The 8th amendment(Mod warning in op)

pilly

Sofiztikated wrote: »

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.

There's a difference though you see. This one is always thrown into the pot as a strawman.

Withdrawing treatment from someone with cancer is as good as murder.

Making someone pay for an abortion isn't. Unless as I've already stated the mothers life is in danger.

I haven't suggested not allowing abortion, just not making it free.

By the way cancer treatment is no longer free either. €75 per session.

If we're throwing strawmans around would you treat someone with cancer before the person who wants an abortion?

noaddedsugar

pilly wrote: »

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.

Can you explain why the thought of the state paying for someone to have multiple abortions makes you worried. It was me who totted up the cost to the state of abortions vs child because I thought it was the financial cost to the state you were worried about. Obviously that is not the case. You are fine with women paying for multiple abortions themselves so it isn't the 'baby killing' aspect that bothers you.

If it's not financials, not a moral stance on abortion, what is it that bothers you about the state paying for multiple abortions?

AtomicHorror

Woodville56 wrote: »

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.

I was not talking about about your grammar or your "newness" to this thread, but questioning either your ignorance of the topic or the false expression of surprise at this facet of it.

pjohnson

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.

Pilly and infogiver are now united. There is a "yes" and a "no". I doubt the referendum will have a "maybe" option. Both have their own reasons to stop women having control over thier own bodies.

kunst nugget

pilly wrote: »

By the way cancer treatment is no longer free either. €75 per session.

That should give them pause for thought when they think about being foolish enough to get cancer again…

Sofiztikated

pilly wrote: »

There's a difference though you see. This one is always thrown into the pot as a strawman.

Withdrawing treatment from someone with cancer is as good as murder.

Making someone pay for an abortion isn't. Unless as I've already stated the mothers life is in danger.

I haven't suggested not allowing abortion, just not making it free.

By the way cancer treatment is no longer free either. €75 per session.

If we're throwing strawmans around would you treat someone with cancer before the person who wants an abortion?

But making someone pay for it should make them think rethink their smoking stance, should it not?

FYI, personally I do think there should be a nominal fee for it, but can see the argument for "free."

EDIT: Damn, Kunst, you beat me to it. :P

daveharnett

pilly wrote: »

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.

I know. It stinks of social darwinism, and it makes me itch to think about it.

I look at it from the perspective of the potential child - she's got a much better shot at a happy and fulfilling life if she's born at the right time in her parents lives, with the right number of siblings.

Zubeneschamali

pilly wrote: »

What I meant was no-one who chooses it as an elective procedure.

Wrong, there were 3 such abortions in 2014, and 3 more in 2015.

pjohnson

kunst nugget wrote: »

That should give them pause for thought when they think about being foolish enough to get cancer again…

That "logic" also follows the belief that cancer is a consequence of smoking and can never ever occur otherwise.

daveharnett

noaddedsugar wrote: »

If it's not financials, not a moral stance on abortion, what is it that bothers you about the state paying for multiple abortions?

I'll defend pilly on this.

It's one thing for the state to say that something is outside of it's competence to pass judgement.

It's another thing for the state to subsidize/fund it.

Zubeneschamali

daveharnett wrote: »

It's one thing for the state to say that something is outside of it's competence to criminalize.

It's another thing for the state to subsidize/fund it.

Feck all to do with the 8th amendment, though, this would be an issue for legislation and ministerial directives to the HSE.

NuMarvel

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Feck all to do with the 8th amendment, though, this would be an issue for legislation and ministerial directives to the HSE.

Exactly. If it transpired that abortion services in public hospitals would be charged differently to other medical or surgical services, I'd still vote yes in a referendum to amend the constitution as proposed by the CA.

Heck, I'd vote yes even if the Government said they weren't going to introduce any of the CA's legislative recommendations. Because at least the issue would be effectively excised from the constitution, where I really don't think it belongs.

People who are in favour of repeal (or the next best thing) really need to focus on the end goal here. And that's repeal (or the next best thing).

Zubeneschamali

NuMarvel wrote: »

People who are in favour of repeal (or the next best thing) really need to focus on the end goal here. And that's repeal (or the next best thing).

Since the 8th passed, I have been in favour of simply deleting it.

But now I like the idea of replacing it per the Citizen's Assembly:

Article 40.3.3, the Eighth Amendment, “should be replaced with a constitutional provision that explicitly authorises the Oireachtas to legislate to address termination of pregnancy, any rights of the unborn, and any rights of the pregnant woman”.

pilly

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Wrong, there were 3 such abortions in 2014, and 3 more in 2015.

Wrong exactly on what? I don't understand your post.

pilly

Sofiztikated wrote: »

But making someone pay for it should make them think rethink their smoking stance, should it not?

FYI, personally I do think there should be a nominal fee for it, but can see the argument for "free."

EDIT: Damn, Kunst, you beat me to it. :P

Cancer comes about for many more reasons than smoking so your attempt at humour epically fails.

My point was that people are currently paying for cancer treatment and yet we expect abortion to be free? It's bollox.

pjohnson

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Feck all to do with the 8th amendment, though, this would be an issue for legislation and ministerial directives to the HSE.

Yes but those against trusting women want to save the ministers such a job. Keep the sacred 8th and nothing needs to be changed.

pilly

noaddedsugar wrote: »

Can you explain why the thought of the state paying for someone to have multiple abortions makes you worried. It was me who totted up the cost to the state of abortions vs child because I thought it was the financial cost to the state you were worried about. Obviously that is not the case. You are fine with women paying for multiple abortions themselves so it isn't the 'baby killing' aspect that bothers you.

If it's not financials, not a moral stance on abortion, what is it that bothers you about the state paying for multiple abortions?

No I'm not actually fine with women paying for several abortions themselves, it's reckless in the extreme but it's their business if they're paying. They're not asking the state to pay for it.

I suppose what I'm trying to say is I don't believe that free abortions wouldn't lead to more abortions and that's what I have a problem with. I can't disassociate the 2 from each other.

I'm very uncomfortable with your adding up the financial cost of a child to the state as if they add nothing back to society. It's not a fair comparison. If it was simply a matter of figures sure lets kill all the babies.

jimmycrackcorm

pilly wrote:

My point was that people are currently paying for cancer treatment and yet we expect abortion to be free? It's bollox.

As its pro-choice then it should not be free. You choose, you pay.

NuMarvel

pilly wrote: »

Cancer comes about for many more reasons than smoking so your attempt at humour epically fails.

My point was that people are currently paying for cancer treatment and yet we expect abortion to be free? It's bollox.

Like I said before, I expect abortion to be covered on the public hospital system in the same way as everything else. So, in case there's any confusion, let's set out hospital charges for public patients:

In-patient/day-case - €80 per day up to a maximum of €800 in a 12 month period. Free for medical card holders.
Out-patient tests and consultant clinics - Free.
Emergency departments/Minor Injury units - €100 per episode of care, unless referred by a doctor, a medical card holders or admitted to hospital.
Obstetric/maternity services (in-patient and out-patient) - Free.

It would be my belief that abortion services should be covered like other obstetric services, because that's the branch of medicine that deals with abortions. However, I'm not going to fall out with someone if they'd prefer to see it treated as any other type of in-patient/day-case service.

.......

This post has been deleted.

noaddedsugar

pilly wrote: »

No I'm not actually fine with women paying for several abortions themselves, it's reckless in the extreme but it's their business if they're paying. They're not asking the state to pay for it.

I suppose what I'm trying to say is I don't believe that free abortions wouldn't lead to more abortions and that's what I have a problem with. I can't disassociate the 2 from each other.

I'm very uncomfortable with your adding up the financial cost of a child to the state as if they add nothing back to society. It's not a fair comparison. If it was simply a matter of figures sure lets kill all the babies.

Like I explained already I thought you had a problem with free abortion from a cost perspective, that is why I was showing that is cheaper to provide free abortion than provide for a person for the rest of their life.

I understand now though that the reason you are against it is because you don't trust women and think that making them pay will teach them a lesson. Personally that makes me uncomfortable and I would have thought that as a woman who had to have an abortion you would be against punishing all women by voting no because of what you believe a few women may do.

pjohnson

noaddedsugar wrote: »

Like I explained already I thought you had a problem with free abortion from a cost perspective, that is why I was showing that is cheaper to provide free abortion than provide for a person for the rest of their life.

I understand now though that the reason you are against it is because you don't trust women and think that making them pay will teach them a lesson. Personally that makes me uncomfortable and I would have thought that as a woman who had to have an abortion you would be against punishing all women by voting no because of what you believe a few women may do.

The main issue is likely she didnt get it free so no one should.

daveharnett

pjohnson wrote: »

The main issue is likely she didnt get it free so no one should.

I'm not sure that's how you intended it, but this could be read as extremely ad-hominem.

pilly

noaddedsugar wrote: »

Like I explained already I thought you had a problem with free abortion from a cost perspective, that is why I was showing that is cheaper to provide free abortion than provide for a person for the rest of their life.

I understand now though that the reason you are against it is because you don't trust women and think that making them pay will teach them a lesson. Personally that makes me uncomfortable and I would have thought that as a woman who had to have an abortion you would be against punishing all women by voting no because of what you believe a few women may do.

You're determined to ignore everything I type and come back to this so yes, work away. Think what you like.

pjohnson

daveharnett wrote: »

I'm not sure that's how you intended it, but this could be read as extremely ad-hominem.

Nope just she was pro-choice and revealed about her own abortion but the second someone mentions "free" she is totally against abortion now. Its a remarkable flip that seems solely based around people availing of something for free when others had to pay for it. She has repeatedly stated now today she is against "free abortions". Until the word "free" came into discussion she was all for the amendment.

Zubeneschamali

pilly wrote: »

Wrong exactly on what? I don't understand your post.

You said no-one-will die without an abortion. When called on that, you clarified it to say no-one will die without an elective abortion.

You are wrong - 3 elective abortions were allowed in Ireland in 2014 and 3 more in 2015 because the woman would have died without them.

We do not know how many such women took the trip to England for a no-questions abortion rather than face the Inquisition of 2 psychiatrists and a doctor here. I would guess that those 6 were women who were legally unable to travel - women in prison or on visas which don't allow a hop to England.

pilly

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

It's not just luck though, come on now. Do you genuinely think every unplanned pregnancy is bad luck?

Do you not use contraception and rely on your luck because you've been lucky so far? No, I don't think so.

I was never a believer of using 2 forms of contraception at the same time until it happened to me. I am a believer now!

pilly

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

You said no-one-will die without an abortion. When called on that, you clarified it to say no-one will die without an elective abortion.

You are wrong - 3 elective abortions were allowed in Ireland in 2014 and 3 more in 2015 because the woman would have died without them.

We do not know how many such women took the trip to England for a no-questions abortion rather than face the Inquisition of 2 psychiatrists and a doctor here. I would guess that those 6 were women who were legally unable to travel - women in prison or on visas which don't allow a hop to England.

Ah look, we've totally different perspectives on the word elective then. How can I be clearer.

I'm talking about when a woman CHOOSES to have an abortion when there's no medical necessity.

I suspect you know that though and you've nothing better to do this afternoon.

pjohnson

pilly wrote: »

I couldn't care less what people call me. If it's pro-abortion that's fine by mean.

Don't understand the arguing back and forth about what each camp is called.

I'm totally pro-abortion and not ashamed of that fact. Simple.

This shows a lot.

pilly

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

You said no-one-will die without an abortion. When called on that, you clarified it to say no-one will die without an elective abortion.

You are wrong - 3 elective abortions were allowed in Ireland in 2014 and 3 more in 2015 because the woman would have died without them.

We do not know how many such women took the trip to England for a no-questions abortion rather than face the Inquisition of 2 psychiatrists and a doctor here. I would guess that those 6 were women who were legally unable to travel - women in prison or on visas which don't allow a hop to England.

Actually scrap my last post. Since you're so fond of telling people they're wrong I'll just come right out and say it.

You don't know the meaning of elective.

PopePalpatine

January wrote: »

Have you a source for this?

The usual suspects; LieSiteNews, TheLieberal.ie, Breitbart etc.

.......

This post has been deleted.

Zubeneschamali

pilly wrote: »

I'm talking about when a woman CHOOSES to have an abortion when there's no medical necessity.

Yes, 6 women who had no medical need for an abortion but would simply rather die than continue to be pregnant had an elective abortion when they convinced the board of 3 doctors that they meant business.

We do not know how many women tried to convince the board and were not believed, or how many skipped this nonsensical inquisition by going straight to England.

We also do not know how many actually did kill themselves.

Zubeneschamali

pilly wrote: »

You don't know the meaning of elective.

I am using meaning 2 below:

elective
ɪˈlɛktɪv/
adjective
adjective: elective

1. 1.
   related to or working by means of election.
   "an elective democracy"
   
   
   • (of a person or office) appointed or filled by election.
     "he had never held elective office"
     
     
   • (of a body or position) possessing or giving the power to elect.
     "powerful Emperors manipulated the elective body"
     
     
   
   
   
   
2. 2.
   (of surgical or medical treatment) chosen by the patient rather than urgently necessary.
   "elective surgery"
   
   
   • (of a course of study) chosen by the student rather than compulsory.
     "elective courses on this subject have always been oversubscribed"
     
     
   
   
   
   

nounNorth American

noun: elective; plural noun: electives

1. 1.
   an optional course of study.
   
   
   
   

pilly

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

I am using meaning 2 below:

elective
ɪˈlɛktɪv/
adjective
adjective: elective

1. 1.
   related to or working by means of election.
   "an elective democracy"
   • (of a person or office) appointed or filled by election.
     "he had never held elective office"
   • (of a body or position) possessing or giving the power to elect.
     "powerful Emperors manipulated the elective body"
   
   
2. 2.
   (of surgical or medical treatment) chosen by the patient rather than urgently necessary.
   "elective surgery"
   • (of a course of study) chosen by the student rather than compulsory.
     "elective courses on this subject have always been oversubscribed"
   
   
   
   

nounNorth American

noun: elective; plural noun: electives

1. 1.
   an optional course of study.

Exactly, so you're wrong. Thank you. Anyway, before we get told off for the back and forth I'll also stick you on ignore. No time for such crap.

Outlaw Pete

pjohnson wrote: »

Yes but those against trusting women want to save the ministers such a job. Keep the sacred 8th and nothing needs to be changed.

Why do people keep trotting out this line about 'trusting women'? Are women so special in society that they should be immune from legislation being drafted to prevent them from doing something which society feels abhorrent? You would think so.

You wouldn't mind if no Irish woman had ever gone to the UK (20+ weeks pregnant) and had her baby baby aborted for reasons based purely on inconvenience, but many have, enough that the notion of trusting a whole gender is absurd. Some 30 odd of which in recent years, by the way, just had the audacity to have Down Syndrome. Trust women??

No.

Outlaw Pete

I'd find it equally as absurd if anyone suggesting that we should 'Trust men' on the issue also by the way.
History has shown us neither gender can be trusted in the context of abortion.

NuMarvel

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

You wouldn't mind if no Irish woman had ever gone to the UK (20+ weeks pregnant) and had her baby baby aborted for reasons based purely on inconvenience, but many have, enough that the notion of trusting a whole gender is absurd.

Define "many". Because 97% of all abortions that Irish women has in the UK are before the 20 week mark. So I'd love to know how many you think of the remaining 100 or so are purely because of "inconvenience" and how you know this?

AtomicHorror

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

I'd find it equally as absurd if anyone suggesting that we should 'Trust men' on the issue also by the way.
History has shown us neither gender can be trusted in the context of abortion.

Not sure you understand the principle underlying the need for trust.

There are too many subjective factors in the equation needed for making the decision on a given abortion- things that can't be known to father, medic, judge and certainly not to politician. The mother's personal appraisal is critical or else we're not honoring bodily autonomy.

"Trust women" is probably not fully accurate. "Trust mother", instead perhaps. I think that's the intended meaning. Though naturally, other women will usually have good insight into the decision too.

"Trust men"- that's nonsense. In my view the only valid position for a man to hold with regard to abortion is one of deferring choice to women.

njs030

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

We do not know how many such women took the trip to England for a no-questions abortion rather than face the Inquisition of 2 psychiatrists and a doctor here. I would guess that those 6 were women who were legally unable to travel - women in prison or on visas which don't allow a hop to England.

There's no such thing as a no-questions abortion in England it still has to be agreed by two medical practitioners that the termination is necessary, there's a list of reasons it has to fall under.

pilly

Sorry, that's not true of a private clinic. Don't know about the NHS.

Outlaw Pete

notjustsweet wrote: »

There's no such thing as a no-questions abortion in England...

As good as.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/jul/12/crackdown-hospitals-abortion-one-doctor

njs030

pilly wrote: »

Sorry, that's not true of a private clinic. Don't know about the NHS.

The law applies to everyone, private or public. The only difference being private patients pay.
https://www.mariestopes.org.uk/women/abortion/abortion-facts/what-uk-law-abortion

pilly

notjustsweet wrote: »

The law applies to everyone, private or public. The only difference being private patients pay.
https://www.mariestopes.org.uk/women/abortion/abortion-facts/what-uk-law-abortion

And where does it say there that inconvenience is not a valid reason?

Take from someone who's been there, it's a 5 minute chat, in and out. There may be a requirement for 2 doctors to sign a piece of paper but you don't see 2 doctors.

pjohnson

notjustsweet wrote: »

The law applies to everyone, private or public. The only difference being private patients pay.
https://www.mariestopes.org.uk/women/abortion/abortion-facts/what-uk-law-abortion

Be careful you'll get blocked next.

njs030

pilly wrote: »

And where does it say there that inconvenience is not a valid reason?

Take from someone who's been there, it's a 5 minute chat, in and out. There may be a requirement for 2 doctors to sign a piece of paper but you don't see 2 doctors.

Pilly why are you arguing with me? My point was that people do have to have a reason and was made to the person making smart comments about hopping on a boat for a no reason abortion without the "inconvenience" of speaking to doctors.

BabyCheeses

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.

You want to get rid of child benefit as well then? Can't support carelessness can we.

We already have abortion for those who can pay and take the time off already.

pilly

notjustsweet wrote: »

Pilly why are you arguing with me? My point was that people do have to have a reason and was made to the person making smart comments about hopping on a boat for a no reason abortion without the "inconvenience" of speaking to doctors.

I'm not arguing with you, I'm telling you that your statement was incorrect.

ohnonotgmail

pilly wrote: »

I'm not arguing with you, I'm telling you that your statement was incorrect.

his statement wasnt incorrect. Where you both differ is that your experience of this doesnt match what the law allows.

infogiver

pjohnson wrote: »

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

Perpetuating what myth? What on earth are you talking about "odd" ?