_Dara_ wrote: » I would like to see abortion available up to 12 weeks.
But I also think we as a society should work towards reducing the level of abortion. Sex ed will play a big part in this as well as acknowkedging that teenagers are having sex and making it easier for them to access contraception anonymously. I say anonymously because I hail from a small west of Ireland town where everyone knew everyone. There are many towns like this across the country. A small town really is small in Ireland. I didn’t have sex as a teen at home because the idea of going to my local pharmacy where I knew all the staff to buy contraception was mortifying. But not all teens will abstain. We need to be creative.
Deleted User wrote: » But I agree with you that abortion should be an option for people, but we should be encouraging society to view it was a last resort. However, as abortion becomes more common, I suspect that people will turn to it far more often than needed, especially if the cost is 'reasonable'.
[Deleted User] wrote: » Once you allow abortion, it's going to be difficult to set limits on it long-term. It'll come down to your preference vs other peoples preference, and ultimately if we're going down this road, we should be respecting peoples ability to make the choice for themselves. I grew up in a big town, and it's pretty much the same as with the smaller towns. You still know everyone, or they'll know your parents. I lost my virginity at 13 with a girl who was 18. We had very messy awkward and unprotected sex in the woods behind my secondary school. When I returned home, my mother and father were waiting in the kitchen for me, I received the facts of life, along with a serious dosage of guilt, and a large box of condoms. Apparently, someone had seen us having sex, and told my parents. Ahh... Irish towns. Bringing in the male pill would be a major help. The problem is that many women I've met seem to think that the condom is solely the responsibility of the male, and it's only in relationships that the woman bears the responsibility when taking the pill. We really need to move on to the stage where both genders take responsibility for contraception. But I agree with you that abortion should be an option for people, but we should be encouraging society to view it was a last resort. However, as abortion becomes more common, I suspect that people will turn to it far more often than needed, especially if the cost is 'reasonable'.
seamus wrote: » The statistics really don't bear this out tbh. Abortion is never an easy process, whether it's a pair of pills at 10 weeks or a D&C at 18. The only places which have seen rises in abortion usage are places where sex education is non-existent or actively suppressed. Cost of abortion is rarely a major factor, especially when there are few barriers to contraception - that is, allowing girls to obtain contraception from a doctor at any age without parental consent, distributing them freely to students and making all non-hormonal contraceptives purchasable anywhere, off-the-shelf and tax exempt. A trip to the A&E is free, but people still use seatbelts because that's a whole lot easier. It is very important that with a repeal of the eighth follows a wide-ranging and mandatory sex education programme beginning at the age of six and carrying all the way through to adulthood.
Triceratops Ballet wrote: » Why do you get to decide what is better for these people, can they not be trusted to decide that for themselves? And don't tell me "that's how democracy works" why is your way "the right way" and any other way isn't
pauldla wrote: » Love Both have had 35 years to do better. Why has it taken an impending referendum (and a likelihood of defeat) to get them talking about 'doing better'? Where the hell have they been for the last three decades?
The Specialist wrote: » The No side couldn't give less of a **** about these "people" once they can stop them accessing abortion services. Your idea of "doing better" is to try and defeat this referendum, so you can put your fingers back in your ears safe in the knowledge that women will continue to travel to UK for this. Here's a news flash to the No side - You don't get to sweep this under the rug anymore, and you won't be putting this to bed on Friday to be ignored for another 20 years.
Triceratops Ballet wrote: » Let's pretend this is true for a sec, so? What business is it of yours? What puts you in a position to judge her?
end of the road wrote: » i believe our way is right because it extends the rule of law and our stance on life to the unborn. the pro-choice side would complain if people were allowed to take the life of born citizens for any reason (they would be right and i would be standing with them) but believe it's okay to take the life of the unborn, many believe no reason is needed, which is wrong. we cannot pick and choose what human lives can and cannot be taken unless there is an absolute extreme reason as to why that should happen.
seamus wrote: » The statistics really don't bear this out tbh.
Abortion is never an easy process, whether it's a pair of pills at 10 weeks or a D&C at 18.
A trip to the A&E is free, but people still use seatbelts because that's a whole lot easier.
It is very important that with a repeal of the eighth follows a wide-ranging and mandatory sex education programme beginning at the age of six and carrying all the way through to adulthood.
JRant wrote: » Has there been any indication as to how much this will cost the taxpayer if/when abortion becomes legal here? I would sincerely hope it is not going to be a free service.
Triceratops Ballet wrote: » I accept that you think it's wrong, I guess I'm just not clear on why you think it's wrong, why do you think the unborn are the same as you or I?
Triceratops Ballet wrote: » the other main thing I don't understand is why some on the prolife side require this to be in the constitution for instance the unborn had no explicit right to life denoted in the constitution prior to 1983, if the 8th is repealed we will just be returning to that position constitutionally speaking. I just don't understand why some feel it has to be explicit in the constitution to uphold the value when a) it wasn't prior to 1983 and b) there are plenty of things forbidden by law that aren't expressly mentioned in the constitution
Deleted User wrote: As is often said, we don't get to choose where our tax contributions are spent. Unfortunately.
Tell me how wrote: » We do. We elect the government.
end of the road wrote: » i believe it is wrong to take their life because they are human beings. the unborn are simply going through the earlier stages of development compared to the born, that is the only real difference between them and usand therefore i believe that they must be protected from harm by law as we are, as much as is practical to do so. i believe that if there is no argument to allow the killing of unborn citizensfor any reason then we should be extending that to the unborn as we currently do. .
The Specialist wrote: » Sentience is required to be considered human, what you are referring to is a foetus. Is this simple fact really that hard for the No side to grasp? Without sentience, it is a "potential" human life but nowhere close to qualifying as one at 12 weeks. That doesn't suit the emotively charged terminology of the no camp though.
[Deleted User] wrote: » I highly doubt that initially it will be, except in extreme cases. At least, I certainly hope it isn't. Still... after some time has passed, I'm sure women's rights groups will seek to have the state pay for it once it becomes legal... As is often said, we don't get to choose where our tax contributions are spent. Unfortunately.
end of the road wrote: » sentience is only 1 aspect that is required to be considered a human being and life. it is far from the only aspect that is needed to be considered a human being and life. therefore a fetus is a human being and a human life.
[Deleted User] wrote: » With respect, Western society and it's values are changing at a rather rapid pace. The attitudes towards casual sex, for example, have drastically changed in the last 20 years. Even the idea of introducing Abortion, gay marriage etc, wouldn't have received even close to the support it currently has.
bubblypop wrote: » I am NOT suggesting abortion should be brought in to save money, I am merely counter arguing the 'how much will it cost the taxpayer' rubbish.
end of the road wrote: » where the hell have the opposition been for the last 3 decades also? apart from grass routes campaigners from both sides working on the ground and people doing their own little bits where and when they can, the yes campaign have done nothing either. in fact, they vote in the governments who implement the same failed policies. at least for myself i can say that i don't vote for ff or fg and i make all sorts an election issue when campaigners from political parties come knocking during election time.
bubblypop wrote: » All maternity services are free in Ireland. Take 2 identical women, same age, same socioeconomic status etc. One takes 2 abortion pills. One goes through 9 months of pregnancy, medical appointments, scans etc (hope fully everything OK, so no extras) Has a baby, baby is entitled to medical card. Child allowance is paid until child is 18. Etc etc etc. And in this example, the women are working & providing for them selves. Which coats the taxpayer more? I am NOT suggesting abortion should be brought in to save money, I am merely counter arguing the 'how much will it cost the taxpayer' rubbish.
pauldla wrote: » Your answer in no way responds to my question. Let me ask it again, in a more refined and direct manner: over the last three decades, what have the anti-choice/pro-life lobby done to 'do better' for the 'hard cases'?
JRant wrote: » Why are you conflating maternity care with abortions, they are 2 completely separate services. You can't have your cake and eat it. All those services are there to assist the mother and baby. Are you saying that maternity services will need to be cut back to allow for abortions because there is a very finite amount of resources available to these hospitals already. If someone chooses to terminate their pregnancy then they should pay for it themselves unless it's a medical emergency.
Deleted User wrote: » The problem with such an example, is that many people didn't wear seat belts until the Police could stop you and fine you for it. There will always be groups of people who will do what they want, in the face of common sense.
JRant wrote: » About the same as the Yes side I would say, ie the square root of feck all.
bubblypop wrote: » Stop trying to suggest I am saying things that I am not. How would maternity services need to be cut back? Ridiculous. They are not seperate, where do you think abortions take place in this country now? I would imagine elective abortion will be paid for privately but I also expect that a number of abortions will be provided for by maternity services
Mark Hamill wrote: » We aren't having a referendum on the 8th tomorrow because the no-side compaigned for it.
drunkmonkey wrote: » Ok it seems pretty clear were choosing Abortion over Adoption. Let's say between everything it costs the tax payer 10k an abortion how about an adoption grant of 10k for women who choose to let their baby go for adoption rather than death. The adoption makes a lot more sense for the Government as the hope is they would turn into a tax payer. Couples are already paying tens of thousands to adopt from outside the state.
JRant wrote: » I wouldn't agree with that at all. If someone wants an abortion or adoption let them at it. We shouldn't be offering a financial incentive for either IMO.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w9.vanillicon.com/v2/9c6ef39403f5dc93bd4b9e77a11c1821.svg)
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w6.vanillicon.com/v2/6b0748b4741870baaad828fe92174b3c.svg)
