm is also a potential human being. Stop masturbating.

seamus

cournioni wrote: »

Whats your views on taking away a life outside of the womb with out the consent of the life being taken? Are people entitled to have those views?

He didn't say you weren't entitled to have an opinion. He said you're not entitled to force that opinion on someone else.

ELM327

cournioni wrote: »

Whats your views on taking away a life outside of the womb with out the consent of the life being taken? Are people entitled to have those views?

Avoiding question and strawmanning.





But to humor you, there's no life being taken, theres a potential life.


Killing is wrong. This is not killing. Simples. Can you get a birth cert or a death cert for a fetus?

uptherebels

_Kaiser_ wrote: »

It was the right decision on polling day. It's the right decision now.

That said, there is a bit of a contradiction with the "her body, her choice" mantra in that if she decides to have an abortion, the potential father has no rights if he wanted the child and is expected to respect and live with that - yet conversely if she decides to keep it but he didn't want to be a father, he's still on the hook for maintenance for the next 18 years+.

The obvious response is "well stick a condom on then", but things do happen and if it was consensual unprotected sex at the time, it's a bit of an anomaly from a rights perspective.

That's not a contradiction.

WrenBoy

SusieBlue wrote: »

What about the pain felt by a pregnant woman? Is that not as important? Why should she have to feel any pain (if she doesn't want to) at the expense of a fetus?

I think you would agree there is quite a big difference between pain/discomfort and death. I don't think causing death to one to avoid discomfort/pain to the other is very fair.

ELM327

WrenBoy wrote: »

I think you would agree there is quite a big difference between pain/discomfort and death. I don't think causing death to one to avoid discomfort/pain to the other is very fair.

No one is causing death, except the 8th.

keano_afc

ELM327 wrote: »

There's only one human being involved, the woman.
There's also a potential human being. A sperm is also a potential human being. Stop masturbating.

The earth is flat.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

elainers wrote: »

Beyond these “genuine medical reasons”, she could have been:

- A teenager or college student with no support to raise a child
- Homeless with no way of housing the baby.
- Someone with mental health issues incapable of caring for a child
- A mother with too many children to support already (married women are precluded from putting a child up for adoption in Ireland)
- A woman who the father of the child decided not to support her
- A woman afraid of the stigma of being an unmarried mother / lone parent.

Is the bolded bit true? If so, that’s completely bonkers.

SusieBlue

WrenBoy wrote: »

I think you would agree there is quite a big difference between pain/discomfort and death. I don't think causing death to one to avoid discomfort/pain to the other is very fair.

But we do that every day anyway.
If you are standing in front of me and you desperately need one of my kidneys to live, I cannot be forced to give you my kidney against my will.
Even though it means you will die, my right to bodily autonomy trumps your right to life.

Same as if you were bleeding out on the street, and you desperately needed a pint of blood to save your life, I couldn't be compelled, legally or morally, to donate it if I didn't want to.
People die every single day because of circumstances like that.

Even though you, a living, breathing human being will die, my bodily autonomy comes first and trumps your right to life.

So why does this right suddenly get revoked when a woman becomes pregnant? If she can't be forced to save a living breathing adult, why should she be forced to save a 12 week gestated fetus?

ELM327

keano_afc wrote: »

The earth is flat.

If you're aligning yourself with the likes of the Iona institute and christian fundamentalists, I wouldnt be throwing around that kind of chestnut.

ELM327

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

Is the bolded bit true? If so, that’s completely bonkers.

It is, can only be put up with husband request I think

ohnonotgmail

I think these figures were posted by somebody else but seems to have ignored by the No side.


digging further it doesnt such a big increase at all. What has changed is that women can now access abortion without having to travel out of the country and without having to take abortion pills obtained over the internet and taken without any medical supervision. The repeal has not dramatically changed the number of abortions undertaken, if at all, but it has made them safer. this can only be a good thing

The latest statistics show the number of women has fallen from 3,265 in 2016 to 3,091 in 2017. This equates to a decrease in the rate of women travelling to the UK for an abortion from 3.5 per 1,000 women in 2016 to 3.1 per 1,000 in 2017.

One online provider reported that 1,217 women from Ireland “received the medical abortion pill” from their service in 2017. A second online provider reported that 878 women from the Republic “used the service” in 2017.

i make that a total of 5186. Not including those who travelled and used a relatives address in england.
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/health/decrease-in-number-of-irish-women-having-uk-abortions-1.3522768

keano_afc

ELM327 wrote: »

If you're aligning yourself with the likes of the Iona institute and christian fundamentalists, I wouldnt be throwing around that kind of chestnut.

You just compared sperm to a whole human being.

If I was this scientifically ignorant I wouldn't be taking the high ground.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

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!"

Actually, I think the treatment of lung cancer patients is pretty appalling. Well, firstly, something like 20% of lung cancer patients never smoked. But even if they did...

Pretty much every lung cancer patient I’ve spoken to (a not inconsiderable number) has fielded the “Did you smoke?” question numerous times. There they are, facing the ultimate worst case scenario of a decision that most of them probably regret making and some mouth-breather thinks it’s appropriate to grill them on their smoking habit. And said mouth-breather will have made plenty of mistakes in their own life because they are a human being and making mistakes is inescapable.

paw patrol

I voted no and I'd do the same. The stats are sad to see 6600 is a large number out of a population of 5million - it's 10% of live births which is sad to see.

All the arguments were window dressing. The repeal the 8th crowd talked about hard cases (and I'll admit there are hard case) but they only wanted full on abortion for all. There was room to change the 8th to handle things better but still keep it. But as a society we didn't want that.

I don't think it'll do Irish Society any good but from my point of view , the battle is largely lost. The best i can do is bring my kids up to respect life and nature and hopefully they'll make good choices themselves and with partners who have similar views.
And if ever asked I'll provide my biased view un-apologetically.

ohnonotgmail

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

Actually, I think the treatment of lung cancer patients is pretty appalling. Well, firstly, something like 20% of lung cancer patients never smoked. But even if they did...

Pretty much every lung cancer patient I’ve spoken to (a not inconsiderable number) has fielded the “Did you smoke?” question numerous times. There they are, facing the ultimate worst case scenario of a decision that most of them probably regret making and some mouth-breather thinks it’s appropriate to grill them on their smoking habit. And said mouth-breather will have made plenty of mistakes in their own life because they are a human being and making mistakes is inescapable.

some people just like judging others

ELM327

keano_afc wrote: »

You just compared sperm to a whole human being.

If I was this scientifically ignorant I wouldn't be taking the high ground.

No, I compared them to a fetus. This is not a whole human being.
Is an apple seed an apple tree just because it has been planted?

ohnonotgmail

paw patrol wrote: »

I voted no and I'd do the same. The stats are sad to see 6600 is a large number out of a population of 5million - it's 10% of live births which is sad to see.





All the arguments were window dressing. The repeal the 8th crowd talked about hard cases (and I'll admit there are hard case) but they only wanted full on abortion for all. There was room to change the 8th to handle things better but still keep itBut as a society we didn't want that.


I don't think it'll do Irish Society any good but from my point of view , the battle is largely lost. The best i can do is bring my kids up to respect life and nature and hopefully they'll make good choices themselves and with partners who have similar views.
And if ever asked I'll provide my biased view un-apologetically.

the number of abortions undertaken has not changed much, if at all, since repeal.

sydthebeat

keano_afc wrote: »

You just compared sperm to a whole human being.

If I was this scientifically ignorant I wouldn't be taking the high ground.

An early term gestation foetus is certainly not a "whole human being". Therein lies the fallacy of your opinion.

Ave Sodalis

WrenBoy wrote:

I think you would agree there is quite a big difference between pain/discomfort and death. I don't think causing death to one to avoid discomfort/pain to the other is very fair.

Actually, a little off topic, but relating to your first sentence, this is a pointless argument. There are many cases where death is preferable to pain and discomfort.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

paw patrol wrote: »

I voted no and I'd do the same. The stats are sad to see 6600 is a large number out of a population of 5million - it's 10% of live births which is sad to see.





All the arguments were window dressing. The repeal the 8th crowd talked about hard cases (and I'll admit there are hard case) but they only wanted full on abortion for all. There was room to change the 8th to handle things better but still keep itBut as a society we didn't want that.


I don't think it'll do Irish Society any good but from my point of view , the battle is largely lost. The best i can do is bring my kids up to respect life and nature and hopefully they'll make good choices themselves and with partners who have similar views.
And if ever asked I'll provide my biased view un-apologetically.

Hard cases may have been focused on but it was always clear what the legislation would be. If you think otherwise, you weren’t paying even a rudimentary amount of attention.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Ave Sodalis wrote: »

Actually, a little off topic, but relating to your first sentence, this is a pointless argument. There are many cases where death is preferable to pain and discomfort.

Totally agree. I’ve experienced chronic pain that had it not been resolved, I would rather have died than lived with.

downinbigsmoke

downinbigsmoke wrote: »

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

Nearly. Nearly. The key word there.

As I explained in response to an earlier question, the pill is 99.99% effective when correctly used. Condoms are 98% effective. In a typical year, therefore each year 1/500,000 people using contraception correctly are going to get pregnant.

There are 2,500,000 females in Ireland. About half of those are either too old to have children (this data is available on the Census website but I can't be bothered to check it), or too young to be having regular intercourse. That leaves 1,250,000. Let's assume that 50% of those are a) Having sex regularly AND b) Don't want to get pregnant. That seems reasonable to me. So, we have 750,000 people making regular use of contraception in the State.

With proper use of contraception 1-2 people are going to get pregnant per year. That's about the same as the number killed by lightning each year (about 1 a year I think if I'm reading the data I found correctly). You can't really legislate for numbers that small.

paw patrol

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

Hard cases may have been focused on but it was always clear what the legislation would be. If you think otherwise, you weren’t paying even a rudimentary amount of attention.

(piece in bold)


I've no idea how you would deduce that from my comments. It's an odd tangent to take - I knew what was being voted on. I havent stated otherwise.

Mr. CooL ICE

Has anyone ever been able to suggest a way to legislate abortion access for the hard cases, but prevent abortion access for the rest of the cases? And for these suggestions to be workable by law and not completely bonkers (i.e. that rape committee thing)?

I'm pretty sure the answer to this is no.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

downinbigsmoke wrote: »

With proper use of contraception 1-2 people are going to get pregnant per year.

1-2 people? You think that‘s how few people contraception will fail for in Ireland yearly? Oh... my god.

People make mistakes. Because they are people. That means that contraception can be used improperly. Pill taken at the wrong time, split condoms. These things will happen. And people are going to sleep with people casually and only use condoms as protection. That’s going to happen. And personally I’m glad that people aren’t punished for those very human mistakes.

paw patrol

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

the number of abortions undertaken has not changed much, if at all, since repeal.

if you say so. I can only go on what the numbers said - the 3000 was given and I understand why some may dispute that.
But nonetheless it's sad to see.

ohnonotgmail

downinbigsmoke wrote: »

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

Nearly. Nearly. The key word there.

As I explained in response to an earlier question, the pill is 99.99% effective when correctly used. Condoms are 98% effective. In a typical year, therefore each year 1/500,000 people using contraception correctly are going to get pregnant.

There are 2,500,000 females in Ireland. About half of those are either too old to have children (this data is available on the Census website but I can't be bothered to check it), or too young to be having regular intercourse. That leaves 1,250,000. Let's assume that 50% of those are a) Having sex regularly AND b) Don't want to get pregnant. That seems reasonable to me. So, we have 750,000 people making regular use of contraception in the State.

With proper use of contraception 1-2 people are going to get pregnant per year. That's about the same as the number killed by lightning each year (about 1 a year I think if I'm reading the data I found correctly). You can't really legislate for numbers that small.

there are 2M women of child bearing age in Ireland. your other assumptions are just as questionable. and dont get me started on your maths.

WrenBoy

SusieBlue wrote: »

But we do that every day anyway.
If you are standing in front of me and you desperately need one of my kidneys to live, I cannot be forced to give you my kidney against my will.
Even though it means you will die, my right to bodily autonomy trumps your right to life.

Same as if you were bleeding out on the street, and you desperately needed a pint of blood to save your life, I couldn't be compelled, legally or morally, to donate it if I didn't want to.
People die every single day because of circumstances like that.

Even though you, a living, breathing human being will die, my bodily autonomy comes first and trumps your right to life.

So why does this right suddenly get revoked when a woman becomes pregnant? If she can't be forced to save a living breathing adult, why should she be forced to save a 12 week gestated fetus?

Your examples don't address my point imo, you are talking about somebody being forced against their will into action to aid someone who is going to die anyway versus someone electing to cause death to a healthy entity to alleviate pain/discomfort in the other.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

paw patrol wrote: »

(piece in bold)


I've no idea who you would deduce that from my comments. It's an odd tangent to take - I knew what was being voted on. I havent stated otherwise.

So, if Yes were focusing on hard cases, what does that matter if you knew what the likely legalisation would be?