The 8th Amendment Part 2 - Mod Warning in OP

david75

erica74 wrote: »

My grandmothers had 10 children each but they both had at least 2 additional pregnancies (that I know of) that ended in miscarriage. One of my grandmothers also gave birth to a baby who died 3 days later. All of that was in the 50s and 60s.
My husband's mother gave birth to a baby who died 5 days later, that was in the late 70s.
Like you say, who knows if they wanted to go through all those pregnancies, back then I feel like it was just a fact of life.

As an aside, my mother and her siblings did not have a good childhood. The older ones (and my mother was the eldest) looked after the younger ones, my grandfather worked all hours and was an alcoholic with a temper, my grandmother worked part time and looked after the house, the cleaning and cooking, which, for 12 people was time consuming.
My mother put me and my sister through an awful childhood. I won't go into detail as it's off topic but maybe if all the options had been available to my grandmother, and by options I don't just mean abortion, I mean good gynaecological care, maybe different decisions would have been made and I would have had a different life.
I hate my mother for what she put me through and continues to put me through, despite me cutting her out of my life, but even I can't deny her childhood and young adulthood had a big part to play in the way she mothered me.

Very similar to my own families story. I wish that poster from a few pages back, yearning for good old catholic Ireland of values and community, could read your post and see the realities of it. Your story is far more the norm nationwide than that postcard version the poster in question was looking for.

thee glitz

seamus wrote: »

thee glitz wrote: »

Sounds like they had the laws and facilities in place, but screwed up.

Right. So, if this child had survived and given birth to her rapist's child, everything is hunky-fucking-dory then according to you.

That's lovely. You're a shining example of pro-life humanitarianism.

As opposed to the kill it - KILL IT NOW! branch of humanitarianism? I didn't say everything would be hunky-dory - obviously the child would need a lot of support. Some people broadly pro-life believe that rape alone is reasonable grounds to allow abortion.

This appears to be a story about where the law should have helped a girl, but didn't. So what was wrong with the law?

kylith

thee glitz wrote: »

As opposed to the kill it - KILL IT NOW! branch of humanitarianism? I didn't say everything would be hunky-dory - obviously the child would need a lot of support. Some people broadly pro-life believe that rape alone is reasonable grounds to allow abortion.

This appears to be a story about where the law should have helped a girl, but didn't. So what was wrong with the law?

What was wrong with the law is that big the time the woman’s life is in iminant danger death can be mere moments away, too fast for doctors to do anything to save her.

No-one gave that girl any choice. She had no choice in the conception. No-one asked her if _she_ was willing to take the risk of haemorrhage during birth, and now she’s dead.

Any 14 year old girls in your family? Would you be willing to tell them that if they were raped you would rather they died of embolism and cardiac arrest during a birth that they were not physically developed enough for than for an 8 week foetus to be aborted? Go on. Tell them you would rather they die than have a termination.

Candamir

thee glitz wrote: »

Well they did - why are you saying otherwise? If it's legal where the life of the mother is at risk, and it would have saved her life, then they messed up.



We should fix the system to give greater comfort to doctors and not require them to be consulting lawyers.



The post I quoted implied that abortion in this case would have been legal. I didn't make anything up.



Just going by the post I quoted.

She developed ‘respiratory complications’ (most likely due to embolism - my addition) during attempted vaginal delivery and so they proceeded to c section, when she suffered cardiac arrest and died.

At what point do you think her life became significantly enough at risk to warrant a legal abortion in this case?

Most right minded people think a child should not have to endure a pregnancy and childbirth for which she is clearly not physically, never mind mentally, ready.

But no. Blame the doctors because they somehow ‘messed up’.

And you quoted my post. It did not imply abortion in this case would have been legal. You did make that bit up.

swampgas

thee glitz wrote: »

We should fix the system to give greater comfort to doctors and not require them to be consulting lawyers.

I agree. And the only way to do that in Ireland is to repeal the 8th.

baylah17

thee glitz wrote: »

We should fix the system to give greater comfort to doctors and not require them to be consulting lawyers.

We should fix the system by giving more power to women to make their own choices!

seamus

thee glitz wrote: »

So what was wrong with the law?

The fact that it required a child to remain pregnant after being raped.

A child.

thee glitz

kylith wrote: »

What was wrong with the law is that big the time the woman’s life is in iminant danger death can be mere moments away, too fast for doctors to do anything to save her.

No-one gave that girl any choice. She had no choice in the conception. No-one asked her if _she_ was willing to take the risk of haemorrhage during birth, and now she’s dead.

So fix the law to give doctors reasonable discretion over the risks that may prevail.

Any 14 year old girls in your family? Would you be willing to tell them that if they were raped you would rather they died of embolism and cardiac arrest during a birth that they were not physically developed enough for than for an 8 week foetus to be aborted? Go on. Tell them you would rather they die than have a termination.

No 14yr old girls in my family. Is being raped an important part of your question, or just thrown in to load it a bit? If they were dead, an 8 week termination wouldn't be necessary. We have doctors that presumably wouldn't let someone die where possible, so it wouldn't really be up to me.

thee glitz

seamus wrote: »

The fact that it required a child to remain pregnant after being raped.

A child.

So have a vote, fix it if it's the will of the people.

kylith

thee glitz wrote: »

So fix the law to give doctors reasonable discretion over the risks that may prevail.



No 14yr old girls in my family. Is being raped an important part of your question, or just thrown in to load it a bit? If they were dead, an 8 week termination wouldn't be necessary. We have doctors that presumably wouldn't let someone die where possible, so it wouldn't really be up to me.

What ‘reasonable discretion’? As the law stands, there and here, the woman’s life must be in danger. The only way to fix that is to repeal the 8th.

Are you being deliberately obtuse? We are talking about dying during birth. DO YOU THINK IT IS PREFERABLE FOR TEENAGE GIRLS TO RISK DEATH DURING A PREGNANCY AND BIRTH THEY ARE NOT DEVELOPED ENOUGH FOR THAN TO TERMINATE AN 8 WEEK FOETUS?

Sofiztikated

thee glitz wrote: »

So fix the law to give doctors reasonable discretion over the risks that may prevail.
.

That's exactly what we want to do!

Zubeneschamali

thee glitz wrote: »

So fix the law to give doctors reasonable discretion over the risks that may prevail

For which we must repeal the 8th. Welcome onboard.

thee glitz

swampgas wrote: »

thee glitz wrote: »

We should fix the system to give greater comfort to doctors and not require them to be consulting lawyers.

I agree. And the only way to do that in Ireland is to repeal the 8th.

Legalizing abortion on demand is not a required or proportionate response. Pushing this as the result of repealing the 8th greater risks losing the vote.

Tying allowing abortion in the case of medical necessity with more trivial cases in disgusting and disingenuous, but that's apparently what's happening.

kylith

thee glitz wrote: »

Legalizing abortion on demand is not a required or proportionate response. Pushing this as the result of repealing the 8th greater risks losing the vote.

Tying allowing abortion in the case of medical necessity with more trivial cases in disgusting and disingenuous, but that's apparently what's happening.

Doesn't matter. The 8 th still has to be repealed to untie doctors hands and allow them to work pre-emptively

thee glitz

kylith wrote: »

Doesn't matter. The 8 th still has to be repealed to untie doctors hands and allow them to work pre-emptively

That's exactly why it matters. Are we all gathered here to discuss repealing so women getting the treatment they need, or just pretending and using special cases as a justification for abortion for any reason?

swampgas

thee glitz wrote: »

Legalizing abortion on demand is not a required or proportionate response. Pushing this as the result of repealing the 8th greater risks losing the vote.

Tying allowing abortion in the case of medical necessity with more trivial cases in disgusting and disingenuous, but that's apparently what's happening.

So you can see that the 8th needs to be repealed to save lives. But you do not agree with the legislation that is likely to follow.

So if a democratic majority might allow abortion on request up to 12 weeks, which you disagree with, you are prepared to sabotage that by blocking repeal of the 8th?

Are you really are prepared to sacrifice the health and lives of vulnerable pregnant women on the altar of your hatred of women having the right to choose abortions up to 12 weeks?

Ave Sodalis

thee glitz wrote: »

Tying allowing abortion in the case of medical necessity with more trivial cases in disgusting and disingenuous, but that's apparently what's happening.

So far the patchwork Acts used to "fix" the problems with the 8th have failed fix many of the problems with the 8th. The 8th has had, and will continue to have many issues which have led to extremely painful deaths for women in this country. Sticking plasters over a limb that needs amputation is not fixing anything, neither is bringing in vague and potentially damning acts and bills (which are only taken in AFTER something horrific happens) to fix something that needs to be gotten rid off. The Institute of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists are for repeal, doesn't that say enough about how much of a legal minefield the 8th causes?

ProfessorPlum

thee glitz wrote: »

Legalizing abortion on demand is not a required or proportionate response. Pushing this as the result of repealing the 8th greater risks losing the vote.

Tying allowing abortion in the case of medical necessity with more trivial cases in disgusting and disingenuous, but that's apparently what's happening.

The “Save the 8th” campaign wants to, well, save the 8th.

So long as the 8th amendment is in the constitution, then these cases can and will continue to happen.

We are somewhat more fortunate than other countries in that we have Britain next door, so mostly our children are not forced to give birth.

Wanting to prevent ‘abortion on demand’ by keeping an amendment in our constitution which endangers women’s and children’s lives is pretty disgusting and disengenuos.

Repeal the 8th and lobby for the law you want.

Edward M

thee glitz wrote: »

So have a vote, fix it if it's the will of the people.

I understand what you mean, but it can't be fixed in any way shape or form until the eighth is repealed.
OK, I think you mean there should be another constitutional amendment to replace the eighth as part of the alternative, maybe not just the fact that legislation by the oireachtas, that could possibly change willy nilly after the eighth is repealed.
I had that view myself for a long time, but that would be virtually impossible to word that it would not still entail some catch somewhere that would see some complication or another arise.
I found it hard to accept that the 12 week limit was the only answer, but legally it is probably the fairest way to go.
Anyway, apart from any other reason, if the eighth is gone, and no ties to the constitution, if other circumstances arise whereby abortion is necessary, then at least a simple parliamentary decision can change it, no need for all the fuss and hoo haa we are going through now every time it needs to be changed.
Our citizens as it stands are aborting anyway, either by travelling or by imported pills.
I really have come to realise over the last couple of months, while making myself more aware of a situation I never really thought that much about before, that the most sensible solution is probably what we are being asked to vote for.
That's me, but I know a lot of people don't or won't see it that way too.

kylith

thee glitz wrote: »

That's exactly why it matters. Are we all gathered here to discuss repealing so women getting the treatment they need, or just pretending and using special cases as a justification for abortion for any reason?

Sometimes aborting for their own reasons IS the treatment they need.

If you block repeal because some women might get what _you_ consider “bad” abortions and a woman dies because she cannot get the treatment she needs because of that, and meanwhile thousands of Irish women are going to the UK for terminations anyway, how will you feel?

Mr.H

swampgas wrote:

Are you really are prepared to sacrifice the health and lives of vulnerable pregant women on the altar of your hatred of women having the right to choose abortions up to 12 weeks?

Haha hatred for women? Where exactly did they claim to hate women who wanted abortions?

It seems to be only one side growing these petty type of accusations.

Your type of immaturity is a big reason as to why there is a chance this won't be passed.

Why can't or have a discussion about this without thinking "they are pro life, the obviously hate women". I mean grow up and actually express your views in a mature adult way. If you don't agree with someone, explain why. If they still don't agree, that's fine. We Al won't agree on everything.

Ps. Just because I don't agree with you please don't report my post to get me banned as it seems to be the trend here.

Zubeneschamali

thee glitz wrote: »

Legalizing abortion on demand is not a required or proportionate response. Pushing this as the result of repealing the 8th greater risks losing the vote.

Thank you for your concern, i appreciate that you are really trying to help us repeal the 8th.

:pac::D:pac:

I knew I couldn't say that with a straight face.

thee glitz

Candamir wrote: »

She developed ‘respiratory complications’ (most likely due to embolism - my addition) during attempted vaginal delivery and so they proceeded to c section, when she suffered cardiac arrest and died.

At what point do you think her life became significantly enough at risk to warrant a legal abortion in this case?

Some time before she died perhaps - I'm not a doctor. At which point did she request one?

Most right minded people think a child should not have to endure a pregnancy and childbirth for which she is clearly not physically, never mind mentally, ready.

Most children don't get pregnant. If it puts her life at risk, they shouldn't go through with it. Certainly, it's a special case.

But no. Blame the doctors because they somehow ‘messed up’.

Maybe there's nothing could have done. If there was evidence that the girl's life was at risk, maybe they could have done something about it. The spirit of the law seems to allow saving women's live.

And you quoted my post. It did not imply abortion in this case would have been legal. You did make that bit up.

Here you said

Candamir wrote: »

where abortion is forbidden unless giving birth threatens the life of the mother.

And the mother's life was threatened, for whatever reason.

Doctor Jimbob

Mr.H wrote: »

Haha hatred for women? Where exactly did they claim to hate women who wanted abortions?

It seems to be only one side growing these petty type of accusations.

Your type of immaturity is a big reason as to why there is a chance this won't be passed.

Why can't or have a discussion about this without thinking "they are pro life, the obviously hate women". I mean grow up and actually express your views in a mature adult way. If you don't agree with someone, explain why. If they still don't agree, that's fine. We Al won't agree on everything.

Ps. Just because I don't agree with you please don't report my post to get me banned as it seems to be the trend here.

As opposed to the pro life side, whose argument consists largely of mature topics such as claiming people will have abortions just for the craic.

Ave Sodalis

Mr.H wrote: »

Haha hatred for women? Where exactly did they claim to hate women who wanted abortions?

It seems to be only one side growing these petty type of accusations.

Your type of immaturity is a big reason as to why there is a chance this won't be passed.

Why can't or have a discussion about this without thinking "they are pro life, the obviously hate women". I mean grow up and actually express your views in a mature adult way. If you don't agree with someone, explain why. If they still don't agree, that's fine. We Al won't agree on everything.

Ps. Just because I don't agree with you please don't report my post to get me banned as it seems to be the trend here.

Actually, I do believe the poster said:

hatred of women having the right to choose abortions up to 12 weeks

Mr.H

I am going to vote yes to repeal. But I really hope abortion without limitations isn't on the horizon. Yes abortion should be available to people who need it. But no I don't believe it should be a back up contraceptive.

kylith

Mr.H wrote: »

I am going to vote yes to repeal. But I really hope abortion without limitations isn't on the horizon. Yes abortion should be available to people who need it. But no I don't believe it should be a back up contraceptive.

We all would prefer if that were the case. Hopefully free or subsidised contraception will be available in the future.

Zubeneschamali

Mr.H wrote: »

I am going to vote yes to repeal. But I really hope abortion without limitations isn't on the horizon.

That is exactly what is proposed - abortion without restriction up to 12 weeks.

This has been well flagged since the report of the Citizens Assembly a long, long time ago.

Sofiztikated

Mr.H wrote: »

I am going to vote yes to repeal. But I really hope abortion without limitations isn't on the horizon. Yes abortion should be available to people who need it. But no I don't believe it should be a back up contraceptive.

Define "Need".

Does a person who is about to go through a life and body altering event, and doesn't want that to happen, need one?

And if you don't believe it should be a "backup contraceptive" (that's a reductive statement, but anyway), you or your partner are more than welcome to not avail of it.

thee glitz

swampgas wrote: »

thee glitz wrote: »

Legalizing abortion on demand is not a required or proportionate response. Pushing this as the result of repealing the 8th greater risks losing the vote.

Tying allowing abortion in the case of medical necessity with more trivial cases in disgusting and disingenuous, but that's apparently what's happening.

So you can see that the 8th needs to be repealed to save lives. But you do not agree with the legislation that is likely to follow.

Correct

So if a democratic majority might allow abortion on request up to 12 weeks, which you disagree with, you are prepared to sabotage that by blocking repeal of the 8th?

Yes. If the majority disagree with me, based on what would follow, it will be repealed.

Are you really are prepared to sacrifice the health and lives of vulnerable pregnant women on the altar of your hatred of women having the right to choose abortions up to 12 weeks?

It's not me sacrificing the health of women - it's those who don't see medical reasons as a special case.