The 8th Amendment Part 2 - Mod Warning in OP

petalgumdrops

lazygal wrote: »

That's what I said. No recommendations to terminate happen after harmony results. You're offered CVS or amniocentesis which is diagnostic and 100% conclusive.
How does the eighth save babies when I decided whether to travel based on tests I chose to have?

I didn't have a harmony test why would I have a screening test without any need to?

I had a CVS because of an anomaly scan(early at 12 weeks but a problem was dedicated) which on results termination was encouraged. I can only say this in so many ways. Do you insist on disputing this?


"For those who believe no proof is necessary. For those who don't no proof is sufficient"

Zubeneschamali

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??

The idea is that it is grand if a pregnancy leaves a woman a physical wreck as long as the result is a live baby, even one that has cerebral palsy, bilateral blindness, complete deafness and will require 24 hour care for its short life.

Because a baby's life, even 24 hours of life with serious handicaps, is worth crippling a woman, because who cares about her, not the Catholic Church, that's for sure.

These are the people we are dealing with.

lazygal

BabysCoffee wrote: »

I would never have thought that a London lab would ring a patient and tell them to terminate their pregnancy.

Thank God we have the 8th if this the carry on of London hospital labs.

My experience of having tests done in Ireland which were processed in the UK was that the results were sent to my consultant who advised me that further testing ie amniocentesis was required. No mention of termination at that stage. Just the % odds of a possible FFA. I never heard from the lab directly.

lazygal

petalgumdrops wrote: »

I didn't have a harmony test why would I have a screening test without any need to?

I had a CVS because of an anomaly scan(early at 12 weeks but a problem was dedicated) which on results termination was encouraged. I can only say this in so many ways. Do you insist on disputing this?g


"For those who believe no proof is necessary. For those who don't no proof is sufficient"

What UK lab called? What test results were they giving you?
Why an anatomy scan at 12 weeks? What problem meant you had a scan that either doesn't happen until 20 weeks or is done on your request or as part of testing such as the harmony test?

nozzferrahhtoo

volchitsa wrote: »

I posted here but now I can't see my post?

Happens me all the time alas. I now have a habit so ingrained that I do it without thinking.... which is I highlight the entire post and COPY it before I hit "submit reply". Then if it goes awry, I can paste it and try again.

Happens to me on average three times a week since I joined the site.

John DoeReMi

If the poster campaign in Dublin so far is anything to go by then the Repeal campaign have already lost the referendum. The anti - Repeal campaign have had their posters up for about a month now and of course they’re what you’d expect – simple, graphic no nonsense, fear-based messages claiming that repeal is a licence for wholesale baby murder. So far, so predictable. Only in the last fortnight have the pro - Repeal posters begun to appear. It’s bad enough that the pro-Repeal side were behind the ball in launching their campaign but the quality of the messages so far have been dreadful. The Labour party’s two posters – “For Compassion in a Crisis” and “For Women’s Health” are typical of the kind of bland, wishy washy, “let’s not offend anyone” approach common now in all establishment election and referendum campaigns. The worst I’ve seen so far though is the Together For Yes campaign poster – an awful yoke proclaiming “Sometimes a private matter needs public support”.

WTF ? I’m no idiot and I had to read that thing twice to make sense of it. This drivel was obviously dreamed up by some goateed chin stroking intellectual college students sitting in Starbucks over a few latte mochaccino’s along with their adoring doe eyed girlfriends. Does anyone in their right mind really think that this type of nonsense is going to win over floating/doubtful voters who haven’t decided yet?

Where are the graphic, hard hitting messages from the Yes side pointing out that it’s time we stopped forcing 5,000 women a year abroad? Where are the posters declaring that it could be YOUR daughter, girlfriend, sister or mother who might be forced into this awful journey? Where are the posters asking WHY WOULD YOU FORCE A RAPE VICTIM TO BEAR HIS CHILD? When are we going to learn that the “nicey, nicey” approach doesn’t work when you’re up against the religious right?

volchitsa

petalgumdrops wrote: »

lazygal wrote: »

That's what I said. No recommendations to terminate happen after harmony results. You're offered CVS or amniocentesis which is diagnostic and 100% conclusive.
How does the eighth save babies when I decided whether to travel based on tests I chose to have?

I didn't have a harmony test why would I have a screening test without any need to?

I had a CVS because of an anomaly scan(early at 12 weeks but a problem was dedicated)  which on results termination was encouraged. I can only say this in so many ways. Do you insist on disputing this?


"For those who believe no proof is necessary. For those who don't no proof is sufficient"

See here's the thing (one of them anyway), you seem to be claiming that you were in direct contact with a London lab that advised you differently from your own doctor in Dublin. Are you really saying that a lab technician told you to terminate your pregnancy, or do you mean you contacted a doctor in the UK after (or before??) the doctors in Ireland gave you this diagnosis, and if so, did the UK doctors really advise you to terminate without a consultation and before a placenta mosaic had been ruled out?
That's not been my experience of antenatal testing.

Ken.

Mod-I can see deleted posts and I can confirm that only 2 posts have been deleted in the last 36 hours and both were by the posters who posted them. Neither is a post by volchitsa.

volchitsa

Sorry not sure what the issue is, I didn't say it was deletd, I just couldnt see my post -  the "last post" showed up as me posting at (I think) 6:42 but every time I clicked into the thread, I could only see posts from before that time. As if the thread wasn't updating.
It did apêar in the end, about 15 minutes later. No idea what was happening.

volchitsa

(I also can't edit, since we're discussing technical issues now! I can click on edit but it doesnt open.

Zubeneschamali

John DoeReMi wrote: »

Where are the graphic, hard hitting messages from the Yes side

When the debate is calm and fact-based, as at the Citizens Assembly, Repeal wins by a mile. Let Youth defense do the shock tactics - my wife would not be a militant pro-choicer, but I have seen her physically recoil from some of those Join the Rebellion posters.

Let's leave the graphic, hard hitting messages to the mad people.

Ken.

volchitsa wrote: »

(I also can't edit, since we're discussing technical issues now! I can click on edit but it doesnt open.

You need to take that to the help desk. https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/forumdisplay.php?f=30

A couple of things.

If you are using an old skin it could be the problem.
If your using the new responsive sh!te that could be the problem.
On editing, if the post is older than 48 hours you can't edit it.

lazygal

volchitsa wrote: »

See here's the thing (one of them anyway), you seem to be claiming that you were in direct contact with a London lab that advised you differently from your own doctor in Dublin. Are you really saying that a lab technician told you to terminate your pregnancy, or do you mean you contacted a doctor in the UK after (or before??) the doctors in Ireland gave you this diagnosis, and if so, did the UK doctors really advise you to terminate without a consultation and before a placenta mosaic had been ruled out?
That's not been my experience of antenatal testing.

Mine neither. And neither is it that of anyone I know.

wheresmahbombs

I believe that the 8th Amendment should be repealed.

People favour choice as to if they should continue pregnancy or abort it. Some women may have made the wrong decision to give birth and thus may want to abort their pregnancy.

It's understandable why people are against repealing the 8th Amendment, but freedom of choice ultimately wins out in this scenario.

I don't want Ireland having a Malta situation where abortion is outright banned under all circumstances.

horseburger

JDD wrote: »

Hi Robert KK and horse-burger. I’ve posted the below question before to pro-lifers on this thread, to Bertieinexile and pleas advise. Bertieinexile has neglected to answer (even though he/she said they were trying to get the time to answer in between posting other detailed posts). Pleas advise said the he/she would be happy for me to import the termination pill and was against me being criminalized for it - but was still going to vote no.

I’d appreciate your honest view. Please don’t make me constantly check your profiles to see if you’ve posted elsewhere while completely ignoring my question.

Previous post:

During my last pregnancy it was suspected I had placenta accretia (google it). Very luckily, in the end, I did not. However, I was informed that should I get pregnant again, I would have a 70% chance of it occurring.

Statistics on placenta accretia are hard to come by as it is historically a rare complication latterly on the rise. From my own research and from the discussions with my consultant I was told the condition has a 7% mortality rate, a 30% chance of permanent injury to my non-uterus internal organs and an 80% chance I would lose my uterus.

As a result I had a tubal ligation. But no contraceptive is a fail safe. What do YOU advise as my current course of action:

A. Refrain from having sex with my husband until go through the menopause;

B. Have sex with my husband but, should my contraception fail, accept that I would have a 1 in 20 chance of dying, and a 1 in 5 chance of suffering a serious life debititating injury should I bring the pregnancy to full term.

Bear in mind that I have three young children who would be left without a mother if the 1 in 20 chance came to pass.

Your beliefs mean my choice has to be A or B.

I think the procedure of abortion should be available to you, as you have outlined that if you become pregnant that it could result in a risk to your life.

You have mentioned that abortion is not legally available to you in Ireland, due to it being a 1 in 20 chance, and not higher than that.

I think that if there is a risk to your life, and you have outlined that there is a risk, that it should be available to you.

Perhaps because abortion in the case of a risk to life of the mother is accepted in Ireland in different cases, that it should also be available in your case?

On the issue of abortion in cases of a risk to suicide, I am wondering, is it very hard for psychiatrists and physicians to confirm with certainty, that a suicide would be carried out, if a pregnant woman presents to doctors stating that she is suicidal?

Do psychiatrists and physicians err on the side of caution by permitting the abortion procedure in the case of a risk of suicide, in order to reduce the risk of a suicide, if there was refusal to permit an abortion.

If there are cases where psychiatrists and physicians erred on the side of caution in the case of a possibility of suicide, then perhaps the argument could be made for the procedure to be available for your circumstance, where you have stated that currently, because the risk to life is a lower statistic, that the option of abortion is not available to you?

Could a guideline of erring on the side of caution could be made in your case, due to the risk to your life upon becoming pregnant?

Here is an item by Kitty Holland in The Irish Times, and two item in the Irish Independent by Shane Phelan, about a case where abortion was refused, in a case of a girl who presented as suicidal.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/girl-sectioned-after-psychiatrist-ruled-out-abortion-1.3116111

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/now-suicidal-pregnant-women-in-fear-of-detention-35819886.html

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/girls-case-leaves-many-unanswered-questions-35819887.html

Here is an item in the Journal, about a 2015 Department of Health Report, stating that three abortions were carried out in 2014, relating to the risk of suicide. It states in the report that there were nine cases of a risk to suicide, and that three abortions were carried out:

http://www.thejournal.ie/abortions-ireland-26-2188298-Jun2015/

http://health.gov.ie/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/annual-report-2014-Protection-of-Life-During-Pregnancy1.pdf

This item cites arguments for and against permitting abortion where there is a stated risk of suicide:

http://www.irishhealth.com/article.html?id=22130

This item, by Patricia Casey suggests that there is a possibility that psychiatrists might use caution and grant approval for abortion.

She wrote that "Moreover when a woman insists she is suicidal and the doctors disagree, they may nevertheless acquiesce in granting an abortion so as to err on the side of caution".

If it could be shown that caution is considered in the case of a risk of suicide and procedures granted approval, could the argument then be made - even though your circumstance is a 1 in 20 risk - that, in order to be cautious about the risk to your life, that it if you sought an abortion, could it be permitted on grounds of caution?

https://www.oireachtas.ie/parliament/media/committees/healthandchildren/PatriciaCaseySubmission.pdf

Ave Sodalis

horseburger wrote: »

You are pretty good at ignoring points yourself.

What point did I ignore?

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.

Yes exactly

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

They can have whatever opinions they want. Just not as a side on the referendum

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

Good for you? I didn't say they couldn't have opinions. In fact, I specifically said they had a freedom of speech. Just not on an official level on a referendum that has nothing to do with their country.

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:


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?

Yes actually, I do.

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?

Actually, no. I don't believe she should.


Now, can you please answer the rest of my questions? Nice pulling it off topic in order not to answer by the way

Madscientist30

horseburger wrote: »

Triceratops Ballet wrote: »

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

Yes but if the argument is on the contention that the unborn are burdensome, are born children not also burdensome, in terms of the way raising children affects the daily routine and financial circumstances of the people who care for them?

Yes, children are hard work. That is why children should generally be wanted, loved and welcomed into the world. To me that is a basic human need we all have. If you are in early pregnancy and not in a position to provide that to a child then what is forcing the situation going to achieve except misery and suffering?

John DoeReMi

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

When the debate is calm and fact-based, as at the Citizens Assembly, Repeal wins by a mile. Let Youth defense do the shock tactics - my wife would not be a militant pro-choicer, but I have seen her physically recoil from some of those Join the Rebellion posters.

Let's leave the graphic, hard hitting messages to the mad people.

That's all very well in the cloistered environment of the Citizen's Assembly, but that's not where the referendum will be won or lost. That'll be in conservative rural areas where the anti-repeal "shock, horror" messages will have the most impact. I don't see why pointing out the hard facts of why we need to repeal the referendum is sinking to Youth Defence level. Tip toeing around the issue is only going to hand victory to the anti - repeal side. Have we learned nothing from the previous campaigns - not to mention the Brexit and Trump horror shows?

horseburger

Ave Sodalis wrote: »

What point did I ignore?



Yes exactly


They can have whatever opinions they want. Just not as a side on the referendum



Good for you? I didn't say they couldn't have opinions. In fact, I specifically said they had a freedom of speech. Just not on an official level on a referendum that has nothing to do with their country.






Yes actually, I do.



Actually, no. I don't believe she should.


Now, can you please answer the rest of my questions? Nice pulling it off topic in order not to answer by the way

So you don't think those views with concern about abortion should address the Oireachtas Committee and Citizens' Assembly, but a group advocating abortion should?

The organization BPAS has commented on Irish laws on abortion.

I included an item that showed that BPAS has criticized the Irish Government, in 2013 with regard to laws on abortion, so it has given an opinion on the question of abortion being made available in Ireland. You can well assume that BPAS would advocate a yes vote in the referendum.

It has a website www.abortion.ie. Why would it register with a .ie web address if it wasn't interested in advocating on the issue of abortion being made available in Ireland?

BPAS isn't as neutral as you are suggesting.

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

captbarnacles

kylith wrote: »

I think I got it. PGD got a horrible diagnosis. Some bloods were sent to England who said on the basis of those results they would recommend abortion. A doctor in Crumlin said ‘hang on a bit; we’ll do an amnio’, at which point the diagnosis was overturned (hoorah!). Not that it actually mattered either way because PGD wouldn’t have been travelling even if the original diagnosis held. Therefore the 8th saved her baby because she wouldn’t have bothered with the amnio if she’d had the means to travel.

ETA: if it weren’t for the 8th she’d have refused the early induction necessary to save the baby.

Yeah?

Thought I had it but nope still confused. How was the 8th a positive thing here?

Ave Sodalis

horseburger wrote: »

So you don't think those views with concern about abortion should address the Oireachtas Committee and Citizens' Assembly, but a group advocating abortion should?

I included an item that showed that BPAS has criticized the Irish Government, in 2013 with regard to laws on abortion, so it has given an opinion on the question of abortion being made available in Ireland. You can assume that BPAS would advocate a yes vote in the referendum.

I said the complete opposite. I said nobody outside of the country should be meddling in the referendum of that country, unless they can bring something to the table that nobody in the country can. They are perfectly allowed to have and state their opinions but I don't believe those opinions should have anything to do with a referendum at an official level.

How on earth did you come to the conclusion you did?

lazygal

captbarnacles wrote: »

Thought I had it but nope still confused. How was the 8th a positive thing here?

I don't understand why a doctor in Crumlim got involved. All Dublin maternity hospitals have experts in foetal medicine who are involved in cases where possible or probable abnormalities are identified.
And the eighth amendment saves no babies, FFA or otherwise. My decisions regarding my babies were what "saved" them.

horseburger

Ave Sodalis wrote: »

I said the complete opposite. I said nobody outside of the country should be meddling in the referendum of that country, unless they can bring something to the table that nobody in the country can. They are perfectly allowed to have and state their opinions but I don't believe those opinions should have anything to do with a referendum at an official level.

How on earth did you come to the conclusion you did?

How can you state that BPAS has not stated anything regarding advocating for the provision of abortion services in Ireland.

It criticized the Irish government in 2013.

It recently registered the www.abortion.ie web address.

You seem to be now suggesting that BPAS can provide abortion services in Ireland, that doctors here would be unable to provide, if there is a yes vote.

BPAS criticized the Irish government in 2013 regarding abortion provision in Ireland.

Is that not getting involved in the debate?

This item is titled BPAS serves notice to the Irish Government

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

Ave Sodalis

horseburger wrote: »

How can you state that BPAS has not stated anything regarding advocating for the provision of abortion services in Ireland.

It criticized the Irish government in 2013.

It recently registered the abortion.ie web address.

You seem to be now suggesting that BPAS can provide abortion services in Ireland, that doctors here would be unable to provide, if there is a yes vote.

BPAS criticized the Irish government in 2013 regarding abortion provision in Ireland.

Is that not getting involved in the debate?

This item is titled BPAS serves notice to the Irish Government

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

What?! I didn't even say that!


Okay, well, I'm going to stop replying to you now. You haven't answered a single question given to you, you jump around the topic like a madman to try and avoid anything you don't want to answer, a mod had to tell you to cut out the other crap you were at, and now your tactic is to completely and utterly (and it wouldn't surprise me in the slightest if it was purposely) misread posts.

If another poster wants to answer you, good luck to them.

volchitsa

horseburger wrote: »

Ave Sodalis wrote: »

I said the complete opposite. I said nobody outside of the country should be meddling in the referendum of that country, unless they can bring something to the table that nobody in the country can. They are perfectly allowed to have and state their opinions but I don't believe those opinions should have anything to do with a referendum at an official level.

How on earth did you come to the conclusion you did?

How can you state that BPAS has not stated anything regarding advocating for the provision of abortion services in Ireland.

It criticized the Irish government in 2013.

It recently registered the abortion.ie web address.

You seem to be now suggesting that BPAS can provide abortion services in Ireland, that doctors here would be unable to provide, if there is a yes vote.

BPAS criticized the Irish government in 2013 regarding abortion provision in Ireland.

Is that not getting involved in the debate?

This item is titled BPAS serves notice to the Irish Government

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

I think BPAS and thr NHS etc are in a very different position from a random American though, no matter how many abortions he himself has carried out - they ar after all providing a health service that I have heard (and read on here) prolifers use as an explanation for why the law in Ireland doesnt need to change!

lazygal

A service thousands living in Ireland use every year.

robarmstrong

Hi horseburger,

Do you feel a woman should be forced to contend with an unwanted pregnancy to satisfy your personal beliefs/morals?
If your answer is yes:

Do you feel that a woman who has fallen pregnant due to rape should be forced to continue that pregnancy to satisfy the personal beliefs/opinions/morals of those against abortion?
If your answer is yes:

Women travel abroad for abortion every year in Ireland, because of the 8th, these women will not receive proper aftercare and support after the abortion is performed and will have to travel back home and pretty much carry on with their lives. Would you not prefer that if they absolutely HAD to have an abortion, it would be a lot safer in their own country, so they may receive the appropriate aftercare and support that would be required?

The Legend Of Kira

John DoeReMi wrote: »

If the poster campaign in Dublin so far is anything to go by then the Repeal campaign have already lost the referendum. The anti - Repeal campaign have had their posters up for about a month now and of course they’re what you’d expect – simple, graphic no nonsense, fear-based messages claiming that repeal is a licence for wholesale baby murder. So far, so predictable. Only in the last fortnight have the pro - Repeal posters begun to appear. It’s bad enough that the pro-Repeal side were behind the ball in launching their campaign but the quality of the messages so far have been dreadful. The Labour party’s two posters – “For Compassion in a Crisis” and “For Women’s Health” are typical of the kind of bland, wishy washy, “let’s not offend anyone” approach common now in all establishment election and referendum campaigns. The worst I’ve seen so far though is the Together For Yes campaign poster – an awful yoke proclaiming “Sometimes a private matter needs public support”.

WTF ? I’m no idiot and I had to read that thing twice to make sense of it. This drivel was obviously dreamed up by some goateed chin stroking intellectual college students sitting in Starbucks over a few latte mochaccino’s along with their adoring doe eyed girlfriends. Does anyone in their right mind really think that this type of nonsense is going to win over floating/doubtful voters who haven’t decided yet?

Where are the graphic, hard hitting messages from the Yes side pointing out that it’s time we stopped forcing 5,000 women a year abroad? Where are the posters declaring that it could be YOUR daughter, girlfriend, sister or mother who might be forced into this awful journey? Where are the posters asking WHY WOULD YOU FORCE A RAPE VICTIM TO BEAR HIS CHILD? When are we going to learn that the “nicey, nicey” approach doesn’t woiork when you’re up against the religious right?

You are right in your analysis,, the yes posters are very kinda soft compared to the no posters- & just incase anyone asks me no Im not referring to any graphic imagery or anything, for example take this new no poster, its hard hitting blunt & getting right to the point a lot better compared with the soft approach of the yes posters.

kylith

captbarnacles wrote: »

Thought I had it but nope still confused. How was the 8th a positive thing here?

Not a clue.

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.