The 8th Amendment Part 2 - Mod Warning in OP

ProfessorPlum

RobertKK wrote: »

The court said what the doctors did was a futile exercise causing unimaginable distress. Given the woman was dead, it was a stunt, and it was disgraceful.

Yes, it was a futile exercise. As it transpired and became obvious during the treatment, the foetus was never going to reach viability. And yes, it did cause a huge amount of distress. None of the treating doctors wanted to continue with support, but they were constrained by the constitution, until the high court, at a series of special sittings over the christmas period, were able to rule and give them guidance. It took several sittings for the judges to hear and consider the evidence, so if you're seriously suggesting it was a stunt, then the high court must have been part of it!

The fact remains that in a similar situation, we may find ourselves back in the courts, because doctors are not constitutional lawyers. In fact hospital lawyers are not constitutional lawyers.

As an aside, I discussed this case on boards, and there was no shortage of posters who were adamant that the woman's body should be supported, against the will of her family, because she was carrying a (very immature) foetus.

Undividual

mzungu wrote: »

I am talking about in the years after the one child policy was implemented, not 2011. Things were winding down by 2011 and has nothing to do with what we are talking about.

Yes, some were in orphanages, others adopted by western families, abortions took place, as did forced sterilisation of women. None of this means it would happen in Ireland. The 8th amendment has nothing to do with any of it.

The disparities in Chinese society can be directly attributed to the one child policy.


Thankfully we live in Ireland, so none of that is relevant. What happened in China has no significance here.

If you wish to get to the bottom of the reason for the disparity, you need to look no further the government policies and social attitudes of that period in Chinese history.

So no Chinese people live here then? You've avoided even hypothetically addressing this point multiple times.

david75

Undividual wrote: »

I assume you're misunderstanding my point and not misrepresenting my statements. My point in relation to increased homosexuality activity was already outlined. Re-read my posts for clarification.

"There is much anecdotal evidence about increases in trafficking of women both for the sex industry and marriage, though it is impossible to say whether gender imbalance is a contributory factor in this. It has also been suggested that a shortage of women may lead to a rise in homosexual behaviour. The suggestion is not that the shortage of women will produce homosexuals, but rather that increasing tolerance towards homosexuality, together with the surplus of males, may lead to large numbers of covert homosexuals openly expressing their sexuality"

rss. onlinelibrary.wiley. com/doi/full/10.1111/j.1740-9713.2009.00335.x

I’m sure I’m not alone in misunderstanding your point as it’s nit really making any sense at all.
You’re against abortion Incase it leads to people having more gay sex?

What exactly has anything you’ve posted here to do with the referendum here in Ireland to repeal the 8th amendment?

China and India are completely irrelevant and non comparable situations with totally different societal constructs and demographics to Ireland.

Can you stay on topic about our referendum here in Ireland? Is that possible?

We had this exact conversation only last night with a poster making exactly the same nonsensical claims about India and China. Eerily similar to your own posts.

Undividual

david75 wrote: »

I’m sure I’m not alone in misunderstanding your point as it’s nit really making any sense at all.
You’re against abortion Incase it leads to people having more gay sex?

What exactly has anything you’ve posted here to do with the referendum here in Ireland to repeal the 8th amendment?

China and India are completely irrelevant and non comparable situations with totally different societal constructs and demographics to Ireland.

Can you stay on topic about our referendum here in Ireland? Is that possible?

We had this exact conversation only last night with a poster making exactly the same nonsensical claims about India and China. Eerily similar to your own posts.

Responding to you is becoming a chore. Report me as a rereg and then please stop going on about it, its tedious.

I assume we can both agree that Ireland has Chinese and Indian residents. What would/should we do if it turned out that some people in those communities chose to opt for sex-specific abortion? Or you can avoid addressing that issue again, if you want.

Ave Sodalis

Undividual wrote: »

I assume we can both agree that Ireland has Chinese and Indian residents. What would/should we do if it turned out that some people in those communities chose to opt for sex-specific abortion? Or you can avoid addressing that issue again, if you want.

A foetus does not develop clear sex organs until after the proposed 12 weeks.

david75

Undividual wrote: »

Responding to you is becoming a chore. Report me as a rereg and then please stop going on about it, its tedious.

I assume we can both agree that Ireland has Chinese and Indian residents. What would/should we do if it turned out that some people in those communities chose to opt for sex-specific abortion? Or you can avoid addressing that issue again, if you want.

Tedious is right. Endless re reg tediousness.
So you’re worried about abortion trends within the Indian and Chinese communities living here in Ireland? Do you have any statistics about the women from these minorities here in Ireland travelling for abortion in the UK and further your claim as it relates to sex specific abortion?

All ears. Fill us in.

RobertKK

RobertKK wrote: »

Quote:
Originally Posted by ProfessorPlum
I know Im late replying to this, just catching up.
Robert, you might want to read the judgment in that case. The case wasn't ruled against because the woman was dead. There was no stunt by 'prochoice' doctors. The doctors in the case immediately consulted the hospital legal department, because of the provisions of the 8th, for guidance. The hospital lawyers were unable to decide and so it went to the courts. No pro life/pro choice conspiracy.
And if a similar case happened again, there's every likelihood we could end up in the courts again, because the 8th demands that we vindicate the unborn's right to life.
The court said what the doctors did was a futile exercise causing unimaginable distress. Given the woman was dead, it was a stunt, and it was disgraceful.

Quote:
“unimaginable distress in a futile exercise which commenced only because of fears held by treating medical specialists of potential legal consequences”.
.

Robert this is the article that you I belive are quoting from

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/judgment-on-brain-dead-pregnant-woman-wins-award-1.2606884

No where in the article does the judge say that doctors kept the woman on life support to cause
“unimaginable distress in a futile exercise which commenced only because of fears held by treating medical specialists of potential legal consequences”.
as you quoted.

In fact using the same small quote I can only find articles similar to the above.

Can you please post a link to the article where as you said " the court said what the doctors did was a futile exercise causing unimaginable distress. Given the woman was dead, it was a stunt, and it was disgracefule." is available.

robarmstrong

Sorry have I missed something, have some posts been deleted?

Why is homosexuality being brought into the discussion? Genuinely curious as I must have very clearly missed how it was brought in.

david75

robarmstrong wrote: »

Sorry have I missed something, have some posts been deleted?

Why is homosexuality being brought into the discussion? Genuinely curious as I must have very clearly missed how it was brought in.

Undividual claimed first that abortion in China lead to more homosexual activity then claimed it would lead to more gay people.

Essentially.

If you arent seeing the posts it’s probably cos some deleting and editing has gone on.

david75

robarmstrong wrote: »

Sorry have I missed something, have some posts been deleted?

Why is homosexuality being brought into the discussion? Genuinely curious as I must have very clearly missed how it was brought in.

Here it is

Undividual wrote: »

I assume you're misunderstanding my point and not misrepresenting my statements. My point in relation to increased homosexuality activity was already outlined. Re-read my posts for clarification.

"There is much anecdotal evidence about increases in trafficking of women both for the sex industry and marriage, though it is impossible to say whether gender imbalance is a contributory factor in this. It has also been suggested that a shortage of women may lead to a rise in homosexual behaviour. The suggestion is not that the shortage of women will produce homosexuals, but rather that increasing tolerance towards homosexuality, together with the surplus of males, may lead to large numbers of covert homosexuals openly expressing their sexuality"

rss. onlinelibrary.wiley. com/doi/full/10.1111/j.1740-9713.2009.00335.x

robarmstrong

david75 wrote: »

Here it is

Cheers thanks dude.

So - what on earth has homosexual activity got anything to do with debating a referendum on access to abortion? Still scratching my head here.

robarmstrong

robarmstrong wrote: »

Sorry have I missed something, have some posts been deleted?

Why is homosexuality being brought into the discussion? Genuinely curious as I must have very clearly missed how it was brought in.

I think the argument is that if we have abortion in Ireland, men will be forced to have sex with other men because their won't be enough women to go around, basicly turning otherwise red blooded heterosexual men to have sex with another man simply just to have sex.

I'm still trying to figure out the logic.

david75

robarmstrong wrote: »

Cheers thanks dude.

So - what on earth has homosexual activity got anything to do with debating a referendum on access to abortion? Still scratching my head here.

If you get an answer to that please let me know. Utterly ridiculous nonsense. Again. From what looks like the same account posting the same crap yesterday.

kylith

Is it just me or does large numbers of covert homosexuals openly expressing their sexuality sound like a GOOD thing?

Ave Sodalis

kylith wrote: »

Is it just me or does large numbers of covert homosexuals openly expressing their sexuality sound like a GOOD thing?

If the arguments against the recent marriage referendum are anything to go by, I think that thought would terrify a lot of people.

david75

kylith wrote: »

Is it just me or does large numbers of covert homosexuals openly expressing their sexuality sound like a GOOD thing?

It’s odd that China and India are brought up in This regard. Homosexuality is completely illegal in India and no gay people exist in India according to their own statistics. A country of over a billion people.

Yet somehow their abortion rate causes homosexuality.


We are through the looking glass into the wardrobe and Into narnia when it comes to anything factual from certain posters.

Ave Sodalis

Ave Sodalis wrote: »

If the arguments against the recent marriage referendum are anything to go by, I think that thought would terrify a lot of people.

Ah I'd say one and the same

robarmstrong

DubInMeath wrote: »

I think the argument is that if we have abortion in Ireland, men will be forced to have sex with other men because their won't be enough women to go around, basicly turning otherwise red blooded heterosexual men to have sex with another man simply just to have sex.

I'm still trying to figure out the logic.

https://media.giphy.com/media/QE8hREXIgRXeo/giphy.gif

ProfessorPlum

DubInMeath wrote: »

Robert this is the article that you I belive are quoting from

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/judgment-on-brain-dead-pregnant-woman-wins-award-1.2606884

No where in the article does the judge say that doctors kept the woman on life support to cause
“unimaginable distress in a futile exercise which commenced only because of fears held by treating medical specialists of potential legal consequences”.
as you quoted.

In fact using the same small quote I can only find articles similar to the above.

Can you please post a link to the article where as you said " the court said what the doctors did was a futile exercise causing unimaginable distress. Given the woman was dead, it was a stunt, and it was disgracefule." is available.

I think is a useful article from a law research group at UCC. Had intended to include it in my last post for context. And to provide Robert with some useful and relevant reading material.

http://constitutionproject.ie/?p=374

"The question for the future is whether the written judgment provides any clarity on the balance of interests in a case involving brain death at a more advanced stage of pregnancy. As long as the Eighth Amendment remains in the Constitution in its present form, the possibility of such a deeply tragic and private case being decided in the very public and distressing surroundings of the Four Courts will be present. A court decision, by its nature, can only ever have limited application beyond the particular facts of the case before the court, and the Court made a point of stressing that the case turned on its own particular facts. Perhaps legislation could be enacted to set out a clinical process for resolving such cases; but the Eighth Amendment was never really intended to be applied to cases like this, and any such legislation would only perpetuate this ill fit."

The last sentence is in my opinion enough reason to repeal the 8th, whether you are pro life or pro choice. The 8th Amendment was a badly worded addition that not only does not serve the purpose for which it was intended back in 1983, but has had far reaching detrimental effects on women's health since. Until the 8th is repealed we can only ever aspire to have second rate legislation to try to lessen the wrongs that we have imposed on ourselves through the 8th.

robarmstrong

robarmstrong wrote: »

https://media.giphy.com/media/QE8hREXIgRXeo/giphy.gif

Thanks for the laugh needed that

ProfessorPlum

ProfessorPlum wrote: »

I think is a useful article from a law research group at UCC. Had intended to include it in my last post for context. And to provide Robert with some useful and relevant reading material.

http://constitutionproject.ie/?p=374

"The question for the future is whether the written judgment provides any clarity on the balance of interests in a case involving brain death at a more advanced stage of pregnancy. As long as the Eighth Amendment remains in the Constitution in its present form, the possibility of such a deeply tragic and private case being decided in the very public and distressing surroundings of the Four Courts will be present. A court decision, by its nature, can only ever have limited application beyond the particular facts of the case before the court, and the Court made a point of stressing that the case turned on its own particular facts. Perhaps legislation could be enacted to set out a clinical process for resolving such cases; but the Eighth Amendment was never really intended to be applied to cases like this, and any such legislation would only perpetuate this ill fit."

The last sentence is in my opinion enough reason to repeal the 8th, whether you are pro life or pro choice. The 8th Amendment was a badly worded addition that not only does not serve the purpose for which it was intended back in 1983, but has had far reaching detrimental effects on women's health since. Until the 8th is repealed we can only ever aspire to have second rate legislation to try to lessen the wrongs that we have imposed on ourselves through the 8th.

Thanks for the link I'd actually found it myself earlier and it is an interesting read.

freshpopcorn

david75 wrote: »

If you get an answer to that please let me know. Utterly ridiculous nonsense. Again. From what looks like the same account posting the same crap yesterday.

MOD NOTE
if you believe accounts are re-regs just use the report button and we can look into it.
Ye've being warned about this. Others would do something but I'll be fair with you.

Neyite

So having abortion here instead of nex door will make everyone abort girl fetuses because two different countries elsewhere have a) a massively patriarchal culture that we will for some unknown reason, adopt immediately or b) because of the government one child policy that Ireland for some unknown reason will implement.

And this will cause a population imbalance with Ireland having more men than women and with not enough women to go around... men will turn gay??

Seriously??

Oldtree

Neyite wrote: »

So having abortion here instead of nex door will make everyone abort girl fetuses because two different countries elsewhere have a) a massively patriarchal culture that we will for some unknown reason, adopt immediately or b) because of the government one child policy that Ireland for some unknown reason will implement.

And this will cause a population imbalance with Ireland having more men than women and with not enough women to go around... men will turn gay??

Seriously??

It's either a serious attempt to derail a valuable thread or simply a certain person has been unable to move past the last referendum and is disorientated while having a (Long) senior moment.

doomshine

Don't forget that, aided by magic, they'll be able to predict the sex of the fetus early enough to have a legal abortion within the proposed 12-week frame!

I for one welcome our new wizard overlords.

Neyite

Neyite wrote: »

So having abortion here instead of nex door will make everyone abort girl fetuses because two different countries elsewhere have a) a massively patriarchal culture that we will for some unknown reason, adopt immediately or b) because of the government one child policy that Ireland for some unknown reason will implement.

And this will cause a population imbalance with Ireland having more men than women and with not enough women to go around... men will turn gay??

Seriously??

If this is the case a friend of mine off on a UN mission at the moment must be sh1ting himself as he's stuck with fifty guys and no women for another six months.

SusieBlue

This is purely anecdotal but certainly in my own family and the circles I run in, baby boys are far more common than baby girls.
You’d hear of many a family of 6/7 sons and they keep going until they have a daughter.
You’d rarely hear of the opposite (I certainly haven’t).
In my own family, in my first cousins, there are 19 boys and 4 girls.
Most of the first time mams I know who would have given birth over the last 3/4 years were hoping for baby girls.
So I realize this is purely anecdotal and am not for a minute trying to say my own perception applies to Ireland as a whole, but I absolutely do not think that boys are valued more than girls here.
Ireland isn’t the patriarchal country it once was.

mzungu

Undividual wrote: »

So no Chinese people live here then?

What exactly are Chinese people going to do here??? I think you have gotten totally lost tbh.

Undividual wrote: »

You've avoided even hypothetically addressing this point multiple times.

Not I have not. I already answered earlier (many times) that what happens between concerned parties for abortion is nobody else's business.

Edit: You have fleshed out a tiny bit of what you meant. A few posts down you said this to another poster:

Undividual wrote:

I assume we can both agree that Ireland has Chinese and Indian residents. What would/should we do if it turned out that some people in those communities chose to opt for sex-specific abortion? Or you can avoid addressing that issue again, if you want.

What evidence do you have that this will happen over here? Sex specific abortion is a red herring. You might as well ask me what would I say if Leo Varadkar declared war on the Faroe Islands and some people decided to have an abortion because of it. Pointless question is pointless.

RobertKK

ProfessorPlum wrote: »

Yes, it was a futile exercise. As it transpired and became obvious during the treatment, the foetus was never going to reach viability. And yes, it did cause a huge amount of distress. None of the treating doctors wanted to continue with support, but they were constrained by the constitution, until the high court, at a series of special sittings over the christmas period, were able to rule and give them guidance. It took several sittings for the judges to hear and consider the evidence, so if you're seriously suggesting it was a stunt, then the high court must have been part of it!

The fact remains that in a similar situation, we may find ourselves back in the courts, because doctors are not constitutional lawyers. In fact hospital lawyers are not constitutional lawyers.

As an aside, I discussed this case on boards, and there was no shortage of posters who were adamant that the woman's body should be supported, against the will of her family, because she was carrying a (very immature) foetus.

No one was going to sue the doctors, the family weren't, the hospital were not going to sue their doctors. The woman was dead. It was a stunt to do what they did.
They used this woman and her family as footballs to kick around in a bid to make the 8th amendment look retarded. It took the courts to tell them to end their nonsense/ "futile exercise".

mzungu

Neyite wrote: »

So having abortion here instead of nex door will make everyone abort girl fetuses because two different countries elsewhere have a) a massively patriarchal culture that we will for some unknown reason, adopt immediately or b) because of the government one child policy that Ireland for some unknown reason will implement.

And this will cause a population imbalance with Ireland having more men than women and with not enough women to go around... men will turn gay??

Seriously??

'Tis some completely barmy stuff alright.