Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Abortion in Ireland: 2 years on

Options
13567…30

Comments

  • Options
    #62
    moon2
    Registered Users Posts: 678 ✭✭✭moon2


    Beechwoodspark wrote: »
    When I saw the figures earlier I did a double take.

    I thought - come on, that has to be a typo or something.

    We need to urgently review the legislation

    What was the surprising part for you? For me I was quite surprised the number has been relatively unchanged for 30 years.

    I wonder if we are doing enough around education and the provision of contraception. I'd be curious how this compares per capita to other countries, preferably ones which are considered to have better access to this aspect of healthcare.


  • Options
    #63
    4068ac1elhodqr
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,586 ✭✭✭4068ac1elhodqr


    While 6666 (18.2 per day) is a fairly significant figure (imagine that as COVID Ire deaths), likely is small compared to other countries, in both the modern developed or developing world.

    According to WHO, every year in the world there are an estimated 40-50 million abortions.
    This corresponds to approximately 125,000 abortions per day.

    In the USA, where nearly 50% pregnancies are unintended and 4/10 of these are terminated by abortion. This results in over 3,000 abortions per day. 22% of all pregnancies in the USA (excluding miscarriages) end in abortion. You can see why it's very emotive over there in the world's leading superpower.

    Is basic family planning so hard to do?

    If it really is, should females (esp in developing world) be microchipped with timed/remote control contraceptives i.e. auto dispension of hormones on small daily doses. Patents exist for this already, and are good for 16yrs once installed in the body which would prevent births before e.g. the age of 30.


  • Options
    #64
    SusieBlue
    Registered Users Posts: 8,029 ✭✭✭SusieBlue


    Beechwoodspark wrote: »
    When I saw the figures earlier I did a double take.

    I thought - come on, that has to be a typo or something.

    We need to urgently review the legislation

    This is our first ever conclusive statistic. We have no idea how many women were actually going abroad or buying pills on the internet or doing god knows what else to themselves up till now, because we were exporting our problems and looking the other way.
    The numbers could have been in the tens of thousands all along for all we know, and this could be a drop in figures.
    But we don’t know because we denied it was ever a problem in the first place.

    Anyone ‘panicking’ over this figure has an ulterior motive. If they cared at all we would have made great progress with better sex education and free contraception by now but shock horror, we don’t hear a word from the Love Boats gang for a full 2 years until they can clutch their pearls at the first ever statistic.
    So transparent.


  • Options
    #65
    Bannasidhe
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 19,219 Mod ✭✭✭✭Bannasidhe


    downinbigsmoke wrote: »
    Now that we've all had time to collect our thoughts, I was hoping to gather some opinions on what people in this country think of the longterm effects Health (Regulation of Termination of Pregnancy) Act 2018 have been. With the benefit of hindsight, is there anybody who would have changed their vote?

    For full disclosure, I voted No in the referendum, which was apparently a pretty odd point of view for 21 year old Trinity student, who was otherwise not particularly right-wing. I would not change it.

    But the argument from the Yes side (made by most lobby groups) that I found most convincing is that legalising abortion would not change the raw number of abortions but only the locations. This has turned out to be completely untrue.

    The number of abortions was 6,666 last year (2019). In 2017 (which was quite a high year) there were 3,061 abortions linked to Ireland in the UK. It seems to me (but maybe not you) the public have been misled. Would this have changed your vote?

    I believe the main argument was that women and girls were going to have abortions anyway and it was better they be able to do so without going abroad and possibly not being able to avail of medical help should it be required.
    You didn't find that convincing? Or rank it as important?

    I had been campaigning against the 8th since before it was even voted on first time around and at no point do I remember 'less' abortions as being one of the main reasons to repeal it. Now - if we are talking about free contraception that might lead to less abortions.

    Additionally, the UK figures only count those who give Irish addresses and do not account for those who used MAP or bought abortifacients on line.
    The latter were another focus as given there was a potential lengthy jail term attached to their use/distribution should there be dangerous side effects women and girls may be reluctant to seek medical help.

    I honestly question why a No voter would even begin this thread unless it was an attempt to create some form of ohmergard 6,666 abortions outrage.

    And I wouldn't change my vote. I voted No to introducing it and Yes to Repeal.


  • Options
    #66
    jill_valentine
    Registered Users Posts: 7,090 ✭✭✭jill_valentine


    Laura Old-fashioned Mace wrote: »
    Is basic family planning so hard to do?

    If it really is, should females (esp in developing world) be microchipped with timed/remote control contraceptives i.e. auto dispension of hormones on small daily doses. Patents exist for this already, and are good for 16yrs once installed in the body which would prevent births before e.g. the age of 30.

    Hormones like that can have unpredictable, variable and disruptive effects on a woman’s body, particular if she's young, because her reproductive system is far more body involved. It would make far more sense to impose such a procedure on men, because such interventions have far less of an effect on their bodies overall and have a more efficient outcome. After all, a woman can only be pregnant once at a time, where a man can have many buns in any number of ovens.

    Assuming the concern here is, of course, effective family planning on an international scale and preventing contingency measures like abortions being necessary, I look forward to seeing you sell your idea of chemical castration implants to the gentlemen here.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #67
    jam_mac_jam
    Registered Users Posts: 4,723 ✭✭✭jam_mac_jam


    Laura Old-fashioned Mace wrote: »
    While 6666 (18.2 per day) is a fairly significant figure (imagine that as COVID Ire deaths), likely is small compared to other countries, in both the modern developed or developing world.

    According to WHO, every year in the world there are an estimated 40-50 million abortions.
    This corresponds to approximately 125,000 abortions per day.

    In the USA, where nearly 50% pregnancies are unintended and 4/10 of these are terminated by abortion. This results in over 3,000 abortions per day. 22% of all pregnancies in the USA (excluding miscarriages) end in abortion. You can see why it's very emotive over there in the world's leading superpower.

    Is basic family planning so hard to do?

    If it really is, should females (esp in developing world) be microchipped with timed/remote control contraceptives i.e. auto dispension of hormones on small daily doses. Patents exist for this already, and are good for 16yrs once installed in the body which would prevent births before e.g. the age of 30.

    No, females should not be microchipped and prevented from having children before 30.

    Jesus christ. Maybe men should be forced to wear condoms? Or that might be too intrusive.


  • Options
    #68
    Bannasidhe
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 19,219 Mod ✭✭✭✭Bannasidhe


    crossman47 wrote: »
    I voted yes, partly at least because of the case doctors made that it created difficulties for them. Now that I see over 6,000 abortions, I would have to consider changing my vote. That number is horrific when only a small number were on genuine medical grounds.

    You have no idea what 'grounds' women had - nor is it any of your business.
    Just like you had no idea of what ground the women who travelled to the UK had.

    It was clear what the legislation would be before the vote so you either agreed when you voted yes or didn't actually vote yes and are just looking to create a 'that's horrific I have changed my mind' trope.
    It was always obvious that the majority would be before 12 weeks and not technically on medical grounds - although some might have been.


  • Options
    #69
    Manach
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 9,679 Mod ✭✭✭✭Manach


    I noticed that the pro-abortion bagdges & stickers were still being worn up till last year. The release of the figures shows the price of such virtue signalling. The irony that the left seem to have embraced a term that includes the term "lives matter" when clearly it is only certain lives that do to them.


  • Options
    #70
    sabat
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,896 ✭✭✭sabat


    SusieBlue wrote: »

    ...an ulterior motive...
    ..If they cared at all...
    ...but shock horror, we don’t hear a word...
    ...they can clutch their pearls...
    ..So transparent.

    An Irish woman died of sepsis giving birth on the Christmas Day after the referendum. Were there any murals and candlelit vigils for her? What happened to "Savita, never again?" Would any of the repeal campaign even know her name? Or care that she died?


  • Options
    #71
    Bannasidhe
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 19,219 Mod ✭✭✭✭Bannasidhe


    Manach wrote: »
    I noticed that the pro-abortion bagdges & stickers were still being worn up till last year. The release of the figures shows the price of such virtue signalling. The irony that the left seem to have embraced a term that includes the term "lives matter" when clearly it is only certain lives that do to them.

    Do you really want to get into a whole Right vs Left thing because there are many many instances of the right not protecting lives so if there is hypocrisy it is on both sides.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #72
    Bannasidhe
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 19,219 Mod ✭✭✭✭Bannasidhe


    sabat wrote: »
    An Irish woman died of sepsis giving birth on the Christmas Day after the referendum. Were there any murals and candlelit vigils for her? What happened to "Savita, never again?" Would any of the repeal campaign even know her name? Or care that she died?

    Was she refused an abortion even after requesting one?


  • Options
    #73
    4068ac1elhodqr
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,586 ✭✭✭4068ac1elhodqr


    jam_mac_jam wrote: »
    No, females should not be microchipped and prevented from having children before 30.

    Jesus christ....

    It wasn't my idea as such, rather (the other JC): aka BillGates:

    https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/architecture-design-blog/2014/jul/11/design-futures-remote-controlled-contraceptive-microchip-launch-by-2018

    Not sure why they didn't see light of day, perhaps clinical trials highlighted the risk of total steralisation. Think original plans were to install these chips in 100m women in Africa, to begin with.

    Between now and 2050, Africa will double it's population to 2.5bn, 50% of the populaiton will be under 25, so family planning there, now, could be a focus of world leaders, globlists and the super-rich.


  • Options
    #74
    Spanish Eyes
    Registered Users Posts: 15,912 ✭✭✭✭Spanish Eyes


    It is a woman's choice and that to me is the end of it.

    Why would I interfere with that.


  • Options
    #75
    Bannasidhe
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 19,219 Mod ✭✭✭✭Bannasidhe


    Laura Old-fashioned Mace wrote: »

    If it really is, should females (esp in developing world) be microchipped with timed/remote control contraceptives i.e. auto dispension of hormones on small daily doses. Patents exist for this already, and are good for 16yrs once installed in the body which would prevent births before e.g. the age of 30.

    Should we give males reversible vasectomies? These already happen and a vasectomy has no side effects unlike dosing someone with hormones.


  • Options
    #76
    sabat
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,896 ✭✭✭sabat


    Bannasidhe wrote: »

    It was clear what the legislation would be before the vote so you either agreed when you voted yes or didn't actually vote yes and are just looking to create a 'that's horrific I have changed my mind' trope.

    They lied directly about it being free of charge and on demand. They also lied directly about doctors being coerced into performing abortions. They never mentioned that they planned to offer free abortions to women from Northern Ireland.


  • Options
    #77
    cournioni
    Moderators, Regional North East Moderators Posts: 12,739 Mod ✭✭✭✭cournioni


    I voted no and reading the statistics that only 144 out of the 6666 were for medical purposes is why that will remain as a no.

    The gleeful celebrations following the result are stomach churning given those figures.


  • Options
    #78
    JL555
    Registered Users Posts: 288 ✭✭JL555


    downinbigsmoke wrote: »
    Would this have changed your vote?

    This wouldn't have changed my vote at all. But IMO, I don't think anyone was misled, people should always make as much as they can to make an informed decision when they vote. The fact that abortions seem to have increased should not be surprising to anyone, easier access, more convenient, less travel and less expensive involved.


  • Options
    #79
    ldy4mxonucwsq6
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,537 ✭✭✭ldy4mxonucwsq6


    Tork wrote: »
    You missed my point by a mile. While I would never deny a woman the right to have an abortion here in Ireland, it would be better if the crisis pregnancy never happened in the first place. 6,666 terminations is a very high number, especially now that contraception is freely available. Abortions will always have to happen but the fewer of them, the better.

    Not all abortions are "crisis pregnancies" and if I was voting again I would vote the same way.

    The way I see it is thats 6,666 women who were able to get help in the safest way possible and without having to pay a huge amount of money and travel abroad adding to the trauma.

    Perfect example would be the last few months where travel wasn't permitted, can you imagine what it would be like if we couldn't help our own women here at home during all of this?

    It is better as a woman and as a mother raising daughters to have the peace of mind that should we need or want help then we can get it without having to rely on another country to give it to us.

    No woman takes a decision to have an abortion lightly and if that is their choice then they should be supported by their own country no sent off away to the UK or taking chances with online meds.


  • Options
    #80
    Plumbthedepths
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,653 ✭✭✭✭Plumbthedepths


    I voted for repeal as I believe a woman has the right to make decisions about her own body autonomy.


  • Options
    #81
    4068ac1elhodqr
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,586 ✭✭✭4068ac1elhodqr


    jill_valentine wrote: »
    Hormones like that can have unpredictable, variable and disruptive effects on a woman’s body, particular if she's young, because her reproductive system is far more body involved. It would make far more sense to do an equivalent procedure on men, because such interventions have far less of an effect on their bodies overall and have a more efficient outcome. After all, a woman can only be pregnant once at a time, where a man can have many buns in any number of ovens.

    Assuming the concern here is, of course, effective family planning on an international scale and preventing contingency measures like abortions being necessary, I look forward to seeing you sell your idea of chemical castration implants to the gentlemen here.

    Again...It wasn't my idea

    You can thank Bill Gates instead (chemical steralisation^ by remote control microchip for women, ^16yrs worth dosage).

    https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/architecture-design-blog/2014/jul/11/design-futures-remote-controlled-contraceptive-microchip-launch-by-2018[/QUOTE]

    In terms of prevention, could be that the idea behind denial of a vessel is more efficient than stopping the seed.

    One (easily replaceable) golfer can complete an 18 hole golf course in little time. By blocking off the holes, zero golfers (from an unlimited supply, local and visiting) can complete any of the course.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #82
    SusieBlue
    Registered Users Posts: 8,029 ✭✭✭SusieBlue


    sabat wrote: »
    An Irish woman died of sepsis giving birth on the Christmas Day after the referendum. Were there any murals and candlelit vigils for her? What happened to "Savita, never again?" Would any of the repeal campaign even know her name? Or care that she died?

    Did she die because she was refused urgent medical care, because ‘this is a catholic country’?

    Did she die because she was denied an abortion? Or is this you using the tragic death of a woman, that has absolutely nothing to do with abortion, to further your own agenda?


  • Options
    #83
    JL555
    Registered Users Posts: 288 ✭✭JL555


    Hotblack Desiato wrote: »




    it's none of your business or anyone else's business.


    That's a bold statement. Since when should statistics not be in the interest of the citizens of a country?


  • Options
    #84
    downinbigsmoke
    Registered Users Posts: 31 ✭downinbigsmoke


    JL555 wrote: »
    That's a bold statement. Since when should statistics not be in the interest of the citizens of a country?

    I would be inclined to agree. For one thing, this country has a vested interest in keeping the birth rate high. Showing that many women abort out of economic necessity could be a powerful argument for providing more support for single and working class mothers.


  • Options
    #85
    Bannasidhe
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 19,219 Mod ✭✭✭✭Bannasidhe


    sabat wrote: »
    They lied directly about it being free of charge and on demand. They also lied directly about doctors being coerced into performing abortions. They never mentioned that they planned to offer free abortions to women from Northern Ireland.

    Can you prove that?

    I clearly remember the whole on request up to 12 weeks being endlessly debated so where was the lie?
    Go back through the threads here and you will see how often it was discussed.

    2018 - abortions will be free under draft proposals but pain medication will may to be paid for
    https://www.irishtimes.com/news/health/abortions-will-be-free-but-some-patients-will-have-to-pay-for-related-drugs-1.3731994?mode=sample&auth-failed=1&pw-origin=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.irishtimes.com%2Fnews%2Fhealth%2Fabortions-will-be-free-but-some-patients-will-have-to-pay-for-related-drugs-1.3731994

    Where are the lies?


    Feb 2019
    It’s currently free to access abortion services in Ireland if you are ordinarily resident in Ireland; those from the North can access an abortion but will have to pay €450 to do so
    https://www.thejournal.ie/northern-ireland-abortion-2-4479172-Feb2019/


  • Options
    #86
    Quantum Erasure
    Registered Users Posts: 8,297 ✭✭✭Quantum Erasure


    SusieBlue wrote: »
    Did she die because she was denied an abortion? Or is this you using the tragic death of a woman, that has absolutely nothing to do with abortion, to further your own agenda?

    i thought you were talking about Savita there for a second...


  • Options
    #87
    SusieBlue
    Registered Users Posts: 8,029 ✭✭✭SusieBlue


    Quantum Erasure wrote: »
    i thought you were talking about Savita there for a second...

    No, Savita died because she was denied access to an abortion and developed sepsis as a result of complications from having an open cervix for several days. Even though her pregnancy was no longer viable and she was unfortunately going to lose her baby anyway.


  • Options
    #88
    downinbigsmoke
    Registered Users Posts: 31 ✭downinbigsmoke


    Laura Old-fashioned Mace wrote: »

    If it really is, should females (esp in developing world) be microchipped with timed/remote control contraceptives i.e. auto dispension of hormones on small daily doses. Patents exist for this already, and are good for 16yrs once installed in the body which would prevent births before e.g. the age of 30.

    This is a terrible idea. What I think might be legitimate is some African countries introducing maximum age gaps between sexual partners. The exploitation of young girls by older men in urban Africa is horrific - there are regular forced marriages and old men with multiple teenage sexual partners has been recognised as major contributor of the AIDS crisis.

    Aside from that, Ireland needs quick and easy access to contraception. University halls should supply condoms free of charge. The fact drunken "consent" is not consent needs to be emphasised much more.


  • Options
    #89
    crossman47
    Registered Users Posts: 1,499 ✭✭✭crossman47


    Bannasidhe wrote: »
    You have no idea what 'grounds' women had - nor is it any of your business.
    Just like you had no idea of what ground the women who travelled to the UK had.

    It was clear what the legislation would be before the vote so you either agreed when you voted yes or didn't actually vote yes and are just looking to create a 'that's horrific I have changed my mind' trope.
    It was always obvious that the majority would be before 12 weeks and not technically on medical grounds - although some might have been.

    You are repeating the spin Harris, etc put on the vote. I voted to repeal the 8th - nothing else and to give the Oireachtas the power to make the law. I knew what they proposed but I (stupidly) thought they would give some consideration to the objections of the minority. They didn't - they were just anxious to rush it through and be shot of it. Now we have the consequences. Whether you like it or not, I am horrified at over 6,000 abortions being carried out here.


  • Options
    #90
    Bannasidhe
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 19,219 Mod ✭✭✭✭Bannasidhe


    Laura Old-fashioned Mace wrote: »
    Again...It wasn't my idea

    You can thank Bill Gates instead (chemical steralisation^ by remote control microchip for women, ^16yrs worth dosage).



    In terms of prevention, could be that the idea behind denial of a vessel is more efficient than stopping the seed.

    One (easily replaceable) golfer can complete an 18 hole golf course in little time. By blocking off the holes, zero golfers (from an unlimited supply, local and visiting) can complete any of the course.

    Take away their balls and no holes need to be blocked.

    In equines it is the stallions who are castrated to prevent breeding, not the mares as it is less invasive and has less associated risks.
    Perhaps it is time for men to step up and be at the forefront of preventing unwanted pregnancies with a reversible minor procedure with no side effects.
    After all, a man can impregnate many women but women once impregnated can't be again until the pregnancy ends. Meanwhile the male could be off impregnating multiple women.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #91
    downinbigsmoke
    Registered Users Posts: 31 ✭downinbigsmoke


    Mearings wrote: »
    Your full disclosure did not include your gender.

    I fail to see how that is in any way relevant?


Advertisement