Abortion Discussion

aloyisious

lazygal wrote: »

http://www.nationalconventionforlife.org/


A new Yoof Defence event. Jim "I can't call teh gehys fairies" Walsh is a noted speaker at it.

I see it's listed in the promo as being held in the LIFE (blood red decor) building at the junction of Parnell St and Capel St, across from the Black Sheep Pub. The map on the promo (for some reason) has a tear-drop shaped indicator over the City Hall building on Lord Edward St. I assume Jim also know's the venue is near Gay HQ in Dublin (might ask OutHouse to spruce up rainbow flag on 1st floor).

PopePalpatine

kylith wrote: »

Unless it's, you know, a life of hardship, deprivation, and poverty leading to an early death because a woman who knew that she did not have the means to raise a child has been forced to give birth against her will.

Nothing that the Ionanists have had to suffer, of course. :rolleyes:

GardenMadness

Cabaal wrote: »

Declan Ganley as well, feck he'll show up at anything that gets his name mentioned at this stage

Great to hear some aul lads finally getting a say on this issue.

lazygal

For too long the middle class, middle aged Catholic voter has been ignored. Bloody liberals all over the place.

GardenMadness

Exactly. These are the people whose opinion counts most too. It's a travesty that they've been left out if making the laws and setting the debate for so long.

If this issue affects anyone, it's the aul fellas.

aloyisious

GardenMadness wrote: »

Exactly. These are the people whose opinion counts most too. It's a travesty that they've been left out if making the laws and setting the debate for so long.

If this issue affects anyone, it's the aul fellas.

Tut tut, bashing the elders. Would they have all been educated in a City-State?

Piliger

lazygal wrote: »

For too long the middle class, middle aged Catholic voter has been ignored. Bloody liberals all over the place.

You had a couple of hundred year in power. Now we're sick of you.

Nodin

GardenMadness wrote: »

Exactly. These are the people whose opinion counts most too. It's a travesty that they've been left out if making the laws and setting the debate for so long.

If this issue affects anyone, it's the aul fellas.

....we're being bludgeoned into some liberal hippy commune by womb-wielding fanatics.

Brian Shanahan

Nodin wrote: »

....we're being bludgeoned into some liberal hippy commune by womb-wielding fanatics.

Don't forget, they're feminazis too, out to destroy the male of the species (and therefore the species as a whole).

PopePalpatine

Nodin wrote: »

....we're being bludgeoned into some liberal hippy commune by womb-wielding fanatics.

I have the weirdest mental image right now.

aloyisious

The Sean Murray show RTE R1 (9-11AM) is covering the issue of abortion, with an interview of a man who's partner is going to the UK to have an abortion as they've been told by Medics that the feotus has an fetal fatal abnormality, encephalitis. The shock they got when told at the hospital and then having to go home and tell all the family waiting for what they thought would be good news from the scan. The couple have had to take out a bank loan to cover their trip to the UK for the Op this saturday, termination of the pregnancy. Going full-term was mentioned but the fluid in the womb during this time would do untold physical harm to the feotus, while the pregnant woman would be very aware of that. The item on the show begin's at about 1140AM on the podcast, when it becomes available on the RTE Player. The Govt and the HSE come in for a bit of criticism from the husband for the current legal situation.

Kiwi in IE

aloyisious wrote: »

The Sean Murray show RTE R1 (9-11AM) is covering the issue of abortion, with an interview of a man who's partner is going to the UK to have an abortion as they've been told by Medics that the feotus has an fetal fatal abnormality, encephalitis. The shock they got when told at the hospital and then having to go home and tell all the family waiting for what they thought would be good news from the scan. The couple have had to take out a bank loan to cover their trip to the UK for the Op this saturday, termination of the pregnancy. Going full-term was mentioned but the fluid in the womb during this time would do untold physical harm to the feotus, while the pregnant woman would be very aware of that. The item on the show begin's at about 1140AM on the podcast, when it becomes available on the RTE Player. The Govt and the HSE come in for a bit of criticism from the husband for the current legal situation.

People in this situation need fundraising to cover costs. The state is refusing to cover basic medical needs that people should be entitled to via the free national health service. It is disgusting.

lazygal

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

People in this situation need fundraising to cover costs. The state is refusing to cover basic medical needs that people should be entitled to via the free national health service. It is disgusting.

https://www.abortionsupport.org.uk/

Obliq

aloyisious wrote: »

The couple have had to take out a bank loan to cover their trip to the UK for the Op this saturday, termination of the pregnancy.

I listened to the show. Thanks for the heads up earlier btw.

It wasn't a bank loan they had to get. I actually cried when I heard the poor misfortunate couple had to go to the "loan people", as he put it. Keelin Shanley made sure to ask were you able to get a bank loan, and that was his reply. She then said "with massive interest ?", and he said yes.

Is there anything we can do? Will we start a collection or something? It's been playing on my mind since this morning....

lazygal

I've said to my husband if I was ever in that position I wouldn't leave the hospital without getting a termination. I wonder what would happen if you simply refused to leave and refused to continue the pregnancy. Would they physically remove a pregnant woman from a maternity hospital?

Obliq

lazygal wrote: »

I've said to my husband if I was ever in that position I wouldn't leave the hospital without getting a termination. I wonder what would happen if you simply refused to leave and refused to continue the pregnancy. Would they physically remove a pregnant woman from a maternity hospital?

They considered going to the high court, but decided that because she only had a week within which to avoid actually having to go through a birth process and she felt that would be worse, decided to go to the UK immediately. I think between the news they got about the pregnancy, and the immediate decisions that had to be taken, you'd need some kind of superhuman strength to try and brazen it out here....the poor craturs.

What kind of a people are we at all? We should be all coming down like a ton of bricks on the "shut your eyes and cover your ears" SH1TE that the state does. The man was SO angry, and SO worried for his wife - it'd break your heart :mad::mad::mad:

Piliger

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

People in this situation need fundraising to cover costs. The state is refusing to cover basic medical needs that people should be entitled to via the free national health service. It is disgusting.

A bit of a wide swipe that I wouldn't buy into. I support abortion rights completely, but I don't necessarily consider them "basic medical needs".

Obliq

Piliger wrote: »

A bit of a wide swipe that I wouldn't buy into. I support abortion rights completely, but I don't necessarily consider them "basic medical needs".

I can't say what I'd like to say to you right now, so I will suggest you try and listen to that radio interview and come back and say the same. Believe me, it was a BASIC MEDICAL NEED. For both that poor woman, and the baby.

lazygal

Obliq wrote: »

They considered going to the high court, but decided that because she only had a week within which to avoid actually having to go through a birth process and she felt that would be worse, decided to go to the UK immediately. I think between the news they got about the pregnancy, and the immediate decisions that had to be taken, you'd need some kind of superhuman strength to try and brazen it out here....the poor craturs.

What kind of a people are we at all? We should be all coming down like a ton of bricks on the "shut your eyes and cover your ears" SH1TE that the state does. The man was SO angry, and SO worried for his wife - it'd break your heart :mad::mad::mad:

I know it's easy to say I'd do this or that but I've had two pregnancies, two big anomaly scans and two all clears. But in advance of both we agreed we wouldn't be leaving if I needed a termination. I just couldn't leave a hospital not getting the treatment I wanted and needed. I'm so angry for couples like this. And smart arse Catholic mouthpieces like Ronan Mullen has the cheek to accuse people like this of having a wider agenda? He should widen his agenda to include some compassion.

Obliq

Hear hear.

lazygal

Piliger wrote: »

A bit of a wide swipe that I wouldn't buy into. I support abortion rights completely, but I don't necessarily consider them "basic medical needs".

How can you support abortion rights completely, and also think that being able to terminate a pregnancy in cases of fatal abnormalities isn't a basic medical need? Is being forced to continue a pregnancy not a basic medical problem?

Piliger

Obliq wrote: »

I can't say what I'd like to say to you right now, so I will suggest you try and listen to that radio interview and come back and say the same. Believe me, it was a BASIC MEDICAL NEED. For both that poor woman, and the baby.

Which is completely different than what I actually responded to. Maybe read that and then decide if your above response is appropriate.

Piliger

lazygal wrote: »

How can you support abortion rights completely, and also think that being able to terminate a pregnancy in cases of fatal abnormalities isn't a basic medical need? Is being forced to continue a pregnancy not a basic medical problem?

Is every legal medical procedure something that the tax payer should pay for in every situation ? No. I don't buy into that kind of blanket policy.
I support legalising plastic surgery too, and corrective eye surgery. But I don't believe the taxpayer should pay for every plastic surgery or eye surgery.

Piliger

Obliq wrote: »

They considered going to the high court, but decided that because she only had a week within which to avoid actually having to go through a birth process and she felt that would be worse, decided to go to the UK immediately. I think between the news they got about the pregnancy, and the immediate decisions that had to be taken, you'd need some kind of superhuman strength to try and brazen it out here....the poor craturs.

An utterly horrible situation.

What kind of a people are we at all? We should be all coming down like a ton of bricks on the "shut your eyes and cover your ears" SH1TE that the state does. The man was SO angry, and SO worried for his wife - it'd break your heart :mad::mad::mad:

I am afraid this is a clear picture of the kind of people that make up a majority of Irish voting public. Me Feiners who couldn't give a monkeys sh1t about women like this as long as it doesn't happen to their precious lives. It is infuriating in the extreme and reminds us that we MUST continue to campaign to have abortion legalised and supported in this country.

Bannasidhe

Piliger wrote: »

Is every legal medical procedure something that the tax payer should pay for in every situation ? No. I don't buy into that kind of blanket policy.
I support legalising plastic surgery too, and corrective eye surgery. But I don't believe the taxpayer should pay for every plastic surgery or eye surgery.

Since when is plastic surgery illegal in Ireland??

The tax payer does pay in some cases. It paid for me to get a skin graft after an accident. It is about to pay for eye surgery for my elderly father to restore his sight in one eye. However, I paid for my own eye surgery as I didn't want to wear glasses any more - that was a vanity project on my part.

It looks like you were making a comparison between vanity procedures and abortion - if so I think in this case that is in poor taste.

Piliger

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Since when is plastic surgery illegal in Ireland??

The tax payer does pay in some cases. It paid for me to get a skin graft after an accident. It is about to pay for eye surgery for my elderly father to restore his sight in one eye. However, I paid for my own eye surgery as I didn't want to wear glasses any more - that was a vanity project on my part.

It looks like you were making a comparison between vanity procedures and abortion - if so I think in this case that is in poor taste.

What is clear is that you never bothered to actually read what I was responding to in the first place. :rolleyes:

Bannasidhe

Piliger wrote: »

What is clear is that you never bothered to actually read what I was responding to in the first place. :rolleyes:

What is it with you and roll eyes?

I did read what you wrote

Piliger wrote: »

Is every legal medical procedure something that the tax payer should pay for in every situation ? No. I don't buy into that kind of blanket policy.

Who suggested every medical procedure should be paid for? It was said that in this particular case the State should pay and not heap more misery upon this unfortunate couple by forcing them to a) travel and b) borrow to fund it.

I support legalising plastic surgery too, and corrective eye surgery.

Neither are illegal in Ireland so no idea what you are talking about there.

But I don't believe the taxpayer should pay for every plastic surgery or eye surgery.

However in certain situations the State will pay for both - which is what I said.

I then questioned why you choose 'plastic surgery' and 'eye surgery' as your examples and pondering if it was because both of these have connotations of vanity elective surgeries.

Turtwig

There's a breakdown here folks. Over semantics too it seems. When Piliger is referring to 'basical medical needs' it seems he's referring to things that all citizens should have paid for by the state. Others here have been referring to the provisions of the services legally.

Bannasidhe wrote: »

It looks like you were making a comparison between vanity procedures and abortion - if so I think in this case that is in poor taste.

Not really. He was comparing the concept of the state paying healthcare expenses for various treatments. He was not comparing the actual physical surgeries. There are many modes of comparison the one that you understood the likening of abortion to plastic surgery was not the one that was intended. More it was, by analogy, referring to the idea of elective procedures being state funded. A very valid ethical question. Making a service legal is one thing but deciding whether or not it should be publicly funded is another matter entirely.

Also, fwiw, cosmetic surgery isn't always a vanity option as you kind of alluded to.

Piliger wrote: »

What is clear is that you never bothered to actually read what I was responding to in the first place. :rolleyes:

Remarks of this kind are destructive. You've been warned previously about them too. If you keep them up your time on this forum will be cut short.
Yellow card applied.

Piliger

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Who suggested every medical procedure should be paid for? It was said that in this particular case the State should pay and not heap more misery upon this unfortunate couple by forcing them to a) travel and b) borrow to fund it.

Wrong. I was responding to this original statement: "The state is refusing to cover basic medical needs that people should be entitled to via the free national health service"

However in certain situations the State will pay for both - which is what I said.

Which is what I also said: "I support abortion rights completely, but I don't necessarily consider them "basic medical needs"."

I then questioned why you choose 'plastic surgery' and 'eye surgery' as your examples and pondering if it was because both of these have connotations of vanity elective surgeries.

Yes. Just like in many cases abortion would be elective, and not medically necessary. If some lady with a 6 figure income decides to abort her pregnancy because she wants continue her career, that is her choice to make but not necessarily to be paid for by the tax payer. You may believe in the State paying for everything people do in life, but I simply do not.

There is a vast difference between campaigning for and supporting a woman's right to chose, and saying that the tax payer should pay in all cases.

Neither are illegal in Ireland so no idea what you are talking about there.

I never said they were illegal. When I said "I support legalising plastic surgery too" I wasn't suggesting it was illegal, just that I didn't believe it should ever be illegal.

Obliq

Piliger wrote: »

Yes. Just like in many cases abortion would be elective, and not medically necessary. If some lady with a 6 figure income decides to abort her pregnancy because she wants continue her career, that is her choice to make but not necessarily to be paid for by the tax payer. You may believe in the State paying for everything people do in life, but I simply do not.

Ah. So it was you who *ahem* misinterpreted what kiwi was saying in the first place, and answered as if she was refering to elective abortions, whereas IN FACT we were ALL discussing the poor misfortunate couple whose first scan showed up Anencephaly. If you're going to throw a thread off course like that, you'll have to expect some misinterpretation in return.

Who says stuff like this btw, without being taken up as provoking a reaction? "You may believe in the State paying for everything people do in life, but I simply do not" - Another tangent for you to lead people into argument. Why say it at all? What are you trying to achieve by winding people up?