Peregrinus wrote: » Mm. Condoms are pretty affordable; I doubt cost is a significant barrier to use, which means that we can't assume that making other forms of contraception cheaper or free would necessarily do much to alter choices or change behaviour. The factors that lead people not to use condoms may also lead them not to use other methods of contraception, even if they were as cheap as condoms.
Making contraception cheaper is a poor solution to the problem of risky behaviour and poor decision-making; wouldn't a sounder approach be to examine the reasons for this behaviour and tackle those? If people are only making their reproductive choices while in drink, doesn't that speak of a deeply conflicted and unhealthy attitude to sexuality? That's not a problem you're going to fix with price reductions.
Walkingstik wrote: » The way a doctor shreds a child with his steel implements Really nice what the left want Hopefully they get the same treatment
Mark Hamill wrote: » So killing a baby is bad. But killing the left/abortion doctors is good. So is killing a baby that you someone know would grow up to support access to or perform abortions good or bad? I'm just trying to understand your train of thought here.
Peregrinus wrote: » Mm. Condoms are pretty affordable;
If people are only making their reproductive choices while in drink, doesn't that speak of a deeply conflicted and unhealthy attitude to sexuality? That's not a problem you're going to fix with price reductions.
Peregrinus wrote: » Mm. Condoms are pretty affordable; I doubt cost is a significant barrier to use, which means that we can't assume that making other forms of contraception cheaper or free would necessarily do much to alter choices or change behaviour. The factors that lead people not to use condoms may also lead them not to use other methods of contraception, even if they were as cheap as condoms. Making contraception cheaper is a poor solution to the problem of risky behaviour and poor decision-making; wouldn't a sounder approach be to examine the reasons for this behaviour and tackle those? If people are only making their reproductive choices while in drink, doesn't that speak of a deeply conflicted and unhealthy attitude to sexuality? That's not a problem you're going to fix with price reductions.
Hotblack Desiato wrote: » Yes if you have a credit card and can afford to buy in quantity online; not so much if you are an unwaged teenager getting a packet of three from a pub vending machine or corner shop. Actually, last pub I was in I think it was €4 for two! €2 a ride can add up quickly at that age
smacl wrote: » Affordable by who? According to this article, most people in this country are becoming sexually active at 16. Of these very many will have no regular income. It isn't an 'either or' situation though. If we consider it primarily in terms of mitigating risk of unwanted pregnancy we should be supplying better sex education and free access to contraception. Nor for a large group is it bad decision making. We have plenty of people out there struggling just to survive financially that may quite reasonably be sexually active and yet have no available income. Similarly, we have many college students with no income. In my opinion, a large number of abortions in this country in the past can be attributed to trying and failing to impose a puritanical morality on the younger generation, where a more pragmatic approach is clearly the way forward.
Peregrinus wrote: » When I was that age a pack of two would have lasted me, um, a while.
Peregrinus wrote: » I recognise that I'm on the hind foot here, having weighed into this conversation with a half-remembered article that I can't cite, and for which I made claims that I have since conceded were overblown. So my credibility is maybe a bit shot. But, still: 1. I don't object to making contraception freely available. Nor do I object to making it freely available, but only to women, though I am curious to know what the thinking here is. 2. I'm just a bit sceptical of the assumption that "this'll reduce the frequency of abortions", which is the point I came in to make. 3. I think policy here ought to be evidence-based. If we want to reduce the frequency of abortions, step 1 is an exploration of the factors that sustain the current frequency. 4. Volchitsa thinks that there may be a religious motivation underpinning my scepticism. Not an unreasonable suspicion, given my form, but actually I think if there's an ideology at work here it's a different one - a political one. 5. I'm suspicious of (or, if you prefer, I dislike) capitalist, neoliberal, consumerist assumptions that reduce human life and human experience to a marketplace, and assume that every problem can be solved by the right price adjustments. And I think those assumptions are particularly misplaced when it comes to matters of sexuality and relationships. 6. In the 1980s and 1990s someone close to me worked extensively in combatting the spread of AIDS (not in Ireland, but in anothe western country). A large part of her work was with the gay community, and a large part of that involved promoting responsible condom use. And it very rapidly became clear that the barriers to condom use were many and varied, were often deeply ingrained, were driven by culture and values, and mostly had little to do with mundane considerations like availablity, accessibility or price. 7. I'm not suggesting that her experience in that field is directly transferrable to the challenge of avoiding unwanted pregnancies, but there are general lessons that are relevant. And one of them, I suggest, is that sexual behaviour and sexual choices are complex personal matters; they're not basically economic transactions, and they are not greatly influenced by immediate economic considerations. 8. None of which is to say that making contraception, or particular forms of contraception, more readily available or cheaper has no role to play here; it may well do. But I think before we can say that, and before we can develop an effective strategy of which that forms a part, we have to do the legwork necessary to understanding exactly what role this measure can best play. 9. I'm not the person who introduced into this conversation the question of the role played by drink, and nor was it me who raised the matter of inculcated guilt, shame etc resulting from poor sex/relationship education. If you accept that these are factors, they are not factors that are addressed by lowering the price of contraception. If (and, I stress, if) for example young women don't go on the pill, or don't seek contraceptive implants, because they are conflicted about acknowledging themselves as active sexual beings, and can only have sex in circumstances they lower their inhibitions with alcohol, or where they can tell themselves that it's an impulse of the moment, lowering the price of the contraceptive pill or contraceptive implants is not going to make much difference to behaviour. That's the kind of issue that needs to explored and addressed before we can say that "this'll reduce the frequency of abortions".
Peregrinus wrote: » 5. I'm suspicious of (or, if you prefer, I dislike) capitalist, neoliberal, consumerist assumptions that reduce human life and human experience to a marketplace, and assume that every problem can be solved by the right price adjustments. And I think those assumptions are particularly misplaced when it comes to matters of sexuality and relationships.
7. I'm not suggesting that her experience in that field is directly transferrable to the challenge of avoiding unwanted pregnancies, but there are general lessons that are relevant. And one of them, I suggest, is that sexual behaviour and sexual choices are complex personal matters; they're not basically economic transactions, and they are not greatly influenced by immediate economic considerations.
If you accept that these are factors, they are not factors that are addressed by lowering the price of contraception. If (and, I stress, if) for example young women don't go on the pill, or don't seek contraceptive implants, because they are conflicted about acknowledging themselves as active sexual beings, and can only have sex in circumstances they lower their inhibitions with alcohol, or where they can tell themselves that it's an impulse of the moment, lowering the price of the contraceptive pill or contraceptive implants is not going to make much difference to behaviour. That's the kind of issue that needs to explored and addressed before we can say that "this'll reduce the frequency of abortions".
Drumpot wrote: » I’d also be curious to know why some people can’t afford regular contraception but can drink/smoke as surely if cost really is a factor then we would be seeing a drop in Under age drinking
IRISH TEENAGERS HAVE one of the lowest rates of regular drinking in Europe and are getting drunk far less than they used to, new research has shown. The research was carried out by the University of St Andrews on behalf of the European branch of the World Health Organisation and collected data from between 2002-2014. The study looked at the alcohol consumption of teenagers across 36 countries and found that the sub-region of Ireland/Great Britain showed the largest decrease. In terms of regular drinking by 15-year-olds, Irish girls were second-lowest in the study with just 3% drinking on a weekly basis – down from 11% in 2002. Only teenage girls in Iceland were seen to drink less. Irish 15-year-old boys were more likely to drink on a weekly basis but were still among the least likely to do so across Europe at just 5% – down from 14% in 2002. Only boys in Iceland and Norway were found to drink less regularly than their Irish peers.
The study also looked at the level of drunkenness among 15-year-olds, something it defined as being drunk two or more times in a lifetime. In Ireland the rate was 16% for both boys and girls, a huge drop on 2002 when it was 32% for girls and 33% for boys.On a subregional basis, Ireland/Great Britain saw the biggest fall in teenage drunkenness over this period, declining from from 50% to 28% in girls and 52% to 27% in boys.
I think education and what we value as a society are more important factors to address.
I think money, celebrity status and consumerism is the replacement junk values future generations will inherit.
what is the cost of making it easy and socially acceptable to have abortions in all scenarios?
Same with free contraception without meaningful education or changes elsewhere? What are the downsides? How does that change how we value life?
lazygal wrote: » How is providing something for free capitalist? If my father had ejaculated a microsecond later I wouldn't be here either. Just because I happened to be born doesn't mean anyone else shouldn't be able to access abortion or contraception provided via state health care.
Drumpot wrote: » It’s the same here, people don’t want to take the responsibility to educate children or people, the simple solution is to abort or throw contraception at the problem. It’s the on demand generation that learns nothing from mistakes of the past. There’s little discussion from “pro abortionists” on the downsides and damage abortions can do to people or families. What about as a society we chose to give people an option to make abortions and/or state aided assistance acceptable alternative? Not the shaming of people because some people do abuse the system by having children. But make our society value pregnancy by giving options, not just one simple solution that a person will potentially pay physically/mentally for the rest of their lives.
Hotblack Desiato wrote: » Irish teenagers are drinking less often than almost all their European peers We still have a large amount of religious control of education, and relationships and sexuality education is where the bad effects of this are felt most keenly. Things are improving, but slowly. Money and celebrity - the catholic church know all about both of those. I'm sure you remember the pomp they tried to create about the pope's visit, and the cult of celebrity surrounding him. The head guy may preach against consumerism but he still "lives in an art gallery" as Fr. Dougal put it. This is coming from a church still to financially compensate those it exploited and profiteered from, including slave labour and selling babies - can't get much more capitalist than those. How is that relevant to discussing contraception? We already have freely available abortion until 12 weeks. Sounds like the "contraception will destroy family / society / our immortal souls" stuff we got 30+ years ago What downsides do you envisage? And it's a pretty far right RCC viewpoint to claim that contraception has anything to do with "valuing life".
The report points out that cultural characteristics have often been cited to explain differences in drinking motivations among young people and that in “individualistic” countries like Ireland, the Netherlands and the UK there there may be more motivation to do so. The report points to enforcing age checks and restricting alcohol marketing as methods that could further reduce underage drinking.
lazygal wrote: » You're just posting walls of your point of view and expecting that argument to be taken as entirely valid. Sex is not something special or sacred or precious. It's a normal biological act. Most of us have it, drunk or sober or in between. Making it safer is always a good thing. Presenting sex as something special to be valued and treated with particular care is exactly how we learned about it in our Catholic school classes. The bottom line was always don't get pregnant, not here's how to have sex in a safe way. There's no good argument for not providing free contraception. None.
Drumpot wrote: » Your own link states exactly what I am saying: Education and cultural values are more important factors then the cost of alcohol. Your response has turned everything around agaisnt the church? Why is that? I haven’t defended the church, just said the alternative hasn’t really been thought out. You haven’t actually addressed anything I’ve said, just basically responded as if anything is better then the church cause the church is bad... You have a very binary ability to discuss this topic. I’m far right? Really? Again another tool used to spoil debate, that doesn’t really answer or tell us anything. It’s you just making a broad assumption based on 2 of my posts. I’m going to answer your question with a question. You see no downsides to abortion? The only downside I see to free contraception is if we don’t follow it up with education and harnessing a value system that is not simply predicated on making everything easy for people and thinking “pro choice” is the only game in town that matters. . I know some people won’t get what I am trying to say, but I envisage the moral issues that arise from such simplistic solutions will rear their head in future generations. That’s generally always happens when humans make big changes that they haven’t really thought through. I havent seen much capacity for reflection from you or the other posters yet that you guys have actually looked at this topic from all angles. I haven’t either, but I’m trying.
SusieBlue wrote: » Are you having a laugh? Abortion has been around since the dawn of time. So long as women are having unplanned pregnancies, there will be women seeking terminations. In the past, coat hangers and throwing yourself down the stairs were favoured options. It has nothing to do with the "on demand generation" and its really naive to think this is a new, modern concept. Abortion has always been in Ireland and will always be in Ireland. The only difference is that we didn't talk about it in the past. I can show you a study done specifically on over 1k Irish women in 2016, 97% of whom did not regret their choice. The most commonly reported emotion in the aftermath was "relief" and "happiness". 94% reported feeling grateful for being able to access the termination. Most studies done on the topic produce similar statistics. Women overwhelmingly do not regret their decision. There will always be a minor few who would undo what they did but that isn't a legitimate reason to take the choice away from everyone else.
Drumpot wrote: » Where did I say to not provide free contaception? So you think when making decisions on how we will progress as a society that affects our morals or ethics and values and how these may change don’t or shouldn’t play a role? We shouldn’t consider any potential downsides to major changes?
Drumpot wrote: » How many woman who regret their decision or have paid for it emotionally will take part in a study? What about those who feel shameful , are they more or less likely to take part in a survey?I’m not discounting the survey, I’m just questioning how accurate it is. And none of you are actually reading what I write. Where have I said abortions or free contraception should not be available? You are too busy trying to pick out snippets of my comments to prove wrong to engage properly. I don’t have all the answers, I’m just asking questions nobody seems to of considered. I’m in the middle of this debate and it’s incomprehensible to those who see this as an absolute , clear discussion. I don’t see it that way, but that’s cause I’m ok having my views challanged.
lazygal wrote: » Depends on the morals, ethics and values. We didn't keep the eighth amendment because it was a horrible indictment of the morals, ethics and values of the Ireland of the 1980s.
Drumpot wrote: » Your response has turned everything around agaisnt the church? Why is that? I haven’t defended the church, just said the alternative hasn’t really been thought out.
You haven’t actually addressed anything I’ve said, just basically responded as if anything is better then the church cause the church is bad...
You have a very binary ability to discuss this topic. I’m far right? Really?
I’m going to answer your question with a question. You see no downsides to abortion?
I envisage the moral issues that arise from such simplistic solutions will rear their head in future generations.
That’s generally always happens when humans make big changes that they haven’t really thought through. I havent seen much capacity for reflection from you or the other posters yet that you guys have actually looked at this topic from all angles. I haven’t either, but I’m trying.
lazygal wrote: » Just Asking Questions isn't particularly helpful though in and of itself when it's framed in terms of the morals, ethics and values you personally want to impose on everyone
Drumpot wrote: » Yes it does depend on them. I don’t see much dissuasion on this at all though. All I see is people looking to win an argument with no real capacity to reflect on a wider spectrum. Abortion and contraception are very much imbedded as issues relating to religious dogmas which is fair. But to consider this more objectively you have to take religion out of the equation and ask yourself if you agree fundamentaly with how we are deciding to change certain practices. My major issue isn’t that contraception be made available or free or that abortions should not be available, it’s that I don’t believe the consequences of how these decisions will change our values have never been considered. And that’s partly because people value “freedom” to do what they want, instant gratification and as little responsibility as possible for their actions. That’s the society I see, not just in this topic but many other things in life. Society doesn’t appear to be getting happier, it’s getting more depressed, more anxious, more addicted (binge tv is considered kind of funny) and more disconnected to each other. I’m not suggesting this is because of abortion or anything like that, but it’s because we have replaced grounded if not sometimes misguided or bad values, with junk values. You make something easy and we value it less, it really is that simple. Abortions being the go to solution if it doesn’t suit you (even for trivial reasons) devalues human life in my view. If you think I’m saying people shouldn’t have the right to abortion , just don’t respond to me, you aren’t getting it and probably won’t.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://wf.vanillicon.com/v2/f07ee44b0b39bbb635066da4046d9475.svg)
