Proposed abortion Referendum

In my view in practice there will be abortion on demand up to 24 weeks. The only question is will it be abused or not.

For example - someone can go into a doctor after,say, 20 weeks and say their mental and physical health is fine today - but they believe that upon the birth of their child their mental health will suffer to the point it can be deemed 'serious'.

There is no way a doctor can turnaround and say that wont be the case. They have no option but to accept this version of events. (and rightly so may I add)
i.e. in practice a doctor cannot stop someone being granted an abortion on mental health grounds.
That's not to say this wouldn't be a genuine reason....but is open to abuse. Which is what happened in the UK.

This is how someone can get an abortion in the event of getting a diagnosis of DS after the 12 week period for example.
i.e. technically you will not be getting an abortion because the baby has DS - but instead on the impact on mental health due to the DS diagnosis.

So when the government say they have legislated whereby some cannot request an abortion due to DS this is disingenuous as in practice its unstoppable.

As I say - I'm not trying to suggest there will be everyone any anyone doing this....but in practice there is abortion on demand up to 24 weeks including for DS.
 
I guess stats are open to interpretaytion - but going by that link on Portugal that someone posted earlier

http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/policy/abortion/ab-portugal.html

What are your interpretations of it? Abortion was legalized in April 2007 - so 2008 was the first full year that abortion was available and it had a rate of c. 15% - and its remained in or around that rate since.
I'm assuming any stats prior to that were under a very strict legalized abortion regime which is why its a lot fewer at c. 1%.
(2007 seems a random one at 6% but i'm assuming that is because for part of the year it was legal and the other part it was not)


I suppose the question that needs answering is what were the number going to Spain prior to 2008? Had they been done in Portugal would it also have been at the 15% rate? OPr would it have been far fewer.
i.e. did the legalization of it make it more popular generally.

Does anyone know what the numbers were going to spain prior to 2007? That's the key really in determining whether the legalization of it increased its uptake.
 
Last edited:
zxcvbnm said:
Does anyone know what the numbers were going to spain prior to 2007? That's the key really in determining whether the legalization of it increased its uptake.
Click to expand...
If you listen to the piece by Katie Hannon on it she mentions the figure of 20K per year. However as MichaelM pointed out, Katie prefaces the 20k figure by saying "it's impossible to verify but studies suggest . .". I don't know if there are any figures available to back up that number or to undermine it and she didn't mention where she got it from (i.e. which studies suggested it).
 
Watched the Prime Time debate. I’m getting seriously worried that SF/IRA are fast gaining respectability. Toibin sounded really credible when he said he didn’t think any human being should be allowed to take the life of another. Imagine if Grisly had said that, the audience (both sides) would have burst out laughing.
 

The Protection of Life During Pregnancy Act which is essentially copied in the Heads of the Bill for Abortion has been in place for 4 years, there have been very very few abortions carried out on mental health grounds. So why do you think it will change now, you're entitled to your views but not your facts.
 

My Facts? I am certainly not giving out 'alternative' facts as you suggest.

The point of my post is that it is there on demand up to 24 weeks in practice for the reason I outlined above.

The reason why the uptake for mental health reasons MAY change in future is I believe Irish people generally had a view of not even considering Ireland as a place for abortion, regardless of what was in the PLDP. As a default people would automatically look to the UK when electing abortion.
However - that mentality will no longer be the case and people will automatically consider Ireland as the default. And therefore an uptake in any trimester is inevitable to be fair. The only question is as to by how much.

For example - something like over 50% of identified cases due to DS occur whereby they go to the UK. Will they continue go to the UK or avail of it in ireland? You'd have to think Ireland.



That said - undoubtedly most occur in the first 12 weeks anyway (I believe 92% in the uk)
 
Purple said:
Yes, much better to kill them than put them up for adoption because, like, nothing has changes in this country in the last 50 years.
Click to expand...

Sorry, I do not understand your point here.

Unwanted children in the past ended up in places like the Tuam home, today they are more likely to be aborted.
 
cremeegg said:
Sorry, I do not understand your point here.

Unwanted children in the past ended up in places like the Tuam home, today they are more likely to be aborted.
Click to expand...
Yes, but unwanted children nowadays are not sent to places like the Tuam home, they are fostered and adopted into loving and supportive homes.
 

I take the point that the true number of abortions at present is higher than the statistics show, so that if Irish rates increase closer to the UK/Portuguese rate that will not represent a three fold increase.

It will still be a substantial increase.
 
dereko1969 said:
So why do you think it will change now, you're entitled to your views but not your facts.
Click to expand...
A bit loose with the facts there yourself?

The Protection of Life During Pregnancy Act does not allow for abortions on vague mental heath grounds but rather where there is a real and substantial risk of loss of the woman’s life by way of suicide. Two psychiatrists and an obstetrician must agree that that risk can only be averted by carrying out an abortion.

The new metric is that an abortion can be had up to 6 months where an obstetrician and an appropriate medical practitioner (a GP perhaps?) certify that there is a risk (real and substantial deleted) of serious harm (whatever that means) to a woman's mental health.

Even if you're partisan you might concede that the bar will be substantially lowered.
 
Last edited:
Duke of Marmalade said:
It’s sobering to think that c. 10,000 births p.a. in Ireland are of unwanted children. Such misery for child and parents alike.
Click to expand...
I expect that in the vast majority of the cases of unwanted/unplanned crisis pregnancies the child that is ultimately born to the world is loved and cherished. It's quite pessimistic to view it as the beginning of a life of misery for parent(s) and child. I suspect that there are very few people who regret not having an abortion.
 
Instead of bolstering supports for motherhood and promoting and properly funding alternatives to abortion we're heading down the road of State funded abortion for those who are pregnant but wish they weren't (and ironically State funded fertility treatment for those who wish to be pregnant but have difficulties).

I guess the financial costs involved are more easily delineated, the social costs less so.
 
michaelm said:
I suspect that there are very few people who regret not having an abortion.
Click to expand...
They may not regret – but they don’t ‘not regret’ either. I doubt many mothers even think about whether they have regret or not – thinking about it would mean considering what life would have been like without the now much-loved child. That doesn’t mean that an alternate life having had an abortion wouldn’t have been happier and more fulfilling – probably with different much-loved children born in better circumstances.
 
I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of the undecideds remained that way and didn't vote at all. IF you haven't made your mind up at this stage its probably because you're genuinely conflicted.
I was a solid NO man - but i'm getting closer to undecided. I definitely wont vote Yes - but I may not vote at all due to becoming more and more conflicted.
 

You definitely won't vote 'Yes' but you are undecided??? So you vote 'No' then to keep the status quo....... Not voting is a complete waste
 
I'm a solid No (surprise ) and it is easy for me to vote against this broad stroke proposal . . I would be conflicted if this was solely focused on hard cases. I would rather spoil my vote than not vote. I think a third 'None of the Above' box on the ballot would win a plurality if not a majority of votes in this referendum.
 
orka said:
Or vote yes to keep the de facto status quo but moved back within our own borders to enable better medical treatment of women...
Click to expand...
In the vast majority of cases an abortion is not really a medical procedure in the context of "better medical treatment of women".
I'll be voting Yes but I won't sugar-coat what abortion is and pretend it is not, at best, a least worst solution to a terrible situation.
 
Purple said:
In the vast majority of cases an abortion is not really a medical procedure in the context of "better medical treatment of women".
Click to expand...
Regardless of whether you consider abortion a medical treatment or not, once a woman has decided on and is receiving an abortion, she is in 'medical treatment' and should receive the best care available. i.e. better to get abortion XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX under medical supervision than being alone at home taking who-knows-what tablets bought online and being worried that if something goes wrong you can't go to the doctor because you've done something illegal; better to have a surgical abortion close to home and friends/family/support than have to travel home alone on a germy plane with an open cervix, etc.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register