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

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.

Both sides use inaccurate information to exaggerate their claims.

However, the pro-life side do so in a way that is akin to emotional blackmail.

Edward M wrote: »

It'd be difficult to get an accurate figure unless they were available here.
Of course you're right, purchase is not proof of usage at all.
We do have a good idea of the numbers travelling though, so there are a large number of abortions to Irish women, it would be fair to presume that there is a good portion of women using the abortion pill here, but probably inflated figures to boost the pro choice campaign.
Its a terrible situation really though, having to go online to get them, and use them with no medical supervision?

to be fair, they don't have to do it, they are choosing to do it. they could just not do it. if one buys pills online regardless of what they are then they could be taking a risk.

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Because your claims are bullsh*t. There are thousands of women successfully importing pills for personal use and customs are not intercepting them. Any bulk imports are much easier to intercept.

there is no proof that his claims are bull. there is no tangible proof thousands of women are importing pills and that customs aren't intercepting large amounts of pills. i'm sure there are some pills getting through and there are some importing but i really do think the numbers are possibly inflated.

2wsxcde3 wrote: »

We export the problem of sick children in this country and there isn't a word about them. We export the problem of children under the age of 15 who need a heart transplant (along with their family who have to travel and stay in the UK for months at a time to support them). We export the problem of children who suffer from arthritis (no childrens arthritis ward exists in Ireland).

This is the reality of the pro-choice crowd. Keep these sick children and their families silent in order to make it look to the public that the only thing we are exporting is abortion. Why isn't the cost of the abortion referendum being spent on setting up a specialist ward for children with arthritis instead of exporting these children to the UK?

I will not pretend to be knowledgeable in regards to the various reasons we don’t supply heart transplants to the under 18s and the why we export other medical treatments.
I can only assume it’s due to lack of funding and/or lack of professionals working in the various medical fields relevant.

Comparing a heart transplant to the tablet needed to terminate a pregnancy under 12 weeks is incomparable.
This tablet induces a miscarriage which the woman has at home, and the aftercare needed is minimal compared to that needed for a heart transplant.

In regards to costs and funding, the tablet will be significantly less than the cost the taxpayer pays for the maternity care and birth of a baby, cheaper than 18 years worth of children’s allowance payments, and cheaper than paying a teacher to educate a child throughout their school years. Minuscule, in comparison.

It’s a massive financial saving for the government - not that this should be a reason for abortion to be legal, but it’s still relevant.

The point I’m making is that we’re comparing apples and oranges here.
There is no comparison between a lifetime of arthiritic care for children and heart transplants, and a tablet that induces abortion. None at all.

I agree that it is wrong that we don’t provide these services for citizens, if you are interested in setting up a campaign to have these services made available in Ireland I’d be happy to support.

2wsxcde3 wrote: »

That was the same reason the government took babys off their mothers in the mother and baby home regime - it was cheaper to force the woman to give their baby up for adoption rather than pay the woman a weekly allowance to care for the baby herself.

There was no social security when M&B homes were set up, literally nobody was suggesting giving anyone money to care for their children. When fathers were unemployed the kids often went hungry, so there was no danger of being under any obligation to help single mothers feed their children.

It was really about the morality of allowing such 'fallen women' to go on living in society without being punished, not about money.

It wasn't until 1970 in this country that the government finally gave single mothers a weekly allowance to care for their babys. The result was an immediate dramatic fall off in the use of mother and baby homes.

There is still a contingent in this country that feels it is better to separate babys from their mothers (now via an abortion pill) rather than pay the women a weekly allowance to care for the baby at home. There is no compassion at all, only for their own bigotry towards single mothers.

Incidentally, your economics are all screwed up. Every citizen in this country is estimated to be worth approx €1m to the exchequer over their lifetime. More babys makes a country richer, not poorer. Thats why we are having such large immigration into the country at the moment, so they can pay more tax to pay back all the money we owe Europe.

No, babies amd children cost a lot of money, the only way a country gets its investment back on them is if they remain in the country as working adults.

But then of course Ireland never encouraged its young people to do that, traditionally we just paid out the cost of bringing them up and then sent them abroad to contribute to other economies.

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Ammmm we had an anti-catholic party in power in this country at the time the mother and baby home regime was in full swing - the Labor party. They were in government between the years 1948-1951 and again 1954-1957. The labor party were openly hostile to the catholic church in these years.

They never passed on the tax payers money to the women in mother and baby homes. They decided it was cheaper to force these women give up their babys for adoption rather than pay them a weekly allowance. The labor party still dont like paying single mothers a weekly allowance. In 2015, Joan Burton cut 22,500 single mothers off the single parent allowance to force them out to work.

That's a little history lesson the media will never tell you about, and the labor party don't want the public to know about.

2wsxcde3 wrote: »

Ammmm we had an anti-catholic party in power in this country at the time the mother and baby home regime was in full swing - the Labor party. They were in government between the years 1948-1951 and again 1954-1957. The labor party were openly hostile to the catholic church in these years.

They never passed on the tax payers money to the women in mother and baby homes. They decided it was cheaper to force these women give up their babys for adoption rather than pay them a weekly allowance. The labor party still dont like paying single mothers a weekly allowance. In 2015, Joan Burton cut 22,500 single mothers off the single parent allowance to force them out to work.

That's a little history lesson the media will never tell you about, and the labor party don't want the public to know about.

That fount of all knowledge, Wikipedia, tells me they were never the senior partner, and had ministries like Posts amd Telegraphs, so they were hardly in a position to dictate a radical change of social policy.

As for the claim that they were anti catholic, I see this : "In 1960 the Labour leader Brendan Corish described the party's programme as "a form of Christian socialism"" - so something of an overstatement from you there too.

So maybe that's why nobody else believes your "little history lesson".

Edward M wrote: »

From what I can see, we aren't poles apart in our beliefs.
Just to say, its difficult for a pregnant woman with a serious illness or injury or perhaps traumatised by her experiences, be it abuse she has suffered or perhaps addiction of some sort to travel.
The eighth is a big barrier to the extent of medical help a lot of cases can receive here.

i know. and that is what has angered me about the proposals being put forward by the government. it means i cannot vote repeal like i wanted to. i cannot vote for anything that will allow abortion on demand. it's just not possible for me to do that. the unborn have to have rights and protections. there is a middle ground where pro-life and pro-choice could both vote for repeal and the government chose not to take it.

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Not to worry, we'll repeal it without your vote.

you may not. one should never be cocky on such matters.

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Children going to the UK for medical procedures get continuity of care, the UK doctors get their Irish medical notes, when they come back the Irish doctors get their UK notes.

This doesn't happen when a woman travels to the UK for an abortion, which puts her at increased medical risk.

How many juvenile heart transplants happen each year to Irish patients? Enough to allow a medical team to build up and maintain the specialist skills involved? Hardly. This is a small country which is why we have to look abroad for specialist skills to treat very rare conditions.

Same thing happens in the North, babies come down to Crumlin for heart surgery, the population of NI is too small to justify a team up there and they wouldn't see enough patients to retain their skills.

In other words, we are exporting the problem of sick children in this country and you don't care.

2wsxcde3 wrote: »

In other words, we are exporting the problem of sick children in this country and you don't care.

That is not even remotely what was said, blatant deflecting going on here, you are twisting what was said to suit your own agenda.

I think we can all collectively agree that it’s awful that children have to go to the UK to receive certain medical treatments.
That has absolutely nothing to do with abortion.

end of the road wrote: »

yes, you must vote no so that better proposals which will protect the unborn and the mother can be put forward, which will get support from both pro-choice and pro-life. we can do better then what is being offered and we deserve better for the sake of humanity.



there is no deflection, just the truth being told. the issue of sick children having to go to the uk has everything to do with abortion as the money that would be spent on abortion on demand could go some way toards making it less likely for children to have to go to the uk for treatment.

As I already just told you on another thread, I won’t be replying to any more of your posts.