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

aloyisious

end of the road wrote: »

pregnancy is a natural occurrence ultimately. abortion isn't a natural occurrence. it becomes a social issue via the fact that the tax payer is in most cases paying for a want rather then a need. if it stuck to paying for abortions which were genuinely needed for medical reasons then it would be like any other part of the health service.

I'm not sure a woman or a medic would agree with you on your definition that abortion is not [or can't be] a natural occurrence. Maybe you should put the word [planned] in front of your "abortion isn't a natural occurrence" and look at the definition of a miscarriage.

end of the road

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

I really admire the stamina you show in repeating the same points ad nauseum. The same points that completely failed to convince the electorate.

voting to repeal the 8th doesn't equate to the electorate not being convinced by the points made by the pro-life campaign or by pro-life individuals. for many of us it wasn't the 8th being repealed itself that was the problem (in fact i and many others agreed that the 8th was bad legislation) it was the proposal to legislate for abortion on demand rather then just medical cases that was the issue. many voted to repeal the 8th for the hard cases also.

aloyisious wrote: »

I'm not sure a woman or a medic would agree with you on your definition that abortion is not [or can't be] a natural occurrence. Maybe you should put the word [planned] in front of your "abortion isn't a natural occurrence" and look at the definition of a miscarriage.

i don't think i do need to put the word planned before the word abortion when talking about it not being a natural occurrence as i think most people know that i'm referring to planned abortion rather then miscarriage. i am aware a miscarriage is classed as a form of abortion all be it's natural and tragic for those concerned, but when addressing a miscarriage i will use the term miscarriage, whereas if i'm addressing an abortion then i will use the term abortion, which is something that has always been done by many and accepted as correct terminology.

[Deleted User]

maybe youre not a good candidate to explain what people who voted to repeal the 8th *really* meant eh?

[Deleted User]

End, why do you think that we'll accept your claims about what other people *really* believe when you are not honest about your own beliefs?

end of the road

King Mob wrote: »

End, why do you think that we'll accept your claims about what other people *really* believe when you are not honest about your own beliefs?

i'm honest about my beliefs. ultimately i don't care whether you do or don't except something, or what you do and don't except. i can only pass on the information and after that it's up to you what you do with it.

[Deleted User]

But you are not honest about your beliefs as you constantly dodge questions about your beliefs. And on top of that, you've said contradicting things.
You claimed that abortion wasn't murder and denied ever saying it was.
You now claim that it is a type of killing, but won't clarify what that means.
And whenever you run into a question you cannot answer you pretend it doesn't exist.
This is dishonest and frankly cowardly.

And if you are willing to be so unclear and dishonest about your own beliefs, you will be with claims about others beliefs.

Again you've undermined yourself.

What evidence beyond your own instance do you have about what electorate *really* believed when they overwhelmingly voted differently from you?
If you don't have any evidence then you are not "passing on information". You're making stuff up.

end of the road

King Mob wrote: »

But you are not honest about your beliefs as you constantly dodge questions about your beliefs. And on top of that, you've said contradicting things.
You claimed that abortion wasn't murder and denied ever saying it was.
You now claim that it is a type of killing, but won't clarify what that means.
And whenever you run into a question you cannot answer you pretend it doesn't exist.
This is dishonest and frankly cowardly.

And if you are willing to be so unclear and dishonest about your own beliefs, you will be with claims about others beliefs.

Again you've undermined yourself.

What evidence beyond your own instance do you have about what electorate *really* believed when they overwhelmingly voted differently from you?
If you don't have any evidence then you are not "passing on information". You're making stuff up.

i have never undermined myself.
i have claimed and stated that abortion isn't murder in relation to certain situations that were put to me. it was claimed i was talking generally when i had used the term murder which wasn't true, and which i denied, as i hadn't stated that it was murder in general at the time. it was only recently where i stated that abortion on demand was similar to murder in that it was premeditated and caried out for no justifiable reason, however i also stated that abortion caried out due to a threat to the mother's life most certainly was not murder.

[Deleted User]

But again end, that's not what you said or did. People are able to see and read your previous posts.
You are again being dishonest.
Further there a distinct lack of addressing why you ignore questions while also ignoring my request for evidence of your latest claim.
Again, your actions and words show you up.

I don't believe that you are accuratly representing what the electorate thinks and that your latest claim is a rather pathetic attempt to pretend your position isn't in the vanishing minority.
(Remember, you guys got beaten by a much wider margin than those in the marriage and divorce referendums, and you dismissed those people who want to reverse those decisions as insignificant. Another point you've ignored and another example of your own post showing you up.)

end of the road

King Mob wrote: »

But again end, that's not what you said or did. People are able to see and read your previous posts.
You are again being dishonest.
Further there a distinct lack of addressing why you ignore questions while also ignoring my request for evidence of your latest claim.
Again, your actions and words show you up.

I don't believe that you are accuratly representing what the electorate thinks and that your latest claim is a rather pathetic attempt to pretend your position isn't in the vanishing minority.
(Remember, you guys got beaten by a much wider margin than those in the marriage and divorce referendums, and you dismissed those people who want to reverse those decisions as insignificant. Another point you've ignored and another example of your own post showing you up.)

my position isn't in any sort of a vanishing minority. i don't think it's even in very much of a minority really. voting to repeal the 8th in itself won't necessarily prove as to one's position on abortion.

[Deleted User]

Again ignoring points you are unwilling to answer and providing nothing but your own authority in way of evidence.

Again, your side lost hard in the referendum. More so than in the marriage and divorce referendums.
Those sides are now so in the minority and out of the discussion that they aren't worth thinking of.

Your position is no different other that it's insignificance is just more stark and you'll fade into the background noise faster.
Yet you persist in your dishonesty and generally terrible tactics.
Why do you think they'll help you now?

end of the road

King Mob wrote: »

Again ignoring points you are unwilling to answer and providing nothing but your own authority in way of evidence.

Again, your side lost hard in the referendum. More so than in the marriage and divorce referendums.
Those sides are now so in the minority and out of the discussion that they aren't worth thinking of.

Your position is no different other that it's insignificance is just more stark and you'll fade into the background noise faster.
Yet you persist in your dishonesty and generally terrible tactics.
Why do you think they'll help you now?

my side didn't lose hard as many of us actually agreed that the 8th should go. the reason we voted no to repealing it was because of the specific proposals and we wanted to prevent the specific legislation from being implamented. repealing the 8th doesn't make our pro-life views go away. they most certainly won't be going away and i have no doubt that many who did vote to repeal the 8th agree with us in relation to abortion on demand. our position is very different to gay marriage and divorce as there is no reason to oppose those unlike abortion on demand.

[Deleted User]

Lol. Now you are simply denying reality again.

Your side, the no side lost in a land side. Your side had less votes. By definition you are in the minority.
You lost hard.

And again the people who opposed gay marriage and divorce claimed the exact same stuff you are.
They still believe that gay marriage and divorce are going to destroy society. They thought there was plenty of reason to oppose them too.
And like you they have trouble showing how society will suffer, and like you will be, they are still waiting for that to happen.

They, like your side are just no longer worth considering.

Your tactics didn't work. They aren't going to work more after you lost.
Maybe try something else besides lying and ignoring stuff...

[Deleted User]

i actually think the no vote voted no because they wanted compulsory abortions and were disappointed with the compromise offering.

i think that the hardline compulsory abortion protest vote was worth at least half of the no vote

i am going to treat this convenient belief of mine as fact any time it arises

Peregrinus

aloyisious wrote: »

. . . It seems to be that your argument is based on a thesis that there are NO requirements within his/her professional body's regulations that specifically enjoinder him/her to refer a woman on to another doctor if she asks him/her for an abortion and he/she refuses to provide the requested service. I think you may well find there is a professional body regulation which requires any doctor refusing to treat a patient on any grounds to refer the patient on to another doctor.

I'm no expert, by any means, but I think the doctor's medical ethical obligations only extend to patients' medical needs. If I don't have a medical need for an abortion, the doctor will have no ethical obligation either to provide an abortion or to refer to another doctor who will.

Obviously, there are cases where there is a medical issue for which an abortion is a possible treatment, and I don't want to minimise the importance of those, or avoid the issues which they raise. But the great majority of abortions are not undertaken for medical reasons, and I don't think a doctor would have an ethical obligation either to provide or to refer.

aloyisious wrote: »

If one was to take your thesis seriously to any of its conceivable endings, one might say the doctor refusing the service requested by the woman should take care to ensure the woman leaves the building in which he/she works to ensure no member of the staff there talk to the woman in case they provide abortion referral info to the woman or even arrange a lift for her in case it takes her to another doctor who would provide her with the service she asked the refusing doctor for. I'm thinking that the staff are employees of the doctors clinic and paid by the clinics, all of the earning for the clinic come from it's patients fees for the doctors services.

This is not taking "my thesis" seriously at all, aloyisius. I've already made the point that conscience is personal. If "my thesis" is that we cannot force the doctor to act against his conscience, then surely the implication is the reverse of what you say; the doctor equally cannot force his colleagues, co-workers, employees to act against their consciences?

smacl

Peregrinus wrote: »

I'm no expert, by any means, but I think the doctor's medical ethical obligations only extend to patients' medical needs.

Once a woman has already made the decision to have an abortion, she clearly has medical needs. Surely it is the doctors preference that she hadn't made that decision which lies outside the scope of medical ethical obligations, unless you're asserting that by going through a pregnancy and childbirth is in some way is advantageous to her health.

Peregrinus

smacl wrote: »

Once a woman has already made the decision to have an abortion, she clearly has medical needs . . .

No, I don't think so.

The argument is basically that if a person chooses to undergo surgical processes, or take drugs, for reasons which have nothing to do with treating illness, disease or disability, they have medical needs and a doctor has an ethical obligation to them.

I can't agree. The fact that a particular surgery or a particular drug is used to treat a disease or disability doesn't mean that it becomes medical treatment for someone who doesn't have that disease or disability.

To be clear, I believe in the right to choose, and I believe that a woman has a right to choose an abortion for non-medical reasons and that we, as a society, have a responsibility to ensure that she can exercise that right.

But I don't think medics have a particular responsibility to ensure that she can exercise that right (particularly medics who don't share my view that she has that right). I can't construct an argument that we should discharge our societal obligation by picking out medics as the people whose conscientious beliefs must be overridden in order for us to discharge our responsibility. There will be doctors willing to perform abortions for non-medical reasons, but it's not as if the only way a woman wanting an abortion could be put in touch with a doctor willing to provide it is by getting a referral from a doctor with a conscientious objection. If we don't need to force people to do things they consider unconscionable, I think we should default to not forcing them. And I'm not seeing that we need to do this. It's easy to think of other arrangements that could be made.

Bear in mind that, for someone who has strong "pro-life" convictions, requiring them to be involved in an abortion is analogous to requiring a person with a conscientious objection to capital punishment to be involved in an execution. If a doctor were legally required, for example, to refer state officials to a source of advice on, or supplies of, lethal drugs for an execution, we would consider that objectionable, wouldn't we?

[Deleted User]

So again, why not just have these doctors make it clear and open that they will not provide abortion services and will not provide referrals to doctors who will?

What are exactly is the objection to this?

Loafing Oaf

end of the road wrote: »

King Mob wrote: »

Again ignoring points you are unwilling to answer and providing nothing but your own authority in way of evidence.

Again, your side lost hard in the referendum. More so than in the marriage and divorce referendums.
Those sides are now so in the minority and out of the discussion that they aren't worth thinking of.

Your position is no different other that it's insignificance is just more stark and you'll fade into the background noise faster.
Yet you persist in your dishonesty and generally terrible tactics.
Why do you think they'll help you now?

my side didn't lose hard as many of us actually agreed that the 8th should go. the reason we voted no to repealing it was because of the specific proposals and we wanted to prevent the specific legislation from being implamented. repealing the 8th doesn't make our pro-life views go away. they most certainly won't be going away and i have no doubt that many who did vote to repeal the 8th agree with us in relation to abortion on demand. our position is very different to gay marriage and divorce as there is no reason to oppose those unlike abortion on demand.

Well opponents of divorce or same-sex marriage didn’t all drop dead or emigrate the day after those referenda, and presumably most of them retained their views “in their hearts,” but the key point is the vast majority of them immediately ceased to pursue those causes in the political sphere. And I see little reason to think the same will not be the same of abortion.

Peregrinus

King Mob wrote: »

So again, why not just have these doctors make it clear and open that they will not provide abortion services and will not provide referrals to doctors who will?

What are exactly is the objection to this?

It's suggested, as I understand it, that doctors who are not willing to provide abortions should be obliged to provide referrals to those who are willing. If that suggestion is implemented then, obviously your suggestion is ruled out.

[Deleted User]

Peregrinus wrote: »

It's suggested, as I understand it, that doctors who are not willing to provide abortions should be obliged to provide referrals to those who are willing. If that suggestion is implemented then, obviously your suggestion is ruled out.

How so?
I'm suggesting that they should make it clear in general, perhaps through an online registry or similar, that they will not provide abortion services nor will they provide a referral.

This way, anyone seeking an abortion can avoid these doctors, saving everyone a lot of bother.

This is the 3rd time I've online this and I've yet to hear a compelling reason why it can't work.

Peregrinus

King Mob wrote: »

How so?

You can have a law requiring doctors to provide referrals, or you can have a register of doctors who won't provide referrals but, rationally, you can't have both.

King Mob wrote: »

I'm suggesting that they should make it clear in general, perhaps through an online registry or similar, that they will not provide abortion services nor will they provide a referral.

This way, anyone seeking an abortion can avoid these doctors, saving everyone a lot of bother.

This is the 3rd time I've online this and I've yet to hear a compelling reason why it can't work.

Or, better, you could equally have a public register of doctors who do provide abortions, thus neatly avoiding the issue of referrals in the first place.

The HSE in fact mantains a public, searchable, browsable register of GPs, family doctors, pharmacists, dentists, hospitals, etc. It wouldn't be beyond the bounds of the possible to extend this to identify providers of abortion services. So this technology exists.

That wouldn't completely avoid the the problem, of course. Some people, unaware of the existence of the register, will go to their family GP anyway. Others may want to consult their regular doctor about abortion-related questions which also bear on their wider health/medical issues. So this dilemma is going to present itself.

[Deleted User]

Peregrinus wrote: »

.
people, unaware of the existence of the register, will go to their family GP anyway. Others may want to consult their regular doctor about abortion-related questions which also bear on their wider health/medical issues. So this dilemma is going to present itself.

And in this case, I would prefer to err on the side of a person seeking help rather than a doctor who refused to such care to one of their patients.

Peregrinus

King Mob wrote: »

And in this case, I would prefer to err on the side of a person seeking help rather than a doctor who refused to such care to one of their patients.

Yeah, I get that. But I've already made the distinction between abortions where there's a medical issue that needs to be addressed, and abortions not involving a medical issue. I think there's a stronger case for imposing an obligation on doctors in the former case.

lazygal

Peregrinus wrote: »

Yeah, I get that. But I've already made the distinction between abortions where there's a medical issue that needs to be addressed, and abortions not involving a medical issue. I think there's a stronger case for imposing an obligation on doctors in the former case.

Every abortion involves a medical issue because its a medical procedure.

Peregrinus

lazygal wrote: »

Every abortion involves a medical issue because its a medical procedure.

Assuming the abortion is not undertaken in response to address any disease or disability, what makes it a medical procedure?

[Deleted User]

Peregrinus wrote: »

Yeah, I get that. But I've already made the distinction between abortions where there's a medical issue that needs to be addressed, and abortions not involving a medical issue. I think there's a stronger case for imposing an obligation on doctors in the former case.

So according to medical associations and actual lawyers familiar with the issue, is abortion not classed as a medical procedure?
If so, link to this please.
If not, your argument is a bit meaningless.

lazygal

Peregrinus wrote: »

Assuming the abortion is not undertaken in response to address any disease or disability, what makes it a medical procedure?

It requires medical intervention.
Pregnancy imposes a huge toll on my body. If I need an abortion to avoid the toll that's a medical matter. Its just silly to pretend otherwise.

[Deleted User]

lazygal wrote: »

]
It requires medical intervention.
Pregnancy imposes a huge toll on my body. If I need an abortion to avoid the toll that's a medical matter. Its just silly to pretend otherwise.

And if it's not medical, what exactly is it? Cosmetic?

smacl

Peregrinus wrote: »

I can't agree. The fact that a particular surgery or a particular drug is used to treat a disease or disability doesn't mean that it becomes medical treatment for someone who doesn't have that disease or disability.

With respect, that is a very narrow definition of medical need that misses out entirely on the notion of preventative medicine. For example, by your definition above, the doctor has no ethical obligation to provide vaccinations such as the 'flu jab, on the basis that the patient isn't actually sick. Yet people can and do die from not receiving such a vaccination. Similarly, a woman who does wish to carry a pregnancy to term could suffer adverse medical consequences from not receiving the abortion that she seeks, which in extreme cases could even prove fatal and has in the past. The doctors conscientious objection is thus potentially adversely affecting their patients health. If the doctor goes so far as to refuse a referral, and has not informed their female patients of their conscientious objection long in advance of that patient becoming pregnant, they are clearly in dereliction of their duty of care. Only informing that patient of their refusal to provide such care once the patient has a time critical need and possibly no alternatives is clearly too late and unethical.

lazygal

King Mob wrote: »

And if it's not medical, what exactly is it? Cosmetic?

By that logic my second and third c sections and tubal ligation weren't medical procedures because strictly speaking I didn't "need" them!