volchitsa wrote: » Easier than what? This notion that women won't bother with contraception because "sure you can 'just' have an abortion" is just pro-life propaganda and very deeply anti woman. I was in a country with abortion a the time, so I didn't even have to travel, but I can tell you there is no way it was physically easier than using contraception, never mind emotionally.
volchitsa wrote: » You said this: / while I don't want anyone suffering over their pregnancy, I feel I can't just support abortion on demand just because it is available and may be the easiest option. / I don't understand your point about abortion being "easier" and your reply doesn't make any attempt to answer that. Could you unpick this fear you've expressed because I really don't get the thinking behind it. Especially if you didn't mean, as I assumed, the usual claim about "women would used abortion instead of bothering with contraception". So what did you mean about it being "the easiest option" then?
Edward M wrote: » I mean the easiest way out of a pregnancy. For some, and maybe a very small percentage, of those that seek abortion on demand it may be used as the first option instead of carrying a pregnancy through to the end when it might be a very possible outcome. If you want to term that as a late contraception, then ok, that would be it. I'm not talking the morning after pill sort of thing, but the 10/12 week decision as taking abortion as just an easy option, whether necessary or not. It would happen I feel, and for that reason I'd be torn as to supporting such legislation.
drdeadlift wrote: » I get the feeling the majority of the repeal the 8th crowd do not have children.Having children for me made me look at this issue very differently.
volchitsa wrote: » So do you mean then that because you personally might disapprove of the reasons a small number of women might have for abortion, you would consider voting to continue a situation where most women can still have abortions for those same reasons, in the UK? What would that achieve? Those "bad" abortions are happening anyway. The main effect is that another Savita could happen again tomorrow, or another dead woman left to decay on life support machines or teenage girls put in psych wards.
mrkiscool2 wrote: » It's about ensuring that women can have safe and legal access to it and not have to pay a fortune to get it done in another country
Edward M wrote: » For sure what you say makes sense. I want something to be put in place so that neither side "wins'. The life of the mother should be paramount in cases such as you mention, if that can be achieved without abortion on demand, that's what I would like to see. I think I would find it hard to support anything where "bad" abortions are just as legal as totally legitimate ones. I hope that explains my quandary and thinking at present without making me sound judgemental, which I'm not trying to be!
end of the road wrote: » but it's going to cost them a fortune here as well. 2 of those could also happen even if the 8th wasn't in place. Savita died due to incompetents from what i can gather, not because she didn't have an abortion. teens sadly get locked up in psych wards for many varied reasons, they don't get locked up because they want an abortion.
end of the road wrote: » but it's going to cost them a fortune here as well.
mrkiscool2 wrote: » Glad to see you've stopped the nonsense of trying to argue with science. Also, how would it cost them a fortune here? Private clinics in the UK are far more expensive but it's the only way Irish women can get the abortion. Plus, there is the cost of having to travel once if lucky, twice if not, and the added cost of a hotel room etc. So no, it won't cost them anywhere near as much.
end of the road wrote: » it will cost anyone wanting an abortion on demand money if it was legalised in ireland because the state is not in a position to pay for it. so the person having the abortion will have to pay in full for it.
end of the road wrote: » you are mixing me up with someone else. i didn't argue against science but with science. it will cost anyone wanting an abortion on demand money if it was legalised in ireland because the state is not in a position to pay for it. so the person having the abortion will have to pay in full for it.
Simi wrote: » Actually the cost of a termination will likely be covered by the state in full in some cases and at least in part in others, if current plans come to fruition. The current plan is a GP based service, meaning the cost of the pills would be covered in full for the holders of a medical card and at least in part under the drug payment scheme for everyone else. Either way it will be a fraction of the cost of going to a private clinic in the UK. Of course no draft legislation has actually been published yet, so this is all speculative.
mrkiscool2 wrote: » Until I gave you a link that clearly shows you weren't. You were confusing the chance to become a life with life. By the way, a sperm or egg cell are similar to a fetus in that way, they have the potential to create life, but aren't life themselves. Fun fact. Well, yes, yes it is. Not that it would be free for everyone, of course, and private clinics would most likely pop up so those who didn't want to wait as long could get it straight away. But it would be by GP referral meaning, at most, it would cost whatever the GP charges.
sondagefaux wrote: » It's somewhere in between? In other words, you think it's a grey area as to whether or not a foetus is a child. So why do you want a black and white solution? A law which permits abortions in some circumstances but prohibits abortions in others is probably the best way to deal with things if you really believe that.
sondagefaux wrote: » As for the rest, it's not impossible to figure out if a woman who wants to travel abroad is pregnant. It's relatively easy in fact. How would you know if a woman who was pregnant wanted to get an abortion? Check her phone, laptop etc. Check her luggage for any appointment letters etc. Again not that difficult to do. A pregnant woman who is travelling abroad but there is no evidence she wants to get an abortion. She is no longer pregnant (this can be checked) on her return to Ireland. Did she have a miscarriage, an abortion or give birth? These can be checked.
sondagefaux wrote: » As regards child rape, there have been several prosecutions in Ireland of Irish citizens who have travelled abroad and raped children. Just because a crime is difficult to deal with doesn't mean it should be ignored. You say you don't think abortion is killing babies, although you also say you don't think it isn't either.
sondagefaux wrote: » For those who see it as killing babies, I'm still struggling to see why they don't seem to mind if Irish women get abortions abroad. If they're not actually that bothered, why would they care if a woman gets an abortion in Ireland or elsewhere?
sondagefaux wrote: » PS: French woman who went to the UK, got an abortion, then came to Ireland - can't be prosecuted in Ireland, Irish courts would have no jurisdiction.
rainbow kirby wrote: » One toddler and 34 weeks pregnant with #2. Have been pro choice pretty much my whole life and having my son only reinforced my belief that nobody should be forced to carry to term or become a parent if they don't want to. For what it's worth - I've had all my pregnancies in the UK and knowing that the 8th is not a factor in my care has made me feel a lot safer having my children here.
grahambo wrote: » This is reproduction 101 Seamus, it's the primary reason we've evolved to enjoy/have the urge to have sex: To Reproduce. If you have sex, you accept that it is possible regardless of what contraceptive you use that there is a tiny remote possibility that you could get pregnant.
....... wrote: » Dont be ridiculous, more than 90% of abortions happen in the first 12 weeks when a pill can be used so it will cost no more than a GP visit and a pill.
seamus wrote: » Yes, but that's not what I said. Understanding that there's a possibility of getting pregnant, and having a baby are two entirely separate things. You appear to be saying that if someone has sex, they should be prepared to have a baby.
seamus wrote: » Like I say, you're a bit all over the place because you support contraception and the morning after pill, but not any additional measures in the event that they fail. It's like saying that you support seat belts, air bags, ABS, etc., in cars, but someone who is dying on the roadside after all of these measures failed should just be left to die because they knew the risks when they got behind the wheel.
seamus wrote: » Why is it when it comes to pregnancy that we suddenly decide someone needs to be "punished" for having the gall to have sex? Why can't people just be allowed to have sex without this threat of punishment hanging over their heads?
....... wrote: » This post has been deleted.
volchitsa wrote: » But it is judgmental, and that's not meant as a criticism, I wouldn't dare claim never to be judgmental myself. But fundamentally your objection is not to abortion but to "abortion for the wrong reasons". That's a good illustration of being judgmental. Wouldn't it be as easy to make the argument that such unsuitable parents shouldn't be allowed to have children as to say they have to have them to teach them not to take the easy way out?
