pilly wrote: » No I'm not actually fine with women paying for several abortions themselves, it's reckless in the extreme but it's their business if they're paying. They're not asking the state to pay for it. I suppose what I'm trying to say is I don't believe that free abortions wouldn't lead to more abortions and that's what I have a problem with. I can't disassociate the 2 from each other. I'm very uncomfortable with your adding up the financial cost of a child to the state as if they add nothing back to society. It's not a fair comparison. If it was simply a matter of figures sure lets kill all the babies.
pilly wrote: » Cancer comes about for many more reasons than smoking so your attempt at humour epically fails. My point was that people are currently paying for cancer treatment and yet we expect abortion to be free? It's bollox.
pilly wrote: My point was that people are currently paying for cancer treatment and yet we expect abortion to be free? It's bollox.
noaddedsugar wrote: » 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?
Zubeneschamali wrote: » Feck all to do with the 8th amendment, though, this would be an issue for legislation and ministerial directives to the HSE.
Sofiztikated wrote: » 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
Zubeneschamali wrote: » Wrong, there were 3 such abortions in 2014, and 3 more in 2015.
NuMarvel wrote: » People who are in favour of repeal (or the next best thing) really need to focus on the end goal here. And that's repeal (or the next best thing).
daveharnett wrote: » It's one thing for the state to say that something is outside of it's competence to criminalize. It's another thing for the state to subsidize/fund it.
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?
kunst nugget wrote: » That should give them pause for thought when they think about being foolish enough to get cancer again…
pilly wrote: » What I meant was no-one who chooses it as an elective procedure.
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.
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?
pilly wrote: » By the way cancer treatment is no longer free either. €75 per session.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
pilly wrote: » 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.
pilly wrote: » Since when has abortion been elevated to the "vital" category now? Unless it's a medical necessity it is not "vital".
pilly wrote: » Yes, absolutely. Because I believe it will cause a revolving door policy.
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.
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?
