SafeSurfer wrote: » Non sexual relationships, by there nature are not dependent on contraception. They are relevant to the discussion because a poster said; "The concept of abstinence in a healthy, happy marriage or long term relationship is completely unrealistic and if you think it is then you're on another planet".
SafeSurfer wrote: » I really don't understand your obsession with asking me again my position. I have already said it makes no difference to me. My point is that in a happy, fulfilled, contented relationship if pregnancy could cause the death of one partner I would feel it unreasonable for the other partner to demand sex if there was a risk, no matter how small, as previous posters have mentioned, of death. Do you think is reasonable for a man to demand sex if a pregnancy would result in his partner's death?
SafeSurfer wrote: » ............ My point is that in a happy, fulfilled, contented relationship if pregnancy could cause the death of one partner I would feel it unreasonable for the other partner to demand sex if there was a risk, no matter how small, as previous posters have mentioned, of death. .......
Tigger wrote: » ok ive heard enough on whatvpeople think should be available i have my own opinionnbut i dont think anyone here is gonna have an epiphany so i have a secondary question lets assume that abortion is now available, and lets assume that the 3,500 irish women having abortions will continue but now in Ireland should it be in private or public care, if private then are we goning to have clinics popping up in all the large regional centers. if public where will the extra capacity come from? the waiting list would in my opinion have to be very short for obvious reasons. will we have people on the media telling us that a 8 week waiting list for abortions is unacceptable. should it be a free procedure ? means tested ? if it is free and public are doctors and nurses really going to want to work in tgat field? can they opt out. im pro choice with reservations but if i worked hard to be a doctor or a nurse and got offered an abortion job id decline mainly because i just dont think id get job satisfaction.
WinnyThePoo wrote: » What about the women's decision?.
backspin. wrote: » Repeal the 8th types seem to be the same people who spout nonsense about the 'patriarchy', 'white privilege' etc. Its hard to support those people.
Tigger wrote: » if it is free and public are doctors and nurses really going to want to work in tgat field? can they opt out. im pro choice with reservations but if i worked hard to be a doctor or a nurse and got offered an abortion job id decline mainly because i just dont think id get job satisfaction.
WinnyThePoo wrote: » SafeSurfer wrote: » I really don't understand your obsession with asking me again my position. I have already said it makes no difference to me. My point is that in a happy, fulfilled, contented relationship if pregnancy could cause the death of one partner I would feel it unreasonable for the other partner to demand sex if there was a risk, no matter how small, as previous posters have mentioned, of death. Do you think is reasonable for a man to demand sex if a pregnancy would result in his partner's death? What about the women's decision?.
lawred2 wrote: » SafeSurfer wrote: » I really don't understand your obsession with asking me again my position. I have already said it makes no difference to me. My point is that in a happy, fulfilled, contented relationship if pregnancy could cause the death of one partner I would feel it unreasonable for the other partner to demand sex if there was a risk, no matter how small, as previous posters have mentioned, of death. Do you think is reasonable for a man to demand sex if a pregnancy would result in his partner's death? Some serious contorting going on to make some sort of a point. What relevance does this have to anything?
Tigger wrote: » ....if i worked hard to be a doctor or a nurse and got offered an abortion job id decline mainly because i just dont think id get job satisfaction.
Doctors who won't carry out abortions 'are not promoted': Staff say they face a glass ceiling if they object to the procedure Doctors who refuse to take part in abortions are suffering increasingly from harassment and discrimination at work, the British Medical Association has told MPs. Healthcare professionals are complaining to the union that they faced a glass ceiling and were denied promotion if they objected to abortions, a report reveals today. The parliamentary inquiry also found that staff were under 'widespread and increasing pressure' to participate in abortions. The BMA highlighted the problem in written evidence submitted to MPs into the working of the conscience clause of the 1967 Abortion Act. The clause states that 'no person shall be under any duty, whether by contract or by any statutory or other legal requirement, to participate in any treatment authorised by this Act to which he has a conscientious objection'. But the inquiry, by the All-Party Parliamentary Pro-Life Group, warned that this conscience clause was not being upheld. Their report concluded: 'There is widespread and increasing pressure on healthcare professionals to participate in abortions. 'The APPG holds that this is, in large part, due to inadequate observance of the current legislation, even in some instances involving a disregard of the Conscience Clause.' The inquiry also found that promotions were being denied, and access to specialities such as obstetrics and gynaecology were made practically impossible for medical staff with objections to abortion. The Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, which refused to give evidence to the inquiry, was severely criticised for a policy which explicitly discriminates against the advancement of students with such objections. The BMA said in its submitted evidence: 'Some doctors have complained of being harassed and discriminated against because of their conscientious objection to abortion.' MP Fiona Bruce, the chairman of the group, said action must be taken to protect such healthcare professionals. She said: 'This report reveals concerning evidence of doctors and other healthcare professionals being harassed, abused, and denied career choices, as a result of seeking to exercise their legal right to conscientiously object to being involved in the abortion process.'
Seven in 10 Italian gynaecologists refuse to carry out abortions Seven in 10 Italian gynaecologists refuse to carry out abortions on the grounds of conscientious objection, according to official government figures. Data collected by the Italian Department of Health shows that the proportion of gynaecologists who conscientiously object to the procedure is in excess of 90% in some regions. It is highest in the southern regions of Molise (93.3%) and Basilicata (90.2%), where the proportion of objecting doctors more than doubled in the seven years to 2013. An Ipsos poll carried out earlier this year in Italy, Belgium, Poland, Sweden, Hungary, France, Germany, Britain and Spain found that Italians were more likely than all other countries surveyed, with the exception of Poland, to believe that abortion should never be permitted or should only be allowed when the mother’s life is in danger. Some 15% of Italians agree with these statements compared to just 1% in Sweden, 3% in France, 5% in the UK and 6% in Germany. Nonetheless, some doctors say conscientious objectors are often motivated by factors other than religion such as professional standing and income. Doctors interviewed by the Guardian said there was an unease with the abortion procedure and a desire by doctors not to be personally affiliated with the practice. Meanwhile, in an apparent attempt to crack down on illegal abortions, women in Italy can now face fines of up to €10,000 if they are suspected of procuring an abortion illegally. Previously, such an offence resulted in a symbolic €51 fine. “It’s a new law and a very big problem. Now if a woman risks being denounced for an illegal abortion, she will stay at home [instead of seeking emergency treatment in hospital], even if she is not well. This is very dangerous,” says Agatone, who founded a website that helps women locate abortion physicians. A spokesperson for the Italian health ministry told the Guardian that the rising number of objectors was not critical because the number of abortions was decreasing. They stressed that the workload of non-objectors had not been particularly affected by the issue, even in those regions where the rate of conscientious objectors was higher, and that 90.8% of abortions took place in a patient’s region of residence. Sicily, which recorded the highest proportion of objectors in 2006 at 84.2%, also recorded a high level of objection in 2013 with 87.6% of gynaecologists refusing to carry out abortions. Conscientious objection is permissible by law in the majority of EU countries although exceptions exist in Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Finland and Sweden. However there are few statistics, other than Italy’s, available.
GritBiscuit wrote: » Do medical staff currently have the option to opt out of liver transplants for ex-alcoholics if they are tee-teetotalers? What about AIDS treatments for gay patients if they are homophobic? No treatment for black patients if they are racist, perhaps? Medical staff are either professional and leave their personal beliefs at the door and get on with treating their patients or they find another career, imo.
SafeSurfer wrote: » Do you think is reasonable for a man to demand sex if a pregnancy would result in his partner's death?
GritBiscuit wrote: » Tigger wrote: » if it is free and public are doctors and nurses really going to want to work in tgat field? can they opt out. im pro choice with reservations but if i worked hard to be a doctor or a nurse and got offered an abortion job id decline mainly because i just dont think id get job satisfaction. Do medical staff currently have the option to opt out of liver transplants for ex-alcoholics if they are tee-teetotalers? What about AIDS treatments for gay patients if they are homophobic? No treatment for black patients if they are racist, perhaps? Medical staff are either professional and leave their personal beliefs at the door and get on with treating their patients or they find another career, imo.
SafeSurfer wrote: » The case of a woman who would die if she became pregnant as an argument in favour of abortion. Is it an argument in favour of abortion or an argument in favour of not becoming pregnant.
....... wrote: » This post has been deleted.
seamus wrote: » Your issue then is that abortion becomes available only to the privileged, and women who cannot afford the procedure may be forced by economic hardship to carry the child to term. This is a double-whammy; not only will she have to carry the child to term, but then she will have the economic burden of caring for that child. In the case where a woman is seeking an abortion due to a FFA or a serious genetic condition, the costs may be enormous and far beyond what she will ever be able to handle. Both she and her child are doomed to a poverty which they cannot escape from. Ultimately if abortion is private-only, or an expensive procedure, then nothing has improved. The situation right now is that you can get an abortion, if you have the money. All you would be doing is making that slightly easier for wealthy people. There is a strong economic and humanitarian argument for providing abortions for free to women who do not have the means to pay for one. In effect, these are the women who may need one the most. So by denying them access to the service, not only will they personally be under a tougher economic burden than wealthier women, there will be a higher social cost too, as the state and the woman's community will have to bear the economic and social burden of the child. Of course, publically-funded abortions should not exist in isolation. Data from other countries indicates that where publically-funded abortions are available, abortion rates are higher than where they're strictly paid for. Duh. But if contraception is completely free and sex education is universal, then abortion rates drop below the rates in areas where abortion is free and contraception is not. Unsurprisingly, women choose contraception above abortions where that choice exists. So realistically, instead of just "free abortions for everyone!", contraception should be freely available to all men and women under 25 (or even 30?), and to medical card holders above that. Then combined with a sensible approach to providing abortions for free where the economic need is genuine; such as under-18s, students and those on low incomes. It's a complicated topic. There's not really a huge issue with waiting lists and such. Maternity hospitals are busy, but don't have the luxury of waiting lists, so they manage their patient care differently. Abortions would be handled by maternity outpatient clinics.
SafeSurfer wrote: » ............. Maybe some medical professionals object to breaking their Hippocratic oath. .
Tigger wrote: » its not anything a phobic not to want to work with abortions im not even slightly religious but if i were a nurse i wouldnt judge people in a hospital having abortions but i wouldnt want that to be my job cant force people to want to work in a spefic medical field
Outlaw Pete wrote: » You wouldn't be alone. However, NHS staff in the UK with conscientious objection have said that they have been harassed, bullied and passed over when it comes to promotion and so it would undoubtedly affect your career.
nozzferrahhtoo wrote: » That they have said it does not mean it is true however.
Outlaw Pete wrote: » Yawn. Making it up I suppose.
nozzferrahhtoo wrote: » Well that is one possibility yes. But if you had bothered your ass reading the rest of the post....
'This report reveals concerning evidence of doctors and other healthcare professionals being harassed, abused, and denied career choices, as a result of seeking to exercise their legal right to conscientiously object to being involved in the abortion process.'
SafeSurfer wrote: » Do non Irish doctors work in Ireland?
SafeSurfer wrote: » ..... Maybe some medical professionals object to breaking their Hippocratic oath. ...
And likewise I will not give a woman a destructive pessary."
SafeSurfer wrote: » You are using the terms christian and catholic interchangeably which is misleading.
