Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

The 8th amendment(Mod warning in op)

1…2324262829…332

Comments

  • #752
    seamus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 68,190 ✭✭✭✭seamus


    pilly wrote: »
    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.
    You see, I wouldn't go so far as to say there's a right to have it free.

    But it's the only way that makes social and economic sense. Making it something that only the wealthy can afford is restricting access to abortion for the socio-economic group who need it most.

    It's like saying that the morning-after pill should be €100 a pop so that people use it responsibly.

    The reality is that by making it expensive, people don't use it responsibly; they just don't use it at all.
    It will encourage carelessness and a devil may care attitude.
    In your opinion. Do some research on how it works around the world before you make up your mind.

    The reality is that countries with liberal access to both contraceptives and abortion, see the lowest rates of abortion.

    It has to be a combined approach.


  • #753
    kunst nugget
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,375 ✭✭✭✭kunst nugget


    pilly wrote: »
    No-one will die without an abortion.

    Eh, was that not the whole problem with Savita Halappanavar?


  • #754
    pilly
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 9,005 ✭✭✭pilly


    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…

    It's not a slight disagreement though is it? Every single answer from a pro-choice person as been "yep, should be free". It's beginning to dawn on me that there's no middle ground here, no compromise at all.

    The pro-life crowd are all "no no no, never never never" and the pro-choice crowd are all "yes, yes, yes, in any circumstances and what's more lets make it free".

    The issue is a lot more complex than that if people don't recognise that then this referendum is going to be lost.

    Okay, maybe it's a bit of an OTT reaction because I am genuinely shocked at the sense of entitlement people have around it. But it's certainly making me think twice.


  • #755
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 40,914 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    pilly wrote: »
    It's not a slight disagreement though is it? Every single answer from a pro-choice person as been "yep, should be free". It's beginning to dawn on me that there's no middle ground here, no compromise at all.

    The pro-life crowd are all "no no no, never never never" and the pro-choice crowd are all "yes, yes, yes, in any circumstances and what's more lets make it free".

    The issue is a lot more complex than that if people don't recognise that then this referendum is going to be lost.

    Okay, maybe it's a bit of an OTT reaction because I am genuinely shocked at the sense of entitlement people have around it. But it's certainly making me think twice.


    so you would deny women the right to choose because you are upset that they might get it free?


  • #756
    pjohnson
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,014 ✭✭✭✭pjohnson


    kunst nugget wrote: »
    Eh, was that not the whole problem with Savita Halappanavar?

    The anti choice dont do facts.


  • Advertisement
  • #757
    pilly
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 9,005 ✭✭✭pilly


    kunst nugget wrote: »
    Eh, was that not the whole problem with Savita Halappanavar?

    Apologies, I shouldn't have said no-one. What I meant was no-one who chooses it as an elective procedure.


  • #758
    pilly
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 9,005 ✭✭✭pilly


    seamus wrote: »
    You see, I wouldn't go so far as to say there's a right to have it free.

    But it's the only way that makes social and economic sense. Making it something that only the wealthy can afford is restricting access to abortion for the socio-economic group who need it most.

    It's like saying that the morning-after pill should be €100 a pop so that people use it responsibly.

    The reality is that by making it expensive, people don't use it responsibly; they just don't use it at all.
    In your opinion. Do some research on how it works around the world before you make up your mind.

    The reality is that countries with liberal access to both contraceptives and abortion, see the lowest rates of abortion.

    It has to be a combined approach.

    The morning after pill is not free at the moment. You do know that don't you?


  • #759
    pilly
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 9,005 ✭✭✭pilly


    ohnonotgmail wrote: »
    so you would deny women the right to choose because you are upset that they might get it free?

    Yes, absolutely. Because I believe it will cause a revolving door policy.


  • #760
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 40,914 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    pilly wrote: »
    The morning after pill is not free at the moment. You do know that don't you?

    and it costs between €20 and €30. Not hundreds.


  • #761
    seamus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 68,190 ✭✭✭✭seamus


    pilly wrote: »
    It's not a slight disagreement though is it? Every single answer from a pro-choice person as been "yep, should be free". It's beginning to dawn on me that there's no middle ground here, no compromise at all.
    We've given our rationale for it though. It's not blind obsession with availability or dogmatic adherence to a "right". Just simple logic.

    Like I say, do some research on the situation globally. It's not a black-and-white issue, far from it.


  • Advertisement
  • #762
    pilly
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 9,005 ✭✭✭pilly


    ohnonotgmail wrote: »
    and it costs between €20 and €30. Not hundreds.

    It's still a cost and that cost is there for a reason.

    If anyone here thinks that removing all consequences for irresponsible behaviour will not increase that behaviour then they are sorely mistaken.


  • #763
    Sofiztikated
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,995 ✭✭✭Sofiztikated


    pilly wrote: »
    It's not a slight disagreement though is it? Every single answer from a pro-choice person as been "yep, should be free". It's beginning to dawn on me that there's no middle ground here, no compromise at all.

    The pro-life crowd are all "no no no, never never never" and the pro-choice crowd are all "yes, yes, yes, in any circumstances and what's more lets make it free".

    The issue is a lot more complex than that if people don't recognise that then this referendum is going to be lost.

    Okay, maybe it's a bit of an OTT reaction because I am genuinely shocked at the sense of entitlement people have around it. But it's certainly making me think twice.

    I may be reading this differently to you, but I'm not seeing a sense of entitlement.

    I'm seeing people give you reasons as to why it should be accessible to all, and you disagree. I won't say free, because it's not free. It would be paid for out of taxation.

    Not that I necessarily agree with them, but it seems to me that you're going under the "Well, I paid for mine, they can pay for theirs" argument.


  • #764
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 40,914 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    pilly wrote: »
    It's still a cost and that cost is there for a reason.

    If anyone here thinks that removing all consequences for irresponsible behaviour will not increase that behaviour then they are sorely mistaken.


    so all women with unwanted pregnancies are in that situation because of irresponsible behaviour? that sounds like something from a SPUC poster.


  • #765
    seamus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 68,190 ✭✭✭✭seamus


    pilly wrote: »
    The morning after pill is not free at the moment. You do know that don't you?
    I do. And I think it should be available to anyone with a medical card and free by default to anyone under 18.


  • #766
    pilly
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 9,005 ✭✭✭pilly


    seamus wrote: »
    We've given our rationale for it though. It's not blind obsession with availability or dogmatic adherence to a "right". Just simple logic.

    Like I say, do some research on the situation globally. It's not a black-and-white issue, far from it.

    Here's some research for you. And it wasn't hard to find.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/health/news/9296924/Tens-of-thousands-of-women-have-had-more-than-one-abortion-official-statistics.html


  • #767
    pilly
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 9,005 ✭✭✭pilly


    So the UK currently spends more than 1 million sterling a week on REPEAT abortions.

    434 women had what was at least their 5th abortion.

    And it's not used as a form of contraception because it's free?


  • #768
    pilly
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 9,005 ✭✭✭pilly


    Sofiztikated wrote: »
    I may be reading this differently to you, but I'm not seeing a sense of entitlement.

    I'm seeing people give you reasons as to why it should be accessible to all, and you disagree. I won't say free, because it's not free. It would be paid for out of taxation.

    Not that I necessarily agree with them, but it seems to me that you're going under the "Well, I paid for mine, they can pay for theirs" argument.

    No I'm going under the "I took responsibility for my actions" argument.


  • #769
    Sofiztikated
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,995 ✭✭✭Sofiztikated


    pilly wrote: »
    Here's some research for you. And it wasn't hard to find.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/health/news/9296924/Tens-of-thousands-of-women-have-had-more-than-one-abortion-official-statistics.html

    "However we do know that cracks are beginning to appear in contraception services. Shockingly some parts of the NHS deliberately ban women from having certain contraceptive methods and there are over three million women who don’t have access to comprehensive services.
    "If we are going to bring down abortion numbers, this needs to change. Contraception is an essential not a luxury.”


  • #770
    seamus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 68,190 ✭✭✭✭seamus


    pilly wrote: »
    If anyone here thinks that removing all consequences for irresponsible behaviour will not increase that behaviour then they are sorely mistaken.
    Let's put it this way;

    Imagine tomorrow, it became the case that abortions were free for everyone, for any reason.

    Would you be less responsible about your choices? I'm willing to bet the answer is "no". In fact, I'm willing to bet your approach to protection wouldn't change at all.

    You see, making abortion cost money is closing the door after the horse has already bolted. People don't think, "I'm going to wear a condom because abortions are expensive", any more than they think, "I'm not going to wear a condom because abortions are free".

    And this is the fallacy you've caught yourself up in - people end up with unwanted pregnancies precisely because they don't consider the consequences. If you need an abortion, it's because you disregarded the risk of pregnancy before having sex.

    So free abortions don't factor into people's thinking any more than expensive abortions do. It's only once you've become pregnant that it becomes an issue.


  • #771
    pjohnson
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,014 ✭✭✭✭pjohnson


    I guess he wasnt sarcastic. So now money trumps womens rights. Thats a new angle for the anti choice to play.


  • Advertisement
  • #772
    January
    Closed Accounts Posts: 23,862 ✭✭✭✭January


    The morning after pill is available to patients under the GMS scheme, which means they get it for practically free. (€2.50) So why shouldn't abortions be available under the same scheme?


  • #773
    infogiver
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,505 ✭✭✭infogiver


    January wrote: »
    It's not early to feel movement on second or subsequent pregnancies. Once you.know what it feels like it's pretty easy to notice it earlier second/third etc time round. I've had 5 pregnancies and I felt movement around 18 weeks on my first, on the others I could feel it earlier. (Only when lying down relaxing though).
    Apparently you shouldn't say these things because it might be hurtful to women who've had abortions at 12 weeks.
    When the mother of a little girl who has Downs Syndrome brought her rather lovely and bold little girl to the Assembly, the Repeal people complained afterwards that that was hurtful to any women watching who had aborted their DS unborn.
    It's like living in the twighlite zone.


  • #774
    pilly
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 9,005 ✭✭✭pilly


    seamus wrote:
    So free abortions don't factor into people's thinking any more than expensive abortions do. It's only once you've become pregnant that it becomes an issue.


    Let me ask you a question Seamus because I'm tired of your patronising approach and frankly it's not helping your argument.

    Do you think that anyone would have more than 5 abortions if they weren't free?


  • #775
    NuMarvel
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,279 ✭✭✭NuMarvel


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

    Not like for like. The morning after pill is entirely self-administered, and a woman doesn't have to access the public health system to avail of it.

    And according to the Irish Family Planning Association, it's free on the medical card with a doctor's prescription (subject to the prescription fee).
    pilly wrote: »
    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.

    When carried out in a public hospital, i.e. St Columcille's in Loughlinstown, yes we do.
    pilly wrote: »
    It's not a slight disagreement though is it? Every single answer from a pro-choice person as been "yep, should be free". It's beginning to dawn on me that there's no middle ground here, no compromise at all.

    The pro-life crowd are all "no no no, never never never" and the pro-choice crowd are all "yes, yes, yes, in any circumstances and what's more lets make it free".

    The pro choice people here are going into great detail as to why they think it should be free. You're the one going "no no no, never never never" without regard to what others are saying.

    If you want to reach a middle ground, then respond to what's being said and stop dismissing it.


  • #776
    pjohnson
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,014 ✭✭✭✭pjohnson


    infogiver wrote: »
    Apparently you shouldn't say these things because it might be hurtful to women who've had abortions at 12 weeks.
    When the mother of a little girl who has Downs Syndrome brought her rather lovely and bold little girl to the Assembly, the Repeal people complained afterwards that that was hurtful to any women watching who had aborted their DS unborn.
    It's like living in the twighlite zone.

    Its more emotional manipulation and perpetuating a myth. Odd to bring your child anyway.


  • #777
    The_Valeyard
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,452 ✭✭✭✭The_Valeyard


    pjohnson wrote: »
    I guess he wasnt sarcastic. So now money trumps womens rights. Thats a new angle for the anti choice to play.

    And I'm sure the anti-life crowd will also have a new angle to play. Both sides seem to do.


  • #778
    pilly
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 9,005 ✭✭✭pilly


    pjohnson wrote:
    I guess he wasnt sarcastic. So now money trumps womens rights. Thats a new angle for the anti choice to play.


    I am a woman which you'd know if read posts rather than popping in with your one liners..


  • #779
    pjohnson
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,014 ✭✭✭✭pjohnson


    The_Valeyard wrote: »
    And I'm sure the anti-life crowd will also have a new angle to play. Both sides seem to do.

    "Anti-Life" that sounds like a bloody dalek wanting to exterminate homo sapiens


  • #780
    January
    Closed Accounts Posts: 23,862 ✭✭✭✭January


    infogiver wrote: »
    Apparently you shouldn't say these things because it might be hurtful to women who've had abortions at 12 weeks.
    When the mother of a little girl who has Downs Syndrome brought her rather lovely and bold little girl to the Assembly, the Repeal people complained afterwards that that was hurtful to any women watching who had aborted their DS unborn.
    It's like living in the twighlite zone.

    Have you a source for this?


  • Advertisement
  • #781
    pjohnson
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,014 ✭✭✭✭pjohnson


    pilly wrote: »
    I am a woman which you'd know if read posts rather than popping in with your one liners..

    Meh. Usernames often dont give much of an indication. Will these be your posts advocating choice or denying choice?


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement