Abortion Discussion, Part Trois

Bredabe

An_Toirpin wrote: »

Doctors were never restricted from offering women the best possible care. No doctor was ever charged for doing so in the history in the state. The difference now is that the unborn has now zero constitutional protections.

I cant say about where you are, but I've been prescribed whats best for the potential pregnancy and NOT for my condition at least twice in recent years.

Probably for many years previously as well, but the reason wouldn't be on my radar.

Given the shortage of dr's in recent years, why would anyone sue them for something as vague as an interpretation of a rule? Just because noone that you know of has been charged for not offering best care doesn't mean that the care hasn't been compromised.

aloyisious

An_Toirpin wrote: »

Doctors were never restricted from offering women the best possible care.

Do you mean women in general or pregnant women with your reference to women being offered the best possible care? Is your choice of wording [by not including the word pregnant when referring to women] a way of sidestepping the issue?

Hotblack Desiato

An_Toirpin wrote: »

Doctors were never restricted from offering women the best possible care.

Bulls**t.

No doctor was ever charged for doing so in the history in the state.

Yes, because they didn't offer treatment which was forbidden under the 8th.

The difference now is that the unborn has now zero constitutional protections.

Good.

end of the road

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

Not true.

it is true. doctors could always offer good care and the vast majority did and do.

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

Irrelevant. all that means is that doctors knew what the restrictions were and obeyed them.

still doesn't prove the poster's statements wrong however.

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

that is correct. they still have appropriate legal protection though so all is well in the world.

all is not well in the world for the unborn however.

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Bulls**t.



Yes, because they didn't offer treatment which was forbidden under the 8th.



Good.

not good at all. horrific in fact.

nozzferrahhtoo

end of the road wrote: »

it is true. doctors could always offer good care and the vast majority did and do.

Put the goal posts back. No one said they were not offering "good care". The text being discussed and replied to was "best possible care" which is an entirely different thing. One is perfectly capable of offering "good care" while not offering "the best possible care". Do learn the difference and keep up, please.

end of the road wrote: »

all is not well in the world for the unborn however. not good at all. horrific in fact.

Nothing horrific about it at all so merely saying "horrific" at it does not make it take on that attribute any more than me saying "green" at a red shovel is going to turn it into a green shovel.

If you want to actually present arguments, evidence, data and reasoning as to why the attribute "horrific" fits to it then by all means do. But over many months of "debating" this abortion issue you have not done that yet when asked.

end of the road

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Put the goal posts back. No one said they were not offering "good care". The text being discussed and replied to was "best possible care" which is an entirely different thing. One is perfectly capable of offering "good care" while not offering "the best possible care". Do learn the difference and keep up, please.


Nothing horrific about it at all so merely saying "horrific" at it does not make it take on that attribute any more than me saying "green" at a red shovel is going to turn it into a green shovel.


If you want to actually present arguments, evidence, data and reasoning as to why the attribute "horrific" fits to it then by all means do. But over many months of "debating" this abortion issue you have not done that yet when asked.

i'm aware what the text was, good care was a mistype on my part. however, i believe the vast vast majority of doctors do and did offer the best possible care and i'm in agreement with the poster on that statement.

Hotblack Desiato

Where the health of the woman and the health of the foetus conflicted, doctors could NOT give the woman the best possible care. E.g. some/many cancer treatments not being allowed during pregnancy. The 8th didn't allow them to. You can believe otherwise, but it's not a belief based on facts, and round these parts we call that sort of thing delusion, or religion (if we're being more polite.)

"Pro-life" is in effect a religion. Brexit is another one...

seamus

end of the road wrote: »

all is not well in the world for the unborn however.

It's a very hostile world for the lizardpeople too.

It's a terrible place to be for things which don't exist.

seamus

Gandering at Twitter, I'm even more impressed with the Repeal campaign, and how they managed to coalesce so many different groups into a single juggernaut and focus on this one issue.

Twitter is an odd place. The loony left are a bizarre non-bunch with really, really niche and specific personal ideals. They are virtually impossible to organise into groups without a split taking place over a disagreement about something really petty and inconsequential. "I will no longer associate myself with this group as they insist on keeping the orange trim in their logo despite its obvious links with the subjugation of the Irish".

Once the vote was done, there was a transgender group demanding an apology from T4Y because they had been pushed to the background. T4Y understood the importance of not allowing the repeal debate to become muddied by unnecessarily introducing transgender issues, but this trans group felt aggrieved that they didn't get to have a say.
Today I see sarcastic comments on Twitter about how repeal was hijacked by white middle-class women and ignored the needs of the disabled, impoverished and non-white.

Now, I know these are just randomers on Twitter. But, big picture, people. For jeebus sake.

How the Repeal campaign managed to get these people to STFU for long enough to get the vote through and just focus on a single issue, I will never know. They deserve a medal.

Bredabe

end of the road wrote: »

it is true. doctors could always offer good care and the vast majority did and do.



still doesn't prove the poster's statements wrong however.




all is not well in the world for the unborn however.



not good at all. horrific in fact.

When challenged on the prescriptions, the Dr said it was their only choice as they had to stay within the bounds of the 8th as I was still capable of becoming pregnant.

Different Dr in a different country(but with the same qualifications) offered me much more effective drugs as his hands was not tied by legislation, and commented that it was cruel to knowingly prescribe the original drugs knowing they could do little to alleviate the condition and indeed prolonged the recovery period by years.

So yea, best of care for me under the 8th NOT.

robindch

seamus wrote: »

The loony left are a bizarre non-bunch with really, really niche and specific personal ideals. They are virtually impossible to organise into groups without a split taking place over a disagreement about something really petty and inconsequential. "I will no longer associate myself with this group as they insist on keeping the orange trim in their logo despite its obvious links with the subjugation of the Irish".

And famously disputative as well - hence the old gag about how you get a dozen incompatible far-left opinions around a table? You sit down six far-lefters.

Anyway - just on that - is anybody aware of any reliable research regarding people who might fit into a "far-left" category, regardless of whether they actually self-describe as such or not?

The angry, entitled far-right is exercised, motivated and offers endless outrage against "the left", but so far as I can ever understand their unclear usage of the term, their descriptions in reality seem to apply only to a tiny proportion of individuals with different political or social opinions, but who happen to be equally angry, equally entitled and equally supported unclear verbiage and thinking.

nozzferrahhtoo

end of the road wrote: »

i'm aware what the text was, good care was a mistype on my part. however, i believe the vast vast majority of doctors do and did offer the best possible care and i'm in agreement with the poster on that statement.

Tihs <-- is a mistype. What you did was a complete change of meaning from what was said, to what you wanted to pretend was said. An entirely different thing.

However you have offered here another example of the difference between believe and reality. That you believe they offered the best care does not mean they did. You have not shown a single argument that they did. Another user however has provided examples of how they demonstrably did not. Not quite going your way I guess.

As the user above put it, there is a difference between offering the woman the best care and treatment, and offering the pregnancy the best care and treatment. And religious nonsense aside I see no argument why a non-person should be given medical preference over and actual person. Precluding treatmetn for someone that is a person in deference to some thing that is not a person is not "the best care" by any argument I have heard, and certainly none you have ever provided.

ohnonotgmail

end of the road wrote: »

it is true. doctors could always offer good care and the vast majority did and do.



still doesn't prove the poster's statements wrong however.




all is not well in the world for the unborn however.



not good at all. horrific in fact.

More of your usual bull****.

ohnonotgmail

end of the road wrote: »

i'm aware what the text was, good care was a mistype on my part. however, i believe the vast vast majority of doctors do and did offer the best possible care and i'm in agreement with the poster on that statement.

more bull****.

end of the road

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Tihs <-- is a mistype. What you did was a complete change of meaning from what was said, to what you wanted to pretend was said. An entirely different thing.

nope, it was a mistype. nothing more. a complete simple accident. had it typed and posted and you replied before i realised and had time to edit it.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

However you have offered here another example of the difference between believe and reality. That you believe they offered the best care does not mean they did. You have not shown a single argument that they did. Another user however has provided examples of how they demonstrably did not. Not quite going your way I guess.

no but the fact they are still doctors would be enough proof for me and for the rules that they have provided the best care possible.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

As the user above put it, there is a difference between offering the woman the best care and treatment, and offering the pregnancy the best care and treatment. And religious nonsense aside I see no argument why a non-person should be given medical preference over and actual person. Precluding treatmetn for someone that is a person in deference to some thing that is not a person is not "the best care" by any argument I have heard, and certainly none you have ever provided.

religion has nothing to do with this for many. it's just used to deflect and more from what i can see. i am satisfied that both mother and baby receive the best possible care from the vast majority of doctors and where not so, the doctors have been held to account.
i provided arguments as to why an unborn human being should have an equal right to life as a born human being except in circumstances where there is a serious risk to the life of the born human being and you did not wish to except those arguments, for which i can do no more.

Hotblack Desiato

seamus wrote: »

Once the vote was done, there was a transgender group demanding an apology from T4Y because they had been pushed to the background.

Which is of course bollocks, because T4Y and ARC spoke of "pregnant people" as well as "pregnant women".

Today I see sarcastic comments on Twitter about how repeal was hijacked by white middle-class women and ignored the needs of the disabled, impoverished and non-white.

Which is also complete bollocks. A major concern of ARC (And of course ASN) was the difficulties pregnant people in poverty face in relation to the costs of travel, and the difficulties legal and illegal immigrants face in relation to the right to travel. Disability rights campaigners also spoke out as part of the Yes campaign (in "catholic Ireland" they still have to battle the idea that many think they shouldn't be allowed to have a sex life at all)

How the Repeal campaign managed to get these people to STFU for long enough to get the vote through and just focus on a single issue, I will never know. They deserve a medal.

But the Repeal campaign groups did speak on these issues. I mean, there were plenty on here saying "sure what's the problem, just get a Ryanair" ignoring the fact that the abortion once you get there is far from free, and not everyone living here is allowed to travel to the UK.

I do get your point though, they were fantastic in the way they built a coalition and gradually built up their message and assuaged the fears of doubting voters along the way. I sent off an email (after I donated to them) to T4Y in the early weeks sayiing they were far too meek and bland in the early stages, but looking back it was strategy. Their campaign in the last two weeks was much more confident and strident and open than it was in the first two weeks.

King Mob

end of the road wrote: »

i provided arguments as to why an unborn human being should have an equal right to life as a born human being except in circumstances where there is a serious risk to the life of the born human being and you did not wish to except those arguments, for which i can do no more.

Nope. You ran away from every single difficult point asked of you and outright ignored them.
You have lied about and distorted facts and even your own position.

We don't accept your arguments because they are bad, weak and dishonest.

Hotblack Desiato

I call it cowardice, and I call it lying.

robindch

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

More of your usual bull****.

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

more bull****.

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Which is of course bollocks

Look folks, I realize it's Christmas time and the levels of both casual alcohol and fists may be a few inches higher than normal, but there's still no point in losing the run of oneself here on A+A, Anglo-Saxon wise.

Thanking youze.

// wishing you and yours a happy Festivus

aloyisious

I'm bemused at yesterday's report that the College of Gynaecologists had deleted it's present guidelines on how its members should deal with abortion given that it was reported last week that it still preparing the new guidelines for use in unison with the new abortion legislation changes for 2019. The report was carried in the media just after the one about the health minister working on the 2019 legislation changes after Michael D signed the bill passed by both houses. Maybe some-one here might have more info and update me.

splinter65

Less then 5% of GPs have signed up. GPs are already flat out to the wall. If I want an abortion next Wednesday week where do I go?

ArmaniJeanss

splinter65 wrote: »

Less then 5% of GPs have signed up. GPs are already flat out to the wall. If I want an abortion next Wednesday week where do I go?

Less then 5% of GPs have signed up to an abortion hotline where they will be named. Crucial difference.

Many doctors will be slow at signing up because people in general are poor at paperwork and this is a busy time of year.

Also many doctors are not going to want to 'advertise' their name on any hotline because of potentially making themselves a target, but will deal with patients as and when the need arises.

I wouldn't panic, the ink is barely dry on the legislation.
As for what women would do if they need an abortion next Wednesday? There are ways, a grapevine if you like. You are so vehemently anti-choice that I doubt it concerns you anyway.

end of the road

ArmaniJeanss wrote: »

Less then 5% of GPs have signed up to an abortion hotline where they will be named. Crucial difference.

Many doctors will be slow at signing up because people in general are poor at paperwork and this is a busy time of year.

Also many doctors are not going to want to 'advertise' their name on any hotline because of potentially making themselves a target, but will deal with patients as and when the need arises.

I wouldn't panic, the ink is barely dry on the legislation.
As for what women would do if they need an abortion next Wednesday? There are ways, a grapevine if you like. You are so vehemently anti-choice that I doubt it concerns you anyway.

incorrect it's anti-AOD and not anti-choice. if she was anti-choice then she would be against anyone being able to choose to do anything which is not the case.

eviltwin

splinter65 wrote: »

Less then 5% of GPs have signed up. GPs are already flat out to the wall. If I want an abortion next Wednesday week where do I go?

Well Woman or IFPA. I'd be going to them anyway as opposed to a GP. Obviously not everyone has access to such services but considering where we were we've come on light years. The GPS will catch up.

splinter65

ArmaniJeanss wrote: »

Less then 5% of GPs have signed up to an abortion hotline where they will be named. Crucial difference.

Many doctors will be slow at signing up because people in general are poor at paperwork and this is a busy time of year.

Also many doctors are not going to want to 'advertise' their name on any hotline because of potentially making themselves a target, but will deal with patients as and when the need arises.

I wouldn't panic, the ink is barely dry on the legislation.
As for what women would do if they need an abortion next Wednesday? There are ways, a grapevine if you like. You are so vehemently anti-choice that I doubt it concerns you anyway.

Yes it’s all going swimmingly well I see. I’ve never seen such angry, stressed and nervous “winners” as the pro repeal community since the referendum result was announced. Pro repeal Twitter goes into a meltdown every 1/2 hour around the clock with every mention of delays and “bedding down “. ‘‘Tis very amusing. Happy and Holy Christmas to all the Atheists ! May all your Carol singers be secular ones!

eviltwin

splinter65 wrote: »

Yes it’s all going swimmingly well I see. I’ve never seen such angry, stressed and nervous “winners” as the pro repeal community since the referendum result was announced. Pro repeal Twitter goes into a meltdown every 1/2 hour around the clock with every mention of delays and “bedding down “. ‘‘Tis very amusing. Happy and Holy Christmas to all the Atheists ! May all your Carol singers be secular ones!

I think that's because it was never about simply winning the referendum, it was always about the bigger picture. So while it's lovely to know we got the repeal the real work has always been about ensuring services are as accessible to as many women as possible as easily as possible.

I know it must be a difficult new dawn for those who'd rather ship our crisis pregnancies overseas but this is how it's going to be and I hope those accessing services and those providing them will be left in peace.

Happy Christmas

splinter65

eviltwin wrote: »

I think that's because it was never about simply winning the referendum, it was always about the bigger picture. So while it's lovely to know we got the repeal the real work has always been about ensuring services are as accessible to as many women as possible as easily as possible.

I know it must be a difficult new dawn for those who'd rather ship our crisis pregnancies overseas but this is how it's going to be and I hope those accessing services and those providing them will be left in peace.

Happy Christmas

No no. If the people want abortions then abortions is what they’ll get. Democracy is far more important to me then anything.
Let anyone that wants one have an abortion, let those who voted yes to abortion continue to support the choice they made, and let those that don’t agree with abortion continue to fight against it without the efforts to silence them as is their right as citizens in a democracy.

King Mob

splinter65 wrote: »

and let those that don’t agree with abortion continue to fight against it without the efforts to silence them as is their right as citizens in a democracy.

What efforts are being made to silence them?

aloyisious

splinter65 wrote: »

No no. If the people want abortions then abortions is what they’ll get. Democracy is far more important to me then anything.
Let anyone that wants one have an abortion, let those who voted yes to abortion continue to support the choice they made, and let those that don’t agree with abortion continue to fight against it without the efforts to silence them as is their right as citizens in a democracy.

To the author and EOTR; there's a world of difference between continuing to fight against abortion here by speech and continuing to prevent pregnant women access by their own choice to legal abortion services here. You both seem willing to allow pregnant women have abortions here but also quite at ease with the notion that the right to free speech also allows the speaker the right to absolutely deny pregnant women the right to an abortion here.

It has been made plain here in Ireland by some vocal opponents to abortion services that they believe free speech allows them the right to DENY pregnant women access to abortion services here. We all know out and out opponents to abortion here believe giving pregnant women freedom of choice on abortion is opening the floodgates - AOD. Pregnant women [in their opinion] can't be trusted to make the "right" choice.

The use of terms like AOD in the same sentence as anti-choice, ala "I'm anti-abortion on demand but not anti-choice" is - IMO - a covert use of free speech toward denying pregnant women the right to abortion services at all here.

uptherebels

King Mob wrote: »

What efforts are being made to silence them?

It just what they like to claim when people aren't swayed by their incoherent wailing.