Breaking... US Supreme Court overturns Roe v Wade

Let me be very clear then: a young girl or woman is raped, becomes pregnant, and because the doctors determine there is no medical need to terminate the pregnancy, they will not comply with the patients request to have a termination, if it is left up to them and not defined in law. 

So, the rapist has successfully chosen the mother of their children. It's a very straight line from one to the other. 

Right, so you’ve assumed the conclusion to your own hypothetical argument, instead of allowing for the possibility that medical professionals in those circumstances would agree with the patient and proceed with a termination? I just wouldn’t assume the same conclusion as hypothetical circumstances rarely reflect reality.

This is a separate point from whether the rapist is subsequently punished through the judicial system, the victim is still inseminated. If the mother's only option is to push herself to the brink of suicide etc. to get the rape pregnancy terminated, thereby putting the victim through more senseless suffering and mental anguish, then the system you've suggested where these issues are not codified in law is senselessly cruel. 

As it stands, medical professionals are under no obligation to perform a termination of the pregnancy, regardless of the circumstances in which it came about. Again you’re assuming and adding circumstances to the hypothetical scenario that weren’t present in your original question. You simply asked what regarding rapes, incest? Medical professionals tend to take their ethical code seriously, they’re not in the business of torturing patients.

Speaking of "I'm lost as to how you got from one to the other there," I'm unclear how you got here, as if what I said wasn't inclusive of the possibility a rape victim can also choose to carry the pregnancy to term.

The rape and incest argument has always been heavily relied upon by pro-choice lobbyists, because they know the public’s revulsion of both those phenomena, it motivates people toward supporting abortion, when in reality, in the US at least, among the reasons given for abortions, rape and incest amount to about 1% and 0.5% respectively. I wasn’t sure where you were going with it when you initially asked what regarding rape, incest? And then declared that the circumstances couldn’t be declared a medical necessity. I’d leave that determination to the medical professionals tasked with evaluating the patient tbh, without the extra complexity of the 14 years or 12 week limit which could sway them towards being reluctant to treat the patient effectively.

These are not hypotheticals. 

What MEDICAL reason would they have to terminate the pregnancy?

Did the doctors involved in that particular case determine there was no medical need to terminate the pregnancy?

I didn't ask you how common it currently is, I don't see how that is an adequate dismissal for needing a framework for both within the law.

No medical professional is going to be able to undo the circumstances under which the pregnancy came about, so the requirement in law that a termination of the pregnancy is only permissible in cases of rape or incest isn’t necessary.

So those in the 1% to .05% category rape/ incest victims you have made clear you dont want them to be allowed to have an abortion- even if it would only result in a small number. Im not sure why you are bringing doctors into this ethical conundrum at all - the doctors would follow the law. The abortion laws you favour punishes these women further.

You’ve definitely picked that up wrong. I’m not interested in the question of whether victims of rape or incest specifically are deserving of an abortion, there are far greater issues involved in those circumstances than their being used as a hypothetical ‘gotcha’ to promote abortion as an individual right in law.

The reason I bring doctors into it is because they are recognised as having the medical training necessary to ensure abortions are carried out safely, and records are kept for oversight, accountability and policy design purposes.

These are not hypotheticals. If they are a gotcha to you, that is a problem with the stability of your position.

Under your framework, however, the loophole exists, despite whatever your intention.

Delusional. It is inseparable from abortion rights. I'm sorry that little girl going through so much is such a distraction.

I don't know why you are repeatedly asking

I provided the answer to your question: their determination wasn't even a legal avenue. 'No exceptions are made for "hard cases" such as rape, incest, or a fetus determined to possibly have Down syndrome. '

You can put it right there with your hypothetical distraction clap.

The reason I asked was because you presented that case in support of your previous argument that because doctors determine there is no medical need to terminate the pregnancy, they will not comply with the patient’s request to have a termination, if it is left up to them and not defined in law.

The whole reason the doctor who went public gave for going public in that particular case was because it wasn’t left up to the doctor who decided a termination was medically necessary - they couldn’t proceed because it’s prohibited in law! It’s why they had to send the girl for a termination of the pregnancy in another State. The doctors involved came to the opposite conclusion than the one you were originally suggesting.

It’s why I don’t like hypotheticals in any case, precisely because they’re rarely a reflection of reality.

So you would vote to allow medical professionals to perform the determination understanding that they will recommend abortion in a number of cases and that they can't be prosecuted for that recommendation or for performing the follow up procedure.

You did say you would stop doing this type of avoidance IIRC.

That’s not the question you asked. I answered the question you asked directly -

So you would vote to allow medical professionals to perform the determination understanding that they will recommend abortion in a number of cases and that they can't be prosecuted for that recommendation or for performing the follow up procedure.

I wouldn’t have to vote on anything? A referendum wouldn’t be required to change existing legislation. Politicians could make the legislative changes required if they wanted to, instead of pretending they’ve done Irish society a favour by granting women limited rights under which they may be eligible for a termination of the pregnancy, with no means to be able to fully exercise that right because medical professionals are keen to avoid the issue rather than risk the adverse consequences for themselves, and little support after they exercise their limited rights, in spite of the decision in ABC v Ireland over 10 years ago.

You don’t remember correctly because I wouldn’t claim I would stop doing something I wasn’t doing in the first place.

What are you driving at anyway with your question? I’m guessing there’s a point you want to make that I’m missing?

To clarify the question was more directed to what your opinion on what the law should be in that case, or shouldnt be. You have said repeatedly that medical professionals should practice medicine without the threat of legal liability but that could lead to pro-abortions' doctors performing abortions without any sort of restraint and anti-abortion doctors providing none.

Im not sure what code of ethics exist regarding abortions in Ireland, outside of complying with the law of the land and also not putting the patients health at risk.

Alito just comes right out and states plainly that Congress can make no law to regulate the Supreme Court

The power has gone to his **** head.

“I know this is a controversial view, but I’m willing to say it: No provision in the Constitution gives them the authority to regulate the Supreme Court—period.”