The 8th amendment(Mod warning in op)

drkpower

Im not sure what 'official' means in that context, but abortions have been happening for decades - and long before 1983 - for life-threatening medical indications, most commonly ectopic pregnancies. Ectopic pregnancies were managed in broadly the same way before and after 1983.

The 8th was supposed to a permanent constitutional protection against any future Government legalising abortion.

No, the 8th was supposed to a permanent constitutional protection against any future Government legalising abortion in non-life threatening situations. We/I may be splitting hairs here, but it is important just to reflect that abortions have been a feature of medical practice for decades.

seamus

drkpower wrote: »

Im not sure what 'official' means in that context, but abortions have been happening for decades - and long before 1983 - for life-threatening medical indications, most commonly ectopic pregnancies. Ectopic pregnancies were managed in broadly the same way before and after 1983.

"Official" means recorded, standard medical practice.

I went looking (albeit not for hours) and could find no indication that abortion was standard medical practice in Ireland unless the embryo or foetus had no detectable heartbeat.

And if abortion was standard medical practice when there was a risk to the life of the mother, what happened to Savita? Why was Malak Thawley refused chemical intervention and told surgical was the only option?

Happy to be corrected though.

Candamir

seamus wrote: »

"Official" means recorded, standard medical practice.

I went looking (albeit not for hours) and could find no indication that abortion was standard medical practice in Ireland unless the embryo or foetus had no detectable heartbeat.

And if abortion was standard medical practice when there was a risk to the life of the mother, what happened to Savita? Why was Malak Thawley refused chemical intervention and told surgical was the only option?

Happy to be corrected though.

Rhona Mahony is on the record confirming abortions have always been carried out in life threathening cases. I don’t have a link, and I can’t remember the numbers offhand, but I remember being surprised it was so high (maybe low double digit territory). She was speaking around the time of the Halapanaveer case iirc.
As for that case, without getting into it, the reason for the delay was ascertaining the degree of risk - when it became ‘life threathing enough’. An utterly intolerable way to have to practice medicine.
As for the Thawley case, none of us have the medical details, they weren’t argued in court, so we don’t know why, but it was likely because it was contraindicated. She died from a complication of her surgery. It’s a stretch to attribute her death to the 8th IMO.

Edit to add: The notion of the ‘foetal heartbeat’ in the treatment of of ectopics is being misrepresented I think. The presence or absence of a heartbeat isn’t used to ascertain wether the foetus is alive, more as an indicator of suitable treatments options wrt the a stage of the pregnancy I believe.

drkpower

Seamus, you are surely not claiming that ectopic pregnancies weren't treated before 1983, or before X, or before POLPA are you? I mean, really?

Don't get me wrong, the 8th (probably more so 'X') raised unacceptable confusion in some cases as to where the line was between risk to life (which is, and always has been, legal) and no risk to life. Savita being a case in point. But the key point is that there is not, and never has been, an absolute prohibition on abortion in cases where there is a clear risk to life.

Im not sure Thawley is relevant in the context of what we are discussing.

seamus

drkpower wrote: »

Seamus, you are surely not claiming that ectopic pregnancies weren't treated before 1983, or before X, or before POLPA are you? I mean, really?

No, of course not. But like you say there appears to have been and still is significant confusion over what is permitted, even in scenarios where there is functionally zero chance of foetal survival.

I think the Thawley case is actually a perfect example - the hospital apparently refused to allow the use of an abortifactant because a foetal heartbeat existed, even though there was zero chance the foetus could ever survive. If abortion was legal to save her life, then why was that not an option?

It was not an option, because the purpose of the abortifactant is to kill the foetus.

However, the purpose of the surgical intervention is to save the mother's life - the death of the foetus is incidental.

That's the difference - the abortion is functionally illegal, but an operation which incidentally kills the foetus; just like a hysterectomy or a high dose of chemotherapy would; is technically legal.

Now, there's still a question of why the POLDPA wasn't invoked in the Thawley case, but I suspect it boils down to the minutiae of what constitutes a risk to life.

But the key point is that there is not, and never has been, an absolute prohibition on abortion in cases where there is a clear risk to life.

There has also never been absolute permission in the same cases. They apparently skirted a convenient line where things went OK so long as nobody raised any heckles about it and nobody decided to see if they could prosecute a doctor.

My point being, ultimately, that the Eighth forced the state, for the first time, to explicitly legalise abortion. Even though it had been sold as a safeguard against it.

drkpower

Per Candamir above, you are misunderstanding the foetal heartbeat issue - it's presence as a contraindication has nothing to do with the 8th - that same contrainidication exists for methotrexate in the UK, USA, everywhere; foetal heartbeat as a contraindication is a proxy/indicator of foetal size (which in turn impacts on whether medical management is advisable). At the end of the day, whether chemical or surgical, the intention was to terminate, so i am surprised at the link being made with the T case and the 8th.

There has also never been absolute permission in the same cases. They apparently skirted a convenient line where things went OK so long as nobody raised any heckles about it and nobody decided to see if they could prosecute a doctor.

My point being, ultimately, that the Eighth forced the state, for the first time, to explicitly legalise abortion. Even though it had been sold as a safeguard against it

Part of your confusion as to the legal position is probably caused by the unweidly nature of irish (and english) law so its understandable; the following is just a quick legal history but should have explain the position:
- 1861 Act - makes it illegal to 'procure a miscarriage'
- 1939: R. v Bourne: This case interpreted the 1861 Act and clearly said that a doctor would not be acting unlawfully if he carried out an abortion in good faith for the purpose of preserving the life of the woman.

While Bourne was an English case, it was interpreting the same 1861 Act, so it was widely accepted both medically and legally that abortion in those circumstances in Ireland was perfectly legal. And medical and legal practice followed that legal reality for 40 years +. Now one might argue that this wasn't very clear at all, and how can we be clear when all we have are court judgments that can always be overturned, but believe it or not, as Irish law goes (especially in the 1930s - 1980s when the volume of statute law was tiny by today's standards), this was actually crystal clear. Even today many areas of 'well settled' clear law are based on case law alone.

So, from 1939, abortion was clearly legal in life threatening scenarios. You might say that in certain cases there was confusion as to what 'life threatening' meant, and i would agree with you. You might say that that law was not explicit, but I would disagree with you. By the standards of irish law, the position was quite explicit and medics and lawyers acted accordingly.

If anything, and this is just an aside, Bourne raised concerns that what we actually had post 1939 was an incredibly liberal abortion regime. That was because the judgment said a doctor wouldnt be guilty if “he was of the opinion on reasonable grounds that the probable consequence of the continuance of the pregnancy would be to make the woman a physical or mental wreck”.

kylith

drkpower wrote: »

Im not sure what 'official' means in that context, but abortions have been happening for decades - and long before 1983 - for life-threatening medical indications, most commonly ectopic pregnancies. Ectopic pregnancies were managed in broadly the same way before and after 1983.

No, the 8th was supposed to a permanent constitutional protection against any future Government legalising abortion in non-life threatening situations. We/I may be splitting hairs here, but it is important just to reflect that abortions have been a feature of medical practice for decades.

Life threatening, yes, but not health threatening. This means that women can be denied medical treatment until they are progressed enough that their illness is killing them.

Take a look at one of the women in your life. Would you be ok with telling her that if she were diagnosed with cancer during pregnancy you would deny her treatment until it becomes terminal?

.......

This post has been deleted.

drkpower

Kylith, where do you get the idea that i in any way am sympathetic to law as it currently stands; i am not. I fully support removal of the 8th as currently constituted and the Oirechtas commitee reccomendations.

There is a disturbing narrative and mood out there i am sensing (and this isn't necessarily aimed at you) where if anyone counters any aspect of the pro-choice narrative, even if it is just to introduce facts to the picture, you are considered to be on the 'other side', regardless of what your actual views are. It is eerily similar to the type of reaction people get when they try and introduce any context to discussions around sexual harrassment allegations, or other hot topic issues of the moment.

The ironic tragedy of it is that this is what happened to those who in 1983 and later who sought to raise genuine concerns about the 8th. They were shouted down and pilloried by the mass consensus.

Candamir

kylith wrote: »

Life threatening, yes, but not health threatening. This means that women can be denied medical treatment until they are progressed enough that their illness is killing them.

Take a look at one of the women in your life. Would you be ok with telling her that if she were diagnosed with cancer during pregnancy you would deny her treatment until it becomes terminal?

I think we’re all on the same page with you there. But it’s also really important to make our arguments on repealing the 8th for the right reasons - not mistaken ones. God knows there are enough legitimate reasons for repeal!

drkpower

........ - its not fair to debate a case like T where the medical details reported are sketchy at best. That said, the implication of the single line you decided to quote actually suggests that medicine was contraindicated!

kylith

drkpower wrote: »

Kylith, where do you get the idea that i in any way am sympathetic to law as it currently stands; i am not. I fully support removal of the 8th as currently constituted and the Oirechtas commitee reccomendations.

There is a disturbing narrative and mood out there i am sensing (and this isn't necessarily aimed at you) where if anyone counters any aspect of the pro-choice narrative, even if it is just to introduce facts to the picture, you are considered to be on the 'other side', regardless of what your actual views are. It is eerily similar to the type of reaction people get when they try and introduce any context to discussions around sexual harrassment allegations, or other hot topic issues of the moment.

The ironic tragedy of it is that this is what happened to those who in 1983 and later who sought to raise genuine concerns about the 8th. They were shouted down and pilloried by the mass consensus.

I'm busy in work today and dipping in and out here, so sorry if I misread your post as being in a different tone to what you intended. However your post did read as though you do not support repeal as abortions are carried out in life threatening situations. I intended only to point out that 'life threatening' is IMO unacceptable as it does not take into account the very real health and quality of life impacts that can happen before something becomes life threatening, and that women can be denied medications that they need because the right to life of the foetus trumps a woman's right to health

volchitsa

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/courts/high-court/damages-paid-after-death-of-malak-thawley-at-holles-street-1.3357391

Mr Thawley had googled ectopic pregnancy and had seen it could be treated with certain medicine, but counsel said he was told because the foetal sac had a heartbeat the only option was surgery.

Why does none of the coverage of this case say that medicine was contraindicated in this case - if it was?[/quote]
My understanding is that medical treatment is usually contraindicated when there's a heartbeat, but that it is sometimes done, often as a conservative measure for the woman's Fallopian tube. 

I get the feeling that the problem in Irish maternity care is that it isn't geared up to allowing patients to consent (or withhold consent) so instead of advising couples as to what the doctors think is best and then letting the couple choose, Irish hospitals still seem to take the authoritarian route of "this is what's going to happen", and in some cases threaten to call the guards of the woman is reluctant.

Obviously when there's a problem subsequently, if the couple also feel their fears and wishes were ignored, that makes it all the harder for them to accept.

I don't know if that's what happened for Malak Thawley, but it seems possible.

volchitsa

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/courts/high-court/damages-paid-after-death-of-malak-thawley-at-holles-street-1.3357391

Mr Thawley had googled ectopic pregnancy and had seen it could be treated with certain medicine, but counsel said he was told because the foetal sac had a heartbeat the only option was surgery.

Why does none of the coverage of this case say that medicine was contraindicated in this case - if it was?[/quote]
My understanding is that medical treatment is usually contraindicated when there's a heartbeat, but that it is sometimes done, often as a conservative measure for the woman's Fallopian tube. 

I get the feeling that the problem in Irish maternity care is that it isn't geared up to allowing patients to consent (or withhold consent) so instead of advising couples as to what the doctors think is best and then letting the couple choose, Irish hospitals still seem to take the authoritarian route of "this is what's going to happen", and in some cases threaten to call the guards of the woman is reluctant.

Obviously when there's a problem subsequently, if the couple also feel their fears and wishes were ignored, that makes it all the harder for them to accept.

I don't know if that's what happened for Malak Thawley, but it seems possible.

drkpower

volchitsa wrote: »

I get the feeling that the problem in Irish maternity care is that it isn't geared up to allowing patients to consent (or withhold consent) so instead of advising couples as to what the doctors think is best and then letting the couple choose, Irish hospitals still seem to take the authoritarian route of "this is what's going to happen", and in some cases threaten to call the guards of the woman is reluctant.

The underlined is not accurate, but in fairness to you, it is a (mis)perception held by many, so its worth exploring it a little. The misperception applies across medicine, but seems to be more keenly felt in the maternity context. These are a few reasons for it:

- there is more choice in routine/elective maternity care; if you have a medical/surgical illness, there is of course choice, but often there is one really good choice (yep, take my appendix out doc) and other bad ones (ah, sure ill take my chances.....); in maternity care there are far more areas of the process where multiple choices are available and there is usually a long time to think about various antenatal options, birth plans etc. Understandably then, people make those choices, and then understandably become very invested them. Those choices often define what the childbirth experience will be.

- the 'problem' with that is that when something goes 'wrong', the time to consider new choices is usually very limited. And the consequences of the choice are very very significant for mother and baby. Communications are strained between the doc/midwife trying on the one hand to communicate significant risks in an often complex clinical situation, while trying not to freak mum out, as there is a clinical imperative in having a relatively calm labouring mum (and dad!). On the other side of the bed, mum is already reeling from the shock that 'there might be something wrong' and is understandably annoyed that the birth plan in which she had emotionally invested is being torn up before her eyes. She is being told complex clinical information, and told of life/health threatening consequences for herself and her baby. All this and she has already been in labour for 5 hours.

- All this, and in many cases the decision needs to be made in small time windows, in extreme cases minutes.

- So so when the doc/midwife communicates a choice in that context, it is completely understandable that often that is not perceived as a choice, but as being told what to do.

Now, i would be the first to agree that many docs/midwives could be better at communications; it is a crucial area of practice which traditionally at least is not part of standard training for docs/midwives; im sure that has changed but i suspect it doesnt get the priority it should for professions where you spend 75% of your day communicating often difficult issues to patients.

But, and this is the TL;DR bit, to say that docs/midwives simply tell patients what's going to happen and don't seek consent is nonsense. Consent is Medicine 101; not seeking it can get you sued and struck off. Every doc and midwife knows that, and to suggest that they are utterly cavalier with the issue is obviously a misperception.

The bit in bold is just utter nonsense.

Bannasidhe

drkpower wrote: »

But, and this is the TL;DR bit, to say that docs/midwives simply tell patients what's going to happen and don't seek consent is nonsense. Consent is Medicine 101; not seeking it can get you sued and struck off. Every doc and midwife knows that, and to suggest that they are utterly cavalier with the issue is obviously a misperception.

My experience as a 'user' rather than a practitioner would lead me to believe that while what you describe is best practice the reality is very different. Now, I personally have never had the (mis) fortune to experience maternity care in Ireland but I have had occasion to be present while other's did and to be in the fortunate position that I was able to insist that proper, clear, in plain English, explanations were given as consent forms were being brandished under the noses of very young women in the middle of their first experience of labour. Indeed, I once encountered a mid-wife so obnoxious, condescending, and down right rude that I phoned his superior at 2 am and demanded she either remind him that he has a duty of care or replace him with someone who understands the concept. But I was in a privileged position- I understood what was happening, I understood what should have been happening, I had read the Patient's Rights Charter but most of all -the Boss midwife was a personal friend.

I have personally encountered a condescending attitude across the Health system in Ireland as I have a chronic illness so have a wide experience of being both an in-patient and an out-patient. People are bamboozled by medical terminology, requests for consent are phrased in such a way as there appears to be no other option, requests for consent are produced when people are in pain, vulnerable, scared, and in no condition to either question or understand what is happening. I have been tutted at for asking for clarification. I have been called difficult for asking about other options. Apparently one shouldn't question 'doctor' as 'doctor' knows best - even when doctor is intent on given one medication it clears says on one's chart that one is allergic to and one is pointing this out while on morphine.

Patients are often patronised and their wishes ignored -I have had to insist in the strongest possible terms that the staff in a University Teaching Hospital tell the Priest that he is to stop popping by to pray with my extremely ill, life long Atheist, 96 year old Great-Uncle. It was suggested to be that perhaps he would find comfort in returning to a Church he left without regret in the 1930s. Having fought through the entire Second World War without praying he is not going to change his mind and find God now and having his repeatedly expressed wish to not be 'god-bothered' ignored was impacting negatively on his recovery. But you see the Hospital has a 'Catholic Ethos'....

I was the person who had to explain in plain language to my then 78 year old, terrified, mother exactly what would happen if she signed the consent form to have her gall bladder removed. What the operation would entail, what the recovery would be like... Strangely enough she hadn't found the Consultant spouting medical terms at his posse of students before patting her on the arm and saying this is really our only recourse but of course there are always risks edifying. So I had to explain the options and the risks. She signed the form - but only after I made sure she understood what she was signing. Ironically enough, the only person who took time to explain (some) things was the member of the Admin staff looking for the details of my Mother's private insurance - although she did fail to explain that as my Mother spent the whole time in the public ward this would have been covered by her medical health card and all that was happening was a revenue generating exercise.

Now, to the condescension and lack of clear communication add the complications of a badly worded clause in the Constitution, confusion among medical staff as to what is permitted and when, overworked and under resourced staff plus a 'Catholic Ethos' among some staff or throughout the hospital and we have a recipe for chaos in maternity care.

CarlosHarpic

The world is moving away from liberalism and feminist issues. Mainly because Liberals and Feminists were determined to show the world how completely insane they actually are given the chance.

Sadly it is probably the worst time in history for this vote. Won't pass.

.......

This post has been deleted.

mariaalice

The only solution for midwives and those supporting women in giving birth, is to learn off a script so there can be no room for interpenetration of what their saying and after that body language coaches so there is no room for interpretation of their body language not sure how exactly their though processes could be policed for interpretation though.

That is a joke and slightly tongue in cheek.

Of course there are people who are terrible at their jobs and should be sent for retraining, but the vast majority are kind respectful and good at what they do.

volchitsa

drkpower wrote: »

The underlined is not accurate, but in fairness to you, it is a (mis)perception held by many, so its worth exploring it a little. The misperception applies across medicine, but seems to be more keenly felt in the maternity context. These are a few reasons for it:

- there is more choice in routine/elective maternity care; if you have a medical/surgical illness, there is of course choice, but often there is one really good choice (yep, take my appendix out doc) and other bad ones (ah, sure ill take my chances.....); in maternity care there are far more areas of the process where multiple choices are available and there is usually a long time to think about various antenatal options, birth plans etc. Understandably then, people make those choices, and then understandably become very invested them. Those choices often define what the childbirth experience will be.

- the 'problem' with that is that when something goes 'wrong', the time to consider new choices is usually very limited. And the consequences of the choice are very very significant for mother and baby. Communications are strained between the doc/midwife trying on the one hand to communicate significant risks in an often complex clinical situation, while trying not to freak mum out, as there is a clinical imperative in having a relatively calm labouring mum (and dad!). On the other side of the bed, mum is already reeling from the shock that 'there might be something wrong' and is understandably annoyed that the birth plan in which she had emotionally invested is being torn up before her eyes. She is being told complex clinical information, and told of life/health threatening consequences for herself and her baby. All this and she has already been in labour for 5 hours.

- All this, and in many cases the decision needs to be made in small time windows, in extreme cases minutes.

- So so when the doc/midwife communicates a choice in that context, it is completely understandable that often that is not perceived as a choice, but as being told what to do.

Now, i would be the first to agree that many docs/midwives could be better at communications; it is a crucial area of practice which traditionally at least is not part of standard training for docs/midwives; im sure that has changed but i suspect it doesnt get the priority it should for professions where you spend 75% of your day communicating often difficult issues to patients.

But, and this is the TL;DR bit, to say that docs/midwives simply tell patients what's going to happen and don't seek consent is nonsense. Consent is Medicine 101; not seeking it can get you sued and struck off. Every doc and midwife knows that, and to suggest that they are utterly cavalier with the issue is obviously a misperception.

The bit in bold is just utter nonsense.

Exceot it is exactly what happens.

As someone else has already linked to evidence I wont bother going looking for more links, but it came out very clearly in the Mother B case which was discussed on here, and for Ciara Hamilton it was even starker, because even though the midwife made a decision to carry out ARM which is not mandated as best practice by NICE, and although that intervention very nearly ended in disaster for Ms Hamilton and her baby, the judge actually found against her. Part of the reason being that he simply refused to believe that she hadnt been asked for and given her consent. AIMS has found that lack of consent is a regular occurrence in women's birthing experiences (including my own, though I was lucky enough not to have had any major issues).

Men refusing to believe women about their own experiences is something of a worldwide problem, I suspect, but the 8th was also part of Irish experiences, and complicates matters even more because it gives medical staff a cast iron excuse for ignoring their lack of consent. The HSE's own guidelines on labour and birth actually say as much too, albeit in euphemisms.

So let's have no more of this "it just doesnt happen". Yes it does happen. Regularly. And the 8th is only one part of why it happens.

volchitsa

And just to be clear, here's some of the "nonsense" I was referring to:

Whilst a case with a formal judgement such as this is unusual, AIMS Ireland are aware of many cases in which heavily pregnant women have been threatened “with the guards coming to get them” if they don’t turn up for their scheduled induction. In fact a cohort of women reported such statements are regular commentary at antenatal classes at one particular hospital. AIMSI can also confirm that there are other women who felt they had no other option than to be coerced into a section they did not freely consent to.The fear of being taken to the High Court and being sedated for forced obstetric procedures is usually enough to ensure that women comply with whatever the HCP may be suggesting whether it is evidenced based or not.

AIMS Ireland are aware of these situations in a variety of settings and geographic locations. It is not limited to large tertiary referral hospitals or to smaller units. It is endemic and a result of article 40. 3. 3 which informs the HSE National Consent Policy, enabling High Court Actions to be taken against pregnant women who exercise their right to informed refusal of medical treatment.

The ruling makes clear that the 8th amendment can be, and is used against women in continued pregnancy and birth. It finds in this particular instance that the threat to the baby’s life is not great enough to warrant forcibly sedating and sectioning a woman, but it gives us no examples of when that threat might be great enough. This leaves the door open to the HSE to continue to interpret this “risk” as they please. It enables women to be forced into processes and procedures such as CEFM (Continuous Electronic Fetal Monitoring) which the evidence base acknowledges does not improve outcomes for mothers or babies.

Loafing Oaf

CarlosHarpic wrote: »

Sadly it is probably the worst time in history for this vote. Won't pass.

Yeah, I'd say it would have passed more easily in, say, 1957.

Bannasidhe

mariaalice wrote: »

The only solution for midwives and those supporting women in giving birth, is to learn off a script so there can be no room for interpenetration of what their saying and after that body language coaches so there is no room for interpretation of their body language not sure how exactly their though processes could be policed for interpretation though.

That is a joke and slightly tongue in cheek.

Of course there are people who are terrible at their jobs and should be sent for retraining, but the vast majority are kind respectful and good at what they do.

I never said the condescending, patronising, and oblivious to patient's wishes were in the majority I merely pointed out that they exist among those working directly with patients at all levels of the medical hierarchy. All patients should be treated with courtesy, respect, and pains taken that they understand what is happening where possible. It shouldn't be a lottery.


We wouldn't accept a car mechanic who is terrible at his job and needs retraining, or a gas fitter - why should we tolerate it from people whose primary role is looking after the physical health of people?
Being treated disrespectfully and kept ignorant of treatment planned or on offer is not conducive to mental well being and therefore detrimental to healing.

Da Boss

Abortion is not the solution to any issue, other solutions are available, abortion shouldn’t be the “solution “ to the problem, as abortion isn’t a “solution “ .Abortion involves killing and ending the life of another, that’s no solution, I’ll tell u what it is , is morally wrong and is indefensible and inexcusable like murder or similar crimes. Abortion will lead to a “designer-baby” culture, where babies with disabilities such as Down syndrome or abnormalities will be indiscriminately aborted , denied their only life. Another issue is the fact it will lead to increased recklessness in bed and more “accidents “( I hate using that word) which will end up to increased abortions taking place. So yes, it is very clear to me abortion cannot and should not be allowed in a civilized society like Ireland, As abortion is a barbaric practice

Da Boss

Da Boss wrote: »

Another issue is the fact it will lead to increased recklessness in bed

Sure i nearly fell out of the bed the other morning when i woke up.
terrible carry on altogether

nozzferrahhtoo

Da Boss wrote: »

Abortion is not the solution to any issue

Except yes it is. It is the solution to being pregnant and not wanting to be pregnant for one. However I prefer the word "option" to "solution". Abortion is, and should be, an option. And just because OTHER options are available, that does not mean abortion should not be one.

Da Boss wrote: »

Abortion will lead to a “designer-baby” culture, where babies with disabilities such as Down syndrome or abnormalities will be indiscriminately aborted , denied their only life.

I see nothing wrong with that. I see no moral or ethical problems with an early stage fetus with abnormalities or defects being terminated before they reach the stage of person-hood.

Da Boss wrote: »

Another issue is the fact it will lead to increased recklessness in bed and more “accidents“

To put the above in more clear English, you are claiming that the availability of abortion on demand will increase the quantity of unplanned pregnancies. The first question is obvious then: Have you ANY data or citations from countries that have allowed abortion by choice that shows this has, or generally, actually happens? Or is it just a fantasy you are making up because you think it SOUNDS true, and useful to your agenda?

mrkiscool2

Da Boss wrote: »

Abortion is not the solution to any issue, other solutions are available, abortion shouldn’t be the “solution “ to the problem, as abortion isn’t a “solution “ .

What is the solution then? Tell us, please, I am dying to hear it.

Da Boss wrote: »

Abortion involves killing and ending the life of another, that’s no solution, I’ll tell u what it is , is morally wrong and is indefensible and inexcusable like murder or similar crimes.

No, it doesn't. A 12 week old fetus isn't a life, it has neither the ability to exchange gas with it's bloodstream (respiration is one of the criteria of homeostasis, something an organism needs to be able to carry out to be called "life") nor does it have enough brain activity to be considered sentient life either. So, it's not life. And no, it's not murder. Murder requires killing an active, thinking, aware, living, breathing human. So it's not murder.

Da Boss wrote: »

Abortion will lead to a “designer-baby” culture, where babies with disabilities such as Down syndrome or abnormalities will be indiscriminately aborted , denied their only life.

Again, their not alive nor a life. Also, seeing as the earliest one can get genetic screening is at week 10, it's highly unlikely that a woman will be able to abort a fetus with Down's in Ireland. They would have to go to the UK. It will still happen if a woman decides she can't cope with that child. And, in my opinion, has every right to. Also, Down's Syndrome Ireland has asked the pro-birth side to stop using Down's in their advertising, shows how disgusted they are by your side.

Da Boss wrote: »

Another issue is the fact it will lead to increased recklessness in bed and more “accidents “( I hate using that word) which will end up to increased abortions taking place. So yes, it is very clear to me abortion cannot and should not be allowed in a civilized society like Ireland, As abortion is a barbaric practice

No, it won't. There is absolutely no data to back up your argument that more people forgo protection when abortion is available. In fact abortion actually leads to better contraceptive usage and less abortions. Kind of defeats your argument, huh?

Da Boss

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Except yes it is. It is the solution to being pregnant and not wanting to be pregnant for one. However I prefer the word "option" to "solution". Abortion is, and should be, an option. And just because OTHER options are available, that does not mean abortion should not be one.

it is not a solution, IT INVOLVES KILLING A CHILD DENYING IT ITS ONLY LIFE . You Abortion is not a reasonable option, it would be morally and ethically unacceptable in these circumstances.

I see nothing wrong with that. I see no moral or ethical problems with an early stage fetus with abnormalities or defects being terminated before they reach the stage of person-hood.
Well that frightens me, the fact that you see no problem with With ending the life of another, the only one they have , just cos u can. Ur lack of morals frightens me.


To put the above in more clear English, you are claiming that the availability of abortion on demand will increase the quantity of unplanned pregnancies. The first question is obvious then: Have you ANY data or citations from countries that have allowed abortion by choice that shows this has, or generally, actually happens? Or is it just a fantasy you are making up because you think it SOUNDS true, and useful to your agenda?

It’s rather obvious that this will be the case should unrestricted abortion to 12 weeks be possible.

PopePalpatine

Da Boss wrote: »

It’s rather obvious that this will be the case should unrestricted abortion to 12 weeks be possible.

If it's so obvious, where's your evidence?

Da Boss

Da Boss wrote: »

It’s rather obvious that this will be the case should unrestricted abortion to 12 weeks be possible.

If the definition of 'fairly obvious' were 'things i make up in my head because i want them to be true', sure. thankfully it isnt

Da Boss

Well if there’s the risk that a woman gets pregnant as a result of of a bit of “fun” and the risk isn’t guaranteed but in the case if does happen it can be reversed (abortion) then I’m pretty sure that it’s a risk many will be willing to take. Regards that I don’t think any reasonable person would dispute that

Da Boss

Da Boss wrote: »

Well if there’s the risk that a woman gets pregnant as a result of of a bit of “fun” and the risk isn’t guaranteed but in the case if does happen it can be reversed (abortion) then I’m pretty sure that it’s a risk many will be willing to take. Regards that I don’t think any reasonable person would dispute that

except for the time, cost, and physical stress on the body, up to and including actual surgery.
do you think people love casually popping in for a bit of surgery?

SusieBlue

Da Boss wrote: »

Well if there’s the risk that a woman gets pregnant as a result of of a bit of “fun” and the risk isn’t guaranteed but in the case if does happen it can be reversed (abortion) then I’m pretty sure that it’s a risk many will be willing to take. Regards that I don’t think any reasonable person would dispute that

What kind of people do you associate with to say you think that someone about to get the ride wouldn’t bother with using contraception OR the morning after pill, because sure they can always just get an abortion?

I honestly don’t know anyone who would do such a thing. I don’t know anyone that stupid, that would just repeatedly get endless abortions as a means of birth control.

You are (once again) totally underestimating how serious of a procedure an abortion is, physically, mentally and emotionally.
No person would put themselves through it unless they felt they had no other choice. No woman takes the decision lightly.
You are talking about women having ‘fun’ and procuring abortions as if she were picking up a pint of milk on the way home from work in the shop.

kylith

Da Boss wrote: »

Well if there’s the risk that a woman gets pregnant as a result of of a bit of “fun” and the risk isn’t guaranteed but in the case if does happen it can be reversed (abortion) then I’m pretty sure that it’s a risk many will be willing to take. Regards that I don’t think any reasonable person would dispute that

So do you go around getting your teeth knocked out because you can just get implants?

Bannasidhe

kylith wrote: »

So do you go around getting your teeth knocked out because you can just get implants?

I like to jump off roofs for fun. Sure if I break a bone it can be pinned. :cool:

Da Boss

WhiteRoses wrote: »

What kind of people do you associate with to say you think that someone about to get the ride wouldn’t bother with using contraception OR the morning after pill, because sure they can always just get an abortion?

I honestly don’t know anyone who would do such a thing. I don’t know anyone that stupid, that would just repeatedly get endless abortions as a means of birth control.

You are (once again) totally underestimating how serious of a procedure an abortion is, physically, mentally and emotionally.
No person would put themselves through it unless they felt they had no other choice. No woman takes the decision lightly.
You are talking about women having ‘fun’ and procuring abortions as if she were picking up a pint of milk on the way home from work in the shop.

I don’t mean routinely not play safe in bed, I mean a tipsy drunken one night stand for example when they won’t really be thinking very hard about the future. Like also I think everybody knows a few “ accidents “ ( don’t mean it in derogatory way ) who, if it was legally possible, would have been aborted any denied their most fundamental right, the right to life. I myself being one such example of this

Edward M

A clear majority for repeal and the 12 week limit according to this.
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/clear-majority-backs-abortion-on-request-up-to-12-weeks-poll-shows-1.3368816?mode=amp

Da Boss

Da Boss wrote: »

I don’t mean routinely not play safe in bed, I mean a tipsy drunken one night stand for example when they won’t really be thinking very hard about the future. Like also I think everybody knows a few “ accidents “ ( don’t mean it in derogatory way ) who, if it was legally possible, would have been aborted any denied their most fundamental right, the right to life. I myself being one such example of this

Again with the 'I was saved because of the 8th' argument.
It's ridiculous & proves nothing. Plenty of us were accidents, (I don't know why you have a problem with that word) so what? I know my mother's life would have been completely different, most probably a lot better, if she didn't have me. But she did.
Which was her choice, her choice. Nothing to do with me & if she chose differently I would never know.
Maybe you should also educate yourself on how the 8th amendment affects women's healthcare? It's not all about abortion you know.

tigger123

Edward M wrote: »

A clear majority for repeal and the 12 week limit according to this.
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/clear-majority-backs-abortion-on-request-up-to-12-weeks-poll-shows-1.3368816?mode=amp

Didn't see that coming, but not entirely surprised either.

Michael Martin coming out as pro choice signals (to me anyway) politically which way the wind is blowing on this issue, and the poll confirms it.

There's a sizable shift towards pro choice at the moment.

Hooks Golf Handicap

Edward M wrote: »

A clear majority for repeal and the 12 week limit according to this.
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/clear-majority-backs-abortion-on-request-up-to-12-weeks-poll-shows-1.3368816?mode=amp

“Will you vote to change the Constitution so that the Government can legislate for abortion up to 12 weeks, or will you vote not to change the Constitution?”
A clear majority of all voters – 56 per cent – said they would vote in favour of the constitutional change, with 29 per cent not in favour. Fifteen per cent said they did not know or offered no opinion.
When undecided voters are excluded, 65 per cent favour repeal and abortion being allowed up to 12 weeks while 35 per cent do not.

Well that's that as far as I'm concerned, 2:1 majority like the Equality Referendum.
Any time spent further debating this issue is time just time wasted.
It's not as if some internet argument would make any of us change our minds anyway.

Hooks Golf Handicap

tigger123 wrote: »

Didn't see that coming, but not entirely surprised either.

Michael Martin coming out as pro choice signals (to me anyway) politically which way the wind is blowing on this issue, and the poll confirms it.

There's a sizable shift towards pro choice at the moment.

People get that the real issue is the care of women.
The "no killing babies on our soil" argument just ignores the reality.

Hooks Golf Handicap

I am afraid though that the #keep campaign will open the war chest & start putting up posters of 18 week aborted fetuses outside schools & the like.

Kermit.de.frog

That poll can not be right.

I HIGHLY doubt if 12 weeks on demand was put on paper a majority would vote for it.

It's in the Abortion Times too.

I'm agnostic on the issue so have no axe to grind.

nozzferrahhtoo

Why did you write text in the quote from me that I never myself wrote? That is a wantonly and egregiously dishonest move of making it look like I typed things I never did.

Da Boss wrote: »

It is not a solution, IT INVOLVES KILLING A CHILD DENYING IT ITS ONLY LIFE . You Abortion is not a reasonable option, it would be morally and ethically unacceptable in these circumstances.

Have you any arguments as to why it is morally and ethically problematic other than merely outright asserting it to be so? No one is "killing a child" here. They are terminating a fetus. A fetus is not a child any more than a seed is a tree or a blue print is a house.

And I do not think your misunderstanding of what words mean, is a valid foundation for building a moral framework.

Da Boss wrote: »

Well that frightens me, the fact that you see no problem with With ending the life of another, the only one they have , just cos u can. Ur lack of morals frightens me.

That people have moral viewpoints DIFFERENT to yours, does not mean they lack any morals. To think that morals different to yours equate to no morals at all is a level of hubris and arrogance I am afraid I can not join you at. The simple fact is that I have many morals, that I can actually argue for and example. And that they differ from YOURS does not invalidate them.

We "end the life of others" all the time in our world. Welcome to reality. Our meat industry ends the life of animals all the time. Our farming industry uses pesticides that end millions of lives every year. Our paper industry kills trees. And the amount of life ended by doctors using things like antibiotics number in the billions.

So clearly "ending life" is par for the course. So if you want to suggest some particular life or lives should not be ended, you need to provide an argument for that. An argument, not a shrill assertion.

I know what I think is valuable about human life, and I know what attribute I believe confer that value. The sticking point for me is that not just some but ALL of those attributes are wholly and entirely absent in the fetus. So I see no moral or ethical dilemma in the killing of such a fetus. And shrill screams about who has no morals is not likely to be the move that illuminates any for me.

Da Boss wrote: »

It’s rather obvious that this will be the case should unrestricted abortion to 12 weeks be possible.

No it is not "obvious" at all. But the answer to the question I asked IS obvious. I asked have you any evidence for the claim. It is perfectly obvious that the answer is no. You do not. Why? Because abortion HAS been brought into countries around the world at various points throughout history and the simple fact is the claim you have made has not actually occurred in those places.

Amazing something you find so "obvious" has not actually happened, isn't it? Well no, actually it is not. It has not happened because there is no reason why it should or might.

Akrasia

bubblypop wrote: »

Again with the 'I was saved because of the 8th' argument.
It's ridiculous & proves nothing. Plenty of us were accidents, (I don't know why you have a problem with that word) so what? I know my mother's life would have been completely different, most probably a lot better, if she didn't have me. But she did.
Which was her choice, her choice. Nothing to do with me & if she chose differently I would never know.
Maybe you should also educate yourself on how the 8th amendment affects women's healthcare? It's not all about abortion you know.

Not to mention the fact that for every 'accident' which the woman is forced to carry against her will, a potential wanted pregnancy is sacrificed. People who might have been waiting for the right partner with whom to start a family get stuck with a crisis pregnancy instead and are deprived the choice of who to father her children.

Every time something happens, there are an infinite amount of missed opportunities that will now never be. Every time a man is too shy to talk to a girl he likes who also happened to like him too, there goes the potential for an entire gene pool worth of people that will never be born.

If my parents had chosen a different house to buy, I would never have met my wife and my 3 kids would never have been born. By my parents choosing one house over another, they caused the birth of 3 kids (plus their kids, and grandkids and their grandkids etc) but they also deprived potential other children of being born if I had met a different woman with whom to start a family.

Every single human above the age of reason makes life altering choices that decide the course of future people either being born or not born so it is silly to pick 'abortion survivors' as the only life choice that matters. Aborting a pregnancy prevents that 'person' from ever existing in exactly the same way that using contraception while having sex prevents that person from having existed. It's just as accurate to call an 'abortion survivor' a 'contraception survivor' because many crisis pregnancies are caused by failures in contraception

.......

This post has been deleted.

ohnonotgmail

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

That poll can not be right.

I HIGHLY doubt if 12 weeks on demand was put on paper a majority would vote for it.

It's in the Abortion Times too.

I'm agnostic on the issue so have no axe to grind.

the question they asked was quite clear

“Will you vote to change the Constitution so that the Government can legislate for abortion up to 12 weeks, or will you vote not to change the Constitution?”

tigger123

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

That poll can not be right.

I HIGHLY doubt if 12 weeks on demand was put on paper a majority would vote for it.

It's in the Abortion Times too.

I'm agnostic on the issue so have no axe to grind.

The article sets out what questions were asked; they were clear, to the point, and not in anyway leading. It's a solid poll.

Loafing Oaf

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

That poll can not be right.

I HIGHLY doubt if 12 weeks on demand was put on paper a majority would vote for it.

.

Mustn't be true so...

Zubeneschamali

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

I HIGHLY doubt if 12 weeks on demand was put on paper a majority would vote for it.

Odds at Paddypower today:

Change/remove the 8th: 1/6
Leave unchanged: 7/2