8th Amendment

volchitsa

No Voter And Proud wrote: »

That's the definition of homosexuality, not heterosexuals. Correct. Gold star for you.

So Oscar Wilde wasn't really homosexual then?

No Voter And Proud wrote: »

No but they are rendered useless by the lack of heterosexual activity

Try googling "artificial insemination", you might learn an amazing amount.

Kev W

No Voter And Proud wrote: »

That's the definition of homosexuality, not heterosexuals. Correct. Gold star for you.



Completely unrelated.



No but they are rendered useless by the lack of heterosexual activity

So do you actually think of the concept of homosexuality becoming universally accepted as "a thing some people are and that's fine" will lead to all of the human race becoming homosexual and then becoming extinct as a genuine, plausible threat that might actually happen?

lazygal

No Voter And Proud wrote: »

No but they are rendered useless by the lack of heterosexual activity

So women can only ever get pregnant when a man ejaculates inside a woman? Can lesbians never get pregnant, ever then?

Atlantis50

krankykitty wrote: »

Wasn't there someone here saying no pro choice doctors had refuted the Dublin Declaration? Letter from Doctors for Choice in the IT this morning, signed by a variety of doctors, refuting a letter by various signatories of the DD which was printed last week.

http://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/letters/amnesty-international-and-abortion-1.2258863

Ah, so now we know that "Doctors for Choice" consists of five GPs and a Consultant Psychiatrist.

Given that there are approximately 2,500 GPs in Ireland, the fact that only 5 GPs (0.002%) are members of this group and signed off on this letter is extremely telling.

And on the specific issue of the letter, we're supposed to believe them over nine experienced obstetricians? I think not.

Doesn't anyone think it's odd that Dr Rhona Mahony did not add her name to the letter?

lazygal

Atlantis50 wrote: »

Ah, so now we know that "Doctors for Choice" consists of five GPs and a Consultant Psychiatrist.

Given that there are approximately 2,500 GPs in Ireland, the fact that only 5 GPs (0.002%) are members of this group and signed off on this letter is extremely telling.

And we're supposed to believe them over nine experienced obstetricians? I think not.

How many experienced obstetricians haven't signed the Dublin declaration? Would the number be considered a large bulk of the profession?

traprunner

Atlantis50 wrote: »

Ah, so now we know that "Doctors for Choice" consists of five GPs and a Consultant Psychiatrist.

Given that there are approximately 2,500 GPs in Ireland, the fact that only 5 GPs (0.002%) are members of this group and signed off on this letter is extremely telling.

And on the specific issue of the letter, we're supposed to believe them over nine experienced obstetricians? I think not.

Just because someone hasn't signed a letter does not make them supporters of the Dublin Declaration. Quite the opposite seeing that any Tom, Dick or Harry can sign the Dublin Declaration.

traprunner

Atlantis50 wrote: »

Doesn't anyone think it's odd that Dr Rhona Mahony did not add her name to the letter?

Do you know for a fact that she was consulted or even knew about it?

All kinds of crazy on this thread again for the past couple of pages!

Atlantis50

lazygal wrote: »

How many experienced obstetricians haven't signed the Dublin declaration? Would the number be considered a large bulk of the profession?

I don't know, but the principle is simple:

Silence among obstetricians, GPs, and other medical professionals favours the status quo i.e., maintenance of the 8th Amendment.

Atlantis50

traprunner wrote: »

Just because someone hasn't signed a letter does not make them supporters of the Dublin Declaration. Quite the opposite seeing that any Tom, Dick or Harry can sign the Dublin Declaration.

Silence favours the status quo.

Atlantis50

traprunner wrote: »

Do you know for a fact that she was consulted or even knew about it?

All kinds of crazy on this thread again for the past couple of pages!

But why wouldn't she speak out (in whatever format, letter or interview) if she believed the Amnesty report was correct given her prominent role in backing the report?

Godge

Why all the fascination with what doctors think of moral choices?

Their view of the 8th amendment only holds equal value to mine or anyone elses.

lazygal

Atlantis50 wrote: »

I don't know, but the principle is simple:

Silence among obstetricians, GPs, and other medical professionals favours the status quo i.e., maintenance of the 8th Amendment.

How do you know that? Might silence also indicate pragmatism given the approach of the anti abortion brigade to those who disagree with the view that the 8th amendment is a Good Thing for Women?

A bit like that so-called silent no majority in the marriage referendum, the silent assent to the brilliance of telling women they have to stay pregnant unless they have the means and ability to bring the unborn elsewhere to kill might well be a complete myth.

traprunner

Atlantis50 wrote: »

Silence favours the status quo.

Not at all. Silence could be indicative of someone planning their move. But then we do not know what others are thinking...unless you are psychic (if you are you could make a million dollars: http://web.randi.org/the-million-dollar-challenge.html).

Kev W

Atlantis50 wrote: »

But why wouldn't she speak out (in whatever format, letter or interview) if she believed the Amnesty report was correct given her prominent role in backing the report?

Why would she need to, given that she's already backed the report?

SpaceTime

To the posters concerned about gay uteruses - you can relax !

a % of the human population appears to have been gay for pretty much the history of humanity. Historical evidence going back for as long as we have history, yet the human race has prospered so well that it's major risk is that it's sheer scale will overwhelm the planet causing its demise.

If there's one thing humans aren't at risk of its dying out due to lack of population!

There's more to human success that raw reproductive rates too. There's that whole vast social infrastructure of society and technology that supports us. The homosexuality bit in our DNS may well have evolved to somehow support that - remember human success is about raising very slow maturing, very high maintenance off spring. This could well be why you needed extra adults who aren't directly parents.

Evolution tends to stumble on some interesting solutions to things - sometimes removing your dogmatic spectacles and looking at how a species actually functions can be a useful exercise. We're not the noble, lone hunter - we're more like a hippy, chaotic version of the Borg : deeply integrated social species where individuals will actually go insane / be incapable of functioning removed from the group.

Now what all this has to do with a thread on the 8th amendment is another question entirely ...

Atlantis50

traprunner wrote: »

Not at all. Silence could be indicative of someone planning their move. But then we do not know what others are thinking...unless you are psychic (if you are you could make a million dollars: http://web.randi.org/the-million-dollar-challenge.html).

Oh right, so must presume there is a silent majority of Doctors waiting in the wings to call for repeal of the 8th Amendment.

That's more silly than your psychic nonsense.

traprunner

Atlantis50 wrote: »

But why wouldn't she speak out (in whatever format, letter or interview) if she believed the Amnesty report was correct given her prominent role in backing the report?

Have you listened to ALL radio shows, read ALL newspapers, read ALL internet articles, read ALL medical journals? Maybe she has spoken out. Maybe she wrote the letter but it wasn't published. Maybe she is penning it as you read this. Maybe she is on holidays and is not aware that Atlantis50 is demanding a response.

You are getting a bit ridiculous now concentrating on this.

lazygal

Atlantis50 wrote: »

Oh right, so must presume there is a silent majority of Doctors waiting in the wings to call for repeal of the 8th Amendment.

That's more silly than your psychic nonsense.

How do you know every single medical professional working in Ireland who hasn't expressed a view on the eighth amendment publicly thinks its a good thing? Do you think they think its also a good thing that women in Ireland who have the means and ability to travel to kill the unborn have constitutional protection to do so?

Atlantis50

Kev W wrote: »

Why would she need to, given that she's already backed the report?

Because their letter, which included a signatory from a former Master of the National Maternity Hospital constituted an indirect but unambiguous attack on her professional reputation given her prominence in backing the report that includes a gross misrepresentation, and at worst, a callous attempt to discredit and shame Irish obstetricians.

SpaceTime

I'd suspect there's a % of Irish doctors and politicians a bit traumatised by previous campaigns who will sit on the fence on the issue or remain silent because they get torn apart.

The pro life side tends to be particularly aggressive and uses very bullying tactics historically.

Kev W

lazygal wrote: »

How do you know every single medical professional working in Ireland who hasn't expressed a view on the eighth amendment publicly thinks its a good thing? Do you think they think its also a good thing that women in Ireland who have the means and ability to travel to kill the unborn have constitutional protection to do so?

No no, it's only silly when YOU presume that some people who haven't spoken up might be on your side. When he assumes that they are all on his side that's just logic.

traprunner

Atlantis50 wrote: »

Oh right, so must presume there is a silent majority of Doctors waiting in the wings to call for repeal of the 8th Amendment.

That's more silly than your psychic nonsense.

The psychic is to do with you. You appear to know what everyone is thinking. I'm just saying that you can't make assumptions.

lazygal

SpaceTime wrote: »

I'd suspect there's a % of Irish doctors and politicians a bit traumatised by previous campaigns who will sit on the fence on the issue or remain silent because they get torn apart.

The pro life side tends to be particularly aggressive and uses very bullying tactics historically.

Like this?
http://www.irishtimes.com/news/youth-defence-occupied-clinic-high-court-told-1.160738

Atlantis50

traprunner wrote: »

Have you listened to ALL radio shows, read ALL newspapers, read ALL internet articles, read ALL medical journals? Maybe she has spoken out. Maybe she wrote the letter but it wasn't published. Maybe she is penning it as you read this. Maybe she is on holidays and is not aware that Atlantis50 is demanding a response.

You are getting a bit ridiculous now concentrating on this.

Eh, yeah.

Let's wait and see so :rolleyes:

traprunner

Atlantis50 wrote: »

Because their letter, which included a signatory from a former Master of the National Maternity Hospital constituted an indirect but unambiguous attack on her professional reputation given her prominence in backing the report that includes a gross misrepresentation, and at worst, a callous attempt to discredit and shame Irish obstetricians.

There has also been quite a few posts in this thread that as you say are "a callous attempt to discredit and shame Irish obstetricians" and people are hiding behind anonymous user names while doing it. Dangerous territory.

lazygal

Atlantis50 wrote: »

Eh, yeah.

Let's wait and see so :rolleyes:

Do you think the right of women to travel to kill the unborn should be voted on again?

Atlantis50

traprunner wrote: »

The psychic is to do with you. You appear to know what everyone is thinking. I'm just saying that you can't make assumptions.

Maybe this and maybe that.

How about focusing on what is known rather that "unknown unknowns"

traprunner

Atlantis50 wrote: »

Eh, yeah.

Let's wait and see so :rolleyes:

I was giving a handful of a million different possibilities. I have no idea what she is at and neither do you. You are like a dog with a bone over something none of us have any knowledge about at all.

Atlantis50 wrote: »

Maybe this and maybe that.

How about focusing on what is known rather that "unknown unknowns"

Well that is rich coming from you! I am concentrating on correcting you because you are assuming.

lazygal

Atlantis50 wrote: »

Maybe this and maybe that.

How about focusing on what is known rather that "unknown unknowns"

How do you know silence=agrees with the eighth amendment?

Atlantis50

Kev W wrote: »

No no, it's only silly when YOU presume that some people who haven't spoken up might be on your side. When he assumes that they are all on his side that's just logic.

I never said that.

I'm sure there are many doctors that are on no side at all - which favours the status quo.

Kev W

Atlantis50 wrote: »

Maybe this and maybe that.

How about focusing on what is known rather that "unknown unknowns"

You raised the subject of what people who haven't spoken either way were probably thinking.

Kev W

Atlantis50 wrote: »

I never said that.

I'm sure there are many doctors that are on no side at all - which favours the status quo.

I can't imagine there are doctors who have no opinion on this subject.

Godge

Godge wrote: »

Why all the fascination with what doctors think of moral choices?

Their view of the 8th amendment only holds equal value to mine or anyone elses.

Not quite true.

If a doctor has experience of the 8th interfering with their ability to care for their patient to the fullest extent of their medical abilities, then their experience and intuition is a necessary input to the conversation.

Their thoughts on the morality etc are just as valid as yours, their insights on the practicalities and externalities are patently more valuable to the discussion though.

pmasterson95

lazygal wrote: »

Do you think the right of women to travel to kill the unborn should be voted on again?

No remember a few days ago lazy. We established they proudly support locking them up until the baby is born. Which does make sense for that side as what kind of anarchistic society would allow women the freedom to move countries when they cant even be trusted with their own bodies after all.



Maybe they will preach different today. It was (literal) forced labour camps a few days ago.

ProfessorPlum

Atlantis50 wrote: »

Maybe this and maybe that.

How about focusing on what is known rather that "unknown unknowns"

I think it's' fairly well known that Dr Mahony supports the Amnesty report.

And as I said before, Dr Coulter Smith (master of the Rotunda, and one of the more 'pro life' slanting doctors from what I can see) must have given his permission for the launch to take place at his hospital, so I don't think it's too much of a leap to suppose that he also supports the amnesty report.

I also suggested several reasons why many doctors might remain silent, at least publicly - one of which is that they might lose their jobs in their Catholic ethos hospitals, and for a career path for NCHDs which involves constantly moving between hospitals with new contracts every 6 - 12 months, I can understand why they would not like to single themselves out to be discriminated against.

pmasterson95

Accident double post.

lazygal

pmasterson95 wrote: »

No remember a few days ago lazy. We established they proudly support locking them up until the baby is born. Which does make sense for that side as what kind of anarchistic society would allow women the freedom to move countries when they cant even be trusted with their own bodies after all.



Maybe they will preach different today. It was (literal) forced labour camps a few days ago.

You are so right. I know I only stayed pregnant twice because abortion is illegal here until I might die.

Delirium

No Voter And Proud wrote: »

That's the definition of homosexuality, not heterosexuals. Correct. Gold star for you.

It's actually not. No definition of homosexual states that person cannot reproduce. Many homosexuals have biological children.

No Voter And Proud

pmasterson95 wrote: »

Accident double post.

You should abort the post.

SW wrote: »

It's actually not. No definition of homosexual states that person cannot reproduce. Many homosexuals have biological children.

Well a person who is attracted to the same sex is not likely to reproduce!

Kev W

No Voter And Proud wrote: »

You should abort the post.


Well a person who is attracted to the same sex is not likely to reproduce!

Not likely to reproduce ACCIDENTALLY. Artificial insemination makes the actual sexual act irrelevant to reproduction.

Atlantis50

ProfessorPlum wrote: »

I think it's' fairly well known that Dr Mahony supports the Amnesty report.

But not defend it when it's attacked by colleagues on her profession?

ProfessorPlum wrote: »

And as I said before, Dr Coulter Smith (master of the Rotunda, and one of the more 'pro life' slanting doctors from what I can see) must have given his permission for the launch to take place at his hospital, so I don't think it's too much of a leap to suppose that he also supports the amnesty report.

The report launch was held in the "Pillar Room" of the Rotunda which is a function room that anyone can book ("Friends of the Rotunda" rent it out to raise funds for the hospital):

https://www.for.ie/FunctionRoom.aspx

Yours is not an unreasonable assumption and it was a good stroke on O'Gorman's part.

ProfessorPlum wrote: »

I also suggested several reasons why many doctors might remain silent, at least publicly - one of which is that they might lose their jobs in their Catholic ethos hospitals, and for a career path for NCHDs which involves constantly moving between hospitals with new contracts every 6 - 12 months, I can understand why they would not like to single themselves out to be discriminated against.

That's only speculation. As I've already posted, we can't go on the assumption of a "silent majority".

What we do know is 5 GPs out of 2500 are members of Doctors for Choice.

lazygal

No Voter And Proud wrote: »

Well a person who is attracted to the same sex is not likely to reproduce!

Why? During the referendum we heard miles of stories about surrogacy and adoption and the right to procreate. Is all that done away with now?

SpaceTime

SW wrote: »

It's actually not. No definition of homosexual states that person cannot reproduce. Many homosexuals have biological children.

Well, sure you couldn't have a thread like this without some random fundamentalist having a dig at the gay community, despite the fact it has nothing to do with the topic of discussion.

The old guns, gay and God trilogy of right wing hot topics in the U.S. tends to cross the Atlantic just without so much of the guns bit.

lazygal

Atlantis50 wrote: »

What we do know is 5 GPs out of 2500 are members of Doctors for Choice.

Gosh, I'm sure some might call that a large bulk.

No Voter And Proud

No Voter And Proud wrote: »

No but they are rendered useless by the lack of heterosexual activity

Deleted User wrote: »

That would suggest that no lesbian has given, or could ever give birth.

Would you consider that implausible?

No Voter And Proud wrote: »

Well a person who is attracted to the same sex is not likely to reproduce!

Have we moved from implausible to improbable/unlikely?

And if so, can we consider your earlier "the human race would die out" statement retracted?
---
Now, let's consider sperm donation. Can same-sex parents (lets consider two mothers) not exist? A sperm donor, artificial insemination, and a useful womb can result in biological offspring can't it?

Kev W

Atlantis50 wrote: »

That's only speculation. As I've already posted, we can't go on the assumption of a "silent majority".

You were the first to do so.

Kev W

SpaceTime wrote: »

Well, sure you couldn't have a thread like this without some random fundamentalist having a dig at the gay community, despite the fact it has nothing to do with the topic of discussion.

look at it from the fundamentalists' perspective. Gay people and women are lesser beings deserving of fewer rights. So it's basically the same thing.

pmasterson95

No Voter And Proud wrote: »

You should abort the post.


Well a person who is attracted to the same sex is not likely to reproduce!

Why should I? You were anti abortion? Are you not contradicting your mantra now?

SpaceTime

Just remember though Ireland has a truly frightening (recent) history on reproductive issues.

This is the country that saw nothing unusual about banning condoms for decades, then making their sale really difficult right into the 1990s.

One of my own relatives was *arrested* for importing condoms in the 1970s. She emigrated and never set foot here again afterwards.

Here's Richard Branson's experience of Ireland in the 1990s ... http://www.virgin.com/richard-branson/the-day-we-were-arrested-for-selling-condoms-in-dublin

This is a country that would rather have sawn a woman's pelvis in half than condone the use of condoms.

It's a country that saw nothing unusual about locking women up and making them suffer for getting pregnant outside marriage (while banning contraception) and then in a lot of cases basically stole their children.

Ireland has improved a lot since the 1990s and I'm delighted the gay marriage referendum passed without fuss but, on issues of reproductive rights we're having debates that most countries had 50 to 100 years ago.

The more I look at recent Irish history the more I wonder what was and is wrong with this place.

We are *not* a normal country. In some ways we're a bit crazy and still controlled by fear of religious fundamentalism.

lazygal

This is still a country where reproductive medicine surrounding AI is completely unlegislated for, mainly because of the lack of will to regulate it. People availing of reproductive services like IVF and IUI do so in a market that operates outside of legal guidelines. Of course there are medical guidelines but no legal certainty whatsoever on artificial reproduction, some procedures of which have been standard for decades.