Abortion Discussion, Part Trois

stefanovich

aloyisious wrote:

Condoms are not approved of by the Church as they prevent the natural order of things (pregnancy) taking place. Morning-after pills are a definite NO-NO as far as the church and anti-abortionists are concerned, they see the pills as abortifacient, Google the words "abortifacient pills".

I couldn't care less what the church says.

smacl

jameorahiely wrote: »

Here's the summary report
http://www.cqc.org.uk/sites/default/files/new_reports/AAAF9029.pdf

Ok, so I read the summaries to all these reports, and still no mention of 'vulnerable women being held down' in any of them, so I'll assume this is just something you made up to give weight to your opinion. While the reports cite a lot of non-compliant behaviour on inspection, no actual reported serious injuries or deaths resulting in treatment, which is in stark contrast to the Savita Halappanavar case here for example.

I also fail to understand why this is even an issue for you. You seem to be suggesting that women shouldn't use the MSI clinics as the treatment they provide is substandard, yet you don't suggest any alternative. What you're actually saying is you son't want women to get abortions regardless, and then complain about the standard of abortion service in the UK where no service is available here. It is utter nonsense.

Cabaal

stefanovich wrote: »

I wonder do they have jumbo packs for the really progressive woman.

Nice, making such an insulting remark towards women.

I'll give that a try shall I? I wounder do the pro life groups and religious groups get together each year to think about how else the can not give a **** about born baby's and how they can treat them like ****, sell them without a mother's consent and abuse them when they get older.

There's far more evidence to support my remark then your insulting remark.

smacl

stefanovich wrote: »

I couldn't care less what the church says.

Nor do I. So when the Vatican for example says use of the morning after pill constitutes abortion, like most other right thinking person in this country, I'm of the opinion that only an idiot would consider a human being to exist from the moment a human sperm meets a human ovum. Similarly, I think you'd need to be hard put to come up with a reason to consider a human embryo, zygote or blastocyst in any way equivalent to a human being. If fact, it isn't until 17 weeks into gestation that synapses start forming in the brain which is the first point at which there is any possibility of early consciousness. So when anyone suggests that an abortion before 17 weeks is killing an unborn human, they're wrong because humans have a working brain. To suggest that anyone other than the pregnant woman should have any direct control how she chooses to progress with her pregnancy or not is also barbaric. Like yourself, I couldn't care less what the church says, but this whole notion that an early stage fetus is equivalent to the woman that carries it is a nonsense that is perpetuated by the church for their own selfish reasons. They are a primary source of the barbaric treatment that pregnant women continue to suffer in this country.

Hotblack Desiato

stefanovich wrote: »

I wonder do they have jumbo packs for the really progressive woman.

Misogyny and the 'pro life' movement go hand in glove, as usual.

stefanovich wrote: »

I couldn't care less what the church says.

Unfortunately for Irish women, that was far from the case for most people in 1983. The Eighth Amendment would never have been proposed, never mind passed, without the support of the Roman Catholic Church. Ireland has changed and no-one under 50 had a vote on this. We've also seen the horrors the 8th imposes upon women, things that we were assured at the time (I was too young to vote) could never happen have happened. The Irish people are fed up of being duped and treated as fools, cash cows and victims by the RCC and other peddlers of barbaric religious nonsense.

You do have to laugh though, it's as if 'pro lifers' on the internet are drilled into never admitting that their thinking is influenced by religion even when it clearly is. It's an admission by the back door that religion is a pretty bad reason to hold a viewpoint.

jameorahiely

smacl wrote: »

Ok, so I read the summaries to all these reports, and still no mention of 'vulnerable women being held down' in any of them, so I'll assume this is just something you made up to give weight to your opinion. While the reports cite a lot of non-compliant behaviour on inspection, no actual reported serious injuries or deaths resulting in treatment, which is in stark contrast to the Savita Halappanavar case here for example.

I also fail to understand why this is even an issue for you. You seem to be suggesting that women shouldn't use the MSI clinics as the treatment they provide is substandard, yet you don't suggest any alternative. What you're actually saying is you son't want women to get abortions regardless, and then complain about the standard of abortion service in the UK where no service is available here. It is utter nonsense.

No it's there try again.

Why don't you suggest an alternative, you're the one that wants abortions. If you're happy enough with abortion products being carried through waiting rooms full of people. Just say it.

aloyisious

stefanovich wrote: »

I couldn't care less what the church says.

On that basis, how opposed are you to abortion if you don't care how the church feels about what it sees as abortifacient pills?

Re your: Just to let you all know. You can not believe in religion and also be anti-abortion. You do not need to accept the atheist dogma....... I don't understand it. Most people who believe in religion are anti-abortion and have them as fixed beliefs.

smacl

jameorahiely wrote: »

No it's there try again.

So quote the cqc report name, page number and line number where it refers to 'vulnerable women being held down' in MSI clinics because I searched all of your linked documents and couldn't find it in any of them. As per my previous post, this seems to be something you've made up to support your own opinion, but has no basis in fact.

nozzferrahhtoo

stefanovich wrote: »

Just to let you all know. You can not believe in religion and also be anti-abortion. You do not need to accept the atheist dogma.

I am not sure what "atheist dogma" is, or even if you know what it is.

But, sure. That is how it worked for me. I realized one day that I was pro-choice solely because all the atheists I knew were, and it seemed to be some default I was expected to follow.

So I set aside an afternoon to go and talk to the people on the stalls outside Central Bank in Dublin to hear their anti-abortion arguments. I wanted to sit down and really think the whole thing through and see if I was pro-choice for good reason, or just by default.

Alas the sole qualification to stand on those stalls appears to have been merely to have the time to do so. They did not know the arguments themselves and just kept telling me to "look at the pictures" and nothing else.

So I kept trying to talk to more vocal anti-abortion people to hear their arguments but they did not appear to have any either.

So I was forced to do it entirely myself. And the way I did it was this:

First, I asked myself what I thought "rights" are, and "moral and ethical concern". What did they mean? What did they ACTUALLY apply to.

Second, I then realized that the things I identified in step 1 above were things the fetus lacked. And at the stages when the VAST (over 90%) majority of choice based abortion occur they were not just partially lacking but ENTIRELY lacking.

I therefore realized that given there was no reasons on offer to hold any moral or ethical concern for such a fetus, or to assign it any rights, that a pro-choice position was on strong ground.

stefanovich wrote: »

What about the rights of the human inside them whose life is being ended before it even begun?

Exactly. What about them? The first thing to do would be check if there is a coherent and valid argument you can offer to suggest it has any in the first place. That is where the anti-abortion camp is lacking for me.

stefanovich wrote: »

You talk about the foetus as if it is parasitic. The "pro-choice" side seem to lack any sort of compassion and feeling for human life.

Quite the opposite. We have loads of compassion for "Human Life". The difference is we are VERY clear about what we think the term "Human Life" means in this context, where when and why it applies, and on what basis.

The Fetus is biologically human, no one is denying that. But that is only one use of the word "Human".

When we are talking "Human" in terms of person-hood, consciousness, sentience, subjective experience and not just mere biological content......... then things fall apart for you.

I value "human life" every bit as much as you do, or as you would want me to. I am just more specific and clear as to what I think that actually means, and entails. And I see no reason to think of a fetus in or before week 12 as "Human" in that regard.

stefanovich wrote: »

Condoms, morning after pill. These things are available you know.

And your point is what here exactly? Availability and uptake are different things. Availability and efficacy are different things too. You appear to think you have made a point here, but I genuinely can not discern what you think it may be.

stefanovich wrote: »

Only in that it is yet to experience life outside the womb. It's little heart is still beating, it still feels pain.

What have heart beats got to do with it? Our meat industry ALONE ends uncountable 1000s of heart beats daily. Do you have an issue with that? Or do you realize heart beats are not he moral mediation point you might otherwise pretend?

A useful distinction should be made between RESPONSE to pain stimulus and FEELING pain. A fetus at many stages, just like a single celled amoeba, will RESPOND to many stimuli. That does not mean anyone is "feeling" or "experiencing" pain.

So when you claim someone or something is feeling pain it pays to be clear what you are talking about. Do you mean the fetus at any point? After a specific point? Before a specif point? What specifically are you talking about?

Over 90% of choice based abortions, in countries to our east and countries to our west, happen in or before week 12 of fetal development. At that stage there is no reason at all, that I know of, to think the lights are on and anyone is home "feeling" or "experiencing" anything at all, let alone specifically "pain".

aloyisious

The Iona Institute have a new dual-purpose Ad on F/B. Part 1 starts off with Husband and Wife marriage (seem's that might be a new title Iona are using to indicate another existing "party" interested in the topic generally) then in part 2 abortion comes up, referring to part of what the Dutch Health Minister Edith Schippers said about Downs Syndrome children. I skipped to the next F/B item and wasn't able to get back to the Iona Ad and link so googled for the item using Dutch Health Minister and Downs Syndrome Children & got the link below. It's best, however, to advise viewers that it's a SPUC-link & has a statement, plus 2016 SPUC AGM video, from SPUC, UNDER the Minister's reply to the Dutch Opposition Party on the plan to introduce Non Invasive Prenatal Testing (NIPT) to Holland.

https://www.google.ie/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwiV6fOprdPSAhVlKsAKHeevAvAQFggZMAA&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.spuc.org.uk%2Fnews%2Fnews-stories%2F2017%2Fjanuary%2Fdutch-health-minister-society-should-accept-screening-out-of-children-with-downs-syndrome&usg=AFQjCNHOPI0VY_6GmBbb5-378GJQT7Iz5A

Some means of testing was written about here around ten pages plus back on how to find out who the male parent was of a feotus in the womb by testing without interfering with the feotus in the womb and testing the woman's blood was listed as a method, as strains of both the feotus and woman's blood was in her veins. NIPT seem's to be the test.

Qs

Is there anyway we could spam Iona ads to make them end or to cost more than they are worth?

smacl

Qs wrote: »

Is there anyway we could spam Iona ads to make them end or to cost more than they are worth?

Sounds like DDOS which is illegal AFAIK, boards got hit this way a couple of times recently. I wouldn't really go there.

pH

Qs wrote: »

Is there anyway we could spam Iona ads to make them end or to cost more than they are worth?

Why?

Do you feel their arguments are very compelling, and cannot be countered with rational arguments?

Do you feel that the general Irish public are a bit too thick to make their own minds up on this (or any issue), and perhaps the best way to secure a win for your side is to make sure that no one can hear arguments against your position?

If you feel that women in Ireland should have access to abortion then make the case. Argue against the points of those who disagree with them. Appeal to the general public both intellectually and emotionally to support your position.

But if your tactic to 'win' this war of ideas consists of you wanting and demanding all *your* rights to express your points of view, but deciding that your opponents rights to do the exactly same should be stifled, hindered or just downright banned, then I'm afraid you are a totalitarian fascist who deserves neither to win, nor, to be honest even to be part of a debate in a civilised democracy.

smacl

pH wrote: »

Do you feel their arguments are very compelling, and cannot be countered with rational arguments?

I suspect the issue is that they are a propagandist organisation being funded from abroad to push an anachronistic ultra-conservative Christian agenda that has no place in this country in this day and age. If there was any place for this type of crap in Irish society, sure wouldn't we still be going to church?

aloyisious

pH wrote: »

Why?

Do you feel their arguments are very compelling, and cannot be countered with rational arguments?

But if your tactic to 'win' this war of ideas consists of you wanting and demanding all *your* rights to express your points of view, but deciding that your opponents rights to do the exactly same should be stifled, hindered or just downright banned, then I'm afraid you are a totalitarian fascist who deserves neither to win, nor, to be honest even to be part of a debate in a civilised democracy.

Now you seem to have the Iona Institute down to a T.

pH

smacl wrote: »

I suspect the issue is that they are a propagandist organisation being funded from abroad to push an anachronistic ultra-conservative Christian agenda that has no place in this country in this day and age. If there was any place for this type of crap in Irish society, sure wouldn't we still be going to church?

Good to know. What's the name of this committee that's decided what has and hasn't a place in Irish society, because it certainly seems that the last people you think should actually be deciding this is the Irish people themselves.

Now you have the Iona Institute down to a T.

I've had a look at the Iona website, and while I agree with practically nothing on their site, I cannot find them advocating the shutting down of the 'other sides' right to free speech.

But let's be clear, if you can find instances of the Iona institute attempting to shut down the speech and opinions of those they're arguing against then I'll happily call the totalitarian fascists too.

Loafing Oaf

jameorahiely wrote: »

No it's there try again.

That's not how debate works, you've made a controversial assertion, it's up to you to supply chapter and verse on it. And if you can't/won't do that, the rest of us are entitled to assume you're spoofing...

jameorahiely

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

That's not how debate works, you've made a controversial assertion, it's up to you to supply chapter and verse on it. And if you can't/won't do that, the rest of us are entitled to assume you're spoofing...

For supposedly critical thinkers posters here sure do like been spoon fed. I provided the links, but anyway here's the info for those who would prefer not to read them



Here's the bit about the vunerable woman who couldn't give consent

• Whilst inspecting at one location we observed a woman with a
known learning disability attend the clinic without a friend or
supporter. The patient had noted on their record from the
telephone consultation that they had learning difficulties.
Although advised to attend the clinic with a friend or relative for
support, they came alone and the treatment continued.
Consent to treatment for this patient was not carried out in a
way they could understand and we observed the situation was
poorly and insensitively handled by doctors. It became
apparent that staff had not checked discharge arrangements
for this patient. Local leaders confirmed there was no pathway
in place to support adult patients with learning disabilities,
including no signposting to independent advocacy services.

and

During our inspection of one location, we observed an incident
involving a patient who became very distressed, where we
witnessed inappropriate behaviour by a surgeon. Although we
wrote to MSI to inform the provider of the incident and ask for
an update as to how it had been dealt with, the incident was
not reported through the MSI incident reporting system.
However we did not witness the practice of dealing with
patients with a learning disability at the other seven clinical
locations.
• The national safeguarding lead had raised issues with the
reporting of incidents in June 2016 at the clinical governance
committee meeting. However, no action had been taken to
address these concerns.

A link to the full summary report for anyone interested in reading it. It's grim. http://www.cqc.org.uk/sites/default/files/new_reports/AAAF9029.pdf
If the report is too much for you to read, here's a summary from the telegraph

Inspectors were forced to intervene as the patient with learning disabilities became distressed, amid a catalogue of failings uncovered at Marie Stopes clinics across the country.[Watchdogs described horrific scenes which left patients at risk of infection, with foetal tissue from a succession of terminations left in open waste bins, in one clinic

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/12/20/watchdogs-release-damning-reports-marie-stopes-abortion-clinics/

in another case, a girl was unable to consent so her sister signed the form pretending to be ber

Then there's abirtion remains being carted through the waiting ro in buckets in front of horrified patients waiting


A great bumch altogether

nozzferrahhtoo

I think you contrive to conflate all kinds of issue with "abortion" in order to indict abortion itself with those crimes.

A lot of the things you screech about are GENERAL concerns that should be dealt with without the context of abortions at all.

For example, the correct and proper destruction of the remains of ANY medical procedure is a high concern. Nothing to do with abortion per se. If ANY medical practice is carting remains of ANY procedure through waiting rooms, or tossing them in bins, then this should be dealt with severely.

Nothing to do with abortion, let alone anything to do with a propaganda spin attack on abortion. NO ONE should be acting in this fashion...... be they a dentist, an abortion service, a neuro-surgeon, or a cosmetic surgeon.

Are you trying to have a discussion about abortion, or about best medical practices? I have to admit your point, assuming there was one along the way somewhere, appears to have become lost. At least to me. Perhaps I can be brought back up to speed by someone in a less shrill fashion?

aloyisious

pH wrote: »

Good to know. What's the name of this committee that's decided what has and hasn't a place in Irish society, because it certainly seems that the last people you think should actually be deciding this is the Irish people themselves.



I've had a look at the Iona website, and while I agree with practically nothing on their site, I cannot find them advocating the shutting down of the 'other sides' right to free speech.

But let's be clear, if you can find instances of the Iona institute attempting to shut down the speech and opinions of those they're arguing against then I'll happily call the totalitarian fascists too.

I've got in mind the institute and its members Broadcasting Authority claims it made against other parties on the grounds of unfair representation on RTE when abortion issues are being discussed solely on the basis of Iona feeling "we must be there". The churches don't do that, even though they (plural) have the same POV as Iona. The end result of which is that anyone speaking on RTE, staff, contractors or guest, feels obliged to have some-one from Iona present because they fear RTE will be fined by the BAI as a result solely of Iona's allegations. That is not Iona protecting free speech, it is Iona closing down free speech.

Most media organisations allow a right to reply whereas RTE can't even use that when it comes to topical issues due to Iona claims it was prevented from speaking on them. The follow-up action by Iona is then for it's members to write opinion-pieces in print media about RTE, highlighting the BAI fines and published findings on the Iona complaints.

robindch

Jessice Farrar, a Democratic member of the Texas House of Representatives, has put forward a bill which allows for males who masturbate to be fined $100 for the crime of acting "against an unborn child".

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-39251655

BBC wrote:

The last straw for her (Farrar) came with the most recent in a string of proposed bills, which she saw as chipping away at women's rights. The latest wanted to force women to choose whether to bury or cremate the embryonic remains of either a miscarriage or abortion. During a hearing for the bill last August, state Senator Don Huffines said: "For far too long, Texas has allowed the most innocent among us to be thrown out with the daily waste."

Ms Farrar decided to put a different spin on this belief. "It got me thinking, maybe what's good for the goose is good for the gander," Ms Farrar told the BBC. "If we are taking these measures because of the sanctity of life, well, we just cannot waste any seed."

But her critics were not impressed. "Plain stupid," said one on Twitter, saying that only a fertilised embryo needs protecting, and asking if she would also use the law on menstruating women.

The text of the proposed law is here.

smacl

jameorahiely wrote: »

Here's the bit about the vunerable woman who couldn't give consent

And the vulnerable women who were held down?

smacl

aloyisious wrote: »

Edit: I recall something in the papers about pills being ordered online from the republic and being posted on to N/I addresses for collection to get around the the fact that they weren't on sale here, or could be stopped and seized by An Post and handed to customs or Gardai for criminal investigation, or something on that lines.

Article in today's Telegraph may be of interest so; http://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/health/abortion-pills-everything-you-need-to-know/

jameorahiely

robindch wrote: »

Jessice Farrar, a Democratic member of the Texas House of Representatives, has put forward a bill which allows for males who masturbate to be fined $100 for the crime of acting "against an unborn child".

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-39251655



The text of the proposed law is here.

Could you explain why this is relevant to abortion? I

aloyisious

jameorahiely wrote: »

Could you explain why this is relevant to abortion? I

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-39251655

The good lady explains her thoughts in Para 2 of this BBC report, something to do with her feeling women having control on what goes on with their bodies.

aloyisious

Re the issue of unwanted pregnancies here, there's mention on the link of the situation here way back in the 1920's.....

https://www.google.ie/url?sa=t&rct=j...qa1wRX3QhyDnDg

Scroll down to the last item by Philip Boucher-Hayes and click on the "listen" box. As it covers two issues under current debate here, I've posted it in the Tuam Home thread as well.

robindch

jameorahiely wrote: »

Could you explain why this is relevant to abortion?

Have a read again of the post above - it's covered there quite adequately. Here it is again:

BBC wrote:

The last straw for her (Farrar) came with the most recent in a string of proposed bills, which she saw as chipping away at women's rights. The latest wanted to force women to choose whether to bury or cremate the embryonic remains of either a miscarriage or abortion. During a hearing for the bill last August, state Senator Don Huffines said: "For far too long, Texas has allowed the most innocent among us to be thrown out with the daily waste."

Ms Farrar decided to put a different spin on this belief. "It got me thinking, maybe what's good for the goose is good for the gander," Ms Farrar told the BBC. "If we are taking these measures because of the sanctity of life, well, we just cannot waste any seed."

I hope this answers your question.

Cabaal

http://www.thejournal.ie/anti-masturbation-law-texas-3285738-Mar2017/

A TEXAS LAWMAKER has filed a satirical anti-masturbation bill to highlight what she sees as unfair anti-abortion legislation in the state.

Under the bill, men would be fined $100 (about €94) for masturbating. The Man’s Right to Know Act would also require men to wait 24 hours after an “initial health care consultation” to receive an elective vasectomy, colonoscopy or Viagra prescription.

Women in Texas have to wait for 24 hours between a consultation and receiving an abortion, and are required to have an ultrasound beforehand.

Farrar added that if a man’s semen is not used to create a pregnancy, “then it’s a waste … because that semen can be used — and is to be used — for creating more human life”.

“Men have to answer for their actions and so forth. So if there’s going to be an emission, it would have to be done in a hospital where the semen could be preserved for future pregnancies or it would be directly deposited into the vagina of a woman,” she said.

Seems fair, since the state is getting involved in what women do with their body;s.

Every sperm is sacred!

jameorahiely

Cabaal wrote: »

http://www.thejournal.ie/anti-masturbation-law-texas-3285738-Mar2017/

A TEXAS LAWMAKER has filed a satirical anti-masturbation bill to highlight what she sees as unfair anti-abortion legislation in the state.





Seems fair, since the state is getting involved in what women do with their body;s.

Every sperm is sacred!

Will women have to pay a period tax/fine? If we're being fair...

This bill is because they have to wait 24 hours between a consultation and an abortion. Germany has a way longer waiting time.

Cabaal

jameorahiely wrote: »

Will women have to pay a period tax/fine? If we're being fair...

This bill is because they have to wait 24 hours between a consultation and an abortion. Germany has a way longer waiting time.

Given there's no regulation in relation to man's reproductive organs I think we should focus on that first. Then we can look at women again.

Periods happen as part of a natural process, masturbation on the other hand as we;ve been told for hundreds of years by religious groups is "unnatural" etc

Remember

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fUspLVStPbk