Abortion Discussion, Part Trois

Deleted User wrote: »

you missed an incredibly, incredibly important word there.

I would have thought it goes without saying... but still since we've all been ever so gung-ho for statistics recently , it's worth pointing out that there are no statistics for the number of abortion pills that have made it past Customs and have subsequently been used to cause an abortion. We can reasonably say it's anywhere between zero and nine thousand I would think, but I'd be inclined closer to (if not quite at) the zero figure purely on the basis that if Customs picked up one thousand they probably have a good idea of what they're seeing, so it's not likely they're only finding a tenth of what's being attempted. What do you think? Is there a reason to think the number of abortions by illegally imported pills is a statistically significant contributor to the drop in rates of abortions on Irish women in other jurisdictions, or would you say such a notion is speculative?

Shrap wrote: »

I'm an Irish woman in her mid 40's and right here, right now, you're trying to tell me that calling out the Church's position on contraception to be an "ideal which is driven by misogyny" is a "silly swipe"? Did we grow up in the same country?
I'm not even going to argue the point with you, as it's too much like having a go at a vending machine that's just swallowed your money for no return, and I have to go mix cement now. Suffice it to say, neither Kiwi's nor my comments were having a go at the church for the sake of it - more for the sake of knowing the history of women's reproductive health care in Ireland.

Yes; it's a silly swipe. I understand that any position adopted by a male that affects a female is readily portrayed as misogyny, but that's simply lazy argumentation.
The Church's stated position on contraception is based on what it sees as the gift of life from God; not on any position with regard to women. Yes, I understand that it is portrayed as misogyny because the Church hierarchy is male and the teaching affects women. That doesn't make it so though.

[Deleted User]

Absolam wrote: »

I think Oldrnwisr made the point some time ago that the proportional number of abortions generally is trending downwards over the last couple of decades; it's not unreasonable to think that's not because of a major shift in attitude towards abortion around the world, and more an increase in facilities making abortion less necessary (for want of a better word), being better education & contraception as well as better medical care during pregnancy.
Data from infoplease shows between 1995 and 2008;
Worldwide abortion rates dropped from 35 to 28
Developed countries abortion rates dropped from 39 to 24
Europe (estimates) abortion rates dropped from 48 to 27
North America (estimated) abortion rates dropped from 22 to 19

The Guttmacher Institute says that worldwide
Abortion rates from 1990 to 1994 were 40, and
Abortion rates from 2010 to 2014 were 35, which supports the picture of global decline.

That would suggest that the drop in abortion rates for Irish women in other countries probably isn't solely attributable to the sudden realisation that some people may be successful in importing abortion pills (especially since Customs seized approx. 1000 abortion pills in 2014, a number that was double the previous year), but that abortion incidence is simply dropping for the same reasons as it is dropping everywhere else.

you missed an incredibly, incredibly important word there.

Absolam wrote: »

Ah Shrap, you know the whole namecalling thing always makes me laugh If Kiwi took 30 seconds to google where the Church actually stands on contraception and abortion and why, she wouldn't be presenting it as an interesting juxtaposition because she'd actually understand the Church's position on contraception is perfectly consistent with it's position on abortion, regardless of whether one disagrees with it. Understanding, however, is inimical to silly swipes like 'ideals which are driven by misogyny' so it's not surprising there was no effort to understand... just an effort to have a go. And a poor one at that. Well... two poor ones now.

I'm an Irish woman in her mid 40's and right here, right now, you're trying to tell me that calling out the Church's position on contraception to be an "ideal which is driven by misogyny" is a "silly swipe"? Did we grow up in the same country?

I'm not even going to argue the point with you, as it's too much like having a go at a vending machine that's just swallowed your money for no return, and I have to go mix cement now. Suffice it to say, neither Kiwi's nor my comments were having a go at the church for the sake of it - more for the sake of knowing the history of women's reproductive health care in Ireland.

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

Logic would dictate that those opposed to the termination of unwanted foetuses, would be in favour of that which prevents unwanted foetuses from developing in the first place, rather than actively advising/campaigning against such measures.
I suppose logic cannot be expected in ideals which are driven by misogyny however.

I think you're probably trying to bend logic to your agenda there in fairness. Logic would dictate investigating why the Church takes the stand it does, rather than pronouncing on it without basis; I think your logic is flawed, as it is predicated on a perceived aspect of the Church's position, rather than the Church's position. But I think you know that as well

Shrap wrote: »

That's pretty bitc*y Absolam. This is not at all about swiping at the church and it actually extremely interesting, even if you're not at all into Christian theology. It is an important and interesting topic, particularly to women, and for good bloody reason. So would ya mind letting us speak about it without insulting people? Tks.

Ah Shrap, you know the whole namecalling thing always makes me laugh

If Kiwi took 30 seconds to google where the Church actually stands on contraception and abortion and why, she wouldn't be presenting it as an interesting juxtaposition because she'd actually understand the Church's position on contraception is perfectly consistent with it's position on abortion, regardless of whether one disagrees with it. Understanding, however, is inimical to silly swipes like 'ideals which are driven by misogyny' so it's not surprising there was no effort to understand... just an effort to have a go. And a poor one at that. Well... two poor ones now.

Of course I could be wrong; Kiwi, if you are interested, and don't want to just read up on it, why don't you open a thread in Christianity to discuss what you think is the disparity between the Catholic position on abortion and the Catholic position on contraception and see how it goes? I promise I'll contribute at least one post at some point

Absolam wrote: »

It's not really that interesting, unless you're into Christian theology though, is it? The Catholic Church has good (according to it's theology) reason to oppose artificial contraception, and it's a point of view that was shared by most other Christian denominations until fairly recently. Though I suspect you don't think it's all that interesting really, you probably just wanted to take a swipe at the Church in passing?

That's pretty bitc*y Absolam. This is not at all about swiping at the church and it actually extremely interesting, even if you're not at all into Christian theology. It is an important and interesting topic, particularly to women, and for good bloody reason. So would ya mind letting us speak about it without insulting people? Tks.

Kiwi in IE

Absolam wrote: »

It's not really that interesting, unless you're into Christian theology though, is it? The Catholic Church has good (according to it's theology) reason to oppose artificial contraception, and it's a point of view that was shared by most other Christian denominations until fairly recently. Though I suspect you don't think it's all that interesting really, you probably just wanted to take a swipe at the Church in passing?

Logic would dictate that those opposed to the termination of unwanted foetuses, would be in favour of that which prevents unwanted foetuses from developing in the first place, rather than actively advising/campaigning against such measures.

I suppose logic cannot be expected in ideals which are driven by misogyny however.

Delirium

lazygal wrote: »

And probably not counting the ones taking a chance on importing the abortion pill.

also, as mentioned on twitter....

https://twitter.com/JoeLeogue/status/732849972601847809

nozzferrahhtoo

frostyjacks wrote: »

My point is the numbers are on a downward trend.

Then you made the point remarkably badly. Because that is not what you said at all. What you said was to indicate there was no "army" of people doing it, when there is. That has nothing at all to do with the "trend".

On the surface it is great that there is a downward trend because pro-choice people, just like anti-choice people, want there to be less abortions. While we fight for the choice to have them.... we also want them to happen less.

But we should also look below the surface to see WHY there is such a trend to make sure it is a good thing. If a large part of the trend is due to people unsafely obtaining medication on the internet and performing the abortions themselves at home.... then the trend is NOT a good thing.

If the trend is because people are genuinely getting better access to sexual education and contraception and there is a genuine lower need for abortion.... then that's GREAT stuff.

frostyjacks wrote: »

And of the women who do travel, you wouldn't bet against there being a sizeable portion of repeat offenders in there, year after year.

I would not "bet" at all. I would look for hard data. Try it sometime. Do you have any actual data supporting the existence of people going repeatedly? Let alone many times. Let alone a sizeable number of them? By all means cite the figures rather than just spew from your imagination.

frostyjacks wrote: »

So why try and introduce something in this country when the stats show it's on the way out. Seems a pointless exercise.

Except the stats show no such thing, but given you have never really shown an ability to read stats you can be forgiven for this. The stats show a decline but not a large one, especially given the time frame of 15 years. Further in the latter half of those 15 years the decline has been very clearly leveling out. So, other than feeding your narrative internally, the stats in no way indicate what you imagine they do.

And as I said, the REASON for the decline is also monumentally important and is data we simply currently do not have. In your imaginary la la land it means women simply are not having those abortions and the ones that are are doing so repeatedly. In reality outside your fantasy world however there is no data showing it is people doing it repeatedly, and there is no data showing how many of them are seeking home alternatives.

We need real data here. Not your woman hating, bigotry fueled, agenda driven fantasy.

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

It's great that abortion rates are dropping. This is likely to be due to increased education about and ease of access to contraception. Interestingly the Catholic Church opposes education about and access to effective contraception.

It's not really that interesting, unless you're into Christian theology though, is it? The Catholic Church has good (according to it's theology) reason to oppose artificial contraception, and it's a point of view that was shared by most other Christian denominations until fairly recently. Though I suspect you don't think it's all that interesting really, you probably just wanted to take a swipe at the Church in passing?

Kiwi in IE

It's great that abortion rates are dropping. This is likely to be due to increased education about and ease of access to contraception. Interestingly the Catholic Church opposes education about and access to effective contraception.

eviltwin wrote: »

It's great to see the numbers reducing, what did you think, that we would be sorry to see them dropping?
It's still a huge number though and as already pointed out its just a portion of the overall numbers of abortions Irish women have each year. Each number represents a real woman, a real family and a real set of difficult circumstances that led to that journey.

And a real unborn child killed as a result. Wouldn't want to leave anything out, eh?

aloyisious wrote: »

RTE radio 1 1PM <...> Wales.

frostyjacks wrote: »

Daily Mail <...> then?

I think Oldrnwisr made the point some time ago that the proportional number of abortions generally is trending downwards over the last couple of decades; it's not unreasonable to think that's not because of a major shift in attitude towards abortion around the world, and more an increase in facilities making abortion less necessary (for want of a better word), being better education & contraception as well as better medical care during pregnancy.
Data from infoplease shows between 1995 and 2008;
Worldwide abortion rates dropped from 35 to 28
Developed countries abortion rates dropped from 39 to 24
Europe (estimates) abortion rates dropped from 48 to 27
North America (estimated) abortion rates dropped from 22 to 19

The Guttmacher Institute says that worldwide
Abortion rates from 1990 to 1994 were 40, and
Abortion rates from 2010 to 2014 were 35, which supports the picture of global decline.

That would suggest that the drop in abortion rates for Irish women in other countries probably isn't attributable to the sudden realisation that some people may be successful in importing abortion pills (especially since Customs seized approx. 1000 abortion pills in 2014, a number that was double the previous year), but that abortion incidence is simply dropping for the same reasons as it is dropping everywhere else.

volchitsa

It seems to be about half as expensive for Irish residents as for (private) UK ones.

I'm guessing that's probably because the Irish "private" procedure is the NHS-level one, not the normal UK "private". Clinically it's the same of course, but maybe no single rooms, no private consultant, things like that?

The other possibility is that some charity or something pays - but I doubt it would be so systematic?

eviltwin

lazygal wrote: »

A search for abortion Ireland on Google turned this up immediately.
http://www.abortiondirect.ie/?gclid=CjwKEAjwguu5BRDq8uSKhaKIzDkSJACQ7WJl92QLrARICkVIPa-GDJhGZL5VUOqjaw_CDkDHDcX6cxoC_HXw_wcB

That's where I went. They do a free airport pick up, they have a staff member who is there specifically for Irish clients and the follow up info they give is specific to Irish services. They also had an Irish number which was great, some women might not be in a position to call a UK phone number.

inocybe

lazygal wrote: »

A search for abortion Ireland on Google turned this up immediately.
http://www.abortiondirect.ie/?gclid=CjwKEAjwguu5BRDq8uSKhaKIzDkSJACQ7WJl92QLrARICkVIPa-GDJhGZL5VUOqjaw_CDkDHDcX6cxoC_HXw_wcB

That's great that they offer the pill. I wonder how many don't go back the second time though.

320 + flights + accomodation for at least 1 night (if you go back for the second appointment as strongly recommended...)
It's still a huge amount compared to 60 euros online.

However, those who oppose our autonomy are repeatedly allowed to present opinion as fact. Time and again they are given national media platforms, unchallenged, despite having no expertise or lived experience in the matter. With soft voices, brows are furrowed and facts manipulated. The word “sincere” is said a lot. I put this to them: perhaps you are sincere. But you need to think about something.
How do I put it? It’s awkward but here goes:

You just might be the bad guys.

Nice, Tara. Thank you once again Xx http://www.headstuff.org/2016/05/you-just-might-be-the-bad-guys/

inocybe wrote: »

I doubt it because you'd have to go privately, most women in the uk would go through the nhs for free. Some of those private clinics do special rates for Irish women, so funnily enough it might be cheaper to admit to being Irish.

A search for abortion Ireland on Google turned this up immediately.
http://www.abortiondirect.ie/?gclid=CjwKEAjwguu5BRDq8uSKhaKIzDkSJACQ7WJl92QLrARICkVIPa-GDJhGZL5VUOqjaw_CDkDHDcX6cxoC_HXw_wcB

There are other countries to which women travel too. Netherlands seems to be one such option.

inocybe

lazygal wrote: »

Is it cheaper if you provide a UK address?

I doubt it because you'd have to go privately, most women in the uk would go through the nhs for free. Some of those private clinics do special rates for Irish women, so funnily enough it might be cheaper to admit to being Irish.

aloyisious

Listening to Ray D'arcy on RTE this afternoon he mentioned that there was a difference between other European countries and Ireland when it came to the numerical ratio of women (per 1,000 women) who had abortions. He mentioned a ratio of 4% for Ireland as against 18% for the other European countries and mentioned that Irish women gave false addresses to the abortion clinics, reckoning as a result that the Irish statistics given earlier in the day were not correct.

I googled on the statistics question (using this question - Ratio of Irish women per thousand who went abroad for abortions) and found that not all Irish women provide their Irish addresses (to the UK clinics) on confidentiality grounds. The IFPA is using UK Health dept figures of women using Irish addresses.

https://www.google.ie/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwiFsL2_3OHMAhWIHsAKHdSZDhkQFggcMAA&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ifpa.ie%2FHot-Topics%2FAbortion%2FStatistics&usg=AFQjCNEd8o6nQocVH9Nrgs6rjSOyqo3A6A

inocybe wrote: »

It's also less invasive - you can't have a medical abortion if you tell them you're from Ireland, because they know you probably won't come back for the check-up, so you've no choice but to have a d&c. Actually that could be bringing the numbers down too, women might be giving uk addresses in order to have medical abortions within the uk.

Is it cheaper if you provide a UK address?

frostyjacks wrote: »

My point is the numbers are on a downward trend. And of the women who do travel, you wouldn't bet against there being a sizeable portion of repeat offenders in there, year after year. So why try and introduce something in this country when the stats show it's on the way out. Seems a pointless exercise.

How are they repeat offenders when they've committed no crime? Or do you mean the Tuam type repeat offenders, who were dealt with by having their babies taken from them?

Lurkio

Shrap wrote: »

Really can't touch "Scraping Foetus Off The Wheel" tbf. Or the many other monikers of the bands headed up by the wonderful J.G. Thirlwell (Foetus, Foetus Under Glass, You've Got Foetus on Your Breath, Foetus Interruptus, etc.). But nice try

"Come To Bedrock", "boxhead".....ahh class.

Lurkio

frostyjacks wrote: »

My point is the numbers are on a downward trend. And of the women who do travel, you wouldn't bet against there being a sizeable portion of repeat offenders in there, year after year. So why try and introduce something in this country when the stats show it's on the way out. Seems a pointless exercise.

Could you explain what you mean by that. What do you think is happening to make the claim that its "on the way out".