One eyed Jack wrote: » I don't know how you can claim to speak for the vast majority of anyone, but I'll take it that was rather just a turn of phrase or a genuine belief rather than being an arsehole about it and asking you could possibly make such a claim as though it has any grounding in reality. Your second claim though, that we don't yet live in a society where the services offered aren't good enough for women to carry a pregnancy to term in Ireland should they choose to, I would have to question that given that the services provided by the State are IMO at least, more than adequate to provide for children should a woman choose to carry her pregnancy to term. For one thing I've never agreed with child benefit in principle, let alone the fact that it is given to every parent to support their children, regardless of their means. In Ireland we're actually way ahead of a lot of countries with regard to the social supports provided to women to support them should they choose to have children. Viability of choices then is surely in that case is something that only the individual can determine for themselves on an individual basis. I would only expect that the State should have to go so far, and yet the State also provides for free education of children. I understand what you mean by the way you mention that we do have the option of giving people in difficult circumstances a choice, but what I'm saying is that I too am all for giving people in difficult circumstances more choices, and having spent most of my life working with people who have been in difficult circumstances, I've yet to meet anyone who preferred to have an abortion over being given the resources to enable them to make the choice they would have preferred to make which was to keep the child (or what would have been a child had they been able to avoid the decision to have an abortion, but that's why I said that for any woman in my experience at least, it hasn't been an easy decision for them to make, and there isn't one I can think of who wasn't changed by the experience). I've been working towards a society where no woman should ever have to feel like having an abortion is ever a viable choice for them, but I'm also not naive enough to think that those same women in those circumstances wouldn't have caved into pressure from their families, peers, friends and even the men who impregnated them, to have an abortion because they were coerced into it or believed that it was actually in their best interests. Abortion really isn't, and shouldn't IMO, ever be seen as a viable solution to anything, either from an individual perspective, nor from a social perspective, but that doesn't mean that at an individual level, I wouldn't do everything in my power to ensure that a woman was able to have the outcome of a crisis pregnancy that she wanted, because I've always understood that it's never been about me or how I feel personally about abortion. It's always been for me at least about the decisions that any woman would make for herself. That's why, while I personally disagree with the concept of abortion, at one point until recently I would have supported the repeal of the 8th amendment, but I've come to see that the impact of legislating to broaden our abortion laws in Ireland would mean that abortion would then be the first thing that would enter other peoples heads if they knew a woman were facing a crisis pregnancy, rather than as you're suggesting, the idea that every woman should be given every support she needs in order to enable her to raise a child or children. If some people feel we aren't there yet, well I don't personally blame the State for the lack of support, I would suggest that those individuals then take it upon themselves to provide the support they feel is lacking. That's exactly what I've spent half my life doing, so when it comes up in these threads that "pro-life" or "anti-choice" or whatever you want to call them, people don't care about children once they're born, I often just can't be arsed pointing out "eh, you're talking bollocks mate", because I'm restricted by the fact that we have to be civil to each other around these parts.
Shenshen wrote: » You may notice that I never mentioned the word "state". I said "society", and that phrase was chosen with a lot of consideration. Society is more than just state bodies, society is the family threatening to cut ties with a woman pregnant against that family's wishes, it's the support an abused woman can hope for, including the protection against her abuser. It's the availability of support for her to enable her to continue working, or even just continue her education. There are a lot of things indiscriminate child benefit payments simply don't cover.
Shenshen wrote: » Given that thousands of women travel each year to have abortions, I just don't think that we really are at a point yet where we can claim we've done all we can as a society. On the contrary, a lot of people seem to rest on the "well, at least it's not happening in Ireland" notion, rather than getting active to try and provide better options. Because we already have a law, we don't feel the need to do more. Maybe we as a society would, if that law were gone.
One eyed Jack wrote: » As for the argument that we as a society would endeavour to provide alternatives and supports to women if abortion were available, the obvious question that springs to mind immediately is - Why would we? Where would the motivation be if we could simply suggest to women that they have an abortion, problem solved, so to speak? I don't mean to be flippant but that's really as basic as it comes down to - facilitate abortion, why would we then need to worry about providing supports and resources to women in those circumstances you mention, when they can just have an abortion? That isn't a position I would advocate obviously, but I'm wondering what would you think would be our motivation when such efforts would simply be deemed unnecessary because now women could have abortions?
mrkiscool2 wrote: » I actually have no clue how you are drawing that conclusion. I really don't. You claim to be trying to engage in "good faith" (and you're only doing that now because you can't point to anywhere that I claimed all lower class women should have abortions) and yet you make statements like these, which paints having abortions up to 12 weeks like the flood gates will open and lower class people will be getting them a few times a year. That's just not the case.
mrkiscool2 wrote: » Okay, citation please! Also, as someone who has been on 2 different students' unions, I can tell you that we provide condoms free of charge to a. ensure that students have condoms to prevent STIs and pregnancy (because they are EXPENSIVE!) and b. so we could give information on how to properly use it. Expense is a thing, sorry to tell you, as is lack of education. Which, ironically, stems from the sex-shaming that brought something like the 8th into existence.
mrkiscool2 wrote: » I don't think a single pro-choice person here has claimed that an abortion is an easy decision. Hell, I've made the point it isn't. And 70% of women who have an abortion never have a second. And yes, one of the factors some women take into consideration before getting an abortion is can they afford to have a child. To act like it isn't is foolish at best, bad faith at worst.
mrkiscool2 wrote: » What evidence? Provide said evidence please! Also, since they are the ones who want women to not be allowed abortions, the burden is on them to prove they are going to ensure the child has a great life after it's born (pro-tip, they usually don't).
mrkiscool2 wrote: » Firstly, look at the thread title please. While I may be also in favour of abortion on demand up until 16 weeks (12 is good to try and get the Yes though, I see why they went with it), this is a conversation about repealing the 8th. And allowing people abortion for stuff that should already be there, like threats to the mother life and mental health, rape and fetal fatal abnormalities.
mrkiscool2 wrote: » And the idea of have an abortion clinic in their neighborhood is bizarre. I can imagine that it will be carried out in hospitals or specific clinics. It's a moot point really. People won't have that much control over it.
mrkiscool2 wrote: » Tell you what, I'll give you citations when you give me some. Also, Ireland is a liberal country in the proper sense. People generally believe that people should have the right to control their own lives. The lack of systemic racism and sexism (there is still some, but nowhere near as bad as the US) shows that.
mrkiscool2 wrote: » You make a claim that it's a terrible point, and then don't back that claim up with any discussion or evidence. Here is the thing, lower class women currently have NO choice. Even if most lower class women would never have an abortion, having a choice is better than having no choice at all. Secondly, you haven't refuted my point in the slightest. I've clearly shown how not having abortions continues a cycle of poverty. You've yet to prove otherwise. And getting into debt? Is that something you agree with? You have yet to say anything about that.
mrkiscool2 wrote: » Right, so, clear something up for me. You say I have a poor understanding of socioeconomics, yet I can grasp the fact that by not being able to access a service due to lack of funds is generally bad, you just say "Well, rich people will always have access to better stuff!" I think we all know that, but that doesn't change the fact that lower class women have no access to this form of healthcare. Absolutely none. You aren't refuting my case, if anything you are proving it.
mrkiscool2 wrote: » Like, if people can't see that abortion, as it stands in Ireland, is a class issue and one of the reasons the gap between poor and rich has not being closed for decades, I don't know what their knowledge of social economics is.
Shenshen wrote: » I might be naive and assuming too much here, but given that most people don't want women to have abortions, and given that in particular the pro-life side are incredibly vociferous about it, I would image that once women DO have the option of having an abortion, these good folks would try their best to change circumstances so that the number of women who feel they need to avail of the option would drop? After all, it would be the only way left to them to try and protect the unborn?
One eyed Jack wrote: » I don't think you're naïve like, but I'm just not sure why you would think that they don't try to change women's circumstances already? I just don't see how facilitating abortion in this country would lead to more people in society feeling that they had an obligation to ensure women weren't put in a position where they had to make that decision is all? We as a society clearly weren't doing it before, why would we do it if we don't have to when the choice would be there for women to have abortions?
One eyed Jack wrote: » Your second claim though, that we don't yet live in a society where the services offered aren't good enough for women to carry a pregnancy to term in Ireland should they choose to, I would have to question that given that the services provided by the State are IMO at least, more than adequate to provide for children should a woman choose to carry her pregnancy to term.
One eyed Jack wrote: » Where do you expect clinics to be located exactly? Of course they're going to be located somewhere, and you can be guaranteed that people in the area will object to them, just like they object to methadone clinics for example because they don't want those sorts of establishments in their back yard.
monnies wrote: »
MrPudding wrote: » I really don’t think you can equate an abortion with a methadone clinic, in terms of people objecting to their location. People object to methadone clinics because they tend to be frequented by drug addicts, and rightly or wrongly, people equate that with an increased rate of crime and risk to the safety of residents. That isnt really the case with an abortion clincic though, is it? The biggest problem I have seen with abortion clinics are the frequently nasty people that protest outside. MrP
January wrote: » I really don't think we will see abortion clinics opening. Abortions before 12 weeks will be taken care of by a gp using pills, those that can't use pills or those over 12 weeks will be performed in a hospital setting. If people want to go private they will have the option (well woman, femplus etc)
eviltwin wrote: » Do you think pro choice is the same as pro abortion? I would like to see a society that supports women whatever her choice. I don't want to see any woman feel pressured by circumstance to have an abortion she doesn't want. Equally though, I don't want to see women pressured to continue with pregnancies they would rather terminate. I agree we can do more to support people in crisis pregnancy but that's no use to people like me. I just don't want kids, if I get pregnant I'm having an abortion.
MrPudding wrote: » Oh I agree. I just take exception to place where women get health advice, or even abortions, being compared to methadone clinics. MrP
end of the road wrote: no as none of us know how the referendum will ultimately go. it is unlikely to be a repeat of the ssm referendum however. there is a lot more people against abortion on demand, or abortion full stop, in this country then some would think and it's nothing to do with religion or conservatism in a large amount of cases.
pilly wrote: » That's not what the surveys say though is it?
end of the road wrote: » it's not what some of them say, that is true. but we must remember surveys only question a certain amount of people and then go on the result of what the majority of those people say. so in terms of the people questioned, the survey is correct in terms of the result that the majority answer, but may not necessarily be correct in terms of what the whole country think. surveys wouldn't be enough in my view to say in full that a majority of people in the country agree with abortion on demand. it's a possibility that they do but until the referendum we cannot say for sure. in terms of the religious aspect, again maybe most on the pro-life side who answered the surveys may be religious conservatives but ultimately religious conservatism is not as much a part of the pro-life support as it once was. many of us have no time for religion and would be a mix of centrists and left wing.
mrkiscool2 wrote: » I find it hilarous how you claim something to be true "Most people don't want abortions on demand" and then, when confronted with something that negates that view point, say "Well, it's only a survey, they don't always ask the right people". Like, I agree with you. Polls and surveys aren't the best thing for gauging how the entire country feels on a topic, and can't account for who will turn out to vote. But I just love how, when presented with something that flies in the face of a claim you make, which you provide no evidence for, you just act like it's nothing. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. If you claim that , as a majority, are against what we expect to see in the referendum, you have to provide evidence. Even a poll would do it (even though we both agree they aren't true reflections, they are good indicators).
mrkiscool2 wrote: » I find it hilarous how you claim something to be true "Most Irish people don't want abortions on demand" and then, when confronted with something that negates that view point, say "Well, it's only a survey, they don't always ask the right people". Like, I agree with you. Polls and surveys aren't the best thing for gauging how the entire country feels on a topic, and can't account for who will turn out to vote. But I just love how, when presented with something that flies in the face of a claim you make, which you provide no evidence for, you just act like it's nothing. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. If you claim that Ireland, as a majority, are against what we expect to see in the referendum, you have to provide evidence. Even a poll would do it (even though we both agree they aren't true reflections, they are good indicators).
ohnonotgmail wrote: » I'm sure there is a poll taken at the last Iona agm that EOTR could refer to.
end of the road wrote: » i never "claimed" most irish people don't want abortion on demand. i stated that i believe the amount who would want it won't be as many as we would think and that a referendum should it be won by the pro-abortion side may not be won by a huge majority.
NuMarvel wrote: » An opinion poll in today's Daily Mail says 53% of all respondents are in favour of repeal and allowing unrestricted access to abortion in the first 12 weeks. 26% are opposed, and 20% don't know or won't say. Excluding don't knows/won't say, that puts support for access up to 12 weeks (or abortion on demand as some call it) at 66%. That makes it the second poll in the last two months to show the majority of people support what is likely to be the Government's proposal. It's an encouraging result, but should still be treated with caution. In the 6 months before the marriage equality referendum put support at over 80% (excluding don't knows), whereas the result on the day was 62%. As the article notes, one of the dangers is that some of those in favour of repeal won't turn up to vote, which won't be an issue for the anti-repeal side. Full article here. UPDATE: The polling company has published more info on their poll.https://twitter.com/ireland_thinks/status/946749400788951040
end of the road wrote: » NuMarvel wrote: » An opinion poll in today's Daily Mail says 53% of all respondents are in favour of repeal and allowing unrestricted access to abortion in the first 12 weeks. 26% are opposed, and 20% don't know or won't say. Excluding don't knows/won't say, that puts support for access up to 12 weeks (or abortion on demand as some call it) at 66%. That makes it the second poll in the last two months to show the majority of people support what is likely to be the Government's proposal. It's an encouraging result, but should still be treated with caution. In the 6 months before the marriage equality referendum put support at over 80% (excluding don't knows), whereas the result on the day was 62%. As the article notes, one of the dangers is that some of those in favour of repeal won't turn up to vote, which won't be an issue for the anti-repeal side. Full article here. UPDATE: The polling company has published more info on their poll.https://twitter.com/ireland_thinks/status/946749400788951040 no the amount who support unrestricted access is 53%
PeterParker957 wrote: » Proof please.
end of the road wrote: » no the amount who support unrestricted access is 53%
frag420 wrote: » Welcome back EOTR... Again in case you missed it could you please be so kind as to answer the following question, it’s the fourth time I will have asked this if you!? If you don’t we can’t rest assured that you are happy for abortions to happen and are complicit in them as you would not be willing to stop them happening! So EOTR, If there was a number you could call where you could grass up women( your sister, mother, cousin, aunt. colleague, neighbour etc) who you knew or suspected were going abroad to have a termination or you knew or suspected they were procuring abortion pills online to bring about a termination... Would you use it to grass up these women to save the potential babies? Also please note that when you do call you will have to give your name and PPS number so you will be identifiable but hey, that should not matter if you’re saving potential life eh!? So what say you?
end of the road wrote: » already provided. 53% in support. 26% against. 20% don't know/won't say. the 20% of those who don't know/won't say were excluded and 26% are still opposed. therefore only 53% are definitely in favour. the only reason why 53% would become 66% is if the op is making the definite assumption that 13% of the don't knows/won't says would vote yes, which isn't a given.
