pilly wrote: » You're wasting your time asking that question. He won't answer on so as to keep this thread going and have pointless discussions.
One eyed Jack wrote: » I know you're far from unique, it's not like you're the only person with friends in the medical profession either, and none of what you're applying for yourself above still supports aloysius' opinion that the medical profession treat people like they're just body parts. In fact your own evidence above completely refutes that assertion.
volchitsa wrote: » You can't have read the recent Mother B case then? It was discussed on here, and one thing that came out in the court case was the the HSE regularly use the threat of a court case based on the 8th to force women to accept medical procedures during birth against their will. So your belief that the 8th doesn't affect birth and pregnancy generally is mistaken. It does. On your third point, since women are explicitly allowed by our law to have abortions for any reason whatsoever, so long as they have the money to go abroad for them, what exactly are these "greater implications" that you think repealing the 8th would have? Greater than removal of the right to consent? Really? That's a pretty massive effect, in a democratic society you know. It puts us on a level with China and their forced abortions. So I'm interested in what would be so much worse than the current situation where we already have legal abortions pretty much on demand anyway?
One eyed Jack wrote: » I've read plenty, though I couldn't give you an exact count. If I had the time or the inclination, I'd argue that the issue is far more nuanced than what you're claiming, and would likely still be an issue regardless of the existence of the 8th amendment. First off, I'm not "happy" to keep the 8th amendment in place, and for a long time I would have preferred to have seen it repealed. Second - I really don't care all that much for how the repeal campaign conduct themselves. They're nauseating, but they just don't have that kind of power that they could influence my decision either way. I base my considerations regarding the issue of abortion and the influence of the 8th amendment on Irish society, on far better research than populist, trite soundbites. Thirdly - repealing the 8th amendment would have far greater implications for Irish society as a whole, than the number of cases I could count on one hand in three decades that you may be referring to, in which the 8th amendment would have been a relevant consideration.
lazygal wrote: » How many birth experiences have you read?
You do know the HSE cites the eighth amendment as a reason why women's consent doesn't need to be sought during pregnancy and birth?
When health care practitioners know the woman's rights are extremely restricted and that best medical practices have to be ignored because of the eighth, that leads to terrible outcomes for some women, something which cannot change unless it is repealed. So if you're happy to keep the eighth and make sure the current system stays in place because you're not happy with how the repeal campaign is coming across, maybe you can explain why something that denies all pregnant girls and women best medical practice is a good thing?
One eyed Jack wrote: » I think you're putting the horse before the cart there in that you're putting forward only the evidence which suits your opinion. Of course if you're only going to read testimonies where people have had a negative experience with the medical profession, it shouldn't come as any surprise that you would be given the impression that the attitude they experienced is as you anecdotally put it 'extremely common'.
rainbow kirby wrote: » If you read any Irish birth stories at all you'll find that this is an extremely common attitude among HCPs. Consent seems to be an optional extra in a lot of cases and things are done way more often for "hospital policy" or the wishes of the individual HCP rather than with women's preferences and best interests in mind.
lazygal wrote: » I know my consultant was pro choice and advocated all testing so you can make an informed decision, even if that means going abroad for termination. If another practitioner refused to be clear on their views I'd have to assume they viewed me as equal to a foetus and refuse to consent to treatment. I'm far from unique, many women want to know if the nurse or doctor treating them is anti choice.
One eyed Jack wrote: » I'd rather be treated by someone that sees me as a person rather than a thing to be shoved, poked and prodded without any regard for my welfare.
frostyjacks wrote: » If the attacker seeks forgiveness and the family wish to move on, then where's the issue? Hate the sin, love the sinner.
lazygal wrote: » If I have another baby I'll be asking every medical person I come into contact with their views on the eighth. I don't want to be treated by an anti choice person who sees me as equal to s foetus.
I'd take someone who jokes about foetal tissue over a person who uses those images outside the GPO to deny all women medical care.
aloyisious wrote: » Keep in mind that you're talking about a medical doctor talking about what they do every day every day of the week, that is handling humans beings and their body parts as part of their profession. This applies across the board when it comes to surgeons and doctors. That thought mind be upsetting to you but worth keeping in mind if you need a doctor's medical help. I might not like a callous Dr but a squeamish Dr even less.
frostyjacks wrote: » She casually talked about keeping the organs intact while crushing what was above and below, while she sipped on a glass of wine. Josef Mengele would be proud.
Delirium wrote: » Of course, because PP are all about illegal human experimentation:rolleyes:
frostyjacks wrote: » No, I'm saying if Mengele walked into a PP centre, they'd ask him when he start and to name his price.
Delirium wrote: » So you consider discussing the handling of a foetus during the abortion procedure comparable to what those that suffered at the hands of the Nazi endured?:rolleyes::rolleyes:
JoeyRed2 wrote: » Abortion should be illegal.. I don't understand why it's not.
Delirium wrote: » Which was what? There were multiple people from PP in the videos (as well as spokespeople from PP interviewed/statements released when the videos surfaced).
frostyjacks wrote: » He should be given a parade. The footage is horrific. Only a psychopath could defend what the butcher from PP was saying.
The two antiabortion activists who mounted a hidden-camera investigation against Planned Parenthood officials have been charged with 15 felony counts of violating the privacy of health-care providers by recording confidential information without their consent. In announcing the charges against David Robert Daleiden and Sandra Merritt on Tuesday, California Attorney General Xavier Becerra said the duo used manufactured identities and a fictitious bioresearch company to meet medical officials and covertly record the private discussions they initiated. “The right to privacy is a cornerstone of California’s Constitution, and a right that is foundational in a free democratic society,” Becerra said. “We will not tolerate the criminal recording of confidential conversations.” The criminal complaint alleges that on 14 occasions, between October 2013 and July 2015, Daleiden and Merritt filmed people without permission in Los Angeles, San Francisco and El Dorado counties. The activists face a felony count for each person covertly recorded, and an additional felony charge for criminal conspiracy to invade privacy.
looksee wrote: » I am not clear what point you are making here? Are you saying it was ok for the babies to die once they had been born - and not at the hands of their mothers, but at the hands of the very people who shout loudest about the sin of abortion?
One eyed Jack wrote: » Hardly comparable, given that those women actually gave birth and both they and their children were considered undesirable by Irish social standards at the time. We still have plenty of people in Irish society who would prefer that those they consider society's "undesirables", were out of sight, only to be spoken of when their circumstances could be used in an argument to bolster that person's political ideology.
