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

end of the road wrote: »

oh but i have put forward the arguments.

you have put forth no arguments, all you've done is say it's wrong because it is, and it's not available because it's the law. You haven't made a single coherent argument against it.

Triceratops Ballet wrote: »

you have put forth no arguments, all you've done is say it's wrong because it is, and it's not available because it's the law. You haven't made a single coherent argument against it.

that's not true, i have stated the reasons why i believe it to b wrong.

Triceratops Ballet wrote: »

Are you talking about a specific case or is this more bs hyperbole?

no it's general case.

WhiteRoses wrote: »

Sorry, maybe its been said elsewhere on Boards but I don't see the Pro Choice side advocating wiping out DS within 1 generation as their motive for being pro abortion at all?

I didn't say the people who were advocating for the idea of wiping out DS within a generation were either pro-choice, anti-choice, whatever, because the fact is I don't particularly care how they choose to identify themselves, I only care for their arguments. They could simply be misanthropes for all I care as they're usually the same people who come out with nonsense like how we should save the planet and not have any more children and other such unrealistic nonsense.

WhiteRoses wrote: »

So the option is there, but only for those with means to travel and who can afford it? So the choice is there, but not really, if they have no money. Not if they don't have a passport. Not if they have no one to mind their other children. Not if they're underage. Not if they are trying to be discreet to avoid an abusive partner.
But the choice is still there? Right. This system is working wonderfully. No need for it here when we can just leave the country to get the medical care we need. Except for when we can't.

Yes, that's generally the way these things work - those people with more resources have more choices.

If I were to put it to you that you that if you actually gave two fcuks about the people you use to make your arguments, that you should dedicate what resources you have to help them, seeing as you care about them so much, would you do it?

You'll be a while waiting for the State to do it.

WhiteRoses wrote: »

Do we ask the unborn whether they would like to be prenatally scanned?
Do we ask newborn babies how they feel about getting vaccines? Do we ask them if they want to take a bath, or if they would rather be bottle fed or breastfed?
Of course we don't. Babies don't have opinions. Its up to the adults in charge to make decisions and its the same in this situation?

What's with all the questions? I was perfectly clear -

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Given that we lack the means to determine how the unborn feels about the idea, I would suggest that they have no choice in the matter, so the person who is at least in the best position to make the choice on behalf of herself and on behalf of the unborn, is of course the woman who is pregnant. I don't suggest the man who impregnates her is in any position to determine anything if I'm being honest, he's bound to be the least affected by any outcome of the woman's decision.

WhiteRoses wrote: »

Not even going to address this, its so patronising :rolleyes:

I'll take that as a compliment, seeing as you appear to be somewhat of an authority on being patronising and condescending. Maybe with more practice I could be more like you some day. It doesn't come naturally for most people.

eviltwin wrote: »

No one WANTS pregnant women to be forced to have abortions for children with disabilities, there is no group that I know of who believes it's better for society if disabled people aren't born. Who would pressure them

Everyone from their immediate and extended family members, to the medical professionals and other people in positions of authority who would recommend that the woman should have an abortion.

eviltwin wrote: »

Being pro choice is not anti disabilities. It's taking the middle ground by allowing people to choose what is best for them. Why is that so difficult for people to understand

It's not difficult to understand at all. I don't immediately associate people who identify as pro-choice with the idea that they would prefer if people with disabilities didn't exist. They're concepts that aren't even related to each other. But in the context of a thread where the connection is made between the eradication of downs syndrome from society, and abortion, then it shouldn't be that difficult to understand why people would interpret a pro-choice position the way they do in relation to conditions like downs syndrome. As Triceratops Ballet said - that is the theme of the thread, but they suggested I wasn't reading it correctly. I think my reading of the thread in this case is just fine.

January wrote: »

Women in Ireland who can afford to travel or have the right to travel have that choice. Women who cannot afford to travel or women who don't have a passport/are refugee's or asylum seekers/can't get a passport do not have that choice. So you're wrong there, the choice is there for some and not others.

I'm not going down the route of using fear of disability, this thread is all about DS so that's why we're discussing it in this context. Women should be given the choice, not some women, all women.

I'm not wrong because I said that the issue is one of resources, not choice. They have choices, they just don't have the resources to act on the choices they would like to make for themselves. Given that socioeconomic reasons is the most commonly given reason for why women choose to avail of abortion, then the underlying issue that should be addressed appears to be one of a lack of resources, not a lack of choices. More resources would mean women wouldn't have to have abortions due to socioeconomic circumstances, because they would have more choices.

Unfortunately the simple fact is that some people will always have more resources than others, and therefore they will have access to more choices, so if you want women to have more choices, then the onus is upon you to argue for more resources for women so that they can have more choices.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Maybe you could START the conversation by dropping the personal attacks and fantasies about users on long dead threads......... and giving me the point numbers below where you think the "flaws" actually lie. Then we can go from there:

1) The concept of morality and ethics exist.
2) Contrary to religious claims they appear to only exist in, and be formed by, human minds. Not some external morality that we "discover".
3) The purpose of morality and ethics is geared towards the well being of sentient creatures and hence dictate "right" and "wrong" human action generally in relation to other sentience creatures.
4) The arguments therefore that we should have moral and ethical concern to NON sentient entities, except in so far as the dependency of sentient creatures on them (our ethics towards our planet and environment for example) are non existent.


...

So by all means START by telling me which point from 1 - 8 there is where you think the bus sized hole actually lies?

You're suggesting that our morality and ethics with regard to human life are based upon sentience. However that is not the case. We base our morality and ethics with regard to human life on the basis of recognising the value in human life, at all stages from conception to death, and we assign value to human life on the basis of our shared humanity. That's why when we are presented with the case of a dead woman being used to gestate a foetus, as interesting and beneficial to our understanding of human biology, and as much as it may contribute to our understanding of science and medicine, it is considered equally grotesque, unethical and immoral. They aren't sentient, however we still, because of our compassion and affinity for humanity, judge that it is an indignity and an affront to human decency to use a dead woman to gestate a foetus.

Our laws which govern our society with regard to human rights are based upon dignity and respect for human life, and there is no distinction in law with regard to abortion which is predicated upon sentience. Irish law in particular regards the unborn thusly -

“unborn”, in relation to a human life, is a reference to such a life during the period of time commencing after implantation in the womb of a woman and ending on the complete emergence of the life from the body of the woman;

“woman” means a female person of any age.

Source: Protection of Life During Pregnancy Act 2013

No mention of sentience there, so the sentience argument is nothing more than a red herring.

captbarnacles wrote: »

Legalising abortion here will effectively give women more resources to make a choice which is the crux of the whole debate no?

not unless the tax payer is the one paying for abortion on demand. that will mean funding likely having to be cut from elsewhere or an increase in taxes. that's the ultimate reality whether one wishes to face it or not.

captbarnacles wrote: »

Legalising abortion here will effectively give women more resources to make a choice which is the crux of the whole debate no?

Notwithstanding the fact that abortion is already legal here under certain circumstances, no, I don't believe relaxing our laws regarding abortion actually will mean women will have any more resources than they didn't have before.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Notwithstanding the fact that abortion is already legal here under certain circumstances, no, I don't believe relaxing our laws regarding abortion actually will mean women will have any more resources than they didn't have before.

But they will. They will be able to access abortion services without onerous cost to the benefit of the women, and their existing families.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I'm having difficulty understanding your point here. Could you expand on it a bit? If you're arguing that poor people have less choices than wealthier people, well, that seems a bit too obvious, so I'm wondering are driving at something less obvious?

No, that's exactly the point I am driving at. Some women can't afford to make the trip to the UK and pay for an abortion. By legalising abortion in Ireland, those women would have more choices. At the moment, they have absolutely none.

kylith wrote: »

But they will. They will be able to access abortion services without onerous cost to the benefit of the women, and their existing families.

How will they be able to access abortion services when the cost of the service is beyond their means? Their existing families are already supported by the State, which is obliged to promote the institution of the family in society? Abortion would appear to run contrary to that obligation.

It's another obligation the State is failing in it's duty to meet, so I don't expect they will provide for, nor facilitate elective abortion either.

One eyed Jack wrote:

How will they be able to access abortion services when the cost of the service is beyond their means? Their existing families are already supported by the State, which is obliged to promote the institution of the family in society? Abortion would appear to run contrary to that obligation.

Because the cost of traveling to avail of the service would be removed, they would not need to pay for flights and accommodation. If it is accessible here they can avail of a medical termination at an earlier stage using the pill which costs much less than a surgical abortion. Even if they had to pay the cost of the pills themselves, by virtue of not having to pay to travel, the service would be much more accessible, and would reduce the number of women having to opt for the surgical options, because the time it took to organise money for both travel and the appointment.

Triceratops Ballet wrote: »

Because the cost of traveling to avail of the service would be removed, they would not need to pay for flights and accommodation. If it is accessible here they can avail of a medical termination at an earlier stage using the pill which costs much less than a surgical abortion. Even if they had to pay the cost of the pills themselves, by virtue of not having to pay to travel, the service would be much more accessible, and would reduce the number of women having to opt for the surgical options, because the time it took to organise money for both travel and the appointment.

You're still left with the predicament that it would only be available to those women who could afford it. For those women who can't, what would you suggest?

mrkiscool2 wrote: »

Well, seeing as the Citizen's Assembly recommended that socio-economic factors be taken into consideration and that they have medical cards, I'm sure they would pay little, if anything, for an abortion vs the thousand euro they would spend going to the UK, getting the abortion, and then travelling back.

To be perfectly honest, my own personal opinion of the Citizens Assembly is that it was just another exercise in procrastination. There have been many, many commissions and reports already about addressing the issue of abortion in Ireland, and there has been very little come out of them.

Having said that, I would be more interested in seeing the State fund education and resources for women to give them real choices, rather than have them reliant on the State in the first place. The State btw isn't forcing women to go abroad, they choose to go abroad of their own volition to avail of services in another jurisdiction that aren't available to them here. That is their choice to make. This idea that the State is 'exporting' the problem is ridiculous. Women choose to go, they aren't forced to go.

If your argument is that the State should facilitate and legislate for abortion in this country, then it's no longer simply a case of the issue of abortion being solely the business of the woman who finds herself pregnant and wants to avail of an abortion. It's the business of the State which is expected to facilitate and fund her choices.

Kurtosis wrote: »

Given the UN's rulings regarding our abortion laws, women certainly are forced to go in order to exercise their human rights.

i disagree. i don't believe being able to have an abortion on demand is a human right, regardless of the UN'S rulings. so i would agree with the view that women choose to go abroad to avail of a service that isn't availible here, and them doing so is not against their human rights.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

To be perfectly honest, my own personal opinion of the Citizens Assembly is that it was just another exercise in procrastination. There have been many, many commissions and reports already about addressing the issue of abortion in Ireland, and there has been very little come out of them.

Having said that, I would be more interested in seeing the State fund education and resources for women to give them real choices, rather than have them reliant on the State in the first place. The State btw isn't forcing women to go abroad, they choose to go abroad of their own volition to avail of services in another jurisdiction that aren't available to them here. That is their choice to make. This idea that the State is 'exporting' the problem is ridiculous. Women choose to go, they aren't forced to go.

If your argument is that the State should facilitate and legislate for abortion in this country, then it's no longer simply a case of the issue of abortion being solely the business of the woman who finds herself pregnant and wants to avail of an abortion. It's the business of the State which is expected to facilitate and fund her choices.

So, fcuk poor women and fcuk their children basically? Like, I know you didn't say that, but you've already acknowledged there is no avenue for a poor women to get an abortion, so you think it's acceptable to force them to have a child they don't want and can't afford because they can't pay for an abortion? Fairly classist.

mrkiscool2 wrote: »

So, fcuk poor women and fcuk their children basically? Like, I know you didn't say that, but you've already acknowledged there is no avenue for a poor women to get an abortion, so you think it's acceptable to force them to have a child they don't want and can't afford because they can't pay for an abortion? Fairly classist.

here we go again. making up things to try and make posters out to be nasty individuals. what you claim was said has never been said.

mrkiscool2 wrote: »

Well, I'm not going to put words in your mouth. I think that's fairly crappy. You didn't say it and I can totally understand your point vis-a-vis women already have options. But you are just glossing over the fact that women who can't afford to travel for abortions don't have that choice, which I do think is classist.

Rest assured I didn't gloss over an insinuation I didn't think was worth entertaining, let alone addressing.

And yes, I do. I give money to ROSA for the express purpose of getting those women the help they need. I'm also actively campaigning for a Yes vote in the upcoming referendum. So I am doing my part.

Yeah look, genuinely I didn't expect you to justify or explain yourself to a complete stranger, that's just the way I work. My point was more by way of pointing out that y'know the whole way some people go on about how "oh anti-choicers don't care about babies once they're born", etc. I've never felt the need to entertain that nonsense, let alone justify myself to anyone, and I don't expect anyone else should feel the need to justify themselves either.

Personally, I'm a bit long in the tooth to feel that insecure about myself that silly attempts to provoke a reaction would make me feel the need to justify myself to complete strangers. I just don't care for the politics, and I wouldn't be able to do what I do if it became known that I do what I do. I prefer to be discreet, so the last place you'll see me is on O' Connell St. wearing a silly fanny shaped hat or contributing a cent to a crowd that are looking for money for a pill popping party bus and suggesting that €100 could buy a megaphone -

One eyed Jack wrote: »

https://www.gofundme.com/bus4repeal

"€100 to buy a new megaphone"?


It wouldn't be appropriate to say "Jesus wept"... but... yeah, I'll leave it there.

I can think of better ways to use what resources I have available to me to help other people tbh.