8th Amendment

No Voter And Proud

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

You're missing the point and you know it.

There would be babies alive today. Cute, merry, delicious little babies in bonnets and wellington-boots romping in meadows.

Should we therefore extrapolate from your comments that girls who reject men in bars are therefore guilty of murder?

You pro death lot are hilarious sometimes!

volchitsa

Atlantis50 wrote: »

You are wrong.



http://www.aafp.org/afp/2005/1001/p1243.html


You're the one distorting reality.

Sorry, what's your point? The link you gave earlier is specifically designed for doctors operating in low tech district hospitals in the developing countries, where much "essential" equipment in western countries is not available and where there is often no-one higher up that a young doctor can refer a patient too. It says so in the link.

It adapts international best practice to the realities of a very poorly equipped hospital, which may not even have reliable electricity.

I'm sure it's a genuinely brilliant book, enabling doctors to per from heroic feats of lifesaving that they could never do in Europe or the USA - but citing it as evidence of what should or would happen in Ireland is like posting a link to a handbook for a Tigermoth aeroplane to explain how a Boeing 747 is flown : basically the same principle for remaining in the air, but definitely not a reliable indicator nevertheless.

Now come on, tell us where you found such a gem. It's absolutely wonderful, it really is.

PS for instance, one difference - and it's crucial in this context - is the ACCEPT/REFUSE which appears as part of the flow chart in your latest diagram. I'm sure you can see why.

Delirium

No Voter And Proud wrote: »

Should we therefore extrapolate from your comments that girls who reject men in bars are therefore guilty of murder?

You pro death lot are hilarious sometimes!

So pro-choice is pro-extinction now?

No Voter And Proud

No Voter And Proud wrote: »

Should we therefore extrapolate from your comments that girls who reject men in bars are therefore guilty of murder?

No, but the logical extension of the argument being made is that promiscuity is good, since it maximises babies.

If a girl goes and sleeps with the first man she sees emerging from a ditch, and has the bad luck to fall pregnant, she will undoubtedly adore the child that results. Perhaps when she is on her deathbed, she will even say that being a mother has made cruel old life bearable & worthwhile.

No healthy and good-natured woman would kill her child.
But every sensible, healthy woman knows that, most of the time, she should carefully prevent giving birth to children, regardless of whether she would adore them.

So, to argue that a bouncy little newborn boy proves that abortion is wrong because simply because abortion prevents bouncy little newborns, is tantamount to saying that anything which prevents newborns is wrong. That's ridiculous, is it not?

Black Menorca

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

You may have confused Amnesty International with Amoebas Rights International. Amnesty defend human rights, not the rights of single-celled organisms.

But Amnesty are advocating for killing unborn human life.

Why does Amnesty continue with the charade of being a human rights organisation?

Black Menorca

SW wrote: »

With regards to the issues that I quoted in my post, do you have any problem with them? Do you think they are acceptable situations for women to go through in Ireland?

No.

Y wanted baby Hope dead, rather than deliver him alive.

Completely unacceptable.

Black Menorca

Atlantis50 wrote: »

You are wrong.



http://www.aafp.org/afp/2005/1001/p1243.html


You're the one distorting reality.

Great post.

Delirium

Black Menorca wrote: »

No.

Y wanted baby Hope dead, rather than deliver him alive.

Completely unacceptable.

Where did I quote/ mention the Y case in the post you responded to?

PopePalpatine

And now Ms. Y's baby probably has all sorts of handicaps after being delivered at (if I recall correctly) some time around 25-28 weeks.

traprunner

PopePalpatine wrote: »

And now Ms. Y's baby probably has all sorts of handicaps after being delivered at (if I recall correctly) some time around 25-28 weeks.

Also, the mother is physically scarred and probably mentally scared for life. Every time she looks down at her stomach she will have the reminder present.

Black Menorca

PopePalpatine wrote: »

And now Ms. Y's baby probably has all sorts of handicaps after being delivered at (if I recall correctly) some time around 25-28 weeks.

Because of the selfishness of Hope's mother, he does face severe challenges in his life. But he is alive and fighting. If his mother had her way he's be dead and flushed down a drain by now.

Black Menorca

SW wrote: »

Where did I quote/ mention the Y case in the post you responded to?

You didn't.

K-9

And we're are getting emotional , personal and OTT again.

If people can't post without throwing slurs at each other access will be withdrawn, simples.

It's a politics board so we expect a certain standard of debate, and for the most we've had a good discussion on the subject.

Sheldons Brain

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

There would be babies alive today if condoms were prohibited.

Should condoms be prohibited?

THis is a complete red herring. Contraception is a positive thing, not having a baby (if you don't want one) is a reasonable measure. Having one and killing it is not.

Atlantis50

volchitsa wrote: »

Sorry, what's your point? The link you gave earlier is specifically designed for doctors operating in low tech district hospitals in the developing countries, where much "essential" equipment in western countries is not available and where there is often no-one higher up that a young doctor can refer a patient too. It says so in the link.

It adapts international best practice to the realities of a very poorly equipped hospital, which may not even have reliable electricity.

I'm sure it's a genuinely brilliant book, enabling doctors to per from heroic feats of lifesaving that they could never do in Europe or the USA - but citing it as evidence of what should or would happen in Ireland is like posting a link to a handbook for a Tigermoth aeroplane to explain how a Boeing 747 is flown : basically the same principle for remaining in the air, but definitely not a reliable indicator nevertheless.

Now come on, tell us where you found such a gem. It's absolutely wonderful, it really is.

PS for instance, one difference - and it's crucial in this context - is the ACCEPT/REFUSE which appears as part of the flow chart in your latest diagram. I'm sure you can see why.

How many links do you need before you accept reality?

http://hse.ie/eng/about/Who/clinical/natclinprog/obsandgynaeprogramme/guide9.pdf

Section 5.4 - Conservative Management of a Miscarriage:

Conservative management is an effective and acceptable method to offer women who miscarry provided there are no signs of infection (vaginal discharge), excessive bleeding, pyrexia or abdominal pain.

Women should be counselled on what to expect, the likely amount of blood loss and what analgesics to take.

Follow up scans may be arranged at 2 weekly intervals, until a diagnosis of complete miscarriage is made. However, if the woman requests a surgical or medical approach to their management at any stage it should be arranged.

Authors: Institute of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, Royal College of Physicians of Ireland and Directorate of Strategy and Clinical Programmes, Health Service Executive.

Now if "Lupe" did not want "Conservative Management" of her miscarriage, she should have medical or surgical management as the manual indicates. The fact that she didn't is down to a decision of her doctors and has nothing to do with abortion or the 8th Amendment.

Sheldons Brain

Sheldons Brain wrote: »

THis is a complete red herring. Contraception is a positive thing, not having a baby (if you don't want one) is a reasonable measure. Having one and killing it is not.

Contraception does not have a 100% success rate.

What of those who use contraception that then fails? What do you suggest for them?

Zubeneschamali

Sheldons Brain wrote: »

not having a baby (if you don't want one) is a reasonable measure. Having one and killing it is not.

Indeed, having a baby and then killing it is illegal everywhere.

No-one thinks a fertilized egg, implanted or not, is a baby.

K-9

Sheldons Brain wrote: »

THis is a complete red herring. Contraception is a positive thing, not having a baby (if you don't want one) is a reasonable measure. Having one and killing it is not.

<br />
<br />
Nobody is going to disagree with that.<br />
<br />
Which comes back to the usual questions, is the morning after pill a contraceptive?

krankykitty

Atlantis50 wrote: »

Regarding the case of "Lupe" - again this has nothing to do with the 8th Amendment. There was no unborn life to protect.

As I've already posted, the case of "Rebecca H" is obviously not about abortion at all and I see nothing wrong with her treatment.

I also believe that it was the correct course of action that "Ms Y" was not given an abortion and instead a live baby that is now almost a year old was delivered by C-section.

It would be nice if it could be remembered that these "Names" that you're putting in quotation marks are real, live women who, whether you believe it's to do with the 8th amendment or not, have been treated appallingly by the maternity services in this country.

And you see nothing wrong with Rebecca H's treatment? Didn't her mental state or her ongoing health matter? Did it not matter that she was lied to by the hospital, requested to have a say in her treatment (like you would in any other branch of medicine) and was flatly denied? Instead, putting her through a long labour she knew her body couldn't cope with and that put her son at risk.

Yeah, great treatment.

traprunner

krankykitty wrote: »

It would be nice if it could be remembered that these "Names" that you're putting in quotation marks are real, live women who, whether you believe it's to do with the 8th amendment or not, have been treated appallingly by the maternity services in this country.

And you see nothing wrong with Rebecca H's treatment? Didn't her mental state or her ongoing health matter? Did it not matter that she was lied to by the hospital, requested to have a say in her treatment (like you would in any other branch of medicine) and was flatly denied? Instead, putting her through a long labour she knew her body couldn't cope with and that put her son at risk.

Yeah, great treatment.

The vast majority of people I have come across that wish to retain the 8th Amendment are men. I find that strange and very controlling. They are great at throwing up cases and ignoring that they are talking about real women. It's easier to refer to them as cases. It takes the emotion out of an emotive topic yet they are more than happy to use emotional and incorrect words like 'baby'.

No Voter And Proud

traprunner wrote: »

The vast majority of people I have come across that wish to retain the 8th Amendment are men. I find that strange and very controlling. They are great at throwing up cases and ignoring that they are talking about real women. It's easier to refer to them as cases. It takes the emotion out of an emotive topic yet they are more than happy to use emotional and incorrect words like 'baby'.

Do women create life on their own?

traprunner

No Voter And Proud wrote: »

Do women create life on their own?

All the time. They generate cells all by themselves and those cells are alive. But you know this already. :rolleyes:

No Voter And Proud

traprunner wrote: »

All the time. They generate cells all by themselves and those cells are alive. But you know this already. :rolleyes:

Ah, that all too familiar facetious response from the pro death side.

traprunner

No Voter And Proud wrote: »

Ah, that all too familiar facetious response from the pro death side.

Was I wrong or something?

Delirium

No Voter And Proud wrote: »

Ah, that all too familiar facetious response from the pro death side.

Facetious.... bad. Misrepresentation...... good

Atlantis50

krankykitty wrote: »

It would be nice if it could be remembered that these "Names" that you're putting in quotation marks are real, live women who, whether you believe it's to do with the 8th amendment or not, have been treated appallingly by the maternity services in this country.

And you see nothing wrong with Rebecca H's treatment? Didn't her mental state or her ongoing health matter? Did it not matter that she was lied to by the hospital, requested to have a say in her treatment (like you would in any other branch of medicine) and was flatly denied? Instead, putting her through a long labour she knew her body couldn't cope with and that put her son at risk.

Yeah, great treatment.

This is a thread specifically about the 8th Amendment in the "Elections and Referendums Forum" and that is why my response focuses on that.

Feel free to open a more general thread on the standard of maternity services in this country in the appropriate forum if it concerns you so much.

I'll gladly contribute to it and I've already referred to the shocking failure of a number of major maternity hospitals to implement life-saving systems in post #537:

"A patient safety system, aimed at alerting health staff when a pregnant woman's condition is deteriorating, is not being operated properly in six out of seven maternity hospitals audited by the HSE."

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/unit-where-savita-died-fails-safety-checks-test-30917914.html

None of the posters on here blaming the 8th amendment for all sorts of problems in maternity services have any comments whatsoever about that. Doesn't suit their agenda.

Gee, why would people get worked up about the failure of maternity hospitals to implement an Early Warning Scoring system that can identify when a pregnant woman's condition is deteriorating when they can instead bang on about the supposed "dangers" of the 8th Amendment :rolleyes:

Regarding the "Names" issue, I'm sure you're aware those are pseudonyms and hence my use of quotation remarks.

Whether I view "Rebecca H's" treatment as acceptable or not is actually irrelevant - what's relevant is was it due to the 8th Amendment? The answer is clearly no.

krankykitty

Like it or not the 8th does have an implication for consent in maternity care.

http://humanrights.ie/uncategorized/wanted-pregnancy-choice-and-the-courts-the-8th-amendment-and-more/


And I am very concerned about the maternity services and am doing more useful things about it than starting threads on a message board

krankykitty

From the She is Not a Criminal report:

Amnesty International wrote:

The Association for Improvements in the Maternity Services Ireland (AIMS Ireland)152 has
documented numerous cases of rights abuses in the provision of maternal health care that
are a product of the Eighth Amendment. In a recent statement they noted:
“[T]he Eighth Amendment is repeatedly used in the context of maternity rights to
deny women the right to bodily autonomy in terms of decision making in pregnancy, in
labour, in birth and in the postpartum period. Women have reported being forced into
caesarean births, forced into invasive procedures during labour, threatened with social
services and in some cases threatened with the Gardaí [police] and mental health
services for trying to assert their right to bodily autonomy.”153

Krysia Lynch, Co-Chair and Spokesperson for AIMS Ireland, characterized the situation as the
“quashing of choice from the minute you’re pregnant.”154
The HSE’s National Consent Policy further sanctions these aggressive measures. Invoking the
Eighth Amendment, the policy allows for health care providers to seek the intervention of the
High Court if there is disagreement between them and the pregnant woman on the best course of treatment.155
The need to navigate the court system and obtain legal counsel to challenge the threat of a
court order, for example, is extremely intimidating, and for marginalized women it is even
more challenging.

Also in their recommendations is the following:

Amnesty International wrote:

Revise the HSE’s National Consent Policy, which currently allows for health care
providers to seek the intervention of the High Court if there is disagreement between them
and the pregnant woman on the best course of treatment. Ensure that pregnant women’s
autonomy and choices are respected and upheld.

Black Menorca

krankykitty wrote: »

From the She is Not a Criminal report:



Also in their recommendations is the following:

A human rights organisation shilling for killing unborn human life.

Go figure.

krankykitty

Black Menorca wrote: »

A human rights organisation shilling for killing unborn human life.

Go figure.

They're really not shilling for anything. Amnesty couldn't give two fcuks if anyone has an abortion. They're concerned about people having the CHOICE. Choice does not equal obligation

PopePalpatine

Funnily enough, Amnesty was formed in response to seven Portuguese students being imprisoned by the Catholic authoritarian regime of Salazar, for having a toast to liberty.

johnnyskeleton

No Voter And Proud wrote: »

Ah, that all too familiar facetious response from the pro death side.

MOD: 24 hour ban for ignoring the mod warning on thread. Please be civil and stop throwing slurs at other posters.

Black Menorca

PopePalpatine wrote: »

Funnily enough, Amnesty was formed in response to seven Portuguese students being imprisoned by the Catholic authoritarian regime of Salazar, for having a toast to liberty.

And look at them now. Advocating for the abortion industry.

PopePalpatine

I take it you ignored this:

cros13 wrote: »

Please stop saying nonsense like this, it's dishonest.

Most terminations in total are now carried out by abortifacient pill which can in most cases be prescribed by the family doctor or by the local public health office. These days they usually use a drug licensed in Ireland and carried in pharmacies for the treatment of ulcers.

Most surgical terminations worldwide are carried out in public hospitals as a normal part of basic healthcare.
In other cases like in the case of Planned Parenthood they are charities devoted to family planning and when there is a need in the area they provide terminations as well.
And the last major category are social businesses like Marie Stopes who provide services at cost without making a profit.
There's 99% of your "abortion industry" in three categories...none of which make a profit.

In fact guess where many of the charities that operate to offer assistance to Irish women accessing termination services get their money? Ordinary Irish people like me donating!
And I'm very proud of that fact.

Black Menorca

Massive decline in abortion rates in America.

Is it down to the 20 something generation recognising the value of abstinence and the right to life of unborn babies?


http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/abortion-rates-are-dropping-and-it-could-be-thanks-to-millennials-66440/

PopePalpatine

"Catholic News Agency"? I might as well ask Daesh about secularism.

K-9

Black Menorca wrote: »

Massive decline in abortion rates in America.

Is it down to the 20 something generation recognising the value of abstinence and the right to life of unborn babies?


http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/abortion-rates-are-dropping-and-it-could-be-thanks-to-millennials-66440/

Better sex education probably!

Black Menorca

PopePalpatine wrote: »

"Catholic News Agency"? I might as well ask Daesh about secularism.

Does the massive decline in abortion offend you in some way?

Delirium

Black Menorca wrote: »

Massive decline in abortion rates in America.

Is it down to the 20 something generation recognising the value of abstinence and the right to life of unborn babies?


http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/abortion-rates-are-dropping-and-it-could-be-thanks-to-millennials-66440/

Report from last year explains the reasons for decline:

"The decline in abortions coincided with a steep national drop in overall pregnancy and birth rates," Rachel Jones, lead author of the study, said in a statement. "Contraceptive use improved during this period. ... Moreover, the recent recession led many women and couples to want to avoid or delay pregnancy and childbearing."



As Jones said, several variables affect abortion rates, including the economy, access to contraception and the availability of abortion services.


The pregnancy rate is the lowest it has been in 12 years. It's possible that since there were fewer overall pregnancies, there were also fewer unintended pregnancies during this time period. Both could be attributed to an uptick in more effective contraception use, the study authors say.

Previous studies have shown that offering free contraception to women may prevent abortions. Longer-term methods, such as intrauterine devices, are as much as 20 times more effective at preventing unintended pregnancies than methods that require constant action, such as the birth control pill or vaginal ring.

"Access to a range of birth control methods is playing an important role in reducing unintended pregnancy and decreasing the need for abortion," Cecile Richards, president of Planned Parenthood Federation of America, said in a statement.



"This report comes just as some politicians and corporations are trying to make it harder for women to get birth control by chipping away at the historic benefit in the Affordable Care Act that requires insurance plans to cover birth control without a copay."


Women's access to certain types of abortion providers also matters, the study authors say. In 2011, abortion clinics represented just 19% of facilities offering abortion services. Yet clinics performed approximately 63% of the procedures. The researchers concluded that "the number of clinics in particular may be a more important indicator of access than the total number of providers."


The total number of abortion providers declined 4% between 2008 and 2011, according to the study. The number of clinics declined 1% nationwide, with much higher rates of decline in Arkansas, Idaho, Kansas, Oklahoma and Vermont, which each lost one clinic. Although one clinic closure may seem insignificant, it may have contributed to the larger-than-average decline in the abortion rates in Kansas and Oklahoma, the study authors say.

Link to full article

Shrap

Black Menorca wrote: »

Massive decline in abortion rates in America.

Is it down to the 20 something generation recognising the value of abstinence and the right to life of unborn babies?


http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/abortion-rates-are-dropping-and-it-could-be-thanks-to-millennials-66440/

Not in the slightest. There is no such thing as abstinence (to a statistically recognisable degree) so it must be down to sex ed and greater access to contraception.

Here in Ireland, girls (as distinct from women who have already had children) are now able to access the coil as a long term contraceptive choice, where previously they weren't. This is more than likely the reason for the drop in abortion service users in recent years.

Shrap

SW wrote: »

Report from last year explains the reasons for decline:


Link to full article

Yes. It has been proven many times over that a drop in abortion rates has a direct correlation with access to cheap contraception and good sex education. Nobody wants high abortion rates. Everybody wishes to avoid crisis pregnancy.

Black Menorca

Keep digging, guys.

Atlantis50

traprunner wrote: »

The vast majority of people I have come across that wish to retain the 8th Amendment are men. I find that strange and very controlling. They are great at throwing up cases and ignoring that they are talking about real women. It's easier to refer to them as cases. It takes the emotion out of an emotive topic yet they are more than happy to use emotional and incorrect words like 'baby'.

I take it you and Amanda are on the same page on the role of men? :

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=764CcBSboi0

In any event, women are the backbone of the pro-life movement.

This is evident from pro-life rallies where 60 to 70% of attendees are women and five of the eight leaders of the pro-life campaign are female:

http://prolifecampaign.ie/main/about-2-2/

Black Menorca

Atlantis50 wrote: »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=764CcBSboi0

Wow, its really scary how hate filled some on the 'Liberal' side really are.

PopePalpatine

Yawn. On your side, you've got these guys, so take the log out of your own eye first.

K-9

Black Menorca wrote: »

Keep digging, guys.

Mod: Up your game and try and add something other than slurs, insults and trollish comments, it really isn't that hard, thank you.

cros13

Atlantis50 wrote: »

I take it you and Amanda are on the same page on the role of men? :

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=764CcBSboi0

In any event, women are the backbone of the pro-life movement.

This is evident from pro-life rallies where 60 to 70% of attendees are women and five of the eight leaders of the pro-life campaign are female:

http://prolifecampaign.ie/main/about-2-2/

Actually I was at that rally, and I'm a bloke so were the four other people I went with.

I will admit at the time I felt a little hurt by what Amanda was saying...and when I looked around many people male and female in the crowd were visibly offended.

To certain extent given what was happening at the time her anger is understandable and justified.

As a single bloke what was I doing at a pro-choice rally?
Well, I like to think I can empathize with others. I may not always personally agree with the reasons people seek a termination, but I have absolutely no right to avoidably limit their options. And I have a moral obligation to defend their right to choose.

Pregnancy is inherently dangerous. In the middle ages one of the first things on the todo list for an expectant mother was to ensure her will was in place, the maternal mortality rate was between 1 in 40 and 1 in 25. Without medical facilities or skilled assistance, pregnancy and birth is more lethal than untreated Dengue Fever. And that's not even counting increased mortality from some common activities and infections for pregnant women.

Even with full modern medical care (including the medically justified terminations and protective measures that are unavailable in Ireland due to the chilling effect of the 8th amendment) the risks are significant. What right has anyone to impose taking those substantial risks on someone else. And what justification can be given? That we have to protect a questionably viable bundle of cells that at least for the first 10 weeks is a barely cellularly differentiated embryo and for the next 16 weeks lacks even the ability to register sensory input or anything we'd yet recognise as bones.

traprunner

PopePalpatine wrote: »

Yawn. On your side, you've got these guys, so take the log out of your own eye first.

It's ok to take a life but not a potential life. Did you not get the memo from them?

traprunner

Atlantis50 wrote: »

I take it you and Amanda are on the same page on the role of men? :

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=764CcBSboi0

In any event, women are the backbone of the pro-life movement.

This is evident from pro-life rallies where 60 to 70% of attendees are women and five of the eight leaders of the pro-life campaign are female:

http://prolifecampaign.ie/main/about-2-2/

Do you think because one person has an opinion that everyone else has the exact same?

Statistically 90% of men couldn't be bothered going to rallies. We can all quote statistics.

Atlantis50

PopePalpatine wrote: »

Yawn. On your side, you've got these guys, so take the log out of your own eye first.

I find it bizarre that you would view the opposite extreme of Amanda's speech as murder. You're doing Amanda a terrible disservice by making such a link and I'm obviously no fan of the woman.

I also wasn't aware that the actions of a few people worldwide can be equated to the Irish pro-life movement.