Abortion Discussion, Part Trois

recedite

I don't really care about the exact oath, its more about the principle.
If you are ever a witness in a court case, and then you are asked to swear an oath to tell the truth, you can ask for a copy of the constitution instead of the bible. The actual book involved is BS really, but the idea is to invoke the person's own principles, and what they believe to be universally important.

recedite

seamus wrote: »

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

I'm aware of that. I said it would be "an unjust law" that forces people to choose between their principles and the law.
An unjust law is the result of corruption in the lawmaking process.

seamus

recedite wrote: »

I'm aware of that. I said it would be "an unjust law" that forces people to choose between their principles and the law.

So...all laws then.

Because, believe or not, different people have different principles. Some of which do not conflict with the law. Some of which do.

This is the very core of why we have laws. Because individuals can't just make it up as they go along, we need a set of common principles which we are all bound to.

"It would be an unjust law that would make a man choose between his principles or the law", is rhetorical nonsense. The kind of thing you put over a video of Michael Collins crying with an Irish flag waving in the background.

I don't really care about the exact oath, its more about the principle.
If you are ever a witness in a court case, and then you are asked to swear an oath to tell the truth, you can ask for a copy of the constitution instead of the bible. The actual book involved is BS really, but the idea is to invoke the person's own principles, and what they believe to be universally important.

It's nothing to do with "invoking the person's principles". It's a legal declaration. You can be punished for breaking it. Potaytoes/potahtoes.

recedite

seamus wrote: »

Because, believe or not, different people have different principles. Some of which do not conflict with the law. Some of which do.

This is the very core of why we have laws. Because individuals can't just make it up as they go along, we need a set of common principles which we are all bound to.

Quite right, but good or "just" laws don't force people to go against their own core principles. That's the reason the EU avoids issuing any kind of laws or directives on the substantive issue of abortion.


Also, as I said earlier, its always a bad idea to swing the pendulum too far. What is illegal today should not be mandatory tomorrow, no matter what it is.


We haven't a great record in Ireland for this unfortunately. Its double digit house price inflation one day, and ghost estates the next.
Too much emigration one day and too much immigration the next. The main function of good govt. and good legislators is to provide a stable environment in which individuals and businesses can reach their full potential.

ohnonotgmail

recedite wrote: »

Quite right, but just laws don't force people to go against their own core principles. That's the reason the EU avoids issuing any kind of laws or directives on the substantive issue of abortion.


Also, as I said earlier, its always a bad idea to swing the pendulum too far. What is illegal today should not be mandatory tomorrow, no matter what it is.


We haven't a great record in Ireland for this unfortunately. Its double digit house price inflation one day, and ghost estates the next.
Too much emigration one day and too much immigration the next. The main function of good govt. and good legislators is to provide a stable environment in which individuals and businesses can reach their full potential.

I didnt realise we were voting to make abortion mandatory. Hyperbole much?

recedite

seamus wrote: »

It's nothing to do with "invoking the person's principles". It's a legal declaration. You can be punished for breaking it. Potaytoes/potahtoes.

You don't need to have a book in your hand for that.

end of the road

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

You dont see forcing somebody to remain pregnant as callous?

i don't see the prevention of the ending of an unborn life where both are healthy as callous no . the ending of that unborn life will be what is callous.

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

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

i would very much think so. no campaign is going to be stupid enough to actually use kit representing the defence forces in their campaign.

recedite

end of the road wrote: »

i would very much think so. no campaign is going to be stupid enough to actually use kit representing the defence forces in their campaign.

Exactly. Where's the insignia?

Zubeneschamali

That soldier image is not specifically irish, it seems to be a stock image for Military Family sites, for example military divorce or Military Family Survey

ohnonotgmail

recedite wrote: »

Exactly. Where's the insignia?

It is a picture of his back. Doesnt tend to be much insignia there.

seamus

recedite wrote: »

You don't need to have a book in your hand for that.

You're right: You don't need a book in your hand.

I'm glad we've straightened that out.

nozzferrahhtoo

recedite wrote: »

I will answer your one now too.

And continue to ignore all the rest.

recedite wrote: »

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.

Which does not answer my question yet, it just points out ONE person said the same thing that I am actually asking the question about.

recedite wrote: »

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.

Yyou are now going on a complete tangent that has nothing to do with the post you are replying to in even the smallest way or the question you claimed to be answering.

recedite wrote: »

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.

Great, so we finally get to my point. And you agree with it. So when you say "Think about what you are saying here; its you that wants to take away their choice." the correct response to that is "Yes, we do that with doctors all the time". The next question worth asking then is why THIS should be an exception to that.

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.

An oath few if any doctors actually even take any more? How is that relevant to.... well.... anything at all? Even if it did contain the phrase you so falsely claim it does.

recedite wrote: »

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.

Not important at all as there is no arguments in play as to why I SHOULD have to give my advice. But you are missing the point of the analogy which was merely to point out that your use of the word "participate" is a massively diluted version of the one I have used all my life. I am not sure which dictionary you are getting it from, but to call referring someone for a procedure as "participating" in that procedure is a stretch of the word by a long shot.

recedite wrote: »

You're getting into pedantry now.

Oh Puhh-leeese. You claimed that it would be a violation of an oath no one actually takes, because of text that the oath does not even contain, and you want to call reality "pedantry"? Sorry if reality does not match what you want it to be, but pointing out it does not actually match it in anyway is not "pedantry" at all. Unless you are into diluting that word down to meaningless too along with "participate".

nozzferrahhtoo

recedite wrote: »

I'm aware of that. I said it would be "an unjust law" that forces people to choose between their principles and the law.

Laws do that all the time though. Quite often. IF for example you believe in the free and open dissemination of art, then you are going to run into copyright laws pretty quickly. IF your principles are based on beating women with a stick in order to get them to comply with the wishes of a man, your principles will get pretty heftily whacked by law. A lot of people who have princples regarding the genitals of children fall foul of many Genital Mutilation laws in many countries. And quite a few principles related to Jews or the Holocaust will get you into trouble with the law too.

Laws are NOT unjust if they go against your principles. You have just invented that dynamic as it suits the current narrative you are pushing. Laws are often there to supersede principles. And so they should as many "principles" are inherently and directly harmful and laws very much should go against them no matter how core or important they happen to be to the person who holds them.

recedite wrote: »

Also, as I said earlier, its always a bad idea to swing the pendulum too far. What is illegal today should not be mandatory tomorrow, no matter what it is.

This is also a value judgement you appear to be just asserting but not substantiating. It pays when you declare how things SHOULD be to explain why they should be that way. Like I did above. Note I did not just say "do they should" I then went on to explain WHY they should.

recedite

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Not important at all as there is no arguments in play as to why I SHOULD have to give my advice. But you are missing the point of the analogy which was merely to point out that your use of the word "participate" is a massively diluted version of the one I have used all my life. I am not sure which dictionary you are getting it from, but to call referring someone for a procedure as "participating" in that procedure is a stretch of the word by a long shot.

Obviously in your own mind you have wondered whether there is any connection between your pointing this guy in the direction of lethal knives, and his going on to use them against someone else. Otherwise it wouldn't be on your mind. Now its not for me to say whether there is or not, I simply point out that you were not obliged to refer him to those knives. And if it happened again with somebody else, you would have the choice not to.
I have recognised something in your analogy, which is not the thing that you wanted me to take from it, but that does not diminish my point.

nozzferrahhtoo

recedite wrote: »

Obviously in your own mind you have wondered whether there is any connection between your pointing this guy in the direction of lethal knives, and his going on to use them against someone else. Otherwise it wouldn't be on your mind.

It is not on my mind at all really. I required an analogy and I went into my own brain to dig around in my own history for an experience that fit. And I pulled that one out. I have barely thought of it since it happened, and likely will barely think of it again since mentioning it here. So it feels strange to have something called "Obvious" that is in fact the complete opposite of reality.

But my future "choice to say no" has nothing to do with the point. The point was merely to highlight that I "participated" in his crime about as much as a referring doctor "participates" in an abortion. Which is to say: Not at all.

And rather than accept, rebut or lets be honest even really acknowledge that point you are merely shifting back to the other point........ one that I already wrote a lot about but you have ignored so I am not sure what the move is to make now.... do I copy and paste and repeat all the arguments I ALREADY made against that point....... or do I simply request you now go back and respond to the bits you skipped?

recedite wrote: »

I have recognised something in your analogy, which is not the thing that you wanted me to take from it, but that does not diminish my point.

As above. It is not required to because I already diminished that OTHER point with quite a few approaches to rebutting it. You have, alas, decided to not reply to or acknowledge the whole swaths of my post where this has happened.

Overheal

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.

Where do you get that crap from?

You make it sound as if doctors in America are dragged out of their bed in the dead of night and are forced to perform abortions against their will.

Overheal

recedite wrote: »

Also, as I said earlier, its always a bad idea to swing the pendulum too far. What is illegal today should not be mandatory tomorrow, no matter what it is.

Can you name any thing that was once illegal that is now mandatory?

Bannasidhe

Overheal wrote: »

Can you name any thing that was once illegal that is now mandatory?

Learning Irish in school

:pac:

aloyisious

Just as a matter of interest, what article of our constitution guarantee's the EQUAL right to life of the mother, apart from in article 40, section 3, sub-section 3? I am looking at sub-section 2 of the same article, which does mention vindication of the life of citizens when it comes to unjust attack and injustice.

Peculiarly enough, the amendment does not include the word EQUAL where it comes to the right to life of the unborn. The belief, or presumtiom, that it does exist spring's from the inclusion of the word [with due regard to the equal right to life of the mother] in an IPSO FACTO manner. If the word EQUAL had NOT been included in the 8th amendment when it came to the mother, it would follow that the unborn had NO right to life within the constitution.....

It might look like I am splitting hairs here, but the mother seem's to be the only one with the word EQUAL directly connected to the right to life.

I've taken a look at the definition of a citizen of the Irish Republic as it stand's today. It seems that you may become one if you are BORN in Ireland. Article 40 starts with the words ALL CITIZENS SHALL, AS HUMAN PERSONS, BE HELD EQUAL BEFORE THE LAW. So, as a feotus/unborn is not yet born, does this mean that he/she is NOT an Irish citizen? Is a feotus/unborn a human person within the meaning of article 40? Our SC ruled this year that the unborn are NOT children and they are definitely not adults. Citizens rights seem to begin with childhood. Even what is said in reference to the unborn's rights has a qualification by [as far as practicable] within the 8th amendment.

Hotblack Desiato

recedite wrote: »

Quite right, but good or "just" laws don't force people to go against their own core principles.

Many Irish women have a core principle that being forced to undergo pregnancy and birth against their will is wrong. The 8th amendment forces them to go against their core principles unless they can obtain illegal pills or have the means to travel. The 8th amendment is therefore bad and unjust law.

The main function of good govt. and good legislators is to provide a stable environment in which individuals and businesses can reach their full potential.

Women and their families cannot reach their full potential when they are denied control of their fertility.

Hotblack Desiato

recedite wrote: »

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.

MAP cannot be taken by everyone.
MAP is very far from 100% effective.
If contraception is in use and fails, by the time this is discovered it is far too late to use MAP.

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.

Punishment enough for them, eh? Anything else you'd like to add, like some laundry work?

If not, why make a special law that allows them to be killed when the others would be protected?

That's not what we're proposing to do, and it would be all but legally impossible to do anyway except by self-certification.

end of the road

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Many Irish women have a core principle that being forced to undergo pregnancy and birth against their will is wrong. The 8th amendment forces them to go against their core principles unless they can obtain illegal pills or have the means to travel. The 8th amendment is therefore bad and unjust law.

plenty of people have a core principle that being forced to do, or not to do something that they don't agree with against their will is wrong. so they do it anyway. however, it doesn't make the laws and rules preventing them from doing the act unjust.

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Women and their families cannot reach their full potential when they are denied control of their fertility.

agreed. so thankfully they aren't denied control of their fertility via any law in this country. as it should be

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Punishment enough for them, eh? Anything else you'd like to add, like some laundry work?

what has laundry work got to do with this debate? apart from being a dig at those who you disagree with, who actually didn't agree with the laundries and the treatment they dished out.

ohnonotgmail

end of the road wrote: »

plenty of people have a core principle that being forced to do, or not to do something that they don't agree with against their will is wrong. so they do it anyway. however, it doesn't make the laws and rules preventing them from doing the act unjust.

So you would not oppose a law that forced a GP to provide abortion services if the vote is passed?

recedite

Putting your own interests first is human nature, but it does not exactly qualify as having "principles". The state must balance the rights of all when making laws. It should only curtail your freedom when your freedom impinges on somebody else's rights.


So we are back to the kernel of the matter, which is that the state and the pro-life doctors are of the opinion that there are two patients involved.


If the referendum succeeds, then we are taking away the right to life itself from one patient, and then "the state" will have changed its view.
That could lead to legislation that would create an ethical problem for those pro-life doctors who won't have done the same U-turn.


The attitude of some posters here that they will "just have to suck it up" is unhelpful.

ohnonotgmail

recedite wrote: »

Putting your own interests first is human nature, but it does not exactly qualify as having "principles". The state must balance the rights of all when making laws. It should only curtail your freedom when your freedom impinges on somebody else's rights.


So we are back to the kernel of the matter, which is that the state and the pro-life doctors are of the opinion that there are two patients involved.


If the referendum succeeds, then we are taking away the right to life itself from one patient, and then "the state" will have changed its view.
That could lead to legislation that would create an ethical problem for those pro-life doctors who won't have done the same U-turn.


The attitude of some posters here that they will "just have to suck it up" is unhelpful.

women who are pregnant now and need an abortion just have to "suck it up" so it is pretty hypocritical of you to say that is ok for one group but not another.

seamus

recedite wrote: »

That could lead to legislation that would create an ethical problem for those pro-life doctors who won't have done the same U-turn.

Except it won't.

A doctor is not obliged to perform any procedure or prescribe any medication if it goes against their own personal beliefs.

That goes for everything, not just abortion.

They are however, obliged to provide a referral to a doctor who will, and they are not permitted to present false information, e.g. to say that abortion has a poorer outcome than birth and adoption.

That is, they are allowed to stick to their personal ethics, but not permitted to push those ethics on a patient.

In the event that a pro-life doctor found themselves in an emergency situation where abortion was the most appropriate course of action, they would be obliged to do it or find a doctor who will. They cannot choose a poorer treatment just because they oppose abortion.

And if someone has a problem with that, they shouldn't be a doctor.

recedite

seamus wrote: »

In the event that a pro-life doctor found themselves in an emergency situation where abortion was the most appropriate course of action, they would be obliged to do it or find a doctor who will. They cannot choose a poorer treatment just because they oppose abortion.

And if someone has a problem with that, they shouldn't be a doctor.

Yes, that's exactly how it is now, under the 8th amendment.

Hotblack Desiato

seamus wrote: »

That is, they are allowed to stick to their personal ethics, but not permitted to push those ethics on a patient.

Exactly. They are doctors not fecking priests.

nozzferrahhtoo

recedite wrote: »

Putting your own interests first is human nature, but it does not exactly qualify as having "principles". The state must balance the rights of all when making laws. It should only curtail your freedom when your freedom impinges on somebody else's rights.

Great, but the fetus at 10/12/16 weeks is not a someONE else is it? So the question is why would we want to curtail the rights, well being and freedoms of a sentient agent in deference to one that simply isn't?

recedite wrote: »

So we are back to the kernel of the matter, which is that the state and the pro-life doctors are of the opinion that there are two patients involved.

Great again, but I am rarely interested in opinions so much as the substance behind them. THAT they want to think this is clear, WHY they think it is completely and entirely opaque to me and.... having tried to communication with you multiple times on that exact point to no avail, even on the rare occasion when you even acknowledge my posts exist..... to you too I suspect.

aloyisious

Originally Posted by seamus
In the event that a pro-life doctor found themselves in an emergency situation where abortion was the most appropriate course of action, they would be obliged to do it or find a doctor who will. They cannot choose a poorer treatment just because they oppose abortion.

And if someone has a problem with that, they shouldn't be a doctor.

recedite wrote: »

Yes, that's exactly how it is now, under the 8th amendment.

If that is, as you say, the situation now under the 8th amendment for the doctor, then any new legislation 6 months away won't change the situation despite your earlier claim that the legislation would then oblige doctors to refer pregnant women on to another medical practitioner, against their principles. I'd have thought that you would want the 8th itself then changed to allow for doctors principles.