The 8th Amendment Part 2 - Mod Warning in OP

pitifulgod

petalgumdrops wrote: »

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.

There are plenty that haven't had a pleasant outcome as well as a result of the 8th. Basically you support prevent choice because of your circumstance. Thousands of women are currently being driven out of the country because of the current legal status. The experience is scarring and shaming as a result.

petalgumdrops

ProfessorPlum wrote: »

William Binchy? Really??

Lawyers for choice also told me this but the message they sent me was shot down and accused of spreading fear. That's the problem wirh pro life and pro choice cannot see the argument of the middleman

NuMarvel

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

That's not the court's judgement, that's an opinion piece by one of the No side's lawyers. One, by the way, has a history of being wrong when it comes to the effects of the 8th. I really hope that's not the legal source you're relying on!

ProfessorPlum

petalgumdrops wrote: »

Lawyers for choice also told me this but the message they sent me was shot down and accused of spreading fear. That's the problem wirh pro life and pro choice cannot see the argument of the middleman

To be fair, William binchy is hardly the middleman! He is also responsible in a large part for the 8th amendment - and it didn’t do what he had intended it to!

The Supreme Court said that the rights of the unborn that were written in the constitution were confined to the 8th amendment, and didn’t include the rights that are attributed to the child.
This is IMO a good thing, be cause had they ruled another way, it potentially could have implied that s foetus had more rights than a pregnant woman.
It’s also worth remembering that most of the rights that you and I have are not written in the constitution at all - they are inferred, written in legislation, or come from the courts through case law.

Given the government proposal that terminations of viable pregnancies would be achieved by early delivery, and the fact that this is also echoed in the POLDPA, I don’t think there is much to fear from the idea that we will be legalising abortion up to 40 weeks.
In any case, in countries with no term limits, abortion rates are much the same as in countries with strict term limits, so even if we somehow did legislate in that way, which to be clear I think is far beyond the realms of possibility, there’s no reason to think we would actually see many late term abortions.

ProfessorPlum

petalgumdrops wrote: »

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.

It’s not really any of my business, so don’t feel you need to answer.

But do you really mean that if the 8th wasn’t in place, you would have let your son die rather than agreed to an early induction?

NuMarvel

petalgumdrops wrote: »

Lawyers for choice also told me this but the message they sent me was shot down and accused of spreading fear. That's the problem wirh pro life and pro choice cannot see the argument of the middleman

It was shot down because you provided no verifiable source to back it up, and it contradicted what they have said in public. And Binchy is by no means a "middleman".

Here's a letter from members of Lawyers For Choice, amongst others, published in the Irish Times on the matter. Here's the relevant part that contradicts what you've said (emphasis added):

Last month, in the MM case, the Supreme Court confirmed that, before birth, the foetus does not enjoy any constitutional rights other than the right to life under the Eighth Amendment. This does not mean that, if the referendum passes in May, the Constitution would prevent the Oireachtas from legislating to protect foetal life before birth. Irish law already makes this clear. Rights are not the only constitutional tools for protecting important societal values. In 2009, in Roche v Roche, the Supreme Court held that embryos created by the IVF treatment process did not enjoy constitutional rights but are entitled to respect. In MM itself the Court said that the State is entitled, through legislation, to give effect to the respect that is due to foetal life as a dimension of the common good.

petalgumdrops

ProfessorPlum wrote: »

To be fair, William binchy is hardly the middleman! He is also responsible in a large part for the 8th amendment - and it didn’t do what he had intended it to!

The Supreme Court said that the rights of the unborn that were written in the constitution were confined to the 8th amendment, and didn’t include the rights that are attributed to the child.
This is IMO a good thing, be cause had they ruled another way, it potentially could have implied that s foetus had more rights than a pregnant woman.
It’s also worth remembering that most of the rights that you and I have are not written in the constitution at all - they are inferred, written in legislation, or come from the courts through case law.

Given the government proposal that terminations of viable pregnancies would be achieved by early delivery, and the fact that this is also echoed in the POLDPA, I don’t think there is much to fear from the idea that we will be legalising abortion up to 40 weeks.
In any case, in countries with no term limits, abortion rates are much the same as in countries with strict term limits, so even if we somehow did legislate in that way, which to be clear I think is far beyond the realms of possibility, there’s no reason to think we would actually see many late term abortions.

But what if 15 or 18weeks as choice is too liberal for some. The middleman being the voter like myself that supports unrestricted to 12 weeks, unrestricted for health grounds and ffa but my conscience would say that at a point the rights of the unborn must transcend choice. Why is that wrong? Wht is that not a valid reason for having concerns about repeal. We will never vote on this again.

volchitsa

petalgumdrops wrote: »

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.

The problem is that you aren't being clear how the 8th did all that - are you really saying that if you had been somewhere that abortion was available you would have refused interventions to save you son's life? I genuinely cannot understand what you mean.
 I have given birth in a country where abortion is available and I don't see how that makes any of the things you describe more or less likely?

pjohnson

petalgumdrops wrote: »

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.

This still has nothing to do with the 8th amendment?

petalgumdrops

NuMarvel wrote: »

It was shot down because you provided no verifiable source to back it up, and it contradicted what they have said in public. And Binchy is by no means a "middleman".

Here's a letter from members of Lawyers For Choice, amongst others, published in the Irish Times on the matter. Here's the relevant part that contradicts what you've said (emphasis added):

Screenshot from lawyers for choice attached

Triceratops Ballet

petalgumdrops wrote:

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.

petalgumdrops wrote:

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.

Thanks, your reasoning re the 8th saving your baby is clearer now.

I don't agree but I can see where you're coming from.

Every woman is different though, and I don't think you can argue the 8th is necessary based on very specific personal circumstances.
You don't have to answer this but, do you think that if you had objected to those procedures, that the doctors would just have upped and washed their hands and left your baby to die?
8th amendment or no it's their job to get mother and baby through labour, if they have a treatment plan and you object, they will come up with something else or counsel you on why it's the best course of action, they don't only do their best to save babies lives because they're constitutionally required to they do it because it's their job.
The 8th won't be repealed one day and doctors just stop giving a sh1t if babies live or die

Simi

petalgumdrops wrote: »

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.

Right so you believe that your inability to consent to or refuse treatment as a result of the eight amendment helped ensure your baby was successfully delivered and that if the eight was not in place, you would have refused to listen to doctors advice and your baby would have died as a result? So in effect taking away your rights was a good thing, and that is how the eight helped your pregnancy?

It's a unique argument I'll give you that. However I disagree with your assessment that the eight helped your pregnancy. It's impossible to determine if your pregnancy would have proceeded any differently had the eight amendment not existed. Nothing you've highlighted would suggest to me that your pregnancy wouldn't have ended in the way it did.

I seriously doubt you would have said my body, my choice and refused treatment, as you are arguing on an internet forum to retain an amendment that prevents others from having any choice no matter the circumstances.

Your experience is your own, nobody else will have the same one. You cannot extrapolate what happened to you and apply it to every other crisis pregnancy. Every pregnancy is unique, with different circumstances and different outcomes. You can't say, oh it worked out for me, ergo it will work out fine for everybody else, when there are literally hundreds of women sharing stories of how the eight negatively impacted their pregnancies.

ProfessorPlum

petalgumdrops wrote: »

But what if 15 or 18weeks as choice is too liberal for some. The middleman being the voter like myself that supports unrestricted to 12 weeks, unrestricted for health grounds and ffa but my conscience would say that at a point the rights of the unborn must transcend choice. Why is that wrong? Wht is that not a valid reason for having concerns about repeal. We will never vote on this again.

It’s not wrong. And it is absolutely a valid stance to have and a valid reason for concerns about what legislation might look like after repeal.

I would look at it again in terms of weighting up both sides.
Do you think the rights that you support - unrestricted to 12 weeks, FFA, and on health grounds are important.
Would you be willing to sacrifice those rights on the grounds that we might legislate in the future for unrestricted up to 15 or 18 weeks?

That’s what it boils down to really. It’s your choice for you to decide.

NuMarvel

petalgumdrops wrote: »

Screenshot from lawyers for choice attached

Then you should clarify with them why there seems to be a difference between what they've told you and what they've said publicly. Because it's clear from their blogs, tweets, and letters, that the assertion that the unborn can have no rights after repeal is untrue, and the belief that repeal creates a legal vacuum is incorrect.

petalgumdrops

Triceratops Ballet wrote: »

Thanks, your reasoning re the 8th saving your baby is clearer now.
.
You don't have to answer this but, do you think that if you had objected to those procedures, that the doctors would just have upped and washed their hands and left your baby to die? )

Thank you for at least trying to see my point if view.

I think in terms of the Q you asked I have no doubt that no matter what my personal choice was at that moment the doctors would have intervened to save my baby.

This has been citied by pro choice tho as taking away bodily autonomy. I didn't agree what they personally did in my situation but it was for the right reasons. Forced inductions etc cited as an effect of the 8th. I see from your point perhaps you think that at time doctors need to do what is necessary?

I'm not trying to argue with anyone so please respect my personal experience was mine and not that I mean nobody should have access. The unborn need protecting in labour and delivery as well as the mother but also past a certain point of pregnancy

volchitsa

It's absolute nonsense to think that without the 8th a woman who is having a difficult birth will just decide she has had enough and won't be talked through it by caring midwives - IME (and I have given birth several times) the mistake you are making is in thinking that the cruelty that a lot of my firends have experienced in Irish maternity ward is usual elsewhere.

When you feel you can't take any more, midwives and nurses don't just tell you to buck up, they are caring and kind, and help you through  it. It's actually terribly offensive to the staff who cared for me during my births to suggest that if I'd said I'd had enough they would have just killed the baby.

petalgumdrops

pjohnson wrote: »

This still has nothing to do with the 8th amendment?

Really? Why sre women citing medically forced interventions as an affect of the 8th then?????

Triceratops Ballet

Because they are, do you remember the case of the woman keep on life support against her families wishes, that's a medically forced intervention to save the life of the unborn caused by the 8th amendment

I think you're conflating forced and necessary, counselling a patient to see the medical need for the intervention and them agreeing or offering an alternative is different to not asking or telling them and proceeding anyway

horseburger

PhoenixParker wrote: »

Because unlike the child, woman or man, it cannot survive without being attached to another human being. That human being has the right to decide what they do with their body.

A new born child can't survive without being dependent on its parents, or if not its parents, then the care of at least one other person.

If the argument is that because of the dependency on the mother while pregnant, that it is ok to end the life, why not argue that the life of a newborn child should be ended, on the basis of its dependency on others?

It wouldn't be able to survive, without at least one person providing care, ensuring its survival.

petalgumdrops

volchitsa wrote: »

It's absolute nonsense to think that without the 8th a woman who is having a difficult birth will just decide she has had enough and won't be talked through it by caring midwives - IME (and I have given birth several times) the mistake you are making is in thinking that the cruelty that a lot of my firends have experienced in Irish maternity ward is usual elsewhere.

When you feel you can't take any more, midwives and nurses don't just tell you to buck up, they are caring and kind, and help you through  it. It's actually terribly offensive to the staff who cared for me during my births to suggest that if I'd said I'd had enough they would have just killed the baby.

In ireland they wouldnt do that but if you read my experience. In London where abortion is more prominent I was told in my circumstance to abort. That I could try again,.why continue to wait on an amnio to confirm.the same as a CVS. My point is medical professionals have an impact on our decision making. Both doctors in England encouraged termination and didn't consider the other options. Crumlin didnt mention termination once. This has an.impact whether you choose to believe that or not. Influences are everywhere.

Triceratops Ballet

horseburger wrote:

It wouldn't be able to survive, without at least one person providing care, ensuring its survival.

That person providing the care can be anyone who (obviously subject to approval) volunteers to. In the case of a pregnancy there can be no transfer of responsibility, it the unborn are entirely dependent on a specific person, its a massively invasive undertaking to force on someone who does not want it

volchitsa

Triceratops Ballet wrote: »

Because they are, do you remember the case of the woman keep on life support against her families wishes, that's a medically forced intervention to save the life of the unborn caused by the 8th amendment

I think you're conflating forced and necessary, counselling a patient to see the medical need for the intervention and them agreeing or offering an alternative is different to not asking or telling them and proceeding anyway

Yes this, exactly - nobody who is giving birth just jacks it all in and says "Nah just kill it" - and that is what petalgd is actually suggesting she would have done had the 8th hadn't stopped her. But it's just not true. And very offensive to other women - as though they need to be stopped from killing their baby because birth is tough. We know birth is tough. That's why pregnancy needs to be volunary, not enforced.

Sofiztikated

horseburger wrote: »

A new born child can't survive without being dependent on its parents, or if not its parents, then the care of at least one other person.

If the argument is that because of the dependency on the mother while pregnant, that it is ok to end the life, why not argue that the life of a newborn child should be ended, on the basis of its dependency on others?

It wouldn't be able to survive, without at least one person providing care, ensuring its survival.

Because someone can choose to take care of the child.

robarmstrong

horseburger wrote: »

A new born child can't survive without being dependent on its parents, or if not its parents, then the care of at least one other person.

If the argument is that because of the dependency on the mother while pregnant, that it is ok to end the life, why not argue that the life of a newborn child should be ended, on the basis of its dependency on others?

It wouldn't be able to survive, without at least one person providing care, ensuring its survival.

Because the new born child is in fact, born, whereas the 12 week fetus, is not born.

One is a born, existing citizen with a PPS number already assigned to them (done at 24 weeks also due to stillborn register), the other is a 12 week developing fetus, I'll go for awarding the actual born, existing individual rights or priority over the "person-in-making".

It is absolutely ludicrous that an adult woman's life is equated by that of a 12 week fetus.

volchitsa

petalgumdrops wrote: »

volchitsa wrote: »

It's absolute nonsense to think that without the 8th a woman who is having a difficult birth will just decide she has had enough and won't be talked through it by caring midwives - IME (and I have given birth several times) the mistake you are making is in thinking that the cruelty that a lot of my firends have experienced in Irish maternity ward is usual elsewhere.

When you feel you can't take any more, midwives and nurses don't just tell you to buck up, they are caring and kind, and help you through  it. It's actually terribly offensive to the staff who cared for me during my births to suggest that if I'd said I'd had enough they would have just killed the baby.

In ireland they wouldnt do that but if you read my experience. In London where abortion is more prominent I was told in my circumstance to abort. That I could try again,.why continue to wait on an amnio to confirm.the same as a CVS. My point is medical professionals have an impact on our decision making. Both doctors in England encouraged termination and didn't consider the other options. Crumlin didnt mention termination once. This has an.impact whether you choose to believe that or not. Influences are everywhere.

That's a different thing from saying because your birth was difficult you might have refused the various interventions that were judged necessary even knowing that your baby would die because of that. Thats a really strange thing to say, and I don't believe it.

As for terminating because you were told the baby had a major issue, TBH that is your own choice, nobody else's, and if you were careless enough to terminate without being 100% sure, I really don't think a law would make you a better mother.

ProfessorPlum

petalgumdrops wrote: »

In ireland they wouldnt do that but if you read my experience. In London where abortion is more prominent I was told in my circumstance to abort. That I could try again,.why continue to wait on an amnio to confirm.the same as a CVS. My point is medical professionals have an impact on our decision making. Both doctors in England encouraged termination and didn't consider the other options. Crumlin didnt mention termination once. This has an.impact whether you choose to believe that or not. Influences are everywhere.

Ah now I’m confused! So you were in London at the time of the CVS diagnosis. And you were encouraged to have an abortion.
But you didn’t.
Because of the 8th.
Have I got that right now?

pjohnson

petalgumdrops wrote: »

In ireland they wouldnt do that but if you read my experience. In London where abortion is more prominent I was told in my circumstance to abort. That I could try again,.why continue to wait on an amnio to confirm.the same as a CVS. My point is medical professionals have an impact on our decision making. Both doctors in England encouraged termination and didn't consider the other options. Crumlin didnt mention termination once. This has an.impact whether you choose to believe that or not. Influences are everywhere.

So you did travel now?

volchitsa

By the way, how did the hospitals in England advise termination if you were still with Crumlin? They hadn't seen you, right?

volchitsa

(Can't edit here, sorry about the multipleposts)
What "other options" did Crumlin offer? Presumably the same as the hosptals in England, only they assumed that since you were contacting them, you weren't happy with Crumlin's "stay pregnat" option?

Seems tough to blame them for offering you the one option they knew Crumlin couldnt offer you? Wasn't that why you were contacting them, after all?

amdublin

I have no clue what's going on. You've told half a story and don't want to fill in the gaps.

You specifically don't want to talk about why you didn't travel. But suddenly you're in London.

No clue