nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

The 8th amendment(Mod warning in op)

RobertKK

The citizens assembly voted to replace or amend the 8th amendment.

50% voted to replace or amend
44% voted to repeal
Rest preferred to not state an opinion

Now deciding how it will be replaced or amended
: Let the Dail legislate on the rights of the unborn
: Amend the provision in the constitution.

Meltdown on twitter by Repealthe8th people.

Mod- This thread has descended in to petty name calling. We've tried to let this thread run without too much mod interference but now it's on our radar we will be watching. From here on the name calling stops. If you can't debate civilly we will remove your right to post.

__________________

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

SafeSurfer

Grayson wrote: »

It's strange the way people think that. One of the biggest pro choice activists in the country (Bernadette Smith) has been arrested for harassing people entering the marie Stopes in Belfast. But it's the repealers who are the problem.

What is the difference between a pro choice activist and a repealer?

SafeSurfer

January wrote: »

Before 12 weeks you can take a pill, it can be given in a GP's office, so no need for a waiting list.

If we take the 3,500 figure, that means that after 12 weeks we're looking at 280 (8% if we consider that 92% of abortions are performed before 12 weeks) abortions that need to be performed in a hospital or clinic. I don't think waiting lists would be long at all if we're looking at circ. 280 surgical abortions per year.

With regards to cost, same as any public procedure, free (inpatient day charge for the bed), if you have private insurance that could cover a private bed. With regards the pills then medical card fee of €2.00 or part of the DPS if not.

Looks like a bargain for this country.
Repeat abortions alone cost the NHS £1 million a week.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2143936/NHS-spends-1m-week-repeat-abortions-Single-women-using-terminations-form-contraceptive.html

SafeSurfer

gctest50 wrote: »

SafeSurfer wrote: »

.....

Maybe some medical professionals object to breaking their Hippocratic oath. ...

Do Irish doctors have that ?

This bit of it ?

And likewise I will not give a woman a destructive pessary."

However, abortion was legal at the time and the text only mentions pessaries (a soaked piece of wool inserted in the vagina to induce abortion), not the oral methods of abortion also used in ancient Greece.

As pessaries could cause lethal infections, the author of the Oath may have had a clinical objection to the method, rather than a moral objection to abortion itself"

From the declaration of Geneva, which updated the oath following WW2

"I WILL MAINTAIN the utmost respect for human life, from the time of conception; even under threat, I will not use my medical knowledge contrary to the laws of humanity."

The Nazi doctor Josef Mengele escaped trial at Nuremberg and went on to practice as an abortionist in Beunos Airies.

But yeah, sure you could be right. Maybe it's only the method they object to not the taking of life.

January

Before 12 weeks you can take a pill, it can be given in a GP's office, so no need for a waiting list.

If we take the 3,500 figure, that means that after 12 weeks we're looking at 280 (8% if we consider that 92% of abortions are performed before 12 weeks) abortions that need to be performed in a hospital or clinic. I don't think waiting lists would be long at all if we're looking at circ. 280 surgical abortions per year.

With regards to cost, same as any public procedure, free (inpatient day charge for the bed), if you have private insurance that could cover a private bed. With regards the pills then medical card fee of €2.00 or part of the DPS if not.

sunshine and showers

pjohnson wrote: »

Yep the more militant repealers will do more harm than good I fear.

I hear this "militant repealers will put everyone off" bit a lot.

Please do explain what you mean by it.

Grayson

pjohnson wrote: »

Yep the more militant repealers will do more harm than good I fear.

It's strange the way people think that. One of the biggest pro choice activists in the country (Bernadette Smith) has been arrested for harassing people entering the marie Stopes in Belfast. But it's the repealers who are the problem.

pjohnson

Ash.J.Williams wrote: »

I'm prochoice but can't see this passing. I fear too many asshats on the repeal side will damage their cause. Obviously there are asshats on both sides but it's the repeal ones that will do the damage.

Yep the more militant repealers will do more harm than good I fear.

Outlaw Pete

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Unfortunately the phrase "evidence shows" or "there is evidence" does not actually say what the evidence is. If you are aware of evidence then by all means present it.

Yeah, cause the evidence would be made public I suppose. If I engaged with this nonsense you'd happily trade twenty or thirty essays back on fourth on whether or not there was sufficient evidence for Fiona Bruce to say what she did. Ain't nobody got time for that shit.

Vague references to it's existence serve no one however and certainly do not warrant you pretending the evidence simply is not good enough for me personally.

Because if the evidence is, as the rest of your quote suggests, merely the anecdotal claims of the people in question..... then you are just making a circular argument and quite an empty one.

Waffle.

....why SHOULD someone who does not perform abortions be considered for any promotion into a role where that is a requirement?

Because taking the life a healthy human being should never be a job requirement for MEDICAL professionals unless there is a MEDICAL NEED to preform one.

If medical staff are unwilling to preform abortions even when it is deemed medical necessary / justifiable.... then I feel they would of course be better off taking another career path.

ohnonotgmail

seamus wrote: »

No. Irish doctors don't make any kind of oath or declaration upon graduation. The Hippocratic oath or any modern incarnations are irrelevant.

Irish doctors are bound by the law and the rules of the Irish Medical council.

Not all doctors who graduate in england take it either.

seamus

gctest50 wrote: »

Do Irish doctors have that ?

No. Irish doctors don't make any kind of oath or declaration upon graduation. The Hippocratic oath or any modern incarnations are irrelevant.

Irish doctors are bound by the law and the rules of the Irish Medical council.

nozzferrahhtoo

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

I did read it.

Your response did not indicate you did. So I can only take your word for it, which I am unlikely to do. But suffice to say that "making it up" is only one possibilility, but the point remains: Their saying it does not make it true.... wheher they are lying or genuinely believe it themselves or not.

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Not evidence enough for nozz though. Nah, they're all just making it up or guessing :rolleyes:

Unfortunately the phrase "evidence shows" or "there is evidence" does not actually say what the evidence is. If you are aware of evidence then by all means present it. Vague references to it's existence serve no one however and certainly do not warrant you pretending the evidence simply is not good enough for me personally.

Because if the evidence is, as the rest of your quote suggests, merely the anecdotal claims of the people in question..... then you are just making a circular argument and quite an empty one.

However as I asked, and as usual you just moved to ignore it, why SHOULD someone who does not perform abortions be considered for any promotion into a role where that is a requirement?

Zubeneschamali

SafeSurfer wrote: »

You are using the terms christian and catholic interchangeably which is misleading.

Absolutely true. It is important to remember that every Christian church in Ireland disagreed with passing the 8th amendment in the first place, apart from the Roman Catholic church.

It enshrined specifically Roman Catholic doctrine into the Constitution over the objections of the Protestant churches.

Ash.J.Williams

I'm prochoice but can't see this passing. I fear too many asshats on the repeal side will damage their cause. Obviously there are asshats on both sides but it's the repeal ones that will do the damage.

gctest50

SafeSurfer wrote: »

.....

Maybe some medical professionals object to breaking their Hippocratic oath. ...

Do Irish doctors have that ?

This bit of it ?

And likewise I will not give a woman a destructive pessary."

However, abortion was legal at the time and the text only mentions pessaries (a soaked piece of wool inserted in the vagina to induce abortion), not the oral methods of abortion also used in ancient Greece.

As pessaries could cause lethal infections, the author of the Oath may have had a clinical objection to the method, rather than a moral objection to abortion itself"

ohnonotgmail

SafeSurfer wrote: »

Do non Irish doctors work in Ireland?

of course they do. why is that relevant?

Outlaw Pete

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Well that is one possibility yes. But if you had bothered your ass reading the rest of the post....

I did read it. Did YOU not read Fiona Bruce's remark:

'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.'

Not evidence enough for nozz though. Nah, they're all just making it up or guessing :rolleyes:

SafeSurfer

Do non Irish doctors work in Ireland?

nozzferrahhtoo

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Yawn. Making it up I suppose.

Well that is one possibility yes. But if you had bothered your ass reading the rest of the post rather than sitting around yawning and not paying attention, you will find I suggested another thing.

Which is that people who do not get promited often end up guessing at the reasons why.

So in that case no, they are not making it up in that I think they genuinely beleive that their not doing abortions is the reason they were not promoted. But that is just their assumption. And you validate that assumption solely because it fits your bias and your agenda.

It might be they genuinely just suck at their job and there was no reason to be promoted. There was likely people who do do abortions who ALSO did not get promoted at that time.

I saw the same thing happen in an IT company. The IT team had 10 people. Three of them were promoted. 7 were not. one of the 7 was a woman.

She was genuinely terrible at her job. I would not have promoted her. She however started claiming she was not promoted solely because she was female. The thought she just sucked at her job did not at all occur to her. The fact that 6 of the other people not promoted were NOT female also did not appear to register with her.

Outlaw Pete

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

That they have said it does not mean it is true however.

Yawn. Making it up I suppose.

nozzferrahhtoo

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.

That they have said it does not mean it is true however. Especially when they claim it is the reason they were passed over for promotion. Quite likely they are simply not privvy to the reasons they have been, or have not been, promoted.

So many people will make up their own. Women might assume they were not promoted because they were women. Blacks because they were black. The religious because they were religious.

The simple fact is however, they are very likely just guessing or assuming, and they actually have no idea at all why other people were promoted ahead of them.

However, so what if they were being denied promotion for this reason? The clause you quoted said they will not be compelled to do abortions. It says nothing about whether they should be promoted. If I as a manger had a role to fill, and I wanted it filled by people who do abortions, should I feel in any way compelled to consider people for that role who do not fit that requirement?

I do not think I should, and if there are rules that mean I should then I would suggest that is a TERRIBLE rule. It would be like forcing a pork butcher to HAVE to hire a muslim who would not handle pork. I should be allowed hire and promote people into a role if they fit the requirements of the role.

NuMarvel

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

AFAIK, abortion isn't a specific medical field. It come under obstetrics, which means most of the doctors and nurse who are be involved in carrying out abortions are also trained for childbirth, or to deal with stillbirths or miscarriages.

gctest50

SafeSurfer wrote: »

.............
Maybe some medical professionals object to breaking their Hippocratic oath. .

Do Irish doctors have that ?

.

Tigger

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.

the maternity outpatients clinics are very busy
they also deal with post partum care indont think they have any slack i think they woukd need to increase their capacity
of course contraception shoukd be free for poor peolple it is practicall free already as you can get the pill on the medical card

SafeSurfer

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

So you are in favour of abortion when there is risk to the life of the woman?[/quote]

As is the case.

lawred2

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.

SafeSurfer

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.

Nice opinion. Maybe some medical professionals object to breaking their Hippocratic oath. There are exemptions for medical conscientious objectors to the taking of human life in countries which permit abortion.

Tigger

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.

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

Zubeneschamali

SafeSurfer wrote: »

Do you think is reasonable for a man to demand sex if a pregnancy would result in his partner's death?

Do you imagine that sex only happens when men demand it?

NuMarvel

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.

Professional conduct guidelines and codes allow doctors and nurses to have conscientious objections due to personal, moral, or religious beliefs. However, doctors are required to make the names of other doctors available to their patients and nurses must inform their employers of their objections and talk to their patients about other arrangements. And conscientious objections are secondary in emergency situations.

I think it should be the same with regards to abortion services. If a doctor or nurse doesn't want to be involved in the procedure then they should have the same rights as everyone else. But similarly, they must remain professional and not interfere with their patients' ability to access abortion services under another doctor or nurse.

.......

This post has been deleted.