8th Amendment

anothernight

Black Menorca wrote: »

His nationality is irrelevant. Though India is hardly a paragon for Child Rights, now that you've bring it up. Is he posting here?

You brought up nationality, not me. How is it relevant whether he posts here or not? You accused people of abusing her memory simply by bringing up her name. He's done more than that. He's told his story to Irish and international media, where it is clear that he was in favour of her life-saving termination. And yet you won't accuse him of abusing her memory (and thank god for that...). I'm just wondering why. Why is it only Irish posters on boards.ie that abuse her memory by mentioning her name, and not her own husband speaking out on the exact same issue?

Black Menorca

anothernight wrote: »

You brought up nationality, not me. How is it relevant whether he posts here or not? You accused people of abusing her memory simply by bringing up her name. He's done more than that. He's told his story to Irish and international media, where it is clear that he was in favour of her life-saving termination. And yet you won't accuse him of abusing her memory (and thank god for that...). I'm just wondering why. Why is it only Irish posters on boards.ie that abuse her memory by mentioning her name, and not her own husband speaking out on the exact same issue?

Because they continuously bring up her memory to morbidly peddle their abortion agenda.

anothernight

Black Menorca wrote: »

Because they continuously bring up her memory to morbidly peddle their abortion agenda.

So you accuse them only when they use an inconvenient example? Is that it? Hers is a valid and very relevant example of how the Irish abortion laws can cause the loss of women's life. It's not me saying it, it's experts such as Dr Peter Boylan. But you know this already because it's already been brought up.

Are there any other names that Irish posters of boards.ie shouldn't mention, to avoid being accused of abusing people's memories? Or is hers the only one?

PopePalpatine

Black Menorca wrote: »

All these Irish 11 year olds getting pregnant by rape. Is that how desperate the abortion lobby is getting to justify the opening of the floodgates to abortion on request?

Ms X was 14 when she was dragged through the courts after becoming pregnant after being raped. It's likely that her body would be crippled by the strains of childbirth.

Ms X and Ms Y were both suicidal due to their pregnancies. The Twelfth Amendment guarantees the right of a woman to have an abortion if she is suicidal due to her pregnancy.

Black Menorca

anothernight wrote: »

So you accuse them only when they use an inconvenient example? Is that it? Hers is a valid and very relevant example of how the Irish abortion laws can cause the loss of women's life. It's not me saying it, it's experts such as Dr Peter Boylan. But you know this already because it's already been brought up.

Are there any other names that Irish posters of boards.ie shouldn't mention, to avoid being accused of abusing people's memories? Or is hers the only one?

Boylan's been shilling for abortion for years now.

Three reports, not one said an abortion was a valid 'treatment choice'.

Black Menorca

PopePalpatine wrote: »

Ms X was 14 when she was dragged through the courts after becoming pregnant after being raped. It's likely that her body would be crippled by the strains of childbirth.

Ms X and Ms Y were both suicidal due to their pregnancies. The Twelfth Amendment guarantees the right of a woman to have an abortion if she is suicidal due to her pregnancy.

Right.

How many women committed suicide because they were pregnant?

anothernight

Black Menorca wrote: »

Boylan's been shilling for abortion for years now

So? You don't think that had anything to do with his qualifications and experience in the maternity sector? Surely he has more authority on the matter than you and me combined. Weren't you going on about consistency of belief a few days ago?

Which reports are you talking about btw? Because at least one of them mentions abortion, and not in the way you would like. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/ireland/10119109/Irish-abortion-law-key-factor-in-death-of-Savita-Halappanavar-official-report-finds.html

anothernight

Black Menorca wrote: »

Right.

How many women committed suicide because they were pregnant?

I mentioned this study in a different thread, but you might want to know about it. It's called "Suicide: the leading cause of maternal death".
http://bjp.rcpsych.org/content/183/4/279

Inconvenient eh?

volchitsa

anothernight wrote: »

I mentioned this study in a different thread, but you might want to know about it. It's called "Suicide: the leading cause of maternal death".
http://bjp.rcpsych.org/content/183/4/279

Inconvenient eh?

And then there's this : http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3454210

33% of pregnant women who had attempted suicide and admitted suicidal intent asked for an abortion. This in a country where suicidal intent isn't necessary to get an abortion. So, all those women lying in order to get abortions, eh?

Yet here they are, actually making a suicide attempt and associating their problems with the need for an abortion.

Zubeneschamali

Black Menorca wrote: »

How many women committed suicide because they were pregnant?

Very few committed suicide because they couldn't get an abortion, I'd imagine, since we have abortion on demand (if you are not poor, in an institution or an asylum seeker).

It is uncertain how many committed suicide because their pregnancy was a personal disaster and their upbringing meant abortion was unthinkable.

volchitsa

volchitsa wrote: »

Examples please?

ProfessorPlum wrote: »

I'd be interested to know what section of law charges would be brought under

I have no idea what specific laws say this, it's something I was told by a friend who works in law, when we were chatting about women using drugs during pregnancy. Google turned up a link back to boards.ie

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=62809688&postcount=11

Black Menorca

anothernight wrote: »

I mentioned this study in a different thread, but you might want to know about it. It's called "Suicide: the leading cause of maternal death".
http://bjp.rcpsych.org/content/183/4/279

Inconvenient eh?

How many Irish women have committed suicide because they were pregnant? In your own time.

Black Menorca

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Very few committed suicide because they couldn't get an abortion, I'd imagine, since we have abortion on demand (if you are not poor, in an institution or an asylum seeker).

It is uncertain how many committed suicide because their pregnancy was a personal disaster and their upbringing meant abortion was unthinkable.

So is that none?

anothernight

First you asked:

Black Menorca wrote: »

How many women committed suicide because they were pregnant?

When given some evidence on suicide and pregnancy, you changed it to:

Black Menorca wrote: »

How many Irish women have committed suicide because they were pregnant? In your own time.

I don't know. You tell me.
I do wonder though, how relevant is it that they be Irish? What makes you think Irish women are any different than the women figuring in the studies we linked? Are you going to simply ignore the studies? Hmmm, where have I seen this before...

On Savita's husband, you said:

Black Menorca wrote: »

His nationality is irrelevant.

Consistency, where art thou?

Are you going to tell me which reports on Savita's death you were talking about? Or will you just ignore the one I mentioned? If you like I have the HSE's one here.

HSE report wrote:

These guidelines should include good practice guidelines in relation to expediting delivery for clinical reasons including medical and surgical termination based on available expertise and feasibility consistent with the law.
We recognise that such guidelines must be consistent with applicable law and that the guidance so urged may require legal change.

Black Menorca

anothernight wrote: »

First you asked:


When given some evidence on suicide and pregnancy, you changed it to:



I don't know. You tell me.
I do wonder though, how relevant is it that they be Irish? What makes you think Irish women are any different than the women figuring in the studies we linked? Are you going to simply ignore the studies? Hmmm, where have I seen this before...

On Savita's husband, you said:




Consistency, where art thou?

Are you going to tell me which reports on Savita's death you were talking about? Or will you just ignore the one I mentioned? If you like I have the HSE's one here.

I've been asked not to continue bringing up Savita by management and I am happy to comply. Maybe others should follow suit.

As to suicide? I've yet to see one case of a pregnant woman killing herself because fo her pregnancy.

Delirium

Black Menorca wrote: »

I've been asked not to continue bringing up Savita by management and I am happy to comply. Maybe others should follow suit.

As to suicide? I've yet to see one case of a pregnant woman killing herself because fo her pregnancy.

Before abortion was introduced in England in 1950, 10 per cent of women in Ireland who died by suicide were found to be pregnant, he said. While it was impossible to say why these women killed themselves, that figure now was much lower.

“The idea that no woman in pregnancy will ever kill herself because she is pregnant – I don’t know how anybody could stand over that when we look at our own history,” he said.


The idea of putting women through several interviews with psychiatrists was part of out “dreadful history” on treating women who were distressed during pregnancy.


“Women being put into psychiatric hospitals in the past, women being sent off to Magdalene laundries having their children taken from them: we don’t have a good history in this country in this regard,” he said.


Women would face a “double whammy” of being judged because of having an unwanted pregnancy and through the stigma of mental illness. “

Source

Black Menorca

SW wrote: »

Source

I'm sure 10% of those women were left handed also. But there's no evidence any of them committed suicide because of this fact.

My question still stands.

Delirium

Black Menorca wrote: »

I'm sure 10% of those women were left handed also. But there's no evidence any of them committed suicide because of this fact.

My question still stands.

how about you tell us what would meet your criteria for evidence since you seem to dismiss anything that people provide.

what would be good enough for you?

anothernight

Black Menorca wrote: »

I've been asked not to continue bringing up Savita by management and I am happy to comply. Maybe others should follow suit.

As to suicide? I've yet to see one case of a pregnant woman killing herself because fo her pregnancy.

I didn't ask you to bring her up again. I asked what relevance does the nationality have now, when it apparently didn't before, according to you. (I'm of the opinion that nationality shouldn't come into it).

Black Menorca

SW wrote: »

how about you tell us what would meet your criteria for evidence since you seem to dismiss anything that people provide.

what would be good enough for you?

Other people are bringing up the threat of suicide as a justification for abortion. I'm asking if there's been a case where a woman tragically committed suicide because of her pregnancy.

Thankfully, there seems to be no evidence of it happening.

Black Menorca

anothernight wrote: »

I didn't ask you to bring her up again. I asked what relevance does the nationality have now, when it apparently didn't before, according to you. (I'm of the opinion that nationality shouldn't come into it).

All I can do is refer you to my previous response.

anothernight

Black Menorca wrote: »

All I can do is refer you to my previous response.

Please point out which previous response you're referring to. I see none that actually answers my questions.

Or you can just answer:

Is nationality relevant? Yes/No.

You said it wasn't relevant, then you reframed a question to include *only* Irish women when given evidence that wasn't specific to Irish women. Which is it?


I'm also very curious to know what kind of evidence you will accept, as requested by SW, even if you have chosen to ignore his question too.

Black Menorca

Black Menorca wrote: »

I've been asked not to continue bringing up Savita by management and I am happy to comply. Maybe others should follow suit.

This response.

anothernight

Black Menorca wrote: »

This response.

See, that doesn't answer what I asked. I asked, why is nationality suddenly relevant? Nothing to do with Savita at all.

If you need a reminder, this is what I said:

anothernight wrote: »

I do wonder though, how relevant is it that they be Irish? What makes you think Irish women are any different than the women figuring in the studies we linked? Are you going to simply ignore the studies? Hmmm, where have I seen this before...

And it was in relation to you suddenly changing your question from "How many women committed suicide because they were pregnant?" to "How many Irish women have committed suicide because they were pregnant?" when presented with facts.

Do you remember now? Will you tell me why you're now only interested in Irish women, or why you think a similar study on Irish women wouldn't yield the same results? Or will you just ignore/dodge the question again?

K-9

Black Menorca wrote: »

I've been asked not to continue bringing up Savita by management and I am happy to comply. Maybe others should follow suit.

As to suicide? I've yet to see one case of a pregnant woman killing herself because fo her pregnancy.

Mod:

Just to clear this up, the most high profile case in recent years is obviously not off topic and is allowed, using it to throw slurs at others is not allowed. Insinuating that people only bring up the case to lobby or advocate for abortion isn't helpful to the thread and looks like an attempt to sidetrack any questions on it.

oscarBravo

Y'all do realise you're arguing with someone who believes that a raped teenager has a duty to be pregnant, right?

That's the sort of worldview that's not amenable to being influenced by mere evidence.

anothernight

oscarBravo wrote: »

Y'all do realise you're arguing with someone who believes that a raped teenager has a duty to be pregnant, right?

That's the sort of worldview that's not amenable to being influenced by mere evidence.

I do realise that, and that's the main reason I'm finding it loads of fun to argue *cough* debate with this person.
I would think he's a troll, except I've met people like him outside of the internet.

Black Menorca

K-9 wrote: »

Mod:

Just to clear this up, the most high profile case in recent years is obviously not off topic and is allowed, using it to throw slurs at others is not allowed. Insinuating that people only bring up the case to lobby or advocate for abortion isn't helpful to the thread and looks like an attempt to sidetrack any questions on it.

But it is my opinion that some people are bringing up Savita in a morbid attempt to bring in a liberal abortion regime into this country.

Now I received a warning for expressing this opinion before.

Is Savita fair game when it suits your personal point of view?

Clarity on this will be most welcome. Until then I'll continue to comply with your original request.

Black Menorca

oscarBravo wrote: »

Y'all do realise you're arguing with someone who believes that a raped teenager has a duty to be pregnant, right?

That's the sort of worldview that's not amenable to being influenced by mere evidence.

The duty is to do no intentional harm.

oscarBravo

Black Menorca wrote: »

The duty is to do no intentional harm.

And the right of a teenager not to be pregnant after a rape can go f*ck itself.

Compassion and empathy. Keep posting.

anothernight

Black Menorca wrote: »

The duty is to do no intentional harm.

That is not what you said.

Black Menorca

anothernight wrote: »

That is not what you said.

Both comments are complimentary.

anothernight

Black Menorca wrote: »

Both comments are complimentary.

If you say so.

Now, can you reply to this, please? http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=95889318&postcount=825

Black Menorca

anothernight wrote: »

If you say so.

Now, can you reply to this, please? http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=95889318&postcount=825

Nope.

anothernight

Black Menorca wrote: »

Nope.

I guess oscarBravo is right then. No evidence or reasoning is good enough for you. Glad we cleared it up.

Black Menorca

Awesome story, awesome woman.

Atlantis50

anothernight wrote: »

So you accuse them only when they use an inconvenient example? Is that it? Hers is a valid and very relevant example of how the Irish abortion laws can cause the loss of women's life. It's not me saying it, it's experts such as Dr Peter Boylan. But you know this already because it's already been brought up.

Are there any other names that Irish posters of boards.ie shouldn't mention, to avoid being accused of abusing people's memories? Or is hers the only one?

Savita died due to medical negligence, not the 8th Amendment.

There's clearly an agenda behind Peter Boylan's opinions and he should not have given evidence at all at the inquest because he was Dr. Katherine Astbury's boss for a period in the 1990s (He was Master of the National Maternity Hospital (Holles Street) while she worked there as a Senior House Officer).

Of course, other practicing obstetricians in Ireland do not share Boylan's views:

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/we-wont-let-women-die-says-professor-28901745.html

Nor do the majority of the membership of the Irish Medical Organisation:

http://www.rte.ie/news/2013/0405/379917-imo-abortion/

What do HIQA have to say about the case of Savita?

Atlantis50

oscarBravo wrote: »

Y'all do realise you're arguing with someone who believes that a raped teenager has a duty to be pregnant, right?

That's the sort of worldview that's not amenable to being influenced by mere evidence.

"The Irish Medical Organisation has rejected a motion supporting regulation of abortion in line with the X Case following a heated and emotive debate.
The motion was defeated by 42 votes to 32 at the IMO's annual conference.
The AGM has also rejected abortion in the case of victims of rape or incest who become pregnant."


http://www.rte.ie/news/2013/0405/379917-imo-abortion/

Atlantis50

PopePalpatine wrote: »

Ms X was 14 when she was dragged through the courts after becoming pregnant after being raped. It's likely that her body would be crippled by the strains of childbirth.

Ms X and Ms Y were both suicidal due to their pregnancies. The Twelfth Amendment guarantees the right of a woman to have an abortion if she is suicidal due to her pregnancy.

There is no Twelfth Amendment to the Irish Constitution.

Delirium

Atlantis50 wrote: »

"The Irish Medical Organisation has rejected a motion supporting regulation of abortion in line with the X Case following a heated and emotive debate.
The motion was defeated by 42 votes to 32 at the IMO's annual conference.
The AGM has also rejected abortion in the case of victims of rape or incest who become pregnant."


http://www.rte.ie/news/2013/0405/379917-imo-abortion/

Knew that link reminded me of something I'd read before.

Recently the Irish Medical Organisation held its 2013 AGM in Killarney, Kerry. During proceedings three votes were held relating to abortion and support of legislation, all of which were defeated. While this is certainly a disappointing result, anti-choice groups are using it as a victory to portray the incorrect view that Irish doctors do not support legislation for abortion.


The reality is that the voting was not representative of the medical community, and therefore the results of the votes don’t really matter. Here’s why.The three motions proposed by Dr Mary Favier were:

38. This meeting calls on the IMO to support regulation in relation to the provision of abortion services where there is a “real and substantial risk” to the life of the mother.
39. The IMO calls on the Government to legislate for women who become pregnant as a result of a criminal act that they would be allowed access to legal termination within Ireland.
40. The IMO calls on the Government to legislate for the provision of abortion services for women who are pregnant with non-viable fetal anomalies who choose to proceed with an abortion.

The first motion (motion 38) dealt with legislation for the X Case, and was defeated by 42 to 32. I’m looking for the results of the other two motions (get in touch if you know what they were!), but as they were defeated also, it’s probably fair to say that they had similar results.


First of all, motion 38 is already outlined in the Irish Medical Council Guidelines relating to abortion (page 21). Is it not a bit strange that doctors would vote effectively against their own guidelines?


However, as I already said, the voting was not representative of the community of doctors in Ireland. There’s no need for me to explain the difficulties in practising doctors to travel to Kerry from all over the country for a conference when it would demand several days leave from their busy profession. It makes sense to me that the attendees were doctors who were readily available to travel: doctors from the locality, and retired doctors. Of course, I could be wrong on that.


So anyway, all we know from this meeting is that 42 doctors are against abortion. How many doctors are there in this country? Over 18,000.

Not counting abstentions, if 74 people voted, they make up only 0.4% of the doctors in Ireland. 0.2% of doctors are therefore definitely against abortion. In reality, this number will be higher, but the point is that a defeated motion by 42 doctors is not the victory that certain anti-choice groups make it out to be.


You can be sure, though, that such people will conveniently blinker themselves and ignore these facts, congratulate themselves on an imaginary “victory”, all in an ongoing effort to try to deny women the humane healthcare they need.

volchitsa

Atlantis50 wrote: »

There is no Twelfth Amendment to the Irish Constitution.

The failure of the 12th amendment, to remove the right to travel, is what guarantees that right, iirc.

Does that in some way disprove the point the poster was making?

ProfessorPlum

Atlantis50 wrote: »

Savita died due to medical negligence, not the 8th Amendment.

Really?

Which doctor was found to be negligent? The answer is none. iirc, the medical council found there was no case to answer. So the medical council don't back your fantasy, nor does the coroner who recorded that the death was due to medical misadventure, which is not the same as medical negligence.

Atlantis50 wrote: »

There's clearly an agenda behind Peter Boylan's opinions and he should not have given evidence at all at the inquest because he was Dr. Katherine Astbury's boss for a period in the 1990s (He was Master of the National Maternity Hospital (Holles Street) while she worked there as a Senior House Officer).

Well that's some statement to make considering there isn't an obstetrician in the country (or even a good proportion of doctors in other specialties) who hasn't crossed paths with Dr Boylan or Holles St! He was well placed to give evidence, being one of our most experienced obstetricians and the clinical director of our National Maternity Hospital. He has the welfare of pregnant women as his primary interest and is to be congratulated for being one of their most vocal supporters in this country, despite the scurrilous, and unfair remarks that have been made about him.

Atlantis50

SW wrote: »

Knew that link reminded me of something I'd read before.

The position of the IMO is expressed by representative votes of their members at their AGM.

If you think the votes are unrepresentative, where was the outcry among the other thousands of doctors/IMO members seeking to have the vote overturned?

Why didn't they insist on putting the questions about rape and foetal abnormality on their agenda again in 2014 if they viewed the 2013 votes as being unrepresentative of their views?

Atlantis50

volchitsa wrote: »

The failure of the 12th amendment, to remove the right to travel, is what guarantees that right, iirc.

Does that in some way disprove the point the poster was making?

The poster made a factually incorrect claim as have you in this post.

Atlantis50

ProfessorPlum wrote: »

Really?

Which doctor was found to be negligent? The answer is none. iirc, the medical council found there was no case to answer. So the medical council don't back your fantasy, nor does the coroner who recorded that the death was due to medical misadventure, which is not the same as medical negligence.

No negligence?

Someone (an 'expert' here on Savita's death) should tell Praveen Halappanavar he's making a terrible mistake in his legal case:

"THE doctor who treated Savita Halappanavar at a Galway hospital has been named as a co-defendant in an action being taken by her husband Praveen for negligence.

Dr Katherine Astbury and the Health Service Executive (HSE) are being sued by Mr Halappanavar following the death of his wife Savita at University Hospital Galway on October 28 last.

In papers lodged with the High Court last week, the personal injury summons states that Ms Halappanavar's constitutional right to life was breached.

It outlines more than 30 issues of alleged negligence which it claims led to her death.

These include a failure to monitor and properly treat the young dentist and a failure to terminate the pregnancy when it became clear that Ms Halappanavar's life was at risk."

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/savitas-husband-to-sue-her-doctor-for-negligence-29596560.html

The last point of negligence is particularly noteworthy - failure to terminate the pregnancy when it became clear that Ms Halappanavar's life was at risk.

According to an updated article on the case from December 2014, the HSE has admitted liability and nine staff members have been disciplined.

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/health/praveen-to-give-evidence-in-negligence-case-to-be-heard-in-early-2015-30865559.html

Why would that be the case if there was no medical negligence and the clinicians were constrained by the law from acting?

The answer, of course, is that medical negligence is central to Savita's death.

ProfessorPlum wrote: »

Well that's some statement to make considering there isn't an obstetrician in the country (or even a good proportion of doctors in other specialties) who hasn't crossed paths with Dr Boylan or Holles St! He was well placed to give evidence, being one of our most experienced obstetricians and the clinical director of our National Maternity Hospital. He has the welfare of pregnant women as his primary interest and is to be congratulated for being one of their most vocal supporters in this country, despite the scurrilous, and unfair remarks that have been made about him.

Why restrict getting 'expert opinion' from Ireland only?

Someone who had a professional relationship with one of the key participants in a case should not have been selected to pass judgement on that participants professional actions and/or competency.

And as I've already posted, other experienced obstetricians do not share Boylan's general view on the current legal situation in Ireland regarding abortion.

anothernight

Atlantis50 wrote: »

Savita died due to medical negligence, not the 8th Amendment.

(...)

What do HIQA have to say about the case of Savita?

(...)

I think you'll find that the HIQA report was not an investigation on her death, but a review of maternity services.

HIQA report wrote:

While this Report is not a specific investigation into Savita Halappanavar’s case
(...)

In carrying out the investigation, the Authority looked in detail at the safety, quality and standards of services provided by the HSE at University Hospital Galway to patients, including pregnant women, at risk of clinical deterioration and as reflected in, among other things, the care and treatment provided to Savita Halappanavar. This included a review of Savita Halappanavar’s pathway of care as documented
in her healthcare records. This was described in the findings of the West Galway Coroner’s inquest and in the findings outlined in the HSE incident investigation.

In fact, the report completely skirts around the issue of medical termination. Not one word of that report is related to Savita's request. Don't you think that's odd? When it came out, HIQA came under considerable criticism for this, including from medical quarters. Doesn't bother you at all, I'm sure.

Regardless, it's common for reports on the same issue to give slightly different results. It is clear that there was negligence in her death, otherwise she likely wouldn't have died at all. But why do you choose to ignore the HSE report, which dealt specifically with the investigation into her death? Why listen only to a report that outright states that it is not an investigation but a review of records, and that deals, in fact, with patient safety as a whole?

Delirium

Atlantis50 wrote: »

The position of the IMO is expressed by representative votes of their members at their AGM.

And a circle is a circle.

If you think the votes are unrepresentative, where was the outcry among the other thousands of doctors/IMO members seeking to have the vote overturned?

Why didn't they insist on putting the questions about rape and foetal abnormality on their agenda again in 2014 if they viewed the 2013 votes as being unrepresentative of their views?

No idea. But I really doubt that IMO members are opposed to terminating a pregnancy when the woman's life is in danger. Its part of the Irish Medical Council guidelines to treat and its legal to do so.

So few voted, that rounded to the nearest whole number, the percent would be zero. If 1 person in 500 votes, is that reflective of the other 499? I think not.

traprunner

Black Menorca wrote: »

Other people are bringing up the threat of suicide as a justification for abortion. I'm asking if there's been a case where a woman tragically committed suicide because of her pregnancy.

Thankfully, there seems to be no evidence of it happening.

In my opinion there is lack of evidence of a god but you believe there is one. What's the difference that makes you believe in a god yet not that women have committed suicide due to pregnancy? The evidence is stronger for the suicides. Even rationally thinking it makes more sense.

PopePalpatine

Atlantis50 wrote: »

The poster made a factually incorrect claim as have you in this post.

Allow me to correct myself: the proposed Twelfth Amendment, which would not accept suicidality as valid grounds for an abortion, was NOT passed, nor was the proposed 25th Amendment which would have the same effect.

K-9

Black Menorca wrote: »

But it is my opinion that some people are bringing up Savita in a morbid attempt to bring in a liberal abortion regime into this country.

Now I received a warning for expressing this opinion before.

Is Savita fair game when it suits your personal point of view?

Clarity on this will be most welcome. Until then I'll continue to comply with your original request.

You're entitled to that opinion, it's the way you expressed it insinuating that others had ulterior motives. Plenty of people on the site do argue the more anti abortion side and never cause a problem. It's the tone and dismissive nature of your posts that cause the problem.

Tbh folks, I don't see much of a long term future for the thread. There will be no referendum until the next Dail at least and we're going around in the same circles as these threads always end up doing.

On a general note, no more calling others trolls, debate the points respectfully or just don't waste time replying at all.