Abortion Discussion, Part Trois

One eyed Jack

looksee wrote: »

I am not clear what point you are making here? Are you saying it was ok for the babies to die once they had been born - and not at the hands of their mothers, but at the hands of the very people who shout loudest about the sin of abortion?

looksee I can understand that your might have been unclear on the point I was making, but part of the reason I lose interest in discussing this issue is exactly because of your leap to assume I could only be suggesting the above. I'm genuinely perplexed as to how you could derive that conclusion from what I said.

My point was that the situations are hardly comparable because the women and children you're talking about were herded into workhouses long before the Irish State outsourced their responsibility for these people's welfare to religious orders.

They were seen as undesirables in society because of their social class, not unlike the way unmarried mothers are still viewed by society today, whose circumstances are only considered by some people when it is politically advantageous for them to do so - rather than try and support these women, the idea being that they should have an abortion instead. It makes abortion socially acceptable, rather than addressing the underlying social inequality.

It's politically expedient short-term thinking that only works for a tiny minority of socially affluent types who view abortion as a solution so that they don't have to think about tackling a much greater social issue.

Delirium

Latest happenings with the people who were behind the "Planned Parenthood sells baby parts" videos.

Two activists who filmed undercover videos of Planned Parenthood charged with 15 felonies

The two antiabortion activists who mounted a hidden-camera investigation against Planned Parenthood officials have been charged with 15 felony counts of violating the privacy of health-care providers by recording confidential information without their consent.

In announcing the charges against David Robert Daleiden and Sandra Merritt on Tuesday, California Attorney General Xavier Becerra said the duo used manufactured identities and a fictitious bioresearch company to meet medical officials and covertly record the private discussions they initiated.

“The right to privacy is a cornerstone of California’s Constitution, and a right that is foundational in a free democratic society,” Becerra said. “We will not tolerate the criminal recording of confidential conversations.”

The criminal complaint alleges that on 14 occasions, between October 2013 and July 2015, Daleiden and Merritt filmed people without permission in Los Angeles, San Francisco and El Dorado counties. The activists face a felony count for each person covertly recorded, and an additional felony charge for criminal conspiracy to invade privacy.

frostyjacks

He should be given a parade. The footage is horrific. Only a psychopath could defend what the butcher from PP was saying.

Delirium

frostyjacks wrote: »

He should be given a parade. The footage is horrific. Only a psychopath could defend what the butcher from PP was saying.

Which was what? There were multiple people from PP in the videos (as well as spokespeople from PP interviewed/statements released when the videos surfaced).

frostyjacks

Delirium wrote: »

Which was what? There were multiple people from PP in the videos (as well as spokespeople from PP interviewed/statements released when the videos surfaced).

She casually talked about keeping the organs intact while crushing what was above and below, while she sipped on a glass of wine. Josef Mengele would be proud.

JoeyRed2

Abortion should be illegal.. I don't understand why it's not.

Delirium

frostyjacks wrote: »

She casually talked about keeping the organs intact while crushing what was above and below, while she sipped on a glass of wine. Josef Mengele would be proud.

So you consider discussing the handling of a foetus during the abortion procedure comparable to what those that suffered at the hands of the Nazi endured?:rolleyes::rolleyes:

Delirium

JoeyRed2 wrote: »

Abortion should be illegal.. I don't understand why it's not.

so you don't think abortion should be allowed where the womans life is at risk, as currently allowed by Irish law? :eek::eek:

frostyjacks

Delirium wrote: »

So you consider discussing the handling of a foetus during the abortion procedure comparable to what those that suffered at the hands of the Nazi endured?:rolleyes::rolleyes:

No, I'm saying if Mengele walked into a PP centre, they'd ask him when he start and to name his price.

Delirium

frostyjacks wrote: »

No, I'm saying if Mengele walked into a PP centre, they'd ask him when he start and to name his price.

Of course, because PP are all about illegal human experimentation:rolleyes:

PopePalpatine

Delirium wrote: »

Of course, because PP are all about illegal human experimentation:rolleyes:

Something tells me he'd be more at home in a Magdalene concentration camp. After all, "loose women" are sub-human in the eyes of nuns and rapey creeps passing themselves off as lifestyle gurus.

looksee

Mod: Can we tone down the hyperbole please and move away from the Nazi references.


Edit: On reflection I don't think you can tone down hyperbole, its a bit oxymoronic, so just leave it out altogether

aloyisious

frostyjacks wrote: »

She casually talked about keeping the organs intact while crushing what was above and below, while she sipped on a glass of wine. Josef Mengele would be proud.

Keep in mind that you're talking about a medical doctor talking about what they do every day every day of the week, that is handling humans beings and their body parts as part of their profession. This applies across the board when it comes to surgeons and doctors. That thought mind be upsetting to you but worth keeping in mind if you need a doctor's medical help. I might not like a callous Dr but a squeamish Dr even less.

lazygal

When I had my two sections the conversation would have sounded weird and inappropriate. We were talking about children's books and haemorrhage in the same minute. The doctors, anaesthetists and paediatrician were normal people, not medical robots over awed by the "miracle of life" or some such.

One eyed Jack

aloyisious wrote: »

Keep in mind that you're talking about a medical doctor talking about what they do every day every day of the week, that is handling humans beings and their body parts as part of their profession. This applies across the board when it comes to surgeons and doctors. That thought mind be upsetting to you but worth keeping in mind if you need a doctor's medical help. I might not like a callous Dr but a squeamish Dr even less.

The opposite of callous is compassionate, empathic. I don't know where you got squeamish from. Your oversimplification of the medical profession and what they do is understandable of course, because as lazygal points out - they are just people, and some of these people can be callous, but the vast majority of the medical profession actually care about human life -

http://bapm.org/publications/documents/guidelines/Palliative_Care_Report_final_%20Aug10.pdf

lazygal

If I have another baby I'll be asking every medical person I come into contact with their views on the eighth. I don't want to be treated by an anti choice person who sees me as equal to s foetus.
I'd take someone who jokes about foetal tissue over a person who uses those images outside the GPO to deny all women medical care.

One eyed Jack

lazygal wrote: »

If I have another baby I'll be asking every medical person I come into contact with their views on the eighth. I don't want to be treated by an anti choice person who sees me as equal to s foetus.

Their views on the 8th would be irrelevant, they would still have to comply with the guidelines set down by the HSE in how they approach your treatment.

I'd take someone who jokes about foetal tissue over a person who uses those images outside the GPO to deny all women medical care.

I'd be more concerned that a medical professional would behave like a medical professional than inquiring about their personal politics if I'm honest. As you said yourself, they are ordinary people, and I'd rather be treated by someone that sees me as a person rather than a thing to be shoved, poked and prodded without any regard for my welfare.

lazygal

I know my consultant was pro choice and advocated all testing so you can make an informed decision, even if that means going abroad for termination. If another practitioner refused to be clear on their views I'd have to assume they viewed me as equal to a foetus and refuse to consent to treatment. I'm far from unique, many women want to know if the nurse or doctor treating them is anti choice.

Cabaal

frostyjacks wrote: »

If the attacker seeks forgiveness and the family wish to move on, then where's the issue? Hate the sin, love the sinner.

And if the family don't want to move on and they want to see the rapist punished? That should be respected too.

What about the women wanting to get back control of her body by removing the rapist genetic material which she was impregnated with without her consent.

Love the victim, care and respect her wishes and body integrity.

rainbow kirby

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I'd rather be treated by someone that sees me as a person rather than a thing to be shoved, poked and prodded without any regard for my welfare.

If you read any Irish birth stories at all you'll find that this is an extremely common attitude among HCPs. Consent seems to be an optional extra in a lot of cases and things are done way more often for "hospital policy" or the wishes of the individual HCP rather than with women's preferences and best interests in mind.

One eyed Jack

lazygal wrote: »

I know my consultant was pro choice and advocated all testing so you can make an informed decision, even if that means going abroad for termination. If another practitioner refused to be clear on their views I'd have to assume they viewed me as equal to a foetus and refuse to consent to treatment. I'm far from unique, many women want to know if the nurse or doctor treating them is anti choice.

I know you're far from unique, it's not like you're the only person with friends in the medical profession either, and none of what you're applying for yourself above still supports aloysius' opinion that the medical profession treat people like they're just body parts. In fact your own evidence above completely refutes that assertion.

One eyed Jack

rainbow kirby wrote: »

If you read any Irish birth stories at all you'll find that this is an extremely common attitude among HCPs. Consent seems to be an optional extra in a lot of cases and things are done way more often for "hospital policy" or the wishes of the individual HCP rather than with women's preferences and best interests in mind.

I think you're putting the horse before the cart there in that you're putting forward only the evidence which suits your opinion. Of course if you're only going to read testimonies where people have had a negative experience with the medical profession, it shouldn't come as any surprise that you would be given the impression that the attitude they experienced is as you anecdotally put it 'extremely common'.

lazygal

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I think you're putting the horse before the cart there in that you're putting forward only the evidence which suits your opinion. Of course if you're only going to read testimonies where people have had a negative experience with the medical profession, it shouldn't come as any surprise that you would be given the impression that the attitude they experienced is as you anecdotally put it 'extremely common'.

How many birth experiences have you read? You do know the HSE cites the eighth amendment as a reason why women's consent doesn't need to be sought during pregnancy and birth? When health care practitioners know the woman's rights are extremely restricted and that best medical practices have to be ignored because of the eighth, that leads to terrible outcomes for some women, something which cannot change unless it is repealed. So if you're happy to keep the eighth and make sure the current system stays in place because you're not happy with how the repeal campaign is coming across, maybe you can explain why something that denies all pregnant girls and women best medical practice is a good thing?

PopePalpatine

Another day, another instance of the GOP thinking The Handmaiden's Tale is a guidebook for running their state, as their Iowa branch introduces a bill which will give parents the right to overrule their unmarried adult daughters' medical choices.

One eyed Jack

lazygal wrote: »

How many birth experiences have you read?

I've read plenty, though I couldn't give you an exact count.

You do know the HSE cites the eighth amendment as a reason why women's consent doesn't need to be sought during pregnancy and birth?

If I had the time or the inclination, I'd argue that the issue is far more nuanced than what you're claiming, and would likely still be an issue regardless of the existence of the 8th amendment.

When health care practitioners know the woman's rights are extremely restricted and that best medical practices have to be ignored because of the eighth, that leads to terrible outcomes for some women, something which cannot change unless it is repealed. So if you're happy to keep the eighth and make sure the current system stays in place because you're not happy with how the repeal campaign is coming across, maybe you can explain why something that denies all pregnant girls and women best medical practice is a good thing?

First off, I'm not "happy" to keep the 8th amendment in place, and for a long time I would have preferred to have seen it repealed.

Second - I really don't care all that much for how the repeal campaign conduct themselves. They're nauseating, but they just don't have that kind of power that they could influence my decision either way. I base my considerations regarding the issue of abortion and the influence of the 8th amendment on Irish society, on far better research than populist, trite soundbites.

Thirdly - repealing the 8th amendment would have far greater implications for Irish society as a whole, than the number of cases I could count on one hand in three decades that you may be referring to, in which the 8th amendment would have been a relevant consideration.

volchitsa

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I've read plenty, though I couldn't give you an exact count.

If I had the time or the inclination, I'd argue that the issue is far more nuanced than what you're claiming, and would likely still be an issue regardless of the existence of the 8th amendment.

First off, I'm not "happy" to keep the 8th amendment in place, and for a long time I would have preferred to have seen it repealed.

Second - I really don't care all that much for how the repeal campaign conduct themselves. They're nauseating, but they just don't have that kind of power that they could influence my decision either way. I base my considerations regarding the issue of abortion and the influence of the 8th amendment on Irish society, on far better research than populist, trite soundbites.

Thirdly - repealing the 8th amendment would have far greater implications for Irish society as a whole, than the number of cases I could count on one hand in three decades that you may be referring to, in which the 8th amendment would have been a relevant consideration.

You can't have read the recent Mother B case then? It was discussed on here, and one thing that came out in the court case was the the HSE regularly use the threat of a court case based on the 8th to force women to accept medical procedures during birth against their will.

So your belief that the 8th doesn't affect birth and pregnancy generally is mistaken. It does.

On your third point, since women are explicitly allowed by our law to have abortions for any reason whatsoever, so long as they have the money to go abroad for them, what exactly are these "greater implications" that you think repealing the 8th would have?

Greater than removal of the right to consent? Really?

That's a pretty massive effect, in a democratic society you know. It puts us on a level with China and their forced abortions. So I'm interested in what would be so much worse than the current situation where we already have legal abortions pretty much on demand anyway?

pilly

volchitsa wrote: »

You can't have read the recent Mother B case then? It was discussed on here, and one thing that came out in the court case was the the HSE regularly use the threat of a court case based on the 8th to force women to accept medical procedures during birth against their will.

So your belief that the 8th doesn't affect birth and pregnancy generally is mistaken. It does.

On your third point, since women are explicitly allowed by our law to have abortions for any reason whatsoever, so long as they have the money to go abroad for them, what exactly are these "greater implications" that you think repealing the 8th would have?

Greater than removal of the right to consent? Really?

That's a pretty massive effect, in a democratic society you know. It puts us on a level with China and their forced abortions. So I'm interested in what would be so much worse than the current situation where we already have legal abortions pretty much on demand anyway?

You're wasting your time asking that question. He won't answer on so as to keep this thread going and have pointless discussions.

aloyisious

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I know you're far from unique, it's not like you're the only person with friends in the medical profession either, and none of what you're applying for yourself above still supports aloysius' opinion that the medical profession treat people like they're just body parts. In fact your own evidence above completely refutes that assertion.

Again with the misreading on what I wrote. I meant that Doctors deal with and talk about their handling of human bodies and their parts much better, on the face of it, than the average joe would. So I refute your assertion that I have an opinion that the medical profession treat people like they're just body parts. I just accept that that handling is a necessary part of their professional behaviour in the provision of medical services to other humans, inclusive of me.

The deliberate use of the words used by the doctor while she spoke candidly in respect of what she deals with in her professional role during the faked entrapment interview by the anti-choice side was to define her as a callous monster for their own disinformation and propaganda purposes. I reckon she will use the PR Dept to vet any further requests for interviews and won't take a request at face value.

I think the divide and conquer ploy above you just tried on lazygal may fail the "get past the sceptic" test.

One eyed Jack

pilly wrote: »

You're wasting your time asking that question. He won't answer on so as to keep this thread going and have pointless discussions.

How would you like me to address such a pointless post that surmises we pretty much have abortion on demand in this country already?

I don't have to "keep this thread going" either btw, it's on it's third iteration at 10,000 posts per thread, and should you actually be that interested in who does keep the thread going, you can check the statistics for yourself on the desktop version of each of the three threads to see who the main contributors are and were.

One eyed Jack

aloyisious wrote: »

Again with the misreading on what I wrote. I meant that Doctors deal with and talk about their handling of human bodies and their parts much better, on the face of it, than the average joe would. So I refute your assertion that I have an opinion that the medical profession treat people like they're just body parts. I just accept that that handling is a necessary part of their professional behaviour in the provision of medical services to other humans, inclusive of me.

No, I think doctors are like any other human being, no more, no less, most doctors respect the value of human life, some doctors have no regard for human life whatsoever. There's nothing special about doctors that renders them above their humanity.

The deliberate use of the words used by the doctor while she spoke candidly in respect of what she deals with in her professional role during the faked entrapment interview by the anti-choice side was to define her as a callous monster for their own disinformation and propaganda purposes. I reckon she will use the PR Dept to vet any further requests for interviews and won't take a request at face value.

You mean she won't be as stupid in future? Well I guess that's something.

I think the divide and conquer ploy above you just tried on lazygal may fail the "get past the sceptic" test.

There was no divide and conquer ploy? I couldn't care less for playing petty politics on a tiny Irish forum where some people appear to think their opinion carries more weight than it actually does in reality. There's a glaring flaw in your skeptic test if you can't even be objective when analysing and discussing an issue.