The 8th amendment(Mod warning in op)

Consonata · 09-05-2017 05:08PM

AnGaelach wrote: »

Because not only is abortion in most cases reprehensible to me, having to pay for it through taxes is a slap in the face to my beliefs (and a great many other people in the country).

Maternity care is free because it provides a long-term benefit to the State - those children are going to become adults and workers, they're going to contribute to the State over the long-term. I have no problem providing assistance to single mothers or young families.

An abortion isn't maternity care... The entire point of the argument is that the person getting the operation doesn't want to be a mother.

So you would settle with it being confined to clinics I take it.

AnGaelach · 09-05-2017 05:10PM

Consonata wrote: »

So you would settle with it being confined to clinics I take it.

I wouldn't like it, but I dislike being made to pay for something I disagree with even more.

Consonata · 09-05-2017 05:12PM

AnGaelach wrote: »

I wouldn't like it, but I dislike being made to pay for something I disagree with even more.

Everyone pays for something they disagree with in fairness. Thats generally the point of government, to pool resources and utilise them in ways for the greater good even though sections of society wouldn't agree with the way they are used.

ohnonotgmail · 09-05-2017 05:12PM

AnGaelach wrote: »

Because not only is abortion in most cases reprehensible to me, having to pay for it through taxes is a slap in the face to my beliefs (and a great many other people in the country).

Maternity care is free because it provides a long-term benefit to the State - those children are going to become adults and workers, they're going to contribute to the State over the long-term. I have no problem providing assistance to single mothers or young families.

An abortion isn't maternity care... The entire point of the argument is that the person getting the operation doesn't want to be a mother.

We all pay for things that we dont agree with. What makes this so special?

eviltwin · 09-05-2017 05:14PM

AnGaelach wrote: »

Because not only is abortion in most cases reprehensible to me, having to pay for it through taxes is a slap in the face to my beliefs (and a great many other people in the country).

Maternity care is free because it provides a long-term benefit to the State - those children are going to become adults and workers, they're going to contribute to the State over the long-term. I have no problem providing assistance to single mothers or young families.

An abortion isn't maternity care... The entire point of the argument is that the person getting the operation doesn't want to be a mother.

You could say that about anything, free contraception, free methadone, support for those with HIV etc. Luckily we don't bring morality into healthcare, only ethics and abortion is considered a normal ethical procedure. And abortion is part of the maternity system, it's a procedure that is carried out in maternity hospitals across the world. It doesn't make sense a woman who needs an abortion during her pregnancy should have to pay for it when the rest of her maternity care is free.

gctest50 · 09-05-2017 05:15PM

AnGaelach wrote: »

I wouldn't like it, but I dislike being made to pay for something I disagree with even more.

Do you agree with this :

http://independent.ie/irish-news/statesponsored-heroin-addicts-costing-us-20m-26675936.html

In north Dublin, including the city centre, it costs €7,034 per patient each year to provide methadone and clinical support.

.

"The latest national data [end of May 2014] show that 3,325 people were on methadone for 10 years or more, a third of the total," it states.

AnGaelach · 09-05-2017 05:15PM

Consonata wrote: »

Everyone pays for something they disagree with in fairness. Thats generally the point of government, to pool resources and utilise them in ways for the greater good even though sections of society wouldn't agree with the way they are used.

You might disagree with Government expenditure in some areas - but it's the reaction and the argument that is different to opposing something like foreign aid or welfare.

The entire premise of the more vociferous pro-choice side has been "it's my body so it's my choice and it's nothing to do with you", as if to discredit someone's opinion on the matter. All the while they largely expect to have their choice paid for by the people whose opinion "doesn't matter".

I'm not saying that you've argued that way, but a lot of the pro-choice side certainly do/did.

Zubeneschamali · 09-05-2017 05:17PM

AnGaelach wrote: »

I have no problem providing assistance to single mothers or young families.

Nor do I, but a very large constituency seem to very much resent paying young wans benefits for doing nothing but get pregnant.

They still have to pay, though.

AnGaelach · 09-05-2017 05:18PM

gctest50 wrote: »

.

That's all good and well, but what does that have to do with anything? I don't support the use of methadone clinics - methadone is just as addictive as heroin.

Consonata · 09-05-2017 05:18PM

AnGaelach wrote: »

You might disagree with Government expenditure in some areas - but it's the reaction and the argument that is different to opposing something like foreign aid or welfare.

The entire premise of the more vociferous pro-choice side has been "it's my body so it's my choice and it's nothing to do with you", as if to discredit someone's opinion on the matter. All the while they largely expect to have their choice paid for by the people whose opinion "doesn't matter".

I'm not saying that you've argued that way, but a lot of the pro-choice side certainly do/did.

Bodily autonomy and right to healthcare aren't mutually exclusive.

We don't force people to pay for a heart transplant because "it's their body, so they pay for it" that's ridiculous. There is a standard of health to be expected if you believe in a socialised healthcare system. If you don't then there really isn't much point to this argument.

AnGaelach · 09-05-2017 05:19PM

Consonata wrote: »

Bodily autonomy and right to healthcare aren't mutually exclusive.

We don't force people to pay for a heart transplant because "it's their body, so they pay for it" that's ridiculous. There is a standard of health to be expected if you believe in a socialised healthcare system. If you don't then there really isn't much point to this argument.

Having a heart transplant and having an abortion are not the same thing, not in the eyes of a huge portion of the electorate.

One of them involves a simple medical procedure. The other involves the killing of what will be a human.

You might not consider it an important distinction to make, but I certainly do.

OldNotWIse · 09-05-2017 05:20PM

eviltwin wrote: »

You could say that about anything, free contraception, free methadone, support for those with HIV etc. Luckily we don't bring morality into healthcare, only ethics and abortion is considered a normal ethical procedure. And abortion is part of the maternity system, it's a procedure that is carried out in maternity hospitals across the world. It doesn't make sense a woman who needs an abortion during her pregnancy should have to pay for it when the rest of her maternity care is free.

Does it not seem even a little odd to have unborn babies having their lives deliberately ended in the same place as other babies are being born? We could in theory end up in the bizarre situation where a premie born at 23 weeks is placed in intensive care and has a team of medical professionals working around the clock to save it's life while in another part of the same building an unborn baby at 23 weeks gestation has it's life deliberately terminated - and the only factor differentiating the two babies is that one has passed through the birth canal and is wanted. The other has not passed through the birth canal and is not wanted. I don't care what side of the fence someone might be on when it comes to abortion - to me that is a strange set up!

Consonata · 09-05-2017 05:20PM

AnGaelach wrote: »

Having a heart transplant and having an abortion are not the same thing, not in the eyes of a huge portion of the electorate.

Source.

....... · 09-05-2017 05:22PM

This post has been deleted.

Consonata · 09-05-2017 05:23PM

OldNotWIse wrote: »

Does it not seem even a little odd to have unborn babies having their lives deliberately ended in the same place as other babies are being born? We could in theory end up in the bizarre situation where a premie born at 23 weeks is placed in intensive care and has a team of medical professionals working around the clock to save it's life while in another part of the same building an unborn baby at 23 weeks gestation has it's life deliberately terminated - and the only factor differentiating the two babies is that one has passed through the birth canal and is wanted. The other has not passed through the birth canal and is not wanted. I don't care what side of the fence someone might be on when it comes to abortion - to me that is a strange set up!

Nobody said abortion is not complicated? Also a baby born at 23 weeks has a very very very low rate of survival. iirc it is something close to 20% and thats not accounting for the life long health and mental disabilities that child will have as a result of such a premature birth.

Zubeneschamali · 09-05-2017 05:24PM

AnGaelach wrote: »

Having a heart transplant and having an abortion are not the same thing, not in the eyes of a huge portion of the electorate.

One of them involves a simple medical procedure.

The other involves a colossally expensive and complicated medical procedure.

Consonata · 09-05-2017 05:25PM

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

The other involves a colossally expensive and complicated medical procedure.

Oh I like this line. I chuckled.

....... · 09-05-2017 05:25PM

This post has been deleted.

ohnonotgmail · 09-05-2017 05:25PM

OldNotWIse wrote: »

Does it not seem even a little odd to have unborn babies having their lives deliberately ended in the same place as other babies are being born? We could in theory end up in the bizarre situation where a premie born at 23 weeks is placed in intensive care and has a team of medical professionals working around the clock to save it's life while in another part of the same building an unborn baby at 23 weeks gestation has it's life deliberately terminated - and the only factor differentiating the two babies is that one has passed through the birth canal and is wanted. The other has not passed through the birth canal and is not wanted. I don't care what side of the fence someone might be on when it comes to abortion - to me that is a strange set up!

the "pro-life" lot are obsessed with bringing up this example. terminations at 23 weeks are extremely rare, even in the UK, and are usually done for medical reasons.

AnGaelach · 09-05-2017 05:25PM

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

The other involves a colossally expensive and complicated medical procedure.

Which saves a person's life.

As opposed to the procedure which ends one.

OldNotWIse · 09-05-2017 05:27PM

Consonata wrote: »

Nobody said abortion is not complicated? Also a baby born at 23 weeks has a very very very low rate of survival. iirc it is something close to 20% and thats not accounting for the life long health and mental disabilities that child will have as a result of such a premature birth.

I don't understand the context of your first sentence.

There are more and more babies surviving at younger ages with the advancement of medical technology. What does the fact that they might suffer disabilities have to do with my point? Should they not be cared for, even if that is their parents wish?

Consonata · 09-05-2017 05:28PM

OldNotWIse wrote: »

I don't understand the context of your first sentence.

There are more and more babies surviving at younger ages with the advancement of medical technology. What does the fact that they might suffer disabilities have to do with my point? Should they not be cared for, even if that is their parents wish?

Because might implies that the probability is low. We're talking 1 in 5 will live at all, and those who live will likely have major on going issues that they will have to deal with.

eviltwin · 09-05-2017 05:30PM

OldNotWIse wrote: »

Does it not seem even a little odd to have unborn babies having their lives deliberately ended in the same place as other babies are being born? We could in theory end up in the bizarre situation where a premie born at 23 weeks is placed in intensive care and has a team of medical professionals working around the clock to save it's life while in another part of the same building an unborn baby at 23 weeks gestation has it's life deliberately terminated - and the only factor differentiating the two babies is that one has passed through the birth canal and is wanted. The other has not passed through the birth canal and is not wanted. I don't care what side of the fence someone might be on when it comes to abortion - to me that is a strange set up!

I don't think oddness comes into it. Its doing the procedure where it's clinically best to do so. Is it odd to have fertility clinics in maternity hospitals too? Maybe we could have a designated wing for all the nasty women having abortions so they don't have to upset anyone just like we used to do with the unmarried mothers.

Zubeneschamali · 09-05-2017 05:30PM

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I think the idea is that we should have a separate building for killing babies, preferably one that is out of sight, maybe in England or Spain.

Then we can all pretend it doesn't happen at all, at all.

This is the bizarre situation we are actually in, no hypotheticals needed.

OldNotWIse · 09-05-2017 05:31PM

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

the "pro-life" lot are obsessed with bringing up this example. terminations at 23 weeks are extremely rare, even in the UK, and are usually done for medical reasons.

But the "pro-choice" lot are obsessed with bringing up hard cases such as rape and FFA at every opportunity as if these form the majority of reasons for the millions of terminations each year.

Consonata · 09-05-2017 05:32PM

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

I think the idea is that we should have a separate building for killing babies, preferably one that is out of sight, maybe in England or Spain.

Then we can all pretend it doesn't happen at all, at all.

This is the bizarre situation we are actually in, no hypotheticals needed.

Like we should have for single mothers + babies born out of wedlock

I wonder what that reminds me of :rolleyes:

ohnonotgmail · 09-05-2017 05:32PM

OldNotWIse wrote: »

But the "pro-choice" lot are obsessed with bringing up hard cases such as rape and FFA at every opportunity as if these form the majority of reasons for the millions of terminations each year.

are they? the main mantra from the pro-choice lobby is about choice.

OldNotWIse · 09-05-2017 05:33PM

eviltwin wrote: »

I don't think oddness comes into it. Its doing the procedure where it's clinically best to do so. Is it odd to have fertility clinics in maternity hospitals too? Maybe we could have a designated wing for all the nasty women having abortions so they don't have to upset anyone just like we used to do with the unmarried mothers.

Nobody mentioned segregation because the women are nasty. What a childish comeback. I just think it's odd that one wing might be dedicated to bringing babies into the world and the other would be dedicated to ending their lives. For me, oddness does come into it.

Consonata · 09-05-2017 05:34PM

OldNotWIse wrote: »

millions of terminations each year.

hmm.

Outlaw Pete · 09-05-2017 05:34PM

eviltwin wrote: »

Why shouldn't it be free? All other maternity care is free, health care in general isn't costed on the basis of bad choices which is what you are getting at. Why should the tax payer cover the cost when the silly girl got herself knocked up. We have a non judgemental health system for a reason.

Unless an abortion is medically necessary, then killing babies while they are developing in the womb has nothing to do with "health" and so maybe best not to refer to it as health care... if accuracy is at all important to you.

And as for the "silly girls" comment, haven't seen anyone suggesting someone would be a silly girl for "getting herself knocked up" (as you so quaintly put it). On the contrary, many have pointed out that there is another party involved here who should have a say seeing that they have played a part in getting the woman pregnant. You know, that person many are saying is not even entitled to an opinion and should "know his place".

Until that is the baby is no longer in a woman's womb and then the same people will have the term "dead beat dads" rolling of their tongues no doubt.

The 8th amendment(Mod warning in op)

Comments