Abortion Discussion, Part Trois

robindch · 14-12-2018 1:49am

'The Irish Catholic' opines that the Religious Sisters of Charity may not be permitted under Canon Law to provide land for the National Maternity Hospital since abortions would be offered there:

https://www.irishcatholic.com/church-property-the-mystery-of-the-nuns-and-the-maternity-hospital/

Hotblack Desiato · 14-12-2018 1:14pm

end of the road wrote: »

by the looks of things he seems to be representing those who voted him in very well.

Yeah, priests.

Hotblack Desiato · 14-12-2018 1:18pm

robindch wrote: »

'The Irish Catholic' opines that the Religious Sisters of Charity may not be permitted under Canon Law to provide land for the National Maternity Hospital since abortions would be offered there:

https://www.irishcatholic.com/church-property-the-mystery-of-the-nuns-and-the-maternity-hospital/

This is (imho) why both sides are desperately trying to fudge the issue. Theresa May has a better chance of pulling off what she's trying to do, than Simon Harris has of making this deal work properly.

Of course the Irish Catholic overlooks the fact that NMH and other maternity hospitals perform abortions now, under POLDPA. "But those abortions don't count." They fought a pitched battle to try to stop POLDPA, and it's now the defensive trench they want to return to after they got routed in the repeal the 8th campaign. I'd commented on this before, they've opposed every change since 1983 but every time another change is proposed they pretend they're totally fine with the status quo and never mention they bitterly opposed that, too.

aloyisious · 14-12-2018 1:41pm

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

This is (imho) why both sides are desperately trying to fudge the issue. Theresa May has a better chance of pulling off what she's trying to do, than Simon Harris has of making this deal work properly.

Of course the Irish Catholic overlooks the fact that NMH and other maternity hospitals perform abortions now, under POLDPA. "But those abortions don't count." They fought a pitched battle to try to stop POLDPA, and it's now the defensive trench they want to return to after they got routed in the repeal the 8th campaign. I'd commented on this before, they've opposed every change since 1983 but every time another change is proposed they pretend they're totally fine with the status quo and never mention they bitterly opposed that, too.

With the RC Archbishop [or his chosen delegate] in the NMH governance chair. In the light of his obligations under canon law one may assume he wasn't aware of the medical procedures in practice at the NMH.

Hotblack Desiato · 14-12-2018 2:08pm

In fairness to Martin he hasn't taken up his seat on the NMH board and asked the Minister a few years back to change the legislation to remove him ex-oficio from the position.

robindch · 20-12-2018 9:11pm

President Higgins has signed the abortion law into the statute book:

https://twitter.com/PresidentIRL/status/1075787158273908737

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/health/abortion-becomes-legal-in-ireland-for-first-time-after-bill-signed-by-president-1.3738504

Irish Times wrote:

A Bill that will give women access to abortion for the first time in the history of the State has been signed into law by President Michael D Higgins.

A statement released by Áras an Uachtar on Thursday evening said: “Having considered the Health (Regulation of Termination of Pregnancy) Bill 2018, the President has signed the Bill and it has accordingly become law.” The Bill finished its final stage in the Seanad earlier this month after weeks of sometimes heated debate in both the D and Seanad. It follows a referendum in May on the removal of the Eighth Amendment from the Constitution, which guaranteed the unborn and mother an equal right to life. Some 67 per cent of the electorate voted to repeal the amendment.

Minister for Health Simon Harris will now have to sign a number of statutory instruments to give effect to the Bill now that it is signed into law by the President. The Bill was signed by the President as the Medical Council deleted provisions from its code which will mean that no ethical guidance on performing abortions will be in place for doctors when the legislation comes into force next month. [...]

Bredabe · 21-12-2018 12:28pm

Now women like me will be offered the best treatments for conditions and not what is best in case of potential pregnancy.

An_Toirpin · 21-12-2018 12:37pm

Bredabe wrote: »

Now women like me will be offered the best treatments for conditions and not what is best in case of potential pregnancy.

Doctors were never restricted from offering women the best possible care. No doctor was ever charged for doing so in the history in the state. The difference now is that the unborn has now zero constitutional protections.

ohnonotgmail · 21-12-2018 12:40pm

An_Toirpin wrote: »

Doctors were never restricted from offering women the best possible care.

Not true.

An_Toirpin wrote: »

No doctor was ever charged for doing so in the history in the state.

Irrelevant. all that means is that doctors knew what the restrictions were and obeyed them.

An_Toirpin wrote: »

The difference now is that the unborn has now zero constitutional protections.

that is correct. they still have appropriate legal protection though so all is well in the world.

Timberrrrrrrr · 21-12-2018 12:40pm

An_Toirpin wrote: »

Doctors were never restricted from offering women the best possible care. No doctor was ever charged for doing so in the history in the state. The difference now is that the unborn has now zero constitutional protections.

That's a lie.

Bredabe · 21-12-2018 12:48pm

An_Toirpin wrote: »

Doctors were never restricted from offering women the best possible care. No doctor was ever charged for doing so in the history in the state. The difference now is that the unborn has now zero constitutional protections.

I cant say about where you are, but I've been prescribed whats best for the potential pregnancy and NOT for my condition at least twice in recent years.

Probably for many years previously as well, but the reason wouldn't be on my radar.

Given the shortage of dr's in recent years, why would anyone sue them for something as vague as an interpretation of a rule? Just because noone that you know of has been charged for not offering best care doesn't mean that the care hasn't been compromised.

aloyisious · 21-12-2018 12:56pm

An_Toirpin wrote: »

Doctors were never restricted from offering women the best possible care.

Do you mean women in general or pregnant women with your reference to women being offered the best possible care? Is your choice of wording [by not including the word pregnant when referring to women] a way of sidestepping the issue?

Hotblack Desiato · 21-12-2018 1:23pm

An_Toirpin wrote: »

Doctors were never restricted from offering women the best possible care.

Bulls**t.

No doctor was ever charged for doing so in the history in the state.

Yes, because they didn't offer treatment which was forbidden under the 8th.

The difference now is that the unborn has now zero constitutional protections.

Good.

end of the road · 21-12-2018 3:09pm

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

Not true.

it is true. doctors could always offer good care and the vast majority did and do.

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

Irrelevant. all that means is that doctors knew what the restrictions were and obeyed them.

still doesn't prove the poster's statements wrong however.

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

that is correct. they still have appropriate legal protection though so all is well in the world.

all is not well in the world for the unborn however.

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Bulls**t.

Yes, because they didn't offer treatment which was forbidden under the 8th.

Good.

not good at all. horrific in fact.

nozzferrahhtoo · 21-12-2018 3:19pm

end of the road wrote: »

it is true. doctors could always offer good care and the vast majority did and do.

Put the goal posts back. No one said they were not offering "good care". The text being discussed and replied to was "best possible care" which is an entirely different thing. One is perfectly capable of offering "good care" while not offering "the best possible care". Do learn the difference and keep up, please.

end of the road wrote: »

all is not well in the world for the unborn however. not good at all. horrific in fact.

Nothing horrific about it at all so merely saying "horrific" at it does not make it take on that attribute any more than me saying "green" at a red shovel is going to turn it into a green shovel.

If you want to actually present arguments, evidence, data and reasoning as to why the attribute "horrific" fits to it then by all means do. But over many months of "debating" this abortion issue you have not done that yet when asked.

end of the road · 21-12-2018 3:55pm

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Put the goal posts back. No one said they were not offering "good care". The text being discussed and replied to was "best possible care" which is an entirely different thing. One is perfectly capable of offering "good care" while not offering "the best possible care". Do learn the difference and keep up, please.

Nothing horrific about it at all so merely saying "horrific" at it does not make it take on that attribute any more than me saying "green" at a red shovel is going to turn it into a green shovel.

If you want to actually present arguments, evidence, data and reasoning as to why the attribute "horrific" fits to it then by all means do. But over many months of "debating" this abortion issue you have not done that yet when asked.

i'm aware what the text was, good care was a mistype on my part. however, i believe the vast vast majority of doctors do and did offer the best possible care and i'm in agreement with the poster on that statement.

Hotblack Desiato · 21-12-2018 4:30pm

Where the health of the woman and the health of the foetus conflicted, doctors could NOT give the woman the best possible care. E.g. some/many cancer treatments not being allowed during pregnancy. The 8th didn't allow them to. You can believe otherwise, but it's not a belief based on facts, and round these parts we call that sort of thing delusion, or religion (if we're being more polite.)

"Pro-life" is in effect a religion. Brexit is another one...

seamus · 21-12-2018 4:33pm

end of the road wrote: »

all is not well in the world for the unborn however.

It's a very hostile world for the lizardpeople too.

It's a terrible place to be for things which don't exist.

seamus · 21-12-2018 4:52pm

Gandering at Twitter, I'm even more impressed with the Repeal campaign, and how they managed to coalesce so many different groups into a single juggernaut and focus on this one issue.

Twitter is an odd place. The loony left are a bizarre non-bunch with really, really niche and specific personal ideals. They are virtually impossible to organise into groups without a split taking place over a disagreement about something really petty and inconsequential. "I will no longer associate myself with this group as they insist on keeping the orange trim in their logo despite its obvious links with the subjugation of the Irish".

Once the vote was done, there was a transgender group demanding an apology from T4Y because they had been pushed to the background. T4Y understood the importance of not allowing the repeal debate to become muddied by unnecessarily introducing transgender issues, but this trans group felt aggrieved that they didn't get to have a say.
Today I see sarcastic comments on Twitter about how repeal was hijacked by white middle-class women and ignored the needs of the disabled, impoverished and non-white.

Now, I know these are just randomers on Twitter. But, big picture, people. For jeebus sake.

How the Repeal campaign managed to get these people to STFU for long enough to get the vote through and just focus on a single issue, I will never know. They deserve a medal.

Bredabe · 21-12-2018 6:59pm

end of the road wrote: »

it is true. doctors could always offer good care and the vast majority did and do.

still doesn't prove the poster's statements wrong however.

all is not well in the world for the unborn however.

not good at all. horrific in fact.

When challenged on the prescriptions, the Dr said it was their only choice as they had to stay within the bounds of the 8th as I was still capable of becoming pregnant.

Different Dr in a different country(but with the same qualifications) offered me much more effective drugs as his hands was not tied by legislation, and commented that it was cruel to knowingly prescribe the original drugs knowing they could do little to alleviate the condition and indeed prolonged the recovery period by years.

So yea, best of care for me under the 8th NOT.

robindch · 21-12-2018 7:17pm

seamus wrote: »

The loony left are a bizarre non-bunch with really, really niche and specific personal ideals. They are virtually impossible to organise into groups without a split taking place over a disagreement about something really petty and inconsequential. "I will no longer associate myself with this group as they insist on keeping the orange trim in their logo despite its obvious links with the subjugation of the Irish".

And famously disputative as well - hence the old gag about how you get a dozen incompatible far-left opinions around a table? You sit down six far-lefters.

Anyway - just on that - is anybody aware of any reliable research regarding people who might fit into a "far-left" category, regardless of whether they actually self-describe as such or not?

The angry, entitled far-right is exercised, motivated and offers endless outrage against "the left", but so far as I can ever understand their unclear usage of the term, their descriptions in reality seem to apply only to a tiny proportion of individuals with different political or social opinions, but who happen to be equally angry, equally entitled and equally supported unclear verbiage and thinking.

nozzferrahhtoo · 21-12-2018 8:23pm

end of the road wrote: »

i'm aware what the text was, good care was a mistype on my part. however, i believe the vast vast majority of doctors do and did offer the best possible care and i'm in agreement with the poster on that statement.

Tihs <-- is a mistype. What you did was a complete change of meaning from what was said, to what you wanted to pretend was said. An entirely different thing.

However you have offered here another example of the difference between believe and reality. That you believe they offered the best care does not mean they did. You have not shown a single argument that they did. Another user however has provided examples of how they demonstrably did not. Not quite going your way I guess.

As the user above put it, there is a difference between offering the woman the best care and treatment, and offering the pregnancy the best care and treatment. And religious nonsense aside I see no argument why a non-person should be given medical preference over and actual person. Precluding treatmetn for someone that is a person in deference to some thing that is not a person is not "the best care" by any argument I have heard, and certainly none you have ever provided.

ohnonotgmail · 21-12-2018 8:46pm

end of the road wrote: »

it is true. doctors could always offer good care and the vast majority did and do.

still doesn't prove the poster's statements wrong however.

all is not well in the world for the unborn however.

not good at all. horrific in fact.

More of your usual bull****.

ohnonotgmail · 21-12-2018 8:48pm

end of the road wrote: »

i'm aware what the text was, good care was a mistype on my part. however, i believe the vast vast majority of doctors do and did offer the best possible care and i'm in agreement with the poster on that statement.

more bull****.

end of the road · 21-12-2018 9:08pm

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Tihs <-- is a mistype. What you did was a complete change of meaning from what was said, to what you wanted to pretend was said. An entirely different thing.

nope, it was a mistype. nothing more. a complete simple accident. had it typed and posted and you replied before i realised and had time to edit it.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

However you have offered here another example of the difference between believe and reality. That you believe they offered the best care does not mean they did. You have not shown a single argument that they did. Another user however has provided examples of how they demonstrably did not. Not quite going your way I guess.

no but the fact they are still doctors would be enough proof for me and for the rules that they have provided the best care possible.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

As the user above put it, there is a difference between offering the woman the best care and treatment, and offering the pregnancy the best care and treatment. And religious nonsense aside I see no argument why a non-person should be given medical preference over and actual person. Precluding treatmetn for someone that is a person in deference to some thing that is not a person is not "the best care" by any argument I have heard, and certainly none you have ever provided.

religion has nothing to do with this for many. it's just used to deflect and more from what i can see. i am satisfied that both mother and baby receive the best possible care from the vast majority of doctors and where not so, the doctors have been held to account.
i provided arguments as to why an unborn human being should have an equal right to life as a born human being except in circumstances where there is a serious risk to the life of the born human being and you did not wish to except those arguments, for which i can do no more.

Hotblack Desiato · 22-12-2018 12:27am

seamus wrote: »

Once the vote was done, there was a transgender group demanding an apology from T4Y because they had been pushed to the background.

Which is of course bollocks, because T4Y and ARC spoke of "pregnant people" as well as "pregnant women".

Today I see sarcastic comments on Twitter about how repeal was hijacked by white middle-class women and ignored the needs of the disabled, impoverished and non-white.

Which is also complete bollocks. A major concern of ARC (And of course ASN) was the difficulties pregnant people in poverty face in relation to the costs of travel, and the difficulties legal and illegal immigrants face in relation to the right to travel. Disability rights campaigners also spoke out as part of the Yes campaign (in "catholic Ireland" they still have to battle the idea that many think they shouldn't be allowed to have a sex life at all)

How the Repeal campaign managed to get these people to STFU for long enough to get the vote through and just focus on a single issue, I will never know. They deserve a medal.

But the Repeal campaign groups did speak on these issues. I mean, there were plenty on here saying "sure what's the problem, just get a Ryanair" ignoring the fact that the abortion once you get there is far from free, and not everyone living here is allowed to travel to the UK.

I do get your point though, they were fantastic in the way they built a coalition and gradually built up their message and assuaged the fears of doubting voters along the way. I sent off an email (after I donated to them) to T4Y in the early weeks sayiing they were far too meek and bland in the early stages, but looking back it was strategy. Their campaign in the last two weeks was much more confident and strident and open than it was in the first two weeks.

King Mob · 22-12-2018 1:00am

end of the road wrote: »

i provided arguments as to why an unborn human being should have an equal right to life as a born human being except in circumstances where there is a serious risk to the life of the born human being and you did not wish to except those arguments, for which i can do no more.

Nope. You ran away from every single difficult point asked of you and outright ignored them.
You have lied about and distorted facts and even your own position.

We don't accept your arguments because they are bad, weak and dishonest.

Hotblack Desiato · 22-12-2018 2:18am

I call it cowardice, and I call it lying.

robindch · 22-12-2018 2:24am

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

More of your usual bull****.

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

more bull****.

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Which is of course bollocks

Look folks, I realize it's Christmas time and the levels of both casual alcohol and fists may be a few inches higher than normal, but there's still no point in losing the run of oneself here on A+A, Anglo-Saxon wise.

Thanking youze.

// wishing you and yours a happy Festivus

aloyisious · 22-12-2018 6:11pm

I'm bemused at yesterday's report that the College of Gynaecologists had deleted it's present guidelines on how its members should deal with abortion given that it was reported last week that it still preparing the new guidelines for use in unison with the new abortion legislation changes for 2019. The report was carried in the media just after the one about the health minister working on the 2019 legislation changes after Michael D signed the bill passed by both houses. Maybe some-one here might have more info and update me.

splinter65 · 22-12-2018 11:38pm

Less then 5% of GPs have signed up. GPs are already flat out to the wall. If I want an abortion next Wednesday week where do I go?

ArmaniJeanss · 23-12-2018 12:05am

splinter65 wrote: »

Less then 5% of GPs have signed up. GPs are already flat out to the wall. If I want an abortion next Wednesday week where do I go?

Less then 5% of GPs have signed up to an abortion hotline where they will be named. Crucial difference.

Many doctors will be slow at signing up because people in general are poor at paperwork and this is a busy time of year.

Also many doctors are not going to want to 'advertise' their name on any hotline because of potentially making themselves a target, but will deal with patients as and when the need arises.

I wouldn't panic, the ink is barely dry on the legislation.
As for what women would do if they need an abortion next Wednesday? There are ways, a grapevine if you like. You are so vehemently anti-choice that I doubt it concerns you anyway.

end of the road · 23-12-2018 12:09am

ArmaniJeanss wrote: »

Less then 5% of GPs have signed up to an abortion hotline where they will be named. Crucial difference.

Many doctors will be slow at signing up because people in general are poor at paperwork and this is a busy time of year.

Also many doctors are not going to want to 'advertise' their name on any hotline because of potentially making themselves a target, but will deal with patients as and when the need arises.

I wouldn't panic, the ink is barely dry on the legislation.
As for what women would do if they need an abortion next Wednesday? There are ways, a grapevine if you like. You are so vehemently anti-choice that I doubt it concerns you anyway.

incorrect it's anti-AOD and not anti-choice. if she was anti-choice then she would be against anyone being able to choose to do anything which is not the case.

eviltwin · 23-12-2018 12:12am

splinter65 wrote: »

Less then 5% of GPs have signed up. GPs are already flat out to the wall. If I want an abortion next Wednesday week where do I go?

Well Woman or IFPA. I'd be going to them anyway as opposed to a GP. Obviously not everyone has access to such services but considering where we were we've come on light years. The GPS will catch up.

splinter65 · 23-12-2018 12:23am

ArmaniJeanss wrote: »

Less then 5% of GPs have signed up to an abortion hotline where they will be named. Crucial difference.

Many doctors will be slow at signing up because people in general are poor at paperwork and this is a busy time of year.

Also many doctors are not going to want to 'advertise' their name on any hotline because of potentially making themselves a target, but will deal with patients as and when the need arises.

I wouldn't panic, the ink is barely dry on the legislation.
As for what women would do if they need an abortion next Wednesday? There are ways, a grapevine if you like. You are so vehemently anti-choice that I doubt it concerns you anyway.

Yes it’s all going swimmingly well I see. I’ve never seen such angry, stressed and nervous “winners” as the pro repeal community since the referendum result was announced. Pro repeal Twitter goes into a meltdown every 1/2 hour around the clock with every mention of delays and “bedding down “. ‘‘Tis very amusing. Happy and Holy Christmas to all the Atheists ! May all your Carol singers be secular ones!

eviltwin · 23-12-2018 12:30am

splinter65 wrote: »

Yes it’s all going swimmingly well I see. I’ve never seen such angry, stressed and nervous “winners” as the pro repeal community since the referendum result was announced. Pro repeal Twitter goes into a meltdown every 1/2 hour around the clock with every mention of delays and “bedding down “. ‘‘Tis very amusing. Happy and Holy Christmas to all the Atheists ! May all your Carol singers be secular ones!

I think that's because it was never about simply winning the referendum, it was always about the bigger picture. So while it's lovely to know we got the repeal the real work has always been about ensuring services are as accessible to as many women as possible as easily as possible.

I know it must be a difficult new dawn for those who'd rather ship our crisis pregnancies overseas but this is how it's going to be and I hope those accessing services and those providing them will be left in peace.

Happy Christmas

splinter65 · 23-12-2018 12:39am

eviltwin wrote: »

I think that's because it was never about simply winning the referendum, it was always about the bigger picture. So while it's lovely to know we got the repeal the real work has always been about ensuring services are as accessible to as many women as possible as easily as possible.

I know it must be a difficult new dawn for those who'd rather ship our crisis pregnancies overseas but this is how it's going to be and I hope those accessing services and those providing them will be left in peace.

Happy Christmas

No no. If the people want abortions then abortions is what they’ll get. Democracy is far more important to me then anything.
Let anyone that wants one have an abortion, let those who voted yes to abortion continue to support the choice they made, and let those that don’t agree with abortion continue to fight against it without the efforts to silence them as is their right as citizens in a democracy.

King Mob · 23-12-2018 12:46am

splinter65 wrote: »

and let those that don’t agree with abortion continue to fight against it without the efforts to silence them as is their right as citizens in a democracy.

What efforts are being made to silence them?

aloyisious · 23-12-2018 3:02am

splinter65 wrote: »

No no. If the people want abortions then abortions is what they’ll get. Democracy is far more important to me then anything.
Let anyone that wants one have an abortion, let those who voted yes to abortion continue to support the choice they made, and let those that don’t agree with abortion continue to fight against it without the efforts to silence them as is their right as citizens in a democracy.

To the author and EOTR; there's a world of difference between continuing to fight against abortion here by speech and continuing to prevent pregnant women access by their own choice to legal abortion services here. You both seem willing to allow pregnant women have abortions here but also quite at ease with the notion that the right to free speech also allows the speaker the right to absolutely deny pregnant women the right to an abortion here.

It has been made plain here in Ireland by some vocal opponents to abortion services that they believe free speech allows them the right to DENY pregnant women access to abortion services here. We all know out and out opponents to abortion here believe giving pregnant women freedom of choice on abortion is opening the floodgates - AOD. Pregnant women [in their opinion] can't be trusted to make the "right" choice.

The use of terms like AOD in the same sentence as anti-choice, ala "I'm anti-abortion on demand but not anti-choice" is - IMO - a covert use of free speech toward denying pregnant women the right to abortion services at all here.

uptherebels · 23-12-2018 3:25am

King Mob wrote: »

What efforts are being made to silence them?

It just what they like to claim when people aren't swayed by their incoherent wailing.

robarmstrong · 23-12-2018 4:02pm

robindch wrote: »

Look folks, I realize it's Christmas time and the levels of both casual alcohol and fists may be a few inches higher than normal, but there's still no point in losing the run of oneself here on A+A, Anglo-Saxon wise.

Thanking youze.

// wishing you and yours a happy Festivus

Maybe if the issue regarding a certain poster and their substandard level of posting/attempts at discussion happened to previously addressed when it was raised in the feedback thread several times people wouldn’t be “losing the run of oneself here”.

If a particular poster is allowed to continuously drag the levels of discussion down with constant deflection, dishonesty and drivel, it’s perfectly natural for those trying to engage in honest, valuable discussion to get frustrated.

But again, nothing will be done I reckon.

nozzferrahhtoo · 24-12-2018 10:02am

end of the road wrote: »

nope, it was a mistype. nothing more.

Again a mistype is a misspelling or a typo. A strawman is where you change what someone said into something entirely different because it is easier to reply to, or you want to move the goal posts. You want to pretend you did the former when it was blatantly the latter, fine. But no one but yourself seems to be buying it. Especially given how many times I have pulled you up on that exact MO before.

end of the road wrote: »

no but the fact they are still doctors would be enough proof for me and for the rules that they have provided the best care possible.

Argument from authority fallacy from you there. You have offered no evidence or argument that they offered the best care possible. So you just pretend that their being doctors does that for you.

The problem for your fallacy is you also have a cherry picking fallacy here. In that many doctors came out during the referendum debates to say the exact opposite of the tripe you are pedalling here. Which means that apparently their being doctors only proves your position when they agree with your position. When they do not, suddenly their being doctors does not matter any more.

Cake and eat it stuff from you there as usual.

end of the road wrote: »

religion has nothing to do with this for many.

Great but who are you telling? Did someone claim otherwise? Did someone claim that it was something to do with religion for everyone? Not clear here what your point here is, or to what you think you are directing it. Not even clear YOU know either of those things. But I will repeat my point as it was before you sidestepped it in this way. Religious nonsense aside, I see no argument why a non-person should be given medical preference over and actual person. Withholding treatment from a PERSON in deference to a THING is not "best medical care" by any means and you certainly have not argued as to how or why it might be.

end of the road wrote: »

i am satisfied that both mother and baby receive the best possible care from the vast majority of doctors

You might want to show your workings and data and evidence on this evaluation then. Because right now it appears to be an assertion made solely because it fits your anti abortion agenda. Since you have apparently evaluated the "majority" of cases you must have some workings or a data set we can view.

end of the road wrote: »

i provided arguments as to why an unborn human being should have an equal right to life as a born human being

Not that I have seen, anywhere, ever. In fact EVERY time I ask you for such arguments you do the above: Claim you have presented them before. I never seem to get a link to them, a citation of them, a quote, a repetition, or even a glimpse of them. Just claims over and over and over and over that you already put them out there somewhere.

In fact the only thing I recall you spewing out was some weird view that there is some "right to become sentient". Yet ever time I have pulled you up on substantiating that claim you have run away from the conversation entirely.

So perhaps rather than claims you have provided arguments you might instead provide the arguments? If arguments exist let us know what they are. This thread certainly has not thrown up any, what with it's "ooo my knees go funny cause it has a tongue that moves around when we play music and that makes me think it might be talking" types going around.

end of the road wrote: »

you did not wish to except those arguments, for which i can do no more.

Yeah funny I do not accept assertions that you call arguments. Wonder why that might be?

end of the road wrote: »

incorrect it's anti-AOD and not anti-choice. if she was anti-choice then she would be against anyone being able to choose to do anything which is not the case.

You are redefining what the phrase "anti choice" means in order to pretend it is not anti choice. No one using the phrase "anti choice" is claiming it means "being able to choose to do anything" except you.

Claiming X is not X because X means something different to you personally that it does to the people using X, is one of your weaker dodges and distortions.

Hotblack Desiato · 24-12-2018 7:44pm

robindch wrote: »

Look folks, I realize it's Christmas time and the levels of both casual alcohol and fists may be a few inches higher than normal, but there's still no point in losing the run of oneself here on A+A, Anglo-Saxon wise.

Thanking youze.

// wishing you and yours a happy Festivus

I refer my learned friend to the obscenity case taken against Virgin Records and the Sex Pistols:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bollocks#Obscenity_court_ruling

Perhaps the best-known use of the term is in the title of the 1977 punk rock album Never Mind the Bollocks, Here's the Sex Pistols. Testimony in a resulting prosecution over the term demonstrated that in Old English, the word referred to a priest, and could also be used to mean "nonsense". Defence barrister John Mortimer QC and Virgin Records won the case: the court ruled that the word was not obscene.

A word which means nonsense and refers to a priest : someone somewhere had a sense of humour

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mcPDHkX1qWA

Hotblack Desiato · 24-12-2018 8:27pm

aloyisious wrote: »

The use of terms like AOD in the same sentence as anti-choice, ala "I'm anti-abortion on demand but not anti-choice" is - IMO - a covert use of free speech toward denying pregnant women the right to abortion services at all here.

Anyone opposed to "abortion on demand" is by definition anti-choice. "Pro-choices-which-I-agree-with-but-not-other-choices" is not pro-choice.

robindch · 25-12-2018 2:35am

robarmstrong wrote: »

But again, nothing will be done I reckon.

So long as no posts are reported for offences within the remit of the forum charter, then yes, you're correct as nothing can be done. I note you've reported two posts this year and both were non-specific.

If you can take the time to report posts which can be actioned according to the forum charter, especially the recent rule regarding truth-claim adjudication, then the forum mods will be able to take more focussed action.

Happy christmas all!

aloyisious · 25-12-2018 10:58am

Being the day it is today, seasonal cheers to all under the sky today.

robarmstrong · 25-12-2018 11:40am

robindch wrote: »

So long as no posts are reported for offences within the remit of the forum charter, then yes, you're correct as nothing can be done. I note you've reported two posts this year and both were non-specific.

If you can take the time to report posts which can be actioned according to the forum charter, especially the recent rule regarding truth-claim adjudication, then the forum mods will be able to take more focussed action.

Happy christmas all!

Yeah somehow I doubt that, but continue to ostrich knowing full well that people don't report the posts because as previously, nothing happened to the poster in particular.

So instead of proactively taking any action you sit back and go "ah shur look lads nobody has reported anything I'll just leave it so!", when the posts are pointed out and highlighted to you, you still fail to actually do anything about them.

Great moderation there.

robindch · 25-12-2018 6:46pm

Mod: robarmstrong has received what I believe is the first card handed out in this form for incivility on Christmas day.

robarmstrong · 26-12-2018 1:31am

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Again a mistype is a misspelling or a typo. A strawman is where you change what someone said into something entirely different because it is easier to reply to, or you want to move the goal posts. You want to pretend you did the former when it was blatantly the latter, fine. But no one but yourself seems to be buying it. Especially given how many times I have pulled you up on that exact MO before.

Argument from authority fallacy from you there. You have offered no evidence or argument that they offered the best care possible. So you just pretend that their being doctors does that for you.

The problem for your fallacy is you also have a cherry picking fallacy here. In that many doctors came out during the referendum debates to say the exact opposite of the tripe you are pedalling here. Which means that apparently their being doctors only proves your position when they agree with your position. When they do not, suddenly their being doctors does not matter any more.

Cake and eat it stuff from you there as usual.

Great but who are you telling? Did someone claim otherwise? Did someone claim that it was something to do with religion for everyone? Not clear here what your point here is, or to what you think you are directing it. Not even clear YOU know either of those things. But I will repeat my point as it was before you sidestepped it in this way. Religious nonsense aside, I see no argument why a non-person should be given medical preference over and actual person. Withholding treatment from a PERSON in deference to a THING is not "best medical care" by any means and you certainly have not argued as to how or why it might be.

You might want to show your workings and data and evidence on this evaluation then. Because right now it appears to be an assertion made solely because it fits your anti abortion agenda. Since you have apparently evaluated the "majority" of cases you must have some workings or a data set we can view.

Not that I have seen, anywhere, ever. In fact EVERY time I ask you for such arguments you do the above: Claim you have presented them before. I never seem to get a link to them, a citation of them, a quote, a repetition, or even a glimpse of them. Just claims over and over and over and over that you already put them out there somewhere.

In fact the only thing I recall you spewing out was some weird view that there is some "right to become sentient". Yet ever time I have pulled you up on substantiating that claim you have run away from the conversation entirely.

So perhaps rather than claims you have provided arguments you might instead provide the arguments? If arguments exist let us know what they are. This thread certainly has not thrown up any, what with it's "ooo my knees go funny cause it has a tongue that moves around when we play music and that makes me think it might be talking" types going around.

Yeah funny I do not accept assertions that you call arguments. Wonder why that might be?

You are redefining what the phrase "anti choice" means in order to pretend it is not anti choice. No one using the phrase "anti choice" is claiming it means "being able to choose to do anything" except you.

Claiming X is not X because X means something different to you personally that it does to the people using X, is one of your weaker dodges and distortions.

Will eotr attempt to address the bolded in particular? As I do believe it's outlined in the "charter" that he must do so and failure to do so will result in appropriate moderator action, correct?

Igotadose · 31-12-2018 8:42pm

A reason to celebrate at Midnight: https://www.rte.ie/news/health/2018/1231/1019710-hospital-trolleys/

Helpline opens tonight. I wonder when the hatebothers start trying to spam it. Hopefully that's being anticipated.

Abortion Discussion, Part Trois

Comments