The 8th Amendment Part 2 - Mod Warning in OP

Ave Sodalis

PHG wrote: »

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.

Interesting choice of words

I agree the woman shouldn't have started tutting at you. I find that's a problem with all flier people. I was in Limerick over Paddy's weekend and people were handing out leaflets for some sort of prayer service (nothing to do with the referendum). I tried to avoid taking a leaflet but the woman wouldn't let me pass without one, she kept stepping in front of me and holding the leaflet against my chest.

NuMarvel

PHG wrote: »

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.

You'll always have the odd person who steps over a line. I remember having to bench someone early on in a marriage equality canvas, because she'd get very aggressive with anyone who was non-committal. She didn't intend to be like that, she just didn't have the people skills for that kind of situation. I imagine it's something similar here.

Bredabe

PHG wrote: »

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.

I had a similar experience with an older man on the "save" side, while I was professionally polite to him, he had a senior member of the organization to give out to my boss about my "treatment" of the man. Not only was the incident on camera but the table was placed in a deliberately provocative location.

Roll on June(by then it should be all over)

bertieinexile

NuMarvel wrote: »

I'll stop you there, because I asked for evidence from jurisdictions with similar laws to the ones proposed for Ireland. By your own admission, that's not Britain. And even then, your claims about the practical application about British laws don't constitute evidence because you've provided nothing to substantiate them.

If you're going to say that pregnant women and their doctors would act in bad faith after the on-request time frame, then the least you could do is provide the evidence that convinced you this would happen. Obviously though you've never found this evidence, if you even looked. So until such time as that evidence is presented, your claims can be properly disregarded.

Well over ninety percent of abortions in england are carried out under the risk of injury to the mental health of the woman.

Are those women really at risk of serious injury to their mental health? Two doctors, sometimes only one doctor, who the woman has met only for a few minutes, or as regularly happens never meets at all, sign off on her mental health being endangered. In reality there is no bar.

Is this the spirit of the 1967 law or the 1990 amendments? If it was what was intended wouldn't it have been far easier for the law simply to have stated that abortion should be available on request.

So yes, I think it is fair to say that in england women and their doctors currently act in bad faith to procure abortions.

I can probably guess your reply to this but I'd suggest you stop and think it all the way through.

bertieinexile

bertieinexile wrote: »

Well over ninety percent of abortions in england are carried out under the risk of injury to the mental health of the woman.

Are those women really at risk of serious injury to their mental health? Two doctors, sometimes only one doctor, who the woman has met only for a few minutes, or as regularly happens never meets at all, sign off on her mental health being endangered. In reality there is no bar.

Is this the spirit of the 1967 law or the 1990 amendments? If it was what was intended wouldn't it have been far easier for the law simply to have stated that abortion should be available on request.

So yes, I think it is fair to say that in england women and their doctors currently act in bad faith to procure abortions.

I can probably guess your reply to this but I'd suggest you stop and think it all the way through.

Any links to back up your opinion, because your accusing a lot of doctors of medical negligence.

Annasopra

PHG wrote: »

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.

Another - "I'm voting repeal but...." really?

bertieinexile

ProfessorPlum wrote: »

BertieInExile wrote:

So in this case we're describing a woman who is under medical supervision and for whom the best practice under the 8th amendment would be to intervene to save her life if that became necessary.

Not quite. We’re describing a case where ‘best practice’ cannot be afforded to a woman because of the 8th.
The presence or absence of the 8th amendment does not change what is best practice in medical care.

If I interpret you correctly I think you are looking to reserve the phrase ‘best practice’ for the guidelines that apply in countries that have much fewer restrictions on abortion. That's most countries, so I get your point that there is a near universality to that set of guidelines. More or less.

I think it is important to be able to talk about 'best practice' in the Irish context of greater safeguards for the life of the unborn -or at least to agree on some equivalent phrase.
Especially if we want to talk about the case of Savita Halappanavar. Because as every report has shown Savita died because our 'best practice' guidelines were not followed.

ProfessorPlum wrote:

BertieInExile wrote:

Of course there is also the major issue of how upsetting and difficult it is for the woman to have to wait in those circumstances. There is no doubt about that but is it enough to merit introducing abortion on demand/ unrestricted access to abortion/ abortion on request/ whatever/ up to twelve weeks and in practice no actual limit?

Thanks again for the informative post.

Upsetting, and difficult, and risky.

Yes. If Irish women having abortions in Ireland that they would have had elsewhere anyway is the ‘price to pay’ so that we can stop unnecessarily putting women’s and children’s lives at risk, then I can fully support that.

Do you have an example of womens lives being endangered by the actual travelling to england (and back) for an abortion?

BabysCoffee

bertieinexile wrote: »

Do you have an example of womens lives being endangered by the actual travelling to england (and back) for an abortion?

http://www.thejournal.ie/fergal-malone-abortion-flight-death-3642355-Oct2017/

bertieinexile

bertieinexile wrote: »

Do you have an example of womens lives being endangered by the actual travelling to england (and back) for an abortion?

You posted an example earlier where this was the exact case. The woman died.

david75

RobertKK wrote: »

I am not allowed discuss that, just to say I agreed with what that family had wanted and eventually got.

How convenient. You’re allowed use One families tragedy in a weak attempt to score point it’s on an Internet forum but not your own?

How compassionate of you.

volchitsa

DubInMeath wrote: »

You posted an example earlier where this was the exact case. The woman died.

Yes, her medical condition and the delay caused by travelling meant it was a medically complex procedure which would have required her medical notes.

Irish women, because of the quasi-clandestine nature of abortion in Ireland generally don't manage to bring their medical notes. Bit harsh to then assume they are to blame when a complication isn't properly dealt with - or maybe they should just refuse all Irish women, in case one of them has an issue they are unaware of?

There's also the case Dr Fergal Malone spoke of, one of his patients I think, who died on the way home, at the airport. Again I suppose anti repeal will consider that to be evidence that all women should be banned from having abortions at all - but we know that isn't what happens. Women simply end up having more dangerous abortions.

If that is the situation, then we are responsible for those deaths. If they are just murderers who risked their lives to commit a heinous crime, I suppose one would have to say that's too bad, but I dont think it's what most Irish people really think.

January

And yet Robert still refuses to disclose which heart condition his nephew has. I'd love to know Robert. My daughter has a chd and I'm very interested in all the different kinds there are.

ProfessorPlum

bertieinexile wrote: »

If I interpret you correctly I think you are looking to reserve the phrase ‘best practice’ for the guidelines that apply in countries that have much fewer restrictions on abortion. That's most countries, so I get your point that there is a near universality to that set of guidelines. More or less.

I think it is important to be able to talk about 'best practice' in the Irish context of greater safeguards for the life of the unborn -or at least to agree on some equivalent phrase.
Especially if we want to talk about the case of Savita Halappanavar. Because as every report has shown Savita died because our 'best practice' guidelines were not followed.

No. You don’t seem to get what I’m saying at all.
Best practice means best practice - the optimal clinical management of a particular case.
In the ‘Irish context’ we sometimes don’t manage that because of constraints in our law. Our poor laws in this regard don’t make the situation right or just. Women in Ireland deserve better.

Do you have an example of women's lives being endangered by the actual travelling to england (and back) for an abortion?

Again you seem to have missed my point. My reference to endangering lives was relating to treatment in this country.

Although you’ve already heard how a woman died after complications after an abortion abroad. There were a number of factors which made her situation less optimal than it would have been had she been able to have her procedure at home.
And if you’d like to include in your concern the health of a woman, it should be obvious that the extra delays and stresses that travelling abroad for a procedure can only be detrimental to their health, even if they manage to preserve their lives.

NuMarvel

bertieinexile wrote: »

I can probably guess your reply to this...

If you're guessing that my reply is that you're still avoiding my question, then top marks, that's exactly what my reply is. And it's no surprise you guessed that, because that's exactly what you're doing.

It's obviously what you're going to continue doing too, so we'll leave it there. Thanks for proving there's no basis to anything you say.

RobertKK

January wrote: »

And yet Robert still refuses to disclose which heart condition his nephew has. I'd love to know Robert. My daughter has a chd and I'm very interested in all the different kinds there are.

One was a public court case, the other is a child who has a rare heart condition, it has a long name, I am not a doctor but it is a rare cardiomyopathy.
Do you want his name, address and exact medical history?

A simple search based on the post by bertieinexile brings you to https://www.spuc.org.uk/abortion/uk/law

The people who gaves us PLC.

The article is a twist in the actual abortion statistics published for England and Wales
https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/abortion-statistics-for-england-and-wales

I say twist as they haven't provided any evidence to back up their claim that doctors simply put mental health down to allow abortion for an unwanted pregnancy.

david75

RobertKK wrote: »

One was a public court case, the other is a child who has a rare heart condition, it has a long name, I am not a doctor but it is a rare cardiomyopathy.
Do you want his name, address and exact medical history?

Maybe don’t put your family members forward as an argument if you don’t want to be asked questions about them. and genuine questions at that.

RobertKK

david75 wrote: »

Maybe don’t put your family members forward as an argument if you don’t want to be asked questions about them. and genuine questions at that.

They aren't genuine questions. I don't know what people want. How much intrusive information do people need?
If people don't want to believe me or care, it is not me who has the problem.

david75

You’re at least consistent in missing the point.

RobertKK

david75 wrote: »

You’re at least consistent in missing the point.

I get the point, you think a private situation which was shared should be examined like a court case.

Edward M

DubInMeath wrote: »

A simple search based on the post by bertieinexile brings you to https://www.spuc.org.uk/abortion/uk/law

The people who gaves us PLC.

The article is a twist in the actual abortion statistics published for England and Wales
https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/abortion-statistics-for-england-and-wales

I say twist as they haven't provided any evidence to back up their claim that doctors simply put mental health down to allow abortion for an unwanted pregnancy.

Abortion on demand, the dreaded term, is actually still technically illegal in the UK.
Technically, it is not a woman's right to just decide she wants an abortion, because of some old still standing law.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/health/9846014/Mental-health-excuse-to-sign-off-abortions.html
B

Edward M

Edward M wrote: »

Abortion on demand, the dreaded term, is actually still technically illegal in the UK.
Technically, it is not a woman's right to just decide she wants an abortion, because of some old still standing law.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/health/9846014/Mental-health-excuse-to-sign-off-abortions.html
B

I seriously doubt that the UK ministry of health allow abortion on demand as described by the "article" and that many doctors are willing to jeopardise their licence to practice along with other sanctions. It would be to easy to prove by SPUC with actual tangible evidence if this was the case.

david75

RobertKK wrote: »

I get the point, you think a private situation which was shared should be examined like a court case.

Hardly. Think you meant that for another poster.
Although it would be nice to talk to people that didnt get Pissy when they share personal stories, fictitious or otherwise, Simply because they’re suddenly uncomfortable with it being pointed out that they’re bein totallly hypocritical expecting sympathy after having been appalling about people in a similar situation.

Madscientist30

PHG wrote: »

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.

I have to agree with this. It is a hugely emotive and polarising issue and being nasty or judgemental to the other side is not going to help sway anyone.

NuMarvel

This should put an end to the scaremongering about "abortion on demand up to birth":

Government will seek to ban late-term abortions

The Government will aim to prohibit late-term abortions except in the case of fatal foetal abnormalities, if the Eighth Amendment is removed from the Constitution.

Abortions which take place on the grounds of a threat to the life or health of the woman would not be permitted beyond viability, usually around the 23rd-24th week of pregnancy.

In those cases, where such a threat to the woman exists, the pregnancy would be ended by an early delivery.

After the 12th week of pregnancy, abortions will only be permitted when there is a threat to the life or threat “of serious harm” to the health of the mother, and in the cases of fatal foetal abnormalities.

I suspected the Government would take this approach, because there was no way they wouldn't include some form of cut off in the legislation. And after reports a few weeks back that they were going to ask the Institute of Obstetricians & Gynaecologists about new guidelines on early delivery, I figured the legislation would use viability.

I'm sure No supporters and campaigners will find something about this development to be overly alarmist about, but it should at least but an end to the "abortion on demand up to birth" scenarios (which were never going to happen anyway).

Madscientist30

RobertKK wrote: »

david75 wrote: »

Maybe don’t put your family members forward as an argument if you don’t want to be asked questions about them. and genuine questions at that.

They aren't genuine questions. I don't know what people want. How much intrusive information do people need?
If people don't want to believe me or care, it is not me who has the problem.

It almost sounds like you dont like people on this thread intruding in your families personal medical issues Robert. You appear to be downright offended by it in fact. Do you think your family have and are making all the right decisions for the care of your nephew? Should we trust that they are, or shouldn't you explain and justify their reasons and motivations to us so we can decide based on our moral code instead? Because isnt that effectively the role you think you should play in other families lives? Why do you think your family should get privacy but others shouldnt? Thats probably why some people are having trouble believing you, it seems contradictory is all.

Madscientist30

RobertKK wrote: »

david75 wrote: »

You’re at least consistent in missing the point.

I get the point, you think a private situation which was shared should be examined like a court case.

Thats how you want pregnant womens private situations to be treated though isnt it. Is the irony completely lost on you?

January

RobertKK wrote: »

One was a public court case, the other is a child who has a rare heart condition, it has a long name, I am not a doctor but it is a rare cardiomyopathy.
Do you want his name, address and exact medical history?

Just the names of the heart conditions would be OK really. Its not identifying information to name them.

Ismisejack

Simon Coveney was my favorite politician in the government, however his change of stance yesterday disgusts me after he previously admitted that the new abortion proposals and 12 week limit is flawed and unworkable and ultimately wrong. Shame on you Mr Coveney however he was probably shamed and bullied into changing his stance like many others my The unethical campaigns of the pro abortion contingent

Oldtree

Katie about to get the platform of the pay kenny show on Newstalk.

Advertised by pat as "Katie being pro life, young and not cool!"