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; } } }

Exit poll: The post referendum thread. No electioneering.

Ozymandius2011

This is for people who have already voted in the referendum. How did you vote? I voted yes.

Mod: This thread is little more than a survey about how you voted. Please don't the ins and outs of abortion.

Mod: This is not a reiteration of the previous 8th threads. If you were threadbanned from those, you are not threadbanned here.

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

alaimacerc

topper75 wrote: »

The no side at least were quite consistent about the right to life, hence the love both campaign.

"Love Both" is just a brand name and smug, trite slogan of the PLC. You'd hardly want to be trying to characterise that squad as being in the least bit "consistent".

ELM327

alaimacerc wrote: »

"Love Both" is just a brand name and smug, trite slogan of the PLC. You'd hardly want to be trying to characterise that squad as being in the least bit "consistent".

I found LoveBoat to be more accurate.

alaimacerc

Cabaal wrote: »

So you can show me evidence where the no side lobbied the government to enforce the existing laws and jail women for importing and using pills? ..

At least one high-profile No-er has, in contrast, repeatedly sought to imply that she somehow favours decriminalisation. While, of course, doggedly opposing repeal of the amendment that necessitates a criminal offence.

alaimacerc

Fighting Tao wrote: »

This thread will probably be studied in colleges for years to come.

That might be a bit grandiose. But there has to be a doctoral thesis in looking at the public pronouncements of certain public figures in the Militant Catholic Activist camp. i.e., what No posters here dream of being when they grow up.

alaimacerc

WillContribute wrote: »

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

I know, some neck of two-thirds of the electorate, wanting a clear decision they've just made to be implemented in a straightforward manner. I ask you.

Look instead to the noble example of the No side. They merely wish to withhold their taxes, to obstruct the measure through the courts for a couple of years with nuisance legal actions devoid of any merit or chance of success, and to manage down the number of "providers", the better to snarl at those for being the "abortion industry".

Eye of the beholder, right enough.

conorhal

ELM327 wrote: »

"the vast majority of whom will facilitate their patients through onwards referral to those who will"
Not good enough

Compulsory referral should be the absolute minimum requirement, with penalty of loss of medical license for refusal.

Yes, striking off 85% of GPs will really help things.... :rolleyes:

No country in the world has a GP lead abortion service, none. That the government want to implement this shows how effin stupid they are.

Timberrrrrrrr

conorhal wrote: »

Yes, striking off 85% of GPs will really help things.... :rolleyes:

No country in the world has a GP lead abortion service, none. That the government want to implement this shows how effin stupid they are.

No other countrymen the world had a referendum on SSM until Ireland did. Sometimes being the 1st isn't stupid it's innovative.

Zubeneschamali

conorhal wrote: »

No country in the world has a GP lead abortion service, none.

Abortion used to be a surgical procedure - of course GPs weren't going to provide that.

Thanks to new medications, it can indeed be GP led (although some hospital backup will be needed). Anyone setting up a system now from scratch would lead with GPs or whatever their primary care system looks like.

ELM327

conorhal wrote: »

Yes, striking off 85% of GPs will really help things.... :rolleyes:

No country in the world has a GP lead abortion service, none. That the government want to implement this shows how effin stupid they are.

Yeah, if those GPs cant prescribe two pills then they should be struck off.

We're a leading country for civil rights at this stage, between SSM and the Abortion referendum both being passed by mass public votes.

The days of being told no for human rights issues is thankfully passed here.

alaimacerc

conorhal wrote: »

Yes, striking off 85% of GPs will really help things.... :rolleyes:

85% of GPs want to refuse to refer? {{citation needed}}

No country in the world has a GP lead abortion service, none. That the government want to implement this shows how effin stupid they are.

Given the notoriously grasping and self-serving stance of the GP orgs, I'd say their naivety might border on the endearing! Well, almost.

Let us not forgot the the self-sacrificing way they stepped up during the height of the cervical check crisis, to bravely say, "sure, we'll redo yer smears, that'll be €100 a go."

.......

This post has been deleted.

Yeah_Right

If the government paid the GPs a commission for every abortion they performed, they'd be out there replacing birth control pills with vitamins and poking holes in condoms.

alaimacerc

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Not sure that's strictly true. Abortion pill's been available since 1987, some European countries have introduced first-trimester type provision more recently than that. For example, post-reunification Germany.

Annasopra

RobertKK wrote: »

Pro-choice doctor calls for opt in for doctors. Also calls for the New Zealand system where conscientious objection is respected.
He says 80% of GPs don’t want to carry out abortions.

http://www.thejournal.ie/readme/medical-abortion-is-not-part-of-routine-general-practice-85-of-gps-are-of-this-opinion-4064057-Jun2018/

He's callling for referral which you oppose

alaimacerc

RobertKK wrote: »

Pro-choice doctor calls for opt in for doctors.

"We'd like an opt-in system," says spokeperson for the GPs, while colleagues nod enthusiastically, adding "make it worth our while!", "... of course, we'll need lots of support services in the area first", "generous fees!", and "about these other things on our wish-list before we agree to any new contract..."

end of the road

alaimacerc wrote: »

"We'd like an opt-in system," says spokeperson for the GPs, while colleagues nod enthusiastically, adding "make it worth our while!", "... of course, we'll need lots of support services in the area first", "generous fees!", and "about these other things on our wish-list before we agree to any new contract..."

i don't see any problem with that. doctors want to get the best deal they can for their work, the same with any workers.

spookwoman

Annabella1 wrote: »

Thank you
So the UK has not allowed stand alone GP's to prescribe/administer abortion pills for 40 years
We have to ask why...
I presume the amount of C.Objector GP's after 40 years of liberal regime is tiny in the UK
Therefore it must be for reasons of safety meaning women need access to specialist clinics to access best care
This will cost money

I don't know I can't read the minds of people and the UK law was enacted in 1967 which was before my time. But this is UK law, why do we have to follow their law can we not think for ourselves? It's like asking why Scotland decided to allow women to take the pill at home and not the whole of the UK.

Why can it not be GP based?
They say about 2 or 3 out of 100 women having medical abortions will need to seek additional medical treatment. At the moment about 10 women a day travel to the uk for abortions, so maybe once a week a woman will have to seek additional help. 1 or even 2 a week is not going to put extra pressure on existing medical services and as it is 1 in 5 pregnancies end in miscarriage.
You don't need a prescription to get the morning after pill so why is it so hard for a doctor to prescribe 2 pills that may cause a problem?
I take medication that can affect my liver functions and cause seizures so should doctors stop prescribing medication that could have side effects?

conorhal

spookwoman wrote: »

I don't know I can't read the minds of people and the UK law was enacted in 1967 which was before my time. But this is UK law, why do we have to follow their law can we not think for ourselves? It's like asking why Scotland decided to allow women to take the pill at home and not the whole of the UK.

Why can it not be GP based?
They say about 2 or 3 out of 100 women having medical abortions will need to seek additional medical treatment. At the moment about 10 women a day travel to the uk for abortions, so maybe once a week a woman will have to seek additional help. 1 or even 2 a week is not going to put extra pressure on existing medical services and as it is 1 in 5 pregnancies end in miscarriage.
You don't need a prescription to get the morning after pill so why is it so hard for a doctor to prescribe 2 pills that may cause a problem?
I take medication that can affect my liver functions and cause seizures so should doctors stop prescribing medication that could have side effects?

How are GP's going to determine the stage of pregnancy? Will all GPs be given ultrasound equipment and trained up or are we operating abortion on the honors system? I assume there going to have to be a hospital refferal at some stage anyway.

Crea

We have pregnancy tests available off the shelf which can tell you how pregnant you are based on hormone levels.

.......

This post has been deleted.

Taytoland

alaimacerc wrote: »

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!

Don't worry I don't go within a mile of such people like that. I prefer living with conservatives.

spookwoman

conorhal wrote: »

How are GP's going to determine the stage of pregnancy? Will all GPs be given ultrasound equipment and trained up or are we operating abortion on the honors system? I assume there going to have to be a hospital refferal at some stage anyway.

Off the shelf pregnancy tests are pretty accurate on dating these days and most women seek an abortion before 12 weeks.

gctest50

Taytoland wrote: »

Don't worry I don't go within a mile of such people like that. I prefer living with conservatives.

Sounds like ..... i dunno ...... a safe space

Aww do ye all get yer own liitle blankie ?

astrofool

conorhal wrote: »

How are GP's going to determine the stage of pregnancy? Will all GPs be given ultrasound equipment and trained up or are we operating abortion on the honors system? I assume there going to have to be a hospital refferal at some stage anyway.

You should probably read up on GP lead pregnancy care, and probably the mechanics of pregnancy itself, before replying too much more here.

To answer your question, GP's will often have a combined ongoing effort with either a midwife program, or with a maternity hospital consultant, GP's are often the first port of call when a woman becomes pregnant, and are trained in monitoring the foetal heartbeat, and are able to give an estimate (and it's always an estimate) of the age of the foetus.

If you want to argue from a workload point of view, than providing the abortion pill at early stages will reduce the number of follow up appointments, thus actually reducing their workload, rather than increasing it.

Having a baby, while routine, is quite time intensive on the health service, if the argument is to save health resources, then abortion would be quite an effective measure at doing that. Not that I would, for one minute, advocate getting an abortion for these reasons, doctor/GP workload due to abortion is an argument that does not work well for the no abortions side.

WillContribute

spookwoman wrote: »

Off the shelf pregnancy tests are pretty accurate on dating these days and most women seek an abortion before 12 weeks.

Here are some of the scientific papers and clear blue clinical trial results

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0020729213004232

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/285323483_Accuracy_of_new_clearblue_digital_pregnancy_test_with_conception_indicator

http://uk.clearblue.com/sites/default/files/cb9_brochure_hcp.pdf

A womans hormone levels ramp up dramatically over the first 6 weeks, allowing a very accurate prediction up to 3 weeks and pretty good (according to clearblue) up to 6 weeks. The journal paper (science direct) agrees up to 3 weeks, but disagrees after 3 weeks). After 6 weeks the levels start to plateau and it becomes unreliable given variability in the population.

Clearblue are targetting people trying for pregnancy so their product tells you 1-2 weeks, 2-3 weeks, 3+ weeks.

The clearblue trial tested women up to 8 weeks but have only published results for up to 6 weeks.

Taytoland

gctest50 wrote: »

Taytoland wrote: »

Don't worry I don't go within a mile of such people like that. I prefer living with conservatives.

Sounds like ..... i dunno ...... a safe space

Aww do ye all get yer own liitle blankie ?

Just disagree with their ideology that's all. I wasn't being literal.

spookwoman

WillContribute wrote: »

Here are some of the scientific papers and clear blue clinical trial results

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0020729213004232

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/285323483_Accuracy_of_new_clearblue_digital_pregnancy_test_with_conception_indicator

http://uk.clearblue.com/sites/default/files/cb9_brochure_hcp.pdf

A womans hormone levels ramp up dramatically over the first 6 weeks, allowing a very accurate prediction up to 3 weeks and pretty good (according to clearblue) up to 6 weeks. The journal paper (science direct) agrees up to 3 weeks, but disagrees after 3 weeks). After 6 weeks the levels start to plateau and it becomes unreliable given variability in the population.

Clearblue are targetting people trying for pregnancy so their product tells you 1-2 weeks, 2-3 weeks, 3+ weeks.

The clearblue trial tested women up to 8 weeks but have only published results for up to 6 weeks.

And....???
It tells them they are pregnant "so their product tells you 1-2 weeks, 2-3 weeks, 3+ weeks." They can refer a woman to another service to find out the stage of the pregnancy further just like any other woman who is 3+ weeks pregnant and wants to keep it. The only difference is if it falls in the 12 week limit she should be able to go back to her gp and get abortion pills if she wants.

Martina1991

conorhal wrote:

How are GP's going to determine the stage of pregnancy? Will all GPs be given ultrasound equipment and trained up or are we operating abortion on the honors system? I assume there going to have to be a hospital refferal at some stage anyway.

The urine pregnancy tests give positive results based on the presence of the hormone Beta HCG.

A blood sample, taken at the GP surgery is more accurate and has specific reference ranges based on gestation.

Fighting Tao

Wow. So we have gone from contentious objector GPs to their workload. Yet another tangent that is not an issue.

Next their dogs won’t get fed because all of the time these 3500 women are taking up every year.

Achasanai

Sweetemotion wrote: »

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

Your own post answers that fairly well.

Sweetemotion wrote: »

opinion based and nothing more.