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

gctest50

And none of this happens if it's left up to a woman and her doctor

Especially when it comes to urgent stuff a doctor can do without the spectre hanging over them

One eyed Jack

WhiteRoses wrote: »

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.

And if she hadn't been pregnant she may have lived too. The point being that there are so many "ifs" there that there were any number of reasons we can look back in hindsight and say if this, if that, if the other, but none of that detracts from what she actually died from, and that wasn't what you're trying to make out caused her death.

uptherebels

One eyed Jack wrote: »

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 -

The best thing about this thread is the two most vocal prolifers aren't even pro life. Just nimbys. Pro life out of spite.

.......

This post has been deleted.

.......

This post has been deleted.

SusieBlue

One eyed Jack wrote: »

And if she hadn't been pregnant she may have lived too. The point being that there are so many "ifs" there that there were any number of reasons we can look back in hindsight and say if this, if that, if the other, but none of that detracts from what she actually died from, and that wasn't what you're trying to make out caused her death.

No sorry, you can't possibly be serious. I'll break it down, lets look at the facts.

1) She was pregnant
2) She did have cancer.
3) She was denied medical treatment to treat her cancer on the grounds that she was pregnant.
4. She died after suffering weeks (months?) of pain, in agony. Her daughter also died.

Are you trying to argue that the fact that she was pregnant had absolutely zero bearing on her prognosis and subsequent death? How many other cancer patients are denied treatment against their will? Besides those that are pregnant?

One eyed Jack

....... wrote: »

Source? I can provide many sources to show you it was because of the 8th Amendment.

Well of course you could, but those would be sources that ignored the fact that she died of medical mismanagement of a sepsis infection so that they could suggest her death was as a result of the existence of the 8th amendment.

She was unnamed to protect her privacy. Unless you have a source to state that the medical professional who gave this information was lying then we will take it as correct.

No not we, you can only speak for yourself, and you're perfectly entitled to believe what suits you. It doesn't add a single shred of credibility to that story though without credible evidence.

Cancer that was untreated because she was pregnant. You may have trouble joining the dots but its clear to everyone else that it was as a result of the 8th Amendment.

No trouble joining the dots thanks, they just don't lead to where you would want them to lead is all.

I provided you 3 examples, with sources. You provided nothing but an uninformed opinion.

My opinion is as informed as your own, you choose to spin a different narrative that ignores factual evidence and includes anonymous anecdotes well you don't get to put responsibility for that on me. You have enough to be doing trying to make up stuff that you can say the 8th amendment is responsible for.

Your post that I have quoted above is one of the clearest examples I have ever seen on this site of quite literally putting your hands over your eyes and ears and refusing to accept facts.

Yourself and end of the road must have trained in the same school of denial.

Or like most people in the country, I can simply see agenda driven bullshìt for what it is. That's why in spite of survey after survey in the media that suggests the Irish people support repeal of the 8th amendment, the reality is that most people simply have no interest in that which they feel doesn't affect them, and that's why it's only a small minority of people who are actually pushing for repeal.

I'm not interested in repeal if all it means is that the it would fall on the Oireachtas to legislate on the issue because it'll take politicians another 20 years to come up with yet more ham-fisted legislation that will satisfy nobody.

.......

This post has been deleted.

uptherebels

One eyed Jack wrote: »

No trouble joining the dots thanks, they just don't lead to where you would want them to lead is all.





My opinion is as informed as your own, you choose to spin a different narrative that ignores factual evidence and includes anonymous anecdotes well you don't get to put responsibility for that on me. You have enough to be doing trying to make up stuff that you can say the 8th amendment is responsible for.

So your saying she wasn't treated for her cancer for another reason other than being pregnant? Please do elaborate...

One eyed Jack

....... wrote: »

Ah the NIMBY response.

Grand if youre wealthy. **** you if youre poor.

No, it's not the NIMBY response, it's the factual response to your point that there is no elsewhere for women affected by the 8th amendment. There is, and of course it's also a fact that if you have more resources you can afford better healthcare. If you're so concerned about the poor, set up a charity.

Oh and the government only followed through sporadically on that article you posted, and the out sourcing only covered certain procedures. Not cancer. Or maternity care. In fact, I cant see how it would be anyway practical to out source maternity care to another jurisdiction which is why I told you that there is no elsewhere for pregnant Irish women. You cant even fly after a certain stage of pregnancy and a 2 hour drive to a maternity hospital in Belfast would be endangering a woman in labour.

That comes as no surprise to anyone, they have form for that sort of incompetence, and the point was that it's not just for maternity treatment that people have to travel abroad, it can be for a whole range of treatments, but I wouldn't call that NIMBYism, I'd suggest it was simply incompetence on the part of successive Governments in this country.

I don't expect that the same poor people you're so concerned about would be able to afford to have a surgical termination of their pregnancy in a private clinic even if it were legislated for here, so wealthy people using the plight of people who are unable to afford healthcare is really rather transparent.

One eyed Jack

....... wrote: »

I see post after post of you getting your ass handed to you, yet you are still in denial of fact. Its actually amusing.

Well it's quite clear what matters most to you anyway, though I can't say I'm surprised.

I'll leave it at that then since this thread like the many before it appears to have taken a rather nasty turn into a spiteful mud slinging pissing contest.

uptherebels

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I'll leave it at that then since this thread like the many before it appears to have taken a rather nasty turn into a spiteful mud slinging pissing contest.

Don't like not having an echo chamber? Only spite is from yourself.

One eyed Jack

uptherebels wrote: »

Don't like not having an echo chamber? Only spite is from yourself.

You're having a laugh surely? Spinning other peoples misfortunes to suit your agenda and claiming that I don't like an echo chamber because I deal in fact rather than the narrative that's been tried to be spun here to push an agenda, and any resistance is met with increasing levels of petty sniping and attempted point scoring? I didn't get my ass handed to me at all, but if it amuses some to think that, well, I don't particularly care enough to continue to correct their misrepresentations of the facts.

FutureGuy

It's always quite telling when you see the anti-choice people out in force.

I tend to have a game of "count the number of women of reproductive age" in the crowd which usually ends with a count of zero. Lots of old people, men and kids who were dragged along. Everyone except the women the eighth amendment directly affects. Plenty of crucifixes for decoration.

What galls me is their use of the "pro-science" tag. Anything but.

uptherebels

One eyed Jack wrote: »

You're having a laugh surely? Spinning other peoples misfortunes to suit your agenda and claiming that I don't like an echo chamber because I deal in fact rather than the narrative that's been tried to be spun here to push an agenda, and any resistance is met with increasing levels of petty sniping and attempted point scoring? I didn't get my ass handed to me at all, but if it amuses some to think that, well, I don't particularly care enough to continue to correct their misrepresentations of the facts.

Which misfortunes did I spin? I'll ask you again ,in the case above the woman was not treated for her cancer because she was pregnant. You believe the pregnancy had nothing to do with it. So in your opinion why was she denied cancer treatment?
And this may come as a shock to you but your interpretations of things are not facts

Zubeneschamali

One eyed Jack wrote: »

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.

No case was ever brought, so we do not know if the courts might have declared that the unborn have an unenumerated right to life before the 8th.

They made some non-binding comments that suggest that they might have done so, if called upon.

Your notion above, that every law against something implies an unenumerated right, is incorrect as a matter of law.

Mr. CooL ICE

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Her death was as a result of cancer.

Mod: One eyed Jack, do not play the semantics game. You have been warned about it in past threads. Cut it out now.

.......

This post has been deleted.

captbarnacles

This is an unusual thread on abortion because the prolifers have been far more candid about their real views than ever before. Unsurprisingly those real views are horrid and rooted in incredibly false pride that we can declare ourselves morally superior because we send our women abroad for an abortion.

GreeBo

One eyed Jack wrote: »

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.

[/url]

Still waiting for your stats/sources on 100% of Irish women getting an abortion when they want one.

And whats the financial demographic of boards members got to do with anything?

pilly

One eyed Jack wrote:

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.

I'd like to see some back up to this?

pilly

It has taken me days to read this thread because I don't have a huge amount of time on my hands.

There are some very intelligent well thought out posts on both sides from some posters and then there's the "LA LA LA LA, FINGERS IN MY EARS, WRONG BECAUSE I SAY SO" posts.

Puts people off reading the threads to be honest. There's no real debate going on once this carry on is tolerated and fed.

pilly

GreeBo wrote: »

Still waiting for your stats/sources on 100% of Irish women getting an abortion when they want one.

And whats the financial demographic of boards members got to do with anything?

pilly wrote: »

I'd like to see some back up to this?

Funny that the threads come to a standstill when people are asked for facts?

gctest50

You'll be waiting a long time for them to produce facts

They have to put them through the Magic NIMBY Machine first


you can add this one to the little list :

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,