Abortion/ *Note* Thread Closing Shortly! ! !

marienbad

jank wrote: »

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?

Do you play any sports then ? should we pay for sport injuries sking skateboard hurling rugby accidents ?

And health service are at breaking point because they are badly managed, run for the befefit of employess, too politicised and - shock horroe -underfunded.

jank

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

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.

Do you think this subsidy is tax money well spent?

jank

marienbad wrote: »

Do you play any sports then ? should we pay for sport injuries sking skateboard hurling rugby accidents ?

And health service are at breaking point because they are badly managed, run for the befefit of employess, too politicised and - shock horroe -underfunded.

I have private health insurance if those cases arise.

Underfunded you say, yet you think more services should be offered which for the most part are superfluous. That makes no sense. We barely have basic mental health services yet gastric bands are deemed nessesary now.

jank

Morag wrote: »

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.

So the state is basically the babysitter of the populace?

GCU Flexible Demeanour

eviltwin wrote: »

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.

That's almost the reverse to what I'm saying. I'm starting with the lack of political necessity, and highlighting it as a point to be understood. I'm saying nothing whatsoever about what the regime should be.

eviltwin wrote: »

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.

What I've actually suggested (clearly stating that I no basis for any statement) is that our culture may well support this as a solution as, otherwise, there's no appetite to fundamentally change how our society deals with stuff in general. That's actually, pretty much, saying self-preservation.

marienbad wrote: »

I could go on but that is more than enough to start.

Well, no it isn't, when what we're actually expected to accept is that Irish women are whipped into silence out of fear of Ronan Of The Two Fadas. Again, if clerical control of education was such a big factor, abortion would not have been a natural, private, choice for so many women over thirty years. They'd still be doing the washing for the nuns.

seamus

Not entirely sure why payment is even a topic here. Legalising abortion and having the state pay for it do not go hand-in-hand. It's a red herring thrown in by jank to derail the discussion.

Though there is a rational approach that if a woman would require a state subsidy to afford an abortion, then the state would save money in the long term by providing it.

But, red herring. Irrelevant to this discussion.

GCU Flexible Demeanour

seamus wrote: »

Though there is a rational approach that if a woman would require a state subsidy to afford an abortion, then the state would save money in the long term by providing it.

That's not a rational approach. That's assuming what needs to be proved, while accounting for how the lifetime costs to the State would outweigh the lifetime benefits. I mean, I know our social protection net is a bit of a Ponzi. But that's not really an issue related to this agenda.

Morag

So if a woman qualifies for a medical card she should not have her contraception paid for?
Really having abortion as a free service ties in with the polices we already have, it's that simple.

ShooterSF

jank wrote: »

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?

And when you live to be 100 because of your healthy lifestyle and inevitably require more and more medical attention as your body ages along with 30 odd years of state paid pension I suppose you won't be looking to the tax payer to help you out. Personal responsibility and all that. At least the smokers and drinkers pay heavy taxes towards their bills and their diseases tend to wipe them off the state's books pretty fast!

Waaaayyyy off topic btw.

Bannasidhe

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.

What makes you think I am in UCC? Even if I was, which I am not, what did that comment add to the discussion or were you just having a dig?

Do I think Ireland should have a NHS type health service (or at least an NHS type health service as it existed before the Tories began to dismantle it..).

Yes - I do.

Speaking of word games - ' all manner if treatments that are not nessesary' - do you dispute that abortions are necessary?

marienbad

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

That's almost the reverse to what I'm saying. I'm starting with the lack of political necessity, and highlighting it as a point to be understood. I'm saying nothing whatsoever about what the regime should be. What I've actually suggested (clearly stating that I no basis for any statement) is that our culture may well support this as a solution as, otherwise, there's no appetite to fundamentally change how our society deals with stuff in general. That's actually, pretty much, saying self-preservation. Well, no it isn't, when what we're actually expected to accept is that Irish women are whipped into silence out of fear of Ronan Of The Two Fadas. Again, if clerical control of education was such a big factor, abortion would not have been a natural, private, choice for so many women over thirty years. They'd still be doing the washing for the nuns.

Pointless discussion, you dimiss everything with no evidence and offer nothing in return .

Brian Shanahan

jank wrote: »

Do you think this subsidy is tax money well spent?

Which tax money?

If it is money to religions for purposes of brainwashing children, then no.

If it is money to health services to provide said services including abortion, then yes.

If it is money to bankers to keep them in mansions, then no.

If it is money to state companies to provide necessary goods and services, then yes.

If it is money to pay off the "bailout" which was nothing more than a way of rescuing stupid German bankers who bet on Irish banks after they had failed, then no.

If it is money given to the unemployed so that they can have at least a half decent level of living, then yes (there is also a very good economic argument for giving more to the unemployed, not just a moral one).

aloyisious

Just saw a poster about a pro-life meet in the Royal Hotel, Bray for next Tuesday 8PM targetting the local TD's, three of whom (two being FG) have been pictured on the poster.

PopePalpatine

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

****. At least the Abortion Rights Campaign had a stall in my uni's arts block today, and they were giving out their postcards for their campaign to legislate for X. That kinda balances it out a little.

Of course, they still have much less resources than the fundie-funded pro-birthers.

Morag

PopePalpatine wrote: »

****. At least the Abortion Rights Campaign had a stall in my uni's arts block today, and they were giving out their postcards for their campaign to legislate for X. That kinda balances it out a little.

Of course, they still have much less resources than the fundie-funded pro-birthers.

It's part of a 10 days of actions happening all around the country, in the run up t international women's day, to high light that a 100 women will have traveled to the UK for abortions during that time.

There are fundraisers on as well, with a comedy and burlesque night on in the Sugar club tomorrow and pub quizzes ect to pay for the cost of printing the post cards and try and run the campaign.

http://www.abortionrightscampaign.ie/calendar/2013-03/

marienbad

jank wrote: »

I have private health insurance if those cases arise.

Underfunded you say, yet you think more services should be offered which for the most part are superfluous. That makes no sense. We barely have basic mental health services yet gastric bands are deemed nessesary now.

So only those with private health care should play sport ? or else it is at your own risk ?

Interesting where Ayn Rand ended up though is'nt it and she was glad of it.

swampgas

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

If the isolation was so total, they wouldn't have been able to find out how to source an abortion. It's the sheer number that makes the appeal to 'isolation' so discordant. What we seem to have is just about enough solidarity and support to ensure information is there; but not enough for even the slightest bit of legislation.

Again, I can't account for it. I'm still as blank on the topic as when I first raised it.? I introduced the contrast between the public and private space, a couple of posts ago.That's certainly credible. Yet, it should be creating a pool of sympathetic opinion. Plus, you'd expect the pool of women who've needed and obtained abortions to be a subset of the pool who would see it as a valid option, but just haven't needed one. It seems to be such a frequent choice, that it just doesn't seem credible to suggest that Irish women have been indoctrinated against it.

Which, unfortunately, will only bring me back to where I started. The enormous gap between the public and private space is very hard to account for. It can be glossed over with an appeal to "isolation", and that appeal will certainly work as a distraction when it's obvious that there's no appetite to explore the matter further. 150,000 Eleanor Rigbys, enough to populate Cork City. Obviously, nothing to see here.

It seems obvious to me why women would be incredibly slow to go public on abortion - just consider the virulence and extremism of many anti-abortion people. Most people can argue about politics and economics and immigration and still be friends, or at least agree to disagree, but with abortion you are up against people who think protecting the unborn is so important that everything else goes out the window. Democracy, human rights, the constitution, all irrelevant - see the earlier exchanges with Silvio Dante for example. Organisations like Youth Defence are visible and scary - they will happily make someone's life hell to further their agenda. When so many people feel it's okay to hurl abuse at someone expressing vague support for abortion in limited circumstances, you can imagine why someone would be slow to tell the world they actually had an abortion. There is also a real risk of friends and family shunning such a person. And word could get around - maybe it would count against you in a small community, say if you were looking for a job. It could also have an impact on the woman's family.

It takes a very strong and determined woman to decide to put herself through that.

GCU Flexible Demeanour

swampgas wrote: »

It seems obvious to me why women would be incredibly slow to go public on abortion - just consider the virulence and extremism of many anti-abortion people.

This is just a repeat of the "Rónán Múllén is really intimidating" line, which isn't convincing, notwithstanding the high esteem that previous generations of Irish people reserved for elderly virgins.

It's not that easy to account for the absence of the experience of 150,000 people. It's like contending you could nuke Cork City from orbit, without anyone missing it.

eviltwin

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

This is just a repeat of the "Rónán Múllén is really intimidating" line, which isn't convincing, notwithstanding the high esteem that previous generations of Irish people reserved for elderly virgins.

It's not that easy to account for the absence of the experience of 150,000 people. It's like contending you could nuke Cork City from orbit, without anyone missing it.

I'm really puzzled as to why you are not taking on board what's been said here. Can you honestly not understand why so many women don't feel comfortable going public with this?

swampgas

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

This is just a repeat of the "Rónán Múllén is really intimidating" line, which isn't convincing, notwithstanding the high esteem that previous generations of Irish people reserved for elderly virgins.

It's not that easy to account for the absence of the experience of 150,000 people. It's like contending you could nuke Cork City from orbit, without anyone missing it.

Maybe you simply can't imagine what it's like to be these women well enough to be convinced?

Most people don't even know who Rónán Mullen is - but they have a fair idea of the attitudes of their own community, and that's an attitude very hostile to abortion.

There was a program on TV a while back about Unions and workers rights. One of the interesting issues was that attempts to organise women working as domestic servants failed, largely because these women were very isolated from each other, and could not attend meetings easily.

150,000 individuals are just that - individuals without any strong links. Look at how long it took before gay people felt it was safe enough to to go public, and that's not a small number of people either.

GCU Flexible Demeanour

swampgas wrote: »

Maybe you simply can't imagine what it's like to be these women well enough to be convinced?

That's quite possible. What's even more possible is that line is good as a fob-off, which is probably why it's being employed.

swampgas wrote: »

Most people don't even know who Rónán Mullen is - but they have a fair idea of the attitudes of their own community, and that's an attitude very hostile to abortion.

This is precisely where the mental leap has to be made. If 150,000 women indepedently come to the conclusion that abortion is a valid solution to a particular set of circumstances, it demonstrates that the attitudes of our community isn't very hostile to abortion.What it demonstrates is simply a large gap between the public and private space. Bear in mind, it's not that they need to hold candlelight processions. The point about the evidence of the decision of 150,000 people demonstrates this view is mainstream.

swampgas wrote: »

150,000 individuals are just that - individuals without any strong links.

You're assuming what needs to be proved. We don't really know anything about their social standing, apart from more than half of them are over the age of 25 at the time of the abortion, and all of them seem to be able to raise a grand at short notice.

Delirium

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

That's quite possible. What's even more possible is that line is good as a fob-off, which is probably why it's being employed.This is precisely where the mental leap has to be made. If 150,000 women indepedently come to the conclusion that abortion is a valid solution to a particular set of circumstances, it demonstrates that the attitudes of our community isn't very hostile to abortion.What it demonstrates is simply a large gap between the public and private space. Bear in mind, it's not that they need to hold candlelight processions. The point about the evidence of the decision of 150,000 people demonstrates this view is mainstream. You're assuming what needs to be proved. We don't really know anything about their social standing, apart from more than half of them are over the age of 25 at the time of the abortion, and all of them seem to be able to raise a grand at short notice.

It that not a mental leap also? You're presuming that most/all of the women who had abortions haven't kept that information to themselves. Sometimes people do what they feel needs to be done even if their community frowns on it.

GCU Flexible Demeanour

koth wrote: »

It that not a mental leap also? You're presuming that most/all of the women who had abortions haven't kept that information to themselves. Sometimes people do what they feel needs to be done even if their community frowns on it.

But, in fairness, that's not quite the point that's demonstrated. We're all products of our society, including the 150,000 women who decided to abort. If I can overstate, just to make the point, if you've a society where 80,000 women become pregnant in the course of a year, of whom 4,000 to 5,000 abort in a situation where there are only 50 real adoptions, you've a society that is operationally pro-choice.

I'm not sure if I'm making it any clearer. The point isn't particularly about sharing the information, or even marching under a banner. The point is that a society where 150,000 women independently choose abortion is a society that forms people to see it as an acceptable (private) choice.

Bannasidhe

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

But, in fairness, that's not quite the point that's demonstrated. We're all products of our society, including the 150,000 women who decided to abort. If I can overstate, just to make the point, if you've a society where 80,000 women become pregnant in the course of a year, of whom 4,000 to 5,000 abort in a situation where there are only 50 real adoptions, you've a society that is operationally pro-choice.

I'm not sure if I'm making it any clearer. The point isn't particularly about sharing the information, or even marching under a banner. The point is that a society where 150,000 women independently choose abortion is a society that forms people to see it as an acceptable (private) choice.

Given that we live in a society where over 80% identify as Roman Catholic on the census yet polls on 'controversial' issues show that a similar percentage are in favour of, for example, Gay Marriage (a big no-no according to the RCC) the fact that there is a disconnect between public and private in Ireland cannot come as a surprise.
Nor should the fact that as a society we tend towards the socially conservative while at the same time as individuals many of us are socially liberal in the privacy of our own homes.

Being seen to conform is the important thing in Ireland.

Morag

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2013/0301/breaking28.html

Action on X press conference this morning calling for broad legislation.

GCU Flexible Demeanour

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Being seen to conform is the important thing in Ireland.

That's probably as close as we'll get to a common view of the situation.

Bobby42

It seems the "RTE is anti catholic" movement has branched off from the pro life campaign and are now protesting outside RTE.

http://www.broadsheet.ie/2013/03/01/meanwhile-on-nutley-lane/

Oh dear. It seems that despite RTE's wall to wall coverage of the pope's resignation, RTE is still somehow "anti catholic".

Reality has an anti catholic bias though, to be fair.

lazygal

Mullen and some priest were at that craic on the Late Debate on radio one last evening, whinging about the liberal bias of RTE. Its not as though the Catholic call to prayer is broadcast by a state tv and radio station daily or anything.

mohawk

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

This is precisely where the mental leap has to be made. If 150,000 women indepedently come to the conclusion that abortion is a valid solution to a particular set of circumstances, it demonstrates that the attitudes of our community isn't very hostile to abortion.What it demonstrates is simply a large gap between the public and private space. Bear in mind, it's not that they need to hold candlelight processions. The point about the evidence of the decision of 150,000 people demonstrates this view is mainstream.

The fact that so many women have made the choice doesn't really make it mainstream. Its not a choice anyone makes lightly and for many they feel its the only way.

It could be argued that maybe its the vocal minority are anti-abortion.
Personally I find anytime abortion comes up in the media there is a very aggressive section of society who get their anti-abortion message across.

I was talking to a group of mothers recently and one girl was telling rest of group about a woman she knows who went over to Liverpool because the baby had anencephaly. One woman was very aggressive about how it was wrong thing to do and that if the woman loved the baby she would of continued the pregnancy. She is perfectly entitled to her view but when people offered alternative views it offended her.

My point is that the moderate views are always shouted down so all society hears are the extreme opinions. Women can't really come out into the open about having an abortion in Ireland without fear of being judged.

GCU Flexible Demeanour

mohawk wrote: »

The fact that so many women have made the choice doesn't really make it mainstream.

Well, yes, it rather does. If at least 5% of pregnancies are terminated, it is obviously a frequent choice made by Irish women. On the other hand, if only .05% of pregnancies ultimately result in adoption by complete strangers, that's obviously a very rare practice.

You'll appreciate, a large part of my point is to suggest people need to reflect on the fact that abortion is actually quite an accepted practice (in the private space). The oddballs are the people who choose putting their child for adoption. You'll also appreciate, a large part of my point is the extent to which you wouldn't know this from most public discourse, despite the factual information being there for everyone to see.

mohawk wrote: »

Its not a choice anyone makes lightly and for many they feel its the only way.

Look, if we're going to make progress we have to avoid this kind of knee-jerk, rhetorical kind of statement. There needs to be analysis and debate before advocacy of any position.

I've no idea whether anyone makes the decision lightly. Out of 150,000 women, I've no idea how many felt it was the only way. Neither do you. All we really know is that it is a very frequent choice made by Irish women.