The 8th Amendment Part 2 - Mod Warning in OP

ohnonotgmail

RobertKK wrote: »

So a dead person is alive?
It was only machines being used and even according to evidence given in the court, they were failing to maintain her...

Their hands were tied with the want to make her an example so they could argue this happened because of the 8th amendment.
It was even said in court the unborn life had no chance of survival, just accept that woman was used, and the only people tying hands were the medical people who used her and her family to try and make a legal point about the 8th, which they failed to do...

hate-fueled nonsense.

RobertKK

Misael Echoing Horse wrote: »

Because the 8th amendment SUCKS.

It's badly worded, there were copious warnings when it was mooted that it would lead to all sorts of scenarios like that. Which is partly why almost every religious institution in the country (guess which one supported it, go on) opposed its insertion into the constitution, along with myriad other bodies in Ireland.

Doctors are not lawyers. It is not reasonable to expect doctors to put themselves at significant professional risk by interpreting an ambiguous, wooly, highly contentious piece of constitutional law which has ended up in the courts regularly since its inception. There was no precedent for that case, they needed guidance. "Follow the spirit of the law and stop drawing attention to how disastrous the word of the law is" is what you're telling them.

So does the law charge people with killing that person if they were already dead? So why would law apply to a dead woman whose unborn had no chance of survival?
The doctors had their case thrown out and told to stop their nonsense, because what they did sucked.
One can believe doctors are incredibly stupid people, and maybe one could argue that is why this happened, or one can view doctors as intelligent people, and question their motive in this case, given the woman was dead.
They did not need guidance, unless you believe laws for the living applies to dead people too. It was nothing but a repeal stunt, as no one was going to sue those doctors/medical people. They intentionally brought great distress on that family.

RobertKK

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

hate-fueled nonsense.

It was to do that to the dead woman and her family.

Martina1991

RobertKK wrote:

So a dead person is alive? It was only machines being used and even according to evidence given in the court, they were failing to maintain her...

I said the foetus was still alive. They were keeping her alive because the foetus still had a heartbeat. Why are you twisting what I said to suit yourself.

Also women have to have surgery in ectopic pregnancy cases instead of a pill because the foetus still has a heartbeat. They can't interfere with the foetus unless the woman's health is jeparsised. It's the same thing.

Ave Sodalis

RobertKK wrote: »

So does the law charge people with killing that person if they were already dead? So why would law apply to a dead woman whose unborn had no chance of survival?

That's the thing about the 8th. It doesn't matter if the foetus has no chance of survival, otherwise FFA would be aborted in Ireland.

FutureGuy

FutureGuy wrote: »

It’s odd. The post is getting thanked so it’s cleaely visible, and yet not one person who wants to keep the eighth has answered it?

Because they can't in reality. You can have all the opinions you want until you are actually face to face with an issue. A sane person is not going to want the one you love to die or to feel more pain if they don't decide to just because of a ideology.

The types that would stick with their ideology and force a loved one to die or feel pain so a baby can be born would be the same as the messed up individuals that sent the daughters to institutions for becoming pregnant just so the neighbours wouldn't be talking about them.

david75

Robert you seem completely clueless about the realities faced by women in this situation but especially clueless about the legalities involved in that particular case and in being so pigheaded and tabloid about it, your losing any respect there might have been for anything you have to say.

You sound like a demented Paddy manning. Don’t be that. Or try not to be.

RobertKK

robarmstrong wrote: »

Are you suggesting a deceased woman who was denied an abortion is being "used"?

Are you aware how disrespectful this sounds is to her family members who may actually be on Boards reading this?

If one reads what the father of the daughter in this case who was dead, he said what was done to them, caused 'great distress'. The family didn't want what these medical people chose to do to her.
What is disrespectful in this case was how their daughter was used to try and discredit the 8th amendment.
Tell me who was going to sue the medical people over their daughter?
The family weren't going to.
The hospital wasn't going to sue their doctors.
No one was going to sue given the mother was dead and the unborn had no chance of survival.
That is why going against the family and causing them needless suffering was a stunt, and that is where the disrespect lay.
People talked about it on boards at the time, were you on then saying it was disrespectful?

RobertKK

david75 wrote: »

Robert you seem completely clueless about the realities faced by women in this situation but especially clueless about the legalities involved in that particular case and in being so pigheaded and tabloid about it, your losing any respect there might have been for anything you have to say.

You sound like a demented Paddy manning. Don’t be that. Or try not to be.

Really?

So the doctors won their case?
They were right to keep the dead woman on life support?

January

RobertKK wrote: »

If one reads what the father of the daughter in this case who was dead, he said what was done to them, caused 'great distress'. The family didn't want what these medical people chose to do to her.
What is disrespectful in this case was how their daughter was used to try and discredit the 8th amendment.
Tell me who was going to sue the medical people over their daughter?
The family weren't going to.
The hospital wasn't going to sue their doctors.
No one was going to sue given the mother was dead and the unborn had no chance of survival.
That is why going against the family and causing them needless suffering was a stunt, and that is where the disrespect lay.
People talked about it on boards at the time, were you on then saying it was disrespectful?

Nobody was being sued but the chance of criminal proceedings being brought against the doctors was high and obviously something they wanted to avoid.

robarmstrong

RobertKK wrote: »

If one reads what the father of the daughter in this case who was dead, he said what was done to them, caused 'great distress'. The family didn't want what these medical people chose to do to her.
What is disrespectful in this case was how their daughter was used to try and discredit the 8th amendment.
Tell me who was going to sue the medical people over their daughter?
The family weren't going to.
The hospital wasn't going to sue their doctors.
No one was going to sue given the mother was dead and the unborn had no chance of survival.
That is why going against the family and causing them needless suffering was a stunt, and that is where the disrespect lay.
People talked about it on boards at the time, were you on then saying it was disrespectful?

Robert, I've no problem with people discussing that case.

But you crossed a line in saying what you said about her and the fetus being "used" against the 8th. Think about what you're saying, you're belittling her memory by making that assumption.

RobertKK

RobertKK wrote: »

If one reads what the father of the daughter in this case who was dead, he said what was done to them, caused 'great distress'. The family didn't want what these medical people chose to do to her.
What is disrespectful in this case was how their daughter was used to try and discredit the 8th amendment.
Tell me who was going to sue the medical people over their daughter?
The family weren't going to.
The hospital wasn't going to sue their doctors.
No one was going to sue given the mother was dead and the unborn had no chance of survival.
That is why going against the family and causing them needless suffering was a stunt, and that is where the disrespect lay.
People talked about it on boards at the time, were you on then saying it was disrespectful?

Because you've repeatedly posted lies about the case to suit your agenda Robert that's why it's disrespectful and you should be ashamed.

RobertKK

Ave Sodalis wrote: »

That's the thing about the 8th. It doesn't matter if the foetus has no chance of survival, otherwise FFA would be aborted in Ireland.

I have a nephew who was suppose to die not long after birth as he was diagnosed during pregnancy by the national maternity hospital as only having about 40 hrs of life when born before he would die.
One nurse did say she could go to England, which added distress given she was hinting she could go for an abortion.
He is now 10 years old and thanks to medical people who work to save lives, he is now living a normal life.
Being diagnosed during pregnancy as having an unborn with a life limiting condition is not always black and white as is often painted by the repeal side.

RobertKK

DubInMeath wrote: »

Because you've repeatedly posted lies about the case to suit your agenda Robert that's why it's disrespectful and you should be ashamed.

I haven't, what you post is a lie, see we can all say each other is a liar, and I can say you have a repeal agenda in your postings and it doesn't suit that the court didn't blame the 8th amendment in this case, but said what was being by the doctors was wrong.

January

RobertKK wrote: »

I have a nephew who was suppose to die not long after birth as he was diagnosed during pregnancy by the national maternity hospital as only having about 40 hrs of life when born before he would die.
One nurse did say she could go to England, which added distress given she was hinting she could go for an abortion.
He is now 10 years old and thanks to medical people who work to save lives, he is now living a normal life.
Being diagnosed during pregnancy as having an unborn with a life limiting condition is not always black and white as is often painted by the repeal side.

You failed to answer me in the last thread on this BTW. I think you said he had a heart condition. Which one does he have?

Ave Sodalis

RobertKK wrote: »

I have a nephew who was suppose to die not long after birth as he was diagnosed during pregnancy by the national maternity hospital as only having about 40 hrs of life when born before he would die.
One nurse did hit she could go to England, which added distress given she was hinting she could go for an abortion.
He is now 10 years old and thanks to medical people who work to save lives, he is now living a normal life.
Being diagnosed during pregnancy as having an unborn with a life limiting condition is not always black and white as is often painted by the repeal side.

Firstly, this is defying the odds and although great, it is not considered the norm.

Secondly, what has this got to do with the fact that the doctors still would have faced consequences for turning off the life support machine when there was still a technically living foetus in the woman? If the foetus is still considered alive, regardless of its fate, the 8th prevents anything that could willingly abort it.

david75

RobertKK wrote: »

I have a nephew who was suppose to die not long after birth as he was diagnosed during pregnancy by the national maternity hospital as only having about 40 hrs of life when born before he would die.
One nurse did say she could go to England, which added distress given she was hinting she could go for an abortion.
He is now 10 years old and thanks to medical people who work to save lives, he is now living a normal life.
Being diagnosed during pregnancy as having an unborn with a life limiting condition is not always black and white as is often painted by the repeal side.

Have to be honest, I don’t believe you. Or care tbh. You don’t deserve ‘ah go you and your nephew yay!’ After your stunt comments, But taken on face value, that happened that one time. And if you believe the outcome will be the same for every single woman facing an FFA every single time, you’re naive. Both in the realities of this entire debate and the medical realities facing every single case of ffa.

RobertKK

robarmstrong wrote: »

Robert, I've no problem with people discussing that case.

But you crossed a line in saying what you said about her and the fetus being "used" against the 8th. Think about what you're saying, you're belittling her memory by making that assumption.

I will post what I believe, I am not belittling her, what was belittling is what some people chose to do to her, because doctors get sued for not keeping dead women alive with nonviable unborn...but they don't...I am not changing my opinion, she was used.

SusieBlue

RobertKK wrote: »

I have a nephew who was suppose to die not long after birth as he was diagnosed during pregnancy by the national maternity hospital as only having about 40 hrs of life when born before he would die.
One nurse did say she could go to England, which added distress given she was hinting she could go for an abortion.
He is now 10 years old and thanks to medical people who work to save lives, he is now living a normal life.
Being diagnosed during pregnancy as having an unborn with a life limiting condition is not always black and white as is often painted by the repeal side.

I actually cannot stand this argument.
Good for you that it worked out for your family. I’m truly delighted that your nephew is healthy and well.
But the medical professionals actually do get it right far more often than they get it wrong.
And just because your nephew is in a minority of cases where everything turned out ok, it does NOT mean the rest of the population should be denied their choice.
You are not the one left birthing a baby with FFA when you deny another woman her choice. She is.
I can’t believe you actually have the audicity to feel you can dictate how another couple would deal with this kind of news just because everything worked out ok for your nephew.

And FYI, the medical professionals who looked after me were completely right in their prognosis. If I had known at the very start what would happen, I honestly don’t know what I’d have chosen. But I would have definitely wanted the choice.

PhoenixParker

RobertKK wrote: »

If one reads what the father of the daughter in this case who was dead, he said what was done to them, caused 'great distress'. The family didn't want what these medical people chose to do to her.
What is disrespectful in this case was how their daughter was used to try and discredit the 8th amendment.
Tell me who was going to sue the medical people over their daughter?
The family weren't going to.
The hospital wasn't going to sue their doctors.
No one was going to sue given the mother was dead and the unborn had no chance of survival.
That is why going against the family and causing them needless suffering was a stunt, and that is where the disrespect lay.
People talked about it on boards at the time, were you on then saying it was disrespectful?

You seem to misunderstand the legal system.
Sueing someone is a civil matter.
Breaching the 8th amendment is a criminal matter, the family's desire to sue is irrelevant.

If anyone reported it as a crime then it becomes a matter for the Gardai and DPP.
Anyone knowing the circumstances of the case could have made such a report.
The family might have had a role to play in the prosecution of the case but only as witnesses.
The prosecution and any conviction could take place wholly without their input and even against their wishes.

Martina1991

RobertKK wrote:

what was belittling is what some people chose to do to her, because doctors get sued for not keeping dead women alive with nonviable unborn...but they don't...I am not changing my opinion, she was used.

Some pro life posters would be of the opinion that although her life was over, the foetus still should have had a chance. Like your nephew, doctors could have been wrong. Maybe they could have kept the foetus alive until 24 weeks and delivered it.

Just because she wouldn't survive, doesn't diminish the foetues right to life, right?



Fyi that's not my opinion, but you Robert are contradicting yourself and your fellow pro life posters.

pleas advice

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

who comprises these "some"?

david75 wrote: »

Conspectus wrote: »

What do people think of a poll for the thread.
Simple question 'How will you vote in the referendum?'
2 possible answers
I'll vote in favour of repealing the 8th
I'll vote against repealing the 8th.

Lot of pro life posters seem to be new accounts out of nowhere.

thanked by 14 users

Madscientist30 wrote: »

Mods are all these rereg accounts also getting a vote each in the poll....everytime a new "confused undecided voter" appears the poll seems to shift a little more towards the "save" side. Might just be coincidence but....

6 thanks on this one,

thats some

ProfessorPlum

RobertKK wrote: »

I haven't, what you post is a lie, see we can all say each other is a liar, and I can say you have a repeal agenda in your postings and it doesn't suit that the court didn't blame the 8th amendment in this case, but said what was being by the doctors was wrong.

Except that he has the transcript of the findings of the high court to back up his statement - you on the other hand have nothing more than incoherent and idiotic ramblings.




And what is it with the fixation on suing??

RobertKK

david75 wrote: »

Have to be honest, I don’t believe you. Or care tbh. You don’t deserve ‘ah go you and your nephew yay!’ After your stunt comments, But taken on face value, that happened that one time. And if you believe the outcome will be the same for every single woman facing an FFA every single time, you’re naive. Both in the realities of this entire debate and the medical realities facing every single case of ffa.

I reported this post. I am not doing any more posts tonight as I am too angry with your dismissal of the life of my nephew.
You don't care, whatever about believing.
I posted about it in the past.

I wonder how many people will be tackling you about being disrespectful.

Don't ever reply to me again. You don't care, I get it.

robarmstrong

RobertKK wrote: »

I reported this post. I am not doing any more posts tonight as I am too angry with your dismissal of the life of my nephew.
You don't care, whatever about believing.
I posted about it in the past.

I wonder how many people will be tackling you about being disrespectful.

Don't ever reply to me again. You don't care, I get it.

I'm sorry that your nephew was brought up like that and I do hope when the tempers settle you get an apology..

At the same time Robert, you can't be so dismissal of a woman's life as david was (mistakenly) of your nephew.

Annasopra

RobertKK wrote: »

It was to do that to the dead woman and her family.

This is the 8th.

kylith

RobertKK wrote: »

I have a nephew who was suppose to die not long after birth as he was diagnosed during pregnancy by the national maternity hospital as only having about 40 hrs of life when born before he would die.
One nurse did say she could go to England, which added distress given she was hinting she could go for an abortion.
He is now 10 years old and thanks to medical people who work to save lives, he is now living a normal life.
Being diagnosed during pregnancy as having an unborn with a life limiting condition is not always black and white as is often painted by the repeal side.

How many children will the doctors not be wrong about? How many parent would you force to watch their child gasp for breath for a couple of hours for the one child who beats the odds? How many children would you have live for a day in agony? Is a life of pain and suffering really better than no life?

Shouldn’t the decision to take the chance that the doctors are wrong be the parents’?

borderlinemeath

RobertKK wrote: »

I reported this post. I am not doing any more posts tonight as I am too angry with your dismissal of the life of my nephew.
You don't care, whatever about believing.
I posted about it in the past.

I wonder how many people will be tackling you about being disrespectful.

Don't ever reply to me again. You don't care, I get it.

You have some neck talking about being disrespectful! Describing a tragedy as "a stunt" and claiming Miss P was "used". Yes, she was, by YOU in a twisted ridiculous conspiracy theory.

I have a niece who was born prematurely at 26 weeks. My sister was terminally ill and told she would not carry to term, and that the baby had little or no chance of survival. My sister died 5 weeks after she was born and even after this it was not clear whether my niece would survive, she had brain haemorrages and collapsed lungs and was not expected to make it. But she did. And it was a bloody miracle and a testament to the doctors and the nurses in Holles St that she did. Unlike you, who seem to have little or no understanding of the work that these staff have to do under the most difficult and trying of circumstances, I am grateful to the staff that cared for her. You just disparage medical staff to suit your argument.

Honestly, the more I read of your posts, the more I want to go out and campaign for the repeal side when I see the lunacy, and the fallacy that the pro birth side come out with.

NuMarvel

RobertKK wrote: »

I have a nephew who was suppose to die not long after birth as he was diagnosed during pregnancy by the national maternity hospital as only having about 40 hrs of life when born before he would die.
One nurse did say she could go to England, which added distress given she was hinting she could go for an abortion.
He is now 10 years old and thanks to medical people who work to save lives, he is now living a normal life.
Being diagnosed during pregnancy as having an unborn with a life limiting condition is not always black and white as is often painted by the repeal side.

Absolutely no one is saying it's a black and white issue. What the repeal side is saying is that the law should be on the side of ALL women and families in this situation, and not just those who choose to continue with the pregnancy.

Because that's what your sister (in law?) did. She made a choice, and the law of the land didn't deny her the chance to see that choice through in her own country, under the care of the doctors and nurses that she knew, with the support of her family and friends.

What the repeal side want is for women who make different choices to be treated in the same way. THAT'S what pro choice is about; not advocating for a particular choice, but advocating that everyone's choice is respected and provided for.

david75

RobertKK wrote: »

I reported this post. I am not doing any more posts tonight as I am too angry with your dismissal of the life of my nephew.
You don't care, whatever about believing.
I posted about it in the past.

I wonder how many people will be tackling you about being disrespectful.

Don't ever reply to me again. You don't care, I get it.

Yet you have no problems making hurtful inflammatory statements about other women and the one in question who died and labelling that tragedy a ‘stunt’.

The complete blindness to your own hypocrisy is quite astounding.