Abortion in Ireland: 2 years on

Igotadose

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

There was another thread elsewhere about the successful reduction in road fatalities over the last number of years.

No matter whether you are pro-life or pro-abortion, I think both sides could agree that as a country we should be looking at trying to reduce these numbers. Unwanted pregnancies are hugely preventable, whether it's a core moral issue for pro-life aspects or a traumatic experience for someone going through it, we should have active governemnt programmes to reduce this. Better sex education, more acessible contraception not only benefits both sides, but also makes better financial sense for the government bean counters paying for the provision of services.

I'd add, ensure the woman gets child support from the sperm donor. Too many men are 'in the wind' in Ireland with apparently no consequences. Something like single-digits are forced to pay child support each year, a laughably low number. You want to solve the financial problem? Make the guy pay. It'll reduce unwanted pregnancies overnight in this country.

mc25

I would be really interested to know about the costs behind the figures (not because I disagree, just to know). Unlike some of the previous posters I don't mind my taxes going towards abortion services but if I had to choose, I would prefer free contraception rather than free abortion.

I'm very disappointed that the government of the time didn't use the opportunity to legislate on something like this but it doesn't surprise me that they didn't.

And I would absolutely love to see a campaign for increased access to contraception, which I think would find support from both sides of the debate so might actually have some chance of succeeding!

nozzferrahhtoo

keybordWarrior wrote: »

Legality has nothing to do with it. It was illegal a few years ago, was it wrong then? It must be convenient for you to just believe what's legal is acceptable.

Yes and No.

Yes it was wrong then because breaking the law is wrong.

No it was not wrong then because the law was a bad one.

If you believe a law to be wrong you can campaign to have it changed WHILE respecting it and following it. I believe that protesting a law by intentionally breaking it should be an OPTION during political activism. But it should be one of the last resort options when all other recourse has been exhausted.

In this case we had a referendum, we protested the law legally and the large majority of the electorate spoke up with a decision that you seemingly do not like. So the ball is in your court to do now what we did then. WORK to have the law changed as YOU believe it should be.

But if we do the work, and the opposition merely moan about the result, then the law is not going to change again any time soon I suspect.

nozzferrahhtoo

cournioni wrote: »

Haven’t even read it to be honest. I’m more appalled at the attitudes towards the unborn by pro choicers here.

Maybe rather than simply be appalled you should try to engage and understand. I could sit here and call the anti choice rhetoric appalling and simply take my ball and go home too. But over the last few years I have engaged with them openly and honestly and explained many pro choice positions.

The simple fact is that I have no issue with 12 week abortions because no one on the anti choice side has yet come up with a single argument showing it to be morally or ethically problematic.

This is unfortunately because all most of them have done has been to shout words like "life" and "human" at me as if this somehow means anything. That or they get all excited about tongues for some reason.

cournioni wrote: »

Taking a life away through choice shouldn’t be a cause to cheer.

Getting the right political decision after weeks, months, and for some years and decades of hard work and activism however IS a cause to cheer. And celebrate. And party. People who work hard and then finally see a result to that hard work, have every right to celebrate. That YOU do not like the result does not negate that right, or the purity of the motivations behind it.

nozzferrahhtoo

Rodin wrote: »

The truth hurts.
That's why people closed their eyes and ears to what is actually involved in an abortion. I don't believe in censorship.

The truth seems to hurt the "no" side more however. Because the "realities of abortion" as they presented it during the campaign were very distorted and very misleading. Lies in other words. We had a user on this thread carded by the mods for selling the same lies too it seems.

The vast majority..... over 92%.... of elective abortions happen in or before week 12. This is often done with a pill that induces what appears little more than a heavy period. THAT is the reality of abortions.

The "reality" we were given by the "no" campaign and the user carded yesterday involves vacuum machines, bins, bodies and more. They are in other words discussing LATE TERM abortions, which are rarely elective and are usually done for reasons of medical necessity.

So please, tell me YOUR impression of the "reality" and the "truth" and explain to me why you think it might "Hurt" me? I know the realities quite well having studied them before the referendum in some depth. And I can tell you the "no" side were not too keen to talk about the reality of simply popping a pill, bleeding a bit, and moving on with your life. Because they wanted the "realities" to seem a lot more bloody and interventionalist than it actually was.

Rodin wrote: »

In the UK half of all abortions are by women who have already had at least one.
Many women take it VERY lightly. It is untrue to say otherwise.

I am not sure the statistics really back up the spin. Figures on "repeat abortions" were trotted out during the referendum debates on this forum. Almost unanimously citing the Daily Mail as their source. You did not cite ANY source above though. Perhaps you could so we could analyse it?

But the statistics did not seem to be strong enough to support the spin people put on it. Pretty much the same spin you try above.

The sources cited before showed that some % of women had more than one abortion in their ENTIRE lives. Usually a second one. The figures fell off quite steeply and dramatically after that. 3rd abortions not common at all. 4th almost never. And so on.

Consider the fertility period of a women. From in some cases 12 year of age up to, what, 60? 2 abortions in just over 45 YEARS is not all that much at all. Especially given how few women in relation to the population were actually having any abortion at all.

Further the statistics do not go into WHY women were having those abortions. Let alone why they had a second one in their life. You just assume above, for purposes of spin, that it was because they take abortion lightly. How do you know that at all other than pure fantasy? Perhaps many of them have reasons for why pregnancy is contraindicated. You simply do not know.

ohnonotgmail

mc25 wrote: »

I would be really interested to know about the costs behind the figures (not because I disagree, just to know). Unlike some of the previous posters I don't mind my taxes going towards abortion services but if I had to choose, I would prefer free contraception rather than free abortion.

I'm very disappointed that the government of the time didn't use the opportunity to legislate on something like this but it doesn't surprise me that they didn't.

And I would absolutely love to see a campaign for increased access to contraception, which I think would find support from both sides of the debate so might actually have some chance of succeeding!

do you really think an organisation like the Iona institute would get behind a campaign encouraging contraception?

Bannasidhe

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

One of my friends lives in Wales. She came home to Ireland to attend a funeral during the referendum campaign and her conservative husband was absolutely shocked at the state of the No campaign posters he saw whilst driving through Ireland. The No campaign’s shock tactics disgusted a lot of people.

Just on that. They made the mistake of thinking the same tactics as first time around would work again but failed to really appreciate how much Ireland has moved on from the Moving Statues 80s.
Mar Ref should have given them a big clue.

But they did dial it down a lot. I was dreading going through it all again tbh but even their most in your face stuff was 'tasteful' in comparison to the horror show they were allowed to get away with, pretty unchallenged, in 83.

One of the biggest indications of the complete change in Irish society from the 1980s to the 2010s for me was when Radical Queers began to block the more extreme pro-life images with rainbow flags and generally public opinion was that it was an amusing way to deal with outrageous and disgusting images intended to cause distress.
No way that would have happened 30 odd years ago. The images were left unchallenged then and it was the same time period when the murderers of Declan Flynn were allowed to walk out of court as beating a gay man to death was deemed by the judge as something that "This could never be regarded as murder".

The pro-life side did not account for Ireland having radically changed in 35 years.

Bannasidhe

cournioni wrote: »

144 was the figure given for abortions carried out where there was risk to the life of the baby or the mother. Those figures released by the government and is the information that we must go by.

6522 is a huge number of healthy unborn being killed, for what good reason?

That 144 is the figure for terminations after 12 weeks which were carried out due to the risks.

There is absolutely no way of knowing how many of the 6522 were carried out for health reasons - e.g. mother undergoing treatment for cancer, debilitating genetic preconditions such as Hunter's disease etc - all you are doing is deciding on zero evidence that the 'reasons' were one's you disapprove of.
The fact is no 'reason' needs to be given prior to 12 weeks but that does not mean there isn't a medical reason.

Bannasidhe

cournioni wrote: »

Same can be said for both sides. The part that I found most disgusting was the gleeful cheers and carnival atmosphere among the crowd in Dublin Castle following the referendum result. Taking a life away through choice shouldn’t be a cause to cheer.

Then you have no understanding of the relief women in Ireland felt at finally getting rights over their own bodies. At knowing if they should suffer a crises pregnancy - of any kind - they would not be trying to book a flight for foreign solutions/risking a lengthy jail sentence for getting pills on line.
That wasn't glee - it was 'free at last'.

I have to say, you write with great empathy for the unborn but show none towards living women and girls.

keybordWarrior

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Then you have no understanding of the relief women in Ireland felt at finally getting rights over their own bodies. At knowing if they should suffer a crises pregnancy - of any kind - they would not be trying to book a flight for foreign solutions/risking a lengthy jail sentence for getting pills on line.
That wasn't glee - it was 'free at last'.

I have to say, you write with great empathy for the unborn but show none towards living women and girls.

The only ones showing a lack of empathy are those who support killing unborn babies.

This is a typical response from pro-abortion. If you don’t kill the unborn baby you don’t care about the mother. Ridiculous.

Bannasidhe

Rodin wrote: »

I certainly don't want my taxes contributing to the killing of unborn children... how selfish of me

I don't want my taxes contributing to paying for a score of junior ministers but here we are. We don't get to decide and personally I am more than happy for my taxes to help women in crises.

ohnonotgmail

keybordWarrior wrote: »

The only ones showing a lack of empathy are those who support killing unborn babies.

This is a typical response from pro-abortion. If you don’t kill the unborn baby you don’t care about the mother. Ridiculous.

you are just a boring repeat of the No campaign.

LorelaiG

keybordWarrior wrote: »

No, it’s not. If a woman doesn’t want to have a baby there are more than enough precautions to take. Protecting the lives of the unborn is not forcing women to have babies.

Ok. So I've taken all those precautions. A woman in a monogamous relationship using contraception. And I'm still pregnant. I don't want another child. What's your suggestion? Not have sex? Being forced to have a baby because I had sex?

keybordWarrior

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

you are just a boring repeat of the No campaign.

Ofcourse you find the truth about what abortion really is to be boring.

ohnonotgmail

keybordWarrior wrote: »

Ofcourse you find the truth about what abortion really is to be boring.

the truth is quite simple for those taking place before 12 weeks. the woman takes 2 pills, has what seems like a heavy period and it is done. no person is killed. that is the truth.

Bannasidhe

keybordWarrior wrote: »

The only ones showing a lack of empathy are those who support killing unborn babies.

This is a typical response from pro-abortion. If you don’t kill the unborn baby you don’t care about the mother. Ridiculous.

And this kind of guff is exactly why your position was roundly rejected.
People cared about the living,breathing, women and girls and had enough of sending them off to laundries or on the boat/plane to deal with the 'shame'.

See that's the thing you keyboard warriors like to gloss over - how so many women and girls in this country who had crises pregnancies were treated. It wasn't 'protecting' children ws it? No. It was institutions and rampant abuse.

nozzferrahhtoo

keybordWarrior wrote: »

The only ones showing a lack of empathy are those who support killing unborn babies.

Thankfully no one here is supporting that. They support the OPTION to terminate a fetus.

It helps to know what "empathy" means. Noun: the ability to understand and share the feelings of another.

A fetus at 12 weeks is not just slightly, but seemingly entirely, devoid of all sentience and intelligence and consciousness. If you think you think you can "empathise" with such a thing then you are having a fantasy only. You can no more empathise with a fetus than you can with a rock.

I have an abundance of empathy. It drives a lot of my moral and political decisions. But my empathy is reserved entirely for sentient agents. Pregnant women are examples of this. 12 week old fetuses are not.

keybordWarrior

LorelaiG wrote: »

Ok. So I've taken all those precautions. A woman in a monogamous relationship using contraception. And I'm still pregnant. I don't want another child. What's your suggestion? Not have sex? Being forced to have a baby because I had sex?

What’s your suggestion? Just have sex and have an abortion after? There’s always a risk of pregnancy involved with sex.

Bannasidhe

keybordWarrior wrote: »

What’s your suggestion? Just have sex and have an abortion after? There’s always a risk of pregnancy involved with sex.

What is your suggestion?

MontgomeryClift

elainers wrote: »

The live donor is the only other situation I can think of where the right to bodily autonomy comes into conflict with a right to life. I did not compare a foetus to a kidney.

You did.

SusieBlue wrote: »

Nope, you completely missed the point.

If you were going to die unless I donated my kidney to you there is no way I could be legally or morally forced to do it if I didn’t want to.
If we don’t force it for living, breathing people to do this to save each other I don’t see why we should force a woman to allow a pre 12 week gestated fetus the use of her body in order to survive.

Individual bodily autonomy trumps the other persons right to life every single time.

I'll just quote this here as an example of the ridiculous analogies the pro-abortion people get into. It's a crude tactic, but it obviously works on the impressionable - use language like "forced" to create an impression of victimhood and imprisonment for the mother, then use contractual terms like "the use of her body" to make it seem like the unborn baby is like an unwelcome client.

keybordWarrior

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Thankfully no one here is supporting that. They support the OPTION to terminate a fetus.

It helps to know what "empathy" means. Noun: the ability to understand and share the feelings of another.

A fetus at 12 weeks is not just slightly, but seemingly entirely, devoid of all sentience and intelligence and consciousness. If you think you think you can "empathise" with such a thing then you are having a fantasy only. You can no more empathise with a fetus than you can with a rock.

I have an abundance of empathy. It drives a lot of my moral and political decisions. But my empathy is reserved entirely for sentient agents. Pregnant women are examples of this. 12 week old fetuses are not.

Notice how you use the word seemingly. And comparing a fetus to rock - why am I not surprised.

Call it what you want to make yourself feel good. It’s doesn’t. Terminate, abort, kill.

uptherebels

Rodin wrote: »

Of course the public were misled.
We were fed stories of rape/incest and FFA

Anyone with half a brain knew that the many just wanted abortion on demand to sort out an inconvenience.

This is the same country that brought in abortion as a treatment for suicidal ideation despite NO evidence for the efficacy of same. In fact of course mental health issues are much higher in those that choose abortion.

The majority isn't always right.
It's a very slippery slope.

You can only claim to have been misled if you were asleep in the lead up to the referendum. Plenty of stories about the issues around people having to travel and about ordering pills from the net.
Efficacy? What evidence would you like?

Mr. Karate

Mr. Karate wrote: »

Nearly 7,000 in the last year. So much for the promise of keeping it rare and in extreme emergencies.

That right there is why the vote was so one sided.

Abortion for medical reasons already existed. You weren't voting for that, you were voting for unrestricted access.

Lazy voting

Timberrrrrrrr

Niner leprauchan wrote: »

That right there is why the vote was so one sided.

Abortion for medical reasons already existed. You weren't voting for that, you were voting for unrestricted access.

Lazy voting

The will of the people, pro choice won by a massive majority, should the result be voided because the minority are not happy?

LorelaiG

keybordWarrior wrote: »

What’s your suggestion? Just have sex and have an abortion after? There’s always a risk of pregnancy involved with sex.

Ok. So, your suggestion is not to have sex? So your problem is women having sex for enjoyment rather than procreation?

LorelaiG

Niner leprauchan wrote: »

That right there is why the vote was so one sided.

Abortion for medical reasons already existed. You weren't voting for that, you were voting for unrestricted access.

Lazy voting

If abortion for medical reasons already existed why did we have women who travelled to England to compassionately end the pregnancies where their (much wanted and loved) babies were going to die either in utero or shortly after birth?

sydthebeat

Niner leprauchan wrote: »

That right there is why the vote was so one sided.

Abortion for medical reasons already existed. You weren't voting for that, you were voting for unrestricted access.

Lazy voting

If medical abortions were so readily available savita halappanavar wouldn't have died.

Your post is an insult to her memory

keybordWarrior

LorelaiG wrote: »

Ok. So, your suggestion is not to have sex? So your problem is women having sex for enjoyment rather than procreation?

I never said any such thing.

Quantum Erasure

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

the truth is quite simple for those taking place before 12 weeks. the woman takes 2 pills, has what seems like a heavy period and it is done. no person is killed. that is the truth.

I think 10 percent of abortions before 12 weeks are surgical, so maybe 500 last year

pleasant Co.

keybordWarrior wrote: »

I never said any such thing.

Seems like a good opportunity for you to clarify your position, given the confusion.



Here's a refresher of the conversation's flow:

LorelaiG wrote: »

Ok. So I've taken all those precautions. A woman in a monogamous relationship using contraception. And I'm still pregnant. I don't want another child. What's your suggestion? Not have sex? Being forced to have a baby because I had sex?

In Reply you said:

keybordWarrior wrote: »

What’s your suggestion? Just have sex and have an abortion after? There’s always a risk of pregnancy involved with sex.

Then another poster asked you directly:

Bannasidhe wrote: »

What is your suggestion?

And now we're here, at this point, asking for clarity on your radio silence.