The 8th Amendment Part 2 - Mod Warning in OP

captbarnacles

The prolifers have no counter to the unworkable situation where rape victims seek abortions and the new best effort is 'not enough rape victims to justify it".

dudara

bertieinexile wrote: »

The poster before you, dudara, is in favour of abortion on demand and it would seem, based on his/her short post, that would be without any time limit.

Let me clear on my views, so you don’t have to interpret it for me.

I am pro-repeal. The 8th is a danger to the medical care of pregnant women. I believe it needs to go. Abortion will still remain illegal if the 8th is removed, until legislation is passed.

I am pro-choice. I have thought long and hard about the topic, and it is unpleasant, there is no denying that. But I fundamentally believe that forced pregnancies are discriminatory to women. So I am pro-choice.

While I do not like the concept of abortion, all of the above leads me to be in favour of abortion on request up to 12 weeks (or thereabouts, I’m open to the guidance of experts as to what is best), and on medical grounds thereafter.

The above is based on my logical thinking through all sides and it is what I have arrived at as the best solution to this unpleasant topic.

bertieinexile

_Dara_ wrote: »

I think it’ll be 12 weeks.

Of course there will be a limit. Don’t play innocent. It’s transparent.

I should say now that I have zero interest in debating you. You might be new to the thread but it’s been done to death. The thread has a search facility.

Ah go on, don't say that.

I'm sure you know most of this already, but in Britain the vast majority of abortions are carried out under "injury.. to the mental health of the woman". In Britain that is only allowed up to 24 weeks.
Under the current proposed legisaltion, sure to be passed in the case of a yes vote, that risk to the mental health of the woman reason would be allowed without any time limit.

Policy 2:
That the General Scheme would make no distinction between a risk to the physical or mental health of a woman

Policy 9:
That termination of pregnancy for a fetal condition likely to lead to death before or shortly after birth or for maternal health should not have a gestational limit in the General Scheme

http://health.gov.ie/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/Policy-paper-approved-by-Goverment-8-March-2018.pdf

If you were in Britain and wanted an abortion after 24 weeks it would make sense to come to Ireland.

So again I'd ask you what do you believe the actual time limit would be? In practice would there be any?

It wasnt me123

Conspectus wrote: »

Mod- Just wanted to put in a little note now we are a step or 2 closer to a vote.

Please remember to register to vote.
__________________

Sorry for my ignorance. Where do you go to register to vote?

dudara

It wasnt me123 wrote: »

Sorry for my ignorance. Where do you go to register to vote?

Details here

http://checktheregister.ie/PublicPages/AppForms.aspx

bertieinexile

dudara wrote: »

Let me clear on my views, so you don’t have to interpret it for me.

I am pro-repeal. The 8th is a danger to the medical care of pregnant women. I believe it needs to go. Abortion will still remain illegal if the 8th is removed, until legislation is passed.

I am pro-choice. I have thought long and hard about the topic, and it is unpleasant, there is no denying that. But I fundamentally believe that forced pregnancies are discriminatory to women. So I am pro-choice.

While I do not like the concept of abortion, all of the above leads me to be in favour of abortion on request up to 12 weeks (or thereabouts, I’m open to the guidance of experts as to what is best), and on medical grounds thereafter.

The above is based on my logical thinking through all sides and it is what I have arrived at as the best solution to this unpleasant topic.

Thanks for that. I think it is well thought out and equally well expressed. That's not easy - as you say it's a very difficult subject.

Of course you won't be surprised that I'd still like to take issue with some of what you said.

In particular "The 8th is a danger to the medical care of pregnant women. " You're far from alone in saying this. It is a deeply ingrained belief on the pro choice side. But can you give me some examples?

The dangers of the abortion pill as currently used in Ireland?
The dangers of travelling to England for abortion as opposed to the dangers from abortions carried out there?
Or anything else you can think of.

dudara

bertieinexile wrote: »

Thanks for that. I think it is well thought out and equally well expressed. That's not easy - as you say it's a very difficult subject.

Of course you won't be surprised that I'd still like to take issue with some of what you said.

In particular "The 8th is a danger to the medical care of pregnant women. " You're far from alone in saying this. It is a deeply ingrained belief on the pro choice side. But can you give me some examples?

The dangers of the abortion pill as currently used in Ireland?
The dangers of travelling to England for abortion as opposed to the dangers from abortions carried out there?
Or anything else you can think of.

I am not going to debate specifics with you as I am suspicious of your motives. Your questions illustrate to me that you have an agenda, and that you are not an innocent poster looking for information or a genuine debate. If other posters want to engage with you, that’s their choice.

_Dara_

bertieinexile wrote: »

Ah go on, don't say that.

I'm sure you know most of this already, but in Britain the vast majority of abortions are carried out under "injury.. to the mental health of the woman". In Britain that is only allowed up to 24 weeks.
Under the current proposed legisaltion, sure to be passed in the case of a yes vote, that risk to the mental health of the woman reason would be allowed without any time limit.

Policy 2:
That the General Scheme would make no distinction between a risk to the physical or mental health of a woman

Policy 9:
That termination of pregnancy for a fetal condition likely to lead to death before or shortly after birth or for maternal health should not have a gestational limit in the General Scheme

http://health.gov.ie/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/Policy-paper-approved-by-Goverment-8-March-2018.pdf

If you were in Britain and wanted an abortion after 24 weeks it would make sense to come to Ireland.

So again I'd ask you what do you believe the actual time limit would be? In practice would there be any?

As said, I think it will be 12 weeks.

Like dudara, I’m suspicious of your ‘just asking questions’ stance so if you reply to me, that’ll be the last word in this exchange.

bertieinexile

dudara wrote: »

I am not going to debate specifics with you as I am suspicious of your motives. Your questions illustrate to me that you have an agenda, and that you are not an innocent poster looking for information or a genuine debate. If other posters want to engage with you, that’s their choice.

I've got to admit, of all the answers you could have given to that post I was not expecting that. But I am really intrigued. Please, please tell me what my motives are and why I'm not "an innocent poster".
You're making me sound a hell of a lot more interesting than I actually am.

Ave Sodalis

bertieinexile wrote:

In particular "The 8th is a danger to the medical care of pregnant women. " You're far from alone in saying this. It is a deeply ingrained belief on the pro choice side. But can you give me some examples?

The Institute of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists say the same thing which is why they are advocating repeal. If anyone would know whether or not the 8th is a danger to medical care, it would be them.

NuMarvel

bertieinexile wrote: »

So again I'd ask you what do you believe the actual time limit would be? In practice would there be any?

In practice, the vast majority of women who can access abortion early do so.

We can see this in Britain for example, where the grounds for accessing abortion remain the same up to 24 weeks, yet 81% of abortions will have occurred before week 10 and 92% will have occured before week 13. Other European countries have similar or higher rates.

Edward M wrote: »

Just came across this as I continue my education on the abortion issue.
In Germany the politicians have framed laws for abortion, while technically it is still illegal under their constitution.
If there was political willingness why could that not be done here?
https://www.thelocal.de/20170914/5-things-to-know-about-abortion-in-germany

That article has significantly simplified the history of Germany's abortion laws. Their abortion laws, like ours, are based on rulings from their courts. Those rulings in summary say that, abortion is technically illegal, but may be justified in some circumstances (eg risks to health or life, rape, etc). The rulings also say the State isn't obligated to prosecute abortions that occur for other reasons within the first trimester.

There's nothing in our case law that comes close to that. All our courts have said is that a risk to a woman's life, as distinct from her health, is the only grounds for allowing abortion, and that's been provided for in the Protection of Life During Pregnancy Act.

It would take more case law before politicians could have grounds to pass new legislation. But with the 8th being far more prescriptive about the unborn's rights that Germany's constitution, I don't think there are other grounds that could be found in our Constitution. And as we saw with the X Case, even if there were other grounds, it would probably take politicians decades to legislate for them.

david75

Edward M wrote: »

Just came across this as I continue my education on the abortion issue.
In Germany the politicians have framed laws for abortion, while technically it is still illegal under their constitution.
If there was political willingness why could that not be done here?
https://www.thelocal.de/20170914/5-things-to-know-about-abortion-in-germany

In an ideal world maybe. But the pro life campaign would argue that legally this is dealt with in the constitution so therefore a workaround isnt possible without the referendum to amend it.
But even if it’s a no or on the face of your question, can you think of a single Irish politician who would have the balls or find enough support within the dail to implement a workaround? Or if it’s a no, would try implement the legislation or support systems needed? I really can’t. Harris seems all for it but I think he’s almost an idealist given his relatively young age.

robarmstrong

bertieinexile wrote: »

I've got to admit, of all the answers you could have given to that post I was not expecting that. But I am really intrigued. Please, please tell me what my motives are and why I'm not "an innocent poster".
You're making me sound a hell of a lot more interesting than I actually am.

1. You insist upon using the phrase "abortion on demand" when you know that really isn't the case and is just a terminology created by the pro-life side to stir up hysteria.

bertieinexile wrote: »

And in return for that we would have laws that in every other country have lead to 20% of children being killed in the womb.

2. I've debunked this earlier in the thread as the pro-life decided to take it upon themselves to say that 1 in 5 of ALL pregnancies end in abortion, then having it slyly underneath that it doesn't take into consideration miscarriages.

bertieinexile wrote: »

How many women a year in Ireland do you think end up in the awful situation of being pregnant as a result of rape? And what do you think happens to those of them who want abortions? And for them what would change if the 8th was repealed?

3. Nobody knows the true figure, and nobody will. What would change if the 8th was repealed? These women wouldn't have to leave the country in order to have the medical procedure performed upon them, they'd also receive the appropriate support and aftercare required, as from first hand experience with abortion in the UK, you get a pamphlet, some contraception and you're sent on your merry way.

pitifulgod

applehunter wrote: »

https://twitter.com/KeithMillsD7

Doing some sterling work with polls etc..

Worth a follow from both sides and if you like the Eurovision.:pac:

Turn off your repeal shields.

The man rates himself as a political analyst but he's really not. His analyst of marriage referendum was that the silent majority would win out. He also famously during the marriage referendum used airquotes to describe a girls parents because they were a same sex couple.

applehunter wrote: »

This post got 16 thanks.

This is not a man to be admired.

Casually he recounts 2 of his children being killed, could have been more, who knows, who cares.

Is this a plant for the no side?

He recounted a story where he and two women concluded having a child would not be a good choice. It's called making a mature decision in a difficult situation. He also used contraceptives in both instances. Stop being so judgemental.

david75

Are pro life really letting Keith Mills speak for them??
He alone turned undecided voters off in droves during marriage equality. Almost single handedly lost it for them

AND THEN went to Australia to interfere in their referendum as ‘leader of the no campaign in ireland’ AND LOST THAT CAMPAIGN TOO.


Ah delicious watching the conservative elements in this country and campaigns consistently shooting themselves in the foit letting these imbeciles represent them

bertieinexile

Ave Sodalis wrote: »

The Institute of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists say the same thing which is why they are advocating repeal. If anyone would know whether or not the 8th is a danger to medical care, it would be them.

Well I'm sure, like me, you wouldn't accept something as serious as that just because someone representing a major organistaion said so.

We can clear this up really quickly. Do you have a link to some example The Institute of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists give of a woman whose health was put in danger or worse by the 8th amendment. An actual example with some amount of distinguishing detail.

I am just surprised that if such examples exist they weren't featured by the Citizens Committee. Or the Oireachtas inquiry. Or that the Irish Times haven't covered them in detail.

Sofiztikated

bertieinexile wrote: »

In particular "The 8th is a danger to the medical care of pregnant women. " You're far from alone in saying this. It is a deeply ingrained belief on the pro choice side. But can you give me some examples?

The dangers of the abortion pill as currently used in Ireland?
The dangers of travelling to England for abortion as opposed to the dangers from abortions carried out there?
Or anything else you can think of.

https://www.fertilityauthority.com/fertility-issues/miscarriage/missed-miscarriage

A woman can't undergo the D&C if there's a trace of a heartbeat. 20% of pregnancies end in miscarriage, and 1% of those are missed miscarriages.

I'd say that's a danger to their medical care, due to the 8th.

swampgas

bertieinexile wrote: »

Well I'm sure, like me, you wouldn't accept something as serious as that just because someone representing a major organistaion said so.

We can clear this up really quickly. Do you have a link to some example The Institute of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists give of a woman whose health was put in danger or worse by the 8th amendment. An actual example with some amount of distinguishing detail.

I am just surprised that if such examples exist they weren't featured by the Citizens Committee. Or the Oireachtas inquiry. Or that the Irish Times haven't covered them in detail.

Savita. As well you know.

NuMarvel

david75 wrote: »

Are pro life really letting Keith Mills speak for them??
He alone turned undecided voters off in droves during marriage equality. Almost single handedly lost it for them

AND THEN went to Australia to interfere in their referendum as ‘leader of the no campaign in ireland’ AND LOST THAT CAMPAIGN TOO.

I don't think he's going to be a spokesperson this time around. Probably best too, because his arguing that petrol station workers should be allowed refuse to serve women probably doesn't fit the "love both" theme .

Plus, the Eurovision is in early May so he'd be gone for a week at the peak of the campaign anyway!

erica74

bertieinexile wrote: »

Good, I'm glad I wasn't the only one who felt that posting on the internet at midnight on a Friday was a bit lame. Good morning again.


I'm only new to this thread so maybe you could point me to where you've dealt with this question at more length.

We should pay some attention though to the actual numbers of women in the extraordinarily awful position of being pregnant as a result of rape. These are real women in a real crisis although it seems at times they are being reduced to tokens in an argument.

2013 is the last year for which a brief search gives me the number of convictions for rape in Ireland. There were about 120. I'm guessing the current number is around the same. What are the odds that the women in any of those cases became pregnant? Assuming that most of those cases were single incidents as opposed to ongoing situations you probably get a total figure of five or six women experiencing such a dreadful crisis a year.

All of them would have had the HSE and government agencies approach them as soon as they reported what had happened and any of them who wanted an abortion (and a number didn't) would have found their way made easier than just about any other woman in Ireland trying to procure an abortion.

Let's say it once and not have to go back to it. None of them were forced to carry to term.

(Some people will say that we should be talking about instances of rape where the accused was acquitted, or the DPP believed they would be acquitted, or the rape wasn't reported in the first place. People may feel that, and there's an argument to be had there, but at that stage I think we have unavoidably moved on to talking about abortion in the case of general unwanted pregnancy. And I don't believe there is a majority in favour of that.)

The important question is what would change for the women in these extraordinary cases if abortion was legalised here. It would be the difference between going to a Marie Stopes clinic in Dublin as opposed to one in Liverpool or London. And in return for that we would have laws that in every other country have lead to 20% of children being killed in the womb.

Are you saying you think only approx. 120 rapes happen in Ireland every year?

Do you think travelling to Liverpool or London is handy enough for a woman who has been raped? Because that's what you seem to be saying. Even having to travel to Dublin would be a difficult journey and as far as I know, there is no plans for abortion to only be made available in Dublin.

I don't care why any woman has an abortion, I care that any woman who wants to have an abortion should be able to have one in Ireland.

Zubeneschamali

bertieinexile wrote: »

Well I'm sure, like me, you wouldn't accept something as serious as that just because someone representing a major organistaion said so.

I accept the word of expert bodies all the time. So do you.

It would be impossible to learn enough to be as expert on heart surgery, medicines, electricity generation, water treatment, building codes, aircraft safety, and on and on and on, as the relevant expert bodies are.

david75

NuMarvel wrote: »

I don't think he's going to be a spokesperson this time around. Probably best too, because his arguing that petrol station workers should be allowed refuse to serve women probably doesn't fit the "love both" theme .

Plus, the Eurovision is in early May so he'd be gone for a week at the peak of the campaign anyway!

I’m so glad I’m not the only remembers that little nugget about the petrol station.

It’s up there among the most WTF moments in any referendum debate ever

Ave Sodalis

bertieinexile wrote:

Well I'm sure, like me, you wouldn't accept something as serious as that just because someone representing a major organistaion said so.

I would trust their word long before any randomer on an internet forum, given they would be in a position where they would have far more knowledge and experience than any of us. Also, as they chose to not get involved in the last one in the 80s, and are taking a side in this one, I think that says a lot.

bertieinexile wrote:

We can clear this up really quickly. Do you have a link to some example The Institute of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists give of a woman whose health was put in danger or worse by the 8th amendment. An actual example with some amount of distinguishing detail.

Seriously?

bertieinexile

Loads of interesting responses here and I'll try to work my way through them. I'll do the longer more thought out ones first. Also I'm heading out in a while so maybe more later

NuMarvel wrote: »

In practice, the vast majority of women who can access abortion early do so.

We can see this in Britain for example, where the grounds for accessing abortion remain the same up to 24 weeks, yet 81% of abortions will have occurred before week 10 and 92% will have occured before week 13. Other European countries have similar or higher rates.

Of course most abortions happen within 13 weeks. But dara and dudara both had issues not with how often late term abortion on demand would happen but whether it should be allowed at all. They want a 12 week limit.
And it is really useful to ask yourself why they feel that.
And whether this proposed legislation even comes close.

david75

swampgas wrote: »

Savita. As well you know.

And Anne Lovett we should also never forget. These are just the stories we know about. There’s thousands and thousands more.

The parish priest said “It’s a doctor you need.”

“I need you too, Father,” the farmer replied. “The baby is dead and the little girl might be dying too.”

#AnnLovett

https://www.irishtimes.com/life-and-style/people/ann-lovett-death-of-a-strong-kick-ass-girl-1.3429792

NuMarvel

david75 wrote: »

I’m so glad I’m not the only remembers that little nugget about the petrol station.

It’s up there among the most WTF moments in any referendum debate ever

He got so snookered on that one. There's a partial transcript here that shows how unprepared he was.

captbarnacles

david75 wrote: »

And Anne Lovett we should also never forget. These are just the stories we know about. There’s thousands and thousands more.

The parish priest said “It’s a doctor you need.”

“I need you too, Father,” the farmer replied. “The baby is dead and the little girl might be dying too.”

#AnnLovett

https://www.irishtimes.com/life-and-style/people/ann-lovett-death-of-a-strong-kick-ass-girl-1.3429792

Christ what did I just read :mad:

david75

captbarnacles wrote: »

Christ what did I just read :mad:

This is the situation were in and that if the 8th isn’t repealed horrors like this will continue.

Nettle Soup

Some of the TDs would absolutely sicken your hole. Disgusting what they are at. They know the 8th isn't workable and yet they try and play for both teams for fear of taking a side and possibly losing a vote. Self serving backward-thinking small minded gombeens!

pitifulgod

bertieinexile wrote: »

Good, I'm glad I wasn't the only one who felt that posting on the internet at midnight on a Friday was a bit lame. Good morning again.


I'm only new to this thread so maybe you could point me to where you've dealt with this question at more length.

We should pay some attention though to the actual numbers of women in the extraordinarily awful position of being pregnant as a result of rape. These are real women in a real crisis although it seems at times they are being reduced to tokens in an argument.

2013 is the last year for which a brief search gives me the number of convictions for rape in Ireland. There were about 120. I'm guessing the current number is around the same. What are the odds that the women in any of those cases became pregnant? Assuming that most of those cases were single incidents as opposed to ongoing situations you probably get a total figure of five or six women experiencing such a dreadful crisis a year.

All of them would have had the HSE and government agencies approach them as soon as they reported what had happened and any of them who wanted an abortion (and a number didn't) would have found their way made easier than just about any other woman in Ireland trying to procure an abortion.

Let's say it once and not have to go back to it. None of them were forced to carry to term.

(Some people will say that we should be talking about instances of rape where the accused was acquitted, or the DPP believed they would be acquitted, or the rape wasn't reported in the first place. People may feel that, and there's an argument to be had there, but at that stage I think we have unavoidably moved on to talking about abortion in the case of general unwanted pregnancy. And I don't believe there is a majority in favour of that.)

The important question is what would change for the women in these extraordinary cases if abortion was legalised here. It would be the difference between going to a Marie Stopes clinic in Dublin as opposed to one in Liverpool or London. And in return for that we would have laws that in every other country have lead to 20% of children being killed in the womb.

This is directly from the rape crisis centre :

"8% of females attending RCCs in 2013 became pregnant as a result of rape. RCNI and RCCs support survivors’ choices, whatever they may be."

Also rape is underreported. Frankly, forcing women abroad for medical services is a disgrace and shows an absolute disrespect for them. I hope it passes as we don't really know if services abroad will be as available as they were. Eg Liverpool is cutting back on services to Irish women.