The 8th amendment(Mod warning in op)

pilly

infogiver wrote:

Well I'm sure we all appreciate your tireless perusing of these forums in your never ending quest to draw posters attention to how very wrong they are. Keep up the good work.

Ah you're welcome.

AtomicHorror

A Little Pony wrote: »

ricero wrote: »

Liberals are trying to ruin this countries morality. I for one will not vote in abortion to be used as a easy fix for hussies who forget to use contraception

Fully agree. People don't like personal responsibility in society now. It's everyone else fault now.

Slave moralists. Pitiable.

What is morality if it is laid out for you in a set of rigid rules and laws? In what way is following such rules- regardless of context- "taking responsibility"?

You are both afraid of the responsibility of figuring out right from wrong without a guidebook. You need immutable laws, not so that you can take responsibility, but so that the hard choices never had to be made. Just obeying the law, just following orders.

The "hussies" who have to make the hard choices about their pregnancy, health and life are the ones taking personal responsibility, the ones taking the time to really weigh the morality of circumstances that they alone can fully appraise. And they are the ones who will have to live with the full consequences.

I doubt either of you could take responsibility for picking desert from a menu.

AtomicHorror

Woodville56 wrote: »

So now abortion is being suggested as saving a defenseless newborn baby an uncertain childhood by killing it in the womb? Such a disingenuous argument , when the real reason is about getting rid of an unwanted pregnancy ?

"Now"? Where have you been? Abortion has always been about more than just stopping a pregnancy.

Is this your first abortion debate or are you playing incredulous?

professore

For me it was discussing it with my wife and she says at 12 weeks she could feel the baby moving inside her and couldn't understand how anyone in good conscience could have an abortion at that stage. That kind of clinched it for me. And we are both stainch atheists that believe assisted suicide should be legal. No amount of medical terminology will convince me otherwise. 8 weeks max I think.

osarusan

me_right_one wrote: »

Even if that means killing someone else's body?

Demonique wrote: »

Yes

Do you put a time limit on their right to evict somebody else's body from their body?

And does "evict" always involve death?

AtomicHorror

spakman wrote: »

But a lot of people want abortions not only when it's a necessity, but when it's inconvenient for them to have a baby.

I think "inconvenient" is a pretty woolly term. I've heard people describe their own terminal illnesses as "inconvenient". I think you're also expecting a lot of our ability to ever meaningfully know the true motives of a mother.

spakman wrote: »

I don't understand how people can square this in their conscience - they've wilfully ended the life of their child/foetus. I'm not at all religious but ethically, morally, that is just wrong.

I wouldn't do it either, but if someone else can and feels they need to, I respect their right to make the choice.

AtomicHorror

professore wrote: »

For me it was discussing it with my wife and she says at 12 weeks she could feel the baby moving inside her and couldn't understand how anyone in good conscience could have an abortion at that stage. That kind of clinched it for me. And we are both stainch atheists that believe assisted suicide should be legal. No amount of medical terminology will convince me otherwise. 8 weeks max I think.

My wife is into the last month of her second pregnancy now- she's delighted with the CA recommendations. She has fully wanted both pregnancies, but she hates the thought of being forced into carrying to term if she felt she needed to end a pregnancy.

Should she be denied that right because it isn't what you feel comfortable with? I can assure you she's a woman of very good conscience.

spakman wrote: »

Oh come on, a sperm or an egg on their own are not and cannot become a human being. But when the sperm has the fertilised the egg, it's a different story.

Not a very different one. A zygote needs a receptive womb lining and a whole host of other conditions, time and a lot of luck or it cannot become a human being. About 50% of zygotes never do.

farmer john8 wrote: »

if the scumbag lefty liberals want to abort their own children they can go right ahead and jump on a ferry to the uk and on the way back jump off.they wont dictate to the ordinary decent people of ireland

Decent people don't will people to throw themselves into the sea.

njs030

professore wrote: »

For me it was discussing it with my wife and she says at 12 weeks she could feel the baby moving inside her and couldn't understand how anyone in good conscience could have an abortion at that stage. That kind of clinched it for me. And we are both stainch atheists that believe assisted suicide should be legal. No amount of medical terminology will convince me otherwise. 8 weeks max I think.

12 weeks is incredibly early to feel kicks, that's very rare! A genius perhaps??!
That's nice for you and your wife and I'm really glad you have lovely memories and each other to share it with.

Knowing that, can you imagine how hard a decision it must be for anyone who has to make it then? It must be utterly heart breaking and they would have good reasons.
Not the "inconvenience" that's thrown around but something private and personal to them.
On top of that should they then have to travel to another country and face shame and misery or have to hide it?

While we'd hope every pregnancy is the lovely hopeful experience your wife had perhaps we could be understanding of the women who aren't that lucky?
You can say "I would do x" while understanding people in terrible situations might have to do y and allowing them the choice.

Demonique

cinnamony wrote: »

I am pro choice but I must admit I'm not sure as to what extent the accidental pregnancy/contraception failed excuse holds in a country like Ireland.

You are usually recommended to use 2 forms of contraception and from what I know (please correct me if I am wrong) contraceptive pills/shots implants etc... are not only easily available but free on the medical card.
Condoms are easily available too in stores etc..

So in these cases I'm not sure if there's a pro choice argument to be made barr that people should be able to do what they want with their bodies..

It took me years to be able to convince my doctor to be prescribe me the pill though

Arghus

I predict that within a very short space of time the majority of posts in this thread will be by users who have seemingly just recently joined Boards, but seem oddly familiar with it...

Zubeneschamali

farmer john8 wrote: »

.they wont dictate to the ordinary decent people of ireland

Yes, we will, just like we did on gay marriage, divorce, travel and info for abortions.

And contrary to all the reactionary scaremongering at the time, society did not end when we legalized those, either.

NuMarvel

ricero wrote: »

Liberals are trying to ruin this countries morality. I for one will not vote in abortion to be used as a easy fix for hussies who forget to use contraception

If more anti-repealers were this honest, the 8th would have been gone long ago.

(And what's ironic is that the 8th was first proposed by a group of people who were staunchly anti-contraception.)

January

notjustsweet wrote: »

12 weeks is incredibly early to feel kicks, that's very rare! A genius perhaps??!
That's nice for you and your wife and I'm really glad you have lovely memories and each other to share it with.

Knowing that, can you imagine how hard a decision it must be for anyone who has to make it then? It must be utterly heart breaking and they would have good reasons.
Not the "inconvenience" that's thrown around but something private and personal to them.
On top of that should they then have to travel to another country and face shame and misery or have to hide it?

While we'd hope every pregnancy is the lovely hopeful experience your wife had perhaps we could be understanding of the women who aren't that lucky?
You can say "I would do x" while understanding people in terrible situations might have to do y and allowing them the choice.

It's not early to feel movement on second or subsequent pregnancies. Once you.know what it feels like it's pretty easy to notice it earlier second/third etc time round. I've had 5 pregnancies and I felt movement around 18 weeks on my first, on the others I could feel it earlier. (Only when lying down relaxing though).

Woodville56

AtomicHorror wrote: »

Woodville56 wrote: »

So now abortion is being suggested as saving a defenseless newborn baby an uncertain childhood by killing it in the womb? Such a disingenuous argument , when the real reason is about getting rid of an unwanted pregnancy ?

"Now"? Where have you been? Abortion has always been about more than just stopping a pregnancy.

Is this your first abortion debate or are you playing incredulous?

Thanks for pulling me up on my grammatical emphasis there regarding use of the word "now ". It's use was to emphasize that, to me, the proposition (that aborting a foetus was saving the would be child from a possible difficult or uncertain childhood) was new here. You're right , it's always been about stopping a pregnancy for whatever reason , but implying that it's for the unborn's benefit vis a vis it's future life chances is really pushing it. And yes , you're also right I rarely contribute to the abortion debate here, my stance on the issue is firmly opposed to the introduction of liberalized "on demand" abortion, so I'm not inclined to indulge the abuse and intolerance meted out here ( on both sides of the argument ) by getting involved further.
So suitably chastised for my grammatical emphasis and for daring to enter a debate where I'm not a prolific opinionist, I'll just go and sit in the corner and say nothing.

Akrasia

Woodville56 wrote: »

So now abortion is being suggested as saving a defenseless newborn baby an uncertain childhood by killing it in the womb? Such a disingenuous argument , when the real reason is about getting rid of an unwanted pregnancy ?

Abortion is, and always has been, about terminating unwanted pregnancies, or in more tragic circumstances, ending pregnancies where there are complications.

It is the 'pro life' people here who have introduced the idea of 'irresponsible hussies' who need to 'take responsibility' for their actions. I merely pointed out that it is ridiculous to suggest that forcing someone to have a baby is a good way to instill responsibility in someone who you already have judged to be irresponsible.

pilly

I know I'm going to be sorry for this post but I have been thinking about something.

I am pro-choice but if legislation is passed to allow abortion in all circumstances how is it going to be paid for and do our hospitals have the capacity even to meet demand.

My opinion on it would be that people who need abortion for medical reasons, absolutely it should be free but for those that chose it they should have to pay.

kunst nugget

pilly wrote: »

I know I'm going to be sorry for this post but I have been thinking about something.

I am pro-choice but if legislation is passed to allow abortion in all circumstances how is it going to be paid for and do our hospitals have the capacity even to meet demand.

My opinion on it would be that people who need abortion for medical reasons, absolutely it should be free but for those that chose it they should have to pay.

Can't see any problem with that myself.

Akrasia

professore wrote: »

For me it was discussing it with my wife and she says at 12 weeks she could feel the baby moving inside her and couldn't understand how anyone in good conscience could have an abortion at that stage. That kind of clinched it for me. And we are both stainch atheists that believe assisted suicide should be legal. No amount of medical terminology will convince me otherwise. 8 weeks max I think.

Nobody would force you to have an abortion, but 'feeling' that the foetus is moving in a pregnancy that she obviously wanted is probably very different to feeling a foetus moving in a pregnancy that is unwanted.

Your wife might have felt the baby moving at 12 weeks. The 'quickening' in a pregnancy doesn't usually happen before 16 weeks, and may not happen until 25 weeks. Its possible she might have felt something at around 13 weeks, but the foetus isn't really doing much moving at that stage.

And anyway, movement in a foetus does not mean that there is any functioning brain or any thoughts or mind or personhood present in the foetus.

What is the moral difference between an 8 week foetus and a 12 week foetus other than size and the fact that it looks and moves more like a human. Neither has anything even approaching a functioning brain capable of having even a single thought or awareness of it's surroundings.

LirW

pilly wrote: »

I know I'm going to be sorry for this post but I have been thinking about something.

I am pro-choice but if legislation is passed to allow abortion in all circumstances how is it going to be paid for and do our hospitals have the capacity even to meet demand.

My opinion on it would be that people who need abortion for medical reasons, absolutely it should be free but for those that chose it they should have to pay.

It might would be implied like in Austria, you can avail of abortion in Austria up to 12 weeks but the elective ones can't be performed in any clinic. You have to pay for the procedure yourself. Also up to 6 or 8 weeks, I'm not sure, you're getting a pill that cleans you out.

Woodville56

pilly wrote: »

I know I'm going to be sorry for this post but I have been thinking about something.

I am pro-choice but if legislation is passed to allow abortion in all circumstances how is it going to be paid for and do our hospitals have the capacity even to meet demand.

My opinion on it would be that people who need abortion for medical reasons, absolutely it should be free but for those that chose it they should have to pay.

With you on that 100%. Problem is though how to define "medical reasons" - my definition would be where the life of the mother is endangered or sadly in the case of fatal feotal abnormalities, but I'm sure those who want a more liberal regime will argue much broader interpretations of "medical reasons".
On the question of funding abortions in our hospitals , as someone who unequivocally opposes a totally liberalized abortion regime as those in the Citizens Assembly suggest, I wouldn't be happy to see my taxes used to fund "on demand" abortion procedures either.

NuMarvel

pilly wrote: »

I know I'm going to be sorry for this post but I have been thinking about something.

I am pro-choice but if legislation is passed to allow abortion in all circumstances how is it going to be paid for and do our hospitals have the capacity even to meet demand.

My opinion on it would be that people who need abortion for medical reasons, absolutely it should be free but for those that chose it they should have to pay.

Most of the women who will choose to have an abortion will be in contact with our maternity services anyway, in some way shape or form, so the additional demand may not be as high as expected.

And because most abortions occur early on in pregnancy, they don't typically involve a hospital stay. In many cases, more than half I think, the woman goes to a clinic, takes a pill or pills, and goes home later on. In some cases, a second visit may be required, but it's still purely an out-patient setting.

In terms of costs, I'm in favour of parity with other elective procedures in the public system. As those are free, or effectively free, at the moment, the same should apply here.

Akrasia

Woodville56 wrote: »

With you on that 100%. Problem is though how to define "medical reasons" - my definition would be where the life of the mother is endangered or sadly in the case of fatal feotal abnormalities, but I'm sure those who want a more liberal regime will argue much broader interpretations of "medical reasons".
On the question of funding abortions in our hospitals , as someone who unequivocally opposes a totally liberalized abortion regime as those in the Citizens Assembly suggest, I wouldn't be happy to see my taxes used to fund "on demand" abortion procedures either.

An abortion in the UK costs about 500 euros for the procedure. It's free to UK citizens on the NHS. Refusing to fund it under the GMS would be another moral judgement by the state on women who need an abortion.

It's not a cost saving measure to tell women who cannot afford to have an abortion that they should have a baby instead.

seamus

Akrasia wrote: »

It's not a cost saving measure to tell women who cannot afford to have an abortion that they should have a baby instead.

That's really the crux of the "should the state pay" issue.

It's seems paradoxical to say that abortions should only be available to people who can afford to have a baby.

I'd be inclined to push it back on insurers. Where a person has insurance with any level of maternity cover, then the insurer must cover the procedure. A condition of providing maternity cover is to cover abortion; insurers should be legally prohibited from separating the two. From the insurers POV covering an abortion is cheaper than covering a pregnancy anyway.

Where someone does not have insurance, the state covers it.

One of the fallacies around abortion is that if it comes in, there'll be a sudden flood of newly-pregnant women arriving in to get the procedure. As if people will suddenly start having more unprotected sex with reckless abandon.

The maternity services we have at present will be more than able to deal with it.

pilly

NuMarvel wrote: »

Most of the women who will choose to have an abortion will be in contact with our maternity services anyway, in some way shape or form, so the additional demand may not be as high as expected.

And because most abortions occur early on in pregnancy, they don't typically involve a hospital stay. In many cases, more than half I think, the woman goes to a clinic, takes a pill or pills, and goes home later on. In some cases, a second visit may be required, but it's still purely an out-patient setting.

In terms of costs, I'm in favour of parity with other elective procedures in the public system. As those are free, or effectively free, at the moment, the same should apply here.

Other so called "elective" procedures in hospitals are medically necessary and if they are free then you have to go on a waiting list. I'm currently waiting 18 months for a hernia operation so obviously this is not an efficient way to do things.

pilly

seamus wrote: »

That's really the crux of the "should the state pay" issue.

It's seems paradoxical to say that abortions should only be available to people who can afford to have a baby.

I'd be inclined to push it back on insurers. Where a person has insurance with any level of maternity cover, then the insurer must cover the procedure. A condition of providing maternity cover is to cover abortion; insurers should be legally prohibited from separating the two. From the insurers POV covering an abortion is cheaper than covering a pregnancy anyway.

Where someone does not have insurance, the state covers it.

One of the fallacies around abortion is that if it comes in, there'll be a sudden flood of newly-pregnant women arriving in to get the procedure. As if people will suddenly start having more unprotected sex with reckless abandon.

The maternity services we have at present will be more than able to deal with it.

It's not paradoxical at all. Abortions costs approximately 500-1000, having a baby costs an awful lot more than that. No comparison. To say someone who can afford that can also afford a baby is ridiculous.

To me making it free is definitely a step to far and will be used as a method of contraception for some very irresponsible people.

January

pilly wrote: »

Other so called "elective" procedures in hospitals are medically necessary and if they are free then you have to go on a waiting list. I'm currently waiting 18 months for a hernia operation so obviously this is not an efficient way to do things.

The difference being that in the early stages, an abortion can be performed using just pills, which cost nowhere near 500-1000 euro, no waiting list needed.

seamus

pilly wrote: »

It's not paradoxical at all. Abortions costs approximately 500-1000, having a baby costs an awful lot more than that. No comparison. To say someone who can afford that can also afford a baby is ridiculous.

Let's clarify the "paradoxical". What I mean is "people who can't afford to have a baby should be required to have one" is the paradox.

To me making it free is definitely a step to far and will be used as a method of contraception for some very irresponsible people.

This hasn't happened anywhere in the world that abortion has been made legal. Abortion is not used as a preferred method of contraception.

I don't think anyone is going to deny that there will always be the odd "ah shure I can always get an abortion" person around, but to restrict everyone on the basis that one or two may abuse it is allowing your heart to rule your head. It doesn't make social or financial sense.

LirW

Honestly you even have this kind of mindset where you have to pay for abortion yourself. And not only from people with tons of money. Especially in young girls, most of the time mom and dad will pay for it when you're young and don't have the money.

NuMarvel

pilly wrote: »

Other so called "elective" procedures in hospitals are medically necessary and if they are free then you have to go on a waiting list. I'm currently waiting 18 months for a hernia operation so obviously this is not an efficient way to do things.

Not all free elective procedures are medically necessary, eg, vasectomies and tubal ligation can be done without there needing to be any clinical reasons. I'm sure there are other examples.

As for waiting lists, seeing as the State would be applying a time limit on when an abortion can be accessed without needing a reason (assuming they follow the CA's recommendations), I think it's a bit rich to then expect people to wait around to access that.

LirW

Not all free elective procedures are medically necessary, eg, vasectomies and tubal ligation can be done without there needing to be any clinical reasons. I'm sure there are other examples.

I think especially tubal ligation is a bad example because it's super hard to get one in the first place as a woman unless you hit a certain age or have at least 4 kids. Otherwise you'll be turned down straight away (which I personally find a bit outrageous).
In general doctors and midwives here are joking over the dead serious decisions when you say you're done with family planning.

pilly

I absolutely knew I would be sorry I posted about who pays for these abortions and I have to be completely honest I can not get over the attitude of saying "of course it should be free". This may be the one issue that makes me vote no when I was absolutely yes before.

Seriously guys, there has to be an element of personal responsibility somewhere along the line, you make a mistake you pay for it.

And I speak from the point of view of someone who has had an abortion. I paid for it, simple as.

NuMarvel

LirW wrote: »

I think especially tubal ligation is a bad example because it's super hard to get one in the first place as a woman unless you hit a certain age or have at least 4 kids. Otherwise you'll be turned down straight away (which I personally find a bit outrageous).
In general doctors and midwives here are joking over the dead serious decisions when you say you're done with family planning.

That proves my point though. That it can be done for non-medical reasons and is covered by the public system like every other type of procedure.

BTW, however hard it is to get one as a woman, it's impossible to get one as a man :pac::pac::D:D:D (Sorry, couldn't resist!)

noaddedsugar

pilly wrote: »

I absolutely knew I would be sorry I posted about who pays for these abortions and I have to be completely honest I can not get over the attitude of saying "of course it should be free". This may be the one issue that makes me vote no when I was absolutely yes before.

Seriously guys, there has to be an element of personal responsibility somewhere along the line, you make a mistake you pay for it.

And I speak from the point of view of someone who has had an abortion. I paid for it, simple as.

I don't really understand this way of thinking. If someone decides to keep that 'mistake' and not go through with an abortion it is going to cost the state a lot more. Child benefit alone if it stays at current rates is about 30,000e until they reach 18, then there is free gp up to the age of 6, free pre school years, the cost of schools and all of that is after the mother receives free maternity care.

If you are looking at this from a purely financial stand point then free abortions are much more cost effective than a child.

Your post comes across as just wanting to teach women some kind of lesson tbh, and that seems crass and petty.

January

pilly wrote: »

I absolutely knew I would be sorry I posted about who pays for these abortions and I have to be completely honest I can not get over the attitude of saying "of course it should be free". This may be the one issue that makes me vote no when I was absolutely yes before.

Seriously guys, there has to be an element of personal responsibility somewhere along the line, you make a mistake you pay for it.

And I speak from the point of view of someone who has had an abortion. I paid for it, simple as.

You paid for yours, I paid for mine. It doesn't mean that it shouldn't be free for the women that come after us.

pilly

noaddedsugar wrote: »

I don't really understand this way of thinking. If someone decides to keep that 'mistake' and not go through with an abortion it is going to cost the state a lot more. Child benefit alone if it stays at current rates is about 30,000e until they reach 18, then there is free gp up to the age of 6, free pre school years, the cost of schools and all of that is after the mother receives free maternity care.

If you are looking at this from a purely financial stand point then free abortions are much more cost effective than a child.

Your post comes across as just wanting to teach women some kind of lesson tbh, and that seems crass and petty.

Not at all crass and petty. Did you not see the part where I've said I made the same mistake myself.

ohnonotgmail

pilly wrote: »

I absolutely knew I would be sorry I posted about who pays for these abortions and I have to be completely honest I can not get over the attitude of saying "of course it should be free". This may be the one issue that makes me vote no when I was absolutely yes before.

Seriously guys, there has to be an element of personal responsibility somewhere along the line, you make a mistake you pay for it.

And I speak from the point of view of someone who has had an abortion. I paid for it, simple as.

and if they cant afford to pay for it? what then?

ETA: Not all pregnancies are the result of a mistake. Contraception is not 100%. You want women to be punished because a prescribed medicine did not work for them?

pilly

The above posts are all examples of why people are going to be encouraged to vote no.

pilly

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

and if they cant afford to pay for it? what then?

ETA: Not all pregnancies are the result of a mistake. Contraception is not 100%. You want women to be punished because a prescribed medicine did not work for them?

According to other posts above it costs very little, pill today, pill tomorrow.

noaddedsugar

pilly wrote: »

Not at all crass and petty. Did you not see the part where I've said I made the same mistake myself.

As have I. I paid for it myself too. I don't see why that means moving forward others should have to do the same. I see no benefit to making people pay for it and potentially leaving women who can not afford it with no other choice but to have an unwanted child.

LirW

pilly wrote: »

The above posts are all examples of why people are going to be encouraged to vote no.

I understand where you're coming from and I have to tell you: In Austria, where I come from, you have to pay for the abortion on your own. I know plenty of women having one, all ages, family situations and so on.
One of them was a young girl and if you want to have an abortion there, you manage somehow to get the money. I agree that there needs to be a bit of responsibility here.

But it doesn't dismiss the question: What if you genuinely cannot afford the procedure?

January

pilly wrote: »

According to other posts above it costs very little, pill today, pill tomorrow.

What's very little though? I said nowhere near 500-1000. It could be 300. I definitely wouldn't have had 300 euro to spend on an abortion, I barely had the 90 euro it cost from womenonweb (and that was a donation! I'm sure it cost them more). I certainly didn't have the money to travel. I believe it should be available to women on the medical card, 2.50 per prescription. I also believe it should be low cost for women who haven't got a medical card, something like the inpatient day cost (I believe that's 75 euro?) and available to women who have insurance and their insurance should cover the full cost. I'd prefer free, but if it had to be paid for I'd prefer that model.

NuMarvel

pilly wrote: »

I absolutely knew I would be sorry I posted about who pays for these abortions and I have to be completely honest I can not get over the attitude of saying "of course it should be free". This may be the one issue that makes me vote no when I was absolutely yes before.

Seriously guys, there has to be an element of personal responsibility somewhere along the line, you make a mistake you pay for it.

And I speak from the point of view of someone who has had an abortion. I paid for it, simple as.

People have been setting out why they think access should be free. If you have valid counter-arguments to those points, then make them. You never know, you might change some minds.

As for personal responsibility, that isn't a criteria for access to our public health system for anything else, so why here? If we don't charge smokers any extra for lung cancer treatment, or extreme sports enthusiasts any extra when they have accidents, why should women who want abortions because, for example contraception failed, be any different?

Calhoun

Out of curiosity, what parts of the process are taking a pill versus a medical procedure?

I mean i dont want to point out the obvious but our healthcare system is in bits, we cannot do critical operations so if there is a procedure how complicated is it?

daveharnett

pilly wrote: »

My opinion on it would be that people who need abortion for medical reasons, absolutely it should be free but for those that chose it they should have to pay.

Just to tease this out a little, how do you feel about free treatment of conditions caused by overeating, drinking, smoking, boxing?

Given how contentious this would be, I'd be ok if the state doesn't pay for non-medically-necessary terminations. It would add insult to injury for a large, and passionate pro-life minority, for the sake of a few hundred grand per year.

Given the amount of heat on both sides of this issue, I imagine a pro-choice/family planning charity would have no problem raising the funds necessary to cover those who can't afford.

seamus

pilly wrote: »

Seriously guys, there has to be an element of personal responsibility somewhere along the line, you make a mistake you pay for it.

Isn't getting the procedure in the first place, "taking personal responsibility"?

I'll break down the "why should it be free" argument and see if it makes more sense.

1. Some people will need to get an abortion for economic reasons. That is, they either cannot afford to have a child at all, or the burden of another child on top of their existing children will simply be too much.

2. Of that group, some people are completely pinned to the wall and do not have €500 available to them.

3. There is no line which you can draw where everyone above the line can afford it and everyone below can't. That is, you can't say "it's free for people on social welfare", as some working people won't be able to afford it, and some people on social welfare will be able to afford it. Whatever line you draw, whatever you require as "proof" that someone can't afford it will cause some people to be unable to access abortion.

4. Therefore the only way to ensure that access to abortion is universal, is to remove the payment barrier.

Abortion doesn't require a "penance". There's no need for someone to have to "pay the price" for making a mistake. It serves no rational purpose.

There is no evidence from anywhere in the world that access to abortion leads to widespread use of abortion instead of contraception.

Although there is one exception - countries/areas where contraception is strongly discouraged, expensive or not included in sex education see the highest rates of abortion.

pilly

Congratulations guys on converting a yes voter to no voter.

I'm definitely out on the basis that people seem to think that not only is it a right to have abortion on demand, it's a right to have it free.

At the moment even the morning after pill is not free and there's a reason for this.

It will encourage carelessness and a devil may care attitude.

I am slowly beginning to understand why people get so riled up by this issue. I can not believe the sense of entitlement around it.

ohnonotgmail

pilly wrote: »

Congratulations guys on converting a yes voter to no voter.

I'm definitely out on the basis that people seem to think that not only is it a right to have abortion on demand, it's a right to have it free.

At the moment even the morning after pill is not free and there's a reason for this.

It will encourage carelessness and a devil may care attitude.

I am slowly beginning to understand why people get so riled up by this issue. I can not believe the sense of entitlement around it.

what exactly are you basing this on?

kunst nugget

pilly wrote: »

Congratulations guys on converting a yes voter to no voter.

You have a slight disagreement with complete strangers online about how abortions should be paid for and that's enough to swing you? That's a bit ott imo…

pilly

daveharnett wrote: »

Just to tease this out a little, how do you feel about free treatment of conditions caused by overeating, drinking, smoking, boxing?

Given how contentious this would be, I'd be ok if the state doesn't pay for non-medically-necessary terminations. It would add insult to injury for a large, and passionate pro-life minority, for the sake of a few hundred grand per year.

Given the amount of heat on both sides of this issue, I imagine a pro-choice/family planning charity would have no problem raising the funds necessary to cover those who can't afford.

Do we currently pay for gastric band surgery? No? The country is not currently paying to cure obesity, it's simply treating illnesses, otherwise people will die.

No-one will die without an abortion.

pjohnson

kunst nugget wrote: »

You have a slight disagreement with complete strangers online about how abortions should be paid for and that's enough to swing you? That's a bit ott imo…

I assume shes being sarcastic