The 8th Amendment Part 2 - Mod Warning in OP

petalgumdrops

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.

That must have been a terrible time for you, and it is great everything worked out well.
but with respect, I think your baby is alive thanks to you. You & the doctors.

Bertie is back & he said you will be grand JDD, so good news!!

Any chance of answering any other questions put to ya Bertie?

Ken.

Mod-Ok folks, This has been a fairly good thread for the last week or 2 but the personal jibes are starting to reappear. We don't want to ban people but if it comes to it we will (We here at AH towers are equal opportunities mods, we don't ban one side or the other, we ban asreholes)

Please be civil to each other. After this vote is over no matter what way it turns out we all still have to live on this little rock.

petalgumdrops

kylith wrote: »

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

Geneticist stated that most people he saw will terminate will do so on the basis of a CVS and will not do an amnio due to the fact that by the time results are through a woman will be 20/22 weeks. After CVS results yes I would have terminated - worst case scenario was put in front of me. I remember asking if my baby's condition was like Edwards or Pataus and I was told "worse" difference with my issue was there was only one piece of medical literature related to the trisomy available so they couldn't even tell me what to expect. So yes I did want to terminate but it was not available to me. I stated ffa as something we shouldn't be voting on that it should be dealt with in our maternity hospitals here in Ireland. I know what I went through was horrific but there are people who travel because they "choos to and there are those who don't travel simply because they can't. I didn't choose not to terminate it was not available to me.

petalgumdrops

volchitsa wrote: »

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?

If you collected data on ffa you will see that a CVS has been used to terminate on the basis of ffa. CVS collects placental cells that are ***in most cases*** a match for DNA of a baby but placental mosasacisms do happen. I'm not sure if you are suggesting that all ffa should need an CVS and an amnio to teterminate for a ffa

Say this was different and I came here after my CVS and told you I had to travel to England to terminate my baby would you be saying the 8th had no affect on me at all. No you would use my story to higlight the narrative that the 8th has deterimental consequences for women. (It of course does) but I find it disrespectful to assume that the 8th can't have any positive outcomes at all. My son is proof of that. Yet it is being overlooked that yes I did want to terminate based on CVS but I did not bave the option. You seem to assume my son is here due to choice not because I did not have access to a termination.

Bannasidhe

petalgumdrops wrote: »

Geneticist stated that most people he saw will terminate will do so on the basis of a CVS and will not do an amnio due to the fact that by the time results are through a woman will be 20/22 weeks. After CVS results yes I would have terminated - worst case scenario was put in front of me. I remember asking if my baby's condition was like Edwards or Pataus and I was told "worse" difference with my issue was there was only one piece of medical literature related to the trisomy available so they couldn't even tell me what to expect. So yes I did want to terminate but it was not available to me. I stated ffa as something we shouldn't be voting on that it should be dealt with in our maternity hospitals here in Ireland. I know what I went through was horrific but there are people who travel because they "choos to and there are those who don't travel simply because they can't. I didn't choose not to terminate it was not available to me.

With respect, it was available to you, but would have required you to travel.
As it currently is available to women who have an absolute certain diagnosis as long as they can travel.

A NO vote will continue to force women to either continue with a pregnancy in which there is no possible good outcome or endure that heartbreaking journey.

Why on Earth would anyone want to inflict that on someone who is already suffering?

Martina1991

petalgumdrops wrote:

After CVS results yes I would have terminated - worst case scenario was put in front of me. I remember asking if my baby's condition was like Edwards or Pataus and I was told "worse" difference with my issue was there was only one piece of medical literature related to the trisomy available so they couldn't even tell me what to expect. So yes I did want to terminate but it was not available to me. I stated ffa as something we shouldn't be voting on that it should be dealt with in our maternity hospitals here in Ireland.

I'm delighted for you that your child was healthy. Doctors are wrong all the time. Such is the need for further confirmatory testing.

But you said you would have terminated if it was was FFA. If it was FFA you wouldn't have been able to terminate and you would have to deal with the trauma of having a baby born that would have died of been severely disabled.

There are many women who are given the same news as you, the testing, the waiting. But they didn't get good news. Their diagnosis was correct and they had to and will have to suffer the consequences of the 8th amendment.

They have to continue with their pregnancy against their will. They don't have a choice.

Ken.

Mod request-Can someone please post a quick simple explanation of what CVS is. A google search just leads to some online American Chemist chain.

Sofiztikated

Conspectus wrote: »

Mod request-Can someone please post a quick simple explanation of what CVS is. A google search just leads to some online American Chemist chain.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chorionic_villus_sampling

Ken.

Cheers Sofi.

Zerbini Blewitt

B0jangles wrote: »

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.

Yes, I agree.

I find this sweetness & light style deeply obnoxious (especially given the topic in this interview).

Hopefully on 25th May the electorate will put this cruel, dystopian hypocrisy in the rubbish bin - which is the only place ideas like this belong.

petalgumdrops

Bannasidhe wrote: »

With respect, it was available to you, but would have required you to travel.
As it currently is available to women who have an absolute certain diagnosis as long as they can travel.

A NO vote will continue to force women to either continue with a pregnancy in which there is no possible good outcome or endure that heartbreaking journey.

Why on Earth would anyone want to inflict that on someone who is already suffering?

So you're saying that I should have travelled then? Imagine a pro life group coming on here and saying "oh sure the option was available to you to travel you just "choose" not to" I'm sorry but your comment is completely disrespectful and with complete disregard to my situation. Like I said this referendum seems to be a case of " trusting and supporting women.... if it suits my narrative"

If you read any of my posts you would see that I don't think we should even be voting on ffa they shoulf be available a long time ago and government coulf have legislated for this.

I agree with so many aspects of repeal but like another poster said at the beginning these proposals just go over a line that I personally am not comfortable with. I hope this doesn't insult those who are 100% voting yes but some yes voters really beat down any concerns undecided or no voters have, they emotionally target, abuse and refuse to see that there are other points of view that are valid. (Pro life are guilty of this too) People are allowed to have concerns, we are allowed to question, to choose something that we are comfortable with. I have seen very little respectful debating as a whole. The gender bias in the campaign from some yes supporters is shocking. I get challenged because I don't agree with the government having the power to change limits. Accused as someone that is being undemocratic that if I don't like how democracy works I should jog on... yet let a man dare express concerns and suddenly he has no say anyway as he can't have a baby. If people want to respect the principles of democracy - respect all of those principle men have a vote and by such are entitled to have an opinion - at least on polling day anyway.

Shadowstrife

I must polish my resume for applying for a job at CVS.

See, some levity.

petalgumdrops

Conspectus wrote: »

Mod-Ok folks, This has been a fairly good thread for the last week or 2 but the personal jibes are starting to reappear. We don't want to ban people but if it comes to it we will (We here at AH towers are equal opportunities mods, we don't ban one side or the other, we ban asreholes)

Please be civil to each other. After this vote is over no matter what way it turns out we all still have to live on this little rock.

If I came in here saying the 8th forced me to travel to England to have a termination do you think I would be getting the same reaction from posters?

Respect mods jumping in but to be told by a poster that I had the choice to travel I just didn't take it is so absolutely disgusting. If I said that to someone here who travelled and had an abortion I would be rightly abused.

Bannasidhe

petalgumdrops wrote: »

So you're saying that I should have travelled then? Imagine a pro life group coming on here and saying "oh sure the option was available to you to travel you just "choose" not to" I'm sorry but your comment is completely disrespectful and with complete disregard to my situation. Like I said this referendum seems to be a case of " trusting and supporting women.... if it suits my narrative"

If you read any of my posts you would see that I don't think we should even be voting on ffa they shoulf be available a long time ago and government coulf have legislated for this.

I agree with so many aspects of repeal but like another poster said at the beginning these proposals just go over a line that I personally am not comfortable with. I hope this doesn't insult those who are 100% voting yes but some yes voters really beat down any concerns undecided or no voters have, they emotionally target, abuse and refuse to see that there are other points of view that are valid. (Pro life are guilty of this too) People are allowed to have concerns, we are allowed to question, to choose something that we are comfortable with. I have seen very little respectful debating as a whole. The gender bias in the campaign from some yes supporters is shocking. I get challenged because I don't agree with the government having the power to change limits. Accused as someone that is being undemocratic that if I don't like how democracy works I should jog on... yet let a man dare express concerns and suddenly he has no say anyway as he can't have a baby. If people want to respect the principles of democracy - respect all of those principle men have a vote and by such are entitled to have an opinion - at least on polling day anyway.

I absolutely did not say you should have travelled. What you decided to do or not do is completely your decision.

I said you had the option to get a termination by travelling. Which is completely different.

I then questioned why anyone would wish to force a woman who has a confirmed diagnosis of a FFA to either continue with the pregnancy or travel. That is what a NO vote is calling for. It may be an unintended consequence but so was the treat of detention in the X Case all those years ago.

The Constitution is not the place for clauses that have unintended consequences especially when those consequences are well flagged beforehand.

The government CANNOT legislate to terminate a FFA pregnancy while the 8th is in place unless they have a specific referendum to allow terminations in the case of FFA - then maybe one for rape/incest victims/cancer patients etc etc.


I have absolutely no idea why the rest of your post is aimed at me. I expressed no opinion on men voting (I happen to think they should have a voice too), never called anyone undemocratic, haven't been abusive...

Ironic that you seem to be accusing me off all sorts in a rant about people being attacked for expressing an opinion.

Madscientist30

petalgumdrops wrote: »

volchitsa wrote: »

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?

If you collected data on ffa you will see that a CVS has been used to terminate on the basis of ffa. CVS collects placental cells that are ***in most cases*** a match for DNA of a baby but placental mosasacisms do happen. I'm not sure if you are suggesting that all ffa should need an CVS and an amnio to teterminate for a ffa

Say this was different and I came here after my CVS and told you I had to travel to England to terminate my baby would you be saying the 8th had no affect on me at all. No you would use my story to higlight the narrative that the 8th has deterimental consequences for women. (It of course does) but I find it disrespectful to assume that the 8th can't have any positive outcomes at all. My son is proof of that. Yet it is being overlooked that yes I did want to terminate based on CVS but I did not bave the option. You seem to assume my son is here due to choice not because I did not have access to a termination.

I am very glad that everything turned out well for you and your family. But you said you were not in a position to travel. That means that if the amnio had confirmed at 20 weeks that it WAS FFA (and I'm very happy for you that it was an error) because of the 8th you would have had absolutely no choice but to carry the pregnancy to term, regardless of what you wanted to do, even though you yourself have stated you wanted a termination. By voting to keep the 8th, you are saying that other women in your position who cannot afford to travel and who are not as lucky as you were to get the good news at 20 weeks that their baby was in fact fine will have to carry the pregnancy to full term. I cannot imagine how it feels to be a woman in that position. But you have been and you stated you wanted a termination if the baby had FFA. So why would you deny anybody else the same? In the heartbreaking debate linked above the mother says that Liverpool hospital routinely confirms again any diagnosis before proceeding with a termination so it seems unlikely that termination would just have happened without further tests.

Ave Sodalis

Bannasidhe wrote:

I have absolutely no idea why the rest of your post is aimed at me. I expressed no opinion on men voting (I happen to think they should have a voice too), never called anyone undemocratic, haven't been abusive...

The poster has been doing that the whole time. Acting reasonable but if you don't agree with her 100% that the 8th should be saved because it definitely was the reason her child survive, then she starts twisting what you say, and getting ratty and personal at what she accuses you of saying. To be honest, I'm not bothered replying to the poster anymore.

petalgumdrops

Bannasidhe wrote: »

I absolutely did not say you should have travelled. What you decided to do or not do is completely your decision.

I said you had the option to get a termination by travelling. Which is completely different.

I then questioned why anyone would wish to force a woman who has a confirmed diagnosis of a FFA to either continue with the pregnancy or travel. That is what a NO vote is calling for. It may be an unintended consequence but so was the treat of detention in the X Case all those years ago.

The Constitution is not the place for clauses that have unintended consequences especially when those consequences are well flagged beforehand.

The government CANNOT legislate to terminate a FFA pregnancy while the 8th is in place unless they have a specific referendum to allow terminations in the case of FFA - then maybe one for rape/incest victims/cancer patients etc etc.


I have absolutely no idea why the rest of your post is aimed at me. I expressed no opinion on men voting (I happen to think they should have a voice too), never called anyone undemocratic, haven't been abusive...

Ironic that you seem to be accusing me off all sorts in a rant about people being attacked for expressing an opinion.

You said... with respect you had the option to travel... Imagine me using that as an excuse not to repeak the 8th. There would be uproar.

If I have to clarify the second part of my post wS not directly aimed at you but a general observation then I'm sorry I can't help you

petalgumdrops

bubblypop wrote: »

That must have been a terrible time for you, and it is great everything worked out well.
but with respect, I think your baby is alive thanks to you. You & the doctors.

Absolutely I do believe that the doctors acted in relation to the 8th. My baby was fine but I did have a placental abnormality as confirmed by the cvs which was monitored throughout. My baby was at risk of miscarriage/stillbirth and when the placenta stopped functioning my labour was induced early.

petalgumdrops

petalgumdrops wrote: »

If I came in here saying the 8th forced me to travel to England to have a termination do you think I would be getting the same reaction from posters?

Respect mods jumping in but to be told by a poster that I had the choice to travel I just didn't take it is so absolutely disgusting. If I said that to someone here who travelled and had an abortion I would be rightly abused.

I think you are picking people up wrongly, because Of The 8th amendment, termination was not an option to you, in this country.
People are not suggesting that you should have travelled, they are saying that you chose not to. That you yourself made that decision. The government or the constitution didn't make it for you. You chose not to go & thankfully everything worked out well for you & your baby.

But you made the choice, you saved your baby.

Bannasidhe

petalgumdrops wrote: »

You said... with respect you had the option to travel... Imagine me using that as an excuse not to repeak the 8th. There would be uproar.

If I have to clarify the second part of my post wS not directly aimed at you but a general observation then I'm sorry I can't help you

'Option to' is not the same as 'should have' - not in any possible universe.

What you did was completely misrepresent what I wrote.
You also responded to a MOD post about being polite by referencing what you, falsely, claim I had said.

Your rant contained no indication that is was not aimed at me - the poster you quoted and were directly responding to.

Your passive aggressive lack of apology speaks volumes.

petalgumdrops

bubblypop wrote: »

I think you are picking people up wrongly, because Of The 8th amendment, termination was not an option to you, in this country.
People are not suggesting that you should have travelled, they are saying that you chose not to. That you yourself made that decision. The government or the constitution didn't make it for you. You chose not to go & thankfully everything worked out well for you & your baby.

But you made the choice, you saved your baby.

What qualifies you say that I choose to continue my pregnancy? Are you aware of all of my circumstances?

petalgumdrops

Bannasidhe wrote: »

'Option to' is not the same as 'should have' - not in any possible universe.

By that admission everyone has the "option" to travel.

Ave Sodalis

Petalgumdrops, what are you actually hoping the outcome of this referendum will be?

NuMarvel

petalgumdrops wrote: »

So you're saying that I should have travelled then?

No one is telling you what you should have done. The whole point of pro choice is that it is up to the woman what she chooses to do, including continuing with the pregnancy if she wants.

You're pretty much pro choice yourself, because you've said yourself many times a woman should be allowed to have the choice of having an abortion in the case of FFA.

petalgumdrops wrote: »

If you read any of my posts you would see that I don't think we should even be voting on ffa they shoulf be available a long time ago and government coulf have legislated for this.

Once more; we can't legislate for FFA while the 8th is in place. Politicians tried and were told by the attorney general that it would be unconstitutional.

petalgumdrops wrote: »

People are allowed to have concerns, we are allowed to question, to choose something that we are comfortable with. I have seen very little respectful debating as a whole.

You're allowed to question things, but it's a bit rich to complain about the lack of a respectful debate when you're ignoring the answers you're getting.

Case in point, you saying that FFA could be legislated for without the need for another referendum. That's simply not the case and the reasons have been explained. Yet rather than engage with that discussion, you ignore it and just repeat your assertion later on, as if it's fact.

Ken.

Mod-Just a heads up, robarmstrongs thread ban has been lifted. Please don't report him when he starts posting again.

Martina1991

petalgumdrops wrote:

What qualifies you say that I choose to continue my pregnancy? Are you aware of all of my circumstances?

What qualifies "pro life" supporters to force women to continue with their pregnancies.
Are they aware of every woman's circumstances?

Bannasidhe

petalgumdrops wrote: »

Bannasidhe wrote: »

'Option to' is not the same as 'should have' - not in any possible universe.

By that admission everyone has the "option" to travel.

I have no intention of continuing to engage with a poster who blatantly misrepresented what I said and not only hasn't the curtsy to apologise but continues to twist my words.

Try your disingenuous tactics on someone else. I'm not playing. This is too serious an issue.

NuMarvel

petalgumdrops wrote: »

Absolutely I do believe that the doctors acted in relation to the 8th.

There's a video only a page or two back of an Irish pregnant woman saying that after receiving a confirmed diagnosis of FFA, she talked with her doctor here in Ireland about the option of having an abortion overseas.

The 8th doesn't stop doctors saying abortion is an option when it's a FFA. What it stops is them being able to continue taking care of their patient when a woman decides to have an abortion, and it stops them being able to refer their patient to a doctor overseas in the normal way.

petalgumdrops

petalgumdrops wrote: »

What qualifies you say that I choose to continue my pregnancy? Are you aware of all of my circumstances?

Well that's fair enough, if you are a refugee or an illegal immigrant in this country then I apologise.

But if that is the case surely you can see how unfair it is?