Abortion Discussion, Part Trois

eviltwin wrote: »

I think the time it takes for a woman to make the decision to have an abortion is enough waiting. Making her hang on another 3 days is an insult to her intelligence and just makes her vulnerable to pro life bullies.

not at all. it's 3 days, hardly the end of the world. it's perfectly fine and is a non-issue. it might help some. won't help everyone.

Under His Eye wrote: »

Pickets on abortion clinics and the harassment of the people attending/working at said clinics will be the no sides next move.

well, assuming the government are stupid enough to allow such clinics in ireland rather then go with a gp service as was proposed, then they have only themselves to blame.
a gp lead service = no protests as nobody knows who is going in for what.

SusieBlue wrote: »

Sorry, what exactly is a post birth abortion? Or did you just make up a hyperbolic term to create a reaction?

You lost. Get over it.

irrelevant. not get over it.

Cabaal wrote: »

They've already been busy sending leaflets/letters out since the ref outcome

way to tackle that is have the procedures in normal hospitals, are they going to picket every hospital...unlikely.

Of course if they do try say picket the big one's in Dublin then exclusion zones will need to be put in place

exclusion zones won't work. they will just be a money sink and won't stop such pickets. even over in britain the government have said they won't implement such zones nationally, i'm assuming because they know it would be a lost cause. i have a feeling they may move away from the clinic model long term anyway.

Igotadose

Dr. Peter Boylan is against the waiting period. Good for him.

https://www.rte.ie/news/politics/2018/0919/994727-abortion/

"
"While there will be mixed views, but a lot of doctors feel, it's not necessary and should be dropped," he said."
---
Good to see the process moving along, the Taoiseach has said the program'll be in place at the start of 2019

eviltwin

end of the road wrote: »

not at all. it's 3 days, hardly the end of the world. it's perfectly fine and is a non-issue. it might help some. won't help everyone.

It might be a non issue for you but don't assume making two trips to a doctor in the space of a week is an easy feat for everyone.

And why should they wait? If I go to a doctor to be seen I expect to be treated that day if the doctor has the ability to do so. I don't expect to be told to go home and have a think about it when presumably, if I'm seeking an abortion in the first place, I've already done that.

You really think women are so flaky that "I want an abortion" actually means "convince me not to have an abortion"?

All this does is show how little value you place on a woman's ability to make a sound decision. You basically don't think she can and that she's fair game for anyone who may want to coerce her into changing her mind. Which is insulting to all women and especially cruel to the woman with the unwanted pregnancy.

Proving, as always, that you don't give a damn about women at all.

nozzferrahhtoo

end of the road wrote: »

not at all. it's 3 days, hardly the end of the world. it's perfectly fine and is a non-issue. it might help some. won't help everyone.

If waiting 3 days is helpful for someone, then they are perfectly capable of waiting 3 days. That is pretty much all that saying "it might help some" tells me.

When we want to implement a system that ENFORCES a 3 day wait on everyone however then "it might help some" is far from justification for that decision. To justify that decision the speaker would have to:

1) Show that it will help them in a way that they themselves choosing to wait three days of their own volition would not and

2) show that it does actually help in some way in the first place and

3) be less vague about "some" and show exactly how many people this "some" is likely to be. 2 People? 2% of people? 20%? How many are we talking here given any figure over 1 person is "some" and

4) given the people who might be helped by waiting three days can THEMSELVES choose to wait three days, then show that forcing EVERYONE to wait 3 days is a justifiable approach to affording this vague unqualified and unqantified "some" this wait.

5) show that there is no detrimental effect to their policy to make everyone wait three days or that they have at least attempted to ascertain this themselves.

6) show how this fits into the overall dynamic of patient decision in medical contexts. Where else for example do we give the patient a decision to opt for a medical procedure, or drug, and having made their decision we enforce a wait upon them? How do people advocating a waiting period in THIS context compare that to those situations? Where and why do they feel it fits into the hierarchy of other examples they have found, and can offer, for where such waiting periods exist?

7) Be less vague about what "help" might actually accrue. Implementing policy, especially policy that will hinder the majority for no good reason based on "might help" without discussing of showing how it might help ANYONE, is not really a good move in my view. We should base our policy based on some substantiated reason to think we know how many people it will help, and what form that "help" or benefit might actually take.

I have seen none of this done by people who advocate an enforced waiting period. Least of all yourself. A vague "some" and "help" thrown out without ANY indication of how many this "some" is and what form this "help" might take gives us nothing. At all.

Calina wrote: »

An Toirpin is at liberty not to have an abortion but until they and their ilk are busily campaigning for women to be fairly compensated for the contribution to society they make in having children and enabled to raise their children outside poverty, by which i mean a minimum income of at least 45ke net a year, they care neither about women nor about children. They do care about control, however.

and maybe if a number of those who want abortion to be availible stopped supporting, and voting for, people who implement stuff that cause women not to be compensated for the contribution they make to society by having and raising children, and prevent those women from raising their children outside poverty, we'd go a lot further as a society.
instead they will continuously vote in the same politicians who deliver more of the same, and will complain about pro-life not doing anything about the issues when in fact, they are trying to, and will tell us all how apparently pro-life don't care, when it is in fact they who come across as uncaring, if i'm honest. if you have an issue with something, do something about it. don't be expecting everyone else to do the work for you.

end of the road wrote: »

well, assuming the government are stupid enough to allow such clinics in ireland rather then go with a gp service as was proposed, then they have only themselves to blame.
a gp lead service = no protests as nobody knows who is going in for what.

Well they can blame the ghouls who are harassing women when they are going in for health services...
Just a thought...

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

If waiting 3 days is helpful for someone, then they are perfectly capable of waiting 3 days. That is pretty much all that saying "it might help some" tells me.

When we want to implement a system that ENFORCES a 3 day wait on everyone however then "it might help some" is far from justification for that decision. To justify that decision the speaker would have to:

1) Show that it will help them in a way that they themselves choosing to wait three days of their own volition would not and

2) show that it does actually help in some way in the first place and

3) be less vague about "some" and show exactly how many people this "some" is likely to be. 2 People? 2% of people? 20%? How many are we talking here given any figure over 1 person is "some" and

4) given the people who might be helped by waiting three days can THEMSELVES choose to wait three days, then show that forcing EVERYONE to wait 3 days is a justifiable approach to affording this vague unqualified and unqantified "some" this wait.

5) show that there is no detrimental effect to their policy to make everyone wait three days or that they have at least attempted to ascertain this themselves.

6) show how this fits into the overall dynamic of patient decision in medical contexts. Where else for example do we give the patient a decision to opt for a medical procedure, or drug, and having made their decision we enforce a wait upon them? How do people advocating a waiting period in THIS context compare that to those situations? Where and why do they feel it fits into the hierarchy of other examples they have found, and can offer, for where such waiting periods exist?

7) Be less vague about what "help" might actually accrue. Implementing policy, especially policy that will hinder the majority for no good reason based on "might help" without discussing of showing how it might help ANYONE, is not really a good move in my view. We should base our policy based on some substantiated reason to think we know how many people it will help, and what form that "help" or benefit might actually take.

I have seen none of this done by people who advocate an enforced waiting period. Least of all yourself. A vague "some" and "help" thrown out without ANY indication of how many this "some" is and what form this "help" might take gives us nothing. At all.

it's likely the government will have looked at all of that before implementing the waiting period. i know the government we have aren't exactly competent but if there was no point in this then they wouldn't have implemented it as part of the legislation.

eviltwin wrote: »

It might be a non issue for you but don't assume making two trips to a doctor in the space of a week is an easy feat for everyone.

And why should they wait? If I go to a doctor to be seen I expect to be treated that day if the doctor has the ability to do so. I don't expect to be told to go home and have a think about it when presumably, if I'm seeking an abortion in the first place, I've already done that.

You really think women are so flaky that "I want an abortion" actually means "convince me not to have an abortion"?

All this does is show how little value you place on a woman's ability to make a sound decision. You basically don't think she can and that she's fair game for anyone who may want to coerce her into changing her mind. Which is insulting to all women and especially cruel to the woman with the unwanted pregnancy.

Proving, as always, that you don't give a damn about women at all.

it doesn't show anything and does not prove what you claim, because for it to do so, i would have had to have stated that i believe what you are claiming i believe, which i don't. if i believed what you claim i believe then i would state it but as i don't believe what you claim i believe then i'm not going to say i believe such when i don't.
i simply believe the waiting period may give people time to think. it's not going to be the case for everyone and i haven't claimed that it would be but if it does help some then it's worth it.

King Mob wrote: »

Well they can blame the ghouls who are harassing women when they are going in for health services...
Just a thought...

in this speculative sannario the government would have allowed the opening of facilities that attract protest when there are other options availible, so that is why i would hold them more responsible for protests happening, because they would have had an option to insure they don't happen without having to spend extra money and use extra resources, via operating a non-clinic model as proposed.

end of the road wrote: »

i simply believe the waiting period may give people time to think

Because women wouldn't think about it before they went into the doctor?
Or they would be unable to go into the doctor and perhaps ask for a few days to think about it?
What benefit does enforcing a waiting period give?

end of the road wrote: »

in this speculative sannario the government would have allowed the opening of facilities that attract protest when there are other options availible, so that is why i would hold them more responsible for protests happening, because they would have had an option to insure they don't happen without having to spend extra money and use extra resources, via operating a non-clinic model as proposed.

Or... Just maybe... Your side shouldn't harass women when they are going in for medical treatment.
Again, they're the ones who should get the blame here.

But I suppose, they are blameless just like they don't lie?

nozzferrahhtoo

end of the road wrote: »

if there was no point in this then they wouldn't have implemented it as part of the legislation.

Your naivety is sweet. As if any government would ever implement a policy for no reason, for vested interests, or as a knee jerk reaction. Sure that NEVER happens does it.

But yea basically you just confirmed what I knew already. That you, and likely other people advocating for this pointless hurdle, have no arguments, evidence, data or reasoning to offer to support this.

You. Got. Nothing.

Again.

end of the road wrote: »

i simply believe the waiting period may give people time to think.

But they already have time to think.

Enforcing a thinking period does not GIVE people a thinking period. There is a massive difference, both linguistically and actually, between giving people X and enforcing X on people.

Do not pretend, as you do here, that the latter is in any way the former. It is not. Even a little bit.

end of the road wrote: »

it's not going to be the case for everyone and i haven't claimed that it would be but if it does help some then it's worth it.

Again however it is dangerously naive to base policy that is enforced on the totality of a group based on a vague "if" that has not just little, but no substance behind it. You appear to have no idea whatsoever how many people this "some" even is, or what form this "help" or benefit could or might take.

And that is a very dangerous and naive way to promote or form policy. Almost as dangerous and naive as a policy of the form "sure if the government are doing it, they must have a decent reason to be doing it, and that's good enough for me". A policy that I feel is a pretty damn sure safe bet you do NOT take when they are implementing policy you do NOT agree with.

Cabaal

I'm still waiting to clarify if abortion is murder, end of the road can you help clarify?
You seem like a person in the know, I've heard so much conflicting info, for example claims that the term murder has never been used by anyone on the no side.

Can you help clarify?

robindch

Calina wrote: »

[...] An Toirpin is at liberty not to have an abortion but until they and their ilk [...]

None of that kind of incivility please.

SusieBlue

Cabaal wrote: »

I'm still waiting on clarify on if abortion is murder, end of the road can you help clarify?
You seem like a person in the know, I've heard so much conflicting info, for example claims that the term murder has never been used by anyone on the no side.

Can you help clarify?

I predict that you won't get a reply to this. An excellent question, though.

SusieBlue

end of the road wrote: »

irrelevant. not get over it.

Excellent contribution. So mature.

recedite

SusieBlue wrote: »

I predict that you won't get a reply to this. An excellent question, though.

You're already wrong. This question has been asked, and answered, many times before.
https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=107354957&postcount=7630
And it will be brought out and offered up again in the future, like some old piece of flavourless chewing gum, stuck repeatedly underneath the school desk.

recedite wrote: »

You're already wrong. This question has been asked, and answered, many times before.
https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=107354957&postcount=7630
And it will be brought out and offered up again in the future, like some old piece of flavourless chewing gum, stuck repeatedly underneath the school desk.

well you kinda missed the point of the question. The point of the question being EOTR continues to deny that abortion was ever described as murder by the No side despite the many examples being shown to him.

SusieBlue wrote: »

Excellent contribution. So mature.

thank you very much.

SusieBlue

recedite wrote: »

You're already wrong. This question has been asked, and answered, many times before.
https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=107354957&postcount=7630
And it will be brought out and offered up again in the future, like some old piece of flavourless chewing gum, stuck repeatedly underneath the school desk.

I refer you to the below. EOTR is a walking contradiction.

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

well you kinda missed the point of the question. The point of the question being EOTR continues to deny that abortion was ever described as murder by the No side despite the many examples being shown to him.

Loafing Oaf

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

well you kinda missed the point of the question. The point of the question being EOTR continues to deny that abortion was ever described as murder by the No side despite the many examples being shown to him.

Does this matter at this stage? The people have spoken on the substantive issue. Would it not be more useful to focus on the process from now on?

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

Does this matter at this stage? The people have spoken on the substantive issue. Would it not be more useful to focus on the process from now on?

well it speaks to a posters credibility, does it not?

recedite

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

well you kinda missed the point of the question. The point of the question being EOTR continues to deny that abortion was ever described as murder by the No side despite the many examples being shown to him.

No I did not. Two questions were posed. One reasonable, though a bit tired.

The other one is just plain stupid. Nobody can say a particular word has "never been used by anyone". Not even Mr Google does that much surveillance on the world.

Cabaal wrote: »

I'm still waiting to clarify if abortion is murder, end of the road can you help clarify?
You seem like a person in the know, I've heard so much conflicting info, for example claims that the term murder has never been used by anyone on the no side.

recedite wrote: »

No I did not. Two questions were posed. One reasonable, though a bit tired.

The other one is just plain stupid. Nobody can say a particular word has "never been used by anyone". Not even Mr Google does that much surveillance on the world.

EOTR can apparently. Despite much evidence to the contrary.

recedite wrote: »

No I did not. Two questions were posed. One reasonable, though a bit tired.

The other one is just plain stupid. Nobody can say a particular word has "never been used by anyone". Not even Mr Google does that much surveillance on the world.

Great, so could you tell us whether EOTR believes abortion is murder?

Is the statement "no one on the no side ever said all abortion was murder" true or false?

Watch these questions be dodged entirely.

Cabaal

recedite wrote: »

The other one is just plain stupid. Nobody can say a particular word has "never been used by anyone". Not even Mr Google does that much surveillance on the world.

So you think EOTR is stupid?

For reference:
https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=107145444&postcount=4988

I'm curious, its amusing, here you are trying to answer posts for EOTR and all EOTR keeps doing is thanking your posts.

Is EOTR now incapable of suddenly typing a post, is EOTR ok?

It's almost as if EOTR has been caught telling lies and is too stubborn to admit it
:pac:

recedite

King Mob wrote: »

Great, so could you tell us whether EOTR believes abortion is murder?

No Idea. I'm not a mindreader, and my crystal ball is in for a service at the moment.

Is the statement "no one on the no side ever said all abortion was murder" true or false?

Again, no idea. Even Mr. Google does not possess such clairvoyance.

Watch these questions be dodged entirely.

Like a turd on the footpath.

recedite wrote: »

No Idea. I'm not a mindreader, and my crystal ball is in for a service at the moment.

Which is odd, cause you claimed the question was answered.

If you can't clarify his position, then the question is not answered.

recedite wrote: »

Again, no idea. Even Mr. Google does not possess such clairvoyance.

So then, when EOTR claimed that, he was clairvoyant?

Cabaal wrote: »

So you think EOTR is stupid?

For reference:
https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=107145444&postcount=4988

I'm curious, its amusing, here you are trying to answer posts for EOTR and all EOTR keeps doing is thanking your posts.

Is EOTR now incapable of suddenly typing a post, is EOTR ok?

It's almost as if EOTR has been caught telling lies and is too stubborn to admit it

no it's simply that i've explained my position and answered the related points and questions surrounding it, and dealt with the deliberate taking out of context of other points. i've done my bit in relation to this line of discussion.

Igotadose

Just watched a video by Simon Harris on Twitter. I am not up on how Ireland gets laws done; what he said was, he's planning on bringing legislation to the Cabinet next week, and introduce it to the Dail next month.

Once its introduced to the Dail, what happens? Endless amending/prevaricating/stalling, or a vote or ... Considering the # of anti-women types in the Dail, who earn their money suppressing women's rights and will likely do everything in their power to prevent the legislation, will it be passed by next year?

end of the road wrote: »

no it's simply that i've explained my position and answered the related points and questions surrounding it, and dealt with the deliberate taking out of context of other points. i've done my bit in relation to this line of discussion.

You have done absolutely no such thing.