Abortion Discussion, Part the Fourth

Cabaal

Given the party's opposition to all change in Ireland including repeal of the 8th I see this as great news
:D:D:D:D

https://www.broadsheet.ie/2019/06/11/maybe-the-message-i-have-is-not-the-change-people-want/

John Leahy, former leader of Renua

“The background is that I was a manger over a team that prepared 3 years to for an election and we got nobody elected.

“Do I spent another two or three years at? I haven’t made an impression in three years. Maybe the message I have is not the change that people want,” Mr Leahy said.

He informed a meeting of the party’s executive last night that he intends to return to the independent ranks of Offaly County Council. He has already struck a deal to support Fianna Fáil in his local authority and will be Lea Cathaoirleach for the next 12 months.

He'll fit right in with FF though...

Hotblack Desiato

Cabaal wrote: »

“Do I spent another two or three years at? I haven’t made an impression in three years. Maybe the message I have is not the change that people want,” Mr Leahy said.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3XM_3zf6mPc

Igotadose

Unfortunately, Aontu is still with us and had a few candidates elected (3 out of 53 in the locals.) And Peadar Toibin's still in the Dail

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aont%C3%BA#Elections

Hotblack Desiato

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3XM_3zf6mPc

Love that film, it's one of those that keeps on giving.

Cabaal

Igotadose wrote: »

Unfortunately, Aontu is still with us and had a few candidates elected (3 out of 53 in the locals.) And Peadar Toibin's still in the Dail

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aont%C3%BA#Elections

Renue 2.0 will die off eventually,

Like Renua, Renua 2.0 was founded based on one person throwing their toys out of the pram because they didn't like women being given additional rights when it comes to abortion.

The fact that they make their pro-life stance one of their core positions as a party means the majority of the country won't agree with them especially younger voters who voted for repeal.

Igotadose

Looks like Aontu's own Peadar Toibin's looking to exploit those poor people in their suit vs. the NMH to his own political gain. Not surprising:
https://www.rte.ie/news/health/2019/0612/1055002-holles-street/

Hotblack Desiato

Some disgraceful allegations there.

Would he dare say that outside of the Dail?

Kidchameleon

This is getting stranger by the day

Cabaal

He'll say anything to further Renua 2.0 and get media attention , he's scared of his **** it'll go the way of Renua 1.0

aloyisious

Igotadose wrote: »

Looks like Aontu's own Peadar Toibin's looking to exploit those poor people in their suit vs. the NMH to his own political gain. Not surprising:
https://www.rte.ie/news/health/2019/0612/1055002-holles-street/

Best thing for Simon Harris to do is ask the TD to go to the Gardaí with the names of the health professional he's alleging have conflict of interest or "provide" him or HIQAA with the names under Dail privilege. If he doesn't take up either option, call him out on his failure. Responses from the couple or their legal Rep to media questions may give better information.

Edit. It seems Peadar based his Dail statement covering alleged illegalities on what he claimed the couple told him so the case of Peadar making a report to anyone on said allegations won't arise as they seem to be based on 3rd party statements.

aloyisious

I see a sponsored page [from something using the label Gript] on F/B following this case is claiming that the couple involved have stated that the abortion was illegal. It seems to have been on F/B since yesterday, due to responses to it being a day old. The Gript scrip is 7 para's long with Peadar's statement covered in 4 of the Para's. According to the Gript script, Peadar Tóibín TD, told the Dail that he spoke with the legal Rep of the couple. In the Gript script on F/B, Peadar did not tell the Dail that the abortion was illegal nor quote the couple's legal Rep as saying so.

The Gript scrip reads that In his Dail statement, Peadar based what he told the Dail under his immunity as a TD on what he ascribed to as statements from the couple. In doing so, Peadar seems to have left the couple in legal limbo.

lazygal

Gript is run by Tim Jackson of Youth Defence.

Pherekydes

lazygal wrote: »

Gript is run by Tim Jackson of Youth Defence.

One of my FB friends reposts lots of Gript stuff, while complaining that FB blocks Gript shares.

You couldn't make it up...

Bredabe

I saw a pro life poster on one of the main arteries last night, is there another campaign?
I didn't see many of the details, but it has a red shape at the side and said something like 'love both'/'stop abortions'

realitykeeper

The National Maternity Hospital say they are commissioning an independent inquiry into what happened in the sad events that led to an unborn child being aborted because the parents had been incorrectly informed that the child had a fatal abnormality. One wonders how independent this inquiry will be given that when you commission someone to do something, you are paying their wages. Perhaps for the sake of consistency, every report into the industrial schools and Magdalene laundries should be shredded and new reports into these institutions could then be commissioned by the Catholic Church. Am I wrong?

amcalester

realitykeeper wrote: »

The National Maternity Hospital say they are commissioning an independent inquiry into what happened in the sad events that led to an unborn child being aborted because the parents had been incorrectly informed that the child had a fatal abnormality. One wonders how independent this inquiry will be given that when you commission someone to do something, you are paying their wages. Perhaps for the sake of consistency, every report into the industrial schools and Magdalene laundries should be shredded and new reports into these institutions could then be commissioned by the Catholic Church. Am I wrong?

As always; yes, you are wrong.

Plumbthedepths

realitykeeper wrote:

Am I wrong?

Only when you use a keyboard.

Mod: Play nice. If you haven't anything constructively critical to say about a post kindly refrain from commenting on the poster. Thanking you.

Cabaal

Bredabe wrote: »

I saw a pro life poster on one of the main arteries last night, is there another campaign?
I didn't see many of the details, but it has a red shape at the side and said something like 'love both'/'stop abortions'

Spotted a billboard love boats poster about 2 weeks ago in Waterford when heading towards Kilkenny at the bridge,

I don't see it as unusual as pro life groups seem to have a bit of a religious zealot base in Waterford and even before the ref seeing their pro-life truck around Waterford wasn't unusual.

Didn't change the fact that the majority of Waterford don't agree with their views

Cabaal

realitykeeper wrote: »

The National Maternity Hospital say they are commissioning an independent inquiry into what happened in the sad events that led to an unborn child being aborted because the parents had been incorrectly informed that the child had a fatal abnormality. One wonders how independent this inquiry will be given that when you commission someone to do something, you are paying their wages. Perhaps for the sake of consistency, every report into the industrial schools and Magdalene laundries should be shredded and new reports into these institutions could then be commissioned by the Catholic Church. Am I wrong?

Yes, you are very very wrong.

In case you missed it, the catholic church did plenty of its own investigations with its own people into the rape of children by its priests.
It identified the horrors carried out by the priests and nuns and then it buried the details as deep as it could, it threatened the victims and moved the abusers to other areas to abuse children once again.

The difference here is the hospital is doing an independent inquiry and the details will then be published, the parents won't be threatened and solutions will be put in place.

The report will not buried like the catholic church liked to do and it won't be a cover up like the church does either.

So yes, you are wrong. very very wrong.
:rolleyes:

Plumbthedepths

Plumbthedepths wrote:

Mod: Play nice. If you haven't anything constructively critical to say about a post kindly refrain from commenting on the poster. Thanking you.

Apologies my reply fell below what it should have been.

Cabaal

Remember that time when a women had to go to the high court just so she could use contraception in catholic Ireland so she wouldn't risk her life by getting pregnant again?

Good times!

We've moved on so much and its brave women like Mary McGee who has made Ireland a better place.
I think we all often take it for granted just how good we have it being able to buy condoms etc because of the church had there way it would still be like the 1980's!

Now if only we could clear there nonsense out of our sexual education programs.

It’s been 45 years since this incredibly brave Skerries woman took on the Irish courts system to fight for her rights to use contraceptives in Ireland.

Mary McGee‘s 1973 case helped to change our laws.

Full interview with Mary and Seamus McGee in the current edition of Skerries News…The current edition is in shops later today and online now (at link below behind small paywall)

https://www.broadsheet.ie/2019/06/14/hail-mary-2/

aloyisious

Bredabe wrote: »

I saw a pro life poster on one of the main arteries last night, is there another campaign?
I didn't see many of the details, but it has a red shape at the side and said something like 'love both'/'stop abortions'

I reckon so, people from the NO camp taking advantage of the fact that the population is presently annoyed with the Govt party and other politicians on various issues to promote division. I was in Dublin yesterday and saw a LIFE poster in a window of a building on Gardiner Place, didn't know the campaign had offices on the north side, thinking they were all located on Merrion Square North.

The RC church is still displaying the "Life Is From God" banner at its prayer-locations in support of the NO campaign, with at least one non-church location displaying the same banner as well.

realitykeeper

Cabaal wrote: »

Yes, you are very very wrong.

In case you missed it, the catholic church did plenty of its own investigations with its own people into the rape of children by its priests.
It identified the horrors carried out by the priests and nuns and then it buried the details as deep as it could, it threatened the victims and moved the abusers to other areas to abuse children once again.

The difference here is the hospital is doing an independent inquiry and the details will then be published, the parents won't be threatened and solutions will be put in place.

The report will not buried like the catholic church liked to do and it won't be a cover up like the church does either.

So yes, you are wrong. very very wrong.
:rolleyes:

Not sure if you are deliberately misunderstanding. The hospital is paying people to inquire. There is nothing independent about that. This `independent` report is likely to come with sugar coating a mile thick. By contrast, if the Catholic Church commissioned its own report into institutional care, we are likely to hear all about then wonderful work the Church has done, fair play to the holy.

realitykeeper

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

Apologies my reply fell below what it should have been.

Indeed. But being the good Christian I am, I forgive you

realitykeeper

realitykeeper wrote: »

Not sure if you are deliberately misunderstanding. The hospital is paying people to inquire. There is nothing independent about that. This `independent` report is likely to come with sugar coating a mile thick. By contrast, if the Catholic Church commissioned its own report into institutional care, we are likely to hear all about then wonderful work the Church has done, fair play to the holy.

Yeah like letting children in it's care die from malnutrition. Exploiting the people under it's care for the financial benefit of the church, along with sexual and physical abuse.

You seem to ignore the fact that they did do these investigations and the result was to continue to lie and move abusers to other parishes while leaving them to continue to abuse children.

As you said great work by the holy.

realitykeeper

DubInMeath wrote: »

Yeah like letting children in it's care die from malnutrition. Exploiting the people under it's care for the financial benefit of the church, along with sexual and physical abuse.

You seem to ignore the fact that they did do these investigations and the result was to continue to lie and move abusers to other parishes while leaving them to continue to abuse children.

As you said great work by the holy.

But the standard in this country is for the institution in question to commission its own inquiry just like the National Maternity Hospital is doing. By this standard, we know that the Catholic Church is in fact a wonderful benefactor to all. The education and health care and services it provided with such love and compassion. God bless the Catholic Church.

realitykeeper

realitykeeper wrote: »

But the standard in this country is for the institution in question to commission its own inquiry just like the National Maternity Hospital is doing. By this standard, we know that the Catholic Church is in fact a wonderful benefactor to all. The education and health care and services it provided with such love and compassion. God bless the Catholic Church.

The church is a benefactor to alll, love and compassion, no your wrong again.

Health suffered and still does through religious interference in hospitals. Education was used to try and indoctrinate people.

Most advances in education in the state have been secular led, with the church attempting to dictate and hinder these changes.

It's well past the time that the church should still be allowed have any say in these areas as they are paid for by the taxpayer and not the church.

aloyisious

realitykeeper wrote: »

But the standard in this country is for the institution in question to commission its own inquiry just like the National Maternity Hospital is doing. By this standard, we know that the Catholic Church is in fact a wonderful benefactor to all. The education and health care and services it provided with such love and compassion. God bless the Catholic Church.

Would my senses be wrong if they were detecting a degree of sarcasm in your posts about the holy benefactor?

In this question I'm not picking a row, just trying to satisfy a feeling I have.

Calina

No. I think the poster is trying to undermine the NMH's review outcome by suggesting a review done today under clear terms of reference is in any way similar to Catholic Church's past practice of sweeping things under the carpet and demanding children never speak of their complaints again under pain of serious shaming, amongst other things. Without any advocates present for the children. The Catholic Church has never been interested in learning from mistakes. The health system, on occasionally very painfully, actively wants to.

The argument is also he who pays the piper and while there is some merit to that argument in some respects, the question arises as to who should pay? The liability would most likely remain with the health system.

I also add that a good chunk of society albeit now very minority has spent years trying to add shame and guilt to people having abortions regardless of the circumstances. That kind of conditioning is very, very hard to escape.

realitykeeper

DubInMeath wrote: »

The church is a benefactor to alll, love and compassion, no your wrong again.

Health suffered and still does through religious interference in hospitals. Education was used to try and indoctrinate people.

Most advances in education in the state have been secular led, with the church attempting to dictate and hinder these changes.

It's well past the time that the church should still be allowed have any say in these areas as they are paid for by the taxpayer and not the church.

You only think such things about God`s Holy Catholic Church because of reports which were not commissioned by the Catholic Church. I suggest the inquiry into the tragic case in which a healthy child was aborted be carried out by a judge as was the case with the Ryan report into the Church. It would be a whitewash and a waste of taxpayers money if the National Maternity Hospital pays someone to inquire into them.

realitykeeper

aloyisious wrote: »

Would my senses be wrong if they were detecting a degree of sarcasm in your posts about the holy benefactor?

In this question I'm not picking a row, just trying to satisfy a feeling I have.

I think very highly of the Catholic Church but I understand why a lot of people feel differently. My opinions are not swayed by the media or by public opinion which is understandably swayed by decades of anti RCC vitriole. I am every bit as subservient to God`s Church as I always have been. You see, I look at all that is and was good about the Church. That is not to say I am oblivious to its sins.

My view on the EU is similar in that I think things need to change but I think we are better off in it than out of it.

Bannasidhe

realitykeeper wrote: »

You only think such things about God`s Holy Catholic Church because of reports which were not commissioned by the Catholic Church. I suggest the inquiry into the tragic case in which a healthy child was aborted be carried out by a judge as was the case with the Ryan report into the Church. It would be a whitewash and a waste of taxpayers money if the National Maternity Hospital pays someone to inquire into them.

The difference- and it's a significant difference - is that the RCC carried out internal reports and suppressed them while maintaining a public face of 'nothing to see here' to protect itself.





The delay with the inquiry here seem to be that the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists in the UK were approached to carry out an independent inquiry but declined due to lack of expertise among it's assessors. Another qualified agency is being sought - probably, as it usual, from outside the State. It is a very serious matter to claim that organizations such as the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists would risk their reputation by being 'paid off'.



The RCC did not commission, for example, the Lutheran Church of Sweden to come in and investigate as an independent body so you are making false comparisons.

realitykeeper

Calina wrote: »

No. I think the poster is trying to undermine the NMH's review outcome by suggesting a review done today under clear terms of reference is in any way similar to Catholic Church's past practice ....

The NMH are paying the reviewers. That is not conducive to impartiality, clear terms or not.

Bannasidhe

realitykeeper wrote: »

The NMH are paying the reviewers. That is not conducive to impartiality, clear terms or not.

Who funds the NMH?

realitykeeper

Bannasidhe wrote: »

The difference- and it's a significant difference - is that the RCC carried out internal reports and suppressed them while maintaining a public face of 'nothing to see here' to protect itself.





The delay with the inquiry here seem to be that the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists in the UK were approached to carry out an independent inquiry but declined due to lack of expertise among it's assessors. Another qualified agency is been sought - probably, as it usual, from outside the State. It is a very serious matter to claim that organizations such as the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists would risk their reputation by being 'paid off'.



The RCC did not commission, for example, the Lutheran Church of Sweden to come in and investigate as an independent body so you are making false comparisons.

In the past, internal reviews and self assessment were the standard until the law changed. This is not the past. What concerns me is that the Minister for health is permitting this waste of taxpayers money. The review into what happened at the NMH should not be commissioned by the NMH. The state should appoint a judge to examine it.

Bannasidhe

realitykeeper wrote: »

In the past, internal reviews and self assessment were the standard until the law changed. This is not the past. What concerns me is that the Minister for health is permitting this waste of taxpayers money. The review into what happened at the NMH should not be commissioned by the NMH.

How is it a waste of taxpayer's money if the NMH are paying for it?

realitykeeper

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Who funds the NMH?

I assure you the reviewers will not be thinking about the taxpayers when they present their findings. They will be thinking of their client, the NMH.

realitykeeper

Bannasidhe wrote: »

How is it a waste of taxpayer's money if the NMH are paying for it?

Because the reviewers will have every incentive to issue a report which is favourable to their client, the NMH. The Minister of course is well aware of this, I guess he just doesn`t care.

Bannasidhe

realitykeeper wrote: »

Because the reviewers will have every incentive to issue a report which is favourable to their client, the NMH. The Minister of course is well aware of this, I guess he just doesn`t care.

Can you not bring yourself to admit that the taxpayer's will be paying for the inquiry not the NMH as you are keen in insist?



Or that such inquiries in the past have been highly critical of hospitals?



For example the report carried out into the death of Savita Halappanavar by Professor Sir Sabaratnam Arulkumaran, Professor and Head of Obstetrics and Gynaecology and Deputy Head of Clinical Sciences at St George’s University of London and President of the International Federation of Obstetrics & Gynaecology was highly critical of UHG. https://www.hse.ie/eng/services/news/media/pressrel/newsarchive/2013archive/jun13/savitareport.html






The Lourdes Hospital Inquiry carried out by Justice Maureen Harding Clark SC was scathing in it's criticism. https://health.gov.ie/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/lourdes.pdf


Details of all inquiries carried out into hospitals can be found here:https://www.lenus.ie/discover - can you find one report where despite the evidence the inquiry was favourable to the 'clients'?

Timberrrrrrrr

realitykeeper wrote: »

The NMH are paying the reviewers. That is not conducive to impartiality, clear terms or not.

So who should do the review and who should pay for it?

realitykeeper

realitykeeper wrote: »

You only think such things about God`s Holy Catholic Church because of reports which were not commissioned by the Catholic Church. I suggest the inquiry into the tragic case in which a healthy child was aborted be carried out by a judge as was the case with the Ryan report into the Church. It would be a whitewater and a waste of taxpayers money if the National Maternity Hospital pays someone to inquire into them.

Again your wrong.

realitykeeper

realitykeeper wrote: »

I think very highly of the Catholic Church but I understand why a lot of people feel differently. My opinions are not swayed by the media or by public opinion which is understandably swayed by decades of anti RCC vitriole. I am every bit as subservient to God`s Church as I always have been. You see, I look at all that is and was good about the Church. That is not to say I am oblivious to its sins.

My view on the EU is similar in that I think things need to change but I think we are better off in it than out of it.

Considering that you've stated on this site that anyone claiming that they were abused by the church are only doing so for money, it's pretty obvious that you don't think any abuse took place or your just trying to get a rise out of people.

realitykeeper

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Can you not bring yourself to admit that the taxpayer's will be paying for the inquiry not the NMH as you are keen in insist?

The people the NMH commission, will receive payment from the NMH and not from me. So no is the answer.

realitykeeper

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

So who should do the review and who should pay for it?

A judge and the department of Justice respectively.

Timberrrrrrrr

realitykeeper wrote: »

The people the NMH commission, will receive payment from the NMH and not from me. So no is the answer.

You said a judge should do the enquiry, who do you think pays the judges?

realitykeeper

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

You said a judge should do the enquiry, who do you think pays the judges?

I think it is someone other than the NMH, which is all that matters.

Timberrrrrrrr

realitykeeper wrote: »

I think it is someone other than the NMH, which is all that matters.

So your earlier posts

realitykeeper wrote: »

In the past, internal reviews and self assessment were the standard until the law changed. This is not the past. What concerns me is that the Minister for health is permitting this waste of taxpayers money. The review into what happened at the NMH should not be commissioned by the NMH. The state should appoint a judge to examine it.

realitykeeper wrote: »

The people the NMH commission, will receive payment from the NMH and not from me. So no is the answer.

Were lies

You don't mind taxpayers money spent as long as you get to decide where it's spent?

realitykeeper

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

So your earlier posts






Were lies

You don't mind taxpayers money spent as long as you get to decide where it's spent?

I have no problem with the taxpayers money being spent appropriately. The NMH commissioning an inquiry into itself is a corrupt misappropriation of taxpayers money.

Timberrrrrrrr

realitykeeper wrote: »

I have no problem with the taxpayers money being spent appropriately. The NMH commissioning an inquiry into itself is a corrupt misappropriation of taxpayers money.

In your opinion.

Kidchameleon

I don't get the push back here, I think it is fair enough to state that an entity commissioning an inquiry into itself may not yield completely impartial results.