Abortion Discussion, Part Trois

antiskeptic

Peregrinus wrote: »

But the notion that we as a community should prefer women to have abortions because it costs us less money is even more alarming, and not one I think that would be endorsed by anyone who really values freedom of choice for women. Your freedom to choose the option that will cost me the least money is a watery kind of freedom.

I made the point earlier that a Yes voting woman, pregnant on a much wanted first child has the choice (should the information be available) to be treated by GP + obstetrician, who are:

- involved in abortion

- consider life in the womb sacrosanct (for religious or medical ethics) reasons.

I was suggesting that some such women might prefer the latter. As we saw from the case of Savita, one doctor dithers wrt the law, another wouldn't have hesitated in (his words) "emptying that uterus".

It is reasonable to expect the same dithering when it comes to the possibility of lawsuits in the event of complicated cases. The woman preferring a doctor more comfortable with working at the boundaries before advising a termination. One who considers the life in the womb intrinsically precious and above all other considerations

King Mob

recedite wrote: »

And if you take a walk around the wards of the Rotunda, you'll notice that a lot of the immigrants are having a lot of children, hence Ireland's "native" birth rate bucking the trend of most other developed and/or European countries.

These being different from the scary foreigners who are going to be getting all the gender based abortions, yea?

nozzferrahhtoo

antiskeptic wrote: »

A poor choice of phrase, granted.

Exactly, which only makes me wonder at the quantity of people who use it, contrive to use it, and even dig down on using it when the use of it is addressed, or continue to use it on threads where it's use has been called out multiple times, for multiple good reasons, over many months.

antiskeptic wrote: »

There is no mandate given for smoothing every possible bump in the road.

Nor have I seen anyone attempting to smooth EVERY bump in the road. But the most ridiculous ones that are not warranted, justifiable, helpful or fair certainly are worth addressing and considering alternatives to.

I tend to fall middle of the ground on issues of private businesses, even private medical practices, being told what products they must stock, who they must sell to, and what services they must offer. On things like the "gay cake" and similar issues I tend to fall into arguments that put me at odds with most of the posters of this area of the forum for example.

But medical practitioners refusing to offer modern medical procedures or products is not just an issue we can jump to one extreme or the other on. I have SOME sympathy for the arguments about allowing doctors to refuse a prescription, but I would also have strong opinions on what they should be compelled to offer in the form of information and alternatives and referrals and so forth in lieu.

What I certainly do not subscribe to is the nonsense idea I saw expressed that doctors being compelled to offer a mere referral can be described as being therefore "Doctors who are being compelled to partake in abortion".

antiskeptic

smacl wrote: »

In case you missed it, a large part of the Yes vote was that pregnant women would not have to travel for healthcare.

Travel is intrinsic - unless house calls are provided for.

nozzferrahhtoo

recedite wrote: »

No, you can't divorce one from the other.

Except not only CAN I do it, you might go back and notice I just did. Odd to tell someone they can not do something that demonstrably just did.

AGAIN: I have yet to meet anyone ever who is pro-abortion. Everyone I discuss it with is happy that we now have abortion as an option in Ireland, but abortion ITSELF is something that would prefer never actually had to happen.

When you see people celebrating you can PRETEND that they are celebrating abortions if you wish to take that route. But pretending is all you would be doing if you did.

The reality outside that pretence however is that the celebrations were because our country did the right thing, made the right decision, and the result of all the hard work we invested in getting a yes vote was that it came to fruition.

And when someone is visibly celebrating something I find it more cogent to ask THEM what they are celebrating, rather than have some hostile third party like yourself invent that narrative vicariously on their behalf.

recedite wrote: »

Sure, the campaign involved hard work and expense, but nobody actually celebrates those things.

I did. And do. So straight away on the face of it your "nobody" comment is false. But as I said if anyone wants to know why those people were celebrating, ask those people directly rather than have you invent a narrative on their behalf to suit the spin you want to put on it.

I celebrate that they have the CHOICE of abortion on Irish soil. I would celebrate even more if we reach a point where not a single woman in Ireland ever took, or felt they needed to take, that option however. And that is the distinction your contrived and fantasy narrative here aims to miss.

recedite wrote: »

People naturally like to celebrate "a win". But there are times when a win should not be celebrated with that kind of gusto, like when it comes at the cost of somebody else (the unborn).

A "cost" you are merely inventing however in congruence with your previously rebutted (though the posts rebutting it were generally ignored alas) narrative that there is an entity there to which words and phrases like that can meaningfully be applied. A narrative you are yet to defend, nor have any of your cohort with their obsession with moving tongues and the like.

recedite

smacl wrote: »

And these children are now all Irish citizens, same as you and me. Not sure what your point is here.

Whether or not the existing native population is being replaced is a discussion for elsewhere, as it would not be tolerated on this website.
But lets assume that all immigrants of working/childbearing age have already been vetted before arrival as honest and productive members of society who are generally going to integrate into it. In that scenario, their general birth rate will be no different to the native rate, or to that in the rest of the developing world, ie in slight decline. So whether immigrant or native, it would make no difference to the point we were discussing, ie whether extra citizens were net consumers or net creators of wealth.

Zubeneschamali

antiskeptic wrote: »

- consider life in the womb sacrosanct (for religious or medical ethics) reasons.

I very much encourage doctors and obstetricians who believe this to hang a big sign in the waiting room saying so.

This will cut down on waiting times in their practice, since women and men who know at least one woman will run out of there.

splinter65

smacl wrote: »

And these children are now all Irish citizens, same as you and me. Not sure what your point is here.

Only some of the children born in Ireland to immigrants are Irish citizens. Since 2005 it’s a little bit more complicated then that. Otherwise there would be an awful lot more children being born in Ireland to immigrants and our health and SW services couldn’t possibly cope.

Zubeneschamali

recedite wrote: »

Whether or not the existing native population is being replaced is a discussion for elsewhere, as it would not be tolerated on this website.

I am not a racist but there is this argument I can't get into because I'd be banned.

recedite

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Except not only CAN I do it, you might go back and notice I just did. Odd to tell someone they can not do something that demonstrably just did.

You tried to divorce the two, but I let you know it can't be done.
I can say I'm the High King of Ireland, but its not really true unless everyone else recognises it.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

I celebrate that they have the CHOICE of abortion on Irish soil.

Of course I can understand that perspective. But I'm still saying that singing and dancing on the streets is an inappropriate response to it.

Zubeneschamali

recedite wrote: »

I'm still saying that singing and dancing on the streets is an inappropriate response to it.

We really, really don't care.

splinter65

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

We really, really don't care.

One thing is for certain, that is absolutely true.

recedite

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

I am not a racist but there is this argument I can't get into because I'd be banned.

I don't know about you, but IMO once people have been admitted to this country they should be treated on exactly equal terms to everyone else regardless of their race.

splinter65

recedite wrote: »

I don't know about you, but IMO once people have been admitted to this country they should be treated on exactly equal terms to everyone else regardless of their race.

Probably not for this forum, but do you not agree that if we extend full state services including SW medical cards and housing etc to absolutely everyone who comes to Ireland that we would soon be struggling?

smacl

splinter65 wrote: »

Only some of the children born in Ireland to immigrants are Irish citizens. Since 2005 it’s a little bit more complicated then that. Otherwise there would be an awful lot more children being born in Ireland to immigrants and our health and SW services couldn’t possibly cope.

Every days a school day. An automatic right for refugees and for immigrants who have lived 3 of the previous 4 years in the country. OT, but interesting that it is also an automatic right if the parents are British but not if they're EU nationals. Does rather make you question the motives of those supposedly standing up for the rights of the unborn and unrestricted population growth while keen to control immigration.

splinter65

smacl wrote: »

Every days a school day. An automatic right for refugees and for immigrants who have lived 3 of the previous 4 years in the country. OT, but interesting that it is also an automatic right if the parents are British but not if they're EU nationals. Does rather make you question the motives of those supposedly standing up for the rights of the unborn and unrestricted population growth while keen to control immigration.

I’m afraid I don’t understand how you are making a connection between being pro life and immigration control.
Are you suggesting that if someone is pro protecting the life of the unborn then it automatically should follow that vulnerable women should be encouraged to become pregnant and immediately embark on a treacherous life endangering journey from their homeland in order to give birth here in order to claim citizenship for their child and, by default, for themselves ?

robindch

recedite wrote: »

Whether or not the existing native population is being replaced is a discussion for elsewhere, as it would not be tolerated on this website.

You've been on A+A for more than long enough to know quite well that what you've said here is false.

While posters are not allowed to placard racist propaganda and encourage group on group hatred in its most basic forms, posters certainly are allowed - even encouraged - to engage in open, fact-based discussion of racism, bigotry, other'ing and the thinking and activities of the neo-fascist fear- and hate-mongers who currently trade as free-speech advocates, America-firsters, brexiteers, members of the French Front national and similar types.

Quite apart from the relevance of such a discussion to current world affairs, such group-on-group hatred, and the chauvinistic means by which it advertises itself and propagates itself, is noticeably similar to what goes on in religions.

smacl

splinter65 wrote: »

I’m afraid I don’t understand how you are making a connection between being pro life and immigration control.
Are you suggesting that if someone is pro protecting the life of the unborn then it automatically should follow that vulnerable women should be encouraged to become pregnant and immediately embark on a treacherous life endangering journey from their homeland in order to give birth here in order to claim citizenship for their child and, by default, for themselves ?

Not at all. I'm suggesting that if someone was genuinely pro-life independently of some hardline conservative agenda, I would have thought they'd want to see any pregnant woman who was already in this country well cared for and not treated as a pariah. Discouraging migration to those who've already arrived rather seems to miss the point.

Edit: The logic here is that with the pro-life argument there is no such thing as an unwanted baby in our society. Vetting people as to whether they'll be productive members of society runs contrary to this.

antiskeptic

splinter65 wrote: »

Probably not for this forum, but do you not agree that if we extend full state services including SW medical cards and housing etc to absolutely everyone who comes to Ireland that we would soon be struggling?

You mean we're not struggling now?

nozzferrahhtoo

recedite wrote: »

You tried to divorce the two, but I let you know it can't be done.

Except you are "letting me know" no such thing. You are asserting it, but in no way arguing that it ACTUALLY can not be done. As you say yourself, you can SAY what you want, but that does not make it true.

I am however not merely asserting it, but explaining it too. Quite the difference.

And I am explaining to you that those of us who celebrated.... those of us you are pretending to be psychic with in order to tell us our reasons rather than listen to us telling you our reasons........ did so because we believe our hard work paid off, we believe we made the right decision, and we believe we won.

It has absolutely zero to do with celebrating abortion, being pro-abortion (whatever that is actually mean to me) or any other narrative you want to impose upon it to generate your own spin.

recedite wrote: »

Of course I can understand that perspective. But I'm still saying that singing and dancing on the streets is an inappropriate response to it.

To you. But again aside from assertion I am not seeing any reason why it should actually be considered inappropriate. People worked hard on this project, to get the right thing done. The right thing was done. They very much deserved to celebrate, and they deserve to still be doing so now.

Just like me finding the chewing of chewing gum disgusting does not mean it ACTUALLY is disgusting, except just to me........... your response to their celebrations is a measure of you. Not them. What they are celebrating it. Or why you want to imagine they are celebrating it.

It is very much appropriate because A) We won We worked hard and C) we believe Ireland very much did the right thing. Any one of those, let alone all three together, warrants and renders entirely appropriate the concept of celebrations.

antiskeptic

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Nor have I seen anyone attempting to smooth EVERY bump in the road. But the most ridiculous ones that are not warranted, justifiable, helpful or fair certainly are worth addressing and considering alternatives to.

The easiest, most practical way to inform people of abortion services is to list it on a HSE website. They can go straight to the place they need to go to - no unnecessary expense visiting a GP who it turns out doesn't offer the service so as to be referred to one who will.

Dragging unwilling (for whatever reason) GP's into it involves a desire to force everyone to partake in something they don't want to partake in, for the sake of forcing them (for ideological reasons)

Certainly the abortion-practicing doctor should be able to obtain necessary information from the patients GP if the latter doesn't provide the service.

What possible practical use is going to a GP who doesn't provide the service so as to be referred on?

But medical practitioners refusing to offer modern medical procedures or products is not just an issue we can jump to one extreme or the other on. I have SOME sympathy for the arguments about allowing doctors to refuse a prescription, but I would also have strong opinions on what they should be compelled to offer in the form of information and alternatives and referrals and so forth in lieu.

Would you want information delivered to you by someone who doesn't want to deliver it to you - whatever about their adhering to the latter of the delivery law.

Per above: what possible practical gain is there is going to such a doctor for anything?

What I certainly do not subscribe to is the nonsense idea I saw expressed that doctors being compelled to offer a mere referral can be described as being therefore "Doctors who are being compelled to partake in abortion".

It depends on how you view abortion. If you view it as murder then any dealings with it, whatsoever, involve a certain amount of partaking in it. You know someone is going to commit a murder with a gun and, as a gun salesman you aren't partaking when referring them down the road to someone who does sell bump stock devices?

nozzferrahhtoo

antiskeptic wrote: »

The easiest, most practical way to inform people of abortion services is to list it on a HSE website. They can go straight to the place they need to go to - no unnecessary expense visiting a GP who it turns out doesn't offer the service so as to be referred to one who will.

Just because something is the easiest solution, does not mean it should be the sole solution. It also does not mean it is a good solution.

For example why stop there? Why single out the topic of abortion? Why not list every other service each doctor does or does not do? That would be an interesting database to build, even if it could be maintained in on ongoing basis.

Further your solution is 2 dimensional and does not actually consider the patient. Just because there is one service that a persons doctor does not perform, that does not automatically mean they will want to pick another one from the list. They might still want to go to their own doctor to consider options, the general state of their health, and all the other factors that might go into the decision to abort or not abort. They might then trust their own doctor to offer a referral in a more competent and informed way than merely picking a name of a HSE list.

antiskeptic wrote: »

Dragging unwilling (for whatever reason) GP's into it involves a desire to force everyone to partake in something they don't want to partake in, for the sake of forcing them (for ideological reasons)

And as I said above, and I suspected (though my memory was letting me down) it was you I referring to when I wrote it......... I think it is a very dilute and bastardized definition of the word "partake" to include doctors who were compelled to do nothing but provide a referral. Something that do often in any number of other contexts already. Especially if describing it thus for nothing but ideological reasons.

antiskeptic wrote: »

What possible practical use is going to a GP who doesn't provide the service so as to be referred on?

I do it all the time. I trust my doctor and his opinion. He is informed and informative. So when I wish to discuss a condition, or a procedure, or an area I know he himself does not partake in I STILL go to him as my first port of call as to where to proceed from there.

Sometimes people know so little on a subject they do not even know what they do not know. I have had that experience..... where my ignorance of a subject was such that I could not even yet formulate the questions to meaningfully ask about the subject yet. So I went to a trusted more general source of information first who brought me up to a level of knowledge which allowed me to at least formulate the questions and goals for inquiry, so that I could then move on to the more specialized source and have a coherent conversation.

I see no reason why a pregnant woman would be any different. Even if their doctor is not one that provides access to abortion pills, or any other abortion practice....... she might still trust that doctor enough to make it the initial port of call to collate the information and knowledge and recommendations on how to proceed further.

antiskeptic wrote: »

Would you want information delivered to you by someone who doesn't want to deliver it to you - whatever about their adhering to the latter of the delivery law.

I would want my information delivered to me accurately, from a source I trust. Whether that person is offering that information willingly or not is not a primary concern for me.

If for example I suddenly felt my limb was alien to me and I wanted to chop it off, I would expect my doctor, regardless of how uncomfortable he is, when I approach him to tell me that he can do nothing to actually help me, but still tell me all he knows about Body Identity Disorder, who he can refer me on to for more information, and what he knows about how people choose to treat it directly or indirectly. I could literally not care less how much he actually wants me to have any of that information. I would only care whether he is actually offering it or not.

antiskeptic wrote: »

It depends on how you view abortion.

No it really does not. It depends solely and entirely on what I think the word "partake" actually means. And to describe as "partake" saying "Sorry I want to have nothing to do with that, but here is the names of some local people who do" is really a complete mangling of that word and any utility it otherwise might have had.

aloyisious

Peregrinus wrote: »

We're not talking about who provides abortions. We're talking about who tells people where they can obtain abortions. That seems to me to be a core function of the HSE, and something they already do in relation to a wide range of services and facilities.

So, my question is, why is that not the right way to let people know where they can obtain abortions? Why must we devise an entirely different system for disseminating this particular information? There is rarely a good reason for reinventing the wheel; is there a good reason in this instance? And, if we must devise another system, why must it be one which depends on on compelling people who have a conscientious objection? Be honest; does that look like a well-designed, well-thought-out system? Is such a system likely to work well, or smoothly, or reliably?

Everyone else who wants a medical service can find details on the HSE website. But it's proposed that women who want abortions should approach their GPs, who may object in principle to abortions, and obtain the information they need, face-to-face, from people who would rather not give it, and who disapprove of the choice they are making. Why would we single out women in need of abortions for this obviously sub-standard information service, which can only involve embarrassment or worse? "Yes, women have the right to choose, but here's a little hurdle some of them have to cross before they can exercise that right!"

Surely it's possible for the GP's surgery/practice reception desk area to have a sign advising people with such queries to their local health or public advice centres for information on who will what for women seeking abortions or terminations [when the Govt plan get's passed into law].

That would take the burden off doctors who are of the "opt-out" frame of mind where it comes to abortion. I'm sure there's an existing "ask auntie" network in every town and village here where contacts and information can be got on whom to visit, and said information based on literature from the HSE or well-women type locations.

recedite

splinter65 wrote: »

Probably not for this forum, but do you not agree that if we extend full state services including SW medical cards and housing etc to absolutely everyone who comes to Ireland that we would soon be struggling?

I do, but I mean a certain number should be admitted based on their merit, and our ability to integrate them. The majority should be deported without any delays. Those that are admitted should be encouraged towards full citizenship and treated exactly equally to anyone born here.

alaimacerc

recedite wrote: »

I do, but I mean a certain number should be admitted based on their merit, and our ability to integrate them. The majority should be deported without any delays. Those that are admitted should be encouraged towards full citizenship and treated exactly equally to anyone born here.

Other then possibly being on the same page of The National Party's manifesto, how's this remotely related to the topic? Or even the forum? (We'll pass over "to basic decency or common humanity".)

antiskeptic

aloyisious wrote: »

Surely it's possible for the GP's surgery/practice reception desk area to have a sign advising people with such queries to their local health or public advice centres for information on who will what for women seeking abortions or terminations [when the Govt plan get's passed into law].

That would take the burden off doctors who are of the "opt-out" frame of mind where it comes to abortion. I'm sure there's an existing "ask auntie" network in every town and village here where contacts and information can be got on whom to visit, and said information based on literature from the HSE or well-women type locations.

I don't understand where a GP's surgery even comes into it. This isn't the geriatric segment we're dealing with - its people equipped with a smartphone and the ability to Google.

There's a reason why folk want to tag all GP's and it has nothing to do with enabling access to abortion services.

Ockhams Razor. Phone / Google and thats it.

alaimacerc

smacl wrote: »

OT, but interesting that it is also an automatic right if the parents are British but not if they're EU nationals.

Bilateral arrangement, and not wanting any more GFA-related weirdness than necessary. (Short of keeping the previous arrangement, which apparently Popular Sentiment wasn't on board with.)

antiskeptic

alaimacerc wrote: »

Other then possibly being on the same page of The National Party's manifesto, how's this remotely related to the topic? Or even the forum? (We'll pass over "to basic decency or common humanity".)

Says he with a house full of people in need. Your ability to accomodate stops somewhere short of your front gate. Our border is the nations front gate. Nothing NF about it

ohnonotgmail

antiskeptic wrote: »

I don't understand where a GP's surgery even comes into it. This isn't the geriatric segment we're dealing with - its people equipped with a smartphone and the ability to Google.

There's a reason why folk want to tag all GP's and it has nothing to do with enabling access to abortion services.

Ockhams Razor. Phone / Google and thats it.

so you want to tag all the GPs that do participate? Because we all know how that will end up. If certain doctors are conscientious objectors to abortion they should have no problem making that public knowledge.

smacl

antiskeptic wrote: »

Says he with a house full of people in need. Your ability to accomodate stops somewhere short of your front gate. Our border is the nations front gate. Nothing NF about it

And yet you would force local pregnant women to have babies they don't want into that same situation and expect us to believe your primary motivation is compassion for 'the unborn'? Seems neither reasonable nor compassionate from where I'm sitting.