Ireland votes to repeal 8th amendment, legalising abortion

[Delibirb]

If it reached maximum capacity people would not be clamoring for more Visas. The US is currently in very tight labor market (which is a good thing, wages will rise), but if it stays this tight (1) safety nets will fail (2) markets will become insolvent

I meant global population. We are reaching it, we do need to start slowing down to make sure it levels out. It's simple calculus 8th grade biology.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

I meant global population. We are reaching it, we do need to start slowing down to make sure it levels out. It's simple calculus 8th grade biology.

That must be why China is scrapping their child limitation policy, why Japan is throwing money at parents to have more kids, and why Eastern Europe is doing more and more to limit abortions and increase birth rates

 

You're not entirely wrong, just lacking context, we do have a lot of population, but that's cuz most of that population is old and will be dead in a few years. 

[Enguin Enguin Enguin Enguin]

That study is somewhat flawed given that they didn't count Germany which has the same 12 week ban that Ireland will likely pass now. 

 

England for example allows it up to 24 weeks

 

That likely inflates the numbers a bit

 

---

 

That aside, the rest of their points are pretty fair, assuming that abortion would be legalized in other catholic heavy countries with similar religious preferences isn't an unreasonable one. 

 

If your critique is them not including a county most similar to what Ireland will now become like, fair, but their analysis isn't that off

It takes an entirely arbitrarily selected group of four nations with wildly different social and legal environments from both each other and Ireland and makes no effort whatsoever to even acknowledge let alone counteract this. As I said this is clearly a study built around an answer rather than an answer reached by a study.

[vla1ne]

That must be why China is scrapping their child limitation policy, why Japan is throwing money at parents to have more kids, and why Eastern Europe is doing more and more to limit abortions and increase birth rates

 

You're not entirely wrong, just lacking context, we do have a lot of population, but that's cuz most of that population is old and will be dead in a few years. 

my dude, that's not fair and you know it. china's scrapping the limitation because of the conditions it forces upon people, and the damage said blanket restrictions cause to familes as a whole. they're slowly choosing a healthier option (or at least trying to) as far as japan throwing money at people to have children, their young men are more frequently giving up on supporting families, and the expectations of society. as such, the family unit is being broken apart, and there's worries about the future of the Japanese citizens, culture, and society as a result. It has very little to do with abortion. if anything though, both cases prove that having the government meddling in your ability to have children (either banning it, or forcing it) is a terrible idea overall, not only because it helps politics to become the problem, instead of the desire and ability to support a family, but it provides all the wrong incentives, in relation to a lasting family unit. (and i would argue that it cannot provide the correct incentives, but that's a different argument entirely)

 

 

I personally don't like abortion, and i would rather nobody ever have, or have to have one, but it has to be understood that that is not my choice to make (unless it were my potential child). not is it the choice of the fetus, nor is it the choice of the government, it is the choice of the would be parents, the people who will be responsible for struggling through the birth, and may well have to care for the child. some choose to have the child, and give them up for adoption, some choose not to have the child, and save their bodies and wallets, the strain of having said child, others chose to have the child, and go on to raise said child with as much love and care as they can, some have the child, break up, and raise the child in the pieces left, often perpetuating the cycle. even more should never reproduce in the first place, but do so anyways, because the government provides incentives to do so. ect, ect. there's an infinite number of what-if's, and moral posturing, but the fact is, the choice belongs to the people who are going to be giving birth and (likely) raising that child. nobody else. not even the fetus, matters in that decision (while it is the topic of the decision and discussion, it does not, and cannot, have any say, beyond it's very existence).

 

adding the caveat, because somebody is bound to go there, i do believe abortion past the point where said fetus can live outside the womb on it's own, is funking inhumane. if you've waited that long, then you may as well funking have the child. there's nothing to be gained from aborting something that's already ready to be born. (not in a machine, not as a test tube baby, but actually on it's own, medical issues notwithstanding) 

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

my dude, that's not fair and you know it. china's scrapping the limitation because of the conditions it forces upon people, and the damage said blanket restrictions cause to familes as a whole. they're slowly choosing a healthier option (or at least trying to) as far as japan throwing money at people to have children, their young men are more frequently giving up on supporting families, and the expectations of society. as such, the family unit is being broken apart, and there's worries about the future of the Japanese citizens, culture, and society as a result. It has very little to do with abortion. if anything though, both cases prove that having the government meddling in your ability to have children (either banning it, or forcing it) is a terrible idea overall, not only because it helps politics to become the problem, instead of the desire and ability to support a family, but it provides all the wrong incentives, in relation to a lasting family unit. (and i would argue that it cannot provide the correct incentives, but that's a different argument entirely)

 

 

I personally don't like abortion, and i would rather nobody ever have, or have to have one, but it has to be understood that that is not my choice to make (unless it were my potential child). not is it the choice of the fetus, nor is it the choice of the government, it is the choice of the would be parents, the people who will be responsible for struggling through the birth, and may well have to care for the child. some choose to have the child, and give them up for adoption, some choose not to have the child, and save their bodies and wallets, the strain of having said child, others chose to have the child, and go on to raise said child with as much love and care as they can, some have the child, break up, and raise the child in the pieces left, often perpetuating the cycle. even more should never reproduce in the first place, but do so anyways, because the government provides incentives to do so. ect, ect. there's an infinite number of what-if's, and moral posturing, but the fact is, the choice belongs to the people who are going to be giving birth and (likely) raising that child. nobody else. not even the fetus, matters in that decision (while it is the topic of the decision and discussion, it does not, and cannot, have any say, beyond it's very existence).

 

adding the caveat, because somebody is bound to go there, i do believe abortion past the point where said fetus can live outside the womb on it's own, is funking inhumane. if you've waited that long, then you may as well funking have the child. there's nothing to be gained from aborting something that's already ready to be born. (not in a machine, not as a test tube baby, but actually on it's own, medical issues notwithstanding) 

There's nothing stopping families from euthanizing young children or seniors under the rational you set up here. They're in the same position, nearly completely dependent on the family to survive. Will die if left to their own devices. 

 

 

In both China's and Japan's case they're at a population bubble. Right NOW, they population is fine, but a large large portion of the population is in the elderly generations which have a decade or two tops. The minute they start dying there will be a disastrous population crisis. It will be worse in China due to government encourage abortions which have decimated the female population

It takes an entirely arbitrarily selected group of four nations with wildly different social and legal environments from both each other and Ireland and makes no effort whatsoever to even acknowledge let alone counteract this. As I said this is clearly a study built around an answer rather than an answer reached by a study.

Well I already admitted that Germany would be most ideal comparison. But it's not arbitrary. They selected one nation that's your closest neighbor and largest trading partner, and then they selected a few other nations that have similar religious leaning to your country. 

 

It's far from arbitrary,  but it's also not perfect

[vla1ne]

There's nothing stopping families from euthanizing young children or seniors under the rational you set up here. They're in the same position, nearly completely dependent on the family to survive. Will die if left to their own devices. 

 

 

In both China's and Japan's case they're at a population bubble. Right NOW, they population is fine, but a large large portion of the population is in the elderly generations which have a decade or two tops. The minute they start dying there will be a disastrous population crisis. It will be worse in China due to government encourage abortions which have decimated the female population

 

Yes there is. Did you forget the fact that the fetus is literally inside you, while the young child is not? A young child, has already been born, it is officially it's own being, and can be safely handed off to an orphanage. There is a difference, which is the reason i added that caveat at the end: "adding the caveat, because somebody is bound to go there, i do believe abortion past the point where said fetus can live outside the womb on it's own, is funking inhumane. if you've waited that long, then you may as well funking have the child. there's nothing to be gained from aborting something that's already ready to be born. (not in a machine, not as a test tube baby, but actually on it's own, medical issues notwithstanding) "

An already born child, falls directly under that category, for any intents and purposes. and no, i don't mean a kid that can get a job and go live on it's own. i mean a child that can exist without needing to be put inside machines to properly develop (again, medical problems notwithstanding) 

 

Yeah, china dug it's own hole. As i stated in the first reply, china forced abortions upon families who more than likely didn't want them. In doing so, they also bottle-necked the main factor in reproduction, aka, women. I've made my stance on that clear the post prior though. As for japan, that's the reason japan is trying to make an incentive for men and women to start families. They realize that they are going to be hit hard when the older generation dies off, and wants to encourage the younger generation to have more kids before the full brunt comes to bear. Not something i really disagree with, wanting your nation's residents to be populous is nothing to be ashamed of, but at the same time, i still don't believe the government should be trying to involve itself in the bedtime affairs of it's citizens.