Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Abortion in Ireland: 2 years on

Options
12357…30

Comments

  • Options
    #122
    jam_mac_jam
    Registered Users Posts: 4,719 ✭✭✭jam_mac_jam


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

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

    Fortunately for everyone yes you can. For whatever reason you like. Negligence or no negligence. Remember? That's what we voted.

    Babies are not a punishment for negligence.


  • Options
    #123
    Plumbthedepths
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,653 ✭✭✭✭Plumbthedepths


    Seamai wrote: »
    personal responsibility?

    Do incest and rape fall under this category?


  • Options
    #124
    SusieBlue
    Registered Users Posts: 8,029 ✭✭✭SusieBlue


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

    Unfortunately there are situations where having an abortion IS taking personal responsibility.

    Going ahead with an unwanted pregnancy is not always going to be the morally responsible thing to do.


  • Options
    #125
    Seamai
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,250 ✭✭✭Seamai


    Plumbthedepths wrote: »
    Do incest and rape fall under this category?

    I'm not talking about rape, incest or any medical reasons, I talking about the 95% plus that are not these.


  • Options
    #126
    eviltwin
    Registered Users Posts: 17,495 ✭✭✭✭eviltwin


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

    It might not be your definition but choosing an abortion is taking responsibility and arguably a better option than having a child you don’t want, can’t care for or support


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #127
    Guy:Incognito
    Registered Users Posts: 38,247 ✭✭✭✭Guy:Incognito


    Laura Old-fashioned Mace wrote: »

    In the USA, where nearly 50% pregnancies are unintended and 4/10 of these are terminated by abortion. This results in over 3,000 abortions per day. 22% of all pregnancies in the USA (excluding miscarriages) end in abortion. You can see why it's very emotive over there in the world's leading superpower.
    .

    I can see that it is but dont understand why.

    People spending time out of their lives trying to control the actions of people they have never and will never meet, or otherwise care about what happens too.

    But the thing is, thats religion pretty much to a tee. All about controlling peoples lives and telling them what they can and cant do.

    Other people having abortions will have absolutely no affect on your (the collective your as opposed to you personally) life.


  • Options
    #128
    jam_mac_jam
    Registered Users Posts: 4,719 ✭✭✭jam_mac_jam


    Guy:Incognito wrote: »
    I can see that it is but dont understand why.

    People spending time out of their lives trying to control the actions of people they have never and will never meet, or otherwise care about what happens too.

    But the thing is, thats religion pretty much to a tee. All about controlling peoples lives and telling them what they can and cant do.

    Other people having abortions will have absolutely no affect on your (the collective your as opposed to you personally) life.

    Until their daughter or mistress wants one.


  • Options
    #129
    Guy:Incognito
    Registered Users Posts: 38,247 ✭✭✭✭Guy:Incognito


    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.

    I see plenty of cars around Dublin with their various no stickers still in the back windows.

    Presumably you also frown on that?


  • Options
    #130
    Plumbthedepths
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,653 ✭✭✭✭Plumbthedepths


    Seamai wrote: »
    I'm not talking about rape, incest or any medical reasons, I talking about the 95% plus that are not these.

    You don't know what any woman goes through before they make the decision to abort.
    I'm male but it would have been easy for me to have voted no as it would have no consequences for me.


  • Options
    #131
    Seamai
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,250 ✭✭✭Seamai


    eviltwin wrote: »
    It might not be your definition but choosing an abortion is taking responsibility and arguably a better option than having a child you don’t want, can’t care for or support

    You've conveniently skipped ahead of yourself, I'm talking about personal responsibility at a much earlier stage in the process. When it comes to abortion prevention is always better than the cure.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #132
    jam_mac_jam
    Registered Users Posts: 4,719 ✭✭✭jam_mac_jam


    Seamai wrote: »
    I'm not talking about rape, incest or any medical reasons, I talking about the 95% plus that are not these.

    Why is it ok for rape? Either it's wrong or it's not wrong. It's murder of an unborn baby or its not.

    Why does it matter the circumstances of the conception?

    I can't understand this logic at all.


  • Options
    #133
    downinbigsmoke
    Registered Users Posts: 31 ✭downinbigsmoke


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

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

    I'm not some kind anti-natalist. I think that it is better to have lived unhappily than not to have lived at all. And we live in a society that's getting richer with each passing year, and can help in the bringing up of "unwanted children" (which I think is a terrible term).

    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.

    The pill is well well over 99% effective when properly used btw. And condoms are 98% effective. The chance of a pregnancy from a one night stand - unless you have them very very often indeed - are 0. And the odds of getting pregnant while in a relationship are one in a million. So, we're talking about between 1 and 50 abortions in Ireland not 6666!


  • Options
    #134
    Guy:Incognito
    Registered Users Posts: 38,247 ✭✭✭✭Guy:Incognito


    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.

    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?


  • Options
    #135
    Bannasidhe
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 19,219 Mod ✭✭✭✭Bannasidhe


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

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

    You are assuming there is a couple. May not be the case.
    And forcing a person who took steps to not get pregnant (couples don't get pregnant) to have an unwanted child because contraception failed is a great idea - what could possibly go wrong there??


  • Options
    #136
    elainers
    Registered Users Posts: 113 ✭✭elainers


    crossman47 wrote: »
    I voted yes, partly at least because of the case doctors made that it created difficulties for them. Now that I see over 6,000 abortions, I would have to consider changing my vote. That number is horrific when only a small number were on genuine medical grounds.

    There were 6,542 abortions last year carried out under the part of the law that covers terminations in the first twelve weeks of pregnancy and the remainder after twelve weeks. You seem to be equating all of these 6,542 with not having genuine medical need - whatever that is.

    Just because a woman is under 12 weeks doesn’t mean there wasn’t a genuine medical need there. She could have:

    - Had an ectopic pregnancy (which would have been treated here even before the 8th was repealed)
    - Found out she has cancer and couldn’t get treatment whilst pregnant
    - Been on life preserving medication that couldn’t have been prescribed whilst pregnant such as those for epilepsy.
    - Had a medical condition that would have made pregnancy a threat to her life or health like heart or lung issues.
    - Have been raped or been a victim of incest.

    Beyond these “genuine medical reasons”, she could have been:

    - A teenager or college student with no support to raise a child
    - Homeless with no way of housing the baby.
    - Someone with mental health issues incapable of caring for a child
    - A mother with too many children to support already (married women are precluded from putting a child up for adoption in Ireland)
    - A woman who the father of the child decided not to support her
    - A woman afraid of the stigma of being an unmarried mother / lone parent.

    The reason I voted to repeal was because the 8th amendment was a terrible law. It created significant grey areas that meant medical professionals had to make severe compromises in their care for women. This included not being able to do scans if a women’s period was late, not prescribing medication for pregnant women who needed it to live like in the case of certain epileptics, not enrolling women in cancer trials in the Mater in case they’d risk a pregnancy and the more troubling cases like Savita and the lady who was brain dead and pregnant.

    The 12 week law is better. It covers pregnancies conceived through rape without re-traumatising the victim. And it leaves other medical issues to be discussed by a woman and her doctor which is how it should be.

    Personally I’d like to see far better sex education in schools and colleges and to the general public and free contraception provided. I’d like non medical abortions to reduce.

    But ultimately I trust that women do not tend to make flippant decisions about these things. So therefore I support it and I wouldn’t change my vote.


  • Options
    #137
    eviltwin
    Registered Users Posts: 17,495 ✭✭✭✭eviltwin


    Seamai wrote: »
    You've conveniently skipped ahead of yourself, I'm talking about personal responsibility at a much earlier stage in the process. When it comes to abortion prevention is always better than the cure.

    Absolutely but people make mistakes, things happen and then they choose according to the options available all of which are valid


  • Options
    #138
    Guy:Incognito
    Registered Users Posts: 38,247 ✭✭✭✭Guy:Incognito


    eviltwin wrote: »
    Everyone wants abortion figures to be low. How you achieve that is the question.

    Groups spending less time picketing hospitals, demonising women and doctors and trying their best to make sure kids are kept as in the dark about the goings on of sex , but putting their efforts in to actual education and improving peoples lives would be a start.

    Its almost as if they dont actually care about the people at all..........


  • Options
    #139
    Seamai
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,250 ✭✭✭Seamai


    jam_mac_jam wrote: »
    Why is it ok for rape? Either it's wrong or it's not wrong. It's murder of an unborn baby or its not.

    Why does it matter the circumstances of the conception?

    I can't understand this logic at all.

    Are you struggling to deal with the concept of a grey area?


  • Options
    #140
    downinbigsmoke
    Registered Users Posts: 31 ✭downinbigsmoke


    elainers wrote: »
    But ultimately I trust that women do not tend to make flippant decisions about these things. So therefore I support it and I wouldn’t change my vote.

    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!"


  • Options
    #141
    Bannasidhe
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 19,219 Mod ✭✭✭✭Bannasidhe


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

    Lets let negligent people have babies - what a fantastic idea! If they are teenagers they can be supported by their negligent parents! Why didn't the gov suggest that??
    Then we can have even more threads about dole spongers and free houses. It's a win-win

    Seriously tho, That was always the 'argument' that made me go :eek:. I'm sorry snotty malnourished child growing up in poverty but you see you are here because your negligent parents had negligent parents and so here you are. Alive, miserable and unwanted, but being alive is all that matters to us.

    Or howabout we have universally free, no questions asked, contraception, and recognise that it is not 100% safe or reliable and so abortions will be needed when 'nearly' wasn't good enough.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #142
    Guy:Incognito
    Registered Users Posts: 38,247 ✭✭✭✭Guy:Incognito


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

    They were happening anyway. The only difference is that theres less hardship on the people involved (often lone women who have to travel to a foreign country)


  • Options
    #143
    jam_mac_jam
    Registered Users Posts: 4,719 ✭✭✭jam_mac_jam


    Seamai wrote: »
    Are you struggling to deal with the concept of a grey area?

    I'm asking a question because I don't understand the logic.

    But feel free not to answer and reply with a smart comment instead.


  • Options
    #144
    Guy:Incognito
    Registered Users Posts: 38,247 ✭✭✭✭Guy:Incognito


    downinbigsmoke wrote: »

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

    Smokers are trusted. They are free to smoke themselves to death all they like. The only restrictions is on forcing that death on other people.


  • Options
    #145
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    downinbigsmoke wrote: »
    Now that we've all had time to collect our thoughts, I was hoping to gather some opinions on what people in this country think of the longterm effects Health (Regulation of Termination of Pregnancy) Act 2018 have been. With the benefit of hindsight, is there anybody who would have changed their vote?

    For full disclosure, I voted No in the referendum, which was apparently a pretty odd point of view for 21 year old Trinity student, who was otherwise not particularly right-wing. I would not change it.

    But the argument from the Yes side (made by most lobby groups) that I found most convincing is that legalising abortion would not change the raw number of abortions but only the locations. This has turned out to be completely untrue.

    The number of abortions was 6,666 last year (2019). In 2017 (which was quite a high year) there were 3,061 abortions linked to Ireland in the UK. It seems to me (but maybe not you) the public have been misled. Would this have changed your vote?

    You are making the same mistake that was made then. Abortion was not illegal, it was just difficult to obtain and only on medical grounds.

    I also voted no, mainly because I think it's better to be given up for adoption then aborted. The mother suffers either way but with adoption she at least goes forward without the blood on her hands and can reconnect in later life if she so chooses.

    I will say the disclaimer now that I'm not judging anyone. I'm merely pointing out the emotional and mental anguish that frequently follows the physical act. I'm also against the death penalty.


  • Options
    #146
    downinbigsmoke
    Registered Users Posts: 31 ✭downinbigsmoke


    Guy:Incognito wrote: »
    Smokers are trusted. They are free to smoke themselves to death all they like. The only restrictions is on forcing that death on other people.

    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?


  • Options
    #147
    Guy:Incognito
    Registered Users Posts: 38,247 ✭✭✭✭Guy:Incognito


    Niner leprauchan wrote: »

    I also voted no, mainly because I think it's better to be given up for adoption then aborted. The mother suffers either way but with adoption she at least goes forward without the blood on her hands and can reconnect in later life if she so chooses..

    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.


  • Options
    #148
    Seamai
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,250 ✭✭✭Seamai


    jam_mac_jam wrote: »
    I'm asking a question because I don't understand the logic.

    But feel free not to answer and reply with a smart comment instead.

    Did you not read my first post? IMO there are certain cases where abortion may be acceptable but in general I would not be in favour of it. Am I not black enough or white enough for you? I can't be the the first person you've come across who shares this opinion.


  • Options
    #149
    Guy:Incognito
    Registered Users Posts: 38,247 ✭✭✭✭Guy:Incognito


    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?

    That has nothing to do with "trusting" smokers.

    If people are so determined to poison themselves over a long period of time, we may as well monetise that and recoup as much of the potential future costs associated with their healthcare issues as possible. Seems like a good way to not burden the rest with their life choices.


  • Options
    #150
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    seamus wrote: »
    As mentioned above, the intention to legislate for abortion up to 12 weeks was always there and was well publicised.

    However, there is a good reason why there was a heavy focus on rape, suicide and FFAs;

    The question was asked about why repeal was necessary at all - couldn't we legislate for rape, suicide and FFAs without changing the constitution? And the answer was no. We had taken the legislation as far as we could. The conditions to "qualify" for an abortion were very narrow and as such many women could not.
    One particular case involved a young woman who was suicidal. And the process to determine whether she could get an abortion took so long that she ended up giving birth (under anaesthetic) to a live child 12 weeks early which was taken into care.
    We also had a situation where a braindead pregnant women was kept on life support unnecessarily because there were questions about whether it was constitutional to let her die.

    So we had to repeal the 8th amendment. Any suggestions to replace the text were similarly too narrow, to open to interpretation, too likely to result in women not being able to access abortion when they needed to.

    So the next question was - If we repeal the 8th, surely we can legislate to allow abortion only for rape, suicide or FFA?

    But it's the same answer. The result would be situations where women in need would not be able to access abortion and would have to lie, self-medicate or travel in order to get an abortion. The women who were at their most vulnerable were the ones we were trying to protect. And any roadblock to obtaining an abortion puts vulnerable women at risk.

    So, it was settled on allowing an open regime where an abortion could be requested in the first twelve weeks, and later again for FFAs.
    This still puts some vulnerable women at risk, and it would be my hope that we could expand this further, perhaps to 15 weeks. But for now it finds a balance between decency, autonomy and difficult ethical questions.

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


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #151
    callmehal
    Site Banned Posts: 461 ✭✭callmehal


    Delighted I voted to abolish this and even more delighted 2 years on.


Advertisement