Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

The 8th Amendment Part 2 - Mod Warning in OP

Options
1…224225227229230…325

Comments

  • Options
    #6782
    SusieBlue
    Registered Users Posts: 8,029 ✭✭✭SusieBlue


    RobertKK wrote: »
    The 8th amendment would allow her to get treatment and if the unborn died or was needed to be removed to save her life, it would be done.

    It like the lies by Yes about cancer and no chemotherapy, when pregnant women do get chemotherapy.

    No it wouldn't.
    She would be expected to wait for a seizure to occur before being offered any intervention.
    So she would have to play a waiting game, unable to take her medication, waiting for the seizure to come.
    Which could happen at any time.

    I'm sure when the seizure were to eventually occur, she would be offered be offered an abortion then, at that point.
    But it won't be much use seeing as an ambulance is unlikely to have arrived by the time a seizure has stopped, never mind getting her into hospital, perform an emergency abortion and administer necessary medication.

    The damage will have been done. It'll be too little too late, and mother and baby will be lost.
    Because she will have been made wait until her life was in danger before being offered any help. Because of the 8th amendment.
    This is the reality you are forcing on people you don't even know.


  • Options
    #6783
    ELM327
    Registered Users Posts: 22,009 ✭✭✭✭ELM327


    RobertKK wrote: »
    I'm sorry the post didn't back up what you say. He actually said people like you are using personal views for medical facts.

    A Disregard completely of the 6 months gestation, which was irrelevant to the <3 months where chemo is damaging to the fetus?

    I should expect no more from you I suppose.

    Militant no.


  • Options
    #6784
    RobertKK
    Registered Users Posts: 33,749 ✭✭✭✭RobertKK


    Delirium wrote: »
    The woman was six months pregnant, chemotherapy is a problem for pregnancies in the first three months when the organs are still developing.

    They can still get chemotherapy, to save the life of the unborn, first the life of the mother has to be saved. Even the former chairman of the royal college of obstetricians and Gynaecology at the Royal College of Physicians of Ireland, said no Irish doctor would ever fail to intervene to save the life of a pregnant woman - even if that risked the life of her unborn child.


  • Options
    #6785
    ELM327
    Registered Users Posts: 22,009 ✭✭✭✭ELM327


    RobertKK wrote: »
    They can still get chemotherapy, to save the life of the unborn, first the life of the mother has to be saved. Even the former chairman of the royal college of obstetricians and Gynaecology at the Royal College of Physicians of Ireland, said no Irish doctor would ever fail to intervene to save the life of a pregnant woman - even if that risked the life of her unborn child.

    If everyone used that logic there would be less issues with the 8th. Unfortunately what you have specified there is a situation where the mother's life is more important. (Save the mother first in order to then save the child)

    As such you would be in violation of the 8th and liable to 14 years in prison.

    Your Move, John.


  • Options
    #6786
    SusieBlue
    Registered Users Posts: 8,029 ✭✭✭SusieBlue


    garbo speaks wrote: »
    Soon, having an abortion will be a must have like the latest handbag or fashion accessory. Shame on these people.

    What kind of company do you keep, and what kind of women do you associate with, if this what you think they will do?
    Are you acquainted with such women that you think will be treating abortion in such a manner?

    You must have little respect to have such a low, ill advised attitude towards women. Its pathetic.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #6787
    RobertKK
    Registered Users Posts: 33,749 ✭✭✭✭RobertKK


    ELM327 wrote: »
    A Disregard completely of the 6 months gestation, which was irrelevant to the <3 months where chemo is damaging to the fetus?

    I should expect no more from you I suppose.

    Militant no.

    You have the patience of an angry bull.

    I don't expect an apology as I don't think you are that type when wrong to admit, as I answered another poster while you were posting that crap.

    Let me post it again: The former chairman of the royal college of obstetricians and Gynaecology at the Royal College of Physicians of Ireland, said no Irish doctor would ever fail to intervene to save the life of a pregnant woman - even if that risked the life of her unborn child.


  • Options
    #6788
    BarleySweets
    Registered Users Posts: 198 ✭✭BarleySweets


    RobertKK wrote: »
    The government published the policy paper on what would be introduced. It is not rumour.

    The government is not allowed to waste taxpayers funds drawing up policy papers for what-if’s and maybes. Right now the 8th is in place so there is nothing to ponder. Policy will only have to be decided if the constitution is altered.

    In that situation, as with all legislation, you yourself will have a say. You can lobby your TD, or vote for future TDs who’ll pass legislation you agree with, or even run yourself if you’re eligible. Democracy is marvelous and you have as much right to enact legislation if you get elected or lobby for laws you wish to see enacted as the rest of us.


  • Options
    #6789
    pq0n1ct4ve8zf5
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,070 ✭✭✭✭pq0n1ct4ve8zf5


    ELM327 wrote: »
    He can say what he wants but that's only one doctor.
    It does not reflect the reality.

    Are you John McGuirk?

    Sorry for repeating this but the threads a monster. Dr McGuinness previously opposed introducing the protocols to safeguard a pregnant woman's life in line with the 8th which he now claims are the best way to safeguard a pregnant woman's life. Dr Louise Kenny directly addressed and refuted his claims as well. On my phone so I can't link, but easy to Google.


  • Options
    #6790
    BarleySweets
    Registered Users Posts: 198 ✭✭BarleySweets


    RobertKK wrote: »
    You have the patience of an angry bull.

    I don't expect an apology as I don't think you are that type when wrong to admit, as I answered another poster while you were posting that crap.

    Let me post it again: The former chairman of the royal college of obstetricians and Gynaecology at the Royal College of Physicians of Ireland, said no Irish doctor would ever fail to intervene to save the life of a pregnant woman - even if that risked the life of her unborn child.

    Why was Savita not saved then?


  • Options
    #6791
    RobertKK
    Registered Users Posts: 33,749 ✭✭✭✭RobertKK


    SusieBlue wrote: »
    No it wouldn't.
    She would be expected to wait for a seizure to occur before being offered any intervention.
    So she would have to play a waiting game, unable to take her medication, waiting for the seizure to come.
    Which could happen at any time.

    I'm sure when the seizure were to eventually occur, she would be offered be offered an abortion then, at that point.
    But it won't be much use seeing as an ambulance is unlikely to have arrived by the time a seizure has stopped, never mind getting her into hospital, perform an emergency abortion and administer necessary medication.

    The damage will have been done. It'll be too little too late, and mother and baby will be lost.
    Because she will have been made wait until her life was in danger before being offered any help. Because of the 8th amendment.
    This is the reality you are forcing on people you don't even know.

    She could take her medication. This is a repeal lie that you espouse.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #6792
    Triceratops Ballet
    Registered Users Posts: 4,894 ✭✭✭Triceratops Ballet


    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)

    Those parents are lucky that their choices were respected. People won't be forced to have abortions just because it's legal.
    Nobody begrudges people in that kind of story their happy ending, it's wonderful.


  • Options
    #6793
    Zubeneschamali
    Registered Users Posts: 16,686 ✭✭✭✭Zubeneschamali


    RobertKK wrote: »
    Even the former chairman of the royal college of obstetricians and Gynaecology at the Royal College of Physicians of Ireland, said no Irish doctor would ever fail to intervene to save the life of a pregnant woman - even if that risked the life of her unborn child.

    We have had several prolife senior gynecologists say that the 8th never stopped them from doing anything. I believe them. They would have done the same sh!t without the 8th.

    One of these guys was practicing in the hospital where my kids were born, and my wife was well warned to stay the fcuk away from him by her girlfriends.


  • Options
    #6794
    pq0n1ct4ve8zf5
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,070 ✭✭✭✭pq0n1ct4ve8zf5


    RobertKK wrote: »
    She could take her medication. This is a repeal lie that you espouse.

    Read it Robert. The medication that's effective can't be taken during pregnancy.


  • Options
    #6795
    January
    Closed Accounts Posts: 23,862 ✭✭✭✭January


    RobertKK wrote: »
    She could take her medication. This is a repeal lie that you espouse.

    And the baby could be born seriously deformed or disabled then.


  • Options
    #6796
    robarmstrong
    Registered Users Posts: 1,598 ✭✭✭robarmstrong


    January wrote: »
    And the baby could be born seriously deformed or disabled then.

    Sure why would they care how deformed or disabled the baby is when it's born, all that matters is that it's born, didn't you know?


  • Options
    #6797
    bruschi
    Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 4,141 Mod ✭✭✭✭bruschi


    SusieBlue wrote: »
    What would you do if your daughter suffered a type of epilepsy similar to the condition described in the post I quoted, would you expect her to lay down her life on the odds that she may survive the pregnancy, or would you advise her to get the boat?

    it seems to me the no side would rather ignore the absolute genuine cases of a necessity for abortion due to those who will get one "on demand" or for "lifestyle choices" or use it as contraception (which is an utterly nonsense theory).

    Whilst it is true that those needing it for cases of rape or fatal fetal abnormalities are in the minority, the fact is they do need it, and it needs to be here for them. If that indeed brings in the rest of the types of abortions that the no side wish to keep sending abroad, then so be it. It is going to happen anyway, but we particularly owe it to those who need it as a matter of priority if the pregnancy needs to be terminated.


  • Options
    #6798
    SusieBlue
    Registered Users Posts: 8,029 ✭✭✭SusieBlue


    RobertKK wrote: »
    She could take her medication. This is a repeal lie that you espouse.

    Incorrect, but regardless, you aren't answering my question.

    If your daughter suffered from that condition and found herself pregnant, what would be your advice?

    You seem confident she can take her medication (I disagree, I'm playing devils advocate) but what of the baby, who will be born disabled, because of this medication?
    Or should she not take her medication and gamble with her life?
    Which is the lesser of two evils, which would you advise?


  • Options
    #6799
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 51,805 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    RobertKK wrote: »
    They can still get chemotherapy, to save the life of the unborn, first the life of the mother has to be saved. Even the former chairman of the royal college of obstetricians and Gynaecology at the Royal College of Physicians of Ireland, said no Irish doctor would ever fail to intervene to save the life of a pregnant woman - even if that risked the life of her unborn child.

    At six months, sure.

    The problem is that in the first three months, it's more likely that they will delay chemotherapy as much as possible to allow the foetus to develop as much as it can to ensure survival/ minimal chances of minimal deformities.

    If you can read this, you're too close!



  • Options
    #6800
    Martina1991
    Registered Users Posts: 2,545 ✭✭✭Martina1991


    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 forced to have an abortion.
    If an abnormality is detected, the medical team have to be honest and say there is a chance the child may not survive. Therefore there is also a chance the child will survive.

    Being told there is a 0% chance the child will survive is a different story and forcing a woman to continue the pregnancy is where the 8th gets in the way.

    What harassment are you talking about?


  • Options
    #6801
    AnneFrank
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,827 ✭✭✭AnneFrank


    Triceratops Ballet wrote: »
    Those parents are lucky that their choices were respected. People won't be forced to have abortions just because it's legal.
    Nobody begrudges people in that kind of story their happy ending, it's wonderful.

    I never said forced.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #6802
    AnneFrank
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,827 ✭✭✭AnneFrank


    Martina1991 wrote: »
    No one is forced to have an abortion.
    If an abnormality is detected, the medical team have to be honest and say there is a chance the child may not survive. Therefore there is also a chance the child will survive.

    Being told there is a 0% chance the child will survive is a different story and forcing a woman to continue the pregnancy is where the 8th gets in the way.

    What harassment are you talking about?

    Again, i never said forced. I would agree with you for sure on ffa, but not a free for all up to 12 weeks.


  • Options
    #6803
    BarleySweets
    Registered Users Posts: 198 ✭✭BarleySweets


    AnneFrank wrote: »
    Again, i never said forced. I would agree with you for sure on ffa, but not a free for all up to 12 weeks.

    Why not? What week would you put the limit for a free for all at then?


  • Options
    #6804
    Martina1991
    Registered Users Posts: 2,545 ✭✭✭Martina1991


    AnneFrank wrote: »
    Again, i never said forced. I would agree with you for sure on ffa, but not a free for all up to 12 weeks.

    Potato Potato
    Pressure: the use of persuasion or intimidation to make someone do something.
    "backbenchers put pressure on the government to provide safeguards"
    synonyms: coercion, force, compulsion, constraint, duress, oppression, enforcement, insistence


  • Options
    #6805
    Martina1991
    Registered Users Posts: 2,545 ✭✭✭Martina1991


    AnneFrank wrote: »
    Again, i never said forced. I would agree with you for sure on ffa, but not a free for all up to 12 weeks.

    If you agree with me for FFA then you are in favour of repealing the 8th amendment.


  • Options
    #6806
    Zubeneschamali
    Registered Users Posts: 16,686 ✭✭✭✭Zubeneschamali


    I'd guess for epilepsy we are talking about Epilim aka Valproate, Convulex, Depakote, Stavzor, etc. You can look up the side effects, but the risk of birth defects is very significant, tripling the risk of major defects.


  • Options
    #6807
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 51,805 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    AnneFrank wrote: »
    Again, i never said forced. I would agree with you for sure on ffa, but not a free for all up to 12 weeks.

    will you be looking to repeal the right to travel for an abortion?

    if you believe people are pressured into having abortions, then surely that equally applies to pressuring them to travel for one?

    If you can read this, you're too close!



  • Options
    #6808
    AnneFrank
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,827 ✭✭✭AnneFrank


    Martina1991 wrote: »
    Potato Potato
    Pressure: the use of persuasion or intimidation to make someone do something.
    "backbenchers put pressure on the government to provide safeguards"
    synonyms: coercion, force, compulsion, constraint, duress, oppression, enforcement, insistence

    No Martina, they are two very different things, please don't put words in my mouth.


  • Options
    #6809
    Triceratops Ballet
    Registered Users Posts: 4,894 ✭✭✭Triceratops Ballet


    AnneFrank wrote: »
    I never said forced.

    I know you didn't. I was pointing out that people won't be forced to have abortions.
    Parents who receive bad news about their unborn child will still have the option to proceed with the pregnancy, it's only those who don't want to proceed who will be affected for the better if yes wins


  • Options
    #6810
    Zubeneschamali
    Registered Users Posts: 16,686 ✭✭✭✭Zubeneschamali


    Martina1991 wrote: »
    If you agree with me for FFA then you are in favour of repealing the 8th amendment.

    One mad thing about this thead is that virtually every poster on the pro-life side has been in favour of abortion in some case or other which the 8th prohibits. Rape, incest FFA ...

    (Not counting the mad lads like yerman in favour of abortion up to birth but voting to save the 8th for economic reasons!!)


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #6811
    Triceratops Ballet
    Registered Users Posts: 4,894 ✭✭✭Triceratops Ballet


    AnneFrank wrote: »
    Again, i never said forced. I would agree with you for sure on ffa, but not a free for all up to 12 weeks.

    What is a free for all?


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement