Abortion in Ireland: 2 years on

No, I would have still voted to repeal. Absolutely, 100%

Voted to repeal and would do so again without hesitation.

Voted to repeal and would do so again, it's a womans body and as a man my only role is to facilitate whatever choice a woman wants to make.

The sky hasn't fallen in yet, has it.

It just means slightly less trauma for many girls, women & families quietly in the background. Let them have that small peace, don't be re-hashing the same old ****e.

downinbigsmoke wrote: »

The number of abortions was 6,666 last year (2019). In 2017 (which was quite a high year) there were 3,061 abortions linked to Ireland in the UK. It seems to me (but maybe not you) the public have been mislead. Would this have changed your vote?

Where did that 3,061 come from though?

My understanding is that previous to 2019, this data was collected from UK statistics based on the home address of women who had obtained abortions there.

Which means that realistically 3,061 is a minimum figure. How many women didn't give an Irish home address? How many gave a local address so as to remain anonymous? How many went to other places in Europe - EU citizens would probably go to their home country to get an abortion rather than go to England.

It doesn't seem to me that the Irish public have been misled. Far from it - that 3,061 is an honest figure - "These are the women that we know about, who are going to the UK". Where they could have done all sorts of extrapolations and manipulations, they didn't.

It now seems likely that the numbers we had underestimated the number of abortions by more than 50%.

Would I change my vote? Nope. Absolutely not. This even solidifies further for me that it was the right thing to do.

The number of 6,666 last year is statistic zero. It is the first time we have an actual, traceable number for the number of Irish residents getting abortions.

If it shoots up next year, you might have a point.

drunkmonkey wrote: »

I'd still vote no, I thought it would lead to wholesale abortion and I wasn't happy that potential fathers have no rights. Those figures pretty much reinforce my reasons for voting no.
No issue if it's for medical reasons but that's not what the vote was on.
I'd like to see the data behind the figures to see who's having them, if it's girls who don't have the means or feel they don't have support it's a travesty.

The vote was on removing the constitutional ban and allowing the government to govern as they see fit.


Potential fathers is an emotive issue but if you look at it logically, you cannot control the woman's body. If she doesnt want it and you do, what do you propose to do, enforce her to carry to term?


Also, frankly, it's none of anyone's business why they are having terminations. The people voted, the law was introduced, no reason is needed up to 12 weeks. To be honest, I'd be in favor of a 24 week timeframe like the UK. Or, no timeframe at all. If a woman wants an abortion, she should have one.

downinbigsmoke wrote: »

Now that we've all had time to collect our thoughts, I was hoping to gather some opinions on what people in this country think of the longterm effects Health (Regulation of Termination of Pregnancy) Act 2018 have been. With the benefit of hindsight, is there anybody who would have changed their vote?

For full disclosure, I voted No in the referendum, which was apparently a pretty odd point of view for 21 year old Trinity student, who was otherwise not particularly right-wing. I would not change it.

But the argument from the Yes side (made by most lobby groups) that I found most convincing is that legalising abortion would not change the raw number of abortions but only the locations. This has turned out to be completely untrue.

The number of abortions was 6,666 last year (2019). In 2017 (which was quite a high year) there were 3,061 abortions linked to Ireland in the UK. It seems to me (but maybe not you) the public have been mislead. Would this have changed your vote?

Your post is a bit ingenious.
There were a lot of people who gave birth where the foetus was not viable. They did not go to England to have an abortion for a number of reasons.
That option is now available to them.

Have you figures for that? Absolute figures is not the right way to do it.

I voted yes, partly at least because of the case doctors made that it created difficulties for them. Now that I see over 6,000 abortions, I would have to consider changing my vote. That number is horrific when only a small number were on genuine medical grounds.

Voted yes, would do so again.

Women were also going to Amsterdam and other locations for abortions, or unsafely ordering abortion pills online.

There’s no reason to believe the actual numbers of abortions has dramatically increased.

As a father of two young kids both under the age of 3, I would absolutely still vote yes tomorrow.

On a separate note, the religious crackpots are going to go nuts over that specific 6666 number.

It was a no from me and remains so.

I wasn't living in Ireland at the time, I think I would have voted yes but I was on the fence and I certainly would have put more research and thought into it if I was at home and did have a vote. I don't see it as a straightforward black and white issue. Fundamentally we're saying that there is some specific day, and before that day a developing human has no rights, and after that day they do. Whether that is at 12 weeks, 24 weeks or at birth, it is a pretty significant decision. Which is why I would have educated myself more if I was going to vote.

One thing I did notice amongst friends (who were pretty much 100% yes) is that pretty much every article and argument shared prior to the referendum was about women with serious medical conditions being denied life saving healthcare because of the baby (which I don't see how anyone could possibly argue against), then the day after the referendum that seemed to go out the window in favour of state-funded on demand abortion for anyone in any circumstances (which is of course more controversial)

It seemed a little disingenuous looking on from a distance. I'm not sure I even know what the state of the actual law is now as it hasn't personally effected me or anyone I know of - which is the reason I'd most likely lean towards yes as it is perhaps not my place to dictate.

quokula wrote: »

I wasn't living in Ireland at the time, I think I would have voted yes but I was on the fence and I certainly would have put more research and thought into it if I was at home and did have a vote. I don't see it as a straightforward black and white issue. Fundamentally we're saying that there is some specific day, and before that day a developing human has no rights, and after that day they do. Whether that is at 12 weeks, 24 weeks or at birth, it is a pretty significant decision. Which is why I would have educated myself more if I was going to vote.

One thing I did notice amongst friends (who were pretty much 100% yes) is that pretty much every article and argument shared prior to the referendum was about women with serious medical conditions being denied life saving healthcare because of the baby (which I don't see how anyone could possibly argue against), then the day after the referendum that seemed to go out the window in favour of state-funded on demand abortion for anyone in any circumstances (which is of course more controversial)

It seemed a little disingenuous looking on from a distance. I'm not sure I even know what the state of the actual law is now as it hasn't personally effected me or anyone I know of - which is the reason I'd most likely lean towards yes as it is perhaps not my place to dictate.

You obviously weren’t paying close attention. The government made it very clear well in advance that they were going to legislate for abortion on request up to 12 weeks.

I'm delighted the women of Ireland no longer need to justify themselves to the Iona Youth Defence crowd.

As a guy i voted Yes for abortion and i still would. There are certain circumstances where by i would not agree with abortion (not religious reasons as im not religious), however to ensure women had access to the facility if they felt they needed it, i thought it was the right thing to do voting yes.

For those that argue the point about "potential fathers rights", well until a baby is born, that's all the person is in this equation is a potential father. Zero rights to make a decision on a woman's welfare and body autonomy as it should be, perhaps if you could carry the embryo to term then maybe there would be a case to argue there.

KiKi III wrote: »

abortion on request up to 12 weeks.

Thanks for cleaning this up KiKi. I really dislike the "on demand" terminology.

I voted yes to repeal as well, it's up to those involved to deal with the issues, problems and complications involved not zealots with no buisness or involvement in personal matters.

quokula wrote: »

One thing I did notice amongst friends (who were pretty much 100% yes) is that pretty much every article and argument shared prior to the referendum was about women with serious medical conditions being denied life saving healthcare because of the baby (which I don't see how anyone could possibly argue against), then the day after the referendum that seemed to go out the window in favour of state-funded on demand abortion for anyone in any circumstances (which is of course more controversial)

It seemed a little disingenuous looking on from a distance. I'm not sure I even know what the state of the actual law is now as it hasn't personally effected me or anyone I know of - which is the reason I'd most likely lean towards yes as it is perhaps not my place to dictate.

As mentioned above, the intention to legislate for abortion up to 12 weeks was always there and was well publicised.

However, there is a good reason why there was a heavy focus on rape, suicide and FFAs;

The question was asked about why repeal was necessary at all - couldn't we legislate for rape, suicide and FFAs without changing the constitution? And the answer was no. We had taken the legislation as far as we could. The conditions to "qualify" for an abortion were very narrow and as such many women could not.
One particular case involved a young woman who was suicidal. And the process to determine whether she could get an abortion took so long that she ended up giving birth (under anaesthetic) to a live child 12 weeks early which was taken into care.
We also had a situation where a braindead pregnant women was kept on life support unnecessarily because there were questions about whether it was constitutional to let her die.

So we had to repeal the 8th amendment. Any suggestions to replace the text were similarly too narrow, to open to interpretation, too likely to result in women not being able to access abortion when they needed to.

So the next question was - If we repeal the 8th, surely we can legislate to allow abortion only for rape, suicide or FFA?

But it's the same answer. The result would be situations where women in need would not be able to access abortion and would have to lie, self-medicate or travel in order to get an abortion. The women who were at their most vulnerable were the ones we were trying to protect. And any roadblock to obtaining an abortion puts vulnerable women at risk.

So, it was settled on allowing an open regime where an abortion could be requested in the first twelve weeks, and later again for FFAs.
This still puts some vulnerable women at risk, and it would be my hope that we could expand this further, perhaps to 15 weeks. But for now it finds a balance between decency, autonomy and difficult ethical questions.

downinbigsmoke wrote: »

For full disclosure, I voted No in the referendum, which was apparently a pretty odd point of view for 21 year old Trinity student, who was otherwise not particularly right-wing. I would not change it.

Your full disclosure did not include your gender.

Glinda wrote: »

The most likely explanation for the fall in numbers in recent years is 1. the availability of medical abortions (i.e. pills) that can be bought on the internet and taken at home in private without the need for surgery and 2. the inclusion now of women who would previously (and understandably) not have given their true home address when registering in Britain.

Don't forget the morning-after pill.

SusieBlue wrote: »

The dirty, manipulative, dishonest and hyperbolic campaign endorsed by the No vote shows how little they care for women or babies, where’s all the free contraception and better sex education that they promised? None of it came to fruition, they didn’t care then and they don’t care now.

Did they actually promise any of that? I don't think so, the vast majority of them (the No campaign, as opposed to No voters) are religious fundies who are opposed to proper sex education, and often contraception as well.

Tork wrote: »

What I would like to see is a breakdown of why all these abortions were sought and if there is anything that can be done to reduce the numbers.

it's none of your business or anyone else's business.

I would never want to see women oppressed in this country again, mostly by men who want to control them. That day is long gone thankfully regarding Divorce and Abortion now.

Most of the figures quoted represent those who can now access terminations within twelve weeks in tablet form. Heretofore it was over the internet. No one is identified, and there is medical follow up if needed.

Those who access abortions regarding FFA or threat to life of the mother will not do that to defy anyone, it must be heartbreaking to make that decision one way or another. Compassion and understanding are needed.

But anyway, it doesn't matter anymore, it is here, it is legal, and we have come a long way as a country.

Family and Life Organisation is one to watch though.