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
12467…30

Comments

  • Options
    #92
    SusieBlue
    Registered Users Posts: 8,029 ✭✭✭SusieBlue


    crossman47 wrote: »
    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.

    Why should they give consideration to the objections of the minority when no such allowances were made when the 8th amendment was originally passed into law?

    There was many concerns about how the 8th would cause confusion and complications in medical emergencies, not to mention the fact that it forced vulnerable women to go abroad to seek healthcare they should have been able to receive here.
    And none of those concerns were considered at all.


  • Options
    #93
    moon2
    Registered Users Posts: 679 ✭✭✭moon2


    crossman47 wrote: »
    Whether you like it or not, I am horrified at over 6,000 abortions being carried out here.

    Would you be horrified if 6,000 went to England for abortions instead?


  • Options
    #94
    cournioni
    Moderators, Regional North East Moderators Posts: 12,739 Mod ✭✭✭✭cournioni


    moon2 wrote: »
    Would you be horrified if 6,000 went to England for abortions instead?
    For abortions where healthy babies are being killed, yes.


  • Options
    #95
    beggars_bush
    Registered Users Posts: 4,385 ✭✭✭beggars_bush


    I'm glad all these women could access this service if they made that decision


  • Options
    #96
    crossman47
    Registered Users Posts: 1,500 ✭✭✭crossman47


    moon2 wrote: »
    Would you be horrified if 6,000 went to England for abortions instead?

    Yes, I don't like to see them carried out anywhere. The UK law is far too liberal - even David Steel, who brought it in, admitted that afterwards. I do want to see them allowed in cases of medical necessity.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #97
    Bannasidhe
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 19,219 Mod ✭✭✭✭Bannasidhe


    crossman47 wrote: »
    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.

    There is no spin.

    It was made very clear what was intended. There was endless discussion at the time where people had concerns about on request up to 12 weeks.

    May 17th 2018 - vote was on the 25th May.
    Much of the debate around the proposed law is around whether or not a woman will be able to get an abortion up to six months of pregnancy.

    The draft legislation put forward by Health Minister Simon Harris proposes to legalise abortion up to 12 weeks in any circumstances.

    After 12 weeks, the legislation says a termination of pregnancy would be lawful if two medical practitioners certify the following three things at the same time:

    there is a risk to the life of the pregnant woman or a risk of serious harm to her
    the foetus has not reached viability
    and the termination of pregnancy is an appropriate way to avert the risk.
    https://www.thejournal.ie/irish-abortion-law-comparison-4015872-May2018/

    That you did not inform yourself is down to you and no-one else.


  • Options
    #98
    crossman47
    Registered Users Posts: 1,500 ✭✭✭crossman47


    SusieBlue wrote: »
    Why should they give consideration to the objections of the minority when no such allowances were made when the 8th amendment was originally passed into law?

    There was many concerns about how the 8th would cause confusion and complications in medical emergencies, not to mention the fact that it forced vulnerable women to go abroad to seek healthcare they should have been able to receive here.
    And none of those concerns were considered at all.

    There was no legal consideration involved. No law was changed after the referendum so the question did not arise.


  • Options
    #99
    jam_mac_jam
    Registered Users Posts: 4,723 ✭✭✭jam_mac_jam


    downinbigsmoke wrote: »
    I fail to see how that is in any way relevant?

    So a man then


  • Options
    #100
    micosoft
    Registered Users Posts: 2,359 ✭✭✭micosoft


    downinbigsmoke wrote: »
    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?

    When you create a straw man that the Yes side said it would not change the raw number then you might have had a point. The Yes vote was around giving women choice around their bodies. Yes was Yes.


  • Options
    #101
    downinbigsmoke
    Registered Users Posts: 31 ✭downinbigsmoke


    micosoft wrote: »
    When you create a straw man that the Yes side said it would not change the raw number then you might have had a point. The Yes vote was around giving women choice around their bodies. Yes was Yes.

    They did actually say this. More than that, I remember reading some leaflets that said that it might go down because "countries that have banned abortion have higher abortion rates than those that don't" (I suspect they were comparing rates in Germany and Argentina, better known as oranges and apples there).


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #102
    SusieBlue
    Registered Users Posts: 8,029 ✭✭✭SusieBlue


    crossman47 wrote: »
    There was no legal consideration involved. No law was changed after the referendum so the question did not arise.

    There was nothing in the constitution about abortion prior to that, so it was a new law. Their concern that it would cause a legal grey area was valid and unfortunately it came to fruition.

    If you are saying the minority should have been taken into consideration then that works both ways.


  • Options
    #103
    Bannasidhe
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 19,219 Mod ✭✭✭✭Bannasidhe


    crossman47 wrote: »
    There was no legal consideration involved. No law was changed after the referendum so the question did not arise.

    Really?

    Magazines were censored to remove any information on getting an abortion.
    Women and girls were prevented from prevent traveling to get an abortion.
    6 February 1992: The defendant and her parents travelled to England and arrangements were made for an abortion to take place in London. On the same date, the Attorney General obtained an interim injunction stopping the teenager and her parents from leaving the country or arranging the termination of the pregnancy. Once they were informed of the injunction the family returned to Ireland.

    The AG’s order was based on Article 40.3.3 of the Constitution, more specifically on the 1983 amendment that puts the right of the unborn child’s right to life on an equal footing of the mother’s right to life.

    Whelen has since said that he had no choice but to seek the injunction as he had a duty to uphold the Constitution. He told an RTÉ documentary that his problem was “stark” after being contacted by the DPP.
    https://www.thejournal.ie/twenty-years-on-a-timeline-of-the-x-case-347359-Feb2012/


  • Options
    #104
    downinbigsmoke
    Registered Users Posts: 31 ✭downinbigsmoke


    jam_mac_jam wrote: »
    So a man then

    I didn't say that.

    More than that, you are aware that men can get pregnant too?


  • Options
    #105
    crossman47
    Registered Users Posts: 1,500 ✭✭✭crossman47


    SusieBlue wrote: »
    There was nothing in the constitution about abortion prior to that, so it was a new law. Their concern that it would cause a legal grey area was valid and unfortunately it came to fruition.

    If you are saying the minority should have been taken into consideration then that works both ways.

    To be pedantic, it was not a law. It was a clause in the constitution.


  • Options
    #106
    moon2
    Registered Users Posts: 679 ✭✭✭moon2


    cournioni wrote: »
    For abortions where healthy babies are being killed, yes.

    Great to hear the consistency in opinion! The data is pretty clear that removing access does not stop abortions from occurring, it just makes it less safe.

    If we can address the underlying issues (poor social safety net, poor access to contraception, etc) we can drive down these numbers. To be honest I'm not really sure what the breakdown is between the reasons why a termination is requested, but I'm interested in knowing if there are simple steps we can take to make abortion less likely to be required/chosen/needed.


  • Options
    #107
    SusieBlue
    Registered Users Posts: 8,029 ✭✭✭SusieBlue


    crossman47 wrote: »
    To be pedantic, it was not a law. It was a clause in the constitution.

    Anything to add in regards to the rest of my post, or have you nothing to say?
    It’s quite ironic that you take issue with my choice of word but you don’t see the issues that the wording of the 8th caused.


  • Options
    #108
    Bannasidhe
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 19,219 Mod ✭✭✭✭Bannasidhe


    crossman47 wrote: »
    To be pedantic, it was not a law. It was a clause in the constitution.

    And all laws are based on the Constitution.
    It is the ultimate law.


  • Options
    #109
    eviltwin
    Registered Users Posts: 17,495 ✭✭✭✭eviltwin


    Everyone wants abortion figures to be low. How you achieve that is the question. Limiting abortion doesn’t stop unplanned or unwanted pregnancy and it doesn’t make raising a child easier for those who don’t feel ready to parent. It just adds more social pressure to those affected and sets more people up to struggle. I’m not prepared to accept that so I can feel smug about our low abortion rate.

    We will never stop abortion because we can never create the kind of society where every unplanned pregnancy can be prevented or welcomed. There are things we can do around sex education, access to decent contraception, more supports to keep people in education or work and a more child friendly society but we aren’t close to any of that right now


  • Options
    #110
    Seven Septs
    Closed Accounts Posts: 145 ✭✭Seven Septs


    I voted No. I would again. I'm male. It just seems wrong to me. I feel too many of the 6,666 were aborted because the time wasn't right for the couple. And I think that's wrong. If you're sexually active pregnancy can happen despite the best contraception. Do you have the baby or do you abort the *insert your word of choice here* what in the vast majority of cases will be a healthy baby in 7 or 8 months.

    It's black or white for me. I know I'm judgemental but best wishes to anyone with an unwanted pregnancy. Everyone's conscience differs.


  • Options
    #111
    downinbigsmoke
    Registered Users Posts: 31 ✭downinbigsmoke


    Seven Septs wrote: »
    If you're sexually active pregnancy can happen despite the best contraception.

    Modern contraception - especially if you use more than one method simultaneously - is nearly 100% safe. To me that's the best argument against abortion. Pretty much everybody who finds themselves parents had a choice and are only in that situation because they are negligent (or if they are teenagers, had negligent parents).


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #112
    jam_mac_jam
    Registered Users Posts: 4,723 ✭✭✭jam_mac_jam


    downinbigsmoke wrote: »
    Modern contraception - especially if you use more than one method simultaneously - is nearly 100% safe. To me that's the best argument against abortion. Pretty much everybody who finds themselves parents had a choice and are only in that situation because they are negligent (or if they are teenagers, had negligent parents).

    So what? It's irrelevant if contraception failed or you didn't use any. They have a choice so now they have to have a baby? That they don't want?


  • Options
    #113
    SusieBlue
    Registered Users Posts: 8,029 ✭✭✭SusieBlue


    downinbigsmoke wrote: »
    Modern contraception - especially if you use more than one method simultaneously - is nearly 100% safe. To me that's the best argument against abortion. Pretty much everybody who finds themselves parents had a choice and are only in that situation because they are negligent (or if they are teenagers, had negligent parents).

    So do you think punishing these ‘reckless’ negligent people with forced unwanted parenthood is in anyone’s best interests?
    Particularly the innocent babies who will be born into these situation? Does that really have their best interests at heart?

    With regular, typical use of the pill it’s 91% effective, btw. So 9 in every 100 women who use it typically will get pregnant on it.


  • Options
    #114
    eviltwin
    Registered Users Posts: 17,495 ✭✭✭✭eviltwin


    downinbigsmoke wrote: »
    Modern contraception - especially if you use more than one method simultaneously - is nearly 100% safe. To me that's the best argument against abortion. Pretty much everybody who finds themselves parents had a choice and are only in that situation because they are negligent (or if they are teenagers, had negligent parents).

    Well obviously something is not working there if there is a demand for abortion. I’d like to know why. Is contraception too expensive, is there a stigma or embarrassment around it, lack of education? Access to contraception is one thing but cost is a factor here and it’s not enough to just give someone a prescription, they need proper education around its use, side effects etc


  • Options
    #115
    ldy4mxonucwsq6
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,537 ✭✭✭ldy4mxonucwsq6


    Seven Septs wrote: »
    I voted No. I would again. I'm male. It just seems wrong to me. I feel too many of the 6,666 were aborted because the time wasn't right for the couple. And I think that's wrong. If you're sexually active pregnancy can happen despite the best contraception. Do you have the baby or do you abort the *insert your word of choice here* what in the vast majority of cases will be a healthy baby in 7 or 8 months.

    It's black or white for me. I know I'm judgemental but best wishes to anyone with an unwanted pregnancy. Everyone's conscience differs.

    Well luckily in modern society, now finally we don't force women into carrying, giving birth to and raising a child if they decide that's not the right thing for them, just because they had sex.

    Contraception can and does fail, in some situations for whatever reason it might not be used and an unplanned pregnancy results and then you have cases of where there is no hope for the pregnancy due to health of mother or fetus.

    It's not as cut and dry as contraception is available therefore we should never have a need for abortion. Abortion exists because people sometimes need it.


  • Options
    #116
    downinbigsmoke
    Registered Users Posts: 31 ✭downinbigsmoke


    jam_mac_jam wrote: »
    So what? It's irrelevant if contraception failed or you didn't use any. They have a choice so now they have to have a baby? That they don't want?

    Condom + pill is a combination that essentially doesn't fail. If it does, it's a freak event like spontaneous combustion that can't really legislated for. The only reason that sexually active people get pregnant (or get them pregnant) is negligence. Anything else is a Catholic scare story designed to frighten you.

    And yes. Choices have consequences. I know that people don't like to hear that, but it's true. There's a baby's life to contend with here now. You can't just kill it because you were negligent.


  • Options
    #117
    ldy4mxonucwsq6
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,537 ✭✭✭ldy4mxonucwsq6


    downinbigsmoke wrote: »
    Condom + pill is a combination that essentially doesn't fail. If it does, it's a freak event like spontaneous combustion that can't really legislated for. The only reason that sexually active people get pregnant (or get them pregnant) is negligence. Anything else is a Catholic scare story designed to frighten you.

    And yes. Choices have consequences. I know that people don't like to hear that, but it's true. There's a baby's life to contend with here now. You can't just kill it because you were negligent.

    And what about in the cases of rape or fatal fetal anomaly?


  • Options
    #118
    eviltwin
    Registered Users Posts: 17,495 ✭✭✭✭eviltwin


    downinbigsmoke wrote: »
    Condom + pill is a combination that essentially doesn't fail. If it does, it's a freak event like spontaneous combustion that can't really legislated for. The only reason that sexually active people get pregnant (or get them pregnant) is negligence. Anything else is a Catholic scare story designed to frighten you.

    And yes. Choices have consequences. I know that people don't like to hear that, but it's true. There's a baby's life to contend with here now. You can't just kill it because you were negligent.

    That ship has sailed.

    People can choose to end their pregnancy just like they always have only now they can do so in their own country and under medical supervision


  • Options
    #119
    Seamai
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,250 ✭✭✭Seamai


    Voted a reluctant no 2 years ago, reluctant because there will always be a small amount of cases where abortion is the only option. Aside from the medical cases there were still over 6,500 unwanted pregnancies terminated here last year, to me that figure is pretty shocking. Lot of posters blindly repeating the right to choose mantra ad nauseam but what about personal responsibility?


  • Options
    #120
    downinbigsmoke
    Registered Users Posts: 31 ✭downinbigsmoke


    Brenda Slow Ink wrote: »
    And what about in the cases of rape or fatal fetal anomaly?

    Abortion in those cases is very sad but necessary.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #121
    downinbigsmoke
    Registered Users Posts: 31 ✭downinbigsmoke


    Brenda Slow Ink wrote: »
    And what about in the cases of rape or fatal fetal anomaly?

    Abortion in those cases is very sad but necessary.


Advertisement