Proposed abortion Referendum

TheBigShort said:
the issue I think you need to deal with is - why do half of those who receive a downs syndrome diagnosis opt for an abortion in the first place?
Click to expand...
Because they don't want a Downs Syndrome child. They think that the child will be a burden, will take away time from other children and, most of all, because that is not the child they imagined having. Of course they are right about all those things but they forget that those things are also true for every child and that they will love their Downs Syndrome child just as much as any other child. Eventually they will come to realise that they don't have a Downs Syndrome child; they actually have a child who happens to have Downs Syndrome.
 
Last edited:


Yes, so greater efforts and supports, primarily through social inclusion, need to be made to reduce the numbers wanting an abortion because of Downs Syndrome.

For instance, when I was a child, Downs Syndrome children were sent to a separate institution with other disabled children. Nowadays, downs syndrome kids are taught in mainstream schools – at least for the early part of their education. This may go some way to instill better understanding and more empathy about Downs Syndrome (and other disabilities) in my childs generation, that should they face that dilemma of having a child diagnosed with DS that they would feel less inclined to abort that otherwise would have been the case.

Other socially inclusive activities from big picture events like the Special Olympics to more local supports such as employment opportunities, sporting and cultural opportunities etc, all go toward ending the perception that a DS child will be any more a greater burden that a child without DS.

Reducing, or eliminating altogether, the concerns that prospective parents have about DS will go a long way to reducing the numbers of abortions sought on foot of a DS diagnosis.

Banning abortion does not resolve the issue of so many abortions sought on foot a DS diagnosis.
 

I agree with you that a big reason behind it being social attitudes to disability rather than parents simply don't want a child with DS. People are afraid and concerned for many reasons and there aren't exactly support services in place to help them overcome this fear. At least if the law is changed, they are forced to go to a GP and discuss it if they want to access terminations here. The GP can put them in touch with the correct people that might lead to a different outcome. At the moment, people are simply going over the UK and getting a termination without talking to anyone out of fear...
 
TheBigShort said:
Is this satisfactory to you?
Click to expand...
Not relevant. The point is that they could have opted for a regime to deal with the hard cases. They made no attempt to do so and instead are pushing what is effectively an on-demand regime. This is not about hard cases but rather a Hobson's Choice of liberal abortion or the status quo.

In order to ensure the middle ground vote yes they are focusing exclusively on said hard cases while threatening/pretending that this is a "once in a generation opportunity" and sowing fears of would-be mothers dying otherwise; the mainstream print and broadcast media are largely on board with this disingenuous strategy.

But hey, liberal abortion was brought into the US on a lie and to the UK with the veneer of restriction, why not here.
 
TheBigShort said:
Reducing, or eliminating altogether, the concerns that prospective parents have about DS will go a long way to reducing the numbers of abortions sought on foot of a DS diagnosis.
Click to expand...
Sounds great. Or maybe the State will wind down DS services and numbers born with DS will fall off dramatically in a vicious circle until we hit UK and Scandinavian levels.
Sunny said:
At least if the law is changed, they are forced to go to a GP and discuss it if they want to access terminations here.
Click to expand...
Or not. If the Taoiseach and the pro-repeal medics are to be believed then it won't be possible to get a definitive DS diagnosis before 12 weeks and as disability won't, apparently, be grounds for abortion those inclined to abort will have to, as the Taoiseach said, travel to England.
 

Every attempt to deal with the hard cases as you put has been met with uproar and anger from both sides of the debate. A woman dies and it turns into a debate on abortion. A child is raped and ends up pregnant and it ends up in a debate on abortion. A baby is to be born with severe foetal abnormalities with limited life timespan and it ends up with a debate on abortion. A 14 year old ends up pregnant and it ends up in a debate about abortion. Every single time. We are running out of letters in the alphabet to deal with the cases in courts. All we ever do is push the can down the road until the next hard case....
 

As you say, people are already travelling to England so again it comes down to if you believe women should be jailed or banned from travelling?? Otherwise I have no idea how you are protecting unborn children as it currently stands.

If you want to prevent people from terminating DS babies, then ban the pre-natal checks if you want so the vast majority of people will never know until they are born. Again, it is like saying all the gay people will want to adopt babies if they were allowed marry. Now it's all the DS babies will be terminated. Because again, we can't trust Irish women to continue doing exactly what they are doing at the moment.
 
michaelm said:
Or maybe the State will wind down DS services and numbers born with DS will fall off dramatically in a vicious circle until we hit UK and Scandinavian levels.
Click to expand...

The State can do this with or without the Constitution.

It only goes to emphasis how far we have to go to provide the adequate and necessary supports to diminish greatly, if not eliminate altogether, the concerns (perceived and real) that prospective parents have with regard to the diagnosis of DS during a pregnancy.

The reduction of aborting DS diagnosed pregnancies will not come about via a ban on abortion, it will come about through education and real and viable supports, including social inclusivity, for DS children regardless if the option to abort is available in this country or not.
 
I have listened to the various debates and read through these threads and so help me I cannot make up my mind.

I have two difficulties:

On the one hand, abortion means taking the potential life of an innocent child.
I think part of my problem is that I would consider the killing of a living child to be particularly heinous and abhorrent, irrespective of that child's physical or mental condition or burden on its family and it is difficult not to connect that to an unborn child.

On the other hand, I could not condone putting a woman, girl or child through a pregnancy that she could not physically or mentally endure, irrespective of what "supports" might be available.

I just cannot get beyond this circular thinking.

What I do think is that I should not have to vote on this issue one way or the other as it should never have been inserted into the constitution.
 
I agree with you on all of that. Just not on how it should be addressed. Ideally. But realistically the likelihood of increased numbers, both healthy and disabled, far outweighs the chances of a reduction.
 
Sunny said:
As you say, people are already travelling to England so again it comes down to if you believe women should be jailed or banned from travelling?? Otherwise I have no idea how you are protecting unborn children as it currently stands.
Click to expand...

Ireland has different legislation governing euthanasia, and access to drugs (e.g. marijuana) than other jurisdictions where such activity is legalised.
An Irish citizen may travel to these jurisdictions to engage in behaviour that is illegal in this one.
Is the legal availability of this in another jurisdiction necessarily sufficient to mean we should legalise here?
I would say no.
 
Last edited:
odyssey06 said:
Is the legal availability of this in another jurisdiction necessarily sufficient to mean we should legalise here?
I would say no.
Click to expand...
In general I agree (people go to Southeast Asia to "legally" have sex with what in this country are children, that doesn't mean it should be legal here) but this is different.
 
Purple said:
In general I agree (people go to Southeast Asia to "legally" have sex with what in this country are children, that doesn't mean it should be legal here) but this is different.
Click to expand...

Ireland is proposing 12 week limit, UK limit is longer, people will still be travelling to UK one way or another so how does the government propose to justify the different limits?
 
odyssey06 said:
Ireland is proposing 12 week limit, UK limit is longer, people will still be travelling to UK one way or another so how does the government propose to justify the different limits?
Click to expand...
Ireland are proposing a 24 week limit with the first 12 weeks not requiring a medical reason. In practice there will be unrestricted abortion up to 24 weeks.
 
michaelm said:
I agree with you on all of that. Just not on how it should be addressed.Ideally. But realistically the likelihood of increased numbers, both healthy and disabled, far outweighs the chances of a reduction.
Click to expand...


Its only 'realistically' because as a society we are not willing or prepared, or have failed to provide the necessary sufficient supports and infrastructure - educational, financial, medical, psychological, etc… in place in order to address the real and or perceived concerns for those seeking to abort their pregnancies in the first place.


Regardless if that is a pregnancy that is diagnosed with a disability or not. If we want to eliminate abortion, banning it here and threatening to imprison women has failed – that much is clear. I have made one tiny suggestion that unplanned pregnancies stop being labelled as a ‘crisis’ for a start.

Another one, larger idea, is education – society at large needs to recognise that unplanned pregnancies are not problem pregnancies, and prospective parents need to be assured that a minimum standard of living, access to educational and employment opportunities will not be adversely impacted.


It’s a tall order, no doubt, and in many respects the State does provide some supports. But it would appear, those supports are inefficient.

The idealism of “cherishing all of the children equally” needs practical and realistic measures, the absence of which creates a demand for abortion in the first place.

I also consider banning something we don’t like the lazy way of trying to resolve the issues we face. In the absence of practical and realistic measures to deal with issues surrounding the demand for abortion in the first instance, then the State should not impose one option over another on any citizen.
 
Purple said:
Ireland are proposing a 24 week limit with the first 12 weeks not requiring a medical reason. In practice there will be unrestricted abortion up to 24 weeks.
Click to expand...

How have you come to that conclusion? The heads of the Bill do not provide for unrestricted abortion beyond 12 weeks: https://health.gov.ie/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/General-Scheme-for-Publication.pdf Heads 4 and 7 are of particular relevance. What is provided for after 12 weeks is similar to the provisions of the Protection of Life During Pregnancy Act, which has certainly not led to unrestricted abortion up to 24 weeks.
 
I am looking at how similar this is to the legislation in England and Wales and assuming we'll end up in the same place.

I think what is being proposed is far from ideal but it is better than what we have now.
 
On a side note I find it ironic that a major chain of abortion clinics in the UK are named after Marie Stopes, a woman who supported Eugenics but opposed abortion.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register