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…2425272930…332

Comments

  • #782
    seamus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 68,190 ✭✭✭✭seamus


    pilly wrote: »
    Let me ask you a question Seamus because I'm tired of your patronising approach and frankly it's not helping your argument.
    Patronising? You must be reading something into my posts that I'm not putting in there. I'm not even in the slightest attempting to talk down to you.

    In fact I'm trying to talk to you as a rational person. I don't believe I've been in any way belittling of you.
    Do you think that anyone would have more than 5 abortions if they weren't free?
    No, they'd have 5 children instead. The kind of person who's had five abortions is not the kind of person who makes good choices.

    You had sex, after which you required an abortion. Before you had sex, did the cost or logistics of the abortion factor into your decision to have sex?

    I know that's a personal question, but you've freely offered the information. I'm trying to relate to you on a personal level the argument that you're putting forward. You say that if abortions cost money, then people will factor that into their risk assessment before they have sex. Did you?

    In fact, I don't need you to answer that; that's your business. But I hope you understand the point that I'm making.


  • #783
    Sofiztikated
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,995 ✭✭✭Sofiztikated


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

    Up to now pilly was arguing FOR choice.

    It's the cost issue that is a sticking point for her. And which might be a sticking point for quite a few. Being a dick about it often doesn't help.


  • #784
    pilly
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 9,005 ✭✭✭pilly


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

    I've posted that I've previously had an abortion. Impossible if I was a man.

    Anyway, I don't engage with the type of poster who posts words like Meh and Er and sticks one-liners in every so often with little or not effort so I'll just stick you on ignore.


  • #785
    pjohnson
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,014 ✭✭✭✭pjohnson


    Sofiztikated wrote: »
    Up to now pilly was arguing FOR choice.

    It's the cost issue that is a sticking point for her. And which might be a sticking point for quite a few. Being a dick about it often doesn't help.

    When someone radically changes their opinion in a matter of minutes the credibility does take a hit. Earlier she mentioned briefly it was a OTT reaction but now shes back preaching against choice. Didnt take much to change her mind. But still it might change a few more times before the referendum.


  • #786
    pjohnson
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,014 ✭✭✭✭pjohnson


    pilly wrote: »
    I've posted that I've previously had an abortion. Impossible if I was a man.

    Anyway, I don't engage with the type of poster who posts words like Meh and Er and sticks one-liners in every so often with little or not effort so I'll just stick you on ignore.

    Sorry if I missed a few posts this is a rather active thread.


  • Advertisement
  • #787
    kunst nugget
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,375 ✭✭✭✭kunst nugget


    pilly wrote: »
    434 women had what was at least their 5th abortion.

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

    That's 434 women out of a female population of over 32 million. It is a miniscule amount of people. Do we withdraw vital services for everyone else based on the actions of a tiny, tiny amount of people?


  • #788
    noaddedsugar
    Closed Accounts Posts: 316 ✭✭noaddedsugar


    pilly wrote: »
    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?

    The thing is though women are fertile from the age of 12/13(sometimes younger) to the average age of 50. Is it that shocking that in almost 40 years someone might find themselves in the awful situation of needing an abortion more than once?
    Like someone else said the type of person who has 5 abortions is likely the type of person who would have many kids if abortion wasn't available. I know what I think is best in that situation.


  • #789
    pjohnson
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,014 ✭✭✭✭pjohnson


    kunst nugget wrote: »
    That's 434 women out of a female population of over 32 million. It is a miniscule amount of people. Do we withdraw vital services for everyone else based on the actions on a tiny, tiny amount of people?

    I believe thats the anti choice desire since some women may want "abortion on demand" therefore no one should ever get an abortion.


  • #790
    pilly
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 9,005 ✭✭✭pilly


    seamus wrote: »
    Patronising? You must be reading something into my posts that I'm not putting in there. I'm not even in the slightest attempting to talk down to you.

    In fact I'm trying to talk to you as a rational person. I don't believe I've been in any way belittling of you.
    No, they'd have 5 children instead. The kind of person who's had five abortions is not the kind of person who makes good choices.

    You had sex, after which you required an abortion. Before you had sex, did the cost or logistics of the abortion factor into your decision to have sex?

    I know that's a personal question, but you've freely offered the information. I'm trying to relate to you on a personal level the argument that you're putting forward. You say that if abortions cost money, then people will factor that into their risk assessment before they have sex. Did you?

    What I'm saying is they would definitely factor it into whether or not they are more careful in their future decisions. I certainly have done. Not just because of the money side granted, it's not an easy process to go though quite apart from that. But I haven't had an unplanned pregnancy since so that kind of says it all doesn't it.

    Your kind of making the argument for me above by the saying the person who has 5 abortions would be the kind of person who doesn't make good choices in life. They may not make good choices but they'd certainly think long and hard about using contraception if they'd had to scrape up €500 to clean up their mess.

    And maybe you're not trying to be patronising but this "let me explain further" and "let me put it another way" is extremely patronising.


  • #791
    The_Valeyard
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,452 ✭✭✭✭The_Valeyard


    pjohnson wrote: »
    "Anti-Life" that sounds like a bloody dalek wanting to exterminate homo sapiens

    Think Daleks just want to exterminate anything that's not Dalek.


  • Advertisement
  • #792
    Sofiztikated
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,995 ✭✭✭Sofiztikated


    pjohnson wrote: »
    When someone radically changes their opinion in a matter of minutes the credibility does take a hit. Earlier she mentioned briefly it was a OTT reaction but now shes back preaching against choice. Didnt take much to change her mind. But still it might change a few more times before the referendum.

    People that are swayed are the ones that swing a vote.

    Infogiver, being the staunchly pro-life/anti-choice brigade will never be reasoned with.


  • #793
    pilly
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 9,005 ✭✭✭pilly


    kunst nugget wrote: »
    That's 434 women out of a female population of over 32 million. It is a miniscule amount of people. Do we withdraw vital services for everyone else based on the actions of a tiny, tiny amount of people?

    Since when has abortion been elevated to the "vital" category now? Unless it's a medical necessity it is not "vital".


  • #794
    pilly
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 9,005 ✭✭✭pilly


    Sofiztikated wrote: »
    People that are swayed are the ones that swing a vote.

    Infogiver, being the staunchly pro-life/anti-choice brigade will never be reasoned with.

    Absolutely, do people realise the amount of undecided people there are out there?

    This vote is going to be lost by the side that comes across with the most extreme views in either direction.

    It's too complex an issue for someone to say I'm pro-choice or pro-life and there's no grey areas in between whatsoever.


  • #795
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 40,914 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    pilly wrote: »
    Since when has abortion been elevated to the "vital" category now? Unless it's a medical necessity it is not "vital".


    for a woman with an unwanted pregnancy it could be vital.


  • #796
    kunst nugget
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,375 ✭✭✭✭kunst nugget


    pilly wrote: »
    What I'm saying is they would definitely factor it into whether or not they are more careful in their future decisions. I certainly have done. Not just because of the money side granted, it's not an easy process to go though quite apart from that. But I haven't had an unplanned pregnancy since so that kind of says it all doesn't it.

    Your kind of making the argument for me above by the saying the person who has 5 abortions would be the kind of person who doesn't make good choices in life. They may not make good choices but they'd certainly think long and hard about using contraception if they'd had to scrape up €500 to clean up their mess.

    You say that it isn't the money side that made you more careful but the process itself. If the type of person that has 5 abortions doesn't seem phased by the process itself, the only way paying for it is going to affect them is if they are poor - and so will every other poor person that is in need of the service.

    I was probably on the side of having to pay a nominal fee but I'm leaning towards the structures that are already in place for outpatient services.


  • #797
    daveharnett
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,567 ✭✭✭daveharnett


    pilly wrote: »
    Yes, absolutely. Because I believe it will cause a revolving door policy.
    Pilly, I think I get where you're coming from, and it bothers me a bit too - the economic term is "moral hazard", and it feels particularly apt here.

    The principle is that people/companies tend to act selfishly, so they will take more risks if the cost of those risks are borne by others. I subscribe to this principle.

    There are a couple of other thoughts which have swayed me in the other direction:

    - Regardless of who pays the financial cost, getting an abortion will be seriously costly to the mother - emotionally, social taboo, pain and discomfort, time, forms and waiting rooms. Even the baby-killingist straw-woman I can imagine would have to acknowledge that terminating a pregnancy is a massive hassle compared to preventing it in the first place.

    - Mistimed/unwanted pregnancy ishighly correlated with poverty. In the US, a pregnancy is five times more likely to be unintended if the mother is poor vs rich (https://www.guttmacher.org/fact-sheet/unintended-pregnancy-united-states). The people who need abortions most, can afford them least.

    - Poor people tend to have more children, and this is not desirable. Children born into poverty have statistically worse outcomes in almost every way we can measure. One of the leading causes of poverty is too many children at the wrong time. Increasing access for poor people to family planning of all sorts can help more people escape the vicious cycle of inter-generational poverty.


  • #798
    Sofiztikated
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,995 ✭✭✭Sofiztikated


    pilly wrote: »
    Since when has abortion been elevated to the "vital" category now? Unless it's a medical necessity it is not "vital".

    Should we withdraw cancer services, because some people with lung cancer continue to smoke?

    I don't have sources, and I know anecdotes are worth the paper this isn't printed on, but I know someone that was recently in Dublin for treatment, and had 2 cigarettes smoked before she got to the M50.


  • #799
    seamus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 68,190 ✭✭✭✭seamus


    pilly wrote: »
    But I haven't had an unplanned pregnancy since so that kind of says it all doesn't it.
    I don't think it does. In all honesty, if abortions were free, would you be less careful, even in the slightest?

    You don't have to the answer that. My point is that I wouldn't be less careful. My wife wouldn't be less careful. I've never heard anyone say that they use protection so that they don't have to pay for an abortion. They may say they use protection to avoid pregnancy, but I've never heard anyone remark that the cost/hassle of getting an abortion in any way influences their choice of protection.
    Your kind of making the argument for me above by the saying the person who has 5 abortions would be the kind of person who doesn't make good choices in life. They may not make good choices but they'd certainly think long and hard about using contraception if they'd had to scrape up €500 to clean up their mess.
    That doesn't follow though. The kind of person who makes poor choices isn't going to suddenly become decisive and intelligent because it'll cost them money if they make a mistake.

    Instead they'll just dig themselves further into the quagmire.
    And maybe you're not trying to be patronising but this "let me explain further" and "let me put it another way" is extremely patronising.
    Well I can't exactly control your perceptions. If reframing an argument to try and make some progress in the discussion is "patronising" to you, then there's not much I can do about that.


  • #800
    pilly
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 9,005 ✭✭✭pilly


    daveharnett wrote: »
    Pilly, I think I get where you're coming from, and it bothers me a bit too - the economic term is "moral hazard", and it feels particularly apt here.

    The principle is that people/companies tend to act selfishly, so they will take more risks if the cost of those risks are borne by others. I subscribe to this principle.

    There are a couple of other thoughts which have swayed me in the other direction:

    - Regardless of who pays the financial cost, getting an abortion will be seriously costly to the mother - emotionally, social taboo, pain and discomfort, time, forms and waiting rooms. Even the baby-killingist straw-woman I can imagine would have to acknowledge that terminating a pregnancy is a massive hassle compared to preventing it in the first place.

    - Mistimed/unwanted pregnancy ishighly correlated with poverty. In the US, a pregnancy is five times more likely to be unintended if the mother is poor vs rich (https://www.guttmacher.org/fact-sheet/unintended-pregnancy-united-states). The people who need abortions most, can afford them least.

    - Poor people tend to have more children, and this is not desirable. Children born into poverty have statistically worse outcomes in almost every way we can measure. One of the leading causes of poverty is too many children at the wrong time. Increasing access for poor people to family planning of all sorts can help more people escape the vicious cycle of inter-generational poverty.

    Very good post and I agree somewhat but I'm uncomfortable with abortion being seen as a form of contraceptive you see.

    I'm totally on board with all forms of contraception being freely available.

    I'm also uncomfortable with the poor people have more children and therefore it's more socially desirable to get rid of these children than to let them exist. Really uncomfortable with that.

    In fact someone earlier here suggested that it's cheaper to get rid of them than for them to exist as if their life in and of itself is just a cost.

    Moral hazard is the term I'm searching for I suppose.

    Just the thoughts of the state paying for someone to have multiple abortions makes me extremely worried.


  • #801
    volchitsa
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,641 ✭✭✭volchitsa


    Pilly I know someone who had several abortions, I'm not sure how many (this is in the UK, not Ireland).

    Here's why though : their first child was born with a congenital illness, terrible malformations, similar to Patau's syndrome, which you can look up on Internet. She lived for a couple of weeks, and her grandfather told me he was relieved for her when she died.

    So they decided to try again, knowing there was a risk that this would happen again, but they really wanted a child. They now have two healthy girls, but in the meantime she had something like nine pregnancies, not all of which ended in abortion, several were miscarried naturally, probably because of this same genetic illness that this couple have (though both are healthy themselves and I'm not aware of anyone else in either family having anything wrong with them.)

    But she's had four or more abortions, I never asked exactly. It's not my business really.

    I don't think we can say from a list of data why someone has multiple abortions, and sure, maybe some of them are stupid foolish women or girls - but I still don't see that making them more expensive would change that. Women with money will still be able to have as many abortions as they like, women with less money won't.

    (I don't actually have anything against people having to pay, I had one and paid, and I do actually take your general point about things - not necessarily abortion - being given out for free and therefore being seen as a right, but it wouldn't make me change my mind about the principle of allowing abortion. Personally I think having an abortion is a responsible decision, having a child because you couldn't or wouldn't get the money in time isn't any more responsible really.)

    ”I enjoy cigars, whisky and facing down totalitarians, so am I really Winston Churchill?” (JK Rowling)



  • Advertisement
  • #802
    pilly
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 9,005 ✭✭✭pilly


    Sofiztikated wrote: »
    Should we withdraw cancer services, because some people with lung cancer continue to smoke?

    I don't have sources, and I know anecdotes are worth the paper this isn't printed on, but I know someone that was recently in Dublin for treatment, and had 2 cigarettes smoked before she got to the M50.

    There's a difference though you see. This one is always thrown into the pot as a strawman.

    Withdrawing treatment from someone with cancer is as good as murder.

    Making someone pay for an abortion isn't. Unless as I've already stated the mothers life is in danger.

    I haven't suggested not allowing abortion, just not making it free.

    By the way cancer treatment is no longer free either. €75 per session.

    If we're throwing strawmans around would you treat someone with cancer before the person who wants an abortion?


  • #803
    noaddedsugar
    Closed Accounts Posts: 316 ✭✭noaddedsugar


    pilly wrote: »
    Very good post and I agree somewhat but I'm uncomfortable with abortion being seen as a form of contraceptive you see.

    I'm totally on board with all forms of contraception being freely available.

    I'm also uncomfortable with the poor people have more children and therefore it's more socially desirable to get rid of these children than to let them exist. Really uncomfortable with that.

    In fact someone earlier here suggested that it's cheaper to get rid of them than for them to exist as if their life in and of itself is just a cost.

    Moral hazard is the term I'm searching for I suppose.

    Just the thoughts of the state paying for someone to have multiple abortions makes me extremely worried.

    Can you explain why the thought of the state paying for someone to have multiple abortions makes you worried. It was me who totted up the cost to the state of abortions vs child because I thought it was the financial cost to the state you were worried about. Obviously that is not the case. You are fine with women paying for multiple abortions themselves so it isn't the 'baby killing' aspect that bothers you.

    If it's not financials, not a moral stance on abortion, what is it that bothers you about the state paying for multiple abortions?


  • #804
    AtomicHorror
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,888 ✭✭✭AtomicHorror


    Woodville56 wrote: »
    Thanks for pulling me up on my grammatical emphasis there regarding use of the word "now ". It's use was to emphasize that, to me, the proposition (that aborting a foetus was saving the would be child from a possible difficult or uncertain childhood) was new here. You're right , it's always been about stopping a pregnancy for whatever reason , but implying that it's for the unborn's benefit vis a vis it's future life chances is really pushing it. And yes , you're also right I rarely contribute to the abortion debate here, my stance on the issue is firmly opposed to the introduction of liberalized "on demand" abortion, so I'm not inclined to indulge the abuse and intolerance meted out here ( on both sides of the argument ) by getting involved further.
    So suitably chastised for my grammatical emphasis and for daring to enter a debate where I'm not a prolific opinionist, I'll just go and sit in the corner and say nothing.

    I was not talking about about your grammar or your "newness" to this thread, but questioning either your ignorance of the topic or the false expression of surprise at this facet of it.


  • #805
    pjohnson
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,014 ✭✭✭✭pjohnson


    Sofiztikated wrote: »
    People that are swayed are the ones that swing a vote.

    Infogiver, being the staunchly pro-life/anti-choice brigade will never be reasoned with.

    Pilly and infogiver are now united. There is a "yes" and a "no". I doubt the referendum will have a "maybe" option. Both have their own reasons to stop women having control over thier own bodies.


  • #806
    kunst nugget
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,375 ✭✭✭✭kunst nugget


    pilly wrote: »
    By the way cancer treatment is no longer free either. €75 per session.

    That should give them pause for thought when they think about being foolish enough to get cancer again…


  • #807
    Sofiztikated
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,995 ✭✭✭Sofiztikated


    pilly wrote: »
    There's a difference though you see. This one is always thrown into the pot as a strawman.

    Withdrawing treatment from someone with cancer is as good as murder.

    Making someone pay for an abortion isn't. Unless as I've already stated the mothers life is in danger.

    I haven't suggested not allowing abortion, just not making it free.

    By the way cancer treatment is no longer free either. €75 per session.

    If we're throwing strawmans around would you treat someone with cancer before the person who wants an abortion?

    But making someone pay for it should make them think rethink their smoking stance, should it not?

    FYI, personally I do think there should be a nominal fee for it, but can see the argument for "free."

    EDIT: Damn, Kunst, you beat me to it. :P


  • #808
    daveharnett
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,567 ✭✭✭daveharnett


    pilly wrote: »
    I'm also uncomfortable with the poor people have more children and therefore it's more socially desirable to get rid of these children than to let them exist. Really uncomfortable with that.
    I know. It stinks of social darwinism, and it makes me itch to think about it.

    I look at it from the perspective of the potential child - she's got a much better shot at a happy and fulfilling life if she's born at the right time in her parents lives, with the right number of siblings.


  • #809
    Zubeneschamali
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,686 ✭✭✭✭Zubeneschamali


    pilly wrote: »
    What I meant was no-one who chooses it as an elective procedure.
    Wrong, there were 3 such abortions in 2014, and 3 more in 2015.


  • #810
    pjohnson
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,014 ✭✭✭✭pjohnson


    kunst nugget wrote: »
    That should give them pause for thought when they think about being foolish enough to get cancer again…

    That "logic" also follows the belief that cancer is a consequence of smoking and can never ever occur otherwise.


  • Advertisement
  • #811
    daveharnett
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,567 ✭✭✭daveharnett


    noaddedsugar wrote: »
    If it's not financials, not a moral stance on abortion, what is it that bothers you about the state paying for multiple abortions?
    I'll defend pilly on this.

    It's one thing for the state to say that something is outside of it's competence to pass judgement.

    It's another thing for the state to subsidize/fund it.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement