Abortion Discussion, Part Trois

recedite

Expert witness Dr. Peter Boylan, a former Master at the National Maternity Hospital gave evidence that Savita would probably be alive if an abortion had been permitted.

Permitted by whom?

aloyisious

recedite wrote: »

Permitted by whom?

Or maybe, given that Savita died before POLDPA existed in writing and law, the question could be: permitted by what?

recedite

You'd have to ask Dr. Peter Boylan, who seems to be the author of many an enigmatic, if not weaselly, soundbyte.

smacl

recedite wrote: »

You'd have to ask Dr. Peter Boylan, who seems to be the author of many an enigmatic, if not weaselly, soundbyte.

Not sure I'd call the evidence of an expert witness in a coroner's inquest a sound byte. As an ex-master of Holles street, I'd suggest he is orders of magnitude more qualified and experienced in these matters than any of us lot.

smokingman

Anyone see the anti-choice crowd putting leaflets in Toymaster catalogues?
Talk about a new low....

smacl

smokingman wrote: »

Anyone see the anti-choice crowd putting leaflets in Toymaster catalogues?
Talk about a new low....

Seriously? That's pretty crass even by their standards. Any links?

smokingman

smacl wrote: »

Seriously? That's pretty crass even by their standards. Any links?

https://twitter.com/shteves/status/979367703801745413

Zerbini Blewitt

recedite wrote: »

....
Its ridiculous pro-repeal people dragging up these tragic cases again and again, claiming that the brain dead woman was only kept alive because of the law, and Savita died because of the law, when in fact the medics involved in these cases were subsequently hauled up before the law and censured for medical negligence and/or malpractice.

What?

Katherine Astbury herself as well as Dr Boylan have said the 8th was a major factor in Savita’s death. In addition, the main expert mentioned in your 2013 examiner article Professor Sabaratnam Arulkumaran, said in Oct 2017:

Asked specifically by Independent senator Lynn Ruane “if the presence of the Eighth Amendment cost Savita her life”, Prof Arulkumaran said: “It was very clear the things holding the hands of physicians was the legal issue. Anybody, any junior doctor, would have said this is a sepsis condition, we must terminate.

So you believe these three obstetricians are fundamentally wrong on this key question because of a 2013 opinion piece by journalist Victoria White??

aloyisious

Tody's Irish Times -

Government may not be able ‘to pass abortion legislation - Simon Harris says any reforms after Eighth Amendment vote could be disrupted by an election. Minister for Health Simon Harris has said he cannot guarantee that legislation allowing for abortion would be passed by the current Government in the event the Eighth Amendment is repealed. Speaking at an event in Dublin on Sunday, Mr Harris said it was his hope that new legislation on abortion would follow soon after the referendum and that it would be in place by the end of 2018. However, he acknowledged that the timing of the next general election could be an issue, and that the legislation should not be rushed.

Mr Harris said: “Subject to everyone honouring what they have signed up to in terms of [the] confidence-and-supply [agreement], I expect we could get the legislation passed. “But the timing of a general election is a matter for quite a few people, and publicly everyone is saying they are committed to confidence-and-supply. I know my party certainly is. I am sure the Fianna Fáil party is.

Also in the I/T article is this paragraph - If voters choose to repeal the Eighth Amendment, the Protection of Life During Pregnancy Act, which allows terminations only when a woman’s life is at risk, will remain the law until new legislation is passed through the Houses of the Oireachtas.

Not an I/T link but similar story here..... https://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/abortion-law-would-be-delayed-by-election-469008.html

recedite

Harris should wear a sign on his back; "Beware U-Turns".

aloyisious

recedite wrote: »

Harris should wear a sign on his back; "Beware U-Turns".

Personally I think it's a gentle reminder to the Pro-choice side to keep an eye on the Pols, to prevent any back-sliding within the two major parties - and SF, depending on which side of the border it's voting member lives on. Mary-Lou McDonald rose to the bait and remarked on the "unfortunateness" of Minister Harris's statement. Labour seem's a sure horse in the race for the post.

robindch

More on moves to restrict abortion by the Polish government who want to remove the foetal anomaly cause. The new law was apparently written by what appears to be a well-funded group of hardline religious lawyers.

https://www.ft.com/content/d3d92b9e-3348-11e8-b5bf-23cb17fd1498?segmentId=778a3b31-0eac-c57a-a529-d296f5da8125

aloyisious

RTE news has F/G introducing their team to promote it's position on the issue. It's speculting that two ministers seen as good speakers who'll be given the task of party spokepersons. Renua-Ireland launched it's Vote-NO campaign as the only party opposed to a YES vote.

aloyisious

robindch wrote: »

More on moves to restrict abortion by the Polish government who want to remove the foetal anomaly cause. The new law was apparently written by what appears to be a well-funded group of hardline religious lawyers.

https://www.ft.com/content/d3d92b9e-3348-11e8-b5bf-23cb17fd1498?segmentId=778a3b31-0eac-c57a-a529-d296f5da8125

One thing that is similar to what happened here in the arly 80's is the way that protection for children is SUDDENLY seen as being absent from the Polish Constitution and - OMG, no one there in the civil and religious hierarchies noticed that before now, coincidentally when Polish Women are parading on Polish City and Town streets to secure their existing abortion rights which are under attack from their Govt.

The Ordo Luris manual sound's familiar.

Hotblack Desiato

Ahh yes RENUA.

They could stand a candidate in every constituency, add up all the votes, and still wouldn't be near a single quota.

robindch

Apparently from a lamp-post near Butt Bridge in central Dublin:

Hotblack Desiato

Saw 3 of those last weekend at Wood Quay when I was there for the viking event.

Typical that they state 'England' rather than Britain - appealing to knuckle-dragger nationalist mentality that English=bad, or maybe implying that the good Celtic people of Scotland and Wales somehow aren't as keen on permitting abortion?

In Kilkenny atm and thankfully nothing to be seen here - although I'm not sure if lamppost political posters are permitted in the city?

donspeekinglesh

A few of those around Leixlip too, and BABBIES WILL DIE!1!! VOTE NO ones.

donspeekinglesh

And here's one of our local TDs explaining why it's more democratic not to have have the referendum.

Hotblack Desiato

He believes that the people should have a say by... not being allowed to have a say.

Top logic.

Hotblack Desiato

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

Funny how 'the nuns' have loomed so large in public discourse over these issues of late, when the reality behind the term is a handful of little old ladies...

I meant to reply to this a few days ago.

Those 'little old ladies' control multi-billion-euro private heathcare and property empires, built upon the donations and bequests of gullible fools and the unwilling taxes of everyone else.

gctest50

robindch wrote: »

Apparently from a lamp-post near Butt Bridge in central Dublin:
......

i've heard one of these taped to a pole reduces litter

bonus : less chance of being done for carrying a knife


https://m.spservices.ie/item/Brand_PelicanPlasticSeatBeltCutterLigatureKnife-Orange_7_0_23_1.html

pleas advice

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

Funny how 'the nuns' have loomed so large in public discourse over these issues of late,...

there'll be pictures on referendum day, i'm sure, of nuns voting. But I wonder will there be that other cliché, the newly married couple?

aloyisious

FIO, there's a rebuttal to part of the Pro-choice medicinal argument from Prof Eamon McGuinness, medical advisor to the Save Rhe 8th campaign, in today's irish Times. It soom's to be published as an opinion-piece. It does seem to include an implicite mention that abortions are being sought by pregnant women when they are advised they should undergo cancer-treatment - via the inclusion of Dr Frederick Amant in the STORIES AND CLAIMS part of the opinion-piece. The Prof claims that at a recent Pro-choice meeting people were told women cannot avail of chemotherapy while pregnant. [I know that it has been pointed-out by the Pro-choice side of the debate that pregnant women had been declined chemo treatment by medical people on the grounds of it's harm to the unborn]. To me there is a difference between being refused and being advised of the risk. However In the same section of his piece, he admits that the treatment can have a detrimental effect on the unborn.....

Prof McGuinness says that the 8th does not prevent terminations, it allows for them. However the Prof's way is to avoid abortion using the "by way of termination process" instead, leaving the woman with the born child which is the opposite purpose of any abortion. He deliberately ignores the difference between both processes, using the word termination instead to try make his point. https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/medical-myths-about-eighth-amendment-must-be-challenged-1.3451748

The Indo claims in an article that as part of the save the 8th campaign, the campaign intends to have Ad-posters featuring an unborn foetus "will you remove her only protection from our constitution" put up in the toilets in both men and women's toilet cubicles and over the urinals, and with beermats [presumably on the tables] carrying the same message.

The Examiner covers the issue with a piece, by a person directly involved in the holocaust in WW2, referring to an alleged connection made by the anti-abortion side of the debate likening abortion to the holocaust.

I chose not to include links to both the Indo and Examiner articles as people can get to read them themselves without my assist. IMO, the prof's piece is worthy of a link-up as it goes to some length in trying to rebut the Pro-choice argument.

recedite

aloyisious wrote: »

IMO, the prof's piece is worthy of a link-up as it goes to some length in trying to rebut the Pro-choice argument.

Its a good article. A knowledgeable person making a few simple points.

Peregrinus

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Saw 3 of those last weekend at Wood Quay when I was there for the viking event.

Typical that they state 'England' rather than Britain - appealing to knuckle-dragger nationalist mentality that English=bad, or maybe implying that the good Celtic people of Scotland and Wales somehow aren't as keen on permitting abortion?

They're just as keen on permitting abortion - the law on this point in Scotland is the same as in England and Wales. But they seem to be less keen on practising abortion; the Scottish abortion rate is about two-thirds that of England and Wales. And it may be that they pick the English figure because, if they used an all-GB figure, the "1 in 5" claim would be harder to defend.

NuMarvel

recedite wrote: »

Its a good article. A knowledgeable person making a few simple points.

He seems to have a rose tinted view of the 8th though. Take his closing paragraph:

"Terminations required to save a woman’s life are legal in Ireland. They have been legal since 1983. The amendment does not inhibit our ability to treat a woman."

This ignores the uproar in pro life quarters against the X Case judgment. It ignores the campaign against the Protection of Life During Pregnancy Act, of which the professor was part of by the way. It ignores the case of Savita Halapanavaar, where a termination would have saved her life (not even pro life campaigners disagree with that statement). It ignores the finding in the ABC V Ireland case in the ECHR that Ms C didn't have a means to establish if she had a right to a legal abortion.

The statement that terminations to save a woman's life have been legal since 1983 are uncertain at best, but more importantly is not reflective of the common understanding in the sector. We heard this during the committee hearings on the Protection of Life During Pregnancy Act. And attempts to bring clarity to that situation were heavily resisted, including by the group the professor is currently advising.

Zerbini Blewitt

pleas advice wrote: »

there'll be pictures on referendum day, i'm sure, of nuns voting. But I wonder will there be that other cliché, the newly married couple?

I misread this as meaning a photo of two married nuns coming out of a polling station :eek:

recedite

NuMarvel wrote: »

"Terminations required to save a woman’s life are legal in Ireland. They have been legal since 1983. The amendment does not inhibit our ability to treat a woman."

This ignores the uproar in pro life quarters against the X Case judgment. It ignores the campaign against the Protection of Life During Pregnancy Act, of which the professor was part of by the way. It ignores the case of Savita Halapanavaar, where a termination would have saved her life (not even pro life campaigners disagree with that statement). It ignores the finding in the ABC V Ireland case in the ECHR that Ms C didn't have a means to establish if she had a right to a legal abortion.

None of your points contradict the original statement.
Uproar among campaign groups, medical negligence, lack of information for patients... these are all separate issues.

NuMarvel

recedite wrote: »

None of your points contradict the original statement.
Uproar among campaign groups, medical negligence, lack of information for patients... these are all separate issues.

I think I addressed that in the part you chose to edit out, ie:

The statement that terminations to save a woman's life have been legal since 1983 are uncertain at best, but more importantly is not reflective of the common understanding in the sector. We heard this during the committee hearings on the Protection of Life During Pregnancy Act. And attempts to bring clarity to that situation were heavily resisted, including by the group the professor is currently advising.