The 8th Amendment Part 2 - Mod Warning in OP

erica74

I sit here baffled by the utter rubbish that comes out of the mouths of antichoice people. Some TD just said on the radio "The right to life is primary and the right to quality of life is secondary and you can't enjoy your secondary right without your primary right." WTF does that even mean?? Of course an unborn baby can't enjoy that "secondary right" without that "primary right", if they're not born, they have no interest or knowledge of quality of life. He also forecasted women will use abortion as contraception. Another idiot who doesn't know what he's talking about.
Everytime I hear an antichoice person speak, I think they must be doing their "side" no favours with the absolute nonsense that comes out of their mouth?

Repeal the 8th.
Trust girls and women to do what we have already been doing for years but give us the protection of full medical care and social support during the process, from start to finish and beyond.

Madscientist30

erica74 wrote: »

I sit here baffled by the utter rubbish that comes out of the mouths of antichoice people. Some TD just said on the radio "The right to life is primary and the right to quality of life is secondary and you can't enjoy your secondary right without your primary right." WTF does that even mean?? Of course an unborn baby can't enjoy that "secondary right" without that "primary right", if they're not born, they have no interest or knowledge of quality of life. He also forecasted women will use abortion as contraception. Another idiot who doesn't know what he's talking about.
Everytime I hear an antichoice person speak, I think they must be doing their "side" no favours with the absolute nonsense that comes out of their mouth?

Repeal the 8th.
Trust girls and women to do what we have already been doing for years but give us the protection of full medical care and social support during the process, from start to finish and beyond.

Ehhh, that TD might want to check the UN's Universal Declaration of Human Rights. No human rights hierarchy there. No hierarchy ever defined or agreed since. But some random TD has just now created one for us all to live by, so that's grand then

erica74

Madscientist30 wrote: »

Ehhh, that TD might want to check the UN's Universal Declaration of Human Rights. No human rights hierarchy there. No hierarchy ever defined or agreed since. But some random TD has just now created one for us all to live by, so that's grand then

Yeah I can't remember his full name, Quinn or Quinlan, something like that. He's probably a TD from the South East because I was listening to Beatfm.
I was bamboozled by what he was saying. I do not understand how anyone can support antichoice when they have no real facts to back up what they're saying, other than BS about inflicting their moral compass on others.

I honestly feel how dare anyone say these things about women, that we'll use abortion for contraception, do antichoice people have such a low opinion of women? It's 2018 and people still don't understand the vast and varied reasons why a woman might seek an abortion. I

Repeal the 8th.

pjohnson

Ave Sodalis wrote: »

Or corpses of women. Or the courier deliveries of FFA who were terminated in the UK. Or women sitting on an airplane toilet as the cramps take over. Or pregnant children. How about a rotting corpse on a hospital bed? No?

This would be fine I guess since anything goes. Also not made up so bonus.

petalgumdrops

petalgumdrops wrote: »

January I think I actually spoke.privately to you about this in the pregnancy forum 2 years ago when it was diagnosed.

Intially something was detected as being not right at 12 week scan. High NT, shortening of nasal bone which they said could suggest DS.
CVS FISH result for 12, 18, 21 came back clear but was called in and told Trisomy (ill pm you the number as my case is only one of 11 so it will identify me) confirmed on CVS. So rare that they couldn't tell impact except it was very bad. Fetal medicine in london lab suggested termination. Geneticist in crumlin took on my case and for complete clarity an amino was done but as with how rare the case was I would have to wait weeks rather than the 10/12 days some people waited. Waiting period between results of CVS and Amnio was obviously horrific as I needed to ne at least 15/16 weeks for amnio.

You might remember talking to me before

You may need to clarify for me,if you don't mind?
Did you get a ffa diagnosis at 12 weeks & had to wait until 16weeks to find out everything was OK? Or did you have to wait till birth?

nozzferrahhtoo

horseburger wrote: »

It is still the ending of a life, at any stage of its development.

You are simply repeating points I already dealt with. Do you even read the posts you hit "reply" on? You are not actually here for discussion are you? You have two of three mantras you want to recite, and you continue to recite them and refuse to engage in any rebuttal of them.

And up there with the three outright lies I caught you out on this is GREAT stuff. So keep it up. I want everyone on both sides of this issue to see the depths of dishonesty and distortion the anti abortion anti repeal side are required to tow the line of.

horseburger wrote: »

Not everyone supports your view.

And water is wet. Why are we now stating the absolute bleeding obvious at each other again? Do you think some aspect of my narrative requires everyone support my view?

The point is that aside from SAYING you disagree with my views, you and your cohort appear to be not just slightly but ENTIRELY unable to rebut any of them.

horseburger wrote: »

The issue is the human aspect of the abortion debate.

Sure, but the human aspect in terms of personhood and humanity, not in terms of biological taxonomy like you keep pretending it is.

horseburger wrote: »

If the human aspect of the debate wasn't central to the issue, the word foetus wouldn't be used as frequently, in arguments for abortion.

The word is used because it is accurate. If you have a conversation about gardening you will find people there calling a spade a spade too. Does the ACCURATE use of terminology bother you? IF so, you might want to ask yourself why that is. I suspect I already know the answer as to why it is. I suspect deep down you do too.

horseburger wrote: »

Your answer was to suggest that a foetus doesn't have the right to be recognized as human

No, the answer you have been given time and time again, and you ignore it and dodge it every time, is that the fetus should have no right to be recognised as a human PERSON.

A fetus at 12/16 weeks is the sentience and consciousness equivalent of a table leg or a mannequin or an amoeba. There is simple nothing going on in such a fetus upon which to hang our concepts of person hood, humanity, and rights.

So all you and your cohort can do is conflate ALL the various meanings of the word "human" together into a lump and hope the word "human" alone will do the job you have been unable to do yourself.

horseburger wrote: »

I asked a question related to a central question about abortion, which is the issue of whether or not it is justifiable to end a human life.

And you have been answered. You disliked the answer and could not rebut it, so you ignored the answer and just moved on to keep asking the question again and again and again.

You do realize not liking an answer does not mean none was given right?

horseburger wrote: »

I did not avoid anything.

This is the 4th outright and demonstrable lie you have told since yesterday. You have been avoiding things since around your third post, including answers to questions you did not like the answer to, and direct questions asked to and of you.

Sofiztikated

Bertie must have had a couple of days off from the office, and horseburger is covering his workload.

NuMarvel

Trasna1 wrote: »

The law would be challenged on the basis of incompatibility with the Constitution, it would look to precedent with regards to bodily integrity.

And when you look to precedent with regards to bodily integrity, what you find is that the right to bodily integrity isn't absolute. This is obvious from the Ryan case, which established the right to bodily integrity, because the woman that brought the case lost it.

A person wishing to bring a successful challenge against any new laws would not only have to show that their right to bodily integrity is being infringed by the law, but that the law has a disproportionate effect on the person's right to bodily integrity and that the appropriate remedy is to remove all term limits in regards to accessing abortion. They may be able to argue the first point, I think they'd struggle to argue the second point, and I don't think they have any chance of the third.

Trasna1 wrote: »

The very blog you linked earlier suggested strongly that significant provisions in 2013 act would be found unconstitutional following repeal of the 8th.

Which is a far cry from what you are saying.

They're saying that without the 8th parts of the current law could be found unconstitutional, with the courts allowing abortion in circumstances like risk to health or FFA.

You're saying that without the 8th, the proposed law which would include abortion on grounds of FFA or risk to health, would be entirely unconstitutional and would allow abortion without term limits.

Ave Sodalis

horseburger wrote: »

I never said anything about parents losing rights.

I asked a question related to a central question about abortion, which is the issue of whether or not it is justifiable to end a human life.

I asked this in relation to the issue that a human growing during pregnancy is a separate being to the mother.

Eamon OCuiv asked a question on this issue last year and Ruth Coppinger interrupted him by stating that a pregnant woman is not a mother until the baby is born.

You can well imagine that if Ronan Mullen, Mattie McGrath, Danny Healy Rae or Peter Fitzpatrick had made that remark, that they would be accused of sexism, belittling women and devaluing the role of mothers with regard to the nuture and care they give to the human/child/ human foetus/ baby that is growing in the womb during pregnancy.

Never?

horseburger wrote: »

Doesn't a born child also impact on the rights of someone who is living, breathing and feeling?

You then went on to try and justify that so don't tell me it was just a question and so you still have to answer my question.

That last part is just distraction and in no way relevant.

What exactly do you expect me to say about the issue of it being legal to travel for an abortion?

I never said anyone should be prevented from travelling for an abortion.

And I am asking you why not?

I don't know why miscarriages are not considered manslaughter. Maybe because miscarriages are an unfortunate, very sad, unplanned occurrence?

As is manslaughter. And yet, there would be at least a criminal investigation if a mothers actions led to the accidental death of a born child.

I do not know whether or not if it is currently the case that drinking and drug use, are considered offences, worthy of being charging a person with neglect.

Is it covered under the Public Health Alcohol Bill?

http://alcoholireland.ie/what-is-the-public-health-alcohol-bill/

This next item includes the following text:

"Although not often visible in public, alcohol’s harm to others within the family can have very serious consequences for the safety and well-being of family members, with children the most vulnerable. Life-long damage, through foetal development disorders, can also be caused to the unborn child by alcohol consumption during pregnancy.".

http://alcoholireland.ie/facts/alcohol-related-harm-facts-and-statistics/

Senator Frances Black is working on highlighting the issue of excessive alcohol use.

I am asking you. Why do YOU think it's not considered negligence when it's a human being affected.

Have you contacted any TDs or Senators to highlight your concerns?

No, because I know the answers. The answer is because a foetus is not considered a person. It's not considered a human.

None of the things you are asking me prohibits the issues relating to the arguments for or against abortion, from being debated and discussed.

Not one single time did I say that you cannot discuss the arguments for or against abortion. Not once.

What did you reckon of the address to the Citizens Assembly by Dr Anthony Levatino?

[/QUOTE]

First of all, he's American.

Second of all, he's talking about 20 weeks pregnancy which is NOT relevant. It is NOT suction. It is a pill.

Thirdly, he completely disregards the women who want an abortion and are happy with that decision. He has a complete disregard for genuine reasons for having an abortion.

He is not a balanced pro-life advocate when he completely ignores what's actually going to happen and talks about stuff that isn't going to happen in order to scare people. Funny enough, most of the pro-life campaign is like that.

Zerbini Blewitt

Just came across this PrimeTime “debate” in 2013 between a women who had anencephaly detected in her pregnancy and Dr Berry Kiely (long time in PLC).
I saw this at the time it was broadcast and was not well & speechless for the rest of the evening.

I think this demonstrates the almost limitless depths of depravity & inhuman cruelty that can result from ideological beliefs not based on reason.
Or in other words, the beliefs of the average vocal pro-life (forced-birther).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FXTEt3KSrYw

Annasopra

Fred Swanson wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

If it doesnt then they are illegal.

Annasopra

Spanish Eyes wrote: »

I am a member of fora in the UK, and many are disappointed that they cannot contribute to YES because they are not citizens or residents of Ireland. I know they can buy stuff to contribute though instead.

I wonder if the same rules apply to the pro birth contributers, anyone know?

SIPO laws apply to everyone.

gmisk

Zerbini Blewitt wrote: »

Just came across this PrimeTime “debate” in 2013 between a women who had anencephaly detected in her pregnancy and Dr Berry Kiely (long time in PLC).
I saw this at the time it was broadcast and was not well & speechless for the rest of the evening.

I think this demonstrates the almost limitless depths of depravity & inhuman cruelty that can result from ideological beliefs not based on reason.
Or in other words, the beliefs of the average vocal pro-life (forced-birther).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FXTEt3KSrYw

That was horrendous and not easy to watch...
I just donated a bit more again a couple more posters or flyers hopefully it helps

amdublin

I'm going out on my first canvass today (pro choice). I'm looking forward to getting out there.

I'll let you all know how it goes

Sofiztikated

The Legend Of Kira wrote: »

As expected a small element of repeal have resorted to vandalising & Illegally removing no posters in different parts of the country totally anti democratic .

A Twitter account with 22 followers, and 18 tweets since Sep '16.

How in the name of jaysis did you come across that?

Bannasidhe

Sofiztikated wrote: »

A Twitter account with 22 followers, and 18 tweets since Sep '16.

How in the name of jaysis did you come across that?

Paddy Manning told them about it:pac:

petalgumdrops

bubblypop wrote: »

You may need to clarify for me,if you don't mind?
Did you get a ffa diagnosis at 12 weeks & had to wait until 16weeks to find out everything was OK? Or did you have to wait till birth?

Sorry no at 14 weeks CVS gave the diagnosis of ffa. Scan raised alarms that something was not as it should be. It was amnio results at 21/22 weeks that confirmed Baby was unaffected by the placental diagnosis.Geneticist explained it to me that a placental result of say DS would usually be confirmed by an amnio. This was mot the case for me.

kylith

petalgumdrops wrote: »

Sorry no at 14 weeks CVS gave the diagnosis of ffa. Scan raised alarms that something was not as it should be. It was amnio results at 21/22 weeks that confirmed Baby was unaffected by the placental diagnosis.Geneticist explained it to me that a placental result of say DS would usually be confirmed by an amnio. This was mot the case for me.

Wiuld you not have gone for an amnio to be sure? Would you have terminated if you hadn’t?

bertieinexile

JDD
Hi Bertie. ... I'm still waiting.

January
He's waiting on a reply from head office so he can copy and paste it to you.
thanked by
Call me Al, captbarnacles, crustybla, DubInMeath, erica74, Flying Fox, Fred Swanson, Neyite, SusieBlue

Fred Swanson
They are only waking up in their USA headquarters.

applehunter
C'mon Bertie, they're waiting.

It's nice to be back everybody.
My life is just like all of yours. But with things in it.

Narcissus

Zerbini Blewitt wrote: »

Just came across this PrimeTime “debate” in 2013 between a women who had anencephaly detected in her pregnancy and Dr Berry Kiely (long time in PLC).
I saw this at the time it was broadcast and was not well & speechless for the rest of the evening.

I think this demonstrates the almost limitless depths of depravity & inhuman cruelty that can result from ideological beliefs not based on reason.
Or in other words, the beliefs of the average vocal pro-life (forced-birther).

YOUTUBE

B0jangles

bertieinexile wrote: »

It's nice to be back everybody.
My life is just like all of yours. But with things in it.

So, just more weird passive-aggressive insinuations, yeah?

No answers to any of the many questions you've been asked.

mohawk

Zerbini Blewitt wrote: »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FXTEt3KSrYw

I remember that. Awful to watch both the lack of empathy and the lies.

Give women and their families a choice. There will not be compulsory abortions for FFA. Some women choose to go through with the pregnancy and others will not.

Bannasidhe

Just flung a few quid there to a student studying in Warsaw to help with the cost of his flights to come home and vote.
Don't know the guy but we share a surname so I thought feck it why not.
And yes, I have seen he is on the register, eligible to vote and normally domiciled in Ireland but currently studying in Poland. He is returning in June once his exams are over.

Just in case anyone wants to get snippy about it.

Shadowstrife

People who say 'Life begins at conception', are essentially saying that one sister is less of a valid human life than her identical twin.

volchitsa

petalgumdrops wrote: »

bubblypop wrote: »

You may need to clarify for me,if you don't mind?
Did you get a ffa diagnosis at 12 weeks & had to wait until 16weeks to find out everything was OK? Or did you have to wait till birth?

Sorry no at 14 weeks CVS gave the diagnosis of ffa. Scan raised alarms that something was not as it should be. It was amnio results at 21/22 weeks that confirmed Baby was unaffected by the placental diagnosis.Geneticist explained it to me that a placental result of say DS would usually be confirmed by an amnio. This was mot the case for me.

It's wonderful that everything was fine in the end, petal gumdrops, but I don't understand what difference you think the 8th made?

You're not seriously suggesting that you would have had a termination without the confirmation, are you?
Nor what difference the 8th made to that decision anyway?

bertieinexile

Hi JDD
Thank you for your patience.

First and foremost let me say that if you are actually looking for an opinion on medical matters from me you have a whole other problem than the one you described in your post.

But I think instead you have a set of circumstances that make this whole debate personal for you in a particular way. And you are interested in how, what you perceive as the other side, respond to the situation you find yourself in. And I think you are doing that with an openness that probably won't be reflected in a lot of the contributions from others to follow.

The most important point of all is that regardless of what goes on in the conjugal bedroom there is no danger to your life or health. You are safe.
You live in a country whose laws and practice result in it being one of the safest places in the world to be pregnant.
Ireland, out of 171 countries surveyed, is consistently ranked by the WHO (World Health Organisation) in the top five countries for women's safety in pregnancy. This has been the case for the past 25 years. In 2005, Ireland was ranked the safest country in the world in which to have a child.

That is the key fact to keep in mind in relation to all attempts to raise health concerns around the treatment of any woman under the 8th amendment.

You describe the condition you are susceptible to, placenta accretia, as very rare. I would guess you are the only one on this thread who knows anything about it. I don't know if even Phoenix Parker has first hand experience of it but if you are going to pick out anything in the torrent to follow Phoenix Parker is probably one worth listening to.

You also say you have only a 0.1% chance of becoming pregnant because you have had a tubal ligation. Figures vary but not by much. Some put the chances at 0.5%. The point is you are extremely unlikely to become pregnant and none of the following in reality applies to you.

You aren't in danger.
And if you still can't shake the last remaining doubts, remember you live in one of the safest countries in the world to be pregnant - even with a susceptibility to placenta accretia.

Placenta accretia occurs when the placenta attaches too deeply in the uterine wall
It is principally associated with women who have had one or more caesareans and or surgical abortions with the risk rising with each one.
Still it is extremely rare, occuring in 1 in 2,500 pregnancies (although this is growing with the increase in caesareans)
The scarring from the procedures mentioned encourages the growth of blood vessels in to the uterine wall.
The treatment is usually termination of pregnancy and hysterectomy. Usually the child has a good to very good chance of survival.

When the patient history suggests a heightened susceptibility, monitoring can begin early in pregnancy and this can involve both targeted ultrasound and MRI.
Most care providers feel it is prudent to have an ultrasound for placental placement at some point if there are risk factors for accretia.
If the condition is identified (and if present it usually is) a non emergency termination can be carried out. Depending on how early this happens the childs prospects can be good to very good.
It is important to note, and seems to be wilfully ignored by some, that our Medical Council guidelines, Section 48, which govern this stipulate that even if a threat to the mother’s life is not immediate or inevitable it can be acted upon and the pregnancy terminated.
We have a number of international studies in which there are no mortalities associated with these non emergency terminations.
There are no mortalities in these cases in Ireland. Which is not a surprise because (a) if there were we would surely be hearing about them now and (b) our laws allow us to be a world leader in obstetric care.

Arguably the 8th amendment is in some part responsible for our superior maternal mortality rates as well as our world leading care during pregnancy. In particular our maternal mortality rates are superior to the uk. Since there is not the easy option of ready abortion here, it compels doctors to monitor pregnancies closely for signs of danger to the mother's life - which inevitably overlaps with dangers to her physical health.

The only reason a woman would be contemplating early abortion on the grounds of placental accretia is that she would have a fear based on her medical history. But that history would mean she would receive early monitoring and she should expect a safe outcome and and a healthy child

But for anyone else worried about this - even if the woman's history is such that these indicators are absent, normal monitoring in Irish hospitals will still detect the condition at a point where emergency caesarean hysterectomy will take place. This is a difficult operation but being in one of the safest countries in the world for birth means that it is always successful. In addition since it happens at around 34 weeks the baby has as good a chance of survival as a full term new born.
A study of the prevalence of placenta accreta using discharge data from Irish hospitals 2005-2010 found 357 cases covering both emergency and nonemergency deliveries and zero mortality rate for mothers.
US studies have found a similar zero mortality rate where caesarean hysterectomy was the principal medical concern.

None of this is to take from the difficulties and trauma many women feel as a result of hysterectomy - the experience itself and the loss of the ability to conceive.

Some on the pro choice side may argue that even though a woman in this situation would have a very good chance of seeing her child grow up and be happy she might prefer to have aborted it
-because the timing was not right for the child she would now have (and she would no longer be in a position to conceive in future)
-because she wanted to avoid the safe but difficult experience described above following early monitoring
-or because she just wanted to.
Even if you believe in an absolute untrammelled choice by a woman, even if you believe there is only one life present here, it has to be recognized that none of these choices are based on trying to avoid a realistic medical danger.

Many others think that a pregnant woman's right to make choices about medical treatment, like anyone's right to make choices about medical treatment, is extremely important but in a case like this it is not absolute.
These people feel that there is a second life involved in this decision. And they feel the freedom to make the choices outlined above does not balance and does not respect the right to life of that child

How many feel this way? There is going to be a vote on it.

But for for anyone to say that the woman in this case is being put in danger by the 8th amendment would be, to borrow a phrase, pro choice scare tactics.


There's a reason why this is one of the safest countries in the world in which to be pregnant.
How would that be the case if our laws were putting women in danger.
Our laws allow us to be a world leader in obstetric care.


I would be very interested JDD to hear how both you and Phoenix Parker view the points above. The rest of the medical opinions we're about to be offered, to quote Borat, "not so much".

It goes without saying that these are questions for your doctor. Like I said at the start, I think I understand why you are asking a question here and what kind of answer you are looking for, but I still feel really uncomfortable discussing something as personal as this. That could just be me; before everyone got smartphones it seemed like all you ever heard upstairs on a bus was people discussing their medical histories. But it's how I feel. If you're the same then feel free to drop out of this discussion any time you want. Totally understandable.

Zerbini Blewitt

Zerbini Blewitt wrote: »

Just came across this PrimeTime “debate” in 2013 between a women who had anencephaly detected in her pregnancy and Dr Berry Kiely (long time in PLC).
I saw this at the time it was broadcast and was not well & speechless for the rest of the evening.

I think this demonstrates the almost limitless depths of depravity & inhuman cruelty that can result from ideological beliefs not based on reason.
Or in other words, the beliefs of the average vocal pro-life (forced-birther).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FXTEt3KSrYw

I tend not to bother watching debates, & I am out of the country so don't see too much about this referendum, thankfully!!
Decided to watch to see if I could see from a pro life pov.
That woman was terrible! She also said Malta & Poland are countries that don't respect life?? Like WTF?
Fair play to the poor mother sitting there, I don't think I would have been so calm if it was me!

B0jangles

Zerbini Blewitt wrote: »

Just came across this PrimeTime “debate” in 2013 between a women who had anencephaly detected in her pregnancy and Dr Berry Kiely (long time in PLC).
I saw this at the time it was broadcast and was not well & speechless for the rest of the evening.

I think this demonstrates the almost limitless depths of depravity & inhuman cruelty that can result from ideological beliefs not based on reason.
Or in other words, the beliefs of the average vocal pro-life (forced-birther).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FXTEt3KSrYw

Horrible, horrible stuff - Imagine saying such implacably cruel things directly to a person who's actually experienced having a child with a FFA? .

I've noticed that there is a common tendency among these types to adopt a very mild, sweet, calm voice - maybe it helps distract the listener from the awfulness of what is being said?

Breda O'Brien does exactly the same thing.

gmisk

amdublin wrote: »

I'm going out on my first canvass today (pro choice). I'm looking forward to getting out there.

I'll let you all know how it goes

Terrific hope it goes well

B0jangles

bertieinexile wrote: »

Hi JDD
Thank you for your patience.

First and foremost let me say that if you are actually looking for an opinion on medical matters from me you have a whole other problem than the one you described in your post.

But I think instead you have a set of circumstances that make this whole debate personal for you in a particular way. And you are interested in how, what you perceive as the other side, respond to the situation you find yourself in. And I think you are doing that with an openness that probably won't be reflected in a lot of the contributions from others to follow.

The most important point of all is that regardless of what goes on in the conjugal bedroom there is no danger to your life or health. You are safe.
You live in a country whose laws and practice result in it being one of the safest places in the world to be pregnant.
Ireland, out of 171 countries surveyed, is consistently ranked by the WHO (World Health Organisation) in the top five countries for women's safety in pregnancy. This has been the case for the past 25 years. In 2005, Ireland was ranked the safest country in the world in which to have a child.

That is the key fact to keep in mind in relation to all attempts to raise health concerns around the treatment of any woman under the 8th amendment.

You describe the condition you are susceptible to, placenta accretia, as very rare. I would guess you are the only one on this thread who knows anything about it. I don't know if even Phoenix Parker has first hand experience of it but if you are going to pick out anything in the torrent to follow Phoenix Parker is probably one worth listening to.

You also say you have only a 0.1% chance of becoming pregnant because you have had a tubal ligation. Figures vary but not by much. Some put the chances at 0.5%. The point is you are extremely unlikely to become pregnant and none of the following in reality applies to you.

You aren't in danger.
And if you still can't shake the last remaining doubts, remember you live in one of the safest countries in the world to be pregnant - even with a susceptibility to placenta accretia.

Placenta accretia occurs when the placenta attaches too deeply in the uterine wall
It is principally associated with women who have had one or more caesareans and or surgical abortions with the risk rising with each one.
Still it is extremely rare, occuring in 1 in 2,500 pregnancies (although this is growing with the increase in caesareans)
The scarring from the procedures mentioned encourages the growth of blood vessels in to the uterine wall.
The treatment is usually termination of pregnancy and hysterectomy. Usually the child has a good to very good chance of survival.

When the patient history suggests a heightened susceptibility, monitoring can begin early in pregnancy and this can involve both targeted ultrasound and MRI.
Most care providers feel it is prudent to have an ultrasound for placental placement at some point if there are risk factors for accretia.
If the condition is identified (and if present it usually is) a non emergency termination can be carried out. Depending on how early this happens the childs prospects can be good to very good.
It is important to note, and seems to be wilfully ignored by some, that our Medical Council guidelines, Section 48, which govern this stipulate that even if a threat to the mother’s life is not immediate or inevitable it can be acted upon and the pregnancy terminated.
We have a number of international studies in which there are no mortalities associated with these non emergency terminations.
There are no mortalities in these cases in Ireland. Which is not a surprise because (a) if there were we would surely be hearing about them now and (b) our laws allow us to be a world leader in obstetric care.

Arguably the 8th amendment is in some part responsible for our superior maternal mortality rates as well as our world leading care during pregnancy. In particular our maternal mortality rates are superior to the uk. Since there is not the easy option of ready abortion here, it compels doctors to monitor pregnancies closely for signs of danger to the mother's life - which inevitably overlaps with dangers to her physical health.

The only reason a woman would be contemplating early abortion on the grounds of placental accretia is that she would have a fear based on her medical history. But that history would mean she would receive early monitoring and she should expect a safe outcome and and a healthy child

But for anyone else worried about this - even if the woman's history is such that these indicators are absent, normal monitoring in Irish hospitals will still detect the condition at a point where emergency caesarean hysterectomy will take place. This is a difficult operation but being in one of the safest countries in the world for birth means that it is always successful. In addition since it happens at around 34 weeks the baby has as good a chance of survival as a full term new born.
A study of the prevalence of placenta accreta using discharge data from Irish hospitals 2005-2010 found 357 cases covering both emergency and nonemergency deliveries and zero mortality rate for mothers.
US studies have found a similar zero mortality rate where caesarean hysterectomy was the principal medical concern.

None of this is to take from the difficulties and trauma many women feel as a result of hysterectomy - the experience itself and the loss of the ability to conceive.

Some on the pro choice side may argue that even though a woman in this situation would have a very good chance of seeing her child grow up and be happy she might prefer to have aborted it
-because the timing was not right for the child she would now have (and she would no longer be in a position to conceive in future)
-because she wanted to avoid the safe but difficult experience described above following early monitoring
-or because she just wanted to.
Even if you believe in an absolute untrammelled choice by a woman, even if you believe there is only one life present here, it has to be recognized that none of these choices are based on trying to avoid a realistic medical danger.

Many others think that a pregnant woman's right to make choices about medical treatment, like anyone's right to make choices about medical treatment, is extremely important but in a case like this it is not absolute.
These people feel that there is a second life involved in this decision. And they feel the freedom to make the choices outlined above does not balance and does not respect the right to life of that child

How many feel this way? There is going to be a vote on it.

But for for anyone to say that the woman in this case is being put in danger by the 8th amendment would be, to borrow a phrase, pro choice scare tactics.


There's a reason why this is one of the safest countries in the world in which to be pregnant.
How would that be the case if our laws were putting women in danger.
Our laws allow us to be a world leader in obstetric care.


I would be very interested JDD to hear how both you and Phoenix Parker view the points above. The rest of the medical opinions we're about to be offered, to quote Borat, "not so much".

It goes without saying that these are questions for your doctor. Like I said at the start, I think I understand why you are asking a question here and what kind of answer you are looking for, but I still feel really uncomfortable discussing something as personal as this. That could just be me; before everyone got smartphones it seemed like all you ever heard upstairs on a bus was people discussing their medical histories. But it's how I feel. If you're the same then feel free to drop out of this discussion any time you want. Totally understandable.

That appears to be an extraordinarily long-winded attempt to avoid actually answering the questions you were asked.