Abortion Discussion, Part Trois

end of the road

SusieBlue wrote: »

An abortion is in no way similar to a cosmetic treatment. Cop yourself on.

i'd have to disagree, when it isn't performed for an actual medical reason.

SusieBlue wrote: »

You have no idea of other peoples circumstances.
Stop acting as if you are some sort of higher authority that can determine whether an abortion is "needed" or not when you don't have a clue.

i'm not acting as if i'm some higher authority. however common sense would dictate that some abortions are genuinely necessary, and others are a want for lifestyle reasons. it's not my fault that this is how it is

SusieBlue wrote: »

Pretty much everyone attending the Dublin maternity hospitals were doing so for non abortion related services (remember, abortion was still illegal), many of whom had no doubt received devastating news about a much wanted pregnancy.
But that didn't stop your pals from picketing outside and upsetting everyone.
They didn't care that they were hurting people, they just did it anyway.

well, they are not my pals, so what they get up to isn't representative of me. i'm nearly sure i said i disagreed with them also.

SusieBlue wrote: »

I have absolutely no doubt in my mind, particularly after hearing that the Love Boaters at the Ploughing championships were handing out plastic fetuses to small children, that they would picket the clinic of a Pro-Choice GP clinic.

if the clinic was dedicated to providing abortion services, then absolutely. if it's a general gp practice, then i can't imagine very many would go to the bother. there would be nothing to be gained.

uptherebels

end of the road wrote: »

if the clinic was dedicated to providing abortion services, then absolutely. if it's a general gp practice, then i can't imagine very many would go to the bother. there would be nothing to be gained.

Nothing to be gained "protesting" outside the maternity hospital but guess that didn't come into their reasoning.
So why would it now?

King Mob

end of the road wrote: »

well, they are not my pals, so what they get up to isn't representative of me. i'm nearly sure i said i disagreed with them also.
.

You haven't. You were also doing a lot of victim blaming rather than condemning these guys.

So any chance you'll do that now.
Do you agree that they are doing a pretty awful thing?

Loafing Oaf

uptherebels wrote: »

Nothing to be gained "protesting" outside the maternity hospital but guess that didn't come into their reasoning.
So why would it now?

Well there's only a handful of maternity hospitals but there will presumably be hundreds of GP clinics providing the abortion pill. A moment's thought should tell them they don't have the numbers to seriously disrupt the service.

end of the road

SusieBlue wrote: »

I'll repeat myself, seeing as you are not getting it. You have no idea what reasons, medical or otherwise, might cause a woman to require an abortion.
You, as a man who will never know or meet me, do not have a clue why I would seek one.
You are in no position to be making assumptions or judgments about what a stranger does or doesn't need.

Please provide proof that abortion is not a medical procedure.

i think i can state when abortions are likely to be needed and not. if there is a threat to the mother's life, abortion needed. don't want to be pregnant, unfortunate but abortion not needed but wanted.

SusieBlue wrote: »

If a doctor is unwilling to provide a legal medical to procedure to a patient, he/she should be legally obliged to refer that patient to another doctor.
It doesn't matter if its an ingrown toenail, or an unwanted pregnancy.

it does matter if it's an unwanted pregnancy, because if the doctor is obligated to refer someone to a doctor who will terminate that pregnancy when there isn't a medical issue, then that doctor has been forced to have a part in the unnecessary ending of that life, of who's ending that doctor disagrees with. it's the same as forcing someone who is against capital punishment to provide medication or other services in the aim of carying out that execution, when they disagree with capital punishment.

SusieBlue wrote: »

He said in his proposal before the referendum that doctors would be legally obliged to refer patients if they were unwilling to facilitate them.
Our country then voted in favour of repeal, which leads me to believe that Minister Harris, his party, and indeed the majority of the public, would be in favour of this scenario.

and as i said, voting to repeal the 8th does not prove that the people are in favour of it. it might prove simon harris is in favour of it as his concern is the next election, of which he thinks pushing this legislation through come hell or high water, will have him and his government back in government. even though it will have little effect on the decisian as to whether fg get back in giving their many failings. we were never asked on the actual legislation, i believe there should have been a referendum on that as well. but as it stands, any supposed vote for this legislation by the people is defacto only, which is not an actual.

SusieBlue wrote: »

Would you stop with the whataboutery. People voted in favour of repeal, having seen the proposal of the minister for health.
Its not a great jump to assume the public agreed with and were in favour of these proposals, seeing as the Yes side won.
I'm sure if more people were against the proposals, the margin would have been tighter, or the No side would have won.
This really isn't rocket science.

not necessarily. many people, including many on the pro-life side excepted the 8th needed to go. the reason i, and many others voted against, was because we knew the government would pull a stunt with the legislation, and we did not want legislation that allowed for abortion on demand. had there been a referendum on the legislation, or the government did the decent thing and simply had these proposals as an outline of what possible legislation would look like and weren't willing to force it through on the basis of a different vote, then i and many other no voters would have been willing to vote yes . voting yes to repeal is voting yes to repeal. if it is being classed as a vote for the specific legislation, then it's not anything more then a defacto vote for the proposed legislation, and not an actual vote for it. we were not asked to vote on the legislation. we should have been.

SusieBlue wrote: »

Well then they can feel free to never personally procure an abortion themselves, no one is taking that liberty from them.

except it doesn't quite work like that, as we have lots of things that we don't allow in society, of which it could be said that a person who is against it won't have to take part in it. your argument is similar to saying that if someone doesn't like for example, burglery or assault, then they don't have to commit them. however, that thankfully doesn't pass with society as a whole.

SusieBlue wrote: »

It doesn't give them the right to refuse to refer a patient who DOES require one though.

if it is for a medical reason, then i would agree and i think doctors would refer in that situation. however when it is simply a want, then a doctor should have the right not to have any part in it.

King Mob

end of the road wrote: »

not necessarily. many people, including many on the pro-life side excepted the 8th needed to go. the reason i, and many others voted against

Then why, if you and your pals weren't in the minority, did you lose?
Are you arguing that the majority of people who voted Yes are in fact secretly pro life?

If so, evidence please.
Also please explain what problems abortion causes for society, then provide evidence of that.
Also, please clarify if "abortion by choice" is murder. And also what the difference is between murder and killing when it comes to abortion.
Also please explain either why you keep dodging and ignoring questions, or why you think that it isn't making your position utterly hollow and weak.
Also, could you please clarify if you condemn people who protest outside abortion clinics.

end of the road

uptherebels wrote: »

I'm sorry but you seem to be confusing yourself.
How many times have you said that you would have voted for repeal but you didn't agree with the legislation that would come after? I.e abortion.
People knew that repealing the 8th was a vote for abortion as that is what they were told before the vote.
It's plenty of evidence that anti choice view is a minority.
Societal problems? Any chance you will eventually decide to provide evidence of any of your claims?

people knew that repealing the 8th was a facto vote for abortion as they knew what the government were up to. however ultimately voting no to repealing the 8th would have continued the problem of hard cases not being dealt with. it simply proves most people agreed with repealing the 8th, it was the government who decided to try and push through this legislation as a way of trying to get back into the electorate's good books, thinking that abortion would be a major election issue.

SusieBlue

I have zero interest in engaging in an exhausting, repetitive multi quote battle with you, EOTR.
You’d be more in line to reply to the posts that were actually put to you rather than picking on my replies to other people.

But I will repeat, for truth, that you cannot assume to know what abortions are needed and which aren’t, when you don’t know the individual circumstances of every single woman seeking them.
Neither are you in any position to make judgment on those reasons.
Abortions are medical procedures and I have yet to see any valid proof that they aren’t, or are only sometimes.

uptherebels

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

Well there's only a handful of maternity hospitals but there will presumably be hundreds of GP clinics providing the abortion pill. A moment's thought should tell them they don't have the numbers to seriously disrupt the service.

Except they don't need to target every go just the larger/high profile ones.
They didn't target everting maternity ward in the country just the main one.

gctest50

SusieBlue wrote: »

I have zero interest in engaging in an exhausting, repetitive multi quote battle with you, EOTR.
You’d be more in line to reply to the posts that were actually put to you rather than picking on my replies to other people.

But I will repeat, for truth, that you cannot assume to know what abortions are needed and which aren’t, when you don’t know the individual circumstances of every single woman seeking them.
Neither are you in any position to make judgment on those reasons.
Abortions are medical procedures and I have yet to see any valid proof that they aren’t, or are only sometimes.

It doesn't really matter, it was a landslide hammering

Although some voters were mistaken - they thought they were repealing the 8th of December

uptherebels

end of the road wrote: »

people knew that repealing the 8th was a facto vote for abortion as they knew what the government were up to. however ultimately voting no to repealing the 8th would have continued the problem of hard cases not being dealt with. it simply proves most people agreed with repealing the 8th, it was the government who decided to try and push through this legislation as a way of trying to get back into the electorate's good books, thinking that abortion would be a major election issue.

You don't get to pick and choose. Either it was a vote for abortion or it wasn't. The government proposed the legislation that was given to it by the people and put it to us to vote on, which resulted in a landslide approval of it.
Hardly pushed it through. A no vote could a led to other options being examined, like all the other options the no side harped on about but couldn't actually provide.

Loafing Oaf

uptherebels wrote: »

Except they don't need to target every go just the larger/high profile ones.
They didn't target everting maternity ward in the country just the main one.

What would be the point of such protests from the pro-life POV anyway though? Presumably to actually deter the GP clinic in question from distributing the abortion pill. I'd imagine in most cases ICBR-style 'silent vigils' wouldn't cut it, they'd have to be to really aggressive, shouting, waving placards in people's faces. In the process they'd be making themselves pariahs in their communities and running the risk of trouble with the guards. How many Irish pro-lifers really have the stomach for that?

SusieBlue

uptherebels wrote: »

You don't get to pick and choose. Either it was a vote for abortion or it wasn't. The government proposed the legislation that was given to it by the people and put it to us to vote on, which resulted in a landslide approval of it.
Hardly pushed it through. A no vote could a led to other options being examined, like all the other options the no side harped on about but couldn't actually provide.

What was their slogan again, "Its too extreme, vote No and demand a better solution from the government".

Some people seem to have short memories.

uptherebels

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

What would be the point of such protests from the pro-life POV anyway though? Presumably to actually deter the GP clinic in question from distributing the abortion pill. I'd imagine in most cases ICBR-style 'silent vigils' wouldn't cut it, they'd have to be to really aggressive, shouting, waving placards in people's faces. In the process they'd be making themselves pariahs in their communities and running the risk of trouble with the guards. How many Irish pro-lifers really have the stomach for that?

I'd imagine the same point as being outside the maternity hospital before the referendum.
All they need is to intimidate, how aggressive they need to be depends on the person. How many women would run the gauntlet with their picture being taken?
Remember these pro lifers believe they are saving children

lazygal

SusieBlue wrote: »

What was their slogan again, "Its too extreme, vote No and demand a better solution from the government".

Some people seem to have short memories.

The prolife side told us the POLDP Act was too extreme. Then that we'd have liberal abortion laws if we repealed. They can't say anything without contradicting themselves.

lazygal

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

What would be the point of such protests from the pro-life POV anyway though? Presumably to actually deter the GP clinic in question from distributing the abortion pill. I'd imagine in most cases ICBR-style 'silent vigils' wouldn't cut it, they'd have to be to really aggressive, shouting, waving placards in people's faces. In the process they'd be making themselves pariahs in their communities and running the risk of trouble with the guards. How many Irish pro-lifers really have the stomach for that?

The ICBR weren't silent. I found them extremely aggressive outside Holles Street and other locations and I assume I was a target because I was visibly pregnant.

end of the road

King Mob wrote: »

Then why, if you and your pals weren't in the minority, did you lose?
Are you arguing that the majority of people who voted Yes are in fact secretly pro life?

If so, evidence please.
Also please explain what problems abortion causes for society, then provide evidence of that.
Also, please clarify if "abortion by choice" is murder. And also what the difference is between murder and killing when it comes to abortion.
Also please explain either why you keep dodging and ignoring questions, or why you think that it isn't making your position utterly hollow and weak.
Also, could you please clarify if you condemn people who protest outside abortion clinics.

murder is killing. the difference between murder and other forms of killing is that murder is deliberate, and can be pre-meditated. something like self defence which medical abortion is is not murder as the act is being caried out to save the mother's life.
i think the majority of protesters outside the clinics are there just to provide information providing alternatives to abortion. there are others who go overboard but the law can and rightly does deal with them. for the clinics themselves i have no sympathy, my opinion is they should be shut and ran out of all areas they exist in . clinics are outdated anyway so it's not as if they are needed now days with the pill being main stream. so i don't condemn people who are simply protesting outside the clinics as long as they are peaceful. if not then the law can and does deal with them.

uptherebels wrote: »

Except they don't need to target every go just the larger/high profile ones.
They didn't target everting maternity ward in the country just the main one.

sure, but again given people would be visiting for many varied reasons, then realistically there would be no point in continuing such protests long term. they wouldn't gain anything from protesting outside a multi-purpose centre/clinic/hospital.

uptherebels wrote: »

You don't get to pick and choose. Either it was a vote for abortion or it wasn't. The government proposed the legislation that was given to it by the people and put it to us to vote on, which resulted in a landslide approval of it.
Hardly pushed it through. A no vote could a led to other options being examined, like all the other options the no side harped on about but couldn't actually provide.

well no, the legislation wasn't put to us to vote on. it was put to us but there was no question on the ballot paper as to whether we wanted the legislation or not. we were only asked to vote to repeal the 8th and allow the government to legislate for abortion, or not. that's the only vote that is actual and which matters. a defacto vote for legislation, which i have been clear that a vote to repeal the 8th would be, isn't an actual vote for the legislation. so yes it was pushed through, given not everyone who voted to repeal the 8th actually agreed with that specific legislation. defacto votes are not actual votes and operating on the basis of defacto votes is not how a democracy should be operating.

lazygal

What information can an anti abortion protestor give me that's relevant if I'm having an abortion?

end of the road

lazygal wrote: »

The prolife side told us the POLDP Act was too extreme. Then that we'd have liberal abortion laws if we repealed. They can't say anything without contradicting themselves.

to be fair, they weren't wrong. their timescale was years out, but it was correct to state that the next step from the POLDP act was likely going to be legislation for abortion on demand. for what it's worth i supported the POLDP and believe an extension of that to other hard cases is what legislation should have been implemented with a clause that prohibits changes to it without referendum.

King Mob

end of the road wrote: »

murder is killing. the difference between murder and other forms of killing is that murder is deliberate, and can be pre-meditated. something like self defence which medical abortion is is not murder as the act is being caried out to save the mother's life.

So abortion "on demand" is murder.
Finally you have giving a clear answer, kind of.
Congratulations.

It doesn't really explain why you were so unclear and dishonest about your position earlier or why you refused to clarify it...

end of the road wrote: »

i think the majority of protesters outside the clinics are there just to provide information providing alternatives to abortion. there are others who go overboard but the law can and rightly does deal with them. for the clinics themselves i have no sympathy, my opinion is they should be shut and ran out of all areas they exist in . clinics are outdated anyway so it's not as if they are needed now days with the pill being main stream. so i don't condemn people who are simply protesting outside the clinics as long as they are peaceful. if not then the law can and does deal with them.

So you don't condemn them. You think that they are just there to give information, which is a bald faced lie that is frankly insulting. You are victim blaming again.
That's a pretty despicable attitude and exposes just how messed up and sexist your position is.

So that's two points.
Address the others please.
In particular, how does abortion damage society and evidence for that.

end of the road

King Mob wrote: »

So abortion "on demand" is murder.
Finally you have giving a clear answer, kind of.
Congratulations.

So you don't condemn them. You think that they are just there to give information, which is a bald faced lie that is frankly insulting. You are victim blaming again.
That's a pretty despicable attitude and exposes just how messed up and sexist your position is.

So that's two points.
Address the others please.
In particular, how does abortion damage society and evidence for that.

it's neither sexist or victim blaming. the clinics are not victims. many of those protesters will be women themselves.

lazygal

end of the road wrote: »

to be fair, they weren't wrong. their timescale was years out, but it was correct to state that the next step from the POLDP act was likely going to be legislation for abortion on demand. for what it's worth i supported the POLDP and believe an extension of that to other hard cases is what legislation should have been implemented with a clause that prohibits changes to it without referendum.

Nothing could be done if the eighth wasn't repealed.
The line that repeal was too extreme was a last minute hysterical reaction from the prolife campaign. It didn't work because the majority who voted recognised that abortion is normal medical care.

King Mob

end of the road wrote: »

it's neither sexist or victim blaming. the clinics are not victims. many of those protesters will be women themselves.

It's both.
It's victim blaming in that you are saying that the clinics, and the women attending these clinics are bringing it on themselves and you "have no sympathy".
It's sexist, because you are justifying these protesters harassing and intimidating women, many of whom are going through a difficult time and are taking care of a private medical matter. You justifying and lying about what these protesters are doing shows that you don't give a **** about the women they upset and intimidate. That's sexist.
It doesn't matter if some of those protesters are women. It's about you justifying and being ok with what they are doing.

Now, address the other points.

Igotadose

end of the road wrote: »

i think the majority of protesters outside the clinics are there just to provide information providing alternatives to abortion.

Seriously? Picture of dead fetuses and rants about damnation?

for the clinics themselves i have no sympathy, my opinion is they should be shut and ran out of all areas they exist in .

But, by your reasoning, it's a social issue (still haven't actually made that clear why it is, as abortion & pregnancy are both wants, which was your criteria). If the location supports a clinic, who are you to run them out? The people in the town, want it.

clinics are outdated anyway so it's not as if they are needed now days with the pill being main stream.

Which pill is that?

so i don't condemn people who are simply protesting outside the clinics as long as they are peaceful.

They lie and harrass. They block people from entering. IN the US, they firebomb and kill. Do you want that sort in your area?

if not then the law can and does deal with them.

Haven't seen it yet in Ireland. "will" deal with them is probably what you meant.

Loafing Oaf

uptherebels wrote: »

I'd imagine the same point as being outside the maternity hospital before the referendum.
All they need is to intimidate, how aggressive they need to be depends on the person. How many women would run the gauntlet with their picture being taken?
Remember these pro lifers believe they are saving children

Okay so the fundamental point of the protest would be intimidate a woman seeking a medical abortion from going in to that particular GP. So the woman makes a discreet appointment with a GP 20 miles away where there are no protests and noone knows her from Adam. To me, trying to seriously disrupt a GP-led abortion service through outside-clinic protests is like playing whack-a-mole with a single unwieldy hammer while hundreds of moles are popping up all around you. I think the vast majority of potential pro-life protestors will recognize this before the service comes on stream and decide not to bother.

Igotadose

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

Okay so the fundamental point of the protest would be intimidate a woman seeking a medical abortion from going in to that particular GP. So the woman makes a discreet appointment with a GP 20 miles away where there are no protests and noone knows her from Adam. To me, trying to seriously disrupt a GP-led abortion service through outside-clinic protests is like playing whack-a-mole with a single unwieldy hammer while hundreds of moles are popping up all around you. I think the vast majority of potential pro-life protestors will recognize this before the service comes on stream and decide not to bother.

But they'll be sowing doubt via media coverage, which is what they want. Need to nip this in the bud - legislation should include criminal penalties and some certainty of incarceration, none of the endless 'dozens of convictions but never spent time in jail' stuff that's pervasive in Ireland.

robarmstrong

Peregrinus wrote: »

Most abortions are not undertaken because women don't wish to go through pregnancy; they're undertaken because they don't wish to go through motherhood.

Have you got the numbers for the euro-millions there?

Just asking because you quite clearly seem to have some insight into the unknown unless of course this is an absolutely ridiculous, ignorant and downright moronic claim.

aloyisious

end of the road wrote: »

how so. that is what abortion on demand effectively is similar to. it's not a treatment for an illness or disease or disability.



if there is a genuine medical reason, then sure. if it's because the woman doesn't want to be pregnant or something similar, then there is absolutely no reason or need for a legal obligation to refer.

Going round in circles here again, do you then choose, using your anti-abortion on demand position, to say that a rape victim cannot have an abortion because she doesn't want to carry to term the pregnancy - read simply doesn't want to be pregnant with his unborn in her belly - caused by her rapist, given that that does not fit into the three you listed above as reasons NOT to provide treatment for?

With reference to your claim that doctors will be forced against their will to provide abortion services [even though you admit that that is not in the purview of the minister for health] that's just another canard rolled out regularly, this time under the disguise that other politicians will force it through. I invite you to name the politicians who will do so along with the evidence to support your claim.

Hotblack Desiato

King Mob wrote: »

I think in this case, it would be that the person has been forced to switch doctors. Nominally, the new doctor would just be asking for the records, but not referring to what purpose. If the old doctor refused to cooperate because he suspected that the patient was seeking an abortion, then this would be a clear cut case of unethical behavior and that doctor should be turfed out of their practice.
I doubt even Peregrinus would argue otherwise there.

OK let's say the patient visits her doctor, asks for an abortion, he refuses, and she says "Well I'll just go to Dr. X in the next town then". He hasn't referred. Then a few days later he gets the call from Dr. X's office looking for the patient records, he knows what that's for, yet is obliged to provide the records. I see no difference between that and referral, except inconveniencing (and judging) the patient.

eviltwin

Funny that pro life groups see an issue with forcing a doctor to do their job but no issue with forcing a woman to endure an unwanted pregnancy.