The 8th amendment(Mod warning in op)

seamus

pilly wrote: »

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.

You see, I wouldn't go so far as to say there's a right to have it free.

But it's the only way that makes social and economic sense. Making it something that only the wealthy can afford is restricting access to abortion for the socio-economic group who need it most.

It's like saying that the morning-after pill should be €100 a pop so that people use it responsibly.

The reality is that by making it expensive, people don't use it responsibly; they just don't use it at all.

It will encourage carelessness and a devil may care attitude.

In your opinion. Do some research on how it works around the world before you make up your mind.

The reality is that countries with liberal access to both contraceptives and abortion, see the lowest rates of abortion.

It has to be a combined approach.

kunst nugget

pilly wrote: »

No-one will die without an abortion.

Eh, was that not the whole problem with Savita Halappanavar?

pilly

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…

It's not a slight disagreement though is it? Every single answer from a pro-choice person as been "yep, should be free". It's beginning to dawn on me that there's no middle ground here, no compromise at all.

The pro-life crowd are all "no no no, never never never" and the pro-choice crowd are all "yes, yes, yes, in any circumstances and what's more lets make it free".

The issue is a lot more complex than that if people don't recognise that then this referendum is going to be lost.

Okay, maybe it's a bit of an OTT reaction because I am genuinely shocked at the sense of entitlement people have around it. But it's certainly making me think twice.

ohnonotgmail

pilly wrote: »

It's not a slight disagreement though is it? Every single answer from a pro-choice person as been "yep, should be free". It's beginning to dawn on me that there's no middle ground here, no compromise at all.

The pro-life crowd are all "no no no, never never never" and the pro-choice crowd are all "yes, yes, yes, in any circumstances and what's more lets make it free".

The issue is a lot more complex than that if people don't recognise that then this referendum is going to be lost.

Okay, maybe it's a bit of an OTT reaction because I am genuinely shocked at the sense of entitlement people have around it. But it's certainly making me think twice.

so you would deny women the right to choose because you are upset that they might get it free?

pjohnson

kunst nugget wrote: »

Eh, was that not the whole problem with Savita Halappanavar?

The anti choice dont do facts.

pilly

kunst nugget wrote: »

Eh, was that not the whole problem with Savita Halappanavar?

Apologies, I shouldn't have said no-one. What I meant was no-one who chooses it as an elective procedure.

pilly

seamus wrote: »

You see, I wouldn't go so far as to say there's a right to have it free.

But it's the only way that makes social and economic sense. Making it something that only the wealthy can afford is restricting access to abortion for the socio-economic group who need it most.

It's like saying that the morning-after pill should be €100 a pop so that people use it responsibly.

The reality is that by making it expensive, people don't use it responsibly; they just don't use it at all.
In your opinion. Do some research on how it works around the world before you make up your mind.

The reality is that countries with liberal access to both contraceptives and abortion, see the lowest rates of abortion.

It has to be a combined approach.

The morning after pill is not free at the moment. You do know that don't you?

pilly

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

so you would deny women the right to choose because you are upset that they might get it free?

Yes, absolutely. Because I believe it will cause a revolving door policy.

ohnonotgmail

pilly wrote: »

The morning after pill is not free at the moment. You do know that don't you?

and it costs between €20 and €30. Not hundreds.

seamus

pilly wrote: »

It's not a slight disagreement though is it? Every single answer from a pro-choice person as been "yep, should be free". It's beginning to dawn on me that there's no middle ground here, no compromise at all.

We've given our rationale for it though. It's not blind obsession with availability or dogmatic adherence to a "right". Just simple logic.

Like I say, do some research on the situation globally. It's not a black-and-white issue, far from it.

pilly

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

and it costs between €20 and €30. Not hundreds.

It's still a cost and that cost is there for a reason.

If anyone here thinks that removing all consequences for irresponsible behaviour will not increase that behaviour then they are sorely mistaken.

Sofiztikated

pilly wrote: »

It's not a slight disagreement though is it? Every single answer from a pro-choice person as been "yep, should be free". It's beginning to dawn on me that there's no middle ground here, no compromise at all.

The pro-life crowd are all "no no no, never never never" and the pro-choice crowd are all "yes, yes, yes, in any circumstances and what's more lets make it free".

The issue is a lot more complex than that if people don't recognise that then this referendum is going to be lost.

Okay, maybe it's a bit of an OTT reaction because I am genuinely shocked at the sense of entitlement people have around it. But it's certainly making me think twice.

I may be reading this differently to you, but I'm not seeing a sense of entitlement.

I'm seeing people give you reasons as to why it should be accessible to all, and you disagree. I won't say free, because it's not free. It would be paid for out of taxation.

Not that I necessarily agree with them, but it seems to me that you're going under the "Well, I paid for mine, they can pay for theirs" argument.

ohnonotgmail

pilly wrote: »

It's still a cost and that cost is there for a reason.

If anyone here thinks that removing all consequences for irresponsible behaviour will not increase that behaviour then they are sorely mistaken.

so all women with unwanted pregnancies are in that situation because of irresponsible behaviour? that sounds like something from a SPUC poster.

seamus

pilly wrote: »

The morning after pill is not free at the moment. You do know that don't you?

I do. And I think it should be available to anyone with a medical card and free by default to anyone under 18.

pilly

seamus wrote: »

We've given our rationale for it though. It's not blind obsession with availability or dogmatic adherence to a "right". Just simple logic.

Like I say, do some research on the situation globally. It's not a black-and-white issue, far from it.

Here's some research for you. And it wasn't hard to find.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/health/news/9296924/Tens-of-thousands-of-women-have-had-more-than-one-abortion-official-statistics.html

pilly

So the UK currently spends more than 1 million sterling a week on REPEAT abortions.

434 women had what was at least their 5th abortion.

And it's not used as a form of contraception because it's free?

pilly

Sofiztikated wrote: »

I may be reading this differently to you, but I'm not seeing a sense of entitlement.

I'm seeing people give you reasons as to why it should be accessible to all, and you disagree. I won't say free, because it's not free. It would be paid for out of taxation.

Not that I necessarily agree with them, but it seems to me that you're going under the "Well, I paid for mine, they can pay for theirs" argument.

No I'm going under the "I took responsibility for my actions" argument.

Sofiztikated

pilly wrote: »

Here's some research for you. And it wasn't hard to find.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/health/news/9296924/Tens-of-thousands-of-women-have-had-more-than-one-abortion-official-statistics.html

"However we do know that cracks are beginning to appear in contraception services. Shockingly some parts of the NHS deliberately ban women from having certain contraceptive methods and there are over three million women who don’t have access to comprehensive services.
"If we are going to bring down abortion numbers, this needs to change. Contraception is an essential not a luxury.”

seamus

pilly wrote: »

If anyone here thinks that removing all consequences for irresponsible behaviour will not increase that behaviour then they are sorely mistaken.

Let's put it this way;

Imagine tomorrow, it became the case that abortions were free for everyone, for any reason.

Would you be less responsible about your choices? I'm willing to bet the answer is "no". In fact, I'm willing to bet your approach to protection wouldn't change at all.

You see, making abortion cost money is closing the door after the horse has already bolted. People don't think, "I'm going to wear a condom because abortions are expensive", any more than they think, "I'm not going to wear a condom because abortions are free".

And this is the fallacy you've caught yourself up in - people end up with unwanted pregnancies precisely because they don't consider the consequences. If you need an abortion, it's because you disregarded the risk of pregnancy before having sex.

So free abortions don't factor into people's thinking any more than expensive abortions do. It's only once you've become pregnant that it becomes an issue.

pjohnson

I guess he wasnt sarcastic. So now money trumps womens rights. Thats a new angle for the anti choice to play.

January

The morning after pill is available to patients under the GMS scheme, which means they get it for practically free. (€2.50) So why shouldn't abortions be available under the same scheme?

infogiver

January wrote: »

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).

Apparently you shouldn't say these things because it might be hurtful to women who've had abortions at 12 weeks.
When the mother of a little girl who has Downs Syndrome brought her rather lovely and bold little girl to the Assembly, the Repeal people complained afterwards that that was hurtful to any women watching who had aborted their DS unborn.
It's like living in the twighlite zone.

pilly

seamus wrote:

So free abortions don't factor into people's thinking any more than expensive abortions do. It's only once you've become pregnant that it becomes an issue.

Let me ask you a question Seamus because I'm tired of your patronising approach and frankly it's not helping your argument.

Do you think that anyone would have more than 5 abortions if they weren't free?

NuMarvel

pilly wrote: »

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

Not like for like. The morning after pill is entirely self-administered, and a woman doesn't have to access the public health system to avail of it.

And according to the Irish Family Planning Association, it's free on the medical card with a doctor's prescription (subject to the prescription fee).

pilly wrote: »

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.

When carried out in a public hospital, i.e. St Columcille's in Loughlinstown, yes we do.

pilly wrote: »

It's not a slight disagreement though is it? Every single answer from a pro-choice person as been "yep, should be free". It's beginning to dawn on me that there's no middle ground here, no compromise at all.

The pro-life crowd are all "no no no, never never never" and the pro-choice crowd are all "yes, yes, yes, in any circumstances and what's more lets make it free".

The pro choice people here are going into great detail as to why they think it should be free. You're the one going "no no no, never never never" without regard to what others are saying.

If you want to reach a middle ground, then respond to what's being said and stop dismissing it.

pjohnson

infogiver wrote: »

Apparently you shouldn't say these things because it might be hurtful to women who've had abortions at 12 weeks.
When the mother of a little girl who has Downs Syndrome brought her rather lovely and bold little girl to the Assembly, the Repeal people complained afterwards that that was hurtful to any women watching who had aborted their DS unborn.
It's like living in the twighlite zone.

Its more emotional manipulation and perpetuating a myth. Odd to bring your child anyway.

The_Valeyard

pjohnson wrote: »

I guess he wasnt sarcastic. So now money trumps womens rights. Thats a new angle for the anti choice to play.

And I'm sure the anti-life crowd will also have a new angle to play. Both sides seem to do.

pilly

pjohnson wrote:

I guess he wasnt sarcastic. So now money trumps womens rights. Thats a new angle for the anti choice to play.

I am a woman which you'd know if read posts rather than popping in with your one liners..

pjohnson

The_Valeyard wrote: »

And I'm sure the anti-life crowd will also have a new angle to play. Both sides seem to do.

"Anti-Life" that sounds like a bloody dalek wanting to exterminate homo sapiens

January

infogiver wrote: »

Apparently you shouldn't say these things because it might be hurtful to women who've had abortions at 12 weeks.
When the mother of a little girl who has Downs Syndrome brought her rather lovely and bold little girl to the Assembly, the Repeal people complained afterwards that that was hurtful to any women watching who had aborted their DS unborn.
It's like living in the twighlite zone.

Have you a source for this?

pjohnson

pilly wrote: »

I am a woman which you'd know if read posts rather than popping in with your one liners..

Meh. Usernames often dont give much of an indication. Will these be your posts advocating choice or denying choice?

seamus

pilly wrote: »

Let me ask you a question Seamus because I'm tired of your patronising approach and frankly it's not helping your argument.

Patronising? You must be reading something into my posts that I'm not putting in there. I'm not even in the slightest attempting to talk down to you.

In fact I'm trying to talk to you as a rational person. I don't believe I've been in any way belittling of you.

Do you think that anyone would have more than 5 abortions if they weren't free?

No, they'd have 5 children instead. The kind of person who's had five abortions is not the kind of person who makes good choices.

You had sex, after which you required an abortion. Before you had sex, did the cost or logistics of the abortion factor into your decision to have sex?

I know that's a personal question, but you've freely offered the information. I'm trying to relate to you on a personal level the argument that you're putting forward. You say that if abortions cost money, then people will factor that into their risk assessment before they have sex. Did you?

In fact, I don't need you to answer that; that's your business. But I hope you understand the point that I'm making.

Sofiztikated

pjohnson wrote: »

Meh. Usernames often dont give much of an indication. Will these be your posts advocating choice or denying choice?

Up to now pilly was arguing FOR choice.

It's the cost issue that is a sticking point for her. And which might be a sticking point for quite a few. Being a dick about it often doesn't help.

pilly

pjohnson wrote: »

Meh. Usernames often dont give much of an indication. Will these be your posts advocating choice or denying choice?

I've posted that I've previously had an abortion. Impossible if I was a man.

Anyway, I don't engage with the type of poster who posts words like Meh and Er and sticks one-liners in every so often with little or not effort so I'll just stick you on ignore.

pjohnson

Sofiztikated wrote: »

Up to now pilly was arguing FOR choice.

It's the cost issue that is a sticking point for her. And which might be a sticking point for quite a few. Being a dick about it often doesn't help.

When someone radically changes their opinion in a matter of minutes the credibility does take a hit. Earlier she mentioned briefly it was a OTT reaction but now shes back preaching against choice. Didnt take much to change her mind. But still it might change a few more times before the referendum.

pjohnson

pilly wrote: »

I've posted that I've previously had an abortion. Impossible if I was a man.

Anyway, I don't engage with the type of poster who posts words like Meh and Er and sticks one-liners in every so often with little or not effort so I'll just stick you on ignore.

Sorry if I missed a few posts this is a rather active thread.

kunst nugget

pilly wrote: »

434 women had what was at least their 5th abortion.

And it's not used as a form of contraception because it's free?

That's 434 women out of a female population of over 32 million. It is a miniscule amount of people. Do we withdraw vital services for everyone else based on the actions of a tiny, tiny amount of people?

noaddedsugar

pilly wrote: »

So the UK currently spends more than 1 million sterling a week on REPEAT abortions.

434 women had what was at least their 5th abortion.

And it's not used as a form of contraception because it's free?

The thing is though women are fertile from the age of 12/13(sometimes younger) to the average age of 50. Is it that shocking that in almost 40 years someone might find themselves in the awful situation of needing an abortion more than once?
Like someone else said the type of person who has 5 abortions is likely the type of person who would have many kids if abortion wasn't available. I know what I think is best in that situation.

pjohnson

kunst nugget wrote: »

That's 434 women out of a female population of over 32 million. It is a miniscule amount of people. Do we withdraw vital services for everyone else based on the actions on a tiny, tiny amount of people?

I believe thats the anti choice desire since some women may want "abortion on demand" therefore no one should ever get an abortion.

pilly

seamus wrote: »

Patronising? You must be reading something into my posts that I'm not putting in there. I'm not even in the slightest attempting to talk down to you.

In fact I'm trying to talk to you as a rational person. I don't believe I've been in any way belittling of you.
No, they'd have 5 children instead. The kind of person who's had five abortions is not the kind of person who makes good choices.

You had sex, after which you required an abortion. Before you had sex, did the cost or logistics of the abortion factor into your decision to have sex?

I know that's a personal question, but you've freely offered the information. I'm trying to relate to you on a personal level the argument that you're putting forward. You say that if abortions cost money, then people will factor that into their risk assessment before they have sex. Did you?

What I'm saying is they would definitely factor it into whether or not they are more careful in their future decisions. I certainly have done. Not just because of the money side granted, it's not an easy process to go though quite apart from that. But I haven't had an unplanned pregnancy since so that kind of says it all doesn't it.

Your kind of making the argument for me above by the saying the person who has 5 abortions would be the kind of person who doesn't make good choices in life. They may not make good choices but they'd certainly think long and hard about using contraception if they'd had to scrape up €500 to clean up their mess.

And maybe you're not trying to be patronising but this "let me explain further" and "let me put it another way" is extremely patronising.

The_Valeyard

pjohnson wrote: »

"Anti-Life" that sounds like a bloody dalek wanting to exterminate homo sapiens

Think Daleks just want to exterminate anything that's not Dalek.

Sofiztikated

pjohnson wrote: »

When someone radically changes their opinion in a matter of minutes the credibility does take a hit. Earlier she mentioned briefly it was a OTT reaction but now shes back preaching against choice. Didnt take much to change her mind. But still it might change a few more times before the referendum.

People that are swayed are the ones that swing a vote.

Infogiver, being the staunchly pro-life/anti-choice brigade will never be reasoned with.

pilly

kunst nugget wrote: »

That's 434 women out of a female population of over 32 million. It is a miniscule amount of people. Do we withdraw vital services for everyone else based on the actions of a tiny, tiny amount of people?

Since when has abortion been elevated to the "vital" category now? Unless it's a medical necessity it is not "vital".

pilly

Sofiztikated wrote: »

People that are swayed are the ones that swing a vote.

Infogiver, being the staunchly pro-life/anti-choice brigade will never be reasoned with.

Absolutely, do people realise the amount of undecided people there are out there?

This vote is going to be lost by the side that comes across with the most extreme views in either direction.

It's too complex an issue for someone to say I'm pro-choice or pro-life and there's no grey areas in between whatsoever.

ohnonotgmail

pilly wrote: »

Since when has abortion been elevated to the "vital" category now? Unless it's a medical necessity it is not "vital".

for a woman with an unwanted pregnancy it could be vital.

kunst nugget

pilly wrote: »

What I'm saying is they would definitely factor it into whether or not they are more careful in their future decisions. I certainly have done. Not just because of the money side granted, it's not an easy process to go though quite apart from that. But I haven't had an unplanned pregnancy since so that kind of says it all doesn't it.

Your kind of making the argument for me above by the saying the person who has 5 abortions would be the kind of person who doesn't make good choices in life. They may not make good choices but they'd certainly think long and hard about using contraception if they'd had to scrape up €500 to clean up their mess.

You say that it isn't the money side that made you more careful but the process itself. If the type of person that has 5 abortions doesn't seem phased by the process itself, the only way paying for it is going to affect them is if they are poor - and so will every other poor person that is in need of the service.

I was probably on the side of having to pay a nominal fee but I'm leaning towards the structures that are already in place for outpatient services.

daveharnett

pilly wrote: »

Yes, absolutely. Because I believe it will cause a revolving door policy.

Pilly, I think I get where you're coming from, and it bothers me a bit too - the economic term is "moral hazard", and it feels particularly apt here.

The principle is that people/companies tend to act selfishly, so they will take more risks if the cost of those risks are borne by others. I subscribe to this principle.

There are a couple of other thoughts which have swayed me in the other direction:

- Regardless of who pays the financial cost, getting an abortion will be seriously costly to the mother - emotionally, social taboo, pain and discomfort, time, forms and waiting rooms. Even the baby-killingist straw-woman I can imagine would have to acknowledge that terminating a pregnancy is a massive hassle compared to preventing it in the first place.

- Mistimed/unwanted pregnancy ishighly correlated with poverty. In the US, a pregnancy is five times more likely to be unintended if the mother is poor vs rich (https://www.guttmacher.org/fact-sheet/unintended-pregnancy-united-states). The people who need abortions most, can afford them least.

- Poor people tend to have more children, and this is not desirable. Children born into poverty have statistically worse outcomes in almost every way we can measure. One of the leading causes of poverty is too many children at the wrong time. Increasing access for poor people to family planning of all sorts can help more people escape the vicious cycle of inter-generational poverty.

Sofiztikated

pilly wrote: »

Since when has abortion been elevated to the "vital" category now? Unless it's a medical necessity it is not "vital".

Should we withdraw cancer services, because some people with lung cancer continue to smoke?

I don't have sources, and I know anecdotes are worth the paper this isn't printed on, but I know someone that was recently in Dublin for treatment, and had 2 cigarettes smoked before she got to the M50.

seamus

pilly wrote: »

But I haven't had an unplanned pregnancy since so that kind of says it all doesn't it.

I don't think it does. In all honesty, if abortions were free, would you be less careful, even in the slightest?

You don't have to the answer that. My point is that I wouldn't be less careful. My wife wouldn't be less careful. I've never heard anyone say that they use protection so that they don't have to pay for an abortion. They may say they use protection to avoid pregnancy, but I've never heard anyone remark that the cost/hassle of getting an abortion in any way influences their choice of protection.

Your kind of making the argument for me above by the saying the person who has 5 abortions would be the kind of person who doesn't make good choices in life. They may not make good choices but they'd certainly think long and hard about using contraception if they'd had to scrape up €500 to clean up their mess.

That doesn't follow though. The kind of person who makes poor choices isn't going to suddenly become decisive and intelligent because it'll cost them money if they make a mistake.

Instead they'll just dig themselves further into the quagmire.

And maybe you're not trying to be patronising but this "let me explain further" and "let me put it another way" is extremely patronising.

Well I can't exactly control your perceptions. If reframing an argument to try and make some progress in the discussion is "patronising" to you, then there's not much I can do about that.

pilly

daveharnett wrote: »

Pilly, I think I get where you're coming from, and it bothers me a bit too - the economic term is "moral hazard", and it feels particularly apt here.

The principle is that people/companies tend to act selfishly, so they will take more risks if the cost of those risks are borne by others. I subscribe to this principle.

There are a couple of other thoughts which have swayed me in the other direction:

- Regardless of who pays the financial cost, getting an abortion will be seriously costly to the mother - emotionally, social taboo, pain and discomfort, time, forms and waiting rooms. Even the baby-killingist straw-woman I can imagine would have to acknowledge that terminating a pregnancy is a massive hassle compared to preventing it in the first place.

- Mistimed/unwanted pregnancy ishighly correlated with poverty. In the US, a pregnancy is five times more likely to be unintended if the mother is poor vs rich (https://www.guttmacher.org/fact-sheet/unintended-pregnancy-united-states). The people who need abortions most, can afford them least.

- Poor people tend to have more children, and this is not desirable. Children born into poverty have statistically worse outcomes in almost every way we can measure. One of the leading causes of poverty is too many children at the wrong time. Increasing access for poor people to family planning of all sorts can help more people escape the vicious cycle of inter-generational poverty.

Very good post and I agree somewhat but I'm uncomfortable with abortion being seen as a form of contraceptive you see.

I'm totally on board with all forms of contraception being freely available.

I'm also uncomfortable with the poor people have more children and therefore it's more socially desirable to get rid of these children than to let them exist. Really uncomfortable with that.

In fact someone earlier here suggested that it's cheaper to get rid of them than for them to exist as if their life in and of itself is just a cost.

Moral hazard is the term I'm searching for I suppose.

Just the thoughts of the state paying for someone to have multiple abortions makes me extremely worried.

volchitsa

Pilly I know someone who had several abortions, I'm not sure how many (this is in the UK, not Ireland).

Here's why though : their first child was born with a congenital illness, terrible malformations, similar to Patau's syndrome, which you can look up on Internet. She lived for a couple of weeks, and her grandfather told me he was relieved for her when she died.

So they decided to try again, knowing there was a risk that this would happen again, but they really wanted a child. They now have two healthy girls, but in the meantime she had something like nine pregnancies, not all of which ended in abortion, several were miscarried naturally, probably because of this same genetic illness that this couple have (though both are healthy themselves and I'm not aware of anyone else in either family having anything wrong with them.)

But she's had four or more abortions, I never asked exactly. It's not my business really.

I don't think we can say from a list of data why someone has multiple abortions, and sure, maybe some of them are stupid foolish women or girls - but I still don't see that making them more expensive would change that. Women with money will still be able to have as many abortions as they like, women with less money won't.

(I don't actually have anything against people having to pay, I had one and paid, and I do actually take your general point about things - not necessarily abortion - being given out for free and therefore being seen as a right, but it wouldn't make me change my mind about the principle of allowing abortion. Personally I think having an abortion is a responsible decision, having a child because you couldn't or wouldn't get the money in time isn't any more responsible really.)