The Students' Union & Abortion

Captain Flaps

Now now, cliterrorists are people too.

Boston

I don't mind feminism as long as the two girls are hot.

Awayindahils

shay_562 wrote: »

Yeah, nothing says "post of the year" like patronising, borderline-misogynistic twaddle. Woop, etc. (I say "misogynistic" not because I'm a crazy feminist, but because it seems a tad dodge that just about the only girl to contribute to the abortion conversation has a man almost immediately turn around and tell her she's being too emotional and immature, while being cheered on by a bunch of slack-jawed lackeys, also male)

AlanSparrowhawk wrote: »

In your case I'd definitely legalize abortion.

AlanSparrowhawk wrote: »

if this subject is a little too personal and evocative for you to discuss maturely perhaps you should reconsider contributing.

Pet wrote: »

Whoah, that's....possibly the most patronising thing I've ever seen you write, Kev. But then, you are the most sexist person I've ever, ever encountered. Even my grandfather was more enlightened than you.

Ron DMC wrote: »

And did you see her photo? :O

Man, feminists annoy me.

Captain Flaps wrote: »

Now now, cliterrorists are people too.

Boston wrote: »

I don't mind feminism as long as the two girls are hot.

MATURE AND ON TOPIC.

The above are not examples of these. Abortion is a very serious, very sensitive issue, which of course must be debated, but thats not what most of you are doing.

Donal said it earlier, make an effort to keep this on topic.

jingx3

[offtopic]
This thread is about abortion, not boards.ie policy.
[/offtopic]

Captain Flaps

Awayindahils wrote: »

MATURE AND ON TOPIC.

The above are not examples of these. Abortion is a very serious, very sensitive issue, which of course must be debated, but thats not what most of you are doing.

Donal said it earlier, make an effort to keep this on topic.

I was debating it initially, but when the discussion descended into MY STRONG OPNION IS MORE VALID THAN YOUR STRONG OPINION, I gave up.

johnl

Captain Flaps wrote: »

I was debating it initially, but when the discussion descended into MY STRONG OPNION IS MORE VALID THAN YOUR STRONG OPINION, I gave up.

That's always what happens with abortion, I find.
No-one is ever willing to change their uninformed and knee-jerk-based opinion, despite pretensions of debate. There's nothing to be gained, and at the end of several hours or pages of sweaty argument, no new information has been imparted, no-one has changed their opinion.
That's why I generally stay out of such discussions.

Awayindahils wrote: »

MATURE AND ON TOPIC.

The above are not examples of these. Abortion is a very serious, very sensitive issue, which of course must be debated, but thats not what most of you are doing.

Donal said it earlier, make an effort to keep this on topic.

This mantra of "keep it on topic" is really quite counter-productive; while I recognise the epistemological value of categorising and titling threads of debate, and indeed the practical necessity of such on a text-based bulletin board, I really must object to the way "the topic" is clung to like some saintly relic.
Debates move in and out of their topic, if they shear off on a tangent, so be it. Trying to hold back a debate is like trying to make a river flow up-hill.
Again, these gestures of authoritarian censure ring hollow and provide renewed impetus to the so-called "trolls". These then up the ante, leading to bans or impotent infractions. The miscreant is vindicated, in a way, having successfully pushed the policeman surrogate to the edge. They have also found a new distaste for the system which has wronged them, in their eyes, and will attack again.

Captain Flaps

I don't know about the last bit johnl, maybe you know something about the users here that I don't (and, me being new, that's quite likely).

I agree with your comments on abortion though. People already have an opinion and no amount of debate is going to change that.

Tricity Bendix

johnl wrote: »

This mantra of "keep it on topic" is really quite counter-productive; while I recognise the epistemological value of categorising and titling threads of debate, and indeed the practical necessity of such on a text-based bulletin board, I really must object to the way "the topic" is clung to like some saintly relic.
Debates move in and out of their topic, if they shear off on a tangent, so be it. Trying to hold back a debate is like trying to make a river flow up-hill.
Again, these gestures of authoritarian censure ring hollow and provide renewed impetus to the so-called "trolls". These then up the ante, leading to bans or impotent infractions. The miscreant is vindicated, in a way, having successfully pushed the policeman surrogate to the edge. They have also found a new distaste for the system which has wronged them, in their eyes, and will attack again.

What parts of the dialogue that Awayindahils quoted would you count as legitimate parts of a debate?

johnl

Tricity Bendix wrote: »

What parts of the dialogue that Awayindahils quoted would you count as legitimate parts of a debate?

I think the second quote from AlanSparrowhawk is probably the closest to a debate. The rest are the results of poor moderation and the users who are conditioned to it, the "trolling" I mentioned.

shay_562

johnl wrote:

I think the second quote from AlanSparrowhawk is probably the closest to a debate.

Not to over-stress a point, but telling other users that they're being too emotional and that they should stay out the discussion =/= a debate. I'd argue that that's one of the worst insults on the list, because unlike, say, AlanSparrowhawk's first quote, it isn't aiming to be funny or even to vent steam, but purely to insult and belittle.

The rest are the results of poor moderation and the users who are conditioned to it, the "trolling" I mentioned.

Again, I'd disagree. Of the 6 people quotes in Hils' post, 5 of us can hardly be described as "trolls" having posted here regularly and for a long time in a non-trollish manner. The 6th is relatively new to the site, but doesn't yet show signs of trollishness (e.g., deliberately derailing a discussion into madness and stupidity), so rather than being "trolls" responding to the so-called "poor moderation" I think we're just a bunch of normal enough people sniping at each other over a fairly emotive issue. On which note, the topic:

That's always what happens with abortion, I find.
No-one is ever willing to change their uninformed and knee-jerk-based opinion, despite pretensions of debate. There's nothing to be gained, and at the end of several hours or pages of sweaty argument, no new information has been imparted, no-one has changed their opinion.

To keep with the theme, I disagree. Most debates are just this - people with different viewpoints state their views and the reasons for them. It's rare that debate, especially in an online forum, will lead to consensus or changed views, but it's interesting to read opposing opinions and to have to formulate proper ideas about your own opinions beyond "I just think it, that's why", so we keep on doing it. Abortion is only different in that the levels of emotion tend to be higher, and the positions more entrenched - understandable, given that abortion deals with the hugely complex and effectively unanswerable question of when life begins, and without two sides being able to agree on that fundamental basis it's never going to be possible to reach an acceptable consensus. But I don't think the debate is pointless, because I don't think any debate is ever pointless - even if you'll never agree, hearing and even partially understanding each other's position is, to my mind, an automatic Good Thing.

Boston

Is anyone else growing tired of the CS students constantly having a go at the system. The place to discuss this nonsense is helpdesk.

Tricity Bendix

johnl wrote: »

I think the second quote from AlanSparrowhawk is probably the closest to a debate.

Really? It was a deliberate and obvious attempt to troll and antagonise.

johnl wrote:

The rest are the results of poor moderation and the users who are conditioned to it, the "trolling" I mentioned.

What you're saying is that mods shouldn't encourage discussion to be kept on topic because posters are conditioned by poor moderation not to stay on topic. Huh?

Sparks

Captain Flaps wrote: »

It should be a difficult process to discourage people who won't necessarily appreciate that it's a pretty big deal.

Yes, because an undergraduate with an unplanned pregnancy on her hands is in dire need of a life lesson :rolleyes:

Seriously, how this could be left to the SU I don't know. It's a medical issue. Boards.ie will happily slap anyone who gives out medical or legal advice on boards - there are damn good reasons not to. For medical advice, you go to a doctor; for legal advice you go to a lawyer. The same principle points out that the idea that it's down to the SU to decide whether or not an undergrad can get a specific kind of medical advice is wrong. Seriously wrong. As in, slavery-level wrong. The day the SU gets a medical licence to practise, that's the day they can start giving out medical information selectively. Until then, the only medical advice they should be dispensing is the number for the student medical centre.

As to this debating the ethics of it, wow. Why doesn't anyone understand the phrase "Mind your own business" anymore?

Captain Flaps

Sparks wrote: »

Seriously, how this could be left to the SU I don't know. It's a medical issue. Boards.ie will happily slap anyone who gives out medical or legal advice on boards - there are damn good reasons not to. For medical advice, you go to a doctor; for legal advice you go to a lawyer. The same principle points out that the idea that it's down to the SU to decide whether or not an undergrad can get a specific kind of medical advice is wrong. Seriously wrong. As in, slavery-level wrong. The day the SU gets a medical licence to practise, that's the day they can start giving out medical information selectively. Until then, the only medical advice they should be dispensing is the number for the student medical centre.

I don't think anyone is accusing the SU of pushing people towards abortion. As for giving out information, isn't that the purpose of the SU? I haven't had any direct interaction with the SU in a long time, and I haven't seen any of the literature on abortion they're handing out, but I don't think distributing leaflets qualifies as medical advice, nor do I think anyone sees it as such. By your logic, all of these crisis pregnancy agencies should be closed down (which, I admit, may not be a bad thing), and the only person who shuold be asked for their opinion is a doctor. And a doctor would lose his license if he suggested an abortion. As of 1995, it's completely constitutional to allow student services to counsel and advise people regarding abortion. The problem as I see it is individuals with vested interests, not the SU as a whole.

Regarding your first point, you're right. An undergrad with an unplanned pregnancy to worry about already gets how much of a big deal. That's now. If abortion was a legalised, inexpensive and relatively uncomplicated procedure which meant 4/5 hours in the hospital, would it seem like such a crisis then?

snappieT

Boston wrote: »

Is anyone else growing tired of the CS students constantly having a go at the system. The place to discuss this nonsense is helpdesk.

It's pretty unfair to tar all CS students with the same brush.

Boston

Especially considering most have graduated. Bold boston.

Sparks

Captain Flaps wrote: »

I don't think anyone is accusing the SU of pushing people towards abortion.

That wasn't what I was saying. Step back for a moment from the pro/anti abortion argument, and reread my post.

I was saying that the SU giving out any form of medical advice at all was wrong. Whether it came in the form of a religious lecture or an all-expenses paid trip abroad is just an irrelevant detail. The SU hasn't got a medical licence, and there's no regulation as to what they tell someone; the idea that that would be the source of medical advice is so wrong that I'm actually rather surprised something rather tragic hasn't happened to one of those seeking advice from them already.

As for giving out information, isn't that the purpose of the SU?

You know, after four years as an undergrad, seven as a postgrad and two as staff, I've still not figured out if the SU even has a purpose at all past running the Ball and printing the newspaper. But unless they've got a medical licence, handing out medical advice is downright wrong.

By your logic, all of these crisis pregnancy agencies should be closed down

Put it this way - if you go to one of them, it's a crapshoot as to whether you get helpful advice (Well Woman Centre/Marie Stokes) or a religious "lecture" (for lecture, read psychological bullying session and you'll get a better picture of what happens in those places).

I don't know if "closed down" is the right option there (and certainly in some cases it'd be flat-out wrong because some of these places hire medical professionals to provide advice to people seeking it and they have much higher standards than other places), but some regulation is badly needed, because about half of those places are regularly inflicting psychological damage on people when they're in a very vulnerable and stressful mental state. The problem is that the people who'd draft that regulation are not people you'd trust with the remote control to your television, let alone your child's health.

a doctor would lose his license if he suggested an abortion

If they came out and recommended it for every case without thought or consideration of the case, well that comes under the heading of "unnecessary medical procedures" and that's a bit of a no-no, sort of like cutting out the womb of every woman you ever operate on.

If you mean, however, that any doctor who gave advice on abortions was going to lose their licence, you are wrong and you shouldn't be spreading that kind of rumour, lest someone who needs to ask their doctor believes you. Doctors are completely free to give advice on all the options available to someone who's pregnant - and in fact, not giving that advice might well be grounds for a malpractice suit or at least a formal complaint.

Regarding your first point, you're right. An undergrad with an unplanned pregnancy to worry about already gets how much of a big deal. That's now. If abortion was a legalised, inexpensive and relatively uncomplicated procedure which meant 4/5 hours in the hospital, would it seem like such a crisis then?

See, this is what I mean by Mind your own business - if you'd ever been in that spot, you'd know the answer is yes, and that the question betrays a complete lack of personal knowledge of the topic.

shay_562

Sparks wrote:

I was saying that the SU giving out any form of medical advice at all was wrong. Whether it came in the form of a religious lecture or an all-expenses paid trip abroad is just an irrelevant detail. The SU hasn't got a medical licence, and there's no regulation as to what they tell someone; the idea that that would be the source of medical advice is so wrong that I'm actually rather surprised something rather tragic hasn't happened to one of those seeking advice from them already.

I dunno...if someone has opted to bypass the college medical centre and the college counselling service, and just wants to talk to another student of their own age (be it through one of the S2S counselling things or by going to the Welfare officer) I think it'd be kinda mental for the Welfare officer to then turn around and say "I can't talk to you about this, except to give you the phone number of the counselling services you already decided you didn't want to talk to just yet". I can see why you'd have a problem with the Welfare officer saying definitively "__________ is the course of action you should definitely take", but I don't think that's what happens at the moment, so I'm not sure where exactly your problem is? [This isn't an aggro "What's your problem?", but a confused "I don't see the problem..."]

Sparks

shay_562 wrote: »

I'm not sure where exactly your problem is?

Let me put it this way - if I asked you to vouch personally for the objectivity and level of knowledge of everyone in the SU, both now and in the years it's been running and in the years to come, could you do it?

No, you couldn't. You might not know everyone in the SU today; you certainly don't know everyone who has been in the SU in the last few years and in the next few years.

But those people's characters are the only effective regulation of what prospective advice will be given out if someone comes asking.

Maybe this year, they're all saints. Maybe last year, they're all saints. But would you bet that the day your daughter walks in there looking for advice that she's too stressed to go to you for, that they'll all be saints? I wouldn't care to bet on anything that important, I'd want it to be assured. That's the whole point of having medical professionals give medical advice - in the event that they do something unethical, we can take away their livelihood. That kind of latent threat ensures that if they are the kind of person who'd violate the Hippocratic oath (and most aren't), we have a secondary deterrent to bad behavior to fall back on. What possible sanction would you have against an SU advisor who gives out biased or bad advice? What're you going to do, kick them out of the Student's Union? Oh, the horror! :rolleyes:

Mark200

Sparks wrote: »

Let me put it this way - if I asked you to vouch personally for the objectivity and level of knowledge of everyone in the SU, both now and in the years it's been running and in the years to come, could you do it?

No, you couldn't. You might not know everyone in the SU today; you certainly don't know everyone who has been in the SU in the last few years and in the next few years.

But those people's characters are the only effective regulation of what prospective advice will be given out if someone comes asking.

Maybe this year, they're all saints. Maybe last year, they're all saints. But would you bet that the day your daughter walks in there looking for advice that she's too stressed to go to you for, that they'll all be saints? I wouldn't care to bet on anything that important, I'd want it to be assured. That's the whole point of having medical professionals give medical advice - in the event that they do something unethical, we can take away their livelihood. That kind of latent threat ensures that if they are the kind of person who'd violate the Hippocratic oath (and most aren't), we have a secondary deterrent to bad behavior to fall back on. What possible sanction would you have against an SU advisor who gives out biased or bad advice? What're you going to do, kick them out of the Student's Union? Oh, the horror! :rolleyes:

Irish doctors don't take the Hippocratic oath. But either way, I'm pretty confident anyone who goes to the SU for advice isn't going to just blindly do as they say. They go for advice, not instructions. They'd be well aware that the SU is there for support rather than educated guidance.

johnl

Sparks wrote: »

If they came out and recommended it for every case without thought or consideration of the case, well that comes under the heading of "unnecessary medical procedures" and that's a bit of a no-no, sort of like cutting out the womb of every woman you ever operate on.

Wasn't that pretty much standard practice for some senior gynaecologists around Ireland in years gone by?

Funny how states which practice official or unofficial sterilisation are often the same ones which are vehemently anti-abortion...

Sparks

Mark200 wrote: »

Irish doctors don't take the Hippocratic oath.

Unless they're RCSI graduates or members of the Hippocratic Society, yes. However, all of them can be sued for malpractice for acts which would break the oath had they taken it.
Still though, that's my new thing for the day (and it's a sad point about Irish healthcare that I'm not shocked at learning that there's no formal ethical oath taken here, as compared to the US or UK where 98% and 50% take an oath ).

My point still stands though - go to a medical professional, because they know they can be badly punished for giving bad advice. We have them by the morgage payments, if you follow me, whereas we have no such assurance with the SU.

But either way, I'm pretty confident anyone who goes to the SU for advice isn't going to just blindly do as they say.

I'm glad you're confident, and if you're happy to risk your future child's welfare on that confidence, that's your choice to cope with. Personally, however, I'm not willing to rely on phrases like "I'm confident noone will follow the advice they give if it's wrong" for two reasons:

1. If you knew the advice was wrong, you wouldn't need the advice to begin with;
2. When you're physically in the position of going for such advice, you're not mentally relaxing on the couch with your laptop having a debate on the internet that nothing depends on. You're under stress, you're quite likely to be feeling isolated, and those things combined can leave someone both feeling vulnerable and being suggestible.

And that's the reason I think that phrases like Mind your own business are necessary here. Yes, everyone can have an opinion on the ethics of abortion. They can also have an opinion on rice krispies, and frankly, those opinions carry equal weight.

It's morally wrong to go about imposing your opinion on someone else when you're utterly uninvested and they're looking at massive changes in their lives as a result. It's not "little more than intimidation", it is intimidation, and it's intimidation of people who are in a vulnerable and stressful position. It's reprehensible. If you get it wrong, you lose nothing; but the person taking your advice can lose an enormous amount.

Boston

Going to the SU welfare officer for advice is like walking up to some randomer and asking for help. They don't pretend to be professionals. I recall hearing (not first hand) of a welfare officer recount the hilarious stories of students who visited her.

johnl

Boston wrote: »

Going to the SU welfare officer for advice is like walking up to some randomer and asking for help. They don't pretend to be professionals. I recall hearing (not first hand) of a welfare officer recount the hilarious stories of students who visited her.

So you may as well be asking in Personal Issues?

Boston

At least in PI you get multiple opinions and no one has more weight then the other. People might, justifiable, think a welfare officer has a clue when in reality there was no such requirement.

johnl

Boston wrote: »

At least in PI you get multiple opinions and no one has more weight then the other. People might, justifiable, think a welfare officer has a clue when in reality there was no such requirement.

I guess that does make some sense. Does that mean the sabbaths (sic) are the mods of the SU?

Mark200

Boston wrote: »

At least in PI you get multiple opinions and no one has more weight then the other. People might, justifiable, think a welfare officer has a clue when in reality there was no such requirement.

They mightn't have a clue, but by wanting to be a Welfare Office they most likely will care and at least try their best to help.

Boston

There are many reasons why people go for elected positions, helping others seems to be the rarest.

Sparks

Boston wrote: »

At least in PI you get multiple opinions and no one has more weight then the other. People might, justifiable, think a welfare officer has a clue when in reality there was no such requirement.

Not to mention that if you ask in PI for medical advice, the mods will stop anyone giving it to you and advise you instead to seek a medical professional - for precisely the same reason as mentioned in the last few posts.

Mark200 wrote: »

They mightn't have a clue, but by wanting to be a Welfare Office they most likely will care and at least try their best to help.

Prove it.
And if you can't, please don't go about asking others to accept that, lest they actually do so.

Seriously, this is precisely what I mean by learning the phrase Mind your own business. What did it cost you there to defend the SU as a good place to get advice as opposed to a medical professional? Nothing. What would it cost you if you were wrong? Nothing. What would it cost someone who took you up on your advice and found out the hard way that it was wrong? A lot.

Boston

Yea, but like, fuk them. If someone wants to ignore the opportunity to get medical advice and instead rely on advice from a untrained, unqualified college student who probably spent the previous night sleeping in their own piss and vomit, then go right a head. It's your moronic decision.