The 8th amendment(Mod warning in op)

end of the road

Simi wrote: »

Actually the cost of a termination will likely be covered by the state in full in some cases and at least in part in others, if current plans come to fruition.

The current plan is a GP based service, meaning the cost of the pills would be covered in full for the holders of a medical card and at least in part under the drug payment scheme for everyone else. Either way it will be a fraction of the cost of going to a private clinic in the UK.

Of course no draft legislation has actually been published yet, so this is all speculative.

you are likely right unfortunately.

mrkiscool2 wrote: »

Until I gave you a link that clearly shows you weren't. You were confusing the chance to become a life with life. By the way, a sperm or egg cell are similar to a fetus in that way, they have the potential to create life, but aren't life themselves. Fun fact.

Well, yes, yes it is. Not that it would be free for everyone, of course, and private clinics would most likely pop up so those who didn't want to wait as long could get it straight away. But it would be by GP referral meaning, at most, it would cost whatever the GP charges.

no, i was consistent that the unborn starts off as a would be life before becoming a life quite quickly, hence the protections must remain.
hopefully whatever happens the person wanting the abortion will have to pay the cost of it in full. it's unlikely but i can hope because the state can't afford it.

Beta Ray Bill

sondagefaux wrote: »

It's somewhere in between? In other words, you think it's a grey area as to whether or not a foetus is a child. So why do you want a black and white solution? A law which permits abortions in some circumstances but prohibits abortions in others is probably the best way to deal with things if you really believe that.

I don't like the term Grey if I'm honest.
When someone says grey to me that they refuse to accept there is a 3rd (or greater) position.
Child is born and is alive
Child is not alive
Child is at fetal stage X. where X can be and number between 0 and 42 Weeks.

sondagefaux wrote: »

As for the rest, it's not impossible to figure out if a woman who wants to travel abroad is pregnant. It's relatively easy in fact.

How would you know if a woman who was pregnant wanted to get an abortion? Check her phone, laptop etc. Check her luggage for any appointment letters etc. Again not that difficult to do.

A pregnant woman who is travelling abroad but there is no evidence she wants to get an abortion. She is no longer pregnant (this can be checked) on her return to Ireland. Did she have a miscarriage, an abortion or give birth? These can be checked.

Jesus......
Perhaps we should stone them when they come back? You may as well, you've taken away most of their civil rights there anyway.

sondagefaux wrote: »

As regards child rape, there have been several prosecutions in Ireland of Irish citizens who have travelled abroad and raped children.

Just because a crime is difficult to deal with doesn't mean it should be ignored. You say you don't think abortion is killing babies, although you also say you don't think it isn't either.

Any figures to back this up?

sondagefaux wrote: »

For those who see it as killing babies, I'm still struggling to see why they don't seem to mind if Irish women get abortions abroad.

If they're not actually that bothered, why would they care if a woman gets an abortion in Ireland or elsewhere?

I don't see it as killing babies.

sondagefaux wrote: »

PS: French woman who went to the UK, got an abortion, then came to Ireland - can't be prosecuted in Ireland, Irish courts would have no jurisdiction.

So if I woman has an Irish passport she is liable?

drdeadlift

rainbow kirby wrote: »

One toddler and 34 weeks pregnant with #2. Have been pro choice pretty much my whole life and having my son only reinforced my belief that nobody should be forced to carry to term or become a parent if they don't want to.

For what it's worth - I've had all my pregnancies in the UK and knowing that the 8th is not a factor in my care has made me feel a lot safer having my children here.

We had our second child in Norway,compared to our first being born in Ireland it was like being in a different universe.
Part of the decision was a complete **** up from all doctors not detecting a major heart defect in my first child,on her christening(holiday to Norway) day here in Norway she had heart failure and then required multiple major heart surgery's.
After 10 mins of being quickly examined all junior trainee doctors were asked to diagnose her condition by simply listening to her with a stethoscope,they all guesses correctly.
I asked the cardiologists if this should have been detected at birth,they said it should have been picked up in the mid pregnancy scans.Some things slip by the doctors eye,however she had a very long extra scan offered as my other half was partaking in some blood sugar testing program.The doctor spent 40 mins looking at the child's heart with what seemed to be a curious inspection.
After birth they diagnosed her with a heart murmur.
The condition was fallots tetralogi and remembering correctly was a pretty severe case.

Not to derail the thread,once the second child was on the way the long fingered decision to hop ship to Norway was made.


Ps For some of the res ponders to my previous posts im pro choice,i was only curious as to how other peoples though process works.

.......

This post has been deleted.

NuMarvel

Edward M wrote: »

I mean the easiest way out of a pregnancy.
For some, and maybe a very small percentage, of those that seek abortion on demand it may be used as the first option instead of carrying a pregnancy through to the end when it might be a very possible outcome.
If you want to term that as a late contraception, then ok, that would be it.
I'm not talking the morning after pill sort of thing, but the 10/12 week decision as taking abortion as just an easy option, whether necessary or not.
It would happen I feel, and for that reason I'd be torn as to supporting such legislation.

When a woman decides to have an abortion, it's because she thinks it's necessary. One only has to listen to the stories of women who have had abortions to appreciate that. While not all women agonise over the decision (nor should they), it's clear it's not a decision they take lightly. I've never heard of a case where, on learning she's pregnant, a woman's first thought was "I'll have an abortion."

This comes down to two questions:

1) If women were able to access abortion in the first 12 weeks without precondition, do you trust that they would make the right choice in their particular circumstances, and
2) If so, how can you justify denying that choice to the majority of women on the basis of what a very small percentage might do (and in my opinion not very likely to do)?

.......

This post has been deleted.

.......

This post has been deleted.

seamus

grahambo wrote: »

This is reproduction 101 Seamus, it's the primary reason we've evolved to enjoy/have the urge to have sex: To Reproduce.
If you have sex, you accept that it is possible regardless of what contraceptive you use that there is a tiny remote possibility that you could get pregnant.

Yes, but that's not what I said. Understanding that there's a possibility of getting pregnant, and having a baby are two entirely separate things.

You appear to be saying that if someone has sex, they should be prepared to have a baby.

Like I say, you're a bit all over the place because you support contraception and the morning after pill, but not any additional measures in the event that they fail.

It's like saying that you support seat belts, air bags, ABS, etc., in cars, but someone who is dying on the roadside after all of these measures failed should just be left to die because they knew the risks when they got behind the wheel.

Why is it when it comes to pregnancy that we suddenly decide someone needs to be "punished" for having the gall to have sex? Why can't people just be allowed to have sex without this threat of punishment hanging over their heads?

.......

This post has been deleted.

January

....... wrote: »

Dont be ridiculous, more than 90% of abortions happen in the first 12 weeks when a pill can be used so it will cost no more than a GP visit and a pill.

Which will either cost 50 euro for the GP visit and at most 144 for the pill or free GP visit and 2.50 for the pills

Beta Ray Bill

seamus wrote: »

Yes, but that's not what I said. Understanding that there's a possibility of getting pregnant, and having a baby are two entirely separate things.

You appear to be saying that if someone has sex, they should be prepared to have a baby.

That's precisely what I'm saying:
If you have sex, you could get pregnant, there is no Abortion in Ireland because the parish pumps don't want it. Therefore you can either go abroad to have the abortion or have the baby.
This will never change, the Church are already gearing up for legal action against the removal of the baptisim barrier in schools.

seamus wrote: »

Like I say, you're a bit all over the place because you support contraception and the morning after pill, but not any additional measures in the event that they fail.

It's like saying that you support seat belts, air bags, ABS, etc., in cars, but someone who is dying on the roadside after all of these measures failed should just be left to die because they knew the risks when they got behind the wheel.

I don't think that's a very good analogy. You're talking about saving a persons life that's been in a car accident as an analogy against potentially ending a life as it's starting?

seamus wrote: »

Why is it when it comes to pregnancy that we suddenly decide someone needs to be "punished" for having the gall to have sex? Why can't people just be allowed to have sex without this threat of punishment hanging over their heads?

I could counter argue that if you are that terrified and afraid of being in a car accident, IE you have a real genuine fear, then you probably shouldn't be getting in a Car.
But again it's not really a great analogy is it?

Getting pregnant is not punishment in my eyes, it's just life.
If you don't want to be pregnant then you have go abroad to have an abortion, (I'd imagine this is a VERY sh*tty experience)
It's either that or have the baby and put it up for adoption (I'd imagine this is even more sh*tty)

As I've said already, It is my opinion that fetus is not alive (Or just barely alive, or not capable of being alive without being in the womb), but it's not dead either. It's not a grey area (we understand well the stages of growth and exactly what is happening etc)

Again my concern ultimately is abuse of the system (we excel at that in this country). For me abortion is absolute last resort. I don't view it as contraception, as you've already conceived. I don't like the idea of it. I think it's a sad and difficult situation for all involved.

.......

This post has been deleted.

SusieBlue

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

This. Also, domestic adoption in this country is pretty much non existent anyway. Children can only be adopted after spending many, many years in the foster care system. By the time they are teenagers, no one wants them, because they have built up years worth of social and behavioural issues.
And at that, it is a tedious, expensive and extremely emotionally taxing endeavour which is why most Irish couples looking to adopt do so internationally. Because its cheaper and easier.

I honestly don't see how giving birth to a child to give it a life sentence in the care system is preferable to abortion, with no adult around in their life long enough to give a sh*t, but that's just me.

NuMarvel

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

They can now, but only since October last year.

But in any case, adoption is an option for those who don't want to become parents, but not really a realistic choice for women who don't want to be pregnant.

.......

This post has been deleted.

Edward M

volchitsa wrote: »

But it is judgmental, and that's not meant as a criticism, I wouldn't dare claim never to be judgmental myself.

But fundamentally your objection is not to abortion but to "abortion for the wrong reasons". That's a good illustration of being judgmental.

Wouldn't it be as easy to make the argument that such unsuitable parents shouldn't be allowed to have children as to say they have to have them to teach them not to take the easy way out?

Fair enough too, I can be compartmentalised as judgemental in that sense.
What I mean in reference to that is that I don't judge those who would openly admit to having an abortion. If they feel they did the right thing then don't mind anyone who accuses or judges them of other.
Just an instance I know of, a young girl 17, fairly close acquaintaince of mine some years ago, got pregnant, her boyfriend was about the same age at the time, her family didn't want her to have the baby, boyfriends family didn't want her to have the baby, they clubbed together and virtually forced her to England, accompanied by her mother for an abortion.
We are still friends, she still regrets that decision and at the time wanted to have the baby, if she had support at the time she would have had the baby.
She now lives in regret of a decision forced on her, even though she now has a family, her biggest regret in life is that abortion.

mrkiscool2

Edward M wrote: »

Fair enough too, I can be compartmentalised as judgemental in that sense.
What I mean in reference to that is that I don't judge those who would openly admit to having an abortion. If they feel they did the right thing then don't mind anyone who accuses or judges them of other.
Just an instance I know of, a young girl 17, fairly close acquaintaince of mine some years ago, got pregnant, her boyfriend was about the same age at the time, her family didn't want her to have the baby, boyfriends family didn't want her to have the baby, they clubbed together and virtually forced her to England, accompanied by her mother for an abortion.
We are still friends, she still regrets that decision and at the time wanted to have the baby, if she had support at the time she would have had the baby.
She now lives in regret of a decision forced on her, even though she now has a family, her biggest regret in life is that abortion.

This is unfortunate, and will happen. However, the majority of cases will be made by informed women who know that they can't go through a pregnancy, for whatever reason, and will therefore have an abortion. It's all about weighing the harms with the benefits. Access to safe and legal abortion, without having to pay a fortune, outweighs the harms of a few cases like this.

ohnonotgmail

Edward M wrote: »

Fair enough too, I can be compartmentalised as judgemental in that sense.
What I mean in reference to that is that I don't judge those who would openly admit to having an abortion. If they feel they did the right thing then don't mind anyone who accuses or judges them of other.
Just an instance I know of, a young girl 17, fairly close acquaintaince of mine some years ago, got pregnant, her boyfriend was about the same age at the time, her family didn't want her to have the baby, boyfriends family didn't want her to have the baby, they clubbed together and virtually forced her to England, accompanied by her mother for an abortion.
We are still friends, she still regrets that decision and at the time wanted to have the baby, if she had support at the time she would have had the baby.
She now lives in regret of a decision forced on her, even though she now has a family, her biggest regret in life is that abortion.

and none of that means that another woman should not have the choice of an abortion.

.......

This post has been deleted.

Beta Ray Bill

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

This country's f*cked...

January

grahambo wrote: »

This country's f*cked...

They can now, but they used to not be able to. Not that that really makes a difference. Can you imagine ever having to explain to a child that mammy and daddy are having a baby but can't keep it because they can't afford it so it's going to live with someone else and you'll never see it?

dr.fuzzenstein

Even if abortion was available, I'm sure it would be purely academic. This is Ireland.
There will firstly be a month long consultation and counselling process for any woman wanting an abortion and at the end it would be "so, that is everything in order then, unfortunately there is a bit of a waiting list. I have booked you in for an appointment at 8 am on October the 22nd in 3 year's time, is that OK with you?"

Beta Ray Bill

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

Even if abortion was available, I'm sure it would be purely academic. This is Ireland.
There will firstly be a month long consultation and counselling process for any woman wanting an abortion and at the end it would "so, that is everything in order then, unfortunately there is a bit of a waiting list. I have booked you in for an appointment at 8 am on October the 22nd in 3 year's time, is that OK with you?"

You're probably right.

.......

This post has been deleted.

January

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

Even if abortion was available, I'm sure it would be purely academic. This is Ireland.
There will firstly be a month long consultation and counselling process for any woman wanting an abortion and at the end it would be "so, that is everything in order then, unfortunately there is a bit of a waiting list. I have booked you in for an appointment at 8 am on October the 22nd in 3 year's time, is that OK with you?"

Again, before 12 weeks you take a pill so it will be a GP appointment and a prescription to bring to a pharmacist. No waiting list required.

January

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Of course, I was just giving one possible scenario (I suppose related to why I had my abortion), there are tonnes of different ones out there. Adoption is an option for some, but only a very small minority.

SusieBlue

grahambo wrote: »

You're probably right.

I just wanted to say that I appreciate your posts so far and can respect that you are in two minds about it and can see it from both sides.
I know that I myself am very black and white about the whole thing, but its nice to read intelligent posts from someone who is somewhere in the middle.
It makes for good discussion and debate and we haven't had many other contributors like that, so far.

.......

This post has been deleted.

Hotblack Desiato

In all areas of life, some adults make bad choices or ones which they may later regret. We can't use this as an excuse to take agency away from all adults or else we would be living in a totalitarian hell hole. Yet some are prepared to do this to women. Expect lots more of the "abortion regret" stories in the coming months - just like the handful of gay people opposed to marriage equality kept getting wheeled out.

end of the road

WhiteRoses wrote: »

This. Also, domestic adoption in this country is pretty much non existent anyway. Children can only be adopted after spending many, many years in the foster care system. By the time they are teenagers, no one wants them, because they have built up years worth of social and behavioural issues.
And at that, it is a tedious, expensive and extremely emotionally taxing endeavour which is why most Irish couples looking to adopt do so internationally. Because its cheaper and easier.

this could and should be changed. it's not a justification for abortion on demand and abortion on demand is a non-solution looking for a problem that can be changed without abortion on demand being availible.

WhiteRoses wrote: »

I honestly don't see how giving birth to a child to give it a life sentence in the care system is preferable to abortion, with no adult around in their life long enough to give a sh*t, but that's just me.

because the issues with the care system and adoption and the rest can be changed. if the unborn baby is killed then they aren't able to be potentially given the good life they deserve, they don't get to live. again, this seems to be another problem looking for abortion to be the solution to, when we can and should be solving the issues instead.

Edward M wrote: »

Fair enough too, I can be compartmentalised as judgemental in that sense.
What I mean in reference to that is that I don't judge those who would openly admit to having an abortion. If they feel they did the right thing then don't mind anyone who accuses or judges them of other.
Just an instance I know of, a young girl 17, fairly close acquaintaince of mine some years ago, got pregnant, her boyfriend was about the same age at the time, her family didn't want her to have the baby, boyfriends family didn't want her to have the baby, they clubbed together and virtually forced her to England, accompanied by her mother for an abortion.
We are still friends, she still regrets that decision and at the time wanted to have the baby, if she had support at the time she would have had the baby.
She now lives in regret of a decision forced on her, even though she now has a family, her biggest regret in life is that abortion.

i don't know about you but that sounds like forced abortion to me, which should be illegal.

mrkiscool2 wrote: »

This is unfortunate, and will happen. However, the majority of cases will be made by informed women who know that they can't go through a pregnancy, for whatever reason, and will therefore have an abortion. It's all about weighing the harms with the benefits. Access to safe and legal abortion, without having to pay a fortune, outweighs the harms of a few cases like this.

the thing is it really doesn't. if it costing a fortune means that the likes of the case edward m mentions is less by not having abortion on demand legal within the irish state then that is a good thing and outweighs wanting a cheaper abortion and availability within ireland.

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

and none of that means that another woman should not have the choice of an abortion.

a woman does have the choice. she just cannot avail of a non-necessary abortion within the state. i'm sure there are other procedures that aren't availible within the irish state for which people have to go abroad. in fact i'd bet a couple of those are ones that are necessary and should be availible in ireland, unlike abortion on demand.

January wrote: »

They can now, but they used to not be able to. Not that that really makes a difference. Can you imagine ever having to explain to a child that mammy and daddy are having a baby but can't keep it because they can't afford it so it's going to live with someone else and you'll never see it?

killing it certainly would be a lot worse.

January

end of the road wrote: »

killing it certainly would be a lot worse.

Not in my case. I didn't kill anything btw, I aborted a pregnancy.

.......

This post has been deleted.

kylith

Edward M wrote: »

Fair enough too, I can be compartmentalised as judgemental in that sense.
What I mean in reference to that is that I don't judge those who would openly admit to having an abortion. If they feel they did the right thing then don't mind anyone who accuses or judges them of other.
Just an instance I know of, a young girl 17, fairly close acquaintaince of mine some years ago, got pregnant, her boyfriend was about the same age at the time, her family didn't want her to have the baby, boyfriends family didn't want her to have the baby, they clubbed together and virtually forced her to England, accompanied by her mother for an abortion.
We are still friends, she still regrets that decision and at the time wanted to have the baby, if she had support at the time she would have had the baby.
She now lives in regret of a decision forced on her, even though she now has a family, her biggest regret in life is that abortion.

That's a terrible shame.

I know it's hard to do when you're afraid, Mammy is right beside you, and it could ruin your relationship with your family, but if she had told the doctor that she didn't want the termination they wouldn't have performed it. No doctor will perform a non-lifesaving procedure on a person who is old enough to understand what's going on and the ramifications of it if that person does not want it performed.

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

In all areas of life, some adults make bad choices or ones which they may later regret. We can't use this as an excuse to take agency away from all adults or else we would be living in a totalitarian hell hole. Yet some are prepared to do this to women. Expect lots more of the "abortion regret" stories in the coming months - just like the handful of gay people opposed to marriage equality kept getting wheeled out.

What anti-choice people forget is that for every 'I regret my abortion' story there is an 'I regret not having an abortion' story.

SusieBlue

end of the road wrote: »

this could and should be changed. it's not a justification for abortion on demand and abortion on demand is a non-solution looking for a problem that can be changed without abortion on demand being availible.


because the issues with the care system and adoption and the rest can be changed. if the unborn baby is killed then they aren't able to be potentially given the good life they deserve, they don't get to live. again, this seems to be another problem looking for abortion to be the solution to, when we can and should be solving the issues instead.

It isn't going to change any time soon, if ever. And even if it did, why would anyone go through with a pregnancy just to hand their child over to the state?
Even if the system was a LOT better, a child should still have at least 1 functional, stable, loving parent.
Why should an unwanted child be born just so they can be handed over to the social services? How is that a positive outcome, for the mother, knowing the life her child will face, or for the child, growing up with no stable figure knowing they weren't wanted by their natural parent(s)?

Whether it is better or not is a matter of opinion. A girl in my class in school was in foster care and after seeing what she went through I wouldn't wish it on my worst enemy, let alone an innocent child.
She was moved constantly from home to home, beat up by the other foster children, the "real" children of the foster parents got treated far better and she literally had no one looking out for her apart from her social worker.
She did not have a good, stable childhood. She missed out on a lot of love that caused her issues in later life. It just isn't a life I'd choose for myself or for a child.

end of the road

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

i already answered your question by informing you such posts are in the thread. it's better for you to read them yourself.

kylith wrote: »

That's a terrible shame.

I know it's hard to do when you're afraid, Mammy is right beside you, and it could ruin your relationship with your family, but if she had told the doctor that she didn't want the termination they wouldn't have performed it. No doctor will perform a non-lifesaving procedure on a person who is old enough to understand what's going on and the ramifications of it if that person does not want it performed.



What anti-choice people forget is that for every 'I regret my abortion' story there is an 'I regret not having an abortion' story.

i would wager there aren't very many i regret not having an abortion stories. i'm sure there are some but i would be surprised if they match up to the amount of i regret having an abortion stories.

WhiteRoses wrote: »

It isn't going to change any time soon, if ever. And even if it did, why would anyone go through with a pregnancy just to hand their child over to the state?
Even if the system was a LOT better, a child should still have at least 1 functional, stable, loving parent.
Why should an unwanted child be born just so they can be handed over to the social services? How is that a positive outcome, for the mother, knowing the life her child will face, or for the child, growing up with no stable figure knowing they weren't wanted by their natural parent(s)?

how is that unborn child being killed better then changing the system and insuring they go to a loving stable home once born should the parent decide they do not wish to look after it? improving the system brings greater benefits then allowing for those children to be simply aborted and then we just wash our hands of the system as will likely happen.

WhiteRoses wrote: »

Whether it is better or not is a matter of opinion.

the thing is, as much as you may not understand it, it really isn't a matter of opinion. a system where the child is matched with a suitable home and where there is complete oversight of the adoptive/foster parents will always outweigh simply having abortion on demand as the solution.

WhiteRoses wrote: »

A girl in my class in school was in foster care and after seeing what she went through I wouldn't wish it on my worst enemy, let alone an innocent child.
She was moved constantly from home to home, beat up by the other foster children, the "real" children of the foster parents got treated far better and she literally had no one looking out for her apart from her social worker.
She did not have a good, stable childhood. She missed out on a lot of love that caused her issues in later life. It just isn't a life I'd choose for myself or for a child.

that girl's situation was absolutely aweful, how she was treated was beyond contempt and there was no justification for it. social services are to blame for not insuring those parents were suitable foster parents.
but i cannot and will not except the idea that abortion on demand is the solution to solving that problem. it's just not. the solution is improving the systems vastly and insuring they work.

One eyed Jack

pilly wrote: »

Have you a source for this evidence from other countries please?

That's a fair request, but first of all it's worth noting this -

The adoption vs. abortion myth

Basically any correlation between a reduction or increase in either abortion or children in care is misleading in the first place. Worth noting too -

Cory L. Richards is senior vice president and vice president for public policy at the Guttmacher Institute, an independent think tank in the field of sexual and reproductive health.

That's the Institute that published the report that mrkiscool2 produced earlier that was about 10 years out of date. It's not that I am biased against any use of statistics from the Guttermacher Institute itself (they really are the go-to peeps for this kind of stuff), it's that the report was simply 10 years out of date.

Ok so with that out of the way, if we look at the trends for both abortion and children in care in both the US and the UK, we see that they both increase and decrease in tandem! That is to say that, historically at least, when the rate of abortion rises, so does the number of children in care! When the rate of abortion decreases, so too does the number of children in care!

So, when I said this -

One eyed Jack wrote: »

That wasn't the original claim at all though. The original claim had nothing to do with adoption, it related to the numbers of children in care if we had or hadn't abortion in Ireland, and I said there was simply no way of knowing whether it would make any difference, but the evidence from other countries suggests that it doesn't.

It's entirely true to say that there's simply no way of knowing whether it would or wouldn't make a difference in Ireland to the numbers of children in care, but if we look at the evidence from other countries, the evidence suggests that it doesn't. I would suggest that the figures for the number of children in care would be the same as they would be now whether or not we had abortion in Ireland.

Sources:
Children looked after in England (including adoption and care leavers) year ending 31 March 2015, Department for Education, England
Abortion Statistics, England and Wales: 2015, Summary information from the abortion notification forms returned to the Chief Medical Officers of England and Wales.
Child Welfare Information Gateway. (2017). Foster care statistics 2015. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Children’s Bureau.
Here’s Why the Number of Abortions in the US Has Hit a Record Low, Vice News, 2015

I think it would be fairer to say that for every "I regret my abortion" story there are maybe nine "It was the right decision for me" stories.

NuMarvel

Deleted User wrote: »

I think it would be fairer to say that for every "I regret my abortion" story there are maybe nine "It was the right decision for me" stories.

Research put the ratio at 1 out of 20.

Ninety-five percent of women who have had abortions do not regret the decision to terminate their pregnancies, according to a study published last week in the multidisciplinary academic journal PLOS ONE.

Source: http://time.com/3956781/women-abortion-regret-reproductive-health/.

Birdie Num Num

kylith wrote: »

What anti-choice people forget is that for every 'I regret my abortion' story there is an 'I regret not having an abortion' story.

I've never heard one but that said I am sure they are out there, can't imagine there are many. Not something a mother is going to freely admit to a child either I'd guess. I only know of two friends who had abortions, both had regret but guess they believed it was the right decision for them at the time. They were both young. Subsequently one of them was quite relieved they didn't go for that option again when it was asked of them.

SusieBlue

end of the road wrote: »

how is that unborn child being killed better then changing the system and insuring they go to a loving stable home once born should the parent decide they do not wish to look after it? improving the system brings greater benefits then allowing for those children to be simply aborted and then we just wash our hands of the system as will likely happen.

You missed the point. I didn’t say the system shouldn’t be changed. I said it won’t change for a long time, if ever. In the mean time, while we are waiting for that positive change to our appalling system, abortion would be preferable for a lot of people.

the thing is, as much as you may not understand it, it really isn't a matter of opinion. a system where the child is matched with a suitable home and where there is complete oversight of the adoptive/foster parents will always outweigh simply having abortion on demand as the solution.

Part two of you missing the point.
Firstly, don’t be so condescending as to imply that I don’t understand the situation.
Of course being put up for adoption into a loving home with two parents and a stable upbringing is preferable to abortion. But see my point above. We don’t have a system like that in place. It’ll be years, if ever, before the system is rectified to an acceptable standard.
Therefore once again, I will repeat, abortion would be preferable, for some people.

that girl's situation was absolutely aweful, how she was treated was beyond contempt and there was no justification for it. social services are to blame for not insuring those parents were suitable foster parents.
but i cannot and will not except the idea that abortion on demand is the solution to solving that problem. it's just not. the solution is improving the systems vastly and insuring they work.

That is your opinion, not a fact. I see things differently.

eviltwin

Adoption has always been an option. Some people talk like it's some secret thing no one knows about. I think every single woman who has an abortion knows she can put the child up for adoption, that so few do speaks volumes about what those women want. I couldn't avail of adoption without putting my existing child at risk - I was married - but it wouldn't have mattered or changed my decision if it was an option. I wasn't going to stay pregnant to make other people happy. No regrets either.

end of the road

WhiteRoses wrote: »

You missed the point. I didn’t say the system shouldn’t be changed. I said it won’t change for a long time, if ever. In the mean time, while we are waiting for that positive change to our appalling system, abortion would be preferable for a lot of people.




Part two of you missing the point.
Firstly, don’t be so condescending as to imply that I don’t understand the situation.
Of course being put up for adoption into a loving home with two parents and a stable upbringing is preferable to abortion. But see my point above. We don’t have a system like that in place. It’ll be years, if ever, before the system is rectified to an acceptable standard.
Therefore once again, I will repeat, abortion would be preferable, for some people.



That is your opinion, not a fact. I see things differently.

it is a fact though. i understand some may not like it and that's okay, but it definitely is true that abortion on demand just isn't the solution to the problems with the system.
abortion on demand may be preferable for some but it's not for society as a whole, it will become the default solution to every problem as far as the state would be concerned. that is why instead of calling for abortion on demand, forcing through the improvements to the system is the best option.
so i haven't missed your point and i wasn't condescending, i was suggesting that maybe you don't understand where i was coming from in terms of my points. if you do, great, if you don't, that's okay.

One eyed Jack

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Your efforts to goad me into saying something that will get me banned from the thread are transparent at this stage, but suffice to say that while you might think there is something to be ashamed of in being pro-life, I don't, nor is there any shame in being pro-choice, so either/or whatever, it makes no odds to me tbh.

With that said, I've been trying to think all day what could you possibly have meant when you suggested that arguments made regarding repealing the 8th amendment on this site have been successful, and the only reasoning I could come up with, and please, feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, is the whole infantile nonsense argument about sentient rights as opposed to human rights. Obviously if you agree with a point of view expressed, then you're going to deem it a successful argument, but my definition of a successful argument is one which influences a person to change their perspective to a position the opposite of one they previously held, so on that basis, the argument about sentient rights has simply failed.

Now, the reason it doesn't even get off the ground in the first place is because it's a red herring. If we were to acknowledge sentient rights, then we would have to give the same rights to other animals as we do humans, and the logical conclusion of that philosophy is that humans would then become vegan, hemp wearing hippies, because it would be unethical to kill sentient beings. Thankfully, the only people who espouse that particular philosophy are generally vegan, hemp wearing hippies; think the Occupy movement types of a few years back. It failed, and so would any ideological argument about sentient rights as opposed to human rights.

volchitsa wrote: »

The girl whose case came to light a few months ago was wrongly incarcerated for asking for an abortion on suicide grounds.
Not for "varied" reasons.

That's speculation at best, if we're talking about the same case, and I wouldn't use it in an argument relating to abortion particularly when she was 17 weeks pregnant at the time which would be beyond the 12 week limit being mooted by the Citizen's Assembly.

volchitsa wrote: »

As for Savita, the expert who wrote the report confirmed only recently that his view was that without the law, she would have lived.

They messed up her care after, true. But if the 8th hadn't been in place she wouldn't have had to wait as she did.

I wouldn't take that too seriously though tbh, because it is literally only his view, an opinion. There's simply no way of knowing whether or not with or without the 8th amendment in place whether or not she would have lived or died. According to what's actually written in the HSE report though, Savita died as a result of cardiac arrest brought on by a sepsis infection that wasn't detected in the first place -

The intensive care consultant performed a transoesophageal echo. This investigation may have added new information as to the cause of the patient’s deteriorating cardiac status, despite earlier derived values suggesting a high cardiac output state. The results raised a number of possibilities, including the possibility of a pulmonary embolism. The finding of poor left ventricular function may have reflected a sepsis induced cardiomyopathy. Should post mortem findings show insignificant or no coronary artery disease flow limitation, the significant Troponin T (cardiac enzyme) elevation of the 26th and 27th October may support a diagnosis of sepsis induced cardiomyopathy. The decision to treat the possibility of a pulmonary embolism with anticoagulation is reasonable based on these findings, but with little prospect of success. The patient's on-going clinical deterioration despite all these measures culminated ultimately in a cardiac arrest. It would be unusual to have success at cardiopulmonary resuscitation in a context of the high levels of intensive care management and interventions required to sustain life through that day.

It's also worth noting from that same report though -

Meaning of “unborn” in Article 40.3.3°

Geoghegan J made the point even more briefly as follows:

“Both on a simple reading but even more so given its historical context, I would take the view that “the unborn” refers to a child in the womb not yet born.”

I could just as easily say that if Savita hadn't developed sepsis she would have lived, but realistically speaking it's really a moot point now as there were a number of contributing factors which led to her death, but using single cases in determining policy regarding abortion is a terrible idea anyway, so I don't.

SusieBlue

end of the road wrote: »

it is a fact though. i understand some may not like it and that's okay, but it definitely is true that abortion on demand just isn't the solution to the problems with the system.
abortion on demand may be preferable for some but it's not for society as a whole, it will become the default solution to every problem as far as the state would be concerned. that is why instead of calling for abortion on demand, forcing through the improvements to the system is the best option.
so i haven't missed your point and i wasn't condescending, i was suggesting that maybe you don't understand where i was coming from in terms of my points. if you do, great, if you don't, that's okay.

It isn’t a fact. It simply isn’t. It isn’t definitely true.
It is your OPINION which is NOT a fact. The sooner you stop confusing the two the sooner this thread can have some constructive debate.

Right now you are just doing your usual detailing tactic of ranting off opinions while labeling them as factual statements.

.......

This post has been deleted.

.......

This post has been deleted.

mrkiscool2

One eyed Jack wrote: »

That's a fair request, but first of all it's worth noting this -

The adoption vs. abortion myth

Basically any correlation between a reduction or increase in either abortion or children in care is misleading in the first place. Worth noting too -

Cory L. Richards is senior vice president and vice president for public policy at the Guttmacher Institute, an independent think tank in the field of sexual and reproductive health.

That's the Institute that published the report that mrkiscool2 produced earlier that was about 10 years out of date. It's not that I am biased against any use of statistics from the Guttermacher Institute itself (they really are the go-to peeps for this kind of stuff), it's that the report was simply 10 years out of date.

Ok so with that out of the way, if we look at the trends for both abortion and children in care in both the US and the UK, we see that they both increase and decrease in tandem! That is to say that, historically at least, when the rate of abortion rises, so does the number of children in care! When the rate of abortion decreases, so too does the number of children in care!

So, when I said this -




It's entirely true to say that there's simply no way of knowing whether it would or wouldn't make a difference in Ireland to the numbers of children in care, but if we look at the evidence from other countries, the evidence suggests that it doesn't. I would suggest that the figures for the number of children in care would be the same as they would be now whether or not we had abortion in Ireland.

Sources:
Children looked after in England (including adoption and care leavers) year ending 31 March 2015, Department for Education, England
Abortion Statistics, England and Wales: 2015, Summary information from the abortion notification forms returned to the Chief Medical Officers of England and Wales.
Child Welfare Information Gateway. (2017). Foster care statistics 2015. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Children’s Bureau.
Here’s Why the Number of Abortions in the US Has Hit a Record Low, Vice News, 2015

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha.....wait, wait, I got this....hahahahahahahahahahahaha

Did you even read the article? It says the rate of children in care is significantly down since 1970. Hmmmm, I wonder when abortion became legal in New York? Oh, that's right, 1970. Seriously mate, get your head sorted. 10 years is still evidence that what you said was wrong and you still can't let it fcuking go. Sad.

EDIT: By the way, to back up your claim that abortion would not affect the number of children in care in Ireland, you have to provide figures for the amount of children in care for periods before and after abortion was legalised in countries to see if what you claim is true. Not only did I provide you research that proved what I said was correct (as much as you tried to claim "I didn't say that hurr durr", and then claim I didn't refute your claim because "durr hurr, it was a 10 year old paper"), your article also proved me correct. Quite funny that.

Billy86

grahambo wrote: »

You're probably right.

Been working an admin job with Tusla and we share the floor/building with a HSE primary care center... he's more than right!

frag420

EOTR, have you ever wondered why nobody from the pro-birth side are thanking your posts or agreeing with you?

Ever stop to think that even they, despite being on the same side as you with respect to the debate think that what you write here is complete nonsense and factless babble!!


Just to note that at this stage nobody has thanked EOTR’s posts just in case someone decides to start thanking them!!

In fact I enjoy reading your replies because if this is the level of debate from that side the result is a forgone conclusion!

And before you start typing a reply, allow me to help you, just copy and paste any of the below into your reply!!

***It doesn’t matter if people don’t agree with me, I know I am right and that’s a fact***

***It’s not a forgone conclusion, that’s a fact***

***That’s your opinion and it’s wrong, that’s a fact***

end of the road

WhiteRoses wrote: »

It isn’t a fact. It simply isn’t. It isn’t definitely true.
It is your OPINION which is NOT a fact.

i disagree as it really is a fact. and all the evidence i have read suggests enough to me that it is fact. i haven't saw anything credible to change my viewpoint. the rest of your post is inaccurate and i will say that your opinions on me aren't relevant, only our opinions on the topic are relevant.

mrkiscool2 wrote: »

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha.....wait, wait, I got this....hahahahahahahahahahahaha

Did you even read the article? It says the rate of children in care is significantly down since 1970. Hmmmm, I wonder when abortion became legal in New York? Oh, that's right, 1970. Seriously mate, get your head sorted. 10 years is still evidence that what you said was wrong and you still can't let it fcuking go. Sad.

EDIT: By the way, to back up your claim that abortion would not affect the number of children in care in Ireland, you have to provide figures for the amount of children in care for periods before and after abortion was legalised in countries to see if what you claim is true. Not only did I provide you research that proved what I said was correct (as much as you tried to claim "I didn't say that hurr durr", and then claim I didn't refute your claim because "durr hurr, it was a 10 year old paper"), your article also proved me correct. Quite funny that.

there is no evidence however that the reduction is down to abortion availability alone at least. it may be a part of it but there could be a lot of other factors at play.