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

GreeBo · 18-11-2017 12:26PM

end of the road wrote: »

both, hence i support continuing as is . those who want an abortion can go to england and ireland can continue to give protections to the unborn as much as is possible. if there is a case where the life of the mother is in genuine danger, then a medical abortion can be caried out in ireland. but if you want abortion on demand, you will just have to go elsewhere.

I don't follow this opinion at all...you are done for people to have abortions on demand, just as long as it's not here?

So what's the point, what does that achieve other than screw over the poor?

If you can't see it then it's not happening?

Are you equally ok with genocide that happens in other countries, coz it's not Ireland?

MrPudding · 18-11-2017 03:27PM

GreeBo wrote: »

I don't follow this opinion at all...you are done for people to have abortions on demand, just as long as it's not here?

So what's the point, what does that achieve other than screw over the poor?

If you can't see it then it's not happening?

Are you equally ok with genocide that happens in other countries, coz it's not Ireland?

He knows he will never be able to stop those with the means to travel form having an abortion, and he know that to campaign along those lines will put him on the wrong side of public opinion. He must, therefore, force those women that don't have the means to travel to remain pregnant. He then justifies this by say they are forced to remain pregnant, they simply have to remain pregnant because they don't have any choice. They aren't being forced...

This way he can say he is doing his bit to keep abortion out of Ireland. If is isn't happening here, it does not count. This does, our course, requires the deployment of quite a large amount of cognitive dissonance. It is wrong to kill the unborn, unless, of course, you do it somewhere else, or if you have been raped.

MrP

end of the road · 18-11-2017 04:10PM

Hannibal_Smith wrote: »

But you are not protecting the life of the unborn. 3000 women are travelling to the UK a year for abortions. Ignoring that is not protecting anyone. Irish women are still having abortions.

they can't do it in ireland, so ireland isn't allowing the taking of an unborn life.

Hannibal_Smith wrote: »

Why should you dictate what another woman does with her body?

it's the law in ireland that one can not have an abortion bar extreme circumstances. i believe that law should remain.

GreeBo wrote: »

I don't follow this opinion at all...you are done for people to have abortions on demand, just as long as it's not here?

no . however one cannot stop people leaving the country. we can only work with the realities. however if we can continue to protect the life of the unborn in ireland then it's better then nothing.

MrPudding wrote: »

He knows he will never be able to stop those with the means to travel form having an abortion, and he know that to campaign along those lines will put him on the wrong side of public opinion.

it's not about public opinion as i'm not involved in any of the actual campaigns, + i don't care about public opinion. if i disagree with something i disagree with it and i won't be changing my view. i won't be backing down dispite all the emotional blackmail, whataboutery, and all other things made up about me on this thread.

MrPudding wrote: »

This way he can say he is doing his bit to keep abortion out of Ireland. If is isn't happening here, it does not count.

not true. whether i like it or not people are traveling for abortions. i still disagree with it but i have to work within the reality that we are in.

AnGaelach · 18-11-2017 04:36PM

Hector Savage wrote: »

Great article, and brave woman too - it's so tough.
These pro lifers (anti women-ers) fail to see the difficult lives ahead for everyone involved - they also tend not to give a sh*t once the child is born.

Have you ever actually met a "anti women-er" that wanted to do things like cut funding for families, or reduce State aid for those with Downs and the like?

Honestly, the amount of times this absolute tripe is put forth is ridiculous - it's analogous to the "dole hound left her buggie on the bus because the corpo will give her a new one" ****.

The majority of people which want to slash aid for families and that sort of thing tend to be of the libertarian persuasion, where everyone is only responsible for themselves - which coincides with the "not my body, not my opinion" nonsense that the pro-choice (should I use anti-baby, since you're so intent on being provocative and dumb?) lobby spews.

Hannibal_Smith · 18-11-2017 05:26PM

end of the road wrote: »

they can't do it in ireland, so ireland isn't allowing the taking of an unborn life.

it's the law in ireland that one can not have an abortion bar extreme circumstances. i believe that law should remain.

no . however one cannot stop people leaving the country. we can only work with the realities.

That is burying your head in the sand and pushing women's issues on to other countries. Irish woman are having abortions. It's time to wake up to that reality.

Laws change.

end of the road · 18-11-2017 05:39PM

Hannibal_Smith wrote: »

That is burying your head in the sand and pushing women's issues on to other countries. Irish woman are having abortions. It's time to wake up to that reality.

Laws change.

i woke up to that reality. however the reality is that the protections for the unborn that exist in ireland are important and must remain in place. if they protect 1 unborn life then the job is done. if people want abortion on demand they can go to england and pay for it.

AudreyHepburn · 18-11-2017 05:44PM

It’s questions like the OPs that make me worry about what could happen if we Repeal the eighth.

I am as pro choice as they come but there has to be limits at the same time - no one should have the right to pick and choose what kind of child they have. This isn’t going into a department store and browsing the aisles, we’re talking about denying a child the right to a life simply because he/she doesn’t fit your perfect idea of what a child should be.

uck51js9zml2yt · 18-11-2017 05:57PM

I was reading a piece yesterday about how medical advances are allowing premature babies to survive which are being born earlier and earlier.
In light of these advances where do we draw the line at killing an unborn baby?

kylith · 18-11-2017 05:59PM

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

It’s questions like the OPs that make me worry about what could happen if we Repeal the eighth.

I am as pro choice as they come but there has to be limits at the same time - no one should have the right to pick and choose what kind of child they have. This isn’t going into a department store and browsing the aisles, we’re talking about denying a child the right to a life simply because he/she doesn’t fit your perfect idea of what a child should be.

Or we're talking about terminating a foetus that will have lifelong, significant health problems, and allowing women and their families to decide if they are physically, mentally, financially, and emotionally able to deal with that.

This isn't about women deciding to terminate because they wanted a baby with blue eyes, this is about people deciding if it's fair to force someone to live with mental handicaps, heart problems, gastrointestinal problems, incontinence, lack of ability to communicate, and very real uncertainty of what their quality of life will be like not only throughout their life but especially after their parents have passed on.

NIMAN · 18-11-2017 06:03PM

Perhaps DS is a bit of the middle ground and might be acceptable for many parents, but often when I see those very severely mentally and physically handicapped children with next to no life at all, you have got to wonder would it not have been better to not have them born at all?

kylith · 18-11-2017 06:13PM

NIMAN wrote: »

Perhaps DS is a bit of the middle ground and might be acceptable for many parents, but often when I see those very severely mentally and physically handicapped children with next to no life at all, you have got to wonder would it not have been better to not have them born at all?

It's sad to say it, but sometimes when I see children living in a way that can really only be described as 'technically alive' I find myself thinking how you would be jailed for cruelty if you kept a dog in the same condition alive. I admire and respect their parents, but I feel so sorry for them too.

end of the road · 18-11-2017 06:16PM

kylith wrote: »

Or we're talking about terminating a foetus that will have lifelong, significant health problems, and allowing women and their families to decide if they are physically, mentally, financially, and emotionally able to deal with that.

This isn't about women deciding to terminate because they wanted a baby with blue eyes, this is about people deciding if it's fair to force someone to live with mental handicaps, heart problems, gastrointestinal problems, incontinence, lack of ability to communicate, and very real uncertainty of what their quality of life will be like not only throughout their life but especially after their parents have passed on.

no no, we are talking about termination because the unborn won't be a perfect child.
it will be severe disability first, then it will be eye colour. a stand has to be taken somewhere.

GritBiscuit · 18-11-2017 06:19PM

end of the road wrote: »

no no, we are talking about termination because the unborn won't be a perfect child.
it will be severe disability first, then it will be eye colour. a stand has to be taken somewhere.

Which pre-natal test do they do for life-altering differences in eye-colour again?

If you want people to take you seriously, maybe tone-down the hyperbolic fallacies.

kylith · 18-11-2017 06:20PM

end of the road wrote: »

no no, we are talking about termination because the unborn won't be a perfect child.
it will be severe disability first, then it will be eye colour. a stand has to be taken somewhere.

Slippery slope fearmongering.

NIMAN · 18-11-2017 06:21PM

Surely its for the law makers to draw the lines, and I would like to think that cosmetic traits such as eye colour won't come into it.

Hannibal_Smith · 18-11-2017 06:22PM

end of the road wrote: »

i woke up to that reality. however the reality is that the protections for the unborn that exist in ireland are important and must remain in place. if they protect 1 unborn life then the job is done. if people want abortion on demand they can go to england and pay for it.

And that is that as far as you are concerned? And where there is a case where there is no threat to life of the mother, there is no availability for abortion the woman must carry the child and give birth to it? That is where you are putting the right of the unborn ahead of the right of the woman.

There is nothing wrong with being pro life, in my mind anyway. I can understand why people would be pro life. But the point is that your beliefs and how you view the world is being imposed on others, who believe otherwise. If abortion is legalised it won't affect you if you don't want it to. The wishes of others aren't being forced on you directly. But by not legalising It, you are directly affecting the life of some woman or couple. And that is not right. There are so many stories where people have gone through heart wrenching stuff to have abortions where there is something wrong with the baby and it wont survive passed birth Where they have had to put their dead baby into the boot of their car to get it home on the ferry. The only other option is to force the mother to continue carrying the child, knowing what is to come. How can that be right?

AudreyHepburn · 18-11-2017 06:28PM

kylith wrote: »

Or we're talking about terminating a foetus that will have lifelong, significant health problems, and allowing women and their families to decide if they are physically, mentally, financially, and emotionally able to deal with that.

This isn't about women deciding to terminate because they wanted a baby with blue eyes, this is about people deciding if it's fair to force someone to live with mental handicaps, heart problems, gastrointestinal problems, incontinence, lack of ability to communicate, and very real uncertainty of what their quality of life will be like not only throughout their life but especially after their parents have passed on.

I just think it’s too short a jump from one to the other to take the risk

One eyed Jack · 18-11-2017 06:28PM

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

It’s questions like the OPs that make me worry about what could happen if we Repeal the eighth.

Honestly it's happening now, and whether or not the 8th amendment is repealed, won't make any difference, in reality. What can be done however, is that we legislate so that abortions are just as safe, legal, and rare as they are in this country already. I would also be very much against the idea of encouraging women to have abortions for what would be other peoples hang-ups about people with disabilities, but I wouldn't try to prevent a woman from having an abortion if that's what she chose to do if she found herself in those circumstances. Rather I would support her decision than condemn both her and her child to a life of bitterness and resentment and indeed suffering, so that I could feel righteous about myself so that my morality and my conscience remain intact.

I am as pro choice as they come but there has to be limits at the same time

Why though? What purpose does that achieve? There will still be plenty of women who when faced with the decision as to whether or not to terminate their pregnancy on the basis of giving birth to a child with disabilities will say "you're grand thanks!", because we don't live in a society where the vast majority of people actually would condemn people with disabilities to a miserable life. Irish society has come a long way in addressing the lack of rights of people with disabilities, and granted while successive governments have dragged their heels for years, two years ago the Assisted Decision Making (Capacity) Act was signed into law!

- no one should have the right to pick and choose what kind of child they have.

Granted it's not an explicit legal right, but people already do have that capacity, and I could if I actually needed to, argue that it would be covered already by human rights legislation regarding the right to family and privacy of the family (Article 8 specifically) -

Article 8 protects your right to respect for your private and family life

This isn’t going into a department store and browsing the aisles, we’re talking about denying a child the right to a life simply because he/she doesn’t fit your perfect idea of what a child should be.

You're right, it's not going into a department store and browsing the aisles, so why even draw that comparison reducing what is literally a life changing decision to something you can change as long as you keep the receipt? Unfortunately people don't come with a receipt so there's no changing your mind once another person is brought into the world. It's better then IMO that first of all we give women the freedom to make decisions for themselves regarding their future, without limitations or constraints, because limitations and constraints force people into decisions at a time when the clock doesn't stop and 40 weeks is only a short time over the course of a lifetime, and in many cases depending upon the outcomes - two lifetimes! That is an incredible responsibility to put on anyone's shoulders, and it shouldn't be reduced to sniping back and forth on an online message board for thanks and validation for how righteous some people need to feel about themselves.

You're right, it's not perfect, and it's never going to be ideal, but we're talking about circumstances which are less than ideal in the first place, and IMO the goal should be to ensure that supports are in place and that women feel that they are supported no matter whether or not we may agree or disagree with their decisions that they make for themselves. Anything else is just making their circumstances about ourselves, and our idea of perfection, and our ideals.

end of the road · 18-11-2017 06:30PM

Hannibal_Smith wrote: »

And that is that as far as you are concerned? And where there is a case where there is no threat to life of the mother, there is no availability for abortion the woman must carry the child and give birth to it? That is where you are putting the right of the unborn ahead of the right of the woman.

There is nothing wrong with being pro life, in my mind anyway. I can understand why people would be pro life. But the point is that your beliefs and how you view the world is being imposed on others, who believe otherwise. If abortion is legalised it won't affect you if you don't want it to. The wishes of others aren't being forced on you directly. But by not legalising It, you are directly affecting the life of some woman or couple. And that is not right. There are so many stories where people have gone through heart wrenching stuff to have abortions where there is something wrong with the baby and it wont survive passed birth Where they have had to put their dead baby into the boot of their car to get it home on the ferry. The only other option is to force the mother to continue carrying the child, knowing what is to come. How can that be right?

the republic has a duty to protect the life of the unborn as much as is possible. the unborn get no say in whether they live or die, so we need to insure they are protected against being killed.
horrible things can happen in every situation and it's unfortunate for those involved, however sometimes a stand has to be taken on a particular issue, especially where it involves the taking of a life.

eviltwin · 18-11-2017 06:32PM

What happens post Brexit if women can't travel? We will have no option but to bring in abortion here.

A Little Pony · 18-11-2017 06:34PM

roddy15 wrote: »

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 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, subsidise the cost, it's not a hard thing to follow. You do this so if in the event you got any health problems that you wouldn't be told by people "MUST I PAY FOR YOUR PROCEDURE!?!?! GOD!" when you are racking up thousands in medical bills.

I don't want to pay for something I fundamentally disagree with and see nothing less than murder. If you want an abortion, pay for it yourself.

end of the road · 18-11-2017 06:36PM

eviltwin wrote: »

What happens post Brexit if women can't travel? We will have no option but to bring in abortion here.

not at all, we have no obligation to allow for abortion in ireland. brexit won't change that. plenty of other countries allow for abortion.

eviltwin · 18-11-2017 06:39PM

A Little Pony wrote: »

I don't want to pay for something I fundamentally disagree with and see nothing less than murder. If you want an abortion, pay for it yourself.

Taxes don't work like that. I'd rather not pay health care for rapists or paedophiles or for social welfare for people who have no intention of working but that's exactly where my taxes go. We don't get to pick and choose. And your taxes are already paying for abortion here and in the UK

eviltwin · 18-11-2017 06:40PM

end of the road wrote: »

not at all, we have no obligation to allow for abortion in ireland. brexit won't change that. plenty of other countries allow for abortion.

I think all we need is one or two women to die in botched diy abortions before it's fully legislated for here.

volchitsa · 18-11-2017 06:41PM

I think the reason people are often a bit uneasy about abortion for Downs is that it's almost the only major disability where the child themselves doesn't seem to suffer.

I don't think that really changes the basic problem though. For one thing, some of them clearly aren't happy as adults (my husband has a first cousin who is on sedative medication because his elderly parents can't handle his temper otherwise. He doesn't have a bad temper as such, but gets frustrated and anxious at times.)

Maybe the point is that other people can't make that decision for a couple in the first place. Why would it be acceptable to terminate a pregnancy with a healthy fetus because the woman has been raped, but not one of a disabled fetus where the couple would find themselves under enormous stress and might end up splitting up? Can we set ourselves up to judge which abnormal pregnancies are sufficiently abnormal to "allow" the couple to terminate, or is that too personal a decision to make for someone else?

Timberrrrrrrr · 18-11-2017 06:43PM

A Little Pony wrote: »

I don't want to pay for something I fundamentally disagree with and see nothing less than murder. If you want an abortion, pay for it yourself.

I dont agree with drug abuse yet taxes go to pay for rreatment of junkies

As has been said you don't get to choose where your tax money goes.

Hannibal_Smith · 18-11-2017 06:45PM

end of the road wrote: »

the republic has a duty to protect the life of the unborn as much as is possible. the unborn get no say in whether they live or die, so we need to insure they are protected against being killed.
horrible things can happen in every situation and it's unfortunate for those involved, however sometimes a stand has to be taken on a particular issue, especially where it involves the taking of a life.

Well when that right supersedes the right of the woman carrying it that is completely unfair. There is also a duty to protect the living, in every way we can. The living should take precedence.

rainbow kirby · 18-11-2017 06:47PM

Winston Orange Pennant wrote: »

I was reading a piece yesterday about how medical advances are allowing premature babies to survive which are being born earlier and earlier.
In light of these advances where do we draw the line at killing an unborn baby?

Complete and utter red herring.

Current UK non-FFA/life of pregnant person term limit is 24 weeks. The overwhelming majority of people who have carried to anywhere close to that point intended to continue their pregnancies and for whatever reason ended up delivering very early in what is a very grey area in terms of viability. Whether these pregnancies could be aborted means very little to most people who are in that situation, they want to make sure that their wanted baby born far too early has a chance of survival.

Despite decades of research the earliest gestation a premature baby has been born at and survived is just under 22 weeks (google James Elgin Gill or Amillia Taylor) and the chances of survival for babies born at 22-23 weeks are still extremely poor (and come with high risks of lifelong profound disability), the real advances have been for 26-30 week births.

A Little Pony · 18-11-2017 06:47PM

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

A Little Pony wrote: »

I don't want to pay for something I fundamentally disagree with and see nothing less than murder. If you want an abortion, pay for it yourself.

I dont agree with drug abuse yet taxes go to pay for rreatment of junkies

As has been said you don't get to choose where your tax money goes.

Which is why I wouldn't pay for them either. It's a good advert for tax avoidance.

One eyed Jack · 18-11-2017 06:55PM

volchitsa wrote: »

Can we set ourselves up to judge which abnormal pregnancies are sufficiently abnormal to "allow" the couple to terminate, or is that too personal a decision to make for someone else?

You've hit the nail on the head tbh. It really is IMO too personal a decision to make for someone else, and that too is why I would never default to the assumption that a young girl or a woman who has become pregnant as a result of being raped, would immediately opt for a termination either. They may not, and in circumstances where they don't, that too has been known to cause complications when the father has demanded access, when his legal rights as the child's parent would normally be withdrawn -

Parental rights for rapists? You’d be surprised how cruel the law can be

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

Comments