aloyisious wrote: » Were I to change the wording of yours above to read that abortion kills unborn rapists, what say you?
end of the road wrote: » because they disagree with the act, and protesting out whatever is involved in the commital of that act is the best way to hi-light it. of course you could always go and ask protesters yourself.
end of the road wrote: » nothing wrong with telling people that there are other ways and that there are supports availible for them. nothing shady about that, just people who actually care unlike the abortion industry who i would agree fit your sentence.
end of the road wrote: » there really isn't. if there was, the police in the relevant area would be all over it. they aren't because it ultimately doesn't happen.
end of the road wrote: » ultimately it doesn't matter as we can't base things on people's feelings but actual facts. some people find large groups intimidating. some people find tall people intimidating. we don't go around banning things because an indididual might find them intimidating as it's just not viable to cater to every single individuals beliefs.
splinter65 wrote: » 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?
splinter65 wrote: » 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: » Ok. You don’t want to talk about the percentage of GPs who are on board, why the rest are not on board, or the impact of this dearth on abortion services in areas with zero affordable public transport. That’s fine. Talk about something else.
splinter65 wrote: » People standing silently holding placards is harassing and intimidating? It’s acceptable everywhere else in the civilized world. But Ok. What do you consider peaceful protest? What kind of peaceful protest is acceptable to you.
splinter65 wrote: » Ok not all but most. Or even 1000 as the minister is quite clearly claiming in this state broadcaster article . So. A. Is the article fake news? B. Was the minister lying? C. Was he misled? D. Where are the 1000 GPs? E. 200 at the last count, where are the rest?
splinter65 wrote: » Dr Mark Murphy Givernment Yes campaign spokesman and minister Harrishttps://www.google.com/amp/s/www.rte.ie/amp/962992/
splinter65 wrote: » Ok nozz. I take it that as a staunch supporter of abortion services for women you are entirely satisfied with the response of the country’s GPs two weeks into the introduction of these services.
splinter65 wrote: » Ok. You don’t want to talk about the percentage of GPs who are on board
splinter65 wrote: » It kills far less rapists then women though
eviltwin wrote: » you're almost foaming at the mouth with glee at that aren't you? Luckily the family planning clinics will see her and there are groups who will help with travel costs. It's not ideal and hopefully will change but is a million miles away from travelling outside the country. We havent got a perfect service but at least we actually have a service.
King Mob wrote: » No I think we should get to the bottom of your mistake first. Why did you claim that the minister claimed there was 1000 GPs who signed up when your link clearly did not say that? Do you still claim that's what the minister said? If so, why? Or do you accept that you got that quote wrong? If so, why? I think that it's pretty telling that you got your fact so very wrong and that you are now throwing out distractions from it to avoid admitting your mistake. I think this is why you anti-abortionists don't like backing up your claims. It rarely goes well for you.
nozzferrahhtoo wrote: » So instead of responding to ANYTHING I just wrote you "take it that" I think something I have not actually written at all. What a weird and dishonest shift in rhetoric from you. Actually to be honest I am neither happy or unhappy with it. It is EXACTLY what I expected myself. This is a controversial issue and is in the first days of implementation. I wholly expect individual doctors to be reticent in the uptake of it. I expect it to be a slow process. And I expect doctors to hold back and see how it proceeds with the other doctors who do start to take it up. 14 days is, in the greater scheme, nothing at all really. And as a user only a couple of posts above this one pointed out, the increase is slow but it is happening over time. Come back to me 1 year and 14 days after implementation and you will find that either the figures have greatly improved or people, myself included, will be fighting to find out why, and improve matters. My personal happiness has nothing whatsoever to do with it. The fact is however that you have rolled into the thread making claims the government have told us things they never did, and conflating figures of one thing (doctors who supported repeal) with something entirely different (doctors actually providing the service) in an attempt to manufacture a narrative out of that error. Even Tretorn in post #9161 was able to tell the difference that has seemingly gone right over your head. And THAT is saying something. There is nothing wrong with talking about that. You are distorting our pointing out your nonsense and unsubstantiated claims as not wanting to talk about it. That is not an honest move from you. Happy to talk about it. Happy to work to improve it. The issue is something else, that you are using the figures on uptake here to support outright falsehoods. Such as, as I keep saying, your fallacious conflation of the figures of people who supported repeal, with the figures of people actually taking up provision of the service. They are two ENTIRELY different figures and you are attempting to construct a narrative based basically on conflating them. But by all means let us talk about why some GPs have taken it up. Why some have not. Let us find out the concerns of the latter. Let us observe, draw on, and learn from the experiences of the former. This is all GOOD STUFF which we should be doing with ANY change in medical service in our country. Not just abortion related ones. It does neither, any more than ripping up a blue print destroys buildings. The fetus being aborted is not a rapist, not a man, not a woman, not a person. It is a biological entity that is in the process of constructing a person. The emotive nonsense of the "Oh look its tongue moves" element failed in the referendum and it fails you now. Change the record and you might some day change minds. The simple fact is that, even when asked directly politely or otherwise, even when challenged directly in a tone even bordering on trolling, you and your cohort simply have not risen to a very simple very straight forward request. To provide any moral or ethical arguments indicting the process of termination of a 12 week old fetus. You simply can. not. do. it. So you fall back desperately on rhetoric that simply failed you already without any attempt to return to the drawing board. Throwing out emotive words like "murder" "Kills" "women" "innocent" and anything you think might even possibly pluck a heart string somewhere and cause people to simply miss the intellectual bankruptcy of the anti abortion position.
splinter65 wrote: » Nobody is “foaming at the mouth” eviltwin. If Irish people want abortions in ireland then abortions are exactly what they’ll get, Irish style. If you thought that the service was ever going to be anything other then what it is right now then you must have been living under a rock as regards the health service for the last 10 years. We don’t DO health service here in Ireland only for people with a lot of income. Do you live in the city? You must do as your comment about the family planning clinic and traveling to it says it all.
splinter65 wrote: » I made a mistake. I was wrong. Now tell me why you think that only 200 out of 3000 GPs want to supply abortion services.
“We’re going around wondering, ‘are they planning something we’ve missed?’” said Mary Favier, a prominent pro-choice campaigner and GP who provides abortion services in Cork. “But we can’t see what it’s going to be.” Besides a fleeting protest in Galway – half a dozen people with placards picketed a surgery for a few hours – abortion has become available in 22 of Ireland’s 26 counties with barely any fuss.
splinter65 wrote: » I made a mistake. I was wrong.
splinter65 wrote: » Now tell me why you think that only 200 out of 3000 GPs want to supply abortion services.
tretorn wrote: » Most people who go to Medical school do it because they are extremely intelligent and they want to use their intelligence to help other people. They also want to earn lots of money and thats fine too. They also want to look back over their lives as they get older and be proud of their lifes work, looking back over your life and counting how many other lives you have ended might worry some GPs, they may have voted to Repeal but with a sense of not in my surgery, this is in fact what has happened. About 187 GPs out of over three thousand have signed up to provide the service and over one third of GPs are women which means many women arent ready, willing or able to provide abortions. Its not that much hardship anyway to get on a bus or train and go to the nearest Family Planning clinic where you have staff ready and willing to provide abortions, there is no need to force GPs or maternity hospitals to provide this service, after all the Pro Side stressed throughout the campaign that most abortions would be before twelve weeks and they insisted that the procedure at this time consists of taking pills and having a heavy period. In this scenario why not just give the Family Planning Clinics more resources and keep abortion out of maternity hospitals completely. If we introduce Euthanasia hopefully we arent going to set up Euthanasia wards in nursing homes so why should maternity hospitals be places associated with deliberate ending of human life.
tretorn wrote: » In this scenario why not just give the Family Planning Clinics more resources and keep abortion out of maternity hospitals completely. If we introduce Euthanasia hopefully we arent going to set up Euthanasia wards in nursing homes so why should maternity hospitals be places associated with deliberate ending of human life.
tretorn wrote: » The fee for co operating now is fairly decent, GPS get twice as much for abortion as they do for providing maternity care for nine monthsbut the uptake is very slow.
tretorn wrote: » If the number of GPs who are willing to provide abortion services doesnt increase then pressure will be put on to get with the fashionable new we have voted for. Its all voluntary at the moment but really what is going to entice GPS to sign up. The fee for co operating now is fairly decent, GPS get twice as much for abortion as they do for providing maternity care for nine monthsbut the uptake is very slow. As I said its 187 GPs out of maybe three and a half thousand GPS in total and more than a third of GPs are women. Hopefully the GPs who have signed up will spend time talking to women about sexual health and contraceptives and not just leave pre stamped forms with the receptionist the way Doctors do in the UK.
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.
King Mob wrote: » Sources please. Please show 1. That GPs get more for an abortion than for maternity care. 2. that the uptake for the service is slow compared to other countries and to expectations from the government. Otherwise, this claims will be dismissed as baseless.
tretorn wrote: » Check out the figures yourself, I know what I have read, GPs are getting nearly twice as much for dispensing abortion pills as they are for providing continous maternity care for nine months. The pay for providing abortion services had to be attractive to get GPs to sign up but even with good renumeration more than ninety per cent of GPS have said no thanks.
tretorn wrote: » Dont be silly, this is a chat board and not a Court of Law. I dont need to supply any evidence to you.
tretorn wrote: » Abortions being carried out for medical reasons are completely different to abortions being carried out because you are having a boy and you wanted a girl. Your reply is nonsensical, abortions have always been carried out in maternity hospitals to save womens lives, hence Savita should not have died and she wouldnt have if staff had realised her life was in danger. You can get an abortion now when the gender of your baby is confirmed, you can claim you are suicidal because of being pregnant and demand an abortion. This is the legislation we voted for, our abortion Law is very liberal.
give the Family Planning Clinics more resources and keep abortion out of maternity hospitals completely.
uptherebels wrote: » You only need to ask, why are they at GP's. If they wanted the law changed they would be "protesting" at the dail. So that those with the power to actually give them what they want could see their opposition. But they know that with the landslide victory of the vote, the laws are here for at least the foreseeable future. So they do the next best thing. They start trying to prevent access. Set up fake "my options" webpages etc. and "protest" at points of access. They do not need to do anything as of yet other than stand there to intimidate. It is the same reason that people cross over the otherside of the road when a drunk or a group of young lads are walking towards them or a a woman who tenses up when a shadow comes up behind her on a street at night or when you are at an ATM and somebody is standing way too close. It's the fear of something happening that is intimidating. It's not that difficult to understand. If they want to protest do it where it can actually have an effect on the law they believe is unjust. As for another poster who believes exclusion zones won't work as the protesters are happy to go to jail. That is the point. They can't "protest" at GP's while they are locked up.
King Mob wrote: » Great. First honest direct statement out of your side in a while. Good job. Lots of reasons that I don't think you are all interested in. What reason do you think? Is it because you think that most doctors don't support the legalisation of abortion? If so, evidence for that please. If not, what point are you trying to make? Also, you are again ignoring several of my points.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w8.vanillicon.com/v2/867a9f20e705add43a3ada2e4f4480cc.svg)
