Abortion - Report of the Joint Committee on the Eighth Amendment of the Constitution

volchitsa

2wsxcde3 wrote: »

That was the same reason the government took babys off their mothers in the mother and baby home regime - it was cheaper to force the woman to give their baby up for adoption rather than pay the woman a weekly allowance to care for the baby herself.

There was no social security when M&B homes were set up, literally nobody was suggesting giving anyone money to care for their children. When fathers were unemployed the kids often went hungry, so there was no danger of being under any obligation to help single mothers feed their children.

It was really about the morality of allowing such 'fallen women' to go on living in society without being punished, not about money.

It wasn't until 1970 in this country that the government finally gave single mothers a weekly allowance to care for their babys. The result was an immediate dramatic fall off in the use of mother and baby homes.

There is still a contingent in this country that feels it is better to separate babys from their mothers (now via an abortion pill) rather than pay the women a weekly allowance to care for the baby at home. There is no compassion at all, only for their own bigotry towards single mothers.

Incidentally, your economics are all screwed up. Every citizen in this country is estimated to be worth approx €1m to the exchequer over their lifetime. More babys makes a country richer, not poorer. Thats why we are having such large immigration into the country at the moment, so they can pay more tax to pay back all the money we owe Europe.

No, babies amd children cost a lot of money, the only way a country gets its investment back on them is if they remain in the country as working adults.

But then of course Ireland never encouraged its young people to do that, traditionally we just paid out the cost of bringing them up and then sent them abroad to contribute to other economies.

end of the road

WhiteRoses wrote: »

In regards to costs and funding, the tablet will be significantly less than the cost the taxpayer pays for the maternity care and birth of a baby, cheaper than 18 years worth of children’s allowance payments, and cheaper than paying a teacher to educate a child throughout their school years. Minuscule, in comparison.

in that case there will be no requirement for the tax payer to fund it. people regardless of circumstance will be able to afford the pill without tax payer contribution.

WhiteRoses wrote: »

It’s a massive financial saving for the government - not that this should be a reason for abortion to be legal, but it’s still relevant.

that is what is claimed, but personally i don't think it will be the saving that is claimed, seeing as it will likely be free. assuming the gps cary out the service, they have to be compensated hugely as they are entitled to extra money and must get that money.

.......

This post has been deleted.

.......

This post has been deleted.

2wsxcde3

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Ammmm we had an anti-catholic party in power in this country at the time the mother and baby home regime was in full swing - the Labor party. They were in government between the years 1948-1951 and again 1954-1957. The labor party were openly hostile to the catholic church in these years.

They never passed on the tax payers money to the women in mother and baby homes. They decided it was cheaper to force these women give up their babys for adoption rather than pay them a weekly allowance. The labor party still dont like paying single mothers a weekly allowance. In 2015, Joan Burton cut 22,500 single mothers off the single parent allowance to force them out to work.

That's a little history lesson the media will never tell you about, and the labor party don't want the public to know about.

Edward M

2wsxcde3 wrote: »

That was the same reason the government took babys off their mothers in the mother and baby home regime - it was cheaper to force the woman to give their baby up for adoption rather than pay the woman a weekly allowance to care for the baby herself.

It wasn't until 1970 in this country that the government finally gave single mothers a weekly allowance to care for their babys. The result was an immediate dramatic fall off in the use of mother and baby homes.

There is still a contingent in this country that feels it is better to separate babys from their mothers (now via an abortion pill) rather than pay the women a weekly allowance to care for the baby at home. There is no compassion at all, only for their own bigotry towards single mothers.

Incidentally, your economics are all screwed up. Every citizen in this country is estimated to be worth approx €1m to the exchequer over their lifetime. More babys makes a country richer, not poorer. Thats why we are having such large immigration into the country at the moment, so they can pay more tax to pay back all the money we owe Europe.

I think you are rambling a bit now.
But anyway, there is a payment for single and indeed coupled parents here who need financial support, single mothers allowance social welfare if needed and fis for low income families.
Its not that long ago, probably during the contraceptive debate and indeed I've heard it since, where single mothers were accused of having children to abuse the system, whereby they got accommodation and their weekly allowance.
They were virtually accused of having children for fraudulent purposes.
There's no ends to levels some people will stoop to try and convey their outrage at the way others live.

volchitsa

2wsxcde3 wrote: »

Ammmm we had an anti-catholic party in power in this country at the time the mother and baby home regime was in full swing - the Labor party. They were in government between the years 1948-1951 and again 1954-1957. The labor party were openly hostile to the catholic church in these years.

They never passed on the tax payers money to the women in mother and baby homes. They decided it was cheaper to force these women give up their babys for adoption rather than pay them a weekly allowance. The labor party still dont like paying single mothers a weekly allowance. In 2015, Joan Burton cut 22,500 single mothers off the single parent allowance to force them out to work.

That's a little history lesson the media will never tell you about, and the labor party don't want the public to know about.

That fount of all knowledge, Wikipedia, tells me they were never the senior partner, and had ministries like Posts amd Telegraphs, so they were hardly in a position to dictate a radical change of social policy.

As for the claim that they were anti catholic, I see this : "In 1960 the Labour leader Brendan Corish described the party's programme as "a form of Christian socialism"" - so something of an overstatement from you there too.

So maybe that's why nobody else believes your "little history lesson".

end of the road

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

they are not being shunned. only some haven't an option but to travel for abortion services as their extreme case isn't covered by the allowence for abortion in extreme circumstances. the rest choose to travel for abortion services, as and in this state they cannot kill the unborn because it's inconvenient, which is a very just law.

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

agreed. it was pure evil and thankfully the church are paying for it via becoming more and more irrelevant as time goes on.

Edward M

end of the road wrote: »

they are not being shunned. only some haven't an option but to travel for abortion services as their extreme case isn't covered by the allowence for abortion in extreme circumstances. the rest choose to travel for abortion services, as and in this state they cannot kill the unborn because it's inconvenient, which is a very just law.



agreed. it was pure evil and thankfully the church are paying for it via becoming more and more irrelevant as time goes on.

From what I can see, we aren't poles apart in our beliefs.
Just to say, its difficult for a pregnant woman with a serious illness or injury or perhaps traumatised by her experiences, be it abuse she has suffered or perhaps addiction of some sort to travel.
The eighth is a big barrier to the extent of medical help a lot of cases can receive here.

2wsxcde3

volchitsa wrote: »

As for the claim that they were anti catholic, I see this : "In 1960 the Labour leader Brendan Corish described the party's programme as "a form of Christian socialism"" - so something of an overstatement from you there too.

Lol, thats what politicians do to get as many votes as they can - lie to the public about who they really are. Like how Leo said he was pro-life at a time when he thought the public were against abortion and is now pro-choice at a time when he believes the public are in favor of abortion. Being "christian" gets more votes than admitting you are an "atheist".

From 1936, the labor party published a newspaper called "Labour News". In it, they are constantly attacking the catholic church and the church was attacking them back calling them communists. Therefore its a matter of historical fact that we had an anti-catholic party in power in this country in the early half of the 20th century and they were forcing women to give their babys up for adoption rather than pay them a weekly allowance.

It was only FF in the 1970's that actually did the decent thing and gave these women a weekly allowance so they could keep their baby.

end of the road

Edward M wrote: »

From what I can see, we aren't poles apart in our beliefs.
Just to say, its difficult for a pregnant woman with a serious illness or injury or perhaps traumatised by her experiences, be it abuse she has suffered or perhaps addiction of some sort to travel.
The eighth is a big barrier to the extent of medical help a lot of cases can receive here.

i know. and that is what has angered me about the proposals being put forward by the government. it means i cannot vote repeal like i wanted to. i cannot vote for anything that will allow abortion on demand. it's just not possible for me to do that. the unborn have to have rights and protections. there is a middle ground where pro-life and pro-choice could both vote for repeal and the government chose not to take it.

Zubeneschamali

end of the road wrote: »

it means i cannot vote repeal like i wanted to. i cannot vote for anything that will allow abortion on demand.

Not to worry, we'll repeal it without your vote.

end of the road

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Not to worry, we'll repeal it without your vote.

you may not. one should never be cocky on such matters.

Hotblack Desiato

Children going to the UK for medical procedures get continuity of care, the UK doctors get their Irish medical notes, when they come back the Irish doctors get their UK notes.

This doesn't happen when a woman travels to the UK for an abortion, which puts her at increased medical risk.

How many juvenile heart transplants happen each year to Irish patients? Enough to allow a medical team to build up and maintain the specialist skills involved? Hardly. This is a small country which is why we have to look abroad for specialist skills to treat very rare conditions.

Same thing happens in the North, babies come down to Crumlin for heart surgery, the population of NI is too small to justify a team up there and they wouldn't see enough patients to retain their skills.

2wsxcde3

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Children going to the UK for medical procedures get continuity of care, the UK doctors get their Irish medical notes, when they come back the Irish doctors get their UK notes.

This doesn't happen when a woman travels to the UK for an abortion, which puts her at increased medical risk.

How many juvenile heart transplants happen each year to Irish patients? Enough to allow a medical team to build up and maintain the specialist skills involved? Hardly. This is a small country which is why we have to look abroad for specialist skills to treat very rare conditions.

Same thing happens in the North, babies come down to Crumlin for heart surgery, the population of NI is too small to justify a team up there and they wouldn't see enough patients to retain their skills.

In other words, we are exporting the problem of sick children in this country and you don't care.

Zubeneschamali

2wsxcde3 wrote: »

In other words, we are exporting the problem of sick children in this country and you don't care.

Gosh, that means I must vote No!

SusieBlue

2wsxcde3 wrote: »

In other words, we are exporting the problem of sick children in this country and you don't care.

That is not even remotely what was said, blatant deflecting going on here, you are twisting what was said to suit your own agenda.

I think we can all collectively agree that it’s awful that children have to go to the UK to receive certain medical treatments.
That has absolutely nothing to do with abortion.

end of the road

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Gosh, that means I must vote No!

yes, you must vote no so that better proposals which will protect the unborn and the mother can be put forward, which will get support from both pro-choice and pro-life. we can do better then what is being offered and we deserve better for the sake of humanity.

WhiteRoses wrote: »

That is not even remotely what was said, blatant deflecting going on here, you are twisting what was said to suit your own agenda.

I think we can all collectively agree that it’s awful that children have to go to the UK to receive certain medical treatments.
That has absolutely nothing to do with abortion.

there is no deflection, just the truth being told. the issue of sick children having to go to the uk has everything to do with abortion as the money that would be spent on abortion on demand could go some way toards making it less likely for children to have to go to the uk for treatment.

SusieBlue

end of the road wrote: »

yes, you must vote no so that better proposals which will protect the unborn and the mother can be put forward, which will get support from both pro-choice and pro-life. we can do better then what is being offered and we deserve better for the sake of humanity.



there is no deflection, just the truth being told. the issue of sick children having to go to the uk has everything to do with abortion as the money that would be spent on abortion on demand could go some way toards making it less likely for children to have to go to the uk for treatment.

As I already just told you on another thread, I won’t be replying to any more of your posts.

2wsxcde3

end of the road wrote: »

the issue of sick children having to go to the uk has everything to do with abortion as the money that would be spent on abortion on demand could go some way toards making it less likely for children to have to go to the uk for treatment.

Referendums typically cost in the region of €20m to hold. Add in the cost of the citizens assembly on top of that, and Minister Harris could be today cutting the ribbon on a arthritis ward for sick children in Ireland. Instead no ward exists. These sick children will have to continue travelling over and back to the UK in pain.

ancapailldorcha

end of the road wrote: »

there is no deflection, just the truth being told. the issue of sick children having to go to the uk has everything to do with abortion as the money that would be spent on abortion on demand could go some way toards making it less likely for children to have to go to the uk for treatment.

Is this not a little bit sick? Using ill children to score points for your agenda is a bit low IMO. You could say the same thing about old people's homes if you wanted to pursue such a utilitarian agenda.

end of the road

WhiteRoses wrote: »

As I already just told you on another thread, I won’t be replying to any more of your posts.

i'm sorry to hear that and you feel that way. but i understand that it is difficult to be challenged on your views, and to be shown why your viewpoint cannot ultimately work in reality, given the nature of what is being discussed and the outcome involved.

2wsxcde3 wrote: »

Referendums typically cost in the region of €20m to hold. Add in the cost of the citizens assembly on top of that, and Minister Harris could be today cutting the ribbon on a arthritis ward for sick children in Ireland. Instead no ward exists. These sick children will have to continue travelling over and back to the UK in pain.

i completely agree. it's beyond belief really, but sadly not surprising. ireland has always refused to get some of it's priorities right.

ForestFire

2wsxcde3 wrote: »

Referendums typically cost in the region of €20m to hold. Add in the cost of the citizens assembly on top of that, and Minister Harris could be today cutting the ribbon on a arthritis ward for sick children in Ireland. Instead no ward exists. These sick children will have to continue travelling over and back to the UK in pain.

This is not a valid argument not to have a referendum on the 8th amendment.

If you are going to go down this road,

What about the arts grants,
The grants for athletes,
The money spend n the flower boxes in Dublin ...
home improvement grants,
EV car grants
and so on and so on

The referendum needs to happen is some form

I don't agree with the current form at the moment, but regardless it needs to happen and 20m is insignificant in terms of the government budget.

2wsxcde3

By the way, how many of these women travelling to the UK for abortions are being forced to by abusive boyfriends/husbands etc? We never hear about these women.

If abortion up to 12 weeks is brought in here, women in Ireland can now expect to be subjected to the following things from their boyfriends on finding out they are pregnant:

Have you considered terminating the pregnancy?
If you love me you'll have an abortion.
If you continue with this pregnancy i'm breaking up with you.

At the moment, the fact that abortion is a far away thing in the UK (and can cost €1000+) and online abortion pills carry a potential 14 year sentence offers a significant protection to women from abusive boyfriends/husbands. There is enough of a deterrent there at the moment. But if a woman only has to go to a GP for an abortion pill (if the referendum passes), women up and down Ireland are going to find themselves all of a sudden under pressure from their boyfriend/husbands to have an abortion against their own personal wishes.

oscarBravo

2wsxcde3 wrote: »

By the way, how many of these women travelling to the UK for abortions are being forced to by abusive boyfriends/husbands etc? We never hear about these women.

If abortion up to 12 weeks is brought in here, women in Ireland can now expect to be subjected to the following things from their boyfriends on finding out they are pregnant:

Have you considered terminating the pregnancy?
If you love me you'll have an abortion.
If you continue with this pregnancy i'm breaking up with you.

At the moment, the fact that abortion is a far away thing in the UK (and can cost €1000+) and online abortion pills carry a potential 14 year sentence offers a significant protection to women from abusive boyfriends/husbands. There is enough of a deterrent there at the moment. But if a woman only has to go to a GP for an abortion pill (if the referendum passes), women up and down Ireland are going to find themselves all of a sudden under pressure from their boyfriend/husbands to have an abortion against their own personal wishes.

Your sympathy for putative women who are forced to have abortions would be a lot more convincing if it was coupled with sympathy for women who are forced to carry unwanted pregnancies to term.

Edward M

2wsxcde3 wrote: »

In other words, we are exporting the problem of sick children in this country and you don't care.

So if we export abortion we don't care either?
These are silly arguments really!
If you support the eighth then you support the right to travel to have an abortion, really and truly that is hypocritical in the extreme, like fcuk off and have it in England, that'll be grand then?
The eighth doesent stop abortion, just makes it harder to get!

Hotblack Desiato

If the sort of nonsense seen in the last few posts is the best the anti-choice side can do, then repeal will pass easily.

You with the bot name, I will not be replying to you again as it's clear you did not bother to read my replies to you.

Hotblack Desiato

WhiteRoses wrote: »

I think we can all collectively agree that it’s awful that children have to go to the UK to receive certain medical treatments.
That has absolutely nothing to do with abortion.

Eh no. We don't all agree, did you also fail to read my post?

It's an unfortunate fact of life that in a small country the expertise to treat very rare conditions cannot exist. This is NOT a question of money.

Same issue affects very small A&E departments here, if they do not see enough patients in a year then the quality of care will be reduced. When we centralised cancer care, patient survival increased.

.......

This post has been deleted.

SusieBlue

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Eh no. We don't all agree, did you also fail to read my post?

It's an unfortunate fact of life that in a small country the expertise to treat very rare conditions cannot exist. This is NOT a question of money.

Same issue affects very small A&E departments here, if they do not see enough patients in a year then the quality of care will be reduced. When we centralised cancer care, patient survival increased.

It can be a fact of life and still be awful. `
In an ideal world we wouldn't have to travel to receive ANY medical treatments, unfortunately we aren't equipped to treat rare illnesses so people have to travel. It might be reality and I can see why as a small country its necessary but I still think its awful.

Zubeneschamali

WhiteRoses wrote: »

In an ideal world we wouldn't have to travel to receive ANY medical treatments, unfortunately we aren't equipped to treat rare illnesses so people have to travel. It might be reality and I can see why as a small country its necessary but I still think its awful.

It is still not a reason to ban abortion here and force even more women to travel unnecessarily.

SusieBlue

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

It is still not a reason to ban abortion here and force even more women to travel unnecessarily.

I completely agree, that's what I said myself!

Hoboo

oscarBravo wrote: »

Your sympathy for putative women who are forced to have abortions would be a lot more convincing if it was coupled with sympathy for women who are forced to carry unwanted pregnancies to term.

If you don't want the bun, don't throw the mix in the oven.

osarusan

2wsxcde3 wrote: »

By the way, how many of these women travelling to the UK for abortions are being forced to by abusive boyfriends/husbands etc? We never hear about these women.

If abortion up to 12 weeks is brought in here, women in Ireland can now expect to be subjected to the following things from their boyfriends on finding out they are pregnant:

Have you considered terminating the pregnancy?
If you love me you'll have an abortion.
If you continue with this pregnancy i'm breaking up with you.

You are flailing round desperately for an argument now, looking for something, anything, that will stick.

.......

This post has been deleted.

ancapailldorcha

Hoboo wrote: »

If you don't want the bun, don't throw the mix in the oven.

Or you could stop living in the dark ages and afford women the basic rights they have in most Western countries.

seamus

Hoboo wrote: »

If you don't want the bun, don't throw the mix in the oven.

It never ceases to amaze me the number of people who seem to think that women deserve to be punished for having sex.

They'd never deny medical treatment to someone injured in a car crash, but when it comes to pregnancy suddenly you deserve to be punished for taking the risk of having sex.

Hoboo

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Im not pro life, Id say Im more pro face your responsibilities.

Im fully supportive of abortion in some cases, rape, incest, when the mothers life is in danger or if the baby will not survive, beyond doubt

I dont agree with abortion if the contraception fails. Thats just shirking your responsibilities. If you're not responsible enough to have a child, then don't risk making one.

2wsxcde3

seamus wrote: »

It never ceases to amaze me the number of people who seem to think that women deserve to be punished for having sex.

Aren't men punished for having sex - ie forced to pay child support for the next 18 years of their life? Could you imagine if women were made do the same?!

Gunmonkey

end of the road wrote: »

there is no deflection, just the truth being told. the issue of sick children having to go to the uk has everything to do with abortion as the money that would be spent on abortion on demand could go some way toards making it less likely for children to have to go to the uk for treatment.

*gasp*

He has done it!

*starts clapping*

*rest of audience starts clapping too*

You did it, end of the road......you actually did it......its beautiful....words cannot describe it...its...its *kisses fingertips* mwuha...bellissimo!

This is it folks....the ultimate ****-post, the infinite non-argument! We didnt think he could do it.....on a website filled with completely useless posts and stupid as F opinions, end of the road dug deep and delivered what must be the gold standard for inane bull**** as a response!


Are you serious? I mean, how can you think this is an argument? Will we then start debating every single proposed policy that is not happening and then claim ".....oh but abortion is stopping it!"

No extra classrooms or teachers...abortion!
No motorway between Galway and Cork...abortion!
No deepwater ports in Limerick...abortion!
No DART underground...abortion!

Is this your actual argument? Because I would direct you to this quote from Andyfitzer's opening post (a posy you thanked so must agree with)....

There is some emotive language used when addressing the woman - compassionate, devastating diagnosis, mental distress - thereby acknowledging her humanity. There is only cold medical language used to describe the human in the womb- termination of pregnancy. The only time they are talked about in any kind of human way is in listing the categories where it should be legal to take their lives, sorry -"terminate". They are called the unborn child then.

So....its bad when the pro-choice side use "emotive language" for their side to be manipulative...but its fair to say "Err...if you support pro-choice you want sick children to die!"

Please dont insult the intelligence of everyone in this thread with bull like this.

2wsxcde3 wrote:

By the way, how many of these women travelling to the UK for abortions are being forced to by abusive boyfriends/husbands etc? We never hear about these women.

If abortion up to 12 weeks is brought in here, women in Ireland can now expect to be subjected to the following things from their boyfriends on finding out they are pregnant:

Have you considered terminating the pregnancy?
If you love me you'll have an abortion.
If you continue with this pregnancy i'm breaking up with you.

At the moment, the fact that abortion is a far away thing in the UK (and can cost €1000+) and online abortion pills carry a potential 14 year sentence offers a significant protection to women from abusive boyfriends/husbands. There is enough of a deterrent there at the moment. But if a woman only has to go to a GP for an abortion pill (if the referendum passes), women up and down Ireland are going to find themselves all of a sudden under pressure from their boyfriend/husbands to have an abortion against their own personal wishes.

So what your saying is...we need to keep abortions banned to respect the wishes and bodily autonomy of a small group of women......over that of the wishes and bodily autonomy of the vast majority of women who want abortion!

women up and down Ireland are going to find themselves all of a sudden under pressure from their boyfriend/husbands to have an abortion against their own personal wishes.

...oh boy, I guess it would be awful for women to have their bodily autonomy dictated by a bunch of men now wouldnt it! Yup, it would be terrible if women in Ireland had a major life choice decided for them by a bunch of men against their wishes...yup....awful...good thing that will never happen here, right?

SusieBlue

Hoboo wrote: »

Im not pro life, Id say Im more pro face your responsibilities.

Im fully supportive of abortion in some cases, rape, incest, when the mothers life is in danger or if the baby will not survive, beyond doubt

I dont agree with abortion if the contraception fails. Thats just shirking your responsibilities. If you're not responsible enough to have a child, then don't risk making one.

Do you think its in the best interests of a child to be brought up by a mother who didn't want him and who was forced into parenthood?

Do you feel that the people who are irresponsible enough to get pregnant (your words) should be trusted with the responsibility of bringing up another human being?

If contraception fails, they tried to responsible. They tried to avoid pregnancy. I don't get this attitude of "just suck it up". No one benefits from it, least of all the unplanned child.

You just seem to be keen on making the woman suffer and punishing her, rather than thinking of the best interests of both her and the child.

Zubeneschamali

Hoboo wrote: »

Im fully supportive of abortion in some cases, rape, incest, when the mothers life is in danger or if the baby will not survive, beyond doubt

Cool, so you are onboard to repeal the 8th.

Zubeneschamali

2wsxcde3 wrote: »

Aren't men punished for having sex - ie forced to pay child support for the next 18 years of their life? Could you imagine if women were made do the same?!

I don't have to imagine it.

SusieBlue

2wsxcde3 wrote: »

Aren't men punished for having sex - ie forced to pay child support for the next 18 years of their life? Could you imagine if women were made do the same?!

Who is looking after the child that the father is paying the child support for?
The woman maybe?!? What a stupid post.

And also, women don't currently have the opportunity that men do, to walk away. A man can stroll off into the sunset and at worst, will have to pay maintenance. This isn't even strictly enforced so if he doesn't bother, it'll be years, if ever, before it catches up with him.

seamus

2wsxcde3 wrote: »

Aren't men punished for having sex - ie forced to pay child support for the next 18 years of their life?

Ah, the whataboutery has started.

In any case, the answer to your question is "no". Men can engage in risky sex and the disappear into the night, unaffected by the consequences.

A man who finds himself with an unintentional child is a victim being forced to pay child support. A women who finds herself with one has "allowed mix to be thrown into her oven".

The double standard is real, even if the MRAs would like to pretend that men are the only ones who lose out.

.......

This post has been deleted.

Hoboo

WhiteRoses wrote: »

Do you think its in the best interests of a child to be brought up by a mother who didn't want him and who was forced into parenthood? Forced? No one is forcing anyone into parenthood. Adoption is a choice.

Do you feel that the people who are irresponsible enough to get pregnant (your words) should be trusted with the responsibility of bringing up another human being? Absolutely not, adoption is a choice.

If contraception fails, they tried to responsible. They tried to avoid pregnancy. I don't get this attitude of "just suck it up". No one benefits from it, least of all the unplanned child. Its not a case of suck it up, its about facing your responsibilities. Everyone knows contraception can fail, we know the outcomes. If the child doesn't fit into your plans now, thats ok, let it live, have the chance you had, give it up for adoption

You just seem to be keen on making the woman suffer and punishing her, rather than thinking of the best interests of both her and the child. No I don't, very much the opposite from personal experience

Its much easier to end a life thats not yours and doesn't resemble a fully developed person. If the choice was have the child, and 'suck it up' as you put it, or euthanasia of the mother rather than just abortion of the child, you'd see people suddenly becoming very responsible.

Saying the child would be better off dead is ridiculous, if the mother is not responsible enough to look after the child, there are plenty of responsible loving people out there who would be cut off their right arm to be parents. Its not the only choice.

My concern is abortion becoming a convenience for an inconvenience rather than what it should be for....a surgical procedure of last resort. I think the concept and understanding of the importance of life, at no matter what stage, is completely lost.

Hoboo

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Cool, so you are onboard to repeal the 8th.

I wish I was. Unfortunately I don't agree to handing over future decisions to the Dáil. Inserting that caveat sounds like they don't want it repealed at all.

I also don't agree with abortions of convenience up to 12 weeks.

oscarBravo

Hoboo wrote: »

Im fully supportive of abortion in some cases, rape, incest, when the mothers life is in danger or if the baby will not survive, beyond doubt

Hoboo wrote: »

I think the concept and understanding of the importance of life, at no matter what stage, is completely lost.

Can you see how these arguments are directly at odds with each other?

You can't logically claim that abortion on demand is bad because of the importance of life at all stages, while also claiming to be supportive of abortion in the case of rape. If it's OK to terminate a pregnancy that resulted from rape, then it makes objective sense that it's OK to terminate a pregnancy for any other reason.

Otherwise you're basically saying that the foetus that results from a rape is less human than any other foetus, which is very much at odds with the view that all lives are equally precious.

Zubeneschamali

Hoboo wrote: »

I wish I was. Unfortunately I don't agree to handing over future decisions to the Dáil. Inserting that caveat sounds like they don't want it repealed at all.

I also don't agree with abortions of convenience up to 12 weeks.

But what about all the women with rape, incest and FFA cases that you agree should have access?

Too bad?

In particular, do you have a response to the Citizens Assembly which concluded that for rape there is no option except unrestricted access?