Abortion Discussion, Part Trois

tretorn

Doctors can choose which area of work they want to practice in and most GP practices are private.

Tell you what king mob, I have decided you have no right to post anonymously here so unless you supply your name and address dont post here again. Im sure you like that approach.

You need to be very careful about over extending the States reach into matters of conscience because once the State gives itself the authority to deny free of conscience it awards itself great powers against the individual. It might be Doctors forced to do something they fundamentally agree with and if no one stands up for their rights then whose is next to have their rights infringed on.

Yes, as a citizen of this country you have a right to come together with others in a peaceful assembly. The Gardai do not have the right to tell you to move on and if you refuse they have no powers to detain you. If they imprison you they are breaching one of your Constitutional rights and there will be plenty of Constitutional lawyers opposed to abortion who will defend you free of charge.

Thats the way it is folks when we have a written Constitution, maybe take out your copy and have a read of it.

King Mob

tretorn wrote: »

Tell you what king mob, I have decided you have no right to post anonymously here so unless you supply your name and address dont post here again. Im sure you like that approach.

But doctors already have their name and address out in public, as they are doctors.
They are also not anonymous, as again, they are doctors.

You have again avoided my question:
Why would they be afraid to be named?
What's the problem with it. Please be specific.

This is the 3rd time I've asked you this direct, simple question. You have not answered it.
This is a real problem you guys share....

SusieBlue

I know why they don’t want to be named.

They don’t want to be named because while they are happy to humiliate, condemn and judge others, they are not happy for others to do the same to them.

They want to be the ones harassing others and not be harassed themselves. They’re a bunch of hypocrites.

Loafing Oaf

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Aside from the fact that "do no harm" is not really in the Oath, do you find many doctors abiding by an oath few even actually take? Where is this idea coming from that I hear every so often that they swear it?

Plus does the phrase even make sense in the context of modern medicine? Maybe it has a meaning other than the obvious literal one, but don't doctors do all sorts of things that 'harm' their patients in the service of a greater good, like amputations and chemotherapy?

gctest50

tretorn wrote: »

.....................

Doctors have the right to abide by the Hippocratic oath, Do no Harm

"Clever" wording, but anyway doctors in Ireland don't be taking the Hippocratic oath

Doctors have the right to do lots of things, bit of fishing or swimming or running maybe

Other people ( not me ) might think that post was worded that way to make it easy to drag the thread off topic about right to abide by oath and and and and why it'd be no harm and and and.

tretorn wrote: »

.....................

Do no Harm

Do no Harm - isn't in it anyway, repeatedly spouting it like it is the very first line ain't going to change history


of course the bit yer getting to - is this :

similarly I will not give a woman a pessary to cause an abortion.

Misoprostol tablets ?

I swear by Apollo the physician, and Asclepius, and Hygieia and Panacea and all the gods and goddesses as my witnesses, that, according to my ability and judgement, I will keep this Oath and this contract:

To hold him who taught me this art equally dear to me as my parents, to be a partner in life with him, and to fulfill his needs when required; to look upon his offspring as equals to my own siblings, and to teach them this art, if they shall wish to learn it, without fee or contract; and that by the set rules, lectures, and every other mode of instruction, I will impart a knowledge of the art to my own sons, and those of my teachers, and to students bound by this contract and having sworn this Oath to the law of medicine, but to no others.

I will use those dietary regimens which will benefit my patients according to my greatest ability and judgement, and I will do no harm or injustice to them.

I will not give a lethal drug to anyone if I am asked, nor will I advise such a plan; and similarly I will not give a woman a pessary to cause an abortion.

In purity and according to divine law will I carry out my life and my art.

I will not use the knife, even upon those suffering from stones, but I will leave this to those who are trained in this craft.

Into whatever homes I go, I will enter them for the benefit of the sick, avoiding any voluntary act of impropriety or corruption, including the seduction of women or men, whether they are free men or slaves.

Whatever I see or hear in the lives of my patients, whether in connection with my professional practice or not, which ought not to be spoken of outside, I will keep secret, as considering all such things to be private.

So long as I maintain this Oath faithfully and without corruption, may it be granted to me to partake of life fully and the practice of my art, gaining the respect of all men for all time. However, should I transgress this Oath and violate it, may the opposite be my fate.

Before any of the craw-thumpers start again :

Myrrh oil is an abortificant from the biblical ages

The Three Wise Men in the story brought gold, frankincense and myrrh


maybe the Three Wise Men got delayed for a few months on the way and the abortion never happened :

King Mob

SusieBlue wrote: »

I know why they don’t want to be named.

They don’t want to be named because while they are happy to humiliate, condemn and judge others, they are not happy for others to do the same to them.

They want to be the ones harassing others and not be harassed themselves. They’re a bunch of hypocrites.

Our anti-abortionists know this too, hence why they are doing their best to distract and deflect and why they ignored this question before.

They know their own arguments will trip them up.

tretorn

King Mob wrote: »

But doctors already have their name and address out in public, as they are doctors.
They are also not anonymous, as again, they are doctors.

You have again avoided my question:
Why would they be afraid to be named?
What's the problem with it. Please be specific.

This is the 3rd time I've asked you this direct, simple question. You have not answered it.
This is a real problem you guys share....

No sane person is going to propose that Doctors who don’t want to be involved in abortion should be named. Most decent people respect their family GPS and would completely understand another persons reluctance to take human life.

Does this mean that if we restore capital punishment for murderers and rapists all our prison staff should be forced to administer the lethal injection or pull the switch to electrocute prisoners, it’s the same difference, same end results, one person taking another’s right to life.

No one has the right to force anyone else to be an active participant in something so fundamental as this. The Government wont go there, they won’t enter into battles they won’t win. Abortion is a contraceptive choice now in the Uk, life has been so demeaned there babiescan be killed up to six months gestation, even there health staff are not forced to participate against their will.

King Mob

tretorn wrote: »

No sane person is going to propose that Doctors who don’t want to be involved in abortion should be named. Most decent people respect their family GPS and would completely understand another persons reluctance to take human life.

Again, you dodge the question and go off on a rant that's disconnected to everything we are discussing.
Please try again. The question is very simple. I can rephrase it for you if you like, but I'm not sure I can make it any clearer or more direct.

Why would they be afraid to be named?

Also, instead of going off on your little rants, maybe you can go back and address some of the points you are also ignoring.
Or perhaps you can go back and support the many many outlandish claims you made and offered no support for.

Or perhaps some of our other anti-abortionists would like to take a stab at that question, since they aren't busy answering any other questions or backing up any of their claims either.
You guys like to butt in on posts not addressed at you, so this would be a good time.

Odhinn

end of the road wrote: »

i don't believe there is any forcing to remain pregnant, or undermining of bodily autonomy by preventing the killing of the unborn for social, lifestyle and convenience reasons. if we were talking about preventing medical abortions such as where the mother's life is under threat then by all means i would agree with you.

What you believe is irrelevant. She's forced to remain pregnant therefore her control over her own body is undermined. There is no other logical assesment of the situation. She wants an abortion, is refused 'permission' to have one, therefore she no longer has autonomy over her own body.

tretorn

Who said they are afraid to be named.

The question hasn’t arisen because the bullies so far haven’t actually proposed that any GPS be named. There are over three thousand GPS and 187 have signed up. I suppose you could deduct 187 names from 3300 and then publish 3300 minus 187 names.

What would you gain by this lol. If you want an abortion check the buses, the HSE info is going to be on the buses shortly. Find your nearest GP who is willing to do it or take a train to the nearest family planning clinic. Ireland is a small country so you aren’t going to have an abortion clinic at every cross roads. There isn’t enough population to sustain services and there will be a lot less if one in four pregnancies ends in abortion.

Its best to accept this reality rather than force other people to agree with you.

King Mob

tretorn wrote: »

Who said they are afraid to be named.

Ok then, allow me to rephrase the question to make it more clear to you.

Why would they be unwilling to be named?

This is now the 5th time asking with no answer.

Again, no need for the rants. Not reading them.

splinter65

gctest50 wrote: »

For the sake of comparison, have a few groups stand outside the local churches on a Sunday with placards of babies in septic tanks, pictures of priests that were convicted of child abuse etc

Be interesting to see the results

Anyone is more then welcome to protest anything anywhere. Outside any church, convent, presbytery, anywhere you like
A public place is a public place. You don’t have the right not to be offended.
The penny doesn’t seem to be dropping with you at all. If you take away the right to peaceful protest for one group then you take it away for all. Can you not see that? The right to protest is one of the cornerstones if the democracy that you claim to treasure so dearly.
If those 4 people outside Holles St refuse to move and are dragged away by the Gardai have you thought about how thats going to impact every other protest?

King Mob

splinter65 wrote: »

Anyone is more then welcome to protest anything anywhere. Outside any church, convent, presbytery, anywhere you like
A public place is a public place. You don’t have the right not to be offended.
The penny doesn’t seem to be dropping with you at all. If you take away the right to peaceful protest for one group then you take it away for all. Can you not see that? The right to protest is one of the cornerstones if the democracy that you claim to treasure so dearly.
If those 4 people outside Holles St refuse to move and are dragged away by the Gardai have you thought about how thats going to impact every other protest?

So why is it ok for some GPs to deny people the right to protest outside their offices?
Why are they unwilling to allow protesters to know they oppose abortion and will not supply those services?
(6th time asking.)

splinter65

Igotadose wrote: »

If we want *more* GP's to provide the service, my suggestion is, compile a list of those that won't, or have them put signs up in their practices. Customers will vote with their feet. Further, the government should follow up with those GP's that did not sign up and get them to say why, that information should be made public as wellit.

I totally agree with this. If youre not providing abortion services in your surgery then you should put a sign in the window and on the door.
That way we’ll all know which GPs are also abortionists and let the people vote with their feet. And the protestors will know where not to picket.
Great idea.

splinter65

King Mob wrote: »

So why is it ok for some GPs to deny people the right to protest outside their offices?
Why are they unwilling to allow protesters to know they oppose abortion and will not supply those services?
(6th time asking.)

But no GP should be allowed to refuse protestors on the public pavement King Mob. Did you think I said they should?!?

gctest50

splinter65 wrote: »

Anyone is more then welcome to protest anything anywhere. Outside any church, convent, presbytery, anywhere you like
A public place is a public place. You don’t have the right not to be offended.
The penny doesn’t seem to be dropping with you at all. If you take away the right to peaceful protest for one group then you take it away for all. Can you not see that? The right to protest is one of the cornerstones if the democracy that you claim to treasure so dearly.
If those 4 people outside Holles St refuse to move and are dragged away by the Gardai have you thought about how thats going to impact every other protest?

democracy ? It was voted on, all fair n square

Many of the AntiChoice decided to go for the hard-hitting/graphic poster/howling approach


Didn't work did it ?

splinter65

gctest50 wrote: »

democracy ? It was voted on, all fair n square

Many of the AntiChoice decided to go for the hard-hitting/graphic poster/howling approach


Didn't work did it ?

I can’t decipher wether or not you agree that peaceful protest is a cornerstone of democracy and wether or not you agree that none of us have a right to not be offended .
You seem to be avoiding the question.
Maybe just answer either “yes I agree” or “no I don’t agree”.

gctest50

splinter65 wrote: »

Anyone is more then welcome to protest anything anywhere. Outside any church, convent, presbytery, anywhere you like
A public place is a public place. You don’t have the right not to be offended.
The penny doesn’t seem to be dropping with you at all. If you take away the right to peaceful protest for one group then you take it away for all. Can you not see that? The right to protest is one of the cornerstones if the democracy that you claim to treasure so dearly.
If those 4 people outside Holles St refuse to move and are dragged away by the Gardai have you thought about how thats going to impact every other protest?

II : Allowing these protests right outside a doctors office is just not on.


14,000 women miscarry spontaneously every year in Ireland

You might have a woman going to the doctor shortly after miscarrying

If you like upsetting women who have just miscarried - you are the lowest form of scum - i doubt anyone would disagree

splinter65

gctest50 wrote: »

II : Allowing these protests right outside a doctors office is just not on.


14,000 women miscarry spontaneously every year in Ireland

You might have a woman going to the doctor shortly after miscarrying

If you like upsetting women who have just miscarried - you are the lowest form of scum - i doubt anyone would disagree

So what your saying is that you think that all peaceful protest should be allowed...........except when the protest is against something you agree with.
Right. Got it.

Odhinn

splinter65 wrote: »

So what your saying is that you think that all peaceful protest should be allowed...........except when the protest is against something you agree with.
Right. Got it.

There is no way the states going to allow harassment of patients on an ongoing basis directly outside surgeries or hospitals. There's similar prohibitions in other states, afaik.

gctest50

splinter65 wrote: »

So what your saying is that you think that all peaceful protest should be allowed...........except when the protest is against something you agree with.
Right. Got it.

14,000 women miscarry spontaneously every year in Ireland


Fourteen thousand.

Do you think it is a good idea to do something that would upset a woman had a miscarriage ?

splinter65

splinter65 wrote: »

I totally agree with this. If youre not providing abortion services in your surgery then you should put a sign in the window and on the door.
That way we’ll all know which GPs are also abortionists and let the people vote with their feet. And the protestors will know where not to picket.
Great idea.

Yep good to know if your doctor puts your health ahead of their personal beliefs, even if you never need an abortion.

splinter65

gctest50 wrote: »

14,000 women miscarry spontaneously every year in Ireland


Fourteen thousand.

Do you think it is a good idea to do something that would upset a woman had a miscarriage ?

So you think a handful of people holding small placards saying “love both” and “ there’s always a choice” are going to upset a woman who has miscarried but sitting in a waiting room with women who are there for abortion services is not going to be upsetting for them?
Oooookkkaayyy..

splinter65

splinter65 wrote: »

So you think a handful of people holding small placards saying “love both” and “ there’s always a choice” are going to upset a woman who has miscarried but sitting in a waiting room with women who are there for abortion services is not going to be upsetting for them?
Oooookkkaayyy..

Most likely won't be just love both posters, going by what occurred in England and elsewhere as well as the few protests already..

I'd say it would be upsetting for them having lost a baby by miscarriage. But then again your posts show the real compassion most of the pro life side have for people, which is sweet fa.

Bredabe

splinter65 wrote: »

So you think a handful of people holding small placards saying “love both” and “ there’s always a choice” are going to upset a woman who has miscarried but sitting in a waiting room with women who are there for abortion services is not going to be upsetting for them?
Oooookkkaayyy..

Let me tell you from experience, the vast majority of women presenting at a gp's post miscarriage will probably be far too grief stricken or numb to wonder if the perfectly normal women in the waiting area are there for a termination or not.

gctest50

splinter65 wrote: »

.............

going to upset a woman who has miscarried but sitting in a waiting room with women who are there for abortion services

WTF How would they know ?

Is yer doctor a bit like this lad ? :

" Paging the lady here waiting for abortion services - Paging the lady here waiting for abortion services "

end of the road

Odhinn wrote: »

What you believe is irrelevant. She's forced to remain pregnant therefore her control over her own body is undermined. There is no other logical assesment of the situation. She wants an abortion, is refused 'permission' to have one, therefore she no longer has autonomy over her own body.

i believe otherwise, so we will have to agree to disagree. preventing her from killing her unborn child is nothing to do with control over her body or bodily autonomy. i'm satisfied that she has full control over her body and full bodily autonomy.

Odhinn wrote: »

There is no way the states going to allow harassment of patients on an ongoing basis directly outside surgeries or hospitals. There's similar prohibitions in other states, afaik.

the state already prohibited harassment years ago so any new laws it would bring in would be nothing to do with harassment. if people witness harassment then they must report it to the gards. you will note that exclusion zones where they do exist have been a complete failure and are flouted by all and sundry.

gctest50 wrote: »

14,000 women miscarry spontaneously every year in Ireland


Fourteen thousand.

Do you think it is a good idea to do something that would upset a woman had a miscarriage ?

irrelevant to what splinter asked. we can take it the answer is what splinter suggested.

splinter65

Bredabe wrote: »

Let me tell you from experience, the vast majority of women presenting at a gp's post miscarriage will probably be far too grief stricken or numb to wonder if the perfectly normal women in the waiting area are there for a termination or not.

From my own experience, I don’t agree. But then I don’t think I can speak for the “vast majority of women” either so we’re on two different wavelengths.
In the meantime
https://twitter.com/rockprolife/status/1084556497000882176?s=21
I know these violent subversives are terrifying but fear not, the Gardai have taken their names so you all can sleep safely in your beds...

Odhinn

end of the road wrote: »

i believe otherwise, so we will have to agree to disagree. preventing her from killing her unborn child is nothing to do with control over her body or bodily autonomy. i'm satisfied that she has full control over her body and full bodily autonomy.


....................

But she hasn't bodily autonmy because SHE'S BEING PREVENTED FROM TERMINATING THE PREGNANCY.

gctest50

splinter65 wrote: »

From my own experience, I don’t agree. But then I don’t think I can speak for the “vast majority of women” either so we’re on two different wavelengths.
In the meantime
https://twitter.com/rockprolife/status/1084556497000882176?s=21
I know these violent subversives are terrifying but fear not, the Gardai have taken their names so you all can sleep safely in your beds...

They appear to be a bit insane/bit unhinged/whatever , they think there is a child murder factory in Crumlin, Dublin

Gardaí harassed these wonderful women today as they said quiet & peaceful prayers outside a child murder factory in Crumlin, Dublin They were forced to give their names & addresses & were treated as subversives & terrorists

The Gardai should have really taken them in and get them assessed by a few mental health professionals