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

Pherekydes

antiskeptic wrote: »

Seeing as downs syndrome is wrapped up in the same test I doubt you could differentiate.

Your not asking me to prove that downs syndrome is being aborted out around the 12 week mark?

It occurs to me that we cant know if kids are being sex selected. Any multi point test bundles the reasons emerging as a result, together.

And of course, with no reasons given at the point of abortion request, we couldn't subsequently measure the reduction in live D.S vs reason for abortion = DS to infer if theres an excess to be assigned to e.g. sex

Roll on eugenics!

I'm sure it's been pointed out before, but the NIPT is an indicative test. Further screening (invasive) would be required to actually diagnose conditions. Terminations are offered after. So, all in all, later than 12 weeks.

But this is already known, and dishonestly ignored or omitted by the No side.

mickydcork

aloyisious wrote: »

Maybe it was a "cunning plan" for you to throw the polling cards in the bin with the leaflet, you not knowing they were wrapped in the leaflet

I almost did!

Pherekydes

antiskeptic wrote: »

The Nipt test will reveal at 10 weeks

No, the NIPT is at 10 weeks. The result (i.e. the reveal) comes after usually another week. The test must be performed after the blood is taken and before the results.

Anyway, it's all just another absurdity from the No side.

antiskeptic

Mark Hamill wrote: »

The NIPT can be done at 10 weeks, but the results take about a week and there will be a 3 day wait to actually get an abortion. That means about 4 days window to get an abortion.

If it's good enough for D.S. then it'll be good enough for sex selection.

It's not like you Science-tists are lack faith that those tests won't improve anyway.

Mark Hamill

antiskeptic wrote: »

The Nipt test will reveal at 10 weeks

The NIPT can be done at 10 weeks, but the results take about a week and there will be a 3 day wait to actually get an abortion. That means about 4 days window to get an abortion.

Mark Hamill

antiskeptic wrote: »

Seeing as downs syndrome is wrapped up in the same test I doubt you could differentiate.

Your not asking me to prove that downs syndrome is being aborted out around the 12 week mark?

It occurs to me that we cant know if kids are being sex selected. Any multi point test bundles the reasons emerging as a result, together.

And of course, with no reasons given at the point of abortion request, we couldn't subsequently measure the reduction in live D.S vs reason for abortion = DS to infer if theres an excess to be assigned to e.g. sex

Roll on eugenics!

This is pathetic reasoning, even for you.

It doesn't matter if we can't divide that uptick into those for DS or gender or for some other disability, we would still a big uptick between 11 and 12 weeks as that is the earliest that the results of those tests come back. If you can't show any uptick at all then you can't claim any pre-12 week abortions are influenced by the results or the NIPT test and therefore can't claim that any pre-12 week abortions could even be because of gender selection.

But go on, instead of responding with data and research, just through out some more hysterical nonsense about eugenics.

[Deleted User]

antiskeptic wrote: »

I assume the states security services take the view that because we have a certain cultural intake there is reason to suppose some of their less welcome extremities might enter the country.

Assume away.
Evidence for the culture existing, please.

Otherwise, your "question" is shockingly dishonest fearmongering on your part. And it will be dismissed as such.

antiskeptic wrote: »

Its not paranoid to assume the possibility.
.

Great, so I assume then you've checked and proven that there is no foreigners who are planning to exploit the 8th so they can have more childflesh to feast on?
If not, why then does the possibility not worry you?

Cause it's a bit far fetched and just a lil' racist?

antiskeptic

King Mob wrote: »

You're the one who raised the issue, maybe you're the one who needs to back up the thinly veiled scaremongering with some evidence that: 1. Such a culture exists and does exploit abortion in this way.
2. That such cultures result in an at all noteworthy increase in the statistics.
3. That such a culture exists in Ireland in any noteworthy numbers.

Otherwise:
Maybe some of the foreigners are opposed to repeal so there can be more children that they can eat.
Do you know if there are any foreigners who eat children?
:rolleyes:

I assume the states security services take the view that because we have a certain cultural intake there is reason to suppose some of their less welcome extremities might enter the country.

Its not paranoid to assume the possibility.

Whether or not the 'statistics are noteworthy' depends upon your finding any such possibility tolerable.

aloyisious

antiskeptic wrote: »

Not an admission re 12 weeks a.o.d. That I believe will come in. Its the idea of restriction vs the UK up to 24. I imagine it will be restricted. But what matter? Consequently, what lifespan the restriction

Given the basic statement of the NO campaign that they are all about saving the baby and said restriction would mean a reduction in the number of babies lost, or have I got that wrong, that it's an all or nothing campaign instead?

Ref the Pols heading off into the horizon, because of a lack of integrity on their part, and allying that with the NO campaigners maybe forgetting not to trust the Pols', it seem's to me that that scenario would suit the NO campaigners down to the ground. The promise from some of the committed-to-vote-no Pols that they will stand their ground undaunted in their opinion should be of some solace to the NO campaign there as well.

pauldla

antiskeptic wrote: »

King Mob wrote: »

So which group of foreigners will be doing this exactly?

Dunno if there any with that cultural outlook here. Do you?

Having not lived at home for almost two decades I find that I am unable to answer your question. Are you resident in Ireland? If so, you are in a much better position to identify these immigrant groups than I.

[Deleted User]

antiskeptic wrote: »

Dunno if there any with that cultural outlook here. Do you?

You're the one who raised the issue, maybe you're the one who needs to back up the thinly veiled scaremongering with some evidence that: 1. Such a culture exists and does exploit abortion in this way.
2. That such cultures result in an at all noteworthy increase in the statistics.
3. That such a culture exists in Ireland in any noteworthy numbers.

Otherwise:
Maybe some of the foreigners are opposed to repeal so there can be more children that they can eat.
Do you know if there are any foreigners who eat children?
:rolleyes:

antiskeptic

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Well lets be fair to antiskeptic here, if what he is implying is true then there should be a big uptick in the rate of abortions during 11 weeks gestation.
I'm sure he can point to data from all the various EU countries with a 12 week limit that show such an uptick between 11 and 12 weeks gestation :rolleyes:.

Seeing as downs syndrome is wrapped up in the same test I doubt you could differentiate.

Your not asking me to prove that downs syndrome is being aborted out around the 12 week mark?

It occurs to me that we cant know if kids are being sex selected. Any multi point test bundles the reasons emerging as a result, together.

And of course, with no reasons given at the point of abortion request, we couldn't subsequently measure the reduction in live D.S vs reason for abortion = DS to infer if theres an excess to be assigned to e.g. sex

Roll on eugenics!

aloyisious

mickydcork wrote: »

The polling cards arrived to our house this morning.............wrapped in a 'No' leaflet!

Surely that's not on!

Maybe it was a "cunning plan" for you to throw the polling cards in the bin with the leaflet, you not knowing they were wrapped in the leaflet

antiskeptic

King Mob wrote: »

So which group of foreigners will be doing this exactly?

Dunno if there any with that cultural outlook here. Do you?

antiskeptic

aloyisious wrote: »

Is your first sentence [What, does anyone think, women who are refused an abortion here under our supposedly non-UK-like legislation are going to do?] an admission by you that the supposedly non-UK-like legislation will not be bringing in Abortion On Demand here?

Not an admission re 12 weeks a.o.d. That I believe will come in. Its the idea of restriction vs the UK up to 24. I imagine it will be restricted. But what matter? Consequently, what lifespan the restriction

Does your asking if the NO side have forgetten about not trusting politicians not contain an implication that the politicians will not be bringing in legislation to allow abortion, on demand or otherwise, after all?

Newtons 1st Law of motion.

Politicians travelling in a particular direction means they will legislate.

Whether their integrity is sufficient an exterior force to halt them from heading off into the horizon is another question

Do you, as a VOTE NO campaign enthusiant, not see the contradictions in what you wrote there?

Hopefully clarified for you

[Deleted User]

antiskeptic wrote: »

The Nipt test will reveal at 10 weeks

So which group of foreigners will be doing this exactly?

aloyisious

pleas advice wrote: »

it is on demand, up to 12 weeks, though

Perhaps you might then ask antiskeptic why he feel's Irish women will still be travelling to England for abortions. At the moment the NO campaign, as evidenced here from what some of you have written today on this thread, seem to believe that there will be Abortion On Demand from the Restrictive Legislation.

antiskeptic

pauldla wrote: »

So, just to clarify, you're worried that immigrants will be having abortions based on gender?

Im no more worried about it than i would be about any reason a woman would have an abortion.

Im merely pointing out a consequence should the demand exist

That *is* the argument you’re putting forward? Presumably they’ll be using the ‘wedding ring on a string’ method to determine the gender?

The Nipt test will reveal at 10 weeks

pauldla

antiskeptic wrote: »

pauldla wrote: »

You shouldn't speak in riddles, really. Why not just come right out and say what you mean? Is it something like 'Some of them forinners will be having gender-selection abortions, so vote No!'...?

Phrase it however your mind sees it. And perhaps answer it whilst you're at it.

So, just to clarify, you're worried that immigrants will be having abortions based on gender? That *is* the argument you’re putting forward? Presumably they’ll be using the ‘wedding ring on a string’ method to determine the gender?

pleas advice

it is on demand, up to 12 weeks, though

aloyisious

antiskeptic wrote: »

What, does anyone think, women who are refused an abortion here under our supposedly non-UK-like legislation are going to do?

Head to England of course.

How long might that situation last before the cry goes up to "bring them home"

I stand amazed that the No side have forgotten to remind us how little we trust politicians.

Is your first sentence [What, does anyone think, women who are refused an abortion here under our supposedly non-UK-like legislation are going to do?] an admission by you that the supposedly non-UK-like legislation will not be bringing in Abortion On Demand here?

Does your asking if the NO side have forgetten about not trusting politicians not contain an implication that the politicians will not be bringing in legislation to allow abortion, on demand or otherwise, after all?

Do you, as a VOTE NO campaign enthusiant, not see the contradictions in what you wrote there?

Mark Hamill

mickydcork wrote: »

The polling cards arrived to our house this morning.............wrapped in a 'No' leaflet!

Surely that's not on!

I'm sure the No side will claim that strictly speaking, they have not done anything legally wrong.

Mark Hamill

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

so you cant have it until 10 weeks. and then wait a week or two for the results. doesnt leave much time before the 12 weeks are reached. Assuming you have it at exactly 10 weeks. and the result is only indicative.

Well lets be fair to antiskeptic here, if what he is implying is true then there should be a big uptick in the rate of abortions during 11 weeks gestation.
I'm sure he can point to data from all the various EU countries with a 12 week limit that show such an uptick between 11 and 12 weeks gestation :rolleyes:.

mickydcork

The polling cards arrived to our house this morning.............wrapped in a 'No' leaflet!

Surely that's not on!

Mark Hamill

antiskeptic wrote: »

The fear of increased abortion rates is a motivation that circumvents nimbyism

No it doesn't at all, that's my point - you don't care at all about the actual Irish abortion rate once the abortions happen abroad.

antiskeptic wrote: »

Sweden has one of the lowest teen pregancy rates yet very high abortion rates. So lets leave that as a driver for the moment

A driver for what exactly? Have you forgotten what you claimed? That Ireland is so like England culturally that our abortion rates will automatically jump to theirs if we remove the 8th. Are you know saying we are so culturally like Sweden that we will copy them? Can I claim that we are so culturally like Switzerland, with their teen pregnancy rate of 8/1000 andabortion rate of 7.1/1000 and say that our rate will actually drop?

Are you going drop this nonsense and accept that England and Ireland are not cultural the same and therefore our abortion rate will not automatically replicate theirs?

antiskeptic wrote: »

Politically there is a drive to bring abortion home. Once having decided to do something politically, you cant deny that of all the options this is a cheap one. Now is it that the option chosen, once feeling something need be done politically, is chosen because it's the cheap one? That you know to approach the matter by way of prevention of crisis isn't going to actually happen?

I know that rests on the assumption that the status quo re expenditure on prevention and non aborting approach to crisis remains the same. But Im not confident of change.

There is also a drive not to, they could have kicked it down the line like every other government the last 20 years.
Regardless, we are back to my previous point about how much abortions could actually cost the HSE (a very generous calculation of €3.5 million) vs the HSE's budget (€14.5 Billion). Even ignoring the fact that abortion facilities will actually be integrated into existing infrastructure, and so not as expensive, and ignoring the savings from to state from women having viewer hospital visits after abortions (fewer complications if pills taken under doctor supervision and women not leaving the country immediately after procedures, not to mention women not taking as much time off of work and the savings there), the cost is a drop in the ocean compared to HSE budget. It is 0.00024% of the €14.5 Billion. I haven't anyone on the No side in any television or radio debate mention the cost at all because it's a ludicrous point to make - the cost is just not an issue with this.

antiskeptic wrote: »

Perhaps you'd like to pick up on the discussion with overheal and see what you make of my fear? It revolves around a fairly spectacular increase in the number of abortions registered in the UK after abortion was liberalised there.

Latest post here:

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=107073292&postcount=631

Data table here:

http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/policy/abortion/ab-unitedkingdom.html

I was already following that discussion, so I don't get why you brought it up. You are clearly wrong and Overheal showed you to be clearly wrong, did you forget that I can see his posts too or something?

ohnonotgmail

antiskeptic wrote: »

Or Google NIPT test babycenter. 10 weeks.

In any event you would seem to be relying on scientific statis for your fig leaf

so you cant have it until 10 weeks. and then wait a week or two for the results. doesnt leave much time before the 12 weeks are reached. Assuming you have it at exactly 10 weeks. and the result is only indicative.

antiskeptic

Delirium wrote: »

Well it's hard to discuss the possibility of a hypothetical scenario if you don't frame it.

Youve entered "abortion on grounds of disability won't be permitted" territory.

Either Ireland has a more restrictive regime than the UK and Irish women still travel there.

Or we have the same or looser regime and they've no need to.

Or we decide Irish women are different and the Irish regime will won't need to cater for needs only UK women have.

antiskeptic

Pherekydes wrote: »

Google "When can I find out my baby's sex?"

Hint: after 12 weeks

Or Google NIPT test babycenter. 10 weeks.

In any event you would seem to be relying on scientific statis for your fig leaf

Pherekydes

antiskeptic wrote: »

How do I know? We don't know what the legislation here will be (other than it will be more restrictive than the UK).

If it is in practice, then folk will travel.

You realise we're voting on the 8th, not the 13th amendment?

Delirium

antiskeptic wrote: »

How do I know? We don't know what the legislation here will be (other than it will be more restrictive than the UK).

If it is in practice, then folk will travel.

Well it's hard to discuss the possibility of a hypothetical scenario if you don't frame it.

They could be scenarios Ireland should provide for, but if you can't clarify then you're just posting the equivalent of "there's a monster under your bed".