The 8th Amendment Part 2 - Mod Warning in OP

bertieinexile

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

bertieinexile wrote:

In england 97% of abortions are carried out on the grounds of a threat to mental health of the mother.
Most people would describe what they have in england as abortion on demand/request.
In england abortion on these grounds is available up to 24 weeks.

Under Simon Harris's proposed legislation abortion would be available in Ireland under almost identical mental health grounds
Just like in england this would be available up to 24 weeks.

.
You asked this before and i responded to it. perhaps you just missed the response so i will repeat it

I wouldn't. The UK legislation talks of "Risk of injury". this is very different to



there is a threat to the life or threat “of serious harm” to the health of the mother, and in the cases of fatal foetal abnormalities.

Thanks for your response ohnonotgmail. Sorry I didn't get back sooner. I'd happily talk about this issue all the way up to May 25. All day and all night.

In english law the grounds are risk of injury to the mental health of the woman

Harris's proposed grounds are threat “of serious harm” to the health of the mother,
Where Head 1 of the schedule helpfully explains that "health means physical or mental health"


We can discuss the finer points of those differences if you like, and whether you want to hang a whole referendum on the distinction you perceive beteween "injury" and "serious harm".

But the point that really matters - the thing that makes abortion on these grounds up to 24 weeks a crazy proposal for most of us - is that this distinction doesn't matter a damn to Marie Stopes. That's the reason I posted the link to the article about how easy it is to get an abortion from them on alleged mental health grounds.
Abortions signed off after just a phonecall: How Marie Stopes doctors approve abortions for women they've never met

If the doctor who signs off never even sees you will it make a damn bit of difference to him if the law says "injury" or "serious harm".

If "approvals are based on only a one-line summary of what a woman tells a call centre worker who has no medical training, .....and the telephone discussions can be as short as 22 seconds" do you really think it matters whether the law was looking for "injury" or "serious harm".

If "the official note of the woman's reason for having the abortion can be completely different from what she had said on the phone" do you think it matters whether the law said "injury" or "serious harm".

If all you have to tell them is ‘I just don’t want the baby’ and then they "do the legal side of things" for you does it sound like they give a toss whether the law says "injury" or "serious harm".

Read this dialogue between a woman looking for an abortion and Marie Stopes.
Does it sound like Marie Stopes give a tinkers curse whether the law says "injury" or "serious harm" or just because it's Tuesday.
As long as there's any unquantifiable grounds for abortion up to 24 weeks they'll give you one just for asking.

FIRST CONSULTATION
Call centre: OK, so first of all, are you sure of your decision?
Reporter: Yeah.
CC: And what are your reasons for requesting a termination, please?
R: Um… I mean, I just don’t want to have the baby.
CC: Yeah? So it’s just not the right time for you at the moment, or…?
R: Yeah, yeah. Exactly, yeah.
CC: Yeah? That’s fine. That will come under ‘emotional reasons’.
R: You have to have permission from two doctors for an abortion… I just wondered when that happens and whether I need to see two doctors on the day?
CC: No, that’s absolutely fine. Just looking at your notes there it says you’re a self-referral, so you don’t need to be referred by your doctors.
R: Right, so in terms of… because it says, um, you know, you have to give your reasons? And two doctors have to agree?
CC: Yeah, so that’ll be our doctors. So you’ve given me your reason now, which comes under emotional reasons, and then our two doctors will sign this, and you’ll be OK to go ahead with the treatment.
R: So when I go on the day, I don’t have to explain my reason again?
CC: No, that’s absolutely fine, no.
SECOND CONSULTATION
R: I read that you need to see two doctors before you have…
CC: No, you’ll just, you’ll see the surgeon on the day, OK, all right? And they’ll assess your medical and obstetric history.
R: OK. So it’s just about my health? Someone told me you have to convince two doctors of your reasons?
CC: No, no, no. You’ve already done that, OK? We’ve done your consultation, OK? And we’ve gone through the legal side of things. Our two doctors will sign it. You don’t need to convince anybody, OK? All right?
R: Right – so I won’t have to talk, I don’t talk to him about my reason?
CC: No, no, not at all. We’ve already documented your reason, OK? We’ve already done the legal side of things.
R: Oh, OK… because somebody told me that two doctors have to agree and you have to explain your reasons to them.
CC: Yeah, no. You’ve already done all that, OK... the only thing you’ll need to do on the day is to sign your consent form.
R: OK, that’s really helpful... I didn’t realise it could be done, sort of, behind the scenes.
CC: Yeah, yeah. It’s done before. This is why you have your phone consultation.
R: Great. So the reason I gave before, that’s all I need to do?
CC: That’s all you need to do.

Abortion on demand up to 24 weeks. Do they think we're mad?

bertieinexile

PhoenixParker wrote: »

Further, if anyone has the typical knee jerk reaction to these proposals I.e. that they're disgusting and horrific etc. (I did myself)
I suggest doing a little reading, particularly about abortion in Canada.

Canada has no limits, they "trust women" and late term abortion is rare and only done for medical reasons.

Thanks for that PhoenixParker. That's very honest.

bertieinexile

Edward M wrote: »

All party leaders haven as yet declared they are in favour of the 12 week limit I don't think, mlmd and her party so far haven't declared in favour of it.
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/sf-unlikely-to-update-abortion-stance-before-referendum-1.3420390?mode=amp

The point I was making in the post of mine you quoted was that as over half of FF TDs voted against the referendum even. If the eighth is repealed it is possible FF could push MM towards a party vote before the legislation is passed, if that happened given the way they voted on the referendum, and if SF decide to not support the 12 week limit, it is possible for that to be tightened up after repeal.
The tighter the result the more likelihood of that happening.

Sorry, but that is the oddest bit of political analysis I have read in a long, long time.

All party leaders haven as yet declared they are in favour of the 12 week limit ..... mlmd

Mary Lou McDonald was at the launch of the 'Together for Yes' campaign

her party so far haven't declared in favour of it.

They've just suspended someone for three months for having the temerity to vote against holding the referendum.
And for God's sake this is Sinn Fein we're talking about, it's not exactly the Oxford Union in there.

over half of FF TDs voted against the referendum even. If the eighth is repealed it is possible FF could push MM towards a party vote before the legislation is passed,

If the parliamentary party was going to pressurize Micheal Martin in to holding a party vote, now would be the time for doing it, not after a successful Yes vote when he would have a mandate for the line he's taking and the wind at his back.


And just to take an overview here, one of the big selling points you can think of for this legislation you want to see passed is that it mightn't get passed at all?

bertieinexile

bertieinexile wrote: »

Thanks for that PhoenixParker. That's very honest.

Your quoting out of context there Bertie by not including the full text of the post, silly mistake, waiting for a couple of new pages before hand might have been smarter and made it look like the poster actually agreed with you.

Bertie, question for you, what does it really matter what the reason is?
Surely a system where a woman can avail of a termination in the first 12 weeks is preferable to the English system you seem to dislike so much?
Instead of women trying to prove that their mental health is affected at 16 weeks, in order to avail of an abortion, Ireland shall make it available to women up to 12 weeks pregnant.
No reason then for women or doctors to make a case for abortion....

amdublin

DubInMeath wrote: »

Your quoting out of context there Bertie by not including the full text of the post, silly mistake, waiting for a couple of new pages before hand might have been smarter and made it look like the poster actually agreed with you.

What is the full quote DublnMeath? I can't see it...

Quoting out of context is not cool.

bertieinexile

Water John wrote: »

To me, the style and focus of the No campaign, has a very American flavour, to it. This isn't hotch potch. This is a targetted methodology, based on their research and application mindset.Who are the hands on the tiller?

You see right through me Water John.
I didn't take time off for Easter. It was actually a Sioux raiding party came and took our women. Had to go get em back. Ran 'em down south of Terenure trying to cross the Dodder. Them Sioux won't be raiding no more.

PhoenixParker

PhoenixParker wrote: »

Further, if anyone has the typical knee jerk reaction to these proposals I.e. that they're disgusting and horrific etc. (I did myself)
I suggest doing a little reading, particularly about abortion in Canada.

Canada has no limits, they "trust women" and late term abortion is rare and only done for medical reasons.

It's above

Water John

I think Bertie, you'd better go back to the allotment and start digging there, instead.

My post, was focused much more broadly, than you.

BTW, the wording is very different than the UK. 'Serious harm' is a high threshold.

Out of context in my opinion anyway

amdublin

DubInMeath wrote: »

It's above

!!!!!!!

Well that full quote...when read in full...is very different to the way Bertie presented it.

That's not on

amdublin

amdublin wrote: »

!!!!!!!

Well that full quote...when read in full...is very different to the way Bertie presented it.

That's not on

That's how I see it anyway.

amdublin

bertieinexile wrote: »

Thanks for that PhoenixParker. That's very honest.

This is what Bertie thanked and presented as what pp. said:
"Further, if anyone has the typical knee jerk reaction to these proposals I.e. that they're disgusting and horrific etc. (I did myself)"


Here is pp's full quote:

"Further, if anyone has the typical knee jerk reaction to these proposals I.e. that they're disgusting and horrific etc. (I did myself)
I suggest doing a little reading, particularly about abortion in Canada.

Canada has no limits, they "trust women" and late term abortion is rare and only done for medical reasons."



Very different messages there imo...

January

Hands up, who's surprised?

PhoenixParker

bertieinexile wrote: »

Thanks for your response ohnonotgmail. Sorry I didn't get back sooner. I'd happily talk about this issue all the way up to May 25. All day and all night.

In english law the grounds are risk of injury to the mental health of the woman

Harris's proposed grounds are threat “of serious harm” to the health of the mother,
Where Head 1 of the schedule helpfully explains that "health means physical or mental health"


We can discuss the finer points of those differences if you like, and whether you want to hang a whole referendum on the distinction you perceive beteween "injury" and "serious harm".

But the point that really matters - the thing that makes abortion on these grounds up to 24 weeks a crazy proposal for most of us - is that this distinction doesn't matter a damn to Marie Stopes. That's the reason I posted the link to the article about how easy it is to get an abortion from them on alleged mental health grounds.
Abortions signed off after just a phonecall: How Marie Stopes doctors approve abortions for women they've never met

If the doctor who signs off never even sees you will it make a damn bit of difference to him if the law says "injury" or "serious harm".

If "approvals are based on only a one-line summary of what a woman tells a call centre worker who has no medical training, .....and the telephone discussions can be as short as 22 seconds" do you really think it matters whether the law was looking for "injury" or "serious harm".

Bertie there's a massive difference between risk of injury and serious harm. You might not believe it but they are worlds apart in legal terms and medical terms.

Anything can constitute a risk of injury, injury is a wide open all encompassing term, a scratch is an injury. And all that's required is that there be a risk, not a big risk, not a serious risk. That gives scope for any pregnant woman to use it. Pregnancy itself constitutes a risk of injury.

Threat implies the risk is high and serious harm constitutes a long lasting effect.

There is no comparison between the two.

ohnonotgmail

bertieinexile wrote: »

Thanks for your response ohnonotgmail. Sorry I didn't get back sooner. I'd happily talk about this issue all the way up to May 25. All day and all night.

In english law the grounds are risk of injury to the mental health of the woman

Harris's proposed grounds are threat “of serious harm” to the health of the mother,
Where Head 1 of the schedule helpfully explains that "health means physical or mental health"


We can discuss the finer points of those differences if you like, and whether you want to hang a whole referendum on the distinction you perceive beteween "injury" and "serious harm".

But the point that really matters - the thing that makes abortion on these grounds up to 24 weeks a crazy proposal for most of us - is that this distinction doesn't matter a damn to Marie Stopes. That's the reason I posted the link to the article about how easy it is to get an abortion from them on alleged mental health grounds.
Abortions signed off after just a phonecall: How Marie Stopes doctors approve abortions for women they've never met

If the doctor who signs off never even sees you will it make a damn bit of difference to him if the law says "injury" or "serious harm".

If "approvals are based on only a one-line summary of what a woman tells a call centre worker who has no medical training, .....and the telephone s can be as short as 22 seconds" do you really think it matters whether the law was looking for "injury" or "serious harm".

If "the official note of the woman's reason for having the abortion can be completely different from what she had said on the phone" do you think it matters whether the law said "injury" or "serious harm".

If all you have to tell them is ‘I just don’t want the baby’ and then they "do the legal side of things" for you does it sound like they give a toss whether the law says "injury" or "serious harm".

Read this dialogue between a woman looking for an abortion and Marie Stopes.
Does it sound like Marie Stopes give a tinkers curse whether the law says "injury" or "serious harm" or just because it's Tuesday.
As long as there's any unquantifiable grounds for abortion up to 24 weeks they'll give you one just for asking.

Abortion on demand up to 24 weeks. Do they think we're mad?

i think you're making up a load of scaremongering nonsense based on a poor grasp of basic english.

We've had a few (two?) pro life posters claiming not to know that PLC means Pro Life Campaign in relation to this thread and ask does it mean post leaving cert course.

We've had first posts that mimic "articles" from spuc, but the posters claiming not to be aware of these articles or the spuc site itself.

And we've had consistent twisting of facts, well weak attempts at least and refusing to answer questions or provide links with proof.

Edit: And this is just those that haven't been banned for trolling.

So no I'm not.

amdublin

January wrote: »

Hands up, who's surprised?

I am. But I'm a bit naive/innocent some times.

That teaches me I guess.

bertieinexile

amdublin wrote: »

This is what Bertie thanked and presented as what pp. said:
"Further, if anyone has the typical knee jerk reaction to these proposals I.e. that they're disgusting and horrific etc. (I did myself)"


Here is pp's full quote:

"Further, if anyone has the typical knee jerk reaction to these proposals I.e. that they're disgusting and horrific etc. (I did myself)
I suggest doing a little reading, particularly about abortion in Canada.

Canada has no limits, they "trust women" and late term abortion is rare and only done for medical reasons."



Very different messages there imo...

Are either you or DublinMeath in any doubt as to what PhoenixParker's gut reaction was to these proposals.
Is that valuable? It may be off message but is it valuable?
Did I misrepresent in any way what that gut reaction was?

Thank you both for focussing attention on it. PhoenixParker is far from being the only one to have this kind of gut reaction to what's being proposed.
And thanks again to PhoenixParker for his honesty.

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5

bertieinexile wrote: »

Are either you or DublinMeath in any doubt as to what PhoenixParker's gut reaction was to these proposals.
Is that valuable? It may be off message but is it valuable?
Did I misrepresent in any way what that gut reaction was?

Thank you both for focussing attention on it. PhoenixParker is far from being the only one to have this kind of gut reaction to what's being proposed.
And thanks again to PhoenixParker for his honesty.

Do you like the honesty in the rest of the post?

freshpopcorn

Very surprised with my aunt she's in her early sixties and would always being extremely liberal about things over the years. She said Yesterday tough she's not voting because it doesn't effect her.

January

freshpopcorn wrote: »

Very surprised with my aunt she's in her early sixties and would always being extremely liberal about things over the years. She said Yesterday tough she's not voting because it doesn't effect her.

That's sad. Has she any daughters? Grand children? Nieces? Could you persuade her to vote for them?

It wasnt me123

freshpopcorn wrote: »

Very surprised with my aunt she's in her early sixties and would always being extremely liberal about things over the years. She said Yesterday tough she's not voting because it doesn't effect her.

Can you tell her that it affects you and you'd like her to vote to repeal?

freshpopcorn

January wrote: »

That's sad. Has she any daughters? Grand children? Nieces? Could you persuade her to vote for them?

It wasnt me123 wrote: »

Can you tell her that it affects you and you'd like her to vote to repeal?

No daughters but a few nieces. Reason why I found it strange was she used be giving out about it before.
The niece she'd be closet to will probably vote to keep it tough.

bertieinexile

bertieinexile wrote: »

Are either you or DublinMeath in any doubt as to what PhoenixParker's gut reaction was to these proposals.
Is that valuable? It may be off message but is it valuable?
Did I misrepresent in any way what that gut reaction was?

Thank you both for focussing attention on it. PhoenixParker is far from being the only one to have this kind of gut reaction to what's being proposed.
And thanks again to PhoenixParker for his honesty.

Your grabbing at straws Bertie, was the rest of his post not valuable because it goes against your agenda?

PhoenixParker

NuMarvel wrote: »

I wonder what piece of Shakespeare Senator Mullen will quote when he's trying to filibuster the referendum bill in the Seanad. If memory serves, it was Romeo and Juliet when he tried that trick during the Civil Partnership Bill. Can we add a poll? :P

Macbeth has a few relevant passages.

PhoenixParker

PhoenixParker wrote: »

Macbeth has a few relevant passages.

The merchant of Venice has a few that might apply in return

PhoenixParker

bertieinexile wrote: »

Thank you both for focussing attention on it. PhoenixParker is far from being the only one to have this kind of gut reaction to what's being proposed.
And thanks again to PhoenixParker for his honesty.

Her honesty.
I trust you’ll do the reading so.

bertieinexile

PhoenixParker wrote: »

Her honesty.
I trust you’ll do the reading so.

Her honesty. And I meant it PhoenixParker.
I'll get back to you on your substantial point about the legal grounds in the mental health case.

But on this issue I've a question for yourself, DubInMeath and electro-bitch who have both pitched in on this.
To all three of you separately;
A woman in Canada has a legal right to an abortion at any stage in her pregnancy without any requirement.
Legally the only reason she needs is that she wants it.

To what extent do each of you think doctors in Canada should facilitate this. After what point should a doctor say no.
In your opinion.

Water John

More bait. Let's focus on the Ref in this country. Speculation of what a medical doctor in Canada, may or may not decide, is utter nonsensical, whataboutery.