Abortion/ *Note* Thread Closing Shortly! ! !

GCU Flexible Demeanour

Derpington95 wrote: »

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

Don't be a spectator - give us something to work with. You don't have to feel shy. Bear in mind, contributions to date include such gems as

Lingua Franca wrote: »

<...> "ash cloud" <...> two words in that speech that you deliberately took out of context to dismiss the doctor as hysterical.

co-existing with

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.

There's about 2,000 GPs in Ireland; about 4,000 Irish women have abortions in the UK every year. So, on average, each GP would have maybe one patient travelling every six months, with many of those patients just bypassing the GP and sourcing the service independently.

Yet, all of the GPs present had a patient who had troubling travelling during the ash cloud. Sometimes, the line between coincidence and bull**** is wafer thin. Other times, there's no line and it's just bull****.

So plunge right in; credibility is optional here. For what it's worth, I've email Doctors for Choice a couple of days ago to ask them the basis for their assertions about the affluence and educational attainment of women obtaining abortions. No response yet, but you can be assured of my continued willingness to share any facts that might emerge from that query.

Obliq

Derpington95 wrote: »

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

Well, I'm deeply offended (as you can imagine I'm sure) to have not got a mention as a thorn in GCU's side.

Y'know, I was going to say to you Derpington "You're welcome! We do hope you get a good laugh as well as an education" and then I read GCU's latest "Credibility is optional here" post. As you're following this like a soap opera, I bet you can't wait for the next installment that calls out the last commentator on the most crappily thought out part of their post.

In GCU's case, it seems that he can't distinguish between a statistic and a real person's tragedy. Far from accepting that a real issue for real women has been that they have had to book a medical procedure in another country, plan the flight or boat AND coach or train, PAY for these somehow (without alerting the whole village), navigate all these AND a foreign city (possibly alone), enter a medical center (with or without protesters being obscenely ignorant towards them), then go through a procedure that kills the fetus (living potential person that started growing and wasn't wanted), then - IN PAIN and possibly still alone, go back the same route (with ALL the potential delays there were before - be they weather or ash clouds - and an ADDED health risk because of the procedure) home to a country that they can't open their mouths in to say what they've been through.

In the following clip from GCU's narrative, I will demonstrate where he leaves out the real-life situations that HAPPEN to women of Ireland.
There's about 2,000 GPs in Ireland; about 4,000 Irish women have abortions in the UK every year. So, on average, each GP would have maybe one patient travelling every six months, with many of those patients just bypassing the GP and sourcing the service independently.
Yet, all of the GPs present had a patient who had troubling travelling during the ash cloud. Sometimes, the line between coincidence and bull**** is wafer thin. Other times, there's no line and it's just bull****.

Nice one GCU, good to know you're keeping an eye on the numbers. :rolleyes:

_rebelkid

When did we start talking about ash clouds?

Admittedly, I have neglected this for a while, but ash clouds? I shall try back reading...

GCU Flexible Demeanour

Obliq wrote: »

Well, I'm deeply offended (as you can imagine I'm sure) to have not got a mention as a thorn in GCU's side.

On the plus side, the main reason that people read this thread is because of the unresolved sexual tension between us, reminiscent of the dynamic between Bruce Willis and Cybill Shepherd that kept "Moonlighting" going for 66 episodes.

Obliq wrote: »

In GCU's case, it seems that he can't distinguish between a statistic and a real person's tragedy.

Ah, arse. If a fistload of GPs turn up, all claiming to have been struck by lightning, you know they're talking ****e. That doesn't mean that no-one was ever struck by lightning. It just means the people you're talking to are spoofing, and claiming a personal experience that doesn't belong to them.

I'm sure some women did have transport plans disrupted by the ash cloud; the point is spotting when someone is making stuff up. You wouldn't fill a room with the number of GPs who were contacted by the fraction of women who had that experience; why would they? It's not as if your GP can instruct an air traffic controller to lift flight restrictions.

So, no, exactly as I've said. Rinse, repeat, as required.

_rebelkid

Did some back reading, still no clearer as to why ash clouds are in an abortion debate (unless double entendre is at play)


It's times like this where I'm reminded of Silvio.... those were the days..... anyway, Governments obligation to legislate X and all that....

Morag

_rebelkid wrote: »

Did some back reading, still no clearer as to why ash clouds are in an abortion debate (unless double entendre is at play)

Saying that women can travel is not good enough reason not to legislate for abortion here in Ireland as delays due to weather or strikes can derail travel plans adding to the level of stress they are already under, esp where a woman is coming close to the cut of date of 22 weeks.

aloyisious

Derpington95 wrote: »

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

I hope you brought a lot of popcorn

Obliq

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

On the plus side, the main reason that people read this thread is because of the unresolved sexual tension between us, reminiscent of the dynamic between Bruce Willis and Cybill Shepherd that kept "Moonlighting" going for 66 episodes.

I think you're flattering yourself on the readership reasons but whatever gets your boat to float baby. I'm just glad there's cyberspace between my lump hammer and your car, and I really hated Bruce Willis being a misogynistic bastard in Moonlighting. Oh wait.....damn, I see what you're saying.

Ah, arse. If a fistload of GPs turn up, all claiming to have been struck by lightning, you know they're talking ****e. That doesn't mean that no-one was ever struck by lightning. It just means the people you're talking to are spoofing, and claiming a personal experience that doesn't belong to them.

I'm sure some women did have transport plans disrupted by the ash cloud; the point is spotting when someone is making stuff up. You wouldn't fill a room with the number of GPs who were contacted by the fraction of women who had that experience; why would they? It's not as if your GP can instruct an air traffic controller to lift flight restrictions.

So, no, exactly as I've said. Rinse, repeat, as required.

That! There! The big writing in bold! Y'know, where you ACKNOWLEDGE that some women would have had to cancel appointments due to the ash cloud (and presumably by default you acknowledge other bad weather cancellations that can happen).

Now, the next step on the way to becoming a fully fledged empathetic human being is to imagine yourself in just one of those women's shoes and find the situation to be unacceptable (that access to abortion services are ABROAD and cancellations are DISASTROUS) . That is all I ask - that, and the subsequent admission that these women's stories are important and relevant even if there aren't enough of them to register as a significant statistic in GCU world.

In return, I will agree that making up statistics is unacceptable but I'm damned if I'll let you away with even one scrap of reasoning when you're not being fully reasonable, so I'm going to need to see some EMPATHY (Good word....look it up).

Obliq

_rebelkid wrote: »

It's times like this where I'm reminded of Silvio.... those were the days..... anyway, Governments obligation to legislate X and all that....

Wha??
This is about the broader abortion debate. Y'know, why we actually need services here equivalent to the UK. That's where the "ash cloud" angle comes into it - women having disastrously disrupted travel arrangements (at the mercy of the weather) to a life-changing appointment with a seriously problematic "against the clock" element to it.

How difficult is that to understand? I'd be at not having got that personally.

Peregrinus

Obliq wrote: »

Wha??
This is about the broader abortion debate. Y'know, why we actually need services here equivalent to the UK. That's where the "ash cloud" angle comes into it - women having disastrously disrupted travel arrangements (at the mercy of the weather) to a life-changing appointment with a seriously problematic "against the clock" element to it.

How difficult is that to understand? I'd be at not having got that personally.

In fairness, I think the ash cloud is a bit of a marginal issue. Appointments in the UK that can't be met because of an ash cloud can be rescheduled. It's not as though there's a five-day window within which, for medical reasons, all abortions must be performed. And, if appointments could be made in Ireland, they too might be disrupted by external factors - not an ash cloud, obviously, but other events can disrupt ground transport links.

There are weighty arguments to be considered here, but I honestly think "ash clouds" is not one of them.

My hackles rise at the suggestion that we need services "equivalent to the UK". Many hundreds of posts ago I offered reasons why I thought the UK model of abortion provision is a particularly poor one, replicating many of the worst features of our own attitude but with an added dash of hypocrisy, denial and woman-shaming. We need to look further afield.

Obliq

Peregrinus wrote: »

In fairness, I think the ash cloud is a bit of a marginal issue. Appointments in the UK that can't be met because of an ash cloud can be rescheduled. It's not as though there's a five-day window within which, for medical reasons, all abortions must be performed. And, if appointments could be made in Ireland, they too might be disrupted by external factors - not an ash cloud, obviously, but other events can disrupt ground transport links.

There are weighty arguments to be considered here, but I honestly think "ash clouds" is not one of them.

My hackles rise at the suggestion that we need services "equivalent to the UK". Many hundreds of posts ago I offered reasons why I thought the UK model of abortion provision is a particularly poor one, replicating many of the worst features of our own attitude but with an added dash of hypocrisy, denial and woman-shaming. We need to look further afield.

If you look back along, I think Morag already pointed out where the Dr. had actually used the ash cloud just as an example, alongside mention of the broader travel disruptions due to weather.

Now please Peregrinus, in fairness, can you not tell the (financial, if nothing else) difference between cancelled bus services from Mayo to Dublin for a few days due to 1/2" of snow, and a grounded flight/cancelled ferry with all the other bookings for subsequent buses/trains and overnight arrangements (if you get stuck the other side of the water). We live in a country that's only 300miles long and 170miles wide. We have to travel across a sea to access abortion services. THAT is what makes the ash cloud comment and the bad weather considerations so relevant. If you can't see that.......well, just for ya.

As for your personal opinion on accessing services should they be available in Ireland, I can understand you having risen hackles at the notion of hypocrisy within a system. Fine. What I should have said is "We want services here that we already access with difficulty elsewhere - abortion when needed", and if you have a problem with that comment then you have a very different opinion to me on abortion.
Ps. I remember agreeing with you about the "woman shaming" - I think I overall agreed with your arguments about the UK system actually.

GCU Flexible Demeanour

_rebelkid wrote: »

<...> still no clearer as to why ash clouds are in an abortion debate <...>

Me, too.

Obliq wrote: »

<...> I really hated Bruce Willis <...>

Of course you did.

Obliq wrote: »

<...> these women's stories are important and relevant even if there aren't enough of them to register as a significant statistic in GCU world.
In return, I will agree that making up statistics is unacceptable but I'm damned if I'll let you away with even one scrap of reasoning when you're not being fully reasonable, so I'm going to need to see some EMPATHY (Good word....look it up).

Hmm. What would Bruce do in this situation? Stick to his point. Making acknowledgment of facts conditional on your perception of my empathetic state is very attractive in a woman, but we both know they're the Doctors of Spoof.

Obliq wrote: »

If you look back along, I think Morag already pointed out where the Dr. had actually used the ash cloud just as an example, alongside mention of the broader travel disruptions due to weather.

That's not actually the sequence of argument - http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=83723936&postcount=6542. Morag actually amplified the profile of the "ash cloud" line by saying all the doctors had raised such cases at the meeting. It was Lingua Franca, possibly in ignorance of Morag's post, who tried to suggest that I was inventing this emphasis on the ash cloud.

Look, there's good and bad in the Doctors for Spoof material. They are sound when they comment that abortion is a common experience for Irish women. They are sound when they contrast that common experience with the silence on the topic in public discourse. A plausible explanation for that silence, and the absence of real political pressure, is that travel to the UK is quite easy. Hence, trying to make a case for abortion on the grounds that travel is hard is not going to take us anywhere - it involves inventing an obstacle where none exists.

Now, if they created a case around the risks in women attending for medical treatment in situations where their full medical history may not be available, I think they'd be on stronger ground. No spoof required.

Morag

Peregrinus wrote: »

In fairness, I think the ash cloud is a bit of a marginal issue. Appointments in the UK that can't be met because of an ash cloud can be rescheduled.

If you are able to pay for new flights and get more time off work and re juggle childcare, there will be women for whom this just would not be possible.

Morag

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

A plausible explanation for that silence, and the absence of real political pressure, is that travel to the UK is quite easy. Hence, trying to make a case for abortion on the grounds that travel is hard is not going to take us anywhere - it involves inventing an obstacle where none exists.

Easy?

Really you think suddenly being able to get a hold of aprox 800 to 1,000 euros to travel and get time off work, if you are working and organize child care if you have kids and lie about why you are leaving the country is easy?

I know of several women who do not have the money or who could not make the arrangements and resorted to taking other people's prescription medication, herbal teas or who have ordered abortion pills of the internet.

Easy, christ on a bike.


Lack of ease of access to services causes stress and impacts on the mental health of women in a crises pregnancy situation, and mental health is real health so by raising the awareness difficulties in trying to travel it raises the duress women traveling from Ireland face, and if they can't travel as they do not have the means then they take even more risks with their health.

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

Now, if they created a case around the risks in women attending for medical
treatment in situations where their full medical history may not be available, I think they'd be on stronger ground.

We do have women who do not give a full medical history when they attend treatments or hospitals. Those who do disclose that they have had an abortion are often faced with a hostile reception by maternity staff, I was when I had my kids and I know two women who have given birth in the last year were also faced with staff taking a history who didn't want to know, were uncomfortable and were not going to make a note on the file until pushed to.

Genghiz Cohen

Morag wrote: »

I know of several women who do not have the money or who could not make the arrangements and resorted to taking other people's prescription medication, herbal teas or who have ordered abortion pills of the internet.

Look at what they are saying, they are obviously talking BS.

Morag

Genghiz Cohen wrote: »

Look at what they are saying, they are obviously talking BS.

What makes you say that?

Genghiz Cohen

Morag wrote: »

What makes you say that?

Because if they don't say things that agree with me, they are wrong.

martoman

Here is a recent essay I wrote on the ethics of abortion: http://martoman.blogspot.ie/2013/03/the-ethics-of-ending-innocent-human-life.html?view=magazine

Flier

Do I really need to read past the title to know that it's not an impartial, unbiased critical analysis?

eviltwin

martoman wrote: »

Here is a recent essay I wrote on the ethics of abortion: http://martoman.blogspot.ie/2013/03/the-ethics-of-ending-innocent-human-life.html?view=magazine

You lost me at the title.

Bannasidhe

eviltwin wrote: »

You lost me at the title.

The ethics of ending innocent human life

Is it about the 'War on Terror'?

Or the fact that 15 million children starve to death every year?

Delirium

Any chance of summary for the linked page for those of us who haven't time to read a novella atm?

eviltwin

This is the conclusion

From my analysis I have shown that the general pro-choice arguments in favour of abortion—with the possible exception of Thompson’s violin argument–can be plausibly refuted. If we use the criteria of personhood, instead of mere species membership, though, we can explain how the status of a foetus is not the moral equivalent of an adult human being, an older child, or even various adult non-human animals. For this reason, I claim, abortion can be morally justified. However, I also maintain that there is no real difference of moral status between the foetus and the newborn infant (as many pro-lifer opponents of abortion have been arguing for several years). Unlike the trajectory of the pro-life argument though, I state that simply existing as an human being is not enough to give a being a right to life; and if it’s reasonable to justify abortion (as I have argued for), then it seems reasonable to challenge the moral status we ascribe to newborn infants, and to propose possible conditions where infanticide can be permissible. The moral status of newborn infants is a genuine concern, and should be properly discussed in a well-reasoned manner. Those who wish to refute the conclusions arrive at here can respond to the arguments offered rather than by threats and abuse.

I think the writer is implying that make abortion legal and the next step is killing newborns.

martoman

Basically I'm arguing that abortion can be justified, but not in the way most abortion defenders suggest. I also argue that there is no intrinsic difference between a foetus and a newborn baby; so if we can say it's defensible to justify abortion, we can also justify infanticide.

Bannasidhe

martoman wrote: »

Basically I'm arguing that abortion can be justified, but not in the way most abortion defenders suggest. I also argue that there is no intrinsic difference between a foetus and a newborn baby; so if we can say it's defensible to justify abortion, we can also justify infanticide.

Like allowing 15 million children to starve to death every year?

We already do that.

GCU Flexible Demeanour

Morag wrote: »

Really you think suddenly being able to get a hold of aprox 800 to 1,000 euros to travel and get time off work, if you are working and organize child care if you have kids and lie about why you are leaving the country is easy?

The fact that 4,000 Irish women do it every year suggests that, yes, it's a practical proposition for many. Speculating, it seems plausible that it's enough of a practical proposition for enough people to mean there isn't really any massive political pressure for changes. Now, it's also plausible to say there's an affordibility issue for people unable to assemble €1,000 at short notice. But that's another day's work.

Morag wrote: »

We do have women who do not give a full medical history when they attend treatments or hospitals. Those who do disclose that they have had an abortion are often faced with a hostile reception by maternity staff, I was when I had my kids and I know two women who have given birth in the last year were also faced with staff taking a history who didn't want to know, were uncomfortable and were not going to make a note on the file until pushed to.

Grand, and that's the kind of issue that you'd expect "Doctors for Choice" should be making, instead of the Doctors for Spoof stuff that they are coming out with. That said, I'd expect one group of health professionals would be slow to say anything that might be critical of another group of health professionals - particularly if it was suggesting that healthcare staff were unable to handle personal information professionally.

GCU Flexible Demeanour

martoman wrote: »

Basically I'm arguing that abortion can be justified, but not in the way most abortion defenders suggest. I also argue that there is no intrinsic difference between a foetus and a newborn baby; so if we can say it's defensible to justify abortion, we can also justify infanticide.

On a practical note, when can we start claiming the Childrens Allowance?

eviltwin

martoman wrote: »

Basically I'm arguing that abortion can be justified, but not in the way most abortion defenders suggest. I also argue that there is no intrinsic difference between a foetus and a newborn baby; so if we can say it's defensible to justify abortion, we can also justify infanticide.

How do you figure that one out?

Bannasidhe

eviltwin wrote: »

How do you figure that one out?

because fetus = baby I imagine.

_rebelkid

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

Me, too

Easy up on the selective quoting there...

Obliq wrote: »

Wha??
This is about the broader abortion debate. Y'know, why we actually need services here equivalent to the UK. That's where the "ash cloud" angle comes into it - women having disastrously disrupted travel arrangements (at the mercy of the weather) to a life-changing appointment with a seriously problematic "against the clock" element to it.

How difficult is that to understand? I'd be at not having got that personally.

I do now understand how the ash cloud could have been an issue for women travelling at the time, and that it could be an issue again.

But what I fail to see is why that is being debated. If someone is having difficulty travelling, then they are having difficulty travelling, and may miss an appointment. That is simple. So it is quite easy to say that some women may have missed abortion appointments.

I do also subscribe to the notion that it is a marginal issue, but again, it is an issue.

Don't get me wrong, I think all services should be available to women, be it a legalization of X or implementing an augmented UK system. But the UK system has some issues, which is where preventions (of the loosest terms possible) come in.

It is not so much prevention, but a form of education. Abortion should be available, but if women don't want to have kids, or won't be able to afford it, shouldn't have them. Yes, abortion should be available, but the "problem" should be dealt with "at source".

An interesting point, people don't want the UK system in Ireland because the foetus could survive at 23/24 weeks. But a lot of medical professionals in the UK agree that this is not the best practice. People will wail and cry, screaming "SAVE THE BABY!!" (much like pro-life loons), but once that "saved baby" reaches 17/18, which is often rare without disability, they have no more support. There is a gigantic cost of trying to keep and 23 week baby alive, but that cost is for little to no gain. Those who do survive have a very limited quality of life.

Which is where the UK abortion system comes in. It allows abortion up to 26 weeks, which is what a council of medical professionals (mix of pro life, choice and undecideds) showed as the medical boundary for "life".

If medical professionals in the UK can come to a decision, why can't we?