Abortion Discussion, Part Trois

aloyisious

end of the road wrote: »

it's not that i'm giving those women a choice, it's recognition that it's of medical necessity that they have the abortion. even then that abortion is still ultimately wrong, it's simply a case of extreme necessity. but i would not vote to allow it when it means abortion on demand will be brought in . for me stopping abortion on demand is more important. and i don't agree there is anything wrong with calling it abortion on demand, it's abortion for no reasons up all be it up to 12 weeks that is proposed.



yes it will. and chances are the term limit will have to rise long term to satisfy those complaining about still having to travel to england. that is why i'm voting no, and am prowd to do so given the unfortunate proposals put forward by the government. even if repeal wins, i know i will have done my bit and tried to keep abortion on demand out of ireland and i will be prowd to have tried.

So, you will vote against deletion of the 8th and what would replace it on the basis that, in your opinion, abortion in itself is wrong.

If the woman should choose NOT to have an abortion of medical necessity, would you applaud her choice not to have an abortion [EDIT] IF she had the same opinion on abortion as you, or would you say to her "you must have the abortion"? It seem's that ["you must have the abortion"] would be your position in such a case to save her life, regardless of her choice.

As for your "it's abortion for no reasons up all be it up to 12 weeks that is proposed", amongst the women any new legislation will cover will be the women you would approve for abortion. So it would NOT simply be for "NO REASONS". If you would have your way in blocking such a new law on abortion after the referendum, then the end result would be NO ABORTIONS at all for women.

You wouldn't be able to cherrypick what women should, and should not, have the right to request an abortion, - and I'm not saying that you should be given any such ability. In effect, the women you would personally approve of having abortions on grounds of medical necessaity may probably die due to a lack of legislation on abortion. Doctors would be legally unable to perform any such operations.

King Mob

end of the road wrote: »

i don't ignore anything that isn't relevant, i will ignore stuff that isn't.

Why are you ignoring and refusing to acknowledge Mark_Hamill's and nozzferrahhtoo's questions in that case?

Is your basis for your claim that life starts at implantation not relevant?
You have not outlined any such reasoning for this. And ignoring the questions make it look like you have no reasoning for this.

If you have outlined this, point out where.

end of the road

aloyisious wrote: »

So, you will vote against deletion of the 8th and what would replace it on the basis that, in your opinion, abortion in itself is wrong.

If the woman should choose NOT to have an abortion of medical necessity, would you applaud her choice not to have an abortion [EDIT] IF she had the same opinion on abortion as you, or would you say to her "you must have the abortion"? It seem's that ["you must have the abortion"] would be your position in such a case to save her life, regardless of her choice.

As for your "it's abortion for no reasons up all be it up to 12 weeks that is proposed", amongst the women any new legislation will cover will be the women you would approve for abortion. So it would NOT simply be for "NO REASONS". If you would have your way in blocking such a new law on abortion after the referendum, then the end result would be NO ABORTIONS at all for women.

You wouldn't be able to cherrypick what women should, and should not, have the right to request an abortion, - and I'm not saying that you should be given any such ability. In effect, the women you would personally approve of having abortions on grounds of medical necessaity may probably die due to a lack of legislation on abortion. Doctors would be legally unable to perform any such operations.

i will be voting no on the basis of not wanting abortion on demand in my country, on the basis of keeping the protection of the unborn's right to life within the constitution, and preventing such an issue to be left to the whim of the politicians.
i would certainly try and advise the woman in such a situation where her life needed to be saved to have the abortion even though i would disagree with abortion, as i would not want for her to die. ultimately i can't force her to have it or not to have it however. the law however can prevent abortions from being availible within the state where the reasons are not justifiable, such as not wanting to be pregnant among other examples.
i already explained that i'm not willing to vote to repeal and allow abortion on demand just to have abortion availible in the cases where i believe it should be availible.

david75

end of the road wrote: »

this doesn't happen. this is more made up nonsense. my position is clear and always has been. i don't ignore anything that isn't relevant, i will ignore stuff that isn't.

Your entire posting history on this topic calls lie to this. You’re totally allergic to facts and evidence and balk at them and ignore them when don’t fit your myopic view of the situation and when you can’t deny them, simply because they are inreffutable facts.
And it’s not like there isn’t a substantial list of other posters who has the same experitime n extrying to deal with your non answers and droning 4/5 copy and paste mantras as Answers.

aloyisious

end of the road wrote: »

i will be voting no on the basis of not wanting abortion on demand in my country, on the basis of keeping the protection of the unborn's right to life within the constitution, and preventing such an issue to be left to the whim of the politicians.
i would certainly try and advise the woman in such a situation where her life needed to be saved to have the abortion even though i would disagree with abortion, as i would not want for her to die. ultimately i can't force her to have it or not to have it however. the law however can prevent abortions from being availible within the state where the reasons are not justifiable, such as not wanting to be pregnant among other examples.
i already explained that i'm not willing to vote to repeal and allow abortion on demand just to have abortion availible in the cases where i believe it should be availible.

So the basic foundation of your argument against any change to abortion law here is that, in your opinion, the changed law will allow for abortion on demand. That would be irrespective of any hoops the women will have to go through with their REQUESTS for abortions.

You are aware that women, at the moment, have to ask for abortions here and have to satisfy 2 [two] members of the medical profession first as to whether she satisfies the criteria laid down in POLDPA.

You, if you have been reading the papers and listening to Simon Harris, will be aware that similar measures will be in the new legislation AND that there will be a 3 [three] day cooling-off period as well included in the new legislation. There will be no abortion on demand given to women here under the new legislation. There will be no "one for everyone in the audience" procedure to go through. DO YOU genuinely think any new abortion legislation that will be presented to the Oireachtas will be reliant on the members whims there? It's as if you think lobbying for change should not exist here either.

What you object to is the greater availbility of abortions yet you are prepared to allow for a greater range of reasons than the the present POLDPA legislation allows for because you see it as fit. You don't like the idea of women being able to access abortion here unless they satisfy your personal criteria for abortion, and not that thought satisfactory by a majority of the other voters in our country, because it is your stated belief that women would be availing of abortions as a convenience or lifestyle choice.

Just on that repeated aspect of your belief, can you describe what sort of
"convenience and lifestyle" living you believe the women would be leading is for them to be demanding abortions?

end of the road

aloyisious wrote: »

So the basic foundation of your argument against any change to abortion law here is that, in your opinion, the changed law will allow for abortion on demand. That would be irrespective of any hoops the women will have to go through with their REQUESTS for abortions.

You are aware that women, at the moment, have to ask for abortions here and have to satisfy 2 [two] members of the medical profession first as to whether she satisfies the criteria laid down in POLDPA.

You, if you have been reading the papers and listening to Simon Harris, will be aware that similar measures will be in the new legislation AND that there will be a 3 [three] day cooling-off period as well included in the new legislation. There will be no abortion on demand given to women here under the new legislation. There will be no "one for everyone in the audience" procedure to go through.

What you object to is the greater availbility of abortions yet you are prepared to allow for a greater range of reasons than the the present POLDPA legislation allows for because you see it as fit. You don't like the idea of women being able to access abortion here unless they satisfy your personal criteria for abortion, and not that thought satisfactory by a majority of the other voters in our country, because it is your stated belief that women would be availing of abortions as a convenience or lifestyle choice.

Just on that repeated aspect of your belief, can you describe what sort of
"convenience and lifestyle" living you believe the women would be leading is for them to be demanding abortions?

i am aware of how abortion is currently procured in ireland where it is required and even if that still remains with any new legislation, it won't ultimately change that it will be effectively abortion on demand that is availible should the 8th be repealed. the reasons will be for non-medical reasons in a lot of if not most cases and i will vote to try to insure that a facility to allow those abortions to take place aren't availible in ireland. it's not about my personal criteria as to where abortion should be availible, it's about the only criteria for where abortion is actually required to be availible. sometimes what the majority may want cannot be given to them for the greater good of society and this is a perfect example of where this is the case.

aloyisious

end of the road wrote: »

i am aware of how abortion is currently procured in ireland where it is required and even if that still remains with any new legislation, it won't ultimately change that it will be effectively abortion on demand that is availible should the 8th be repealed. the reasons will be for non-medical reasons in a lot of if not most cases and i will vote to try to insure that a facility to allow those abortions to take place aren't availible in ireland. it's not about my personal criteria as to where abortion should be availible, it's about the only criteria for where abortion is actually required to be availible. sometimes what the majority may want cannot be given to them for the greater good of society and this is a perfect example of where this is the case.

When you mention facility in respect of abortion here, do you mean a physical structure as in a hospital or clinic, or further legislation on abortion? I'm mindful that there is at least one such facility/structure here in Dublin where abortions have taken place since 2015. I haven't, til now, included the word facility in any of my posts in the thread.

end of the road

aloyisious wrote: »

When you mention facility in respect of abortion here, do you mean a physical structure as in a hospital or clinic, or further legislation on abortion? I'm mindful that there is at least one such facility/structure here in Dublin where abortions have taken place since 2015. I haven't, til now, included the word facility in any of my posts in the thread.

in terms of abortion on demand it's both. no clinics or hospitals allowed to perform abortions for non-medical reasons and laws which would prohibit such abortions from being procured or caried out legally in ireland.
in terms of abortions of necessity, state hospitals should be the only facility allowed to perform such abortions. abortion clinics should be prohibited.

King Mob

end of the road wrote: »

in terms of abortion on demand it's both. no clinics or hospitals allowed to perform abortions for non-medical reasons and laws which would prohibit such abortions from being procured or caried out legally in ireland.
in terms of abortions of necessity, state hospitals should be the only facility allowed to perform such abortions. abortion clinics should be prohibited.

Bully for you.
So why do you believe that life begins at implantation?
Why should miscarriages not be investigated or treated like other cases of sudden death?
Why are you ignoring these questions when it makes it look like you have no answer to them?
If you have no basis for which to oppose abortion all of those conditions you are outlining are a bit pointless.

end of the road

King Mob wrote: »

Bully for you.
So why do you believe that life begins at implantation?
Why should miscarriages not be investigated or treated like other cases of sudden death?
Why are you ignoring these questions when it makes it look like you have no answer to them?
If you have no basis for which to oppose abortion all of those conditions you are outlining are a bit pointless.

i have given my basis to oppose non-necessary abortion. there isn't going to be investigations of every miscarriage.

King Mob

end of the road wrote: »

i have given my basis to oppose non-necessary abortion.

Great, where did you explain why life begins at implantation?
Or please restate your case and support for this conclusion?

Cause I can't find it and people have been repeatedly asking you while you dodge the question. (I'm still curious why you are doing that and why you think it makes your position look convincing or honest....)

end of the road wrote: »

there isn't going to be investigations of every miscarriage.

..Because...?

aloyisious

end of the road wrote: »

in terms of abortion on demand it's both. no clinics or hospitals allowed to perform abortions for non-medical reasons and laws which would prohibit such abortions from being procured or caried out legally in ireland.
in terms of abortions of necessity, state hospitals should be the only facility allowed to perform such abortions. abortion clinics should be prohibited.

In regard to state hospitals and abortions, are you aware that the National Maternity Hospital, Holles St, has performed abortions legally allowed here AND it is NOT a state hospital. It is run by a charity, the NMH foundation and the head of it's board of governance is the Catholic Archbishop of Dublin.

Mindful of all those facts, and your position on non-state hospitals NOT being allowed to perform abortions, do you think your vote would have any effect on the policy of that hospital and it's board of governance?

end of the road

aloyisious wrote: »

In regard to state hospitals and abortions, are you aware that the National Maternity Hospital, Holles St, has performed abortions legally allowed here AND it is NOT a state hospital. It is run by a charity, the NMH foundation and the head of it's board of governance is the Catholic Archbishop of Dublin.

i am yes

aloyisious wrote: »

Mindful of all those facts, and your position on non-state hospitals NOT being allowed to perform abortions, do you think your vote would have any effect on the policy of that hospital and it's board of governance?

we aren't voting on that specific issue so it would be impossible for my vote to have any effect on it. keeping abortion on demand out of ireland on the other hand is something i hope my vote will help to achieve. even if it doesn't, i tried and i will be prowd of the fact i tried to keep the protection for the unborn's right to life in the constitution where it rightfully is, and where it rightfully must and should remain.

King Mob

end of the road wrote: »

i tried and i will be prowd of the fact i tried to keep the protection for the unborn's right to life in the constitution where it rightfully is, and where it rightfully must and should remain.

Again, how can you be proud of your efforts when:
1. You have no basis for your position and
2. You have to ignore uncomfortable questions you cannot honestly answer?

Seems like the thing you wouldn't be proud of...

aloyisious

end of the road wrote: »

in terms of abortion on demand it's both. no clinics or hospitals allowed to perform abortions for non-medical reasons and laws which would prohibit such abortions from being procured or caried out legally in ireland.
in terms of abortions of necessity, state hospitals should be the only facility allowed to perform such abortions. abortion clinics should be prohibited.

Would you care to list the state hospitals here that fit your biil to perform abortions of necessity?

end of the road

aloyisious wrote: »

Would you care to list the state hospitals here that fit your biil to perform abortions of necessity?

hospitals either owned or fully funded by the state.

gctest50

end of the road wrote: »

...........

in terms of abortions of necessity, state hospitals should be the only facility allowed to perform such abortions.

abortion clinics should be prohibited.

Why should :

end of the road wrote: »

abortion clinics should be prohibited.

if say they only performed

end of the road wrote: »

abortions of necessity

?



.

end of the road

gctest50 wrote: »

Why should :




if say they only performed





?



.

because we have hospitals which can do it.

gctest50

end of the road wrote: »

because we have hospitals which can do it.

What's wrong with a clinic performing

end of the road wrote: »

.... ....... abortions of necessity

?

aloyisious

end of the road wrote: »

hospitals either owned or fully funded by the state.

Re abortions of necessity, it seem's to me that such would be medical emergency situations, having a life-saving operation status. It seem's to me that you also accept that to be a fact as it was you who introduced the term abortions of necessity and you agree that such operations are necessary: they not being for lifestyle or convenience purposes.

The odd's that a hospital response to such an emergency would be to start searching for a hospital that fits your ownership/funding criteria is, IMO, slim at best. I'd imagine that the hospital would see it's priority was saving the life of the woman, not shifting her mid-emergency to another hospital because of some-one thinking along the lines of your funded/owned status opinion of the hospital handling her emergency situation.

IMO, your ownership/funding requirement stance is indefensible, if not ill-thought out, when it's come to life-saving abortions of necessity. I think your reply above was a rapid reply to get yourself out of a self-dug hole, an inability to provide a list of hospitals that suit your stated abortions of necessity criteria.

aloyisious

To: End Of The Road..... an apology. In my rush to convince you of the wrongness of your criteria for hospitals to fill to perform abortions of necessity I failed to see the glaringly obvious in your widening criteria. Most hospitals would fill it as they are state-funded to some degree. Again, my apologies.

aloyisious

Prime Time on RTE 1 on now is covering the funding of the campaign on both sides, ref the political angle - SIPO. According to one researcher for the programme, he failed to get responses for details on funding from some Pro-choice groups and passed a cooment about them not responding to SIPO letters. However, the programme revealed 10 or so minutes later, there is NO requirement in law to respond to SIPO on some funding matters, if the requested information is not relevant to the type of campaign: non-political for instance.

Mark Hamill

OK end of the road, how about this question:
Do you accept, even with abortion restricted the way it is in our constitution, that abortions (for what you might deem as non-necessary reasons) still happen in the 100s if not 1000s* every year?

*Going by reported numbers of abortions in the uk using Irish address.

end of the road

Mark Hamill wrote: »

OK end of the road, how about this question:
Do you accept, even with abortion restricted the way it is in our constitution, that abortions (for what you might deem as non-necessary reasons) still happen in the 100s if not 1000s* every year?

*Going by reported numbers of abortions in the uk using Irish address.

yes i'm well aware they happen. however, as much as they are wrong and will never be right to kill their unborn child, there is consolation in the fact that they have to travel abroad at their expence and not at the tax payer's expence and they have to sort themselves out. that in turn likely does deter some from procuring abortions, which is also a consolation.
it doesn't justify abortion on demand being availible in ireland, it's just not required and something else will probably have to have a funding cut to pay for it assuming it's free or subsidized/discounted.
most of all, ireland is all the better of a country for not allowing the killing of the unborn just because. it's more modern and progressive then the rest of the world in a way because of it.

ohnonotgmail

end of the road wrote: »

yes i'm well aware they happen. however, as much as they are wrong and will never be right to kill their unborn child, there is consolation in the fact that they have to travel abroad at their expence and not at the tax payer's expence and they have to sort themselves out. that in turn likely does deter some from procuring abortions, which is also a consolation.
it doesn't justify abortion on demand being availible in ireland, it's just not required and something else will probably have to have a funding cut to pay for it assuming it's free or subsidized/discounted.
most of all, ireland is all the better of a country for not allowing the killing of the unborn just because. it's more modern and progressive then the rest of the world in a way because of it.

there is consolation to you in the fact that these woman had to go extra expense and trouble (including possible medical complications) ? Do you have any idea how that sounds? You are saying that it is ok once the women have to suffer.

frag420

pleas advice wrote: »

*unfollow

bye bye...

frag420

EOTR and similar...

Ok we get it that you are against abortion. It has been brought up numerous times in this and other threads about you and are being against people aborting fetuses based on disabilities such as Downs Syndrome etc. Now from what I can gather you are completely against this for numerous reasons...innocent child, viability outside the womb etc etc etc

Now say in the next 20-30 yrs that scientists have found a gene or a DNA sequence or whatever that is unique to lunatics, basically scientists can predict if someone is going to be a maniac in the vein of Hitler, Pol Pot, Jeffey Dahmer or we can predict they are very likely to be a rapist or murderer when they get older etc...essentially scientists can prove that they are going to cause the deaths of others similar to how scientists can currently prove that a fetus will have a disability...

Would you be against a termination in this instance in order to save the lives of people already living?!

Now I know its a hypothetical but hey, being able to predict diseases was a hypothetical back in the day...

end of the road

frag420 wrote: »

EOTR and similar...

Ok we get it that you are against abortion. It has been brought up numerous times in this and other threads about you and are being against people aborting fetuses based on disabilities such as Downs Syndrome etc. Now from what I can gather you are completely against this for numerous reasons...innocent child, viability outside the womb etc etc etc

Now say in the next 20-30 yrs that scientists have found a gene or a DNA sequence or whatever that is unique to lunatics, basically scientists can predict if someone is going to be a maniac in the vein of Hitler, Pol Pot, Jeffey Dahmer or we can predict they are very likely to be a rapist or murderer when they get older etc...essentially scientists can prove that they are going to cause the deaths of others similar to how scientists can currently prove that a fetus will have a disability...

Would you be against a termination in this instance in order to save the lives of people already living?!

Now I know its a hypothetical but hey, being able to predict diseases was a hypothetical back in the day...

yes i would be against it. being able to predict something doesn't guarantee it being the case. even if it could be guaranteed there is always that chance of the prediction being wrong. if someone commits a crime, we have a justice system.

frag420

end of the road wrote: »

yes i would be against it. being able to predict something doesn't guarantee it being the case. even if it could be guaranteed there is always that chance of the prediction being wrong. if someone commits a crime, we have a justice system.

So why are you for abortions for FFA? Predictions are never guaranteed in your words, they are never 100%, there is a chance that the fetus could live if born?

Why decide one prediction is more accurate than another?

pleas advice

frag420 wrote: »

bye bye...

frag420 wrote: »

EOTR and similar...
...
Now I know its a hypothetical but hey,