Abortion Discussion, Part Trois

Hotblack Desiato

An_Toirpin wrote: »

Ain't no opression like anti religion opression.

An_Toirpin wrote: »

Exactly. I'm fine with the way things are in Ireland.

Well of course you are, your church gets to control over 90% of primary schools and pays not a cent for the privilege.

There's no reason for any state funded public service to be delivered with a side dish of religion. But your reality is so skewed that you see the ending of the unjustified privileges of a church as somehow 'oppressing' it.

Anyway I see you and your sockpuppet accounts are now permanently banned, so goodnight...

pauldla

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

.....

Anyway I see you and your sockpuppet accounts are now permanently banned, so goodnight...

Reading the exchange over on the Prison forum is amusing...

Bredabe

Not about abortion as such, but yesterday I was behind a young woman in the uni pharmacy,
she handed over a script from campus Dr which was rung up as emergency contraception, paid less than 8e an walked out without any judgement or expectation of judgement.

OK I know I dont know the circumstances of the need, but it lightened my heart to know that affordable, non judgemental EC was available when it was needed.

splinter65

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Well of course you are, your church gets to control over 90% of primary schools and pays not a cent for the privilege.

There's no reason for any state funded public service to be delivered with a side dish of religion. But your reality is so skewed that you see the ending of the unjustified privileges of a church as somehow 'oppressing' it.

Anyway I see you and your sockpuppet accounts are now permanently banned, so goodnight...

But if the RCC own the primary schools then how would you expect them to pay for the “privilege” of teaching in them? That’s ludicrous. I can’t understand why you don’t lobby your TD to buy the schools from the church and then run them exactly as the parents of the children want them run.

ohnonotgmail

splinter65 wrote: »

But if the RCC own the primary schools then how would you expect them to pay for the “privilege” of teaching in them? That’s ludicrous. I can’t understand why you don’t lobby your TD to buy the schools from the church and then run them exactly as the parents of the children want them run.

Much cheaper to make the removal of religion from school a condition of funding.

splinter65

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

Much cheaper to make the removal of religion from school a condition of funding.

So if the RCC refuse to remove religion and funding is withdrawn, what happens then?

ohnonotgmail

splinter65 wrote: »

So if the RCC refuse to remove religion and funding is withdrawn, what happens then?

No idea. I dont have all the answers.

splinter65

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

No idea. I dont have all the answers.

Sounds like a good idea though. Would give the parents a chance to tell the Dept of Education what they’d really like.

aloyisious

splinter65 wrote: »

But if the RCC own the primary schools then how would you expect them to pay for the “privilege” of teaching in them? That’s ludicrous. I can’t understand why you don’t lobby your TD to buy the schools from the church and then run them exactly as the parents of the children want them run.

Now that might be an ecumenical question, as not all the primary school pupils would be RCC.

Hotblack Desiato

splinter65 wrote: »

But if the RCC own the primary schools then how would you expect them to pay for the “privilege” of teaching in them? That’s ludicrous.

No, what's ludicrous is a church claiming ownership and control of schools it didn't pay for (built by local subscriptions and the state) while sticking the state with all the running costs and salaries.

I can’t understand why you don’t lobby your TD to buy the schools from the church and then run them exactly as the parents of the children want them run.

We have various religious organisations being paid by the state to deliver services to the public.
All of them should be prevented from discriminating on the basis of religion, and using the state-funded service as a means to indoctrinate.
If they want to discriminate, they can always refuse state money.

aloyisious

I saw a New York Times report on MSN on the net today and gave it a read. I didn't bother trying to download it and got the original item direct from the NYT official page. According to it, the anti-abortion premises [next door to the Reproductive Choices clinic] on Berkeley Rd, Dublin, is run by Eamonn Murphy. The NYT story gives some details as to how the anti-abortion premises runs it's advice affairs. According to the NYT story, Mr Murphy described the result of the referendum on the 8th amendment as being like a crucifixion and a resurrection to him.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/28/world/europe/ireland-abortion.html

aloyisious

aloyisious wrote: »

I saw a New York Times report on MSN on the net today and gave it a read. I didn't bother trying to download it and got the original item direct from the NYT official page. According to it, the anti-abortion premises [next door to the Reproductive Choices clinic] on Berkeley Rd, Dublin, is run by Eamonn Murphy. The NYT story gives some details as to how the anti-abortion premises runs it's advice affairs. According to the NYT story, Mr Murphy described the result of the referendum on the 8th amendment as being like a crucifixion and a resurrection to him.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/28/world/europe/ireland-abortion.html

You have to wonder where the money is coming from for that set up.
Not a new thing as they existed before the referendum.

aloyisious

Just saying is all, there's a report on MSN concerning Minister Harris ordering the HSE to investigate claims of an improper contact made with a woman who had a recent abortion here.

I would advise against debating the allegations or details contained in the report here due to some rather peculiar sections of the report. Putting it simply I think the report may be a red herring planted solely to try & entice people to put two and two together, come up with the wrong summation, and post names/identities publicly.

A purpose might be to gain legal grounds to sue people who agree with and/or assent to the new law on abortion here and it would be advisable not to debate the report's contents themselves here or anywhere publicly.

eviltwin

aloyisious wrote: »

Just saying is all, there's a report on MSN concerning Minister Harris ordering the HSE to investigate claims of an improper contact made with a woman who had a recent abortion here.

I would advise against debating the allegations or details contained in the report here due to some rather peculiar sections of the report. Putting it simply I think the report may be a red herring planted solely to try & entice people to put two and two together, come up with the wrong summation, and post names/identities publicly.

A purpose might be to gain legal grounds to sue people who agree with and/or assent to the new law on abortion here and it would be advisable not to debate the report's contents themselves here or anywhere publicly.

I believe it's true. The allegations first appeared on a private facebook group. The woman is a member of the group. Fwiw she's not the first person to make such allegations about that particular "service ". There was more detail posted in the group than is appearing in the media so I've no doubt it's genuine

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5

Lot more details about the scumbag in question over on reddit Ireland. Nothing's been posted (phone number, business name etc) that he hasn't himself made public in his attempt to deceive and abuse vulnerable women, which has led the reddit moderators to make the call to leave it up. I appreciate that boards are more skittish about things like that by a large margin, so for the sake of keeping the thread open perhaps fb and reddit are better platforms for discussing this.

One thing I will say is that an internal review by the HSE is a joke of a response. This woman had already had an abortion, what precisely was he intending to do if he got her in the building?

aloyisious

eviltwin wrote: »

I believe it's true. The allegations first appeared on a private facebook group. The woman is a member of the group. Fwiw she's not the first person to make such allegations about that particular "service ". There was more detail posted in the group than is appearing in the media so I've no doubt it's genuine

Ta for that, I hadn't known that she was in the F/B group.

aloyisious

Braelyn Sweet Eyelid wrote: »

Lot more details about the scumbag in question over on reddit Ireland. Nothing's been posted (phone number, business name etc) that he hasn't himself made public in his attempt to deceive and abuse vulnerable women, which has led the reddit moderators to make the call to leave it up. I appreciate that boards are more skittish about things like that by a large margin, so for the sake of keeping the thread open perhaps fb and reddit are better platforms for discussing this.

One thing I will say is that an internal review by the HSE is a joke of a response. This woman had already had an abortion, what precisely was he intending to do if he got her in the building?

Mind***k her with rubbish.

robindch

Braelyn Sweet Eyelid wrote: »

I appreciate that boards are more skittish about things like that by a large margin, so for the sake of keeping the thread open perhaps fb and reddit are better platforms for discussing this.

Probably a good idea - boards.ie has been sued in the past for the postings of some of its members and - until the allegations have been substantiated in some fashion, or ideally, until a court case has found one way or the other, it may well be a good idea to avoid discussion here.

The Journal has some basic details about one alleged chain of events:

https://www.thejournal.ie/alleged-leak-patient-details-abortion-4469519-Jan2019/

Igotadose

Braelyn Sweet Eyelid wrote: »

One thing I will say is that an internal review by the HSE is a joke of a response. This woman had already had an abortion, what precisely was he intending to do if he got her in the building?

HSE won't do a thing. It's hierarchy is full of RCC lackeys and they'll protect whoever the leaker was. Iff the cretin that harassed this woman faces a huge fine and maybe some jail time we might learn the name but not from the HSE

ohnonotgmail

The ship has sailed on posting details of the case. they are all in the thread in AH.

Hotblack Desiato

Braelyn Sweet Eyelid wrote: »

This woman had already had an abortion, what precisely was he intending to do if he got her in the building?

'Slut' shaming, what else?

Hotblack Desiato

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

The ship has sailed on posting details of the case. they are all in the thread in AH.

Exactly and the phone number in question is associated with extreme anti-choice f**kology on major internet search engines already.

The gobber didn't even know how to alias or hide his number.

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

'Slut' shaming, what else?

My mind went to a couple of alternative scenarios tbh, given what's happened in other countries, though you're hopefully, probably right.

charlotte.york

Shocking how RTE is misreporting the case and and lying about the health risks of abortion

ohnonotgmail

charlotte.york wrote: »

Shocking how RTE is misreporting the case and and lying about the health risks of abortion

how have they misreported the case?

charlotte.york

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

how have they misreported the case?

On RTE1 their correspondent lied about bout the health risks of abortion. It is pretty shocking how dangerous they see ultra sound is. If a unborn child is just a clot of cells I can't see the problem of ultra sound. I love looking at images of diseases in a medical context.

ohnonotgmail

charlotte.york wrote: »

On RTE1 their correspondent lied about bout the health risks of abortion. It is pretty shocking how dangerous they see ultra sound is. If a unborn child is just a clot of cells I can't see the problem of ultra sound. I love looking at images of diseases in a medical context.

the case is about a womans personal details being share with an anti-choice group.

aloyisious

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

the case is about a womans personal details being share with an anti-choice group.

Which is apparently being lead by a person with what might be described as strange thoughts with his mention of crucifixion and resurrection in a personal reference style. AFAIS hiding his identity is far from his intent. Psychiatric evaluation of his mindset anyone?

Hotblack Desiato

charlotte.york wrote: »

On RTE1 their correspondent lied about bout the health risks of abortion. It is pretty shocking how dangerous they see ultra sound is. If a unborn child is just a clot of cells I can't see the problem of ultra sound. I love looking at images of diseases in a medical context.

What on earth are you shyting on about?

charlotte.york

charlotte.york wrote: »

Shocking how RTE is misreporting the case and and lying about the health risks of abortion

Care to elaborate?

Maybe someone should have warned me about the dangers of walking?