Abortion in Ireland: 2 years on

ohnonotgmail

paw patrol wrote: »

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.

3000 was the number who had abortions in england and gave an irish address. it did not include those who took abortion pills ordered over the internet. I added in those numbers and the total is very close to the figure for last year. also the 3000 was the minimum number who had an abortion in england. so in effect all that has changed since repeal is that a similar number of women are having abortions but they are having them in much safer situations. somehow the No side still object to that.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

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.

Can you correct that quote? That wasn’t me that made that post.

seamus

downinbigsmoke wrote: »

As I explained in response to an earlier question, the pill is 99.99% effective when correctly used. Condoms are 98% effective.

When used in laboratory conditions by a person whose job it is to analyse the effectiveness.

This is why real-world effectiveness is not only published, but also used as the primary metric. Lab-tested effectiveness is a quality control measure used by the manufacturer, it's not a measure of effectiveness in practice.

It's also one reason (among many) why the rest of your calculations are nonsense. Another reason is that you've assumed that sexually active people only have sex once a year. If 750,000 couples have sex twice a week, that's 78 million chances for pregnancy in a given year.

ohnonotgmail

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

Can you correct that quote? That wasn’t me that made that post.

corrected. the post i quoted was malformed.

SusieBlue

downinbigsmoke wrote: »

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.

Nope, the pill is 99% effective with perfect use. So that means even if used perfectly, exactly as its supposed to be taken, 1/100 will get pregnant on it.

Then you have what's called typical use, because humans aren't perfect. With typical use, its 91% effective.
This accounts for taking it a little later than your supposed to, vomiting or having diarrhea in the subsequent hours, taking it with prescription medication or missing one altogether.
There have even been cases where a high temperature/fever caused the pill to stop working.
With typical use, 9/100 women will get pregnant.

So your stats are way off there.

Igotadose

Igotadose wrote: »

Pregnancy and childbirth are very risky to health. Medical abortion in Ireland, barely any risk at all.

Your arguments don't hold water.

Not true. Neither are very risky. Especially in Ireland. Giving birth is a safe practice.

You can try and make out that you are removing a bomb but it's simple not true.

(https://www.who.int › ... › Detail
Web results
Maternal mortality - World Health Organization)

ohnonotgmail

Niner leprauchan wrote: »

Not true. Neither are very risky. Especially in Ireland. Giving birth is a safe practice.

You can try and make out that you are removing a bomb but it's simple not true.

(https://www.who.int › ... › Detail
Web results
Maternal mortality - World Health Organization)

there are risks to health with pregnancy beyond dying. why dont you go get figures for that?

WrenBoy

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.

I agree its off topic, I was responding to a poster that said the avoidance of the pain/ discomfort of child birth is a good enough reason for an abortion . I don't agree but thats just my opinion.
I suspect your talking about pain as in long term quality of life reducing conditions, I am not. Im talking about the pain of child birth/ preganancy

Mr. CooL ICE

Mr. CooL ICE wrote: »

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.

We already had it. Abortion was not illegal, it was restricted.

Hairy Japanese BASTARDS!

downinbigsmoke wrote: »

Now that we've all had time to collect our thoughts, I was hoping to gather some opinions on what people in this country think of the longterm effects Health (Regulation of Termination of Pregnancy) Act 2018 have been. With the benefit of hindsight, is there anybody who would have changed their vote?

For full disclosure, I voted No in the referendum, which was apparently a pretty odd point of view for 21 year old Trinity student, who was otherwise not particularly right-wing. I would not change it.

But the argument from the Yes side (made by most lobby groups) that I found most convincing is that legalising abortion would not change the raw number of abortions but only the locations. This has turned out to be completely untrue.

The number of abortions was 6,666 last year (2019). In 2017 (which was quite a high year) there were 3,061 abortions linked to Ireland in the UK. It seems to me (but maybe not you) the public have been misled. Would this have changed your vote?

May I ask if you're male or female or non binary OP?

I'm male. I voted no.

ohnonotgmail

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

there are risks to health with pregnancy beyond dying. why dont you go get figures for that?

Nearly always for the child not the mother.

What are you actually referring to? What illness are you thinking when you make that comment?

And see you accepting that death is an extremely rare event during birth in Ireland?

ohnonotgmail

Niner leprauchan wrote: »

Nearly always for the child not the mother.

What are you actually referring to? What illness are you thinking when you make that comment?

And see you accepting that death is an extremely rare event during birth in Ireland?

i'm going to assume you are on a windup. the alternative is too much to consider.

SusieBlue

WrenBoy wrote: »

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.

No, they aren't going to die anyway, that's the whole point. They will be using your kidney/blood to live. You would be saving their life, but we still don't force people to do it against their will.
Because your right to bodily autonomy trumps the other person's right to life.

No one has a right to use anyone else's body to stay alive. Least of all pre 12 week gestated fetuses.

downinbigsmoke

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

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.

This is complete nonsense . There are actually only about 1M women aged 20-45 in Ireland. I've just checked it on the CSO website: as of 2011

All marital status
Female
20 - 24 years 150,595
25 - 29 years 187,408
30 - 34 years 199,171
35 - 39 years 182,024
40 - 44 years 164,482

When we restrict it to unmarried

State
Single
Female
20 - 24 years 143,606
25 - 29 years 143,383
30 - 34 years 97,355
35 - 39 years 57,254
40 - 44 years 36,544


Adding an adjustment for married women who don't want children and unmarried who do, I think my back of the envelope calculation was pretty accurate. I'm normally quite good at these kinds of estimates, in physics at least.

downinbigsmoke

seamus wrote: »

When used in laboratory conditions by a person whose job it is to analyse the effectiveness.

This is why real-world effectiveness is not only published, but also used as the primary metric. Lab-tested effectiveness is a quality control measure used by the manufacturer, it's not a measure of effectiveness in practice.

It's also one reason (among many) why the rest of your calculations are nonsense. Another reason is that you've assumed that sexually active people only have sex once a year. If 750,000 couples have sex twice a week, that's 78 million chances for pregnancy in a given year.

It's 99.99% and 98% for a couple who have regular sexual intercourse over the period of a year.

For a one-night-stand it's about 365 times lower.

Ave Sodalis

WrenBoy wrote: »

I agree its off topic, I was responding to a poster that said the avoidance of the pain/ discomfort of child birth is a good enough reason for an abortion . I don't agree but thats just my opinion.
I suspect your talking about pain as in long term quality of life reducing conditions, I am not. Im talking about the pain of child birth/ preganancy

Which can, and have been, one in the same. Along with the pain/discomfort of pregnancy, and pain/discomfort of any long lasting effects of pregnancy/child birth. Not including any underlying pain/discomfort that was present before pregnancy, that may make pregnancy/childbirth/after-effects all the worse.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

downinbigsmoke wrote: »

This is complete nonsense . There are actually only about 1M women aged 20-45 in Ireland. I've just checked it on the CSO website: as of 2011

All marital status
Female
20 - 24 years 150,595
25 - 29 years 187,408
30 - 34 years 199,171
35 - 39 years 182,024
40 - 44 years 164,482

When we restrict it to unmarried

State
Single
Female
20 - 24 years 143,606
25 - 29 years 143,383
30 - 34 years 97,355
35 - 39 years 57,254
40 - 44 years 36,544


Adding an adjustment for married women who don't want children and unmarried who do, I think my back of the envelope calculation was pretty accurate. I'm normally quite good at these kinds of estimates, in physics at least.

You think that saying contraception should fail for only 1-2 people in Ireland a year is a good estimate?

I see you have deleted the post in question. Luckily, I quoted it.

downinbigsmoke

Deleted User wrote: »

Either you're taking the proverbial or creating nonsensical arguments based on nonsensical data you conjured out of thin air. My bet is on both.

It's called a Fermi calculation. In this case, $\frac{1}{500,000} \times 750,000 = 1.25$

ohnonotgmail

downinbigsmoke wrote: »

This is complete nonsense . There are actually only about 1M women aged 20-45 in Ireland. I've just checked it on the CSO website: as of 2011

All marital status
Female
20 - 24 years 150,595
25 - 29 years 187,408
30 - 34 years 199,171
35 - 39 years 182,024
40 - 44 years 164,482

When we restrict it to unmarried

State
Single
Female
20 - 24 years 143,606
25 - 29 years 143,383
30 - 34 years 97,355
35 - 39 years 57,254
40 - 44 years 36,544


Adding an adjustment for married women who don't want children and unmarried who do, I think my back of the envelope calculation was pretty accurate. I'm normally quite good at these kinds of estimates, in physics at least.

OK, my 2m number is wrong,i was looking at the total for both sexes. the rest of your numbers are still. saying that an efficiency rate of 99.99% results in only 1 or 2 unwanted pregnancies a year is just stupid.

downinbigsmoke

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

You think that saying contraception should fail for only 1-2 people in Ireland a year is a good estimate?

I see you have deleted the post in question. Luckily, I quoted it.

It's still there. I accidentally messed up the quote feature when I first posted it so I remade it I think most people don't know how to use contraception properly or think that a condom by itself is sufficient (which it obvs isn't). If everybody used it correctly, it would be.

SusieBlue

Niner leprauchan wrote: »

Nearly always for the child not the mother.

What are you actually referring to? What illness are you thinking when you make that comment?

And see you accepting that death is an extremely rare event during birth in Ireland?

That's not really an assessment you can make on behalf of someone else though, particularly when you don't have to live with the consequences of that decision.

There are plenty of risks and complications that come even with a straight forward pregnancy.
Gestational diabetes, pre eclampsia, sciatica, varicose veins, swelling of the limbs, pelvic issues, hyperemesis gravidarum (HG), incontinence, anemia, and placenta previa are some of the more common conditions.
Post birth you have section/birth recovery, PND, more incontinence/bowel issues and long term back problems.

The person who is taking the risk should be the one who makes that judgment.

ELM327

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

OK, my 2m number is wrong,i was looking at the total for both sexes. the rest of your numbers are still. saying that an efficiency rate of 99.99% results in only 1 or 2 unwanted pregnancies a year is just stupid.

It really is.


It's as if the no side thinks that there were no abortions in Ireland until the repeal campaign passed and we went from ~0 cases to 6666. (I love the 6666 significance, a statistical F YOU to the bible bashers)


In reality we had the same numbers, just some went to the UK and some took (at the time) illegal pills.

SusieBlue

downinbigsmoke wrote: »

It's still there. I accidentally messed up the quote feature when I first posted it so I remade it I think most people don't know how to use contraception properly or think that a condom by itself is sufficient (which it obvs isn't). If everybody used it correctly, it would be.

Yeah but we're human and we aren't infallible, so the most accurate statistic is the one for typical use. And with typical use, 9/100 women will fall pregnant on the pill.

Wanderer78

Same bull**** arguments during the campaign, move on folks, it's done

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

downinbigsmoke wrote: »

It's still there. I accidentally messed up the quote feature when I first posted it so I remade it I think most people don't know how to use contraception properly or think that a condom by itself is sufficient (which it obvs isn't). If everybody used it correctly, it would be.

Yes, so you have to factor in that human error that will always exist. That will never go away.

Coulda woulda shoulda.

WrenBoy

Ave Sodalis wrote: »

Which can, and have been, one in the same. Along with the pain/discomfort of pregnancy, and pain/discomfort of any long lasting effects of pregnancy/child birth. Not including any underlying pain/discomfort that was present before pregnancy, that may make pregnancy/childbirth/after-effects all the worse.

But if someone was free of these underlying conditions or long lasting effects of pregnancy you would still say that not wanting to go through the pain/discomfort of child birth is a good enough reason to abort a healthy baby?
Not being forced to raise it as adoption is an option, but just the avoidance of pain/discomfort of childbirth is enough of a reason to abort? I don't think so but thats just my opinion.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Wanderer78 wrote: »

Same bull**** arguments during the campaign, move on folks, it's done

True true.

Seamai

SusieBlue wrote: »

That's not really an assessment you can make on behalf of someone else though, particularly when you don't have to live with the consequences of that decision.

There are plenty of risks and complications that come even with a straight forward pregnancy.
Gestational diabetes, pre eclampsia, sciatica, varicose veins, swelling of the limbs, pelvic issues, hyperemesis gravidarum (HG), incontinence, anemia, and placenta previa are some of the more common conditions.
Post birth you have section/birth recovery, PND, more incontinence/bowel issues and long term back problems.

The person who is taking the risk should be the one who makes that judgment.

Given that list I'm surprised that anyone would even risk getting pregnant unless they desperately wanted a child.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

WrenBoy wrote: »

But if someone was free of these underlying conditions or long lasting effects of pregnancy you would still say that not wanting to go through the pain/discomfort of child birth is a good enough reason to abort a healthy baby?
Not being forced to raise it as adoption is an option, but just the avoidance of pain/discomfort of childbirth is enough of a reason to abort? I don't think so but thats just my opinion.

Truthfully, I doubt fear of labour pain is a big factor in terminations. I think it’s what comes after mostly.

downinbigsmoke

SusieBlue wrote: »

Yeah but we're human and we aren't infallible, so the most accurate statistic is the one for typical use. And with typical use, 9/100 women will fall pregnant on the pill.

"Perfect" isn't that high a bar or implies laboratory conditions. It's just a matter of following a few instructions to the letter. For example, for condoms they need to be

1. thrown out if not put on correctly the first time.

2. stored correctly (just in cool dry conditions - not hard)

3. not used if they are more than a month out of date.

All this coud be achieved quite easily by making them cheaper and more accessible, and by stigmatising drunken sex.