The 8th Amendment Part 2 - Mod Warning in OP

Sofiztikated

pleas advice wrote: »

if you click on the little arrow in the quoted post, you can read the context of the post i was replying to

I know the context, I just don't see what the relevance the it has to Repealing the 8th.

horseburger

Edward M wrote: »

^^^^^^^, that's nearly as long as the new testament.

Unless I have included around 184,600 words, I don't think it is nearly as long.

https://wordcounter.net/blog/2016/02/21/101241_how-many-pages-are-there-in-the-bible.html

"The Old Testament has 929 chapters. It has 23,214 verses which comprise roughly 622,700 words. The New Testament consists of 260 chapters, divided into 7,959 verses or roughly 184,600 words. This would give our typical bible 1,189 chapters. These are made up of 31,173 verses and using a rough word count, this amounts to 807,370 words, although the King James Authorized Bible has 783,137 words."

pleas advice

Sofiztikated wrote: »

I know the context, I just don't see what the relevance the it has to Repealing the 8th.

I'll leave that for robarmstrong to answer so

Sofiztikated

pleas advice wrote: »

I'll leave that for robarmstrong to answer so

So, none then.

Grand.

gctest50

horseburger wrote: »

Indeed I do, but I also realise that the Irish Times limits us to 10 articles a week without subscription, and that very often, if we have reached our 10 article limit, it can be frustrating not being able to read an item that was published some time ago that is part of its archive.

That is why I copied and pasted the text.

Afaik copy/pasting vast amounts from irishtimes.ie etc will cause trouble for boards.ie

esp "part of it's archive " , the Irish Times charges a few bob for access

https://www.irishtimes.com/archive

Newspaper Archive

Explore over 150 years of Irish Times journalism, as it originally appeared in print. Searchable by keyword and date, digital subscribers can view reproductions of every page of The Irish Times from 1859 to the present day.

Might want to ask one of the moderators is it ok


.

horseburger

gctest50 wrote: »

Afaik copy/pasting vast amounts from irishtimes.ie etc will cause trouble for boards.ie

esp complete "letters to the editor"

Might want to ask one of the moderators is it ok

If it is an issue, I'm sure I'll be made aware of it.

I included the text, to indicate that there are different views regarding the law at the moment on abortion. One of the letters was in response to an item previously included in the paper, countering the views expressed in that item.

I did it to indicate that there are different perspectives on the issue.

I came across the letters I cited by searching eight amendment and intervention on google. The Irish Times archive will be a useful resource for future reference.

Thanks for the heads up about the archive search facility. It's a good resource.

Billy86

AnneFrank wrote: »

Save the 8th

I'd rather abort it.

Cabaal

Fred Swanson wrote: »

As with the SSM opponents, I fully expect the pro lifers to slither back into their caves.

Theyll take a few high court cases against the ref outcome first, exactly what they did with the marriage ref.

robarmstrong

pleas advice wrote: »

I'll leave that for robarmstrong to answer so

Because of all the changes made to the original act there's a struggle to find the original wording of the act, all I can gather is that the initial act was unrestricted and a lot more lax (considering it allowed up to 28 weeks) than it is now.

Again, not sure of the relevance of how wording from a 50 odd year old law in a different country and health system has anything to do with this as it's a different time, different place, and different societal mindset.

Annasopra

I do find it ironic that No campaigners keep going on about "dont bring in a uk system here" - its actually a bit silly considering we effectively have the UK system enshrined in our constitution as a right since 1993. We already have the UK system because Irish women use it year after year!

B0jangles

Trasna1 wrote: »

They don't look like ESB poles. The nearest pole is a Garda/council CCTV pole.

The rest look like council lamp standards. Unless they have wires strung between them, they are unlikely to be ESB.

If you go back to my first post on the subject, you'll read that BOTH campaigns were asked by the local Tidy Towns organisations not to put any posters at all - so no posters on lamp stands, none on street signs, none on CCTV poles.

http://wicklownews.net/2018/04/tidy-towns-groups-are-asking-for-posters-not-to-be-erected-during-referendum-campaign/
http://wicklownews.net/2018/04/south-wicklow-together-for-yes-to-support-tidy-towns-will-not-erect-posters-in-towns-around-wicklow-county/

The Repeal the 8th campaign respected the request, the Save The 8th campaign ignored the request and have put up posters everywhere in the town, as shown in the first picture.

The second picture ONLY is of an ESB pole with the remains of an illegally placed Save the 8th poster still attached.

MkaylaK

MkaylaK wrote: »

Pro-life 18 year old here, I'm certainly in the minority!

I would think most people have pro life views when they are young. I know I did.
It's only when the realities of life & you can see more grey areas, that people's views change.

bertieinexile

robarmstrong wrote: »

"attempted counterarguments were dealt with"

Hold on there son, your opinion isn't fact. What's written in the proposal you're happy to keep sharing a link to (which I'm not even sure if you've actually read it or not) does not support your claims of "abortion on demand up to 24 weeks".

You've been telling porky pies left right and centre and passing off your opinion is fact and bertie, that's very, very bold.

Tell me exactly where in any Government proposals regarding the repealing of the 8th there is mentions of unrestricted abortion of up to 24 weeks, and I'll tell you exactly where, why and how you are so utterly, utterly wrong.

I'm more than happy to sit here and dissect your entire argument piece by piece but unfortunately you don't seem to have one.

Delighted to have a chance to post a pared down version of the argument that what is proposed is abortion on demand up to 24 weeks. It gives me a chance to incorporate the argument about the legal language in Australia. But most of all we are going to get the critical faculties of robarmstrong applied to the issue.



POLITICAL SITUATION

In the event of a Yes vote the proposed legislation outlined in the published General Scheme
http://health.gov.ie/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/General-Scheme-for-Publication.pdf
would be passed.

How do we know?
The Irish Times has very helpfully determined, as far as it could, how each TD would vote on abortion on demand up to 12 weeks.
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/referendum-tracker

A Dail majority is 79. The Irish times has 67 in favour of abortion on demand/request up to 12 weeks plus 13 SF currently recorded as undeclared plus however many more of the other 22 undeclared TDs.
Plus every party leader is in favour.
Plus it would be getting voted on in the context of a successful referendum.
Can anyone argue that the scheme would not be adopted in the case of a yes vote?

For further analysis of the political realities see here
https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=106618836&postcount=3036

The published schedule would be approved.




MENTAL HEALTH GROUNDS (UK v IRELAND)

The most used grounds for abortion in england concern the mental health of the mother. (97% of cases)
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/679028/Abortions_stats_England_Wales_2016.pdf page 15 sections 2.14, 2.15

The only difference in the proposed mental health grounds for abortion here from 12 weeks to viability and the english grounds up to 24 weeks, is that our proposed law talks about
"risk...of serious harm to the (physical or mental) health of the woman"
and the english one talks about
"greater risk than if the pregnancy were terminated, of injury to the physical or mental health of the pregnant woman"
And on that distinction rests all claims that there would not be abortion on demand/request up to ~24 weeks.

IRELAND (proposed)

(a) (i) there is a risk to the life of, or of serious harm to the health of, the pregnant
woman,
[and] (ii) the foetus has not reached viability

(Viability in Irish medicine is considered to be around 24 weeks.
The proposed legislation explicitly says health refers to both mental and physical health of the mother.)

UK

(a) that the pregnancy has not exceeded its twenty-fourth week and that the continuance of the pregnancy would involve risk, greater than if the pregnancy were terminated, of injury to the physical or mental health of the pregnant woman

MARIE STOPES CLINICS WILL INTERPRET ANY "DIFFERENCE" IN THESE MENTAL HEALTH GROUNDS

The distinction between "risk of injury" and "threat of serious harm" could keep a few of our learned friends on Ormond Quay in business for ever.
But what matters is whether that distinction is going to make any difference to doctors signing certs in a Marie Stopes clinic.
The government could have written any language they liked in to this legislation but it is the staff in these clinics who will be interpreting it.

Here's what they are like

Marie Stopes was subject to 2600 complaints in 2016.


Here is how they deal with the mental health grounds

Doctors were signing off up to 60 consent forms at a time when they were meant to be making a thorough assessment. One filled in up to 26 in two minutes.


and as you can see from this link nothing has changed.

Abortions signed off after just a phonecall: How Marie Stopes doctors approve abortions for women they've never met


Here's another link

Doctors are routinely bending the law to allow women to have abortions on questionable mental-health grounds, the head of Britain’s biggest abortion provider has said.



The point that really matters - the thing that makes abortion on these grounds up to 24 weeks a crazy proposal for most of us - is that this distinction between "risk of injury" and "threat of serious harm" won't matter a damn to Marie Stopes.


Objection on grounds that Marie Stopes wouldn't have an interest in coming here
https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/show...postcount=3541

Objection on grounds that it wouldn't make financial sense for Marie Stopes to come here.
https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/show...postcount=3753





AUSTRALIA HAD MENTAL HEALTH GROUNDS WORDING STRONGER THAN OURS

It has also been claimed that doctors would take that difference in language so seriously, and know exactly what that distinction came down to in practice, that abortion here from 12 to 24 weeks would be very restrictive.

With language like Harris proposes you certainly wouldn't get abortion on demand. No way. Not with that kind of language. "Serious Harm". It's that language that ensures there's nothing to worry about.

If you think about it, Harris and his advisers wouldn't have come up with this language out of the blue.
Surely, if we look, there must be some other country out there which has tried this kind of language before.
Somewhere we could get to see how it worked out.
And yes there is! ...Australia .
I'll see your "threat of serious harm" to the mental health of the mother and I'll raise you a threat of "a serious DANGER" to the mental health of the mother. How's that for restrictive?

necessary to preserve the woman from a serious danger to her life or her physical or mental health

And so now we have a chance to see if this language works!
Does it severely restrict the number of abortions that can be carried out.
Does it? Does it?!!!
Does it F**k!
In Australia, when almost every abortion was carried out on this legal ground of serious danger to the mental health of the mother, they had abortion rates among the highest in the developed world.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28294293

---

Australian abortion laws vary by state. In Victoria and Queensland between 1969 and 2008 almost all abortions were carried out on the grounds described above following the Menhennitt ruling
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R_v_Davidson
Australian abortion statistics are much less reliable than in the UK. It might be argued that the true rate in those states was closer to the UKs 20% rather than being among the highest rates in the developed world. But the reality is unavoidable.
http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/poli...-aust-vic.html
http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/poli...-aust-qld.html




If you want to vote Yes you must be comfortable with abortion on demand/request up to 24 weeks. Otherwise it's a No.

Triceratops Ballet

Bertie, this is all SPECULATION you're continually presenting your opinion as fact and it's incredibly disingenuous.

bertieinexile

Sofiztikated wrote: »

the Irish MMR was 10.4 per 100,000 maternities and
the UK MMR was 9.02 per 100,000 maternities.
This does not represent a statistically significant difference in MMR between countries
https://www.ucc.ie/en/...fNo1December2015.pdf

I find it odd that Bertie didn't read the middle bit. Does NOT represent a statistically significant difference between countries.

I suppose it was late when you were posting.
I said that according to the WHO we had a better MMR than the uk
and the Maternal Death Enquiry had us statistically the same.

Zubeneschamali

bertieinexile wrote: »

An abortion would have the same moral value to me wherever it took place.

Me too.

Which is why I think it is ridiculous that we have both a Constitutional ban on abortion AND a Constitutional right to travel for an abortion, introduced when we, as a nation of hypocrites, realized what the ban actually meant.

This is certainly not the only thing wrong with our Constitution, but it is one of the most egregious.

robarmstrong

So you've essentially re-posted exactly what you've posted before and continue to assert that your opinion/speculation is fact.

This is fact -

Head 7: Early pregnancy (12 weeks)
7. (1) It shall be lawful to carry out a termination of pregnancy in accordance with this Head
where a medical practitioner certifies, that in his or her reasonable opinion formed in good
faith, the pregnancy concerned has not exceeded 12 weeks of pregnancy.
(2) It shall be necessary for 72 hours to elapse between the time of the certification referred to
in subhead (1) and the termination of pregnancy being carried out.
(3) The medical practitioner referred to in subhead (1) shall make such arrangements as he or
she shall deem to be necessary for the carrying out of the termination of pregnancy as soon as
may be after the period referred to in subhead (2) has elapsed but before the pregnancy has
exceeded 12 weeks of pregnancy.
(4) For the purposes of this Head, ―12 weeks of pregnancy‖ shall be construed in
accordance with the medical principle that pregnancy is dated from the first day of a
woman’s last menstrual period.

No mention of abortion on demand up to 24 weeks here.

(2) Where the review committee has completed its review of the relevant decision and is
satisfied that in its reasonable opinion formed in good faith—
(a) (i) there is a risk to the life of, or of serious harm to the health of, the pregnant
woman,
(ii) the foetus has not reached viability, and
(iii) it is appropriate to carry out the termination of pregnancy referred to in Head
4(1) in order to avert that risk, or
(b) there is present a condition affecting the foetus that is likely to lead to the death of
the foetus either before birth or shortly after birth

Nor is there any mention of it here.

Try a different approach, you're mildly entertaining me with the whole speculate-not read articles posted-rinse-repeat method you've got going on here.

Triceratops Ballet

I'll just add that in the UK 92% of abortions are completed before week 13, with 80% before week 10. It's hardly indicative of a system that's just aborting left right and centre on spurious grounds from week 12 to 24

bertieinexile

mohawk wrote: »

I was only out of college a few years when I became pregnant with my son. Not ye established properly career wise or financially. I thought through all my options and decided that yes even though it would be tough that I would continue with the pregnancy. It is tough.....money is a constant worry. If I had remained child free I would probably have my own house by now, go on holiday every year. It was my choice to become a mother and I wouldn't change it for the world.

There is so much shouting and roaring on this thread and then, every now and again, you come across a post that actually means something.
Thanks for that mohawk.
Not every hero wears a cape.

robarmstrong

Triceratops Ballet wrote: »

I'll just add that in the UK 92% of abortions are completed before week 13, with 80% before week 10. It's hardly indicative of a system that's just aborting left right and centre on spurious grounds from week 12 to 24

http://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/SN04418/SN04418.pdf

2.2 Gestation period
The majority of abortions (92% in 2015) are performed at or under 13
weeks gestation. In 2015, 80% were at or under 10 weeks and a
further 11% at 10-12 weeks. The proportion of abortions at under 10
weeks has increased since 1997, and the proportion at over 13 weeks
has reduced.

Just supporting your post with the facts to back it up as I know certain individuals will discredit what you've posted!

Mr. CooL ICE

Mod: bertieinexile, I asked you to justify your constant reference to 24 weeks here and you haven't done so.

Therefore, stop mentioning 24 weeks. Stop making stuff up and presenting it as fact. You are derailing the thread.

gmisk

bertieinexile wrote: »

There is so much shouting and roaring on this thread and then, every now and again, you come across a post that actually means something.
Thanks for that mohawk.
Not every hero wears a cape.

Tbh reading through this thread you seem to have contributed your fair share to the "shouting and roaring".
Mohawk made the right decision for her which is fantastic.
It doesn't mean it is the right decision for everyone.
just have a read of the "in her shoes" page on facebook to see some other real life stories.

ohnonotgmail

bertieinexile wrote: »

There is so much shouting and roaring on this thread and then, every now and again, you come across a post that actually means something.
Thanks for that mohawk.
Not every hero wears a cape.

it is odd that you only quoted part of that post. I wonder why you didnt post the bit below? or why you haven't quoted any other mohawk post where she is pro-repeal.

When I read the opinions of the Pro-Lifers it makes me wonder if they place any value on parenting.

Becoming a parent is a big responsibly and should not be entered into lightly. When you have an unplanned pregnancy you have to be very honest with yourself and really examine yourself and your life to determine if you are capable of being a parent. My own mother had me when she was too young to cope back in the 80's. She resents me as she feels she would of had a better life if she didn't have me. She was not ready to become a mother and I paid the price. I am not unique in this I have friends whose mothers feel the same towards them.

Annasopra

bertieinexile wrote: »

Delighted to have a chance to post a pared down version of the argument that what is proposed is abortion on demand up to 24 weeks. It gives me a chance to incorporate the argument about the legal language in Australia. But most of all we are going to get the critical faculties of robarmstrong applied to the issue.



POLITICAL SITUATION

In the event of a Yes vote the proposed legislation outlined in the published General Scheme
http://health.gov.ie/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/General-Scheme-for-Publication.pdf
would be passed.

How do we know?
The Irish Times has very helpfully determined, as far as it could, how each TD would vote on abortion on demand up to 12 weeks.
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/referendum-tracker

A Dail majority is 79. The Irish times has 67 in favour of abortion on demand/request up to 12 weeks plus 13 SF currently recorded as undeclared plus however many more of the other 22 undeclared TDs.
Plus every party leader is in favour.
Plus it would be getting voted on in the context of a successful referendum.
Can anyone argue that the scheme would not be adopted in the case of a yes vote?

For further analysis of the political realities see here
https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=106618836&postcount=3036

The published schedule would be approved.




MENTAL HEALTH GROUNDS (UK v IRELAND)

The most used grounds for abortion in england concern the mental health of the mother. (97% of cases)
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/679028/Abortions_stats_England_Wales_2016.pdf page 15 sections 2.14, 2.15

The only difference in the proposed mental health grounds for abortion here from 12 weeks to viability and the english grounds up to 24 weeks, is that our proposed law talks about
"risk...of serious harm to the (physical or mental) health of the woman"
and the english one talks about
"greater risk than if the pregnancy were terminated, of injury to the physical or mental health of the pregnant woman"
And on that distinction rests all claims that there would not be abortion on demand/request up to ~24 weeks.





MARIE STOPES CLINICS WILL INTERPRET ANY "DIFFERENCE" IN THESE MENTAL HEALTH GROUNDS

The distinction between "risk of injury" and "threat of serious harm" could keep a few of our learned friends on Ormond Quay in business for ever.
But what matters is whether that distinction is going to make any difference to doctors signing certs in a Marie Stopes clinic.
The government could have written any language they liked in to this legislation but it is the staff in these clinics who will be interpreting it.

Here's what they are like

Marie Stopes was subject to 2600 complaints in 2016.


Here is how they deal with the mental health grounds

Doctors were signing off up to 60 consent forms at a time when they were meant to be making a thorough assessment. One filled in up to 26 in two minutes.


and as you can see from this link nothing has changed.

Abortions signed off after just a phonecall: How Marie Stopes doctors approve abortions for women they've never met


Here's another link

Doctors are routinely bending the law to allow women to have abortions on questionable mental-health grounds, the head of Britain’s biggest abortion provider has said.



The point that really matters - the thing that makes abortion on these grounds up to 24 weeks a crazy proposal for most of us - is that this distinction between "risk of injury" and "threat of serious harm" won't matter a damn to Marie Stopes.


Objection on grounds that Marie Stopes wouldn't have an interest in coming here
https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/show...postcount=3541

Objection on grounds that it wouldn't make financial sense for Marie Stopes to come here.
https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/show...postcount=3753





AUSTRALIA HAD MENTAL HEALTH GROUNDS WORDING STRONGER THAN OURS

It has also been claimed that doctors would take that difference in language so seriously, and know exactly what that distinction came down to in practice, that abortion here from 12 to 24 weeks would be very restrictive.

With language like Harris proposes you certainly wouldn't get abortion on demand. No way. Not with that kind of language. "Serious Harm". It's that language that ensures there's nothing to worry about.

If you think about it, Harris and his advisers wouldn't have come up with this language out of the blue.
Surely, if we look, there must be some other country out there which has tried this kind of language before.
Somewhere we could get to see how it worked out.
And yes there is! ...Australia .
I'll see your "threat of serious harm" to the mental health of the mother and I'll raise you a threat of "a serious DANGER" to the mental health of the mother. How's that for restrictive?
And so now we have a chance to see if this language works!
Does it severely restrict the number of abortions that can be carried out.
Does it? Does it?!!!
Does it F**k!
In Australia, when almost every abortion was carried out on this legal ground of serious danger to the mental health of the mother, they had abortion rates among the highest in the developed world.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28294293

---

Australian abortion laws vary by state. In Victoria and Queensland between 1969 and 2008 almost all abortions were carried out on the grounds described above following the Menhennitt ruling
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R_v_Davidson
Australian abortion statistics are much less reliable than in the UK. It might be argued that the true rate in those states was closer to the UKs 20% rather than being among the highest rates in the developed world. But the reality is unavoidable.
http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/poli...-aust-vic.html
http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/poli...-aust-qld.html




If you want to vote Yes you must be comfortable with abortion on demand/request up to 24 weeks. Otherwise it's a No.

Good morning Bertie

I see you're stuck on repeat and quoting yourself extensively.

Your 24 weeks mantra is nonsense though.

In the proposed legislation after 12 weeks abortion is limited to cases of risk to life, risk of serious harm to health, and fatal foetal anomaly. This is stricter than UK 1967 Act.

Pedro K

pleas advice wrote: »

just as there is a difference between 'threat to life' and 'serious harm to the health' of the woman, there is a difference between threat of suicide and serious harm to the mental health of the woman

The implication is the same. That women will use the clause to claim mental health issues to procure a termination. That hasn't happened since 2013, there's nothing to suggest it will happen should we repeal the 8th, and, personally, I think women deserve more respect than that.

robarmstrong

Dole Scrounging Vegan Crossfitter wrote: »

Mod: bertieinexile, I asked you to justify your constant reference to 24 weeks here and you haven't done so.

Therefore, stop mentioning 24 weeks. Stop making stuff up and presenting it as fact. You are derailing the thread.

Not tryna backseat mod here but I think the problem is that pro-life completely misinterpret that article that's been linked numerous times (I've quoted bits from it in my previous posts) and presenting their misinterpretation as fact/a solid argument. Realistically though, an interpretation of a fact does not change the actual fact as an interpretation is just an opinion of what the statement stands for.

Zubeneschamali

bubblypop wrote: »

I would think most people have pro life views when they are young.

The 8th amendment was the first thing I got to vote on when I turned 18, and I voted against it.

My son is now 17, too young to vote this time, but we were in the car yesterday and passed a heap of new No posters and he was asking did anyone actually believe No could win, and I was explaining that yes, it is a real possibility. He thinks the pro-lifers are all a bit mad.

bertieinexile

swampgas wrote: »

If an abortion has the same moral value anywhere, and abortion is already de facto legal for elective abortions for those with the means to travel, then surely there is no value to restricting where those abortions occur?

If an abortion is going to happen anyway, why do you care where it occurs?

Surely, from a moral perspective, your energy would be better spent campaigning for the UK to ban abortion again?

You seem to believe that there would be no change in the rate of abortions obtained by irish women if the 8th was repealed and we had abortion on demand/request.

The pro choice side seem totally confused - or, to be generous, split- on this.
Half of them think we already have the rate of abortion they have in the uk - it's just hidden and would become visible after abortion was legalised.
Half of them think we have a much lower rate of abortion than they have in the uk and our culture would keep it low after legalisation.

Most of the public believe we have a much lower rate than in the uk - hence the power of the "1 in 5" posters.
Most of the public also believe that if something is legalised the number of people doing it increases.

kylith

Folks I understand that sometimes you need to post an essay in relation to something, but could ye have some consideration for those of us on phones and not quite the whole essay?

seamus

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

The 8th amendment was the first thing I got to vote on when I turned 18, and I voted against it.

My son is now 17, too young to vote this time, but we were in the car yesterday and passed a heap of new No posters and he was asking did anyone actually believe No could win, and I was explaining that yes, it is a real possibility. He thinks the pro-lifers are all a bit mad.

Had exactly the same conversation with my wife last night

She was worried that she was living in a bubble because it seemed to her that all of the pro-life campaign were "batsh1t crazy". And she wouldn't be a campigner at all or someone to get involved in online conversations. So it's not like she's picking some sources and blocking others.

I assured her that her assessment is in fact correct and the only people who care enough to campaign on the pro-life side are in fact the religious extremists and the insane.