nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Abortion Discussion, Part Trois

PopePalpatine

I didn't know whether to post this here or in the Sanctimony of Pro-Lifers thread in t'udder forum - a BBC article on Paraguay's "epidemic" of child pregnancies. Paraguay only allows for abortion if the mother's life is at risk. On average, two girls aged 14 and under become pregnant in Paraguay every day.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

aloyisious

end of the road wrote: »

correct. however even if it wasn't illegal it wouldn't be practical.

Now if only other opponents of abortion could be brought by way of thought to see that.

pleas advice

aloyisious wrote: »

Edit; Taking the figures used by the anti-abortion groups here to be correct, then if abortion is legalised here in the way the groups claim the law-change would allow, the 5,000 Irish women going to the UK yearly for abortions could have them here instead. The only actual change in relation to abortion operations data for Irish women would be the country they took place in. It would then, in theory, present the vista that the groups would dislike, that the 5,000 lives they claim the 8th saved [abortion operations NOT performed here] would no longer be saved here because the abortions could take place here and not in the UK. My figure of 5,000 women is based on the 5,000 abortions figure presented as factual by the anti-abortion groups.

I think the figures in the report (abortion rate at 5.2% of pregnancies / would-be live births / however-you-want-to-word-it for Ireland) seems to be based on a figure of 3,700 Irish abortions in the UK (67,462 live births in 2014).
These 5,000 abortions avoided / lives saved, is on top of the abortions that took place.

aloyisious

pleas advice wrote: »

I think the figures in the report (abortion rate at 5.2% of pregnancies / would-be live births / however-you-want-to-word-it for Ireland) seems to be based on a figure of 3,700 Irish abortions in the UK (67,462 live births in 2014).
These 5,000 abortions avoided / lives saved, is on top of the abortions that took place.

So the 5.000 figure is not an extrapolition in any way or manner from the overall figures of abortions in the UK but actual live births here in Ireland?

david75

NuMarvel wrote: »

LOL Good one. :D

Be fair. Let’s not forget EOTR supports abortion in certain circumstances.

Seems to forget he said that and flip flops wildly depending on the post being responded to.

pleas advice

aloyisious wrote: »

So the 5.000 figure is not an extrapolition in any way or manner from the overall figures of abortions in the UK but actual live births here in Ireland?

i was just doing some quick calculations, to amuse myself, haven't read the report. but it seems to be based on an abortion rate of 11.4% here if the 8th wasn't in place (instead of a rate of 5.2% with it in place, these happening in the UK)
*i could be wrong with my calculations,

aloyisious

pleas advice wrote: »

i was just doing some quick calculations, to amuse myself, haven't read the report. but it seems to be based on an abortion rate of 11.4% here if the 8th wasn't in place (instead of a rate of 5.2% with it in place, these happening in the UK)
*i could be wrong with my calculations,

So you think the figures from the Anti-abortion side are not solely based on a like for like ratio but also the presence of the 8th here to the amount of 6.2%?

Are you also claiming that without the 8th here, the figure of abortions here will be way larger than anyone else thinks or estimates? Using your figures that would seem to make Irish women as more prolific when it came to abortion than other nationalities.

PS: I'd like a more thoughful, less amusing, reply to my questions if possible.

Peregrinus

recedite wrote: »

Stating the obvious here, but that's because abortion was illegal

Yes, I know it was. But in that case it wasn't the 8th amendment which was supposedly saving all those lives; it was the Offences Against The Person Act.

Peregrinus

Peregrinus wrote: »

Actually, no. The UK legal regulation of abortion is crapulous, hypocritical, anti-choice and anti-woman. From that point of view it suits Iona's purposes quite well.

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

any chance you clarify what you mean by this and how you came to that conclusion?

Check out this post of mine from a previous discussion here on Boards. It will give you a good idea of where I'm coming from with this.

Peregrinus

aloyisious wrote: »

So you think the figures from the Anti-abortion side are not solely based on a like for like ratio but also the presence of the 8th here to the amount of 6.2%?

Are you also claiming that without the 8th here, the figure of abortions here will be way larger than anyone else thinks or estimates? Using your figures that would seem to make Irish women as more prolific when it came to abortion than other nationalities.

PS: I'd like a more thoughful, less amusing, reply to my questions if possible.

These aren't Pleas Advice's figures; they are the Pro Life Campaign's. PA is saying that the PLC appears to be calculating/estimating/assuming that, if Irish abortion laws were similar to those in England/Spain/Belgium/Portugal, we'd have an abortion rate of 11.4% of pregnancies, instead of 5.2%, and the difference between the two represents lives that have been "saved" by the legal restrictions that we have on abortion.

The two principal problems with the reasoning have already been pointed out:

1. We don't actually know that the current Irish abortion rate is 5.2%. It's at least that, but it may be higher, if Irish women are going to the UK for abortions and giving UK addresses to the abortion providers. We have no way of knowing to what extent this happens.

2. Assuming 5.2% to be the correct rate, there's no attempt to explore to what extent the low Irish abortion rate is attributable to the legal restrictions; they just assume the entire difference between the Irish rate and other rates is due to legal restrictions. But, if you think about it, this seems unlikely. The effect of the Irish restrictions is that a woman who wants an abortion is put to the trouble and expense of going to England. While this may be oppressive and objectionable, the trouble and expense of going to England is vastly less than the trouble and expense of carrying a child to term, giving birth, and then rearing the child and, however much they resent it, I doubt that many Irish women who would otherwise have an abortion are deterred by the time and cost involved.

My guess would be that the number of Irish women who don't have an abortion in England, but would have one in Ireland it if were available, is probably very small, and that the (apparent) low Irish abortion rate, relative to other countries, is largely due to factors other than the legal regime.

aloyisious

Ta, Peregrinus. I think I'll back off from the figures side of the debate and stick to the real side. The given addresses probably does play a part in reading the figures and if they are "temporary" addresses then there is NO definite figure without some-one going to the bother of chasing down each Irish woman to her Irish home address and asking if they were so and so who provided a UK address while undergoing an abortion in the UK. I doubt very much if any group would pursue such an inquiry.

smacl

Peregrinus wrote: »

My guess would be that the number of Irish women who don't have an abortion in England, but would have one in Ireland it if were available, is probably very small, and that the (apparent) low Irish abortion rate, relative to other countries, is largely due to factors other than the legal regime.

I'd tend to agree, which nullifies the pro-life argument that a more liberal abortion regime in this country would result in significantly fewer abortions among the Irish woman. If we accept this then the pro-life argument is one of principal that cannot be upheld where the pro-choice position is one of pragmatism that can save a lot of suffering and hardship. Perhaps the more religiously inclined pro-life people should take heed of Reinhold Niebuhr, I'm guessing those of the Citizens Assembly already have.

Reinhold Niebuhr wrote:

God, grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change,
Courage to change the things I can,
And wisdom to know the difference.

Loafing Oaf

smacl wrote: »

I'd tend to agree, which nullifies the pro-life argument that a more liberal abortion regime in this country would result in significantly fewer abortions among the Irish woman.

I suppose they would say even one 'life' saved justifies the existence of the 8th...

lazygal

I'm going to guess 4.7 billion attended the rally today?

PopePalpatine

Nope, a much more modest figure of 17 million.

Mark Hamill

end of the road wrote: »

you are not correct. i personally do believe women traveling for abortions should be prevented from doing so in theory. i recognise however that it's not really practical to do it.

I thought this was about saving babies? So what if it's not really practical, that doesn't make it impossible. Should babies only be saved if it's easy to do so?

Mark Hamill

Also, end of the road, do you have any response to my other question:
Do you think that all miscarriages should be investigated like any other sudden death?

aloyisious

Does aynone know if a woman under threat of permanent injury or disability can get a legal abortion here, and if so, would it be under the provisions of POLDPA?

Loafing Oaf

aloyisious wrote: »

Does aynone know if a woman under threat of permanent injury or disability can get a legal abortion here, and if so, would it be under the provisions of POLDPA?

No, AFAIK, only if there is a 'substantial threat to her life'.

robindch

lazygal wrote: »

I'm going to guess 4.7 billion attended the rally today?

For family-related reasons far too complicated to get into, I had to attach myself to the abortion-walk this afternoon for some of its length. It was an strange experience which I've no wish to repeat.

At one point - walking against the oncoming walkers for the length of the walkers - I'd have said there was something in the region of 30,000 - 40,000 people. With this relatively limited number, it seemed the organizers were attempting to string the crowd out so that they could say that the walk extended from the start to the finish. But necessarily, that thinned the crowd, so many loud-hailer equipped walk stewards spent a lot of effort trying to get the thousands of stragglers into something like a coherent shape for the inevitable instagram photoshoot.

The organizers claimed that there were 100,000 people there. Most certainly, there were not - and there were probably well less than half that.

By the time the speechifying eventually started on Merrion Square South just after I'd departed to get my car to take an elderly relative home, the crowd had thinned substantially and - putting my finger in the air - I'd have said no more than perhaps 4,000 to 6,000 with large spaces in the crowd even very close to the stage (whose sound system was remarkably poorly tuned to the space). The street had many of the same kind of loud-hailer people corralling the dwindling group by shouting to everybody nearer that people further away were "trying to come forward" (though there were few enough of them).

One other notable thing was the uniformity of the messaging - the vast majority carried one or other of the four or five banners presumably helpfully provided by the organizers - providing the march with the impression of a dull conformity with which they were presumably quite happy.

aloyisious

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

No, AFAIK, only if there is a 'substantial threat to her life'.

I had a look at POLDPA and as I understand it, abortion is only allowed here under it for three reasons.

1. Risk of loss of life from physical illness.

2. Risk of loss of life from physical illness in emergency.

3. Risk of loss of life from suicide.

I'm asking if I am right and if this [a woman under threat of permanent injury or disability] would be outside the remit of the three abortion exceptions above. As that quote does not mention loss of life, I assume that it would not quantify as a reasom for a legal abortion here.

lazygal

The only grounds for abortion in Ireland is risk to life. I'm a member of a facebook page where some women have travelled for abortion because they'd be permanently damaged by staying pregnant. They don't usually bother asking for it in Ireland because the POLDP Act simply delays them and causes stress.

smacl

robindch wrote: »

The organizers claimed that there were 100,000 people there. Most certainly, there were not - and there were probably well less than half that.

Interesting the disparity in the figures in the RTE report;

In excess of 15,000 people attended the rally at Merrion Square.

There was no official estimate of how many attended the actual march but at one stage it stretched from the city quays to Parnell Square North.

Organisers said up to 90,000 took part in the march, where a number of different religious groups were represented.

Suggests that someone somewhere is either lying through their teeth or deeply delusional. Or both.

aloyisious

end of the road wrote: »

the only cases where i support abortion are where the mother's life is in danger, she is under threat of permanent injury or disability, cases of FFA or other reasons where the baby will not survive to term or cannot be viably caried to term.

I had thought that you were a doctrinaire opponent to abortion in all cases so on seeing the above I posed an "open to the floor" question about your second abortion support reason above, mindful that it isn't allowed for under present Irish law and the only way for any Irish woman to have such an abortion would be to travel abroad.

That would seem to conflict with your belief that women should be stopped from travelling abroad for abortions. Even if your belief is only in theory, it's presence in your mind show's you think it acceptable, and not in use because it's not practical. Your reply to Mark Hamill [post 5847 - 9/3/18] QUOTE; you are not correct. i personally do believe women traveling for abortions should be prevented from doing so in theory. i recognise however that it's not really practical to do it. Unquote:

So if you really want the law to go beyond the present POLDPA limitations to allow for your above abortion reasons, it seem's to me that you would have to allow, maybe even vote for, the deletion of the 8th to go ahead and the new subsection inserted into the constitution to allow the politicians make changes in abortion legislation, maybe even the reasoned advancements you wrote about.

aloyisious

Umm, Marion Finucane just reading what it say's in the papers on RTE - abortion limit to be set at 23 weeks. Because I was doing other things, the title of the paper with that in it slipped past me. Googling front pages might locate it.

lazygal

aloyisious wrote: »

Umm, Marion Finucane just reading what it say's in the papers on RTE - abortion limit to be set at 23 weeks. Because I was doing other things, the title of the paper with that in it slipped past me. Googling front pages might locate it.

Probably the Govt policy paper on proposed legislation. That will all be debated in the event repeal passes and amendments to any proposals can be dealt with at that stage.

Loafing Oaf

aloyisious wrote: »

Umm, Marion Finucane just reading what it say's in the papers on RTE - abortion limit to be set at 23 weeks. Because I was doing other things, the title of the paper with that in it slipped past me. Googling front pages might locate it.

Sunday Times

end of the road

aloyisious wrote: »

I had thought that you were a doctrinaire opponent to abortion in all cases so on seeing the above I posed an "open to the floor" question about your second abortion support reason above, mindful that it isn't allowed for under present Irish law and the only way for any Irish woman to have such an abortion would be to travel abroad.

That would seem to conflict with your belief that women should be stopped from travelling abroad for abortions. Even if your belief is only in theory, it's presence in your mind show's you think it acceptable, and not in use because it's not practical. Your reply to Mark Hamill [post 5847 - 9/3/18] QUOTE; you are not correct. i personally do believe women traveling for abortions should be prevented from doing so in theory. i recognise however that it's not really practical to do it. Unquote:

So if you really want the law to go beyond the present POLDPA limitations to allow for your above abortion reasons, it seem's to me that you would have to allow, maybe even vote for, the deletion of the 8th to go ahead and the new subsection inserted into the constitution to allow the politicians make changes in abortion legislation, maybe even the reasoned advancements you wrote about.

no . stopping abortion on demand from being legislated for, and stopping the government from being left to make the decisian, are more important then getting abortion introduced for the cases where i believe it should be availible. i had hoped that it could be the other way around but the government proposals have put paid to that.

aloyisious

end of the road wrote: »

no . stopping abortion on demand from being legislated for, and stopping the government from being left to make the decisian, are more important then getting abortion introduced for the cases where i believe it should be availible. i had hoped that it could be the other way around but the government proposals have put paid to that.

So you won't support the deletion because the Pols will have the ability, via the new section, to introduce variations of abortion [open the floodgtes, as it were] rather than because you oppose abortion itself. You recognize it's necessity but not a free-for-all which you think the new section would allow for.

Is it because you think Health Ministers would be able to make changes to the existing laws within his/her ministerial/dept purview without a [public] debate?

I reckon that merely because such a power to legislate will be there does NOT mean the Pols will be in a rush to use it to make any further legislative moves. Each such move would bring hoo-ha to their door and that they don't like. There are no Dr Brownes or Donagh O'Malley's around now prepared to make courageous moves.

end of the road

aloyisious wrote: »

So you won't support the deletion because the Pols will have the ability, via the new section, to introduce variations of abortion [open the floodgtes, as it were] rather than because you oppose abortion itself. You recognize it's necessity but not a free-for-all which you think the new section would allow for.

Is it because you think Health Ministers would be able to make changes to the existing laws within his/her ministerial/dept purview without a [public] debate?

I reckon that merely because such a power to legislate will be there does NOT mean the Pols will be in a rush to use it to make any further legislative moves. Each such move would bring hoo-ha to their door and that they don't like. There are no Dr Brownes or Donagh O'Malley's around now prepared to make courageous moves.

basically yes, i want to prevent abortion in non-necessary cases from being facilitated (lifestyle, contraceptive, convenience reasons) and i want the right to life for the unborn to remain as much as is practical (the cases of medical necessity as i mentioned, where i agree it's not viable to save the baby) would be an exemption.
i want this to be put into the constitution and i don't want it simply left to the politicians to be able to decide. but as that isn't an option because the government have put forward their proposals, i will have to vote no to repeal. i have to protect the right to life of the unborn.

Mark Hamill

end of the road wrote: »

basically yes, i want to prevent abortion in non-necessary cases from being facilitated

But it's already facilitated, as you don't believe we should try to stop women from getting abortions abroad.

end of the road wrote: »

i don't want it simply left to the politicians to be able to decide.

Politicians already decided, when they added the 8th amendment. What made that decision perfect?

end of the road wrote: »

i have to protect the right to life of the unborn.

Except when the mother can afford the trip to the UK?