Abortion in Ireland: 2 years on

ohnonotgmail

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Women's stuff... or something.

*runs away screaming*

wench

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Isn't it amazing how women's bodies refuse to just conform to a set of arbitrary dates and laboratory test conditions?

I'm reading Invisible Women at the moment, and the amount of medical research that use only male test subjects because data on women is "too messy" is ridiculous.

ELM327

secondrowgal wrote: »

...

TLDR: Men are 100% responsible for unwanted pregnancies.

See it's bollox like this (often perpetuated by "super woke" feminists) that does more harm than good to the repeal movement.

mc25

I must say, I'm getting a right auld giggle out of some of the maths and stats being posted here

And I'm not overly confident that Simon Harris can sort out the apparently appalling maths education we've all had!

ohnonotgmail

ELM327 wrote: »

See it's bollox like this (often perpetuated by "super woke" feminists) that does more harm than good to the repeal movement.

ignore the TLDR and she makes some very good points.

Leg End Reject

I voted yes and would do so again regardless of the numbers. I don't think any woman should be forced to continue a pregnancy and deliver a baby against her will.

I'd like to see full sex education rolled without a religious or moral slant, including information on STIs and emotional maturity.

The price of all contraception needs to be vastly reduced as well, condoms on their own are expensive as it is, but if you look at other options like the pill, coil etc., the cost of a GP appointment, prescription etc. really adds up. It can be too expensive for many, especially if they're beyond the cut off point for a medical card. No contraception is 100% effective either.

The emotional cost of an unwanted pregnancy for both partners, as well as the commitment required by parents if the pregnancy continues, can't be overstated.

Not everyone wants to be a parent and I think abortion should be readily available.

If you're concerned about numbers now that they can be more accurately documented lobby for sex ed and accessible contraception. Nothing will stop us having sex.

secondrowgal

ELM327 wrote: »

See it's bollox like this (often perpetuated by "super woke" feminists) that does more harm than good to the repeal movement.

Did you read it?

Bannasidhe

ELM327 wrote: »

See it's bollox like this (often perpetuated by "super woke" feminists) that does more harm than good to the repeal movement.

First time I ever heard a Mormon being called a "super woke" feminist. :P

Loafing Oaf

crossman47 wrote: »

The UK law is far too liberal - even David Steel, who brought it in, admitted that afterwards.

Did he? When? This is what he said on the 50th anniversary of the act (NI bit now obsolete):

Northern Ireland’s lack of access to abortion and the fact that we won’t decriminalise it altogether in England and Wales puts us miles behind our European neighbours who allow all women to access abortions on request

ricero

Looking at those figures I think its obvious that abortion on demand is definitely happening here in Ireland.

Leg End Reject

ricero wrote: »

Looking at those figures I think its obvious that abortion on demand is definitely happening here in Ireland.

Of course it is, it was clear that was going to be the case.

There's no point allowing abortion only in very limited circumstances. The term "unwanted pregnancy" is there for a reason and most voted to give women the right to choose.

Seven Septs

Franco Baresi 84 wrote: »

The world needs more abortions, especially in the third world. It is the height of evil to bring a child into the world that will grow up in constant pain as flies crawl over it's emaciated body.

In fact I'd go further, it's the height of evil to even have sex in such poverty if abortion is not available as you are risking bringing a child into a life of pain and misery so that you can have some pleasure.

You signed up to give us that lecture:rolleyes: People of the third world refrain from sex! Very practical.

Bannasidhe

Seven Septs wrote: »

You signed up to give us that lecture:rolleyes: People of the third world refrain from sex! Very practical.

If that had been a policy a few centuries ago there would be no Irish to be "demanding" abortions now.

Seamai

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

yes they are.

It's an assumption that many jump to, in my circle I have several people who haven't darkened the door of a church for 25 years and yet voted no.

ohnonotgmail

Seamai wrote: »

It's an assumption that many jump to, in my circle I have several people who haven't darkened the door of a church for 25 years and yet voted no.

no assumption required. the main groups on the No side were all religious groups or fronts for religious groups.

Seven Septs

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

no assumption required. the main groups on the No side were all religious groups or fronts for religious groups.

There are a serious amount of humanists who are pro life. Atheists for life etc.

That doesn't suit the black and white narrative though. I've had the same experience as Seamai. A lot of friends who are agnostic and atheist and voted No. They may not be as organised as the Iona Institute etc but there are large numbers of them.

Seven Septs

Franco Baresi 84 wrote: »

It worked for drink driving. The starting point is raising awareness and understanding the potential consequences of your actions.

The human desire to have sex is inbuilt for the survival of the species. We don't have an inbuilt desire to drink built into us from birth. Drinking alcohol isn't a necessary desire for the survival of human kind.

ohnonotgmail

Seven Septs wrote: »

There are a serious amount of humanists who are pro life. Atheists for life etc.

That doesn't suit the black and white narrative though. I've had the same experience as Seamai. A lot of friends who are agnostic and atheist and voted No. They may not be as organised as the Iona Institute etc but there are large numbers of them.

I said main. Iona, Loveboth. those kind of groups who were most public and best funded. the other groups you mentioned barely figured in the campaign at all.

Seven Septs

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

I said main. Iona, Loveboth. those kind of groups who were most public and best funded. the other groups you mentioned barely figured in the campaign at all.

Individual voters though. A large amount of non Catholics voted No. Regardless of whether they had a body with financial clout.

Did the Iona institute, Love Both influence my vote, absolutely not. Same for most No voters I'd imagine.

The vote was very much a personal conscience thing for both No and Yes voters. People did what they thought was right on both sides. Bringing their background, life experience, reading of what the legislation would look like etc into it.

It was a democratic vote and is now the law of the land.

ArmaniJeanss

Flashbacks to 'everyone I know is voting No and none of them are religious' posts from May 2018. Fun times.

To answer the OP, voted Yes, would vote Yes again.

My main concern was slightly different to everyone else's - my core reason was I felt it was the sort of thing which should never have been in the constitution but should be up to each elected government to decide.

I'm happy with the current legislation but if the 'pro-life' side get a majority in a GE and wish to change it then so be it.

Seven Septs

ArmaniJeanss wrote: »

Flashbacks to 'everyone I know is voting No and none of them are religious' posts from May 2018. Fun times.

To answer the OP, voted Yes, would vote Yes again.

My main concern was slightly different to everyone else's - my core reason was I felt it was the sort of thing which should never have been in the constitution but should be up to each elected government to decide.

I'm happy with the current legislation but if the 'pro-life' side get a majority in a GE and wish to change it then so be it.

Well people weren't lying about saying a lot were voting No, or Yes. 1/3 of the population voted NO. That's a lot of voters. And yes a lot of that one third weren't religious.

Bannasidhe

Franco Baresi 84 wrote: »

It worked for drink driving. The starting point is raising awareness and understanding the potential consequences of your actions.

Is drunk driving a big issue in 3rd world countries?
I wouldn't have thought enough people could afford both cars and alcohol tbh.

Do you know what doesn't cost any money? Shagging.

And I can't even being to politely frame my opinion of relatively rich people in developed countries continuing to think they have the right to dictate to those people in the very places the West asset stripped for centuries.
Perhaps sterilisation is the answer. No poor 'unborn babies' to abort then.
Should we get the former colonist countries to carry out this scheme in their former colonies as they would be familiar with them?
Belgium could take the Congo.
The UK could have Nigeria, Kenya, Rhodesia Zimbabwe, Uganda etc etc.
What to do about India? Parts of there is very developed...And they did try sterilisation before but it turned out to be a bit of a human rights issue...what with so many women dying...

Which bring me to developed countries using forced sterilisation in the '3rd world' parts of their own territories.. like the US, Canada, and Australia did with indigenous women and women with disabilities.

Should they go full eugenics while they are about it?

Yup - we have now gone full circle.

lisabiscuit

Voted to Repeal. Would do again today, tomorrow. Whenever. Forever.

ohnonotgmail

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

i'm going to assume you are on a windup. the alternative is too much to consider.

The alternative is backed by our leading health officials. Pregnancy is safe. Not perfect, things can go wrong as in any medical situation but the numbers are very very low.

Tell me what illness you are referring to please or is this your usual method of throwing out arguments with zero backing?

Franco Baresi 84

Franco Baresi 84 wrote: »

It worked for drink driving. The starting point is raising awareness and understanding the potential consequences of your actions.

People won't stop having sex, forget that idea right now and move on to dealing with the consequences of that reality.

Chris_Heilong

I feel bad for the Doctors who know they are taking a life when they kill the baby, it must weigh on their moral conscience as unlike the general public they actually know scientifically it is a human life.

Leg End Reject

Chris_Heilong wrote: »

I feel bad for the Doctors who know they are taking a life when they kill the baby, it must weigh on their moral conscience as unlike the general public they actually know scientifically it is a human life.

Doctors aren't obliged to perform abortions and can refuse on moral grounds.

Neither performing, nor having, an abortion is compulsory.

jrosen

Voted to repeal, felt incredible to see the vote pass. Would do it again.

Loafing Oaf

Seven Septs wrote: »

There are a serious amount of humanists who are pro life. Atheists for life etc.

And yet nobody can ever put a name to a single Irish instance, even though there are scores of well-known pro-life activists. Funny that...

Mad_maxx

ELM327 wrote: »

What's the alternative?

If you don't allow the woman to terminate, you expect to enforce your views on her? What gives you that right?

Using that criteria, it's wrong to force your views on someone who wishes to strangle someone

Society force's views and makes value judgements on people in numerous ways