nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

The 8th amendment(Mod warning in op)

RobertKK

The citizens assembly voted to replace or amend the 8th amendment.

50% voted to replace or amend
44% voted to repeal
Rest preferred to not state an opinion

Now deciding how it will be replaced or amended
: Let the Dail legislate on the rights of the unborn
: Amend the provision in the constitution.

Meltdown on twitter by Repealthe8th people.

Mod- This thread has descended in to petty name calling. We've tried to let this thread run without too much mod interference but now it's on our radar we will be watching. From here on the name calling stops. If you can't debate civilly we will remove your right to post.

__________________

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

NuMarvel

pilly wrote: »

I know I'm going to be sorry for this post but I have been thinking about something.

I am pro-choice but if legislation is passed to allow abortion in all circumstances how is it going to be paid for and do our hospitals have the capacity even to meet demand.

My opinion on it would be that people who need abortion for medical reasons, absolutely it should be free but for those that chose it they should have to pay.

Most of the women who will choose to have an abortion will be in contact with our maternity services anyway, in some way shape or form, so the additional demand may not be as high as expected.

And because most abortions occur early on in pregnancy, they don't typically involve a hospital stay. In many cases, more than half I think, the woman goes to a clinic, takes a pill or pills, and goes home later on. In some cases, a second visit may be required, but it's still purely an out-patient setting.

In terms of costs, I'm in favour of parity with other elective procedures in the public system. As those are free, or effectively free, at the moment, the same should apply here.

Akrasia

Woodville56 wrote: »

With you on that 100%. Problem is though how to define "medical reasons" - my definition would be where the life of the mother is endangered or sadly in the case of fatal feotal abnormalities, but I'm sure those who want a more liberal regime will argue much broader interpretations of "medical reasons".
On the question of funding abortions in our hospitals , as someone who unequivocally opposes a totally liberalized abortion regime as those in the Citizens Assembly suggest, I wouldn't be happy to see my taxes used to fund "on demand" abortion procedures either.

An abortion in the UK costs about 500 euros for the procedure. It's free to UK citizens on the NHS. Refusing to fund it under the GMS would be another moral judgement by the state on women who need an abortion.

It's not a cost saving measure to tell women who cannot afford to have an abortion that they should have a baby instead.

seamus

Akrasia wrote: »

It's not a cost saving measure to tell women who cannot afford to have an abortion that they should have a baby instead.

That's really the crux of the "should the state pay" issue.

It's seems paradoxical to say that abortions should only be available to people who can afford to have a baby.

I'd be inclined to push it back on insurers. Where a person has insurance with any level of maternity cover, then the insurer must cover the procedure. A condition of providing maternity cover is to cover abortion; insurers should be legally prohibited from separating the two. From the insurers POV covering an abortion is cheaper than covering a pregnancy anyway.

Where someone does not have insurance, the state covers it.

One of the fallacies around abortion is that if it comes in, there'll be a sudden flood of newly-pregnant women arriving in to get the procedure. As if people will suddenly start having more unprotected sex with reckless abandon.

The maternity services we have at present will be more than able to deal with it.

pilly

NuMarvel wrote: »

Most of the women who will choose to have an abortion will be in contact with our maternity services anyway, in some way shape or form, so the additional demand may not be as high as expected.

And because most abortions occur early on in pregnancy, they don't typically involve a hospital stay. In many cases, more than half I think, the woman goes to a clinic, takes a pill or pills, and goes home later on. In some cases, a second visit may be required, but it's still purely an out-patient setting.

In terms of costs, I'm in favour of parity with other elective procedures in the public system. As those are free, or effectively free, at the moment, the same should apply here.

Other so called "elective" procedures in hospitals are medically necessary and if they are free then you have to go on a waiting list. I'm currently waiting 18 months for a hernia operation so obviously this is not an efficient way to do things.

pilly

seamus wrote: »

That's really the crux of the "should the state pay" issue.

It's seems paradoxical to say that abortions should only be available to people who can afford to have a baby.

I'd be inclined to push it back on insurers. Where a person has insurance with any level of maternity cover, then the insurer must cover the procedure. A condition of providing maternity cover is to cover abortion; insurers should be legally prohibited from separating the two. From the insurers POV covering an abortion is cheaper than covering a pregnancy anyway.

Where someone does not have insurance, the state covers it.

One of the fallacies around abortion is that if it comes in, there'll be a sudden flood of newly-pregnant women arriving in to get the procedure. As if people will suddenly start having more unprotected sex with reckless abandon.

The maternity services we have at present will be more than able to deal with it.

It's not paradoxical at all. Abortions costs approximately 500-1000, having a baby costs an awful lot more than that. No comparison. To say someone who can afford that can also afford a baby is ridiculous.

To me making it free is definitely a step to far and will be used as a method of contraception for some very irresponsible people.

January

pilly wrote: »

Other so called "elective" procedures in hospitals are medically necessary and if they are free then you have to go on a waiting list. I'm currently waiting 18 months for a hernia operation so obviously this is not an efficient way to do things.

The difference being that in the early stages, an abortion can be performed using just pills, which cost nowhere near 500-1000 euro, no waiting list needed.

seamus

pilly wrote: »

It's not paradoxical at all. Abortions costs approximately 500-1000, having a baby costs an awful lot more than that. No comparison. To say someone who can afford that can also afford a baby is ridiculous.

Let's clarify the "paradoxical". What I mean is "people who can't afford to have a baby should be required to have one" is the paradox.

To me making it free is definitely a step to far and will be used as a method of contraception for some very irresponsible people.

This hasn't happened anywhere in the world that abortion has been made legal. Abortion is not used as a preferred method of contraception.

I don't think anyone is going to deny that there will always be the odd "ah shure I can always get an abortion" person around, but to restrict everyone on the basis that one or two may abuse it is allowing your heart to rule your head. It doesn't make social or financial sense.

LirW

Honestly you even have this kind of mindset where you have to pay for abortion yourself. And not only from people with tons of money. Especially in young girls, most of the time mom and dad will pay for it when you're young and don't have the money.

NuMarvel

pilly wrote: »

Other so called "elective" procedures in hospitals are medically necessary and if they are free then you have to go on a waiting list. I'm currently waiting 18 months for a hernia operation so obviously this is not an efficient way to do things.

Not all free elective procedures are medically necessary, eg, vasectomies and tubal ligation can be done without there needing to be any clinical reasons. I'm sure there are other examples.

As for waiting lists, seeing as the State would be applying a time limit on when an abortion can be accessed without needing a reason (assuming they follow the CA's recommendations), I think it's a bit rich to then expect people to wait around to access that.

LirW

Not all free elective procedures are medically necessary, eg, vasectomies and tubal ligation can be done without there needing to be any clinical reasons. I'm sure there are other examples.

I think especially tubal ligation is a bad example because it's super hard to get one in the first place as a woman unless you hit a certain age or have at least 4 kids. Otherwise you'll be turned down straight away (which I personally find a bit outrageous).
In general doctors and midwives here are joking over the dead serious decisions when you say you're done with family planning.

pilly

I absolutely knew I would be sorry I posted about who pays for these abortions and I have to be completely honest I can not get over the attitude of saying "of course it should be free". This may be the one issue that makes me vote no when I was absolutely yes before.

Seriously guys, there has to be an element of personal responsibility somewhere along the line, you make a mistake you pay for it.

And I speak from the point of view of someone who has had an abortion. I paid for it, simple as.

NuMarvel

LirW wrote: »

I think especially tubal ligation is a bad example because it's super hard to get one in the first place as a woman unless you hit a certain age or have at least 4 kids. Otherwise you'll be turned down straight away (which I personally find a bit outrageous).
In general doctors and midwives here are joking over the dead serious decisions when you say you're done with family planning.

That proves my point though. That it can be done for non-medical reasons and is covered by the public system like every other type of procedure.

BTW, however hard it is to get one as a woman, it's impossible to get one as a man :pac::pac::D:D:D (Sorry, couldn't resist!)

noaddedsugar

pilly wrote: »

I absolutely knew I would be sorry I posted about who pays for these abortions and I have to be completely honest I can not get over the attitude of saying "of course it should be free". This may be the one issue that makes me vote no when I was absolutely yes before.

Seriously guys, there has to be an element of personal responsibility somewhere along the line, you make a mistake you pay for it.

And I speak from the point of view of someone who has had an abortion. I paid for it, simple as.

I don't really understand this way of thinking. If someone decides to keep that 'mistake' and not go through with an abortion it is going to cost the state a lot more. Child benefit alone if it stays at current rates is about 30,000e until they reach 18, then there is free gp up to the age of 6, free pre school years, the cost of schools and all of that is after the mother receives free maternity care.

If you are looking at this from a purely financial stand point then free abortions are much more cost effective than a child.

Your post comes across as just wanting to teach women some kind of lesson tbh, and that seems crass and petty.

January

pilly wrote: »

I absolutely knew I would be sorry I posted about who pays for these abortions and I have to be completely honest I can not get over the attitude of saying "of course it should be free". This may be the one issue that makes me vote no when I was absolutely yes before.

Seriously guys, there has to be an element of personal responsibility somewhere along the line, you make a mistake you pay for it.

And I speak from the point of view of someone who has had an abortion. I paid for it, simple as.

You paid for yours, I paid for mine. It doesn't mean that it shouldn't be free for the women that come after us.

pilly

noaddedsugar wrote: »

I don't really understand this way of thinking. If someone decides to keep that 'mistake' and not go through with an abortion it is going to cost the state a lot more. Child benefit alone if it stays at current rates is about 30,000e until they reach 18, then there is free gp up to the age of 6, free pre school years, the cost of schools and all of that is after the mother receives free maternity care.

If you are looking at this from a purely financial stand point then free abortions are much more cost effective than a child.

Your post comes across as just wanting to teach women some kind of lesson tbh, and that seems crass and petty.

Not at all crass and petty. Did you not see the part where I've said I made the same mistake myself.

ohnonotgmail

pilly wrote: »

I absolutely knew I would be sorry I posted about who pays for these abortions and I have to be completely honest I can not get over the attitude of saying "of course it should be free". This may be the one issue that makes me vote no when I was absolutely yes before.

Seriously guys, there has to be an element of personal responsibility somewhere along the line, you make a mistake you pay for it.

And I speak from the point of view of someone who has had an abortion. I paid for it, simple as.

and if they cant afford to pay for it? what then?

ETA: Not all pregnancies are the result of a mistake. Contraception is not 100%. You want women to be punished because a prescribed medicine did not work for them?

pilly

The above posts are all examples of why people are going to be encouraged to vote no.

pilly

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

and if they cant afford to pay for it? what then?

ETA: Not all pregnancies are the result of a mistake. Contraception is not 100%. You want women to be punished because a prescribed medicine did not work for them?

According to other posts above it costs very little, pill today, pill tomorrow.

noaddedsugar

pilly wrote: »

Not at all crass and petty. Did you not see the part where I've said I made the same mistake myself.

As have I. I paid for it myself too. I don't see why that means moving forward others should have to do the same. I see no benefit to making people pay for it and potentially leaving women who can not afford it with no other choice but to have an unwanted child.

LirW

pilly wrote: »

The above posts are all examples of why people are going to be encouraged to vote no.

I understand where you're coming from and I have to tell you: In Austria, where I come from, you have to pay for the abortion on your own. I know plenty of women having one, all ages, family situations and so on.
One of them was a young girl and if you want to have an abortion there, you manage somehow to get the money. I agree that there needs to be a bit of responsibility here.

But it doesn't dismiss the question: What if you genuinely cannot afford the procedure?

January

pilly wrote: »

According to other posts above it costs very little, pill today, pill tomorrow.

What's very little though? I said nowhere near 500-1000. It could be 300. I definitely wouldn't have had 300 euro to spend on an abortion, I barely had the 90 euro it cost from womenonweb (and that was a donation! I'm sure it cost them more). I certainly didn't have the money to travel. I believe it should be available to women on the medical card, 2.50 per prescription. I also believe it should be low cost for women who haven't got a medical card, something like the inpatient day cost (I believe that's 75 euro?) and available to women who have insurance and their insurance should cover the full cost. I'd prefer free, but if it had to be paid for I'd prefer that model.

NuMarvel

pilly wrote: »

I absolutely knew I would be sorry I posted about who pays for these abortions and I have to be completely honest I can not get over the attitude of saying "of course it should be free". This may be the one issue that makes me vote no when I was absolutely yes before.

Seriously guys, there has to be an element of personal responsibility somewhere along the line, you make a mistake you pay for it.

And I speak from the point of view of someone who has had an abortion. I paid for it, simple as.

People have been setting out why they think access should be free. If you have valid counter-arguments to those points, then make them. You never know, you might change some minds.

As for personal responsibility, that isn't a criteria for access to our public health system for anything else, so why here? If we don't charge smokers any extra for lung cancer treatment, or extreme sports enthusiasts any extra when they have accidents, why should women who want abortions because, for example contraception failed, be any different?

Calhoun

Out of curiosity, what parts of the process are taking a pill versus a medical procedure?

I mean i dont want to point out the obvious but our healthcare system is in bits, we cannot do critical operations so if there is a procedure how complicated is it?

daveharnett

pilly wrote: »

My opinion on it would be that people who need abortion for medical reasons, absolutely it should be free but for those that chose it they should have to pay.

Just to tease this out a little, how do you feel about free treatment of conditions caused by overeating, drinking, smoking, boxing?

Given how contentious this would be, I'd be ok if the state doesn't pay for non-medically-necessary terminations. It would add insult to injury for a large, and passionate pro-life minority, for the sake of a few hundred grand per year.

Given the amount of heat on both sides of this issue, I imagine a pro-choice/family planning charity would have no problem raising the funds necessary to cover those who can't afford.

seamus

pilly wrote: »

Seriously guys, there has to be an element of personal responsibility somewhere along the line, you make a mistake you pay for it.

Isn't getting the procedure in the first place, "taking personal responsibility"?

I'll break down the "why should it be free" argument and see if it makes more sense.

1. Some people will need to get an abortion for economic reasons. That is, they either cannot afford to have a child at all, or the burden of another child on top of their existing children will simply be too much.

2. Of that group, some people are completely pinned to the wall and do not have €500 available to them.

3. There is no line which you can draw where everyone above the line can afford it and everyone below can't. That is, you can't say "it's free for people on social welfare", as some working people won't be able to afford it, and some people on social welfare will be able to afford it. Whatever line you draw, whatever you require as "proof" that someone can't afford it will cause some people to be unable to access abortion.

4. Therefore the only way to ensure that access to abortion is universal, is to remove the payment barrier.

Abortion doesn't require a "penance". There's no need for someone to have to "pay the price" for making a mistake. It serves no rational purpose.

There is no evidence from anywhere in the world that access to abortion leads to widespread use of abortion instead of contraception.

Although there is one exception - countries/areas where contraception is strongly discouraged, expensive or not included in sex education see the highest rates of abortion.

pilly

Congratulations guys on converting a yes voter to no voter.

I'm definitely out on the basis that people seem to think that not only is it a right to have abortion on demand, it's a right to have it free.

At the moment even the morning after pill is not free and there's a reason for this.

It will encourage carelessness and a devil may care attitude.

I am slowly beginning to understand why people get so riled up by this issue. I can not believe the sense of entitlement around it.

ohnonotgmail

pilly wrote: »

Congratulations guys on converting a yes voter to no voter.

I'm definitely out on the basis that people seem to think that not only is it a right to have abortion on demand, it's a right to have it free.

At the moment even the morning after pill is not free and there's a reason for this.

It will encourage carelessness and a devil may care attitude.

I am slowly beginning to understand why people get so riled up by this issue. I can not believe the sense of entitlement around it.

what exactly are you basing this on?

kunst nugget

pilly wrote: »

Congratulations guys on converting a yes voter to no voter.

You have a slight disagreement with complete strangers online about how abortions should be paid for and that's enough to swing you? That's a bit ott imo…

pilly

daveharnett wrote: »

Just to tease this out a little, how do you feel about free treatment of conditions caused by overeating, drinking, smoking, boxing?

Given how contentious this would be, I'd be ok if the state doesn't pay for non-medically-necessary terminations. It would add insult to injury for a large, and passionate pro-life minority, for the sake of a few hundred grand per year.

Given the amount of heat on both sides of this issue, I imagine a pro-choice/family planning charity would have no problem raising the funds necessary to cover those who can't afford.

Do we currently pay for gastric band surgery? No? The country is not currently paying to cure obesity, it's simply treating illnesses, otherwise people will die.

No-one will die without an abortion.

pjohnson

kunst nugget wrote: »

You have a slight disagreement with complete strangers online about how abortions should be paid for and that's enough to swing you? That's a bit ott imo…

I assume shes being sarcastic