Abortions for 3,735, minature flags for nobody

paperclip2 · 10-06-2015 03:57PM

Also contraception can fail.
So what 'should' be done in a case where a married couple, who were medically advised not to have any more children because of health reasons become pregnant despite using both the pill and condoms?

10-06-2015 03:58PM

orubiru wrote: »

Once again, you avoided giving answers to the questions that I asked.

Have you considered why countries like the UK have the abortion laws that they do?

Don't you wonder why the UN, for example, is putting pressure on Ireland to bring in laws like those in the UK?

Seriously, why are they doing that? If it's so obviously wrong then why can't they see it?

The fact they are doing it and think its right does not make it right.

Its a really really sad reflection on society when the people opposing the killing of unborn babies are the ones who are expected to explain themselves.

Shenshen · 10-06-2015 03:59PM

Yadiel Nutritious Apartment wrote: »

Well it is already heavily discouraged.

Just because people go is abroad a reason for Ireland to lower its moral standards. At least we can say we did our best to give the children a chance at life by not allowing it to happen here.

So you prefer to neglect the medical care and needs of the women who did go to the UK for abortions, in favour of morals and how things "should" be? Good to know.

The Corinthian · 10-06-2015 03:59PM

K-9 wrote: »

Some older people have a lot to learn when it comes to std's as well, young people can get an undeserved bad press in that regard.

Someone was telling me recently that baby-boomers are actually presently responsible for much of the STD increases in the West.

Bloody hippies.

Shenshen · 10-06-2015 04:00PM

The Corinthian wrote: »

Where would you suggest 'should' would be acceptable in this discussion?

Anywhere were it's not followed by unfounded expectations of reality.

_Whimsical_ · 10-06-2015 04:01PM

orubiru wrote: »

OK, but have you considered why countries like the UK have such laws?

Don't you wonder why the UN, for example, is putting pressure on Ireland to bring in laws like the UK?

There are lots of reasons why the UK have those laws, among them would be financial reasons, they'd prefer abort unwanted babies than have them be a burden on the state. They've shown little commitment to the wellbeing of abused children and teenagers as has been obvious in the recent Rotherham cases. I think they're happy to dispose of the symptom of many societal problems through abortion rather than address causes.
They also encourage abortion of babies found to have disabilities while still in the womb, some as slight as having a cleft palate deformity that can be corrected with minor surgery in many cases.
It's very difficult to feel comfortable with ALL that goes on under the UK abortion laws.

I would think that it is disingenuous to imagine those laws exist solely to allow women greater choice and self-determination.

I'm not sure how I feel about abortion, I'm definitely uncomfortable with it being on demand and totally against late term except in life threatening circumstances, but I do recognise some cases outside those parameters do require it. I wouldn't look to the UK as a great example though.

The Corinthian · 10-06-2015 04:02PM

paperclip2 wrote: »

So what 'should' be done in a case where a married couple, who were medically advised not to have any more children because of health reasons become pregnant despite using both the pill and condoms?

One or both of them to get sterilized FFS. If it's potentially that serious a health issue, they'd have to be gobshìtes not to do so.

_Whimsical_ · 10-06-2015 04:02PM

paperclip2 wrote: »

Also contraception can fail.
So what 'should' be done in a case where a married couple, who were medically advised not to have any more children because of health reasons become pregnant despite using both the pill and condoms?

If pregnancy is dangerous for a woman she will be granted an abortion under our present laws since The Life of the Mother amendment, I think?

10-06-2015 04:03PM

paperclip2 wrote: »

Also contraception can fail.
So what 'should' be done in a case where a married couple, who were medically advised not to have any more children because of health reasons become pregnant despite using both the pill and condoms?

The chances of both failing are extremely slim so not a great example. As other have said there are also more permanent ways to prevent pregnancy.

However I would say that if there is a very very high chance of danger to the mother then we are moving into the territory of exceptional circumstances. Circumstance which our current laws already allow for.

Shenshen · 10-06-2015 04:04PM

The Corinthian wrote: »

One or both of them to get sterilized FFS. If it's potentially that serious a health issue, they'd have to be gobshìtes not to do so.

You realise that even that is not always entirely failsafe?

10-06-2015 04:05PM

Shenshen wrote: »

So you prefer to neglect the medical care and needs of the women who did go to the UK for abortions, in favour of morals and how things "should" be? Good to know.

They are making the decision to go, they can have all the medical care they want here should they choose to have the baby.

inocybe · 10-06-2015 04:05PM

K-9 wrote: »

Teenage pregnancies are down substantially over the last decade.

If anything going by the stats, it's very much older women who use abortion as a contraceptive. Some older people have a lot to learn when it comes to std's as well, young people can get an undeserved bad press in that regard.

'abortion as a contraceptive' is a nonsensical phrase. People who are using contraceptives properly can also need abortions you know.

orubiru · 10-06-2015 04:05PM

Yadiel Nutritious Apartment wrote: »

The fact they are doing it and think its right does not make it right.

Its a really really sad reflection on society when the people opposing the killing of unborn babies are the ones who are expected to explain themselves.

So we are back to the "killing of unborn babies" nonsense?

Great.

Shenshen · 10-06-2015 04:06PM

Yadiel Nutritious Apartment wrote: »

They are making the decision to go, they can have all the medical care they want here should they choose to have the baby.

Interesting.

Based on that logic, should we also deny treatment to people who, say, had an accident while driving? They made the decision to drive, after all?

10-06-2015 04:10PM

Shenshen wrote: »

Interesting.

Based on that logic, should we also deny treatment to people who, say, had an accident while driving? They made the decision to drive, after all?

Are you trying saying that a person presenting at a hospital in Ireland due to an abortion related complication would be denied treatment? Because they certainly would not.

Shenshen · 10-06-2015 04:12PM

Yadiel Nutritious Apartment wrote: »

Are you trying saying that a person presenting at a hospital in Ireland due to an abortion related complication would be denied treatment? Because they certainly would not.

Well, first they need to travel a few hours to get home, after having had a serious medical procedure. The travelling itself is quite an issue for many, a lot of them experience quite heavy bleeding. But unless they have the means to remain in the UK for a week or two, there's not a lot of choice for them.

There also is no real after care provided here, the women are pretty much left to themselves.

10-06-2015 04:19PM

Shenshen wrote: »

Well, first they need to travel a few hours to get home, after having had a serious medical procedure. The travelling itself is quite an issue for many, a lot of them experience quite heavy bleeding. But unless they have the means to remain in the UK for a week or two, there's not a lot of choice for them.

There also is no real after care provided here, the women are pretty much left to themselves.

Or they could have their baby instead.

ProfessorPlum · 10-06-2015 04:20PM

_Whimsical_ wrote: »

If pregnancy is dangerous for a woman she will be granted an abortion under our present laws since The Life of the Mother amendment, I think?

She certainly will not be granted an abortion. At least not until her life is actually and substantially at risk. And as our doctors will tell us, that is not always an easy determination to make.

The Corinthian · 10-06-2015 04:21PM

Shenshen wrote: »

Anywhere were it's not followed by unfounded expectations of reality.

And who decides what are those?

For example, I might suggest, with your logic, that "men should not commit rape" is equally invalid as I suspect that some men will continue do do so, just as some people will continue to commit murder, even though they should not.

Shenshen wrote: »

You realise that even that is not always entirely failsafe?

Still better than condoms, which is what I was responding to.

_Whimsical_ · 10-06-2015 04:22PM

Shenshen wrote: »

Well, first they need to travel a few hours to get home, after having had a serious medical procedure. The travelling itself is quite an issue for many, a lot of them experience quite heavy bleeding. But unless they have the means to remain in the UK for a week or two, there's not a lot of choice for them.

There also is no real after care provided here, the women are pretty much left to themselves.

From having a friend who lives in the UK who had an abortion that was her experience too. She wasn't offered aftercare and was told to go to her GP if she had any follow up problems. She had it Friday and was back to work Monday.
I'm not saying I think that's right, just that's how it happens it seems. Having to travel after would be utterly horrible I'm sure.

There are some services in Ireland ,the Family Planning Clinic is one, who offer post abortion counselling, but I'm sure there aren't enough.

ProfessorPlum · 10-06-2015 04:22PM

Yadiel Nutritious Apartment wrote: »

The chances of both failing are extremely slim so not a great example. As other have said there are also more permanent ways to prevent pregnancy.

However I would say that if there is a very very high chance of danger to the mother then we are moving into the territory of exceptional circumstances. Circumstance which our current laws already allow for.

As I've said. Our law only allows for the circumstance once the woman's life is in danger. Now, you might be happy to take that journey to the edge. Many are not. Nor should they be forced to.

Cuban Pete · 10-06-2015 04:23PM

Yadiel Nutritious Apartment wrote: »

Or they could be forced to have their baby instead.

FYP there.

_Whimsical_ · 10-06-2015 04:30PM

ProfessorPlum wrote: »

She certainly will not be granted an abortion. At least not until her life is actually and substantially at risk. And as our doctors will tell us, that is not always an easy determination to make.

I think you are mistaken there. For example a woman with cancer can chose to have an abortion so she can proceed with treatment, no determination is made as to whether her cancer might kill her in the 7 months before the birth of her child, or that chemo would be better after the birth. Or where a woman might have a heart condition that would prevent her continuing a pregnancy safelyin the later stages, where there is a future risk to her life, she could have an abortion.
I think in the case outlined by the OP a woman can have an abortion if there is a real but non immediate threat to her life.

I haven't studied that now but I heard those two scenarios being outlined on the radio by a doctor and that was their opinion.

Fred Swanson · 10-06-2015 04:30PM

This post has been deleted.

ProfessorPlum · 10-06-2015 04:47PM

_Whimsical_ wrote: »

I think you are mistaken there. For example a woman with cancer can chose to have an abortion so she can proceed with treatment, no determination is made as to whether her cancer might kill her in the 7 months before the birth of her child, or that chemo would be better after the birth. Or where a woman might have a heart condition that would prevent her continuing a pregnancy safelyin the later stages, where there is a future risk to her life, she could have an abortion.
I think in the case outlined by the OP a woman can have an abortion if there is a real but non immediate threat to her life.

I haven't studied that now but I heard those two scenarios being outlined on the radio by a doctor and that was their opinion.

I'm afraid I'm not. The 8th amendment must still be satisfied. The POLDP act has just legislated for it - and set out the steps that need to be taken.
This is the section of the act applying:
there is a real and substantial risk of loss of the woman’s life from a physical
illness, and
in their reasonable opinion (being an opinion formed in good faith which has regard to the need to preserve unborn human life as far as practicable) that risk can only be averted by carrying out the medical procedure,
The life must be at risk substantially from the pregnancy, and an abortion must be the only way of averting the risk.
In a minority of cases, it might reasonably be assessed that due to a server preexisting condition, where the pregnancy is continued there is an overwhelming likelihood of death for the mother, that then the law is satisfied, but for most cases there would not be that certainty.
The POLDP act hasn't really changed much. It's still a very difficult area for doctors, and even more so for pregnant women.

volchitsa · 10-06-2015 04:48PM

Yadiel Nutritious Apartment wrote: »

The fact they are doing it and think its right does not make it right.

Its a really really sad reflection on society when the people opposing the killing of unborn babies are the ones who are expected to explain themselves.

If I said : "Its a really really sad reflection on society when the people opposing the prevention of all those new unborn babies are the ones who are expected to explain themselves" while being unable to explain myself, would that make me right?

If reasonable people genuinely believe you're wrong, and you can't explain convincingly to them why you're actually right, maybe it's time to examine your own position and see if it really is as right as you think?

And I'd suggest that anyone who in the name of "morality" finds themselves supporting a position that includes forcing a raped 10 year old child to continue a pregnancy that is harming her both mentally and physically, as in Paraguay recently, really does need to re-examine that position.

How you can expect the "rightness" of that to be self evident to the rest of society is in fact a measure of your own disconnect from reality.

Electric Sheep · 10-06-2015 04:52PM

Yadiel Nutritious Apartment wrote: »

We should be working very hard to discourage people going abroad for abortions also on top of keeping our laws as they are.

Enforcing high child support from the fathers would encourage more women to have the baby, knowing they would not be forcing the child into a childhood of penury.

Funny enough, the MEN who are so rabidly pro life never seem to be in favor of that.

Electric Sheep · 10-06-2015 05:15PM

Yadiel Nutritious Apartment wrote: »

Accidents can happen but people need to be accept that if they do they need to live with it.

You have so little respect for children that you think "oops an accident" is a valid reason to have a child? I think that every child born deserves to be wanted and planned by both parents.

We are hearing very little about the sperm donor in this conversation, aren't we?

_Whimsical_ · 10-06-2015 05:26PM

Electric Sheep wrote: »

You have so little respect for children that you think "oops an accident" is a valid reason to have a child? I think that every child born deserves to be wanted and planned by both parents.

We are hearing very little about the sperm donor in this conversation, aren't we?

I totally agree with you about the role of men being ignored here in the reading of the child and sharing the "burden" and financial toll.
I don't think though that we could ever arrange a situation where every child is wanted by both mother and father. Surely you wouldn't countenance a woman forced to abort a child she wants because it's father does not?
Realistically that just isn't feasible.
It's all awfully sad sometimes when you think about it too much.

10-06-2015 05:35PM

volchitsa wrote: »

If reasonable people genuinely believe you're wrong, and you can't explain convincingly to them why you're actually right, maybe it's time to examine your own position and see if it really is as right as you think?

.

My position, like many many peoples is that abortion is wrong and a baby has the right to live. I would be confident that a referendum on the topic would reflect this also. The Irish people don't want abortion on demand, just because other countries allow it is not a good reason. Hopefully in the future it will be outlawed in other countries again, its a barbaric practice.

It is people who think abortion should be like going in to have a tooth removed that need to re-examine their position.

Abortions for 3,735, minature flags for nobody

Comments