The 8th Amendment Part 2 - Mod Warning in OP

ohnonotgmail

RobertKK wrote: »

I was blocked by repeal shield for no reason. They just want to protect idiots who are snowflakes and to avoid people being possibly influenced. Basically it is a device for weak minded people to use, as adults should be open to all opinions in a referendum, not just those they support.

absolutely none? really??

robarmstrong

RobertKK wrote: »

Can use mental health grounds after 12 weeks.

Sorry I'm a bit confused here, not targeting you or anything but how did you make that leap? From discussing prenatal DS diagnosed abortions to mental health grounds? I probably missed something in between or maybe I have someone on completely ignore/vice versa.

robarmstrong

RobertKK wrote: »

I was blocked by repeal shield for no reason. They just want to protect idiots who are snowflakes and to avoid people being possibly influenced. Basically it is a device for weak minded people to use, as adults should be open to all opinions in a referendum, not just those they support.

Protect idiots who are snow-flakes?

I'd use repeal shield as it's handy to find genuine pro-life posters who understand logic and reasoning and can maturely agree/disagree/respect the opposition, does that make me an idiotic snowflake?

gmisk

RobertKK wrote: »

I grew up with an aunt who had DS and I find it disgusting how society views them, it is not compassion when in some countries with unrestricted abortion where 9 in 10 are aborted. It gives us a view that it is not compassion when abortion gives us a view what a lot of people really think about their lives. The abortion rates for DS just further adds a stigma to what is a valid life.

Maybe read the announcement from Down Syndrome Ireland.
They clearly do not want to be dragged into this referendum.
https://downsyndrome.ie/statement-on-the-topic-of-the-upcoming-referendum/
People with Down syndrome should not be used as an argument for either side of this debate.


Despite that the save the 8th side have posters with DS people on them, classy.

Zubeneschamali

RobertKK wrote: »

it is not compassion when in some countries with unrestricted abortion where 9 in 10 are aborted.

Can you name such a country?

Because in the UK, the figure is 9 out of 10 whose parents ask for a test. If you are opposed to aborting DS pregnancies, why would you do a test and then, what, take no action either way?

This is another statistic like the 1 in 5 - cherry picked to sound as big as possible. In reality, something like 1 in 4 pregnancies end in neither abortion nor a live birth, but in miscarriage, so the UK abortion rate is more like 1 in 7 pregnancies end in abortion.

RobertKK

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

absolutely none? really??

Yes for no reason. I don't go around the internet insulting people. I had barely posted anything about wanting to retain the 8th.
The next thing I see I am blocked by people I never interacted with and as I said I don't go around insulting people on twitter.

I would think the retain side was weak minded if they had to make a list of people to block because their only crime is they wanted to get rid of the 8th. I was simply blocked for wanting to retain the 8th.
I have two twitter accounts - one is personal and the other is not and my other account isn't blocked so I can see what people who blocked me are posting if I wanted.
That is how stupid their repeal shield is. To get blocked all you have to do is place a value on the unborn life, and say it is more than just a woman's choice - that gets you repeal shield blocked.

Zubeneschamali

RobertKK wrote: »

Can use mental health grounds after 12 weeks.

Can use mental health grounds right now without repealing the 8th at all, so no change there.

gmisk

Ave Sodalis wrote: »

Can we stop this line of argument right here before it becomes a discussion?

DS is not diagnosed before 12 weeks, it is not relevant. We were asked not to use DS. Pro-choice, and for the most part, pro-life have respected that wish. It would be pointless to discuss it here.

I am sorry but that is simply not true.
This was posted 19 hours ago on twitter and look at the poster front and centre.
https://twitter.com/Savethe8thInfo/status/985592627448905729
This is despite down syndrome irelands statement

RobertKK

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Can use mental health grounds right now without repealing the 8th at all, so no change there.

No, you have to say you are suicidal which is only one form of mental health illness.

RobertKK

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Can you name such a country?

Because in the UK, the figure is 9 out of 10 whose parents ask for a test. If you are opposed to aborting DS pregnancies, why would you do a test and then, what, take no action either way?

This is another statistic like the 1 in 5 - cherry picked to sound as big as possible. In reality, something like 1 in 4 pregnancies end in neither abortion nor a live birth, but in miscarriage, so the UK abortion rate is more like 1 in 7 pregnancies end in abortion.

http://www.thejournal.ie/factcheck-babies-abortion-3823611-Feb2018/

The statistic of 90% is correct when referring to prenatally diagnosed Down syndrome.

RobertKK

gmisk wrote: »

I am sorry but that is simply not true.
This was posted 19 hours ago on twitter and look at the poster front and centre.
https://twitter.com/Savethe8thInfo/status/985592627448905729
This is despite down syndrome irelands statement

Down Syndrome Ireland don't speak for all with DS.

ohnonotgmail

RobertKK wrote: »

I grew up with an aunt who had DS and I find it disgusting how society views them, it is not compassion when in some countries with unrestricted abortion where 9 in 10 are aborted. It gives us a view that it is not compassion when abortion gives us a view what a lot of people really think about their lives. The abortion rates for DS just further adds a stigma to what is a valid life.

RobertKK wrote: »

http://www.thejournal.ie/factcheck-babies-abortion-3823611-Feb2018/

The statistic of 90% is correct when referring to prenatally diagnosed Down syndrome.

so not 90% of those with down syndrome then? you dont think that is an important distinction?

gmisk

RobertKK wrote: »

Down Syndrome Ireland don't speak for all with DS.

I never stated they do but they are a massive national organisation supporting people with down syndrome, so I think its fair to say they have the best interest of people with DS front and centre....and IMO it is a really sh#tty thing for save the 8th to plaster over a poster.

robarmstrong

RobertKK wrote: »

http://www.thejournal.ie/factcheck-babies-abortion-3823611-Feb2018/

In 2010, that is in fact 90% of 64% (prenatal diagnoses), which equates to 57% of all pregnancies which have the potential to result in a Down syndrome diagnosis

I would agree with the pro-life posters if they stated that 90% of prenatal diagnoses in Down Syndrome result in abortion.

It isn't fair to twist words and phrases or even leave some out just to further an agenda, it's intentionally misleading.

Bridge93

RobertKK wrote: »

Down Syndrome Ireland don't speak for all with DS.

They sure as hell speak more for them than a group exploiting them for their own scaremongering. Pretty pathetic to ignore the wishes of the group with the largest vested interest in those with Downs in this country. You say they don't speak for all so I presume the Save the 8th bypassed DSI and asked for the consent of this particular individual before using the picture?

optogirl

The Save the eighth crowd love people with DS so much that they would see nothing wrong in forcing a 12 year old with DS (or any 12 year old) who was raped & pregnant to go through with that pregnancy. Not only that but they think any alternative should be criminalised.

JDD

Hi Bertie. Apologies for not posting over the weekend, it’s more difficult to post anything comprehensive on my phone and even less easy at home with the kids.

Firstly, can I thank you for coming back so comprehensively on my post. I’m presuming you are not an obstetrician and an obstetrician had a lot of input into the that post, so let me thank him/her also for taking time out of their day. Secondly, I appreciate your comment regarding me stepping away from the thread. I’m a fairly open person, and don’t at all mind discussing my medical history on a format such as this, but I’d imagine some people wouldn’t be as comfortable, so again, I appreciate it.

Lastly, before I get stuck into posting, I haven’t read the intervening thirty or so pages of comment. Other people may have picked up on some factual points in your post already and may have answered them more eloquently than I might, so I apologise for any repetition.

So, let me pick out a few things.

You are safe.
You live in a country whose laws and practice result in it being one of the safest places in the world to be pregnant.

I know the statistics. Ireland is a relatively safe place to give birth, I agree. I don’t believe pregnant women are monitored any more closely here than if I were to be pregnant in the UK or Denmark or Canada, and in fact the statistics bear that out. We have relatively the same amount of maternal deaths as other comparable countries who have liberal abortion regimes – so we’re not a “world leader” as you say. I don’t believe the strict regime here makes a woman’s pregnancy any safer.

Do I think it makes it any less safe? People who would have concerns such as mine might choose to avail of the online termination pill, or go to the UK, so that would skew the statistics somewhat. Maternal deaths which would be deemed a direct result of the 8th for the remainder of women who choose to go full term I’d imagine are very rare (that would be of no comfort to their families, I’m sure), and therefore probably don’t have a statistically significant affect.

But it’s not all about avoiding death. It’s about avoiding injury to the mother too. I know you believe accessing a termination is fine as long as the severity of the injury to the mother exceeds the severity of injury to the foetus. Beyond the point of viability I would, in general terms, agree with you. Where we differ, and will always differ, is that I don’t believe a pre-12 week foetus should be allowed the same rights. We could argue about the line in the sand between 12-24 weeks to the end of time.

Regarding the safety of our system for pregnant mothers, it’s difficult to be perfectly objective and not bring personal experience into it – as happens with every personal choice. On my last pregnancy, my potential placenta accreta was missed until Week 38. I was scanned at Week 22 and the sonographer recommended I get a further scan at 34 weeks. She told me it was because it looked like I had placenta previa but the placenta would likely move before 34 weeks. If it didn’t, I’d have to have a c-section. I knew I was going to have a c-section anyway, so didn’t realise the import of having another scan. I’d never heard of placenta accreta. I raised it with my consultant at 38 weeks and he was quite flustered and insisted I get scanned straight away. I’m not at all blaming him, he works in an understaffed and over-stretched system, he missed the big red “rescan” stamp on my 22 week scan results, but that’s understandable when you’re dealing with women in 5 minute appointment slots. And he was brilliant during that stressful week before the surgery. But had I actually got the condition, and had gone into early labour – which I believe is quite common – they would not have had a chance to make all the preparations that they did and I might have a had a very different outcome.

So forgive me for being a little sceptical of this perfect maternity system.

If the condition is identified (and if present it usually is) a non emergency termination can be carried out. Depending on how early this happens the childs prospects can be good to very good.
It is important to note, and seems to be wilfully ignored by some, that our Medical Council guidelines, Section 48, which govern this stipulate that even if a threat to the mother’s life is not immediate or inevitable it can be acted upon and the pregnancy terminated.

This is at odds to what I was told. I was told had I gone for my scan at 34 weeks I would have been admitted to the hospital for four weeks until I had got to full term. I had asked whether I could have been induced at 34 weeks and they said that wasn’t the normal practice. They were absolutely convinced I had placenta accreta but ultrasounds can’t tell how far the placenta has grown into your uterus, so they had no idea how severe my condition might have been. At 34 weeks maybe 90% of the damage would have been done, but I find it odd that I would not have been presented with the pros and cons to my health and to the baby’s of waiting to full term and been allowed to choose to wait or avail of the early induction. Perhaps the severity of my condition wasn’t considered "close enough" to inevitable to warrant an induction. I wonder is that something to do with the 8th?

This is a difficult operation but being in one of the safest countries in the world for birth means that it is always successful.

Always? I find it very surprising that anyone, unless you have some sort of god complex, would deal in absolutes like that.

In the end, you are correct when it comes to the chances of me actually being faced with further choices. I’m 41, and have had my tubes tied. I am extremely unlikely to get pregnant again. But I got pregnant at 40, after taking the pill perfectly. Again, objectively, I understand lightening is very unlikely to strike twice, but like someone who has been in a car crash, they are always nervous getting back into a car.

What also might be feeding into my choices is the fact that my last pregnancy was a crisis pregnancy. I have some health issues from my previous two pregnancies, not severe but painful and limiting. I really didn’t want to put the pressure on my body of a third pregnancy and c-section, especially at my age. I ordered the pills online the day I took the pregnancy test (4 weeks), and gave myself two weeks to think about it. In the end I warmed to the idea and was willing to take on the exacerbated health issues, so didn’t take the pills. I have no particular regrets because it was my choice to continue with the pregnancy. However, if I had taken the pills I can safely say I would not have had any regrets either. And if I didn't have the choice, I'm not sure what my reaction might have been. Would I resent my third child? Would I treat him differently? Arguably, having the choice available to me has made me a better mother.

So when faced with an idea that I could be facing into more severe health issues with a fourth pregnancy brings me completely down on the side of pro-choice. Going back to my original post, my choices were never just A or B. Option C was always available to me, it’s just how I might access it in the future, should that circumstance every come to pass, will be dependent on the vote.

gctest50

optogirl wrote: »

The Save the eighth crowd love people with DS so much that ..............

I heard they contribute millions billions to the care of people with DS

oh wait

The Legend Of Kira

RobertKK wrote: »

I was blocked by repeal shield for no reason. They just want to protect idiots who are snowflakes and to avoid people being possibly influenced. Basically it is a device for weak minded people to use, as adults should be open to all opinions in a referendum, not just those they support.

Welcome to the club,, well known life activists both local + national have being added onto that shield block list since they set it up- one activist in particular on their block list ( Charlie Fien ) a known down syndrome activist who is against repeal of the 8th is on their block list, which is kinda ironic that they consider a known down syndrome activist to be a " troll " to be put on their block list just because they speak out against their political narrative/agenda, when one group sets up their own online echo chamber to seal themselves off from opposing views/arguments it kinda says they re lacking in confidence to create an echo chamber in the first place.

Zerbini Blewitt

RobertKK wrote: »

Yes for no reason...

That is how stupid their repeal shield is. To get blocked all you have to do is place a value on the unborn life, and say it is more than just a woman's choice - that gets you repeal shield blocked.

I don't use it. I get more satisfaction muting/blocking one by one.

But here's a small sample of the names on the list. Do these sound like people interested in genuine discussion

---

Shapeshifter, Youth Defence, Smelly Chemist
MyMothersLove, LayWoman for Christ ✝, UG0TTRUMPED *TRUST SESSIONS*
MAGA Intelligence Agency, John McGuirk, Equal Right to Life
OregonDeplorable, mojave rattler, ����Texas for Trump����
Red Pill (The Awakening is happening)

SPUC Pro-Life, Lussy Pussy, CatholicDefender™�� Alleluia! Happy Easter
CatholicConservative, Bring Back Haughey, Roger Is Catholic
Miami Bárf, Bi-Curious George Soros, MarinesNeverDie,
Ciara Sherlock, Leo Sherlock, Urban Monks, feck'n voters,
Sweet Jesus, Trump WON get over it, TheRealPepe, Trump Reigns Supreme,

CNN is Communist Propaganda , Feisty Catholic,
call it civilian disarmament at least be honest,
Law and order keep Michigan red, LordJesus �� HaveMercy,
Prayer For Priests, Radical Catholic, Say The Rosary,
Men of Virtue Rosary Crusade, Love Both Drogheda,

TrumpsBlonde2, MESSAGES FROM EDEN, NYCatholicRadio,
God Is LOVE, Abolish Abortion USA, A Disciple of Trump, Mayo For Life,
Alive.ie, Breitbart News, Identity Ireland, The National Party,
Rosary of the Unborn, TheLiberal.ie, Justin Barrett, spucscotland

B0jangles

People are entitled to have their own opinions.

People are entitled to express their opinions (within the bounds of the law)

People are entitled to choose whether or not they want to hear your opinions.

Choice all the way!

Zubeneschamali

RobertKK wrote: »

http://www.thejournal.ie/factcheck-babies-abortion-3823611-Feb2018/

The statistic of 90% is correct when referring to prenatally diagnosed Down syndrome.

So the poster saying "In Britain, 90% of babies with Down Syndrome are aborted" is a big fat lie.

Actual numbers from that report (which I am not saying is true): 30% of babies with DS have no prenatal diagnosis, and hence are not included in the above 9:1 ratio. The real number would be nearer 9 (aborted), 1 (not) and 3 (not tested).

But this also does not include miscarriages, which are significant. The more detailed number was 91:9 rather than 9:1, but they then say of the 9, only 6 are born alive, so we have a 33% miscarriage/still birth rate to account for.

So without testing and abortion, of 100 pregnancies with Down Syndrome we would have 70 live births, 30 miscarriages/stillbirths.

With 70% test rate and 91% abortion rate, as in the UK today, that would be 64 abortions, 4 live births and 2 miscarriages/ stillbirths (tested), plus the 30% untested breaking down as about 20 live births and 10 miscarriages/stillbirths.

Totals
24 live births, 64 abortions, 12 miscarriages vs. the "Irish"
70 live births, 0 abortions, 30 miscarriages.

So the real abortions/live births ratio in the UK is 64:24, or 7 out of 10, not 9.

But now you can also see that 18 of those abortions would have ended in miscarriage/stillbirth anyhow. The real effect on number of babies with DS is that the "Irish" number without tests/abortion is 70, the UK with both is 24, so the real change is that 2/3 of babies who would have been born with DS are aborted.

2/3 is not 9/10

AtomicHorror

RobertKK wrote: »

I was blocked by repeal shield for no reason. They just want to protect idiots who are snowflakes and to avoid people being possibly influenced. Basically it is a device for weak minded people to use, as adults should be open to all opinions in a referendum, not just those they support.

You started this thread by prematurely gloating over what you believed to be a blow to the Repeal movement in the form of the first CA vote. You were falling over yourself to sneer at your opponents.

Many of the people engaged in this debate have real skin in the game. It's a real and painful topic for them, and hard enough to discuss rationally without people throwing that sort of bad attitude in their faces. They're survivors of FFA terminations, miscarriages, still births. They are not idiots or snowflakes. They've endured things you are evidently unwilling or unable to imagine.

If you display elsewhere the attitude you've projected in these threads, it makes perfect sense you were blocked.

RobertKK

RobertKK wrote: »

I grew up with an aunt who had DS and I find it disgusting how society views them

What if your aunt had an unexpected pregnancy, would you force her to stay pregnant?
I'm not sure how you think society views people who have DS, but you seem to think the only way abortion affects them is that they themselves may be aborted.
Maybe they may want to terminate their own pregnancy

NuMarvel

RobertKK wrote: »

No, you have to say you are suicidal which is only one form of mental health illness.

No, you have to be assessed by three doctors who agree your life is at risk from suicide. You can't just say you're suicidal.

NuMarvel

In practice, Repeal Shield is no different from the ignore function here. I don't hear anyone complaining about that (though my use of the ignore function might be contributing to that!:pac::pac:)

ohnonotgmail

NuMarvel wrote: »

In practice, Repeal Shield is no different from the ignore function here. I don't hear anyone complaining about that (though my use of the ignore function might be contributing to that!:pac::pac:)

Who said that??


I kid, i kid.

Kurtosis

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

This is another statistic like the 1 in 5 - cherry picked to sound as big as possible. In reality, something like 1 in 4 pregnancies end in neither abortion nor a live birth, but in miscarriage, so the UK abortion rate is more like 1 in 7 pregnancies end in abortion.

And that's only England that would be 1 in 7, it would be lower again in Scotland and Wales.

gctest50

bubblypop wrote: »

RobertKK wrote: »

...........

I grew up with an aunt who had DS and I find it disgusting how society views them

What if your aunt had an unexpected pregnancy, would you force her to stay pregnant?
I'm not sure how you think society views people who have DS, but you seem to think the only way abortion affects them is that they themselves may be aborted.
Maybe they may want to terminate their own pregnancy

RobertKK wrote: »

...........

I grew up with an aunt who had DS and I find it disgusting how society views them

Why should your questionable perception affect the health and safety of Women in Ireland ?

Especially the most vulnerable ?

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/disability-group-backs-repeal-of-eighth-amendment-1.3463423


At a joint press conference on Monday, Together For Yes and Inclusion Ireland, an advocacy organisation promoting the rights of people with an intellectual disability, called for a Yes vote in next month’s referendum.

They said it created additional barriers to care, including inaccessible travel options and the expense of travelling for abortion for people for whom poverty was more likely.

dudara

I’m seeing anecdotal stories on twitter where people are finding themselves not listed on the Register of Electors.

Putting the truth of that aside for a minute, who can request to remove names from the Register? And is a record of that processing maintained? And finally, will it be subject to GDPR?

I’m going to do some research myself, but I thought I’d ask here first in case someone knows.