eviltwin wrote: » Would you be more comfortable forcing them to carry a pregnancy they don't want?
Loafing Oaf wrote: » Every indication is that the referendum will be on straight repeal of the 8th amendment from the constitution and that well in advance of the referendum the government will outline the legislation with which it proposes to replace the amendment. It also seems highly likely that this legislation will be along the lines recommended by the committee, i.e. legalising abortion on demand/ request up till the 12th week of pregnancy. I guess it will be a personal judgement for you which takes precedence, your desire to permit abortion in 'exceptional circumstances' or your opposition to 'unrestricted' abortion...
threescompany wrote: » Honestly ..... and I’m not being sarcastic. I don’t know. I don’t think I’d be comfortable with forcing them to carry out a pregnancy but it also just didn’t sit well with me when these friends had the abortions . I felt it was irresponsible of them especially when taking contraception is so easy ( and double up on contraception if you really don’t want to get pregnant !) I absolutely acknowledge there’s been valid points made here - is it fair on the child to be born to parents who aren’t ready and don’t want the baby. This is a difficult one.
WhiteRoses wrote: » Have you thought about how the 8th amendment affects maternity care for women who are keeping their babies (ie. scans, labour etc) and how it affects their ability to consent?
NuMarvel wrote: » I don't see the basis for assuming that legalising abortion here will make any significant difference to fertility or replacement rates. But if I’m wrong, it should be easy to illustrate with an example. There were 63,897 births in Ireland in 2016. How many fewer births would there have been if the Committee’s recommendations were law at that time, and what’s your basis for arriving at that number?
NuMarvel wrote: » If women are having already having abortions, and research shows that there's little difference between abortion rates in regions that ban abortion and regions that don't
threescompany wrote: » I don’t really understand what you mean... do you mean if there’s a life threatening situation for the mother? If so, i agree with abortion in this case so again it’s a hard one for me, who has genuine scenarios where abortion is ok sometimes but not others.
threescompany wrote: » Honestly ..... and I’m not being sarcastic. I don’t know. I don’t think I’d be comfortable with forcing them to carry out a pregnancy but it also just didn’t sit well with me when these friends had the abortions . I felt it was irresponsible of them especially when taking contraception is so easy ( and double up on contraception if you really don’t want to get pregnant !)
nozzferrahhtoo wrote: » NuMarvel has already dealt with your post from a useful angle, so I can only add to what they have already said. But one good test for an argument is to try and apply the same argument to other situations. Not least to test oneself for cherry picking arguments in one context that one outright ignore in others..... as that is usually a flag for bias. While commenting on our "replacement rate" in the subject of abortion therefore, try applying that same line of thinking to contraception. How ridiculous would it feel, or what response do you think you would get from the general public, if you used our "replacement rate" as an argument for reducing access to some types of contraception? I strongly suspect you would be laughed out of the room, assuming you even managed to get out of said room alive.
nozzferrahhtoo wrote: » After all if our low "replacement rate" is indeed a concern, then there are MANY things where that concern lies in the figures other than abortions. The rate of abortions by people living in Ireland (whether they find ways to get them on Irish soil or off) is not exactly high per capita is it?
nozzferrahhtoo wrote: » So it would seem if "replacement rate" is an issue then addressing that issue has many avenues that would be much more effective and relevant than any change bringing abortion in would cause, surely?
threescompany wrote: » You see, that’s it, I know 3 people and all of them had abortions as it was an unwanted pregnancy resulting from the couples not using contraception. In this instance, I’m not comfortable with this. They made a choice not to use contraception and were irresponsible knowing it may result in an unwanted pregnancy. In an age when contraception is so available I cannot agree with abortion. If however, someone I know told me they would not survive the pregnancy without an abortion, in this instance I’m ok with abortion. So it really depends on the different situations. I’m very clear in my own head what I agree with but if the wording in the referendum states that abortion will be unrestricted, then that will really complicate the issue for me.
Riskymove wrote: » This is quite a common view. The issue with it really for me is that it boils down to "there is something that I disapprove of but doesn't affect me directly. I want it banned so noone can decide to choose it" This argument would not IMO be accepted in many other issues but for some reason is enough in this one for many people. Your friends decisions and actions are their own. They have to live the consequences - what has it to do with you?
rainbow kirby wrote: » "In the national interest" is a TERRIBLE reason to force someone to carry to term. We aren't brood mares.
Bannasidhe wrote: » Many years ago my son's ex-girlfriend contacted him to say she was pregnant. The contraception failed. To be perfectly honest at that point in their lives neither of them looked like they would excel in the parenting stakes. I made an offer - I offered to raise the child if they wished but if she really wanted an abortion I would pay for them both to travel and the procedure. I made that offer because I am pro-choice not pro-abortion. As much as I would have been delighted to raise my grandchild the choice was not mine, it wasn't even my son's - and it was he who stated this. The only person who could make that choice was the very young woman who accidentally got pregnant and we had to accept her choice. She decided to have the child, and for the first few years things were difficult and sometimes Granny read the riot act. Now, over a decade later my granddaughter is a lovely, intelligent, compassionate, girl on the verge of puberty and the light of my life. And yes, if she had been aborted I would always wonder but that does not change the fact that it was never my decision and I absolutely believe still that only one person had the right to decide because only one person was pregnant. And should the day come that my granddaughter finds herself in the situation of having a crises pregnancy I will make her the same offer and I will respect what ever decision she makes. I am pro-choice not because I want women and girls to have abortions. I am pro-choice because I respect the rights of sentient human beings to determine what does and does not happen to their bodies. It's not my right to sit in judgement.
threescompany wrote: » However, as an Irish citizen, i have a say on if I believe something can be legalized or not.... We all have the right to vote regardless of whether or not it affects us directly,
threescompany wrote: You see, that’s it, I know 3 people and all of them had abortions as it was an unwanted pregnancy resulting from the couples not using contraception. In this instance, I’m not comfortable with this. They made a choice not to use contraception and were irresponsible knowing it may result in an unwanted pregnancy. In an age when contraception is so available I cannot agree with abortion.
Bannasidhe wrote: » I am pro-choice not because I want women and girls to have abortions. I am pro-choice because I respect the rights of sentient human beings to determine what does and does not happen to their bodies. It's not my right to sit in judgement.
EirWatchr wrote: » Everyone is free to ridicule based on their bias, or discuss sensibly. It's no skin off my nose, whichever they opt to do.
EirWatchr wrote: » It can be difficult to attribute what part of fertility rate drop is directly related to abortion
EirWatchr wrote: » It would be difficult to make the case that unrestricted abortion could ever contribute to increasing the fertility rate.
EirWatchr wrote: » An avenue than would provide a more than 10% increase in the birth rate that prohibiting abortion already averts? Do tell - I'm sure we'd all like to know, particularly those who lives could be spared by it. You could look, for inspiration, to the costly birth incentives schemes that have had to be introduced by France, Canada, Denmark (to name some) who also hold low restrictions on abortion.
Riskymove wrote: » I am not talking about your right to vote...I am talking about what you said about your friends and your reasons for your position on the matter You felt your friends were irresponsible and as as a result perhaps they shouldn't be able to have an abortion here. I am just asking you to reflect on that idea. Is that really a good enough reason for no one to be allowed to choose regardless of circumstances or reasons? Is it less irresponsible to force your friends to choose to travel or have an unwanted child?
threescompany wrote: » Fair enough, sorry I misunderstood what you meant. I’ve alot of thinking to do on this topic. But there are other circumstances that I’m unconscious with ( Down’s syndrome abortions) anyway I’m just ploughing through this referendum myself. I will inform myself and make the right decision as I see fit.
EirWatchr wrote: » The exceptions to that are the preborn children who's lives were ended by termination - because in the absence of the law protecting them from force, they will never have a voice to claim anything.
threescompany wrote: » Fair enough, sorry I misunderstood what you meant.
nozzferrahhtoo wrote: » Ignorance requires no forgiveness, and awareness of where one's own ignorance lies deserves praise, never condemnation. Keep it up! The first thing to be aware of is that "on demand" and "unrestricted" are massively different things. The first means that women be allowed have an abortion for reasons of their own choosing. The latter means there is no restrictions on that choice. The vast majority of people who want women to have that choice, and countries that offer that choice, have restrictions. Most often in terms of the time limit by which abortion by choice can be sought. Here in Ireland people who want abortion by choice usually aim for 12, 16 or 20 weeks as the cut off. Some, but much less, aim for 24 which I think is what the UK and parts of the US have. I myself would be happy with 12, 16 or 20 really. 16 ideally. But I would lose no sleep over 12. There are some places without such restriction. Canada for example. However it is interesting that EVEN IN a country with no restriction........ the rate at which abortions happen fall in line with where the restrictions would lie in other countries. Take 2015 for example. There was apparently 100612 abortions in Canada in that year. The number of abortions that took place in or after week 21 was a HALF a %. A little over 500. In fact 91% of abortions in that year were complete by 12 weeks of gestation. Pretty much all of them by 16 weeks. But a repeal of the 8th would, I am informed, allow us to legislate against abortion by choice, or for it. And if we were to legislate for it I strongly suspect that time limits would be included in that and we would have nothing like the Canadian system, and probably something with more stringent restrictions than the UK or US. But that is just my feeling, rather than anything I can evidence, given the recommendations of the Citizens Assembly. So I see no reason for someone like yourself not to vote for repeal. But as others have said, more information is not really possible until we know EXACTLY what we will be asked to vote on.
threescompany wrote: » That’s a lovely story. Delighted you’ve a grest relationship with your granddaughter & I respect everyone’s right to their opinion. I think it’s great you aren’t a judgemental person. I TRY not to be, but of course, it’s hard not to judge sometimes.
EirWatchr wrote: » Sorry for delay - a bit busy. Total fertility rate (TFR) is the usual figure used to discuss this, but for the purposes of relative comparison to the figure you cite: Use the U.K. for comparison (note that the U.K. abortion rate is close to EU average, but that the Oireachtas Committee's recommendations are for an even less restrictive abortion law than the U.K.): U.K. Abortion rate for 2016 = 0.003 per capita (Population 65648100, 185596 Abortions, which excludes the 4810 abortions provided to non-residents)https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/report-on-abortion-statistics-in-england-and-wales-for-2016 Estimated abortions that would have been performed in Ireland, under U.K. abortion conditions: Ireland population 2016 = 4757976 (CSO) Est. abortions = 14274 (4757976 * 0.003) That's 14.8% of the birth rate in 2016. That's a fairly average impact of abortion on fertility. Research in other countries has resulted in fall estimates of 8% - 20%. e.g., http://www.nber.org/papers/w5615.pdf,http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12158052 And some EU countries have reported even higher. Even if you allow for the estimated current abortion rate of people living in Ireland, it still points to an increase of over double - and percentages aside, that's thousands more lives yearly ended by the proposed Committee recommendations.
