Abortion/ *Note* Thread Closing Shortly! ! !

GCU Flexible Demeanour

Morag wrote: »

I was there at the seminar, all of the drs present spoke about women who were patients who had trouble traveling to access abortion because all the flights were grounded during the ash cloud, I do not think they were making it up.

Take a step back, and read what you've just posted. They were obviously talking bull. Seriously.

Obliq

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

Take a step back, and read what you've just posted. They were obviously talking bull. Seriously.

Oh, would you read yer own.

You have an absolute hive of bees in your ickle pale-blue bonnet about female displays of/appeals to emotion (and I highlight female, because male displays are just fine with you, seemingly).

You appear to be unable to take in any fact if it is said by a woman who has even remotely couched it in language that you don't consider clinical enough (those emotions again - damn you womankind :mad:)

You jump down the throat of anyone who mentions the word patriarch or patriarchal (as if it doesn't/didn't exist as the way society historically has been structured) and you seem to dispute at every opportunity that elements of a patriarchal structure are still present today.

I am finding your responses quite fascinating actually. Can I just ask where you get the idea that real-life situations (that are factual, but also make you feel emotion...oh noes!) are out of bounds at a seminar? It is important these stories are told so that people who are able to empathise (perhaps more difficult for some) may more fully be able to appreciate how a situation is unfair for someone else.

Genghiz Cohen

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

Take a step back, and read what you've just posted. They were obviously talking bull. Seriously.

If someone holds a different view on the subject, they're lying. Gotcha.

Nodin

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

Take a step back, and read what you've just posted. They were obviously talking bull. Seriously.

Do please explain why stating affluent Irish women are more likely to have an abortion is "bull".

kylith

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

Take a step back, and read what you've just posted. They were obviously talking bull. Seriously.

How were they obviously talking bull? Hundreds of Irish women fly to the UK for abortions every year; planes were grounded during the eruption in Scandanavia. Ergo women couldn't travel to the UK to procure a termination during this time.

GCU Flexible Demeanour

Obliq wrote: »

You jump down the throat of anyone who mentions the word patriarch or patriarchal (as if it doesn't/didn't exist as the way society historically has been structured) and you seem to dispute at every opportunity that elements of a patriarchal structure are still present today.

Rather over-emotive chronic overstatement of the position. But that, apparently, is the context we're in.

Obliq wrote: »

Can I just ask where you get the idea that real-life situations (that are factual, but also make you feel emotion...oh noes!) are out of bounds at a seminar?

You'll appreciate, I've already given detail on what's specifically wrong with the presentation. Hence, there's nothing to be gained my me attempting to answer a question which takes no account of what has already been stated.

Genghiz Cohen wrote: »

If someone holds a different view on the subject, they're lying. Gotcha.

If that's what you got, you haven't.

Nodin wrote: »

Do please explain why stating affluent Irish women are more likely to have an abortion is "bull".

It's stating it as a fact without evidence that's bull.

kylith wrote: »

How were they obviously talking bull? Hundreds of Irish women fly to the UK for abortions every year; planes were grounded during the eruption in Scandanavia. Ergo women couldn't travel to the UK to procure a termination during this time.

Giving centre stage to such a rare event is bull.

Obliq

Um, question for GCU - Is this where you attempt to persuade people of your points using the language of "critical analysis" (and clearly not, dare I say, "completely overwrought hyperactive horse dung")?

Just one or two examples below that I pulled out of yer posts GCU - wondering if it's getting your points over any better than (*splutters*) steeping your points in mood music?

I highlighted my favourite bits for ya :cool:

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

There's no need for her to undermine that evidence by making stuff up, just because some secret recess in her mind thinks that "smart chicks kill their babies" is a persuasive argument.

It's a stupid theme to be introducing, particularly without any evidential basis.What complete hyperactive horse dung. We have to legislate for abortion, just in case an Icelandic volcano belches?

When was the last time these people met someone half rational who disagreed with them about anything at all? Because this kind of crap only gets produced among circles of perfect consensus.

Do we need to recap on the result of the citizenship referendum to explain why it is retarded to fly this kite, too?

How to stuff your male colleagues, under the cover of "we". The only possible response to this kind of rhetoric is to turn it about. Doctors for Choice, as a female dominated lobby, have displayed an absence of critical judgment in framing their arguments such as will fail to hold the attention of male voters.

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

Which sort of illustrates the redundancy of her rhetoric.But it's too contrived; seriously, that portion of the paper is completely overwrought. It's as if she's trying to create a frenzy, where critical analysis will be driven to the sidelines.

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

But what they're doing is ruining potentially good points, by steeping them in mood music.

The doctors who they go to don't (so far as I know) collate and publish information; there's no basis for the statements being made, other than wishful thinking.

Wishful thinking should be the preserve of the other side of the debate.This is another example of how woolly statements ruin perfectly good points.

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

No, she's not. She's just making stuff up, and trying to pass it off as fact. She's confusing her ouja-board fueled impression of the situation with evidence. She's not the Messiah, she's a very naughty girl.

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

Grand, if that was what she was doing. But what she's mostly doing is making stuff up, or drawing in ludicrous and tenuous links between abortion and volcanic dust clouds

Obliq

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

Rather over-emotive chronic overstatement of the position. But that, apparently, is the context we're in.

Aww, yeah - I can see now how difficult it is for you to take in a point that might be tainted with some sort of emotion. But you did set the context in the first place with your NOT AT ALL OVER EMOTIVE CHRONIC OVERSTATEMENTS (oh, did I type that in caps? Will you be able to take my point GCU or should I de-emotivate it for ya?)

You'll appreciate, I've already given detail on what's specifically wrong with the presentation. Hence, there's nothing to be gained my me attempting to answer a question which takes no account of what has already been stated.

Hmmm, yes I found it so hard to take account of your points when all that comes across to me is furious spitting. Y'see, what I think you thought was specifically wrong with the presentation was that there was an illogical woman speaking, and I'm certain that's not what you meant to put across.

Never mind, eh? Onwards.....

gabour

There are always exceptions, we Irish love life. We love our nation, hurting our ladies and their baby's hurts everyone. Watch and see how other proud nations have suffered by rules for exceptions. We have a people to be proud off welcomed the world over. Let us learn by others mistakes and give an Irish welcome too are own.

Stark

Eugh, Youth Defence drive by posting. PFO.

Delirium

gabour wrote: »

There are always exceptions, we Irish love life. We love our nation, hurting our ladies and their baby's hurts everyone. Watch and see how other proud nations have suffered by rules for exceptions. We have a people to be proud off welcomed the world over. Let us learn by others mistakes and give an Irish welcome too are own.

Speak for yourself, I can't think of any people that love hurting our ladies:eek:

Obliq

I'm not sure English is their first language.

Nodin

gabour wrote: »

There are always exceptions, we Irish love life. We love our nation, hurting our ladies and their baby's hurts everyone. Watch and see how other proud nations have suffered by rules for exceptions. We have a people to be proud off welcomed the world over. Let us learn by others mistakes and give an Irish welcome too are own.

I wasn't aware the French hated life. Thank you for the informative post.

kylith

gabour wrote: »

There are always exceptions, we Irish love life. We love our nation, hurting our ladies and their baby's hurts everyone. Watch and see how other proud nations have suffered by rules for exceptions. We have a people to be proud off welcomed the world over. Let us learn by others mistakes and give an Irish welcome too are own.

Yeah, because pregnancy and labour doesn't hurt at all, especially when you've been raped, or just discovered that there is a fatal foetal abnormality, or you can't afford to have a baby, or you're a teenager.

I have no idea what the rest of your post could mean. If we come in line with the rest of the world and legislate, like the government has been obliged to do for the last couple of decades, Irish people will be turned away from other countries when they show up for their holidays?

GCU Flexible Demeanour

Obliq wrote: »

I found it so hard to take account of your points when all that comes across to me is furious spitting.

Oh, I do appreciate that now. Your highlighting of peripheral bits of my posts does make it clear to me that all you can perceive is "someone is contradicting a woman". Not much I can do to bridge that gap, I'm afraid. But at least we're all getting something out of the experience.

GCU Flexible Demeanour

gabour wrote: »

hurting our ladies and their baby's hurts everyone.

Their baby's what?

Lingua Franca

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

that portion of the paper is competely overwrought....

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

...But what they're doing is ruining potentially good points, by steeping them in mood music.

It's not a paper, it's a speech.

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

But what she's mostly doing is making stuff up, or drawing in ludicrous and tenuous links between abortion and volcanic dust clouds... We simply shouldn't feel some obligation to defend any argument, no matter how obviously fallacious and damaging.

Abortions are time-critical. Irish women must use planes and ferries to travel for abortions. Extreme weather like snow blizzards ground planes and ferries occasionally. The volcanic ash cloud was an unpredictable but extreme event that also grounded planes which in turn overloaded ferries and trains. She didn't bring up terrorist attacks but those also have an effect on travel. There is a clear link. I actually feel a bit patronising having to point this out to you.

What do you find "ludicrous" and "tenuous" about documented restrictions on travel?

Sarky

gabour wrote: »

There are always exceptions, we Irish love life. We love our nation, hurting our ladies and their baby's hurts everyone. Watch and see how other proud nations have suffered by rules for exceptions. We have a people to be proud off welcomed the world over. Let us learn by others mistakes and give an Irish welcome too are own.

Oh hi 1990. Congratulations on getting to the quarter finals of the World Cup. Protip: It's all downhill from there, turns out the church is full of child rapists and Youth Defence don't actually learn a single thing in over 20 years.

oceanclub

gabour wrote: »

There are always exceptions, we Irish love life. We love our nation, hurting our ladies and their baby's hurts everyone. Watch and see how other proud nations have suffered by rules for exceptions. We have a people to be proud off welcomed the world over. Let us learn by others mistakes and give an Irish welcome too are own.

This has to be a parody, surely.

P.

Obliq

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

Oh, I do appreciate that now. Your highlighting of peripheral bits of my posts does make it clear to me that all you can perceive is "someone is contradicting a woman". Not much I can do to bridge that gap, I'm afraid. But at least we're all getting something out of the experience.

Well, I don't know GCU, you could try? You're completely right about me trying to point out to you that you seem to be raging about "this Dr. being vague" in great fuming eruptions of verbiage. But actually it was you who said
"The only possible response to this kind of rhetoric is to turn it about. Doctors for Choice, as a female dominated lobby, have displayed an absence of critical judgment in framing their arguments such as will fail to hold the attention of male voters."
so it was quite hard to think that your problem isn't with this Dr. being too "feminine" in her argument.

I just thought it was a bit rich to accuse a person of lacking in logic and fact (thereby apparently damaging their campaign), when your commentary constitutes a total rant in a style that would give you trouble in persuading anyone of any of your points!!

It's YOU who had made all those statements btw, not just "someone". I barely know who is male/female up here, even when they mention their partner! You however......I'm guessing male? :pac:

Brian Shanahan

Stressful day at work.

Read "hurting our lady's" as "helping our lady's".

My point became non-sequitorish.

PopePalpatine

Maybe it was referring to "our lady's" as in the (not really a) Virgin Mary?

Sarky

Also, they're not "your" ladies. They own themselves, last time I checked. I was assaulted with clicky fingers and "I DON'T NEED NO MAN" for my troubles.

GCU Flexible Demeanour

Lingua Franca wrote: »

I actually feel a bit patronising having to point this out to you.

I'm delighted to have bolstered your self-esteeem.

Lingua Franca wrote: »

What do you find "ludicrous" and "tenuous" about documented restrictions on travel?

The fact that it's a blue moon event - if a group of GPs contend that volcanic ash clouds represent a consistent obstacle to women obtaining abortions, then they really don't have much to talk about at all.

Obliq wrote: »

I just thought it was a bit rich to accuse a person of lacking in logic and fact (thereby apparently damaging their campaign), when your commentary constitutes a total rant in a style that would give you trouble in persuading anyone of any of your points!!

On the other hand, I'm not at all surprised that when clearly identified issues of fact exist, you ignore them in favour of concentrating on the froth.

All so we don't have to agree that there's actually no evidence whatsoever to support a statement that one in every five women of education/affluence has had an abortion. All so that we don't have to admit that someone making such statements, without a basis in fact, risks undermine the whole case being made.

Because I take it we know that the situation isn't one where Irish women take a secret trip to the UK, pausing only to notify the Irish College of General Practioners of their highest educational attainment and income status.

Morag

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

Because I take it we know that the situation isn't one where Irish women take a secret trip to the UK, pausing only to notify the Irish College of General Practioners of their highest educational attainment and income status.

Y'know what if you really need to know then ask them directly

doctorsforchoice@gmail.com
@doctors4choice
https://www.facebook.com/pages/Doctors-For-Choice-Ireland

They have been around for the last 11 years I am sure they can tell you were their stats come from.

GCU Flexible Demeanour

Morag wrote: »

Y'know what if you really need to know then ask them directly

doctorsforchoice@gmail.com
@doctors4choice
https://www.facebook.com/pages/Doctors-For-Choice-Ireland

They have been around for the last 11 years I am sure they can tell you were their stats come from.

Can I point out that you are the one making this claim here, the onus is actually on you to demonstrate it's validity.

Would you like me to prove that God doesn't exist, too? Holy suspension of critical faculties on an forum devoted to atheist discussion, Batman.

Morag

You are the one not happy to accept their information, so go ask.

Also this is also the agnostic forum by the way you seem to have forgotten.

Lingua Franca

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

I'm delighted to have bolstered your self-esteeem.

I actually felt bad for you, but your snideness has been noted.

The fact that it's a blue moon event - if a group of GPs contend that volcanic ash clouds represent a consistent obstacle to women obtaining abortions, then they really don't have much to talk about at all

Blue moon event, eh? Like bad weather stopping the ferries?

The quote you're referring to says

Ash clouds and bad weather on the ferries take on a new meaning on Monday mornings when the distraught woman rings the surgery to see if she still has time to reschedule.

You picked "ash cloud" out of that and said

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

What complete hyperactive horse dung.

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

contrived... overwrought... frenzy... critical analysis will be driven to the sidelines

Now, you may not take many ferries or even flights. I do, and cancellations due to bad weather are common, everyday occurrences. It's perfectly reasonable to express concern about the knock on effects of ferry- and flight- cancellations on women seeking time-critical abortions.

The only thing frenzied, contrived and overwrought is your total overreaction to two words in that speech that you deliberately took out of context to dismiss the doctor as hysterical.

GCU Flexible Demeanour

Morag wrote: »

You are the one not happy to accept their information, so go ask.

My issue is more with statements being made in the absence of information.

Morag wrote: »

Also this is also the agnostic forum by the way you seem to have forgotten.

If only you applied the same diligence to the substance of the issue we're discussing.

Lingua Franca wrote: »

Now, you may not take many ferries or even flights. I do, and cancellations due to bad weather are common, everyday occurrences. It's perfectly reasonable to express concern about the knock on effects of ferry- and flight- cancellations on women seeking time-critical abortions.

The only thing frenzied, contrived and overwrought is your total overreaction to two words in that speech that you deliberately took out of context to dismiss the doctor as hysterical.

Nothing is taken out of context, and your attempt to shore up the relevant, overwrought, passage is unconvincing. On occasion, travel arrangments can be disrupted. But travel to and from the UK is routine and, mostly, reliable.

Again, this is simply the wrong thing to be putting centre stage as an issue to be addressed. I've already said (although it's lost in the howls of outrage) that there is some good in the presentation. But there are some deep flaws; I'm satisfied that I've pointed them out. I'm also satisfied that no-one has anything convincing to refute them. Hence, the attempt to play the poster rather than the post.

Derpington95

This thread is better than tv, please do carry on. *eats popcorn*