The 8th Amendment Part 2 - Mod Warning in OP

Hooks Golf Handicap

Active engagement with the Yes side is the No campaigns main difficulty here.
Say your pro Repeal & you get the knee jerk barrage of "baby killers" or "murderers".
Just keep the head down, wait for polling day & tick Yes.

bertieinexile

bertieinexile wrote: »

Is there any other pro choice poster on here ready to agree that you shouldn't lose sleep over someone taking the life of that child hooked up to tubes in that incubator.

It's the decision of the doctors & the next of kin.

Reati

gubby wrote: »

away back in the 80's when the last abortion referendum was held. my sister who was then pregnant with her 10th child, and who's husband was at that time a alcoholic received a visit from the local "pillars of society" to persuade her to vote no.. she very calmly asked them why they had never called to her door before to see if she was in need of help to feed her children or any other support!!!

Says it all I think

Start at .43

Pretty much sums it all up nicely

SusieBlue

bubblypop wrote: »

It's the decision of the doctors & the next of kin.

I'm genuinely baffled as to why people can't understand the above. Individuals do not owe society an explanation to justify decisions like that. Its the height of selfishness and arrogance to assume otherwise.

Annasopra

bertieinexile wrote: »

Good morning viewers

I put up a video of a 23 week old premature baby.
https://youtu.be/2RQ8ks-UH0E?t=22s
I said he is now a healthy 3 year old. You can even look up the parents account on youtube and see video of him playing.

nozzferraahhtoo said that

....if a mother in the UK decided, after it's removal from her womb not to put it on life support and to let it die...... then I would not be losing any sleep over it.

I asked how much support there was for that view among the pro choice posters on here

So far we have agreement from
Elm327 , Poster ...., , Professor Plum, January, Sofiztikated, Zubeneschamali and Timberrrr.

I put up the names of people who had thanked them for having agreed with this, thinking that might encourage these posters to make clear where they stood, but that seems to be an issue. Not sure why. We are ultimately talking about how popular this view is - how many support it.

I will do a final round up this afternoon. 24 hours should be enough.

Maybe, as some of these posters have said, this is mainstream thinking on the pro choice side.

Is there any other pro choice poster on here ready to agree that you shouldn't lose sleep over someone taking the life of that child hooked up to tubes in that incubator.

Please stop trying to shame posters for thanking posts. Its childish nonsense.

Yeah_Right

bertieinexile wrote: »

For those joining us late...

I put up a video of a 23 week old premature baby.
https://youtu.be/2RQ8ks-UH0E?t=22s
I said he is now a healthy 3 year old. You can even look up the parents account on youtube and see video of him playing.

nozzferraahhtoo said that
I asked how much support there was for that view among the pro choice posters on here

And I am shocked that
ELM327 (thanked by captbarnacles), Poster ...., (thanked by erica74), Professor Plum, (thanked by baylah17, January, Madscientist30, SusieBlue) and January (thanked by baylah17, ProfessorPlum) have all said they agree.












nozzferrahhtoo was thanked for his original statement by
Call me Al, crustybla, DubInMeath, Fizzlesque, frag420, January, PopePalpatine, Simi, swampgas and Yeah_Right

So far January is the only one of those we have heard from (DubInMeath is away)

Maybe this is just the very extreme end of the pro choice view.

Is there any other pro choice poster on here ready to agree that you shouldn't lose sleep over someone taking the life of that child hooked up to tubes in that incubator.

I am fascinated by what response we will have had by tomorrow afternoon.

Sorry I'm late Bertie. Just catching up on the thread now.

Yes I would have no issue with the life support being turned off on a 23 week old baby. Or a 6 month old baby. Or a 10 year old kid. Or a 25 year old adult. Or a 40 year old. Or a 70 year old. You get the picture? I doubt that deciding to turn off the life support of someone you love is an easy decision. They probably agonize, discuss and argue about it but it's not my business. It's between the family and the doctors.

Trasna1

Hooks Golf Handicap wrote: »

Active engagement with the Yes side is the No campaigns main difficulty here.
Say your pro Repeal & you get the knee jerk barrage of "baby killers" or "murderers".
Just keep the head down, wait for polling day & tick Yes.

Indeed and for balance the opposite is true too. Say you are pro life and you'll be told you are a religious nut job and living a life pre enlightenment.

Don't fully subscribe to the pro choice side or be like myself, neutral and question everything and you'll be labeled as the opposition.

And it's people like me that need to be won over (that said, any campaigner of any flavor won't convince me).

Edward M

bertieinexile wrote: »

Good morning viewers

I put up a video of a 23 week old premature baby.
https://youtu.be/2RQ8ks-UH0E?t=22s
I said he is now a healthy 3 year old. You can even look up the parents account on youtube and see video of him playing.

nozzferraahhtoo said that

....if a mother in the UK decided, after it's removal from her womb not to put it on life support and to let it die...... then I would not be losing any sleep over it.

I asked how much support there was for that view among the pro choice posters on here

So far we have agreement from
Elm327 , Poster ...., , Professor Plum, January, Sofiztikated, Zubeneschamali and Timberrrr.

I put up the names of people who had thanked them for having agreed with this, thinking that might encourage these posters to make clear where they stood, but that seems to be an issue. Not sure why. We are ultimately talking about how popular this view is - how many support it.

I will do a final round up this afternoon. 24 hours should be enough.

Maybe, as some of these posters have said, this is mainstream thinking on the pro choice side.

Is there any other pro choice poster on here ready to agree that you shouldn't lose sleep over someone taking the life of that child hooked up to tubes in that incubator.

In all fairness here your posts should stop acting the b***x with this naming and supposed shaming.
The biggest shame I can see here is your own, by not recognising that the eighth amendment is a harmful piece of kit and trying to pretend it only does good, we all well know that's not the case and your linking it to something that can be protected without it anyway, is just plain stupid IMO.

It wasnt me123

Reati thank you for that - it all made perfect sense. Never heard of George Carlyn before but want to watch more. I really enjoyed it.

Zubeneschamali

Trasna1 wrote: »

And it's people like me that need to be won over.

Actually, the polling does not support that view.

If everyone who is currently polling yes actually votes Yes, we don't need to convince anyone.

ohnonotgmail

Trasna1 wrote: »

Indeed and for balance the opposite is true too. Say you are pro life and you'll be told you are a religious nut job and living a life pre enlightenment.

Don't fully subscribe to the pro choice side or be like myself, neutral and question everything and you'll be labeled as the opposition.

And it's people like me that need to be won over (that said, any campaigner of any flavor won't convince me).

so you are saying that both campaigns need to win you over but you are unable to be convinced either way? do i have that right?

Trasna1

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Actually, the polling does not support that view.

If everyone who is currently polling yes actually votes Yes, we don't need to convince anyone.

They won't all vote but I know I will, I always do.

If you feel the argument is over, the campaigns should be transitioning to a get out the vote campaign. It hasn't because it's far from certain yes will carry the day. More likely, sure, but not certain.

kylith

bertieinexile wrote: »

Good morning viewers

I put up a video of a 23 week old premature baby.
https://youtu.be/2RQ8ks-UH0E?t=22s
I said he is now a healthy 3 year old. You can even look up the parents account on youtube and see video of him playing.

A one in a million chance, how wonderful.

Bertie: are you in favour of keeping a 23 week gestation baby alive on machines indefinitely; like, for years? Do you think that the parents of that child should have to live for their entire lives with a child on life support forever, who will never be able to breathe or eat without help? Should that child live as a brain-dead vegetable for ever and ever? Should hospitals be forced to dedicate resources for, say, 40 years to keep that individual alive even though there is zero hope of them ever being able to live without machines?

Zubeneschamali

bertieinexile wrote: »

Maybe, as some of these posters have said, this is mainstream thinking on the pro choice side.

This is mainstream thinking, full stop. Ask anyone who works in a NICU. If you find this strange and extreme, you know nothing about the subject.

Zubeneschamali

Trasna1 wrote: »

They won't all vote but I know I will, I always do.

But a minute ago, you said no campaigner will convince you either way, so we'd be wasting our time trying.

Presumably because you know better than all of us about everything anyhow. It is good of you to come down from your perfectly neutral meditation on the mountaintop to enlighten the rest of us.

Trasna1

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

But a minute ago, you said no campaigner will convince you either way, so we'd be wasting our time trying.

Presumably because you know better than all of us about everything anyhow. It is good of you to come down from your perfectly neutral meditation on the mountaintop to enlighten the rest of us.

People like me who are neutral/undecided.

But I suppose you're right it would be a waste of time trying to convince me personally. I'd like to see myself as immune to the biased claptrap and moralising from both campaigns.

I prefer an Ivory tower to mountaintops, more comfortable.

bertieinexile

Yeah_Right wrote: »

Sorry I'm late Bertie. Just catching up on the thread now.

Yes I would have no issue with the life support being turned off on a 23 week old baby. Or a 6 month old baby. Or a 10 year old kid. Or a 25 year old adult. Or a 40 year old. Or a 70 year old. You get the picture? I doubt that deciding to turn off the life support of someone you love is an easy decision. They probably agonize, discuss and argue about it but it's not my business. It's between the family and the doctors.

Comparing this to turning off the life support for an adult with no hope of recovery is completely missing the point.
The child in the video not only had a chance of survival, he did survive and has grown in to a happy and healthy 3 year old.
nozzferrahhtoo's point is that none of this matters. The fact that at 23 weeks there would not have been a regular pattern of fetal brain activity - nozzferrhatoos necessary condition for a right to life - means he is nonplussed about ending that life there in the incubator.
That is what everyone else has agreed to as I understand it.

Working on a response to JDD as we speak. Contain your excitement.

Zubeneschamali

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

This is mainstream thinking, full stop. Ask anyone who works in a NICU. If you find this strange and extreme, you know nothing about the subject.

Quick follow up after a half-assed google search (bertie can do his own homework if he wants to learn enough to talk sense on the topic):

HSE Model of Care for Neonatal Services in Ireland

Currently in the NICU setting, 62% of infant deaths are due to withdrawal of care, 20% are due to withholding treatment, and 18% die while still undergoing full neonatal intensive care.

optogirl

Trasna1 wrote: »

People like me who are neutral/undecided.

But I suppose you're right it would be a waste of time trying to convince me personally. I'd like to see myself as immune to the biased claptrap and moralising from both campaigns.

I prefer an Ivory tower to mountaintops, more comfortable.

So you are undecided but don't want to hear arguments from either side (which will necessarily be biased based on the fact that those presenting their opinion are already on one side or the other).
I would urge you, if you are 'neutral' to vote yes meaning nobody's own personal position on the issue is impeded.

Triceratops Ballet

bertieinexile wrote:

Comparing this to turning off the life support for an adult with no hope of recovery is completely missing the point.

Missing the point how?
Life is life is life no? We're supposed to love both and treat them equally no?

Zubeneschamali

Trasna1 wrote: »

People like me who are neutral/undecided

Frankly, anyone who is neutral on this subject hasn't looked into it. All they need is a pointer to the Citizen's Assembly report.

Trasna1

optogirl wrote: »

So you are undecided but don't want to hear arguments from either side (which will necessarily be biased based on the fact that those presenting their opinion are already on one side or the other).
I would urge you, if you are 'neutral' to vote yes meaning nobody's own personal position on the issue is impeded.

I'll read the ref com booklet when it arrives and decide after that. I can see the merit in the position you advocate: that my or another else's morals shouldn't impact anyone elses. Essentially I don't have to choose abortion myself but why should I stop anyone else? I wouldn't like a partner or family member (or indeed anyone) to go through some of the awful realities I have seen like being forced to carry a very wanted baby that won't make it.

I wouldn't however like Ireland to become a society where the handicapped are routinely terminated either. Or late term abortions and repealing the 8th gives no protection to these cases. The legislation might, but we won't have to be directly consulted on that. But it's also true that that could be a fight for another day, to argue against that kind of legislation if it was ever introduced.

optogirl

Trasna1 wrote: »

I'll read the ref com booklet when it arrives and decide after that. I can see the merit in the position you advocate: that my or another else's morals shouldn't impact anyone elses. Essentially I don't have to choose abortion myself but why should I stop anyone else? I wouldn't like a partner or family member (or indeed anyone) to go through some of the awful realities I have seen like being forced to carry a very wanted baby that won't make it.

I wouldn't however like Ireland to become a society where the handicapped are routinely terminated either. Or late term abortions and repealing the 8th gives no protection to these cases. The legislation might, but we won't have to be directly consulted on that. But it's also true that that could be a fight for another day, to argue against that kind of legislation if it was ever introduced.

late term abortions are incredibly rare in countries where abortion is available - for example in the UK 96% of all abortions are done 12 weeks or under. I don't know anyone who would opt for a late term abortion unless it was under advice from a doctor due to threat to life of either mother or child.

.......

This post has been deleted.

Hannibal_Smith

Trasna1 wrote: »

optogirl wrote: »

So you are undecided but don't want to hear arguments from either side (which will necessarily be biased based on the fact that those presenting their opinion are already on one side or the other).
I would urge you, if you are 'neutral' to vote yes meaning nobody's own personal position on the issue is impeded.

I'll read the ref com booklet when it arrives and decide after that. I can see the merit in the position you advocate: that my or another else's morals shouldn't impact anyone elses. Essentially I don't have to choose abortion myself but why should I stop anyone else? I wouldn't like a partner or family member (or indeed anyone) to go through some of the awful realities I have seen like being forced to carry a very wanted baby that won't make it.

I wouldn't however like Ireland to become a society where the handicapped are routinely terminated either. Or late term abortions and repealing the 8th gives no protection to these cases. The legislation might, but we won't have to be directly consulted on that. But it's also true that that could be a fight for another day, to argue against that kind of legislation if it was ever introduced.

What do you mean by 'the handicapped? If I remember from my own pregnancies they can only detect anomalies at the 20 week scan. 20 weeks is well after the 12 week abortion in demand being talked about. So unless there is a fatal foetal abnormality or threat to life of the mother I'm not sure how 'the handicapped' can be routinely terminated?

Again, with late term abortions, I'm not sure who would or why this would be requested. If it's late term, there's every chance of survival outside the womb.

NuMarvel

Trasna1 wrote: »

I wouldn't however like Ireland to become a society where the handicapped are routinely terminated either. Or late term abortions and repealing the 8th gives no protection to these cases. The legislation might, but we won't have to be directly consulted on that. But it's also true that that could be a fight for another day, to argue against that kind of legislation if it was ever introduced.

Disability isn't one of the grounds recommended by the Committee on the 8th and isn't in the proposed legislation, so it won't be in whatever legislation is passed later this year (if the 8th is repealed). And you can be sure there will be significant coverage and scrutiny if anyone ever even suggests including it in the future.

As for late term abortions, the proposed legislation restricts abortions after 12 weeks to when the woman's life or health is at risk, or there's an FFA. Of those three, FFA is the only case where abortion is allowed after the foetus has reached viability. So late term abortions will be rare in the first place, and only where the foetus is expected to die before or shortly after birth.

The legislative approach is the best way to balance the rights of all concerned; the unborn AND the woman. The constitution is too blunt an instrument to properly capture all the nuances these situations have. We may not be directly consulted but that's no different to other complex ethical and medical issues (eg euthanasia, or decisions as to when to turn off life support), and it's not as if the people don't have means to overturn legislation they're not in favour of.

Trasna1

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

You are not going to like campaigning if you have to explain the same thing over and over. I never claimed to be an expert, not have I spread any mistruths. The majority of my posting in this thread has been in relation to questionable campaign activity by both sides and how this makes them both rotten.

I'm not a new poster here btw, I've been around here for years

Call me Al

Triceratops Ballet wrote: »

Missing the point how?
Life is life is life no? We're supposed to love both and treat them equally no?

There was an excellent fly-on-the-wall documentary series recently enough on the Birmingham Children's hospital NICU.
The focus was around paediatric life and death situations, the related ethical decisions and how they were arrived at, and the involvement of parents and medical staff in coming to these decisions.
It was very realistic in paring back to the fundamentals of quality of life versus basic existence when coming to the harsh ethical decisions that these families make.
And they make them everyday all over the world. I'm sure they'd do anything not to be in the position of having to do this. But they are.

So no i dont judge any parent in that situation whatever the age of their child.

ohnonotgmail

Trasna1 wrote: »

You are not going to like campaigning if you have to explain the same thing over and over. I never claimed to be an expert, not have I spread any mistruths. The majority of my posting in this thread has been in relation to questionable campaign activity by both sides and how this makes them both rotten.

I'm not a new poster here btw, I've been around here for years

I like the way you completely ignored all the points in the post you quoted.

AtomicHorror

Trasna1 wrote: »

I'm not a new poster here btw, I've been around here for years

What happened to your previous account?