Abortion in Ireland: 2 years on

eviltwin · 30-06-2020 11:58pm

downinbigsmoke wrote: »

Then why are they forced to spend to spend a tenner a box on cigarettes that should cost a euro?

For that matter, why do I have to spend $15 on wine I can buy in France for $1.50?

Nothing to do with health that’s for sure !

bfa1509 · 01-07-2020 12:01am

ELM327 wrote: »

Voted to repeal and would do so again, it's a womans body and as a man my only role is to facilitate whatever choice a woman wants to make.

Masculinity 200,000 BC - 2020 AD

RIP

Bannasidhe · 01-07-2020 12:01am

Niner leprauchan wrote: »

How does a woman in a coma make such a request? Surely the change in law has zero effect in that case?

The woman was brain dead but her body was kept artificially alive, against the wishes of her next of kin, to protect a fetus.
Now she would be allowed to peacefully die and her family could mourn her properly. Not have to watch as machines kept her heart beating when she was long dead.

cournioni · 01-07-2020 12:03am

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

The same number were going abroad to get them before. What were you doing to improve the lives or help these women all these years? Or do you not really care about them or the pregnancies?

I’ll start by saying, what a horrifically uninformed post this is.

What was I doing? Paying substantial taxes for a start. I would imagine my contribution would be a significant help to a mother, father and their baby.

I absolutely care about all life. It shouldn’t be a choice to kill an unborn baby if it isn’t medically necessary. Taking a healthy life away should never be a choice.

01-07-2020 12:04am

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

This adoption stuff was flippantly thrown out by the no side at the time too, without much understanding of adoption in Ireland.

People seem to have this movie view of adoption that you just hand the child over to someone in the hospital and a few days later the child is nicely homed with a rich couple on their mansion that dote on the child 24/7 and everyone is happy.

Luckily we did away with the churches system of taking kids from mothers and selling them on.

It could be that simple though and doesn't require a referendum.

There's thousands of couples in Ireland that spend 50000+ adopting from abroad because adoption in Ireland is almost impossible. So make it possible. The answer to adoption being difficult isn't abortions ffs!

Ultimately I don't agree with the 'none of my business' argument. It was the same attitude that ironically, resulted in much of our shameful past treatment of unmarried mother's and their children as you yourself state.

It's the same attitude that continuous to see neighbors ignore the screams from next door.

I can't and won't try to change people's minds on this issue, if you don't see it as a child then you don't see it as a child. Medical Science backs you. If you think the mothers desire overrules all else then that's your position but don't say you voted yes so you could absolve yourself of social responsibility.

01-07-2020 12:08am

Dunne1995 wrote: »

Delighted to see this right being exercised. I voted yes so that women would abort if they wanted to and that is what's happening based on the figures reported.

Glad to be on the right side of history for this and the marriage referendum

Your delighted to see abortions are happening? That's some statement.

Bannasidhe · 01-07-2020 12:09am

cournioni wrote: »

What was I doing? Paying substantial taxes for a start. I would imagine my contribution would be a significant help to a mother, father and their baby.

I absolutely care about all life. It shouldn’t be a choice to kill an unborn baby if it isn’t medically necessary. Taking a healthy life away should never be a choice.

That is not how taxes work. No matter how substantial you feel they are.

As you believe taking away a healthy life should never be a choice may I ask how you feel about refugees seeking entry to Europe via boat? Declining to rescue the occupants of a sinking boat is making the choice to take away many healthy lives - including children.

I am not trying to trick you, honestly, I just wish to know if you hold that position in all circumstances regardless of other factors.

mc25 · 01-07-2020 12:11am

I was a bit shocked when I saw the figures first, but I'd vote the same way (yes) again in a heartbeat. The constitution was never the right place to decide this, now if people want to change the laws we can go through proper democratic means.

And I would have no issue with the government doing a review or report on these figures, if anything that would help the discussions.

I am disappointed that nothing seems to have been done RE contraception, I think if we had taken the opportunity back then the figures would look a lot different today.

elainers · 01-07-2020 12:12am

downinbigsmoke wrote: »

I've never quite understood this argument. We have a State because we all instinctively know in our bones that some people should not be trusted.

Try making this argument for any other issue. "Trust Glanbia, they don't make flippant decisions about saliva and milk" (actually... I've heard things)

"Trust smokers, they don't want to harm their lungs!"

If you’re saying some people shouldn’t be trusted, are you suggesting we legislate for the few who can’t be and make the law on that basis?

Generally that’s a bad way to make laws. Hence why a law based on abortion for hard cases doesn’t work well.

The reason this is such an emotive issue is there are two conflicting rights in this situation. A right to bodily autonomy of the woman and a right to life of the foetus. Independent of each other both rights would be upheld. But they’re not independent of each other in the case of pregnancy.

Interestingly in any other scenario where these two rights compete, the right to bodily integrity takes precedence. For example if person A’s kidney is the only thing that would allow Person B to live, it’s still up to Person A whether he/she wants to donate.

Ultimately I choose to trust the woman in pregnancy will weigh all the facts and come to the right decision. Sometimes the right decision, the best outcome is an abortion. Especially if the woman would parent a child how he/she deserves.

Bannasidhe · 01-07-2020 12:13am

Niner leprauchan wrote: »

It could be that simple though and doesn't require a referendum.

There's thousands of couples in Ireland that spend 50000+ adopting from abroad because adoption in Ireland is almost impossible. So make it possible. The answer to adoption being difficult isn't abortions ffs!

Ultimately I don't agree with the 'none of my business' argument. It was the same attitude that ironically, resulted in much of our shameful past treatment of unmarried mother's and their children as you yourself state.

It's the same attitude that continuous to see neighbors ignore the screams from next door.

I can't and won't try to change people's minds on this issue, if you don't see it as a child then you don't see it as a child. Medical Science backs you. If you think the mothers desire overrules all else then that's your position but don't say you voted yes so you could absolve yourself of social responsibility.

So women who do not want to be pregnant should act as incubators with the toll that takes on their bodies?
Pregnancy is not some 9 month picnic with no side effects or long term consequences.

We are back to the 'should a person be forced to donate a kidney to save a life?' argument.

No is also the answer to both.

mc25 · 01-07-2020 12:16am

downinbigsmoke wrote: »

I know at least one girl my age who will tell you that an unwanted pregnancy was the best thing that ever happened to her! I think many people who abort their children would have felt the same way giving it time. Abortion is the easy way out, we need to live in a society that makes it as easy for parents as non-parents.

I sincerely apologise in advance for this question, but are you really this naive? That's not how it works in real life and your anecdata is not convincing.

cournioni · 01-07-2020 12:17am

Bannasidhe wrote: »

That is not how taxes work. No matter how substantial you feel they are.

As you believe taking away a healthy life should never be a choice may I ask how you feel about refugees seeking entry to Europe via boat? Declining to rescue the occupants of a sinking boat is making the choice to take away many healthy lives - including children.

I am not trying to trick you, honestly, I just wish to know if you hold that position in all circumstances regardless of other factors.

Of course that’s not how taxes work, which is why the word “contribution” is in there.

A life is a life, of course you should never decline to rescue a sinking boat! That is a given. The ideal scenario is that they don’t have to get on the boat in the first place, but if they are and in the event of the boat going down you do what you have to to save the people on board.

SusieBlue · 01-07-2020 12:18am

Niner leprauchan wrote: »

It could be that simple though and doesn't require a referendum.

There's thousands of couples in Ireland that spend 50000+ adopting from abroad because adoption in Ireland is almost impossible. So make it possible. The answer to adoption being difficult isn't abortions ffs!

Ultimately I don't agree with the 'none of my business' argument. It was the same attitude that ironically, resulted in much of our shameful past treatment of unmarried mother's and their children as you yourself state.

It's the same attitude that continuous to see neighbors ignore the screams from next door.

I can't and won't try to change people's minds on this issue, if you don't see it as a child then you don't see it as a child. Medical Science backs you. If you think the mothers desire overrules all else then that's your position but don't say you voted yes so you could absolve yourself of social responsibility.

The appetite for adoption is minute here. Couples would rather get IVF and go through other fertility treatments to have a baby themselves.
Do you really think there 6,666 couples per year, every year, looking to adopt a baby here?

Bearing in mind the fact that many couples are opting not to have kids at all, and the average family size is shrinking with every passing year?

So taking the first statistic at face value, do you really think that there’d be 6,666 loving suitable adoptive homes for these kids, and the kids born next year, and the year after? Or would it be fair to say a large amount of these kids will end up stuck in the foster system because there isn’t enough demand for adoption any more?

Adoption is a solution for someone who doesn’t want to be a parent, not for someone who doesn’t want to carry a pregnancy.

Antares35 · 01-07-2020 12:18am

I voted no and if asked to vote again I would vote yes. I still think it's horrible and couldn't live with having one myself but that's just for me and not every woman is the same. What really changed it for me was being pregnant twice in the interim.

The first time, I lost the baby. When I went to the Rotunda to be checked following the private scan where no heartbeat was found, I was sent home to miscarry naturally. They couldn't give me medication to bring it on, or a D&C because of the restrictions imposed by the 8th. I was at a stage where it was possible the fetus was still alive but the heartbeat wasn't detectable (however I knew my dates and knew if it was measuring that small then it has ceased). Anyway the result was that I miscarried alone at home in a huge amount of pain, physically and emotionally. Nothing really prepares you for it. I have the 8th to thank for that. The medical personnel were acting in accordance with it and their hands were tied.

The second time I got pregnant was unplanned (but not unwanted). My wee girl is snoring her little brains out here beside me. She is six weeks old and the love of me and her daddy's life. However pregnancy and childbirth were the worst things I ever dealt with. Pregnancy brought back some mental health issues I experienced in the past. I was terrified of giving birth and worried about everything from my career progression to how my relationship with my partner would change. It turns out I was right to worry about birth... It was as bad as it gets without actually dying. I felt torn in two. The pain was immeasurable and my body is still a wreck. And I'm in my thirties with a partner, decent support system and a good career - what if I was 17, alone, single, broke, scared etc. I used to believe that adoption was the answer - oh sure just have it and adopt. But as someone pointed out before, adoption is an alternative to parenting not pregnancy.

There's also just a general abhorrence I have for how women and children have been treated in this country for years. As a survivor of sexual abuse too, I anger easily in terms of how vulnerable people have been treated here by the church, mother and baby institutions etc. I suppose after a while I saw the 8th amendment as an extension of all of these bad things - removing bodily integrity and autonomy and making life difficult for those who are weaker by nature of their circumstances etc.

So, that's basically how I went from a firm no to a yes. Like I said, it would never be for me, but I can make my own choice and thankfully other women can now too.

bfa1509 · 01-07-2020 12:19am

Bannasidhe wrote: »

So women who do not want to be pregnant should act as incubators with the toll that takes on their bodies?
Pregnancy is not some 9 month picnic with no side effects or long term consequences.

We are back to the 'should a person be forced to donate a kidney to save a life?' argument.

No is also the answer to both.

Should a father who wanted his girlfriend to have an abortion be forced to pay child support?

Bannasidhe · 01-07-2020 12:25am

cournioni wrote: »

Of course that’s not how taxes work, which is why the word “contribution” is in there.

A life is a life, of course you should never decline to rescue a sinking boat! That is a given. The ideal scenario is that they don’t have to get on the boat in the first place, but if they are and in the event of the boat going down you do what you have to to save the people on board.

I respect your position as you are being consistent.

May I ask if you think abortion should be allowed in any circumstances?

bfa1509 · 01-07-2020 12:25am

mc25 wrote: »

I sincerely apologise in advance for this question, but are you really this naive? That's not how it works in real life and your anecdata is not convincing.

So if we polled all the women who would have had an abortion if it was legal but who went on to have their baby - what percentage of them do you think would say "I wish I had an abortion"

Maybe he isn't as naive as you think.

SusieBlue · 01-07-2020 12:25am

bfa1509 wrote: »

Should a father who wanted his girlfriend to have an abortion be forced to pay child support?

Men already have an ‘out’. There are significantly more single mothers than fathers. Men can and do opt out of parenthood all the time. Maintenance payments aren’t even strictly enforced here.

Where there is a living child that needs support and care the law will always insist that maintenance should be paid to support that child.
And rightly so, too.

Bannasidhe · 01-07-2020 12:34am

bfa1509 wrote: »

Should a father who wanted his girlfriend to have an abortion be forced to pay child support?

And now we have the a woman's body = a man's wallet argument.

It may surprise you to learn that men can and do walk away from supporting children they helped conceive. Quite often.
Also that handing over money does not = parenting.
Nor is giving birth even remotely like opening a wallet.

Completely ridiculous comparison.

The choice is that of the woman who is pregnant. She may seek advice naturally. But it is her choice whether she wishes to be pregnant or not.

If a man wants to have sex and not be a father perhaps he should make sure he uses double contraceptive protection. I hear it's nearly 100% effective.
Perhaps he could get a micro-chip that releases hormones.

01-07-2020 12:49am

Bannasidhe wrote: »

So women who do not want to be pregnant should act as incubators with the toll that takes on their bodies?
Pregnancy is not some 9 month picnic with no side effects or long term consequences.

We are back to the 'should a person be forced to donate a kidney to save a life?' argument.

No is also the answer to both.

They are already pregnant for starters, generally not as a result of force. 9 months is also not a lifetime and the effects are generally not fatal. Pregnancy is now a safe event overall and abortion carries those same risks and it's own. Sorry, that argument holds no water.

Nothing the woman goes through is worse than death. Nothing. It's that simple to me. Outside of medical requirements, I don't agree with abortion. That's not belittling pregnancy by the way or birth but abortion isn't any kinder physically to the woman. That said, neither is as harsh on the woman as it is on the baby / foetus / cells.

As for kidneys, there's a difference. An obvious difference. No one is demanding women be surrogates nor is it one life for another. Both mother and child can and likely will live.

I think though that while we may not agree on when and how abortion should be allowed take place, we can agree that no one feeling the need or desire to seek an abortion would be the best scenario, yes? Apart from one user who seemed to delight in the fact that they are happening.

01-07-2020 12:50am

Bannasidhe wrote: »

And now we have the a woman's body = a man's wallet argument.

It may surprise you to learn that men can and do walk away from supporting children they helped conceive. Quite often.
Also that handing over money does not = parenting.
Nor is giving birth even remotely like opening a wallet.

Completely ridiculous comparison.

The choice is that of the woman who is pregnant. She may seek advice naturally. But it is her choice whether she wishes to be pregnant or not.

If a man wants to have sex and not be a father perhaps he should make sure he uses double contraceptive protection. I hear it's nearly 100% effective.
Perhaps he could get a micro-chip that releases hormones.

Hmmm, couldn't the same argumentapply to a woman that doesn't want to be pregnant?

bfa1509 · 01-07-2020 12:52am

Bannasidhe wrote: »

And now we have the a woman's body = a man's wallet argument.

It may surprise you to learn that men can and do walk away from supporting children they helped conceive. Quite often.
Also that handing over money does not = parenting.
Nor is giving birth even remotely like opening a wallet.

Completely ridiculous comparison.

The choice is that of the woman who is pregnant. She may seek advice naturally. But it is her choice whether she wishes to be pregnant or not.

If a man wants to have sex and not be a father perhaps he should make sure he uses double contraceptive protection. I hear it's nearly 100% effective.
Perhaps he could get a micro-chip that releases hormones.

Niner leprauchan wrote: »

Hmmm, couldn't the same argumentapply to a woman that doesn't want to be pregnant?

Exactly. The argument above was the very one I was expecting. A completely shrouded perspective.

cournioni · 01-07-2020 12:53am

Bannasidhe wrote: »

I respect your position as you are being consistent.

May I ask if you think abortion should be allowed in any circumstances?

Thanks.

I think it should be allowed where there is a medical issue where there is a threat to the health of the mother or child. Rape cases also. Outside of those, absolutely not.

What I feared the referendum vote would achieve would be that people could choose to end the life of a healthy unborn based on a purely selfish decision by parents and without due consideration for the unborn as the protections weren’t there to protect it. The statistics that have been released confirm those fears to be legitimate.

downinbigsmoke · 01-07-2020 12:54am

elainers wrote: »

If you’re saying some people shouldn’t be trusted, are you suggesting we legislate for the few who can’t be and make the law on that basis?

Generally that’s a bad way to make laws. Hence why a law based on abortion for hard cases doesn’t work well.

The reason this is such an emotive issue is there are two conflicting rights in this situation. A right to bodily autonomy of the woman and a right to life of the foetus. Independent of each other both rights would be upheld. But they’re not independent of each other in the case of pregnancy.

Interestingly in any other scenario where these two rights compete, the right to bodily integrity takes precedence. For example if person A’s kidney is the only thing that would allow Person B to live, it’s still up to Person A whether he/she wants to donate.

Ultimately I choose to trust the woman in pregnancy will weigh all the facts and come to the right decision. Sometimes the right decision, the best outcome is an abortion. Especially if the woman would parent a child how he/she deserves.

I disagree with you there. The vast majority of people aren't thieves but we have strict laws and a very sophisticated law enforcement infrastructure aimed at preventing theft. Most laws are aimed precisely a tiny minority of people. Likewise most women aren't going to abort a child without good reason, but some people are. And there are definitely bad reasons to abort a child, as anybody rational will admit (for example, on the basis of gender).

As for the bodily autonomy and organs argument- I've heard it before and think it's the only pro-choice argument without any redeeming features whatsoever. Dead people lack human rights. Not just some of them, all of them. Any we do accord them come purely out of respect for their living relatives. Their "bodily autonomy" should never trump somebody's right to life. The fact we don't have an opt-out organ donation system is a disgrace (though I'm told it's partially a logistic issue).

Tokyo · 01-07-2020 4:09am

Mod: Moved to Current Affairs. Please note that the local charter now applies.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts · 01-07-2020 4:37am

cournioni wrote: »

Thanks.

I think it should be allowed where there is a medical issue where there is a threat to the health of the mother or child. Rape cases also. Outside of those, absolutely not.

What I feared the referendum vote would achieve would be that people could choose to end the life of a healthy unborn based on a purely selfish decision by parents and without due consideration for the unborn as the protections weren’t there to protect it. The statistics that have been released confirm those fears to be legitimate.

Hmmm. Then you do think that some foetuses are worth more than others. Either you think a foetus is worth saving or you don’t, surely? Somebody who believes in abortion for any reason has a much more consistent position than you do.

cournioni · 01-07-2020 6:39am

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

Hmmm. Then you do think that some foetuses are worth more than others. Either you think a foetus is worth saving or you don’t, surely? Somebody who believes in abortion for any reason has a much more consistent position than you do.

All healthy unborn babies are “worth” saving. I was asked what my opinion was on when abortion should be “allowed”, whether you think my opinion is consistent or not doesn’t matter one bit. It’s as black and white as it can possibly be.

Lyan · 01-07-2020 6:47am

Mods are deleting opinions they don't agree with in this thread. It's useless to have a discussion here.

uptherebels · 01-07-2020 6:52am

cournioni wrote: »

Thanks.

I think it should be allowed where there is a medical issue where there is a threat to the health of the mother or child. Rape cases also. Outside of those, absolutely not.

What I feared the referendum vote would achieve would be that people could choose to end the life of a healthy unborn based on a purely selfish decision by parents and without due consideration for the unborn as the protections weren’t there to protect it. The statistics that have been released confirm those fears to be legitimate.

You must have missed the thousands of abortions that were happening via pills and travel before repeal. All the referendum vote did was stop us exporting the issue and forcing women to order pills on the net.

Tokyo · 01-07-2020 6:56am

Lyan wrote: »

Mods are deleting opinions they don't agree with in this thread. It's useless to have a discussion here.

Seeing as I'm finding opinions from both sides in this thread, your argument doesn't hold water.

Eric Cartman · 01-07-2020 7:13am

Voted yes to repeal the 8th , might have changed my mind if I knew it was going to become this free for all abortion on demand system that we werre promised it wouldnt be before the referendum.

It shouldnt be taxpayer funded. Allow private clinics to perform it for money and allow all the charities and people that popped up and had so much money for posters and jumpers to fund those who cannot afford an abortion.

Women should have the freedom to have an abortion, but it shouldnt cost me when they do.

uptherebels · 01-07-2020 7:28am

Eric Cartman wrote: »

Voted yes to repeal the 8th , might have changed my mind if I knew it was going to become this free for all abortion on demand system that we werre promised it wouldnt be before the referendum.

It shouldnt be taxpayer funded. Allow private clinics to perform it for money and allow all the charities and people that popped up and had so much money for posters and jumpers to fund those who cannot afford an abortion.

Women should have the freedom to have an abortion, but it shouldnt cost me when they do.

All maternity services are taxpayer funded. There were thousands of abortions before repeal, why did you believe they were suddenly going to disappear after? The government told you before the vote that it would be unrestricted access up to twelve weeks.

nozzferrahhtoo · 01-07-2020 7:31am

Manach wrote: »

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

Yes sentient life with the capacity for suffering and/or well being. All of which a fetus is not.

The release of the figures does not show anything you just put spin on. The release of the figures show us that, as other users have pointed out, that the figures on abortion have remained essentially constant for decades now.

As for me, I have never once seen a "pro abortion" sticker or badge in my life. I suspect you are putting spin on that one too.

cournioni wrote: »

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

And to answer the OP my position remains unchanged because nothing about the figures that annoy him are relevant to the reasons I held that position. And as for celebrations "Following the result" I can only say that I STILL celebrate the result as progress and the right thing to do.

JL555 wrote: »

The fact that abortions seem to have increased should not be surprising to anyone

There is no real data suggesting they have increased though. That's the problem. The fact we are getting the FIRST real statistics for this country is being used to compare to previous guess work statistics. That is not an increase in anything but the accuracy of our numbers.

Seamai wrote: »

Lot of posters blindly repeating the right to choose mantra ad nauseam but what about personal responsibility?

Considering your choices and making the best choice for you in your circumstances.... even if it is a choice YOU personally do not like or would not make..... IS "personal responsibility".

Taking that choice away from them and making it illegal is not personal responsibility. IT would in fact be you/society taking responsibility vicariously on their behalf.

If truly care about "personal responsibility" in our world then that includes accepting, and living with, the fact that people will make choices we might not entirely agree with.

cournioni wrote: »

What I feared the referendum vote would achieve would be that people could choose to end the life of a healthy unborn based on a purely selfish decision by parents and without due consideration for the unborn as the protections weren’t there to protect it. The statistics that have been released confirm those fears to be legitimate.

They really don't though. They do absolutely no such thing at all. All the figures do is show that abortions that were once happening elsewhere are now happening HERE and in numbers that remain relatively consistent with our best but imperfect estimates over the last 30 years.

What we are doing is comparing a MORE complete figure with a single much LESS complete and inclusive figure. That is not even comparing apples with oranges. It is comparing apples with a few segments of a peeled orange.

pjohnson · 01-07-2020 8:20am

Eric Cartman wrote: »

Voted yes to repeal the 8th , might have changed my mind if I knew it was going to become this free for all abortion on demand system that we werre promised it wouldnt be before the referendum.

It shouldnt be taxpayer funded. Allow private clinics to perform it for money and allow all the charities and people that popped up and had so much money for posters and jumpers to fund those who cannot afford an abortion.

Women should have the freedom to have an abortion, but it shouldnt cost me when they do.

:pac:

_Kaiser_ · 01-07-2020 8:27am

It was the right decision on polling day. It's the right decision now.

That said, there is a bit of a contradiction with the "her body, her choice" mantra in that if she decides to have an abortion, the potential father has no rights if he wanted the child and is expected to respect and live with that - yet conversely if she decides to keep it but he didn't want to be a father, he's still on the hook for maintenance for the next 18 years+.

The obvious response is "well stick a condom on then", but things do happen and if it was consensual unprotected sex at the time, it's a bit of an anomaly from a rights perspective.

Igotadose · 01-07-2020 8:34am

Niner leprauchan wrote: »

They are already pregnant for starters, generally not as a result of force. 9 months is also not a lifetime and the effects are generally not fatal. Pregnancy is now a safe event overall and abortion carries those same risks and it's own. Sorry, that argument holds no water.

Pregnancy and childbirth are very risky to health. Medical abortion in Ireland, barely any risk at all.

Your arguments don't hold water.

Igotadose · 01-07-2020 8:36am

bfa1509 wrote: »

Should a father who wanted his girlfriend to have an abortion be forced to pay child support?

Yes, absolutely. He's the father. Whether he wanted the child or not, he is.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts · 01-07-2020 8:38am

cournioni wrote: »

All healthy unborn babies are “worth” saving. I was asked what my opinion was on when abortion should be “allowed”, whether you think my opinion is consistent or not doesn’t matter one bit. It’s as black and white as it can possibly be.

No it’s not.

Igotadose · 01-07-2020 8:41am

cournioni wrote: »

Thanks.

I think it should be allowed where there is a medical issue where there is a threat to the health of the mother or child. Rape cases also. Outside of those, absolutely not.

What I feared the referendum vote would achieve would be that people could choose to end the life of a healthy unborn based on a purely selfish decision by parents and without due consideration for the unborn as the protections weren’t there to protect it. The statistics that have been released confirm those fears to be legitimate.

The statistics confirm nothing of the sort. At most, they confirm more abortions happened in 2019 than in 2018. Statistics don't confirm reasons, they're just numbers.

All that's confirmed is your CHOICE to interpret the statistics this way.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts · 01-07-2020 8:43am

Eric Cartman wrote: »

Voted yes to repeal the 8th , might have changed my mind if I knew it was going to become this free for all abortion on demand system that we werre promised it wouldnt be before the referendum.

It shouldnt be taxpayer funded. Allow private clinics to perform it for money and allow all the charities and people that popped up and had so much money for posters and jumpers to fund those who cannot afford an abortion.

Women should have the freedom to have an abortion, but it shouldnt cost me when they do.

We were promised no such thing. If you thought before the referendum that it wasn’t going to be unrestricted up to 12 weeks if repealed, then you didn’t pay very much attention at all.

Igotadose · 01-07-2020 8:45am

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

We were promised no such thing. If you thought before the referendum that it wasn’t going to be unrestricted up to 12 weeks if repealed, then you didn’t pay very much attention at all.

It's not unrestricted. You need to go to a doctor, you need to wait 3 days, probably there are other restrictions I'm not thinking of. They might not be *severe* restrictions, but they're restrictions.

Unrestricted is, hitting a web site for ru486 pills home delivered, like you can do today.

Pherekydes · 01-07-2020 8:48am

Manach wrote: »

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

Virtue signalling would involve "pro-lifers" saying they care deeply about women's lives, and then voting 'No'.

Yes, lives matter. Adult women's lives, not embryos.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts · 01-07-2020 8:49am

Igotadose wrote: »

It's not unrestricted. You need to go to a doctor, you need to wait 3 days, probably there are other restrictions I'm not thinking of. They might not be *severe* restrictions, but they're restrictions.

Unrestricted is, hitting a web site for ru486 pills home delivered, like you can do today.

A three day wait isn’t a restriction, let’s be real here. And I should hope you have to go to a doctor. :eek: Is that what you consider a restriction? Calling either of those things restrictions is honestly disingenuous.

Igotadose · 01-07-2020 8:53am

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

A three day wait isn’t a restriction, let’s be real here. And I should hope you have to go to a doctor. :eek: Is that what you consider a restriction? Calling either of those things restrictions is honestly disingenuous.

The ru486 pills are safe. No need to go to the doctor until afterwards, if at all. There's tonnes of information available about them.

The 3 day thing in the strictest sense of the word is a restriction. The woman wants the pills today, and is told for no good reason she must come back in 3 days and request again. What it is, is an attempt at dissuasion. I'm soon to e-mail my TD's asking them for data on the results of the 3 day waiting period, if any. My guess is there are no data, in which case, it should be removed. I've never seen a viable explanation for it, and the Netherlands was one country that had it and removed it as I recall because it accomplished nothing.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts · 01-07-2020 8:54am

Manach wrote: »

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

Manach, what did the pro-abortion badges look like? I don’t recall any that said that.

Personally, I thought the figures would go up. I wanted teenagers and disadvantaged women who didn’t have access to abortion before to have it now, so yeah, that could indeed mean an increase. So I’d still gladly vote yes today, the figures being of no surprise to me. Of course, we also know that the figures before the referendum are unreliable too but people disingenuously don’t acknowledge that if it doesn’t suit them to.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts · 01-07-2020 9:04am

sabat wrote: »

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

Give us the details. What were the circumstances that caused her to develop sepsis? The circumstances are important, seeing as people develop sepsis for many different reasons. We know why Ms. Hallapanavar did.

cournioni wrote: »

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

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

Do you think that the people celebrating thought all the abortions would be for medical reasons? People were celebrating because women would now be able to receive aftercare in their own jurisdiction without fear of prosecution. Seems like a good reason to celebrate to me.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts · 01-07-2020 9:12am

JL555 wrote: »

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

If I had an abortion and I was asked by a statistician why I did, I wouldn’t furnish them with a reason. If a doctor asked if they could include my reasons in statistics, I wouldn’t consent to that (and yes, they would need to ask). So actually, no, it isn’t anyone else’s business unless the person choosing to get the abortion wants it to be. You are not entitled to that information.

cournioni · 01-07-2020 9:31am

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

Do you think that the people celebrating thought all the abortions would be for medical reasons? People were celebrating because women would now be able to receive aftercare in their own jurisdiction without fear of prosecution. Seems like a good reason to celebrate to me.

Out of 6666 abortions 144 happened as there was a risk to child or woman.

6522 healthy unborn babies dying unnecessarily isn't something to celebrate, regardless of location.

sydthebeat · 01-07-2020 9:32am

cournioni wrote: »

Out of 6666 abortions 144 happened as there was a risk to child or woman.

6522 healthy unborn babies dying unnecessarily isn't something to celebrate, regardless of location.

No unborn baby died?

drunkmonkey · 01-07-2020 9:33am

sydthebeat wrote: »

No unborn baby died?

Of natural causes.

Abortion in Ireland: 2 years on

Comments