Abortion - Report of the Joint Committee on the Eighth Amendment of the Constitution

recedite · 05-02-2018 08:46PM

"legal right to privacy".
They must be having a laugh.
Imagine if you tried to bypass airport security with your luggage, citing that. Every smuggler would be claiming their "legal rights".

end of the road · 05-02-2018 08:56PM

recedite wrote: »

"legal right to privacy".
They must be having a laugh.
Imagine if you tried to bypass airport security with your luggage, citing that. Every smuggler would be claiming their "legal rights".

exactly. it's nonsense from what is in my view, an anerkist group who are playing the victim because customs have copped on to their nonsense.

seamus · 06-02-2018 09:44AM

2wsxcde3 wrote: »

Sounds like WOW are annoyed that their shipments of abortion pills were being seized by customs ...the same shipments customs have said were in bulk shipments.

Sure. Still doesn't prove your point though. You've no evidence that WOW were the only organisation importing pills or that they falsified any data for the BMJ.
In fact the exact opposite is said in the article, and it deals with the existence of black markets for pills. And in terms of use, WOW may actually be small fry overall rather than the primary provider of services. With women opting in general for other sources.

Of course, that doesn't suit your agenda so you conveniently ignore it.

06-02-2018 10:36AM

I do imagine that WOW would wish that their service was being better delivered.

Once the 8th amendment is repealed I hope that they are out of business in Ireland in any case, as the HSE / GP network should look to completely make them redundant as they provide the service that WOW feel they have to.

NuMarvel · 06-02-2018 10:49AM

Deleted User wrote: »

I do imagine that WOW would wish that their service was being better delivered.

Once the 8th amendment is repealed I hope that they are out of business in Ireland in any case, as the HSE / GP network should look to completely make them redundant as they provide the service that WOW feel they have to.

One of their criteria for issuing the pills is that you must live in a country where access to safe abortion is restricted, so they'll probably stop sending them here once legislation is passed. Northern Ireland would be a different story though.

Itssoeasy · 08-02-2018 12:09AM

The pat Kenny show on tv3 addressed the accuracy of the billboard that claims that 90 % of children with Down syndrome are aborted.

This was proven to be incorrect with what was suggested to be a conflation of the actual numbers to arrive at the 90 % number.

I think it's very important that only accurate info should be used on both sides on this debate.

Itssoeasy · 08-02-2018 12:10AM

The pat Kenny show on tv3 addressed the accuracy of the billboard that claims that 90 % of children with Down syndrome are aborted.

This was proven to be incorrect with what was suggested to be a conflation of the actual numbers to arrive at the 90 % number.

I think it's very important that only accurate info should be used on both sides on this debate.

splinter65 · 08-02-2018 12:11AM

Itssoeasy wrote: »

The pat Kenny show on tv3 addressed the accuracy of the billboard that claims that 90 % of children with Down syndrome are aborted.

This was proven to be incorrect with what was suggested to be a conflation of the actual numbers to arrive at the 90 % number.

I think it's very important that only accurate info should be used on both sides on this debate.

What is the actual number if not 90?

Itssoeasy · 08-02-2018 01:17AM

splinter65 wrote: »

Itssoeasy wrote: »

The pat Kenny show on tv3 addressed the accuracy of the billboard that claims that 90 % of children with Down syndrome are aborted.

This was proven to be incorrect with what was suggested to be a conflation of the actual numbers to arrive at the 90 % number.

I think it's very important that only accurate info should be used on both sides on this debate.

What is the actual number if not 90?

It was less than half that. I think they said 38 %. But the point is it was incorrect info and it was put up on a billboard with inaccurate percentages. That's my point.

Itssoeasy · 08-02-2018 01:17AM

splinter65 wrote: »

Itssoeasy wrote: »

The pat Kenny show on tv3 addressed the accuracy of the billboard that claims that 90 % of children with Down syndrome are aborted.

This was proven to be incorrect with what was suggested to be a conflation of the actual numbers to arrive at the 90 % number.

I think it's very important that only accurate info should be used on both sides on this debate.

What is the actual number if not 90?

It was less than half that. I think they said 38 %. But the point is it was incorrect info and it was put up on a billboard with inaccurate percentages. That's my point.

Hotblack Desiato · 08-02-2018 01:21AM

What is the relevance of the number?

Every woman should be able to make her own choice. What other people do or do not choose is irrelevant.

NuMarvel · 08-02-2018 01:21AM

splinter65 wrote: »

What is the actual number if not 90?

I don't think it's relevant for this discussion. From a practical point of view, Down's Syndrome won't be diagnosed within the first 12 weeks (which is when someone can have an abortion on request), and the recommended laws don't include grounds to have an abortion for that reason after 12 weeks.

Similar to surrogacy in the marriage equality referendum, Down's Syndrome is being used the the No crowd as a red herring. It might be an interesting discussion in its own right, but it's not relevant to this discussion and it won't be affected by the outcome of the referendum.

end of the road · 08-02-2018 02:45AM

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Every woman should be able to make her own choice.

not when that choice harms others. the same as any of us.

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

What other people do or do not choose is irrelevant.

it's relevant if what they choose causes harm to others.

NuMarvel wrote: »

I don't think it's relevant for this discussion. From a practical point of view, Down's Syndrome won't be diagnosed within the first 12 weeks (which is when someone can have an abortion on request), and the recommended laws don't include grounds to have an abortion for that reason after 12 weeks.

Similar to surrogacy in the marriage equality referendum, Down's Syndrome is being used the the No crowd as a red herring. It might be an interesting discussion in its own right, but it's not relevant to this discussion and it won't be affected by the outcome of the referendum.

in the short term that is the case but we have to think of the long term in relation to this debate rather then the short term. the laws being changed and time limits made higher is a possibility long term so ds and everything else is relevant to the debate as should the 8th be repealed and abortion on demand is introduced there is no going back. everything needs to be up for debate now IMO.

2wsxcde3 · 08-02-2018 04:17AM

Itssoeasy wrote: »

The pat Kenny show on tv3 addressed the accuracy of the billboard that claims that 90 % of children with Down syndrome are aborted.

This was proven to be incorrect with what was suggested to be a conflation of the actual numbers to arrive at the 90 % number.

I think it's very important that only accurate info should be used on both sides on this debate.

The 90% number is correct.

90% of women who go for a scan and find out the baby has down syndrome choose to abort the baby. The 90% figure does not include women who don't go for a scan (that's what the Pat Kenny show for some strange reason thought was relevant). So the implication is correct, 90% of women who find out their baby has down syndrome before being born, choose to abort.

volchitsa · 08-02-2018 07:13AM

2wsxcde3 wrote: »

The 90% number is correct.

90% of women who go for a scan and find out the baby has down syndrome choose to abort the baby. The 90% figure does not include women who don't go for a scan (that's what the Pat Kenny show for some strange reason thought was relevant). So the implication is correct, 90% of women who find out their baby has down syndrome before being born, choose to abort.

Presumably that is mostly/always why they have the scan though, so it's a little unsurprising. Amd the number who choose not to is relevant, for that reason.

NuMarvel · 08-02-2018 10:02AM

end of the road wrote: »

in the short term that is the case but we have to think of the long term in relation to this debate rather then the short term. the laws being changed and time limits made higher is a possibility long term so ds and everything else is relevant to the debate as should the 8th be repealed and abortion on demand is introduced there is no going back. everything needs to be up for debate now IMO.

If we debated things based on every slight possibility, then we'd never agree anything. We make decisions on what's likely, and it's not likely that our abortions law would be changed in the foreseeable future that would allow practical access to abortion for disabilities.

And it's pure scaremongering to claim "there is no going back" after we repeal and legislate. Future governments will have the option to change our abortion laws to make them more restrictive, not less. And while I don't think that's likely either, it's certainly more likely than what you're predicting.

Zubeneschamali · 08-02-2018 12:07PM

2wsxcde3 wrote: »

90% of women who find out their baby has down syndrome before being born, choose to abort.

That is not what the poster says:

In Britain, 90% of babies with Downs Syndrome are aborted

The statement on that poster is a lie.

....... · 08-02-2018 03:11PM

This post has been deleted.

end of the road · 08-02-2018 03:36PM

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

actually there are such thing as okay abortions and bad abortions. okay abortions equals medically necessary and similar. there is a massive difference between judging a woman for taking the life of the unborn outside medically necessary reasons and judging her for the simple act of enjoying sex which most of us enjoy. 99% of people aren't going to care about someone having sex, why would they. plenty of people are going to care about the taking of the life of the unborn on the other hand, because it's a developing human life and we wouldn't tolerate the killing of the same human being later on in their development stage.

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

we aren't exporting health care to britain. health care is availible in ireland. this includes abortion in some cases where genuinely required, all though that could and should be extended as some necessary cases are left out in the currently existing legislation.
if we really want to sort the issues the 8th actually causes then the current proposals were the wrong thing to put forward as they have quite the potential to bring about a no vote due to the opposition to abortion on demand.

2wsxcde3 · 08-02-2018 06:32PM

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

The billboard poster implies that a scan has taken place. I understood that. But for some strange reason people on the pro-choice side didn't understand that.

In any case, some women have an abortion without having a scan and then find that the baby had down syndrome when it is aborted (these babies are not included in the 90% figure). The Pat Kenny show seemed to think these down syndrome babies should be included, when of course they shouldn't. Its only ones where a scan took place, and therefore the woman knowingly aborted the baby because it had down syndrome, should be included. That's where the 90% figure comes in.

If a woman had no scan and had an abortion and then found the baby had down syndrome; would it make sense for the pro-life crowd to say "She aborted a down syndrome baby!!!". Of course not. She didn't know the baby had down syndrome. That's why women who had no scan were not included.

Zubeneschamali · 08-02-2018 06:46PM

2wsxcde3 wrote: »

The billboard poster implies that a scan has taken place.

That, too, is a lie.

end of the road · 08-02-2018 07:01PM

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

That, too, is a lie.

based on?

uptherebels · 08-02-2018 07:49PM

end of the road wrote: »

based on?

that the poster doesn't imply a scan has taken place:eek:

NuMarvel · 08-02-2018 07:56PM

2wsxcde3 wrote: »

That's why women who had no scan were not included.

Women who didn't have a scan weren't included because it reduces the headline figure from 90% to whatever it actually is (I think someone said 40% earlier?).

Alternatively, they could easily have a few more words to the start of their slogan to avoid confusion; something like "After a prenatal scan...". It's not as if there wouldn't have been room on a poster that's going up on a 2 or 3 storey high billboard.

2wsxcde3 · 08-02-2018 07:57PM

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

That, too, is a lie.

The billboard poster implies that women were choosing to abort down syndrome babies. The only way a woman could choose that, was if she knew the baby had down syndrome via a scan.

That a scan was used was then obviously implied.

Zubeneschamali · 08-02-2018 08:44PM

2wsxcde3 wrote: »

That a scan was used was then obviously implied.

No, it explicitly says 90% are aborted.

If a scan is involved, the implication is that something over 90% are scanned.

2wsxcde3 · 08-02-2018 09:10PM

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

No, it explicitly says 90% are aborted.

If a scan is involved, the implication is that something over 90% are scanned.

Lol. Making no sense.

Edward M · 08-02-2018 09:37PM

2wsxcde3 wrote: »

The billboard poster implies that a scan has taken place. I understood that. But for some strange reason people on the pro-choice side didn't understand that.

In any case, some women have an abortion without having a scan and then find that the baby had down syndrome when it is aborted (these babies are not included in the 90% figure). The Pat Kenny show seemed to think these down syndrome babies should be included, when of course they shouldn't. Its only ones where a scan took place, and therefore the woman knowingly aborted the baby because it had down syndrome, should be included. That's where the 90% figure comes in.

If a woman had no scan and had an abortion and then found the baby had down syndrome; would it make sense for the pro-life crowd to say "She aborted a down syndrome baby!!!". Of course not. She didn't know the baby had down syndrome. That's why women who had no scan were not included.

That's not the way I viewed it.
It said 90% of people who had a scan or test for DS aborted.
Overall loads of people didn't bother with the test and were having their baby regardless of any deficiency.
Overall when all babies diagnosed with DS after birth and before birth were taken in to consideration I think around 58% was the actual figure overall that were aborted.
I'm open to correction on the actual figure, but it was way lower than the headline 90% headline figure.

....... · 09-02-2018 12:42PM

This post has been deleted.

2wsxcde3 · 10-02-2018 01:22AM

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

How come you have no problem with the claim that 1000's of irish women have bought abortion pills online when in fact customs show the pills are coming in in bulk packages, not individual packages - meaning you or I or George Soros could be going online and bulk ordering abortion pills to inflate the numbers of abortion pills being bought by Irish women.

How come when I highlighted that fact earlier in this thread I was attacked left right and center.

Abortion - Report of the Joint Committee on the Eighth Amendment of the Constitution

Comments