The 8th Amendment Part 2 - Mod Warning in OP

amdublin

petalgumdrops wrote: »

If you read my posts travelling was not an option for me

Did you want to travel? I.e. did you want to pursue a termination?

Ken.

Mod-horseburger, you have been answered several times. So either drop it or do not post in this thread again.

ProfessorPlum

volchitsa wrote: »

So are you saying that if you had been able to travel you would have terminated without even asking for a second opinion? Why would you have done that? Anyone I know with a significant problem that's been diagnosed has always wanted to be absolutely 100% sure before doing anything irreparable - and I don't just mean pregnancy, I mean any major illness. Do you need a law to stop yourself agreeing to get a limb removed on the basis of a single examination?

I don’t think that’s quite fair - plenty of people decide to terminate on the grounds of CVS testing. There’s a less than 2% chance of a false positive, less when combined with other testing such as a Nuchal scan and given that it’s done much earlier than amniocentesis, if someone were to decide st that stage to terminate, it would possibly be a medical termination rather than a more difficult/ costly/ risky surgical abortion.

Like everything, it’s a mater of weighing up both sides and choosing whether to continue with the pregnancy regardless, terminate early, or continue and have further amino testing later with a view to terminate later if the diagnosis is further supported.

The important word there i think is choice.

robarmstrong

Some very very silly arguments being put forward.

You aren't pro-life, you're pro-birth because let's be brutally honest, you don't give two monkeys about what happens after the baby is born.

It isn't difficult to grasp the concept of being against abortion (like I am, in ALL circumstances) but be able to put aside personal beliefs to vote to repeal (like I am) in order to give women the right to a choice over what happens to their pregnancy.

Voting to repeal doesn't make anyone a "baby-killer" or a "murderer", they're just ridiculous soundbites thrown in as an emotional overload to try divert people from making an informed and proper vote on what women can or can't do with their own bodies.

There's no need for the pro-life side to make up stories as they go along in terms of blatantly ignoring or twisting statistics to suit their own agenda nor is there a need to purposefully misinterpret the proposals, it's 12 weeks. Not 16, not 20, not 24 and certainly not up to birth, statements like these are hysterical and should be just outright ignored.

You can be against abortion, but support the choice for it, you (pro-birth crowd) just refuse to budge from the pedestal of lies, deceit and sheer ignorance you're perched upon.

Shadowstrife

Sometimes I can't tell if a anti-abortion poster on forums like these really is spreading a moral message , or just some expert troll living in his mother's basement and poking people for the lulz.

petalgumdrops

pjohnson wrote: »

Your posts have never explained how not?

Should every woman who acceses or doesn't access a termination need to give a litany of reasons. If I had accesed a termination would you be pressing me to justify.

The irony of advocing choice but needing an explanation on the grounds I couldn't travel.

I

amdublin

petalgumdrops wrote: »

Should every woman who acceses or doesn't access a termination need to give a litany of reasons. If I had accesed a termination would you be pressing me to justify.

The irony of advocing choice but needing an explanation on the grounds I couldn't travel.

I

Forgive me, did you want to travel?

Edward M

baylah17 wrote: »

My toenails are human, I still clip them off .
My toenails are NOT human beings.

A foetus is a human being I would accept.
Toenails, organs, or any other part of a human that can't grow to life on their own are a completely different proposition to a fetus.
I can accept that up to sentience the baby/fetus doesent know of its existence though or be aware that its being aborted or dying or feel any terror because of its situation.
The 12 weeks is perfectly within the bounds of justification of abortion for whatever the need of the woman involved is, and there are many, many justifiable reasons for it.
But don't try to bring it to the level of toenails, terrible reasoning IMO.

Annasopra

petalgumdrops wrote: »

The surprising thing is is that the government could have legistated for FFA years ago without repealing the 8th.

Have you some more information on this?

Annasopra

Nettle Soup wrote: »

I actually reckon nobody will take any notice or be swayed by any of the posters. This issue has been thrashed out so much that people know its way more complex than an 80s style poster.

These posters are not 80s style at all!

Madscientist30

amdublin wrote: »

petalgumdrops wrote: »

Because a poster implied unless I.was an illegal immigrant or a refugee that I had the choice to travel

I'm completely confused!

I'm assuming you did have the choice to travel.

Are you saying you didn't??

I understood that she was not in a (financial?) position to travel and that is why she is saying the 8th saved her baby, cause she would have had a termination in Ireland otherwise (though it is not clear whether she or the doctors would have rechecked before proceeding).

Triceratops Ballet

Petalgumdrops, I don't think anyone is trying to have a go at you, I think people are genuinely confused, I know I am.

You say the 8th saved your baby, which is fair enough and obviously the fact that your baby was born in good health is fantastic.
What is not clear is HOW the 8th saved your baby, it seems to me that good medicine and sound decision making saved your baby, those things exist independently of the 8th amendment so I can't see the link.

Madscientist30

petalgumdrops wrote: »

pjohnson wrote: »

Your posts have never explained how not?

Should every woman who acceses or doesn't access a termination need to give a litany of reasons. If I had accesed a termination would you be pressing me to justify.

The irony of advocing choice but needing an explanation on the grounds I couldn't travel.

I

I dont think people are demanding an explanation. Your reasoning/story is just a bit unclear and people are trying to understand what you mean when you say the 8th saved your baby.

horseburger

Ave Sodalis wrote: »

And I counter argued it, which has not been addressed.



On an Irish matter, he has the freedom to talk about it but I don't believe any foreign representative has any place to be talking at an official capacity.



We have gone over this in the last few pages.



This has been answerd for you repeatedly.



No, and I'm not sure where you got that idea. I just don't like when people ignore or don't actually answer questions directed at them. Something you are still doing.

You are pretty good at ignoring points yourself.

You state that Anthony Levatino, who, as a doctor, carried out abortions, is not in a position to speak in an official capacity, about the referendum.

Do you also argue that organisations that provide abortion services should not give opinions on current Irish laws on abortion?

I don't argue that people from outside Ireland shouldn't give opinions on Irish laws on abortion in an official capacity.

The organization BPAS has commented on Irish laws on abortion:

This item below, posted by the Abortion Rights Campaign in 2013, includes the following paragraphs:

"For many of our followers the BPAS notice was an act of solidarity with women in Ireland who have travelled, or who will be obliged to travel to one of their clinics to access abortion services. For other supporters BPAS were directly calling our Government to action, questioning it’s ability to care for women in Ireland by saying – ‘We’ll care for your women until your government does’.

"Those who hold opposing anti-choice views were naturally outraged by the BPAS Notice. They questioned its legality, given Ireland’s strict abortion laws, and in particular – those laws governing access to information on Abortion services. They demanded to know what gave BPAS the right to comment on Irish abortion laws? They declared that the only possible motive for BPAS’ involvement in the Irish abortion debate was financial gain".

"With regards the legality – the BPAS notice was perfectly legal. As the notice did not contain a phone number, an invitation to donate money or details about the services it provides – it is not what the Advertising Standards Authority for Ireland (ASAI) would class as an advertisement nor does it break any laws by providing information on abortion services".

"As to BPAS’ right to comment – many of the 4,000 women a year who travel to the UK to have an abortion do so in a BPAS clinic. BPAS are a registered charity in the UK which provides reproductive health services. These services include – contraception advice and vasectomy, pregnancy testing and counselling and abortion treatments. The staff in BPAS clinics meet women who have travelled from Ireland every day, and are thus uniquely positioned to comment on situation. They have an insight into the extra burden of stress travelling places on those coming from Ireland compared to the ‘normal’ stresses faced by those who access abortion services from within the UK".

"BPAS have stated publicly that they would prefer it if people in Ireland who want to access abortion services could do so in Ireland. They see the hardship travelling to the UK inflicts on those in their care and they hear first hand the extraordinary logistical difficulties people are required to navigate in order to travel. Be it accessing money; time off work or organising child-care – the stresses heaped on people in an already stressful situation are exacerbated by having to travel from Ireland . BPAS are also acutely aware that many will face difficulty accessing the follow up medical care they need".

https://www.abortionrightscampaign.ie/2013/11/15/bpas-serves-notice-to-the-irish-government/

The BPAS spokesperson, Dr Patricia Lohr Medical Director, who addressed the Oireachtas Committee and the Citizens' Assembly, in an official capacity, to detail the services provided by BPAS, is from neither Ireland or the UK. She is from America, as is Anthony Levatino.

Have you a problem with Dr Patricia Lohr being from America, speaking in an official capacity about British laws on abortion, where she detailed how Irish citizens avail of the BPAS services in Britain?

Would you have argued that she should not have addressed either the Citizens' Assembly on the Eight Amendment or the Oireachtas Committee on the Eight Amendment, on the basis that she was not from Britain or Ireland and she was speaking in an official capacity representing BPAS?

Here is the report prepared by Dr Patricia Lohr, BPAS Medical Director, that was submitted for consideration, to the Citizens' Assembly, dated 4th February 2017:

https://www.citizensassembly.ie/en/Meetings/Dr-Patricia-Lohr-Paper.pdf

https://www.citizensassembly.ie/en/Meetings/Dr-Patricia-Lohr-powerpoint.pdf

https://www.citizensassembly.ie/en/Meetings/Third-Meeting-of-the-Citizens-Assembly-on-the-Eighth-Amendment-of-the-Constitution.html

Here is her statement and presentation to the Oireachta Committee dated 22nd November 2017:

http://www.oireachtas.ie/viewdoc.asp?DocID=37332&&CatID=127&StartDate=01 January 2017&OrderAscending=0

https://media.heanet.ie/p/20171122+Joint+Committee+on+Eighth+Amendment+of+the+Constitution/HbnSmB

http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/Debates%20Authoring/DebatesWebPack.nsf/committeetakes/EAJ2017112200001?opendocument

http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/Debates%20Authoring/DebatesWebPack.nsf/committeetakes/EAJ2017112200002?opendocument#G00050

http://www.oireachtas.ie/parliament/media/committees/eighthamendmentoftheconstitution/Opening-Statement-by-Dr.-Patricia-Lohr,-British-Pregnancy-Advisory-Service(BPAS).pdf

https://beta.oireachtas.ie/en/debates/debate/joint_committee_on_the_eighth_amendment_of_the_constitution/2017-11-22/3/

petalgumdrops

amdublin wrote: »

Forgive me, did you want to travel?

As explained before after my CVS yes I did want to travel. Do I really need to keep saying this, are you equally pushing people for their reasons why they did/didnt travel.

petalgumdrops

petalgumdrops wrote: »

the crux of the issue for me is that at some point the unborn need to be protected(my opinion)
.

What do you mean by this though? Do you mean protection from terminations?
When do you feel the unborn should get the right to life?
I believe any viable premature baby that is born gets every medical treatment available.

Madscientist30

petalgumdrops wrote: »

NuMarvel wrote: »

I would suggest they properly research the aspect they are concerned about, especially with regard to the basis of that concern. I would also suggest they consider what practical difference their vote would make in relation to that concern, and also if there were other ways to address their concern.

What would you suggest?

I completely agree with you.

But some people will want or feel that the unborn should have some rights. Should they dismiss this because of the greater good.

My position is I support so much of repeal but the crux of the issue for me is that at some point the unborn need to be protected(my opinion)

Perhaps I feel the amendent has the potential to become too liberal as the politicians will have future decision making - that is a fact. Whether there is appetite for that is not really significant.

The unborn does get rights as it develops further and achieves sentience, the capacity to survive outside the womb etc. That is why late term abortions are banned in pretty much all jurisdictions except in very specific circumstances.

petalgumdrops

Conspectus wrote: »

Mod-horseburger, you have been answered several times. So either drop it or do not post in this thread again.

Could you apply this to all those asking me to justify why I could/ couldn't travel?

pjohnson

petalgumdrops wrote: »

Should every woman who acceses or doesn't access a termination need to give a litany of reasons. If I had accesed a termination would you be pressing me to justify.

The irony of advocing choice but needing an explanation on the grounds I couldn't travel.

I

It appears you are claiming you wanted an abortion but couldn't get one, and luckily the baby is ok (congratulations btw).

You seem then to be saying that the 8th prevented you from traveling? Which isn't something the 8th does......


If you want to keep the 8th fine but the reasoning you try to use is absent. YOU saved your baby. Not the 8th? Unless you think it is illegal for a pregnant person to travel?

petalgumdrops

Madscientist30 wrote: »

The unborn does get rights as it develops further and achieves sentience, the capacity to survive outside the womb etc. That is why late term abortions are banned in pretty much all jurisdictions except in very specific circumstances.

But the supreme court have said that ourside of the 8th they are unsure if there will be any protection for the unborn.

Triceratops Ballet

petalgumdrops wrote:

But the supreme court have said that ourside of the 8th they are unsure if there will be any protection for the unborn.

There was no explicit protection for the unborn prior to 1983 either though, and yet abortion was still illegal

Madscientist30

petalgumdrops wrote: »

Conspectus wrote: »

Mod-horseburger, you have been answered several times. So either drop it or do not post in this thread again.

Could you apply this to all those asking me to justify why I could/ couldn't travel?

Ah come on. People do not want to know why, as has already been posted above and you seem to have ignored. They are trying to figure out whether you couldnt or wouldnt travel, an important distinction with you declaring the 8th saved your baby.

NuMarvel

petalgumdrops wrote: »

But some people will want or feel that the unborn should have some rights. Should they dismiss this because of the greater good.

My position is I support so much of repeal but the crux of the issue for me is that at some point the unborn need to be protected(my opinion).

Perhaps I feel the amendent has the potential to become too liberal as the politicians will have future decision making - that is a fact. Whether there is appetite for that is not really significant.

In fairness, much of this has been addressed already, but I'll give it one last go.

The unborn will still have rights and protections. Those rights and protections will be set out in legislation. Legislation, not the constitution, is the appropriate place because the constitution isn't equipped to properly deal with complex matters. And balancing the rights of the unborn and the woman in a matter that spans ethical, medical, and legal boundaries is by any definition a complex matter.

Also, the political appetite for change is a significant factor, because otherwise we'd have to put ALL of our laws into the constitution. For example, I think we'd all agree that the age of consent is a pretty serious issue yet no one's ever even suggested we put it into the constitution to prevent politicians lowering it. Why? Because we know there is no desire for change. I see no reason why the rights of the unborn are any different.

And all of this has to be viewed in the context of international experience of when women have abortions. Because it's clear from countries like Britain and the Netherlands, countries that have limits well into the second trimester, the majority of women, more than 90%, still have abortions within the first 12 weeks. So even if politicians removed all limits, in practical terms there would be no difference. When women can access abortion early, they have abortions early.

But even if none of that convinces you, weigh it up against the consequence of a No vote. Women are still going to have abortions, most of them by traveling abroad. Those women will have abortions a little later than their British counterparts, because it takes longer to make all the necessary arrangements. So the No vote that you cast to prevent later abortions will actually end up being the cause of them.

Madscientist30

petalgumdrops wrote: »

Madscientist30 wrote: »

The unborn does get rights as it develops further and achieves sentience, the capacity to survive outside the womb etc. That is why late term abortions are banned in pretty much all jurisdictions except in very specific circumstances.

But the supreme court have said that ourside of the 8th they are unsure if there will be any protection for the unborn.

No constitutional protection, there will still be legislative protection under the POLDPA which will be the law governing abortion in Ireland until other legislation is introduced. That is the way it is in pretty much every other developed country in the world. What is your specific fear of what will happen once the 8th is gone, that makes you feel we need to keep the current farcical situation going?

Annasopra

professore wrote: »

I don't think anyone is suggesting to put the minutiae of it in the constitution. Just a position on the rights of the unborn child in relation to the mother - so no future governments can make abortion legal up to birth or ban it entirely. A guideline to prevent bad legislation.

For example - up to 12 weeks the fetus has no rights. A non viable fetus has no rights. The mother has the right to decide if they wish to abort this fetus. Something along those lines.

It was considered by Citizens Assembly. The advice given by constitutional.experts was that it was too complex and would end up tying the courts in knots again like the 8th.

NuMarvel

petalgumdrops wrote: »

But the supreme court have said that ourside of the 8th they are unsure if there will be any protection for the unborn.

Please quote the part of the court's judgement where they said this, please.

petalgumdrops

Triceratops Ballet wrote: »

Petalgumdrops, I don't think anyone is trying to have a go at you, I think people are genuinely confused, I know I am.

You say the 8th saved your baby, which is fair enough and obviously the fact that your baby was born in good health is fantastic.
What is not clear is HOW the 8th saved your baby, it seems to me that good medicine and sound decision making saved your baby, those things exist independently of the 8th amendment so I can't see the link.

By virtue of the fact termination was not available to me and my own personal circumstances meant I couldn't

But in terms of the birth, I have read arguments from prople how the 8th impacts on maternity care as a whole. Unwanted episoitomy, inductions, forced interventions. I can tell you 100% that I did not want the interventions I received but the 8th giving equal care to the mother and the unborn ensure that both my life and my sons was spared. Some people have referred to this as "good health care and responsible monitoring from my doctor" but I did not want the 3 gels I received, the forced breaking of my waters while I was 1cmthe two days I spent in labour I didn't want that BUT my placenta was not functioning (blood flow, baby losing weight) had I have said my body my choice and refused needed Intervention then my baby would have died.

I have no idea how close I came to losing him a nightmare pregnancy ,a nightmare birth but my baby at the point of induction needed to be born he needed to come had I have continued with the 5 weeks I had left in my pregnancy my son would not be here. So yes... affording equal right to life of the mother and the unborn means my baby is here. Nobody WANTS to go through a horrific childbirth experience but because of it I have him.

Annasopra

petalgumdrops wrote: »

Abortions under the 8th for FFA are not permissible. Think you are referring to when I said I would like an amendment to make separately to allow for them.

You just said that the government can legislate though

petalgumdrops

NuMarvel wrote: »

Please quote the part of the court's judgement where they said this, please.

https://www.google.ie/amp/s/www.irishtimes.com/opinion/supreme-court-has-given-us-a-clear-choice-in-abortion-referendum-1.3424134%3fmode=amp

ProfessorPlum

petalgumdrops wrote: »

https://www.google.ie/amp/s/www.irishtimes.com/opinion/supreme-court-has-given-us-a-clear-choice-in-abortion-referendum-1.3424134%3fmode=amp

William Binchy? Really??