Would Ireland follow Europe's Lead in Aborting the Huge Majority of Down Syndrome Pos

MrPudding wrote: »

I quite agree, it is unlikely that anything will change if direct rule is imposed, but at the same time, May is so vulnerable and weak, one never knows.

And let's not forget, the deal with the DUP is not actually a done deal. The extra money has not happened yet, and the Tories admitted it would take an act of Parliament to approve it. Nothing that May needs to do is easy, simple or without the risk of defeat. Free abortions for women from NI came out od the blue, if you remember. She had to give in to that, very quickly indeed, to avoid a defeat in parliament. There are enough Tory MPs rightlfully disgusted that women's rights are being impinged in NI, not to mention that its government is ignoring the rule of law. Like I said, unlikely, but I would not be so quick to dismiss it as a possibility.

she didn't ultimately give into it. she agreed to it because it was a way of not actually pushing the issue of abortion in northern ireland, yet still keeping the support of the DUP. win win for her and for all.
she could have on the other hand said no, and the conservative party could have done little about it. a defeat in parliament over the DUP deal would see the tories out of government. replacing her would make no difference, as whoever would be leader would have to keep the DUP on side. if conservative mps rebelled the DUP could have threatened to call off the deal and those rebels would be back in their box. the tories will only push the issue of abortions in northern ireland if they have a wish to be out of government. if they want to stay in government, they will not push the issue.

mahamageehad wrote: »

Sorry, I think I misunderstood your point there. Yes socioeconomic circumstances is a major factor, as is timing. Nobody wants to have an abortion, but these women choose to, not because they've no other choice in most circumstances, but because they feel it's the best choice for them. No-one skips merrily to the abortion clinic, but they want that more than they want to be pregnant. That will continue to happen regardless of whether the 8th is repealed or not, it'll just be happening illegally as it is now or these women will also be forced to undertake the burden of travel. I don't agree that forced upon them is an appropriate term to use tbh, forced upon signifies something entirely different to me and negates the possibility of choice.

Well no, I didn't imagine you would agree with the idea that a woman could feel she was forced into having an abortion against her will by circumstances over which she has no control, because that would mean you'd have to see the issues from someone else's perspective other than your own. And that's exactly why I used the word forced btw, and I apologise if I wasn't clear in why I used the word, I didn't intend for it to imply something entirely different. It does exactly as you said - negates the possibility of a woman having what she feels is the freedom to choose what is in her best interests, or the best choice for her, because she doesn't have that freedom of choice that you do, due to her circumstances.

I'm absolutely not following your logic here. If I'm pregnant tomorrow and I don't want to be (because I'm studying, or because I'm in debt, or because my housing situation isn't ideal, or because I can't afford it, or because my current 4 kids are my priority or whatever), it is by definition an unwanted pregnancy. The circumstances that make it an unwanted pregnancy are pretty irrelevant, the fact is that it's unwanted and people will take steps to end unwanted pregnancy.

Well like I said earlier, if that's your starting point, then sure, anything which comes after that is going to be completely illogical, because you're starting from the assumption that your criteria are sufficient to define a pregnancy as unwanted for any other woman. The circumstances are entirely relevant because more often than not, the conflict arises when a woman is unexpectedly pregnant, wants to remain pregnant, wants to have the child, doesn't want to have an abortion, but, has to balance all that with at least some of the criteria you mention above. Chance of third level education would be a fine thing if her husband would let her. The chance of being able to have a child would also be a fine thing if she knew having the child wouldn't mean she was ostracised in school and kicked out of the family home.

Circumstances irrelevant? Jesus, honestly.

I would thoroughly disagree. Outside of the pill or condoms, affordable access to long-term contraception is an issue in Ireland. I've posted before about my difficulty in getting an IUD in tLL, and a number of others had similar stories. Unless you go to a doc specifically looking for something that isn't the pill, that's the default suggestion here. Yes, some people choose to not use artificial contraception, that's not really the point though is it?

I thought you might. What happened there was that captainbarnacles I think it was, was talking about emergency contraception, while I was also addressing your point about long-term contraception and the idea that there is an urban/rural divide in availability. It's far more nuanced than that, and yes, while for every young girl or woman I've talked to who has had difficulty in accessing contraception, there are at least ten times as many who have no difficulty in accessing contraception, and then there are as many again who simply have no interest in contraception of any description, not even the suggestion that they practice using condoms to prevent the spread of STIs.

Yes, some people refuse to use contraception and that's exactly the point, for soooo many other reasons other than just reducing the risk of an unexpected pregnancy.

I do agree that the attitude towards sexual health needs to be adjusted. In my opinion, normalising these conversations from a young age is a way of doing that. Many of these attitudes are learned from parents. No, allowing abortion in Ireland won't change this, but it's one step away from the shrouded way we've treated pregnant women in the past. Allowing it will remove the stigma to some degree for women who would be doing it anyway, they'd just be ordering pills or travelling. What "ground work" do you think is being done?

Popular misconception that one, to blame the parents and have them wonder where they went wrong, but in reality it's actually their peers, and the influence of the culture and the messages that they are exposed to, the parents have very little influence over their children's attitudes and behaviours to sex and sexuality. I agree with you that normalising these conversations from a young age is certainly one way to put in the ground work, but also providing education that actually isn't completely centred around sex and sexuality is also another way of addressing a whole multitude of issues, and better access to better education gives children better opportunities which gives them more choices, real choices, that they are free to make of their own free will without coercion, rather than just the hobsons choice they face should they find themselves unexpectedly pregnant.

Yes, we do need to start looking at the real lives of people, some of whom have shared their experiences in this thread and others like it.

What, you mean this little echo chamber of a regular handful of about 20 posters in the same threads out of a number of nearly half a million registered members?

Ok then.

....... wrote: »

But unless you can prove, with numbers or indeed facts, stats or studies, the logic that reducing unwanted pregnancies does not reduce the number of abortions - Im not interested.

Cool, thanks for the update, saves me wasting my time defending something I never argued in the first place.

A Little Pony wrote: »

I don't take my head out of the sandfollow fake news surveys. 

FYP.

MrP

Hammer Archer wrote: »

The mask slips....
That'll teach the girl/woman for opening her legs. Or getting raped.

Yes, when you scratch away the thin veneer of fake concern, this is generally what it comes down to.

MrP

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Well no, I didn't imagine you would agree with the idea that a woman could feel she was forced into having an abortion against her will by circumstances over which she has no control, because that would mean you'd have to see the issues from someone else's perspective other than your own. And that's exactly why I used the word forced btw, and I apologise if I wasn't clear in why I used the word, I didn't intend for it to imply something entirely different. It does exactly as you said - negates the possibility of a woman having what she feels is the freedom to choose what is in her best interests, or the best choice for her, because she doesn't have that freedom of choice that you do, due to her circumstances.

I think that's a very unfair comment to be honest. My stance has always been that the choice needs to be down to the individual, and that we need to allow for that within certain limitations. That way each woman can choose what's best for her based on her circumstances. You seem to be arguing that her freedom of choice should be limited to your views, I don't think I'm the one with a perspective problem here.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Well like I said earlier, if that's your starting point, then sure, anything which comes after that is going to be completely illogical, because you're starting from the assumption that your criteria are sufficient to define a pregnancy as unwanted for any other woman. The circumstances are entirely relevant because more often than not, the conflict arises when a woman is unexpectedly pregnant, wants to remain pregnant, wants to have the child, doesn't want to have an abortion, but, has to balance all that with at least some of the criteria you mention above. Chance of third level education would be a fine thing if her husband would let her. The chance of being able to have a child would also be a fine thing if she knew having the child wouldn't mean she was ostracised in school and kicked out of the family home.

Circumstances irrelevant? Jesus, honestly.

Again, no I'm not. I specifically stated that the woman involved should be able to decide if her pregnancy is unwanted or not, and what to do about that. The fact that you feel you can dictate to another person if their pregnancy is wanted or not is bizarre tbh. The only person that can say if a pregnancy is unwanted is the woman, or the couple, involved.

Yes, her choice will be informed by her circumstances, and if her choice is to not continue with the pregnancy then her circumstances may also stop her from travelling yet you don't seem to have a problem with that. So, yes, I stand by that - if a woman decides that a pregnancy is unwanted then it's unwanted and we shouldn't be asking her for her reasons so we can decide if they fit some standardised definition of acceptable, or your criteria of "unwanted".

As for the line about husbands, I have no idea where you're going with that.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I thought you might. What happened there was that captainbarnacles I think it was, was talking about emergency contraception, while I was also addressing your point about long-term contraception and the idea that there is an urban/rural divide in availability. It's far more nuanced than that, and yes, while for every young girl or woman I've talked to who has had difficulty in accessing contraception, there are at least ten times as many who have no difficulty in accessing contraception, and then there are as many again who simply have no interest in contraception of any description, not even the suggestion that they practice using condoms to prevent the spread of STIs.

Yes, some people refuse to use contraception and that's exactly the point, for soooo many other reasons other than just reducing the risk of an unexpected pregnancy.

Obviously it's more nuanced that that, but are you actually arguing that rural folk have the same access as city folk? The only people I've come across that don't use any contraception are either not worried about pregnancy, or have a specific issue with hormonal contraception. The former don't need to worry about unwanted pregnancies presumably, while the latter represents a very small % of the population. Of course, then we have the Catholics, but I guess they fit in group 1. In any case, the fact that some people choose not to use contraception is hardly relevant to the range and accessibility of contraception available to people that want to use it, so I'm not sure what exactly you're arguing here.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Popular misconception that one, to blame the parents and have them wonder where they went wrong, but in reality it's actually their peers, and the influence of the culture and the messages that they are exposed to, the parents have very little influence over their children's attitudes and behaviours to sex and sexuality. I agree with you that normalising these conversations from a young age is certainly one way to put in the ground work, but also providing education that actually isn't completely centred around sex and sexuality is also another way of addressing a whole multitude of issues, and better access to better education gives children better opportunities which gives them more choices, real choices, that they are free to make of their own free will without coercion, rather than just the hobsons choice they face should they find themselves unexpectedly pregnant.

Are you arguing that our education now is currently centred around sex and sexuality????

We agree that education is important, but again I disagree that every woman in a crisis pregnancy situation is forced to have an abortion because of her circumstances. Some would prefer to have an abortion than continue with the pregnancy but they can't due to their circumstances. For many others, continuing the pregnancy wouldn't exactly ruin their lives (again most who have abortions are married/cohabiting) but they choose to because it's the best decision for them.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

What, you mean this little echo chamber of a regular handful of about 20 posters in the same threads out of a number of nearly half a million registered members?

Ok then.

No, not here alone although I don't think the stories shared here can be discounted just because you feel it's an echo chamber. I'm involved in other online communities also, plus I've had this conversation a lot with lots of different people. I'm interested in hearing stories from all sides, not just ones that agree with my opinion which seems to be what you're interested in.

In any case, I'm out now unless this thread comes back on topic. There's plenty of other general abortion debates running on boards, I thought this was going to come at it from another angle but it seems to have descended into the usual.

MrPudding wrote: »

No, she gave in. She was threatened with a backbench rebellion and announced the policy prior to a vote that she would likely have lost due to the number of her own backbenchers that had indicated they would support the labour amendment.

she didn't give in as even losing that vote wouldn't change the fact that the DUP are keeping the conservative party in government. she knows that remaining in government is the more important thing, so will need to do whatever to keep them on side more then some back benchers. she could have said no, but even if the back benchers revolted they would be the ones who would lose out, because if pushed, the DUP will call off the deal.

MrPudding wrote: »

There is logic in what you say. But logic seems to be somewhat lacking in UK politics at the moment. In addition to that, there are whisperings that some Tories think they need some time in opposition to re-group. Aside from that, May need to be very careful. She is weak, and everyone knows she is weak. Allowing a bunch of bigots, geographically from Northern Ireland and chronologically from the 17th century, be seen to push her around does not help her.

i wouldn't disagree. however the reality is that much of the conservative party, and most of it's support, want to be in government. if that means bigots from the second century upholding them, that doesn't matter to them. that's how deluded they are.

MrPudding wrote: »

There are plenty of MPs that would see direct rule as an opportunity to bring NI in line with the rest of the UK. Don't get too comfortable.

it won't be that easy though. that's the thing. the DUP will still be part of that direct rule. if they pull the deal, the conservatives are gone. i honestly believe this will rely on how far the DUP will go. that's even if there was to be an election and labour got in . they won't take abortion being brought in to northern ireland lying down.
anyway, as much as this is an interesting discussion, we should probably move it to a separate thread?

end of the road wrote: »

it won't be that easy though. that's the thing. the DUP will still be part of that direct rule. if they pull the deal, the conservatives are gone.

Not quite. They would still be governing as a weak minority government but would be vulnerable to an attack on certain bills.

end of the road wrote: »

that's not what he said or meant. twisting what people say is not going to advance your argument.

again this is more hysterical twisting. his point may have been in some way harsh but i don't believe he believes people should be shipped off to wherever for daring to have sex. he disagrees with abortion, it doesn't make him some horrible monster. and this is from someone who opposes most of his views on other issues.

No, sorry, you can't possibly defend that post. It's indefensible. I'm not even going to argue why with you, if you had any bit of compassion at all you would be able to see that what was said was disgusting.

A Little Pony wrote: »

Personal responsibility is what it used to be called. If you can't afford to have children, have protected sex. If you don't want an unwanted pregnancy then have protected sex, only in very rare cases would you get pregnant. Condoms provide high 90s protection rate, it's not the condoms fault that you either buy dodgy ones or the people using them are idiots and don't know what they are doing.

You and I both know it isn't that simple. If it was that simple there would be no unplanned pregnancies worldwide.
You know who suffers most in these scenarios where women and families are forced into having children they don't want? The child. It is the child that suffers again and again, no one loses out more than the kid who had no say in the circumstances they were born into.

I can kind of understand your warped view that you feel its social justice to ruin the life of the woman who wasn't careful and ended pregnant in unsuitable circumstances. But you need to think of the child you are forcing into that situation by making abortion unavailable and very difficult to attain abroad.

I can only hope that those with viewpoints like yourselves are reducing by the minute. All going well, we'll soon have abortion legalised in this country and you can continue living your life as normal, seeing as what other women do with their wombs has absolutely no impact on your life at all.
Nothing will change for you but Ireland will be a much better place.

end of the road wrote: »

she didn't give in as even losing that vote wouldn't change the fact that the DUP are keeping the conservative party in government. she knows that remaining in government is the more important thing, so will need to do whatever to keep them on side more then some back benchers. she could have said no, but even if the back benchers revolted they would be the ones who would lose out, because if pushed, the DUP will call off the deal.

Now you are just taking the piss. She gave in because otherwise there would have been a vote on an amendment she would have lost. Seriously, I even linked to an article. If you don't care for the Guardian, have a quick google. Every political commentator categorises this as May giving in and offering something she had no previous intention of offering in order to avoid an embarrassing defeat at the hands of Labour and a dozen of her own backbenchers.

MrP

A Little Pony wrote: »

Must I pay for it? Again take responsibility for your own actions. If people who want abortions could find a way so I don't have to pay for it that would be appreciated, that is even if it becomes legal in the first place. I don't want to pay for such a thing, thank you.

Why can people not answer the question they were asked?

Isn't having an abortion taking responsibility for your own actions? You get pregnant, your circumstances can't account for a new life. So isn't taking action being responsible?