The 8th amendment(Mod warning in op)

Loafing Oaf

One eyed Jack wrote: »

even if the 8th amendment were to be repealed, how many people do you think would even want an abortion clinic in their neighbourhood? I certainly wouldn't tbh.

On a side note, does anyone know if the 8th is repealed and legislation along the lines proposed by the committee is introduced, does that necessarily mean there will be 'abortion clinics' as such operating in Ireland. They were talking about a GP-led service providing the abortion pill. Also, the Belfast abortion clinic recently closed down, so presumably the same services can be provided without the necessity for a dedicated clinic.

eviltwin

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

On a side note, does anyone know if the 8th is repealed and legislation along the lines proposed by the committee is introduced, does that necessarily mean there will be 'abortion clinics' as such operating in Ireland. They were talking about a GP-led service providing the abortion pill. Also, the Belfast abortion clinic recently closed down, so presumably the same services can be provided without the necessity for a dedicated clinic.

Maternity hospitals and/or GP clinics, Well Woman centres etc would suffice.

Private abortion clinics such as those in the UK offer a full range of women's health services, not just abortion.

Shenshen

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Encouraging women living in poverty to have abortions instead of bringing more 'undesirables' into society to be a 'burden' on the State, is about as piss poor an argument for abortion as it gets really, and demonstrates a very poor understanding on your part of socioeconomics.

Addressing the underlying causes which force women to live in poverty would be a far more realistic endeavour than your let them eat cake" nonsense, as though women in those circumstances would want to avail of abortion in the first place, and second of all you're right when you suggest that it is a class issue - it's much more convenient to encourage people who feel they don't have any choice to have an abortion so you don't have to be dealing with the underclass :rolleyes:

The more I hear from some people in the repeal camp, the more I'm convinced they're oblivious to reality.

This reply reads to me like you saw what you wanted to see. The vast majority of pro-choice people don't just want a society where abortion is available, they want one where nobody actually chooses to have one, because there is no need. Because the services offered should they choose to carry the pregnancy to term are good enough to actually make that a viable choice for them.
We don't have such a society yet, but we do have the option of giving people in difficult circumstances a choice. That doesn't mean we'll stop working towards a society where nobody feels they need to choose to have an abortion.

January

Nobody is encouraging anyone to have abortions though. Poor, rich etc if you want an abortion it should be available in the country you live in. If you wish to keep the child then that should be your choice too.

One eyed Jack

Shenshen wrote: »

This reply reads to me like you saw what you wanted to see. The vast majority of pro-choice people don't just want a society where abortion is available, they want one where nobody actually chooses to have one, because there is no need. Because the services offered should they choose to carry the pregnancy to term are good enough to actually make that a viable choice for them.
We don't have such a society yet, but we do have the option of giving people in difficult circumstances a choice. That doesn't mean we'll stop working towards a society where nobody feels they need to choose to have an abortion.

I don't know how you can claim to speak for the vast majority of anyone, but I'll take it that was rather just a turn of phrase or a genuine belief rather than being an arsehole about it and asking you could possibly make such a claim as though it has any grounding in reality.

Your second claim though, that we don't yet live in a society where the services offered aren't good enough for women to carry a pregnancy to term in Ireland should they choose to, I would have to question that given that the services provided by the State are IMO at least, more than adequate to provide for children should a woman choose to carry her pregnancy to term. For one thing I've never agreed with child benefit in principle, let alone the fact that it is given to every parent to support their children, regardless of their means. In Ireland we're actually way ahead of a lot of countries with regard to the social supports provided to women to support them should they choose to have children. Viability of choices then is surely in that case is something that only the individual can determine for themselves on an individual basis. I would only expect that the State should have to go so far, and yet the State also provides for free education of children.

I understand what you mean by the way you mention that we do have the option of giving people in difficult circumstances a choice, but what I'm saying is that I too am all for giving people in difficult circumstances more choices, and having spent most of my life working with people who have been in difficult circumstances, I've yet to meet anyone who preferred to have an abortion over being given the resources to enable them to make the choice they would have preferred to make which was to keep the child (or what would have been a child had they been able to avoid the decision to have an abortion, but that's why I said that for any woman in my experience at least, it hasn't been an easy decision for them to make, and there isn't one I can think of who wasn't changed by the experience).

I've been working towards a society where no woman should ever have to feel like having an abortion is ever a viable choice for them, but I'm also not naive enough to think that those same women in those circumstances wouldn't have caved into pressure from their families, peers, friends and even the men who impregnated them, to have an abortion because they were coerced into it or believed that it was actually in their best interests.

Abortion really isn't, and shouldn't IMO, ever be seen as a viable solution to anything, either from an individual perspective, nor from a social perspective, but that doesn't mean that at an individual level, I wouldn't do everything in my power to ensure that a woman was able to have the outcome of a crisis pregnancy that she wanted, because I've always understood that it's never been about me or how I feel personally about abortion. It's always been for me at least about the decisions that any woman would make for herself.

That's why, while I personally disagree with the concept of abortion, at one point until recently I would have supported the repeal of the 8th amendment, but I've come to see that the impact of legislating to broaden our abortion laws in Ireland would mean that abortion would then be the first thing that would enter other peoples heads if they knew a woman were facing a crisis pregnancy, rather than as you're suggesting, the idea that every woman should be given every support she needs in order to enable her to raise a child or children. If some people feel we aren't there yet, well I don't personally blame the State for the lack of support, I would suggest that those individuals then take it upon themselves to provide the support they feel is lacking. That's exactly what I've spent half my life doing, so when it comes up in these threads that "pro-life" or "anti-choice" or whatever you want to call them, people don't care about children once they're born, I often just can't be arsed pointing out "eh, you're talking bollocks mate", because I'm restricted by the fact that we have to be civil to each other around these parts.

mrkiscool2

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I didn't jump to any conclusion which "makes my side look best" as you put it, as I pointed out to another poster way, way back in this thread - I have no interest in... taking sides. Jesus it's even horrible to type that out because, well for me personally I feel it simply diminishes the gravity of what we're talking about here which is peoples lives, and that's why I bailed out of this thread earlier when it was clear that ideology was going to trump reality.

I'll clear up my interpretation of what you suggested then, because I try to engage in good faith and no, I don't think you personally were suggesting that we should encourage poor women to have abortions, but that would be the effect of your suggestion - that rather than support women so they wouldn't feel they had no choice but to have an abortion, they choose abortion because they lack support, and that's what I meant when I said that it would be better to address the underlying issues which cause women to find themselves in those circumstances. One thing I can tell you is that it's not because contraception isn't affordable. More often it's simply because contraception isn't used, or isn't used properly.

I want to leave this point in context because, unlike some others on this forum, I don't take sentences out of context. I want people to see the full context of what you've said. Now, onto the points I want to tackle in this.

I'll clear up my interpretation of what you suggested then, because I try to engage in good faith and no, I don't think you personally were suggesting that we should encourage poor women to have abortions, but that would be the effect of your suggestion

I actually have no clue how you are drawing that conclusion. I really don't. You claim to be trying to engage in "good faith" (and you're only doing that now because you can't point to anywhere that I claimed all lower class women should have abortions) and yet you make statements like these, which paints having abortions up to 12 weeks like the flood gates will open and lower class people will be getting them a few times a year. That's just not the case.

One thing I can tell you is that it's not because contraception isn't affordable. More often it's simply because contraception isn't used, or isn't used properly

Okay, citation please! Also, as someone who has been on 2 different students' unions, I can tell you that we provide condoms free of charge to a. ensure that students have condoms to prevent STIs and pregnancy (because they are EXPENSIVE!) and b. so we could give information on how to properly use it. Expense is a thing, sorry to tell you, as is lack of education. Which, ironically, stems from the sex-shaming that brought something like the 8th into existence.

Of course there are women who due to their socioeconomic circumstances feel that it would be better for them to have an abortion, I'm just not going to assume that they would want one if they were able to afford not to have one. That's why for many women abortion simply isn't as easy a choice as has been made out in this thread. To acknowledge that of course wouldn't suit the prevailing narrative in this thread, as that would mean having to acknowledge that simply legislating for abortion isn't going to allieviate poverty in Irish society.

I don't think a single pro-choice person here has claimed that an abortion is an easy decision. Hell, I've made the point it isn't. And 70% of women who have an abortion never have a second. And yes, one of the factors some women take into consideration before getting an abortion is can they afford to have a child. To act like it isn't is foolish at best, bad faith at worst.

The assertion is often made that pro-life people don't care about a child once they're born, and I'd love to know where that comes from, because the evidence appears to suggest otherwise given that one of the largest pro-life organisations in this country is also the largest provider of education to children! I guess that doesn't suit the narrative either.

What evidence? Provide said evidence please! Also, since they are the ones who want women to not be allowed abortions, the burden is on them to prove they are going to ensure the child has a great life after it's born (pro-tip, they usually don't).

I'm not talking about an appetite to repeal the 8th, I'm talking about abortion, and there really is no appetite for it in any society really, and that's why the stigma against abortion exists, in pretty much every society you'd care to mention. People don't generally just see abortion as being the equivalent of a benign medical procedure as is being made out in this thread. I know well it happens, but that doesn't mean people actually want to acknowledge that it happens, and that's why even if the 8th amendment were to be repealed, how many people do you think would even want an abortion clinic in their neighbourhood? I certainly wouldn't tbh.

Firstly, look at the thread title please. While I may be also in favour of abortion on demand up until 16 weeks (12 is good to try and get the Yes though, I see why they went with it), this is a conversation about repealing the 8th. And allowing people abortion for stuff that should already be there, like threats to the mother life and mental health, rape and fetal fatal abnormalities.

And the idea of have an abortion clinic in their neighborhood is bizarre. I can imagine that it will be carried out in hospitals or specific clinics. It's a moot point really. People won't have that much control over it.

I'm always prepared to listen, and I'm actually eager to listen if you actually have evidence to back up such an extraordinary claim! I also wouldn't suggest Irish society is as liberal as you're given to assuming, but I'd love to see your evidence for your claims pertaining to the US and the UK at least.

Tell you what, I'll give you citations when you give me some. Also, Ireland is a liberal country in the proper sense. People generally believe that people should have the right to control their own lives. The lack of systemic racism and sexism (there is still some, but nowhere near as bad as the US) shows that.

When I used the word 'judgement' there, I didn't mean in the judicial sense, I meant in the sense that people have more of a tendency to pass judgement on unmarried mothers in socioeconomically deprived circumstances. I didn't jump to the conclusion that you personally think all poor women would have abortions at all.

My point, and my only point, is that using poor women's circumstances to make your argument for abortion is a terrible argument, because it can be easily pointed out that abortion won't do anything for them, and that's even if they wanted an abortion in the first place if they had a REAL choice in whether or not to have one. That's why I made the point that unmarried women in more affluent circumstances have more choices than women in poorer circumstances - it's not because they are able to afford to travel for an abortion, it's because they are generally better off all-round in terms of education, social support and social status!

You make a claim that it's a terrible point, and then don't back that claim up with any discussion or evidence. Here is the thing, lower class women currently have NO choice. Even if most lower class women would never have an abortion, having a choice is better than having no choice at all. Secondly, you haven't refuted my point in the slightest. I've clearly shown how not having abortions continues a cycle of poverty. You've yet to prove otherwise. And getting into debt? Is that something you agree with? You have yet to say anything about that.

No, that's not unequal treatment, it's exactly the same treatment that is provided by a service provider, to those who can afford it. That would still be an issue regardless of whether or not the 8th amendment is repealed - more affluent people will always have access to better healthcare than people who are poorer, and legislating for abortion won't change that fact.

Right, so, clear something up for me. You say I have a poor understanding of socioeconomics, yet I can grasp the fact that by not being able to access a service due to lack of funds is generally bad, you just say "Well, rich people will always have access to better stuff!" I think we all know that, but that doesn't change the fact that lower class women have no access to this form of healthcare. Absolutely none. You aren't refuting my case, if anything you are proving it.

Shenshen

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I don't know how you can claim to speak for the vast majority of anyone, but I'll take it that was rather just a turn of phrase or a genuine belief rather than being an arsehole about it and asking you could possibly make such a claim as though it has any grounding in reality.

Your second claim though, that we don't yet live in a society where the services offered aren't good enough for women to carry a pregnancy to term in Ireland should they choose to, I would have to question that given that the services provided by the State are IMO at least, more than adequate to provide for children should a woman choose to carry her pregnancy to term. For one thing I've never agreed with child benefit in principle, let alone the fact that it is given to every parent to support their children, regardless of their means. In Ireland we're actually way ahead of a lot of countries with regard to the social supports provided to women to support them should they choose to have children. Viability of choices then is surely in that case is something that only the individual can determine for themselves on an individual basis. I would only expect that the State should have to go so far, and yet the State also provides for free education of children.

I understand what you mean by the way you mention that we do have the option of giving people in difficult circumstances a choice, but what I'm saying is that I too am all for giving people in difficult circumstances more choices, and having spent most of my life working with people who have been in difficult circumstances, I've yet to meet anyone who preferred to have an abortion over being given the resources to enable them to make the choice they would have preferred to make which was to keep the child (or what would have been a child had they been able to avoid the decision to have an abortion, but that's why I said that for any woman in my experience at least, it hasn't been an easy decision for them to make, and there isn't one I can think of who wasn't changed by the experience).

I've been working towards a society where no woman should ever have to feel like having an abortion is ever a viable choice for them, but I'm also not naive enough to think that those same women in those circumstances wouldn't have caved into pressure from their families, peers, friends and even the men who impregnated them, to have an abortion because they were coerced into it or believed that it was actually in their best interests.

Abortion really isn't, and shouldn't IMO, ever be seen as a viable solution to anything, either from an individual perspective, nor from a social perspective, but that doesn't mean that at an individual level, I wouldn't do everything in my power to ensure that a woman was able to have the outcome of a crisis pregnancy that she wanted, because I've always understood that it's never been about me or how I feel personally about abortion. It's always been for me at least about the decisions that any woman would make for herself.

That's why, while I personally disagree with the concept of abortion, at one point until recently I would have supported the repeal of the 8th amendment, but I've come to see that the impact of legislating to broaden our abortion laws in Ireland would mean that abortion would then be the first thing that would enter other peoples heads if they knew a woman were facing a crisis pregnancy, rather than as you're suggesting, the idea that every woman should be given every support she needs in order to enable her to raise a child or children. If some people feel we aren't there yet, well I don't personally blame the State for the lack of support, I would suggest that those individuals then take it upon themselves to provide the support they feel is lacking. That's exactly what I've spent half my life doing, so when it comes up in these threads that "pro-life" or "anti-choice" or whatever you want to call them, people don't care about children once they're born, I often just can't be arsed pointing out "eh, you're talking bollocks mate", because I'm restricted by the fact that we have to be civil to each other around these parts.

You may notice that I never mentioned the word "state". I said "society", and that phrase was chosen with a lot of consideration. Society is more than just state bodies, society is the family threatening to cut ties with a woman pregnant against that family's wishes, it's the support an abused woman can hope for, including the protection against her abuser. It's the availability of support for her to enable her to continue working, or even just continue her education. There are a lot of things indiscriminate child benefit payments simply don't cover.

Given that thousands of women travel each year to have abortions, I just don't think that we really are at a point yet where we can claim we've done all we can as a society.
On the contrary, a lot of people seem to rest on the "well, at least it's not happening in Ireland" notion, rather than getting active to try and provide better options. Because we already have a law, we don't feel the need to do more. Maybe we as a society would, if that law were gone.

One eyed Jack

Shenshen wrote: »

You may notice that I never mentioned the word "state". I said "society", and that phrase was chosen with a lot of consideration. Society is more than just state bodies, society is the family threatening to cut ties with a woman pregnant against that family's wishes, it's the support an abused woman can hope for, including the protection against her abuser. It's the availability of support for her to enable her to continue working, or even just continue her education. There are a lot of things indiscriminate child benefit payments simply don't cover.

I take your point, but I would just point out that I was using State support as but one example, seeing as it would be the State that would be expected to facilitate abortion. That is why we're having a referendum on the issue, to allow for the State to facilitate and legislate for abortion in this country. This is why I said that the State can only be expected to do so much, as one of the State's fundamental obligations is the promotion of the family in society, and depending upon your perspective of course - facilitating abortion directly contradicts that obligation.

As for the other issues you raise, I would suggest that there are still adequate supports provided for women who find themselves in those circumstances, supports provided by charities, NGOs and indeed private individuals. Charities and NGOs can only provide so much support, and cannot be expected to provide individually tailored support, and at an individual level, I wouldn't expect anyone to provide support for something they have a conscientious objection to.

Shenshen wrote: »

Given that thousands of women travel each year to have abortions, I just don't think that we really are at a point yet where we can claim we've done all we can as a society.
On the contrary, a lot of people seem to rest on the "well, at least it's not happening in Ireland" notion, rather than getting active to try and provide better options. Because we already have a law, we don't feel the need to do more. Maybe we as a society would, if that law were gone.

I completely agree that nobody could honestly claim we as a society have done all we can for women who are left with the decision to travel abroad to avail of abortion. In fact I'd go so far as to say we have failed women dismally that that they feel their only option is to have an abortion because of their socioeconomic circumstances. Socioeconomic reasons are by far and away the most commonly given reason by women for why they choose to avail of abortion, and I don't know about you, but that suggests to me at least that we as a society really have failed those women, because as I said earlier - no woman should ever have to find herself faced with that decision in the first place. I understand that the two issues aren't mutually exclusive, that regardless of where one stands on the issue of abortion, this doesn't preclude them from working towards a society where women aren't faced with having to make those kinds of decisions, but I personally believe that facilitating and legislating for abortion in Irish society at least, is but an idealistic 'solution' which would still only be available as an elective procedure to those women who could afford it, and that's why when I see arguments which appear to be concerned with the welfare of women and suggesting that abortion should be available to them as a viable alternative to anything, I'm given to questioning the sincerity of their concern if I'm being honest.

As for the argument that we as a society would endeavour to provide alternatives and supports to women if abortion were available, the obvious question that springs to mind immediately is - Why would we? Where would the motivation be if we could simply suggest to women that they have an abortion, problem solved, so to speak? I don't mean to be flippant but that's really as basic as it comes down to - facilitate abortion, why would we then need to worry about providing supports and resources to women in those circumstances you mention, when they can just have an abortion? That isn't a position I would advocate obviously, but I'm wondering what would you think would be our motivation when such efforts would simply be deemed unnecessary because now women could have abortions?

Shenshen

One eyed Jack wrote: »

As for the argument that we as a society would endeavour to provide alternatives and supports to women if abortion were available, the obvious question that springs to mind immediately is - Why would we? Where would the motivation be if we could simply suggest to women that they have an abortion, problem solved, so to speak? I don't mean to be flippant but that's really as basic as it comes down to - facilitate abortion, why would we then need to worry about providing supports and resources to women in those circumstances you mention, when they can just have an abortion? That isn't a position I would advocate obviously, but I'm wondering what would you think would be our motivation when such efforts would simply be deemed unnecessary because now women could have abortions?

I might be naive and assuming too much here, but given that most people don't want women to have abortions, and given that in particular the pro-life side are incredibly vociferous about it, I would image that once women DO have the option of having an abortion, these good folks would try their best to change circumstances so that the number of women who feel they need to avail of the option would drop?
After all, it would be the only way left to them to try and protect the unborn?

One eyed Jack

mrkiscool2 wrote: »

I actually have no clue how you are drawing that conclusion. I really don't. You claim to be trying to engage in "good faith" (and you're only doing that now because you can't point to anywhere that I claimed all lower class women should have abortions) and yet you make statements like these, which paints having abortions up to 12 weeks like the flood gates will open and lower class people will be getting them a few times a year. That's just not the case.

I didn't say that you personally claimed all lower class women should have abortions, I've clarified this already. Second of all, you simply don't know what the case may be and if the figures being touted by some organisations are to be believed, then not only would 'thousands of women' every year not have to travel, but thousands more that stayed at home would also be availing of abortion, whether through coercion or choice in some cases in again anyone's guess. To say that's just not the case when you just don't know what the case will be, is a bit of a reach if I'm being honest.

mrkiscool2 wrote: »

Okay, citation please! Also, as someone who has been on 2 different students' unions, I can tell you that we provide condoms free of charge to a. ensure that students have condoms to prevent STIs and pregnancy (because they are EXPENSIVE!) and b. so we could give information on how to properly use it. Expense is a thing, sorry to tell you, as is lack of education. Which, ironically, stems from the sex-shaming that brought something like the 8th into existence.

Citations for what? It's acceptable for you to use anecdotal evidence, but it's not ok for me? Don't be breaking my balls man, I'm allowing you a fair bit of leniency with your anecdotal evidence from your days on 2 different students unions! Much as I despise students unions generally as the playgrounds where baby politicians cut their teeth, I'm willing to put that aside for the sake of the discussion and I'll take your anecdotes on good faith. Your initial argument was that contraception was expensive, and yet you've just admitted that in college at least, you handed out contraception for free to students! It appears we're talking about two different demographics then of women we consider experiencing social deprivation. The women I'm talking about would generally only dream of the privilege of being able to continue their second level education, let alone third level, because it's EXPENSIVE!

You'll have every right to school me about sex-shaming btw when students unions aren't attempting to be the campus sex police with their notions about consent classes which are cancelled because nobody has any interest in them, when an SU president isn't impeached because of SU politics, when the SU isn't trying to force their own ideological nonsense on the rest of the student body,

mrkiscool2 wrote: »

I don't think a single pro-choice person here has claimed that an abortion is an easy decision. Hell, I've made the point it isn't. And 70% of women who have an abortion never have a second. And yes, one of the factors some women take into consideration before getting an abortion is can they afford to have a child. To act like it isn't is foolish at best, bad faith at worst.

No, I didn't claim that anyone who is pro-choice has claimed that abortion is an easy decision; I'm saying that the general tone of this thread is that abortion is an easy decision, I can't point to any one particular post which says explicitly in those terms that abortion is an easy decision, but I'm saying that's the general tone of the thread. Obviously your interpretation is going to differ.

mrkiscool2 wrote: »

What evidence? Provide said evidence please! Also, since they are the ones who want women to not be allowed abortions, the burden is on them to prove they are going to ensure the child has a great life after it's born (pro-tip, they usually don't).

What evidence? Given that you're aware I was referring to the Catholic Church, you must surely also be aware that the Catholic Bishops of Ireland are the trustees of the vast, vast majority of educational institutions in Ireland, providing primary, secondary and indeed third level education to those people who wish to enter the teaching profession in Ireland to teach in their primary schools! To say that they don't provide for a great life after the child is born is just strange (but understandable from your perspective) given that the vast majority of people in Irish society still identify as Roman Catholic!

mrkiscool2 wrote: »

Firstly, look at the thread title please. While I may be also in favour of abortion on demand up until 16 weeks (12 is good to try and get the Yes though, I see why they went with it), this is a conversation about repealing the 8th. And allowing people abortion for stuff that should already be there, like threats to the mother life and mental health, rape and fetal fatal abnormalities.

You're breaking my balls again. Seriously, are you suggesting now that we can't talk about the issue of how legislating for abortion in Ireland and the impact of that decision on Irish society, because you want me to restrict myself to solely talking about whether or not the 8th amendment will be repealed? This would be a one page thread if everyone were held to that standard!

mrkiscool2 wrote: »

And the idea of have an abortion clinic in their neighborhood is bizarre. I can imagine that it will be carried out in hospitals or specific clinics. It's a moot point really. People won't have that much control over it.

Where do you expect clinics to be located exactly? Of course they're going to be located somewhere, and you can be guaranteed that people in the area will object to them, just like they object to methadone clinics for example because they don't want those sorts of establishments in their back yard.

mrkiscool2 wrote: »

Tell you what, I'll give you citations when you give me some. Also, Ireland is a liberal country in the proper sense. People generally believe that people should have the right to control their own lives. The lack of systemic racism and sexism (there is still some, but nowhere near as bad as the US) shows that.

I think we're well past citations at this point really, but I'm ok with that if you are? I would suggest too that your opinion of just how liberal you think Ireland is, is influenced by the kind of people you gravitate towards, and given you were on two different student unions, I can imagine the types of people you surrounded yourself with which gave you the impression that Ireland is fierce liberal altogether. You really can't compare Ireland to the US in terms of racism and sexism because the only reason issues like racism and sexism aren't more noticeable is because we're a nation of majority pasty white peeps for a start, and as far as sexism goes well we generally don't tend to get as wound up about it as they do Stateside. I think you're confusing liberalism with apathy, and conflating racism and sexism with conservative values. Again that doesn't surprise me given your experience in the students union.

mrkiscool2 wrote: »

You make a claim that it's a terrible point, and then don't back that claim up with any discussion or evidence. Here is the thing, lower class women currently have NO choice. Even if most lower class women would never have an abortion, having a choice is better than having no choice at all. Secondly, you haven't refuted my point in the slightest. I've clearly shown how not having abortions continues a cycle of poverty. You've yet to prove otherwise. And getting into debt? Is that something you agree with? You have yet to say anything about that.

I did back that claim up with evidence. You're just not willing to acknowledge it as evidence, which is fair enough, but you can't claim we're not at least having a discussion about it when here we are! You haven't shown that not having abortions continues a cycle of poverty, you pointed to evidence from the US and the UK, but you never actually presented said evidence when I asked for it, and I'm genuinely interested in reading it because it's an extraordinary claim to make, and I would like to see how whoever made the claim is able to back it up! I have no opportunity to examine something if it doesn't exist, so how can I disprove anything if you haven't presented the evidence to support your point in the first place?

I don't know what you want me to say about getting into debt tbh? I would have thought it was obvious that getting into debt is a shítty situation for anyone, so I saw no need to be reiterating the obvious. I'm not out to contradict everything you're saying like, just those points which I disagree with.

mrkiscool2 wrote: »

Right, so, clear something up for me. You say I have a poor understanding of socioeconomics, yet I can grasp the fact that by not being able to access a service due to lack of funds is generally bad, you just say "Well, rich people will always have access to better stuff!" I think we all know that, but that doesn't change the fact that lower class women have no access to this form of healthcare. Absolutely none. You aren't refuting my case, if anything you are proving it.

What exactly did you want me to clear up for you though? I don't agree with you that women experiencing social deprivation have no access to abortion, they do, they have equal access as anyone else provided they have the means to fund it themselves, the same as anyone else. They aren't precluded from being able to access abortion the same way as any other woman, provided they have the means to fund it. You know this already, so what am I expected to refute exactly? Your original assertion, and what I took issue with was simply this -

mrkiscool2 wrote: »

Like, if people can't see that abortion, as it stands in Ireland, is a class issue and one of the reasons the gap between poor and rich has not being closed for decades, I don't know what their knowledge of social economics is.

You're right, I can't see it, and I would like to know how you came to that conclusion, because from my understanding of socioeconomics, I would suggest that it means social and economic factors, which encompasses quite a bit more than just abortion being a contributing factor to enabling social mobility to close the gap between the poor and the wealthy classes! I'd be especially interested to know how you came to that conclusion when just a sample of the evidence I have at least, suggests otherwise -

Summary

There are wide class gaps in unintended childbearing among single women in the United States, resulting from different contraceptive and abortion choices across income groups. In this paper, we use data from the National Survey of Family Growth (NSFG 2011-2013) to estimate how sexual activity, contraceptive use, and abortion use vary across income lines. Though rates of sexual activity are comparable for all women, low-income women are less likely to use contraception and are less likely to have an abortion once pregnant. We use a shift-share analysis to simulate the effect of equalizing, at the rates of affluent women, the use of the contraception and abortion services across income groups. We find that equalizing contraceptive use reduces the ratio of unintended births between affluent and poor women by half, and that equalizing abortion rates reduces the ratio by one-third.


Sex, contraception, or abortion? Explaining class gaps in unintended childbearing

One eyed Jack

Shenshen wrote: »

I might be naive and assuming too much here, but given that most people don't want women to have abortions, and given that in particular the pro-life side are incredibly vociferous about it, I would image that once women DO have the option of having an abortion, these good folks would try their best to change circumstances so that the number of women who feel they need to avail of the option would drop?
After all, it would be the only way left to them to try and protect the unborn?

I don't think you're naïve like, but I'm just not sure why you would think that they don't try to change women's circumstances already?

I just don't see how facilitating abortion in this country would lead to more people in society feeling that they had an obligation to ensure women weren't put in a position where they had to make that decision is all?

We as a society clearly weren't doing it before, why would we do it if we don't have to when the choice would be there for women to have abortions?

eviltwin

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I don't think you're naïve like, but I'm just not sure why you would think that they don't try to change women's circumstances already?

I just don't see how facilitating abortion in this country would lead to more people in society feeling that they had an obligation to ensure women weren't put in a position where they had to make that decision is all?

We as a society clearly weren't doing it before, why would we do it if we don't have to when the choice would be there for women to have abortions?

Do you think pro choice is the same as pro abortion?

I would like to see a society that supports women whatever her choice. I don't want to see any woman feel pressured by circumstance to have an abortion she doesn't want. Equally though, I don't want to see women pressured to continue with pregnancies they would rather terminate.

I agree we can do more to support people in crisis pregnancy but that's no use to people like me. I just don't want kids, if I get pregnant I'm having an abortion.

Consonata

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Your second claim though, that we don't yet live in a society where the services offered aren't good enough for women to carry a pregnancy to term in Ireland should they choose to, I would have to question that given that the services provided by the State are IMO at least, more than adequate to provide for children should a woman choose to carry her pregnancy to term.

Surely we aren't able to say this anymore ever since the case of "Grace" came up.
Our childcare services are not remotely adequate to service children without families.

monnies

MrPudding

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Where do you expect clinics to be located exactly? Of course they're going to be located somewhere, and you can be guaranteed that people in the area will object to them, just like they object to methadone clinics for example because they don't want those sorts of establishments in their back yard.

I really don’t think you can equate an abortion with a methadone clinic, in terms of people objecting to their location. People object to methadone clinics because they tend to be frequented by drug addicts, and rightly or wrongly, people equate that with an increased rate of crime and risk to the safety of residents.

That isnt really the case with an abortion clincic though, is it? The biggest problem I have seen with abortion clinics are the frequently nasty people that protest outside.

MrP

uptherebels

monnies wrote: »

And what point are you trying to make here?

January

MrPudding wrote: »

I really don’t think you can equate an abortion with a methadone clinic, in terms of people objecting to their location. People object to methadone clinics because they tend to be frequented by drug addicts, and rightly or wrongly, people equate that with an increased rate of crime and risk to the safety of residents.

That isnt really the case with an abortion clincic though, is it? The biggest problem I have seen with abortion clinics are the frequently nasty people that protest outside.

MrP

I really don't think we will see abortion clinics opening. Abortions before 12 weeks will be taken care of by a gp using pills, those that can't use pills or those over 12 weeks will be performed in a hospital setting. If people want to go private they will have the option (well woman, femplus etc)

MrPudding

January wrote: »

I really don't think we will see abortion clinics opening. Abortions before 12 weeks will be taken care of by a gp using pills, those that can't use pills or those over 12 weeks will be performed in a hospital setting. If people want to go private they will have the option (well woman, femplus etc)

Oh I agree. I just take exception to place where women get health advice, or even abortions, being compared to methadone clinics.

MrP

One eyed Jack

eviltwin wrote: »

Do you think pro choice is the same as pro abortion?

I would like to see a society that supports women whatever her choice. I don't want to see any woman feel pressured by circumstance to have an abortion she doesn't want. Equally though, I don't want to see women pressured to continue with pregnancies they would rather terminate.

I agree we can do more to support people in crisis pregnancy but that's no use to people like me. I just don't want kids, if I get pregnant I'm having an abortion.

I don't think pro-choice is the same as pro-abortion, my point was that Shenshen made the suggestion that if society were to facilitate abortion, then people may be more inclined to want to try and avoid circumstances where women would need to have abortions. I asked how she made that out because I can't see how anyone would feel an obligation to provide support for anyone that they weren't already not providing in the first place.

If anything, the arguments for abortion are generally centred around the idea that society should facilitate abortion in circumstances where they feel that those people are not in any position to be able to provide for a child, and facilitating abortion is then put forward as a viable alternative for people in those circumstances, by people who aren't in those circumstances.

If their ideas for society are then supported by the State, then that diminishes the obligation on the State to provide for those people in order that they don't feel that it would be better for them if they had an abortion. You might pull me up on that and say "Well can't we do both things at once? Isn't that offering people real choices?", and the simplest answer to that is "Yes, we could, but generally - we don't!", because the motivation to fulfil the first obligation doesn't exist, on account of the existence of the alternative, under which society now has no obligation to those people, and Government is then even less motivated to fulfil it's obligations to those people.

Effectively - they can stay poor, they aren't our concern, because they can have abortions if they can't raise a child. I think that's the point that Alveda King (the woman in monnies post) is also driving at, and it's a point that Ben Carson was driving at when he suggested that there were more abortion clinics in black neighbourhoods than white neighbourhoods (a claim that was proven false, but is not entirely untrue - it's not based on skin colour, it's based upon socioeconomic status), but their point is more applicable in the US where their concerns are that the promotion of abortion as a viable choice for people has led to a situation where it can be demonstrated that black people are disproportionately affected by unfavourable socioeconomic circumstances, rates of abortion in black communities are much higher than rates of abortion in white communities. The point is that the higher rates are driven by socioeconomic factors, and not solely by skin colour. It would be the same here in Ireland, where abortion rates would be driven by socioeconomic circumstances, because as I pointed out earlier, we're a majority of white people, and there really aren't that many poor brown people.

Obviously if you want an abortion you're going to have one, but my point wasn't whether you personally should or shouldn't have one. My point is solely in relation to the number of times the point has been made here that we should think about the women who can't afford to raise children and because of that, they 'choose' to have an abortion. I don't know about you but that sounds to me at least like the definition of coercion, and a decision made due to lacking the freedom of having the resources to be in a position to make an actual choice that isn't constrained by socioeconomic circumstances, In other words - a decision they make because they actually don't have the freedom and the resources to make choices they would otherwise have made, and are then left with the decision to have an abortion because they have been consistently failed by the State before they were ever even born.

One eyed Jack

MrPudding wrote: »

I really don’t think you can equate an abortion with a methadone clinic, in terms of people objecting to their location. People object to methadone clinics because they tend to be frequented by drug addicts, and rightly or wrongly, people equate that with an increased rate of crime and risk to the safety of residents.

That isnt really the case with an abortion clincic though, is it? The biggest problem I have seen with abortion clinics are the frequently nasty people that protest outside.

MrP

Well again, rightly or wrongly, since you are at least willing to acknowledge that people may have concerns for the safety as a legitimate objection to methodone clinics, you must surely be willing to acknowledge that any establishment which attracts nasty people presents a legitimate safety concern for residents who are living in the area.

(as it happens, if it were a decision I had to make between a methodone clinic and an abortion clinic, I'd choose the methodone clinic - having been a drug addict myself at one point in my life, I know that their nasty attitudes can be changed, I'm not sure the same can be said for protesters, of any description!)

MrPudding wrote: »

Oh I agree. I just take exception to place where women get health advice, or even abortions, being compared to methadone clinics.

MrP

Using that same benign, reductionist rationale, a methodone clinic is a place where people go to get health advice and treatment for their condition.

pilly

end of the road wrote:

no as none of us know how the referendum will ultimately go. it is unlikely to be a repeat of the ssm referendum however. there is a lot more people against abortion on demand, or abortion full stop, in this country then some would think and it's nothing to do with religion or conservatism in a large amount of cases.

That's not what the surveys say though is it?

pilly

end of the road wrote:

no as none of us know how the referendum will ultimately go. it is unlikely to be a repeat of the ssm referendum however. there is a lot more people against abortion on demand, or abortion full stop, in this country then some would think and it's nothing to do with religion or conservatism in a large amount of cases.

That's not what the surveys say though is it?

end of the road

pilly wrote: »

That's not what the surveys say though is it?

it's not what some of them say, that is true. but we must remember surveys only question a certain amount of people and then go on the result of what the majority of those people say. so in terms of the people questioned, the survey is correct in terms of the result that the majority answer, but may not necessarily be correct in terms of what the whole country think. surveys wouldn't be enough in my view to say in full that a majority of people in the country agree with abortion on demand. it's a possibility that they do but until the referendum we cannot say for sure.
in terms of the religious aspect, again maybe most on the pro-life side who answered the surveys may be religious conservatives but ultimately religious conservatism is not as much a part of the pro-life support as it once was. many of us have no time for religion and would be a mix of centrists and left wing.

mrkiscool2

end of the road wrote: »

it's not what some of them say, that is true. but we must remember surveys only question a certain amount of people and then go on the result of what the majority of those people say. so in terms of the people questioned, the survey is correct in terms of the result that the majority answer, but may not necessarily be correct in terms of what the whole country think. surveys wouldn't be enough in my view to say in full that a majority of people in the country agree with abortion on demand. it's a possibility that they do but until the referendum we cannot say for sure.
in terms of the religious aspect, again maybe most on the pro-life side who answered the surveys may be religious conservatives but ultimately religious conservatism is not as much a part of the pro-life support as it once was. many of us have no time for religion and would be a mix of centrists and left wing.

I find it hilarous how you claim something to be true "Most Irish people don't want abortions on demand" and then, when confronted with something that negates that view point, say "Well, it's only a survey, they don't always ask the right people".

Like, I agree with you. Polls and surveys aren't the best thing for gauging how the entire country feels on a topic, and can't account for who will turn out to vote. But I just love how, when presented with something that flies in the face of a claim you make, which you provide no evidence for, you just act like it's nothing.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. If you claim that Ireland, as a majority, are against what we expect to see in the referendum, you have to provide evidence. Even a poll would do it (even though we both agree they aren't true reflections, they are good indicators).

ohnonotgmail

mrkiscool2 wrote: »

I find it hilarous how you claim something to be true "Most people don't want abortions on demand" and then, when confronted with something that negates that view point, say "Well, it's only a survey, they don't always ask the right people".

Like, I agree with you. Polls and surveys aren't the best thing for gauging how the entire country feels on a topic, and can't account for who will turn out to vote. But I just love how, when presented with something that flies in the face of a claim you make, which you provide no evidence for, you just act like it's nothing.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. If you claim that , as a majority, are against what we expect to see in the referendum, you have to provide evidence. Even a poll would do it (even though we both agree they aren't true reflections, they are good indicators).

I'm sure there is a poll taken at the last Iona agm that EOTR could refer to.

end of the road

mrkiscool2 wrote: »

I find it hilarous how you claim something to be true "Most Irish people don't want abortions on demand" and then, when confronted with something that negates that view point, say "Well, it's only a survey, they don't always ask the right people".

Like, I agree with you. Polls and surveys aren't the best thing for gauging how the entire country feels on a topic, and can't account for who will turn out to vote. But I just love how, when presented with something that flies in the face of a claim you make, which you provide no evidence for, you just act like it's nothing.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. If you claim that Ireland, as a majority, are against what we expect to see in the referendum, you have to provide evidence. Even a poll would do it (even though we both agree they aren't true reflections, they are good indicators).

i never "claimed" most irish people don't want abortion on demand. i stated that i believe the amount who would want it won't be as many as we would think and that a referendum should it be won by the pro-abortion side may not be won by a huge majority.

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

I'm sure there is a poll taken at the last Iona agm that EOTR could refer to.

maybe there is, i wouldn't know as i have nothing to do with iona.

tigger123

end of the road wrote: »

i never "claimed" most irish people don't want abortion on demand. i stated that i believe the amount who would want it won't be as many as we would think and that a referendum should it be won by the pro-abortion side may not be won by a huge majority.

Is there any point in correcting you by saying it's pro choice, not pro abortion?

mrkiscool2

end of the road wrote: »

i never "claimed" most irish people don't want abortion on demand. i stated that i believe the amount who would want it won't be as many as we would think and that a referendum should it be won by the pro-abortion side may not be won by a huge majority.

To be fair, that is what you said. And I shouldn't draw implications from that. I'll put my hands up and I say I read that one wrong.

frag420

Welcome back EOTR...

Again in case you missed it could you please be so kind as to answer the following question, it’s the fourth time I will have asked this if you!?

If you don’t we can’t rest assured that you are happy for abortions to happen and are complicit in them as you would not be willing to stop them happening!

So EOTR, If there was a number you could call where you could grass up women( your sister, mother, cousin, aunt. colleague, neighbour etc) who you knew or suspected were going abroad to have a termination or you knew or suspected they were procuring abortion pills online to bring about a termination...

Would you use it to grass up these women to save the potential babies? Also please note that when you do call you will have to give your name and PPS number so you will be identifiable but hey, that should not matter if you’re saving potential life eh!?

So what say you?

NuMarvel

An opinion poll in today's Daily Mail says 53% of all respondents are in favour of repeal and allowing unrestricted access to abortion in the first 12 weeks. 26% are opposed, and 20% don't know or won't say.

Excluding don't knows/won't say, that puts support for access up to 12 weeks (or abortion on demand as some call it) at 66%. That makes it the second poll in the last two months to show the majority of people support what is likely to be the Government's proposal.

It's an encouraging result, but should still be treated with caution. In the 6 months before the marriage equality referendum put support at over 80% (excluding don't knows), whereas the result on the day was 62%. As the article notes, one of the dangers is that some of those in favour of repeal won't turn up to vote, which won't be an issue for the anti-repeal side.

Full article here.

UPDATE: The polling company has published more info on their poll.

https://twitter.com/ireland_thinks/status/946749400788951040

end of the road

NuMarvel wrote: »

An opinion poll in today's Daily Mail says 53% of all respondents are in favour of repeal and allowing unrestricted access to abortion in the first 12 weeks. 26% are opposed, and 20% don't know or won't say.

Excluding don't knows/won't say, that puts support for access up to 12 weeks (or abortion on demand as some call it) at 66%. That makes it the second poll in the last two months to show the majority of people support what is likely to be the Government's proposal.

It's an encouraging result, but should still be treated with caution. In the 6 months before the marriage equality referendum put support at over 80% (excluding don't knows), whereas the result on the day was 62%. As the article notes, one of the dangers is that some of those in favour of repeal won't turn up to vote, which won't be an issue for the anti-repeal side.

Full article here.

UPDATE: The polling company has published more info on their poll.

https://twitter.com/ireland_thinks/status/946749400788951040

no the amount who support unrestricted access is 53%

PeterParker957

end of the road wrote: »

NuMarvel wrote: »

An opinion poll in today's Daily Mail says 53% of all respondents are in favour of repeal and allowing unrestricted access to abortion in the first 12 weeks. 26% are opposed, and 20% don't know or won't say.

Excluding don't knows/won't say, that puts support for access up to 12 weeks (or abortion on demand as some call it) at 66%. That makes it the second poll in the last two months to show the majority of people support what is likely to be the Government's proposal.

It's an encouraging result, but should still be treated with caution. In the 6 months before the marriage equality referendum put support at over 80% (excluding don't knows), whereas the result on the day was 62%. As the article notes, one of the dangers is that some of those in favour of repeal won't turn up to vote, which won't be an issue for the anti-repeal side.

Full article here.

UPDATE: The polling company has published more info on their poll.

https://twitter.com/ireland_thinks/status/946749400788951040

no the amount who support unrestricted access is 53%

Proof please.

end of the road

PeterParker957 wrote: »

Proof please.

already provided. 53% in support. 26% against. 20% don't know/won't say. the 20% of those who don't know/won't say were excluded and 26% are still opposed. therefore only 53% are definitely in favour. the only reason why 53% would become 66% is if the op is making the definite assumption that 13% of the don't knows/won't says would vote yes, which isn't a given.

NuMarvel

end of the road wrote: »

no the amount who support unrestricted access is 53%

To be more specific, 53% of all respondents support unrestricted access within the first 12 weeks, which is almost twice the amount of people opposed to it.

In other words, if this was applied to a referendum, the outcome would be 66.5% Yes and 33.5% No.

Sin City

frag420 wrote: »

Welcome back EOTR...

Again in case you missed it could you please be so kind as to answer the following question, it’s the fourth time I will have asked this if you!?

If you don’t we can’t rest assured that you are happy for abortions to happen and are complicit in them as you would not be willing to stop them happening!

So EOTR, If there was a number you could call where you could grass up women( your sister, mother, cousin, aunt. colleague, neighbour etc) who you knew or suspected were going abroad to have a termination or you knew or suspected they were procuring abortion pills online to bring about a termination...

Would you use it to grass up these women to save the potential babies? Also please note that when you do call you will have to give your name and PPS number so you will be identifiable but hey, that should not matter if you’re saving potential life eh!?

So what say you?

Pretty sure you dont need to be identifiable when reporting a crime to the authorities

NuMarvel

end of the road wrote: »

already provided. 53% in support. 26% against. 20% don't know/won't say. the 20% of those who don't know/won't say were excluded and 26% are still opposed. therefore only 53% are definitely in favour. the only reason why 53% would become 66% is if the op is making the definite assumption that 13% of the don't knows/won't says would vote yes, which isn't a given.

I explained how the 53% became the 66%. The article explained it too. And it wasn't by assuming that 13%, or any other percentage, of the don't knows/won't say would vote Yes.

frag420

Sin City wrote: »

Pretty sure you dont need to be identifiable when reporting a crime to the authorities

That’s not the point and you know it. I’m just curious to know if the life of the unborn is worth people knowing you are a grass and proud of your pro life stance or not?

frag420

end of the road wrote: »

already provided. 53% in support. 26% against. 20% don't know/won't say. the 20% of those who don't know/won't say were excluded and 26% are still opposed. therefore only 53% are definitely in favour. the only reason why 53% would become 66% is if the op is making the definite assumption that 13% of the don't knows/won't says would vote yes, which isn't a given.

Seeing as you have been online since and have refused or are too chicken to answer the question put to you then I believe we can all safely assume that you are indeed not pro life and you are pro abortion and/or pro choice!

This is the same as any and every other pro life person I have put this question to, happy to shout and scream but don’t have the Bala to stand by their beliefs!

From now on I and I think others should refer to you as EOTR - he that supports the killing of potential babies in Ireland ( emotional language fully intentional)

Thanks for clearing things up for us EOTR!!

Sin City

frag420 wrote: »

That’s not the point and you know it. I’m just curious to know if the life of the unborn is worth people knowing you are a grass and proud of your pro life stance or not?

Well then frame it in a way thats more realistic instead of trying to shame someone to go against their beliefs

Sin City

NuMarvel wrote: »

An opinion poll in today's Daily Mail says 53% of all respondents are in favour of repeal and allowing unrestricted access to abortion in the first 12 weeks. 26% are opposed, and 20% don't know or won't say.

Excluding don't knows/won't say, that puts support for access up to 12 weeks (or abortion on demand as some call it) at 66%. That makes it the second poll in the last two months to show the majority of people support what is likely to be the Government's proposal.

It's an encouraging result, but should still be treated with caution. In the 6 months before the marriage equality referendum put support at over 80% (excluding don't knows), whereas the result on the day was 62%. As the article notes, one of the dangers is that some of those in favour of repeal won't turn up to vote, which won't be an issue for the anti-repeal side.

Full article here.

Even I stopped reading after the Daily Mail was cited for statistics

frag420

Sin City wrote: »

Well then frame it in a way thats more realistic instead of trying to shame someone to go against their beliefs

If you believe in something like the pro life side do then what’s to be ashamed of? Would you be ashamed to be known as a saver of potential life?

Also while we are in the subject of shame, how about the pro life should reconsider shaming women into not seeking a termination?

Sin City

frag420 wrote: »

If you believe in something like the pro life side do then what’s to be ashamed of? Would you be ashamed to be known as a saver of potential life?

Also while we are in the subject of shame, how about the pro life should reconsider shaming women into not seeking a termination?

I think shaming anyone into anything is fairly redundant in any modern civilized society


This is an emotive subject for both sides so shaming someone no matter what what their stance is despicable

tigger123

Sin City wrote: »

I think shaming anyone into anything is fairly redundant in any modern civilized society


This is an emotive subject for both sides so shaming someone no matter what what their stance is despicable

It's a valid question though (... the one posed to EOTR).

Sin City

tigger123 wrote: »

It's a valid question though (... the one posed to EOTR).

Not really as the likelihood of being asked to identify themselves reporting someone is valid


I mean reporting fraud to revenue or even serious crime to the gardai can all be done anonymously

The having to declare yourself when reporting to the authorities is a red herring designed just to be awkward

tigger123

Sin City wrote: »

Not really as the likelihood of being asked to identify themselves reporting someone is valid


I mean reporting fraud to revenue or even serious crime to the gardai can all be done anonymously

The having to declare yourself when reporting to the authorities is a red herring designed just to be awkward

That's not the question being asked.

If I understand it correctly, the question being asked is whether EOTR would report to the authorities (anonymously or not) if a family member had imported the morning after pill.

It's a valid question, as a lot of Irish people seem to be happy with Irish women having to travel to the UK for abortions and for them to be prohibited here.

Quite literally 'not in my back yard'.

Sin City

frag420 wrote: »

Welcome back EOTR...

Again in case you missed it could you please be so kind as to answer the following question, it’s the fourth time I will have asked this if you!?

If you don’t we can’t rest assured that you are happy for abortions to happen and are complicit in them as you would not be willing to stop them happening!

So EOTR, If there was a number you could call where you could grass up women( your sister, mother, cousin, aunt. colleague, neighbour etc) who you knew or suspected were going abroad to have a termination or you knew or suspected they were procuring abortion pills online to bring about a termination...

Would you use it to grass up these women to save the potential babies? Also please note that when you do call you will have to give your name and PPS number so you will be identifiable but hey, that should not matter if you’re saving potential life eh!?

So what say you?

tigger123 wrote: »

That's not the question being asked.

If I understand it correctly, the question being asked is whether EOTR would report to the authorities (anonymously or not) if a family member had imported the morning after pill.

It's a valid question, as a lot of Irish people seem to be happy with Irish women having to travel to the UK for abortions and for them to be prohibited here.

Quite literally 'not in my back yard'.

Im replying to the part in bold

end of the road

frag420 wrote: »

That’s not the point and you know it. I’m just curious to know if the life of the unborn is worth people knowing you are a grass and proud of your pro life stance or not?

oh but it is the point. it's one of the many points that show your question is complete nonsense, and is designed to twist whichever answer would be given by any respondant to fit your agenda.

frag420 wrote: »

Seeing as you have been online since and have refused or are too chicken to answer the question put to you then I believe we can all safely assume that you are indeed not pro life and you are pro abortion and/or pro choice!

This is the same as any and every other pro life person I have put this question to, happy to shout and scream but don’t have the Bala to stand by their beliefs!

From now on I and I think others should refer to you as EOTR - he that supports the killing of potential babies in Ireland ( emotional language fully intentional)

Thanks for clearing things up for us EOTR!!

thankfully what you assume and what i know for a fact are 2 different things, especially when your assumption is based on me refusing to answer a ridiculous question which is designed based on whichever answer would be given to be twisted to fit a pro-abortion narrative.
you assume i'm pro-abortion (i'm not) . i know for a fact that i'm pro-life and am anti-abortion bar extreme circumstances. therefore what i know to be fact over-rules your assumption.

tigger123 wrote: »

It's a valid question though (... the one posed to EOTR).

oh it really isn't. hence i have ignored it because i know what the poster is looking to do based on whichever answer i would give.

tigger123

Sin City wrote: »

Im replying to the part in bold

Well, he hasn't asked either part of the question. And it's still a valid question.

Sin City

tigger123 wrote: »

Well, he hasn't asked either part of the question. And it's still a valid question.

Even asking the question isnt going to prove anything as no matter what you say unless your in that situation you wont know what youll do

Case in point
I have a friend who doesnt believe in abortion
would argue against it at every oppurtuniy

He changed hes mind as soon as he knocked this woman up

He was booking flights to the UK as soon as he knew it and was convincing her shes not gonna have hes child

tigger123

Sin City wrote: »

Even asking the question isnt going to prove anything as no matter what you say unless your in that situation you wont know what youll do

Case in point
I have a friend who doesnt believe in abortion
would argue against it at every oppurtuniy

He changed hes mind as soon as he knocked this woman up

He was booking flights to the UK as soon as he knew it and was convincing her shes not gonna have hes child

Kind of illustrates the lack of empathy on the pro life side; all about the principal until it's your problem (and not someone else's), then it's all about the choice.