The 8th Amendment Part 2 - Mod Warning in OP

Stab*City

Stab*City wrote: »

??

What is it then? I'm confused.

It is to repeal, or not, the 8th amendment. Which gives the unborn an equal right to life as the mother.
I can't believe you don't know this? I am not in the country at the moment, so I don't know how much information there is. Is there some lack of knowledge surrounding the referendum?

ohnonotgmail

RobertKK wrote: »

But most GPs in a poll said they don’t want to be abortionists and won’t be.

i presume you have the details of that poll?

RobertKK

RobertKK wrote: »

To save the life of the mother.

OK. Thanks

robarmstrong

RobertKK wrote: »

But most GPs in a poll said they don’t want to be abortionists and won’t be.

And most GP's in this poll said they will be. Oops.

https://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/75-of-doctors-support-12-week-access-to-abortion-466855.html

seamus

Stab*City wrote: »

??

What is it then? I'm confused.

The referendum is about replacing the 8th amendment with a statement that permits any government, current or future, to make laws which deal with the matter of abortion. It does not compel any government to legalise or criminalise abortion.

Abortion already happens in Ireland in very limited circumstances, and the constitutions guarantees the right of women to travel to obtain abortions, if they are capable of doing so.

So this is not a referendum about whether abortion should or shouldn't be allowed. We already allow it in a very roundabout way. And voting No won't change that. However, voting Yes will allow for a proper framework of regulation to be put in place. Which cannot be achieved under the current constitution.

amcalester

robarmstrong wrote: »

They will (I'm assuming) fall under the care of the HSE, fees and such would have to be determined upon legislation.

As far as I know, current when abortion pills are prescribed they are provided free of charge.

RobertKK

robarmstrong wrote: »

Why so difficult to answer?

I don’t think all diagnoses of FFA are as clear as made out. I posted about a family member here and was called a liar as the story didn’t have the outcome some Yes wanted and one poster said they didn’t care that the unborn lived.
So if the unborn isn’t given a chance in cases where it is guess work on survival then the unborn life has no chance.
I am not trying to be insensitive but you asked for a reply and I know my relation was suppose to die according to people in the national maternity hospital.

ELM327

RobertKK wrote: »

But most GPs in a poll said they don’t want to be abortionists and won’t be.

Source?
It would appear that this is more unsubstantiated bollox from you, read the below:

robarmstrong wrote: »

And most GP's in this poll said they will be. Oops.

https://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/75-of-doctors-support-12-week-access-to-abortion-466855.html

January

Maternity care is free in Ireland so it makes sense that abortions would also be free. But again, we're in Ireland. What could happen is the drugs are approved under the DPS and GMS schemes so that they'd cost at most 144 euro (or free if you've already spent the 144 on prescriptions in that month) under DPS and €2.00 under the GMS scheme. The doctors consultations then are obviously free if you've a GP/Medical Card or you pay the fee if you've none of these.

(And don't worry RobertKK, I'm not ignoring you, I'm cooking dinner and scrolling on my phone I'll be back to answer you about my 'lies' this evening).

Timberrrrrrrr

ELM327 wrote: »

Source?

The link was right there in his post

Nettle Soup

gandalf wrote: »

Absolutely poetic stitch up of Justin Barrett. The symbolism of making him travel to London for the interview, brilliant!

Who the hell is that idiot? I have never come across him before.
Does he have a following?

robarmstrong

RobertKK wrote: »

I don’t think all diagnoses of FFA are as clear as made out. I posted about a family member here and was called a liar as the story didn’t have the outcome some Yes wanted and one poster said they didn’t care that the unborn lived.
So if the unborn isn’t given a chance in cases where it is guess work on survival then the unborn life has no chance.
I am not trying to be insensitive but you asked for a reply and I know my relation was suppose to die according to people in the national maternity hospital.

It isn't FFA, as the baby will develop healthily with no issues but the amniotic sac will rupture due to the pressure of the uterine walls (because the baby has implanted in an area that is not viable) leading my partner to miscarry.

Is this me "dressing up abortion as being compassionate" ? My partner does not have nor will she have access to a safe and legal abortion here and instead will have to miscarry continuously until we have a baby that has implanted in a viable area (like where the baby in the current pregnancy has).

Medical professionals have deemed her not suitable for legal abortion in this country due to the 8th, neither her health nor the babies health is in direct danger.

Do you think it's fair that her and women like her will have to miscarry continuously because the 8th is denying them the dignity of a safe and legal abortion in their own home country? Or are they "killing" the unborn that were going to die anyways?

January

RobertKK wrote: »

I don’t think all diagnoses of FFA are as clear as made out. I posted about a family member here and was called a liar as the story didn’t have the outcome some Yes wanted and one poster said they didn’t care that the unborn lived.
So if the unborn isn’t given a chance in cases where it is guess work on survival then the unborn life has no chance.
I am not trying to be insensitive but you asked for a reply and I know my relation was suppose to die according to people in the national maternity hospital.

There are no fatal foetal heart conditions Robert, she while your sister may have been told there was a high chance the baby might die, they could never have told her that he was going to die. It wasn't a miracle.

ohnonotgmail

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

The link was right there in his post

this is the post

RobertKK wrote: »

But most GPs in a poll said they don’t want to be abortionists and won’t be.

i dont see any link in there.

ELM327

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

The link was right there in his post

No it wasnt

RobertKK made an unsubstantiated (as per usual) claim.
Then robarmstrong posted a link which proved him wrong.

RobertKK

ELM327 wrote: »

Source?
It would appear that this is more unsubstantiated bollox from you, read the below:

https://www.google.ie/amp/s/amp.independent.ie/irish-news/abortion-referendum/twothirds-of-gps-will-refuse-to-provide-abortion-pills-36682050.html

Timberrrrrrrr

ELM327 wrote: »

No it wasnt

RobertKK made an unsubstantiated (as per usual) claim.
Then robarmstrong posted a link which proved him wrong.

Apologies, i thought you were asking robarmsrmtrong for a link .

Reaches for his reading specs

amcalester

RobertKK wrote: »

https://www.google.ie/amp/s/amp.independent.ie/irish-news/abortion-referendum/twothirds-of-gps-will-refuse-to-provide-abortion-pills-36682050.html

Of course you didnt mention the reasons why these GPs don't want to get involved.

He said the doctors who said they would not become involved were likely to be influenced by having no training or lack of time due to their busy practices.

ballsymchugh

what happens if the referendum is a draw???

robarmstrong

ELM327 wrote: »

No it wasnt

RobertKK made an unsubstantiated (as per usual) claim.
Then robarmstrong posted a link which proved him wrong.

On the contrary I just posted a link that disputes his link, they essentially null eachother out.

The point being they shouldn't be used to substantiate bogus claims as both articles are only polls.

robarmstrong

ballsymchugh wrote: »

what happens if the referendum is a draw???

Goes into extra time then if that fails, penalty shoot-out.

ELM327

RobertKK wrote: »

https://www.google.ie/amp/s/amp.independent.ie/irish-news/abortion-referendum/twothirds-of-gps-will-refuse-to-provide-abortion-pills-36682050.html

Which is rendered irrelevant by the other poll with the opposite outcome

RobertKK

January wrote: »

There are no fatal foetal heart conditions Robert, she while your sister may have been told there was a high chance the baby might die, they could never have told her that he was going to die. It wasn't a miracle.

You are saying Dr Rhonda Mahony who dealt with this case is a liar. Are you saying there are no heart conditions in humans that can kill?
Are you saying the unborn are immune to life threatening heart conditions?

ohnonotgmail

RobertKK wrote: »

https://www.google.ie/amp/s/amp.independent.ie/irish-news/abortion-referendum/twothirds-of-gps-will-refuse-to-provide-abortion-pills-36682050.html

I'm pretty sure we have discussed that before. it is quite an old poll.

I think the relevant part is below. they dont object on moral grounds. they object on the grounds they wouldnt know what they were doing. So cannot rather than will not. not an insurmountable obstacle.

Dr Conor McGrane, a GP in north Dublin who was involved in the survey, said no GPs trained in Ireland or the UK received direct tuition on providing medical abortions.
He said the doctors who said they would not become involved were likely to be influenced by having no training or lack of time due to their busy practices.

nozzferrahhtoo

RobertKK wrote: »

I don’t think all diagnoses of FFA are as clear as made out.

This has nothing to do with abortion, rather medicine as a whole. NO diagnosis is 100% safe anywhere, anytime. We know this.

And if someone is not happy with a diagnosis, they should seek a second opinion.

Preferably while checking, which no one ever seems to do, that the person they get the second opinion from studied and obtained their qualifications in a different establishment. If you get 10 opinions from 10 doctors who all graduated together, you are probably just getting ONE opinion really. That of the lecturer who taught them.

When seeking a second opinion myself, I tend to try and find at least one Indian/Pakistan/other foreigner doctor for example. Someone in the same field but with a completely different medical education background.

But yes, our literature is punctuated with occasional diagnoses that turn out later to be false. Or predictions of a time to live, that later the patient lived longer, or people who were about to turn off the life support on a hopeless case.... who suddenly revived. Or people who were prescribed a medicine that then did nothing, or even made things worse.

But this is, statistically speaking, RARE. And I simply do not buy the approach that we should throw our hands up and refuse to do the right thing, and offer pregnant women all the choices, solely because we might get it wrong once in awhile. If your concerns were shown to be statistically significant, rather than the opportunistic exaggeration of complete statistical outliers, I would be as concerned as you. But this is not happening.

The approach you are selling would hamper and handicap medical treatments as a whole as there is always a chance a diagnosis or treatment is wrong, unhelpful, or even harmful. The patient and doctor(s) working together choose the best option they can on available data. That is simply how the world works. And it should work that way here too.

RobertKK wrote: »

I posted about a family member here and was called a liar as the story didn’t have the outcome some Yes wanted and one poster said they didn’t care that the unborn lived.

I was not involved in that conversation but you appear to be revising history from what little of it I remember in that 1) You were not called a liar because the outcome did not fit their agenda, but because your story had holes in it and you appeared to have pretty much NO specific details on the diagnosis, the prognosis, the condition, the treatment or just about ANYTHING else and 2) The poster was not saying he did not care about the unborn living, but they did not care in the context of THIS conversation. Which is a massively different thing and you blew it out of all proportion and credibility at the time.

RobertKK wrote: »

So if the unborn isn’t given a chance in cases where it is guess work on survival then the unborn life has no chance.

There is a range of certainty with all diagnoses. Many are clear cut. Some less so. The choice of what to do with a diagnosis of that sort should be the pregnant woman's. Because she is the only PERSON to be affected by it, and what comes after. She is the only owner and inhabitant of a body that will be affected by it at that time. It is up to her to take the risk to allow the fetus to continue from being merely biologically alive, to the point it becomes an actual person with rights for which we should have moral and ethical concern.

ohnonotgmail

RobertKK wrote: »

You are saying Dr Rhonda Mahony who dealt with this case is a liar. Are you saying there are no heart conditions in humans that can kill?
Are you saying the unborn are immune to life threatening heart conditions?

there is a difference between can kill and will kill.

RobertKK

ELM327 wrote: »

Which is rendered irrelevant by the other poll with the opposite outcome

So did I lie, I don’t see you saying sorry...

RobertKK

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

there is a difference between can kill and will kill.

This was a will kill, could have died in the womb and was told wouldn’t live long outside the womb.

ELM327

RobertKK wrote: »

So did I lie, I don’t see you saying sorry...

You didn't lie but you misrepresented. Leaving out the reasoning for the result (which was not moral opposition, but that no training was yet provided).
Typical whataboutery from the birth enforcement squad.

Why would I apologise to the likes of you?
Are you going to apologise for the death of Savita?
The thousands of women you hurt/killed/endangered?
10 per day. Every day.

robarmstrong

RobertKK wrote: »

So did I lie, I don’t see you saying sorry...

You didn't lie about this, you just posted what you believed to be the truth, whilst realistically, neither of the articles both you and I posted up are worthwhile to be used to substantiate a claim, it is a select number of GP's. At that though, the polls both conflict, different areas containing GP's might have been queried, who knows.

I'd appreciate your answer to the below regarding your claim about dressing up abortions as compassionate and statements regarding "killing the unborn".

Am I looking to kill my unborn?

robarmstrong wrote: »

It isn't FFA, as the baby will develop healthily with no issues but the amniotic sac will rupture due to the pressure of the uterine walls (because the baby has implanted in an area that is not viable) leading my partner to miscarry.

Is this me "dressing up abortion as being compassionate" ? My partner does not have nor will she have access to a safe and legal abortion here and instead will have to miscarry continuously until we have a baby that has implanted in a viable area (like where the baby in the current pregnancy has).

Medical professionals have deemed her not suitable for legal abortion in this country due to the 8th, neither her health nor the babies health is in direct danger.

Do you think it's fair that her and women like her will have to miscarry continuously because the 8th is denying them the dignity of a safe and legal abortion in their own home country? Or are they "killing" the unborn that were going to die anyways?