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 the Fourth

robindch

...continuing on from previous threads on abortion (abortion part 1, part 2 and part 3).

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

Kidchameleon

Igotadose wrote: »

Here's something the pro-life and pro-choice sides can agree upon. Free contraception funding, the best way to prevent abortion:
https://www.irishmirror.ie/news/irish-news/free-contraception-funding-budget-ireland-17371293

I even have a candidate line item in the budget to take from - the ring-fenced funding for the greyhound industry!

IMHO, all contraception should be free and available to anyone of any age no quesrions asked. As a tax payer, I think it would be a cost saving in the long run

volchitsa

Kidchameleon wrote: »

IMHO, all contraception should be free and available to anyone of any age no quesrions asked. As a tax payer, I think it would be a cost saving in the long run

So if a 12 year old turned up asking for contraception, possibly sent by someone grooming her, maybe even planning on pimping her out, or by an incestuous relative, you don't think questions should be asked?

Kidchameleon

volchitsa wrote: »

So if a 12 year old turned up asking for contraception, possibly sent by someone grooming her, maybe even planning on pimping her out, or by an incestuous relative, you don't think questions should be asked?

Do you think a 12 year old asking for contraception should be refused? Ill get on to your question about gooming dont worry

volchitsa

Kidchameleon wrote: »

Do you think a 12 year old asking for contraception should be refused? Ill get on to your question about gooming dont worry

I didn't say that, I'm saying if a 12 year old is looking for contraception, questions need to be asked to ensure that this is not an abusive situation. You said anyone of any age, no questions asked. That's dangerously incurious, IMO. At that age it is more likely to be abuse than not. Most 12 year olds are not ready to be sexually active unless someone is pushing them into it in some way.

Calina

Kidchameleon wrote: »

IMHO, all contraception should be free and available to anyone of any age no quesrions asked. As a tax payer, I think it would be a cost saving in the long run

This is unwise. a) you can buy condoms no questions asked. b) there may be medical contra indications for the hormonal contraceptives c) there are some risks around IUDs which need discussion and d) some of the implants can be hard to remove and that is before you get to age related risk with some of them. Even the MAP which is now availabke OTC still involves a chat with a pharmacist.

I agree with it being free but not necessarily no questions asked. And absolutely a 12 year old showing up looking for contraception, questions should be asked. It isn't just about your antidiluvian libertarian price of everything value of nothing whinge about your tax money. There are substantial questions around safety and health of minors here. Between this and your earlier distasteful posts on killing infants after they are born, I am concerned about your value set here. You do not seem to understand nuance.

Kidchameleon

Calina wrote: »

This is unwise. a) you can buy condoms no questions asked. b) there may be medical contra indications for the hormonal contraceptives c) there are some risks around IUDs which need discussion and d) some of the implants can be hard to remove and that is before you get to age related risk with some of them. Even the MAP which is now availabke OTC still involves a chat with a pharmacist.

I agree with it being free but not necessarily no questions asked. And absolutely a 12 year old showing up looking for contraception, questions should be asked. It isn't just about your antidiluvian libertarian price of everything value of nothing whinge about your tax money. There are substantial questions around safety and health of minors here. Between this and your earlier distasteful posts on killing infants after they are born, I am concerned about your value set here. You do not seem to understand nuance.

Good points, would a person being preassured just be instructed to lie though? Ill have to give it more thought

Calina

Kidchameleon wrote: »

Good points, would a person being preassured just be instructed to lie though? Ill have to give it more thought

A 12 year old looking for MAP should cause a police report because the risk of pregnancy means she has had sexual contact and that is illegal. I am open to correction but i believe med profs are subject to mandatory reporting if they suspect sexual abuse of a minor. There may be an argument for standard hormonal contraception given it treats some related syndromes. That will involve a chat with a doctor. Lies might happen but..

I think the risk of it is not a reason to avoid putting safeguards in place.

volchitsa

Kidchameleon wrote: »

Good points, would a person being preassured just be instructed to lie though? Ill have to give it more thought

A victim of abuse of any sort may well be put under pressure to lie, or be too frightened to speak out initially. That's not a reason not to ask questions at all, quite the opposite.

Anyway your original point wasn't that the truth would be difficult to ascertain, it was that it would save money for taxpayers. Bit of goalpost-moving going on there, methinks.

Kidchameleon

volchitsa wrote: »

A victim of abuse of any sort may well be put under pressure to lie, or be too frightened to speak out initially. That's not a reason not to ask questions at all, quite the opposite.

Anyway your original point wasn't that the truth would be difficult to ascertain, it was that it would save money for taxpayers. Bit of goalpost-moving going on there, methinks.

How have I moved goal posts?

robindch

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

There's a reason smart humans invented alcohol, it was so they could put up with the stupid humans

Interesting suggestion, though the Drunken Monkey Hypothesis suggests otherwise:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drunken_monkey_hypothesis

volchitsa

Kidchameleon wrote: »

How have I moved goal posts?

The post you quoted literally explains how.

Kidchameleon

volchitsa wrote: »

The post you quoted literally explains how.

No, I dont think it does but perhaps I am missing something? Care to enlighten me?

Lets recap, I posted an argument in favor of unrestrained contraception, another poster (Calina) pointed out some flaws in my argument. I quoted Calina's response & replied to it by saying they had made good points and I had some food for thought as a result.

Personally I would call that honest, healthy discussion but you have called it "moving the goalposts". I'm confused

, so again, could you please explain what you mean by that, thanks.

volchitsa

Nah, you're a troll, and not even an amusing one.

Mod: Yellow Carded for breach of Charter. Poster was previously warned that calling other posters "trolls" is against the Charter. If you wish to discuss this infraction please do so via PM not in thread. Thanking you

smacl

IMHO, all contraception should be free and available to anyone of any age no quesrions asked. As a tax payer, I think it would be a cost saving in the long run

Kidchameleon wrote: »

Do you think a 12 year old asking for contraception should be refused?

A 12 year old asking for contraception implies a 12 year old having sex. The person they've had or are considering having sex with is engaged in statutory rape. The law in this country is that the twelve year old is a minor and a victim of a crime, so yes, from a purely legal perspective, questions need to be asked. As raised previously, there is also a real danger that they are the victim of abuse here.

Once teens are that bit older, statutory rape gets contentious as we don't have "Romeo and Juliet laws" in this country, though my understanding is that the judiciary tend to be lenient here, as in this case. Given that the average age that Irish people lose their virginity is 17.2 and the age of consent is 17 in this country, that indicates that very many people are in breach of this law when they first have sex. In my opinion contraception needs to become available when teens typically become sexually active. The lamentable state of sex education in this country, along with groups like Accord ignoring reality and preaching chastity, clearly doesn't help. Again just my opinion, but as a parent of two teenage girls, what is key here is honest, open and non-judgemental communication.

With respect, as with your previous comments advocating a parents rights to kill their children, I find your line of argument extremely dubious and would consider it an exceptionally unusual position for anyone to hold.

Kidchameleon

smacl wrote: »

With respect, as with your previous comments advocating a parents rights to kill their children, I find your line of argument extremely dubious and would consider it an exceptionally unusual position for anyone to hold.

You haven't asked me to elaborate on it at all and I have already stated that my position may be wrong.

smacl

Kidchameleon wrote: »

You haven't asked me to elaborate on it at all and I have already stated that my position may be wrong.

I'm not sure it needs much elaboration. You're reason given for free contraception at any age, no questions asked, was that it would save you money as a taxpayer. It seems a questionable scenario in which to be motivated by personal and societal greed rather than the best interests of the young people involved.

Kidchameleon wrote: »

IMHO, all contraception should be free and available to anyone of any age no quesrions asked. As a tax payer, I think it would be a cost saving in the long run

While you may have been quick to ditch the potential value of free contraception contraception at any age, no questions asked to you personally, it does colour how your subsequent input is considered.

Kidchameleon

smacl wrote: »

I'm not sure it needs much elaboration. You're reason given for free contraception at any age, no questions asked, was that it would save you money as a taxpayer. It seems a questionable scenario in which to be motivated by personal and societal greed rather than the best interests of the young people involved.

While you may have been quick to ditch the potential value of free contraception contraception at any age, no questions asked to you personally, it does colour how your subsequent input is considered.

Again you have not asked for elaboration. You seem intent on petty point scoring for which I have no time. Saving the public purse would be one advantage yes, among many others

Bannasidhe

Kidchameleon wrote: »

Again you have not asked for elaboration. You seem intent on petty point scoring for which I have no time. Saving the public purse would be one advantage yes, among many others

Mod: As this is a discussion forum it can be taken that elaboration on points made when questioned is par for the course if one intends on genuinely engaging in an actual discussion.
Accusing another poster of petty point scoring is petty point scoring. Less of that please.
May I also remind you that you are currently on a red card and have been warned that any more inflammatory posts - which includes posts which add nothing to discussion but only serve to rile up other posters as well as general outrageous statements/claims and emotive language- will earn you an extended holiday from this forum.

Kidchameleon

Ok well I think it would be better for the tax payer to fund contraception rather than housing, education, healthcare or abortions for unplanned children. I think if two children are going to have sex then they are going to do it no matter what (and it happens every day) so I think it is better for everyone if they have easy access to contraception. Would I rather they were educated properly and refrain? Of course! But this is the real world. I am not just talking about children (which critics of my post creepily seem to be focusing on), as I have said, it should be free for everyone young or old. As regards grooming/incest and hormone based solutions, yes I can see problems with that, this I have already conceded

Calina

No one argued about the paying for contraception. They argued about the no questions asked part. Your last post does not address this in practical terms.

volchitsa

Kidchameleon wrote: »

Ok well I think it would be better for the tax payer to fund contraception rather than housing, education, healthcare or abortions for unplanned children. I think if two children are going to have sex then they are going to do it no matter what (and it happens every day) so I think it is better for everyone if they have easy access to contraception. Would I rather they were educated properly and refrain? Of course! But this is the real world. I am not just talking about children (which critics of my post creepily seem to be focusing on), as I have said, it should be free for everyone young or old. As regards grooming/incest and hormone based solutions, yes I can see problems with that, this I have already conceded

You said "any age, no questions asked" to save on taxes. That's why people are - perfectly naturally - focussing on that because if you mean it, then it's rather worrying that you would prioritise taxpayer savings over child welfare.

But perhaps you have now changed your mind on that point?

Kidchameleon

volchitsa wrote: »

You said "any age, no questions asked" to save on taxes. That's why people are - perfectly naturally - focussing on that because if you mean it, then it's rather worrying that you would prioritise taxpayer savings over child welfare.

But perhaps you have now changed your mind on that point?

Im trying to think of a situation where an adult grooming a child would have that child tasked with procuring contraception.

If a scenario were to come to pass where a victim of abuse was sent to get contraception, I imagine it would be probable that the perpetrator would instruct the child about what to say, so I am not sure how useful questioning them would be.

This is speculative but I would imagine the vast majority of people seeking contraception would not be victims of abuse

Bredabe

Kidchameleon wrote: »

Im trying to think of a situation where an adult grooming a child would have that child tasked with procuring contraception.

If a scenario were to come to pass where a victim of abuse was sent to get contraception, I imagine it would be probable that the perpetrator would instruct the child about what to say, so I am not sure how useful questioning them would be.

This is speculative but I would imagine the vast majority
of people seeking contraception would not be victims of abuse

It could be that the child involved has the knowledge of the need and availability of contraception in their situation.

While the child involved may lie about that, they could well give themselves away by their use of language or body language.

aloyisious

Kidchameleon wrote: »

Im trying to think of a situation where an adult grooming a child would have that child tasked with procuring contraception.

If a scenario were to come to pass where a victim of abuse was sent to get contraception, I imagine it would be probable that the perpetrator would instruct the child about what to say, so I am not sure how useful questioning them would be.

This is speculative but I would imagine the vast majority of people seeking contraception would not be victims of abuse

To me, there seems to be one major fault in your speculation[for the debate here] that underage children would be sent to get contraceptives by another person and that is that the child would be liable to questioning as to the purpose they were sought for. It would be a lot safer for the O/P to get the item themselves from the chemist or stockist and cut out the risk of a law-abiding person asking awkward questions. BTW I am assuming that by underage children you mean female underage children and that the person sending the child to the chemist to get the contraceptive is an adult.

Cabaal

Interesting Vice News coverage of abortion laws in USA.

https://youtu.be/cPn7kS8JAbw?t=810

Seems to me that they are taking a leaf out of the Repeal The 8th handbook by simply focusing on women and couples and telling their stories.

It worked effectively in Ireland to get people to realise that strict abortion laws cause great upset and suffering to couples/mothers in relation to much wanted pregnancy;s

Igotadose

Simon Harris, best Health Secretary in Irish History*, now saying exclusion zones to be discussed in the Dail once it resumes in September:
https://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/simon-harris-says-hospital-exclusion-zones-a-priority-following-inhumane-pro-life-protest-936350.html

*:He helped get the eighth repealed and worked to get the legislation done in time. Yes, there's lots to complain about in the Health Service, but that bit is nothing new.

Bredabe

All amendments passed for NI, could be signed into law this evening.

October 20th I think is the day of the legal change, anyone think it will be quite there in the interim?

#thenorthisNOW

*EDIT, unlikely to be signed into law tonight as it has to pass the house of lords, unlikely to meet much opposition there. October 21/22 still the day the law changes there.

Cabaal

Bredabe wrote: »

All amendments passed for NI, could be signed into law this evening.

October 20th I think is the day of the legal change, anyone think it will be quite there in the interim?

#thenorthisNOW

Its going to be interesting,
Do the DUP hate SF more or do they hate gay people and abortion more?

In order to form the government SF not have the upper hand and can demand that the DUP accept a stand alone Irish language Act among other things, previously the DUP have flat out refused to accept it.

Even if the DUP agree to it SF can demand some other things :pac:

If the DUP refuse then Northern Ireland gets equality's that the rest of the UK already has! :pac:

Its loose loose for DUP on this...although in the meantime SF fail to represent Northern Ireland's interests for not leaving the EU and not having a no deal exit. So SF are still not coming out great out of this one way or another.

aloyisious

Bredabe wrote: »

All amendments passed for NI, could be signed into law this evening.

October 20th I think is the day of the legal change, anyone think it will be quite there in the interim?

#thenorthisNOW

*EDIT, unlikely to be signed into law tonight as it has to pass the house of lords, unlikely to meet much opposition there. October 21/22 still the day the law changes there.

OK, I'm going out on the blind now. Is there any chance that the new head of the UK Govt [if it's Boris] can pull some stunt which can delay or cause any change in the law which the vote in both Westminster houses forces through for N/I? He may well want votes from people from outside his party IN THE FUTURE, if his plan to shut down parliament to stop it voting on his Brexit without a deal plan is any indication.

Edit: I see from google info that Ulster Scots has been recognized as a official language by the Govt since 1999 so SF cant use that as a bargaining chip.

Peregrinus

aloyisious wrote: »

OK, I'm going out on the blind now. Is there any chance that the new head of the UK Govt [if it's Boris] can pull some stunt which can delay or cause any change in the law which the vote in both Westminster houses forces through for N/I? He may well want votes from people from outside his party IN THE FUTURE, if his plan to shut down parliament to stop it voting on his Brexit without a deal plan is any indication.

Delay, certainly. What the just-passed law says is that, if the NI executive and assembly are not back up and running by a certain date, the SoS for NI (who has the power to legislate for NI when the assembly is not operating) must make regulations extending equal marriage and access to abortion to NI. However SFAIK no time limit for making those regulations is specified.

This is not going to be a quick process. The new legislation does not say that NI law on these subjects in NI is to be the same as it is in England and Wales (or Scotland, or Ireland - all three jurisdictions have different legal laws in relation to both matters). It just sets out a broad principle, but leaves the details of how that principle is to be given effect in legislation to be worked out later.

This would normally take a while. There'd be reviews of the current law on marriage and on abortion, to see in what respects they fail to comply with the principles, or meet the standards, set out in the new legislation. There would normally be a consultation process, in which the government issues a paper discussing the issues, suggesting ways in which they might be addressed through legislation, and inviting observations from interested stakeholders. There'd then be draft legislation published, and comments invited. Finally, the legislation could be made. It could take a year or more (or less) and, crucially, how fast the process goes depends in part on how enthusiastically the government approaches it. So if they want to soft-pedal it, there is certainly scope for that.