The 8th Amendment Part 2 - Mod Warning in OP

ProfessorPlum

Neyite wrote: »

Pressure is one thing. The simple fact is that any other medical procedure is presented to the patient as a choice. These are your options. This is what we can do for you. We strongly suggest you take option A. If you don't agree, feel free to get a second opinion. The choice is yours.

As a cancer patient, you can choose to decline all and any treatment. You can even choose death if your cancer is terminal and you don't want it. A pregnant woman can't even choose that.

I had no choice in my pregnancies. I was told when I was getting an appointment. I was told what tests I was getting. I was told I was getting induced. I was told if I didn't dilate quickly enough I was getting prepared for a c-section (which subsequently happened). I was told I was getting an internal exam. I was given 17 different types of medication from the time I stepped over the threshold of the hospital, and not given a choice or much discussion over what was being given.

And if I didn't do what I was told, the 8th amendment meant that I was breaking the law and could be compelled by force to undergo whatever the doctors wanted me to undergo.

The hundreds of women who don’t ever go to appointments, or the many more who miss a few might hint at you that you’re not quite right in what you say there.
The 8th gives a protection to the unborn’s life only - and only in the case where you do or do not do something to risk that life - would there be any danger if the courts being brought into it.
Not going to an appointment, or not having a test during your antenatal care doesn’t really meet the standard.

There’s a lot of conflation between what the 8th is and isn’t responsible for around the area of consent in maternity care.

thee glitz

baylah17 wrote: »

thee glitz wrote: »

To a point though, restricted, like you believe in?

Misrepresent much??
Or just too scared to quote my whole post?
Sad wikkie boy be sad![/quote]

Here's what you said

Oh I do believe in restrictions.
I firmly believe that no woman should be compelled to have an abortion against her will in the same way that i firmly believe that no woman should be compelled to carry an unwanted pregnancy against her will.
You see I trust women and I believe in their right to choose whats best for them, unlike you!

In what sense do you believe in restrictions?

NuMarvel

Not everyone on the No side likes the most recent "License to kill" posters.

https://twitter.com/KeithMillsD7/status/981829222925729792

bertieinexile

ProfessorPlum wrote: »

Neyite wrote:

Pressure is one thing. The simple fact is that any other medical procedure is presented to the patient as a choice. These are your options. This is what we can do for you. We strongly suggest you take option A. If you don't agree, feel free to get a second opinion. The choice is yours.

As a cancer patient, you can choose to decline all and any treatment. You can even choose death if your cancer is terminal and you don't want it. A pregnant woman can't even choose that.

I had no choice in my pregnancies. I was told when I was getting an appointment. I was told what tests I was getting. I was told I was getting induced. I was told if I didn't dilate quickly enough I was getting prepared for a c-section (which subsequently happened). I was told I was getting an internal exam. I was given 17 different types of medication from the time I stepped over the threshold of the hospital, and not given a choice or much discussion over what was being given.

And if I didn't do what I was told, the 8th amendment meant that I was breaking the law and could be compelled by force to undergo whatever the doctors wanted me to undergo.

The hundreds of women who don’t ever go to appointments, or the many more who miss a few might hint at you that you’re not quite right in what you say there.
The 8th gives a protection to the unborn’s life only - and only in the case where you do or do not do something to risk that life - would there be any danger if the courts being brought into it.
Not going to an appointment, or not having a test during your antenatal care doesn’t really meet the standard.

There’s a lot of conflation between what the 8th is and isn’t responsible for around the area of consent in maternity care.

Well said ProfessorPlum

Annasopra

_Dara_ wrote: »

People are in thrall to doctors. They don't question them enough. It's very frustrating to me because I question them a lot. They are fallible.

A very effective campaign would be for pregnant women to refuse anything they are not comfortable with left, right and centre.

Gonna take thousands of women to court, HSE? I doubt it. And the case above only highlights the futility of that action.

Say no to anything you want and DARE them to do anything about. The more pregnant women that do so, the bigger the issue becomes.

Like I said, cancer patients come under pressure to take treatments all the frickin' time. Oncologists and other doctors are trained to keep trying new things. They don't think in terms of failure.

You are completely missing the point. The 8th forces doctors into this legal quagmire of forcing women against their consent.

crustybla

Neyite wrote: »

Pressure is one thing. The simple fact is that any other medical procedure is presented to the patient as a choice. These are your options. This is what we can do for you. We strongly suggest you take option A. If you don't agree, feel free to get a second opinion. The choice is yours.

As a cancer patient, you can choose to decline all and any treatment. You can even choose death if your cancer is terminal and you don't want it. A pregnant woman can't even choose that.

I had no choice in my pregnancies. I was told when I was getting an appointment. I was told what tests I was getting. I was told I was getting induced. I was told if I didn't dilate quickly enough I was getting prepared for a c-section (which subsequently happened). I was told I was getting an internal exam. I was given 17 different types of medication from the time I stepped over the threshold of the hospital, and not given a choice or much discussion over what was being given.

And if I didn't do what I was told, the 8th amendment meant that I was breaking the law and could be compelled by force to undergo whatever the doctors wanted me to undergo.

I hadn't realised until I've read these last few pages how affected by the 8th I was in both my pregnancies, particularly my 1st. Now that was traumatic. I wasn't given a choice in anything and some things not even told about until I asked questions later. Unfortunately the 8th sees us as cattle carrying the holy grail. Until it's born of course.:rolleyes:

Best of luck with your treatment Dara, wishing you a speedy recovery.:)

thee glitz

thee glitz wrote: »

Misrepresent much??
Or just too scared to quote my whole post?
Sad wikkie boy be sad!

You've said a few times that you see the repeal side trying to push through abortion for any/no reason

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=106631426&postcount=3278


What's no reason in your opinion?

thee glitz

DubInMeath wrote: »

thee glitz wrote: »

Misrepresent much??
Or just too scared to quote my whole post?
Sad wikkie boy be sad!

I didn't say this btw, just screwed up a post and couldn't edit it.

You've said a few times that you see the repeal side trying to push through abortion for any/no reason

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=106631426&postcount=3278

What's no reason in your opinion?

No stated reason, none required.

thee glitz

thee glitz wrote: »

DubInMeath wrote: »

I didn't say this btw, just screwed up a post and couldn't edit it.



No stated reason, none required.

The recommendation is that access for 12 weeks should not be restricted due to reasons, not 12 weeks access for no reason.

https://www.rte.ie/news/ireland/2018/0310/945065-oireachtas-8th-committee-12-week-recommendations/

Anyone choosing to have a termination but they will have their reasons to do so and it wouldn't be taken lightly.

You might not belive/agree with this and that they have no reason to have an abortion but at the end of the day any decision that a woman makes is none of your or my business.

I just believe they should have the choice to make the decision and if they decide to have a termination procure it in Ireland and hence repeal.

Annasopra

thee glitz wrote: »

If the proposed legislation was stricter than it is ie. not allowing for abortion for no reason, but dependent on an assessment of reasonability, then there would be more support for repeal, making it more likely that abortion would be made available where deemed 'required'. Instead, we see the case for abortion for any / no reason pushed as necessary to ensure that those who do reasonably need it have it available.

I'd like to see stricter proposed legislation than there is so that more people would be comfortable about voting to repeal, hope I've changed your opinion of me.

Has your stance changed on this? It seems to have moved from a position that you wanted an amendment specifically to allow abortion in cases of FFA, rape/incest, danger to womens lives to just legislation on that.

thee glitz

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

thee glitz wrote: »

If the proposed legislation was stricter than it is ie. not allowing for abortion for no reason, but dependent on an assessment of reasonability, then there would be more support for repeal, making it more likely that abortion would be made available where deemed 'required'. Instead, we see the case for abortion for any / no reason pushed as necessary to ensure that those who do reasonably need it have it available.

I'd like to see stricter proposed legislation than there is so that more people would be comfortable about voting to repeal, hope I've changed your opinion of me.

Has your stance changed on this? It seems to have moved from a position that you wanted an amendment specifically to allow abortion in cases of FFA, rape/incest, danger to womens lives to just legislation on that.

Maybe a bit, ye. No-one suggested how that may be possible in the constitution. Ideally it would be, and not result in a mess. Then many uncomfortable with abortion on request / demand would be more inclined to vote to repeal (amend). Something it's been said that I've no interest in doing, but which isn't true.

thee glitz

DubInMeath wrote: »

The recommendation is that access for 12 weeks should not be restricted due to reasons, not 12 weeks access for no reason.

Different wording, same thing.

I just believe they should have the choice to make the decision and if they decide to have a termination procure it in Ireland and hence repeal.

The appetite for unrestricted abortion law is a fair bit higher here than I previously thought.

thee glitz

thee glitz wrote: »

Different wording, same thing.



The appetite for unrestricted abortion law is a fair bit higher here than I previously thought.

Nope and unless you can provide evidence to state otherwise your just trying the usual plc ignore and deflect, but that's not going to wash in 2018

Sofiztikated

thee glitz wrote: »

Different wording, same thing.

It's not, but I don't have the energy to explain the difference to you.

The appetite for unrestricted abortion law is a fair bit higher here than I previously thought.

Unrestricted access. Again, explaining the difference is not happening again.

You also left out the part of my post where I said it none of my business or yours what decision a woman makes, why so? Do you believe it's your business or mine what decision a woman makes?

Annasopra

thee glitz wrote: »

Maybe a bit, ye. No-one suggested how that may be possible in the constitution. Ideally it would be, and not result in a mess. Then many uncomfortable with abortion on request / demand would be more inclined to vote to repeal (amend). Something it's been said that I've no interest in doing, but which isn't true.

Ok

So you can at least agree that the 8th needs to go because of the hard cases?

baylah17

thee glitz wrote: »

DubInMeath wrote: »

The recommendation is that access for 12 weeks should not be restricted due to reasons, not 12 weeks access for no reason.

Different wording, same thing.

I just believe they should have the choice to make the decision and if they decide to have a termination procure it in Ireland and hence repeal.

The appetite for unrestricted abortion law is a fair bit higher here than I previously thought.

Same ****.e different day
Like a broken record with diorreha

thee glitz

Zerbini Blewitt wrote: »

Those who are not pro-life (not pro forced-incubation) can clearly see that all pro-lifers (even the mildest) are misogynists (re: first trimester).

And then after 12 weeks are not necessarily misogynists? Clearly? All not pro-lifers? That's a lot of women you're including as misogynists.

One either believes that a woman has the rights of any citizen that have evolved over the past 1,000 years of history or you believe she becomes state property or a vessel who must be discriminated against and have important rights & protections stripped away from the moment a pregnancy test result comes in.

It is a binary thing; There is no wriggle room.

So why are you talking about the first trimester?

thee glitz

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

Ok

So you can at least agree that the 8th needs to go because of the hard cases?

I find the hard cases to be, well, hard...

If required to prevent women dying, then it needs to go.

baylah17

thee glitz wrote: »

Zerbini Blewitt wrote: »

Those who are not pro-life (not pro forced-incubation) can clearly see that all pro-lifers (even the mildest) are misogynists (re: first trimester).

And then after 12 weeks are not necessarily misogynists? Clearly? All not pro-lifers? That's a lot of women you're including as misogynists.

One either believes that a woman has the rights of any citizen that have evolved over the past 1,000 years of history or you believe she becomes state property or a vessel who must be discriminated against and have important rights & protections stripped away from the moment a pregnancy test result comes in.

It is a binary thing; There is no wriggle room.

So why are you talking about the first trimester?

More attempts to deflect from the real issue
All this poster wants to do is muddy the waters 're potential future legislation when the actual issue is the repeal of the 8th amendment in the interest of the women of ireland
And all the time he's still wearing his " Hello Divorce Goodbye Daddy" jumper
Don't let him deflect from the issue
Ignore him

thee glitz

thee glitz wrote: »

I find the hard cases to be, well, hard...

If required to prevent women dying, then it needs to go.

Is this not the if you need?

https://www.irishexaminer.com/viewpoints/analysis/how-the-death-of-savita-halappanavar-changed-the-abortion-debate-461787.html

thee glitz

Simi wrote: »

thee glitz wrote: »

If the proposed legislation was stricter than it is ie. not allowing for abortion for no reason, but dependent on an assessment of reasonability...

An assessment of responsibility?
Are you suggesting we form tribunals to adjudicate how worthy a woman is of receiving medical care?

Reasonability. I understand many pro-choicers have difficulty with responsibilty. Not tribunals, but say 2 expert opinions.

What would be the level of proof a woman would need to provide to satisfy YOU that she is deserving of an abortion? Would women need to provide bank statements, character references, medical records, evidence of contraceptive use?

It wouldn't be up to me - I'm not an expert. That's some mad shoite you're on about there - character references etc?

No woman wakes up in the morning and decides 'oh I think I'll have an abortion today for no reason.' She has a reason and that's all that matters. She should never have to explain it or justify it to people like you.

Again, not to me. Are you also in the no-restrictions brigade?

captbarnacles

The handwringing over this from some of the male posters is kind of comical as they wrestle with their conscience whether to allow women access a procedure in Ireland that they currently do anyways in England or right here with ordered pills.

They don't even want the law enforced here!

I'll be honest, if this was a male issue I would pay zero heed to any females about it.

@theeglitz: in the interests of fairness for people who can't afford to travel would you let the government subsidize it?

Billy86

NuMarvel wrote: »

Not everyone on the No side likes the most recent "License to kill" posters.

https://twitter.com/KeithMillsD7/status/981829222925729792

Here it (or one of them) is https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DZ98ls6WsAAfH6a.jpg

Massive Attack did it first. Massive Attack did it better.

Billy86

Billy86 wrote: »

Here it (or one of them) is https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DZ98ls6WsAAfH6a.jpg

Massive Attack did it first. Massive Attack did it better.

Didn't know MI-6 provided abortion services, good to know.

thee glitz

captbarnacles wrote: »

The handwringing over this from some of the male posters is kind of comical as they wrestle with their conscience whether to allow women access a procedure in Ireland that they currently do anyways in England or right here with ordered pills.

The numbers show that Irish women (or women giving Irish addresses) have abortions done in England or Wales in much lower numbers than women from there. The numbers claimed to take abortion pills here don't nowhere near make up the difference, not sure how they have stats on that admittedly.

@theeglitz: in the interests of fairness for people who can't afford to travel would you let the government subsidize it?

I personally couldn't stop it, but it must be possible to show that it would be a gross abuse of revenue unless for the case of an otherwise legal abortion not physically being possible here. I don't see it as an issue of fairness otherwise.

thee glitz

DubInMeath wrote: »

thee glitz wrote: »

I find the hard cases to be, well, hard...

If required to prevent women dying, then it needs to go.

Is this not the if you need?

https://www.irishexaminer.com/viewpoints/analysis/how-the-death-of-savita-halappanavar-changed-the-abortion-debate-461787.html

Not a story in a paper, no. That's not grounds enough to remove the protection of life for all babies / foetuses / clump of cells (delete as required!).

But sure say it's definitive and the 8th needs to go to prevent a reoccurrence - offering a solution where the result is abortion on demand is not a proprtionate remedy.

thee glitz

DubInMeath wrote: »

thee glitz wrote: »

Different wording, same thing.



The appetite for unrestricted abortion law is a fair bit higher here than I previously thought.

Nope and unless you can provide evidence to state otherwise your just trying the usual plc ignore and deflect, but that's not going to wash in 2018

Nope to which/both? Ignore and deflect from what? That's a bit rich anyway unless you've already advised if you'd prioritise securing abortion availability where medically required over otherwise. Not that you'd be alone in that.

gctest50

thee glitz wrote: »

Nope to which/both? Ignore and deflect from what? That's a bit rich anyway unless you've already advised if you'd prioritise securing abortion availability where medically required over otherwise. Not that you'd be alone in that.

Why protest so much when you don't even have a uterus ?

thee glitz

thee glitz wrote: »

Not a story in a paper, no. That's not grounds enough to remove the protection of life for all babies / foetuses / clump of cells (delete as required!).

But sure say it's definitive and the 8th needs to go to prevent a reoccurrence - offering a solution where the result is abortion on demand is not a proprtionate remedy.

So you said if required to prevent women from dying it (the 8th) needs to go, your provided with one of the many articles regarding the how due to the 8th Savita Halappanavar was denied an abortion that would have saved her life and suddenly no it's not a reason because it's just a story in a newspaper.

I'll say one thing about your posts they show how the pro life side say one thing and when shown evidence they deny it's evidence because it doesn't suit your agenda.