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; } } }

Do you think a referendum on abortion would be passed?(not how you'd vote)

freshpopcorn

During the lead up to the general election I heard some talk about the 8th amendment being repealed and it being an important election issue. Outside of a few candidates and people online. I didn't really find people gave much thought when they were voting. A good few pro life candidates who want to keep the 8th amendment were elected.
If we were to have a referendum on the issue I'm not sure it would be passed. It would depend on what we would be voting on. Would it only be for cases of rape/incest or would it be abortion on demand.
If it was for cases of rape/incest. Would this be hard to prove. So would we essential be voting for abortion on demand.
Going on the marriage referendum a good few constituencies were close enough on voting No. So I think these areas would probably vote No. I could also see another few areas voting No also. I think areas around Dublin would probably vote Yes but it wouldn't be around the 70%. So these areas might pull up the national average.
I know a good few people who'd happily voted Yes last May but they wouldn't support abortion. These would be young/old people and from different areas.
I also know people who'd support abortion
What's After Hours opinion?

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

volchitsa

seamus wrote: »

The thing in the Miss Y case is not so much how horrible it is to consider that she had been "force fed" and incarcerated before being "forced" to give birth.

In practically all places with widely available abortion there is an upper gestational limit for a legal abortion. A woman presenting as suicidal and looking for an abortion after this point will be treated differently, but certainly a woman at 24 weeks will not automatically be given an abortion. And most jurisdictions would likely have an ethical debate around it, which would end up in the forced caesarian of the child.

That's not really the issue in the Miss Y case though. People presenting as suicidal over an unwanted pregnancy don't appear out of the ether at 24 weeks. If abortion had been available, she could have availed of it at 7 weeks when she discovered she was pregnant. And the whole case wouldn't have happened. Instead a catalogue of misunderstandings and nervous professionals meant it was 17 weeks before she could obtain proper help and have a decision made. And caused a woman to be detained and forced to give birth, in the 21st century.

Very true.

Although for that part I've bolded, I'd guess that the so-called "pro-life" stance in Ireland has in fact resulted in an unnecessarily poor outcome for the child as well, which wouldn't have happened had there actually been an ethical discussion about that particular case (as opposed to the pro-life determination to have a very generalized "ethical" debate about how bad abortion is and how we're all agin it.)

The problem is that the law here doesn't allow the unborn any right other than "life", with no consideration of outcomes.

Surely any functioning law should look at all the factors, not just "mother suicidal vs baby possibly viable" - so if for whatever reason a forced birth was still the decision arrived at, then a forced birth at 24 weeks followed by resuscitation and probable disability is still the wrong decision.

Either she should have had an abortion, preferably much earlier, or she'd left it too late and needed to wait until at least 30 weeks.

It's been pointed out that the HSE's priority seems to have been to prevent her having any input into the decision (logical I suppose given the legal approach here) and that as an asylum seeker she would quite likely by that stage have been willing to wait a few weeks longer had anyone given her good reason to (help with her asylum claim, in particular).

Instead the HSE were determined to enforce their decision, or lack of it, on her because the law puts them in a position of authority over pregnant women.

I'm dubious about whether the amendment could pass. I'd like to think it would and certainly the vibe I get from everyone under 50 is a yes, but so often these things can be won in the scaremongering arguments. The people for whom it's not a big issue but manage to have their opinion swayed by emotive arguments or even plain nonsensical ones, "DeValera would be spinning in his grave".

Yes that is the risk. I'm just hoping they've maxed out their credibility in the fearmongering stakes after the MarRef fiasco (fiasco for the antis, obviously).

One eyed Jack

ProfessorPlum wrote: »

So you are saying that some women who attempt to end their own pregnancy in some circumstances may be suffering from mental health issues? We seem to be misunderstanding each other. That's Hardly a revelation, but a long way from the point I was refuting where LittleCuCulann said that women who tried to end their pregnancies by, for example throwing herself down stairs should be 'arrested' under the mental health act. That is clearly nonesence.

What I'm saying is that if it could be argued that a woman attempts to induce a miscarriage (the "throwing herself down the stairs" presents very limited circumstances), by whatever means could be deemed to be an indication of ill mental health (providing an assessment was carried out and so on, and in the Miss Y case, I'm nearly sure she was assessed as experiencing depression following her ordeal, but not actively suicidal), and in those circumstances, I'm saying that she would fall under the provisions of the mental health act if it could be shown that there was a risk either to her own life, or the life of the unborn. While she wouldn't be arrested for attempting to end her own life, I wonder did LittleCuchullain mean that a woman could be arrested and involuntarily incarcerated in a psychiatric facility for attempting to end the life of the unborn.

ProfessorPlum wrote: »

Again, not necessarily the case. Depending on the woman's circumstance, the thinking might be quite rational.

Quite rational and quite understandable in certain circumstances to you and I and to other people perhaps, but realistically her mental state would be assessed by a panel, likely the same panel that the opinion of two mental health experts were ignored and over-ruled by the consultant who performed a termination by c-section in the Miss Y case.

ProfessorPlum

Interestingly, in the PP case, the judges did discuss the outcome for the child and as part of the decision did take into account no only the life of the unborn, but also what was in its best interest (in this case not to be supported) which is a step in the right direction, albeit only an opinion. But opinions are how case law is made, so a positive step.

ProfessorPlum

One eyed Jack wrote: »

What I'm saying is that if it could be argued that a woman attempts to induce a miscarriage (the "throwing herself down the stairs" presents very limited circumstances), by whatever means could be deemed to be an indication of ill mental health (providing an assessment was carried out and so on, and in the Miss Y case, I'm nearly sure she was assessed as experiencing depression following her ordeal, but not actively suicidal), and in those circumstances, I'm saying that she would fall under the provisions of the mental health act if it could be shown that there was a risk either to her own life, or the life of the unborn. While she wouldn't be arrested for attempting to end her own life.

I wonder did LittleCuchullain mean that a woman could be arrested and involuntarily incarcerated in a psychiatric facility for attempting to end the life of the unborn.

Quite rational and quite understandable in certain circumstances to you and I and to other people perhaps, but realistically her mental state would be assessed by a panel, likely the same panel that the opinion of two mental health experts were ignored and over-ruled by the consultant who performed a termination by c-section in the Miss Y case.

The 'panel' only comes into play if the woman is suicidal, not if she just wants to end her pregnancy. The two usually have no bearing on each other. I think you're conflating the issue.

volchitsa

ProfessorPlum wrote: »

Interestingly, in the PP case, the judges did discuss the outcome for the child and as part of the decision did take into account no only the life of the unborn, but also what was in its best interest (in this case not to be supported) which is a step in the right direction, albeit only an opinion. But opinions are how case law is made, so a positive step.

I'm posting from memory only, but I thought the issue wasn't the child's future health etc, but the fact that the child could not possibly reach viability at all, given the state of the mother's body?

If so, then a very, very baby step at best I fear, because still a binary life/no life judgment. Much as I'd like your take on the judgment to be correct.

ProfessorPlum

volchitsa wrote: »

I'm posting from memory only, but I thought the issue wasn't the child's future health etc, but the fact that the child could not possibly reach viability at all, given the state of the mother's body?

If so, then a very, very baby step at best I fear, because still a binary life/no life judgment. Much as I'd like your take on the judgment to be correct.

Yes, that was also part of the judgement, but they also took into account the child's best interest. I'm only speaking from memory, but I remember it was cos I know someone who wrote a legal opinion on it for one of the legal journals and we discussed it at the time.

volchitsa

One eyed Jack wrote: »

What I'm saying is that if it could be argued that a woman attempts to induce a miscarriage (the "throwing herself down the stairs" presents very limited circumstances), by whatever means could be deemed to be an indication of ill mental health (providing an assessment was carried out and so on, and in the Miss Y case, I'm nearly sure she was assessed as experiencing depression following her ordeal, but not actively suicidal), and in those circumstances, I'm saying that she would fall under the provisions of the mental health act if it could be shown that there was a risk either to her own life, or the life of the unborn. While she wouldn't be arrested for attempting to end her own life, I wonder did LittleCuchullain mean that a woman could be arrested and involuntarily incarcerated in a psychiatric facility for attempting to end the life of the unborn.

Quite rational and quite understandable in certain circumstances to you and I and to other people perhaps, but realistically her mental state would be assessed by a panel, likely the same panel that the opinion of two mental health experts were ignored and over-ruled by the consultant who performed a termination by c-section in the Miss Y case.

As far as I can see this post (and your general take on the mental health issue here) seems to be entirely speculative. That's not meant as a criticism, I'm just wondering why you think all those things, because many of them go against everything I know about mental health (which is not a great deal) and consent issues (where I'm on rather more solid ground, having done research into human biology at post grad level - but still not an expert).

volchitsa

ProfessorPlum wrote: »

Yes, that was also part of the judgement, but they also took into account the child's best interest. I'm only speaking from memory, but I remember it was cos I know someone who wrote a legal opinion on it for one of the legal journals and we discussed it at the time.

I read recently that Germany has a clause in its constitution banning abortion except where necessary etc - and yet abortion exists in Germany. So it seems to be that public opinion and/or government or Supreme Court pragmatism can sometimes lead to what looks like a barrier being reinterpreted in a much broader way. Well, we've seen that with lots of laws I guess, not just on abortion. But it would be interesting to see whether the same thing could ever happen here, i.e. the legal restrictions being loosened due to the "as far as practicable" clause.

That would really be a laugh wouldn't it, if the wording chosen by pro-life ended up leading to abortion being ever more widely available without a need for a new referendum! (TBH, I wouldn't expect that to be a possibility for years though - a referendum would almost certainly pass long before the judges got their act together!)

volchitsa

ProfessorPlum wrote: »

The 'panel' only comes into play if the woman is suicidal, not if she just wants to end her pregnancy. The two usually have no bearing on each other. I think you're conflating the issue.

I think there's so much that is downright contradictory in what has been leaked about the HSE's actions in that case that it would be foolhardy to speculate on who did what and when.

For example they claim not to have known that she was suicidal, but they got a letter from a doctor asking that she not be given metal cutlery and not left alone - and how did she get to Liverpool, with €1 in her pocket? Did HSE staff take her?

The preliminary report is just not plausible. So who knows what decisions were taken about her, or who was involved in them.

seamus

volchitsa wrote: »

That would really be a laugh wouldn't it, if the wording chosen by pro-life ended up leading to abortion being ever more widely available without a need for a new referendum! (TBH, I wouldn't expect that to be a possibility for years though - a referendum would almost certainly pass long before the judges got their act together!)

Alan Shatter made a statement in the Dail in 1983, before the 8th amendment was voted on. He explained that putting it in the constitution at all was a sledgehammer approach to solving the problem. And that the wording of the amendment was open-ended and subject multiple potential opposing interpretations.

He argued that the two things combined would eventually result in the state being required by its own constitution to provide access to abortion, as a result of an article that intends to ban it permanently.

And he was right. It took 32 years for that to come to pass, but it happened.

This alone is the best reason for removing the 8th amendment and leaving the constitution blank in regards to abortion.

12Phase

To be perfectly honest, the situation with our abortion laws is an international embarrassment and is one of the the few things that makes me absolutely cringe.

I don't know how many times I have been put in a position where I have been expected to 'defend' or 'explain' the situation to people abroad.

I never voted for it, I'm vastly too young and absolutely don't agree with the current situation. I just explain that Ireland was a backwards, religious fundamentalist place right up until the 1980s and these are a relic of that era and that things have changed.

I worry that the current situation is actually going to act as an impediment to investment and recruitment of overseas staff.

These insane laws have a huge impact on people if they don't have the freedom of movement to seek treatment elsewhere. That is a situation that impacts non-EU/EEA employees of multinationals - e.g. those very hard to find super genius coders who we are keen to lay out the red carpet for.

If they happen to be female, married to a female or have any daughters, they're exposed this law. They will not necessarily be able to travel to other countries for medical treatment without applying for visas and their health insurance doesn't necessarily cover them. This even applies to women from the United States and Canada who might not necessarily be covered if they go to the UK or NL.

In fact, in the case of some americans their insurance probably wouldn't even cover them if they went home if they were here long term.

I don't think our neighbours in Western Europe are some kind of crazed abortion fanatics, they're simply practical and treat women humanely. It's both hypocritical and somewhat bizarre that some Irish people take this holier than thou attitude to Ireland being morally superior to our neighbours on this one, while at the same time just pushing women who need to avail of abortion services off on the next Ryanair flight...

Anyway, I'm not going to rant any more but, I think this would pass if it were put to a vote as things most definitely have changed over the years.

I would be absolutely furious if FF or FG were to sit on their hands and not give the public the option of voting for yet another 5 years.

One eyed Jack

volchitsa wrote: »

As far as I can see this post (and your general take on the mental health issue here) seems to be entirely speculative. That's not meant as a criticism, I'm just wondering why you think all those things, because many of them go against everything I know about mental health (which is not a great deal) and consent issues (where I'm on rather more solid ground, having done research into human biology at post grad level - but still not an expert).

Well I'm just wondering about the scope of the mental health act and speculating about a hypothetical scenario where if a woman tried to induce a miscarriage, then if she was assessed by a panel of mental health experts, as in their opinion, experiencing mental health issues which led to her attempting to induce a miscarriage, they could argue that she be involuntarily incarcerated to protect the right to life of the unborn.

I'm also wondering, since you mention consent issues (just looking for your opinion really as I'm not too well up on it myself), about the whole issue of legal consent with regard to people with cognitive disabilities and the wording of the upcoming assisted decision making bill which appears to suggest that if a person is found to lack mental capacity, they can be denied legal capacity to make decisions that they believe are in their best interests, which contravenes the UN convention on the rights of persons with disabilities. For example like the case of the woman in the UK who chose to forego medication because she believed it was harmful to the unborn, she was forcefully incarcerated against her will, forced back on her meds, forced to have a c-section, and the child that was born taken from her.

volchitsa wrote: »

I read recently that Germany has a clause in its constitution banning abortion except where necessary etc - and yet abortion exists in Germany. So it seems to be that public opinion and/or government or Supreme Court pragmatism can sometimes lead to what looks like a barrier being reinterpreted in a much broader way. Well, we've seen that with lots of laws I guess, not just on abortion. But it would be interesting to see whether the same thing could ever happen here, i.e. the legal restrictions being loosened due to the "as far as practicable" clause.

The way I had always interpreted that was that it meant as far as it was practicable to protect the equal right to life of the unborn, and I would think that rather than the law being loosened to protect the equal right to life of the woman, it could be broadened to push the boundaries of medicine which could lead to more ghoulish scenarios like we saw in the PP case where the unborn was kept alive incubated in a corpse until it could develop to a point where it could be delivered safely.

EDIT: I know in the end it the outcome was that the unborn wasn't delivered, but the intent was there is what I mean.

volchitsa

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Well I'm just wondering about the scope of the mental health act and speculating about a hypothetical scenario where if a woman tried to induce a miscarriage, then if she was assessed by a panel of mental health experts, as in their opinion, experiencing mental health issues which led to her attempting to induce a miscarriage, they could argue that she be involuntarily incarcerated to protect the right to life of the unborn.

I don't know the legal answer to that, but it strikes me that it seems more likely in countries where abortion is available than in Ireland where public revulsion at the treatment of the girl in the X case led to suicide ideation becoming one of the exemptions to the ban on abortion. So now we have two entirely contradictory approaches to the problem of suicidal women, because of the 8th amendment.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I'm also wondering, since you mention consent issues (just looking for your opinion really as I'm not too well up on it myself), about the whole issue of legal consent with regard to people with cognitive disabilities and the wording of the upcoming assisted decision making bill which appears to suggest that if a person is found to lack mental capacity, they can be denied legal capacity to make decisions that they believe are in their best interests, which contravenes the UN convention on the rights of persons with disabilities. For example like the case of the woman in the UK who chose to forego medication because she believed it was harmful to the unborn, she was forcefully incarcerated against her will, forced back on her meds, forced to have a c-section, and the child that was born taken from her.

So, first off, my experience is more about eliminating from possible studies anyone who is not able to give free and informed consent, and what the requirements for such consent are (so giving someone the choice between forcefeeding them and performing surgery on them would probably not fulfill those requirements, despite what the HSE draft report said).

How to treat people who can't give consent but who require treatment anyway is rather more complex I imagine. But we no longer presume that mental health illness automatically implies incapacity, so being depressed would not necessarily remove her right to consent. She would probably have to show signs of hallucinations or other indications that her grasp of reality was altered. That would be the case of someone having a psychotic episode due to coming off their meds.

But then of course here we also have the 8th which removes or at least reduces the woman's rights to consent when pregnant. No need for her to have any cognitive impairment, it's just the law. But it's a law whose practical application may not go down well before the ECHR, if/when these cases end up there. As we saw with the A, B and C cases a couple of years back. (Even the cases that lost did so on technicalities.)

One eyed Jack wrote: »

The way I had always interpreted that was that it meant as far as it was practicable to protect the equal right to life of the unborn, and I would think that rather than the law being loosened to protect the equal right to life of the woman, it could be broadened to push the boundaries of medicine which could lead to more ghoulish scenarios like we saw in the PP case where the unborn was kept alive incubated in a corpse until it could develop to a point where it could be delivered safely.

EDIT: I know in the end it the outcome was that the unborn wasn't delivered, but the intent was there is what I mean.

I guess the point I was making was that these clauses will always be interpreted according to the prevailing view of the judges, which may not be unrelated to society's opinion, even if it tends to be half a generation behind!

So if public opinion was becoming more conservative than in the 80s, then the ruling in the PP case could well have been that the hospital couldn't switch off the life support until the fetus had already died. If OTOH the judges had been rather more progressive than they were, the rights of the woman and her family to respect in death might have played a more important role in the judgment than they did (those rights were mentioned but not really given any weight, iirc.)

[Deleted User]

12Phase wrote: »

I worry that the current situation is actually going to act as an impediment to investment and recruitment of overseas staff.

I'd imagine the vast majority don't have a clue about our laws nor is it something they even think about. "oh I cant move to Ireland as I cant have an abortion :rolleyes:"

Ireland is probably one of the best places in the world to have a child we have very good maternity services and people should be very pleased moving here knowing they will get some of the best care available in the world. If you don't want to move here because you might want to kill your unborn child then frankly you are not the type of person we want here in the first place.

bodice ripper

Selene Dry Apartment wrote: »

I'd imagine the vast majority don't have a clue about our laws nor is it something they even think about. "oh I cant move to Ireland as I cant have an abortion :rolleyes:"

Ireland is probably one of the best places in the world to have a child we have very good maternity services and people should be very pleased moving here knowing they will get some of the best care available in the world. If you don't want to move here because you might want to kill your unborn child then frankly you are not the type of person we want here in the first place.

Who's we paleface?

beach_walker

12Phase wrote: »

I worry that the current situation is actually going to act as an impediment to investment and recruitment of overseas staff.

Ah c'mon! I've never heard that one before. But I do personally know lots of foreigners who specifically moved to Ireland (within a previous MNC I've worked for) with the exact reasoning being that it was a fantastic place to raise a family.

volchitsa

Selene Dry Apartment wrote: »

I'd imagine the vast majority don't have a clue about our laws nor is it something they even think about. "oh I cant move to Ireland as I cant have an abortion :rolleyes:"

You think people relocate around the world with families etc without checking out the country their company is sending them to? That's not my experience. We're not talking asylum seekers here, these are people who make a reasoned decision.

The risk is that they'll hear Ireland and, rightly or wrongly, think "OMG isn't that the place where the Indian dentist was left to die in agony after a miscarriage even though she'd asked for a surgical termination? I can't take my wife there!"

Ireland is probably one of the best places in the world to have a child we have very good maternity services and people should be very pleased moving here knowing they will get some of the best care available in the world. If you don't want to move here because you might want to kill your unborn child then frankly you are not the type of person we want here in the first place.

So what did happen to Savita then?

PhoenixParker

Selene Dry Apartment wrote: »

Ireland is probably one of the best places in the world to have a child we have very good maternity services and people should be very pleased moving here knowing they will get some of the best care available in the world. If you don't want to move here because you might want to kill your unborn child then frankly you are not the type of person we want here in the first place.

Have you used the maternity services here?
Outcomes are apparently very good (not sure I trust those statistics, but whatever) but the standards of the maternity hospitals themselves are abysmal, particularly in Dublin.

Best practice is for maternity services to be co-located with another major hospital so that if the pregnant woman has any other medical conditions they can be readily treated as part of a holistic care team. For instance if she has a heart condition and she's in the Rotunda, there's no cardiologist on site to treat her or liase with her care team. There has been talk of co-locating the hospitals for years (Rotunda - Connolly, Holles St - Vincents, Coombe - either Tallaght or James) but nothing is done.

The Dublin hospitals themselves are massively overcrowded to sometimes dangerous levels. The last time I was in the Rotunda for a booking appointment the waiting room was standing room only and so badly overcrowded that some very heavily pregnant women were forced to stand for over an hour. Any time I've visited the emergency room there there's been a wait of five hours to see the doctor and they're clearly struggling to cope with demand. If the doctor gets called away to assist with an emergency upstairs then you'll be waiting an extra hour. Not sure what they do if a second emergency comes in. The wards are like something from the 1800s, often with extra beds added, no privacy and certainly no possibility of rest due to the noise levels and number of people about. It's very difficult to maintain personal hygiene at a very crucial time when there's one bathroom available.

There is no way anyone visiting from Europe or the US sees our maternity services and thinks "wow these are wonderful".

lazygal

My other half works in a sector that relies heavily on recruiting from outside Ireland. Abortion services and poor maternity care here are regularly cited by possible recruits as why they won't come here, alongside the denominational and discriminational education system. Maternity services here aren't world class by any measure despite those who think they are.

[Deleted User]

EU (other than Ireland) and non-eu people make up a large number of the people where I work. A lot, particularly in more experienced positions are moving here with family and having kids here. Doesn't appear to be any issue with recruiting here from abroad and I've heard some comment on how great a place Ireland is to have a child and raise a child.

I doubt very much anyone even thinks about something like abortions can or cannot happen when moving somewhere. We also have one of the best education systems in the world so again this is a positive for people moving here not a negative.

anothernight

Selene Dry Apartment wrote: »

EU (other than Ireland) and non-eu people make up a large number of the people where I work. A lot, particularly in more experienced positions are moving here with family and having kids here. Doesn't appear to be any issue with recruiting here from abroad and I've heard some comment on how great a place Ireland is to have a child and raise a child.

With all due respect, and I don't mean this in a bad way, I've very rarely seen your experiences matching those of the majority of posters in a thread. Maybe it's because of the part of the country where you live, but from weddings and marriage to relocation, your experience is nearly always very different to mine, and apparently also different to the experiences of many posters in the relevant threads.

I'm actually one of the people who would be discouraged from moving back to Ireland due to the standard of maternity services. I would personally feel nervous about starting a family there as it is at the moment, but my other half (who is Irish) feels more strongly than me about it. Some of my close family and friends are expecting, and to be quite honest their stories aren't a great recommendation for maternity services in Dublin.

eviltwin

Selene Dry Apartment wrote: »

EU (other than Ireland) and non-eu people make up a large number of the people where I work. A lot, particularly in more experienced positions are moving here with family and having kids here. Doesn't appear to be any issue with recruiting here from abroad and I've heard some comment on how great a place Ireland is to have a child and raise a child.

I doubt very much anyone even thinks about something like abortions can or cannot happen when moving somewhere. We also have one of the best education systems in the world so again this is a positive for people moving here not a negative.

The only good thing about it is its free. If you have a baby here on the public system you're basically treated to sub standard care. Haven't you heard how bad our health system is? Do you think maternity works on some other system?

The Randy Riverbeast

Selene Dry Apartment wrote: »

I doubt very much anyone even thinks about something like abortions can or cannot happen when moving somewhere. We also have one of the best education systems in the world so again this is a positive for people moving here not a negative.

But if you aren't catholic you are put to the bottom of the list. Having your school place based on wherever a school has nobody else isn't a positive for many people.

PopePalpatine

bodice ripper wrote: »

Who's we paleface?

An Stait Caitliteach na hEireann, obviously.

stinkle

anothernight wrote: »

I'm actually one of the people who would be discouraged from moving back to Ireland due to the standard of maternity services. I would personally feel nervous about starting a family there as it is at the moment, but my other half (who is Irish) feels more strongly than me about it. Some of my close family and friends are expecting, and to be quite honest their stories aren't a great recommendation for maternity services in Dublin.

Me too, it's a huge deal for me, and many other Irish people considering the pros and cons of moving back. Where I am, I have excellent health insurance and bodily autonomy. Despite the worse maternity leave and the obvious lack of family support should I need it, I'd still rather start a family here than Ireland.

lazygal

The eighth amendment is putting a lot of women in Ireland off having more children here too. Your bodily autonomy and decision making during pregnancy and birth is extremely curtailed due to the fact you're exactly equal to a foetus.

[Deleted User]

lazygal wrote: »

The eighth amendment is putting a lot of women in Ireland off having more children here too. Your bodily autonomy and decision making during pregnancy and birth is extremely curtailed due to the fact you're exactly equal to a foetus.

The thing is its Ireland that's right and other places which are wrong. In an ideal world abortion would be banned everywhere (and be considered a serious offence) and it would never have become a thing otherwise rational people would even consider.

The majority of women in Ireland have children the lack of abortion is not a problem for the vast majority, in particular as most wouldn't even consider it legal or not.

lazygal

Selene Dry Apartment wrote: »

The thing is its Ireland that's right and other places which are wrong. In an ideal world abortion would be banned everywhere (and be considered a serious offence) and it would never have become a thing otherwise rational people would even consider.

The majority of women in Ireland have children the lack of abortion is not a problem for the vast majority, in particular as most wouldn't even consider it legal or not.

What would happen if abortion was banned everywhere? Would women die under such a policy?
It is a serious offence in Ireland to have an abortion, with a sentence of 14 years. Do you think that's adequate?

[Deleted User]

lazygal wrote: »

What would happen if abortion was banned everywhere? Would women die under such a policy?

Very very few as the whole abortion to save the life of the mother is such a rare event and just latched onto by the pro abortion people to push their agenda. The vast majority of abortions are lifestyle choices.

So for the sake of fairness let's say banned in geneal but if saving the life of the mother means the baby doesn't make it then it would be allowed (which it is in Ireland as things stand and I don't have a problem with that).

One eyed Jack

Selene Dry Apartment wrote: »

The thing is its Ireland that's right and other places which are wrong. In an ideal world abortion would be banned everywhere (and be considered a serious offence) and it would never have become a thing otherwise rational people would even consider.

That goes back to different people will have different opinions on what may be a rational course of action, depending upon their particular circumstances.

The majority of women in Ireland have children the lack of abortion is not a problem for the vast majority, in particular as most wouldn't even consider it legal or not.

They aren't really given a choice though, are they?