The 8th amendment(Mod warning in op)

Bannasidhe

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

Are you saying every 'accident' in the UK is aborted?
In Germany?
Sweden?

Really?

Do you have even a shred of evidence?

It's just that I know a few English 'accidents' who are hale and hearty and in their 30s.....I know they were accidents because I knew their mothers when the accidents happened (still know their mothers in fact). I was there for the discussions of options.

Their mothers made a choice.

Edward M

tigger123 wrote: »

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

I'd say so too. The times is a liberal paper, but looking at the questions as posed, I don't see any disputing them, that is unless the indo or rte perhaps, more conservative, come up with one disputing this one.
Then you could see aspersions as to the validity of either poll if there were significant differences.
But based on the question posed I see no reason to doubt the findings.

Kermit.de.frog

“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?”


Where in that question does it say "on demand"? It says "can legislate". VERY different to "on demand".

The Irish Times has used the poll falsely in it's headline. It does not say unrestricted abortion.

I guarantee if it was unrestricted it would fail and anyone who thinks otherwise is deluded.

I like calling out false media bs and this is the height of it.

tigger123

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

“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?”


Where in that question does it say "on demand"? It says "can legislate". VERY different to "on demand".

The Irish Times has used the poll falsely in it's headline. It does not say unrestricted abortion.

I guarantee if it was unrestricted it would fail and anyone who thinks otherwise is deluded.

I like calling out false media bs and this is the height of it.

The headline I see on their website says "abortion on request"... where is the "on demand" part coming into it?

applehunter

The Abortion Times.:D

Not far wrong.

Kermit.de.frog

tigger123 wrote: »

The headline I see on their website says "abortion on request"... where is the "on demand" part coming into it?

Bull****. It does NOT say "abortion on request" - i.e demand - in the question.

It is abortion with conditions at the most.

Read the question properly.

False reporting by the Irish Times.

Loafing Oaf

Edward M wrote: »

I'd say so too. The times is a liberal paper, but looking at the questions as posed, I don't see any disputing them, that is unless the indo or rte perhaps, more conservative, come up with one disputing this one

Daily Mail a couple of weeks ago had similar findings. As conservative as it gets in a mainstream Irish media context I'd say...

Kermit.de.frog

applehunter wrote: »

The Abortion Times.:D

Not far wrong.

Well, they are. Completely accurate. Agendas on all sides should be well known.

.......

This post has been deleted.

tigger123

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

Bull****. It does NOT say "abortion on request" - i.e demand - in the question.

It is abortion with conditions at the most.

Read the question properly.

False reporting by the Irish Times.

I said it says "on request" in the headline, which it does.

It doesn't say on demand or on request in the question.

Nobody is saying "on demand" except you ...?

Bannasidhe

tigger123 wrote: »

I said it says "on request" in the headline, which it does.

It doesn't say on demand or on request in the question.

Nobody is saying "on demand" except you ...?

But Kermit is saying it agnostically so no agenda here k.

Kermit.de.frog

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I have no agenda but I will call out bs media on such an issue.

That is disgraceful by the IT. Kitty Holland no doubt behind it.

The question in no way fits their conclusions.

If it was the other way with another bs poll in another outlet and false headline attached against i'd call it out equally as virulently.

ohnonotgmail

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

Bull****. It does NOT say "abortion on request" - i.e demand - in the question.

It is abortion with conditions at the most.

Read the question properly.

False reporting by the Irish Times.

is says allow the government to legislate for abortion up to 12 weeks. no mention of conditions. i think is clear who has the agenda here. and it is not the IT.

Kermit.de.frog

tigger123 wrote: »

I said it says "on request" in the headline, which it does.

It doesn't say on demand or on request in the question.

Duh

Did you read what I typed? That is my problem with it.

They have twisted a narrative that does not exist from the poll.

The headline has no relation with the poll.

.......

This post has been deleted.

tigger123

You can really tell when one side is starting to lose a debate.

.......

This post has been deleted.

Kermit.de.frog

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

is says allow the government to legislate for abortion up to 12 weeks.

Legislate is not "on request".

They will "legislate" through the Dáil and all sorts of conditions will be attached. That is the nature of politics.

The headline and article does not match the question. Simple.

ohnonotgmail

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

Legislate is not "on request".

They will "legislate" through the Dáil and all sorts of conditions will be attached. That is the nature of politics.

The headline and article does not match the question. Simple.

the recommendation regarding the legislation was quite clear. there was no mention of conditions in the recommendations

tigger123

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

Legislate is not "on request".

They will "legislate" through the Dáil and all sorts of conditions will be attached. That is the nature of politics.

The headline and article does not match the question. Simple.

The government isn't going to legislate against the will of the people, or against the result of a referendum.

No more than the UK Government didn't legislate against Brexit, which they technically could have done.

.......

This post has been deleted.

Kermit.de.frog

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

the recommendation regarding the legislation was quite clear. there was no mention of conditions in the recommendations

Stick to the question asked and the article in question. They don't match. An elementary understanding of the English language would tell you that.

It's bs journalism.

They should have reported accurately.

I hate bs agenda driven journalism no matter what side it is on. It's not "journalism". It's trying to mislead the public.

Kermit.de.frog

...

.......

This post has been deleted.

Kermit.de.frog

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

That is total nonsense.

The question is crystal clear.

And, no, the majority don't have the time or inclination to follow these things in detail.

Where does it say "on request" in that question?

No where.

I'm really angry at what I see as false journalism.

Almost as bad as the Indos headline this morning about the "Celtic Pheonix"

tigger123

It's fake news!

ohnonotgmail

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

That is total nonsense.

The question is crystal clear.

And, no, the majority don't have the time or inclination to follow these things in detail.

Where does it say "on request" in that question?

No where.

I'm really angry at what I see as false journalism.

Almost as bad as the Indos headline this morning about the "Celtic Pheonix"

clearly you dont have that time either. the recommendations were quite clear. the poll was on those recommendations.

.......

This post has been deleted.

Kermit.de.frog

tigger123 wrote: »

It's fake news!

You get it finally. That is EXACTLY what it is.

Question is clear. Article bares no resemblance whatsoever.

It's fake agenda driven journalism.

I expected the IT to keep their bias on the issue in check.

The thing is this will only annoy people and turn them against what the IT columnists want.

It's counter productive in the end.

ohnonotgmail

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

You get it finally. That is EXACTLY what it is.

Question is clear. Article bares no resemblance whatsoever.

It's fake agenda driven journalism.

I expected the IT to keep their bias on the issue in check.

The thing is this will only annoy people and turn them against what the IT columnists want.

It's counter productive in the end.

jesus did you even read beyond the headline????

Poll respondents were told that it was likely the Government would seek to legislate for abortion to be available on request up to 12 weeks. They were also told that in order to legislate for this, the Constitution needed to be changed in a referendum.

They were then asked: “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?”

Its not really that hard to understand.

Kermit.de.frog

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

No, i'm very clear on the misleading article - i'm very clear on the question.

.......

This post has been deleted.

SusieBlue

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

Ok, to play devils advocate, say your scenario were a possibility.
Say a woman was inclined to go out and "get tipsy" on a regular basis, and have unprotected ONS because she "wasn't thinking very hard about the future".

Would you trust a person that reckless and irresponsible with the task of bringing up another human? Would you say someone who carries on like that would make an excellent, stable, loving parent? A good role model?

Would you be of the opinion that it is in the best interests of the child to have motherhood forced on a parent who is not only irresponsible, but also probably very immature?

I suppose the answer here is "maybe"...Because neither of us can say for sure. But is "maybe" really good enough? Is "maybe" she'll be a good parent a fate you would force on an innocent child?

SusieBlue

Just as an aside, anyone of the opinion that pregnant women are treated well by this society need only have a look at the "Baby on Board" thread in AH.
Many posters proudly saying they refuse to stand on public transport for heavily pregnant women, its their own fault for being pregnant so no one should stand for them, and that if a woman asked them to stand, they'd say no.
Also a few gems suggesting if a pregnant woman wants a seat she should pay a higher fare, on account of being pregnant.

Such selfish, unsympathetic attitudes to women in this country.

ohnonotgmail

WhiteRoses wrote: »

Just as an aside, anyone of the opinion that pregnant women are treated well by this society need only have a look at the "Baby on Board" thread in AH.
Many posters proudly saying they refuse to stand on public transport for heavily pregnant women, its their own fault for being pregnant so no one should stand for them, and that if a woman asked them to stand, they'd say no.
Also a few gems suggesting if a pregnant woman wants a seat she should pay a higher fare, on account of being pregnant.

Such selfish, unsympathetic attitudes to women in this country.

I haven't read that thread and now i'm glad i didnt. what selfish feckers. A pregnant woman shouldn't even have to ask. they should be offered.

Edward M

WhiteRoses wrote: »

Just as an aside, anyone of the opinion that pregnant women are treated well by this society need only have a look at the "Baby on Board" thread in AH.
Many posters proudly saying they refuse to stand on public transport for heavily pregnant women, its their own fault for being pregnant so no one should stand for them, and that if a woman asked them to stand, they'd say no.
Also a few gems suggesting if a pregnant woman wants a seat she should pay a higher fare, on account of being pregnant.

Such selfish, unsympathetic attitudes to women in this country.

That's a shame.
But perhaps some of these threads are tongue in cheek and shouldn't be taken all that seriously.
I saw a young lad giving his umbrella to an old lady yesterday who was waiting on a taxi.
He had a jacket on but it was pissing down at the time, he was waiting pick up too but both were seperate.

Holy conflating nonrelated issues of completely different levels of seriousness batman!

.......

This post has been deleted.

drkpower

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I said a few pages back myself that there is no doubt that patients in all sorts of medical contexts (male or female) perceive that they have no choices in various situations. And i tried to give some reasons why communication failures are more prone to happen in medical situations, especially obstetric. Bad communication definitely happens - very frequently. I agree with that; i think doctors need to get better at how they communicate; i think they need to be given more training, and crucially more time (where practicable) to communicate with patients; i also think patients, all patients, need to take more responsibility for their own healthcare and to research and understand more about what can go wrong, so that they are forewarned and prepared for such eventualities. And i also agree that there is a small cohort of simply bad practitioners out there.

But what has been suggested by this thread (and by the likes of AIMS) is that practitioners are actively making a choice not to seek consent, and to force treatment on people, because of the 8th. That is utter nonsense. They point to various bad experiences of patients and with patently bad reasoning, link it to the 8th without any intervening evidence of same [1. People have bad experiences; 2. The 8th exists 3. The 8th is the reason]. The far more likely explanation for those experiences is plain old miscommunication with a sprinkling of bad practice.

In an attempt to garner support for repeal of the 8th, some are seeking to blame the 8th for anything they can tenuously link it to. This is a perfect example. But that is likely to be counterproductive; there are loads of good reasons to get rid of the 8th; making up false ones only risks your ultimate aim.

There are definite areas where the 8th impacts on obstetric practice; read the submissions of Rhona Mahony and the other Masters to the Oireachtas committess to understand what they are. Nowhere in there at all will you see any reference whatsoever to they type of allegations that are being propogated in places in this thread, and by AIMS.

drkpower

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

Even at the worst reading of the 8th, intervention by the Gardai is simply off the reservation. Even in the few cases where High Court cases have been brought in respect of women who refuse interventions that pose a potential risk to the foetus, there was never a question of calling the Gardai. So this type of allegation simply doesn't make any sense. At all. Now, i cant discount the possibility that some ignorant practitioner somewhere said something like that some time. Of course that is possible.

But this is the thing; if that happened, it is about as egregious a practice as i could think of. It would warrant the practitioner(s) being sacked. Then being struck off. Then being criminally investigated. AIMS say they know of 'many [such] cases'. So can anyone give an explanation as to why they not reported this mater to the Medical/Nursing Council, to the HSE, to the Gardai, to anyone? Are they not a group dedicated to the improvement of maternity services?; yet in respect of this fcuking awful practice, they stand idly by.

.......

This post has been deleted.

drkpower

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

There is a lot wrong in such a short post.

- I am not a medical professional (any more).
- I have never denied that the 8th impacts on consent; it does, but it is only in a very small cohort of cases
- The evidence here is limited to various patient's experiences; they do not show that the 8th caused the patient's experiences. There is a gaping chasm between the two positions.

Can i ask you a genuine question?; the likes of Rhona MAhony and the other Masters have been very open in their concerns on the impact of the 8th on medical care; its one of the reasons we are about to vote; why do you think she - and they - have not raised the issues you and AIMS have? Genuinely, think about it.

.......

This post has been deleted.

drkpower

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Genuinely, can i ask you i to go back and read what i have said? I have always said that the 8th impacts on consent; i lecture on it. I advise about it. I think it is bloody awful; the key point that i have been saying is that the 8th impacts on the 8th in a fairly narrow cohort of cases but it does not have the wholescale impact that you are suggesting. Now don't get me wrong, im not defending it - i want it gone. But what i dont want to do is for the repeal campaign to lose ground by propagating false arguments.

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I am not dismissive; i accept they happen. I have tried to explain reasons why; i have tried to offer solutions. All i am questioning is the link between the 8th and those experiences, because that link has neither been proven nor does it make much sense..

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Rhona Mahoney and others have raised this and other concerns in their submissions and elsewhere. Its one of the main reasons we are about to have this vote, and hopefully repeal. And then you throw it back in their faces and question their motivations? Really?

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Less of the attitude; that's not going to help you. Im actually on 'your side' of the argument yet you cant resist having a pop.

.......

This post has been deleted.

freshpopcorn

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

I'd be very concerned about the result of this opinion poll and I wouldn't call it a clear majority from my memory most of the opinion polls for the marriage referendum were well in the mid 60% and 70% and turned out to be about 62% and this could go either way being 56%.

drkpower

freshpopcorn wrote: »

I'd be very concerned about the result of this opinion poll and I wouldn't call it a clear majority from my memory most of the opinion polls for the marriage referendum were well in the mid 60% and 70% and turned out to be about 62% and this could go either way being 56%.

+1
The other thing is that the anti-repeal campaign havent started their campaign yet. With a few minor exceptions, they havent come out of the traps. So this poll has been taken after the pro-repeal side have had the pitch to themselves.

I assume that once the referendum wording (and especially the Heads of Bill) comes out, the anti-repeal side are going to come out fighting.

This campaign has a long way to go yet. That is why the Repeal side needs to be careful with the quality of their arguments. Take a leaf from the Equality Ref. A respectful and measured approach is likely to be far more effective.

.......

This post has been deleted.

drkpower

.......

This post has been deleted.