The 8th amendment(Mod warning in op)

Edward M · 04-01-2018 12:42AM

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.

I never mentioned contraception, never said it was easy either.
Do you think I lived in the dark ages and never used contraception?
The main problem I find with pro choice people sometimes is they think they are somehow "cooler" because of their stance or experiences, or maybe they suffer more hardship than others who have agonising decisions to make in life.
I've read all the baloney about it from both sides of the debate, doesent make the possibility of having to vote on it any easier or less hard for me.
I'm not moralising for you or anyone else, I'm speaking my mind on how I might have a hard decision to make as to repeal of the eighth and how I feel abortion on demand might actually make me vote in a way I would rather not, depending on that offer of abortion on demand.

volchitsa · 04-01-2018 12:49AM

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 · 04-01-2018 01:01AM

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?

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.

mrkiscool2 · 04-01-2018 01:06AM

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.

You should really read the stories of women who have actually gotten abortions. The one thing they will tell you, across the board, is how tough it was to make that decision and how hard it is to go through with it. Hell, some even feel upset about it years after the fact but know it was the right decision.

Abortion is never an easy choice. It's not about making it an easy choice either. 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 and suffer away from home for hours, if not days, before they get home. Or, in the case of FFA's, having to take a ferry as it's the only way to bring their deceased child home.

volchitsa · 04-01-2018 01:15AM

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.

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.

rainbow kirby · 04-01-2018 01:27AM

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.

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.

Edward M · 04-01-2018 01:40AM

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.

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 · 04-01-2018 01:46AM

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

but it's going to cost them a fortune here as well.

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.

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.

volchitsa · 04-01-2018 01:55AM

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!

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?

volchitsa · 04-01-2018 02:00AM

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.

The girl whose case came to light a few months ago was wrongly incarcerated for asking for an abortion on suicide grounds.
Not for "varied" reasons.

As for Savita, the expert who wrote the report confirmed only recently that his view was that without the law, she would have lived.

They messed up her care after, true. But if the 8th hadn't been in place she wouldn't have had to wait as she did.

mrkiscool2 · 04-01-2018 02:10AM

end of the road wrote: »

but it's going to cost them a fortune here as well.

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 · 04-01-2018 02:36AM

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.

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 · 04-01-2018 02:50AM

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.

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 · 04-01-2018 02:59AM

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.

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.

end of the road · 04-01-2018 03:21AM

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.

you are likely right unfortunately.

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.

no, i was consistent that the unborn starts off as a would be life before becoming a life quite quickly, hence the protections must remain.
hopefully whatever happens the person wanting the abortion will have to pay the cost of it in full. it's unlikely but i can hope because the state can't afford it.

Beta Ray Bill · 04-01-2018 09:44AM

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.

I don't like the term Grey if I'm honest.
When someone says grey to me that they refuse to accept there is a 3rd (or greater) position.
Child is born and is alive
Child is not alive
Child is at fetal stage X. where X can be and number between 0 and 42 Weeks.

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.

Jesus......
Perhaps we should stone them when they come back? You may as well, you've taken away most of their civil rights there anyway.

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.

Any figures to back this up?

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?

I don't see it as killing babies.

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.

So if I woman has an Irish passport she is liable?

drdeadlift · 04-01-2018 10:02AM

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.

We had our second child in Norway,compared to our first being born in Ireland it was like being in a different universe.
Part of the decision was a complete **** up from all doctors not detecting a major heart defect in my first child,on her christening(holiday to Norway) day here in Norway she had heart failure and then required multiple major heart surgery's.
After 10 mins of being quickly examined all junior trainee doctors were asked to diagnose her condition by simply listening to her with a stethoscope,they all guesses correctly.
I asked the cardiologists if this should have been detected at birth,they said it should have been picked up in the mid pregnancy scans.Some things slip by the doctors eye,however she had a very long extra scan offered as my other half was partaking in some blood sugar testing program.The doctor spent 40 mins looking at the child's heart with what seemed to be a curious inspection.
After birth they diagnosed her with a heart murmur.
The condition was fallots tetralogi and remembering correctly was a pretty severe case.

Not to derail the thread,once the second child was on the way the long fingered decision to hop ship to Norway was made.

Ps For some of the res ponders to my previous posts im pro choice,i was only curious as to how other peoples though process works.

....... · 04-01-2018 10:55AM

This post has been deleted.

NuMarvel · 04-01-2018 10:57AM

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.

When a woman decides to have an abortion, it's because she thinks it's necessary. One only has to listen to the stories of women who have had abortions to appreciate that. While not all women agonise over the decision (nor should they), it's clear it's not a decision they take lightly. I've never heard of a case where, on learning she's pregnant, a woman's first thought was "I'll have an abortion."

This comes down to two questions:

1) If women were able to access abortion in the first 12 weeks without precondition, do you trust that they would make the right choice in their particular circumstances, and
2) If so, how can you justify denying that choice to the majority of women on the basis of what a very small percentage might do (and in my opinion not very likely to do)?

....... · 04-01-2018 10:59AM

This post has been deleted.

....... · 04-01-2018 11:00AM

This post has been deleted.

seamus · 04-01-2018 11:09AM

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.

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.

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.

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?

....... · 04-01-2018 11:12AM

This post has been deleted.

January · 04-01-2018 11:17AM

....... 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.

Which will either cost 50 euro for the GP visit and at most 144 for the pill or free GP visit and 2.50 for the pills

Beta Ray Bill · 04-01-2018 11:55AM

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.

That's precisely what I'm saying:
If you have sex, you could get pregnant, there is no Abortion in Ireland because the parish pumps don't want it. Therefore you can either go abroad to have the abortion or have the baby.
This will never change, the Church are already gearing up for legal action against the removal of the baptisim barrier in schools.

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.

I don't think that's a very good analogy. You're talking about saving a persons life that's been in a car accident as an analogy against potentially ending a life as it's starting?

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?

I could counter argue that if you are that terrified and afraid of being in a car accident, IE you have a real genuine fear, then you probably shouldn't be getting in a Car.
But again it's not really a great analogy is it?

Getting pregnant is not punishment in my eyes, it's just life.
If you don't want to be pregnant then you have go abroad to have an abortion, (I'd imagine this is a VERY sh*tty experience)
It's either that or have the baby and put it up for adoption (I'd imagine this is even more sh*tty)

As I've said already, It is my opinion that fetus is not alive (Or just barely alive, or not capable of being alive without being in the womb), but it's not dead either. It's not a grey area (we understand well the stages of growth and exactly what is happening etc)

Again my concern ultimately is abuse of the system (we excel at that in this country). For me abortion is absolute last resort. I don't view it as contraception, as you've already conceived. I don't like the idea of it. I think it's a sad and difficult situation for all involved.

....... · 04-01-2018 12:18PM

This post has been deleted.

SusieBlue · 04-01-2018 12:26PM

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

This. Also, domestic adoption in this country is pretty much non existent anyway. Children can only be adopted after spending many, many years in the foster care system. By the time they are teenagers, no one wants them, because they have built up years worth of social and behavioural issues.
And at that, it is a tedious, expensive and extremely emotionally taxing endeavour which is why most Irish couples looking to adopt do so internationally. Because its cheaper and easier.

I honestly don't see how giving birth to a child to give it a life sentence in the care system is preferable to abortion, with no adult around in their life long enough to give a sh*t, but that's just me.

NuMarvel · 04-01-2018 12:28PM

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

They can now, but only since October last year.

But in any case, adoption is an option for those who don't want to become parents, but not really a realistic choice for women who don't want to be pregnant.

....... · 04-01-2018 12:40PM

This post has been deleted.

Edward M · 04-01-2018 12:58PM

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?

Fair enough too, I can be compartmentalised as judgemental in that sense.
What I mean in reference to that is that I don't judge those who would openly admit to having an abortion. If they feel they did the right thing then don't mind anyone who accuses or judges them of other.
Just an instance I know of, a young girl 17, fairly close acquaintaince of mine some years ago, got pregnant, her boyfriend was about the same age at the time, her family didn't want her to have the baby, boyfriends family didn't want her to have the baby, they clubbed together and virtually forced her to England, accompanied by her mother for an abortion.
We are still friends, she still regrets that decision and at the time wanted to have the baby, if she had support at the time she would have had the baby.
She now lives in regret of a decision forced on her, even though she now has a family, her biggest regret in life is that abortion.

The 8th amendment(Mod warning in op)

Comments