Abortion Discussion, Part Trois

splinter65

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...

Religious nuts are the ones to be scared of. They see upholding their version of God's law to be above the law of the land.

Bredabe

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...

So when you or your loved one's were waiting for medical care after a mis, they were looking around wondering what the other ppl were there for?
In my vast experience in this area, unlikely unless there is some kind of disassociation or mania involved its NOT the case.

splinter65

gctest50 wrote: »

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





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

That’s how a lot of the women ended up in the Magdalene laundries you know. If you were considered a bit “mad” then the Gardai might bring you to the laundry. For your own protection.
Surprised to see you approving of that.
You haven’t answered my last questions either.

splinter65

Bredabe wrote: »

So when you or your loved one's were waiting for medical care after a mis, they were looking around wondering what the other ppl were there for?
In my vast experience in this area, unlikely unless there is some kind of disassociation or mania involved its NOT the case.

No they weren’t and I wasn’t because that’s before doctors surgeries doubled as abortion clinics.
Unless you lived abroad then it was the same for you.

splinter65

[PHP][/PHP]

splinter65 wrote: »

That’s how a lot of the women ended up in the Magdalene laundries you know. If you were considered a bit “mad” then the Gardai might bring you to the laundry. For your own protection.
Surprised to see you approving of that.
You haven’t answered my last questions either.

Nope you didn't end up in the laundries because of this and your the very person starting that the mother and baby homes were perfectly fine places in the ref threads. You claimed that your aunt was in one, and you'd be happy to have your taxes spent on them if returned.

tretorn

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.

There is no harassment of patients as far as I can see.

The harassment being proposed is that of naming and shaming medical professionals so the twitterazi feminazis can hound them from morning to night.

I can participate in a peaceful protest anytime I like and I dont have to take anyone elses feelings into account. What sort of a snowflake generation are we rearing that grown adults cant cope with a peaceful protest. If you are so sure that abortion is just a mater of taking a few pills why would people standing outside a clinic bother you. There isnt a thing you can do about it just as there wasnt a thing I could do when I saw our Taoiseach and Minister for Health celebrating in a public place about the snuffing out of infant life. The pro side didnt care about the feelings of 700,000 of their fellow country men and women and how much hurt that singing and dancing caused. We are big and bold enough to get over it though, whats sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.

Delirium

tretorn wrote: »

There is no harassment of patients as far as I can see.

The harassment being proposed is that of naming and shaming medical professionals so the twitterazi feminazis can hound them from morning to night.

So when pro-life protest, it's all good but the other side of the fence do it and it's bad?

gctest50

tretorn wrote: »

. We are big and bold enough to get over it though,...............

Doesn't look like it :

tretorn

Protesting is part of a healthy democracy and these people see themselves as the voice of the voiceless foetus.

I felt sick when I saw our Political leaders whooping in Dublin Castle, it was unseemly so I turned the TV off. Over seven hundred thousand people who voted NO and a lot of people who voted YES would probably have been upset too. Nevertheless we recognised some people have little morals but they have the right to come together to celebrate what they felt benefitted society, good luck to them in their hollering. I could have demanded an exclusion area around Dublin Castle and insisted they did their celebrating in some pub or other.

The Gardai should have better things to do than going to a peaceful group of people demanding names. The Gardai know there isnt a thing they can do about peaceful protests in Ireland, we abide by our laws and our Constitution so what they do "in Other States" is irrelevant.

tretorn

tretorn wrote: »

There is no harassment of patients as far as I can see.

The harassment being proposed is that of naming and shaming medical professionals so the twitterazi feminazis can hound them from morning to night.

I can participate in a peaceful protest anytime I like and I dont have to take anyone elses feelings into account. What sort of a snowflake generation are we rearing that grown adults cant cope with a peaceful protest. If you are so sure that abortion is just a mater of taking a few pills why would people standing outside a clinic bother you. There isnt a thing you can do about it just as there wasnt a thing I could do when I saw our Taoiseach and Minister for Health celebrating in a public place about the snuffing out of infant life. The pro side didnt care about the feelings of 700,000 of their fellow country men and women and how much hurt that singing and dancing caused. We are big and bold enough to get over it though, whats sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.

So you agree with protesting against doctors who will provide full medical care for their patients but not against those that won't.
Sort of attitude that turned a lot of the voters against ye, well done on continuing to show the right decision was made by the people.

tretorn

gctest50 wrote: »

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






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

And, no, you cant have people incarcerated just because you dont agree with them protesting.

This isnt China or Saudi.

gctest50

tretorn wrote: »

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

I felt sick when I saw our Political leaders

Felt sick cos ye lost, what sort of a snowflake generation are we rearing that grown adults cant cope

tretorn wrote: »

. What sort of a snowflake generation are we rearing that grown adults cant cope

tretorn

DubInMeath wrote: »

So you agree with protesting against doctors who will provide full medical care for their patients but not against those that won't.
Sort of attitude that turned a lot of the voters against ye, well done on continuing to show the right decision was made by the people.

Abortion isnt medical care by any stretch of the imagination unless its performed to save a womans life. The Doctor has two patients too and not one, he has a duty of care to both. Some Doctors believe this anyway and the State in its Laws has guaranteed no medical professional will be forced to participate in Abortion.

Lets just accept this and be mature about it.

I didnt feel sick that "we lost". I felt sick when I thought about the loss of potential human beings and the fact that our maternity hospitals will effectively be abbatoirs. I understand other people couldnt wait to celebrate, I turned off the TV and Radio and all media so I could avoid the jubilation.

As I said it was unseemly.

Delirium

tretorn wrote: »

Abortion isnt medical care by any stretch of the imagination unless its performed to save a womans life. The Doctor has two patients too and not one, he has a duty of care to both. Some Doctors believe this anyway and the State in its Laws has guaranteed no medical professional will be forced to participate in Abortion.

Lets just accept this and be mature about it.

Then why are protesters outside GPs offices protesting? If medical professionals aren't involved, why protest those locations?

gctest50

tretorn wrote: »

Abortion isnt medical care......

........again with the "clever" wording




Abortion is healthcare

tretorn

Abortion is not health care for the unborn.

It couldnt be further from health care unless the foetus is suicidal.

gctest50

tretorn wrote: »

Abortion is not health care for the unborn.

It couldnt be further from health care unless the foetus is suicidal.

Is abortion*** healthcare for the woman ?




*** = tablets, monitoring, whatever else is needed

tretorn

Abortion isnt health care for anyone unless its done if a womans life is in danger.

Abortion just because you dont want a baby because its an inconvenient time, or the baby has a disability or its the wrong gender or maybe you want a promotion more than the baby is just that, a procedure to get rid of something you dont want.

Its not healthcare but you can call it healthcare if it makes you feel progressive. Health care if its good leads to an good outcome for the person availing of it, there is no good outcome in abortion, what the woman will feel is relief, this isnt health care and the baby wont feel anything at all, ever again.

aloyisious

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

So you are satisfied that any woman seeking an abortion and being denied one by you has full control over her body and full bodily autonomy. Would you also include her freedom to think and decide matters for herself in your definition of her having control of her body and full bodily autonomy or does that only happen when you are satisfied that her choice is what you desire?

aloyisious

tretorn wrote: »

Abortion isnt health care for anyone unless its done if a womans life is in danger.

Abortion just because you dont want a baby because its an inconvenient time, or the baby has a disability or its the wrong gender or maybe you want a promotion more than the baby is just that, a procedure to get rid of something you dont want.

Its not healthcare but you can call it healthcare if it makes you feel progressive. Health care if its good leads to an good outcome for the person availing of it, there is no good outcome in abortion, what the woman will feel is relief, this isnt health care and the baby wont feel anything at all, ever again.

Are you excluding the mental health of the woman from your definition of health care?

Delirium

tretorn wrote: »

Abortion isnt health care for anyone unless its done if a womans life is in danger.

Abortion just because you dont want a baby because its an inconvenient time, or the baby has a disability or its the wrong gender or maybe you want a promotion more than the baby is just that, a procedure to get rid of something you dont want.

Its not healthcare but you can call it healthcare if it makes you feel progressive. Health care if its good leads to an good outcome for the person availing of it, there is no good outcome in abortion, what the woman will feel is relief, this isnt health care and the baby wont feel anything at all, ever again.

Death is quite a high bar to define what is healthcare.

It completely ignores mental health for a start.

In addition, it also means that people can't abort in cases of rape or incest. Or if the pregnant person will be disabled (temporarily or permanently) due to being forced to carry the pregnancy to term.

Just because you disagree with sometimes doesn't mean it doesn't fail within the umbrella of healthcare.

tretorn

tretorn wrote: »

Abortion isnt health care for anyone unless its done if a womans life is in danger.

Abortion just because you dont want a baby because its an inconvenient time, or the baby has a disability or its the wrong gender or maybe you want a promotion more than the baby is just that, a procedure to get rid of something you dont want.

Its not healthcare but you can call it healthcare if it makes you feel progressive. Health care if its good leads to an good outcome for the person availing of it, there is no good outcome in abortion, what the woman will feel is relief, this isnt health care and the baby wont feel anything at all, ever again.

Actually it is healthcare, you can cry and stamp your feet as much as you like but it is healthcare.

end of the road

aloyisious wrote: »

So you are satisfied that any woman seeking an abortion and being denied one by you has full control over her body and full bodily autonomy.

yes that is correct.

aloyisious wrote: »

Would you also include her freedom to think and decide matters for herself in your definition of her having control of her body and full bodily autonomy or does that only happen when you are satisfied that her choice is what you desire?

i would include her freedom to think and decide matters for herself in my definition of her having control of her body and full bodily autonomy yes . she's just not allowed to decide to kill her unborn child for social, economic or lifestyle and other ultimately trivial reasons.

gctest50

tretorn wrote: »

Abortion isnt health care for anyone unless its done if a womans life is in danger.


Abortion just because you dont want a baby because its an inconvenient time, or the baby has a disability or its the wrong gender or maybe you want a promotion more than the baby is just that, a procedure to get rid of something you dont want.

........

2:

Suppose someone is heading off to a science base in Antarctica

They decide to get their appendix removed ( just in case it decides to get inflamed)

Is that health care ?

King Mob

splinter65 wrote: »

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

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..

So again, because none of you guys answered the very direct question:
Why would the doctors be unwilling to name themselves as refusing to offer abortion services?

By arguing that they should be allowed to remain anonymous, you are offering them protection from protests and interfering with people's rights to protest these people.

King Mob

tretorn wrote: »

There is no harassment of patients as far as I can see.

The harassment being proposed is that of naming and shaming medical professionals so the twitterazi feminazis can hound them from morning to night.

Evidence of this harassment?

You are very quick to announce that your side never harass people, so can we just do the same?

Is this your reason why doctors would be unwilling to name themselves?

Also, "feminazis".
Lol
:rolleyes:

nozzferrahhtoo

I will reply to this on the off chance you are not dodging and ignoring ALL my posts, just a select few (namely the most recent 2).

tretorn wrote: »

I didnt feel sick that "we lost". I felt sick when I thought about the loss of potential human beings

There is billions of us, reproducing all the time. There is no loss of potential human beings here. There are potential human beings being realized all the time.

What abortion does is allows a society where potential human beings being turned into actual human beings is done at the right time, by people who want to be pregnant and want to become parents, at a time when they feel ready and able to do so.

The world is full of ACTUAL human beings, some of them living in poverty and misery. And some of that poverty and misery being caused or exacerbated by unwanted pregnancies too as it happens.

So pocket the feux, unwarranted and useless concern for "potential" human beings, and let us work on the well being, freedoms, and free choices of ACTUAL human beings.

gctest50

This is what they've had to do elsewhere

ORDER
ANTI-SOCIAL BEHAVIOUR, CRIME AND POLICING ACT 2014, SECTION 59

PUBLIC SPACES PROTECTION ORDER

This order is made by the London Borough of Ealing (the ‘Council’) and shall be known as the Public Spaces Protection Order (Address) 2018.

PRELIMINARY

1. The Council, in making this Order is satisfied on reasonable grounds that:
The activities identified below have been carried out in public places within the Council’s area and have had a detrimental effect on the quality of life of those in the locality, and that: the effect, or likely effect, of the activities:
is, or is likely to be, of a persistent or continuing nature, is, or is likely to be, such as to make the activities unreasonable, and justifies the restrictions imposed by the notice.

2. The Council is satisfied that the prohibitions imposed by this Order are reasonable to impose in order to prevent the detrimental effect of these activities from continuing, occurring or recurring, or to reduce that detrimental effect or to reduce the risk of its continuance, occurrence or recurrence.

3. The Council has had regard to the rights and freedoms set out in the European Convention on Human Rights. The Council has had particular regard to the rights and freedoms set out in Article 10 (right of freedom of expression) and Article 11 (right of freedom of assembly) of the European Convention on Human Rights and has concluded that the restrictions on such rights and freedoms imposed by this Order are lawful, necessary and proportionate.

THE ACTIVITIES
4. The Activities prohibited by the Order are:

i Protesting, namely engaging in any act of approval/disapproval or attempted act of approval/disapproval, with respect to issues related to abortion services, by any means.
This includes but is not limited to graphic, verbal or written means, prayer or counselling,

ii Interfering, or attempting to interfere, whether verbally or physically, with a service user or member of staff,

iii Intimidating or harassing, or attempting to intimidate or harass, a service user or a member of staff,

iv Recording or photographing a service user or member of staff of the Clinic whilst they are in the Safe Zone,

v Displaying any text or images relating directly or indirectly to the termination of pregnancy, or

vi Playing or using amplified music, voice or audio recordings.

hooks to :

59Power to make orders

(1)A local authority may make a public spaces protection order if satisfied on reasonable grounds that two conditions are met.

(2)The first condition is that—

(a)activities carried on in a public place within the authority’s area have had a detrimental effect on the quality of life of those in the locality, or

(b)it is likely that activities will be carried on in a public place within that area and that they will have such an effect.

(3)The second condition is that the effect, or likely effect, of the activities—

(a)is, or is likely to be, of a persistent or continuing nature,

(b)is, or is likely to be, such as to make the activities unreasonable, and

(c)justifies the restrictions imposed by the notice.

(4)A public spaces protection order is an order that identifies the public place referred to in subsection (2) (“the restricted area”) and—

(a)prohibits specified things being done in the restricted area,

(b)requires specified things to be done by persons carrying on specified activities in that area, or

(c)does both of those things.

(5)The only prohibitions or requirements that may be imposed are ones that are reasonable to impose in order—

(a)to prevent the detrimental effect referred to in subsection (2) from continuing, occurring or recurring, or

(b)to reduce that detrimental effect or to reduce the risk of its continuance, occurrence or recurrence.

(6)A prohibition or requirement may be framed—

(a)so as to apply to all persons, or only to persons in specified categories, or to all persons except those in specified categories;

(b)so as to apply at all times, or only at specified times, or at all times except those specified;

(c)so as to apply in all circumstances, or only in specified circumstances, or in all circumstances except those specified.

(7)A public spaces protection order must—

(a)identify the activities referred to in subsection (2);

(b)explain the effect of section 63 (where it applies) and section 67;

(c)specify the period for which the order has effect.

(8)A public spaces protection order must be published in accordance with regulations made by the Secretary of State.
60Duration of orders

(1)A public spaces protection order may not have effect for a period of more than 3 years, unless extended under this section.

(2)Before the time when a public spaces protection order is due to expire, the local authority that made the order may extend the period for which it has effect if satisfied on reasonable grounds that doing so is necessary to prevent—

(a)occurrence or recurrence after that time of the activities identified in the order, or

(b)an increase in the frequency or seriousness of those activities after that time.

(3)An extension under this section—

(a)may not be for a period of more than 3 years;

(b)must be published in accordance with regulations made by the Secretary of State.

(4)A public spaces protection order may be extended under this section more than once.
61Variation and discharge of orders

(1)Where a public spaces protection order is in force, the local authority that made the order may vary it—

(a)by increasing or reducing the restricted area;

(b)by altering or removing a prohibition or requirement included in the order, or adding a new one.

(2)A local authority may make a variation under subsection (1)(a) that results in the order applying to an area to which it did not previously apply only if the conditions in section 59(2) and (3) are met as regards activities in that area.

(3)A local authority may make a variation under subsection (1)(b) that makes a prohibition or requirement more extensive, or adds a new one, only if the prohibitions and requirements imposed by the order as varied are ones that section 59(5) allows to be imposed.

(4)A public spaces protection order may be discharged by the local authority that made it.

(5)Where an order is varied, the order as varied must be published in accordance with regulations made by the Secretary of State.

(6)Where an order is discharged, a notice identifying the order and stating the date when it ceases to have effect must be published in accordance with regulations made by the Secretary of State.

Odhinn

end of the road wrote: »

yes that is correct.



i would include her freedom to think and decide matters for herself in my definition of her having control of her body and full bodily autonomy yes . she's just not allowed to decide to kill her unborn child for social, economic or lifestyle and other ultimately trivial reasons.

If shes prevented from having an abortion then SHE DOES NOT HAVE FULL BODILY AUTONOMY.

aloyisious

end of the road wrote: »

yes that is correct.



i would include her freedom to think and decide matters for herself in my definition of her having control of her body and full bodily autonomy yes . she's just not allowed to decide to kill her unborn child for social, economic or lifestyle and other ultimately trivial reasons.

On the basis of your replies, and thinking things through, I assume that the Pro-life protestors also mentioned in this thread accept that a pregnant woman who has full control of her body and full bodily autonomy also has full freedom to think and decide matters for herself within that control and autonomy, and that is why they would try to change her mind if she had not the same position on abortion to them..

The protestors have the same autonomy rights and the same right to think things through for themselves as the pregnant woman before they decided what position it is they hold on abortion. Even here in this debate, we give each other autonomy rights extra to those outlined in the site rules and conduct-regulations. We don't rule by dictat.

Your position is clearly different to that of the protestors in that you would not allow the woman have a right to choose within the freedom to think and decide and the full bodily autonomy you ascribe to her when it comes to abortion unless you permit it. That is limited freedom by dictat from you.