The 8th Amendment Part 2 - Mod Warning in OP

RobertKK

robarmstrong wrote: »

So what happened to Savita, then?

It was bad hospital care, look at the length of time it took to identify that she had E coli ESBL infection? They had been to India where they are from.

Travel to India was associated with the highest risk for the acquisition of ESBLs

http://aac.asm.org/content/54/9/3564.full

Look at the the treatment and time lengths, it took too long to identify the infection. It is also associated with around a 30% mortality rate in healthcare situations.

This is from a doctor on Savita.
https://www.irishexaminer.com/viewpoints/yourview/savitas-death-may-have-been-due-to-resistant-bacteria-strain-214431.html

Then this:
https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/savita-died-from-rare-infection-29207124.html

SAVITA Halappanavar died from an extremely rare and aggressive infection which an expert from the National Maternity Hospital had only seen five times in his 40-year career.
Three experts told the inquest that the 31-year-old dentist had died as a result of septic shock with the presence of an antibiotic-resistant Ecoli infection – and this had caused her to suffer multi-organ failure.

Finally the HIQA report said this:

14.11 Concluding remarks The findings of this investigation reflect a failure in the provision of the most basic elements of patient care to Savita Halappanavar and also the failure to recognise and act upon signs of her clinical deterioration in a timely and appropriate manner. The missed opportunities to intervene in her care that have been identified in this investigation, if acted upon, may have resulted in a different outcome for Savita Halappanavar.

http://cdn.thejournal.ie/media/2013/10/patient-safety-investigation-uhg.pdf

AnneFrank

Martina1991 wrote: »

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

I would agree with some of your points yes, but not in what is being put to us if we repeal. I just don't think that is right.
If the 8th was to be replaced with just ffa or rape then yes i would totally vote yes, but my conscience simply will not allow me to vote for on demand abortion up to 12 weeks. That's just my view, but i'm sure the yes side will win anyway

SusieBlue

Triceratops Ballet wrote: »

What is a free for all?

I think she means we're all going to go start aborting full term babies while drinking wine and snorting coke just for lols, a proper girls day out!

AnneFrank

SusieBlue wrote: »

I think she means we're all going to go start aborting full term babies while drinking wine and snorting coke just for lols, a proper girls day out!

Is 12 weeks full term to you Susie ?
No, that's not what i meant at all and i never mentioned alcohol or drugs.

Triceratops Ballet

AnneFrank wrote: »

I would agree with some of your points yes, but not in what is being put to us if we repeal. I just don't think that is right.
If the 8th was to be replaced with just ffa or rape then yes i would totally vote yes, but my conscience simply will not allow me to vote for on demand abortion up to 12 weeks. That's just my view, but i'm sure the yes side will win anyway

But can you not see the sense in lobbying you local TD to change the proposed legislation then. As has been pointed out, we have a minority government which could collapse, just because legislation is proposed does not mean that is what will happen, but unless the 8th is repealed nothing can happen. Which means all of those parents of babies with FFA will still have to travel to England, and leave their babies there.

Triceratops Ballet

AnneFrank wrote: »

Is 12 weeks full term to you Susie ?
No, that's not what i meant at all and i never mentioned alcohol or drugs.

What did you mean then, what do you mean when you say free for all?

Martina1991

RobertKK wrote: »

It was bad hospital care, look at the length of time it took to identify that she had E coli ESBL infection? They had been to India where they are from.

Look at the the treatment and time lengths, it took too long to identify the infection. It is also associated with around a 30% mortality rate in healthcare situations.

In a Microbiology lab, growing bacterial cultures takes 24-48 hours, maybe longer depending on the bacteria. There is no way of telling the bacteria to grow faster.

Identifying an antibiotic that would have been effective for Savita couldn't have been sped up and was not bad hospital care.

AnneFrank

Triceratops Ballet wrote: »

But can you not see the sense in lobbying you local TD to change the proposed legislation then. As has been pointed out, we have a minority government which could collapse, just because legislation is proposed does not mean that is what will happen, but unless the 8th is repealed nothing can happen. Which means all of those parents of babies with FFA will still have to travel to England, and leave their babies there.

I do take your point, but i won't be lobbying it's just not something i would do personally, but if it was tweaked i would vote yes.
Just not on demand for 12 weeks i just couldn't do it for my own reasons.
But going by all the polls the yes side should win hands down anyway

Martina1991

Triceratops Ballet wrote: »

But can you not see the sense in lobbying you local TD to change the proposed legislation then. As has been pointed out, we have a minority government which could collapse, just because legislation is proposed does not mean that is what will happen, but unless the 8th is repealed nothing can happen. Which means all of those parents of babies with FFA will still have to travel to England, and leave their babies there.

+1
I don't think many pro life people think about this.
* The 8th helps no one as it stands.
* It has to be removed.
* There is proposed legislation for what it will be replaced with.
* Pro life people can lobby this proposed llegislation if they think it's too liberal.

Triceratops Ballet

AnneFrank wrote: »

I do take your point, but i won't be lobbying it's just not something i would do personally, but if it was tweaked i would vote yes.
Just not on demand for 12 weeks i just couldn't do it for my own reasons.
But going by all the polls the yes side should win hands down anyway

There is no guarantee the yes side will win, most yes campaigners aren't as confident of that as you are. It will come don to individual votes and it could be your vote that makes the difference to those families who have to make that trip.

SusieBlue

AnneFrank wrote: »

I do take your point, but i won't be lobbying it's just not something i would do personally, but if it was tweaked i would vote yes.
Just not on demand for 12 weeks i just couldn't do it for my own reasons.
But going by all the polls the yes side should win hands down anyway

I think you need to see past yourself and your own morals and realise the dangerous situations you are putting other people in just for the sake of having society live by your beliefs.
Its about so much more than just you or me.

I accept what you're saying about on demand, and while I don't agree, I do see your point.
I just think its selfish to vote No to put a stop to the type of abortion you don't agree with, knowing it will make people whose circumstances you actually support suffer.

If you agree in cases in FFA then you should be voting Yes. FFA should not be collateral damage to stop "bad" abortions you don't agree with.

Zubeneschamali

AnneFrank wrote: »

I do take your point, but i won't be lobbying it's just not something i would do personally, but if it was tweaked i would vote yes.

Myself, two weeks ago:

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Thee Glitz and lots of other prolifers just like to sound reasonable by saying "I'd love to vote Repeal but...". No matter what is proposed, there will always be a "....but ... so I have to vote the way the Bishop says." at the end.

It's like all the "I have no problems with the Gays, some of my friends own pink shirts, but..." people in the SSM referendum, who were always voting No to SSM regardless, because the Vatican said it was "a defeat for Humanity".

Yeah_Right

AnneFrank wrote: »

I just don't think that is right.
If the 8th was to be replaced with just ffa or rape then yes i would totally vote yes, but my conscience simply will not allow me to vote for on demand abortion up to 12 weeks.

How would you determine rape?

AnneFrank

Triceratops Ballet wrote: »

There is no guarantee the yes side will win, most yes campaigners aren't as confident of that as you are. It will come don to individual votes and it could be your vote that makes the difference to those families who have to make that trip.

True, or if the no side wins maybe it can be tweaked to get it through.
But honestly i do believe it will win i just wish the debate could be civilized.
I honestly believe shouting people down irrationally will turn people off voting either way.

Triceratops Ballet

AnneFrank wrote: »

True, or if the no side wins maybe it can be tweaked to get it through.
But honestly i do believe it will win i just wish the debate could be civilized.
I honestly believe shouting people down irrationally will turn people off voting either way.

if no wins nothing can be tweaked, things have to stay exactly as they are. The 8th amendment bars the way to making any legislation even in cases of FFA.

There can only be legislation for these cases if yes wins

captbarnacles

AnneFrank wrote: »

I would agree with some of your points yes, but not in what is being put to us if we repeal. I just don't think that is right.
If the 8th was to be replaced with just ffa or rape then yes i would totally vote yes, but my conscience simply will not allow me to vote for on demand abortion up to 12 weeks. That's just my view, but i'm sure the yes side will win anyway

Irish women can travel to England if they can afford it and have the right circumstances. Irish women can order pills online and no-one wants them prosecuted for doing it.

How does your conscience square with these realities?

RobertKK

Martina1991 wrote: »

In a Microbiology lab, growing bacterial cultures takes 24-48 hours, maybe longer depending on the bacteria. There is no way of telling the bacteria to grow faster.

Identifying an antibiotic that would have been effective for Savita couldn't have been sped up and was not bad hospital care.

Yes, but it had been known for years before that in healthcare, that travelling to India lead to a specific heightened e coli threat - one that she had acquired.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2715591/

Zubeneschamali

Triceratops Ballet wrote: »

if no wins nothing can be tweaked, things have to stay exactly as they are. The 8th amendment bars the way to making any legislation even in cases of FFA.

I think the idea of the "Love to vote repeal but..." people is that we would concoct another abomination of an amendment to replace the 8th which would somehow allow abortion for rape, incest and FFA but ban abortion if it's just because the office tottie fancies a Chardonnay with her lunch.

The Citizen's Assembly considered and rejected this idea.

Martina1991

RobertKK wrote:

Yes, but it had been known for years before that in healthcare, that travelling to India lead to a specific heightened e coli threat - one that she had acquired.

You're quoting an American study from 11 years ago.
There are thousands of studies and articles published every year. How can every doctor in our Irish hospitals be up to date with every emerging theory.

blanch152

AnneFrank wrote: »

True, or if the no side wins maybe it can be tweaked to get it through.
But honestly i do believe it will win i just wish the debate could be civilized.
I honestly believe shouting people down irrationally will turn people off voting either way.

This is a nonsensical argument.

Even if the legislative proposal is tweaked, it can be changed the following week.

What some NO voters don't seem to understand is that there is no guarantee that there will be any change following the referendum. Once the amendment is removed from the Constitution, the existing limited rules around abortion apply until such time as the Dail votes to change them. It is quite possible, maybe even probable, that there will be an election before the abortion laws are changed. That gives everybody the chance to vote for the party that brings the abortion laws they want.

Essentially, all a yes vote does, is create an option for change.

Annasopra

AnneFrank wrote: »

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

Noone is ganging up to harass you!

blanch152

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

I think the idea of the "Love to vote repeal but..." people is that we would concoct another abomination of an amendment to replace the 8th which would somehow allow abortion for rape, incest and FFA but ban abortion if it's just because the office tottie fancies a Chardonnay with her lunch.

The Citizen's Assembly considered and rejected this idea.

The reason they did so was threefold - first, it would create another legal abomination, second it exposed more women to poor healthcare and third, it didn't deal with the modern reality of the abortion pill.

Annasopra

bubblypop wrote: »

Ahh sure we will be out & about sleeping with everyone, without any contraception because we will be able to run in at lunchtime & get a quick abortion.

Go way ye wife swapping sodomites ;-)

nozzferrahhtoo

AnneFrank wrote: »

If the 8th was to be replaced with just ffa or rape then yes i would totally vote yes

Could you explain to me how you imagine a system working where we offer abortion in cases of rape. What would be the procedure to apply for it and attain one exactly?

AnneFrank wrote: »

But honestly i do believe it will win i just wish the debate could be civilized.

Then MAKE it civilised by leading from example. For example some people (myself included) have replied to your posts politely and maturely. You simply ignored those people/posts.

What is civilised about THAT exactly? Or do you feel the rule to act with any level of decorum is one you are allowed call for, but are exempt from? Because that is unfortunately how it appears from your actions.

If it makes you feel any better I more and more suspect it will not pass a yes vote. Which worries me given the last 20 or so predictions I have made for elections in and outside of Ireland were 100% correct. I would hope my streak is coming to an end however and I call this one wrong.

nozzferrahhtoo

RobertKK wrote: »

It is probably that way for the women in the UK who are on the 7th, 8th or 9th abortion.

And how many people IS that exactly? Last statistics I read were of 85 procedures out of the 189,574 performed in 2010. 85 people in a population of 63 million people (UK 2010). Hardly the stuff of nightmares. And there is absolutely no details on WHY those women sought abortions. You and the Daily mail both pretend it supports the "abortion as contraception" narrative. You have no evidence for that at all. There could be any number of reasons for those women to seek that many abortions. Including by women who actually WANT To be pregnant and have a child.

RobertKK wrote: »

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

That is a completely different statistic however. The first thing you mention was women who were on the 7th or more abortion. You are now citing a statistic related to women on 2 or more. A massively different thing.

Were you hoping that if you mentioned the two statistics close enough together, people would get the idea that 34% of women have 7 or more abortions? Because that is certainly the KIND of thing you would do given your usual MO of distortion and dodge.

horseburger

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

Go way ye wife swapping sodomites ;-)

You are chronologically incorrect in using that phrase with regard to the referendum on the 8th amendment, either now, or in 1983.

That phrase was used in 1995, shortly after the result of the divorce referendum.

If you had bothered to look this up before trying to be a smart ass, you would know that.

A recent article in Joe.ie, about campaigns for abortion provision, throughout the 1980s, incorrectly suggested that that phrase had been used in 1983.

https://www.irishtimes.com/life-and-style/how-wife-swappin-sodomites-won-the-right-to-remarry-1.2070412

https://comeheretome.com/2012/07/29/una-bean-mhic-mhathuna-40-years-of-reactionary-politics/

https://comeheretome.files.wordpress.com/2012/07/screen-shot-2012-07-29-at-18-35-13.png

https://www.joe.ie/life-style/story-of-the-8th-how-right-wing-catholic-groups-staged-a-remarkable-political-coup-614595

robarmstrong

horseburger wrote: »

You are chronologically incorrect in using that phrase with regard to the referendum on the 8th amendment, either now, or in 1983.

That phrase was used in 1995, shortly after the result of the divorce referendum.

If you had bothered to look this up before trying to be a smart ass, you would know that.

A recent article in Joe.ie, about campaigns for abortion provision, throughout the 1980s, incorrectly suggested that that phrase had been used in 1983.

https://www.irishtimes.com/life-and-style/how-wife-swappin-sodomites-won-the-right-to-remarry-1.2070412

https://comeheretome.com/2012/07/29/una-bean-mhic-mhathuna-40-years-of-reactionary-politics/

https://comeheretome.files.wordpress.com/2012/07/screen-shot-2012-07-29-at-18-35-13.png

https://www.joe.ie/life-style/story-of-the-8th-how-right-wing-catholic-groups-staged-a-remarkable-political-coup-614595

ICYMI -

robarmstrong wrote: »

As someone who's "on the fence" -

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

horseburger

robarmstrong wrote: »

ICYMI -

Why do you care anyway?

Annasopra

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.

Yes

And Professor Louise Kenny said the opposite. That the 8th clearly puts womens lives in danger.
A professor of obstetrics and a consultant obstetrician and gynaecologist said this.

robarmstrong

horseburger wrote: »

Why do you care anyway?

Because for someone who's "on the fence" you've come in here and attempted over and over and over to nitpick any and everything on the pro-choice campaign and you flat out refuse to mention anything about the pro-life campaign and any negative connotations from that side.

Answer the question.

robarmstrong wrote: »

As someone who's "on the fence" -

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

Why are you refusing to engage?