Would Ireland follow Europe's Lead in Aborting the Huge Majority of Down Syndrome Pos

One eyed Jack

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Again the point is simple. Every person has rights. I think they attain those rights at the moment they attain sentience. Including a right to life. Every persons rights are free until the point they impinge on the rights of another person. Once THAT happens their rights need to be curtailed in some way.

In most other countries in Europe, the right to life is attained by a person when they are born, that's the main stumbling block in Ireland, and will be the main stumbling block even if the 8th is repealed. The right to life isn't contingent upon sentience.

You appear to be arguing for sentient rights as opposed to human rights, and that's a completely different argument.

The problem with YOUR approach to allowing them to terminate the pregnancy at ANY point is that you are never clear, even when asked, what that means or entails at any given time. Let us say 32 weeks for example. What options in your mind SHOULD be available to the woman not wanting to be pregnant at that point? And what are / would be the implications for the aborted pregnancy at that point? Mere removal? Death? Up to what point in your mind should such a woman be allowed to choose a procedure that will, or even intends to, kill the thing inside her?

These are all things that need to be clear in a "terminate it at any time" argument. What does it mean for her, what does it mean exactly for the fetus/baby.

I've always been explicitly clear in stating that it would be up to the woman involved and whatever course of action is required at that time to ensure her safety and welfare, which should be the priority.

So it is disingenuous because YOU have decided what "pro choice" means, choosing a meaning for it that differs from the people who actually identify the term? Hardly. You are pedantically equivocating over linguistics by distorting the meaning of the label they identify with, rather than considering the actual position they are putting that label on. Dodge city, once again.

The point you're missing is that it's not my understanding which is important, I couldn't care less whether someone identifies themselves as pro-choice or pro-life, because they're entirely nebulous terms that are sufficiently vague that someone can identify themselves as pro-choice (up to 8 weeks), and pro-choice (without term limits). There's a hell of a window of 32 weeks difference in between, and anyone can identify themselves as pro-choice anywhere along that timeline. If a woman is pregnant and doesn't want to be, then she stands a better chance of being supported in what she wants by people who aren't placing a time limit on her choice, rather than someone who is only interested in allowing her to have that choice up to 16 weeks of a 40 week pregnancy.

Hardly a "half measure". More like a 98% measure. The near vast TOTALITY of abortions that are sought purely on the grounds of choice are sought and attained around the world in or before week 16.

Offering a CHOICE to women, that accounts for the choice the vast majority of them actually seek, is hardly a "half" measure. It is a measure that serves and deals with the near totality of the people who actually choose to seek an abortion.

What use is that to a woman who is past that time limit then? It's of no use whatsoever. In many cases, for example in the case of Savita Halapanaavar - 17 weeks, the woman who was brain dead - 17 weeks, the teenager who wanted a termination - 17 weeks, Miss Y, Amanda Mellett was 21 weeks...

What use is your 16 week limit really? None.

The fact that most terminations take place before that time is irrelevant. What's the point in 'allowing', for something that happens already?

You have a funny definition of "half" that varies wildly from my own.

Clearly, 16 isn't even half of 40, and you expect to be able to suggest that a woman if she is past 16 weeks should submit to your determination that she must remain pregnant against her will, and give birth against her will? She'll be safer going abroad at that rate rather than risk making an appointment in Ireland.

nozzferrahhtoo

end of the road wrote: »

but life isn't simply valued on sentience alone. that's the reality

I agree! But we do not give ALL life rights. So clearly there is a point of mediation between mere "life" and life that deserve certain rights. And that is the very think YOU made clear when YOU wrote "an unborn life grows into a human being.". Well done you.

end of the road wrote: »

not at all. the definition of pro-choice

Definition of pro choice is that you are pro giving a choice. WHAT the choice is, is up to the pro choice person themselves to define themselves. Not for you to do so on their behalf.

Just because the choice being offered is not the choice YOU want to define, does not mean they are not pro choice.

end of the road wrote: »

except that never happened.

Not sure why you would lie about words that are still there for everyone to see. It happened. And it is here.

end of the road wrote: »

well no, i didn't. my words aren't your position/point.

Excuse me but I think I know what MY position is. And yes the words "an unborn life grows into a human being." describe the first part of my position absolutely perfectly. Despite your denials. The second part of my position..........

end of the road wrote: »

your position is that if it isn't sentient then it's not a human being.

........... Again, it is probably best if you allow ME to say what MY position is thanks. MY position is that if it isn't sentient, there is no reason to afford it moral or ethical concern.

nozzferrahhtoo

One eyed Jack wrote: »

In most other countries in Europe, the right to life is attained by a person when they are born

Which I personally think is a totally ludicrous point to do it. Why are rights conferred purely on the basis of LOCATION. Why does an entity on one end of a birth canal have no rights, but magically at the other end of it has attained them? It is a completely nonsense concept probably chosen for no other reason than it's simplicity. It is certainly philosophically and intellectually bankrupt as a concept.

No wonder, as you said earlier yourself, every time some new event or technology or issue comes along we need boards of ethics to re-work out what it means to be human. Crap in, crap out, alas.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

You appear to be arguing for sentient rights as opposed to human rights, and that's a completely different argument.

Not a different argument at all, it is central to the entire debate on what it means to be human, what it means to have rights, what it means to have moral and ethical concern for another entity, and much more. You are just closing your eyes and wishing it into the shape of a red herring, so as to avoid dealing with it at all.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I've always been explicitly clear in stating that it would be up to the woman involved and whatever course of action is required at that time to ensure her safety and welfare, which should be the priority.

Except that is not clear at all because it dodges and ignores the DIRECT questions you were just asked. So I will simply repeat it and see if you answer the next time:

"Let us say 32 weeks for example. What options in your mind SHOULD be available to the woman not wanting to be pregnant at that point? And what are / would be the implications for the aborted pregnancy at that point? Mere removal? Death? Up to what point in your mind should such a woman be allowed to choose a procedure that will, or even intends to, kill the thing inside her?"

One eyed Jack wrote: »

The point you're missing is that it's not my understanding which is important

If I am discussing the moral and ethical implications of abortion with you, and you are discussing it back with me, then yes YOUR understanding AND my understanding of the terms IS important. Otherwise how is discourse even possible?

But further if YOU are going to call them disingenuous in their position because YOU interpret the phrase "pro choice" to mean something they do not actually in any way identify with then the only person being disingenuous at that time is you. And you. Just you. And also you. I suggest you get hip to that.

But yes it IS vague. Thing is (welcome to the real world here) short hand labels that describe complex moral and/or political positions are ALWAYS vague. Do you think, for example, the term "democrat" or "republican" describes exactly what a person is and believes? Or do you find in conversation with them that there is multi layers of nuance behind the labels? Should I also mention water is wet?

One eyed Jack wrote: »

What use is that to a woman who is past that time limit then? It's of no use whatsoever.

Why should it? We do not owe it to anyone to come up with a solution that is useful to them personally. We out it to ourselves as a society to decide what services and procedures WE as a society together deem morally and ethically acceptable.

What "use" is our age of consent or age of alcohol purchasing laws to the 14 year old who really wants sex/alcohol? We do not decide our laws on what is useful to who. We decide it based on what we think morally and ethically the right thing to do/offer.

I am sure our laws on murder are not "useful" to those who REALLY want to murder their boss. I am sure our laws on arson are not very "useful" to someone who really needs to get some insurance money. But the lack of utility to SOME of our laws is rarely the basis upon which we decide them.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

What use is your 16 week limit really? None.

None except the one I already offered and you merely ignored as if not acknowledging it means it is magically not there. Many women in the world seek abortions by choice. Of those women and abortions the VAST (near totality) of them occur in or before week 16. In fact over 90% happen in or before week 12.

So given a choice up to 16 weeks would facilitate the needs and desires of anything up to 98% of the women involved..... to say it has no value is as much comedy gold from you as it is wanton dishonesty.

end of the road

swampgas wrote: »

So what's your obsession with Irish women having abortions in a specific location? The end result is the same (except maybe the abortion might have happened earlier in Ireland).

Why force women to travel, and why put women who cannot travel in a truly invidious position - maybe buying pills on-line, maybe trying something more drastic. The women who cannot travel really are being thrown under the bus. You might not like to hear that, but that's your position.

it's not my position. i'm not forcing anything. not being able to avail of abortion on demand in ireland, does not equal a woman being thrown under the bus. my position is simply that blanket abortion on demand is unnecessary in ireland, whereas abortion in extreme circumstances should be availible, and is availible, however it has room to be extended to cover more aspects.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

I agree! But we do not give ALL life rights. So clearly there is a point of mediation between mere "life" and life that deserve certain rights. And that is the very think YOU made clear when YOU wrote "an unborn life grows into a human being.". Well done you.

i made nothing of the sort clear. human life is life from the minute it begins to grow. a human being is a human being from the minute life begins. a human person is a human person from the minute it starts the stage where it is a small baby, within the womb. the minute human life begins, it has rights, in this country. that is just and should remain to be the case.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Definition of pro choice is that you are pro giving a choice. WHAT the choice is, is up to the pro choice person themselves to define themselves. Not for you to do so on their behalf.

i'm not defining it, the definition of pro-choice is defining the definition of pro-choice. the definition of pro-choice is that you are in favour of giving someone a choice.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Just because the choice being offered is not the choice YOU want to define, does not mean they are not pro choice.

no but the fact they want to impose limits, means they are not fully pro-choice.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Excuse me but I think I know what MY position is. And yes the words "an unborn life grows into a human being." describe the first part of my position absolutely perfectly. Despite your denials. The second part of my position..........

the minute life begins it is a human being. it isn't a human person, but is still a human being.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

........... Again, it is probably

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

best if you allow ME to say what MY position is thanks. MY position is that if it isn't sentient, there is no reason to afford it moral or ethical concern.

there is every reason, as human life isn't simply valued on the basis of sentience. sentience doesn't ultimately determin human life when it's at a stage where it has the potential to become sentient. the only time where your argument in terms of sentients has validity, is where a person is brain dead, and has no possible chance of being sentient, where the life support can be removed. however even then, there will be some rights afforded.

nozzferrahhtoo

end of the road wrote: »

i made nothing of the sort clear.

The words were written by you, and are there for all to see. Not my fault if you misspoke.

end of the road wrote: »

human life is life from the minute it begins to grow.

I agree. Biologically it is life. But so is a tree. So is a worm. So is a cow. So is a bacteria. The world is covered in life. It is covered in life we end all the time.

So clearly simply being "life" is not the sole basis upon which we mediate ethics and the right to life.

end of the road wrote: »

the definition of pro-choice is that you are in favour of giving someone a choice.

Yep. And the choice I want to give women in our country is the choice to avail of an abortion, for any reason they want, up to 12, 16, or perhaps even 20 weeks. But I think 16 more than enough.

That there is limits on the choice, does not stop it being a choice.

end of the road wrote: »

no possible chance of being sentient

My position is not based on the CHANCE to be sentient. My position is based on BEING sentient or, as with a fetus, not.

end of the road

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

The words were written by you, and are there for all to see. Not my fault if you misspoke.

the words i actually wrote are there. what you claimed i wrote isn't there.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

I agree. Biologically it is life. But so is a tree. So is a worm. So is a cow. So is a bacteria. The world is covered in life. It is covered in life we end all the time.

doesn't matter, none of that is any legitimate reason to end human life bar ultra-extreme circumstances.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

So clearly simply being "life" is not the sole basis upon which we mediate ethics and the right to life.

no but it being human life, very much is

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Yep. And the choice I want to give women in our country is the choice to avail of an abortion, for any reason they want, up to 12, 16, or perhaps even 20 weeks. But I think 16 more than enough.

That there is limits on the choice, does not stop it being a choice.

but it's not a full choice for those who may want a longer timeframe.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

My position is not based on the CHANCE to be sentient. My position is based on BEING sentient or, as with a fetus, not.

but your position is invalid as sentience isn't the method we use to value life, bar the situation where sentience has been lost, and there is no chance of it recovering.
having the potential to be sentient is enough to value life.

nozzferrahhtoo

end of the road wrote: »

the words i actually wrote are there. what you claimed i wrote isn't there.

Except it is. Here it is again "an unborn life grows into a human being."

You do know when you say that X grows into Y that you are saying X is not Y right?

end of the road wrote: »

doesn't matter, none of that is any legitimate reason to end human life bar ultra-extreme circumstances. no but it being human life, very much is

Yet what is it makes human life more valuable than any other life.

end of the road wrote: »

but it's not a full choice for those who may want a longer timeframe.

I never said it was a full choice. You are attacking a position I never espoused.

end of the road wrote: »

but your position is invalid as sentience isn't the method we use to value life

My position is that we SHOULD be. How is my position that we SHOULD be doing so invalidated by us NOT doing so? Are you even trying to make sense at this point?

Hannibal_Smith

end of the road wrote: »

her case was a case which would have been covered by the abortion in extreme circumstances law, had it been availible. however her case is a bankrupt justification for abortion on demand.
.

Her case is EXACTLY a justification for abortion on demand. If abortion on demand was allowed she would have ended the terribly sad miscarriage she was suffering.
She wouldnt have to meet the criteria of any busy body who wanted to dictate what she was allowed do to her body. She could have requested an abortion and her wishes honoured. There was no idea of the threat lingering in relation to her own life, but at least she would have been treated humanely. Her case is NEVER a bankrupt justification for abortion on demand or otherwise.

Outlaw Pete

kylith wrote: »

How fúcking dare you tell me what I do and do not want.

I didn't. You did. Many times, on multiple threads.

kylith wrote: »

I don't believe that the fetus is alive, and support abortion, but not without limits.

kylith wrote: »

No one is arguing for aborting healthy 24 week fetuses.

kylith wrote: »

I wholeheartedly agree with such time limits. If an abortion is to be carried out then it should be as early in the pregnancy as possible

But it wouldn't matter anyway as nobody truly believes in full bodily integrity for pregnant women. It's just a tactic designed to try and frame abortion debates to being really about a woman's right to do what she wants with "HER" body, but after an elective abortion could a woman show you what she has just had done to "her body"? Has she removed anything of "her" body? No, "her" body is fully intact. Strange then how some people speak of elective abortions as them being merely about women doing something to their body, when their body is the same after an elective abortion as it was before it. You know who's body isn't the same after an elective abortion? The baby's body. But never mind them eh: Her body,Her choice!! Fits nicely on a banner, but it's not exactly accurate, now is it.

Where anyone to genuinely believe in full bodily integrity for pregnant women they would be fine with a woman they know, deciding the week before they were due, that they had changed their mind and were going take something to make the baby die. That's the reality of such a belief. You either believe it to it's extremes, or you don't believe it in at all, and thankfully, nobody does.

Do you want your rights over your own body taken away?

Well, if I was a danger to someone's life, they would be and I would have no issue with that.

Feminist is not a bad word. Women would be a lot worse off without feminism.

I was speaking about modern day feminism that has convinced women that aborting their young is an expression of female empowerment. The feminists you allude to would be turning in their graves at how many elective abortions are carried out each and every year in western society.

I believe that it should be allowable to terminate foetuses with profound disabilities at a later stage than other prenates.

As do I. There is something wrong with someone that thinks it should be illegal for a hospital to humanely end the life of a baby with a ffa or that's so profoundly disabled that it would be a near impossibility of them having quality of life. It's fetal euthanasia as far as I can see and so should be legal. I don't see why anyone could have an issue with it, barring religious belief.

With advances this is getting earlier and earlier. Now it is possible to determine that a foetus likely has DS in the first trimester, and definitively in the second trimester.

Down Syndrome is not a profound disability though and it should not be thought of as such.

nozzferrahhtoo

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Her body,Her choice!! Fits nicely on a banner, but it's not exactly accurate, now is it.

As I explained to another user who apparently had not noticed before...... Slogans and things like that are rarely "exactly" accurate. They are not intended to be.

Human moral and ethical discourse is complex. When you summarize a complex conclusion to a complex issue down to a quick slogan you lose a lot of nuance and complexity.

Slogans are not MEANT to convey the full meaning and intention of the position behind it.

But if you dig into it is does. When we are talking about just HER body they it is HER choice. Because there is no other person there with a body, no object of a "his" or "her" exists other than her.

When sentience comes on line though it is no longer "her" body her choice. But there is also another "his/her" to consider.

But yes, when it is just HER body we are talking about, it absolutely IS her choice.

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Has she removed anything of "her" body? Nope, "her" body is fully intact.

She has however chosen to remove something FROM her body. And since it is her body, is absolutely should be her choice to do so. As no other sentient entity is affected by her choice.

And as I explained to you before, there is no reason to curtail your free choice in this world if no other moral entity is affected by your choice. Just like how your free choice to swing your fists around ends at my face.

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Strange then how some people speak of elective abortions as them being merely about women doing something to their body, when their body is the same after an elective abortion as it was before it.

It is not the same before and after. BEFORE it had something in it she wanted out. After it does not have something in it she wants out. How is that "the same" exactly? Is there another dictionary definition of "the same" you are using that massively differs from all the dictionaries I use?

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Where anyone to genuinely believe in full bodily integrity for pregnant women they would be fine with a woman they know, deciding the week before they were due, that they had changed their mind and were going take something to make the baby die.

So your main beef with such people is that they do not ACTUALLY believe what it is you want / need them to believe? So rather than attack what they do believe, you want to dictate to them what they should be believing?

Well that is beyond weird, and obsessive to say the least.

AGAIN however, and I am happy to explain this 100 times more if required, at those later stages (at which statistically NO ONE simply chooses to have an abortion that kills the child so not sure what your issue is anyway) the argument I would present to you is her free choice, like my face affecting what you do with your fist, is curtailed by the affects it has on another sentient agent with rights.

This is not a complex point to understand though, so although happy to explain it another 100 times, I am baffled as to why it is required to do so.

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

That's the reality of such a belief. You either believe it to it's extremes, or you don't believe it in at all, and thankfully, nobody does.

So people have to believe what YOU dictate to them, or the real and actual beliefs they hold are invalidated? Do you think you are some kind of god or something that makes you the arbiter of what other people can or can not believe?

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

I was speaking about modern day feminism that has convinced women that aborting their young is an expression of female empowerment.

Can not really say I have met or heard of many people telling them that DOING it is what empowers them. Everyone I have heard speak so far says fighting for, and obtaining, the CHOICE to do so is empowerment.

Just like giving women the vote, as we once had to do, empowered them. IT does not mean any individual woman has to go out and use that vote. The choice to NOT use your vote is just as empowering as ACTUALLY using it.

You do not the difference between having a choice, and using that choice, I trust? Because I am just as happy to explain it 100 more times too if required.

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Down Syndrome is not a profound disability though and it should not be thought of as such.

It should also not be thought of as NOT being such. It is a continuum and one person with that condition could have a quality of life massively different to the next person who has that condition.

Outlaw Pete

Triceratops Ballet wrote: »

eh, hello....That's not an untrue statement

You spelled the following incorrectly:

Oh apologies, Pete... your post wasn't irrelevant like I said it was at all. I got confused.

No problem, Triceratops, anyone can make a mistake :P

Later folks, off out.

Triceratops Ballet

Outlaw Pete wrote:

But it wouldn't matter anyway as nobody truly believes in full bodily integrity for pregnant women. It's just a tactic designed to try and frame abortion debates to being really about a woman's right to do what she wants with "HER" body, but after an elective abortion could a woman show you what she has just had done to "her body"? Has she removed anything of "her" body? No, "her" body is fully intact. Strange then how some people speak of elective abortions as them being merely about women doing something to their body, when their body is the same after an elective abortion as it was before it. You know who's body isn't the same after an elective abortion? The baby's body. But never mind them eh: Her body,Her choice!! Fits nicely on a banner, but it's not exactly accurate, now is it.

This is just bizzare! Women aren't just pregnant without any impact on their body. Pregnancy has a massive impact on a woman's body, plenty of things are happening to a woman's body while she is pregnant.
Prior to an abortion numerous things are happening to her body. After the abortion they will stop. To attempt to argue that abortion doesn't change a womans body is bananas

Outlaw Pete wrote:

Where anyone to genuinely believe in full bodily integrity for pregnant women they would be fine with a woman they know, deciding the week before they were due, that they had changed their mind and were going take something to make the baby die. That's the reality of such a belief. You either believe it to it's extremes, or you don't believe it in at all, and thankfully, nobody does.

If a woman wanted to terminate her pregnancy a week or two before the due date, I would have no problem with it. The pregnancy could be terminated by c section and the infant surrendered to the state. Though if abortion were available earlier, I doubt very much that we'd get that far.

Triceratops Ballet

Outlaw Pete wrote:

I was speaking about modern day feminism that has convinced women that aborting their young is an expression of female empowerment. The

Feminism espouses no such thing, modern feminism isn't perfect, but it doesn't say that

captbarnacles

I am full pro choice but don't exist according to Pete. It seems to melt his brain.

I'm a guy so it won't affect me directly but as regards my own body I will decide what I do and don't do with it.
Those are rights I take for myself so I am not going to demand other humans have restrictions on theirs for any reason regardless of how I feel about it.

In direct contrast to what Pete typed above if I was in a medical situation where anothers survival depended on my consent to use all or part of my body I would reserve the right to withdraw my consent at any time.

You can rest easy Pete, this is NOT a commonly held view.

Neyite

Hannibal_Smith wrote: »

Her case is EXACTLY a justification for abortion on demand. If abortion on demand was allowed she would have ended the terribly sad miscarriage she was suffering.
She wouldnt have to meet the criteria of any busy body who wanted to dictate what she was allowed do to her body. She could have requested an abortion and her wishes honoured. There was no idea of the threat lingering in relation to her own life, but at least she would have been treated humanely. Her case is NEVER a bankrupt justification for abortion on demand or otherwise.

May I just point out that at no stage did Savita request an abortion. She was miscarrying. She was losing a much wanted and planned for baby. She knew it, the medical staff knew it. They all knew what was happening. They all knew that baby was dying and would die.

She requested medical management of her miscarriage. Simply put, she wanted medication to speed up the process of her miscarriage. But under our laws, she was not allowed to get that medication as long as there was a dying heartbeat. And as a result of that delay she developed sepsis and died.

Medical management is mandatory whether we like it or not as we near our term to give birth. We get no choice in that either if a clinican feels it necessary to put their hand into our vagina past our cervix and break our waters. We get no choice if they deem it necessary to slice us open to take out our baby. In many cases they are acting with best medical practices but please tell me, what other area of medicine do the wishes and rights of a patient get over ridden and disregarded as much as ante-natal care?

Think about it. Those who are arguing the pro-life side right now are male. Imaging being told that a hand is going up your jacksie and you have no choice in that. Imagine they schedule you for prostate surgery and with that surgery there's a very high risk that you will come out the other side permanently impotent. (look it up) Then imagine that you are told that you've no choice. It's the law. We can take you to court and we will win. Bend over. Suck it up.

Or, there is an alternative over in that country. If you are not poor, or brown I guess. If you are, well, gee. Sucks to be you.

end of the road

Neyite wrote: »

Think about it. Those who are arguing the pro-life side right now are male.

only on this thread. there are women who don't agree with abortion on demand believe it or not.

Neyite wrote: »

Imaging being told that a hand is going up your jacksie and you have no choice in that. Imagine they schedule you for prostate surgery and with that surgery there's a very high risk that you will come out the other side permanently impotent. (look it up) Then imagine that you are told that you've no choice. It's the law. We can take you to court and we will win. Bend over. Suck it up.

you don't need abortion on demand to solve that issue.

Neyite wrote: »

Or, there is an alternative over in that country. If you are not poor, or brown I guess. If you are, well, gee. Sucks to be you.

abortion on demand being availible in ireland doesn't really help those people unless it's subsidized though. given we have areas which really need the money, subsidizing abortion on demand isn't a good use of funds. as i have said plenty of times, the law that allows for abortion in extreme circumstances can and should be extended for situations where the baby is sadly going to die, among some other issues. but abortion on demand in general isn't necessary for ireland.

Zubeneschamali

One eyed Jack wrote: »

In most other countries in Europe, the right to life is attained by a person when they are born, that's the main stumbling block in Ireland, and will be the main stumbling block even if the 8th is repealed.

Which is why the Citizen's Assembly recommended replacing the 8th, not just deleting it.

The Bishop Basher

Triceratops Ballet wrote: »

If a woman wanted to terminate her pregnancy a week or two before the due date, I would have no problem with it. The pregnancy could be terminated by c section and the infant surrendered to the state. Though if abortion were available earlier, I doubt very much that we'd get that far.

I try and stay away from these debates as I'm very undecided on this issue. I used to be entirely pro choice till I had my own kids quite young. My now wife wouldn't consider abortion at the time and i'm so thankful she didn't. So is our now 19 year old daughter

Having said all that I do recognise that abortion is a necessary evil at times and I believe we need to change our laws to reflect and allow for that..

And while the post above is clearly just chasing an emotional reaction, if it in any way reflects the level to which we've now stooped in this debate then i'm out.

I really would be embarrassed to be part of any society that feels it's in any way ok or normal to commoditise babies in this way..

We've had years of surrendering babies to the state and look how that turned out..

Seriously, think before you type..

Hannibal_Smith

Neyite wrote: »

May I just point out that at no stage did Savita request an abortion. She was miscarrying. She was losing a much wanted and planned for baby. She knew it, the medical staff knew it. They all knew what was happening. They all knew that baby was dying and would die.

She requested medical management of her miscarriage. Simply put, she wanted medication to speed up the process of her miscarriage. But under our laws, she was not allowed to get that medication as long as there was a dying heartbeat. And as a result of that delay she developed sepsis and died.

Medical management is mandatory whether we like it or not as we near our term to give birth. We get no choice in that either if a clinican feels it necessary to put their hand into our vagina past our cervix and break our waters. We get no choice if they deem it necessary to slice us open to take out our baby. In many cases they are acting with best medical practices but please tell me, what other area of medicine do the wishes and rights of a patient get over ridden and disregarded as much as ante-natal care?

Think about it. Those who are arguing the pro-life side right now are male. Imaging being told that a hand is going up your jacksie and you have no choice in that. Imagine they schedule you for prostate surgery and with that surgery there's a very high risk that you will come out the other side permanently impotent. (look it up) Then imagine that you are told that you've no choice. It's the law. We can take you to court and we will win. Bend over. Suck it up.

Or, there is an alternative over in that country. If you are not poor, or brown I guess. If you are, well, gee. Sucks to be you.

I know the baby was much wanted and I know it was to speed up the miscarriage. And to speed up the miscarriage it would have constituted an abortion, no? It would have meant ending the life of the foetus quicker?

kylith

end of the road wrote: »

you don't need abortion on demand to solve that issue.

Repealing the 8th will give women power over what happens to their own bodies when pregnant, not just regarding termination.

As it currently stands women cannot receive medical treatment that may cause miscarriage or harm to the foetus until their lives are in immediate danger. Would you be happy with your wife or daughter being denied chemo if she had cancer because the contents of her womb are more important than her?

As it currently stands women get little to no say in the management of their labour, and might not even be informed or consulted of what is going on and what their options are. Would you be happy to not have any information or input on your medical care?

From http://parentsforchoice.ie/the-8th-amendment-and-maternity-care/

It directly removes and overrides the woman’s right to consent for any procedure during labour and birth where that is deemed to endanger the life of the foetus. It eliminates the requirement for informed consent and is frequently used to coerce a mother into procedures without information or consultation, or consent needing to be sought, at times going so far as to threaten to obtain court orders to enforce her compliance and using other legislation such as child protection legislation to further enforce compliance. This restriction to consent was highlighted in the 2014 AIMS Ireland survey of 2,836 women, where less than half of all respondents said they were given the opportunity to refuse consent to tests, procedures and treatments.

Triceratops Ballet

Swanner wrote:

And while the post above is clearly just chasing an emotional reaction, if it in any way reflects the level to which we've now stooped in this debate then i'm out.

It's not chasing an emotional reaction, I'm pointing out that this is what happens. There was a case of a woman who was prevented from getting an abortion, because of the 8th. Long story short they finally submitted to her request when the foetus reached the point of viability, terminated the pregnancy and the child is in state care. She subsequently rightly sued the state and won. That's just a fact.
I was responding to a poster who was scaremongering about women aborting at 36 weeks. As has been explained before, cases of late term abortion are rare, and where they exist, it's more likely that the pregnancy is ended via c section and the child turned over to the state as on the above case.

Swanner wrote:

I really would be embarrassed to be part of any society that feels it's in any way ok or normal to commoditise babies in this way..

Where did I say anything about commoditising babies? If a child is unwanted and/or a parent is unfit, children go into care, it's awful but it happens.

Swanner wrote:

We've had years of surrendering babies to the state and look how that turned out..

I'm well aware of that, that's one of the reasons I believe in giving women the right to choose. I don't think it's right to force someone to remain pregnant against their will and bring a child they don't want into the world. I think we should as far as possible keep children out of state care, as many others have pointed out adoption in this country is limited (despite the numbers who would love to adopt)

gctest50

maxsmum wrote: »

This thread is really derailing...

You get that in all sorts of threads here and elsewhere, people be self appointed pr workers, often to make up for some perceived shortcoming in themselves


from elsewhere :

information on this sort of thing should be taught in schools :

Former PR worker here, 99% of our job is to convince people that something that is ****ing them over is actually good for them. The whole concept of 'shills' has somehow became a conspiracy theory when in reality it's just PR workers who are paid by a company to defend their product/service. My last job was defending fracking.

Anytime a post containing keywords was submitted to a popular website we where notified and it was our job to just list off talking points and debate the most popular comments. Fracking was an easy one to defend because you could paint people as anti-science if they where against it. The science behind fracking is sound and if done properly is safe, so you just focus on this point. You willfully ignore the fact that fracking is done by people who almost never do it properly and are always looking to cut corners.

Your talking points usually contain branching arguments if people try to debate back. For example my next point would be to bring up that these companies are regulated so they couldn't cut corners or they would be fined, all the while knowing that these agencies are either underfunded or have been captured by the very industry they are trying to regulate.

The final talking point, if someone called you out on all your counterpoints, was to simply try to paint them as a wackjob. Suggest they are crazy for thinking agencies who are suppose to protect them have been bought and paid for. Bring up lizard people to muddy the waters. A lot of people will quickly distance themselves from something if it is accused of being a conspiracy theory, and a lot of them are stupid enough that you can convince them that believing businesses conspiring to break the law to gain profit is literally the same as believing in aliens and bigfoot.

Edit: Just to clarify I am not an expert in the field of fracking, I am just a PR worker who worked on a fracking campaign and used it as an example. I got into a few heated debates about fracking in replies to this comment and some things I said might be wrong because as I said I am not an expert. I don't want this to take away from the actual point of this comment which is to make people aware of PR workers and how they try to sway online discussions.

The Bishop Basher

Triceratops Ballet wrote: »

It's not chasing an emotional reaction, I'm pointing out that this is what happens.

But that's not what you said or how you said it.

Triceratops Ballet wrote: »

As has been explained before, cases of late term abortion are rare, and where they exist, it's more likely that the pregnancy is ended via c section and the child turned over to the state as on the above case.

I can't believe we're actually talking about this let alone the fact that you "have no problem with it"

Worlds gone nuts..

SusieBlue

Swanner wrote: »

But that's not what you said or how you said it.



I can't believe we're actually talking about this let alone the fact that you "have no problem with it"

Worlds gone nuts..

Someone brought up late term abortions happening if the 8th was repealed, saying that fully formed sentient fetuses would be aborted very late in the pregnancy.
Triceratops simply pointed out that on the very rare occasion that someone requests a very late term abortion, in countries where it's legal, rather than kill a fetus that would be born alive and kicking, the baby is delivered by c section and handed over to social services.

I also would have no problem with this, surely handing the baby over to social services is better than giving it a lethal injection or something?
That's the point he was trying to make.

gctest50

No need to "worry" about that though, it's just wandering off into the pointless forest of what if



when it's left up to a woman and her doctor, it just doesn't happen :

I challenge Mr. Kay to find one late-term abortion performed in Canada to a healthy mother with a healthy fetus.

I am one of many politicians “willing to tackle” this subject. He needs to be one of many journalists who are prepared to admit when their fine prose may have misled Canadians … in this case that late-trimester abortions are not happening in Canada without “reason.”


Dr. Carolyn Bennett,

Neyite

Hannibal_Smith wrote: »

I know the baby was much wanted and I know it was to speed up the miscarriage. And to speed up the miscarriage it would have constituted an abortion, no? It would have meant ending the life of the foetus quicker?

Yes, because of our legal wording, it would have technically been an abortion.

I'd have seen it more on a par with they way they manage an ectopic or molar pregnancy procedure than an abortion though.

One eyed Jack

Neyite wrote: »

Think about it. Those who are arguing the pro-life side right now are male.

Because I've thought about it, and because I've done my research, generally in most surveys that have been carried out, they suggest that of those people surveyed, more men are in favour of liberalising abortion laws than women. Women who are pro-life get excluded from things like women's marches and told they're not welcome in a movement that claims to advocate for women's welfare and claims to represent all women.

Imaging being told that a hand is going up your jacksie and you have no choice in that. Imagine they schedule you for prostate surgery and with that surgery there's a very high risk that you will come out the other side permanently impotent. (look it up) Then imagine that you are told that you've no choice. It's the law. We can take you to court and we will win. Bend over. Suck it up.

That attitude is pervasive in many areas of medicine, from paediatric medicine to palliative care, because patient-centred care is generally unheard of in any society. That's why there are many organisations in Ireland and in many other countries that advocate for patients welfare, because all too often in the medical community there really is an attitude of overlooking the person and treating them as just another patient.

I'm very fortunate that I have the opportunity to have more of a say in what I am and am not prepared to subject myself to so when my consultant said "If you need blood, I'm going to give you blood", while I appreciated his honesty, I was equally honest and in a position to say "No you won't!", and I was able to have the procedure I needed done in another hospital where they have the facilities necessary for appropriate medical care according to my wishes.

Or, there is an alternative over in that country. If you are not poor, or brown I guess. If you are, well, gee. Sucks to be you.

Yes it does, but that would be the same under any circumstances, not just a woman who would wish to terminate her pregnancy, or in fact needed a termination of her pregnancy as expediently and as efficiently as possible before a sepsis infection developed. Speaking of sepsis, it can develop after any medical procedure which involves surgery, and I was given reams of information leaflets about it before I was due to go in for surgery, which I postponed because I wasn't happy with the standard of care being provided, that's why I went elsewhere, and I wasn't pregnant.

The point being that a lack of care or substandard care can happen to anyone, regardless of their social status, regardless of what medical care they need or what medical care they feel is appropriate, because of the attitude of some professionals in the medical community, not them all, thankfully, but some, and that's a problem that needs to be addressed within that community, regardless of the outcome of any referendum, or else things simply won't change, in a culture that remains the same.

Zubeneschamali

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I'm very fortunate that I have the opportunity to have more of a say in what I am and am not prepared to subject myself to

Also fortunate in that nobody in the 80s passed a bloody stupid referendum interfering in the details of what your consultant was and was not allowed to do or say during your treatment, and you didn't have to travel to England, get it done there by a different team, and then travel home and try and have your doctors pick up the threads again.

One eyed Jack

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Also fortunate in that nobody in the 80s passed a bloody stupid referendum interfering in the details of what your consultant was and was not allowed to do or say during your treatment, and you didn't have to travel to England, get it done there by a different team, and then travel home and try and have your doctors pick up the threads again.

Obviously?

I just don't understand your point is all. I'm also fortunate according to Neyite's point that I'm neither a woman, brown, nor poor. That wasn't really my point though, it's not a competition. My point was this -

One eyed Jack wrote: »

The point being that a lack of care or substandard care can happen to anyone, regardless of their social status, regardless of what medical care they need or what medical care they feel is appropriate, because of the attitude of some professionals in the medical community, not them all, thankfully, but some, and that's a problem that needs to be addressed within that community, regardless of the outcome of any referendum, or else things simply won't change, in a culture that remains the same.

FishOnABike

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I'll live in a society in which it is easier to pretend problems don't exist than actually being obliged to face them and come up with viable alternative solutions. I'd rather not live in a society where abortion is seen a viable alternative to actually providing the help that people need. If indications are that the majority of abortions are caused by people who imagine that they lack the support to be able to provide for their children, then that's where our focus should be, not simply defaulting to suggesting abortion as the easy way to address their concerns. It doesn't, not by a long shot.

Can we not do both ?

One eyed Jack

FishOnABike wrote: »

Can we not do both ?

As private citizens, yes.

As a public policy? Clearly not, as has been demonstrated by the State, and successive Governments time and time again. The State has neither the will, nor the resources, to demonstrate competence.

Zubeneschamali

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I just don't understand your point is all.

It isn't a difficult one. You say:

The point being that a lack of care or substandard care can happen to anyone, regardless of their social status, regardless of what medical care they need or what medical care they feel is appropriate, because of the attitude of some professionals in the medical community, not them all, thankfully, but some, and that's a problem that needs to be addressed within that community, regardless of the outcome of any referendum, or else things simply won't change, in a culture that remains the same.

And you are wrong.

It is not the same regardless of the outcome of any referendum. Women are dead because the 8th amendment interfered with their medical treatment. Another referendum result, replacing the 8th, could prevent that happening again.

Will it fix everything wrong with Irish medical culture? No - nobody said it would. But saying hey, you had issues with consultants too is just an attempt to distract. You did not have issues with consultants because of a Constitutional amendment, and a referendum result would not have changed your treatment. That is no reason not to fix the stupid 80s amendment causing problems in the treatment of pregnant women ever since.

Annasopra

One eyed Jack wrote: »

My understanding is that the unborn having the right to life existed in the constitution long before the 8th amendment

Where?

Geuze

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

I

Women are dead because the 8th amendment interfered with their medical treatment.

Is this true?

Can you give the number, please?

There are very few maternal deaths in Ireland.

See here:
http://www.cso.ie/en/releasesandpublications/ep/p-vsar/vitalstatisticsannualreport2015/infantmortalitystillbirthsandmaternalmortality2015/

In 2015 there was 1, out of 65,000 births approx.

In 2014 there was 1.

In some years there were 0.

The max in in any year since 1997 was 5.

Can you state how many of these deaths were due to "the 8th amendment"?


Table 4.19 Maternal deaths per 100,000 total live and stillbirths, 1997 - 2015

Year Number of maternal deaths Maternal death rate
1997 3 5.6
1998 2 3.7
1999 1 1.8
2000 1 1.8
2001 3 5.2
2002 5 8.2
2003 – –
2004 1 1.6
2005 1 1.6
2006 – –
2007 2 2.8
2008 3 4.0
2009 3 4.0
2010 1 1.3
2011 2 2.7
2012 2 2.8
2013 3 4.3
2014 1 1.5
2015 1 1.5

.......

This post has been deleted.

Triceratops Ballet

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I would also imagine pregnant women who were unable to have other treatments for disease due to being pregnant/ the 8th and subsequently died were not recorded as maternal deaths.

.......

This post has been deleted.

Zubeneschamali

Geuze wrote: »

Is this true?

YES

Savita Hallapanavar, for example.

One eyed Jack

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

It isn't a difficult one. You say:



And you are wrong.

It is not the same regardless of the outcome of any referendum. Women are dead because the 8th amendment interfered with their medical treatment. Another referendum result, replacing the 8th, could prevent that happening again.

That might look good on a placard, but number one - women are not dead because the 8th amendment interfered with their treatment, and two - anything may happen, regardless of the outcome of any referendum.

Will it fix everything wrong with Irish medical culture? No - nobody said it would. But saying hey, you had issues with consultants too is just an attempt to distract. You did not have issues with consultants because of a Constitutional amendment, and a referendum result would not have changed your treatment. That is no reason not to fix the stupid 80s amendment causing problems in the treatment of pregnant women ever since.

No, and until that issue is addressed, then people regardless of whether they're poor, wealthy, brown, white, male or female, will continue to receive substandard treatment regardless of either the jurisdiction they're in, or the jurisdiction they travel to. It's not a distraction, it's the very core of the real issue, and the "unless you're not brown, poor or a woman" was an attempt to divide people on an issue that actually concerns everyone.

It's not the 8th amendment that causes problems at all, the medical community have never been oblivious to it, but it's their attitudes to patient care and the constant displays of both arrogance and incompetence are the underlying issue that needs to be tackled in order to improve healthcare for everyone, and not just poor brown women.

One eyed Jack

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

Where?

It was implicit as an unenumerated right, until the 8th amendment made it an explicit right by acknowledging that the State acknowledges the right to life of the unborn. That's why even if the 8th amendment is repealed, the unborn would still have the right to life, unless and Zubenshamali said - it is replaced, and it would have to be replaced with wording that would make it explicit that the unborn has no right to life.

.......

This post has been deleted.

Zubeneschamali

One eyed Jack wrote: »

It's not the 8th amendment that causes problems at all, the medical community have never been oblivious to it, but it's their attitudes to patient care and the constant displays of both arrogance and incompetence are the underlying issue that needs to be tackled in order to improve healthcare for everyone, and not just poor brown women.

There is a 14 year jail sentence waiting for any doctor who crosses the invisible line and terminates a pregnancy because it merely endangers a woman's health and risks leaving her a physical wreck.

This is a problem, and it is caused by the 8th.

Your general unhappiness with the medical profession is a completely separate issue, and irrelevant to the repeal (or not) of the 8th.

Zubeneschamali

One eyed Jack wrote: »

It was implicit as an unenumerated right, until the 8th amendment made it an explicit right by acknowledging that the State acknowledges the right to life of the unborn. That's why even if the 8th amendment is repealed, the unborn would still have the right to life, unless and Zubenshamali said - it is replaced, and it would have to be replaced with wording that would make it explicit that the unborn has no right to life.

No, it was not an unenumerated right before the 8th. The reason the prolifers wanted the stupid wording they used was precisely to create this right.

The issue now is that this right exists, and simply deleting the statement in the Constitution does not necessarily delete that right, so per the Citizen's Assembly recs, we should replace it with an explicit statement that the Oireachtas may legislate here.

GreeBo

One eyed Jack wrote: »

before I was due to go in for surgery, which I postponed because I wasn't happy with the standard of care being provided, that's why I went elsewhere

How nice for you, being in control of what happens to your body.

.......

This post has been deleted.

One eyed Jack

....... wrote: »

Yes they are.

Savita Hallapanavar is one example.

No she isn't, her death was caused by staff incompetence.

Another is this unnamed woman who died on a flight home after getting an abortion in the UK.

http://www.thejournal.ie/fergal-malone-abortion-flight-death-3642355-Oct2017/

An unnamed woman, I'll take that article with a pinch of salt then.

Sheila Hodgers who was denied cancer treatment in case it harmed the fetus:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sheila_Hodgers

Her death was as a result of cancer.

Please do not make inaccurate statements regarding the deaths of women because of the 8th Amendment. It is insulting and dismissive, not to mention incorrect.

Please take your own advice before you start dishing it out to others.

One eyed Jack

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

No, it was not an unenumerated right before the 8th. The reason the prolifers wanted the stupid wording they used was precisely to create this right.

The issue now is that this right exists, and simply deleting the statement in the Constitution does not necessarily delete that right, so per the Citizen's Assembly recs, we should replace it with an explicit statement that the Oireachtas may legislate here.

Because abortion was unlawful long before the existence of the 8th amendment, the obvious implication of that was that in the natural course of events, the unborn would be born.

SusieBlue

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Her death was as a result of cancer.

Yes, as a result of the fact that she couldn't be treated for her illness due to the fact she was pregnant.
If she had received treatment she may have lived. She was directly affected by the 8th.
Instead she died, her baby died, and her husband was left to pick up the pieces.

uptherebels

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Her death was as a result of cancer.





.

And she wasn't treated for cancer because....?

Saying that it wasn't the fall that killed someone but the sudden stop.....

One eyed Jack

GreeBo wrote: »

How nice for you, being in control of what happens to your body.

I did acknowledge as much when I said I had more of a say in what I choose to subject myself to, so does anyone here with the resources to do so, including brown women. Poor people? Not so much, but how many of us here fit into that bracket? I would suggest so few as to make their point an entirely disingenuous effort.

....... wrote: »

There is no "elsewhere" for Irish women affected by the 8th Amendment. Every maternity option in Ireland is affected by it.

Yes there is elsewhere, outside Irish jurisdiction, and if I were on a waiting list for medical treatment, I could have to apply for medical treatment in another jurisdiction -


https://m.independent.ie/irish-news/health/patients-on-waiting-lists-to-be-treated-privately-or-abroad-31224311.html