The 8th amendment(Mod warning in op)

Zubeneschamali

One eyed Jack wrote: »

You keep making the point as though I couldn't possibly care about the less fortunate simply because I don't share your perspective

No, I am saying that you don't care because you are voting and arguing for us to vote to keep care illegal that you would buy for your own family.

Telling these disadvantaged people that you are denying them care for their own good is just adding insult to injury.

Bannasidhe

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Would you want a woman like this human parasite in your community, profiting off the misery of others?

I don't think the word 'parasite' means what you think it means.

This woman gives women with drug addictions a choice (there's that word again) they can be sterilised (a procedure my aunt requested after the birth of her sixth child but was refused as she was capable of having more children... well duh), have an implant (my daughter -in -law uses this method and pays through the nose for it) or refuse. No-one is forcing anyone to do anything.

Women are being given a choice. A choice in a country with feck all in the way of a genuine safety net to catch the vulnerable and a health system that is notorious for plunging people into poverty due to it's expense.

I applaud her!

pilly

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

No, I am saying that you don't care because you are voting and arguing for us to vote to keep care illegal that you would buy for your own family.

Telling these disadvantaged people that you are denying them care for their own good is just adding insult to injury.

And patronising in the extreme.

nozzferrahhtoo

One eyed Jack wrote: »

and yet it has been demonstrated in other countries where abortion is available that the less fortunate are disproportionately affected by the issue and have higher rates of abortion and higher rates of increased poverty and lower rates of social mobility while the wealthy in that society have lower rates of abortion, and greater increases in wealth and social mobility.

You keep saying this but resort to your usual tactic of simply ignoring posts that question it.

• What countries are you talking about?
• What effects were caused by (not correlated with) the introduction of abortion?
• When you say they have higher rates of abortion, by what measure (numbers, %, capita, so on so on) are you using?
• What do you even mean "the less fortunate have higher rates of increased poverty"? Is that not a tautology? Having an increase rate of poverty is what "the less fortunate" often means.
• How does having an abortion reduce your social mobility at all, let alone compared to the reduction in social mobility caused by having and parenting an unwanted child?
• When you compare the rates of abortion between the well off and the not well off, and say one has more than the other, what specifically do you mean? Are you normalizing for the fact the well off have less PREGNANCIES in the first place, before comparing their rates of abortion, for example?

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Would you want a woman like this human parasite in your community, profiting off the misery of others?

What opportunistic cherry picked tripe is this? ANY system implemented in either direction results in some leech and parasite milking and abusing the system. To pick one such leech in one single context is a lame attempt to manufacture a non-point out of nothing.

No one wants leeches abusing our systems. That has nothing to do with the topic of this thread.

pilly

One eyed Jack wrote: »

But that's not the way I think? And the reason I use a question mark is because I'm questioning your assumptions you're making that are so black and white, the extremes, 'if it's not one it's the other', because in my experience, people don't generally think like that. They are a whole mixture of conflicting thoughts and emotions and so on. As I've already said, you'll vote whatever way you like on the 8th, as will I, while at the same time working towards the goal for society that no woman would ever feel she was in a position where she had to decide to have an abortion.

You keep making the point as though I couldn't possibly care about the less fortunate simply because I don't share your perspective, and yet it has been demonstrated in other countries where abortion is available that the less fortunate are disproportionately affected by the issue and have higher rates of abortion and higher rates of increased poverty and lower rates of social mobility while the wealthy in that society have lower rates of abortion, and greater increases in wealth and social mobility.

Would you want a woman like this human parasite in your community, profiting off the misery of others?

I wouldn't, tbh, yet she believes she's doing those women a favour and is morally justified in her behaviour.

Will you please just give some back up to this mythical country where the poor got poorer and the rich got richer purely because of the introduction of abortion.

If you don't your posts are no better than the rantings usually associated with less well informed posters.

One eyed Jack

pilly wrote: »

You keep going on about how repealing the 8th is going to effect the less well off with no actual definition of how you see that badly effectly them.

I've the height of respect for your arguments normally Jack but you're just talking bs now.

These are the arguments I made earlier -

One eyed Jack wrote: »

To be absolutely fair to them, vaccinations are as contentious in the developed world as the issue of abortion, and I had to give them the benefit of the doubt that their sentiments were hyperbolic based on the fact that indeed it is as contentious an issue as abortion.

What was interesting though was the assumption that it was the lower class religious right were assumed to be shunning vaccinations, and the suggestions put forward were along the lines of denying the parents access to State services such as welfare and education. When it was pointed out that in the US at least, the type of parents refusing to vaccinate their children were affluent liberal left types, I think things got a bit awkward, because they aren't dependent upon the State for support, and therefore wouldn't be in any meaningful way affected by measures that have been introduced in many states in the US to increase vaccination rates.

How does this tie in with the issue of abortion? Well what it indicates, to me at least, is that because in Ireland we tend to take our cultural cues from both the US and Europe, Irish society may have pretty much abandoned the last vestiges of an authoritarian religious regime, but we're still the very same society underneath as we were at the time of the poorhouses when young unmarried mothers were problematic for society, and the poorhouses were proposed as the... 'solution', where children in these 'homes' were forcedly vaccinated, and it just appears to me that, I genuinely do wonder - would we do the same again if given half the opportunity?

This is why I also object to the lower classes being used as an argument to support legislating for abortion, it just seems to me to be rather exploitative of people who essentially have no power and aren't particularly in a position to say "no thank you", when the nice, understanding lady in the local family planning clinic suggests to her that for her sake it might be best for her to have an abortion in her current circumstances.

The reason I emphasise the word 'current' there is because I'm sure all of us are surely aware of people whose circumstances have changed when they were given the right support which enabled a young woman to continue with her education, or to start her own business, or whatever the case may be, and allowed her to raise her child, which, if the support had not been there, she may well have chosen to have an abortion.

I wonder just how long would it take before something like this, would possibly actually become a reality in Ireland -

Project prevention: Should Irish drug addicts be paid not to have kids?


It's actually genuinely frightening when I do think about it tbh, because it stinks of socially acceptable eugenics, and just like the developed world appears to have accepted defeat in the 'war on drugs', how long will it be before society admits defeat in the 'war on poverty' so to speak? Rhetorical question, but I do wonder what kind of a society we're building a future towards when abortion is even promoted as a 'choice' for women to discourage them from giving birth to people with intellectual, cognitive and physical disabilities? I wonder in the future will we go back to attaching shame to those women and children for existing when it has become socially acceptable to deem them 'unfit for society', and what kind of a society would that be?

I don't think it's one I would want to live in, if I'm being honest, as it would be incredibly boring for one thing if we were all cookie cutter carbon copies of each other. I just don't know if that's something I think a society should ever aspire to. I think the whole 'survival of the fittest' is a Victorian concept that really we should as a sociey have evolved and moved away from by now. It does appear as though we are determined to repeat the mistakes of previous generations and we can't even see it.

I wouldn't call that progress myself tbh.


EDIT: I think this article explains it better -

Post Darwin: social Darwinism, degeneration, eugenics

One eyed Jack wrote: »

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

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

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

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

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

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Conspiracy theory stuff there HD, but you're imputing illuminati style motives that simply aren't there. I'll try and make it as simple as I can for you, though something already tells me no explanation will be sufficient as your mind is made up. Consider this a courtesy as I normally would never explain myself to anyone, but seeing as I've never thought of you as an arsehole, I'm at least willing to forego that principle on this occasion.

I was previously advocating a position, not what I considered a pro-choice position, to be absolutely clear, it is a position that is and always was, and always will be, based upon affording standards of human dignity and decency to both the woman, and the unborn. I was looking at the issue from an individualistic perspective and imagining that such a goal could be achieved at a societal level. Because my thinking on it then, and still my thinking on it now, is that if a woman wants an abortion, she's going to have one, and there is absolutely nothing, short of literally chaining her to a bed and force feeding her, that anyone can do to stop her, not the law, not term limits, nothing. As an individual, I still believe that no woman should ever be forced to give birth if she does not want to, and we must acknowledge that that is reality, it's that simple.

Now, I then looked at the issue from a societal level, and did my research (you'll notice I didn't mention China, as what was done there with the "One child policy" was an extreme which has never been repeated in history, notwithstanding the fact that the wealthy could simply afford to pay a fine if they had another child, it was an incredibly corrupt regime). I've already posted in this thread an article which details how abortion was suggested by well-meaning but misguided eugenics enthusiasts on the principle of 'survival of the fittest', and even the founder of Planned Parenthood in the US has been credited with ulterior motives regarding her enthusiasm for eugenics, but I don't believe her intent was ever racist. It just so happened that black communities at the time were amongst the most socially deprived demographic in society, and so abortion or sterilisation seemed like the most obvious answer to the issue of eliminating something which they believed was holding society back from evolving - the poor, the sick and the needy. Rather than address the underlying social issue, the idea was to eliminate the symptoms rather than ever address the cause.

I see the same happening again when arguments are made that poor people cannot afford abortions, as though the assumption is that socioecnomically deprived demographic should actually want abortions. It's easy to exploit people who are less fortunate than ourselves, it's been done by movement after movement throughout human history, and yes, I'll freely admit that there are no better practitioners of it than organised religions, who have their own motivations to exploit people who really aren't in any position to say "no thank you", when offered what they see as the quickest way out of their circumstances, because they don't see how the consequences of their decisions affect wider society as a whole, hence why I included the thread about 'Should Irish drug addicts be offered money to have no more children?', because the woman in the video is a perfect example of someone who is exploiting people in bad situations and receiving private donations in the order of half a million dollars a year to do wealthier people's dirty work. If that doesn't sound familiar, remember your history, and how the religious organisations at the time in Ireland, the UK and the US were able to operate in society as they did. They were providing a quick fix solution for a society that at the time regarded the poor, the sick and the needy as undesirables. It just so happened that the vast majority of which made up that social demographic were unmarried young women and their children. Coincidence? I think not.

And that is why I don't believe abortion is a solution to any issue, because it isn't some benevolent 'this will fix all your problems' solution, and even now I see it being proposed as the way to rid society of people with downs syndrome, and people are desperate for it, because people with downs syndrome are a problem for society. Who do you think would be vastly over-represented in 20 years time, 50 years, even 100 years time as the demographic which has the highest rate of abortions?

To go back to a point inadvertently made by that wingnut in the video - "Savita was a rich woman" (you only have to look at the colour of Savita's skin to know she was not a lower caste Dalit in her own country, so that came as news to nobody), she was not an impoverished economic migrant, and yet the way her death is constantly used to promote the introduction of abortion in Ireland is at worst disingenuous, and at best - simply misguided, and putting emotions before facts.

Basically I see the introduction of abortion as keeping poor people poor, effectively neutering any chance they have of social mobility by attempting to discourage them from having children, rather than supporting them in being able to have children and give their children the life they would want to give them.

pilly

One eyed Jack wrote: »

These are the arguments I made earlier -









Basically I see the introduction of abortion as keeping poor people poor, effectively neutering any chance they have of social mobility by attempting to discourage them from having children, rather than supporting them in being able to have children and give their children the life they would want to give them.

Okay, so no facts. Just your opinion. That's okay. You're entitled to it but not entitled to go around stating it like it's a fact proven out by any actual research.

kylith

One eyed Jack wrote: »

These are the arguments I made earlier -









Basically I see the introduction of abortion as keeping poor people poor, effectively neutering any chance they have of social mobility by attempting to discourage them from having children, rather than supporting them in being able to have children and give their children the life they would want to give them.

Ah, so you're in favour of increasing social welfare and reducing/abolishing school/college fees!

One eyed Jack

pilly wrote: »

Okay, so no facts. Just your opinion. That's okay. You're entitled to it but not entitled to go around stating it like it's a fact proven out by any actual research.

pilly as I said to another poster earlier, I've never suggested anything in relation to abortion was a fact, I've always maintained that the evidence I've seen suggests a correlation between the introduction of abortion in a society, and the widening gap between those who were already socially disadvantaged, and those who are already socioeconomically advantaged, and it's typically been those who are socially and economically advantaged have suggested abortion as a solution to the issue of people who are already socially and economically disadvantaged.

This has been borne out by evidence both from the CDC and from the Guttermacher Institute -

Abortion and Women of Color: The Bigger Picture, Guttermacher Policy Review, 2008

Abortion Surveillance — United States, 2013, CDC Report

nozzferrahhtoo

One eyed Jack wrote: »

These are the arguments I made earlier -

Three posts, Ok let us see if anything there has any support for your commentary on the effects of abortion on the financial dynamic between the rich and the poor then.

Post one

has a narrative about vaccinations and people being forcibly vaccinated. How has this got anything to do with abortion? You think people are going to be forced to abort? Wow, just wow, if so. We are talking about giving pregnant women a CHOICE to abort. Negating that because of some dystopian fantasy of forced abortions is a true nonsense.

At best all your post here shows is that abortion ALONE is useless to us. We need a comprehensive and wide reaching education pattern in schools, preferably EARLY in education, so that people know their options long before some nefarious hypothetical in a family planning clinic can abuse their position like you imagine. And what we offer as information, and in what form and by what method, in such clinics needs to be regulated well.

Other than that this post shows nothing to support your comments, or anything else other than a poor understanding of the word "Eugenics"..... and your INCREDIBLE turn around to spouting right wing nothings about "Social Eugenics" when only weeks before you were claiming to be for abortion at ANY time at ANY stage for ANY reasons. I have never seen a turn around like it on any forum in fact.

Post two

Again nothing here supporting your narrative about the effects of abortion on the social economic dynamic. You also claim here that "the arguments for abortion are generally centred around the idea that society should facilitate abortion in circumstances where they feel that those people are not in any position to be able to provide for a child". In fact that is only ONE of the MANY arguments people use so no, the arguments are not "generally centered around" that at all. Most of the arguments I see are centered around the woman's right to a choice. In fact even YOU before your complete turn around on abortion centered most of your arguments around a woman's choice.

The rest of your post here however is centered around the idea that the government will be less likely to support the poor, if they feel that due to the availability of abortion they do not really require that support. I have not see anything in reality, such as in countries with abortion, to support that narrative. You are basically imagining it to feed an agenda. Do you have lists of figures and citations showing any of this? From Canada and parts of the US to our west, to the more secular and abortion allowing countries to our east..... have you actually looked into the figures on support for the poor, parental support, education levels, charity per capita, and all the other measures by which your assertions and fantasies could be tested? IF you have, I am not seeing it in your posts yet. Perhaps you are keeping the ace in the sleeve to "gotcha" us with later?

Post three

Aside from starting this post with descriptions of yourself in the guise of descriptions of your interlocutor (that is, that you are presenting little more that conspiracy theory stuff, and your mind is "already made up").... I am again seeing no support for the narrative you are citing this post as support for. In fact this post does little more than repeat the assertions of the previous two. That an introducing a complete nonsense claim that " the assumption is that socioecnomically deprived demographic should actually want abortions". No one I have seen is espousing that position AT ALL.

However in your post you claimed you "did your research". Great! Then present your findings and answer the questions you have dodged twice now:

• What countries are you talking about?
• What effects were caused by (not correlated with) the introduction of abortion?
• When you say they have higher rates of abortion, by what measure (numbers, %, capita, so on so on) are you using?
• What do you even mean "the less fortunate have higher rates of increased poverty"? Is that not a tautology? Having an increase rate of poverty is what "the less fortunate" often means.
• How does having an abortion reduce your social mobility at all, let alone compared to the reduction in social mobility caused by having and parenting an unwanted child?
• When you compare the rates of abortion between the well off and the not well off, and say one has more than the other, what specifically do you mean? Are you normalizing for the fact the well off have less PREGNANCIES in the first place, before comparing their rates of abortion, for example?

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Basically I see the introduction of abortion as keeping poor people poor, effectively neutering any chance they have of social mobility by attempting to discourage them from having children, rather than supporting them in being able to have children and give their children the life they would want to give them.

The idea of allowing abortion by choice is NOT to discourage anyone from having children however. It is to offer the CHOICE to women of every class, in every walk of life, to stop being pregnant when they in fact do not want to be. No one is looking to encourage them to have abortions, and nothing about offering them the choice for an abortion precludes us from every attempt to reduce people seeking one. You have erected a narrative of pure paranoia, imagination, conspiracy theory nonsense.

eviltwin

One eyed Jack wrote: »

These are the arguments I made earlier -









Basically I see the introduction of abortion as keeping poor people poor, effectively neutering any chance they have of social mobility by attempting to discourage them from having children, rather than supporting them in being able to have children and give their children the life they would want to give them.

How does abortion keep poor people poor?

One eyed Jack

eviltwin wrote: »

Right, so you've adopted a paternalistic, patronising attitude to the poor....you know better about what is good for them ( while knowing nothing about their personal circumstances or motivation for seeking abortion) so no abortion for them but if it happens to be your loved one then it's a different story.

That's nothing like what I've said at all.

One eyed Jack

eviltwin wrote: »

How does abortion keep poor people poor?

I've already explained this now a number of times - because it effectively neuters their chances as a group of any opportunities for social mobility by discouraging them from having children. I'm talking as a group, not as individuals, before you come back at me with how you know such and such a person who bucks that trend. I can think of plenty myself already who do and have done. They aren't representative of people living in poverty as a whole social group.

ohnonotgmail

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I've already explained this now a number of times - because it effectively neuters their chances as a group of any opportunities for social mobility by discouraging them from having children. I'm talking as a group, not as individuals, before you come back at me with how you know such and such a person who bucks that trend. I can think of plenty myself already who do and have done. They aren't representative of people living in poverty as a whole social group.

you haven't explained it before. and now that you have it makes absolutely no sense. how does not having children affect social mobility?

neonsofa

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I've already explained this now a number of times - because it effectively neuters their chances as a group of any opportunities for social mobility by discouraging them from having children. I'm talking as a group, not as individuals, before you come back at me with how you know such and such a person who bucks that trend. I can think of plenty myself already who do and have done. They aren't representative of people living in poverty as a whole social group.

Could you explain how having children enhances their opportunity for social mobility? As a group or as individuals.

One eyed Jack

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

you haven't explained it before. and now that you have it makes absolutely no sense. how does not having children affect social mobility?

It doesn't. That's the point.

Having children not only increases our expectations for our children, but it increases our expectations of ourselves. That's why you'll see many people who effectively turn their lives around after having children, whereas they would have had little or no motivation to do so before then.

eviltwin

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I've already explained this now a number of times - because it effectively neuters their chances as a group of any opportunities for social mobility by discouraging them from having children. I'm talking as a group, not as individuals, before you come back at me with how you know such and such a person who bucks that trend. I can think of plenty myself already who do and have done. They aren't representative of people living in poverty as a whole social group.

That makes it sound like abortion would be compulsory for people on low incomes. I don't know how you see people, especially young people, having children they can't afford as being good for them, having children when your options are limited just limits them further.

It also doesn't address the needs of someone who doesn't want to be pregnant. She has no options unless she can afford to go to England. That's really socially inclusive.

One eyed Jack

eviltwin wrote: »

That makes it sound like abortion would be compulsory for people on low incomes. I don't know how you see people, especially young people, having children they can't afford as being good for them, having children when your options are limited just limits them further.

It also doesn't address the needs of someone who doesn't want to be pregnant. She has no options unless she can afford to go to England. That's really socially inclusive.

It's easy to determine how I see people when you aren't working off inherently negative assumptions about people who don't share your perspective. I'm not assuming anyone here who doesn't share my perspective is a morally repugnant individual, in fact I'm pretty sure they're not.

I don't see young people having children they can't afford as being good for them, and I would want them to have every support possible so that not only could they afford to raise a family, but that they wouldn't ever be in the position where they would feel the need to have an abortion.

If someone finds themselves in a position where they are pregnant and they don't want to be pregnant, then I have no doubt that people here will be willing to help her out in any way they can, and wouldn't simply abandon her once she'd had an abortion.

Zubeneschamali

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Having children not only increases our expectations for our children, but it increases our expectations of ourselves. That's why you'll see many people who effectively turn their lives around after having children

So by preventing abortion by poor people, we force them to turn their lives around to care for the children they don't want?

Sounds like a plan!

One eyed Jack

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

So by preventing abortion by poor people, we force them to turn their lives around to care for the children they don't want?

Sounds like a plan!

Again, that's simply not what I said.

It's gone a bit tiresome at this stage so I'll just leave it at that for now.

ohnonotgmail

One eyed Jack wrote: »

It doesn't. That's the point.

Having children not only increases our expectations for our children, but it increases our expectations of ourselves. That's why you'll see many people who effectively turn their lives around after having children, whereas they would have had little or no motivation to do so before then.

jesus that is the densest thing i've seen in this thread.

pilly

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Again, that's simply not what I said.

It's gone a bit tiresome at this stage so I'll just leave it at that for now.

It's gone beyond tiresome Jack because you're not even willing to contemplate that all things being equal, in some cases it's best for a woman not to have a child simply because she doesn't WANT to.

What makes it so hard for you to understand that?

You say you're not making moral judgements on people but you are in the following ways:

1. You've assumed that some women will be forced into having an abortion.
2. You assume that it's better for people to have children than not have them, whether they want to or not.
3. You assume childless people have no motivation to get on in life

Any maybe worst of all you admit to hypocrisy of the highest order by saying you would finance the best ever abortion for your Granddaughter because you care about her. Think that thought right the way through Jack, it means you're willing to stop other women having abortions because you don't care about them.

What gives you that right?

nozzferrahhtoo

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I've already explained this now a number of times - because it effectively neuters their chances as a group of any opportunities for social mobility by discouraging them from having children.

But that is not what it does at all. You have just invented that. Abortion is an OPTION for people who are pregnant, who do not want to be. That is all. It does not discourage people from having children any more than condoms do. Why are you not also against condoms? Are they "discouraging them from having children" in your head and hence a pox on the poor? Come off it.

And what about the harm to a persons social mobility by being forced to have a child they do not want to have? You know one GREAT assistant to social mobility? University. But what of the girl who get's pregnant at 17? How many of them manage to continue their path to and through uni? Some do sure, but many do not.

But on top of all that, how does NOT having a child affect your social mobility? Perhaps start the answer to that question by explaining EXACTLY what you even mean by "social mobility" because I strongly suspect at the moment we both mean two massively different things by it.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Having children not only increases our expectations for our children, but it increases our expectations of ourselves. That's why you'll see many people who effectively turn their lives around after having children, whereas they would have had little or no motivation to do so before then.

Woah there, you have changed your point. Above you said it "neuters their chances as a group of any opportunities for social mobility" and now you re saying it affects there MOTIVATION to do so.

That is two MASSIVELY different things. Having the chance to do X, and being motivated to take the chance to do X are massively different things. You are skipping now between the two as if they are the same.

But I am not buying the motivational narrative either. It is not like people sit around in the dark dundrums of some world devoid of motivation until suddenly children pop up and it is all light and rainbows and ambitions. Motivations take many forms, often concurrently, in many people.

And in fact some people also LOSE much of their motivation when they have children, so at times the complete opposite of your narrative is true. They may have, for example, been in high flying dedicated careers with a promotion ladder plan ahead of them, which they step back from to divert dedication to their child.

So no, NOTHING supporting your narrative at all here save some imaginary narrative of human motivation you have made up in your own head.

captbarnacles

Ah the poor don't really know what is good for them argument? in the states some politicians like to say social welfare demeans the people who use it because it discourages them from working. Similar logic.

You are really off beam here Jack. You are going to vote no to repeal the 8th because you think this is better in the long term for people who can't afford an abortion? all the while safe in the knowledge that you can afford to give a friend or relation the money if they need it.

It's really abhorrent thinking.

Billy86

One eyed Jack wrote: »

But I never suggested screw the poor, the sick, asylum seekers and those in prison? This is what I don't get, like what's with the extremes? 'If it's not one it must be the other' kind of thing. I don't point fingers at anyone here and ask what are they doing about the poor, the sick, asylum seekers and those in prison, because I assume each one of us does what we can, where we can, when we can.

Of course I'm going to treat people whom I know differently than those I don't, there's nothing bizarre about that? I mean, if you play it out, and I don't normally do hypotheticals, but even when it concerns medical care for my own family, we're covered by private healthcare. You don't surely expect that I should also provide for my neighbours private healthcare?

Luckily there's a simple solution for this that doesn't entail you putting anyone on your own private healthcare plan or any extremes being taken - make abortions available via public healthcare, which is something which you already contribute to.

neonsofa

One eyed Jack wrote: »

It doesn't. That's the point.

Having children not only increases our expectations for our children, but it increases our expectations of ourselves. That's why you'll see many people who effectively turn their lives around after having children, whereas they would have had little or no motivation to do so before then.

So if they have a child, that they would otherwise terminate,they may become motivated to increase their expectations in life. They may not either. But if they do, they'll have to pay for childcare to realise the expectations of a decent job/training/education, and the amount of money they can borrow for a decent home that they now expect will be significantly reduced due to having a dependent. So they may have higher expectations but realising those expectations becomes so much more challenging with a dependent.

Whereas they could have a termination and be just as likely to become motivated for themselves, with time/experience/life, and face a lot less challenges in actually realising their potential and expectations.

.......

This post has been deleted.

end of the road

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Your attitude expressed above is human rights and access to the very best medical care for your friends and relations and screw the poor, the sick, asylum seekers and those in prison.

there is no "human right" to an abortion on demand, especially state funded. abortion on demand also isn't "medical care" but a form of birth control.

WhiteRoses wrote: »

Yes, and your own personal interpretation of "as much as is practical" includes the garbage you were spouting about the right for protection for the pre-sentient.

It never actually said anything about pre-sentient rights. You thinking that's what it means does not make it so. Its merely your opinion.

no, it's not my interpretation, as i never made such an

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Your attitude expressed above is human rights and access to the very best medical care for your friends and relations and screw the poor, the sick, asylum seekers and those in prison.

there is no "human right" to an abortion on demand, especially state funded. abortion on demand also isn't "medical care" but a form of birth control.

WhiteRoses wrote: »

Yes, and your own personal interpretation of "as much as is practical" includes the garbage you were spouting about the right for protection for the pre-sentient.

It never actually said anything about pre-sentient rights. You thinking that's what it means does not make it so. Its merely your opinion.

no, it's not my interpretation, as i never made such an interpretation. you claimed i made such an interpretation, which is different to me actually making such an interpretation. what i stated was that it was defacto a right because of the constitutional right, not that it was in itself a constitutional right. i never said the constitution said anything about "pre-sentient" rights, that was what you claimed that i stated, dispite it not being true, dispite me never stating as such and dispite explaining to you multiple times what my already clear post meant.

.......

This post has been deleted.

One eyed Jack

pilly I'll answer this one.

pilly wrote: »

It's gone beyond tiresome Jack because you're not even willing to contemplate that all things being equal, in some cases it's best for a woman not to have a child simply because she doesn't WANT to.

What makes it so hard for you to understand that?

pilly I'm never willing to contemplate all things being equal in any circumstances because they never are. That's just not something I've ever experienced and I can only base my opinions on my experience and what evidence I have available to me. That's one of the reasons I find statistics in social studies can be notoriously unreliable because they are generally used to lobby one position over another, and will present an overall picture to support the basis of whatever idea it is they're putting forward.

Now, with that said, I don't even need to contemplate all things being equal to see that women in some cases believe it is not best for them to have a child or not to have a child simply because she doesn't want to. You'll get no quarrel with me on that score, and I've already said as much that I would do what I could for a woman in that situation.

What seems to be causing some people here great difficulty is what I would be prepared to do at an individual level, and what I would or wouldn't be prepared to support at a societal level. I have to be absolutely clear here - I have no issue at an individual level with any woman who would want an abortion because she wants to terminate her pregnancy, at any point for any reason. That is entirely her prerogative and I would and have supported women who have made that decision for themselves.

At societal level - it's an entirely different matter, because then it's not simply a matter of our personal morality as individuals, but a matter of social morality, in other words - ethics, and in that respect, I would not support any moves towards introducing more liberal policies in relation to abortion in Irish society. I don't see that as 'exporting the problem' as some posters here have put it. I see those women as choosing of their own volition either import pills or go abroad to avail of abortion in another jurisdiction. I don't support the importation of pills in the first place, and I don't support the idea of women going abroad to avail of abortion in another jurisdiction, but if that is what they choose to do, I won't pass judgement on them for doing so, but I would help them in any way I could. I would never attempt to stop them or attempt to change their minds, because that only introduces further confusion when they are already distressed.

It's not about me, it's about them making a decision for themselves, and to introduce my personal opinion of abortion as a social issue at that point is simply cruel. Many of my friends are aware of my stance, and they are also aware that I have never passed judgement upon them, and for the poster earlier who said he has never talked to women about these things, I personally don't find that all that unusual, nor do I think my own experiences of talking to women about these issues are in any way unusual either.

pilly wrote: »

You say you're not making moral judgements on people but you are in the following ways:

1. You've assumed that some women will be forced into having an abortion.
2. You assume that it's better for people to have children than not have them, whether they want to or not.
3. You assume childless people have no motivation to get on in life

I wouldn't say 'forced', I would say more likely coerced. I do know some women who feel they were forced into having an abortion, and I know women who feel they were forced into having children, whether that be either through a combination of circumstances or more often by the people in their lives at the time. I don't pretend to sympathise or empathise with these women simply because I don't know what it was like for them in those circumstances, but I will always do my best to help them in any way I can to alter their circumstances themselves so they don't have to feel like they will ever be in that position again.

2. I do not, and I never have. That's simply not true. When I said that, I was speaking in terms of the assumption that group of people actually want to have children, but for whatever reasons, the main factors being socioeconomic factors, whether it be family, support network or lack thereof, employment circumstances and so on (in fact the last factor I would consider is solely the financial factor, because that's always going to be affected by increasing inflation and recessions and booms and so on), they don't feel they are in a position to have children or to maintain a family.

My argument that it's better for people (generally, whether they be poor or wealthy) is not solely based upon their current socioeconomic status as individuals, but is based upon the ability of their children and future generations to be able to generate wealth independently and as a group. One of the ways in which this happens is through raising expectations of the next generation, and it is the parents of the previous generation who influence these raised expectations, ergo - children grow up with raised expectations and set higher standards for themselves than the previous generation.

3. No, and that's not what I said, because that would be silly. That's probably how ohnonotgmail read it too, which is why they determined it to be the densest thing they'd ever read (clearly they've never been exposed to some of my better work :pac:). I don't for a minute think that people who don't have children have no motivation to get on in life, in fact they are likely to be the group who imagines themselves to be at the pinnacle of life, winning at life even, while looking down upon people who are struggling with children. The fact is that they are two completely different lifestyle choices, and there are far more people in the developed world who have children and aren't struggling, than those who have children and are.

pilly wrote: »

Any maybe worst of all you admit to hypocrisy of the highest order by saying you would finance the best ever abortion for your Granddaughter because you care about her. Think that thought right the way through Jack, it means you're willing to stop other women having abortions because you don't care about them.

What gives you that right?

What gives me the right to want the best for my granddaughter as opposed to a complete stranger whom I have no relationship whatsoever? I don't see the inherent hypocrisy you appear to imagine is present in that scenario. Why would the welfare of other women enter that scenario as though I should view the welfare of complete strangers as equal to that of my own granddaughter? I'm thinking it through and I don't believe for a minute anyone would elevate considerations for the welfare of complete strangers to the same level as that of their family members or people they care about in their immediate circles. There's no hypocrisy in saying that the 8th amendment would apply equally to my granddaughter as it would anyone else in Irish society. Having the means to be able to ensure a better quality of life for my granddaughter while other people can not provide the same standard for their granddaughters as I can is not hypocrisy, and it doesn't mean I don't care about the welfare of other people either. As I have made the point many times already - it's not an either/or situation, and that's why I don't engage in thought experiments where all things are assumed to be equal because that kind of thinking simply has no basis in reality.

.......

This post has been deleted.

Zubeneschamali

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I have no issue at an individual level with any woman who would want an abortion because she wants to terminate her pregnancy, at any point for any reason.

Perhaps we should repeal that "14 years in jail if you do it" law?

What's that? We can't do that because of the 8th amendment? Hmmm...

end of the road

Billy86 wrote: »

Luckily there's a simple solution for this that doesn't entail you putting anyone on your own private healthcare plan or any extremes being taken - make abortions available via public healthcare, which is something which you already contribute to.

that's not a solution, as in turn the systems we have will highly likely see less money as the belief will be that people can just have an abortion.

ohnonotgmail

end of the road wrote: »

that's not a solution, as in turn the systems we have will highly likely see less money as the belief will be that people can just have an abortion.

Providing an abortion is cheaper than providing medical care throughout a pregnancy and paying childrens allowance for 18 years. your grasp of basic maths is poor.

One eyed Jack

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Perhaps we should repeal that "14 years in jail if you do it" law?

What's that? We can't do that because of the 8th amendment? Hmmm...

I have no doubt you're aware that that is the maximum sentence for the crime for which it is imposed.

There's no need to be scaremongering anyone into believing that such a sentence is automatic upon conviction, or that the DPP would have any interest in pursuing a prosecution in the first place. It would depend entirely upon the circumstances of any given case, providing a complaint were made in the first place, and then any actions determined afterwards pursuant with any investigation being carried out.

end of the road

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

Providing an abortion is cheaper than providing medical care throughout a pregnancy and paying childrens allowance for 18 years.

allegedly. all though with the likely hood that abortions would increase, it's likely it won't work out cheaper long term.
also, as it would be availible, the government would eventually begin to believe that because of it's availability, there is no need to put any sort of reasonable funding into the system in relation to children, meaning large scale funding reductions for children that do exist. just look at the wellfare system in britain, it's not just conservatism at play in it's slow reduction and failure.

One eyed Jack

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

Providing an abortion is cheaper than providing medical care throughout a pregnancy and paying childrens allowance for 18 years. your grasp of basic maths is poor.

Providing an abortion is cheaper than providing pregnancy care, but that's where any comparison ends. The person as an adult will likely pay more in tax over their lifetime and contribute more to the economy than their parents will ever be able to claim in child benefit.

kylith

So, a teenager who becomes pregnant in school/college, who would otherwise have gone on to a well paying job after finishing her degree, giving the children she would have planned later in life a good standard of living and good educational prospects now has to drop out of school because she can’t balance motherhood and education, leading to her taking lower paid jobs and providing a lower standard of living and fewer education prospects is somehow better for her social mobility?

I think you have something backwards there, Jack. Unless you support the raising of social welfare and the abolition of school/college fees, along with heavily subsidised childcare. Do you?

.......

This post has been deleted.

ohnonotgmail

end of the road wrote: »

allegedly. all though with the likely hood that abortions would increase, it's likely it won't work out cheaper long term.

How many dozen abortions do you think each woman will have? Because that is the number that would be required before we approach the cost of medical care and subsequent childrens allowance for a single child.

end of the road wrote: »

also, as it would be availible, the government would eventually begin to believe that because of it's availability, there is no need to put any sort of reasonable funding into the system in relation to children, meaning large scale funding reductions for children that do exist. just look at the wellfare system in britain, it's not just conservatism at play in it's slow reduction and failure.

Stupid scaremongering with nothing to back it up except bald assertions and i expect no better from you.

captbarnacles

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I have no doubt you're aware that that is the maximum sentence for the crime for which it is imposed.

There's no need to be scaremongering anyone into believing that such a sentence is automatic upon conviction, or that the DPP would have any interest in pursuing a prosecution in the first place. It would depend entirely upon the circumstances of any given case, providing a complaint were made in the first place, and then any actions determined afterwards pursuant with any investigation being carried out.

If a relative or friend of yours ordered pills on the internet and had an abortion and was subsequently charged what do you think would be an appropriate sentence?

.......

This post has been deleted.

captbarnacles

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

How many dozen abortions do you think each woman will have? Because that is the number that would be required before we approach the cost of medical care and subsequent childrens allowance for a single child.





Stupid scaremongering with nothing to back it up except bald assertions and i expect no better from you.

EOTR has only recently latched on this rubbish because Jack introduced it. There is no sign of it from him earlier in the thread. He'll give it up shortly as it is refuted.

ohnonotgmail

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Providing an abortion is cheaper than providing pregnancy care, but that's where any comparison ends. The person as an adult will likely pay more in tax over their lifetime and contribute more to the economy than their parents will ever be able to claim in child benefit.

Or they could end up spending their life on social welfare because they were born to a single mother who was forced to give birth to them and did poorly in life as a result.

ohnonotgmail

captbarnacles wrote: »

EOTR has only recently latched on this rubbish because Jack introduced it. There is no sign of it from him earlier in the thread. He'll give it up shortly as it is refuted.

I can guarantee they wont. their posting history backs this up.

One eyed Jack

kylith wrote: »

So, a teenager who becomes pregnant in school/college, who would otherwise have gone on to a well paying job after finishing her degree, giving the children she would have planned later in life a good standard of living and good educational prospects now has to drop out of school because she can’t balance motherhood and education, leading to her taking lower paid jobs and providing a lower standard of living and fewer education prospects is somehow better for her social mobility?

I think you have something backwards there, Jack. Unless you support the raising of social welfare and the abolition of school/college fees, along with heavily subsidised childcare. Do you?

But that's you're assuming that she has to do all those things kylith, not me. ln my experience there's absolutely no reason why there should be any assumption of a pre-determined outcome for her. Let's imagine for a minute she would meet someone like you who might say to her "y'know what, you pursue your studies, finish your degree, do whatever it is you want to do and I'll make sure you have every opportunity to do it, and you can still raise your child if that's what you want to do!" Now things aren't all so doom and gloom as to her future prospects, are they?

FWIW btw I absolutely do not support the raising of social welfare, I would abolish it entirely if I thought it were possible. I don't support the abolition of school/college fees (but certainly I would put what fees are charged to better use, definitely a whole other thread there!), and I think we already touched on the subsidised childcare issue? Needless to say I would simply abolish it.

end of the road

kylith wrote: »

So, a teenager who becomes pregnant in school/college, who would otherwise have gone on to a well paying job after finishing her degree, giving the children she would have planned later in life a good standard of living and good educational prospects now has to drop out of school because she can’t balance motherhood and education, leading to her taking lower paid jobs and providing a lower standard of living and fewer education prospects is somehow better for her social mobility?

there is no guarantee that would happen in all cases, and there is no guarantee that even if abortion was availible and the woman had it, that she would end up going on to that well paid job. so realistically, such a possibility of having to leave college isn't of itself a viable reason to allow abortion on demand, given that such a possibility could happen via different factors.

kylith wrote: »

Unless you support the raising of social welfare and the abolition of school/college fees, along with heavily subsidised childcare. Do you?

i certainly do support such myself, yes

neonsofa

One eyed Jack wrote: »

But that's you're assuming that she has to do all those things kylith, not me. ln my experience there's absolutely no reason why there should be any assumption of a pre-determined outcome for her. Let's imagine for a minute she would meet someone like you who might say to her "y'know what, you pursue your studies, finish your degree, do whatever it is you want to do and I'll make sure you have every opportunity to do it, and you can still raise your child if that's what you want to do!" Now things aren't all so doom and gloom as to her future prospects, are they?

FWIW btw I absolutely do not support the raising of social welfare, I would abolish it entirely if I thought it were possible. I don't support the abolition of school/college fees (but certainly I would put what fees are charged to better use, definitely a whole other thread there!), and I think we already touched on the subsidised childcare issue? Needless to say I would simply abolish it.

How would the former part of your post be possible without the latter parts that you would abolish?

end of the road

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

Stupid scaremongering with nothing to back it up except bald assertions and i expect no better from you.

i'm afraid it's neither Stupid scaremongering, Stupid or scaremongering, but reality. i wish it wasn't but unfortunately it is

captbarnacles wrote: »

EOTR has only recently latched on this rubbish because Jack introduced it. There is no sign of it from him earlier in the thread. He'll give it up shortly as it is refuted.

actually i did mention it way back, either in this thread, or one of the other abortion threads. it can't be refuted.

One eyed Jack

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

Or they could end up spending their life on social welfare because they were born to a single mother who was forced to give birth to them and did poorly in life as a result.

Well don't you paint a shítty picture!

There's so many assumptions in there I'm not even sure where to start. What makes you assume that their mother would always be a single mother for a start, let alone that this alone would render her incapable of raising a child who grows up to contribute to society? Far more wasters in my experience come from homes where the family has two parents, but as I say that's just my experience.

Secondly neither kylith nor I mentioned anything about anyone being forced to give birth, and thirdly, you're assuming a conclusion that someone will do poorly in life as a result of being born to a single mother (and that is of course assuming the father is also single at the time!), when you should be looking at the actual cause, and not just the symptoms.

A child born to an already affluent single woman will of course have more opportunities in life (the Danish model, you should look it up!), than a child born to a woman who is already socially disadvantaged. It's not their status as a single mother will be the sole determinant factor in any comparison of outcomes, it's the base from where their parents are starting off.