Abortion Discussion, Part Trois

aloyisious

it's also a straightforward lie from the bishop that doctors and chemists will be obliged to do anything contrary to their conscience. There is nothing in law that says doctors have to get involved in abortion provision and nothing in law that says chemists have to stock abortifacient birth control agents, drugs or herbs for the use of women.

The health minister has made it clear that there will be nothing in the abortion law he will be bringing through the Oireachtas making it obligatory for doctors or chemists to get involved in the provision of abortion.

The argument that a doctor, by telling a woman that he/she cannot assist her with abortion services - and that by referring her onto another doctor he/she - is getting involved in the provision of abortion is a strawman argument. It's totally ignoring the refusal in the first place.

robarmstrong

King Mob wrote: »

But leaving all those other points aside, we weren't talking about a right to abortion (which exists, no matter how much you want to stick your head in the sand).
We were discussing people's right to privacy.
In one case, you believe that it is scared.
In another case that includes a lot more women, you are arguing that it's their own fault their right to privacy is violated and they just have to put up with it.

That's a bit suspect, no?

Why would gps being named as not providing abortion interfere with their right to not perform abortions?
It can't be protests, cause they can just as well deal with them as you expect abortion clinics and women to do.
So why would they be reluctant to declare it?

Also, why is abortion killing, but not murder in your eyes?
What's the difference?

Don't bother, you won't get anywhere. I think eotr is still recovering from being absolutely decimated by me showing the god knows how many examples of contradictory nonsense posted on this matter. First abortion is murder, then it isn't murder, then it's unlawful killing, then it's just a different "type" of killing.

He/she has absolutely no valid rebuttals and cannot seem to grasp the level of hypocrisy spouted out. The sheer fact that he/she is still clinging on to the "abortion on demand" soundbite should show you the sheer lack of understanding around everything.

Though in their words, the pro-life side didn't tell lies....:rolleyes:

King Mob

robarmstrong wrote: »

He/she has absolutely no valid rebuttals and cannot seem to grasp the level of hypocrisy spouted out.

I think he grasps the level of hypocrisy well enough. He know when to ignore questions and when to cut them out entirely.

If it was the case that it was hypocrisy due to incompetence, then there would be at least an awkward attempt to explain it or justify it.
Instead we just get silence when he's caught out.

The real question is why he thinks this tactic is viable or anything other than embarrassing on his part.

Peregrinus

aloyisious wrote: »

it's also a straightforward lie from the bishop that doctors and chemists will be obliged to do anything contrary to their conscience . . .

The argument that a doctor, by telling a woman that he/she cannot assist her with abortion services - and that by referring her onto another doctor he/she - is getting involved in the provision of abortion is a strawman argument. It's totally ignoring the refusal in the first place.

No, it's not. Actual direct provision of a service is not the only way some can be "involved in" the provision of a service. For example, if I pay somebody else to provide the service to you, I'm obviously "involved in" the provision of the service. Similarly if, on your behalf, I find a service provider for you.

You can only say that nobody "will be obliged to do anything contrary to their conscience" if you think it impossible that somebody could have a consicentious objection to giving referrals to abortion providers. But that's clearly nonsense; it's easy to find real-world examples of people who have, and express, and act on, precisely that conscientious objection.

aloyisious

Peregrinus wrote: »

No, it's not. Actual direct provision of a service is not the only way some can be "involved in" the provision of a service. For example, if I pay somebody else to provide the service to you, I'm obviously "involved in" the provision of the service. Similarly if, on your behalf, I find a service provider for you.

You can only say that nobody "will be obliged to do anything contrary to their conscience" if you think it impossible that somebody could have a consicentious objection to giving referrals to abortion providers. But that's clearly nonsense; it's easy to find real-world examples of people who have, and express, and act on, precisely that conscientious objection.

Your argument refers to service providers without mentioning doctors. I'd imagine, using your example, that doctors who have objections would walk away from the premises/clinic. The inclusion by you of the argument "paying another person" clearly wouldn't apply if the woman was referred on to a different clinic or chemists premises entirely.

The Yea/Nay abortion argument here is that about DOCTORS, specifically doctors wearing two hats, the doctors hat [with an obligation to ensure he/she treats the patient properly and gives a referral on to another Dr when it is necessary for the patient] and the private persons conscience hat when simultaneously being a doctor.

IMO, If one is a doctor dealing with a patient, he/she has to decide which hat he/she chooses to wear at that moment in time, either a doctor be or a private person be. If the private person wins out, there is still an obligation to ensure the patient is seen by a doctor [presumably - in that case - another doctor] under an "I cant have the patient suffer injury by just walking away from her" obligation.

Reference the paying another person angle, most doctors clinics/surgeries have more than one doctor in practice there which would contradict that argument. So if a doctor who has a personal belief that abortion is wrong is working in a clinic where other doctors have a different opinion and are agreeable to see and treat women seeking abortion services, the 1st Dr would be a hypocrite by knowingly working in a clinic/surgery which has other doctors proving such a conscience-objectionable service.

Peregrinus

The paying example is just an example of how somebody can be involved in the provision of a service even though not providing it themselves. I appreciate that a doctor providing a referral is not also paying. The point is that there are a variety of ways in which somebody who doesn't provide a particular service may nevertheless be "involved in" providing it. To say that they don't have to be involved in providing the service to the extent of actually providing it themselves is not the same as saying they don't have to be involved in providing it to any extent. If a doctor is required to refer a patient to an abortion provider then he is "involved in" the provision of the abortion in a way that he might object to.

I take your point about the patient's medical needs; that gives rise to two thoughts. First, there's obviously a medical ethical issue here, but is that not best left to the usual medical ethical rules and processes? Is there a particular need for a legal obligation on a doctor to provide a referral, if doctors' other medical ethical obligations are not the subject of statutory regulations, do these ones need to be? And, secondly, in the western world (and I don't expect Ireland to be any different) the great bulk of abortions are not sought for medical reasons. Pregnancy is neither a disability nor a disease, and if an abortion is sought for social rather than medical reasons i don't think a doctor's medical ethics require him to provide it, or to assist in providing it through referral to another doctor.

volchitsa

Peregrinus wrote: »

No, it's not. Actual direct provision of a service is not the only way some can be "involved in" the provision of a service. For example, if I pay somebody else to provide the service to you, I'm obviously "involved in" the provision of the service. Similarly if, on your behalf, I find a service provider for you.

Paying someone to provide a service is completely different to giving someone the address of someone who might provide such a service.

The doctor who addresses a patient for a possible abortion is much closer to the latter than the former. They don't know that the patient will have an abortion, they're simply sending them to someone who can provide all the services that patient may need, including abortion if necessary.

You can only say that nobody "will be obliged to do anything contrary to their conscience" if you think it impossible that somebody could have a consicentious objection to giving referrals to abortion providers. But that's clearly nonsense; it's easy to find real-world examples of people who have, and express, and act on, precisely that conscientious objection.

Not all conscientious objections are reasonable and should be facilitated. Remember all those pharmacists who had conscientious objections to selling contraceptives?

Peregrinus

There are still pharmacists who have conscientious objections to selling contraceptives and the law does not oblige them to sell contraceptives. Somehow, we survive.

I take your point that referring someone for an abortion is not the same things as paying for an abortion. But it doesn't have to be the same thing. And who gets to decree what level of involvement in abortion provision it is "reasonable" to find unconscionable? The whole point about conscience is that it's personal. I don't get to tell you what you may or may not find unconscionable, and my judgment about whether your conscientious decisions are reasonable or not is a matter of complete irrelevance. There may be a case for forcing people to act against their consciences, but "I don't think your conscientious decision is reasonable" is not a strong enough case, IMO.

smacl

Peregrinus wrote: »

And, secondly, in the western world (and I don't expect Ireland to be any different) the great bulk of abortions are not sought for medical reasons. Pregnancy is neither a disability nor a disease, and if an abortion is sought for social rather than medical reasons i don't think a doctor's medical ethics require him to provide it, or to assist in providing it through referral to another doctor.

Not buying that logic, P. Healthy people visit doctors all the time with medical concerns and abortion is a medical procedure that may have such attendant concerns. I've had medical checkups on a number of occasions to verify I was fit to participate in sporting activities, nothing wrong with me but medical opinion was still required. Once the doctor has undertaken to look after all of the medical concerns their patient, they should either do so or refer the patient to someone else. Refusing to do either on personal grounds is in my opinion dereliction of professional duty of care. There is also the issue that an unwanted pregnancy can be highly stressful as can making the decision to have an abortion, which can have medical and psychological consequences. By refusing a woman for reasons of personal conscience, the doctor is putting themself above the needs of their patient.

lazygal

Pregnancy isn't a social issue. It's a medical matter. As is abortion.

King Mob

Peregrinus wrote: »

There are still pharmacists who have conscientious objections to selling contraceptives and the law does not oblige them to sell contraceptives. Somehow, we survive.

Hey, so maybe such doctors should do something like indicate publicly that they do not provide abortion related services, and will not provide a referral to such services.
That way, anyone who might need such services can avoid them and spare everyone a lot of time and money and headaches.

end of the road

lazygal wrote: »

Pregnancy isn't a social issue. It's a medical matter. As is abortion.

i would suggest that abortion full stop is being made a social issue by the tax payer being expected to fund it. if that wasn't the case then i'd agree that certainly medical abortion wouldn't be a social issue at all, whereas i think though that abortion on demand would still be a social issue given the effects it can bring to society directly and indirectly.

King Mob wrote: »

Hey, so maybe such doctors should do something like indicate publicly that they do not provide abortion related services, and will not provide a referral to such services.
That way, anyone who might need such services can avoid them and spare everyone a lot of time and money and headaches.

if a doctor wishes to do that then absolutely. if they don't that's fine also.

King Mob

end of the road wrote: »

if a doctor wishes to do that then absolutely. if they don't that's fine also.

Sure, they don't have to be a good person or care about what is best for patients or people in general.
There's no obligation to do that.

Are you going to address any of my previous points? If not, don't quote me and respond to points I did not make to you.
But again, no obligations there...

lazygal

end of the road wrote: »

i would suggest that abortion full stop is being made a social issue by the tax payer being expected to fund it. if that wasn't the case then i'd agree that certainly medical abortion wouldn't be a social issue at all, whereas i think though that abortion on demand would still be a social issue given the effects it can bring to society directly and indirectly.

All maternity care is currently state funded. Does that make pregnancy a social matter, of course not. My three pregnancies weren't social they were medical. Pregnancy on demand isn't a social issue, neither is abortion. It's just another anti choice strategy to try to dress up medicine involving reproductive parts as a social issue. People don't fall for that lie any more.

end of the road

lazygal wrote: »

All maternity care is currently state funded. Does that make pregnancy a social matter, of course not. My three pregnancies weren't social they were medical. Pregnancy on demand isn't a social issue, neither is abortion. It's just another anti choice strategy to try to dress up medicine involving reproductive parts as a social issue. People don't fall for that lie any more.

pregnancy is a natural occurrence ultimately. abortion isn't a natural occurrence. it becomes a social issue via the fact that the tax payer is in most cases paying for a want rather then a need. if it stuck to paying for abortions which were genuinely needed for medical reasons then it would be like any other part of the health service.

Igotadose

end of the road wrote: »

pregnancy is a natural occurrence ultimately. abortion isn't a natural occurrence. it becomes a social issue via the fact that the tax payer is in most cases paying for a want rather then a need. if it stuck to paying for abortions which were genuinely needed for medical reasons then it would be like any other part of the health service.

Pregnancy is the ultimate want. A woman can live her entire lifespan without ever being pregnant. So, your 'it's a want therefore a social issue' is bogus.

lazygal

end of the road wrote: »

pregnancy is a natural occurrence ultimately. abortion isn't a natural occurrence. it becomes a social issue via the fact that the tax payer is in most cases paying for a want rather then a need. if it stuck to paying for abortions which were genuinely needed for medical reasons then it would be like any other part of the health service.

Pregnancy is medical, not social. The taxpayer has always paid for all legal abortions in Ireland, we're simply extending the medical services women can avail of when they need them. If I need an abortion you or anyone else doesn't need to know why, no more than you need to know why I stayed pregnant.
Are pregnancies via assisted hunan reproduction natural occurrences? We planned all our pregnancies.

end of the road

Igotadose wrote: »

Pregnancy is the ultimate want. A woman can live her entire lifespan without ever being pregnant. So, your 'it's a want therefore a social issue' is bogus.

i'd have to disagree given the issue involved.

lazygal wrote: »

Pregnancy is medical, not social. The taxpayer has always paid for all legal abortions in Ireland, we're simply extending the medical services women can avail of when they need them. If I need an abortion you or anyone else doesn't need to know why, no more than you need to know why I stayed pregnant.

we are extending them from necessary situations, which of course should receive tax payer funding, to non-necessary situations which do not benefit society, which means money been taken from something else which really needs it.

lazygal wrote: »

Are pregnancies via assisted hunan reproduction natural occurrences? We planned all our pregnancies.

whether pregnancy is via assisted means or natural, it will nearly always benefit society unlike abortion on demand which does not benefit society.

lazygal

When someone needs an abortion it's a necessity.

end of the road

lazygal wrote: »

When someone needs an abortion it's a necessity.

agreed. however that only applies to serious medical cases.

lazygal

end of the road wrote: »

agreed. however that only applies to serious medical cases.

All pregnancy involves serious medical matters. Pregnancy takes an enormous toll on the body. No one should be denied any care they need, be it abortion, C section or home birth.

end of the road

lazygal wrote: »

All pregnancy involves serious medical matters. Pregnancy takes an enormous toll on the body. No one should be denied any care they need, be it abortion, C section or home birth.

abortion on demand should be denied as it's unnecessary. where there is a serious issue which involves a threat to the life of the mother then absolutely it shouldn't be denied.

Igotadose

end of the road wrote: »

i'd have to disagree given the issue involved.

Ahah then no proof, just opinion. As I stated the obvious fact that pregnancy's a want, not a need, do you now agree that it's as much as social issue, as abortion?

we are extending them from necessary situations, which of course should receive tax payer funding, to non-necessary situations which do not benefit society, which means money been taken from something else which really needs it.

What's necessary about wants?

whether pregnancy is via assisted means or natural, it will nearly always benefit society unlike abortion on demand which does not benefit society.

In your opinion - again, do you agree that pregnancy's a 'want' and by your reasoning, a social issue subject to the same strictures you follow regarding medical care for social issues?

Igotadose

end of the road wrote: »

abortion on demand should be denied as it's unnecessary. where there is a serious issue which involves a threat to the life of the mother then absolutely it shouldn't be denied.

It's no more unnecessary, than medical maternal care. Both are wants, by your reasoning.

ohnonotgmail

end of the road wrote: »

abortion on demand should be denied as it's unnecessary. where there is a serious issue which involves a threat to the life of the mother then absolutely it shouldn't be denied.

We had a referendum about that if you remember. Your side lost. Get over it.

lazygal

end of the road wrote: »

abortion on demand should be denied as it's unnecessary. where there is a serious issue which involves a threat to the life of the mother then absolutely it shouldn't be denied.

All pregnancy can threaten life. As can labour and birth.

end of the road

Igotadose wrote: »

Ahah then no proof, just opinion. As I stated the obvious fact that pregnancy's a want, not a need, do you now agree that it's as much as social issue, as abortion?

What's necessary about wants?



In your opinion - again, do you agree that pregnancy's a 'want' and by your reasoning, a social issue subject to the same strictures you follow regarding medical care for social issues?

no i believe pregnancy isn't a social issue unlike abortion on demand.

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

We had a referendum about that if you remember. Your side lost. Get over it.

irrelevant, not get over it. and we had a referendum about repealing the 8th, not about abortion itself.

lazygal wrote: »

All pregnancy can threaten life. As can labour and birth.

agreed, hence my belief that abortion should only be facilitated where there is a threat to life.

Igotadose

end of the road wrote: »

no i believe pregnancy isn't a social issue unlike abortion on demand.

yet, you also said:

end of the road wrote: »

pregnancy is a natural occurrence ultimately. abortion isn't a natural occurrence. it becomes a social issue via the fact that the tax payer is in most cases paying for a want rather then a need. if it stuck to paying for abortions which were genuinely needed for medical reasons then it would be like any other part of the health service.

So, if the fact that the taxpayer is funding a want, makes it a social issue, but pregnancy, which by ANY measure is a want, is not a social issue?

Do I understand you correctly?

I don't agree your 'want' definition makes any sense. Everything related to pregnancy is a want. Full stop.

ohnonotgmail

end of the road wrote: »

no i believe pregnancy isn't a social issue unlike abortion on demand.



irrelevant, not get over it. and we had a referendum about repealing the 8th, not about abortion itself.



agreed, hence my belief that abortion should only be facilitated where there is a threat to life.

I really admire the stamina you show in repeating the same points ad nauseum. The same points that completely failed to convince the electorate.

aloyisious

Peregrinus wrote: »

The paying example is just an example of how somebody can be involved in the provision of a service even though not providing it themselves. I appreciate that a doctor providing a referral is not also paying. The point is that there are a variety of ways in which somebody who doesn't provide a particular service may nevertheless be "involved in" providing it. To say that they don't have to be involved in providing the service to the extent of actually providing it themselves is not the same as saying they don't have to be involved in providing it to any extent. If a doctor is required to refer a patient to an abortion provider then he is "involved in" the provision of the abortion in a way that he might object to.

I take your point about the patient's medical needs; that gives rise to two thoughts. First, there's obviously a medical ethical issue here, but is that not best left to the usual medical ethical rules and processes? Is there a particular need for a legal obligation on a doctor to provide a referral, if doctors' other medical ethical obligations are not the subject of statutory regulations, do these ones need to be? And, secondly, in the western world (and I don't expect Ireland to be any different) the great bulk of abortions are not sought for medical reasons. Pregnancy is neither a disability nor a disease, and if an abortion is sought for social rather than medical reasons i don't think a doctor's medical ethics require him to provide it, or to assist in providing it through referral to another doctor.

Actually I think you'll find that though there are no statutory regulations compelling any doctor to assist in any way with an abortion, the professional body he/she is a member of [in order to practice] places its own regulations and guidelines on its members ethical conduct as a doctor and those regulations stand well with the Oireachtas and the law courts. They are also enforceable by the high court which regularly hears cases where doctors fail to comply with their professional body's regulations and gives rulings on disputes about doctors ethical and professional behaviour between the doctor and his/her professional body. In so far as doctors professional body's regulations go and how much value is given to them, I'd say that the present way things work in respect to the professional body's regulations, they are as near as one gets to an actual legislation stating what the doctors duties are in respect to care of any patient.

It seems to be that your argument is based on a thesis that there are NO requirements within his/her professional body's regulations that specifically enjoinder him/her to refer a woman on to another doctor if she asks him/her for an abortion and he/she refuses to provide the requested service. I think you may well find there is a professional body regulation which requires any doctor refusing to treat a patient on any grounds to refer the patient on to another doctor.

If one was to take your thesis seriously to any of its conceivable endings, one might say the doctor refusing the service requested by the woman should take care to ensure the woman leaves the building in which he/she works to ensure no member of the staff there talk to the woman in case they provide abortion referral info to the woman or even arrange a lift for her in case it takes her to another doctor who would provide her with the service she asked the refusing doctor for. I'm thinking that the staff are employees of the doctors clinic and paid by the clinics, all of the earning for the clinic come from it's patients fees for the doctors services.