8th Amendment

Kev W

No Voter And Proud wrote: »

So an abortion is viable and moral at 23 weeks to you guys?

I can't speak for anyone else but as far as I know viability doesn't just "switch on" at a certain point in the pregnancy. It would have to be determined individually in those rare cases that an abortion would be requested at such a late stage.

oscarBravo

No Voter And Proud wrote: »

So an abortion is viable and moral at 23 weeks to you guys?

Forcing a woman to be pregnant against her will is moral to you?

pmasterson95

oscarBravo wrote: »

Forcing a woman to be pregnant against her will is moral to you?

He has stated before its acceptable to save a baby. The woman looses her rights second she is pregnant.

pmasterson95

Atlantis50 wrote: »

Nothing in those posts refers to using violence.

Have you found the link yet to support your claim that the hospital where the clinically dead pregnant woman resided was picketed by pro-life groups or are you making things up? :rolleyes:

Well I see reading comprehension really is a problem here. Or "here" since you like "inverted commas". Not making anything "up" but nice try .

Atlantis50

pmasterson95 wrote: »

Well I see reading comprehension really is a problem here. Or "here" since you like "inverted commas". Not making anything "up" but nice try .

So you were making it up then I take it?

Atlantis50

oscarBravo wrote: »

Do you understand the term?

I do, but I won't be engaging with you or emmett02 on that specific issue anymore because you both have ignored my questions when selectively quoting my post.

This is not a one-way type of debate where you get to ask all the questions.

krankykitty

No Voter And Proud wrote: »

So an abortion is viable and moral at 23 weeks to you guys?

Know the facts a tiny minority of abortions happen after 20 weeks and most if not all are due to health issues with the foetus or the mother. Not some woman who has gone through 23 weeks of pregnancy and suddenly decides oh screw this I can't be arsed with this pregnancy lark. These cases will always have a tragic story. Most will be women who desperately wanted their baby. But that doesn't fit with your loose woman rhetoric

pmasterson95

Atlantis50 wrote: »

So you were making it up then I take it?

No. Got anything to say about you ignoring where he advocates violence or are you going to keep misding that bit with your head buried in Atlantis?

Atlantis50

pmasterson95 wrote: »

No. Got anything to say about you ignoring where he advocates violence or are you going to keep misding that bit with your head buried in Atlantis?

If it were true, you'd have posted a link long ago.

So now we know your MO is to fabricate things and exaggerate.

If you prove your claim is true, I'll apologise.

pmasterson95

Atlantis50 wrote: »

I do, but I won't be engaging with you or emmett02 on that specific issue anymore because you both have ignored my questions when selectively quoting my post.

This is not a one-way type of debate where you get to ask all the questions.

Well this confirms my previously mooted idea of keeping head buried in atlantis. When no rebuttal or prepapared speel is available and they arent buying your "answers" just flee and claim it never happened!

Atlantis50

pmasterson95 wrote: »

Well this confirms my previously mooted idea of keeping head buried in atlantis. When no rebuttal or prepapared speel is available and they arent buying your "answers" just flee and claim it never happened!

Yeah yeah.

You keep searching for that link to exonerate yourself as a liar.

pmasterson95

Atlantis50 wrote: »

If it were true, you'd have posted a link long ago.

So now we know your MO is to fabricate things and exaggerate.

If you prove your claim is true, I'll apologise.

No Voter advocating violence? Can you read that? Before I get a link it'd be good to know you are able to read it. Evidence displayed so far doesnt indicate much reading skill. Why waste my time showing something if you cannot read?

Atlantis50

pmasterson95 wrote: »

No Voter advocating violence? Can you read that? Before I get a link it'd be good to know you are able to read it. Evidence displayed so far doesnt indicate much reading skill. Why waste my time showing something if you cannot read?

Prove it or withdraw the claim.

pmasterson95

Atlantis50 wrote: »

Yeah yeah.

You keep searching for that link to exonerate yourself as a liar.

You keep failing to answer Q1......

Atlantis50

Atlantis50 wrote: »

I do, but I won't be engaging with you or emmett02 on that specific issue anymore because you both have ignored my questions when selectively quoting my post.

This is not a one-way type of debate where you get to ask all the questions.

Interesting.

You similarly ignored this direct question when I asked it previously, hypocritical perhaps?

Atlantis50 wrote: »

Amending the constitution has a much higher higher evidence threshold for "instances of incidents" compared to laws/legislation.

Deleted User wrote: »

Details of this threshold please?

Atlantis50 wrote: »

Basic evidence of a need for the change for a start.

Deleted User wrote: »

Which evidence of a need for a change was presented in the most recent constitutional change?

I'll answer yours if you answer mine. Does that work for you?

Atlantis50

pmasterson95 wrote: »

You keep failing to answer Q1......

Still floundering with no proof to support your claim that the hospital where the clinically dead woman was staying was picketed by pro-life groups.

pmasterson95

Atlantis50 wrote: »

Prove it or withdraw the claim.

Yawn no answers coming about advocating violence. Good lad. I love special lil cherubs like you.

pmasterson95

Atlantis50 wrote: »

Still floundering with no proof to support your claim that the hospital where the clinically dead woman was staying was picketed by pro-life groups.

Still no answer to.....well anything really. Thats a special skill

Atlantis50

Deleted User wrote: »

Interesting.

You similarly ignored this direct question when I asked it previously, hypocritical perhaps?









I'll answer yours if you answer mine. Does that work for you?

The debate had moved on considerably by the time I rejoined commenting on this thread and I had no intention in trawling through all of the other pages looking for comments.

How about addressing the issue at hand right now first?

There's always the opportunity for outstanding issues to be then addressed.

Atlantis50

pmasterson95 wrote: »

Still no answer to.....well anything really. Thats a special skill

Couldn't find the link?

Just admit you made it up and move on.

conorh91

oscarBravo wrote: »

You introduced this straw man to the conversation...

Should a woman have the right to not be pregnant, or is pregnancy a duty that overrides her fundamental right to bodily integrity? That's the question.

You don't get to dictate the terms of the conversation.

I began by discussing the case law in PP v HSE, which turned into a conversation on the Dublin declaration, which refers to the use of abortion where women are suicidal. My points are valid and frankly, if you don't want to discuss them, jog on and engage with someone else.

pmasterson95

Atlantis50 wrote: »

Couldn't find the link?

Just admit you made it up and move on.

Can you still not read where the violence was clearly acceptable. I have told you (altho I guess you cannot read it) if you show you can read I will provide the link. Originally you asked me to provide post in the thread that you were incapable of finding and also finding an external link. I found the posts here but alas your literacy skills seemingly are not advanced enough to read it. Why would you give a blind person binoculars? Or a mute a megaphone? You have not and refuse to show any major reading abilities to suggest it is worthwhile to give you any reading material. It is not accepted to give a junior infant the likes of Shakespeare to read.

Can you read and finish what you started and adress the advocating of violence?

pmasterson95

conorh91 wrote: »

You don't get to dictate the terms of the conversation.

I began by discussing the case law in PP v HSE, which turned into a conversation on the Dublin declaration, which refers to the use of abortion where women are suicidal. My points are valid and frankly, if you don't want to discuss them, jog on and engage with someone else.

It starts: "You dont get to dictate the terms of the conversation."

And ends "jog on and engage with someone else"


kinda fits the anti choice quite well. No you cant do this. You do this.

I dont think you have the right to dictate either lad! But you seem to think you do!

Kev W

pmasterson95 wrote: »

Can you still not read where the violence was clearly acceptable. I have told you (altho I guess you cannot read it) if you show you can read I will provide the link. Originally you asked me to provide post in the thread that you were incapable of finding and also finding an external link. I found the posts here but alas your literacy skills seemingly are not advanced enough to read it. Why would you give a blind person binoculars? Or a mute a megaphone? You have not and refuse to show any major reading abilities to suggest it is worthwhile to give you any reading material. It is not accepted to give a junior infant the likes of Shakespeare to read.

Can you read and finish what you started and adress the advocating of violence?

We're on the same side here but you're really weakening your argument by refusing to post the link. Just do it and he'll be forced to either address your point or find another excuse not to.

pmasterson95

Kev W wrote: »

We're on the same side here but you're really weakening your argument by refusing to post the link. Just do it and he'll be forced to either address your point or find another excuse not to.

He hasnt even adressed the first thing he asked for yet. He was complaining about unanswered questions. Yet refuses to answer Q1.

No Voter And Proud

Kev W wrote: »

I can't speak for anyone else but as far as I know viability doesn't just "switch on" at a certain point in the pregnancy. It would have to be determined individually in those rare cases that an abortion would be requested at such a late stage.

Statistically from 24 weeks on a baby is potentially viable to survive outside the womb.

oscarBravo wrote: »

Forcing a woman to be pregnant against her will is moral to you?

Dodging the question? For shame.

Kev W

pmasterson95 wrote: »

He hasnt even adressed the first thing he asked for yet. He was complaining about unanswered questions. Yet refuses to answer Q1.

So be better than him. Post the link.

Atlantis50

pmasterson95 wrote: »

Can you still not read where the violence was clearly acceptable. I have told you (altho I guess you cannot read it) if you show you can read I will provide the link. Originally you asked me to provide post in the thread that you were incapable of finding and also finding an external link. I found the posts here but alas your literacy skills seemingly are not advanced enough to read it. Why would you give a blind person binoculars? Or a mute a megaphone? You have not and refuse to show any major reading abilities to suggest it is worthwhile to give you any reading material. It is not accepted to give a junior infant the likes of Shakespeare to read.

Can you read and finish what you started and adress the advocating of violence?

No proof, because you made it up.

The location of the hospital concerned was not public knowledge to protect the privacy of the family.

Kev W

No Voter And Proud wrote: »

Statistically from 24 weeks on a baby is potentially viable to survive outside the womb.

Well if you insist on having a direct yes/no answer based purely on statistics then the answer would be yes.

No Voter And Proud wrote: »

Dodging the question? For shame.

...he said, dodging the question.

conorh91

pmasterson95 wrote: »

I dont think you have the right to dictate either lad! But you seem to think you do!

No I don't. I've no interest in intervening in an exchange, and telling people to talk about something else. A lot of people dislike awkward truths like the Irish obstetricians and psychiatrists who oppose the use of abortion where a pregnant woman is suicidal, and so they exhort posters to talk about something else.

Personally, I'm comfortable discussing the evidence. Not everyone is.

Kev W

conorh91 wrote: »

No I don't. I've no interest in intervening in an exchange, and telling people to talk about something else. A lot of people dislike awkward truths like the Irish obstetricians and psychiatrists who oppose the use of abortion where a pregnant woman is suicidal, and so they exhort posters to talk about something else.

Personally, I'm comfortable discussing the evidence. Not everyone is.

Are you comfortable discussing the fact that that list is a minority of obstetricians and psychiatrists cherry-picked from pro-life groups?

conorh91

Kev W wrote: »

Are you comfortable discussing the fact that that list is a minority of obstetricians and psychiatrists cherry-picked from pro-life groups?

Yes. I am probably the only person in the thread who put a number on how much of a minority it is (about 30% of consultant obstetrician-gynaecologists registered in Ireland)

The other obstetricians haven't made any collective statement in contradiction, and so it is not possible to infer anything either way.

I think 30% of the state's consultant obstetricians is substantial, however. They are basically saying that the Supreme Court decision in the Miss X case was misguided, from a clinical viewpoint.

traprunner

conorh91 wrote: »

I am probably the only person in the thread who put a number on how much of a minority it is (about 30% of consultant obstetrician-gynaecologists registered in Ireland)

The other obstetricians haven't made any collective statement in contradiction, and so it is not possible to infer anything either way.

I think 30% of the state's consultant obstetricians is substantial, however. They are basically saying that the Supreme Court decision in the Miss X case was misguided, from a clinical viewpoint.

37.9% of the votes in the Marriage Referendum were No. We should go back to the drawing board as a result.

conorh91

traprunner wrote: »

And 37.9% of the votes in the Marriage Referendum were No.

But we know that the majority said Yes.

There hasn't been a vote here. No survey has been undertaken. But about a third of Irish consultant obstetricians have said that the decision in the X case was misguided, and they have not been contradicted or supported by their peers.

When one acknowledged expert comes out and advances a position, we usually take notice, without demanding a national survey of his peers. When thirty acknowledged experts do so, you'd have to have a good reason for dismissing them. If anyone disagrees with the Dublin declaration, I would genuinely like to see their evidence.

traprunner

conorh91 wrote: »

But we know that the majority said Yes.

There hasn't been a vote here. No survey has been undertaken. But about a third of Irish consultant obstetricians have said that the decision in the X case was misguided, and they have not been contradicted or supported by their peers.

When one acknowledged expert comes out and advances a position, we usually take notice, without demanding a national survey of his peers. If anyone disagrees with the Dublin declaration, I would genuinely like to see their evidence.

I'm all for a national vote on repealing the 8th and then hopefully those 30% would know that the majority said Yes to repeal.

johnnyskeleton

pmasterson95 wrote: »

Yawn no answers coming about advocating violence. Good lad. I love special lil cherubs like you.

Atlantis50 wrote: »

Yeah yeah.

You keep searching for that link to exonerate yourself as a liar.

MOD: I do so terribly dislike it when people continue to snipe at each other after a mod warning.

Deleted User wrote: »

I'll answer yours if you answer mine. Does that work for you?

Kev W wrote: »

...he said, dodging the question.

No more of this "you haven't answered my question" business please. That goes for everyone, not just Milana Sticky Klutz and Kev W. If someone hasn't responded to a point then they are probably not going to. Consider yourself to have won the point and move on

conorh91

traprunner wrote: »

I'm all for a national vote on repealing the 8th and then hopefully those 30% would know that the majority said Yes to repeal.

Have you ever wondered why the Irish Times, and other media, never publish polls on repealing the 8th amendment in its entirety?

They always publish polls which show that 60-70% of people agree with abortion where the unborn has a fatal abnormality, for example, but nothing about liberalizing abortion law in ordinary cases?

Ever wonder why that is?

Because it wouldn't pass.

Kev W

conorh91 wrote: »

Have you ever wondered why the Irish Times, and other media, never publish polls on repealing the 8th amendment in its entirety?

They always publish polls which show that 60-70% of people agree with abortion where the unborn has a fatal abnormality, for example, but nothing about liberalizing abortion law in ordinary cases?

Ever wonder why that is?

Because it wouldn't pass.

That makes no sense. Why would they not publish a poll that would show that result?

traprunner

conorh91 wrote: »

Have you ever wondered why the Irish Times, and other media, never publish polls on repealing the 8th amendment in its entirety?

They always publish polls which show that 60-70% of people agree with abortion where the unborn has a fatal abnormality, for example, but nothing about liberalizing abortion law in ordinary cases?

Ever wonder why that is?

Because it wouldn't pass.

I didn't think there was a conspiracy on this with the national papers. Surely it would be a big story either way a poll went so maybe no made the decision to conduct a repeal poll.

Loafing Oaf

conorh91 wrote: »

When one acknowledged expert comes out and advances a position, we usually take notice, without demanding a national survey of his peers. When thirty acknowledged experts do so, you'd have to have a good reason for dismissing them. If anyone disagrees with the Dublin declaration, I would genuinely like to see their evidence.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2012/10/19/abortion-mother-life-walsh/1644839/
The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists issued a statement saying: "Abortions are necessary in a number of circumstances to save the life of a woman or to preserve her health. Unfortunately, pregnancy is not a risk-free life event."

But what would they know eh? Perhaps Irish women are biologically different from women elsewhere, have different medical needs...

conorh91

Kev W wrote: »

That makes no sense. Why would they not publish a poll that would show that result?

Because it might suggest that their newspaper tends to advance unpopular opinions. With rare exceptions, I think it is fair to say that these publications tend to favour liberal abortion laws.

Riddle me this. Repealing the 8th amendment has been consistently under discussion online and in the broadcast media since the tragic death of Savita Halappanavar in 2012.

Why do you suppose there are no recent published polls on the matter? As far as i am aware there have been none in the past 10 years, except narrow polls that focus on young age groups alone.

Why's that?

conorh91

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2012/10/19/abortion-mother-life-walsh/1644839/
The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists issued a statement saying: "Abortions are necessary in a number of circumstances to save the life of a woman or to preserve her health. Unfortunately, pregnancy is not a risk-free life event."

I'm sure they are.
But not suicide.
Did you have a point?

Kev W

conorh91 wrote: »

Because it might suggest that their newspaper tends to advance unpopular opinions. With rare exceptions, I think it is fair to say that these publications tend to favour liberal abortion laws.

Riddle me this. Repealing the 8th amendment has been consistently under discussion online and in the broadcast media since the tragic death of Savita Halappanavar in 2012.

Why do you suppose there are no recent published polls on the matter? As far as i am aware there have been none in the past 10 years, except narrow polls that focus on young age groups alone.

Why's that?

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/politics/poll-act-now-on-abortion-say-voters-30602947.html

Loafing Oaf

conorh91 wrote: »

I'm sure they are.
But not suicide.
Did you have a point?

You said upthread:

It is clear that a substantial number of Irish experts in obstetrics and gynecology are in agreement that abortion is not medically necessary to save the life of a woman.

Are you saying you don't agree with them? If so why are you quoting the Dublin declaration?

conorh91

Kev W wrote: »

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/politics/poll-act-now-on-abortion-say-voters-30602947.html

Ah right so perhaps 34% want liberal abortion laws. Not a poll you tend to see, I wasn't aware there were any.

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

Are you saying you don't agree with them? If so why are you quoting the Dublin declaration?

The Dublin declaration holds that where the unborn dies during a medical intervention which intends to save the life of the mother, it is not abortion. I think that's where the confusion lies.

Kev W

conorh91 wrote: »

Ah right so perhaps 34% want liberal abortion laws. Not a poll you tend to see, I wasn't aware there were any.

It took literally 10 seconds on Google to find that.

Loafing Oaf

conorh91 wrote: »

Ah right so perhaps 34% want liberal abortion laws. Not a poll you tend to see, I wasn't aware there were any.

The Dublin declaration holds that where the unborn dies during a medical intervention which intends to save the life of the mother, it is not abortion. I think that's where the confusion lies.

You asked for evidence contradicting the Dublin Declaration. Clearly a statement by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists doesn't have the requisite standing for you...

PopePalpatine

I also doubt that the American College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists used that moronically loaded term "direct abortion" in their statement.

conorh91

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

You asked for evidence contradicting the Dublin Declaration. Clearly a statement by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists doesn't have the requisite standing for you...

I don't believe it contradicts the Dublin declaration, some of whose adherents are members of the ACOG. The Dublin declaration distinguishes between purposeful abortions and medical intervention to save a mother's life: for example, they do not consider removing the unborn during an ectoptic pregnancy to be an abortion. It's rather a semantic point perhaps.

Nevertheless, it is interesting to note that the ACOG does not cite suicidal ideation as an sound clinical reason for abortion.

Loafing Oaf

conorh91 wrote: »

I don't believe it contradicts the Dublin declaration, some of whose adherents are members of the ACOG. The Dublin declaration distinguishes between purposeful abortions and medical intervention to save a mother's life: for example, they do not consider removing the unborn during an ectoptic pregnancy to be an abortion. It's rather a semantic point perhaps.

Nevertheless, it is interesting to note that the ACOG does not cite suicidal ideation as an sound clinical reason for abortion.

But your whole argument is that definition of 'abortion' adopted by the signatories of the Dublin Declaration should take precedence over that of ACOG and AFAIK that of the vast majority of ob/gyns elsewhere in the world...Is there are any other area of medical practice where this sort of (predominantly) Irish exceptionalism applies?