Abortion Discussion, Part Trois

But you said abortion isn’t a right? If it’s a right in some cases that’s still a right. And who decides? You? The WHO declaration of reproductive rights sure doesn’t say “only in some cases”

aloyisious

I had a chat with two anti-abortion campaigners tomight by chance and the discussion turned to John McGuirk. Their opinion of his helpfullness to the Vote NO campaign was that he was completely the opposite, in that whenever he spoke he turned people against it by what they called his hard-line statements. I hadn't known they were campaigners on the NO side til then and the chat began when they mentioned going to a get-together for the NO campaigners over the weekend.

Zubeneschamali

aloyisious wrote: »

John McGuirk. Their opinion of his helpfullness to the Vote NO campaign was that he was completely the opposite, in that whenever he spoke he turned people against it by what they called his hard-line statements.

McGuirk made a public bet with Keith Mills (also on the no side) that if Dublin Central went 3:1 Yes he would never take another political job.

But I am not sure anyone but Declan Ganley would ever have given him a political job like that in the first place, and I doubt he would again, so the bet may be easy to fulfil.

aloyisious

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

McGuirk made a public bet with Keith Mills (also on the no side) that if Dublin Central went 3:1 Yes he would never take another political job.

But I am not sure anyone but Declan Ganley would ever have given him a political job like that in the first place, and I doubt he would again, so the bet may be easy to fulfil.

Only became aware in the last week of the campaign that Declan Ganley was involved, bit surprised at that. During the other referendum I got to see Keith Mills as a dyed-in-the-wool person where religious V civil belief is concerned, bit surprised to read he had reckoned a winnable bet toward the yes side this time was a sure thing. Maybe antennae tuned in better this time.

recedite wrote: »

Nice colourful diagram, but it falls at the first hurdle; No.1 "Proposal from Commission". Where do these guys get their proposals from? From the lobbyists that grease their palms.

The EU commissioners originate proposals from a) themselves; b) other people including the EU parliament, petitioners, national governments, lobbyists and so on. Lobbyists usually represent industries and as such they have every right to be represented and, occasionally, they may indeed have useful things to add about how their industry works and how it can be helped by law.

In any case, so long as these proposals presented by the EU Commission are in line with the Commission's published priorities, your problem with proposals being received from industry (on the grounds that they are presumably corrupt - your last post on this topic) is no more relevant than your problem with proposals received from politicians (on the grounds that they are corrupt - your second-last post on this topic).

recedite wrote: »

Also your entire diagram refers to the E Parliament, which is not where all the power lies. More power lies with the Council of Ministers.

Since there are multiple powers of veto built into the system - as outlined in my "nice colourful diagram" - your claim that more power lies somewhere other than the veto suggests that you're unfamiliar with the power of a veto.

recedite wrote: »

It works like this... Merkel gets an idea and discusses it with Macron. If both are happy they individually make trips to the second tier (UK and Italy) [...] Varadkar is one of those Tier 3 ministers [...]

No, that is not how it works. Though I will certainly concede that people like Boris Johnson and Nigel Pharage certainly make much hay pretending that this is how it works.

robindch wrote: »

Nigel Pharage

Farage.
I won't go further off topic, but keep an eye out in future and you'll observe that the outcome of any significant CoM meeting has already been decided many weeks or months earlier at the initial bilateral between France and Germany.

recedite wrote: »

Farage.

Nigel's name is more familiar, by far, than it should be in any society which values honor or honesty.

Since Mr Pharage chooses to do little beyond deceiving his low-rent, neofascist fanbase, the least I can do - and the very most he can expect - is to treat him as he is, namely, the UK's very own, wheedling, Herostratus.

smacl

robindch wrote: »

Nigel's name is more familiar, by far, than it should be in any society which values honor or honesty.

Had to look it up, ignoramus that I am, seems apt

antiskeptic

As an aside, how do others pronounce others gamer tags?

smacl = smackle

robindch = Robin Ditch

Well, with me being an omniscient pedant, I always recite their full titles in my head.
So for me its Sid Meiers Alpha Centauri Lover, and Robin followed by his actual name.

Cabaal

antiskeptic wrote: »

As an aside, how do others pronounce others gamer tags?

smacl = smackle

robindch = Robin Ditch

You want to dodge the discussion that much that this is now what you are resorting to?

:rolleyes:

smacl wrote: »

robindch wrote: »

Since Mr Pharage chooses to do little beyond deceiving his low-rent, neofascist fanbase, the least I can do - and the very most he can expect - is to treat him as he is, namely, the UK's very own, wheedling, Herostratus.

Had to look it up, ignoramus that I am, seems apt

Hey, the Pharage connection is good (if mildly gross), but the Herostratus notion is classical - proving once again that there's little that we're doing now that the Ancient Greeks or Romans didn't do first, or name better

recedite wrote: »

[...] Robin followed by his actual name.

The "dch" bit is a permanent, and mildly uncomfortable, memorial to the fact that it's not my actual name.

- robin

Peregrinus

smacl wrote: »

Had to look it up, ignoramus that I am, seems apt

I also looked it up, and now I really wish I hadn't.

PopePalpatine

Why am I thinking of Rick Santorum right now?

PopePalpatine wrote: »

Why am I thinking of Rick Santorum right now?

Ewww...!

Abortions, though:

So the opposition has thus far not come up with any bright ideas that make any more sense to implement than the 12 weeks proposed; instead the issue is being raised about doctors and their abilities to opt-in to provision of abortions and abortifaceants and of their right to conscientiously object not only to performing such services but even to referring a patient on to someone who will.

It seems the opt-in scheme will work as will a list of doctors which will provide such services (protest and anarchist groups alike will compile such lists over the course of due time anyway - as will I expect pro choice groups compile a list of doctors who object to providing crisis pregnancy care).

But what doesn’t make sense to me and hopefully not to your Oireachtas is the right to object to refer a patient to a provider. This would create a discontinuity in patient care where the patient then has to use their own resources to find such services (unless it is made stupendously fluid by the govt to head to such providers directly). Doctors and their offices should not for example be able to extend any objection to transferring patient records on, that is just dangerous for the patient, and time consuming if a care provider isn’t given established patient history to work with. I’m genuinely concerned activist doctors will refuse to or needlessly delay transmitting records on, if there is not oversight in that regard.

But what’s more, the objection doesn’t make sense on its face: it’s under the guise of doing no harm, not killing, etc etc. but the longer a woman or girl is in crisis, the longer an embryo/fetus is in development, and the more likely it will be that said fetus would incur suffering under the same beliefs that abortion harms that unborn. The earlier the pregnancy is terminated, the less suffering that is incurred. The woman or girl in question has already established that she will not carry the unborn to term, so why delay the inevitable and increase the likelihood that both the pregnant woman/girl or the unborn will experience suffering or further complication? If the objective is to be an obstacle to a woman’s right to choose, by delaying how quickly they can find a provider, where is the ethical or moral or legal high ground in doing that?

Overheal wrote: »

Doctors and their offices should not for example be able to extend any objection to transferring patient records on, that is just dangerous for the patient..

I don't think anyone ever suggested that.
Compare to say, if you fell out with your doctor over some treatment you were getting, and decided to switch to a different GP. Previous GP is not obliged to recommend a competitor; but you can look that up yourself.
Once you register with the new GP, the former one is obliged to send your records over to the new one ASAP.

aloyisious

Any feedback from the Courts Service on what Judge Kelly is doing with the 3 petition-case he's hearing? Has he deferred judgement til a later date while he considers what the applicants said yesterday or has he passed the matter on to the High Court?

aloyisious wrote: »

Any feedback from the Courts Service on what Judge Kelly is doing with the 3 petition-case he's hearing? Has he deferred judgement til a later date while he considers what the applicants said yesterday or has he passed the matter on to the High Court?

Heard they got a court date I think sometime next week. AFAIK the Dail still plans to introduce registration by July 10.

alaimacerc

end of the road wrote: »

no exercising of reproductive rights was criminalised in ireland within the last couple of decades. abortion is not a reproductive right.

Very kind of you to clear that up. Sorry, meant to say, to restate your own personal view, in defiance of not just democracy, but of generally accepted use of language.

as for politicians changing their view, i don't believe for one second varadkar and simon harris changed their minds. i think they chopped and changed to the view they think will get them re-elected but i'm not sure it will work as people are getting board of fg and want change

<elevator music plays during tangential 'pivot to talking about FG, bash the Blueshirts' interlude>

The examples I actually cited were the pols on the committee that claimed to change their view during the hearings. They all liars, too?

If literally no-one has change their mind in the last 35 years, then we can only be thankful for what we'll euphemistically refer to as "the cohort effect".

alaimacerc

Overheal wrote: »

Heard they got a court date I think sometime next week. AFAIK the Dail still plans to introduce registration by July 10.

When do we get the followup hearing on what to do with serial self-confessedly vexatious, filibustering litigants?

Hotblack Desiato

recedite wrote: »

I don't think anyone ever suggested that.

Did you watch the TV debates, as at least one GP said on live TV they would refuse to refer. Referral means access to information and records between the doctors/medical teams concerned, it's not passing on a phone number.

Meanwhile

Government expects to design ‘opt-in’ GP system for abortion

It will allow doctors refuse to provide or to take part in the provision of the lawful treatment, if it conflicts with sincerely held ethical or moral values.

However, it will legally oblige medical professionals in such a situation to enable their patients to transfer to another doctor to get the treatment they want.

...

However, Mr Varadkar added: “What we can’t allow is this suggestion that a GP, if he doesn’t provide the service, would then refuse to refer their patient on to someone who would because essentially that is the equivalent of, ‘you’re on your own, love’ and we’re not going to have that in Ireland any more.”

end of the road

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Did you watch the TV debates, as at least one GP said on live TV they would refuse to refer. Referral means access to information and records between the doctors/medical teams concerned, it's not passing on a phone number.

Meanwhile

Government expects to design ‘opt-in’ GP system for abortion

well we never had it in the first place so it would be impossible for us not to have it anymore.