The 8th Amendment Part 2 - Mod Warning in OP

SusieBlue

This particular post from the In Her Shoes page had me in tears this morning.
I hope no one minds me posting. It really puts into perspective the kind of situations we are forcing on women and families with a No vote.
How anyone could vote to retain after reading stories such as these is beyond me.

In Her Shoes - Women Of The Eighth
7 hrs ·
"I love these rollerblades. They bring back happy memories of my oldest daughter teaching my middle daughter how to skate.

My oldest daughter can't skate anymore. It was one of the joys her epilepsy stole from her when she was diagnosed at 14. A lot of epileptic people can predict a seizure will happen before it does, sadly she isn't one of them and although she now has a major seizure only once every 35 days even this much means she can't safely be on wheels, especially not near traffic.

Her doctors and neurologists have had 4 years to perfect the combination of medication which helps her. Three of the six medicines she takes daily are not safe in pregnancy. Not all epilepsy medicine is unsafe for a developing pregnancy. One medicine in particular is recommended. It was among the first she was trialled on and as luck would have it, it had no effect on her.

Loving an epileptic can be heart breaking. I remember this time last year she was out of the country visiting relatives and I was working here in Ireland when she sent me a photo of her badly smashed up face, black eye and slightly fractured cheekbone with the words "I think I hit the fireplace". It's a slate hearth. I was nearly in tears begging my manager to let me make an international call on the company phone. She can no longer skate. She might never drive. The moped I had promised to buy her for her 17th birthday ever since she was a little girl remains unpurchased. She can't do everything her peers can do. She has to shut her eyes when an emergency vehicle passes because the flash rates have been known to trigger her. She doesn't go to concerts. We take headaches deadly seriously. She has a waterproof mattress protector because seizures can cause a loss of control, which means staying away from home can be embarrassing. She carries baby wipes leggings and a t-shirt in her school bag, just in case. She can not ever be out in a thunderstorm. None of this is the 8th amendment's fault. She is just wired this way. There is a fault in the circuit and that's just something we have to work around.

I didn't think much about the 8th until one day she foolishly forgot to mention she was running out of medicines. It was gone 10pm and she didn't have them for the next day. This is a genuine medical emergency. Suddenly stopping her medicine is likely to lead her into the biggest seizure of her life. If there is any way in which I am going to lose her to her condition, a sudden stop in her treatment is top of the list. She can not run out. It is life and death for her. She needs these drugs and as her mother I am bound by a strong desire not to bury my beloved, to make sure she gets them. I contacted the out of hours doctor service for my region. They bade me rush her in immediately with a medication list. She keeps a printed one in her jewellery box.

The South African GP who saw her was refreshingly frank. He explained she would have to take a pregnancy test, even though she knew she wasn't at risk, and if she was pregnant he couldn't prescribe, which meant she would be in grave danger and he hopes she'd "got a passport". In that moment the full force of this hiddeous law hit me. I stopped her on the way in to the toilet and said "if you need help in there...", she responded curtly with "No Mother. I am not a liar". She isn't a liar, but the law treats her like one. She cannot carry an unplanned pregnancy safely either, but the law would force her to dice with her life for nothing.

For nothing because with the drugs she takes and has been taking for years her foetus will be at very high risk of deformity. Pregnancy itself causes an increased risk of seizures. Suddenly stopping her medication causes an increased risk of seizures. Collapsing while pregnant is a risk for miscarriage. Each seizure itself could kill her, and her foetus with her. I beg you, reader, please understand me when I tell you that in Ireland she is a headline waiting to happen. The 8th could kill her and it won't save her child. She isn't fit to be pregnant and though she may be a good girl, this is not a safe world. Is it so much to just want a rational law that allows for realistic outcomes? As it stands no one in Ireland can offer her a termination here until she is literally dying in front of them. When a seizure that lasts 5 minutes is an all-out emergency requiring an ambulance what warning will she get?

We need her alive. Little-skates-sister needs her. I need her. Please Ireland, I am not asking you I am begging you. She's a foreign national and she can't vote. Vote for her. Vote yes.

This is an anonymous post, but if I lose this girl, you will all know me then. I can not and I will not rest until the day her right to continue to live is upheld."

Triceratops Ballet

gmisk wrote: »

Source?
(a real one not the daily mail)

it actually is true, but I still contest so what, the stats don't break down the reasons (not that the reasons matter much to me)

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/679028/Abortions_stats_England_Wales_2016.pdf

robarmstrong

RobertKK wrote: »

I'm sorry but you think human have bobble heads as the head was too big to be proportionate

I'm sorry but you think plastic life-like dolls doctored to pull on heartstrings are factual representations of what actual 12 week fetuses look like.

I can do it too!

BarleySweets

Triceratops Ballet wrote: »

it actually is true, but I still contest so what, the stats don't break down the reasons (not that the reasons matter much to me)

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/679028/Abortions_stats_England_Wales_2016.pdf

Agreed, it’s none of my business because it’s her choice.

horseburger

robarmstrong wrote: »

That's all well and good but you still haven't given a definitive answer, comparing it to a box of cereal? Excellent.

You can't give a definitive answer and instead just drone on because you know if you agree with RobertKK you'd be wrong, yet if you disagreed with him you'd destroy what little credibility he had left after posting that absolute farce of a picture.

You are asking me if the images that the person posted are accurate.

Why are you asking me?

I didn't claim it was an accurate depiction, of a foetus at any stage of pregnancy.

Whether either of the photos you asked me about, are accurate images or not, doesn't alter the fact that a foetus/human being will undergo human growth and development before and after pregnancy, no matter at what stage of life it is at, if its life is not ended during pregnancy.

January

SusieBlue wrote: »

This particular post from the In Her Shoes page had me in tears this morning.
I hope no one minds me posting. It really puts into perspective the kind of situations we are forcing on women and families with a No vote.
How anyone could vote to retain after reading stories such as these is beyond me.

Heartbreaking. I have a daughter with a heart condition (and yes Robert, if you want me to tell you which one, just ask, I've no problem discussing it on the internet because just naming it doesn't make her identifiable), she's currently healthy and hopeful that she can become a mammy one day (she's not yet ten but often says 'when I'm a mammmy, like you... I'll do this... e.g. breastfeed, baby wear etc) but we don't know what the future holds because CHD is scary and no one knows how her heart will be in a few years. I don't want her to have to travel if she finds herself pregnant and her heart is not healthy enough to carry a pregnancy to term.

gmisk

January wrote: »

Heartbreaking. I have a daughter with a heart condition (and yes Robert, if you want me to tell you which one, just ask, I've no problem discussing it on the internet because just naming it doesn't make her identifiable), she's currently healthy and hopeful that she can become a mammy one day (she's not yet ten but often says 'when I'm a mammmy, like you... I'll do this... e.g. breastfeed, baby wear etc) but we don't know what the future holds because CHD is scary and no one knows how her heart will be in a few years. I don't want her to have to travel if she finds herself pregnant and her heart is not healthy enough to carry a pregnancy to term.

January thank you for sharing that snippet of you and your daughters story.
She sounds like an absolute dote.

robarmstrong

horseburger wrote: »

You are asking me if the images that the person posted are accurate.

Why are you asking me?

I didn't claim it was an accurate depiction, of a foetus at any stage of pregnancy.

Whether either of the photos you asked me about, are accurate images or not, doesn't alter the fact that a foetus/human being will undergo human growth and development before and after pregnancy, no matter at what stage of life it is at, if its life is not ended during pregnancy.

I have asked you numerous times if you could give a definitive yes or no answer to my query and all you done was deflect and take away from it, I didn't ask anything other than that, you wouldn't give a definitive answer because it would have destroyed your buddy's argument.

What issues do you have, as someone who's "on the fence", with the pro-life campaign? Why do you seem to only pick at the pro-choice side? Bit of a weird thing to do for someone who's on the fence.

Tipperary animal lover

horse sh*ite I tells ya

robarmstrong

January wrote: »

Heartbreaking. I have a daughter with a heart condition (and yes Robert, if you want me to tell you which one, just ask, I've no problem discussing it on the internet because just naming it doesn't make her identifiable), she's currently healthy and hopeful that she can become a mammy one day (she's not yet ten but often says 'when I'm a mammmy, like you... I'll do this... e.g. breastfeed, baby wear etc) but we don't know what the future holds because CHD is scary and no one knows how her heart will be in a few years. I don't want her to have to travel if she finds herself pregnant and her heart is not healthy enough to carry a pregnancy to term.

I've had nothing but respect for you from the moment you told your story here initially and I am absolutely delighted your daughter is happy and healthy.

If I found myself in that situation (the one you mention about your daughter and pregnancy in the future), regardless of my opinion or beliefs about abortion, I would rather my baby girl have the abortion here than have to put her on a plane.

baylah17

Tipperary animal lover wrote: »

hires sh*ite I tells ya

Would you post that in English?

Tipperary animal lover

baylah17 wrote: »

Would you post that in English?
Is that better!!

SusieBlue

@RobertKK & horseburger, I'm very interested in hearing what position you would take if you had a daughter with a condition similar to that of the one I posted from "In Her Shoes".

Seeing as we can confidently say you will both be voting No, if you were a parent of a child with that condition and she found herself pregnant, what would you do? What would your advice to your child be?

I presume you would be expecting her to gamble with her life on a safe outcome, given that is exactly the position you are putting other parents and women in by voting No in the referendum?

ohnonotgmail

RobertKK wrote: »

Between 30% and 34% of abortions are repeat abortions.

I know. do you know what else? the older a woman is the more likely she is to have a repeat abortion. why do you think that is?

how many women have 7, 8 or 9 abortions?

horseburger

blanch152 wrote: »

I am not interested in the discussion between Maria Steen and Ivana Bacik, I am interested in whether you will follow through in the ballot box in line with the statements you have made on this thread.

You have said you favour abortion in limited circumstances which are currently prohibited by the 8th.

You haven't confirmed that means you are voting to repeal the 8th.

Do you not think you should be considering the discussion with Maria Steen, on Prime Time on RTE One on 18th January 2918, where Ivana Bacik stated that Down's Syndrome is not one of the grounds for abortion recommended by the Oireachtas Committee.

Maria Steen gave the example of Germany, where abortion on grounds of disability is not permitted, but that abortions in the case of Down's Syndrome, are occurring in Germany under mental health grounds.

Are you not concerned about the question of the reliability of what was claimed by Ivana Bacik on 18th January 2018, considering that on 22nd November 2017, Patricia Lohr of BPAS spoke of how a case of abortion on "foetal sex" grounds, would not be permitted under grounds of "foetal sex", but could be permitted under a different ground.

Ivana Bacik posted, on youtube the address by Patricia Lohr at the Oireachtas Committee on 22nd November 2017, and omitted in her video on youtube, the dialogue between Patricia Lohr and Peter Fitzpatrick, which calls into question the reliability of what was claimed by Ivana Bacik.

Two months later, on 18th January 2018 Ivana Bacik claimed that cases of Down's Syndrome would not be approved for abortion.

This contradicts what Patricia Lohr stated - regarding different grounds being applied, where the original ground was not accepted - at the Oireachtas Committee.

Patricia Lohr - at the Oireachtas Committee on 22nd November, following a question by Peter Fitzpatrick - detailed how abortion in the ground of sex selection, could be permitted under another ground.

It seems to me that if a case of Down Syndrome could be approved for abortion, under another ground, for example a ground of mental health, as detailed by Maria Steen with regard to Germany, that what was claimed by Ivana Bacik, is not reliable at all.

When Maria Steen made her point about abortions in the case of Down's Syndrome occurring under mental health grounds, Ivana Bacik did not say anything in response.

The dialogue between Patricia Lohr of BPAS and Peter Fitzpatrick, on 22nd November 2017, starts at the 1 hour 58 minute mark in the coverage on the Oireachtas website.

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

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

Transcript:

http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/DebatesWebPack.nsf/committeetakes/EAJ2017112200002#N240

horseburger

robarmstrong wrote: »

I have asked you numerous times if you could give a definitive yes or no answer to my query and all you done was deflect and take away from it, I didn't ask anything other than that, you wouldn't give a definitive answer because it would have destroyed your buddy's argument.

What issues do you have, as someone who's "on the fence", with the pro-life campaign? Why do you seem to only pick at the pro-choice side? Bit of a weird thing to do for someone who's on the fence.

Why do you want to know, considering you've already made your own determination on what you think it is?

AnneFrank

There is stories on both sides, what about parents who were told their child might not survive and contemplated abortion, or were pressurized into nearly doing so, only for the child to be born to a wonderful life.
Seriously, this harassment is getting out of control.
Why not rename the thread, the vote yes only opinion thread, (otherwise it's open season on you)

ELM327

horseburger wrote: »

Do you not think you should be considering the discussion with Maria Steen, on Prime Time on RTE One on 18th January 2918, where Ivana Bacik stated that Down's Syndrome is not one of the grounds for abortion recommended by the Oireachtas Committee.

Maria Steen gave the example of Germany, where abortion on grounds of disability is not permitted, but that abortions in the case of Down's Syndrome, are occurring in Germany under mental health grounds.

Are you not concerned about the question of the reliability of what was claimed by Ivana Bacik on 18th January 2018, considering that on 22nd November 2017, Patricia Lohr of BPAS spoke of how a case of abortion on "foetal sex" grounds, would not be permitted under grounds of "foetal sex", but could be permitted under a different ground.

Ivana Bacik posted, on youtube the address by Patricia Lohr at the Oireachtas Committee on 22nd November 2017, and omitted in her video on youtube, the dialogue between Patricia Lohr and Peter Fitzpatrick, which calls into question the reliability of what was claimed by Ivana Bacik.

Two months later, on 18th January 2018 Ivana Bacik claimed that cases of Down's Syndrome would not be approved for abortion.

This contradicts what Patricia Lohr stated - regarding different grounds being applied, where the original ground was not accepted - at the Oireachtas Committee.

Patricia Lohr - at the Oireachtas Committee on 22nd November, following a question by Peter Fitzpatrick - detailed how abortion in the ground of sex selection, could be permitted under another ground.

It seems to me that if a case of Down Syndrome could be approved for abortion, under another ground, for example a ground of mental health, as detailed by Maria Steen with regard to Germany, that what was claimed by Ivana Bacik, is not reliable at all.

When Maria Steen made her point about abortions in the case of Down's Syndrome occurring under mental health grounds, Ivana Bacik did not say anything in response.

The dialogue between Patricia Lohr of BPAS and Peter Fitzpatrick, on 22nd November 2017, starts at the 1 hour 58 minute mark in the coverage on the Oireachtas website.

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

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

Transcript:

http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/DebatesWebPack.nsf/committeetakes/EAJ2017112200002#N240

Oh look, another spam post filled with rubbish links to youtube.
Can you not post any reasoned posts of your own anymore?
All been debunked like the rubbish "1 in 5"

ELM327

AnneFrank wrote: »

There is stories on both sides, what about parents who were told their child might not survive and contemplated abortion, or were pressurized into nearly doing so, only for the child to be born to a wonderful life.
Seriously, this harassment is getting out of control.
Why not rename the thread, the vote yes only opinion thread, (otherwise it's open season on you)

More likely the "It's open season on you when you run out of rational points" thread.
Because there are no rational, non-theist based reasons to vote no.

robarmstrong

ELM327 wrote: »

Oh look, another spam post filled with rubbish links to youtube.
Can you not post any reasoned posts of your own anymore?
All been debunked like the rubbish "1 in 5"

Ask him about his opinion/issues with the pro-life campaign and watch him blissfully ignore what you've asked of him.

NuMarvel

AnneFrank wrote: »

Ganging up on and harassing me and others of a different view will only weaken whatever agenda you wish to push.

Responding to posts you make on a publicly accessible forum isn't "ganging up" or "harassing". It's called discussion, which is the point of Boards.

however, if you do feel you are being harassed, you should absolutely report the relevant post(s) so the moderators can deal with it as appropriate.

baylah17

Oh the joy of the ignore button and #repealshield
Horseshi*e unseen except where quoted by others

garbo speaks

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

I know. do you know what else? the older a woman is the more likely she is to have a repeat abortion. why do you think that is?

how many women have 7, 8 or 9 abortions?

Some women wear the "I've had an abortion" like a badge of honor. What a frightening time we live in where the liberal media has brainwashed society into thinking this is normal.

robarmstrong

garbo speaks wrote: »

Some women wear the "I've had an abortion" like a badge of honor. What a frightening time we live in where the liberal media has brainwashed society into thinking this is normal.

Well you've been brainwashed into forcing women to carry unwanted pregnancies to term and believing it's fine. Do you not think that is frightening to others?

SusieBlue

AnneFrank wrote: »

There is stories on both sides, what about parents who were told their child might not survive and contemplated abortion, or were pressurized into nearly doing so, only for the child to be born to a wonderful life.
Seriously, this harassment is getting out of control.
Why not rename the thread, the vote yes only opinion thread, (otherwise it's open season on you)

No one is going to be forced or pressurized into having an abortion, stop scaremongering.
One a similar note I'd argue its inhumane to force or pressurize a woman into continuing a pregnancy she doesn't want, only for herself and her child to live a life of struggle and poverty.

You can't cry harassment when you haven't even bothered to reply to the people who have taken the time to respond to your previous posts.
Its just pure deflection and playing the victim.

horseburger

ELM327 wrote: »

Oh look, another spam post filled with rubbish links to youtube.
Can you not post any reasoned posts of your own anymore?
All been debunked like the rubbish "1 in 5"

"Rubbish links to youtube", of videos of programmes, and Oireachtas coverage, where the issue was being discussed.

Well done on criticizing RTE and the Oireachtas for discussing this issue.

gmisk

horseburger wrote: »

Do you not think you should be considering the discussion with Maria Steen, on Prime Time on RTE One on 18th January 2918, where Ivana Bacik stated that Down's Syndrome is not one of the grounds for abortion recommended by the Oireachtas Committee.

Maria Steen gave the example of Germany, where abortion on grounds of disability is not permitted, but that abortions in the case of Down's Syndrome, are occurring in Germany under mental health grounds.

Are you not concerned about the question of the reliability of what was claimed by Ivana Bacik on 18th January 2018, considering that on 22nd November 2017, Patricia Lohr of BPAS spoke of how a case of abortion on "foetal sex" grounds, would not be permitted under grounds of "foetal sex", but could be permitted under a different ground.

Ivana Bacik posted, on youtube the address by Patricia Lohr at the Oireachtas Committee on 22nd November 2017, and omitted in her video on youtube, the dialogue between Patricia Lohr and Peter Fitzpatrick, which calls into question the reliability of what was claimed by Ivana Bacik.

Two months later, on 18th January 2018 Ivana Bacik claimed that cases of Down's Syndrome would not be approved for abortion.

This contradicts what Patricia Lohr stated - regarding different grounds being applied, where the original ground was not accepted - at the Oireachtas Committee.

Patricia Lohr - at the Oireachtas Committee on 22nd November, following a question by Peter Fitzpatrick - detailed how abortion in the ground of sex selection, could be permitted under another ground.

It seems to me that if a case of Down Syndrome could be approved for abortion, under another ground, for example a ground of mental health, as detailed by Maria Steen with regard to Germany, that what was claimed by Ivana Bacik, is not reliable at all.

When Maria Steen made her point about abortions in the case of Down's Syndrome occurring under mental health grounds, Ivana Bacik did not say anything in response.

The dialogue between Patricia Lohr of BPAS and Peter Fitzpatrick, on 22nd November 2017, starts at the 1 hour 58 minute mark in the coverage on the Oireachtas website.

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

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

Transcript:

http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/DebatesWebPack.nsf/committeetakes/EAJ2017112200002#N240

Ah great here come the links!
Hurrah my day is complete!

robarmstrong

horseburger wrote: »

"Rubbish links to youtube", of videos of programmes, and Oireachtas coverage, where the issue was being discussed.

Well done on criticizing RTE and the Oireachtas for discussing this issue.

What are your comments about the shortcomings of the pro-life campaign?

RobertKK

garbo speaks wrote: »

Some women wear the "I've had an abortion" like a badge of honor. What a frightening time we live in where the liberal media has brainwashed society into thinking this is normal.

Some women even wish they had an abortion story to tell...

http://time.com/4608364/lena-dunham-wish-abortion-comments/

Zubeneschamali

garbo speaks wrote: »

What a frightening time we live in where the liberal media has brainwashed society into thinking this is normal.

What a frightening thing it must be to find yourself 80 years in the future! We have to get you back - Back to the 30s!