Proposed abortion Referendum

[Delboy]

She states "...but research shows that rates of abortion occur far less in countries where it is legal, than in countries where it is illegal." This is part of he reasoning for voting yes.
This is vey frustrating to read.

It is entirely incorrect - and it is completely the crux of the issue as to why many/most are against abortion. There is no way that the rate of abortion in England is "far less" than that of Ireland. And England is the closest point of reference we have in terns of culture etc.

For such an important vote I find it infuriating that people just get the most important - yet basic - facts incorrect. And get nothing but plaudits on twitter.

Needless to say her article went down fantastically well in twitterland from all the repealers.

If you're going to vote yes then fine...its your right. But please don't give out nonsense like that in an article when explaining yourself.

This is the crux for me. It seems to be an undeniable fact (despite the Irish Times 'fact check' giving a laughable unclear result to this point 2 days ago) that countries where abortion is legal, the rates are much higher.

There was a debate between the Yes and No side on RTE radio1 a week ago. Caroline Simons made the points that:
1. 21% of all pregnancies in England/Wales end in abortion
2. of that figure, only 3% relate to fatal fetal abnormalities

The representative from the No side did not dispute those facts and tried to move the debate on.

Until someone can show me those facts are grossly incorrect, then I'm on the No side

 

[Purple]

RTE's coverage, particularly online, is totally one sided on the repeal side.
They should be honest enough to state their editorial position.

 

[zxcvbnm]

This is the crux for me. It seems to be an undeniable fact (despite the Irish Times 'fact check' giving a laughable unclear result to this point 2 days ago) that countries where abortion is legal, the rates are much higher.

There was a debate between the Yes and No side on RTE radio1 a week ago. Caroline Simons made the points that:
1. 21% of all pregnancies in England/Wales end in abortion
2. of that figure, only 3% relate to fatal fetal abnormalities

The representative from the No side did not dispute those facts and tried to move the debate on.

Until someone can show me those facts are grossly incorrect, then I'm on the No side

Well that's it. It's also a fact (I've googled the govt webpage) that 97% of abortions in the UK are for the reason of mental health. i.e. 20% of all pregnancies have to be aborted for mental health reasons.

You really have to ask yourself when faced with those stats whether there a culture of a wink and a nod in the UK when referencing mental health. In my view there most certainly is.
And also in my view, given time, we will follow in their footsteps.

I'm really not comfortable with that culture.

 

[TheBigShort]

You really have to ask yourself when faced with those stats whether there a culture of a wink and a nod in the UK when referencing mental health. In my view there most certainly is.

I don’t think that is fair to be honest. An unintended pregnancy can impose a lot of mental stress on a prospective mother. Its not that long ago in history that pregnant women outside of wedlock were shunned away from society. Even today there is still a stigma attached if a single women, left looking after a child, is reliant on social welfare and social housing.

Our society is engineered to think career, property, family – in that order. If family arrives before career and property subsequently postponing the career and property indefinitely, and as a consequence a reliance on welfare, some prospective mothers may not want to deal with the stigmatization that is associated with that. Thus, bearing a mental stress (shame, guilt, being shunned and or discriminated against) that no woman deserves to endure merely as a consequence of a biological occurrence in her body resulting from a normal human condition and desire to engage in sexual activity.

 

[zxcvbnm]

I don’t think that is fair to be honest. An unintended pregnancy can impose a lot of mental stress on a prospective mother.
.

Well....I don't disagree with that point.

HOWEVER - you have to think that when basically nearly every single person getting an abortion is citing mental stress to the point they feel the pregnancy is no longer viable, then is this excuse being largely abused?
When pretty much all of them cite that reason (while keeping in mind that a whopping 20% end in abortions) - then you really have to sit back and question the legitimacy of it.

There's definitely an argument to be had that it is a wink and a nod culture there.

 

[Purple]

Well....I don't disagree with that point.

HOWEVER - you have to think that when basically nearly every single person getting an abortion is citing mental stress to the point they feel the pregnancy is no longer viable, then is this excuse being largely abused?
When pretty much all of them cite that reason (while keeping in mind that a whopping 20% end in abortions) - then you really have to sit back and question the legitimacy of it.

There's definitely an argument to be had that it is a wink and a nod culture there.

Under existing legislation in the UK there is no abortion on demand; there must be a medical reason for it. That's why mental health is cited 97% of cases.

 

[TheBigShort]

HOWEVER - you have to think that when basically nearly every single person getting an abortion is citing mental stress to the point they feel the pregnancy is no longer viable, then is this excuse being largely abused?

I would say that an unintended pregnancy can and does give rise to thoughts about career prospects and social standing (as in, will I be reliant on State assistance to house me, feed us, or will I be able to progress my career ambitions and support myself and child?).
I would say its impossible to say to what extent those, and other thoughts, impinge on the mental well-being of each pregnant woman, if at all.
As such, to me, it really boils down to the individual to determine for themselves what their options are.
Im of the view that women do not engage in sexual intercourse that may lead to an unintended pregnancy on the basis that they are aware that – nudge-nudge, wink-wink, they can always cry mental health and get an abortion.

When pretty much all of them cite that reason (while keeping in mind that a whopping 20% end in abortions) - then you really have to sit back and question the legitimacy of it.

There's definitely an argument to be had that it is a wink and a nod culture there.

That would imply that there are women that are not enduring pressures on their mental well-being as a result of an unintended pregnancy but are still availing of abortions? That doesn’t make sense to me. If a woman has no issue with being unintentionally pregnant, why abort it?
I do think societal factors in how we have, and continue to treat women, who become pregnant unintentionally is a major consideration for a woman to seek out an abortion.

 

[odyssey06]

That would imply that there are women that are not enduring pressures on their mental well-being as a result of an unintended pregnancy but are still availing of abortions? That doesn’t make sense to me. If a woman has no issue with being unintentionally pregnant, why abort it?
I do think societal factors in how we have, and continue to treat women, who become pregnant unintentionally is a major consideration for a woman to seek out an abortion.

You seem to be assuming there are only two possible responses, "no issue", or "pressure to mental well-being". Is it not possible for someone to not want a baby, without the thought of having the baby making them mentally ill?

The "mental health" bar seems to be set so low it is nonsensical... changing jobs is pressure to mental well-being, so is being made redundant; changing a house is stressful, whether being done voluntarily or involuntarily.

 

[Purple]

Im of the view that women do not engage in sexual intercourse that may lead to an unintended pregnancy on the basis that they are aware that – nudge-nudge, wink-wink, they can always cry mental health and get an abortion.

I'm not sure that a general impact on "mental well-being" is the same as a medical threat to mental health. In that context I think the proposed legislation here is more honest than the existing UK legislation.

That would imply that there are women that are not enduring pressures on their mental well-being as a result of an unintended pregnancy but are still availing of abortions? That doesn’t make sense to me. If a woman has no issue with being unintentionally pregnant, why abort it?

If a woman wants an abortion then she will present in any way she needs to in order to get one. That's perfectly understandable.

I do think societal factors in how we have, and continue to treat women, who become pregnant unintentionally is a major consideration for a woman to seek out an abortion.

Is it desirable that such circumstances should be perfectly acceptable? I have an issue with the fact that women get the negative reaction whereas the man involved gets far less, if any at all.
If two people have sex and the woman gets pregnant then both of them are equally responsible and yet the woman is usually "blamed".

 

[Purple]

Y changing jobs is pressure to mental well-being, so is being made redundant; changing a house is stressful, whether being done voluntarily or involuntarily.

So can getting the bus.

 

[michaelm]

RTE's coverage, particularly online, is totally one sided on the repeal side. They should be honest enough to state their editorial position.

The mainstream media has for years been conditioning the political and public middle ground to embrace abortion.

I am greatly saddened by abortion, view it as the worst of all choices, and wish that as a society we could properly resource and promote better options such as adoption (in the case of unwanted pregnancy) & palliative care (in the case of unborn children life-limiting conditions). If doctors need clarification/education that the 8th is no impediment to treating expectant women then that should be provided too.

I find some of the pseudo-live statistics on the worldometers website interesting however the abortion figures under the "HEALTH" section are grim.

 

[Delboy]

RTE's coverage, particularly online, is totally one sided on the repeal side.
They should be honest enough to state their editorial position.

True. The Irish Times is unashamedly on the repeal side and I'd expect an Editorial in the days before with that argument.
Matt Cooper on Today FM tries to pass himself off as neutral and impartial but is clearly pro-repeal. He should just come clean.
The Journal is staffed by Millenials so wouldn't expect anything other than a pro-repeal slant.
Who knows what the Indo thinks these days!

 

[Firefly]

True, but imagine being pregnant against your will?

I think it's fair to say that this is a very legitimate question that is being asked by those who are pro repealing the 8th.

Conversely, a fundamental question for me is, when does life begin? An abortion after this date means taking a life, regardless of the circumstances. The unborn has no say in the matter yet has the most to lose.

Lots of people differ on this question, from conception (a bit early in my opinion) right up to 6 months (a bit late in my opinion). For me, and I've thought about it, it is actually quite early...when the heart starts to beat. This is before 12 weeks and therefore, in my opinion, the current proposal would legalise the taking of a life which I could not agree to.

I would however be in favour of an amendment to the consitition whereby fatal foetal abnormalities are accounted for

There are no doubt horrendous instances, for example, your girls getting raped and finding themselves pregnant. It must be truly awful. However, I think the State could do a lot more in terms of helping girls/women in this situation. There is also a high demand for adoptions by couples not fortunate enough to conceive themselves and I think a lot more could be done here also.

 

[Andarma]

The answer to that fundamental question is one which will probably never be agreed upon by everyone. Take conception - it occurs in the Fallopian tube, but a pregnancy only becomes viable when implantation in the uterus occurs. So can conception really be considered the start of life? We have the morning after pill which prevents implantation, so is implantation the start? In my mind, the start of life is when there is a reasonable chance of survival outside the uterus, so that’s at about 24 weeks or so. I wouldn’t support unrestricted abortion up to 24 weeks though. The 12 week limit strikes the right balance IMO.

 

[Purple]

At 20-24 weeks the brain stem develops and neural activity, as we know it, starts. That to me is when life starts and the baby gains the same rights as a born person. That said if the medical choice is between the mother and the baby the mothers life should always take precedence.

 

[TheBigShort]

You seem to be assuming there are only two possible responses, "no issue", or "pressure to mental well-being". Is it not possible for someone to not want a baby, without the thought of having the baby making them mentally ill?

Not at all, possible responses are wide-ranging and varied.

The "mental health" bar seems to be set so low it is nonsensical... changing jobs is pressure to mental well-being, so is being made redundant; changing a house is stressful, whether being done voluntarily or involuntarily.

Of course. But then you have to consider what are the factors that drives someone have an abortion in the first place. I think its reasonable to assume that if a woman doesn’t want to abort a pregnancy, then they are not going to even consider doing so. They are not part of this dilemma.

So we are only talking about those women, for whatever reason – mental health, negative career prospects (perceived or real), social stigmatization (perceived or real), the task of parental responsibilities, future welfare of the child, etc…etc….

So what has got us to the point that some women, who become pregnant, are of the mindset that they feel they should, or must, have the pregnancy aborted? What are the factors on their minds that drive them to abort, that outweigh the factors on their minds to keep the baby?

Perhaps, when we can deal sufficiently with them, then we can arrive at a time and place where abortion is legal, but that no woman feels compelled to avail of it?

 

[michaelm]

What are the factors on their minds that drive them to abort, that outweigh the factors on their minds to keep the baby?

Partly it's that the child in the womb has been dehumanised over time, it's a zygote, an embryo, a foetus . . anything but a unique developing human child. Abortion has been to a large degree sanitised . . it's just a procedure, it's medicine, it's a choice . . anything but a death sentence. The mainstream media is largely responsible in softening peoples attitude to abortion. It's a less weighty decision today that it ever was . . abortion has been normalised. Euthanasia and assisted suicide won't be as long coming.

 

[cremeegg]

Conversely, a fundamental question for me is, when does life begin?

I have come to the conclusion that this is not a fundamental question.

From the moment of conception, there is a human life. An embryo is not a person, yet it has the potential to be one. As the pregnancy develops that potential gradually becomes reality. There are stages, heart beat, brain development, viability, birth, weaning, etc. None are clear demarcation lines, just stages on the road from embryo to person.

It would be nice to be able to say that up to this point, there is not life after this point there is. Unfortunately wishing things were simple does not make them simple.

 

[TheBigShort]

Partly it's that the child in the womb has been dehumanised over time, it's a zygote, an embryo, a foetus . . anything but a unique developing child. Abortion has been to a large degree sanitised . . it's just a procedure, it's medicine, it's a choice . . anything but a death sentence. The mainstream media is largely responsible in softening peoples attitude to abortion. It's a less weighty decision today that it ever was . . abortion has been normalised. Euthanasia and assisted suicide won't be as long coming.

Perhaps, but I dont think I could agree.
The alternative to abortion was to shun single mothers out of mainstream society. Those days are over but still the prospect of a teenage daughter or young single woman becoming pregnant is still a great source of shame for many parents and families.
If its not shame, then its social detatchment - 'she is only a child herself', 'her life is ruined now', 'what was she thinking?', 'napppies and bottles instead of discos and nights out', 'she is tied down now','on welfare now, a burden to the State' - what is a single teenage girl or young woman to think?
Where is the sense of joy and life enrichment that bringing a new life into the world is suppposed to bring?
Nobody (that I know of) jumps with joy if a 18yr old single girl gets pregnant.
Perhaps attitudes like this are factors in deciding to travel to UK?

 

[zxcvbnm]

Did anyone see that FF TD on Primetime tonight arguing against the government minister. The FF D was on the No side.

Invariably she got asked about victim of rape impregnated arriving at her clinic. She got completely flustered and made a complete pigs ear of what she wanted to say.

I am aware its a tough one to talk about - but surely at this stage they must know this is the first question to be asked. Why cant they have a prepared answer ready and rehearsed and just deliver their response.