8th amendment referendum part 3 - Mod note and FAQ in post #1

uptherebels · 10-05-2018 08:22AM

splinter65 wrote: »

You wouldn’t think there was enough business in Ireland for all the private general medical clinics that there is but there is so many that the consultants private practice patients ensure that public patients languish for years on the public list.
Plenty of couple looking for an abortion will not want to have it in public. That’s nailed on.
But I digress . That doctor has said that there will be no abortion clinic attached to Kilkenny hospital. So where will Kilkenny public patients go and why should they have to go anywhere?

Why wouldn't there be enough business for private general medical clinic in a country with a few million people living in it.

The doc said that part of the hospital wouldn't be converted into an abortion clinic as most people would be treated as outpatients, rendering such a clinic unnecessary.

Don't think he was "reassuring" anybody just correcting misinformation.
Misinformation spread by who, I just don't know.

Igotadose · 10-05-2018 08:24AM

RobertKK wrote: »

Dr Rhona Mahony said at 9 to 10 weeks gestation that Down Syndrome can be diagnosed with a 99% certainty rate. 50% will abort.
Dr Peter Boylan tried to make out she was wrong.

Made me spit my coffee, pro-Life Trumper caring at all about DS. *snort*

Does go to show how the Google/Facebook thing has freaked out the hate both crowd and now bringing DS into it, despite the asks from DS Ireland and others.

Just have to get out on the pavement and convince people of the rightness of your anti-choice position, without bombarding them with US funded online ads, Robert.

ELM327 · 10-05-2018 08:42AM

Ave Sodalis wrote: »

I am exceptionally disappointed to find my own doctor on a list of doctors in Donegal urging people to vote No. Everyone down to my grandparents use this doctor, it looks like I'm going to have to change.

I could not use an anti choice doctor, especially if I was a woman, as I'd be concerned about the level of healthcare I would receive.

For your sake I would strongly advocate changing doctor.
I know if my doctor (unlikely - based on previous conversations with him) came out as anti choice myself, my partner and the 2 kids would be moved GP that day.

seamus · 10-05-2018 08:45AM

Robert's repeated talking points are so close to John McGuirk, I wonder...

Anyway, the main difference between Google advertising and sending leaflets through An Post is that one is regulated, overseen and has strict declaration requirements. The other is completely unregulated, has no oversight and there is no way to find out who paid for the ads and why.

Doesn't surprise me at all that the No campaign opted to throw all their eggs into the basket where nobody could tell them what to do or get wind of the finances at play. Except a private company...oops.

Ave Sodalis · 10-05-2018 08:45AM

ELM327 wrote: »

I could not use an anti choice doctor, especially if I was a woman, as I'd be concerned about the level of healthcare I would receive.

For your sake I would strongly advocate changing doctor.
I know if my doctor (unlikely - based on previous conversations with him) came out as anti choice myself, my partner and the 2 kids would be moved GP that day.

I don't think I could use her either, as a woman who does not want children. It's tough though, given that she went above and beyond to save my brother's life when he was a child and she's relatively close to the family. Hence why I am so very disappointed in her.

ELM327 · 10-05-2018 08:53AM

Ave Sodalis wrote: »

I don't think I could use her either, as a woman who does not want children. It's tough though, given that she went above and beyond to save my brother's life when he was a child and she's relatively close to the family. Hence why I am so very disappointed in her.

I understand it's a difficult thing especially in rural ireland with the family connections. My first GP for about 25 years of my life, according to my parents saved my life when I was 2 when I had a really bad seizure. Luckily he lived just down the road from our house at the time.
But - things change, people change, and risk scenarios change.

The horrible thought that popped into my head when you said "saved my brother's life" was, if it was your sister's life at risk, would your GP have stopped to take a pregnancy test?

AnneFrank · 10-05-2018 08:57AM

Ave Sodalis wrote: »

I don't think I could use her either, as a woman who does not want children. It's tough though, given that she went above and beyond to save my brother's life when he was a child and she's relatively close to the family. Hence why I am so very disappointed in her.

Just to play devils advocate, this must be very hard for Doctor's who have taken the hippocratic oath.
Your Dr has a different opinion than you on one subject and it is a democratic vote so it's not like she's personally out to get you.
Your whole family has trusted this lady with your health, and rightly so by what you have said.
If the yes side wins i'd imagine you will get over it. It's ok in life to disagree,
especially in this divided land.

gmisk · 10-05-2018 09:00AM

AnneFrank wrote: »

Just to play devils advocate, this must be very hard for Doctor's who have taken the hippocratic oath.
Your Dr has a different opinion than you on one subject and it is a democratic vote so it's not like she's personally out to get you.
Your whole family has trusted this lady with your health, and rightly so by what you have said.
If the yes side wins i'd imagine you will get over it. It's ok in life to disagree,
especially in this divided land.

It has already been posted here multiple times Doctors do not take a hippocratic oath.

Ave Sodalis · 10-05-2018 09:00AM

ELM327 wrote: »

I understand it's a difficult thing especially in rural ireland with the family connections. My first GP for about 25 years of my life, according to my parents saved my life when I was 2 when I had a really bad seizure. Luckily he lived just down the road from our house at the time.
But - things change, people change, and risk scenarios change.

The horrible thought that popped into my head when you said "saved my brother's life" was, if it was your sister's life at risk, would your GP have stopped to take a pregnancy test?

Well my brother was only a baby at the time so I'd hope not :pac:

I actually don't know though if there was a child/woman of child baring age. I'd like to think she wouldn't, but I also wouldn't have thought I'd see her name on any document like the one her name is on.

Ave Sodalis · 10-05-2018 09:03AM

AnneFrank wrote: »

Just to play devils advocate, this must be very hard for Doctor's who have taken the hippocratic oath.
Your Dr has a different opinion than you on one subject and it is a democratic vote so it's not like she's personally out to get you.
Your whole family has trusted this lady with your health, and rightly so by what you have said.
If the yes side wins i'd imagine you will get over it. It's ok in life to disagree,
especially in this divided land.

Except a) she didn't take an oath and b) this "opinion" affects healthcare, and given I won't be having children, I'm still considering whether or not I want to play russian roulette with my health. It may be that it never affects me. It may be, like posters here and on In Her Shoes, it will cause me a huge amount of pain and suffering because I am still of child baring age.

AnneFrank · 10-05-2018 09:04AM

gmisk wrote: »

It has already been posted here multiple times Doctors do not take a hippocratic oath.

They do not become Dr's to cause harm, i also know Dr's who have read the oath by the way.
What if the Dr decided not to see a patient because of their views ?
It simply wouldn't happen

AnneFrank · 10-05-2018 09:11AM

Ave Sodalis wrote: »

Except a) she didn't take an oath and b) this "opinion" affects healthcare, and given I won't be having children, I'm still considering whether or not I want to play russian roulette with my health. It may be that it never affects me. It may be, like posters here and on In Her Shoes, it will cause me a huge amount of pain and suffering because I am still of child baring age.

Fair enough if that's how you feel, leave the person that has cared for your family for years it's your call.
Just seems silly to me over one disagreement.
About the oath, Dr's do vow to cause no harm. Killing life is doing just that so i do see their problem, even if others don't

Zubeneschamali · 10-05-2018 09:11AM

Rezident wrote: »

Although it must look unlikely as you look around the world today that anyone has a soul anymore, human beings do have a soul (and a spirit). When you are 'terminating' a 'foetus' - do you really believe that babies don't get their soul until after they are born?

Thank you, Rezident, for spelling it out in the clear.

Even the Catholic Bishop's statement on the matter buries this simple assertion in a ton of verbiage, the closest they come is to say We believe that human life is sacred from conception until natural death.

The fact is that they do not give a crap about the United nations, fundamental human rights, effects on society, and all the other guff in that statement - that is camouflage. They believe zygotes have little magical souls and must be born so they can be baptized and saved. That is historically why the Catholic Church has a bee in its bonnet about zygotes in comparison to the other Christian Churches.

Sofiztikated · 10-05-2018 09:15AM

AnneFrank wrote: »

Just to play devils advocate, this must be very hard for Doctor's who have taken the hippocratic oath.
Your Dr has a different opinion than you on one subject and it is a democratic vote so it's not like she's personally out to get you.
Your whole family has trusted this lady with your health, and rightly so by what you have said.
If the yes side wins i'd imagine you will get over it. It's ok in life to disagree,
especially in this divided land.

Well, seeing as

A) there's only a small Irish Hippocratic Oath society in Ireland, and no requirement for Doctors to adhere to it.

the original oath itself contains no mention of that "Do no harm" text, that was a layer addition
C ) The oath does make reference to "Do not cut" but yet we have surgeons

I'd say there's little to worry about. Noone will force doctors to do anything they are uncomfortable with.

And no, that doctor might not be personally "out to get" Ave, but like that other poster AsISeeIt, trying hard not to insult people personally, but insulting "that right on" group, they're the same people. So yes, people will take it personally. If the doctor said he wouldn't treat protestants, could you see why a protestant in his clinic might be insulted?

Ave Sodalis · 10-05-2018 09:16AM

AnneFrank wrote: »

Fair enough if that's how you feel, leave the person that has cared for your family for years it's your call.
Just seems silly to me over one disagreement.
About the oath, Dr's do vow to cause no harm. Killing life is doing just that so i do see their problem, even if others don't

Let me repeat this because it's not only important, but the fundamental part of the decision: this disagreement, this opinion, has an affect on my healthcare which should be provided by the very doctor I have the disagreement with. We are not disagreeing on the colour of the office, or whether my shoes match my outfit.

It's already long established what harm can come to women of child baring age because of the 8th.

Dressing gown · 10-05-2018 09:16AM

AnneFrank wrote: »

gmisk wrote: »

It has already been posted here multiple times Doctors do not take a hippocratic oath.

They do not become Dr's to cause harm, i also know Dr's who have read the oath by the way.
What if the Dr decided not to see a patient because of their views ?
It simply wouldn't happen

That’s very naive of you. Of course it happens. Doctors are under no obligation to keep patients on.

gmisk · 10-05-2018 09:20AM

AnneFrank wrote: »

Fair enough if that's how you feel, leave the person that has cared for your family for years it's your call.
Just seems silly to me over one disagreement.
About the oath, Dr's do vow to cause no harm. Killing life is doing just that so i do see their problem, even if others don't

That one "disagreement" may effect this persons healthcare, so they are right to at least consider it IMO.
For the second time....there is no hippocratic oath.

ELM327 · 10-05-2018 09:20AM

Ave Sodalis wrote: »

Let me repeat this because it's not only important, but the fundamental part of the decision: this disagreement, this opinion, has an affect on my healthcare which should be provided by the very doctor I have the disagreement with. We are not disagreeing on the colour of the office, or whether my shoes match my outfit.

It's already long established what harm can come to women of child baring age because of the 8th.

That poster you are discussing with is another blinkered NO. (S)he is on my block list as I don't need to see her attempts to divert the discussion (as is the NO side MO) so i only see them if she's quoted by someone else.
Yet another who does not see the impact that the 8th has on women's healthcare
Which, despite their attempts to discredit and humiliate Dr Boylan, is very much a real present risk.

ELM327 · 10-05-2018 09:21AM

gmisk wrote: »

That one "disagreement" may effect this persons healthcare, so they are right to at least consider it IMO.
For the second time....there is no hippocratic oath.

+1
This is a reality that the NO side are pretending does not exist. Like a few others.

PhoenixParker · 10-05-2018 09:32AM

Also, a doctor could say they themselves won't participate in abortion without necessarily supporting the no side.

Vocally supporting the no side and the set of beliefs about women's rights that go with it is what's worrying and problematic, or at least would be for me.

Ave Sodalis · 10-05-2018 09:44AM

PhoenixParker wrote: »

Also, a doctor could say they themselves won't participate in abortion without necessarily supporting the no side.

Vocally supporting the no side and the set of beliefs about women's rights that go with it is what's worrying and problematic, or at least would be for me.

This is really the biggest issue for me. If she didn't agree with abortions, fair enough. However, she went out of her way to put her name on a public statement to add credit to something that lies about how healthcare is unaffected by the 8th.

splinter65 · 10-05-2018 09:46AM

pitifulgod wrote: »

From what I gather the intention is to integrate such a services into maternity hospitals. Surgical abortions will also be in limited cases. Which you should already know. Non surgical is literally a matter of a gp. So really you're going on about nothing currently relevant after coming out with a nonsensical propaganda piece.

Kilkenny is the maternity hospital for a huge area. If there are to be no abortions there(a la this doctor quoted in The Times) then where will they be?
Drop the attitude please. This thread is repulsive. If you don’t want to answer a post you should just leave it to someone else.

splinter65 · 10-05-2018 09:50AM

ELM327 wrote: »

I could not use an anti choice doctor, especially if I was a woman, as I'd be concerned about the level of healthcare I would receive.

For your sake I would strongly advocate changing doctor.
I know if my doctor (unlikely - based on previous conversations with him) came out as anti choice myself, my partner and the 2 kids would be moved GP that day.

That would be your choice as private patients. Medical card patients can’t change doctor now unless they’ve moved away.

ohnonotgmail · 10-05-2018 09:51AM

splinter65 wrote: »

Kilkenny is the maternity hospital for a huge area. If there are to be no abortions there(a la this doctor quoted in The Times) then where will they be?
Drop the attitude please. This thread is repulsive. If you don’t want to answer a post you should just leave it to someone else.

Given we are talking about 4-5000 abortions a year, the vast majority of which will be medical abortions via pills, the requirement for surgical abortions will be in 100's for the entire country. they will most likely be handled as part of the regular maternity care system. There will be no need for "abortion clinics", the numbers wont justify them. Even less need for private "abortion clinics", the numbers definitely wont justify them.

It wasnt me123 · 10-05-2018 09:52AM

splinter65 wrote: »

Kilkenny is the maternity hospital for a huge area. If there are to be no abortions there(a la this doctor quoted in The Times) then where will they be?
Drop the attitude please. This thread is repulsive. If you don’t want to answer a post you should just leave it to someone else.

Clonmel, they can all come here. I'd be happy to help in any way I could. Let them come here in fact I insist, if they have a gp who is not open to any other opinion only his/her own, come here. We will help.

I hope that answers the possibly problem in Kilkenny (Clonmel is only 40 minutes from Kilkenny - you could get the bus).

nozzferrahhtoo · 10-05-2018 09:54AM

Rezident wrote: »

Yes, of course it does. A human life is always worth more than rights or wants.

Let us dig into that claim though shall we and see what the substance and nuance behind it is. What EXACTLY is it about "human life" that you value exactly compared to.... well any other life on the planet such as the life we eat in our meat industry every day?

Rezident wrote: »

Using the word 'zygote' feels like an attempt to dehumanise the baby to feel better about ending their life. No good can ever come from dehumanisation.

But you should move past what it "feels" like to you and ask what it actually is. Because from where I sit it is not an attempt to dehumanize anything, but a prevention of you humanizing it before it is due.

No good can ever come from pre-humanization.

Rezident wrote: »

it doesn't change a thing in the biology or physics of an abortion.

Would it surprise you then to learn than people who have no issue with a 12 week old fetus being aborted have not based their concerns in biology and physics per se, but in the philosophy of morality, ethics, rights which themselves have been informed by biology and physics?

Because the way you are talking here, I genuinely suspect it would be surprising to you.

Rezident wrote: »

When you are 'terminating' a 'foetus' - do you really believe that babies don't get their soul until after they are born?

I would not use the word "soul" but I absolutely do not believe they get it "after they are born". You and I are in agreement there.

I do however also not believe they get it by 12&16 weeks of gestation when 98% of abortions are done.

As such you, as someone against abortion it seems, and me as someone who has no moral issues with it..... appear to be in near total agreement! We just differ in the temporal "where" our agreement lies. I can explain mine. At length. Can you?

seamus · 10-05-2018 09:54AM

splinter65 wrote: »

Kilkenny is the maternity hospital for a huge area. If there are to be no abortions there(a la this doctor quoted in The Times) then where will they be?

Cork, Dublin, Galway...?

Full list of hospitals providing maternity care here:
https://www.hse.ie/eng/services/list/3/maternity/maternity.html

And since the number of abortions requiring surgical intervention is statistically small, and it isn't an emergency procedure, this isn't exactly going to be something that requires any new buildings, staff or equipment.

It wasnt me123 · 10-05-2018 09:55AM

Ave Sodalis wrote: »

I am exceptionally disappointed to find my own doctor on a list of doctors in Donegal urging people to vote No. Everyone down to my grandparents use this doctor, it looks like I'm going to have to change.

Change gps. I did it about 10 years ago, never looked back. I did it as I thought the treatment/care in a previous medical centre was less than satisfactory, so I changed.

But tell your gp why. I did, its very liberating. A lot of gps think they are gods and can't be questioned. Lets set them straight.

nozzferrahhtoo · 10-05-2018 09:55AM

patrickSTARR wrote: »

Again that is what you believe and what others don't. I believe it kills a life.

I am not sure you know how conversation works. You seem to think we just have to sit here and tell each other what we believe. Over and over again.

People already know what you believe. We are trying to understand WHY you believe it. What is the basis of it. But you keep parroting the belief without engaging in the conversation.

AGAIN our meat industry also "kills life", so what? Are you vegan? If not then what EXACTLY is the basis upon which you differentiate between life that can be killed, and life that can not. And why is the answer you give to that question relevant or useful?

patrickSTARR wrote: »

If abortion is on demand here, it will normalise it, more will be tempted to terminate a pregnancy rather than keep the child.

Any evidence for that claim at all, because many people have shown ACTUAL DATA on this thread a number of times showing the opposite is true. There is no sign at all that providing for choice based abortion in a society leads to any significant increase in the number of abortions occurring. And in fact many countries with it have shown consistent, if not speedy, decreases.

I think you are offering us fear mongering from your own darkest fears, rather than anything that tracks with reality.

patrickSTARR wrote: »

What about your morals...... that the life inside a woman should be just terminated.

What about them? I can defend mine. I can explain what they are and why I hold them. I can show their basis and how I built them up.

You on the other hand can only repeat your position over and over and when asked about it's foundations and basis all you can do is either 1) Repeat them again or 2) Ignore and run away.

So yes, what about my morals. What about yours. I am more than happy to compare and contrast. Are you? I doubt it.

patrickSTARR wrote: »

I would hope my daughter will be raised to have a high value on a human life not to go down that road.

But that is just you pretending that those of us who have nothing against 12-16 week abortion as a choice do not have a high value for human life. I am sure that narrative makes you feel better about shouting "Its a life" over and over while not engaging with discussion on the matter.

But the reality is we value human life every bit as much as you do. We are just more informed, coherent, and open about exactly what it is we value, why we value it, and what those values imply.

patrickSTARR wrote: »

But Ive explained my beliefs, read back.

No. You have not. You have asserted them, repeatedly. I have read EVERY post you have made on this thread so far. Some of them twice. You have "explained" nothing. But you have contrived to ignore any posts that seek to have you explain it.

nozzferrahhtoo · 10-05-2018 09:55AM

RobertKK wrote: »

You should be asking what is the state offering rather than death as an option for the unborn as a choice.

Where do you get the idea we are not asking those questions? Or does it just suit you to pretend we do not? They key word is "option". We are not sitting back thinking "Great, if we get abortion into Ireland job done!"

No, we see abortion as an option, but it is an option we rather no one takes or has to take. And so we invest a lot of time and effort into campaigning for initiatives to reduce the number of abortions happening.

This includes improvements and increased access to contraception. It also includes better, more comprehensive, and significantly EARLIER sexual education in our schools. All of which, historically, people who are against abortion were ALSO against. Weird is it not.... that the people against abortion are also the people we have to fight against for campaigns that reduce it??? Explain that one to me sometime Robert before you moan at US that "all women are offered is a lack of support"

Further you talk of "economic reasons". So far on this thread the ONLY person I have seen saying pregnant single mothers should not get welfare or single person allowance has been an anti abortion speaker. Explain that one to me too Robert before you moan at US that "all women are offered is a lack of support"

Take the Catholic Church for example. What has their position on abortion been historically? Now what has their position on contraception and sexual education of minors been historically?

MOST of the the options and ideas you seem to want to offer couples and single pregnant women..... we do too. So stop pretending like we don't. We just want to offer the OPTION of abortion as well. Not instead. Not before. As well.

Stop passing off as ideas from you and your "side" in this debate.... things that many of us Yes Campaigners have been campaigning for for years.

RobertKK wrote: »

Does every No voter who posts here have to be interrogated

It is a discussion forum. Both sides should be heavily interrogating each other! So far in my experiences however the "no" side have been posting one liners like the poster who can just shout "Save the 8th" over and over or patrickSTARR who essentially just shouts "It is a life!" in every post. Meanwhile the "yes" side have been interrogating, debating, conversing and discussing. Myself included.

I have seen people, myself included, with coherent and substantive positions on this issue. No one is approaching them to discuss, rebut, explore or query it. They just have slogans shouted at them, before the shouter runs away.

If you do not want to discuss it, then open a blog rather than be on a forum of discussion and debate. If you DO want to discuss it, then stop running away from and ignoring every challenge to your position you can not rebut.

Going into a discussion forum and moaning people are demanding discussion from you makes as much sense as going into a pub and moaning people keep offering to buy you a beer.

8th amendment referendum part 3 - Mod note and FAQ in post #1

Comments