Abortion Discussion, Part Trois

recedite

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

..not only did the moderator not protect him...

Welcome to the world outside the echo chamber.
And BTW, never speak ill of the lovely Claire Byrne again. If only our moderator could compare..

aloyisious

One thing that came across are the splits within the medical profession when it came to dealing with the issue in their clinics and surgeries. The notion put forward by a doctor in the audience that by declining [as doctors are to be allowed] to provide the service asked for by women and then that if they gave the women the name of another medical doctor to consult they would then become implicated in abortion service provision, was simply using weasel words to avoid helping the women.

The numbers gap between both GP camps in the debate showed how the larger group is prepared to provide patient care when called on to and the other NOT to.

Ditto apparently for the Gynaecologists when the debate showed the gap between the position of the panel's gynaecologists. The personal argument between both gynaecologists was a display of stupidity by the one from the NO side, an exercise in shouting down the expert opinion of the other whenever he tried to express it. He knew full well what Dr Boylan was saying and was determined to prevent him doing so.

What both the Doctors and Gynaecologists for the NO side showed is that they have more care for their personal beliefs than for any present or prospective patients.


Again the NO camp [both women and men] showed their determined aim to prevent other women having a choice of yes or no at a personal level on the issue of abortion, on the basis of "I don't approve of abortion at my personal level in any way, therefor I am determined that you should not be allowed make any such decision for yourself at your personal level". The No lie must continue to be told to have success in determining other peoples decisions for them.


Should the outcome be a YES majority vote, I can see the politicians on all sides being attacked with vigour at a personal level by sections from within the NO camp before the Oireachtas at all three levels passes legislation to provide a greater range of abortion services for women.

Hotblack Desiato

recedite wrote: »

Welcome to the world outside the echo chamber.

Last night was a No echo chamber most of the time.

aloyisious

There's an article in today's Indo on the varying positions on abortion. One of the groups, Save The Eight, had a meeting [probably recently - the article doesn't date the meeting] where a midwife [Paula Barry] suggested that rape victims be helped if they want to put the baby up for adoption but if they didn't they should be made keep the baby. Ms Barry suggested making it easier for the women to love the baby even if he or she will not live for long. Healthcare is support in the good times and the bad. On the question of abortion in cases of rape, she said "apparently the only worse thing than rape for women is death so by encouraging the woman to abort her unborn baby you are introducing the concept of death". There were other members of the medical profession at the meeting with what can be called more reasonable-sounding opinions on the issue of women andortion, thought those others also oppose abortion.

spoonerhead

A shift has truely taken place amongst my friends. A few months back most young people where 100% yes but lots of them have changed to nif voting and a few no’s. Dirty tatics and ‘win no matter what’ is all the last of the Hibernian Catholics have left, sadly its working. Result will be as close as Brexit

end of the road

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Last night was a No echo chamber most of the time.

it really wasn't. the reality was all bar 1 of the yes speakers just weren't that great. a couple on the no side weren't great either mind you. both sides got equal time, all though i believe there should have been no audience.

recedite

aloyisious wrote: »

The notion put forward by a doctor in the audience that by declining [as doctors are to be allowed] to provide the service asked for by women and then that if they gave the women the name of another medical doctor to consult they would then become implicated in abortion service provision, was simply using weasel words to avoid helping the women....

What both the Doctors and Gynaecologists for the NO side showed is that they have more care for their personal beliefs than for any present or prospective patients...

The No lie must continue to be told to have success in determining other peoples decisions for them.

Think about what you are saying here; its you that wants to take away their choice.

Compare it to what happened when contraceptives became legalised. Some chemists said they would not stock them. Fair enough; their choice.

But there was no law forcing them to direct customers to their nearest competitor who did stock contraceptives.
That kind of law would go too far. Not only would it force people to participate in abortion by providing a referral service for it, it would also force them to participate in the demise of their own business by forcing
mandatory referrals to competing medical practices.

So while abortion on demand is illegal now, in 6 months time it could be illegal not to participate in it (even in this small way) That's a very large swing of the pendulum, even by Irish standards.

Loafing Oaf

aloyisious wrote: »

Should the outcome be a YES majority vote, I can see the politicians on all sides being attacked with vigour at a personal level by sections from within the NO camp before the Oireachtas at all three levels passes legislation to provide a greater range of abortion services for women.

IMO such aggressive lobbying would be counterproductive and make it more likely the (supposedly) undecided FG TDs would support the legislation, seeing its passage as the only way to settle the issue and put an end to the 'hassle' surrounding it.

blinding

If you are not very convinced for yes then you probably should go for no because our Politicians are not to be trusted .

nozzferrahhtoo

On the off chance you are a collector of such things, here is another post/points you can add to those you have ignored if you wish

recedite wrote: »

Think about what you are saying here; its you that wants to take away their choice.

Is that unusual or wrong in any way? Are there not a host of standards, rules, ethics and more than we hold doctors to that, effectively, curtail the choices and options they can consider in any given moment or time? Either by suggesting they should or must do something they do not want to, or should not or must not do something they do?

For example there are doctors who genuinely do believe, as I do, that at this time the only way we can treat some cases of Body integrity identity disorder is to grant the patient the amputation they want. Some patients even go to great lengths and expense to fly to places where they can do this. And they return espousing all kinds of happiness, relief, freedom from depression and more.

Do we offer that option to doctors here, or do we take it away from them?

I like in principle the idea that doctors should have freedom of choice..... because I am in fact on the opposite side of the fence than some atheists and others on issues like the Gay Cake thing too in that I would prefer to live in a society where anyone who opens a private business, in their own time with their own money, should be allowed sell to whoever they want, for any reason, or refuse to sell to whoever they want, for any reason.

But I do not think that ideal is absolute and there are SOME standards and limitations that people have to be held to. Especially in industries as serious as our medical and health industries. And if someone wants to call themselves a Medical Doctor there has to be some level of best practices they adhere to when offering such a service whether they personally like conforming to it or not. And I do believe that in general one of those "best practices" should be that if a doctor does not offer a service, for whatever reason including personal morals, they should assist the patient in identifying a doctor who does. Especially if such a doctor is in the same country..... as with my BIID example above I would be less inclined to say the doctor has that obligation.

Where that line actually lies, either in general or specifically to the practice of writing a prescription for an abortifacient...... I am certainly open to being influenced on. But that the line should be there somewhere, would require more convincing.

On a comical side note.... Google Chromes spell checker does not know the word abortifacient. And only spelling correction it offers me when I click on it is "antiabortion".

recedite wrote: »

But there was no law forcing them to direct customers to their nearest competitor who did stock contraceptives. That kind of law would go too far.

I do not believe the two are comparable though. One is sourcing a product, the other is getting the very permission to even obtain that product. I think in general if a consumer wants a product they have the onus to source it themselves in most cases. However if we at the level of the state control access to a product, and we have people like doctors implement that control and law......... then there is more of an onus to assist the consumer in that regard.

recedite wrote: »

Not only would it force people to participate in abortion by providing a referral service for it

That really is a VERY dilute definition of the word "participate" you are using there though I would say. Having in the past, as I used to, some knowledge of knives I once referred someone I knew to a particularly sharp and interesting brand. Said person went on to use that knife in a violent crime. I guess I "participated" in that crime too by your definition of the word here.

I fear you are just using a very dilute version of the word "participate" to prop up your "Doctors will be forced to participate in abortion" narrative of scare mongering. And I genuinely find myself wondering, other than yourself of course, who you might think would be convinced by that move.

recedite wrote: »

it would also force them to participate in the demise of their own business by forcing
mandatory referrals to competing medical practices.

Hardly. If you do not stock a product or service a consumer wants they are ALREADY going to go elsewhere. That you assist them in that regard is not going to make them more gone than they already would have been anyway.

In fact I believe the EXACT opposite of what you say here is true because by showing them to be a trusted source of information, data, referrals and honesty..... even in the face of their own personal convictions at time...... you make it MORE likely that a consumer who was already going elsewhere..... will return for other services and products at a later time.

A doctor who gives me a meaningful and useful referral would certainly get my future business much faster than one who did not.

nozzferrahhtoo

blinding wrote: »

If you are not very convinced for yes then you probably should go for no because our Politicians are not to be trusted .

I have never bought that narrative for a couple of reasons.

The first is that I do not really find them to lack my trust any more OR less than any other human being from an arbitrary set.

The second is that I do trust them to do what most humans would do, which is to protect their own career and well being and not risk it for no real gain. And I see nothing but risk and no gain for implementing seriously weird or damaging legislation on this issue.

The third is that no one who has been selling the "do not trust the politicians with this" narrative has been able to offer a plausible worst case scenario for legislation they think a politician could produce that would actually cause harm. Especially given countries with the most labile and liberal legislation on abortion have pretty much the EXACT same statistics on abortion use and implementation as any other.

What did make me laugh, loud and hard and long, was the user who answered that challenge of "worst case scenario" by describing a scenario that exactly matched what the Citizens Assembly actually recommended.

The comedy of his mistrust of politicians manifesting itself as a trust they actually will do exactly what we expected them to do.......... was alas lost on him. But the entire basis of his selling the "do not trust the politicians" narrative was based on him ACTUALLY trusting them. I find it still makes me laugh now.

Hotblack Desiato

blinding wrote: »

If you are not very convinced for yes then you probably should go for no because our Politicians are not to be trusted .

Braindead populist guff.
We trust politicians not to increase income tax to 98%, or the age of consent to 6. There's nothing in the constitution to stop them doing either. They would be torn to shreds by the electorate though and they know it.

After the 8th is repealed (if not this time, then soon) politicians which refuse to implement the will of the people will likewise incur the wrath of the electorate.

aloyisious

recedite wrote: »

Think about what you are saying here; its you that wants to take away their choice.

Compare it to what happened when contraceptives became legalised. Some chemists said they would not stock them. Fair enough; their choice.

But there was no law forcing them to direct customers to their nearest competitor who did stock contraceptives.
That kind of law would go too far. Not only would it force people to participate in abortion by providing a referral service for it, it would also force them to participate in the demise of their own business by forcing
mandatory referrals to competing medical practices.

So while abortion on demand is illegal now, in 6 months time it could be illegal not to participate in it (even in this small way) That's a very large swing of the pendulum, even by Irish standards.

Equating the supplying of a "johnny", a preventative measure to stop male sperm mingling with female eggs to block a life initiating [due to fear of losing trade] TO a Dr telling a pregnant woman the name of another GP whom she can consult for her personal medical needs is rubbish. The example doctor you provided has clinical choice and should he/she refer the pregnant woman on to another GP, is exercising his'her choice within the law.


BTW, you ignored the part in mine where the doctor has the right, by way of the law, NOT to become involved. Nowhere did I say that it would become part of law that a doctor must become involved in abortion. You are jumping the gun by indicating that it will be obligatory in law for them to become involved in abortion, in the same way that abortion on demand will become legal in six months time.

Now, as to another part of my post, what is your opinion of the midwife who said for the record that she would have a woman made pregnant against her will by way of rape continue with the pregnancy until birth and force the rape victim to care for the baby born to her alone if she did not hand the child over for adoption? There is an obvious given between both ante-natal situations that the midwife envisages, and that is that the pregnant rape victim must continue in either circumstance to a full term birth.

Do you believe the midwife, given her self-identified job-description, should be allowed continue to work with pregnant women, given how [in her self-provided example] she would be indifferent as to how long any baby born to the pregnant rape victim woman actually survives birth?

You would have to keep in mind, while deciding on your answers, that the midwife spoke the above about what the pregnant rape victim would have to do as being her view at the Pro-life meeting, and that it was what she viewed as healthcare. She mentioned it when referring to Simon Harris and his view of healthcare for pregnant women in respect to abortion.

aloyisious

The "Save The 8th" campaign group had an Ad in yesterday's Irish Dail Star depicting a man in military DPM uniform and beret [back to the camera] with a child, arms around his neck, resting his head on his shoulder. The image reads "Men Protect Lives - children expect to be protected - vote NO to abortion on demand. The DF made their objections to the Ad known, as the DF is a constitutionally apolitical organisation and cannot become involved in a political campaign. The Save The 8th campaign denied that the image was of an Irish Soldier, nor was it intended to depict an Irish Soldier. The abortion referendum issue is an Irish Issue, so for the save the 8th group to claim the depiction they used was not a reference to the DF as part of the Irish Republic's national scene in respect of votes, they can try sell their coincidental depiction story to the marines......

recedite

aloyisious wrote: »

a man in military DPM uniform and beret

What's DPM? I think the image depicts "a man" who is "a soldier" carrying "a child". So I don't think its trying to fake some kind of defence forces approval for the add. Its an appeal to primeval male feelings of protectiveness towards women and children. They may be toned down a bit in our modern society which discourages gender stereotypes, but they still exist below the surface in some form nonetheless. And don't forget, half the electorate out there are male.
From a psychological point of view, this is actually quite a clever counter to the opposite argument, which suggests that abortion is women's business, therefore "trust women" to deal with it, therefore men should stay out of it by voting Yes for women's choice.

ohnonotgmail

recedite wrote: »

What's DPM? I think the image depicts "a man" who is "a soldier" carrying "a child". So I don't think its trying to fake some kind of defence forces approval for the add. Its an appeal to primeval male feelings of protectiveness towards women and children. They may be toned down a bit in our modern society which discourages gender stereotypes, but they still exist below the surface in some form nonetheless. And don't forget, half the electorate out there are male.
From a psychological point of view, this is actually quite a clever counter to the opposite argument, which suggests that abortion is women's business, therefore "trust women" to deal with it, therefore men should stay out of it by voting Yes for women's choice.

DPM is Disruptive Pattern Material. The man is wearing what looks identical to the uniform used by the defence forces. I would hope it isn't for their sake because possession of such a uniform by an individual not in the defence forces is an offence.

Zubeneschamali

aloyisious wrote: »

Realistically speaking, the majority of the republic's voters were of one mind that the unborn needed protection and voted so.

Only 54% of voters turned out (rather low) and 66% of them voted for the 8th, so that would be 36% of the Republics voters in favour, and 18% against.

After the horrorshow of the X case, turnout was 68% for the 12th, 13th and 14th amendments, and the pro-life crew lost those. Right to travel passed 42% to 26%.

recedite

aloyisious wrote: »

what is your opinion of the midwife who said for the record that she would have a woman made pregnant against her will by way of rape continue with the pregnancy until birth and force the rape victim to care for the baby born to her alone if she did not hand the child over for adoption?

My opinion is that you have twisted her words. She is not saying people should be forced to care for their own children, she is saying they should give them up for adoption if they don't want to keep them. That adoption should be the natural alternative, not death.


Not everyone agrees, but that is a valid opinion, an she is 100% entitled to hold it while practicing as a member of a caring profession. In fact I would have more confidence in her as a healthcare professional than I would in somebody else in the same business who had a more callous attitude to life.
Also in this context, there are some undeniable facts to be considered. A victim of a genuine rape is likely to seek help and /or medical attention very soon afterwards. If a conception has occurred or may occur, taking the morning after pill will prevent implantation and it is not legally considered to be abortion in this country. So they have a window of more than a week to do something about it.


That may not be much use to somebody who finds out they are pregnant, and then attributes it to the activities of a drunken weekend many weeks previously. Claiming "rape" because no memory of consent (or anything else). In that scenario, there is always adoption.


Then there is also the somewhat abstract ethical dimension to the child who is the result of a rape. Is this unborn child any less innocent than any other unborn child? If not, why make a special law that allows them to be killed when the others would be protected?

ohnonotgmail

recedite wrote: »

My opinion is that you have twisted her words. She is not saying people should be forced to care for their own children, she is saying they should give them up for adoption if they don't want to keep them. That adoption should be the natural alternative, not death.


Not everyone agrees, but that is a valid opinion, an she is 100% entitled to hold it while practicing as a member of a caring profession. In fact I would have more confidence in her as a healthcare professional than I would in somebody else in the same business who had a more callous attitude to life.
Also in this context, there are some undeniable facts to be considered. A victim of a genuine rape is likely to seek help and /or medical attention very soon afterwards. If a conception has occurred or may occur, taking the morning after pill will prevent implantation and it is not legally considered to be abortion in this country. So they have a window of more than a week to do something about it.


That may not be much use to somebody who finds out they are pregnant, and then attributes it to the activities of a drunken weekend many weeks previously. Claiming "rape" because no memory of consent (or anything else). In that scenario, there is always adoption.


Then there is also the somewhat abstract ethical dimension to the child who is the result of a rape. Is this unborn child any less innocent than any other unborn child? If not, why make a special law that allows them to be killed when the others would be protected?

You dont see forcing somebody to remain pregnant as callous?

seamus

recedite wrote: »

My opinion is that you have twisted her words. She is not saying people should be forced to care for their own children, she is saying they should give them up for adoption if they don't want to keep them. That adoption should be the natural alternative, not death.

You can say that they "twisted her words", but you're not making them any better. You've just opted to exclude the word "rape" from it.

Which, if you believe all unborn to be equal, is the intellectually honest position.

But it doesn't make it any less horrific; she's still saying that victims of rape should be forced to carry their attacker's child to term.

recedite

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

On the off chance you are a collector of such things, here is another post/points you can add to those you have ignored if you wish ...
I fear you are just using a very dilute version of the word "participate" to prop up your "Doctors will be forced to participate in abortion" narrative of scare mongering. And I genuinely find myself wondering, other than yourself of course, who you might think would be convinced by that move.

In fairness I have answered a whole plethora of awkward questions that were put to me over the past few pages, including a whole range of issues from abortion to FGM to citizenship, and I will answer your one now too.
Firstly its not "my narrative" it relates to the concerns raised by a GP on a TV debate. He rightly said that a law which forces him to provide an abortion referral service would be a bad law, and he also said there should have been some consultation before it was put into a govt. bill.

Here we touch on another issue that was raised in the same program; the allegation that Peter Boylan effectively organised a small number of obstetricians to declare that the whole institute endorsed the Simon Harris proposals, without ever taking a vote on it.

I agree that there are some things a doctor should have no choice about. For example, if they are off-duty and happen upon a an accident, they should be duty bound to help until the ambulance arrives.


But the Hippocratic oath is very important; "First do no harm".
A law requiring a pro-life doctor to refer two patients (mother and unborn child) to an abortion clinic would be an unjust law. The doctor would be forced to choose between breaking his oath, or breaking the law.

Your knife analogy is a good one, but bear in mind that if it happened again now, you would be free to decline to give your advice. That is the important point.

seamus

recedite wrote: »

But the Hippocratic oath is very important; "First do no harm".
A law requiring a pro-life doctor to refer two patients (mother and unborn child) to an abortion clinic would be an unjust law. The doctor would be forced to choose between breaking his oath, or breaking the law.

Doctors don't take the hippocratic oath.

ohnonotgmail

recedite wrote: »

In fairness I have answered a whole plethora of awkward questions that were put to me over the past few pages, including a whole range of issues from abortion to FGM to citizenship, and I will answer your one now too.
Firstly its not "my narrative" it relates to the concerns raised by a GP on a TV debate. He rightly said that a law which forces him to provide an abortion referral service would be a bad law, and he also said there should have been some consultation before it was put into a govt. bill.


Here we touch on another issue that was raised in the same program; the allegation that Peter Boylan effectively organised a small number of obstetricians to declare that the whole institute endorsed the Simon Harris proposals, without ever taking a vote on it.


I agree that there are some things a doctor should have no choice about. For example, if they are off-duty and happen upon a an accident, they should be duty bound to help until the ambulance arrives.


But the Hippocratic oath is very important; "First do no harm".
A law requiring a pro-life doctor to refer two patients (mother and unborn child) to an abortion clinic would be an unjust law. The doctor would be forced to choose between breaking his oath, or breaking the law.

Irish Doctors dont take the Hippocratic oath. The Hippocratic oath does not contain the phrase "first do no harm".

recedite

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

DPM is Disruptive Pattern Material. The man is wearing what looks identical to the uniform used by the defence forces. I would hope it isn't for their sake because possession of such a uniform by an individual not in the defence forces is an offence.

Ok, well "camo" in layman's terms. I think virtually every army in the world uses some variant of it, except notably the Israelis. Along with a good number of paintballers, duckshooters etc. etc.

recedite

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

Irish Doctors dont take the Hippocratic oath. The Hippocratic oath does not contain the phrase "first do no harm".

You're getting into pedantry now. Old Hippocrates the tutor has been dead for a long time, but his principles live on forever.

ohnonotgmail

recedite wrote: »

Ok, well "camo" in layman's terms. I think virtually every army in the world uses some variant of it, except notably the Israelis. Along with a good number of paintballers, duckshooters etc. etc.

Except the version they used looks identical to the version used by our defence forces. Do you think that was a coincidence?

ohnonotgmail

recedite wrote: »

You're getting into pedantry now. Old Hippocrates the tutor has been dead for a long time, but his principles live on forever.

and his principles never included "first do no harm".

recedite

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

and his principles never included "first do no harm".

Go on then, enlighten us. What was he really up to?

ohnonotgmail

recedite wrote: »

Go on then, enlighten us. What was he really up to?

you are familiar with the hippocratic oath, both ancient and modern? Perhaps you should educate yourself on them before using them as justification.

seamus

recedite wrote: »

You're getting into pedantry now. Old Hippocrates the tutor has been dead for a long time, but his principles live on forever.

Seriously, what are you even blathering on about?

Doctors do not take any oath, hippocratic, ancient or modern.

Even if they did take an oath, it's meaningless. Oaths do not have any standing in law. An oath is a promise you make to yourself and nothing more.

"What will happen if there's a conflict between his oath and the law?". The law wins. Simple.