Abortion - Report of the Joint Committee on the Eighth Amendment of the Constitution

recedite

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

I've seen ehats left of people who have been blown apart by massive explosions, the fetus images don't bother me.

I have a 6 year old son, I wouldn't want him to see either.

Try to understand that, adults can block out the images, young people (you know, the ones the anti-choice crowd claim to be protecting) cannot.

You're equating images of people blown apart, with an image of a live foetus developing in a womb.
Why would your child need to be protected from the latter?

recedite

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

.. most of society seems to be doing what you "find strange" given very few people seek out imagery of how their meat is killed butchered and packaged. Another act people are not offended by, but are offended by imagery of...

Not a fair comparison. The images on the posters show a live foetus, not an aborted one.
Are you offended by pictures of farm animals? Probably not. When your conscience is completely clear, you don't need to make such an effort to keep cognitive dissonance going.

nozzferrahhtoo

recedite wrote: »

Not a fair comparison. The images on the posters show a live foetus, not an aborted one.

Not seeing why that is not a fair comparison at all. For a few reasons.....

Firstly with the fetus we still showing human innards and internal processes. Nothing to do with whether they are living or dead. In other words you are trying to declare the comparison unfair based on attributes that I was not even making the comparison on. Which does not make the comparison unfair so much as your evaluation of it.

Secondly who says the farm animals are dead. The pictures of animals even being led INTO slaughter houses. Many people are also happy to buy and eat eggs of hens from battery farms. They do not want to see pictures of the hens cooped up in these farms however. People know about young cows being taken away from their mothers in the milk industry and they seem happy to keep using milk in that knowledge, but generally people are not sitting around watching videos of the event or showing it to their kids.

The list goes on, but suffice to say there are MANY things, some of which you edited out of my post before replying to it so you are only replying to half my point here, that people seem to be a-ok with the actual event or action, but still do not want to see photos of it. So for you to act like this is somehow strange or unusual in THIS context, when it is something humans do all the time, is pretty odd.

recedite wrote: »

When your conscience is completely clear, you don't need to make such an effort to keep cognitive dissonance going.

Yea I addressed all that in the REST of my post which you did not deign to reply to. Both the request for you to explain where I have such dissonance, and my explanations of the ACTUAL reasons people dislike the posters compared to YOUR reasons for it.... you simply appear to have ignored.

TadhgOMurchu

Andyfitzer wrote: »

Looking back over my points, below, it's obvious I'm pro life, but I try to be open to other opinions due to the importance of the referendum. Please give me feedback if you so wish on the points I make. It's also my first post, so if I've made a rookie error like put it in the wrong section, I'd appreciate a prompt.

I have read his report and it has made me so angry. 

There is absolutely no recognition of the human rights the unborn child has. None. Not even a recognition that they have any. They are in the current legislation, but will be entirely stripped away if this bill passes. The right to life being number one. 


There is some emotive language used when addressing the woman - compassionate, devastating diagnosis, mental distress - thereby acknowledging her humanity. There is only cold medical language used to describe the human in the womb- termination of pregnancy. The only time they are talked about in any kind of human way is in listing the categories where it should be legal to take their lives, sorry -"terminate". They are called the unborn child then. 

This report is as one sided as it is possible to be, persistently discussing the health care that the woman should be receiving, _totally_ ignoring the human they are carrying.


It is logically flawed. One of the main reasons given to allow abortion is the fact that women are going to England to have abortions and ordering online abortifacients. This means they are legalising something because women are doing it anyway. Are we going to have legal drugs and prostitution now, because people go to Holland anyway, or do it illegally here already? Legal fraud, because people do it already? That is ludicrous logic. I'm appalled that people in power cannot see that the law should be logical and moral, not "if you can't beat them, join 'em"!!!! If abortion is illegal, and they break the law, arrest them. Don't capitulate, enforce. If there are real reasons to legalise, fine, but for this?


Also, the main reason for allowing abortion on demand up to 12 weeks, is so that one of the smallest of "categories" by percentages - pregnancy from rape (don't get me wrong, an horrific thing all round) - don't have to report it. I have huge sympathy with women who have been raped, nevermind then finding they are pregnant. But to jump to abortion on demand for everyone from there is crazy.


The second biggest reason was that a lot of things, like diagnoses, were difficult (that word was used a lot). Shrug your shoulders and just kill all the unborn!!!!!!!!! Easy, hey!?


The committee has been accused of bias throughout this process. They started by voting to repeal before hearing any pro life contributors. That, I presume to be due to the UN ruling on FFA. No need to legislate for any other reason for abortion, so, but they recommended to anyway.  Ms Noone's tweet to wrap up the process (Been an absolute privilege & honour to chair a committee of such hard working and committed politicians. My hope is for a mature & calm debate in which all views are heard & above all that we continue to look at the facts & daily reality of women's healthcare), only mentioned women - as does her report. Interestingly, the list of contributors in the index doesn't include why they were invited, just a note to look for the transcripts. Appears to be an attempt to hide the fact so few pro life contributors were invited.

This debate is naturally extremely biased, as it is. Those born humans can tweet, ring radio stations, harass politicians etc. Those unborn humans rely on others. We are motivated by good will, whereas "pro choice" (pro abortion) are personally motivated and will scream and shout, as are entitled. The committee and media don't need to increase that chasm.


I do welcome the inclusion at the end of recommendations for increased spending on, and the provision of, things like contraception, education and mental health counselling. The reality is that if the report is ratified by the public, the government will agree, but not bring them in because the budget has all gone on the referendum and the abortions. In a few years we will only have the abortions and some other political football will distract the politicians. 


This report is _totally_ and _utterly_ skewed to the woman and pro choice. I am seething that we will have no recognition of the human rights of the unborn, and therefore thousands of lives taken just because we can - candy/life from a baby.


Where is the choice of the human in the womb? Where is the acknowledgement of the responsibilities of the man and woman - who exercised their right to consensual sex - toward the human they create? Where is the will to de-stigmatise reporting of rape? Where is the logic disappearing to? Where are the human rights of the unborn human?  Will they only have the right to remain silent?


Please, put me straight if I'm not seeing this right. It's too important to be closed to argument. Hundreds of thousands of lives are at stake.

I agree and will be voting No on 25th May

blanch152

recedite wrote: »

A certain amount of cognitive dissonance is necessary in order to be both well informed and pro-choice.

That's why they get offended when they see images of foetuses.

On the other hand, pro-lifers find often find it strange that pro-choicers can be offended by an image which reminds them of an unpleasant act, but not be offended by the act itself.

There is much more cognitive dissonance in keeping a straight face while presenting a picture of a 32-week foetus and saying that the proposed legislation will kill it on demand.

Timberrrrrrrr

recedite wrote: »

You're equating images of people blown apart, with an image of a live foetus developing in a womb.
Why would your child need to be protected from the latter?

Have no issues with those images, it's the ones of dead a dead fetus that I am talking about

pitifulgod

recedite wrote: »

Not a fair comparison. The images on the posters show a live foetus, not an aborted one.
Are you offended by pictures of farm animals? Probably not. When your conscience is completely clear, you don't need to make such an effort to keep cognitive dissonance going.

The intent is to shock when juxtaposing with terms such as "licence to kill". My mother had a miscarriage. She finds the posters upsetting although it's swaying her more towards supporting repeal as it's the exact tactics of 1983. It's upsetting to women who have had abortions and miscarriages. The posters are intent on shaming those who have had abortions and upsets a pretty broad range of people. It does not change positions to a no though.

Zubeneschamali

pitifulgod wrote: »

it's swaying her more towards supporting repeal as it's the exact tactics of 1983.

Yes, anyone who remembers 1983 will recognize it, and the mess since will not convince anyone who remembers that.

But they are aiming all this horror/gore at younger people.

.......

This post has been deleted.

recedite

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Not seeing why that is not a fair comparison at all. For a few reasons.....

Firstly with the fetus we still showing human innards and internal processes. Nothing to do with whether they are living or dead. In other words you are trying to declare the comparison unfair based on attributes that I was not even making the comparison on. Which does not make the comparison unfair so much as your evaluation of it.

Secondly who says the farm animals are dead. The pictures of animals even being led INTO slaughter houses. Many people are also happy to buy and eat eggs of hens from battery farms. They do not want to see pictures of the hens cooped up in these farms however. People know about young cows being taken away from their mothers in the milk industry and they seem happy to keep using milk in that knowledge, but generally people are not sitting around watching videos of the event or showing it to their kids.

The list goes on, but suffice to say there are MANY things, some of which you edited out of my post before replying to it so you are only replying to half my point here, that people seem to be a-ok with the actual event or action, but still do not want to see photos of it. So for you to act like this is somehow strange or unusual in THIS context, when it is something humans do all the time, is pretty odd.



Yea I addressed all that in the REST of my post which you did not deign to reply to. Both the request for you to explain where I have such dissonance, and my explanations of the ACTUAL reasons people dislike the posters compared to YOUR reasons for it.... you simply appear to have ignored.

I previously edited your quoted post to make it clearer which bit I was referring to, but if that offends you I will desist.

So Point 1; if you find an image of human "innards" so offensive I'll just have to say that is not an entirely reasonable reaction IMO.
Presumably you will be shocked by this. I think its nice, but each to their own.

Point 2. I'm referring to healthy farm animals in a "natural" environment eg a cow grazing in a field. I am quite happy to see a picture of a bullock in a field, even though I eat meat. That's because there is no cognitive dissonance involved. I understand that they live, they die, they get eaten. I am comfortable with that. I want them to be treated well while they are alive though. They are a prey species. As a human, I look on them differently to the way I would look on another fellow human (of any age)

Point 3. "people seem to be a-ok with the actual event or action, but still do not want to see photos of it. So for you to act like this is somehow strange or unusual"
I called it cognitive dissonance. You focus on whether it's strange or not.
It is what it is. We have no real disagreement on this point.

nozzferrahhtoo

recedite wrote: »

I previously edited your quoted post to make it clearer which bit I was referring to, but if that offends you I will desist.

No no, I do the same thing all the time myself. Editing things out of peoples post is 100% ok. No one wants whole posts quoted on this forum, least of all the people who wrote them or those unfortunate people who use this site on Touch/responsive.

Editing it out of their entire argument, like responding as if they gave one argument/example when they gave several and you only want to pull out one in isolation from the rest.... not so much ok though. A very different thing.

The point being I gave a RANGE of examples of how we as humans all the time accept certain actions and events, while being offended at some level by imagery of it. Yet you suddenly in THIS context decide this behavior is strange or surprising.

And in response to this you pulled out ONE of the examples I gave and then proceeded to attempt to negate it based on a point my example was not even mediated on in the first place.

recedite wrote: »

So Point 1; if you find an image of human "innards" so offensive I'll just have to say that is not an entirely reasonable reaction IMO.

I am not personally offended by any such thing. Due to many factors I have likely seen more such imagery that all but about 1% of the users of this forum. I am not talking about ME you see, but people in general. And people in general are, alas, not really into seeing pictures of their insides. Hell many people get uppity over women breast feeding in public, and about things like nudity. Beats the hell out of me why EITHER bothers them, but seemingly it does.

But when it comes to imagery of the fetus, especially the dead ones the anti abortion people like to use, we are going a bit beyond mere nudity I am sure you will agree.

And remember I explained......... in the post you edited out without replying to, acknowledging, or rebutting...... other points as to why this bothers people. Two main ones being 1) Parents tends to know when their own children are ready for such imagery rather than people from youth defense targeting FAMILY festivals on the main streets of galway where they know their dead fetuses will be shoved deliberately in the face of children of all ages and 2) The Anti Abortion cohort are not AT ALL picking photos that are representative of actual abortions in general. In fact it would benefit US to show such pictures, to scale and full detail, but we unlike them have more taste.

So no, the little nail job in your link has no such effect on me and I respond to it more like you than how you assumed I would.

recedite wrote: »

I called it cognitive dissonance. You focus on whether it's strange or not. It is what it is. We have no real disagreement on this point.

Something common in nearly all people is not "strange" though, unless we are using different definitions of "strange" I guess. And in two posts now you have dodged me asking about that. YOU said "A certain amount of cognitive dissonance is necessary in order to be both well informed and pro-choice."

I am very much pro choice.

I am VERY highly informed on the subject.

So stop dodging my request. Explain to me where MY dissonance lies. You know, the one you said is "necessary". Not likely. Not incidental. Not common. Not correlated. But NECESSARY.

So according to you, it must be by necessity in play in me. Find it. Show me it. Explain it.

Hotblack Desiato

recedite wrote: »

I was just referring to the posters that are commonly to be seen on lamp posts around the place. You know, the ones with an image of a live foetus, in utero. I've heard several people complaining about them.

Yeah the poster right outside my kids' primary school with the near full term foetus on it and the text about killing "babies" at six months went down REALLY well with all the kids and parents.

These images are just empty appeals to emotion, as is all the stuff about DS (which Down Syndrome Ireland have asked PLC et al to desist from, and they have not) and the one, with the added nationalistic twist, about 1 in 5 in England.

Empty appeals to emotion, becase as the citizens' assembly proved, facts and logic are unassailable enemies of the 8th amendment.

Why not go the whole hog and hang some posters showing graphic images of conception from lamposts?

You'd hardly complain then would you? Sure tis only natural.

recedite

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

So stop dodging my request. Explain to me where MY dissonance lies. You know, the one you said is "necessary". Not likely. Not incidental. Not common. Not correlated. But NECESSARY.
So according to you, it must be by necessity in play in me. Find it. Show me it. Explain it.

I can't reach into your mind. Maybe you have no empathy for your fellow human beings.
You said yourself that the kind of cognitive dissonance we were talking about was perfectly normal, but you are also saying you have none.

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Yeah the poster right outside my kids' primary school with the near full term foetus on it and the text about killing "babies" at six months went down REALLY well with all the kids and parents.

These images are just empty appeals to emotion....

Yet pro-life parents are perfectly happy to see these same posters up.
Yes, they are appeals to emotional intelligence, but they are not "empty".
They trigger something, in some people. They force that cognitive dissonance closer to the surface.

.......

This post has been deleted.

robarmstrong

recedite wrote: »

Yet pro-life parents are perfectly happy to see these same posters up.

Anyone who thinks it's perfectly fine to put graphic photographs of aborted babies up outside of primary schools where children as young as 6/7 is not putting them up with the intention of educating anyone, it's scare-mongering.

The posters are offensive to a lot of people, because it's not socially acceptable to post up a graphic picture of an aborted fetus covered in blood altogether, let alone outside primary schools.

You seem to be failing any form of comprehension here.

nozzferrahhtoo

recedite wrote: »

I can't reach into your mind. Maybe you have no empathy for your fellow human beings.

So basically you have absolutely no way to lend credence to your own claim that it is "necessary". You simply asserted it to be so because.... it sounded good? Fit your agenda or narrative?

But the moment a person fitting your description pops up, you can not in any way make your claim or label stick and it simply crumbles.

recedite wrote: »

You said yourself that the kind of cognitive dissonance we were talking about was perfectly normal, but you are also saying you have none.

No what I said was the behavior you are describing is perfectly normal. Our society is replete with actions and activities that we are not offended by, but do not want to see imagery of. For example we all happily poo. How often do you see images of people actively doing it?

It is YOU calling this "cognitive dissonance" not me. I see nothing about it that requires that description. I see the two as perfectly congruent for the most part such as being happy to poo but not happy to see one being pushed out of someone else's butt in a close up photo, and sometimes depending on what it is being talked about, the concerns are even entirely orthogonal.

All in all, I am seeing nothing to support your labeling of this reaction to posters of the fetus, especially a dead fetus, as either "strange" or "cognitive dissonance" in anyone at all, let alone pro choice people specifically. Actually to be honest I think the buzz word "cognitive dissonance" appeals to you and you think it sounds good, and you just threw it out rather thoughtlessly because it fits more what you want to be true, than what you have a SHRED of argument, evidence, data or reasoning to suggest actually is true.

recedite wrote: »

Yet pro-life parents are perfectly happy to see these same posters up. Yes, they are appeals to emotional intelligence, but they are not "empty". They trigger something, in some people. They force that cognitive dissonance closer to the surface.

Have we a general survey on this? I suspect that many of the pictures are not as pleasing to the pro life parents as you claim here. I certainly doubt you speak for all pro life parents here. I even doubt you speak for the majority of them. Hell even a significant proportion of them is suspect. But perhaps there is a study on this suggesting how many are "happy" and what they mean by "happy" exactly.

I think we can be pretty clear what it is triggering though. Over quite a large period of time we have evolved to respond to our young with general feelings of protection and care. So strong in fact is this instinct that we tend to respond quite powerfully to the young of other species. And not only mammals.

Through the fast majority of that evolution however it was far from the norm to see the fetus. Natural Selection had no way to account for that and evolve some proportional intuitions in us to parse that input. But as our medical science has progressed our ability to view these things has massively improved.

So now we have imagery that is triggering an attribute in us.... one that is millennia in the making..... in a way it was never "designed" by evolution or natural selection to be triggered.

spacecoyote

Taking all of the spin/shouting & dodgy ads out from both sides, when I really think about this & try break it down to its fundamentals it feels to me that in essence the difference between the campaigns comes down to:

Pro Choice:
"If you hate the concept of abortion & don't think it should happen...then don't ever have abortion. If you make the decision that the best option for you is an abortion...then that's your decision"

Pro Life:
"I have an ideology, and I don't care what your ideology is, mine is right, so everyone should follow mine"

This is really one of the biggest issues I have with the pro life campaign. If repeal happens, there will be no one having decisions forced upon them, if it doesn't happen, we are basically forcing a decision on everyone

recedite

robarmstrong wrote: »

Anyone who thinks it's perfectly fine to put graphic photographs of aborted babies up outside of primary schools where children as young as 6/7 is not putting them up with the intention of educating anyone, it's scare-mongering.

The posters are offensive to a lot of people, because it's not socially acceptable to post up a graphic picture of an aborted fetus covered in blood altogether, let alone outside primary schools.

You seem to be failing any form of comprehension here.

Its your failure of comprehension. Several times it was mentioned in this conversation that the images were of a healthy foetus in its normal and natural state.
If you are talking about something else, then you are strawmanning.

robarmstrong

recedite wrote: »

Its your failure of comprehension. Several times it was mentioned in this conversation that the images were of a healthy foetus in its normal and natural state.
If you are talking about something else, then you are strawmanning.

How is mentioning posters that pro-life individuals put up of aborted babies strawmanning? Do tell. The pro-life campaign have put up pictures of fetus in utero with false and misleading information beneath them. I would consider that offensive, it is offensive to blatantly use something as such as a propaganda machine.

Here is a link to a page containing the posters pro-life individuals have put up. https://lovin.ie/news/pro-life-posters-cork

Are those images not offensive?

end of the road

spacecoyote wrote: »

Taking all of the spin/shouting & dodgy ads out from both sides, when I really think about this & try break it down to its fundamentals it feels to me that in essence the difference between the campaigns comes down to:

Pro Choice:
"If you hate the concept of abortion & don't think it should happen...then don't ever have abortion. If you make the decision that the best option for you is an abortion...then that's your decision"

Pro Life:
"I have an ideology, and I don't care what your ideology is, mine is right, so everyone should follow mine"

This is really one of the biggest issues I have with the pro life campaign. If repeal happens, there will be no one having decisions forced upon them, if it doesn't happen, we are basically forcing a decision on everyone

decisians are forced on all of us every day via the law. the law effectively says "the state has an ideology in relation to certain issues, and the state does not care what another's ideology is in relation to those issues, ours is right, so everyone should follow it." some people don't agree with the laws of the state, yet we won't be abolishing them.
for pro-life, our opposition to abortion (outside medical cases in mine and many other's case) is simply extending the viewpoint of not harming or killing others to the unborn unless there is an extreme necessity. if we repeal any law, then nobody would be forced to commit the act that a law formerly would have prohibited, but that ultimately means nothing, it's not justification for removing the specific law.

Zubeneschamali

end of the road wrote: »

some people don't agree with the laws of the state, yet we won't be abolishing them.

I am not sure if you are confused or in denial, but that is in fact precisely what we are going to do.

A majority disagree with the laws of the state in this area, and we really are about to abolish them.

.......

This post has been deleted.

recedite

robarmstrong wrote: »

Here is a link to a page containing the posters pro-life individuals have put up. https://lovin.ie/news/pro-life-posters-cork

Are those images not offensive?

Personally I would not be in favour of putting those posters up, but the ones we were discussing are the much more widespread posters depicting a healthy in utero foetus.

.......

This post has been deleted.

MidCenturyGirl

J C wrote: »

Please stop conflating rape, with other unwanted pregnancies. Rape is a separate issue ... and the risk of pregnancy after rape is addressed by the MAP.
... I'm glad that you have admitted that the symptoms of pregnancy don't justify abortion ... and are not terribly uncomfortable anyway.

... and my back is wrecked too ... from the various adventures and misadventures of life ... and I wouldn't change a bit of it, even if I could.

All kinds of medical complications can arise with anything, including abortions.

If women are raped and forced to carry any resulting pregnancy to term this would be a human rights issue ... but this isn't why the 8th is being repealed.
Like I have said, the MAP prevents any pregnancy resulting form rape.

Your last line proves you have no inkling as to how emergency contraception works. The MAP prevents pregnancy by delaying ovulation. If you have already ovulated, the morning after pill can’t stop you from getting pregnant.

Consonata

MidCenturyGirl wrote: »

Your last line proves you have no inkling as to how emergency contraception works. The MAP prevents pregnancy by delaying ovulation. If you have already ovulated, the morning after pill can’t stop you from getting pregnant.

Strictly speaking this isn't completely true. It is unlikely, but the MAP can prevent implantation following fertilisation by acting as an irritant on the endometrium. In most cases you are correct though.

An Ciarraioch

Does anyone have the figures from today's Irish Daily Mail poll?

Consonata

An Ciarraioch

Consonata wrote: »

My personal prediction, based on demographics and constituencies, would be 55% Yes 45% No, and this poll suggests a result along those lines. Referendum polling generally narrows in the final weeks of all votes, but as things stand, "No" would need to win 80% of undecideds to prevail.

Consonata

An Ciarraioch wrote: »

My personal prediction, based on demographics and constituencies, would be 55% Yes 45% No, and this poll suggests a result along those lines. Referendum polling generally narrows in the final weeks of all votes, but as things stand, "No" would need to win 80% of undecideds to prevail.

I find it interesting that if the referendum does swing no, it'll be older women that do it, not older men

An Ciarraioch

Red C poll out at 5 p.m. - whether they publish their referendum poll then, or merely the state of the parties, remains to be seen.

Zubeneschamali

I think it is interesting that even in the 55+ group who were old enough to vote in 1983 (when it passed 2:1) there is a majority for repeal (excluding the dont knows).

An Ciarraioch

An Ciarraioch wrote: »

Red C poll out at 5 p.m. - whether they publish their referendum poll then, or merely the state of the parties, remains to be seen.

Michael Brennan tweeted after the party results - Eighth poll being held back until tomorrow morning.

An Ciarraioch

Screenshot of latest Red C results - Don't Knows continue to rise, no evident No momentum:

https://mobile.twitter.com/LifeOfBOS/status/990340926152290305

volchitsa

Consonata wrote: »

I find it interesting that if the referendum does swing no, it'll be older women that do it, not older men

Well no. Women of all ages except that one group are polling a clear majority of "Yes".

Or if you prefer, men of all ages except that one group, poll more "No"s than women of the same age.

IOW, if there is an overall No vote, it will be because of the male vote and not the female one.
Or at best, because of men and the women who originally voted to out the clause in.

Hotblack Desiato

spacecoyote wrote: »

Taking all of the spin/shouting & dodgy ads out from both sides

It's not both sides, it's one side.

end of the road

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

It's not both sides, it's one side.

in your experience, but by the sounds of it not in that poster's experience.

spacecoyote

end of the road wrote: »

in your experience, but by the sounds of it not in that poster's experience.

No, im very much of a similar opinion to hotblack, I was just trying to be somewhat objective & take the whole posters & ads piece out of my point.

I still think that the attitude & ideology of the pro-lifers in general is appalling

robarmstrong

spacecoyote wrote: »

No, im very much of a similar opinion to hotblack, I was just trying to be somewhat objective & take the whole posters & ads piece out of my point.

I still think that the attitude & ideology of the pro-lifers in general is appalling

I've come up with an acronym for 'em.

GBAAC.

Give Birth At All Costs.

Itssoeasy

I listened to a debate between Colm O' Gorman and Declan Ganley. Several things annoyed me. One was Declan ganley interrupting. Also the way Declan Ganley tried to conflate the very serious issue of the cervical screening issue and using that to cast doubt on the HSE. I take issue with that point for personal reasons. There are clear issues within the health service here but to suggest that the front line staff of the health service can't be trusted is untrue. Also Colm o Gorman sighing loudly was extremely off putting. I remembered why I've stopped listening to anything about this referendum, or as little as possible.

NuMarvel

Itssoeasy wrote: »

I listened to a debate between Colm O' Gorman and Declan Ganley. Several things annoyed me. One was Declan ganley interrupting. Also the way Declan Ganley tried to conflate the very serious issue of the cervical screening issue and using that to cast doubt on the HSE. I take issue with that point for personal reasons. There are clear issues within the health service here but to suggest that the front line staff of the health service can't be trusted is untrue. Also Colm o Gorman sighing loudly was extremely off putting. I remembered why I've stopped listening to anything about this referendum, or as little as possible.

I didn't listen to it, but I was expecting someone to play that card at some point. I saw something that he also said anyone with medical training could sign off on an abortion, and not just a doctor, which is total and utter nonsense (assuming what I read was accurate).

Zubeneschamali

NuMarvel wrote: »

I saw something that he also said anyone with medical training could sign off on an abortion, and not just a doctor,

The No side are understandably confused, since on their posters criminals can pretend to be nurses.

seamus

What the cervical check and the eighth have in common is that they're both part of a culture of control.

The worst thing about the cervical check issue is not the mistakes. They happen. Misdiagnoses & false negatives are an unavoidable part of healthcare. The worst part is the deliberate attempt to hide the error. Directions from "on high" to play down the importance of this information and directions to "just write it in the notes" rather than tell a patient or their family straight out, i.e. Cover your ass. Doctors who fail to directly inform patients of critical information like this should be struck off, if not face criminal convictions. It's unjustifiable.

It's another facet of a medical culture where doctors tell women what to do, where doctors control the flow of information and are assigned the duties of making decisions on behalf of capable patients.

No, the cervical check thing wasn't caused by the eighth. But having the eighth amendment in place is the lynchpin in the medical culture of control over women; specifically when it comes to gynecological matters. Remove it from the constitution and all of the rest will begin to crumble.

Itssoeasy

NuMarvel wrote: »

Itssoeasy wrote: »

I listened to a debate between Colm O' Gorman and Declan Ganley. Several things annoyed me. One was Declan ganley interrupting. Also the way Declan Ganley tried to conflate the very serious issue of the cervical screening issue and using that to cast doubt on the HSE. I take issue with that point for personal reasons. There are clear issues within the health service here but to suggest that the front line staff of the health service can't be trusted is untrue. Also Colm o Gorman sighing loudly was extremely off putting. I remembered why I've stopped listening to anything about this referendum, or as little as possible.

I didn't listen to it, but I was expecting someone to play that card at some point. I saw something that he also said anyone with medical training could sign off on an abortion, and not just a doctor, which is total and utter nonsense (assuming what I read was accurate).

To my knowledge it's an obstetrician and another medical person that will be required. I mean obviously it's going to a medical doctor as they are plentiful in a hospital just in case Declan ganley wasn't aware.

NuMarvel

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

The No side are understandably confused, since on their posters criminals can pretend to be nurses.

I used to work in a hospital patient accounts department. I'll never forget what I saw. :D

PhoenixParker

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

The No side are understandably confused, since on their posters criminals can pretend to be nurses.

And phds count as medical doctors.

An Ciarraioch

Shock horror as a post on Politics.ie actually delivers a highly credible, constituency-by-constituency result prediction!

http://www.politics.ie/forum/elections/263771-predict-referendum-result-18.html#post12059365

seamus

It's pretty good alright. Probably a little bit on the skeptical side, but a good extrapolation all the same.

Zubeneschamali

I've been predicting 55-45 Yes since the outset, some polls are there already, others are moving that direction, still looks good to me.

But there is a lot of uncertainty. A big turnout could see a crushing Yes win. A low one could see No squeak it.