The 8th Amendment Part 2 - Mod Warning in OP

RobertKK

January wrote: »

I'll put my hands up and apologise here. You never said it was a doctor, I was mixing you up with petalgumdrops for a second.

Again though, why would your sister take the advice (and I know she didn't) of a nurse, rather than a doctor. No doctor ever told your sister that your sisters child was definitely going to die, they said might die. Which is not the same. There are no fatal foetal heart conditions so it won't be covered under the proposed legislation if it does come into effect.

Thanks January.

She didn't take the advice of the nurse, it just stuck with her what she said, and it didn't help her. Just added to the worry that her unborn wouldn't live. She was told it would have to be a managed birth as in a designated time, Crumlin on standby and would likely be dead within 40 hours of birth. This time limit assessment was around the time women who are of the mind would consider abortion as an option.
It would be covered in the proposed legislation as it was deemed a life limiting condition given she was told her unborn was given a time limit for when he could die. It was an abnormality that was picked up by the 3D scan and later by further investigation, they said the heart was very defective which would limit the life. The doctors in Crumlin said they knew of no other case in the country with this defect, but they did a great job both then and over the years to both treat, medicate and get a handle of the situation.

amcalester

RobertKK wrote: »

Thanks January.

She didn't take the advice of the nurse, it just stuck with her what she said, and it didn't help her. Just added to the worry that her unborn wouldn't live. She was told it would have to be a managed birth as in a designated time, Crumlin on standby and would likely be dead within 40 hours of birth. This time limit assessment was around the time women who are of the mind would consider abortion as an option.
It would be covered in the proposed legislation as it was deemed a life limiting condition given she was told her unborn was given a time limit for when he could die. It was an abnormality that was picked up by the 3D scan and later by further investigation, they said the heart was very defective which would limit the life. The doctors in Crumlin said they knew of no other case in the country with this defect, but they did a great job both then and over the years to both treat, medicate and get a handle of the situation.

Just because it (happily) worked out for your sister that doesn't mean it will for others, and perhaps they should be the ones to make the decision on whether to continue with the pregnancy rather than me or you (or the Irish voting population).

.......

This post has been deleted.

Stab*City

So let me get this straight the yes vote is to remove the text from law which says the unborns rights are equal to the mother? From a neutral standpoint looks like a bit of a raw deal for the unborn? Will this lead directly to legalized abortions? I have noticed this is a very divisive subject even between people like myself who usually don't care about this stuff. (Voting)

RobertKK

NuMarvel wrote: »

How is the status quo any more compassionate than what's proposed?

It is more compassionate when the constitution values all lives, both born and unborn lives. Rather than making it out it compassionate to remove that right to life and replace it with a choice to kill if that is the wish of the woman, as if the life in the womb is worthless.
There will never be agreement on abortion law. But if you go from the 8th amendment to what is proposed, we go from white to black in the contrast, restricted abortion laws to unrestricted any reason abortion laws up to 12 weeks, that is not compassionate.
People who are pro-choice may view the 8th as extreme, but what is proposed to replace it is extreme. I don't believe a majority will view the proposed changes as being compassionate and it is the biggest hurdle the Yes side faces.

.......

This post has been deleted.

RobertKK

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

It comes down to a moral viewpoint on life.
Is Killing the unborn for any reason ok? A lot of people are not comfortable with that.

Protecting all life where it is reasonable which includes the unborn is progressive.

Stab*City

Stab*City wrote: »

So let me get this straight the yes vote is to remove the text from law which says the unborns rights are equal to the mother? From a neutral standpoint looks like a bit of a raw deal for the unborn? I have noticed this is a very divisive subject even between people like myself who usually don't care about this stuff. (Voting)

It's a very raw deal for the mother, who can be denied medical treatment because she is a few weeks pregnant.
Do you know women receiving cancer treatment are given pregnancy tests before their chemo? What do you thinkhappens if it's positive?

The 8th amendment has an impact on every pregnant woman in the country, whether 6 weeks or 6 months.

robarmstrong

RobertKK wrote: »

It is more compassionate when the constitution values all lives, both born and unborn lives. Rather than making it out it compassionate to remove that right to life and replace it with a choice to kill if that is the wish of the woman, as if the life in the womb is worthless.
There will never be agreement on abortion law. But if you go from the 8th amendment to what is proposed, we go from white to black in the contrast, restricted abortion laws to unrestricted any reason abortion laws up to 12 weeks, that is not compassionate.
People who are pro-choice may view the 8th as extreme, but what is proposed to replace it is extreme. I don't believe a majority will view the proposed changes as being compassionate and it is the biggest hurdle the Yes side faces.

Terminate, not kill.

The 8th has shown no compassion to my partner's struggle nor has it shown any compassion towards others like herself.

You can keep using terms like "kill" or "murder" but that doesn't make it so, just because you believe it to be, doesn't mean it is.

My partner and women like her are not considered for safe and legal abortions, ideally I would like the 8th changed to include her, but it isn't. Instead I'm getting an unrestricted abortion up to 12 weeks proposal, so I'm going to take it, I'm not going to wait on the whims of others who want different proposals, I'm voting yes.

What it seems to me is that some from the pro-life side show absolutely no compassion towards the women who genuinely suffer, and will vote to retain the 8th which in turn will leave them in the same place.

Whereas some from the pro-choice side show little to no compassion towards the unborn. Me? I show plenty of compassion towards the unborn, I didn't refer to the babies my partner miscarried as "fetuses" or any medical/scientific/legal term at any time. They were and always will be my babies.

I just have more compassion for the women who are forced to continually miscarry instead of being granted the dignity of a safe and legal abortion and either have to sit and suffer in silence, or be forced abroad to seek out the abortion. Regardless of my own personal beliefs about abortion, what it does and what entails, the women who suffer leave me more uneasy than abortion does.

RobertKK

amcalester wrote: »

Just because it (happily) worked out for your sister that doesn't mean it will for others, and perhaps they should be the ones to make the decision on whether to continue with the pregnancy rather than me or you (or the Irish voting population).

There are other stories out there where women were told their unborn wouldn't live and they did. If anyone and that includes us, aren't given a chance then what chance have we to prove others wrong with anything in this life?

seamus

gandalf wrote: »

Former leader of Youth Defence, spoken at far right events in Europe, doesn't like immigrants or women. Tbh calling him a politician is a bit rich as I don't believe he has successfully been elected to anything. Failed politician and dubious human being would more apt. It's interesting examining the "leadership" of the forced birth brigade. An awful lot would linked to Opus Dei as well.

He's a rather "special" individual. When he's not getting photographed attending neo-nazi rallies, he is campaigning against literally anything you can think of.

He was vehemently opposed to divorce until the breakdown of his own marriage when he "changed his mind" about divorce. Convenient that.

I'm not convinced he's all there tbh.

Stab*City

bubblypop wrote: »

It's a very raw deal for the mother, who can be denied medical treatment because she is a few weeks pregnant.
Do you know women receiving cancer treatment are given pregnancy tests before their chemo? What do you thinkhappens if it's positive?

The 8th amendment has an impact on every pregnant woman in the country, whether 6 weeks or 6 months.

But the mother gets a vote and the chance to lobby and change opinion the unborn does not.

I'm just really on the fence about this. I want someone to convince me but both sides are doing a bad job.

Ave Sodalis

Stab*City wrote: »

So let me get this straight the yes vote is to remove the text from law which says the unborns rights are equal to the mother? From a neutral standpoint looks like a bit of a raw deal for the unborn? I have noticed this is a very divisive subject even between people like myself who usually don't care about this stuff. (Voting)

The unborn only has the right to life. That's all, and it's equal to that of the mother as it stands. However, it's been proven time and time again that it's often the case that the mother's life is secondary to the foetus and her quality of life even lower in the list of importance. The mother has to be actively dying before an abortion is performed, so risk of dying, no matter how high, is not enough to cut it. As a result, healthcare for a pregnant woman is impacted by the 8th if there is any chance of a risk to the foetus.
Currently, the right to life triumphs even the quality of life of the foetus so one diagnosed with FFA does not qualify for an abortion in the country. Even if that foetus is born and will suffer before it dies.
If the 8th is repealed, foetus will lose it's right to life at a stage where they have no consciousness, no perception, no thought processes and no feelings. The only time it will be allowed further is in the case of FFA, or as we have it now, where the mother is actively dying. If the foetus is past the point of viability, it's more likely to be induced for the latter.

A woman doesn't wake up one morning and decide she couldn't be arsed and wants an abortion. There is usually a reason. It comes down to whether or not you value a 12 week old foetus, or a living breathing woman more. If you believe a woman should be able to have an abortion for any reason (rape, FFA, child pregnancies etc), then a Yes vote is the only option. Regardless of whether or not abortion becomes legal through legislation after the referendum, the 8th needs to go due to the impacts it has on born, breathing and feeling people.

.......

This post has been deleted.

amcalester

RobertKK wrote: »

There are other stories out there where women were told their unborn wouldn't live and they did. If anyone and that includes us, aren't given a chance then what chance have we to prove others wrong with anything in this life?

I don't doubt that there are, and it's great for them.

But remember that if the 8th is repealed no woman will be forced to have an abortion.

Only women who want one (and who meet the criteria) will be allowed one.

You make it sound like abortions will be forced on women which is not the case.

Ave Sodalis

RobertKK wrote: »

There are other stories out there where women were told their unborn wouldn't live and they did. If anyone and that includes us, aren't given a chance then what chance have we to prove others wrong with anything in this life?

Abortion will still be a choice. It will not be compulsory

robarmstrong

Stab*City wrote: »

But the mother gets a vote and the chance to lobby and change opinion the unborn does not.

I'm just really on the fence about this. I want someone to convince me but both sides are doing a bad job.

Here you go, this is a post I put up previously on how the 8th currently is detrimental to women like my partner.

robarmstrong wrote: »

I don't agree with abortion myself but here's my situation.

My partner is 27 weeks pregnant with a baby girl, however before this we have suffered countless miscarriages due to her having a uterine abnormality (she has a heart shaped uterus) - basically this means that unless a baby implants in a certain area, my partner will lose the baby. All of our miscarriages have occured due to the baby implanting in an area that cannot support the size or volume of the amniotic sac which eventually will rupture due to the pressure placed upon it by the sides of the uterine wall (the latest we got to was 19 weeks).

Medical professionals have denied us access to abortions because technically my partner's health is not at risk nor is the babies (the baby will be absolutely fine and healthy, her waters will just break anyway and the baby will pass away). My partner does not meet the requirements for a legal abortion on Ireland because the medical professionals are of the opinion that due to the outcome of the pregnancy resting solely on where the baby implants, we can (and we currently are) having a successful pregnancy.

However this means that whenever the baby is not in the right place my partner is forced to carry it until she eventually miscarries it and has to deal with the heartbreak.

Despite my own views on abortion I do not think it is fair she has to suffer miscarriage after miscarriage instead of being able to legally have an abortion (where she will be surrounded by doctors and nurses with direct access to medical care versus randomly having her waters break and the baby passing shortly thereafter wherever she is) so I'm voting to repeal.

I hope this gives you a different bit of insight.

amcalester

Stab*City wrote: »

But the mother gets a vote and the chance to lobby and change opinion the unborn does not.

I'm just really on the fence about this. I want someone to convince me but both sides are doing a bad job.

Its not really up to either side to convince you, it's up to you to educate yourself and make a decision.

This is a good place to start

RobertKK

robarmstrong wrote: »

Terminate, not kill.

The 8th has shown no compassion to my partner's struggle nor has it shown any compassion towards others like herself.

You can keep using terms like "kill" or "murder" but that doesn't make it so, just because you believe it to be, doesn't mean it is.

My partner and women like her are not considered for safe and legal abortions, ideally I would like the 8th changed to include her, but it isn't. Instead I'm getting an unrestricted abortion up to 12 weeks proposal, so I'm going to take it, I'm not going to wait on the whims of others who want different proposals, I'm voting yes.

What it seems to me is that some from the pro-life side show absolutely no compassion towards the women who genuinely suffer, and will vote to retain the 8th which in turn will leave them in the same place.

Whereas some from the pro-choice side show little to no compassion towards the unborn. Me? I show plenty of compassion towards the unborn, I didn't refer to the babies my partner miscarried as "fetuses" or any medical/scientific/legal term at any time. They were and always will be my babies.

Terminate is the nice language for kill. Though we know what the job of the terminator was in the terminator, kill Sarah connor so she couldn't give birth to John...


You argue for your case, but you are also arguing for healthy unborn by healthy women to be 'terminated', whether that is your wish or not your wish, I don't know.
But I can't vote to remove the 8th as I have to vote with my conscience and I can't have blood on my hands if Yes wins and healthy unborn lives are being 'terminated' because others see it as a choice.

Josip007

It's time to allow women to have the right to control over their own bodies, grow up.

.......

This post has been deleted.

Ave Sodalis

RobertKK wrote: »

Terminate is the nice language for kill. Though we know what the job of the terminator was in the terminator, kill Sarah connor so she couldn't give birth to John...


You argue for your case, but you are also arguing for healthy unborn by healthy women to be 'terminated', whether that is your wish or not your wish, I don't know.
But I can't vote to remove the 8th as I have to vote with my conscience and I can't have blood on my hands if Yes wins and healthy unborn lives are being 'terminated' because others see it as a choice.

But you can have blood, pain and suffering on your hands by voting No.

Stab*City

Ave Sodalis wrote: »

The unborn only has the right to life. That's all, and it's equal to that of the mother as it stands. However, it's been proven time and time again that it's often the case that the mother's life is secondary to the foetus and her quality of life even lower in the list of importance. The mother has to be actively dying before an abortion is performed, so risk of dying, no matter how high, is not enough to cut it. As a result, healthcare for a pregnant woman is impacted by the 8th if there is any chance of a risk to the foetus.
Currently, the right to life triumphs even the quality of life of the foetus so one diagnosed with FFA does not qualify for an abortion in the country. Even if that foetus is born and will suffer before it dies.
If the 8th is repealed, foetus will lose it's right to life at a stage where they have no consciousness, no perception, no thought processes and no feelings. The only time it will be allowed further is in the case of FFA, or as we have it now, where the mother is actively dying. If the foetus is past the point of viability, it's more likely to be induced for the latter.

A woman doesn't wake up one morning and decide she couldn't be arsed and wants an abortion. There is usually a reason. It comes down to whether or not you value a 12 week old foetus, or a living breathing woman more. If you believe a woman should be able to have an abortion for any reason (rape, FFA, child pregnancies etc), then a Yes vote is the only option. Regardless of whether or not abortion becomes legal through legislation after the referendum, the 8th needs to go due to the impacts it has on born, breathing and feeling people.

I can sense a bit of pro choice in your arguments. Which is fine by me each to their own. Seems like all the info out there is biased which is hard to filter when making a decision be it a yes or no.

Im finding this really hard as i value both the woman and the unborns right to life.

RobertKK

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Name one woman who died from the 8th.

No report found the 8th was responsible for hospital mismanagement of sepsis in the case of Savita.
Hospital mismanagement that led to Savita's death led to the hospital paying her family compensation for not doing the job they were required to do.

erica74

IF A WOMAN WANTS AN ABORTION, THERE IS NO ALTERNATIVE TO AN ABORTION.
I just heard someone on the radio talking about adoption as an alternative. Adoption means continuing with a pregnancy when you no longer want to be pregnant. If a woman wants an abortion, she no longer wants to be pregnant. Is that difficult to grasp?

Stab*City

amcalester wrote: »

Its not really up to either side to convince you, it's up to you to educate yourself and make a decision.

This is a good place to start

So why are they so? Everyone i talk to is trying to influence you to lean a certain way. And if you don't lean their way they look down on you.

So should i just not vote at all? I've read the website and lots of other stuff now but i still don't know which way to vote.

RobertKK

Ave Sodalis wrote: »

But you can have blood, pain and suffering on your hands by voting No.

Which is not the truth.

robarmstrong

RobertKK wrote: »

Terminate is the nice language for kill. Though we know what the job of the terminator was in the terminator, kill Sarah connor so she couldn't give birth to John...


You argue for your case, but you are also arguing for healthy unborn by healthy women to be 'terminated', whether that is your wish or not your wish, I don't know.
But I can't vote to remove the 8th as I have to vote with my conscience and I can't have blood on my hands if Yes wins and healthy unborn lives are being 'terminated' because others see it as a choice.

I am arguing for the case that women have access to safe and legal abortions full stop. My main two reasons to vote are women like my partner to have access to this at any cost or means necessary, and that if my daughter ever needs to have access to a safe and legal abortion I would much prefer her to have one here than in a different country where she won't receive an ounce of aftercare or support.

You've agreed with abortion in some circumstances, yet ultimately you're voting No because it doesn't suit you. Abortion doesn't suit me either, but it doesn't matter if it suits me or not, what matters is that there are women in Ireland who require access to safe and legal abortion in Ireland but are currently being denied this due to the ultra-restrictive requirements in place already.

Common sense would dictate that these women (women with uterine abnormalities do not fall under grounds for health risks to mother or baby) have that access. The 8th dictates that they do not.

Ave Sodalis

Stab*City wrote: »

I can sense a bit of pro choice in your arguments. Which is fine by me each to their own. Seems like all the info out there is biased which is hard to filter when making a decision be it a yes or no.

Im finding this really hard as i value both the woman and the unborns right to life.

You said the unborn seems to be getting a raw deal. I explained the stakes for what happens (and is happening) if the 8th isn't repealed.

At the end of the day though, abortion is happening anyway. A No vote will not stop abortions, it will only stop safe ones. Those that cannot travel will resort to other means in order to cause an abortion. A No vote will have little to no effect on whether or not abortion happens.

Stab*City

Josip007 wrote: »

It's time to allow women to have the right to control over their own bodies, grow up.

I agree with this point of view as well. But why stop there? There are lots of ways we don't have control over our own bodies. Government constantly telling us what we can and cant do.