One eyed Jack wrote: » That was a genuine answer neonsofa, it's what I do and what I've always done and why I can say that based upon my experience, kylith's and ohnonotgmail's dystopian predictions don't necessarily follow. Off the top of my head I can think of a number of women whom have been able to continue their studies, or open their own businesses, or been able to travel or do whatever it is they want with their lives, and having children hasn't been an impediment to their goals they set for themselves. If every private citizen did that, then there would simply be no need for support from the State which provides the means merely to endure the most basic standard of living.
kylith wrote: » I’m Making no more assumptions than you are, with your idea that everyone who tingles themselves with an unplanned pregnancy will be overtaken with the desire to leapfrog up the social ladder. What’s extra laughable is tht you would also like to remove any social supports which would allow them to actually do that.
One eyed Jack wrote: » But that's you're assuming that she has to do all those things kylith, not me. ln my experience there's absolutely no reason why there should be any assumption of a pre-determined outcome for her. Let's imagine for a minute she would meet someone like you who might say to her "y'know what, you pursue your studies, finish your degree, do whatever it is you want to do and I'll make sure you have every opportunity to do it, and you can still raise your child if that's what you want to do!" Now things aren't all so doom and gloom as to her future prospects, are they? FWIW btw I absolutely do not support the raising of social welfare, I would abolish it entirely if I thought it were possible. I don't support the abolition of school/college fees (but certainly I would put what fees are charged to better use, definitely a whole other thread there!), and I think we already touched on the subsidised childcare issue? Needless to say I would simply abolish it.
neonsofa wrote: » Are you going to offer a genuine answer or just use my question to make digs at other posters that have nothing to do with me?
One eyed Jack wrote: » With people like kylith who exist in Irish society who are willing to provide for those people who are less fortunate than themselves. I'm assuming they do already since they use those people in their arguments.
ohnonotgmail wrote: » Or they could end up spending their life on social welfare because they were born to a single mother who was forced to give birth to them and did poorly in life as a result.
neonsofa wrote: » How would the former part of your post be possible without the latter parts that you would abolish?
ohnonotgmail wrote: » Stupid scaremongering with nothing to back it up except bald assertions and i expect no better from you.
captbarnacles wrote: » EOTR has only recently latched on this rubbish because Jack introduced it. There is no sign of it from him earlier in the thread. He'll give it up shortly as it is refuted.
kylith wrote: » So, a teenager who becomes pregnant in school/college, who would otherwise have gone on to a well paying job after finishing her degree, giving the children she would have planned later in life a good standard of living and good educational prospects now has to drop out of school because she can’t balance motherhood and education, leading to her taking lower paid jobs and providing a lower standard of living and fewer education prospects is somehow better for her social mobility?
kylith wrote: » Unless you support the raising of social welfare and the abolition of school/college fees, along with heavily subsidised childcare. Do you?
kylith wrote: » So, a teenager who becomes pregnant in school/college, who would otherwise have gone on to a well paying job after finishing her degree, giving the children she would have planned later in life a good standard of living and good educational prospects now has to drop out of school because she can’t balance motherhood and education, leading to her taking lower paid jobs and providing a lower standard of living and fewer education prospects is somehow better for her social mobility? I think you have something backwards there, Jack. Unless you support the raising of social welfare and the abolition of school/college fees, along with heavily subsidised childcare. Do you?
One eyed Jack wrote: » Providing an abortion is cheaper than providing pregnancy care, but that's where any comparison ends. The person as an adult will likely pay more in tax over their lifetime and contribute more to the economy than their parents will ever be able to claim in child benefit.
ohnonotgmail wrote: » How many dozen abortions do you think each woman will have? Because that is the number that would be required before we approach the cost of medical care and subsequent childrens allowance for a single child. Stupid scaremongering with nothing to back it up except bald assertions and i expect no better from you.
One eyed Jack wrote: » I have no doubt you're aware that that is the maximum sentence for the crime for which it is imposed. There's no need to be scaremongering anyone into believing that such a sentence is automatic upon conviction, or that the DPP would have any interest in pursuing a prosecution in the first place. It would depend entirely upon the circumstances of any given case, providing a complaint were made in the first place, and then any actions determined afterwards pursuant with any investigation being carried out.
end of the road wrote: » allegedly. all though with the likely hood that abortions would increase, it's likely it won't work out cheaper long term.
end of the road wrote: » also, as it would be availible, the government would eventually begin to believe that because of it's availability, there is no need to put any sort of reasonable funding into the system in relation to children, meaning large scale funding reductions for children that do exist. just look at the wellfare system in britain, it's not just conservatism at play in it's slow reduction and failure.
ohnonotgmail wrote: » Providing an abortion is cheaper than providing medical care throughout a pregnancy and paying childrens allowance for 18 years. your grasp of basic maths is poor.
ohnonotgmail wrote: » Providing an abortion is cheaper than providing medical care throughout a pregnancy and paying childrens allowance for 18 years.
Zubeneschamali wrote: » Perhaps we should repeal that "14 years in jail if you do it" law? What's that? We can't do that because of the 8th amendment? Hmmm...
end of the road wrote: » that's not a solution, as in turn the systems we have will highly likely see less money as the belief will be that people can just have an abortion.
Billy86 wrote: » Luckily there's a simple solution for this that doesn't entail you putting anyone on your own private healthcare plan or any extremes being taken - make abortions available via public healthcare, which is something which you already contribute to.
One eyed Jack wrote: » I have no issue at an individual level with any woman who would want an abortion because she wants to terminate her pregnancy, at any point for any reason.
pilly wrote: » It's gone beyond tiresome Jack because you're not even willing to contemplate that all things being equal, in some cases it's best for a woman not to have a child simply because she doesn't WANT to. What makes it so hard for you to understand that?
pilly wrote: » You say you're not making moral judgements on people but you are in the following ways: 1. You've assumed that some women will be forced into having an abortion. 2. You assume that it's better for people to have children than not have them, whether they want to or not. 3. You assume childless people have no motivation to get on in life
pilly wrote: » Any maybe worst of all you admit to hypocrisy of the highest order by saying you would finance the best ever abortion for your Granddaughter because you care about her. Think that thought right the way through Jack, it means you're willing to stop other women having abortions because you don't care about them. What gives you that right?