Abortion Discussion, Part Trois

King Mob wrote: »

No, but the ministers who write the legislation do.
The people who voted overwhelmingly against you guys are more likely to see the protest on the high street.

Surely they are the more important ones to change the minds of.

So the targets here aren't to raise awareness or protest, but to influence the people going to the place.

Well, if the protesters continue the tactics usually displayed by the antiabortion crowds in Ireland in particular, I would consider gory pictures of what they claim is abortion aftermath would be intimidating.
However, that's not what I believe is the intimidating or harassing part.

No the most important people to influence are the women going in to the hospital to have the abortion. A change of mind for them could be life changing in an entirely positive way.
Yes the objective is to change the mind of the pregnant woman. What’s wrong with that?
I don’t see any gory pictures in the current pictures. Where did you see them this week? Remember it’s these protestors that Amnesty international want arrested.

splinter65 wrote: »

Well I’ve just described a scenario which I would hate to find myself in, not really wanting to have intercourse with this guy/girl or anyone really but clearly it’s normal and expected so I don’t want to be different from everyone else, if you can’t see how situations like that can dint your self esteem and self respect then I can’t help you.

The availability of condoms lead to social pressure to have sex (as opposed to unprotected sex) and this leads to a lack of self esteem etc....load of bollocks. Your view, at the end of the day, is that sex is ultimately 'wrong' and 'dirty'.

Odhinn wrote: »

The availability of condoms lead to social pressure to have sex (as opposed to unprotected sex) and this leads to a lack of self esteem etc....load of bollocks. Your view, at the end of the day, is that sex is ultimately 'wrong' and 'dirty'.

My view at the end of the day is that if you are keen to have sexual intercourse then you’ll be keen to have it in a safe environment. So you’ll buy some condoms and pick the right partner on the right night. And hopefully have an enjoyable experience that will leave you feeling good about yourself .
If someone is whispering in your ear that you might as well because everyone is doing it and did you not get the free johnnies because I did? Then that might result in a bit of regret in the morning. Nowhere did I say that sex is dirty and it’s rather stupid of you to pretend I did.
I’d have expected you to agree with me that sex that isn’t totally consensual is bad for your self respect, no?

splinter65 wrote: »

My view at the end of the day is that if you are keen to have sexual intercourse then you’ll be keen to have it in a safe environment. So you’ll buy some condoms and pick the right partner on the right night. And hopefully have an enjoyable experience that will leave you feeling good about yourself .
If someone is whispering in your ear that you might as well because everyone is doing it and did you not get the free johnnies because I did? Then that might result in a bit of regret in the morning. Nowhere did I say that sex is dirty and it’s rather stupid of you to pretend I did.
I’d have expected you to agree with me that sex that isn’t totally consensual is bad for your self respect, no?

You're the one who seem to claim that access to articles rendering sex "safe" led to a lack of self respect/esteem. The fact of their being condoms free in the jacks undermining consent is a nonsense.

My local GP told me she has vulnerable young girls who come to her for contraceptive advice. Her staff keep tabs on these girls so they remember to pick up their contraception and they are reminded about safe sex.

The GP said these girls now wont bother about contraception or safe sex at all. It will be one abortion after the other and this is going to line someones pocket.

And the Government wont be able to set up exclusion zones around premises where abortions are taking place. Irish people have a constitutional right to meet whoever they like and engage in peaceful protest. I think the only place you cant protest is in the Dail grounds but I am open to correction on that.

Anyway in order to draw up exclusion zones around places where abortions are carried out the Government will have to hold another referendum to bring in laws to limit where people can meet up and associate.

tretorn wrote: »

My local GP told me she has vulnerable young girls who come to her for contraceptive advice. Her staff keep tabs on these girls so they remember to pick up their contraception and they are reminded about safe sex.

The GP said these girls now wont bother about contraception or safe sex at all. It will be one abortion after the other and this is going to line someones pocket.

the gp is an idiot.

end of the road

robindch wrote: »

Your comparison is both inappropriate and wildly inaccurate.

Animals do comprehend what protesters hanging around a clinic or hospital might shouting or placarding and - I can't believe this has to be pointed out - a clinic is not a "meat processing plant" unless you happen to believe that "healthcare" is "processing" and humans are "meat".

the point i was making is that people who would disagree with acts that harm animals or humans would protest outside the infrastructure involved in carrying out such harm. that applies to infrastructure involved in other acts. that is where my statement that protesting outside an abortion clinic is no different to protesting outside a meat processing plant came from. i wasn't suggesting they were the same thing, but that the reasons for protesting outside them are similar in that such protests are against the ending of life.

Odhinn wrote: »

Forced pregnancy is a violation however, like rape in that the pregnant woman has her bodily autonomy taken away against her will.

yes i would agree with that. in saying that, i don't see the preventing of the killing of unborn human beings as forced pregnancy. to me forced pregnancy would be having sex with a woman either concentially or non-concentially with the aim of having them becoming pregnant when they didn't want to be.

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

The objective is to shame or intimidate women going for a legal medical procedure.

no it's to convince them not to kill their unborn baby. the only way it is shaming in my view is if the person feels shame for what they are doing, which in that case they know it's wrong.

tretorn wrote: »

My local GP told me she has vulnerable young girls who come to her for contraceptive advice. Her staff keep tabs on these girls so they remember to pick up their contraception and they are reminded about safe sex.

The GP said these girls now wont bother about contraception or safe sex at all. It will be one abortion after the other and this is going to line someones pocket.

Crapola. An abortion is not like getting a flu jab.

end of the road wrote: »

.................

yes i would agree with that. in saying that, i don't see the preventing of the killing of unborn human beings as forced pregnancy. to me forced pregnancy would be having sex with a woman either concentially or non-concentially with the aim of having them becoming pregnant when they didn't want to be.

A woman is 2 months pregnant and wants an abortion. Under your preferred regime she can't have one. That is - amazingly obvious and clear cut - a forced pregnancy.

end of the road wrote: »

yes i would agree with that. in saying that, i don't see the preventing of the killing of unborn human beings as forced pregnancy. to me forced pregnancy would be having sex with a woman either concentially or non-concentially with the aim of having them becoming pregnant when they didn't want to be.

forcing a woman to remain pregnant is forced pregnancy.

Its one abortion after the other in the UK if you analyse the figures.

Free abortion is manna from heaven for all those scrotes who use young girls and then dump them. They dont even have to worry now about being asked to pay for the abortions.

Society will be a lot better off those without the children of these scrotes, that is an undeniable fact.

tretorn wrote: »

Its one abortion after the other in the UK if you analyse the figures.

Free abortion is manna from heaven for all those scrotes who use young girls and then dump them. They dont even have to worry now about being asked to pay for the abortions.

Society will be a lot better off those without the children of these scrotes, that is an undeniable fact.

so free abortion is a good thing. I'm we finally agree on something.

tretorn wrote: »

Its one abortion after the other in the UK if you analyse the figures.

Figures on repeat abortions came up a lot during the referendum. And they do not say the above at all. They were analysed quite closely on this site in fact by many users, myself included. I can revisit this if you wish to cite them again.

Pherekydes

tretorn wrote: »

My local GP told me...

Who is your local GP? Name and shame...

http://www.thetricolour.com/Articles/183/politics/UK-Abortion-Statistics-97-Mental-Health-grounds-38-repeat-abortions/l4470755/

Figures for you.

38% of women had repeat abortions.

Why should I name the GP, she is a concerned GP who unlike you is dealing with vulnerable young women who are abused by men. She does her best to make sure these girls dont conceive but now that abortion is freely available it will be easier for these girls to obtain free abortions than to stay focussed on contraception.

end of the road

Odhinn wrote: »

A woman is 2 months pregnant and wants an abortion. Under your preferred regime she can't have one. That is - amazingly obvious and clear cut - a forced pregnancy.

i don't agree, as the outcome is to prevent the killing of that unborn baby. not to force her to be or to get pregnant.

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

forcing a woman to remain pregnant is forced pregnancy.

i don't agree. it's the prevention of the killing of aan unborn baby.

end of the road wrote: »

i don't agree, as the outcome is to prevent the killing of that unborn baby. not to force her to be or to get pregnant.

i don't agree. it's the prevention of the killing of aan unborn baby.

i see your battle with the english language is going as well as ever.

end of the road wrote: »

i don't agree, as the outcome is to prevent the killing of that unborn baby. not to force her to be or to get pregnant.

Her will is suborned by the state. Forcing her to remain pregnant is obviously forcing her to remain pregnant.

Odhinn wrote: »

You're the one who seem to claim that access to articles rendering sex "safe" led to a lack of self respect/esteem. The fact of their being condoms free in the jacks undermining consent is a nonsense.

In your opinion. I disagree .

tretorn wrote: »

Figures for you. 38% of women had repeat abortions.

Well firstly that is not abortion after abortion then is it. 62% of people did not do so. That is quite a majority, as people who lost this referendum will know well. So already you have failed with your line of rhetoric here.

However let us analyse the figures as you DIRECTLY requested.

The majority of these "repeat abortions" if you look at the figures are women who had a second one. Hardly "abortion after abortion" is it?

Especially given the length of time of fertility of women. A woman who had an abortion at 16 and again at 36... 20 years later.... would be in the statistics for "repeat abortions". For example in the figures I have seen 8% of those under 18 years old had a repeat abortion compared with 44% of women over the age of 35. Hardly a shock is it???

When you look at how many had a third one, the figures fall off significantly. 4 even more so. And so forth. The figures when analysed as YOU REQUESTED simply do not support the narrative you painted with them. At all. Even a little bit.

The significant majority of women are not having "repeat" abortions in those figures and the majority of those that do, had a second one only. Look at your own figures. 62% of one group for example had no repeat abortion.... 28% had ONE.... 8% had 2 and 3% more than two. Not exactly going your way is it?

So you can pocket your failed attempt at spin now. It failed during the referendum debates, trotting it out again here fails as bad.

tretorn wrote: »

Why should I name the GP

Why indeed given A) It is the personal opinion of one single person and

We have ZERO evidence the person even exists, let alone said or WOULD say the things you just claimed they did.

Pherekydes

tretorn wrote: »

Why should I name the GP, she is a concerned GP...

Obviously, she is NOT concerned with her patients' care. She should be reported.

Reported to who.

She is concerned about her patients care.

Her patients wont bother turning up to her clinic anymore to be advised about their contraception or their sexual health, they dont take any personal responsibility hence she rings them to remind them to call in.

Her point was now these women will just sleep with whoever they like and have free abortions one after the other.

I think she is in a better situation than you to comment as she works in this area.

Thirty eight per cent of women having repeat abortions in a lot, thats more than one in three and as each abortion is going to cost the taxpayer more than four hundred euros per abortion other services are going to be cut to fund this. On the other hand children with Downs Syndrome cost an awful lot in State resources and their numbers will drop to one in ten being born within five years so huge savings will be made there. Also we should see a drop in the number of babies being born overall so thats less child benefit. Economically speaking abortion will be great for our finances.

I live in a large market town population 10000 and there are 7 GPs surgeries and none are signed up to the programme. Why did the government tell people that all the GPs were on board?
My friend is a receptionist in a large modern clinic in Roscommon and they’ve been told that after a meeting of the GPs they’re not signing up and to refer any queries to the free phone number.
There was no explanation.

tretorn wrote: »

Thirty eight per cent of women having repeat abortions in a lot

But AGAIN it is not 38% having repeat abortions. That is your failed spin on the figures which I just corrected but you have seemingly ignored that. It is 28% who had a SECOND one.

The % of people who can be described as having "repeat" abortions (your plural, not mine) is, according to the figures YOU just demand we analyse, at best 11% but really 3% as I just explained pretty clearly I thought.

You not wanting to let go of your pet phrase "repeat abortions" is not going to change the statistic. Most of them had A SINGLE repeat abortion, not "repeat abortions" plural. And over the, lets say 25 year period of female fertility, 2 abortions is not exactly a shock. Some people have been hit by lightning more times than that, in a lot less of a time period.

So no it is not "a lot" really as you claim.

But you will get no argument from me that it is a figure we would still like to reduce. Pro choice and Anti choice people have one common goal. We would like to have the figures of abortions actually happening reduced to zero if we could. I am 100% dedicated to pro choice at this moment in time. I am however also 100% committed to the ideal of zero abortions actually ever happening.

tretorn wrote: »

other services are going to be cut to fund this.

As per the forum charter, evidence for this claim please. If you wish I can alert the moderator to my invocation of the recent rule.

Also how much would it cost the tax payer if the pregnancy proceeds as normal? When discussing how much such abortions will COST the tax payer, I hope your workings include the figures of any REDUCTIONS in cost it will incur too. These things do not exist in a vacuum, and that is not even discussing the special cases like DS you just listed. What of, for example, the pregnancy care women are already entitled to? Factor those in too if you please.

splinter65 wrote: »

I live in a large market town population 10000 and there are 7 GPs surgeries and none are signed up to the programme. Why did the government tell people that all the GPs were on board?
My friend is a receptionist in a large modern clinic in Roscommon and they’ve been told that after a meeting of the GPs they’re not signing up and to refer any queries to the free phone number.
There was no explanation.

When did they say this?

Unless you think money goes on trees then the money to provide free abortions irrespective of income means somewhere else in the Health Service is going to be cut.

God, do you need everything spelled out to you.

Many women when pregnant avail of either semi private or private health care and they fund this themselves though Health insurance and out of their own pocket. If they want an abortion they wont fund this themselves. So for the Government the abortions will cost more than the maternity care.

More than one in three of these women will have repeat abortions and then go onto have a baby at a more convenient time so its not as if they arent going to cost the Government anything in maternal care costs.

The Government never said all GPS would provide the service and the GPS themselves made it very clear before the referendum that no professional was to be forced to participate if their conscience wouldnt allow it. Harris gave a committment that GPS could opt out on consciencious grounds.

tretorn wrote: »

Unless you think money goes on trees then the money to provide free abortions irrespective of income means somewhere else in the Health Service is going to be cut.

God, do you need everything spelled out to you.

You are not answering what I asked. God, do you need everything spelled out to you.

Dodging the question does not mean I am the one needing things spelled out. If you are going to make claims about the effect of a change in policy on a resource, you have to include ALL workings related to the effect, not just the negatives. God, do you need everything spelled out to you.

You have not done this. Not only have you not done this, you have not actually offered ANY figures or workings really. God, do you need everything spelled out to you.

tretorn wrote: »

More than one in three of these women will have repeat abortions

Despite me correcting your failed spin on these figures twice, you are digging down on them again. God, do you need everything spelled out to you. The figures simply do not suggest that happens.

Further even if they did, you can not simply assume that figures from another jurisdiction will automatically be repeated here. God, do you need everything spelled out to you.

Calina

tretorn wrote: »

http://www.thetricolour.com/Articles/183/politics/UK-Abortion-Statistics-97-Mental-Health-grounds-38-repeat-abortions/l4470755/

Figures for you.

38% of women had repeat abortions.

Why should I name the GP, she is a concerned GP who unlike you is dealing with vulnerable young women who are abused by men. She does her best to make sure these girls dont conceive but now that abortion is freely available it will be easier for these girls to obtain free abortions than to stay focussed on contraception.

No they did not. 38 % of women who had an abortion in year 2016 had previously had an abortion.

That is not 38% of women.

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

When did they say this?

Dr Mark Murphy Givernment Yes campaign spokesman and minister Harris

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.rte.ie/amp/962992/