Exit poll: The post referendum thread. No electioneering.

Captain Obvious wrote: »

That was amazing.

WillContribute wrote: »

GP led service, not realistic.

The prime time discussion Tues night was instructive, as to the moving goalposts. Present. Kay O'Connell(FG) and the president of the GPs association. In summary...RTÉ: Are GPs ready for this? Assoc of GPs: Nobody has consulted us in any way about this, and it will be very difficult to implement correctly. KOC: We never said it would be a GP service, we said a "doctor led" service. (As if we thought builders might do it). Back and forth etc. GPs: In principle it can be done and we are not objecting, but realistically not now or anytime soon the way things are, unless W, X, Y, Z will be sorted and someone talks to us. KOC: We'll talk to you tomorrow.

Most GPs prescribe antibiotics, blood pressure tablets, creams etc. Anything more urgent, complex or difficult and it's a referral to A&E or a consultant. Nearly all tasks are to start with a sick person and try and make them healthier/better. Benefit outweighs the risk, etc

The up to 12 weeks abortion scheme is the opposite appproach. You start with a healthy pregnant woman, and then introduce medications( which if done correctly are generally OK to terminate the pregnancy) but if not done correctly, can seriously injure that woman. (I have deliberately left out the child to just focus on the woman, as this is the new reality.)

E.g. A GP must certify that the woman is under 12 weeks, to do this correctly, requires ultrasound. Very few GPs have it. (There is a 6 month waiting list for ultrasound.) If the GP gets it wrong, eg the pregnancy is actually at 14 or 16 weeks, there can be dangerous medical complications, it's not just two pills like aspirin. (Norway uses hospital clinics for ALL abortions.) For GPs in this type of proposal, there are a lot of extra costs and medical risk. Who also would insure them in this situation? When the accident occurs and legal suit follows, it'll be all negligence, and also the patient signing a disclaimer won't work. (Distress etc)

I'd expect it would have to be specialist clinics. It'll still be "doctor led", but look how the spin goalposts are moving.

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

I don't see it as controlling women I see it as safeguarding a fetus they have all the control they want after that.

If I got a hammer and smashed a babies brains out I would be arrested and vilified.

Yet aborting a fetus is OK now just a few months earlier?




Laws are strange they change social and societal norms.

Years ago in the 1500's it was common place for royalty to give thier 13 year old daughter to some man.
Now that would be viewed as pedophilia.


Some societal changes are good but not this abortion thing.
To call it controlling seems strange to me.

Do people who get abortions not view the fetus as a life form at all?
I don't get it.
I know of a neighbour who miscarried and even went to the trouble of getting a little white coffin.

Obviously from the tone of this thread the vocal people who voted yes view the fetus as an inconvenience to thier body.

That should be got rid of like a pimple on yer @rse.

Unless the life of the mother is threatened I see it as an unnecessary act.

As I said in another post statistical some of those who voted yes must be unplanned pregnancies / unwanted pregnancies themselves.

So it was kind of like turkeys voting for Christmas... for some of them.

As I said before this is the start of the slippery slope.

I think a lot of the moderate yes votes will regret thier decision in 10
/ 20 / 30 years to come.People have made thier beds now this is the start of the slow slide toward eugenics, gender based abortion, maybe even colour of eyes / hair in years to come.

The hipster generation have spoken.