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

January wrote: »

You said yourself contraception fails, even with perfect use it fails, perfect use failure rates of condoms are 1 in 100. So that doesn't even account for the ones who are 'idiots and don't know what they're doing'. And that's just taking into account condoms, no contraception is 100% effective, even with perfect use. That's still a lot of surprise (I'm not going to say unwanted because not all of them are unwanted) pregnancies going on.

You talk about taking responsibility. If you use contraception because you don't want to be pregnant yet you become pregnant anyway, what are your options? Why should the most vulnerable people in society, the people who cannot travel because they haven't got the proper documentation or those who cannot afford to travel be forced to remain pregnant when they don't want to be?

Why should anybody be forced to travel to another country, out of pocket of thousands of euros sometimes, depending on the gestation of the pregnancy, to access basic medical care?

abortion on demand is not basic medical care. it's a luxury. some luxury care isn't availible in ireland and one has to travel to receive it.

WhiteRoses wrote: »

I love that you're saying I'm hysterical and twisting things when you thanked a post where Pony said legalising abortion means it will be treated with the same seriousness as buying a pint of milk and there will be drive thru procedures done on women.

As I have previously addressed with you, you are harping on about the unborn with no consideration for what happens when they arrive. They don't stay unborn forever. However I now realise I am talking to a brick wall because you don't want to hear.

i have plenty of consideration for what happens after the child arrives. however, things have to be taken on a case by case basis and what might happen in some cases are not good reason to allow the taking of the life of the unborn and removing the protections such life enjoys in ireland.
the only reason i believe such may have to happen, is where there is a genuine threat of death of the mother. that is effectively allowed now in ireland.
what posts i've thanked aren't relevant. it's just whataboutery.

January wrote: »

It's available on the NHS to people in England, why shouldn't it be available through the HSE here? It's a medical procedure, it costs a hell of a lot less than it costs to pay out years of child benefit or social welfare benefit until the child is 18 years old.

it's a luxury procedure. the fact luxury procedures are availible on the NHS are what is causing many of it's issues. it should not be availible on the HSE because it's not essential medical care in the vast majority of cases. i don't believe as a tax payer i should have to pay for luxury procedures. it would mean taking money from areas that need it.

mahamageehad wrote: »

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.

I know you've dropped out of the conversation now, but I felt your post was at least worth replying to, so just to address the bit in bold there, you certainly do have a perspective problem if you're ignoring what I wrote only a couple of hours ago in this very thread, and trying to claim that it should be a woman's choice, but with certain limitations, and then going on to say that I'm arguing that her choice should be limited to my views, when this is verbatim what I actually wrote in black and white -

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I don't mean to be confrontational or anything else, but why is what most other people think relevant to the pro-choice position of the pregnant woman making choices for herself as an individual, suited to herself, regardless of the opinions of anyone else? Also, specifically in a thread relating to DS, clearly the line isn't just sentience and viability if most of those people who are pro-choice are suggesting that a woman should have the choice to have an abortion under those circumstances. I'm hearing that most abortions take place in the first trimester, that that's what most pro-choice people advocate for, but then they'll make allowances for a condition that is not a FFA, so the line for them really appears to be what they'd be comfortable with, for themselves. How what they would be comfortable with for themselves relates to anyone else, is the part that always frustrates me, because how is that anything other than pro-their-choice, if that makes sense?

...

It's really not any more hypocritical than the other position you present at all. Me personally I couldn't care less about whether or not I'm seen as a hypocrite for supporting a woman's right to choose at any stage of her pregnancy even though I consider myself Roman Catholic. The apparent hypocrisy of my own position as pointed out to me by others is the last thing I give a fcuk about tbh. It's not about me, it's about the woman who is pregnant, and providing whatever support a woman in that situation needs, not about me and my conscience and whatever I personally are comfortable or uncomfortable with. I personally would have no issue with raising a child with any number of cognitive, developmental or physical conditions because I have plenty of experience with both children and adults with any number of conditions, but I wouldn't expect that anyone else should have to make the same choices I would, based upon my experience. If they don't want to, they shouldn't have to, because that leads to a shìtty situation for everyone all round.

So in fact it is you who is arguing that a woman's choices for herself be limited to your views, whereas I've actually argued quite the opposite - that your views on what limitations should be imposed on a woman making a choice for herself, shouldn't be the determinant factor for any other woman other than yourself. That's what freedom of choice actually means - freedom also from coercion and freedom from circumstances which would mean placing limitations on her freedom to make decisions for herself.

mahamageehad wrote: »

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.

When did I do that? I didn't.

You're the person who laid out the circumstances under which a pregnancy would be defined as unwanted with regard to your circumstances. I didn't lay out any circumstances for an unwanted pregnancy, quite the opposite - my point is that the pregnancy is wanted, but, due to circumstances beyond her control, she feels she has no choice but to have an abortion. One of the ways in which her issues can be addresses is by providing her with the support she needs so that she can if she wants to, continue with her pregnancy, and continue with her education, or if she is threatened with being kicked out of home, provide her with the support she needs to get a home for both herself and her child, rather than force her into a position where she feels she has to have an abortion in order to stay in the family home. These aren't outrageous circumstances either, they are circumstances which happen every single day in Ireland.

mahamageehad wrote: »

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".

Where in the name of sweet baby Jesus did I say anything even remotely like that? Read what I wrote and then address that, rather than addressing things you imagine I might say that I've never said. It'll make life much easier on both of us if you dropped your prejudices which are fuelling your assumptions about other people who aren't you. I agree with you that if a woman decides a pregnancy is unwanted, then it's unwanted and we shouldn't be asking for her reasons so we can decide if they fit some standardised definition of acceptable, nor should they be limited by your criteria for which you would want to limit their freedom to make that choice for themselves.

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

Really? Yet you were able to suggest earlier that it should be a couple's decision whether a pregnancy is wanted or unwanted? And you couldn't possibly fathom a scenario where there might be a conflict of opinion between the two? I suppose we have small mercies to be grateful for then in at least I live in a country where the person who impregnates a woman does not give him any legal rights over the woman, nor the unborn! He may act in the belief that he has that right, but legally, he doesn't, thankfully.

Obviously it's more nuanced that that, but are you actually arguing that rural folk have the same access as city folk?

Yes? Medical professionals who try to impose their morals on women aren't confined to urban areas, nor are pharmacists who are quite adept at passing over the counter moral judgements on young women who need access to contraception.

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.

Presumably, based upon your own moral judgement then? Because that's exactly how that reads. Of course they need access to contraception, and of course they should be encouraged to use contraception and encouraged to protect themselves.

Your second assumption about Catholics couldn't be further removed from reality, but based upon your assumption then it's only logical to you that they would fit in category 1, in spite of the research that suggests otherwise, that over 70% of women who avail of abortion are Christian (sourced from the Guttermacher Institite).

What I'm arguing here is that contraception is more widely available than you assume based upon your own experience, but that attitudes towards actually using contraception, are what needs to change, to prevent not just unexpected nor unwanted pregnancies, but also to prevent the spread of STI's.

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

No, I'm arguing that the notion that we need to introduce more sex education on the school curriculum is a futile one given that parents and guardians can simply choose to opt children out of sex education already, and they do, in great numbers as it happens. However, this does not negate the fact that children still seek education in matters of all things sexual from other sources such as their peers, and the internet. Net nanny software is just teasing for most children who quickly find ways and means around it.

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.

I didn't say every woman though? I'm saying that generally, most women do not want to have an abortion. There's nothing controversial in that statement. I'm saying that their decisions are influenced by numerous factors, which you handwaved away as irrelevant, and yet here we are in a thread discussing abortion in relation to whether or not to terminate a pregnancy on the basis that they will give birth to a child with downs syndrome, and you're suggesting that we should attempt to normalise this attitude in society.

You're grand thanks, seriously. It's certainly not an attitude I would want anything to do with normalising, the idea that we should encourage women to terminate their pregnancies if they are going to give birth to a child with any condition. What I would be encouraging is support for those women to help them so that they don't feel that having a child with any condition is a burden, or could cause them such an impediment as to reduce their quality of life and restrict their opportunities for themselves.

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.

Seeeeeriously?

One of the reasons I don't involve myself in other online communities on this issue is because they too are simply echo chambers, and while you think you're getting shared experiences, all you're actually getting is a glimpse of someone else's perspective of their experience, which you can identify with. I'm reminded of the traveller girl that was on here once who was encouraged to do an AMA, everything was going fantastically, but as soon as she mentioned that she didn't support abortion? Crickets, awkward silences. not a peep out of the same people who encouraged her to do an AMA in the first place. Because she went off their preconceived perceptions. She didn't fit their mould, and that's exactly the difference between online virtual echo chambers, and offline reality where the people you interact with in your daily life are a whole mixture of complexities.

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.

We could always do a "Dawkins" I suppose - abort and try again? Abandon this thread and go again on the next thread which should be starting fairly soon. I could predict the way that one will go too which is why I was reluctant myself as you are now to even bother contributing to this one.

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.

So your argument is basically; if my parents were irresponsible enough to have more children than they could afford....since *you* dont want to pay for it and since my parents *can't*, the person who should pay
is.....me, the as yet, unborn child?

Bizarre to say the least!

I mean I've heard of original sin, but that takes the biscuit!
Should be we also be punishing the kids who have fat, diabetic grandparents too?

roddy15 wrote: »

So you are fine with not paying for cancer treatments through the HSE? Why are you living in Ireland not the US then? I actually can't believe someone lacks that much empathy....

You pay into the pot of healthcare, people use that pot to pay for medical procedures, abortion is by definition a medical procedure. That's how it works not just in the case of the HSE but also your health insurance. Money into the pot, people share, subside the cost, it's not a hard thing to follow.

cancer treatment is a necessary medical procedure. abortion is for the most part an unnecessary and luxury procedure, bar some cases where it is necessary because the life of the mother is actually at stake.

roddy15 wrote: »

Please go read the person's post, they straight up bold the question about paying for cancer treatments for a smoker and their reaction is "Must I pay for it?" so you are effectively using my first point in the wrong context to make a strawman but moving on.

it's not a strawman, but an accurate fact.

roddy15 wrote: »

You act like the women skip along into abortion clinics to get their "amazing abortion job" done....

no i do not. i never have stated as such, so you are telling lies about me, which isn't going to work for you.

end of the road wrote: »

cancer treatment is a necessary medical procedure. abortion is for the most part an unnecessary and luxury procedure, bar some cases where it is necessary because the life of the mother is actually at stake.

I think this is the huge ocean between pro life and pro choice. Pro life believe abortion is a luxury. Pro choice believe deciding what to do with your own body is a right. Never the twain shall meet.

The problem is that when fighting for the right of the unborn and going against the wishes of the woman carrying It, you are putting the rights of the unborn before the rights of the woman. They are not equal.

What do you value more, the life of the living, or the life not even born?

end of the road wrote: »

no i do not. i never have stated as such, so you are telling lies about me, which isn't going to work for you.

If someone is saying you act like an ass then that's generally their observation of you (and no mods I'm not saying that to the poster, just want an example). My observation of you is you seem to think this abortion procedure is great fun since it's a luxury. Unless you want to define what is a "luxury" to you specifically?

roddy15 wrote: »

If someone is saying you act like an ass then that's generally their observation of you (an no mods I'm not saying that to the poster, just want an example). My observation of you is you seem to think this abortion procedure is great fun since it's a luxury. Unless you want to define what is a "luxury" to you specifically?

a luxury is something you can survive without. i never said an abortion was great fun, ever.