Abortion/ *Note* Thread Closing Shortly! ! !

Bannasidhe

HurtLocker wrote: »

Can I ask why the title includes "Bob marleys view on religion"?

Because we have moved on from 'things to experience in Granada' silly.

Turtwig

HurtLocker wrote: »

Can I ask why the title includes "Bob marleys view on religion"?

It was a query posed by a user mid discussion of the legal ramifications of the current draft bill.

Abortion discussions can sometimes be very emotional and heated. The dual title is just to the reflect the fact that while, this thread is for informative and rational discourse, the atmosphere of tea-and-biscuits type conversations and cordiality, with the occasional humour thrown in, is what we should strive for.:)
Just like we're all sipping a nice cup of a tea together.

Edit : And because we have moved on from 'things to experience in Grenada'.

Bannasidhe

Jernal wrote: »

It was a query posed by a user mid discussion of the legal ramifications of the current draft bill.

Abortion discussions can sometimes be very emotional and heated. The dual title is just to the reflect the fact that while, this thread is for informative and rational discourse, the atmosphere of tea-and-biscuits type conversations and cordiality, with the occasional humour thrown in, is what we should strive for.:)
Just like we're all sipping a nice cup of a tea together.

and because we have moved on from 'things to experience in Granada'.

Nodin

Jernal wrote: »

It was a query posed by a user mid discussion of the legal ramifications of the current draft bill.

Abortion discussions can sometimes be very emotional and heated. The dual title is just to the reflect the fact that while, this thread is for informative and rational discourse, the atmosphere of tea-and-biscuits type conversations and cordiality, with the occasional humour thrown in, is what we should strive for.:)
Just like we're all sipping a nice cup of a tea together.

Some people won't take tea. We're so liberal they aren't even yet banned.

Turtwig

Bannasidhe wrote: »

and because we have moved on from 'things to experience in Granada'.

It was 'Grenada' not 'Granada' Lingua was very clear on this.

Bannasidhe

Nodin wrote: »

Some people won't take tea. We're so liberal they aren't even yet banned.

I post this
.
and I'm still here.


That's how magnanimous and inclusive we are.

Bannasidhe

Jernal wrote: »

It was 'Grenada' not 'Granada' Lingua was very clear on this.

I did not notice....:o

I salute you, oh Master 'Pedent'.

Sierra 117

I really don't understand why politicians think they have a choice when it comes to introducing the legislation. I mean, the people of this country voted 'yes' twice and yet they drag their heels as if what the people want comes second to what they want.

Nodin

Depressing stuff

By any standards Tammi Kromenaker does not have an easy job. She runs the Red River Women's Clinic in Fargo, North
Dakota, which now offers the only remaining abortion service in the whole deeply conservative
state. It is also under siege.

North Dakota's politicians have passed a series of new laws designed to put
the clinic out of business. On many days, anti-abortion protesters stand outside
the building's doors. Security is intense: doors are locked and there are
cameras keeping an eye on those outside.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/may/11/abortion-north-dakota-under-siege

GCU Flexible Demeanour

Ford Sierra Cosworth. That was a great car. Why did they never bring out a Mondeo Cosworth?

Lingua Franca

Jernal wrote: »

It was 'Grenada' not 'Granada' Lingua was very clear on this.

It was a Grenada but people kept babbling on about an Alabrama and I wouldn't be caught dead in a Seat.

aloyisious

Are you a "The Sweeney" fan?

MrPudding

Nodin wrote: »

Some people won't take tea. We're so liberal they aren't even yet banned.

I am fairly liberal, but I'm afraid a line needs to drawn somewhere, and not taking tea might be it.

MrP

Bannasidhe

MrPudding wrote: »

I am fairly liberal, but I'm afraid a line needs to drawn somewhere, and not taking tea might be it.

MrP

Turtwig

RTE.ie wrote:

Members of the Irish College of General Practitioners have voted for the issue of abortion to be regulated by medical guidelines rather than legislation.
An original motion calling on the ICGP to support the Government's commitment to introduce legislation for abortion services was rejected.
Instead, another motion was adopted which calls on the government to "introduce clarity in the law founded on evidence based medical guidelines where there is a real and substantial risk to the life of the mother".
The ICGP also voted in favour of a motion calling for abortions to be allowed in cases of non-viable foetal anomalies.
GPs rejected a motion calling for abortion in the case of rape or incest.

Source.

.

GCU Flexible Demeanour

More details below

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/health/doctors-support-abortions-in-some-cases-1.1390618

<...>They voted 55-52 — after two recounts — in favour of a motion calling on the Government to legislate for abortion for women who are pregnant with non-viable foetal anomalies.

But members voted by the same margin, 55-52, to reject a motion calling for the provision of abortion for women who become pregnant as a result of a criminal act such as rape or incest.

A third motion, calling on members of the ICGP to publicly back the Government in its commitment to introduce legislation and regulation for abortion where there is ‘a real and substantial risk’ to the life of the mother, was amended. The amended motion wants the ICGP to get the Government to introduce legal clarity on terminations founded on evidence-based medical guidelines for where there is a substantial risk to the life of the mother. The amended motion was passed by 60 votes to 48.

Dr John Delap, chairman of the ICGP, said the division among doctors illustrated the diverse views held by people on the subject of abortion.
“I’ve been on the executive of the College (ICGP) now for seven years and certainly this is the most controversial debate that we have had in that time. By and large decisions in the College are made by consensus. Clearly on this issue there is not consensus.<...>

I think it's worth recalling what Doctors for Spoof said before the AGM

http://www.imt.ie/news/latest-news/2013/05/gps-pass-abortion-motions.html

<...> “We would be hopeful the motions would be passed at the AGM, especially now that the heads of the [Protection of Life During Pregnancy] Bill have now been published and it is now a fact that it will be law, so doctors who vote against would be effectively going against the proposed law,” she said.

Claiming that a group of retired doctors who had voted at the IMO AGM had swung the result, Dr Favier said only members in good standing by examination were allowed to vote at ICGP AGMs<...>

In passing, they also said

<...>GPs <...> were the first doctors that patients consulted when they had crisis pregnancies, and hence understood the issues better.

That's the problem with bull****, it comes back to haunt you.

Like Mark Twain, I always try to tell the truth because it's easier to remember.

Hotblack Desiato

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

That's the problem with bull****, it comes back to haunt you.

Touché

Like Mark Twain, I always try to tell the truth because it's easier to remember.

So why is it I can't figure out what your position actually is?

GCU Flexible Demeanour

ninja900 wrote: »

So why is it I can't figure out what your position actually is?

I don't know, and the simplest explanation may even be the best. I'd take the simplest explanation to be that my posts must be unclear.

I'd guess a potential source of confusion might be (and I'm just guessing at my end, because clearly I've no idea what assumptions anyone else is making) that I'm mostly interested in sifting good points from bad. I'm not tribal, in the sense of feeling I have to support anyone who purports to be taking what we might broadly call a secular position and decry anyone associated with the other lot. I'll acknowledge a valid point, if a pro-lifer makes one, and challenge an invalid point, if a pro-choicer makes one. I'm more interested in the validity of arguments, than in who makes them.

What I'm mostly interested in is bull****, wherever it's found. I'd find it particularly interesting when you find a group of profoundly intelligent and well-educated professionals engaging in it with gusto. I'm not totally with Harry Frankfurt's idea that bull**** is a greater threat to the truth (whatever that is) than lies. But I do agree that it's worth studying why and when folk decide that the best way to advance an agenda is to make statements without any concern for their truth-value.

marienbad

ninja900 wrote: »

Touché



So why is it I can't figure out what your position actually is?

join the club

Hotblack Desiato

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

I don't know, and the simplest explanation may even be the best. I'd take the simplest explanation to be that my posts must be unclear.

Sometimes the simplest explanation is the correct one.

I'd guess a potential source of confusion might be (and I'm just guessing at my end, because clearly I've no idea what assumptions anyone else is making) that I'm mostly interested in sifting good points from bad. I'm not tribal, in the sense of feeling I have to support anyone who purports to be taking what we might broadly call a secular position and decry anyone associated with the other lot. I'll acknowledge a valid point, if a pro-lifer makes one, and challenge an invalid point, if a pro-choicer makes one. I'm more interested in the validity of arguments, than in who makes them.

Sorry but that's just puffing yourself up, not validating your arguments in any way.

What I'm mostly interested in is bull****, wherever it's found. I'd find it particularly interesting when you find a group of profoundly intelligent and well-educated professionals engaging in it with gusto. I'm not totally with Harry Frankfurt's idea that bull**** is a greater threat to the truth (whatever that is) than lies. But I do agree that it's worth studying why and when folk decide that the best way to advance an agenda is to make statements without any concern for their truth-value.

OK - how do we ascertain what is bull***?

Pherekydes

I'm not tribal, in the sense of feeling I have to support anyone who purports to be taking what we might broadly call a secular position and decry anyone associated with the other lot.

Fence-sitters are the biggest BSers.

GCU Flexible Demeanour

ninja900 wrote: »

Sometimes the simplest explanation is the correct one.

Yes, that's what I just said.

ninja900 wrote: »

Sorry but that's just puffing yourself up, not validating your arguments in any way.

But I'm clearly not attempting to validate any argument in that statement. I'm just explaining my outlook. For my part, I don't see why anyone has to pull back from seeing the reliance that can be put on material put out by Doctors for Spoof.

ninja900 wrote: »

OK - how do we ascertain what is bull***?

I suppose we might start with Harry Frankfurt's seminal essay:

http://www.linguistik.tu-berlin.de/fileadmin/fg72/PDF/Peters_PDF/FRANKFURT__H._G.__2005._On_Bull****..pdf

He'd maintain (and I'd agree) that the distinctive feature of bull****, that distinguishes it from lying, is that bull**** is not necessarily untruth. It's simply that it's truth or falseness is irrelevant to the making of the statement. (In other words, any alignment between truth and bull**** is accidental - and of no interest to the bull****ter.) The Doctors for Choice stuff is actually a perfect example of bull****.

Is there any way of turning off that **** thing at the thread level? After all, we're discussing a philosophical concept here.

Pherekydes wrote: »

Fence-sitters are the biggest BSers.

That could be, but I don't see the point of denying facts. Unless your contention is we're all infaillible, there's surely a need to be alert to which points are valid and which are invalid.

Morag

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

Is there any way of turning off that **** thing at the thread level? After all, we're discussing a philosophical concept here.

Nope it's a site wide setting.

I wonder how many women trying to travel will be affected by the bus strikes.
Have already heard of a few who got back home to Dublin on Sunday and were stranded.

Bannasidhe

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

Is there any way of turning off that **** thing at the thread level? After all, we're discussing a philosophical concept here.

We are?

I thought we were discussing the real-life impact of real-life legislation on the lives of real-life women...

Turns out all we are going is Satreing the Kant from the Constant in a Descarting excercise that Shaftburies women's rights, Lockeing them in a metaphorical Mill.

What a load of old Leibniz! Wollstonecraft that for a Rousseau of Hobbes!

GCU Flexible Demeanour

Morag wrote: »

I wonder how many women trying to travel will be affected by the bus strikes. Have already heard of a few who got back home to Dublin on Sunday and were stranded.

Will we do the numbers? If there's 3,000 women travelling each year, that's about ten a day. 26% of Irish people using Dublin Airport (which is the airport used by 75% of all Irish air passenger traffic) travel there by bus. 10% of bus users using the airport choose Bus Eireann. So maybe 2.6% of all airport users are inconvenienced by the action, which is different to saying they'd no alternative transport option. So if the strike goes on for 10 days, maybe two women will be inconveniced. Strangely enough, you seem to know both of them. Small world, innit.

Bannasidhe wrote: »

We are? I thought we were discussing the real-life impact of real-life legislation on the lives of real-life women...

We are, and we're absolutely fearless in exposing anyone who tries to cover those real-life issues in a thick layer of bullsh*t.

Delirium

Morag wrote: »

Nope it's a site wide setting.

I wonder how many women trying to travel will be affected by the bus strikes.
Have already heard of a few who got back home to Dublin on Sunday and were stranded.

Having abortion available in Ireland would have reduced the odds of being stranded but wouldn't guarantee it wouldn't happen. Not every woman would live close enough to a hospital that get to the hospital if the bus strikes are happening. The same scenario would have arisen if the closest hospital for them to have an abortion was Dublin.

Turtwig

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

Will we do the numbers? If there's 3,000 women travelling each year, that's about ten a day. 26% of Irish people using Dublin Airport (which is the airport used by 75% of all Irish air passenger traffic) travel there by bus. 10% of bus users using the airport choose Bus Eireann. So maybe 2.6% of all airport users are inconvenienced by the action, which is different to saying they'd no alternative transport option. So if the strike goes on for 10 days, maybe two women will be inconveniced. Strangely enough, you seem to know both of them. Small world, innit.We are, and we're absolutely fearless in exposing anyone who tries to cover those real-life issues in a thick layer of bullsh*t.

She's involved in a pro-choice organisation. It wouldn't exactly beggar belief if women seeking abortions contacted her for advice and she remained in contact in with them.

Morag

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

Will we do the numbers? If there's 3,000 women travelling each year, that's about ten a day. 26% of Irish people using Dublin Airport (which is the airport used by 75% of all Irish air passenger traffic) travel there by bus. 10% of bus users using the airport choose Bus Eireann. So maybe 2.6% of all airport users are inconvenienced by the action, which is different to saying they'd no alternative transport option. So if the strike goes on for 10 days, maybe two women will be inconveniced. Strangely enough, you seem to know both of them. Small world, innit.We are, and we're absolutely fearless in exposing anyone who tries to cover those real-life issues in a thick layer of bullsh*t.

There is also the fact that links to ferries are out of commission not everyone travels by plane, or from the Dublin ports.

Also School buses are effected by the strike, so that will disrupt travel plans as well.

GCU Flexible Demeanour

Jernal wrote: »

She's involved in a pro-choice organisation. It wouldn't exactly beggar belief if women seeking abortions contacted her for advice and she remained in contact in with them.

That absolutely wouldn't beggar belief. And maybe there's some reason why women who need an abortion are particularly dependent on Bus Eireann. It would also be explicable if a disproportionate number travelled over a weekend. All I've really done is point out how, on the averages, you'd expect less than two women per week to be impacted at all - yet we've a statement to the effect that a poster has personal knowledge of a few being stranded on Sunday night. I'm just pointing out what is encompassed by a claim of having personal knowledge of woman who travelled from anywhere in the country, and were stranded by Bus Eireann on Sunday night.

Morag wrote: »

There is also the fact that links to ferries are out of commission not everyone travels by plane, or from the Dublin ports.

Also School buses are effected by the strike, so that will disrupt travel plans as well.

I clearly don't have a flow of data on everyone's plans and dependencies. But you'll find, overwhelmingly, air traffic is how people get to the UK. Unless you're taking the car, in which case Bus Eireann will be of limited interest.

Again, I'm not saying no-one was impacted. I'm just suggesting it looks like very, very, very, very few.

marienbad

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

That absolutely wouldn't beggar belief. And maybe there's some reason why women who need an abortion are particularly dependent on Bus Eireann. It would also be explicable if a disproportionate number travelled over a weekend. All I've really done is point out how, on the averages, you'd expect less than two women per week to be impacted at all - yet we've a statement to the effect that a poster has personal knowledge of a few being stranded on Sunday night. I'm just pointing out what is encompassed by a claim of having personal knowledge of woman who travelled from anywhere in the country, and were stranded by Bus Eireann on Sunday night.
I clearly don't have a flow of data on everyone's plans and dependencies. But you'll find, overwhelmingly, air traffic is how people get to the UK. Unless you're taking the car, in which case Bus Eireann will be of limited interest.

Again, I'm not saying no-one was impacted. I'm just suggesting it looks like very, very, very, very few.

Are you for real ??