SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Al Jazeera reports
Polls have closed in an Irish referendum on abortion that could represent a change in the path of a country that was once one of Europe's more socially conservative.
Voters turned out in large numbers on [May 25] to have their say on whether to repeal the country's Eighth Amendment, which outlaws abortion by giving equal rights to the unborn.
An exit poll, conducted for the Irish Times by Ipsos/MRBI, suggested that the country voted by a landslide margin to change the constitution so that abortion can be legalised.
The vote to repeal the constitutional ban was predicted to win by 68 percent to 32 percent, according to the poll of 4,000 voters, the Irish Times said.
[...] If the proposal to repeal the Eighth Amendment is defeated on [May 25], the country will not have a second referendum and it could be another 35 years before voters have their say on the matter again, [Prime Minister Leo] Varadkar said.
[...] 78 percent of the Irish population is Catholic
[...] Thousands of people living abroad returned home to vote. Ireland is one of the few countries in the European Union that does not allow those abroad to vote via post or in embassies.
Those away for less than 18 months remain eligible to vote at their former local polling station. Those living on the Atlantic islands cast their ballot a day early to help prevent delays in transportation and counting the ballot papers.
When the constitutional amendment to instate the ban was voted on in 1983, 66.9 percent voted "yes," and 33.1 percent voted "no".
Widely reported, including:
- https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/may/29/irish-abortion-vote-remarkable-political-victory-leo-varadkar
- https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/28/world/europe/northern-ireland-abortion.html
- http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-44256152
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 29 2018, @08:18PM (56 children)
Don't also assume that what's best for me is to fund other people's abortions.
That is, by your own logic, you should reject the notion that the State should pay for abortion services, or for complications caused by such services.
Sure: "My body, my choice".
But also: "My choice, my wallet".
Similarly, men should be allowed to "abort" their children, by abandoning them financially before birth. This creates equality of choice:
(Score: 5, Informative) by DeathMonkey on Tuesday May 29 2018, @08:33PM (20 children)
Don't also assume that what's best for me is to fund other people's abortions.
You don't. Problem solved.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 29 2018, @08:40PM (15 children)
Sure, you can earmark tax monies to go to Planned Parenthood's pap smears program, but that doesn't stop Planned Parenthood from undercharging for abortions and overcharging for pap smears, thereby effectively subsidizing abortions instead.
Seriously, you people are as dumb as a pile of bricks.
(Score: 5, Informative) by Whoever on Tuesday May 29 2018, @08:52PM (14 children)
Medicare reimbursement rates. PP can't just charge what it likes.
You are the idiot.
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 29 2018, @08:58PM (9 children)
Now, Planned Parenthood can say "We just charge the mandated rate!"
Of course, health care in the U.S. is so inflated because everything is overcharged (due to such governmental meddling). The result is that money can be shifted pretty much anywhere without anyone being able to call people out.
Furthermore, an organization that is hell-bent on providing abortions on quasi-religious grounds will find ways to increase efficiencies so as to make such legerdemain even more effective.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 29 2018, @09:15PM (3 children)
WTF? What "quasi-religious grounds" would these be? Sacrifices to Moloch? This is fundie Christian nutball projection at its finest.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 29 2018, @09:19PM (2 children)
One person's rationale is often another person's religious nuttery.
If you're forcing people at the point of a gun to pay a tithe to fund your plans, then your ideas might well be a manifestation of such nuttery.
(Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 29 2018, @10:01PM
"We're coming for your capital gains, Chuck!"
And we are going to spend the money on arts education, and there is nothing you can do about it.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 30 2018, @06:09AM
Nobody is forcing you to take part in a civil society. You are free to leave.
Killing yourself is an option, and in this case nothing of value would be lost.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by PartTimeZombie on Tuesday May 29 2018, @10:36PM (4 children)
Stupid A/C troll has no clue about how the US health system works.
Stupid A/C troll is a troll.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 29 2018, @11:06PM (3 children)
During WWII, The US Government put wartime caps on employee compensation, so corporations used a loophole: Providing "benefits" in addition to salary, one benefit of which was health care insurance plans.
Hence, insurance became tied to employment, and thus became easy prey for politicians.
Next, the Government implemented its own competing insurance system, Medicare (and to an extent, Medicaid), which has used the power of the government to influence distort the natural market forces inherent in risk management sectors such as insurance.
Under the distortion, the insurance companies abandoned risk management, becoming instead convoluted, specialized payment networks that collude with government officials to set national policy and profits. It is no longer private in any meaningful sense (indeed, it's virtually detached from any kind of market signals), and it no longer behaves as an insurance sector should.
YOU are the one who doesn't understand how the U.S. health-care system works.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 29 2018, @11:46PM
I would love to give capitalist medicine an honest try. We need to undo the damage that wage cap did by tying insurance to employment. Self-employed people routinely complain about this, because they cannot get the group policies that are offered to employers. Additionally, the employer-insurer link is regressive against small businesses (self-employed being the extreme case of small business and the people against which it is the most regressive).
What we have right now is the worst of both worlds. I think we need single payer, but I'm a bootstrapper so I'm willing to take my chances with capitalism. If only we could have it.
I suppose it should not be surprising that socialism can outperform our frakenstein pork monster of a health "care" system.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 30 2018, @06:13AM
Private only ever meant owned by a person or group of persons.
Never has it ever meant anything to do with market signals.
You do not grasp basic economic concepts but you are grandstanding like a 5-year-old.
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Wednesday May 30 2018, @09:48AM
Tosh! You seem to not understand how a market works. I bet you think a market has a buyer and a seller. Sorry, but it doesn't - it has competing parties A_n which are willing to provide product or service X in return for product or service Y, and competing parties B_m which are willing to provide product or service Y in return for product or service X.
You think that market forces will drive the "price" down, such that the "sellers" have to provide the greatest amount of product or service to the "buyers" for the lowest "price", but you've got the two parties confused. Market forces are driving the "price" up - the "buyers" are the medical providers, who are demanding the largest amount of $$$ off the supplier of that resource, the ill. And because it's a free market, and dollars are very much a commmodity item, those suppliers have to buckle to this market pressure.
Markets find equilibrium - that doesn't mean there's pressure one way or the other - it means there's pressure in both directions. You're only seeing one of those directions, and completely overlooking the other.
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: -1, Redundant) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 29 2018, @09:16PM
Now, Planned Parenthood can say "We just charge the mandated rate!"
Of course, health care in the U.S. is so inflated because everything is overcharged (due to such governmental meddling). The result is that money can be shifted pretty much anywhere without anyone being able to call people out.
Furthermore, an organization that is hell-bent on providing abortions on quasi-religious grounds will find ways to increase efficiencies so as to make such legerdemain even more effective.
(Score: -1, Spam) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 29 2018, @09:20PM
Now, Planned Parenthood can say "We just charge the mandated rate!"
Of course, health care in the U.S. is so inflated because everything is overcharged (due to such governmental meddling). The result is that money can be shifted pretty much anywhere without anyone being able to call people out.
Furthermore, an organization that is hell-bent on providing abortions on quasi-religious grounds will find ways to increase efficiencies so as to make such legerdemain even more effective.
(Score: -1, Redundant) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 29 2018, @09:32PM
Now, Planned Parenthood can say "We just charge the mandated rate!"
Of course, health care in the U.S. is so inflated because everything is overcharged (due to such governmental meddling). The result is that money can be shifted pretty much anywhere without anyone being able to call people out.
Furthermore, an organization that is hell-bent on providing abortions on quasi-religious grounds will find ways to increase efficiencies so as to make such legerdemain even more effective.
(Score: -1, Redundant) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 29 2018, @09:45PM
Now, Planned Parenthood can say "We just charge the mandated rate!"
Of course, health care in the U.S. is so inflated because everything is overcharged (due to such governmental meddling). The result is that money can be shifted pretty much anywhere without anyone being able to call people out.
Furthermore, an organization that is hell-bent on providing abortions on quasi-religious grounds will find ways to increase efficiencies so as to make such legerdemain even more effective.
(Score: 5, Informative) by Thexalon on Tuesday May 29 2018, @10:55PM (3 children)
Also relevant: Even if you did have to pay for it, funding somebody else's abortion is often the cheapest possible alternative. Compare the cost of taxpayer-funded abortion to the cost of one or more of the following, all of which are more likely to happen in the case of unwanted children:
- Welfare programs
- Child services interventions
- Domestic violence services
- Policing and incarceration and damage from criminal activity (from either baby or their parents)
- Health care for baby
- Health care for mom
Compared to, say, treating fetal alcohol syndrome, paying for a D&C is a bargain.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 29 2018, @11:08PM (2 children)
Why not support UBI or a one-time lump-sum payment contingent on sterilization?
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Grishnakh on Wednesday May 30 2018, @12:44AM (1 child)
Why not support UBI or a one-time lump-sum payment contingent on sterilization?
Because the people who are opposed to abortion funding and welfare are also opposed to UBI. It's a lot easier to get welfare passed than a UBI.
The sterilization thing is generally considered eugenics and unethical, including by the people who are opposed to abortion funding. In fact, if anything, the anti-abortion people are probably even more opposed to sterilization than the pro-abortion people.
The problem is that the anti-abortion people simply have no realistic solutions for society's problems. Their entire solution consists of "pray" and "don't have premarital sex". The former doesn't do anything and the latter is unrealistic and doesn't work (as proven by teen pregnancy rates in places where only abstinence is taught in public schools). They don't want to pay anything to deal with social problems, such as public education (they consistently vote to defund schools), so we wind up with abortion being necessary. They'll preach about adoption, but none of them want to adopt the kids produced by the sector of society that has the most abortions.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 30 2018, @10:35AM
They also have a preferred way out of the problems they create: they are all for longer incarcerations (effectively, slave labor) and capital punishment (public death spectacles).
They're freaking Ancient Romans!
(Score: 3, Informative) by SomeGuy on Tuesday May 29 2018, @08:36PM (7 children)
Gotta love that phrase "by your logic". It is a guarantee that what follows totally misses the original point.
(Score: -1, Redundant) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 29 2018, @08:42PM (2 children)
It is a guarantee that what follows totally misses the original point.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 29 2018, @08:58PM (1 child)
Gotta love that phrase ""Gotta love that phrase "Gotta love that phrase""
It guarantees that the entire discussion devolves to a pointless pedantic meta-discussion and eventually generates a stack overflow. :P
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 29 2018, @09:02PM
No, stackoverflow is a USEFUL site! Don't besmirch its good name.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 29 2018, @08:48PM
See: Que all the drooling idiots [who] think they know what is absolutely right for everyone because they are sure they read something about a genius Jewish professor of Women's Studies proving abortions are a public good in a 30-year-old dissertation of gibberish...
(Score: -1, Redundant) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 29 2018, @10:47PM
See: Que all the drooling idiots [who] think they know what is absolutely right for everyone because they are sure they read something about a genius Jewish professor of Women's Studies proving abortions are a public good in a 30-year-old dissertation of gibberish…
(Score: -1, Redundant) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 29 2018, @11:09PM
See: Que all the drooling idiots [who] think they know what is absolutely right for everyone because they are sure they read something about a genius Jewish professor of Women's Studies proving abortions are a public good in a 30-year-old dissertation of gibberish…
(Score: -1, Spam) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 30 2018, @07:47PM
See: Que all the drooling idiots [who] think they know what is absolutely right for everyone because they are sure they read something about a genius Jewish professor of Women's Studies proving abortions are a public good in a 30-year-old dissertation of gibberish…
(Score: 5, Insightful) by KilroySmith on Tuesday May 29 2018, @09:05PM (9 children)
Don't also assume that what's best for me is to fund other people's religions.
Seems to me that the church exemption from taxes does precisely that.
Don't also assume that what's best for me is to fund people who can't afford to pay for their own health insurance.
Don't also assume that what's best for me is to fund a military whose mission is driven by lining the pockets of the rich, not protecting the USA from attack.
Don't also assume that what's best for me is to fund medical care for infants born with serious birth defects.
Don't also assume that what's best for me is to fund programs and practices intended to change social conventions to allow Women and Blacks to be treated the same as old white protestant males.
As a taxed society, we all pay for things that might offend our sensibilities. Get over it.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 29 2018, @09:24PM (8 children)
I encourage you to pursue your line of thinking further.
After all, would it not be a noble goal to work towards a society in which, as much as possible, it isn't necessary to force people to pay for things against their will?
Put another way: Are you suggesting Mussolini's view? "Everything in the State; nothing outside the State."
(Score: 2) by KilroySmith on Tuesday May 29 2018, @09:32PM (3 children)
So Anarchy sounds good to you?
I hope you're the biggest man around with the biggest gun and the most friends, 'cause otherwise you're toast.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 29 2018, @09:36PM (1 child)
Try again?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 29 2018, @10:03PM
Why try with a close minded moron?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 29 2018, @11:14PM
GP is an anarcho-capitalist [wikipedia.org] in addition to being an anti-social nutter and pedophile.
Ask her about men and angels.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by PartTimeZombie on Tuesday May 29 2018, @10:43PM (3 children)
Why does everything in the US have to devolve into a binary "either this or that" argument.
You might not be aware, but there are millions of people all around the world that live in neither a Libertarian paradise nor a Totalitarian hell.
Those of us in the civilised world tend to have no trouble making compromises and living happily with the results.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 29 2018, @10:54PM (2 children)
How much should be in the State?
What are the objective criteria, set in advance, for choosing? It's not enough to say "Let the public vote on it", or whatever; history is replete with examples of The Will of the People yielding again and again monstrous squanderings of societal resources, if not downright Totalitarian nightmares.
The Founders of America realized this, and tried to set such criteria by means of the Constitution. Well, a mere 200 years later, and their attempt at small, non-intrusive, representative government has become yet another global empire with Tyrannical properties.
Don't avoid the question. Help us figure it out.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 30 2018, @09:42AM (1 child)
"objective criteria, set in advance"
There it is again, the "procedure over results" that has infested and ruined so many things, among others US courts.
What you are asking for for is the social politics equivalent of communist 5-year plans. It is just as stupid.
Unless you aim for the equivalent of sticking to Windows XP "because it's objectively proven to work" you need to take risks and try new things, and scrap them if it doesn't work.
Or be happy to live in a society stuck forever in the past, with the standard of living to go with it.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 30 2018, @07:51PM
The State is in the business of choosing winners and losers from the beginning, not helping society to find winners or avoid losers.
That's why your Communists failed.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by takyon on Tuesday May 29 2018, @09:06PM (3 children)
Defund the Pentagon, NSA, FBI, CIA, DEA, etc. and then we can talk about the chump change that Planned Parenthood gets.
You are much more likely to see funding for Planned Parenthood get axed anyway since it's an evangelical cause célèbre these days.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 29 2018, @09:27PM (2 children)
That's not an argument for funding Planned Parenthood.
You'll be sad to note that we agree [soylentnews.org].
(Score: 2) by shortscreen on Wednesday May 30 2018, @05:55AM (1 child)
An observation that people don't like where their tax dollars are going is not necessarily an argument against taxation. Another interesting possibilty would be to allow taxpayers to decide on the allocation of funds themselves.
2016 Libertarian candidate Dr. Feldman (R.I.P.) had a plan that would have allowed taxpayers to redirect their money to qualifying charities instead, serving a dual purpose of democratizing social spending and shrinking the federal government (when all their revenue dried up).
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 30 2018, @07:53PM
How do you determine that certain amount which citizens must allocate?
It's all so stupid, and your idea just emphasizes the stupidity of organizing society in this way.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by sjames on Tuesday May 29 2018, @09:45PM (4 children)
OK, but don't bitch about it when the unwanted child gets found on a doorstep and the state has to support it to adulthood.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 29 2018, @10:56PM (3 children)
You (sjames) are just swinging the gun around, telling other people to take care of things for you.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by sjames on Tuesday May 29 2018, @11:27PM (2 children)
Not me. I'm just recognizing that it happens and that unless we're prepared to legalize infanticide, that's the cost.
(Score: 1, Flamebait) by janrinok on Wednesday May 30 2018, @07:03AM (1 child)
Nobody is suggesting that children should be killed after being born, so your claim of 'infanticide' completely misses the point.
This is a discussion on abortion in case you missed TFS.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by sjames on Wednesday May 30 2018, @08:13AM
The immediate question was why should the state support an abandoned child (see subject). My reply (somewhat in the spirit of a modest proposal) is that the only other choice at that point is infanticide.
Going back a bit, I was pointing out that without abortion, unwanted children get abandoned and then the state has to support them.
Summary, if the AC that started the thread doesn't want to support abortion for fiscal reasons, the remaining choices are more expensive support of a child to adulthood or infanticide. Do you see another option that isn't even worse?
TL;DR: No, I do not believe that every sperm is sacred.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 29 2018, @11:28PM (2 children)
This one is dangerous, it creates a loophole for a man to claim he wants an abortion just so he gets the financial benefits. It would need to be coupled with appropriate disincentives, e.g. he has no legal rights over the child whatsoever, or cannot have any contact with the mother/child, etc. Chances are such a mother would also be relying more on social benefits, so society ends up paying for what the man previously would have been. This combination doesn't have a simple solution, nor do I expect there to be a one-size-fits-all either due to varying social and financial circumstances of the parents involved.
I agree with the other 3 combinations though. But isn't that pretty much what we have anyway?
Perhaps the concept of equality of choice is at fault. After all, the man doesn't physically experience the pregnancy or the childbirth. Goes back to the time-old advice to men to not stick their tools into things without thinking through the consequences.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 30 2018, @03:23AM
Get rid of the welfare programs.
Allocating resources should be no business of the State; that's the business of The People, through voluntary association between individuals.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 30 2018, @07:33AM
There are no financial benefits. You appear to be so stuck in the old "the man works and pays for the woman and children (aka. his property), that you confuse not being forced to pay for someone else as a benefit.
(Score: 2) by cubancigar11 on Wednesday May 30 2018, @04:11AM
Why? Are women not adult enough to know what consensual sex entails? It is not "magic" it is fucking. Here is a radical idea - Man wants child, women wants abortion: woman compensates financially to man and gets an abortion.
(Score: 2) by mojo chan on Wednesday May 30 2018, @07:18AM (1 child)
That creates a huge imbalance in responsibility. The guy can be irresponsible, making no effort to avoid unwanted children. The woman gets pregnant, he "aborts" and now the responsibility is entirely on her to undergo a traumatic medical procedure or support a child for at least 18 years.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 30 2018, @07:57PM
Done and dusted.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 30 2018, @08:49AM
So are you saying that only people that make a contract allowed to have sex? You know, maybe something we can call "marriage" where they both say they will support their offspring?
But as you well know, this doesn't work for the same reason why abstinence doesn't work. And since the *BODY* of the woman, the man can't demand anything of it. If the woman wants the child and the man changes his mind, tough luck. If you want to have sex, you have to deal with its consequences. And if that means you are only paying alimony for the next 20 years, then maybe it's a reminder about something you did.
Changing your mind before birth is BULLSHIT. If you want to change your mind, change it before 10 weeks are up. Women don't have that choice either. Can't change your mind at 30 weeks and fuck off.
Take responsibility for your actions.
(Score: 2) by AssCork on Wednesday May 30 2018, @05:57PM
I think we should force those that opt for abortion to be registered (much like certain USsians do with firearms).
Before an abortion is performed, they check the registry.
"I'm sorry sir, but you've hit the California limit of 35 abortions this year, State law says we have to sterilize you before we can proceed with termination"
Disagree.
The woman should bear the child, then sign-over all rights. Men have endured the above scenario for long enough, so the proverbial shoe should spend a spell on the other foot.
Just popped-out of a tight spot. Came out mostly clean, too.