Exit poll: The post referendum thread. No electioneering.

Fighting Tao · 13-06-2018 11:12PM

Sweetemotion wrote: »

Nobody was fine with post man giving pills to women.

Where were the protests? Where were the objections?

The government objected due to not knowing what was in pills bought online. Just like they don’t like any pills bought online.

There wasn’t a peep from the No side about It though. Sure why would they. They knew they couldn’t control what women bought online.

They were fine with women traveling to the UK too because it was something they couldn’t control. Not in my back yard comes to mind.

Now they can’t control women accessing services in Ireland. So they should just accept it like they accepted pills being bought online.

Fighting Tao · 13-06-2018 11:13PM

Sweetemotion wrote: »

That was a lie, do you actually think that the government are going to remove the licenses from general practitioners?

If I refuse to do my job I’d be sacked. Why should it be any different for a doctor?

gctest50 · 13-06-2018 11:13PM

Taytoland wrote: »

They all look the same, purple hair, dress similar, dripping in leftism. But that was just Dublin castle.

dunno .... 2:1 or 66:33 , y'know like the result

Fighting Tao · 13-06-2018 11:15PM

gctest50 wrote: »

dunno

Sometimes it does look like Simon Harris dyes his hair but it never remotely looked purple.

Fighting Tao · 13-06-2018 11:16PM

There appears to be a Thanking Bot active in this thread. It thanks every No post regardless how nonsensical it is. :pac:

Wrongway1985 · 13-06-2018 11:19PM

Sweetemotion wrote: »

That was a lie, do you actually think that the government are going to remove the licenses from general practitioners?

Haha there was plenty of those

Not gonna answer the question I posed as to why you jumped on my post in the first place?

What's the fact?

Loafing Oaf · 13-06-2018 11:26PM

Taytoland wrote: »

the scenes in Dublin castle with the leftists celebrating really would just make the blood boil for the pro life side, so I don't blame them if they refuse or find a way of not doing it.

I think you're right in that the pro-lifers have seized on this marginal 'referral' issue in a desperate search for any sort of victory in the face of such an overwhelming defeat. But they won't get it...

Achasanai · 13-06-2018 11:28PM

Sweetemotion wrote: »

Two thirds of the country voted yes because they knew it was the right thing to do and the only way to help the women of rape, incest and pregnancy abnormalities.

As well as giving women the option to have abortions up to 12 weeks, regardless of the above mentioned reasons.

Sweetemotion · 13-06-2018 11:29PM

Wrongway1985 wrote: »

Haha there was plenty of those

Not gonna answer the question I posed as to why you jumped on my post in the first place?

What's the fact?

Your opinion that referral is objecting is opinion based and nothing more.

Sweetemotion · 13-06-2018 11:30PM

Achasanai wrote: »

As well as giving women the option to have abortions up to 12 weeks, regardless of the above mentioned reasons.

If it was only the above mentioned, it would have been 99%.

Wrongway1985 · 13-06-2018 11:33PM

Sweetemotion wrote: »

Your opinion that referral is objecting is opinion based and nothing more.

No I said referall is respecting a person's consciencess objection not to treat a patient themselves.

Sweetemotion · 13-06-2018 11:35PM

Wrongway1985 wrote: »

No I said referall is respecting a person's consciencess objection not to treat a patient themselves.

And if they don't respect that should they be forced?

Sweetemotion · 13-06-2018 11:38PM

Fighting Tao wrote: »

If I refuse to do my job I’d be sacked. Why should it be any different for a doctor?

Lets just sack doctors who have trained for years put in a lot of time and money who can help an awful lot people out on their asses just because they might disagree with the abortion of a fetus.

Wrongway1985 · 13-06-2018 11:43PM

Sweetemotion wrote: »

And if they don't respect that should they be forced?

Required to refer yes its the logical option the alternative is to carry out the request themselves? No?

Refusing outright is fine of course, but is it really? highly unlikely it would do the practice any favours, is that not fair to say?

Fighting Tao · 13-06-2018 11:44PM

Sweetemotion wrote: »

Lets just sack doctors who have trained for years put in a lot of time and money who can help an awful lot people out on their asses just because they might disagree with the abortion of a fetus.

Yes we should. Many people have trained for years, spent a lot of money during the process and have helped people in many industries. If they refuse to work they are sackable. So why should doctors be any different?

end of the road · 13-06-2018 11:46PM

Fighting Tao wrote: »

If I refuse to do my job I’d be sacked. Why should it be any different for a doctor?

because they should not be expected to have any hand in an abortion if they don't want to. abortion being very different to anything in any other job.

Fighting Tao · 13-06-2018 11:48PM

end of the road wrote: »

because they should not be expected to have any hand in an abortion if they don't want to. abortion being very different to anything in any other job.

So let’s play the life card that you just threw down.

So a surgeon could refuse to do a lung transplant because the patient is a smoker and he’s anti smoking?

end of the road · 13-06-2018 11:53PM

Fighting Tao wrote: »

So let’s play the life card that you just threw down.

So a surgeon could refuse to do a lung transplant because the patient is a smoker and he’s anti smoking?

that is an irrelevant comparison. without a lung transplant you will eventually die. only in a small minority of cases would non-provision of an abortion lead to a death, and i can't imagine a doctor who may be against abortion on demand refusing to provide in those cases.

Sweetemotion · 13-06-2018 11:53PM

Wrongway1985 wrote: »

Required to refer yes its the logical option the alternative is to carry out the request themselves? No?

Refusing outright is fine of course, but is it really? highly unlikely it would do the practice any favours, is that not fair to say?

Required to yes but not forced and if one refused you know damn well there would be 200 people in his or hers waiting room demanding his or her licence been stricken from the them.

No wonder they don't want any part in it, would you?

Fighting Tao · 13-06-2018 11:58PM

end of the road wrote: »

that is an irrelevant comparison. without a lung transplant you will eventually die. only in a small minority of cases would non-provision of an abortion lead to a death, and i can't imagine a doctor who may be against abortion on demand refusing to provide in those cases.

You were all about potentials earlier in the thread. Potential life... I introduce a potential death and it’s not acceptable?

Wrongway1985 · 14-06-2018 12:01AM

Sweetemotion wrote: »

Required to yes but not forced and if one refused you know damn well there would be 200 people in his or hers waiting room demanding his or her licence been stricken from the them.

No wonder they don't want any part in it, would you?

Not saying that couldn't happen very doubtful to that magnitude, look elsewhere and leave be would be the simple choice.

Would I? Yes it's exactly what I voted for.

Sweetemotion · 14-06-2018 12:03AM

Fighting Tao wrote: »

Yes we should. Many people have trained for years, spent a lot of money during the process and have helped people in many industries. If they refuse to work they are sackable. So why should doctors be any different?

Abortion would probably be less than 1% of a doctors job what about the other 99% he could help?

Sweetemotion · 14-06-2018 12:13AM

Wrongway1985 wrote: »

Not saying that couldn't happen very doubtful to that magnitude, look elsewhere and leave be would be the simple choice.

Would I? Yes it's exactly what I voted for.

That's easy to say when your not the one with everything to lose.

alaimacerc · 14-06-2018 12:41AM

end of the road wrote: »

because they should not be expected to have any hand in an abortion if they don't want to. abortion being very different to anything in any other job.

The "GP-led" part of medical abortion being a whole lot like prescribing pills, which is a whole lot like many things in a GP's job. But obviously you're not talking physical similarities, but theological ones. So we should clearly carve out "Catholic ethos" exemptions for abortiions. And for, for example, salpingostomy too. Or indeed contraception. I'm sure the list goes on, not my particular area of expertise. So perhaps not so unique after all?

alaimacerc · 14-06-2018 12:45AM

Fighting Tao wrote: »

There appears to be a Thanking Bot active in this thread. It thanks every No post regardless how nonsensical it is. :pac:

Not this thread alone! Some in the proper, growed-up section of the site, too.

alaimacerc · 14-06-2018 12:48AM

Sweetemotion wrote: »

Nobody was fine with the post man giving pills to women.

No, there was the traditional ritual wringing of hands about it. Much like the "oh, how terrible there's a 14 year jail sentence in law, but no, we shouldn't do anything to change the constitutional provision that necessitates that".

alaimacerc · 14-06-2018 12:50AM

mcmoustache wrote: »

Are two thirds of the country all leftists? What is it these days with anyone who's not stuck in the past being labeled a leftist? It's getting a little tiresome.

That's nothing, according to the Trumpists, at least 75% of their country are "leftist liberals".

3/4s of Americans, mind.

alaimacerc · 14-06-2018 12:55AM

Taytoland wrote: »

dripping in leftism.

And is well-known, when it's actually dripping off them, that's Stage Four Leftism. Don't approach within 100m, as not only is it highly contagious, you can can contract it off them by airborne spread, too!

WillContribute · 14-06-2018 01:01AM

Fighting Tao wrote: »

Yes we should. Many people have trained for years, spent a lot of money during the process and have helped people in many industries. If they refuse to work they are sackable. So why should doctors be any different?

I pose a question. ...

A pregnant patient arrives seeking an abortion.

The doctor isn't happy but the "newest" law says they should be sacked, if they don't.

After cursory checks pregnancy onfirmed, blood pressure etc

The GP declines, lots of possible reasons can be provided. (GP doesn't have: appropriate, equipment to satisfy legal requirements, support facilities, after hours support care, insurance, patient has other complicating conditions, etc) Their professional judgement anyway says that they are unable to give the best care to that patient to make it sufficiently safe to their satisfaction.

The GP provides a page with a list of possible clinics or doctors that have more expertise and can give better care, but it is the choice of the patient as to what to do. The patient's medical file can be collected in an hour from the reception.

It is nonsense to suggest that GPs can be forced. Some will do abortions, some won't.

Doctors no different to any other industry, if they don't want to do something, they will find a reason that is more palatable.

They referendum is passed, abortion is coming to Ireland, but I find the pro choice dogmatism bizzare, especially coming from a position of strength.

alaimacerc · 14-06-2018 01:18AM

WillContribute wrote: »

The GP provides a page with a list of possible clinics or doctors that have more expertise and can give better care, but it is the choice of the patient as to what to do.

Give that we've already had Declan Ganley's bizarre dummy-spitting saying he wants a conscience exemption from paying tax, now that it's turned from Holy Little Ireland to a colony of Evil Secularist Europe, I'd not be in the least bit surprised if some Holy Joes thought even that much would sully their supposedly pristine practice.

Exit poll: The post referendum thread. No electioneering.

Comments