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.
Do you think that anyone would have more than 5 abortions if they weren't free?
pjohnson wrote: » Meh. Usernames often dont give much of an indication. Will these be your posts advocating choice or denying choice?
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.
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.
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?
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?
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?
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?
pjohnson wrote: » "Anti-Life" that sounds like a bloody dalek wanting to exterminate homo sapiens
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.
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?
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 wrote: » Since when has abortion been elevated to the "vital" category now? Unless it's a medical necessity it is not "vital".
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.
pilly wrote: » Yes, absolutely. Because I believe it will cause a revolving door policy.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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: » By the way cancer treatment is no longer free either. €75 per session.
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: » 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: » What I meant was no-one who chooses it as an elective procedure.
kunst nugget wrote: » That should give them pause for thought when they think about being foolish enough to get cancer again…
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?
