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; } } }

Child Item

Abortion Discussion, Part Trois

PopePalpatine

I didn't know whether to post this here or in the Sanctimony of Pro-Lifers thread in t'udder forum - a BBC article on Paraguay's "epidemic" of child pregnancies. Paraguay only allows for abortion if the mother's life is at risk. On average, two girls aged 14 and under become pregnant in Paraguay every day.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

lazygal

end of the road wrote: »

it's something i have wondered myself. i would imagine that if a certain type of killing has become socially exceptible, then there isn't the will to treat it as it should be treated.

Why is abortion in a different category of killing in your mind?

end of the road

Igotadose wrote: »

sorry, you lost, get over it. Move to the US if you don't like the Irish laws.

"remoaners" . that's how irrelevant the "you lost get over it" statement is
just like the "remoaners" who i actually agree with, the pro-life view won't be going anywhere

ohnonotgmail

end of the road wrote: »

"remoaners" . that's how irrelevant the "you lost get over it" statement is
just like the "remoaners" who i actually agree with, the pro-life view won't be going anywhere

You're right. the pro-life view isn't going anywhere. Thankfully they are now irrelevant.

end of the road

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

You're right. the pro-life view isn't going anywhere. Thankfully they are now irrelevant.

they aren't irrelevant. nothing will make them so.

Loafing Oaf

end of the road wrote: »

they aren't irrelevant. nothing will make them so.

They are about as relevant as people who want to see divorce and same-sex marriage re-outlawed.

end of the road

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

They are about as relevant as people who want to see divorce and same-sex marriage re-outlawed.

that's not the case. they are hugely relevant compared to the tiny few who want divorce and same sex marriage reoutlawed

aloyisious

end of the road wrote: »

of course they will check if she is okay. they want to help her by not helping her kill her unborn unnecessarily.

i'm suggesting that a gp's wish/right not to partake in the killing of unborn should be protected. it's not about extra protection, it's about not expecting someone to have to kill when they do not wish to do so.

no, but again it's not a valid comparison

Well, your 1st sentence above speaks for itself, an avoidance of getting involved with the patient. It's like saying no one in the clinic can tell the woman she won't get abortion assistance here because there's a chance that she would go to another clinic to get the abortion she asked for. As for the part about killing her unborn unnecessarily, without an examination by the doctor, there can be no way in which to make any judgement on the necessity or non-necessity of killing her unborn. I'd reckon the woman would have told the doctor the reason she was visiting him/her so I can't see the doctor proceeding to an examination if he/she is personally opposed to abortions.

If you had read up on the issue [I assume you have read the posts from me and others here] you may have read that the GP right to refuse to assist with abortion exists. That right to refuse is exactly the protection you claim the refusing doctor should have; it actually exists now. However he/she is obliged to refer the patient on to another medical doctor. The doctor has no right to deny the woman medical treatment from another medical doctor, just the right to inform her that he/she will not be involved in assisting her in her request for an abortion.

I believe that, in your argument points, you dissemble much.

Loafing Oaf

end of the road wrote: »

that's not the case. they are hugely relevant compared to the tiny few who want divorce and same sex marriage reoutlawed

Time will tell. I'm confidently predicting that once abortion services are up and running early in the New Year, the issue will become a non-issue just like it is in most liberal democracies and you'll barely hear another word about it.

aloyisious

end of the road wrote: »

it's something i have wondered myself. i would imagine that if a certain type of killing has become socially exceptible, then there isn't the will to treat it as it should be treated.[/QUOTE

That "should be treated" would be a matter of opinion. Hopefully you won't be dragging other variants of killing into this debate on abortion just because your opinion MIGHT see them as distasteful as legal abortion at a personal level even should they become socially acceptable [read legal in law by public mandate].

eviltwin

end of the road wrote: »

that's not the case. they are hugely relevant compared to the tiny few who want divorce and same sex marriage reoutlawed

Wasn't the percentage who voted to repeal the 8th higher than those who voted to legalise same sex marriage......

[Deleted User]

end of the road wrote: »

]
i don't care about a supposed "right" to AOD,

But leaving all those other points aside, we weren't talking about a right to abortion (which exists, no matter how much you want to stick your head in the sand).
We were discussing people's right to privacy.
In one case, you believe that it is scared.
In another case that includes a lot more women, you are arguing that it's their own fault their right to privacy is violated and they just have to put up with it.

That's a bit suspect, no?

Why would gps being named as not providing abortion interfere with their right to not perform abortions?
It can't be protests, cause they can just as well deal with them as you expect abortion clinics and women to do.
So why would they be reluctant to declare it?

Also, why is abortion killing, but not murder in your eyes?
What's the difference?

Cabaal

end of the road wrote: »

that's not the case. they are hugely relevant compared to the tiny few who want divorce and same sex marriage reoutlawed

Tiny few?
More people voted against marriage equality then voted to keep the 8th.

As such more people wanted marriage between man and women to be the only sort of marriage.
So in fact it's more accurate to say less people wanted abortion to remain illegal and by extention would like it made illegal again.

Your claim has no basis in fact.

lazygal

The margin in the divorce referendum was extremely tight.

seamus

lazygal wrote: »

The margin in the divorce referendum was extremely tight.

I'm hoping they run a new divorce referendum to remove the four-year waiting period requirement.

Just to reassert the fact that we're no longer under the Church's sword.

I'd say any referendum to liberalise divorce would hit 80%+ favourability.

eviltwin

All those people predicting the end of society as we know it kinda disappeared off the face of the earth post marriage equality.

I imagine a similar thing when abortion services begin. Lots of talk but nothing more. Mind you pro life zealots tend to be slightly more unstable compared to their homophobic kin so you never know.

Harassing anyone going into a hospital or GP would be terrible PR.

Timberrrrrrrr

eviltwin wrote: »

All those people predicting the end of society as we know it kinda disappeared off the face of the earth post marriage equality.

I imagine a similar thing when abortion services begin. Lots of talk but nothing more. Mind you pro life zealots tend to be slightly more unstable compared to their homophobic kin so you never know.

¥b]Harassing anyone going into a hospital or GP would be terrible PR[/b].

Well they did it before the referendum and it was the best PR ever...

For the pro choice side

Igotadose

end of the road wrote: »

they don't need to be anonymous and if that's not what they want that's up to them. i'm saying that they have a right to be if that is what they want.
like the gps performing abortions, the gps not performing abortions are unlikely to get protests as nobody will know who is going in to visit the gp for what.

The 'Doctors for Conscience' group is apparently part of "Doctors for Life", who are here: http://www.irishdoctorsforlife.com/. So, ask your GP if he/she's a member, simple enough.

alaimacerc

end of the road wrote: »

they aren't irrelevant. nothing will make them so.

It now merely remains to demonstrates the relevance of your doggedly anti-abortion view that the anti-abortion segment of the population are politically relevant.

Classic bootstrapping problem there, methinks.

alaimacerc

end of the road wrote: »

it's something i have wondered myself. i would imagine that if a certain type of killing has become socially exceptible, then there isn't the will to treat it as it should be treated.

And "how it should be treated" is what, exactly?

You keep hogging this soapbox, and then fail to actually say anything meaningful from it.

alaimacerc

end of the road wrote: »

i'm not putting a doctor's right to act according to their conscience above a woman's right to bodily autonomy as i believe abortion has nothing to do with bodily autonomy except in a small few cases.

i.e. your "belief" is that bodily autonomy is inconvenient to your position, and thus will try to brush that argument aside by entirely redefining the concept.

i would believe abortion on demand to be similar to murder. the mitigating circumstance that would differenciate it in my view would be that people have been brainwashed into thinking that it's okay to kill the unborn for any reason, and changing the culture of that would be a very uphill struggle.

Murder with mitigating circumstances is still murder. Legally, it means you still get convicted, but get to argue for a lighter sentence. (Which as murder carries a mandatory life sentence, could only be earlier release from prison on life licence.)

It's far from clear what "would be similar to" is supposed to mean. Except that you want to say "abortion is murder" when that suits you, and dance around it when it doesn't. Which isn't exactly news, as you've been doing precisely that for months.

abortions for genuine cases such as the mother's life being under threat would constitute self-defence in my view.

What other "genuine" reasons exist, do tell. All other reasons are by implication counterfeit, we can only infer.

aloyisious

I'm not sure who originally wrote and posted the following quote [i would believe abortion on demand to be similar to murder. the mitigating circumstance that would differenciate it in my view would be that people have been brainwashed into thinking that it's okay to kill the unborn for any reason, and changing the culture of that would be a very uphill struggle] so I have to ask it's author what his/her reference to people being brainwashed means.

I can't see any convinced anti-abortion person here changing their tune and saying that there were mitigating circumstances which would lead them to differentiate between seeing abortionists as murderers or simply killers of the unborn for any reason but then again maybe I'm wrong about the anti-abortion campaigners.

alaimacerc

aloyisious wrote: »

I'm not sure who originally wrote and posted the following quote [i would believe abortion on demand to be similar to murder. the mitigating circumstance that would differenciate it in my view would be that people have been brainwashed into thinking that it's okay to kill the unborn for any reason, and changing the culture of that would be a very uphill struggle] so I have to ask it's author what his/her reference to people being brainwashed means.

end of the road wrote: »

i would believe abortion on demand to be similar to murder. the mitigating circumstance that would differenciate it in my view would be that people have been brainwashed into thinking that it's okay to kill the unborn for any reason, and changing the culture of that would be a very uphill struggle. i do think it's doable but is going to take a long time.
abortions for genuine cases such as the mother's life being under threat would constitute self-defence in my view.

(Not sure if I confused matters by quoting it without a direct quote-link, but that was only because I was splitting the same post into more than one paragraph block.)

I can't see any convinced anti-abortion person here changing their tune and saying that there were mitigating circumstances which would lead them to differentiate between seeing abortionists as murderers or simply killers of the unborn for any reason but then again maybe I'm wrong about the anti-abortion campaigners.

People here can -- and conceivably actually may -- speak for themselves on this. But in the movement as a whole, they run the gamut, at least when it comes to their "official" position on this. There are the softly-softly theocrats, like Cora Sherlock, who say it shouldn't be criminal on the part of the woman at all. (Not clear if that still applies when a woman self-administers.) All the way up to the "start the fire-bombing immediately" crowd.

Cabaal

eviltwin wrote: »

Harassing anyone going into a hospital or GP would be terrible PR.

Agree,
What they did during the ref was a suicide mission by the NO side and it killed their compaign, it was like watching a car crash in slow motion.
It was actually hilarious as it outraged all sorts of people who otherwise would not have engaged,

In Waterford they hung up graphic posters at one of the very busy roundabouts and parents were outraged as kids saw the pictures on the way to school. in the end many parents took it into their own hands and stopped and confronted the people holding the posters and they also called the Gardai and got them removed

In the UK or USA they protest outside places. But Ireland is very different, its small and there's always somebody who knows somebody who knows the name of those protesting. They can't easily remain anonymous in Ireland

aloyisious

alaimacerc wrote: »

(Not sure if I confused matters by quoting it without a direct quote-link, but that was only because I was splitting the same post into more than one paragraph block.)

People here can -- and conceivably actually may -- speak for themselves on this. But in the movement as a whole, they run the gamut, at least when it comes to their "official" position on this. There are the softly-softly theocrats, like Cora Sherlock, who say it shouldn't be criminal on the part of the woman at all. (Not clear if that still applies when a woman self-administers.) All the way up to the "start the fire-bombing immediately" crowd.

Ta. I was thinking for a mo' that there was one poster here being re-quoted something from his/her past postings here and that he/she was thinking that it was ok to say a degree of mitigation was ok when a majority of the populace had voted to rescind the 8th and let abortion law be enacted, as a by the by reference to that majority of the populace as brainwashed into thinking that abortion was ok.

I'll have to take a good hard look at Cora Sherlock's utterances on women [in a singular mode] and criminal sanctions when it came to them alone. I do have the habit of bunching the No side into a herd, possibly in the way I thought the No side view anyone who is pro-abortion in any degree.

Yerragh. I nearly forgot our health minister is speaking about his plans for abortion law right now on RTE 1 PM news. He' also including the proposed new maternity hospital as well- governing structures etc.

Hotblack Desiato

Cabaal wrote: »

In the UK or USA they protest outside places. But Ireland is very different, its small and there's always somebody who knows somebody who knows the name of those protesting. They can't easily remain anonymous in Ireland

I got the impression most of them doing that carry-on were over here from the States (and acting illegally if they were on a tourist visa...)

lazygal

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

I got the impression most of them doing that carry-on were over here from the States (and acting illegally if they were on a tourist visa...)

Some from Northern Ireland too. The ones I encountered from the ICBR with graphic signs outside Holles Street were from the UK and Europe.

alaimacerc

aloyisious wrote: »

I'll have to take a good hard look at Cora Sherlock's utterances on women [in a singular mode] and criminal sanctions when it came to them alone. I do have the habit of bunching the No side into a herd, possibly in the way I thought the No side view anyone who is pro-abortion in any degree.

I hold no brief for Sherlock, clearly, and I wouldn't recommend consuming said utterances recreationally. Or indeed, taking them very seriously: it just comes across as an attempt to try to be "good cop", really. (And I don't have a link, I'm afraid, but she said something to that effect on one of her all-too-many appearances on the Vinnie B show.)

The bigger "no" difference is presumably between the "no legal abortion provision whatsoever" (still Sherlock's view) and the "'genuine' cases only" people in their various shades. Just turned out there were rather fewer of those latter than we'd assumed...

Cabaal

lazygal wrote: »

Some from Northern Ireland too. The ones I encountered from the ICBR with graphic signs outside Holles Street were from the UK and Europe.

Not surprising really
Director of ICBR wing in Ireland is Jean Simonis Engela who is South Africa origin and is married to Irish woman.

ICBR are based out of the US with wings around the world.

Loafing Oaf

Bishop says anti-abortion doctors will be 'railroaded out of practice'
http://www.irishtimes.com/news/health/bishop-says-anti-abortion-doctors-will-be-railroaded-out-of-practice-1.3657140

Whenever I see a headline like this I ask myself: Fonzie or Kev?:P

Hotblack Desiato

If they refuse to refer, they should be. Referral is a patient safety issue.

That’s the kind of thing that’s going to happen. Pro-life doctors are going to choose areas of medicine where they know they’re not going to forced into doing something that they don’t believe in.

If it keeps them away from interfering with the healthcare of women, then great