The 8th amendment(Mod warning in op)

.......

This post has been deleted.

Akrasia

SafeSurfer wrote: »

Your arguments are so persuasive. You are surely winning over voters to the pro choosing abortion position.

Can I use the same argument the next time a christian tells me that murder should be illegal?

You say the "baby" is not harmed. Having your brains sucked out with a vacuum could be considered "harmed". But by all means defend your position by any means necessary. I am sure there are some straws that have yet to be grasped.

This isn't the main reason I support a womans right to choose, it is more of an aside regarding the inconsistency of the christian position against abortion.

SafeSurfer

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

I basically want you to list the things YOU just said exist. Because aside from calling them "foolproof" you are entirely unclear on what you are talking about at all.

You do know there is a difference between chastity and abstinence? But of course you use the term chastity as a quasi religious insult to a method of avoiding pregnancy.
If pregnancy could kill me I would be on the pill after both myself and my partner were sterilised, use condoms, spermicide and the withdrawal method and probably drastically reduce the frequency of sex to birthdays and anniversaries.
But of course thats not the solution. Abortion is the solution. Abortion is always the solution and we wont be a free and functioning society until anyone can get a free abortion whenever they want for whatever reason they want.

xckjoo

SafeSurfer wrote: »

There are completely foolproof ways to avoid becoming pregnant.

Anal?

.......

This post has been deleted.

SafeSurfer

Akrasia wrote: »

This isn't the main reason I support a womans right to choose, it is more of an aside regarding the inconsistency of the christian position against abortion.

What inconsistency? You are using the terms christian and catholic interchangeably which is misleading. The catholic church doesn't object to a woman's right to choose to abort her baby for fun. It is because they believe that human life must be respected and protected absolutely from the moment of conception.

rainbow kirby

SafeSurfer wrote: »

You do know there is a difference between chastity and abstinence? But of course you use the term chastity as a quasi religious insult to a method of avoiding pregnancy.
If pregnancy could kill me I would be on the pill after both myself and my partner were sterilised, use condoms, spermicide and the withdrawal method and probably drastically reduce the frequency of sex to birthdays and anniversaries.
But of course thats not the solution. Abortion is the solution. Abortion is always the solution and we wont be a free and functioning society until anyone can get a free abortion whenever they want for whatever reason they want.

If you're a hardcore enough RC, "chastity" for married couples involves making babies, not avoiding them :pac:

The concept of abstinence in a healthy, happy marriage or long term relationship is completely unrealistic and if you think it is then you're on another planet.

SafeSurfer

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

If pregnancy is going to kill you I am sure you could get whatever treatment you want to avoid it. If I have ovarian cancer my ovaries will be removed. Continue along this cul de sac if you wish but it is not an argument for abortion.

SafeSurfer

rainbow kirby wrote: »

If you're a hardcore enough RC, "chastity" for married couples involves making babies, not avoiding them :pac:

The concept of abstinence in a healthy, happy marriage or long term relationship is completely unrealistic and if you think it is then you're on another planet.

Are you serious? Do you think there are zero happy, fulfilled, contented relationships that are non sexual?

It used to be the church that were obsessed with sex, now it is their opponents.

GritBiscuit

SafeSurfer wrote: »

Are you serious? Do you think there are zero happy, fulfilled, contented relationships that are non sexual?

Are you serious? How many of those non-sexual relationships are reliant on contraception and thus relevant to this discussion?

nozzferrahhtoo

SafeSurfer wrote: »

You do know there is a difference between chastity and abstinence?

There is but none relevant here. The point I was making was clear. Short of sterilisations or simply never having sex, there is no guaranteed method to engage in sex and prevent pregnancy. That is a point you can either address directly, or dodge by instead moaning about the word I used while making it instead.

None of the things you DO list however are guaranteed. Condoms. Reducing the amount of sex. None of it. They all occasionally result in pregnancy.

SafeSurfer wrote: »

But of course thats not the solution. Abortion is the solution. Abortion is always the solution

It is not a solution and certainly not "always" a solution. It is an OPTION. An option that can and should be available when all the NOT GURANTEED preventitive measures you listed fail.

You can moan all you like about what fools you think people must be to get pregnant, but the fact is they do. So rather than lord the causes over them from an imaginary pedastal of moral superiority..... you could engage with the reasoning as to why abortion should not THEN be an option for them.

Tigger

ok ive heard enough on whatvpeople think should be available
i have my own opinionnbut i dont think anyone here is gonna have an epiphany so i have a secondary question
lets assume that abortion is now available, and lets assume that the 3,500 irish women having abortions will continue but now in Ireland
should it be in private or public care, if private then are we goning to have clinics popping up in all the large regional centers.
if public where will the extra capacity come from? the waiting list would in my opinion have to be very short for obvious reasons. will we have people on the media telling us that a 8 week waiting list for abortions is unacceptable. should it be a free procedure ? means tested ?

if it is free and public are doctors and nurses really going to want to work in tgat field? can they opt out. im pro choice with reservations but if i worked hard to be a doctor or a nurse and got offered an abortion job id decline mainly because i just dont think id get job satisfaction.

nozzferrahhtoo

Tigger wrote: »

should it be in private or public care

To be honest I do not know. I also have not fully thought out how it should be financed. Some people want it to be free. Which in some ways would be nice, especially given many people seek abortion BECAUSE they are in financially bad situations.

But on the other hand I see the argument that abortion is, in the cases you are talking about, an entirely ELECTIVE procedure. So there are arguments that come with that too.

The only thing I can really answer your question with therefore is another question. Why the "or"? Are there not already many medical things in Ireland that are done in BOTH? Why would it need to be one or the other?

Tigger

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

To be honest I do not know. I also have not fully thought out how it should be financed. Some people want it to be free. Which in some ways would be nice, especially given many people seek abortion BECAUSE they are in financially bad situations.

But on the other hand I see the argument that abortion is, in the cases you are talking about, an entirely ELECTIVE procedure. So there are arguments that come with that too.

The only thing I can really answer your question with therefore is another question. Why the "or"? Are there not already many medical things in Ireland that are done in BOTH? Why would it need to be one or the other?

the two toer health system ? it will of course be in private if its innpublic so i suppose i should have said should it be private only or should it also be also public .

SafeSurfer

GritBiscuit wrote: »

Are you serious? How many of those non-sexual relationships are reliant on contraception and thus relevant to this discussion?

Non sexual relationships, by there nature are not dependent on contraception. They are relevant to the discussion because a poster said;


"The concept of abstinence in a healthy, happy marriage or long term relationship is completely unrealistic and if you think it is then you're on another planet".

gctest50

SafeSurfer wrote: »

Are you serious? Do you think there are zero happy, fulfilled, contented relationships that are non sexual?

It used to be the church that were obsessed with sex, now it is their opponents.

Would you like if these "happy, fulfilled, contented relationships that are non sexual" were more common ?

SafeSurfer

gctest50 wrote: »

Would you like if these "happy, fulfilled, contented relationships that are non sexual" were more common ?

It makes no difference to me, but I understand your implication, that because I am not in favour of abortion I must be a knuckle dragging, veil wearing catholic who only approves of sex on the first full moon of every second month.

seamus

Tigger wrote: »

the two toer health system ? it will of course be in private if its innpublic so i suppose i should have said should it be private only or should it also be also public .

Your issue then is that abortion becomes available only to the privileged, and women who cannot afford the procedure may be forced by economic hardship to carry the child to term.

This is a double-whammy; not only will she have to carry the child to term, but then she will have the economic burden of caring for that child. In the case where a woman is seeking an abortion due to a FFA or a serious genetic condition, the costs may be enormous and far beyond what she will ever be able to handle. Both she and her child are doomed to a poverty which they cannot escape from.

Ultimately if abortion is private-only, or an expensive procedure, then nothing has improved. The situation right now is that you can get an abortion, if you have the money. All you would be doing is making that slightly easier for wealthy people.

There is a strong economic and humanitarian argument for providing abortions for free to women who do not have the means to pay for one. In effect, these are the women who may need one the most.
So by denying them access to the service, not only will they personally be under a tougher economic burden than wealthier women, there will be a higher social cost too, as the state and the woman's community will have to bear the economic and social burden of the child.

Of course, publically-funded abortions should not exist in isolation. Data from other countries indicates that where publically-funded abortions are available, abortion rates are higher than where they're strictly paid for. Duh.

But if contraception is completely free and sex education is universal, then abortion rates drop below the rates in areas where abortion is free and contraception is not. Unsurprisingly, women choose contraception above abortions where that choice exists.

So realistically, instead of just "free abortions for everyone!", contraception should be freely available to all men and women under 25 (or even 30?), and to medical card holders above that. Then combined with a sensible approach to providing abortions for free where the economic need is genuine; such as under-18s, students and those on low incomes.

It's a complicated topic.

There's not really a huge issue with waiting lists and such. Maternity hospitals are busy, but don't have the luxury of waiting lists, so they manage their patient care differently. Abortions would be handled by maternity outpatient clinics.

gctest50

SafeSurfer wrote: »

But of course you use the term chastity as a quasi religious insult to a method of avoiding pregnancy...........

SafeSurfer wrote: »

It makes no
difference to me, but I understand your implication, that because I am not in favour of abortion I must be a knuckle dragging, veil wearing catholic who only approves of sex on the first full moon of every second month.

What's with the sense of persecution ?


Would you like if these "happy, fulfilled, contented relationships that are non sexual" were more common ?

SafeSurfer

gctest50 wrote: »

What's with the sense of persecution ?


Would you like if these "happy, fulfilled, contented relationships that are non sexual" were more common ?

I really don't understand your obsession with asking me again my position. I have already said it makes no difference to me.

My point is that in a happy, fulfilled, contented relationship if pregnancy could cause the death of one partner I would feel it unreasonable for the other partner to demand sex if there was a risk, no matter how small, as previous posters have mentioned, of death.

Do you think is reasonable for a man to demand sex if a pregnancy would result in his partner's death?

GritBiscuit

SafeSurfer wrote: »

Non sexual relationships, by there nature are not dependent on contraception. They are relevant to the discussion because a poster said;


"The concept of abstinence in a healthy, happy marriage or long term relationship is completely unrealistic and if you think it is then you're on another planet".

And on a discussion about repealing the 8th - do you think that was possibly in reference to the realistic prospect of those who currently hope their contraception doesn't fail switching to abstinence? Talk about being deliberately obtuse. :rolleyes:

WinnyThePoo

SafeSurfer wrote: »

I really don't understand your obsession with asking me again my position. I have already said it makes no difference to me.

My point is that in a happy, fulfilled, contented relationship if pregnancy could cause the death of one partner I would feel it unreasonable for the other partner to demand sex if there was a risk, no matter how small, as previous posters have mentioned, of death.

Do you think is reasonable for a man to demand sex if a pregnancy would result in his partner's death?

What about the women's decision?.

gctest50

SafeSurfer wrote: »

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

My point is that in a happy, fulfilled, contented relationship if pregnancy could cause the death of one partner I would feel it unreasonable for the other partner to demand sex if there was a risk, no matter how small, as previous posters have mentioned, of death.
.......

Whatever about your demand this and demand that :


How about if the woman in the above just wants sex ?

NuMarvel

Tigger wrote: »

ok ive heard enough on whatvpeople think should be available
i have my own opinionnbut i dont think anyone here is gonna have an epiphany so i have a secondary question
lets assume that abortion is now available, and lets assume that the 3,500 irish women having abortions will continue but now in Ireland
should it be in private or public care, if private then are we goning to have clinics popping up in all the large regional centers.
if public where will the extra capacity come from? the waiting list would in my opinion have to be very short for obvious reasons. will we have people on the media telling us that a 8 week waiting list for abortions is unacceptable. should it be a free procedure ? means tested ?

if it is free and public are doctors and nurses really going to want to work in tgat field? can they opt out. im pro choice with reservations but if i worked hard to be a doctor or a nurse and got offered an abortion job id decline mainly because i just dont think id get job satisfaction.

I think it should be accessible in public hospitals like any other type of care. I don't think there's anything to be gained in the long run by treating women who access abortion as being somehow less entitled to clinical services and the same treatment as anyone else.

In terms of resources, most abortions are medical abortions, meaning taking a pill and at most two visits to a clinic. They don't require overnight accommodation or take up a hospital bed. And at least some of those 3500 women will already be availing of maternity care in Ireland so allowing access to abortion won't radically increase staffing numbers, it'll mainly change the nature of the services they're availing of.

As for costs, the public hospital system is effectively free anyway. Public hospital stays are capped at €75 per day up to a maximum of 10 days per year, with maternity hospital stays are completely free. Out-patient clinic visits are also completely free and that's the environment that most abortions will likely take place in.

pjohnson

WinnyThePoo wrote: »

What about the women's decision?.

Women dont get a decision obviously.

lawred2

backspin. wrote: »

Repeal the 8th types seem to be the same people who spout nonsense about the 'patriarchy', 'white privilege' etc. Its hard to support those people.

I'm embarrassed for you really. This goes a long way beyond a personality contest.

lawred2

SafeSurfer wrote: »

I really don't understand your obsession with asking me again my position. I have already said it makes no difference to me.

My point is that in a happy, fulfilled, contented relationship if pregnancy could cause the death of one partner I would feel it unreasonable for the other partner to demand sex if there was a risk, no matter how small, as previous posters have mentioned, of death.

Do you think is reasonable for a man to demand sex if a pregnancy would result in his partner's death?

Some serious contorting going on to make some sort of a point.

What relevance does this have to anything?

GritBiscuit

Tigger wrote: »

if it is free and public are doctors and nurses really going to want to work in tgat field? can they opt out. im pro choice with reservations but if i worked hard to be a doctor or a nurse and got offered an abortion job id decline mainly because i just dont think id get job satisfaction.

Do medical staff currently have the option to opt out of liver transplants for ex-alcoholics if they are tee-teetotalers? What about AIDS treatments for gay patients if they are homophobic? No treatment for black patients if they are racist, perhaps?

Medical staff are either professional and leave their personal beliefs at the door and get on with treating their patients or they find another career, imo.

SafeSurfer

WinnyThePoo wrote: »

SafeSurfer wrote: »

I really don't understand your obsession with asking me again my position. I have already said it makes no difference to me.

My point is that in a happy, fulfilled, contented relationship if pregnancy could cause the death of one partner I would feel it unreasonable for the other partner to demand sex if there was a risk, no matter how small, as previous posters have mentioned, of death.

Do you think is reasonable for a man to demand sex if a pregnancy would result in his partner's death?

What about the women's decision?.

Absolutely. However if I have cirrhosis of the liver and alcohol will kill me and my partner invites me to share a bottle of wine I know what my decision would be.
People decide to continue drinking knowing it will kill them. If a woman who knew in advance that pregnancy would kill her becomes pregnant that is her choice. However one can't argue that it is unavoidable.

SafeSurfer

lawred2 wrote: »

SafeSurfer wrote: »

I really don't understand your obsession with asking me again my position. I have already said it makes no difference to me.

My point is that in a happy, fulfilled, contented relationship if pregnancy could cause the death of one partner I would feel it unreasonable for the other partner to demand sex if there was a risk, no matter how small, as previous posters have mentioned, of death.

Do you think is reasonable for a man to demand sex if a pregnancy would result in his partner's death?

Some serious contorting going on to make some sort of a point.

What relevance does this have to anything?

The case of a woman who would die if she became pregnant as an argument in favour of abortion. Is it an argument in favour of abortion or an argument in favour of not becoming pregnant.

Outlaw Pete

Tigger wrote: »

....if i worked hard to be a doctor or a nurse and got offered an abortion job id decline mainly because i just dont think id get job satisfaction.

You wouldn't be alone. However, NHS staff in the UK with conscientious objection have said that they have been harassed, bullied and passed over when it comes to promotion and so it would undoubtedly affect your career.

A largely ignored story from last year (which only the DM and Express reported on):

Doctors who won't carry out abortions 'are not promoted': Staff say they face a glass ceiling if they object to the procedure

Doctors who refuse to take part in abortions are suffering increasingly from harassment and discrimination at work, the British Medical Association has told MPs.

Healthcare professionals are complaining to the union that they faced a glass ceiling and were denied promotion if they objected to abortions, a report reveals today.

The parliamentary inquiry also found that staff were under 'widespread and increasing pressure' to participate in abortions.

The BMA highlighted the problem in written evidence submitted to MPs into the working of the conscience clause of the 1967 Abortion Act.

The clause states that 'no person shall be under any duty, whether by contract or by any statutory or other legal requirement, to participate in any treatment authorised by this Act to which he has a conscientious objection'.

But the inquiry, by the All-Party Parliamentary Pro-Life Group, warned that this conscience clause was not being upheld.

Their report concluded: 'There is widespread and increasing pressure on healthcare professionals to participate in abortions.

'The APPG holds that this is, in large part, due to inadequate observance of the current legislation, even in some instances involving a disregard of the Conscience Clause.'

The inquiry also found that promotions were being denied, and access to specialities such as obstetrics and gynaecology were made practically impossible for medical staff with objections to abortion.

The Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, which refused to give evidence to the inquiry, was severely criticised for a policy which explicitly discriminates against the advancement of students with such objections.

The BMA said in its submitted evidence: 'Some doctors have complained of being harassed and discriminated against because of their conscientious objection to abortion.'

MP Fiona Bruce, the chairman of the group, said action must be taken to protect such healthcare professionals.

She said: 'This report reveals concerning evidence of doctors and other healthcare professionals being harassed, abused, and denied career choices, as a result of seeking to exercise their legal right to conscientiously object to being involved in the abortion process.'

Similar problems in Italy:

Seven in 10 Italian gynaecologists refuse to carry out abortions

Seven in 10 Italian gynaecologists refuse to carry out abortions on the grounds of conscientious objection, according to official government figures.

Data collected by the Italian Department of Health shows that the proportion of gynaecologists who conscientiously object to the procedure is in excess of 90% in some regions. It is highest in the southern regions of Molise (93.3%) and Basilicata (90.2%), where the proportion of objecting doctors more than doubled in the seven years to 2013.

An Ipsos poll carried out earlier this year in Italy, Belgium, Poland, Sweden, Hungary, France, Germany, Britain and Spain found that Italians were more likely than all other countries surveyed, with the exception of Poland, to believe that abortion should never be permitted or should only be allowed when the mother’s life is in danger.

Some 15% of Italians agree with these statements compared to just 1% in Sweden, 3% in France, 5% in the UK and 6% in Germany. Nonetheless, some doctors say conscientious objectors are often motivated by factors other than religion such as professional standing and income.

Doctors interviewed by the Guardian said there was an unease with the abortion procedure and a desire by doctors not to be personally affiliated with the practice.

Meanwhile, in an apparent attempt to crack down on illegal abortions, women in Italy can now face fines of up to €10,000 if they are suspected of procuring an abortion illegally. Previously, such an offence resulted in a symbolic €51 fine.

“It’s a new law and a very big problem. Now if a woman risks being denounced for an illegal abortion, she will stay at home [instead of seeking emergency treatment in hospital], even if she is not well. This is very dangerous,” says Agatone, who founded a website that helps women locate abortion physicians.

A spokesperson for the Italian health ministry told the Guardian that the rising number of objectors was not critical because the number of abortions was decreasing. They stressed that the workload of non-objectors had not been particularly affected by the issue, even in those regions where the rate of conscientious objectors was higher, and that 90.8% of abortions took place in a patient’s region of residence.

Sicily, which recorded the highest proportion of objectors in 2006 at 84.2%, also recorded a high level of objection in 2013 with 87.6% of gynaecologists refusing to carry out abortions.

Conscientious objection is permissible by law in the majority of EU countries although exceptions exist in Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Finland and Sweden. However there are few statistics, other than Italy’s, available.

.......

This post has been deleted.

NuMarvel

GritBiscuit wrote: »

Do medical staff currently have the option to opt out of liver transplants for ex-alcoholics if they are tee-teetotalers? What about AIDS treatments for gay patients if they are homophobic? No treatment for black patients if they are racist, perhaps?

Medical staff are either professional and leave their personal beliefs at the door and get on with treating their patients or they find another career, imo.

Professional conduct guidelines and codes allow doctors and nurses to have conscientious objections due to personal, moral, or religious beliefs. However, doctors are required to make the names of other doctors available to their patients and nurses must inform their employers of their objections and talk to their patients about other arrangements. And conscientious objections are secondary in emergency situations.

I think it should be the same with regards to abortion services. If a doctor or nurse doesn't want to be involved in the procedure then they should have the same rights as everyone else. But similarly, they must remain professional and not interfere with their patients' ability to access abortion services under another doctor or nurse.

Zubeneschamali

SafeSurfer wrote: »

Do you think is reasonable for a man to demand sex if a pregnancy would result in his partner's death?

Do you imagine that sex only happens when men demand it?

Tigger

GritBiscuit wrote: »

Do medical staff currently have the option to opt out of liver transplants for ex-alcoholics if they are tee-teetotalers? What about AIDS treatments for gay patients if they are homophobic? No treatment for black patients if they are racist, perhaps?

Medical staff are either professional and leave their personal beliefs at the door and get on with treating their patients or they find another career, imo.

its not anything a phobic not to want to work with abortions
im not even slightly religious but if i were a nurse i wouldnt judge people
in a hospital having abortions but i wouldnt want that to be my job
cant force people to want to work in a spefic medical field

SafeSurfer

GritBiscuit wrote: »

Tigger wrote: »

if it is free and public are doctors and nurses really going to want to work in tgat field? can they opt out. im pro choice with reservations but if i worked hard to be a doctor or a nurse and got offered an abortion job id decline mainly because i just dont think id get job satisfaction.

Do medical staff currently have the option to opt out of liver transplants for ex-alcoholics if they are tee-teetotalers? What about AIDS treatments for gay patients if they are homophobic? No treatment for black patients if they are racist, perhaps?

Medical staff are either professional and leave their personal beliefs at the door and get on with treating their patients or they find another career, imo.

Nice opinion. Maybe some medical professionals object to breaking their Hippocratic oath. There are exemptions for medical conscientious objectors to the taking of human life in countries which permit abortion.

lawred2

SafeSurfer wrote: »

The case of a woman who would die if she became pregnant as an argument in favour of abortion. Is it an argument in favour of abortion or an argument in favour of not becoming pregnant.

SafeSurfer

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

So you are in favour of abortion when there is risk to the life of the woman?[/quote]

As is the case.

Tigger

seamus wrote: »

Your issue then is that abortion becomes available only to the privileged, and women who cannot afford the procedure may be forced by economic hardship to carry the child to term.

This is a double-whammy; not only will she have to carry the child to term, but then she will have the economic burden of caring for that child. In the case where a woman is seeking an abortion due to a FFA or a serious genetic condition, the costs may be enormous and far beyond what she will ever be able to handle. Both she and her child are doomed to a poverty which they cannot escape from.

Ultimately if abortion is private-only, or an expensive procedure, then nothing has improved. The situation right now is that you can get an abortion, if you have the money. All you would be doing is making that slightly easier for wealthy people.

There is a strong economic and humanitarian argument for providing abortions for free to women who do not have the means to pay for one. In effect, these are the women who may need one the most.
So by denying them access to the service, not only will they personally be under a tougher economic burden than wealthier women, there will be a higher social cost too, as the state and the woman's community will have to bear the economic and social burden of the child.

Of course, publically-funded abortions should not exist in isolation. Data from other countries indicates that where publically-funded abortions are available, abortion rates are higher than where they're strictly paid for. Duh.

But if contraception is completely free and sex education is universal, then abortion rates drop below the rates in areas where abortion is free and contraception is not. Unsurprisingly, women choose contraception above abortions where that choice exists.

So realistically, instead of just "free abortions for everyone!", contraception should be freely available to all men and women under 25 (or even 30?), and to medical card holders above that. Then combined with a sensible approach to providing abortions for free where the economic need is genuine; such as under-18s, students and those on low incomes.

It's a complicated topic.

There's not really a huge issue with waiting lists and such. Maternity hospitals are busy, but don't have the luxury of waiting lists, so they manage their patient care differently. Abortions would be handled by maternity outpatient clinics.

the maternity outpatients clinics are very busy
they also deal with post partum care indont think they have any slack i think they woukd need to increase their capacity
of course contraception shoukd be free for poor peolple it is practicall free already as you can get the pill on the medical card

gctest50

SafeSurfer wrote: »

.............
Maybe some medical professionals object to breaking their Hippocratic oath. .

Do Irish doctors have that ?


.

NuMarvel

Tigger wrote: »

its not anything a phobic not to want to work with abortions
im not even slightly religious but if i were a nurse i wouldnt judge people
in a hospital having abortions but i wouldnt want that to be my job
cant force people to want to work in a spefic medical field

AFAIK, abortion isn't a specific medical field. It come under obstetrics, which means most of the doctors and nurse who are be involved in carrying out abortions are also trained for childbirth, or to deal with stillbirths or miscarriages.

nozzferrahhtoo

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

You wouldn't be alone. However, NHS staff in the UK with conscientious objection have said that they have been harassed, bullied and passed over when it comes to promotion and so it would undoubtedly affect your career.

That they have said it does not mean it is true however. Especially when they claim it is the reason they were passed over for promotion. Quite likely they are simply not privvy to the reasons they have been, or have not been, promoted.

So many people will make up their own. Women might assume they were not promoted because they were women. Blacks because they were black. The religious because they were religious.

The simple fact is however, they are very likely just guessing or assuming, and they actually have no idea at all why other people were promoted ahead of them.

However, so what if they were being denied promotion for this reason? The clause you quoted said they will not be compelled to do abortions. It says nothing about whether they should be promoted. If I as a manger had a role to fill, and I wanted it filled by people who do abortions, should I feel in any way compelled to consider people for that role who do not fit that requirement?

I do not think I should, and if there are rules that mean I should then I would suggest that is a TERRIBLE rule. It would be like forcing a pork butcher to HAVE to hire a muslim who would not handle pork. I should be allowed hire and promote people into a role if they fit the requirements of the role.

Outlaw Pete

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

That they have said it does not mean it is true however.

Yawn. Making it up I suppose.

nozzferrahhtoo

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Yawn. Making it up I suppose.

Well that is one possibility yes. But if you had bothered your ass reading the rest of the post rather than sitting around yawning and not paying attention, you will find I suggested another thing.

Which is that people who do not get promited often end up guessing at the reasons why.

So in that case no, they are not making it up in that I think they genuinely beleive that their not doing abortions is the reason they were not promoted. But that is just their assumption. And you validate that assumption solely because it fits your bias and your agenda.

It might be they genuinely just suck at their job and there was no reason to be promoted. There was likely people who do do abortions who ALSO did not get promoted at that time.

I saw the same thing happen in an IT company. The IT team had 10 people. Three of them were promoted. 7 were not. one of the 7 was a woman.

She was genuinely terrible at her job. I would not have promoted her. She however started claiming she was not promoted solely because she was female. The thought she just sucked at her job did not at all occur to her. The fact that 6 of the other people not promoted were NOT female also did not appear to register with her.

SafeSurfer

Do non Irish doctors work in Ireland?

Outlaw Pete

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Well that is one possibility yes. But if you had bothered your ass reading the rest of the post....

I did read it. Did YOU not read Fiona Bruce's remark:

'This report reveals concerning evidence of doctors and other healthcare professionals being harassed, abused, and denied career choices, as a result of seeking to exercise their legal right to conscientiously object to being involved in the abortion process.'

Not evidence enough for nozz though. Nah, they're all just making it up or guessing :rolleyes:

ohnonotgmail

SafeSurfer wrote: »

Do non Irish doctors work in Ireland?

of course they do. why is that relevant?

gctest50

SafeSurfer wrote: »

.....

Maybe some medical professionals object to breaking their Hippocratic oath. ...

Do Irish doctors have that ?



This bit of it ?

And likewise I will not give a woman a destructive pessary."

However, abortion was legal at the time and the text only mentions pessaries (a soaked piece of wool inserted in the vagina to induce abortion), not the oral methods of abortion also used in ancient Greece.

As pessaries could cause lethal infections, the author of the Oath may have had a clinical objection to the method, rather than a moral objection to abortion itself"

Ash.J.Williams

I'm prochoice but can't see this passing. I fear too many asshats on the repeal side will damage their cause. Obviously there are asshats on both sides but it's the repeal ones that will do the damage.

Zubeneschamali

SafeSurfer wrote: »

You are using the terms christian and catholic interchangeably which is misleading.

Absolutely true. It is important to remember that every Christian church in Ireland disagreed with passing the 8th amendment in the first place, apart from the Roman Catholic church.

It enshrined specifically Roman Catholic doctrine into the Constitution over the objections of the Protestant churches.