Abortion/ *Note* Thread Closing Shortly! ! !

Bannasidhe

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

In fairness, all I'm trying to construct is an understanding of the situation. I do appreciate that others might have an interest in actually achieving mobilisation, if that was a step towards change. My interest is more teasing out what the absence of any apparent political implication arising from the widespread practice of abortion.

Just as there's a public and private space in this, there's a macro and micro. Again, I'm more interested in the macro, how this works at a political or social level. From that perspective, the feeling of isolation that an individual experience is not the object of wonder - it's the recognition that, inactuality, the person is far from being alone. It's the wonder of looking at the political process, at voting patterns, at the relative priorities established, and consider than 150,000 women, apparently, have the shared experience of a furtive journey - and there's no political consequence. That's enough first preferences to get 11 seats in the Dail - maybe a little less than Sinn Fein.

It's strange, and it would be dumb to pretend anyone could produce an explanation on the fly. My working thought is what I've said - it suggests most women's preferences are met by the furtive journey. They come back to a reasonably happy life, that they don't want to change. Problem solved.

Then by the same token did the silence of the Madgelenes imply that once they got out, they were able to lead reasonably happy lives?

Everyone knew these places existed, I remember how people would threaten 'bold' girls with being sent to the Good Shepherds in the 1970s yet, until Mary Raferty began to write about the laundries and Christina Buckley told her story in Dear Daughter in 1996 there was no official discussion, there was no cohesive social movement - there was just silence.

It took Christina Buckley over 30 years to come forward and refuse to be silent any more - her actions broke the silence but even now, after the Magdelenes have been acknowledged as victims, after the Irish State has apologised - women are reluctant to come forward.
Now these women are seen as helpless victims- for a long, long time they were considered 'fallen women'. They were told for decades they were 'fallen women'. That ingrained shame is hard to shake off.

Can you really find it so hard to comprehend how women who are not seen as 'helpless victims' - but as free agents who choose to 'murder their unborn child' would be reluctant to discuss that?

Morag

Having services here mean that it is a day visit to have to get the abortion pill or to have a surgical procedure which when it's the 1st trimester (which the majority of abortions are) and then you are home and done and in your own bed.

It is a lot easier to get away for a few hours or to have the kids minded then it is to leave the country.

lazygal

Morag wrote: »

Having services here mean that it is a day visit to have to get the abortion pill or to have a surgical procedure which when it's the 1st trimester (which the majority of abortions are) and then you are home and done and in your own bed.

It is a lot easier to get away for a few hours or to have the kids minded then it is to leave the country.

And a lot less expensive and traumatic. Its like women should have to face difficulties in procuring abortion, like it serves them right or something.

Penn

Starting to notice a lot more Anti-Abortion posters about. Particularly about contacting the local TDs and telling them not to legalise abortion

jank

lazygal wrote: »

And a lot less expensive and traumatic. Its like women should have to face difficulties in procuring abortion, like it serves them right or something.

And the state should fund all of it of course.

Bannasidhe

jank wrote: »

And the state should fund all of it of course.

Do you think so?

I haven't seen anyone else suggest this.

Suspect that your comment is one of these

Morag

jank wrote: »

And the state should fund all of it of course.

All other maternity related services are free.

Morag

Penn wrote: »

Starting to notice a lot more Anti-Abortion posters about. Particularly about contacting the local TDs and telling them not to legalise abortion

Ireland is held up as an example of a country which is abortion 'Free' and as something for other countries to aspire to by the Pro life lobby globally.
So it it in their interest to try and stop this legislation from happening, which is they use so much double speak about termination and treatments and why they seek to keep up the taboo and stigma.

GCU Flexible Demeanour

eviltwin wrote: »

Why do you think its okay to put women through that?

But, sure, I haven't expressed any view as to whether I think it's OK. That's not what I'm talking about, at all.

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Then by the same token did the silence of the Madgelenes imply that once they got out, they were able to lead reasonably happy lives?

Different situation, though. As mentioned above, there wasn't the same gap between private action and public life.

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Can you really find it so hard to comprehend how women who are not seen as 'helpless victims' - but as free agents who choose to 'murder their unborn child' would be reluctant to discuss that?

Yes, if there was a handful. If there's 150,000, it's harder to swallow. Much harder to swallow. The 'isolation' thing works as a fob-off, to make the query seem insensitive, but not as an explanation.

Morag wrote: »

Having services here mean that it is a day visit to have to get the abortion pill or to have a surgical procedure which when it's the 1st trimester (which the majority of abortions are) and then you are home and done and in your own bed.

It is a lot easier to get away for a few hours or to have the kids minded then it is to leave the country.

Ah, yeah, there's even that article linked a few posts ago by a GP explaining just how cheap and easy they could make it. It could be almost invisible. Really makes you wonder why it isn't so. Irish women whipped into submission by fear of One-Fada-Isn't-Enough Rónán Mullen? He probably couldn't catch a cold in Tamangoes, but he can still hold a veto over public discussion of routinely made reproductive choices?

eviltwin

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

But, sure, I haven't expressed any view as to whether I think it's OK.

You're comments seem to suggest that because the 150,00 women haven't gone public that its a reason to maintain the status quo. You seem to be equating silence with lack of interest or apathy, possibly in this case the silence is more to do with self preservation and fear.

marienbad

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

In fairness, all I'm trying to construct is an understanding of the situation. I do appreciate that others might have an interest in actually achieving mobilisation, if that was a step towards change. My interest is more teasing out what the absence of any apparent political implication arising from the widespread practice of abortion.

Just as there's a public and private space in this, there's a macro and micro. Again, I'm more interested in the macro, how this works at a political or social level. From that perspective, the feeling of isolation that an individual experience is not the object of wonder - it's the recognition that, inactuality, the person is far from being alone. It's the wonder of looking at the political process, at voting patterns, at the relative priorities established, and consider than 150,000 women, apparently, have the shared experience of a furtive journey - and there's no political consequence. That's enough first preferences to get 11 seats in the Dail - maybe a little less than Sinn Fein.

It's strange, and it would be dumb to pretend anyone could produce an explanation on the fly. My working thought is what I've said - it suggests most women's preferences are met by the furtive journey. They come back to a reasonably happy life, that they don't want to change. Problem solved.

Ok lets give it a go shall we -

- the 150,000 women are spread over 30 years at an average of 5000 a year
- since the foundation of the state women have been treated as 2nd class citizens.
-Sexuality and in particulary women's sexuality has been treated as something to be feared and controlled.
- The education system has been run by people who vehemently suscribe to all of the above.
-The consequence to any young girl who stepped outside the above norm were/are draconian and longterm.
- The banning of any and all form of contraception, articles, books , anything to do with sex teinforced this regime.

I could go on but that is more than enough to start. the age spread between the relevant women is so widespread as to encompass several generation and the chances in the past of meeting and discussing this issue were minimal.This is particulary so as to most women this is a once of to be put behind them and get on with their lives.

All of the above is changing and faster with each new wave of you women but still it will be a long hard road.

When did you see any patriarchy give up with out a fight

jank

Morag wrote: »

All other maternity related services are free.

Abortion services are not really maternity services in fairness. Should the state fund ivf treatment as well you think?

marienbad

jank wrote: »

Abortion services are not really maternity services in fairness. Should the state fund ivf treatment as well you think?

within certain limits yes.

Bannasidhe

jank wrote: »

Abortion services are not really maternity services in fairness. Should the state fund ivf treatment as well you think?

While the State may not fund IVF treatment it does provide tax relief and subsidise the cost of any drugs via the Drugs Payment Scheme.

http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/health/women_s_health/fertility_treatment.html

So the Irish State subsidises IVF while at the same time failing to enact any legal framework regulating IVF.

jank

marienbad wrote: »

within certain limits yes.

Ah yes, the big catch all of 'certain limits'. In other words YES!!

Tell me when is it ever medically necessary to cure someone with ivf?

Perhaps the state should pay for my nose job as well or liposuction for fat people and so on. I have no problem with ivf at all, fair play for people putting their hands into their pocket to do it but its a waste of taxpayers money at the end of the day. It's a luxury in practical terms.

Bannasidhe

jank wrote: »

Ah yes, the big catch all of 'certain limits'. In other words YES!!

Tell me when is it ever medically necessary to cure someone with ivf?

Perhaps the state should pay for my nose job as well or liposuction for fat people and so on. I have no problem with ivf at all, fair play for people putting their hands into their pocket to do it but its a waste of taxpayers money at the end of the day. It's a luxury in practical terms.

Did you miss my post where I showed the State already subsidises IVF?

jank

Bannasidhe wrote: »

While the State may not fund IVF treatment it does provide tax relief and subsidise the cost of any drugs via the Drugs Payment Scheme.

http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/health/women_s_health/fertility_treatment.html

So the Irish State subsidises IVF while at the same time failing to enact any legal framework regulating IVF.

What's your point apart from being able to google something?

jank

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Did you miss my post where I showed the State already subsidises IVF?

Subsidy != full payment and I disagree with both. Not sure what your point is.

Bannasidhe

jank wrote: »

What's your point apart from being able to google something?

LOLZ.

The State supports those having IVF treatment via tax breaks and subsidised drugs so people who do avail of IVF are receiving a certain amount of funding from the State.

But don't let the facts stand in your way.

marienbad

jank wrote: »

Ah yes, the big catch all of 'certain limits'. In other words YES!!

Tell me when is it ever medically necessary to cure someone with ivf?

Perhaps the state should pay for my nose job as well or liposuction for fat people and so on. I have no problem with ivf at all, fair play for people putting their hands into their pocket to do it but its a waste of taxpayers money at the end of the day. It's a luxury in practical terms.

If you thing I was inserting a caveat into what is a complex issue I was'nt. Nothing is unlimited.

But in principle definitely ivf should be paid for by the state.

And for that matter plastic surgery should be consided in certain areas also along with top class dental care etc.

jank

Bannasidhe wrote: »

LOLZ.

The State supports those having IVF treatment via tax breaks and subsidised drugs so people who do avail of IVF are receiving a certain amount of funding from the State.

But don't let the facts stand in your way.

Slow day in UCC clearly.

I disagree with both as I said. Clearly because of the status que you think the state should go ahead and fund all manner if treatments that are not nessesary? Do you have an opinion on the matter or are you satisfied playing word games.

marienbad

jank wrote: »

Slow day in UCC clearly.

I disagree with both as I said. Clearly because of the status que you think the state should go ahead and fund all manner if treatments that are not nessesary? Do you have an opinion on the matter or are you satisfied playing word games.

define ''not necessary''

jank

marienbad wrote: »

If you thing I was inserting a caveat into what is a complex issue I was'nt. Nothing is unlimited.

But in principle definitely ivf should be paid for by the state.

And for that matter plastic surgery should be consided in certain areas also along with top class dental care etc.

Well you and I completely disagree on that basis. We need less state involvement in our lives not more. Sure if the state is there to look after every little need from teeth whitening to boob jobs why bother taking any personal responsibility in your own health and well being. As I said ivf is a waste of taxpayers money as it cures nothing. Surely you would prefer that money going to something more worthy like cancer care or mental health?

jank

marienbad wrote: »

define ''not necessary''

Chemo, cures cancer. Teeth whitening, makes teeth white. That sort of thing.

marienbad

jank wrote: »

Well you and I completely disagree on that basis. We need less state involvement in our lives not more. Sure if the state is there to look after every little need from teeth whitening to boob jobs why bother taking any personal responsibility in your own health and well being. As I said ivf is a waste of taxpayers money as it cures nothing. Surely you would prefer that money going to something more worthy like cancer care of mental health?

allways picking the extremes- who said anything about boob jobs and teeth whitening ?

As for state involvement , surely that depends on what the involvement is, does it not ? you are just throwing it round as if it was self evident.

Would you deny overweight or smokers certain treatments then ?

Morag

The state does pay for gastric banding.

And paying for abortion services, (which in the case of the abortion pill is less then 150 quid) saves on the costs incurred on the state by another child.

As for it not being maternity services, I think the ladies who had to travel and leave the care of maternity services here would disagree, and anyone who has been suffering a miscarriage who's suffering could have been eased.

jank

marienbad wrote: »

allways picking the extremes- who said anything about boob jobs and teeth whitening ?

As for state involvement , surely that depends on what the involvement is, does it not ? you are just throwing it round as if it was self evident.

Would you deny overweight or smokers certain treatments then ?

Yes, why would finite resources be given to those who have no regard for their health by smoking and over eating? Insurance companies charge a higher premium for smokers for obvious reasons yet the State give them carte Blanche?
Plenty of trolleys to go around!!

If you want to smoke eat and drink your way to an early death then be my guest. You will never find me in favour of the state trying to limit people's individual choices in this regard, but heck if I m expected to pay for your open heart surgery when your ticker gives up the ghost. Yes, I know it happens but who is the fool for accepting it when our health services are at breaking point?

It's about personal responsibility at the end of the day. I spend a fair chunk of change on eating healthy and being fit. Should I just give it up to eat **** knowing the state will look after my every need and multiple by passes, cancer treatments? Am I the fool?

jank

Morag wrote: »

The state does pay for gastric banding.

And paying for abortion services, (which in the case of the abortion pill is less then 150 quid) saves on the costs incurred on the state by another child.

As for it not being maternity services, I think the ladies who had to travel and leave the care of maternity services here would disagree, and anyone who has been suffering a miscarriage who's suffering could have been eased.

Aren't we glad that the state is so efficient and cost effective in this regard! :pac:

Morag

jank wrote: »

Aren't we glad that the state is so efficient and cost effective in this regard! :pac:

Well it would be even more cost efficient if we had free contraception and proper sexual health education in schools, but even then that would not help women who need to have an abortion.

Brian Shanahan

jank wrote: »

Subsidy != full payment and I disagree with both. Not sure what your point is.

No a subsidy is not a full payment. Actually if you look up any definition of the word Subsidise (the verb form of subsidy), it is clear that the term is meant as a part payment or funding to aid the intended action.

the Merriam Webster dictionary wrote:

a : to purchase the assistance of by payment of a subsidy
b : to aid or promote (as a private enterprise) with public money <subsidize soybean farmers> <subsidize public transportation>