Abortion/ *Note* Thread Closing Shortly! ! !

lazygal

I vote 666 angels dance on the head of a pin.

JuliusCaesar

Prof. Patricia Casey should be obliged to say that she is NOT giving a scientific opinion on unwanted pregnancy, abortion, and the mental health of women. She should have to declare her interest as a practicing Roman Catholic. The evidence she quotes is always skewed to reflect her previously formed opinion. :rolleyes:

lazygal

JuliusCaesar wrote: »

Prof. Patricia Casey should be obliged to say that she is NOT giving a scientific opinion on unwanted pregnancy, abortion, and the mental health of women. She should have to declare her interest as a practicing Roman Catholic. The evidence she quotes is always skewed to reflect her previously formed opinion. :rolleyes:

I feel bad for anyone under her 'care' in the places in which she 'practices'.

loveisdivine

It makes my blood boil when people like the archbishops start mouthing off about what should or shouldnt happen. Individuals are entitled to their opinion but the church's view as a whole should hold no more weight than mine or yours.
I just want to shout out "Nobody gives a flying f*ck what you think you creepy old b*stard".
But people might look at me funny.

TD's are not there to give their personal opinion, they are there to represent the majority opinion of their constituency.

lazygal

loveisdivine wrote: »

It makes my blood boil when people like the archbishops start mouthing off about what should or shouldnt happen. Individuals are entitled to their opinion but the church's view as a whole should hold no more weight than mine or yours.
I just want to shout out "Nobody gives a flying f*ck what you think you creepy old b*stard".
But people might look at me funny.

TD's are not there to give their personal opinion, they are there to represent the majority opinion of their constituency.

It actually annoyed me that this was the lead story in the papers and on the radio today. What mandate do the bishops have anyway? They are entitled to speak as any concerned citizen is, but it seems bizzare that their pronoucements on anything should be headline news, unless its that they plan on paying the Irish state back for the abuse compensation bills for which we all picked up the tab.

eviltwin

lazygal wrote: »

It actually annoyed me that this was the lead story in the papers and on the radio today. What mandate do the bishops have anyway? They are entitled to speak as any concerned citizen is, but it seems bizzare that their pronoucements on anything should be headline news, unless its that they plan on paying the Irish state back for the abuse compensation bills for which we all picked up the tab.

Its not news at all, we all know the RCC take on abortion, we don't need to give them a front page to air it.

loveisdivine

Thats exactly why it annoys me too. The media give so much attention to their mumblings.

Why cant I be on the front page saying "Abortion for everyone".

keane2097

The church's attitude to children is basically "If you're pre-birth you're ok, if you're pre-pubescent you're fucked".

eviltwin

Everytime I think this country is moving on just a little bit I see a headline with the RCC talking about an issue and I realise we have a long way to go. :mad:

GCU Flexible Demeanour

eviltwin wrote: »

I heard a woman from the Iona Institute on the radio last night saying exactly what Lazygal said, women will lie and exploit suicide to get an abortion.

And she's probably right on that individual point. It's not necessary to disagree with every single thing they say. If Breda O'Brien asserted that Enda Kenny is Taoiseach, we don't have to contradict her just because she's Catholic.

But it's perfectly in order to disagree if she says that Enda Kenny should be slow about introducing legislation on abortion.

goodie2shoes

lazygal wrote: »

It actually annoyed me that this was the lead story in the papers and on the radio today. What mandate do the bishops have anyway? They are entitled to speak as any concerned citizen is, but it seems bizzare that their pronoucements on anything should be headline news, unless its that they plan on paying the Irish state back for the abuse compensation bills for which we all picked up the tab.

tbh i dont think many people pay much attention to their dictates anymore.
i wouldn't concern yourself over it. if anything it's likely to backfire on their intentions.
(much the same way as when John McWalters started spouting off during the children's rights referendum. it backfired. i know many people who were undecided upto his rambling interventions and then voted yes).

eviltwin

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

And she's probably right on that individual point. It's not necessary to disagree with every single thing they say. If Breda O'Brien asserted that Enda Kenny is Taoiseach, we don't have to contradict her just because she's Catholic.

But it's perfectly in order to disagree if she says that Enda Kenny should be slow about introducing legislation on abortion.

Does anyone really believe that is going to happen? I just don't see it myself. We don't know the procedures that will be in place but Ivana Bacik alluded to the need for two independant doctors to assess the women and agree she needs the abortion. I honestly can't see many women going through that when its relatively easy to go to the UK.

Peregrinus

eviltwin wrote: »

Does anyone really believe that is going to happen? I just don't see it myself. We don't know the procedures that will be in place but Ivana Bacik alluded to the need for two independant doctors to assess the women and agree she needs the abortion. I honestly can't see many women going through that when its relatively easy to go to the UK.

You have to have two doctors do this in the UK. Where do you think Ivana got the idea?

eviltwin

Peregrinus wrote: »

You have to have two doctors do this in the UK. Where do you think Ivana got the idea?

Not if you are an Irish women

Peregrinus

eviltwin wrote: »

Not if you are an Irish women

Yes. The requirements of the Abortion Act apply to British and non-British women alike. There is no "fast track" for foreigners coming to abort in Britain.

Many abortion providers in Britain offer an integrated service; if you contact them for an abortion they will arrange the necessary medical certification and then provide the abortion.

eviltwin

Peregrinus wrote: »

Yes. The requirements of the Abortion Act apply to British and non-British women alike. There is no "fast track" for foreigners coming to abort in Britain.

Many abortion providers in Britain offer an integrated service; if you contact them for an abortion they will arrange the necessary medical certification and then provide the abortion.

That's not been my experience. I saw one doctor and that was just to check I was not being pressured into it. I was seen and treated in a matter of hours. I don't know any Irish woman who has been seen by two doctors.

UDP

Fair play to Pat Rabbitte for yet again telling the RCC to stop dictating to the government. It must be frustrating for the bishops etc to not have as much power over the irish government that they had in the past. I still think they have too much influence but great to see it waning.
http://www.rte.ie/news/2012/1219/abortion.html

Morag

eviltwin wrote: »

That's not been my experience. I saw one doctor and that was just to check I was not being pressured into it. I was seen and treated in a matter of hours. I don't know any Irish woman who has been seen by two doctors.

I saw two drs in the UK and the women I have traveled with over the years also saw two drs.

Peregrinus

eviltwin wrote: »

That's not been my experience. I saw one doctor and that was just to check I was not being pressured into it. I was seen and treated in a matter of hours. I don't know any Irish woman who has been seen by two doctors.

Abortion Act 1967 s. 1(1) requires two doctors to form the necessary medical opinion (which is not just that you're "not being pressured into it"). The only exception is where a single doctor forms the opinion that a termination is immediately necessary to prevent death or grave permanent injury.

How this plays out in practice, I can't say. But, in the absence of an acute emergency, the legislation definitely requires two doctors to form the necessary opinion.

Googling yields this: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/9164142/Doctors-signing-off-abortions-for-women-they-have-never-met.html

This - if it's true - might suggest that the two-doctor requirement is not rigorously observed by practitioners, or at least by some practitioners. And that's one possible explanation of your own experience. For what it's worth, it tends to lend support to the view that legal conditions regarding if and when abortions may be performed are regularly circumvented in the UK, and that the same could happen in Ireland.

eviltwin

Peregrinus wrote: »

Abortion Act 1967 s. 1(1) requires two doctors to form the necessary medical opinion (which is not just that you're "not being pressured into it"). The only exception is where a single doctor forms the opinion that a termination is immediately necessary to prevent death or grave permanent injury.

How this plays out in practice, I can't say. But, in the absence of an acute emergency, the legislation definitely requires two doctors to form the necessary opinion.

Googling yields this: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/9164142/Doctors-signing-off-abortions-for-women-they-have-never-met.html

This - if it's true - might suggest that the two-doctor requirement is not rigorously observed by practitioners, or at least by some practitioners. And that's one possible explanation of your own experience. For what it's worth, it tends to lend support to the view that legal conditions regarding if and when abortions may be performed are regularly circumvented in the UK, and that the same could happen in Ireland.

Thats interesting. I only saw one doctor and that was for less than 5 minutes. She asked me was I there of my own free will, gave me a list of numbers for counselling services and that was that. My medical history was taken by the nursing staff. At no point was I asked my reasons for being there, had I had abortions before, had I been seen by a doctor here.

Does it say what the point of two doctors is? Is it to make sure the woman is mentally competent, physically well etc to have the abortion or is it to assess whether her reasons for wanting one are justified?

Peregrinus

eviltwin wrote: »

Thats interesting. I only saw one doctor and that was for less than 5 minutes. She asked me was I there of my own free will, gave me a list of numbers for counselling services and that was that. My medical history was taken by the nursing staff. At no point was I asked my reasons for being there, had I had abortions before, had I been seen by a doctor here.

Does it say what the point of two doctors is? Is it to make sure the woman is mentally competent, physically well etc to have the abortion or is it to assess whether her reasons for wanting one are justified?

The latter. The doctors have to form the opinion, in good faith, that the risk of injury to the woman's health if the pregnancy continues exceeds the risk to her health of having it terminated, and they have to sign a certificate saying that they are of this opinion.

(There are a couple of other opinions that they could form that would allow the abortion to continue - e.g. that if there's a substantial risk that the child will be seriously handicapped - but something like 97% of all abortions are done on the "health risk of continuing is greater than health risk of terminating" ground.)

doctoremma

Eviltwin, your termination procedure will almost certainly (providing it was legal) have been signed off by two doctors. Bear in mind that the doctor you first saw may have consulted other doctors in the practice, anaesthetists, etc. without you being aware of it.

In part, it's there to protect the doctor, not you. There are calls to remove the practice as unnecessarily bureaucratic.

The Black Oil

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O17hbfowvhw

A few familiar faces in there. Crafty video.
Erm...

lazygal

So that's where John has been hiding.

Sin City

The Black Oil wrote: »

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O17hbfowvhw

A few familiar faces in there. Crafty video.
Erm...

Did the Iona Institute guy say our health service is the envy of the world?????????????

Seriously?????????

That kind of undermines his credibility, that and he is from the Iona institute

mikom

Wendy Grace!
What a waste.

TwoShedsJackson

Cheek of Sean Brady telling people not to force others to act against their conscience. Didn't seem to bother him in the 1970s.

Sarky

Does he have an email address? I'd like to tell him what a thundering sack of crap I think he is, but I don't want to spend the price of a stamp on the wanker.

lazygal

TwoShedsJackson wrote: »

Cheek of Sean Brady telling people not to force others to act against their conscience. Didn't seem to bother him in the 1970s.

Or now, seeing as he doesn't want to resign. Moral authority my fanny.

Nodin

TwoShedsJackson wrote: »

Cheek of Sean Brady telling people not to force others to act against their conscience. Didn't seem to bother him in the 1970s.

'but we had no idea back then...' etc and so on.