The 8th amendment(Mod warning in op)

Loafing Oaf

volchitsa wrote: »

It's time for Ireland to stop using other countries to avoid dealing with our hang ups.

No matter how often you say it, they just won't listen!:p

thee glitz

NuMarvel wrote: »

The WHO says bans on abortions increases the number of unsafe abortions. If you have research or statistics that say otherwise, feel free to share.

There's this

So the British statistics prove that Ireland's abortion ban works. Riiiiight....... :rolleyes:

The British statistics, which you've been quoting, show that less than 1 in 58 UK abortions were on Irish babies, much less than than would be predicted by the relative populations including considering the number of other overseas incidences.

nice_guy80

Why should a religious body have any influence in the relationships and sex education curriculum in the schools they are the Trustees of? I'd have thought the answer was obvious.

cause they want to interfere in children's education??

It's actually fraught with difficulty at all levels though where the RSE policy is also influenced by, and in consultation the members of the Board of Management, teachers and parents. Parents too also have the opportunity to opt their children out of any programme.

again it's crazy that parents have that option

There are loads of competing lobby groups want access to schools to teach their own particular perspective on sex and sexuality, to the point where there really isn't a set standard. The children's parents themselves are in the best position to know their children best as opposed to one teacher trying to accommodate and tailor their lessons for the individual preferences of 20 odd students. The fact that some parents don't take their responsibility seriously should never mean that they should be able to hold the school responsible for their children's inadequate sex education.

I'm sorry, but that is just bonkers.
sex education in school should be mandatory for all pupils
it should be a state requirement for the school to receive state funding and for the child to be enrolled in the first place

NuMarvel

thee glitz wrote: »

The British statistics, which you've been quoting, show that less than 1 in 58 UK abortions were on Irish babies, much less than than would be predicted by the relative populations including considering the number of other overseas incidences.

The statistics show that Irish women have abortions. If you want to interpret that as being the successful implementation of a law that's supposed to stop Irish women having abortions, be my guest.

Sin City

thee glitz wrote: »

Are they though - what if the UK, a democracy, adopts legislation like already in place in NI... There's no reason why we should we be legislating based on other jurisdictions. Travelling to the UK for an abortion is a loophole, not policy.

Yeah but the "crime" is still being commtted just not in an Irish Jurisdiction
Thats just passing the buck

Its not gonna stop whats actually happening
Women are going to flee the country to have medical procedures that is outlawed here

Dont get me wrong I was pro life however my own personal views will take a backseat to the reality of the situation

Criminalizing this isnt and has never stopped abortions being sought and obtained
it just makes it that bit harder.
People do suffer mentally physically and emotionally for it

professore

Are there any other crimes that are illegal in Ireland but legal in another country that you can be convicted of as an Irish citizen if you partake of it in another country? I'm asking out of curiosity.

kylith

professore wrote: »

Are there any other crimes that are illegal in Ireland but legal in another country that you can be convicted of as an Irish citizen if you partake of it in another country? I'm asking out of curiosity.

Sex tourism for the purpose of having sex with minors, I think.

Call me Al

professore wrote: »

Are there any other crimes that are illegal in Ireland but legal in another country that you can be convicted of as an Irish citizen if you partake of it in another country? I'm asking out of curiosity.

Assisted suicide I think?

Annasopra

end of the road wrote: »

i don't. however if they travel outside the state there is nothing that can be done.

Absolute and utter nonsense. Of course you can make it extremeley difficult for travel. Ms X was banned from travelling.

Annasopra

Martina1991 wrote: »

If a women in Ireland today chooses to have an abortion she WILL have one. Whether it be pills bought online, going abroad or seeking cheaper dangerous alternatives.

Unfortunately many cannot go through with their decision because they are poor. Really all the 8th amendment does is marginalises poorer women and gives wealthier women more options.

thee glitz

NuMarvel wrote: »

The statistics show that Irish women have abortions.

They show that a relatively small proportion of those getting abortions done to their babies are Irish.

If you want to interpret that as being the successful implementation of a law that's supposed to stop Irish women having abortions, be my guest.

Will do.

Sin City wrote: »

Yeah but the "crime" is still being commtted just not in an Irish Jurisdiction
Thats just passing the buck

It's not legally a crime when committed in Britain, though I believe the proper procedures in determining eligibility are often not followed. It's not just passing the buck either, unless there's an explicit agreement that the UK will cater to Irish abortion requests.

Its not gonna stop whats actually happening
Women are going to flee the country to have medical procedures that is outlawed here

We can only legislate for here, can't stop women fleeing the country. Well we could, but would that be proportionate... That doesn't mean we should adopt the laws of other countries. Rejoin the UK anyone?

Criminalizing this isnt and has never stopped abortions being sought and obtained
it just makes it that bit harder.

The British stats show that less Irish women (per capita) than British present for abortions on their babies over there. Not sure what that proves but it suggests that the 8th has some effect (illegal pills aside).

People do suffer mentally physically and emotionally for it

For your everyday lifestyle abortion 'mother', I've better things to care about.

thee glitz

Sin City wrote: »

We can never allow another Savita Halappanavar tragedy again

Well...

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Sir,

– The recent inquest on Savita Halappanavar has raised important issues about hospital infection in obstetrics. Much of the public attention appears to have been directed at the expert opinion of Dr Peter Boylan who suggested that Irish law prevented necessary treatment to save Ms Halappanavar’s life. We would suggest that this is a personal view, not an expert one.

Furthermore, it is impossible for Dr Boylan, or for any doctor, to predict with certainty the clinical course and outcome in the case of Savita Halappanavar where sepsis arose from the virulent and multi drug-resistant organism, E.coli ESBL.

What we can say with certainty is that where ruptured membranes are accompanied by any clinical or bio-chemical marker of infection, Irish obstetricians understand they CAN intervene with early delivery of the baby if necessary. Unfortunately, the inquest shows that in Galway University Hospital the diagnosis of chorioamnionitis was delayed and relevant information was not noted and acted upon.

The facts as produced at the inquest show this tragic case to be primarily about the management of sepsis, and Dr Boylan’s opinion on the effect of Irish law did not appear to be shared by the coroner, or the jury, of the inquest.

Additionally there are many well-documented fatalities from sepsis in women following termination of pregnancy. To concentrate on the legal position regarding abortion in the light of such a case as that in Galway does not assist our services to pregnant women.

It is clear that maternal mortality in developed countries is rising, in the US, Canada, Britain, Denmark, Netherlands and other European countries. The last Confidential Enquiry in Britain (which now includes Ireland) recommended a “return to basics” and stated that many maternal deaths are related to failure to observe simple clinical signs such as fever, headache and changes in pulse rate and blood pressure. Many of the failings highlighted in Galway have been described before in these and other reports.

The additional problem of multi-resistant organisms causing infection, largely as a result of antibiotic use and abuse, is a serious cause of concern and may lead to higher death rates in all areas of medicine.

Ireland’s maternal health record is one of the best in the world in terms of our low rate of maternal death (including Galway hospital). The case in Galway was one of the worst cases of sepsis ever experienced in that hospital, and the diagnosis of ESBL septicaemia was almost unprecedented among Irish maternity units.

It is important that all obstetrical units in Ireland reflect on the findings of the events in Galway and learn how to improve care for pregnant women. To reduce it to a polemical argument about abortion may lead to more – not fewer – deaths in the future.

– Yours sincerely,

Dr. John Monaghan, DCH FRCPI FRCOG Consultant Obstetrician/Gynecologist

Dr. Cyril Thornton, MB BCh MRCOG Consultant Obstetrician/Gynecologist

Dr. Eamon Mc Guinness, MB BCh MRCOG Consultant Obstetrician/Gynecologist

Dr. Trevor Hayes, MB BCh FRCS MRCOG Consultant Obstetrician/Gynecologist

Dr. Chris King, MB DCH MRCOG Consultant Obstetrician/Gynecologist

Dr. Eileen Reilly, MB ChB MRCOG Consultant Obstetrician/Gynecologist

Prof John Bonnar, MD FRCPI FRCOG Professor Emeritus Obstetrics & Gynaecology

Prof Eamon O’Dwyer, MB MAO LLB FRCPI FRCOG Professor Emeritus Obstetrics & Gynaecology

Prof Stephen Cusack, MB BCh FRCSI Consultant in Emergency Medicine

Dr. Rory Page, MB BCh FFA RCSI Consultant Anaesthetist

Dr. James Clair, MB BCh PhD FRCPath Consultant Microbiologist

Sin City

thee glitz wrote: »

They show that a relatively small proportion of those getting abortions done to their babies are Irish.



Will do.



It's not legally a crime when committed in Britain, though I believe the proper procedures in determining eligibility are often not followed. It's not just passing the buck either, unless there's an explicit agreement that the UK will cater to Irish abortion requests.



We can only legislate for here, can't stop women fleeing the country. Well we could, but would that be proportionate... That doesn't mean we should adopt the laws of other countries. Rejoin the UK anyone?



The British stats show that less Irish women (per capita) than British present for abortions on their babies over there. Not sure what that proves but it suggests that the 8th has some effect (illegal pills aside).



For your everyday lifestyle abortion 'mother', I've better things to care about.

Whats an everyday lifestyle abortion mother?
As in a mother that uses abortions as birth control?
If thats the way your thinking Iv lost a lot of respect for you and your posts

January

thee glitz wrote: »

I don't think we were talking about consent to procedures during pregnancy and birth, certainly I wasn't, but I'll have another look. What seems to being disguised is a hard-on for the legalisation of any reason abortion in the name of general healthcare. Afford reasonable protection to babies from their mothers and people would vote to replace the 8th.

When WhiteRoses said

What are your opinions on how the 8th currently affects maternity care and the concept of consent, in Ireland?

She was specifically asking you about the capacity to consent to medical procedures during pregnancy and birth. She was not asking about consent to sexual activity.

end of the road

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

Unfortunately many cannot go through with their decision because they are poor. Really all the 8th amendment does is marginalises poorer women and gives wealthier women more options.

which means it stops some abortions. poorer women will continue to struggle to afford an abortion even if it was legislated for in ireland, unless the tax payer ends up forking out for it, which will likely mean other treatments which would be necessary seeing funding reduced, or new necessary treatments not being able to be funded. the irish state can't afford abortion on demand, there are actual important issues which the health service needs to fund.

Sin City wrote: »

Whats an everyday lifestyle abortion mother?
As in a mother that uses abortions as birth control?

anyone who has an abortion on demand basically. they are doing it because the pregnancy is inconvenient to them. so i can see why one would come to the conclusion that it's used as a form of birth control. we aren't talking about people having abortions due to necessary reasons such as threat to life, being denied life saving treatment, issues where the baby could cause a disability or cases where the baby cannot be caried to term.

NuMarvel

thee glitz wrote: »

The British stats show that less Irish women (per capita) than British present for abortions on their babies over there. Not sure what that proves but it suggests that the 8th has some effect (illegal pills aside).

You're ignoring two important facts in your assumption; one, women were traveling abroad for abortions before the 8th was introduced, so any "success" can't be attributed to the 8th. In fact, the numbers traveling to Britain increased year after year for about 20 years after the 8th was introduced, so the only effect it seemed to have was send more women abroad.

Two, there's nothing to suggest that the British statistics are the totality of Irish women who have abortions abroad. There are plenty of other European countries women can travel to and they don't publish statistics on abortions for non-residents. Plus, the British statistics are based on the addresses someone gives, so there's nothing stopping an Irish woman giving another address entirely (eg a friend in the UK). That would seem especially likely if she's concerned about someone back home somehow finding out.

thee glitz wrote: »

For your everyday lifestyle abortion 'mother', I've better things to care about.

#LoveBoth :rolleyes:

pitifulgod

end of the road wrote: »

which means it stops some abortions. poorer women will continue to struggle to afford an abortion even if it was legislated for in ireland, unless the tax payer ends up forking out for it, which will likely mean other treatments which would be necessary seeing funding reduced, or new necessary treatments not being able to be funded. the irish state can't afford abortion on demand, there are actual important issues which the health service needs to fund.



anyone who has an abortion on demand basically. they are doing it because the pregnancy is inconvenient to them. so i can see why one would come to the conclusion that it's used as a form of birth control. we aren't talking about people having abortions due to necessary reasons such as threat to life, being denied life saving treatment, issues where the baby could cause a disability or cases where the baby cannot be caried to term.

Poorer women will rely on the public health service so forcing them to have the baby against their will inevitably cost money. So allowing them to have an abortion would not take away from other medical services...

In relation to what you define as necessary reasons. I have friends who have had abortions. They were not in the right place in life to have children. That's a reasonable reason to me even if it makes you uncomfortable.

bandit14

This issue will divide many a household !!

SusieBlue

thee glitz wrote: »

They show that a relatively small proportion of those getting abortions done to their babies are Irish.



Will do.



It's not legally a crime when committed in Britain, though I believe the proper procedures in determining eligibility are often not followed. It's not just passing the buck either, unless there's an explicit agreement that the UK will cater to Irish abortion requests.



We can only legislate for here, can't stop women fleeing the country. Well we could, but would that be proportionate... That doesn't mean we should adopt the laws of other countries. Rejoin the UK anyone?



The British stats show that less Irish women (per capita) than British present for abortions on their babies over there. Not sure what that proves but it suggests that the 8th has some effect (illegal pills aside).



For your everyday lifestyle abortion 'mother', I've better things to care about.

Still waiting on a reply to your opinion on how the 8th affects maternity care and consent for Irish women? Now that it has been explained to you, as you weren’t previously aware, what is your opinion?

NuMarvel

end of the road wrote: »

which means it stops some abortions. poorer women will continue to struggle to afford an abortion even if it was legislated for in ireland, unless the tax payer ends up forking out for it, which will likely mean other treatments which would be necessary seeing funding reduced, or new necessary treatments not being able to be funded. the irish state can't afford abortion on demand, there are actual important issues which the health service needs to fund.

Pregnant women who don't have abortions are still accessing the health service anyway, so there's no additional funding burden. From a purely economic point of view, abortions are probably less resource intensive because the majority can be performed outside of an in-patient setting, such as a clinc, a GP's surgery, or even at home.

And before anyone somehow misinterprets me, this isn't an argument to allow access to abortion; it's pointing out the flaws in EOTR's thinking.

end of the road

pitifulgod wrote: »

Poorer women will rely on the public health service so forcing them to have the baby against their will inevitably cost money. So allowing them to have an abortion would not take away from other medical services...

it ultimately would as the money for abortion on demand couldn't come from another part of the budget. having children may cost the tax payer money but those children have the potential to contribute to society and the majority will.

pitifulgod wrote: »

In relation to what you define as necessary reasons. I have friends who have had abortions. They were not in the right place in life to have children. That's a reasonable reason to me even if it makes you uncomfortable.

the state has to prioritize. treatment for someone who is going to die, or an abortion because someone doesn't feel like they can look after a child, for which there are systems in place to deal with (all be it they need massive improvement)

NuMarvel wrote: »

Pregnant women who don't have abortions are still accessing the health service anyway, so there's no additional funding burden. From a purely economic point of view, abortions are probably less resource intensive because the majority can be performed outside of an in-patient setting, such as a clinc, a GP's surgery, or even at home.

And before anyone somehow misinterprets me, this isn't an argument to allow access to abortion; it's pointing out the flaws in EOTR's thinking.

if that's the case then it's easily affordible, meaning the person who wants the abortion can pay the cost and the state doesn't have to fund it? at least that is some little consolation should abortion on demand be legislated for in this country.

I know it shouldn't, but the phrase "abortions on their babies" gave me a proper laugh.

Kurtosis

end of the road wrote: »

the state has to prioritize. treatment for someone who is going to die, or an abortion because someone doesn't feel like they can look after a child, for which there are systems in place to deal with (all be it they need massive improvement)

That is whatabouttery. No one is suggesting defunding palliative care. If you're looking to make savings on "unnecessary" healthcare, what about erectile dysfunction drugs which are funded by the state? Also, if you're making a spurious economic argument, where will the money come from for the massive improvement of existing systems?

pitifulgod

end of the road wrote: »

it ultimately would as the money for abortion on demand couldn't come from another part of the budget. having children may cost the tax payer money but those children have the potential to contribute to society and the majority will.

Your point was simply wrong though. It costs substantially more to give birth. So paying the cost of a pill that's not extraordinarily expensive, it's not gonna ruin anyone's medical treatment. The point simply isn't valid. You don't argue that a person giving birth is taking away from another person's medical treatment...

This is merely medical treatment that you're not comfortable with.

end of the road

Kurtosis wrote: »

That is whatabouttery. No one is suggesting defunding palliative care. If you're looking to make savings on "unnecessary" healthcare, what about erectile dysfunction drugs which are funded by the state? Also, if you're making a spurious economic argument, where will the money come from for the massive improvement of existing systems?

there is plenty of money to improve the services. without abortion on demand that means money doesn't have to be taken to fund it.

pitifulgod wrote: »

Your point was simply wrong though. It costs substantially more to give birth. So paying the cost of a pill that's not extraordinarily expensive, it's not gonna ruin anyone's medical treatment. The point simply isn't valid. You don't argue that a person giving birth is taking away from another person's medical treatment...

This is merely medical treatment that you're not comfortable with.

no it's the killing of babies for non-necessary reasons that shouldn't be and doesn't need to be legislated for, allowed within the state and funded by the state. and of course money would be taken from something worth while to fund it if it was legislated for and the state had to fund it.
that is why things as they are work well, those who want abortions can avail of them and fund it themselves, or receive funding from non-state sources. and the state doesn't have to provide abortion bar extreme circumstances.

pitifulgod

end of the road wrote: »

there is plenty of money to improve the services. without abortion on demand that means money doesn't have to be taken to fund it.



no it's the killing of babies for non-necessary reasons that shouldn't be and doesn't need to be legislated for, allowed within the state and funded by the state. and of course money would be taken from something worth while to fund it if it was legislated for and the state had to fund it.
that is why things as they are work well, those who want abortions can avail of them and fund it themselves, or receive funding from non-state sources. and the state doesn't have to provide abortion bar extreme circumstances.

The committee concluded we need to legislate. Medical experts across the country also think we need to legislate. So we will be getting a referendum and if it passes, you'll just have to get over it. You won't get to decide what is necessary.

volchitsa

end of the road wrote: »

Kurtosis wrote: »

That is whatabouttery. No one is suggesting defunding palliative care. If you're looking to make savings on "unnecessary" healthcare, what about erectile dysfunction drugs which are funded by the state? Also, if you're making a spurious economic argument, where will the money come from for the massive improvement of existing systems?

there is plenty of money to improve the services. without abortion on demand that means money doesn't have to be taken to fund it.

pitifulgod wrote: »

Your point was simply wrong though. It costs substantially more to give birth. So paying the cost of a pill that's not extraordinarily expensive, it's not gonna ruin anyone's medical treatment. The point simply isn't valid. You don't argue that a person giving birth is taking away from another person's medical treatment...

This is merely medical treatment that you're not comfortable with.

no it's the killing of babies for non-necessary reasons that shouldn't be and doesn't need to be legislated for, allowed within the state and funded by the state. and of course money would be taken from something worth while to fund it if it was legislated for and the state had to fund it.
that is why things as they are work well, those who want abortions can avail of them and fund it themselves, or receive funding from non-state sources. and the state doesn't have to provide abortion bar extreme circumstances.

Nobody is killing babies.

As to your claim that the money for abortions would have to come from other services, why wouldn't it come from the budget for maternity care? A pregnancy that ends at 9 weeks costs the health service a fraction of what it would cost to force the woman to remain pregnant.

end of the road

pitifulgod wrote: »

The committee concluded we need to legislate. Medical experts across the country also think we need to legislate. So we will be getting a referendum and if it passes, you'll just have to get over it. You won't get to decide what is necessary.

no, but the extreme element of the pro-life campaign could make abortion provision very difficult. in terms of private abortion clynics at least. none of us want the extreme element ramping up. so the best thing is to not legislate for it and let those who want an abortion for non-necessary reasons procure it abroad and provide any emergency after care here.

volchitsa wrote: »

Nobody is killing babies.

they are. unborn babies.

volchitsa wrote: »

As to your claim that the money for abortions would have to come from other services, why wouldn't it come from the budget for maternity care? A pregnancy that ends at 9 weeks costs the health service a fraction of what it would cost to force the woman to remain pregnant.

because that budget needs to be spent on those who are remaining pregnant.

Simi

end of the road wrote: »

no, but the extreme element of the pro-life campaign could make abortion provision very difficult. in terms of private abortion clynics at least. none of us want the extreme element ramping up. so the best thing is to not legislate for it and let those who want an abortion for non-necessary reasons procure it abroad and provide any emergency after care here.

That is one of the more absurd arguments against legislating for abortion I've seen put forward. You don't want to legislate because you're worried about protesters outside clinics?

It's already been pointed out to you that under the current plans there wouldn't be private clinics. So unless youth defence plan on picketing every GP in the country? Somehow I don't think they'll have the numbers.

You also seem to be entirely fine with abortion, so long as it doesn't happen here. Even going so far as to say that women should be provided with aftercare on their return from their illegal (under current Irish law) abortion abroad.

I never could get my head around this line of thinking, but as it seems to form the basis of the entire pro life campaign, it's obviously a popular one.

end of the road

Simi wrote: »

You also seem to be entirely fine with abortion, so long as it doesn't happen here.

i am okay with it in extreme circumstances yes, something i have been clear about throughout the thread. outside that, i'm not fine with it, but i have to be realistic, and the reality is we cannot stop someone going abroad to procure one, it's not feasible as other people would be effected if the state tried to implement such a plan.

Simi wrote: »

Even going so far as to say that women should be provided with aftercare on their return from their illegal (under current Irish law) abortion abroad.

because it would be wrong to leave those people to suffer with an infection or even worse after having that abortion abroad. i believe that if people are going to go abroad to have an abortion, then making the abortion difficult and expensive to have is the best thing and that is happening, hence fewer abortions.

NuMarvel

end of the road wrote: »

i have to be realistic, and the reality is we cannot stop I don't want to stop someone going abroad to procure one

Fixed that for you.

end of the road wrote: »

it's not feasible as other people would be effected if the state tried to implement such a plan.

So you want to stop abortions unless it inconveniences other people. You're really showing the depths of your pro life stance there bud.

Annasopra

end of the road wrote: »

which means it stops some abortions. poorer women will continue to struggle to afford an abortion even if it was legislated for in ireland, unless the tax payer ends up forking out for it, which will likely mean other treatments which would be necessary seeing funding reduced, or new necessary treatments not being able to be funded. the irish state can't afford abortion on demand, there are actual important issues which the health service needs to fund.



anyone who has an abortion on demand basically. they are doing it because the pregnancy is inconvenient to them. so i can see why one would come to the conclusion that it's used as a form of birth control. we aren't talking about people having abortions due to necessary reasons such as threat to life, being denied life saving treatment, issues where the baby could cause a disability or cases where the baby cannot be caried to term.

So basically you want an inequality of wealthier women who can have abortions and poorer women that can't; despite the fact that having the child might actually cause further poverty and deprivation of the woman, her existing child and her baby.

What about poorer with FFAs? Should we really continue this sick disgusting charade of this state of forcing them to bring their babies to term in order to die a few days later. The 8th doesnt save those babies and treats their mothers completely inhumanely and marginalises them even further because of their socio economic status.

A friend of mine had an FFA.

She couldnt afford to travel. The inhumamity of this is beyond me.

Pro forced birthers are all very moralistic about the life itself but never consider at all the circumstances of what the baby is being born into.

Annasopra

end of the road wrote: »

that is why things as they are work well, those who want abortions can avail of them

Bizarre. You are ok with a pro choice stance. Not on my Island. NIMBYISM at its worst.

Annasopra

end of the road wrote: »

the reality is we cannot stop someone going abroad to procure one,

This is just absolute bunkum and drivel. Of course the state can ban travel. The state injuncted Ms X from travelling. We had a referendum to guarantee the ability to travel. The reality is pro forced birthers dont want to reverse the 13th amendment. They are happy with a hypocrytical NIMBYIST not on my Island attitude.

Annabella1

I’m probably like the majority who will wait for the referendum text before deciding
However I think continued debate about availability of the abortion pill on the Internet will inevitably increase awareness and use up to 12 weeks gestation regardless of the referendum result

pilly

Here's as simple an explanation as I can give to debunk the absolutely nutters idea that abortion costs more than birth.

1 or 2 doctors appointments versus 10 months of healthcare.

Can someone please explain to EOTR cause I haven't the energy nor inclination.

Kurtosis

end of the road wrote: »

there is plenty of money to improve the services. without abortion on demand that means money doesn't have to be taken to fund it.

Going by your arguments (and modified quotes below), these support services will mean funding will have to come from other areas.

"the state has to prioritize. treatment for someone who is going to die, or [support services] because someone doesn't feel like they can look after a child"

"making [a child] difficult and expensive to have is the best thing and that is happening, hence fewer [people having children they feel they can't look after]."

I think that illustrates how ludicrous your economic argument is.

end of the road

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

So basically you want an inequality of wealthier women who can have abortions and poorer women that can't; despite the fact that having the child might actually cause further poverty and deprivation of the woman, her existing child and her baby.

What about poorer with FFAs? Should we really continue this sick disgusting charade of this state of forcing them to bring their babies to term in order to die a few days later. The 8th doesnt save those babies and treats their mothers completely inhumanely and marginalises them even further because of their socio economic status.

A friend of mine had an FFA.

She couldnt afford to travel. The inhumamity of this is beyond me.

Pro forced birthers are all very moralistic about the life itself but never consider at all the circumstances of what the baby is being born into.

i already stated FFA should be covered under the facilitation of abortions in extreme circumstances within the state.

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

Bizarre. You are ok with a pro choice stance. Not on my Island. NIMBYISM at its worst.

no, it's nothing to do with nimbyism or not on my island, it's about making people who want an abortion on demand think twice about carying out the act in the first place. that's why making them travel abroad is the best option as it's expensive.

pilly wrote: »

Here's as simple an explanation as I can give to debunk the absolutely nutters idea that abortion costs more than birth.

1 or 2 doctors appointments versus 10 months of healthcare.

Can someone please explain to EOTR cause I haven't the energy nor inclination.

it's not other people's job to do your work for you. if you believe i'm wrong, tell me yourself.

PopePalpatine

pilly wrote: »

Here's as simple an explanation as I can give to debunk the absolutely nutters idea that abortion costs more than birth.

1 or 2 doctors appointments versus 10 months of healthcare.

Can someone please explain to EOTR cause I haven't the energy nor inclination.

But one of those is illegal, and it should stay illegal, because it's illegal and bad, because I say so! /s

frag420

end of the road wrote: »

if you believe i'm wrong, tell me yourself.

Eh we have been telling you this for weeks!!

Even people of the pro life side are not agreeing with you, I’ve discussed your nonsense with a couple of them via PM and they are franky embarrassed by you and your nonsensical “facts”!!

kylith

thee glitz wrote: »

Well...

"where ruptured membranes are accompanied by any clinical or bio-chemical marker of infection, Irish obstetricians understand they CAN intervene with early delivery of the baby if necessary. Unfortunately, the inquest shows that in Galway University Hospital the diagnosis of chorioamnionitis was delayed and relevant information was not noted and acted upon."

Sounds awfully to me like they could have treated her with a termination, which would have helped her condition, but they didn't.

pilly wrote: »

Here's as simple an explanation as I can give to debunk the absolutely nutters idea that abortion costs more than birth.

1 or 2 doctors appointments versus 10 months of healthcare.

Can someone please explain to EOTR cause I haven't the energy nor inclination.

Not to mention the cost of 18 years' of child support.

Spanish Eyes

Just an offside comment.

Would I be totally wrong to say that men should not have any input into the lives of pregnant women and their babies WRT abortion and their lives/health? Should be a medical decision with the ob/gyn only.

Men will never have to suffer life threathening pre eclampsia, sepsis, post natal depression, pelvic floor disintegration, giving birth and the aftermath of it all.

Well I think they should just back off.

I notice a lot of the pro life are men. Command and control.

I have a lot of time for the former master of Holles Street (he is a man yay!) Peter Boylan.

What do you think.

average_runner

Spanish Eyes wrote: »

Just an offside comment.

Would I be totally wrong to say that men should not have any input into the lives of pregnant women and their babies WRT abortion and their lives/health? Should be a medical decision with the ob/gyn only.

Men will never have to suffer life threathening pre eclampsia, sepsis, post natal depression, pelvic floor disintegration, giving birth and the aftermath of it all.

Well I think they should just back off.

I notice a lot of the pro life are men. Command and control.

I have a lot of time for the former master of Holles Street (he is a man yay!) Peter Boylan.

What do you think.

You could be right but a man should have a choice if he wants to be in the kids life, if he decides not To, he shouldn't have to pay maintenance.

Spanish Eyes

average_runner wrote: »

You could be right but a man should have a choice if he wants to be in the kids life, if he decides not To, he shouldn't have to pay maintenance.

Ah no, we are not talking about that at all. What you say is fair enough,

But what have you to say about what I said above regarding the woman and her pregnancy, if you are male of course!

Da Boss

Spanish Eyes wrote: »

Just an offside comment.

Would I be totally wrong to say that men should not have any input into the lives of pregnant women and their babies WRT abortion and their lives/health? Should be a medical decision with the ob/gyn only.

Men will never have to suffer life threathening pre eclampsia, sepsis, post natal depression, pelvic floor disintegration, giving birth and the aftermath of it all.

Well I think they should just back off.

I notice a lot of the pro life are men. Command and control.

I have a lot of time for the former master of Holles Street (he is a man yay!) Peter Boylan.

What do you think.

No I most definitely do not agree with your proposition that men shouldn’t have a say. Saying men shouldn’t have a say in an abortion referendum is like saying straight couples shouldn’t have a say in the marriage equality referendum and that batchelors or widows shouldn’t have a say in the divorce referendum. Ireland is a democracy so yes men do and should have a say , yee feminists won’t silence us. And yes abortion does effect men as it ends the life of others , the unborn, and only for the eighth amendment many men may not be enjoying the life they currently do.

Spanish Eyes

Da Boss wrote: »

No I most definitely do not agree with your proposition that men shouldn’t have a say. Saying men shouldn’t have a say in an abortion referendum is like saying straight couples shouldn’t have a say in the marriage equality referendum and that batchelors or widows shouldn’t have a say in the divorce referendum. Ireland is a democracy so yes men do and should have a say , yee feminists won’t silence us. And yes abortion does effect men as it ends the life of others , the unborn, and only for the eighth amendment many men may not be enjoying the life they currently do.

Have you ever suffered pre eclampsia, bleeding, potential miscarriage, post natal depression, pelvic floor disintegration?

But I do acknowledge that you have a say but only for putting the seed in, after that the woman does everything to bring the child into the world.

You are hosting all the men who do not acknowledge that fact.

thee glitz

I'll reply to a few points put to me given a chance, but

end of the road wrote: »

i already stated FFA should be covered under the facilitation of abortions in extreme circumstances within the state.

You're not really allowed to do that. Being for abortion availability in the case of FFA is a pro-choice stance, used by those supporters to justify abortion on demand, while not contemplating the possibility of one without the other.

it's not other people's job to do your work for you. if you believe i'm wrong, tell me yourself.

I can't tell you you're wrong - are we, as a country getting richer or not? People are creating wealth for themselves and the state, not aborted babies. Comparing the cost of providing an abortion to a normal pregnancy is nonsense.

Annasopra

Da Boss wrote: »

No I most definitely do not agree with your proposition that men shouldn’t have a say. Saying men shouldn’t have a say in an abortion referendum is like saying straight couples shouldn’t have a say in the marriage equality referendum and that batchelors or widows shouldn’t have a say in the divorce referendum. Ireland is a democracy so yes men do and should have a say , yee feminists won’t silence us. And yes abortion does effect men as it ends the life of others , the unborn, and only for the eighth amendment many men may not be enjoying the life they currently do.

It fascinates me how much men on both sides feel they must have a say.

average_runner

Spanish Eyes wrote: »

Ah no, we are not talking about that at all. What you say is fair enough,

But what have you to say about what I said above regarding the woman and her pregnancy, if you are male of course!

Well I am a man. I think you have to take each decision for what it is and respect it. You got be in the scenario to understand it.

SusieBlue

Da Boss wrote: »

No I most definitely do not agree with your proposition that men shouldn’t have a say. Saying men shouldn’t have a say in an abortion referendum is like saying straight couples shouldn’t have a say in the marriage equality referendum and that batchelors or widows shouldn’t have a say in the divorce referendum. Ireland is a democracy so yes men do and should have a say , yee feminists won’t silence us. And yes abortion does effect men as it ends the life of others , the unborn, and only for the eighth amendment many men may not be enjoying the life they currently do.

I’m still awaiting a reply to my last post. I understand you being against abortion but you don’t really seem to have any alternate solution bar forcing women who don’t want to be pregnant to be pregnant. I’m really interested in hearing your opinion. I’ll quote my reply to you:

WhiteRoses wrote: »

Well what is your solution? Seriously? Bar forcing someone who does not want to be pregnant to be pregnant, what is the solution?
This would be a different kettle of fish if the fetus could survive without the mothers body as host. But while it cannot, while it depends on her to survive and thrive, it should be ultimately be up to her what happens it.

If I was a victim of abortion I wouldn’t know what I’d feel because I’d never have existed.
However, as a living, breathing woman, I trust my fellow women to make the best decision for themselves, and if they feel abortion is the only option then I support that fully.

I’ll also mention that I would never, ever get an abortion myself. It’s not for me.
But that could change in the future, and it isn’t for me to dictate how someone else lives their life any way. I want other women to have a choice. So I am pro choice.

Also, you’re saying I’m painting you like a gombeen but you and a few others aren’t half painting me as some sort of cold hearted feminazi.
This referendum is very very close to my heart for reasons unsuitable for this thread.
I know you feel like you are doing right by ‘saving the babies’ but I feel I’m doing right by campaigning for women to have a choice.