Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
The 8th Amendment Part 2 - Mod Warning in OP
Options
Comments
-
Only came back for one post.
When I posted a story about a family member who was told her unborn wouldn't live past birth, you said you didn't believe me or care.
When the outcome of the story suits, you then pretend to be all compassionate and caring.
I'm not debating this, just stating a fact, because I am still angry with what you posted and you didn't have the decency to apologise for.
Robert. I still don’t believe you. You’re a perpetual source of total bollox as evidenced in your last post in the trump thread. Which you ran away from when endless better qualified boards members ran your nonsense out. You post lies as fact. You have given nobody any solid ground to believe a word you say.
And I say that with kindness.
As to your anger, I still don’t care or believe you. But you don’t care or believe my points either. Make a good point With a factual basis and I’ll be with you all the way.
None of this is an insult. I’m not insulting you. I’m describing your posts.0 -
Boundless, shameless hypocrisy Robert.
One would know it wasn't your relation that someone said they didn't care about when I told my story. I am saying nothing about the story he posted, I couldn't read it when I saw the rubbish about being broken, why care about one story, and then tell another person they didn't believe or care when it was about a pregnancy where the unborn was not suppose to live?
But you wouldn't say those same words to David who your words should be applied to.0 -
Robert. I still don’t believe you. You’re a perpetual source of total bollox as evidenced in your last post in the trump thread. Which you ran away from when endless better qualified boards members ran your nonsense out. You post lies as fact. You have given nobody any solid ground to believe a word you say.
And I say that with kindness.
As to your anger, I still don’t care or believe you. But you don’t care or believe my points either. Make a good point With a factual basis and I’ll be with you all the way.
Case in point, you proved my argument.0 -
BabysCoffee wrote: »I beg any anti-choicer to try justify the death of this lady who had to travel for an abortion. What a way to die in a taxi.
One wonders what would have happened if they didn't have to take time to explore options and save up for the procedure because it couldn't be carried out in Ireland.
https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/dublin-woman-who-travelled-to-london-for-an-abortion-died-from-extensive-internal-blood-loss-29437862.html
Love both......or in this case Love Neither because both are now dead
This is the Aisha Chithira case.
It seems like much more of a problem for the pro choice side
She travelled to London for an abortion of a 22-week foetus at a Marie Stopes clinic in Ealing on January 21st, 2012.
She became unwell after the mid-afternoon abortion, but was later discharged by the clinic. She then took a taxi to a friend’s house in Slough in Berkshire, but suffered serious internal bleeding and cardiac arrest. An ambulance was called but she could not be revived.
The doctor and two nurses were tried for manslaughter. They were acquitted.
The travel had nothing to do with it.
It's a difficulty for those who claim supervised surgical abortion is completely safe and that Marie Stopes clinics provide aftercare to the highest standards.0 -
Case in point, you proved my argument.
Thread derailment. Pm me if you want this conversation. Don’t pollute the discussion with your personal issues.
Hint. You’re upset about your nephew and somehow using him as an argument but you haven’t mentioned his mother hardly at all and it’s all about you.0 -
Advertisement
-
bertieinexile wrote: »This is the Aisha Chithira case.
It seems like much more of a problem for the pro choice side.
Really?
I’d say the greatest problem is for her husband, child and family.0 -
One would know it wasn't your relation that someone said they didn't care about when I told my story. I am saying nothing about the story he posted, I couldn't read it when I saw the rubbish about being broken, why care about one story, and then tell another person they didn't believe or care when it was about a pregnancy where the unborn was not suppose to live?
But you wouldn't say those same words to David who your words should be applied to.
I call you a hypocrite, not as an insult but as an accurate description of how you behave - you spent days making the most vile insinuations about the people involved in the tragic case where a pregnant but brain-dead woman was kept 'alive' via life support due to the uncertainty around the 8th amendment.
Considerations about the feelings and sensitivities of her family (who could easily have been reading since Ireland is a notoriously small country) were certainly not on YOUR mind when you were making those claims and insinuations.
But as soon as you produce the story of your nephew's birth - everything changes - sensitivity and consideration are suddenly of profound importance to you.
I call that hypocrisy.0 -
Thread derailment. Pm me if you want this conversation. Don’t pollute the discussion with your personal issues.
Hint. You’re upset about your nephew and somehow using him as an argument but you haven’t mentioned his mother hardly at all and it’s all about you.
I see people taking a diagnosis that a diagnosis the unborn won't live in the womb or not long after birth as being a black and white diagnosis, it is onoly black and white if the unborn is not given a chance, in some cases it is black and white, but not all diagnoses of a life limiting condition whether in the womb or shortly after birth are black and white.
I see people talking about it as if all cases were black and white, when I told my story, I get your BS, others tell their stories and it has to be the truth because it suited.
It is not about me, just pointing out you are not compassionate like you tried to make out, you can be very hurtful when it suits.0 -
bertieinexile wrote: »This is the Aisha Chithira case.
It seems like much more of a problem for the pro choice side
She travelled to London for an abortion of a 22-week foetus at a Marie Stopes clinic in Ealing on January 21st, 2012.
She became unwell after the mid-afternoon abortion, but was later discharged by the clinic. She then took a taxi to a friend’s house in Slough in Berkshire, but suffered serious internal bleeding and cardiac arrest. An ambulance was called but she could not be revived.
The doctor and two nurses were tried for manslaughter. They were acquitted.
The travel had nothing to do with it.
It's a difficulty for those who claim supervised surgical abortion is completely safe and that Marie Stopes clinics provide aftercare to the highest standards.
Your really trying to twist this to suit your agenda, but if repeal is successful then women won't have to travel and can avail of aftercare as required without the need for a flight. So you've just sort of shot yourself in the foot in my opinion.0 -
I call you a hypocrite, not as an insult but as an accurate description of how you behave - you spent days making the most vile insinuations about the people involved in the tragic case where a pregnant but brain-dead woman was kept 'alive' via life support due to the uncertainty around the 8th amendment.
Considerations about the feelings and sensitivities of her family (who could easily have been reading since Ireland is a notoriously small country) were certainly not on YOUR mind when you were making those claims and insinuations.
But as soon as you produce the story of your nephew's birth - everything changes - sensitivity and consideration are suddenly of profound importance to you.
I call that hypocrisy.
I am not allowed discuss that, just to say I agreed with what that family had wanted and eventually got.0 -
Advertisement
-
As a prochoice woman I have empathy for every single woman who has had an abortion and who will have an abortion. Every woman is equal in my eyes, women who have had an abortion because they've been raped, women who have had an abortion because they feel they're too young to have a child, women who have had an abortion because their unborn baby is seriously ill and will not survive outside the womb, women who have had an abortion because they're in an abusive relationship, women who have had an abortion because they feel they're too old to have a child or another child and all of the other women who have had an abortion for VALID reasons and all of the women who will have an abortion in the future.
I have empathy for women who abort wanted babies for VALID reasons and unwanted babies for equally VALID reasons.0 -
-
bertieinexile wrote: »This is the Aisha Chithira case.
It seems like much more of a problem for the pro choice side
She travelled to London for an abortion of a 22-week foetus at a Marie Stopes clinic in Ealing on January 21st, 2012.
She became unwell after the mid-afternoon abortion, but was later discharged by the clinic. She then took a taxi to a friend’s house in Slough in Berkshire, but suffered serious internal bleeding and cardiac arrest. An ambulance was called but she could not be revived.
The doctor and two nurses were tried for manslaughter. They were acquitted.
The travel had nothing to do with it.
It's a difficulty for those who claim supervised surgical abortion is completely safe and that Marie Stopes clinics provide aftercare to the highest standards.
I have a problem with her having to save up money to travel to a foreign country for a medical procedure and then to further sadden the situation she went on to die in said foreign country.0 -
You realize that she had a wanted pregnancy and that it was only because a severe medical condition (uterine fibroids) left her in so much pain that she could no longer continue that she asked to terminnate the pregnancy, right?bertieinexile wrote: »This is the Aisha Chithira case.
It seems like much more of a problem for the pro choice side
She travelled to London for an abortion of a 22-week foetus at a Marie Stopes clinic in Ealing on January 21st, 2012.
She became unwell after the mid-afternoon abortion, but was later discharged by the clinic. She then took a taxi to a friend’s house in Slough in Berkshire, but suffered serious internal bleeding and cardiac arrest. An ambulance was called but she could not be revived.
The doctor and two nurses were tried for manslaughter. They were acquitted.
The travel had nothing to do with it.
It's a difficulty for those who claim supervised surgical abortion is completely safe and that Marie Stopes clinics provide aftercare to the highest standards.
She asked for a termination in Dublin and was told that her health was not a factor, and that her life wasnt yet at risk. She then had to start saving to travel for a termination abroad, which took weeks - during which time the procedure was becoming more complex for a woman with her medical condition.
So if she had lived in a country where her health mattered she'd have had an earlier less complex termination, could have rested at home and not had to get straight into a taxi to travel (she didnt have the money for an extra night in a hotel).
And you think her case is evidence for a ban on abortion? How? She needed an abortion, you agree?
Or do you think she'd have been better remaining in agony until she got to term?
You know her life might well have ended up at risk during or after the birth anyway, right? In fact, given that she died at the stage or pregnancy that she was at, things were not going to get better - she would very likely have been another death like Bimbo Onanuga.0 -
I might have got the complete wrong end of the stick here but are you saying you believe there can also be invalid reasons for having an abortion?As a prochoice woman I have empathy for every single woman who has had an abortion and who will have an abortion. Every woman is equal in my eyes, women who have had an abortion because they've been raped, women who have had an abortion because they feel they're too young to have a child, women who have had an abortion because their unborn baby is seriously ill and will not survive outside the womb, women who have had an abortion because they're in an abusive relationship, women who have had an abortion because they feel they're too old to have a child or another child and all of the other women who have had an abortion for VALID reasons and all of the women who will have an abortion in the future.
I have empathy for women who abort wanted babies for VALID reasons and unwanted babies for equally VALID reasons.0 -
-
Maybe you should find the human decency to apologise for what postedbroken after reading this.
......
Only came back for one post.
When I posted a story about a family member who was told her unborn wouldn't live past birth, you said you didn't believe me or care.
When the outcome of the story suits, you then pretend to be all compassionate and caring.
I'm not debating this, just stating a fact, because I am still angry with what you posted and you didn't have the decency to apologise for.
You fraud0 -
-
So much for one post onlyRobert. I still don’t believe you. You’re a perpetual source of total bollox as evidenced in your last post in the trump thread. Which you ran away from when endless better qualified boards members ran your nonsense out. You post lies as fact. You have given nobody any solid ground to believe a word you say.
And I say that with kindness.
As to your anger, I still don’t care or believe you. But you don’t care or believe my points either. Make a good point With a factual basis and I’ll be with you all the way.
Case in point, you proved my argument.
More lies
More deflection0 -
Eh yes they do
They claim to care about women but are willing to accept this states murder of Savita and others as a worthy price
They lie about biology using pictures of 30 week old get feotuses to represent 10 week old feotuses
They lie about repealing the 8th equating to the genocide of Downs Syndrome unborn
They are by and large small minded scum who still excuse Tuam and it's like as society's fault
Halocaust deniers and the flat earth society have more credibility than the anti choice anti woman brigade
Let me repeat that I do not like a lot of their tactics and that I know there a lot of things about which they lie and mislead but they do not lie about their stance. They never try to be anything but pro life.
There are however a lot of so called pro choicers who when faced with the fact that some people choose the pro life side resort to abuse and slagging and refusal to even listen.
It is they that I take issue with.
Let me say again so we’re clear I am Pro Choice. I am on your side. I just happen to willing to look at all sides not just ours.0 -
Advertisement
-
Only came back for one post.
When I posted a story about a family member who was told her unborn wouldn't live past birth, you said you didn't believe me or care.
When the outcome of the story suits, you then pretend to be all compassionate and caring.
I'm not debating this, just stating a fact, because I am still angry with what you posted and you didn't have the decency to apologise for.
I was taking a self imposed break from this thread as the pro-life attitudes were upsetting me so much, but I had to reply to this.
I want to reiterate what I previously said to you.
It’s highly ironic and also hilarious that you are getting so defensive and pious over your own personal experience being called into question, when you repeatedly dismiss the needs, wants and RIGHTS of living women in this country.
Now you know why so many people find your posts so offensive. If you were in anyway respectful in how you post maybe you’d have gotten more sympathy.
But instead it’s just, dismiss, deflect, insult, ignore, refute, rinse and repeat.
Until it’s your situation, when we’re sudennly all meant to be nice to you.
The irony has been completely lost on you.0 -
First of all thanks for the calm and reasonable response. It's difficult given the subject.You realize that she had a wanted pregnancy and that it was only because a severe medical condition (uterine fibroids) left her in so much pain that she could no longer continue that she asked to terminnate the pregnancy, right?
She asked for a termination in Dublin and was told that her health was not a factor, and that her life wasnt yet at risk. She then had to start saving to travel for a termination abroad, which took weeks - during which time the procedure was becoming more complex for a woman with her medical condition.
So if she had lived in a country where her health mattered she'd have had an earlier less complex termination, could have rested at home and not had to get straight into a taxi to travel (she didnt have the money for an extra night in a hotel).
And you think her case is evidence for a ban on abortion? How? She needed an abortion, you agree?
Or do you think she'd have been better remaining in agony until she got to term?
You know her life might well have ended up at risk during or after the birth anyway, right? In fact, given that she died at the stage or pregnancy that she was at, things were not going to get better - she would very likely have been another death like Bimbo Onanuga.
Wouldn't you agree that the main contributary cause to this poor woman's terrible end was malpractice and failure in duty of care?
She had a surgical procedure in the Marie Stopes clinic in Ealing after which she complained of feeling unwell and collapsed on the floor hyperventilating and yet they subsequently discharged her and showed her the door. If they hadn't sent her away then clearly, as her condition worsened, there would have been medical personnel on hand to deal with the consequences of the procedure they had just carried out.
At least that's how the Crown Prosecution Service saw it.
You raise the question of the delay in her travelling to London. According to her husband there were two reasons.
The first was "they spent some time exploring all their options". Were they still unsure they wanted an abortion?
The other was that they needed to save up the cost of the operation. As you know Marie Stopes in england now waive the fee for Irish women looking to procure abortions.
I don't know how you are helping your argument by introducing the sad case of Bimbo Onanuga - a second example of medical misadventure, ("a series of mistakes”), associated with an abortion procedure, this time in the Rotunda
https://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/pregnant-woman-died-after-uterus-ruptured-248667.html
Again thanks for the civility of your reply0 -
I was taking a self imposed break from this thread as the pro-life attitudes were upsetting me so much, but I had to reply to this.
I want to reiterate what I previously said to you.
It’s highly ironic and also hilarious that you are getting so defensive and pious over your own personal experience being called into question, when you repeatedly dismiss the needs, wants and RIGHTS of living women in this country.
Now you know why so many people find your posts so offensive. If you were in anyway respectful in how you post maybe you’d have gotten more sympathy.
But instead it’s just, dismiss, deflect, insult, ignore, refute, rinse and repeat.
Until it’s your situation, when we’re sudennly all meant to be nice to you.
The irony has been completely lost on you.
It is ok for you to be upset and not others who have a different opinion?
That is what you are saying, you want double standards, one rule for yourself and another for others who don't share your views. Why not have a go at people who say they don't believe or care when you tell a true story and then have sheep bleating in support of the people saying one is a liar and told they are looking for sympathy, because the people they are supporting are on the same side.
I didn't say anything to any woman here who said they had an abortion, I didn't say they were telling their story looking for sympathy. For me all they were doing is what I did but people apply double standards and post crap to dismiss it, and then tell lies that I am telling lies, you see being nice to people as being a problem going by your post.0 -
bertieinexile wrote: »First of all thanks for the calm and reasonable response. It's difficult given the subject.
Wouldn't you agree that the main contributary cause to this poor woman's terrible end was malpractice and failure in duty of care?
She had a surgical procedure in the Marie Stopes clinic in Ealing after which she complained of feeling unwell and collapsed on the floor hyperventilating and yet they subsequently discharged her and showed her the door. If they hadn't sent her away then clearly, as her condition worsened, there would have been medical personnel on hand to deal with the consequences of the procedure they had just carried out.
At least that's how the Crown Prosecution Service saw it.
You raise the question of the delay in her travelling to London. According to her husband there were two reasons.
The first was "they spent some time exploring all their options". Were they still unsure they wanted an abortion?
The other was that they needed to save up the cost of the operation. As you know Marie Stopes in england now waive the fee for Irish women looking to procure abortions.
I don't know how you are helping your argument by introducing the sad case of Bimbo Onanuga - a second example of medical misadventure, ("a series of mistakes”), associated with an abortion procedure, this time in the Rotunda
https://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/pregnant-woman-died-after-uterus-ruptured-248667.html
Again thanks for the civility of your reply
What answer are you looking for?0 -
You introduced this case as being a difficulty for the defenders of the 8th amendment. I said I found that surprising because it actually seemed to be a difficulty for the pro choice side.BabysCoffee wrote: »What answer are you looking for?
volchista then raised the issue of the delay in travel in this case which she? thought was connected to the 8th amendment. I queried that and also pointed out that the second reason given for the delay wouldn't apply today.
I then asked her if she would recognise that the real problem in this awful case was not the 8th amendment but the Marie Stopes clinic.
I suppose I'd ask you the same question.0 -
AudreyHepburn wrote: »Let me repeat that I do not like a lot of their tactics and that I know there a lot of things about which they lie and mislead but they do not lie about their stance. They never try to be anything but pro life.
I can't agree.
Many of the "pro life" groups and spokespeople campaigning against removing the 8th had previously campaigned against the Protection of Life During Pregnancy Act. An Act that was a direct and obvious consequence of the 8th that they hold in such high esteem and which was designed to set out how a pregnant woman's life can be protected. They had also campaigned for a Yes vote in referendums that would have diminished, if not outright removed, a suicidal pregnant woman's right to life.
What's more none of them say anything about the thousands of abortions that Irish women have every year. There's no one calling for the 13th or 14th Amendments to be overturned, no one protesting about the lack of enforcement of the penalties for illegal abortions in Ireland.
To protest against legislation that sets out to save lives, and to have campaigned for changing a suicidal pregnant woman's right to life, while saying nothing about the thousands of abortions that happen every year, is hardly "pro life". As you say, they lie and mislead about a lot of things, and based on what I've seen, calling themselves pro life is one of those things.
That's why I've been careful to call them anti-repealers, or at this point we can simply call them No supporters or campaigners. Both are accurate reflections of their stances on the referendum, and it also accounts for the fact that some people who hold pro life views on a personal level still intend to vote yes.0 -
bertieinexile wrote: »You introduced this case as being a difficulty for the defenders of the 8th amendment. I said I found that surprising because it actually seemed to be a difficulty for the pro choice side.
volchista then raised the issue of the delay in travel in this case which she? thought was connected to the 8th amendment. I queried that and also pointed out that the second reason given for the delay wouldn't apply today.
I then asked her if she would recognise that the real problem in this awful case was not the 8th amendment but the Marie Stopes clinic.
I suppose I'd ask you the same question.
Such a pity she couldn't have had the procedure in a non Marie Stoppes clinic in Ireland0 -
BabysCoffee wrote: »What answer are you looking for?
Answers that will back people into a corner until they say something he can pounce on and twist, and then feel proud of himself. He will likely use this warped version of events every time he can in future posts as a way to "win" arguments. It's a classic technique that was often used by the no side in the marriage referendum too.0 -
Got quite annoyed today. Was walking through the park in Dun Laoghaire with my gf. Old woman hands me a repeal flier. I said no thanks and she has the nerve to huff and start tutting at me loudly and giving us a look of disgust.
I'm voting to repeal but this is ridiculous. Both sides IMO are coming across quite nasty and the sooner this referendum is over the better. Both sides seem to be forcing opinions on people instead of letting them make a choice for themselves.0 -
Advertisement
-
bertieinexile wrote: »First of all thanks for the calm and reasonable response. It's difficult given the subject.
Wouldn't you agree that the main contributary cause to this poor woman's terrible end was malpractice and failure in duty of care?
She had a surgical procedure in the Marie Stopes clinic in Ealing after which she complained of feeling unwell and collapsed on the floor hyperventilating and yet they subsequently discharged her and showed her the door. If they hadn't sent her away then clearly, as her condition worsened, there would have been medical personnel on hand to deal with the consequences of the procedure they had just carried out.
At least that's how the Crown Prosecution Service saw it.
You raise the question of the delay in her travelling to London. According to her husband there were two reasons.
The first was "they spent some time exploring all their options". Were they still unsure they wanted an abortion?
Like I said, it was a wanted pregnancy. If she had been able to be confident that her health and wellbeing took precedence maybe she could have stuck the pain and not decided to terminate. Pain is very stress-dependent. But in Dublin she was just told that they could only intervene when her life was at risk. The complications of travelling meant she couldn't choose freely as if she'd been treated at her own hospital.
I can't comment on the medical details you give without reading the actual dossier. But the staff were acquitted, and not professionally sanctioned either afaiaa. They were (I assume) also working without her medical dossier - again because what she was doing was illegal in Ireland, so the Irish hospital would not have been involved in sending on her details.
OK. No idea what your point is.The other was that they needed to save up the cost of the operation. As you know Marie Stopes in england now waive the fee for Irish women looking to procure abortions.
She had a scarred uterus, less than if she'd had a previous c section. That's a common occurrence in labour.I don't know how you are helping your argument by introducing the sad case of Bimbo Onanuga - a second example of medical misadventure, ("a series of mistakes”), associated with an abortion procedure, this time in the Rotunda
https://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/pregnant-woman-died-after-uterus-ruptured-248667.html
Two things went wrong though : she seems not to have told them she'd had an abortion - presumably because she was afraid of the reaction in a country where abortion is illegal. Or maybe she did tell someone, but since it's not something the hospital "wants" to know, it may not have been written into her notes.
The other is Active Management of Labour, an artificial intervention that Irish maternities still use which has been abandoned in the UK and elsewhere precisely because it increases the risk of uterine rupture. It speeds up labour though, thus freeing up staff and ensuring that women give birth according to a timetable that suits the hospital, not the woman.
One of the reasons AML can continue to be used in Ireland is because, as the National Maternity Strategy says, the requirement for the pregnant woman's consent during pregnancy and childbirth is not clear, because of the 8th.
So yes, unless you think women who have had an abortion previously deserve to die, I think her death shows up how the 8th adversely affects the care birthing women can expect in Ireland.Again thanks for the civility of your reply
You're welcome. I try never to attack anyone who hasn't been aggressive with me, though I probably don't always succeed. It's an emotional subject and can be difficult for everyone at times, including me.0
![[Deleted User]](/applications/dashboard/design/images/defaulticon.png)
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement