The 8th Amendment Part 2 - Mod Warning in OP

January

RobertKK wrote: »

She was hardly an impartial chairperson though?

A chairperson doesn't have to be impartial, that wasn't one of the rules of being on the committee or being the chair.

January

amdublin wrote: »

Can you explain this more? I've no clue what you mean by this

applehunter doesn't do context, they come into the thread and add their own little comments but refuses to engage in actual discussion.

Like his little 'dehumanize, then kill' comments that he just kept posting over and over for a while. It's good that he's moved on from just that though.

RobertKK

January wrote: »

A chairperson doesn't have to be impartial, that wasn't one of the rules of being on the committee or being the chair.

So you would have had no problem if the situation was equally reversed and a rabid pro-life person had been the chairperson and the outcome had been different?

bertieinexile

thee glitz wrote: »

If the result of repealing the 8th would be abortion without reason to 12 weeks, and later if 2 docs sign off on a health risk (and concerns were raised in the UK around pre-signed forms), then support among moderates will veer towards a no vote.

The yes campaign will fall on pushing it too far - ideal for strong no supporters.

Excellent point thee glitz, well put. That's the whole campaign right there. Here is what a doctor who worked for marie stopes for years had to say about how well they police the mental health grounds among other things

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4284290/Marie-Stopes-abortions-signed-just-phonecall.html

The woman who sat in front of me at the Marie Stopes Clinic in 2010 was in her late twenties, with brown quizzical eyes that mirrored her confusion.

She wanted an abortion, but she didn’t speak English. The best way forward would have been to dial into a phone translation service so that someone fluent in her language could explain the options and the risks they entailed.

But that would take time – and staff at Marie Stopes simply weren’t given time to provide proper care.

The management took every opportunity to cut costs, cut corners and squeeze patients through as fast as possible with the least demanding protocol for treatment.

On that particular day, I had sat in on the consultation and listened as a healthcare assistant (HCA) explained the options for an early termination of pregnancy while the woman’s husband translated.

The HCA had just 20 minutes to explain the procedures to each patient, perform an ultrasound and take a medical history and a blood sample.

On top of that, the HCA had to complete the paperwork. It was a punishing schedule. And in this case we were reliant on the patient’s husband to translate accurately what was being said.

The woman could opt for a two-day medical termination – taking the pill mifepristone and coming back the next day to take a second tablet, misoprostol. Or she could have an early surgical abortion, without anaesthetic, using a suction technique. Unfortunately, because she had not fasted, she could not be given a strong sedative before the procedure.

I wasn’t happy that she understood either what the surgical termination I would perform involved, or that she might feel some pain. She was scared and just wanted it over and done with, so she opted for a no-anaesthetic abortion.
We worked in an atmosphere of bullying and pressure – it was nothing more than a conveyor belt service.

Against my better judgment, I went ahead. Her particular case has stayed with me, because it felt so wrong.

I should have walked out of the door right then and turned my back on the Marie Stopes organisation, where I believe the women who sought help were taken advantage of as well as the doctors and the staff. We worked in an atmosphere of bullying and pressure – it was nothing more than a conveyor belt service.

More than 190,000 abortions are carried out each year in the UK. Around 60,000 of these are undertaken at Marie Stopes centres. I worked there one Saturday every month from 2003 to 2010, and then once a week until 2012. During the week, I was a consultant at King’s College Hospital, London.

At that time, Marie Stopes was performing around 30-35 surgical terminations a day at the clinic I worked in alone. About a quarter of them were over 14 weeks. Some 95 per cent of patients were funded by the NHS.

Many women are upset when they arrive at a clinic. Time should be given to talk to them, and to pick up on any signs that they don’t want to go through with the termination. But you couldn’t always be sure this had happened, because of the pressures everyone was under.

Legally, abortion forms require two medical signatures. I would fill in the forms without having met a patient, ticking the appropriate box to confirm that was the case.

I just had to rely on the HCAs and hope that if a woman was unsure or had been forced into a termination by her partner or parents, they had picked up the signs in the short time they had with the woman. There was a climate of fear at Marie Stopes. If we were taking too long signing forms, we’d be chivvied by administrative staff. Sometimes, I’d already be in the operating theatre, performing a procedure, when documents would be presented for me sign. To say it was a rushed would be an understatement.

Every now and again, a patient on my operating table would change her mind and leave the room. Could she have been better counselled? Certainly, more time spent with her might have thrown up her doubts. It’s likely she had simply not felt able to express doubts about what lay ahead to the HCA as she was sped through their checks.

I sometimes got the impression that the women I treated hadn’t been given the full picture, or had the pain properly explained to them. They often appeared to feel more pain than you’d expect, and that upset me, because once you have started a termination you can’t stop. I would just have to carry on, despite their cries.

There's plenty more in that article about how much of a joke the mental health criterion is in england.
You can deliberately avoid claiming your mental state is affected and still be approved.
The doctors who supposedly determine your mental state don't even need to meet you face to face

Under the wild proposed legislation that would follow a Yes vote here, as night the day, any woman would be allowed an abortion up to 24 weeks under these these "mental health grounds"
And I would be really really happy to spend from now until the end of May talking about this.

Water John

Catherine Noone isn't a 'rabid abortionist' as you put it. She Chaired the subcommittee fairly, despite abuse. The main proposal of 12 general limit, came from 3 FF members.

bertieinexile

thee glitz wrote: »

What I'd like to know is, if a No vote prevails, will there be a re-run of the referendum with tighter proposed legislation to follow? It would seem that, depending on it, repeal would gain more support and surely the re-run would be passed. Against this, it wouldn't be right to have a re-run any time soon a-la-nice or Lisbon.

Thats an argument that makes sense to a lot of people with the same doubts about this that you have.

Simi wrote:

If you vote no you are voting to ensure abortion remains illegal in all cases bar threat to life. The government is not going to rerun the referendum with new terms that are personally catered to your wishes! That is not how democracy works.

Oh yes it is. thee glitz already referred to the Nice and Lisbon referendums which we got to vote on twice. Even more relevant were the two divorce referendums in 1986 and 1995 where we didn't give the right answer the first time around
.
.


Finally, here, in my opinion, is the middle ground of Ireland telling the pro choice side - politicians, media and the rest - what it is they actually want.

thee glitz wrote:

What about the choice to allow for legislating for abortion.... just in cases where it's reasonably deemed to be necessary - would you support people having a vote on that?

RobertKK

Water John wrote: »

Catherine Noone isn't a 'rabid abortionist' as you put it. She Chaired the subcommittee fairly, despite abuse. The main proposal of 12 general limit, came from 3 FF members.

You put words in a loose quote which I had not said, but one has to be rabid in their support for repeal to go to church and be ageist and act like one came from outer space and just found out the church is against abortion.
She is a rabid pro-choice campaigner and that is why she did such a stupid tweet that she later had to delete as it did make her and the repeal side look really stupid and rather nasty for being ageist.

Water John

Robert you juxtapositioned CN to a rabid pro lifer, thus you made the claim CN was a 'rabid pro abortionist'. That's the reason for the parenthesis. A rabid pro choice person would be looking for a very liberal abortion law, similar to the UK. I see only one or two contributors here that advocated that.
Maybe one or two on the subcommittee eg Ruth Coppinger might have similar views, but Catherine Noone nor any FG or FF members of the committee, would have advocated that. So CN cannot be described as rabid abortionist.

RobertKK

Water John wrote: »

Robert you juxtapositioned CN to a rabid pro lifer, thus you made the claim CN was a 'rabid pro abortionist'. That's the reason for the parenthesis. A rabid pro choice person would be looking for a very liberal abortion law, similar to the UK. I see only one or two contributors here that advocated that.
Maybe one or two on the subcommittee eg Ruth Coppinger might have similar views, but Catherine Noone nor any FG or FF members of the committee, would have advocated that. So CN cannot be described as rabid abortionist.

So are you saying people who are for repeal should be referred to as being "pro abortionist"?

It is a very liberal abortion law that is being proposed and Catherine Noone uses the hastag together for yes, there was a person from together for yes on Morning Ireland and was supporting abortion to be allowed up to birth.

It was very stupid of Senator Noone to go to church and complain that the church teaches church teachings inside a church, and make a comment about the age of the priest.
I prefer to think it is her rabid support for repeal that caused her to be blind to what she posted, rather than assume the view came from being simply stupid.

pitifulgod

RobertKK wrote: »

So are you saying people who are for repeal should be referred to as being "pro abortionist"?

It is a very liberal abortion law that is being proposed and Catherine Noone uses the hastag together for yes, there was a person from together for yes on Morning Ireland and was supporting abortion to be allowed up to birth.

It was very stupid of Senator Noone to go to church and complain that the church teaches church teachings inside a church, and make a comment about the age of the priest.
I prefer to think it is her rabid support for repeal that caused her to be blind to what she posted, rather than assume the view came from being simply stupid.

It's not incredibly liberal, you're just trying to make it out as such. It's in line with other pretty moderate abortion policies in Europe... You would classify any abortions as extreme based on postings to date.

Simi

bertieinexile wrote: »

Thats an argument that makes sense to a lot of people with the same doubts about this that you have.


Oh yes it is. thee glitz already referred to the Nice and Lisbon referendums which we got to vote on twice. Even more relevant were the two divorce referendums in 1986 and 1995 where we didn't give the right answer the first time around
.
.


Finally, here, in my opinion, is the middle ground of Ireland telling the pro choice side - politicians, media and the rest - what it is they actually want.

This is a very obvious and transparent lie being put forward by the no side. 'People' want a more restrictive regime and If you vote no now, the government will come back with a new proposal for a more restrictive regime that will satisfy all your reservations! Ignoring the fact that everyone will have differing opinions of what that more restrictive regime should look like and won't magically come to some sort of consensus. It's simply not going to happen.

The proposed legislation is supported by most people as has been shown time and again in opinion polls. The people on this thread claiming to be in 'the middle' are in actuality against abortion on pretty much all grounds.

I believe that most people, some of whom are uneasy about the proposed legislation, can see how damaging the eight amendment has been and continues to be to women in pregnancy and understand the need for it's immediate repeal regardless of what legislation follows.

RobertKK

pitifulgod wrote: »

It's not incredibly liberal, you're just trying to make it out as such. It's in line with other pretty moderate abortion policies in Europe... You would classify any abortions as extreme based on postings to date.

It is abortion on request/demand up to 12 weeks, then mental health grounds and other reasons beyond that and no time limit.

Sinead Kennedy from Together for Yes on Morning Ireland was asked:
"But no protection in law specifically for the unborn up until the point of birth?"
Sinead Kennedy: "Yeah, I think it seems to be a very reasonable proposal, again, putting trust where it belongs"

Yes nothing extreme there...

Simi

RobertKK wrote: »

It is abortion on request/demand up to 12 weeks, then mental health grounds and other reasons beyond that and no time limit.

Sinead Kennedy from Together for Yes on Morning Ireland was asked:
"But no protection in law specifically for the unborn up until the point of birth?"
Sinead Kennedy: "Yeah, I think it seems to be a very reasonable proposal, again, putting trust where it belongs"

Yes nothing extreme there...

The only reason with no time limit in the proposed legislation is for FFA. Abortions for health or risk to life are limited to viability ~24 weeks with early delivery after that point, except in emergencies where there is an immediate threat to the life of the woman. Abortions for rape, incest and any other reasons are limited to 12 weeks. But you already knew all that!

Abortions performed outside of these circumstances will be punishable by up to 14 years in prison for the person performing the abortion. That sounds like a pretty strong protection to me.

volchitsa

RobertKK wrote: »

It is abortion on request/demand up to 12 weeks, then mental health grounds and other reasons beyond that and no time limit.

Sinead Kennedy from Together for Yes on Morning Ireland was asked:
"But no protection in law specifically for the unborn up until the point of birth?"
Sinead Kennedy: "Yeah, I think it seems to be a very reasonable proposal, again, putting trust where it belongs"

Yes nothing extreme there...

By definition, it's not extreme when it's similar to law in the rest of Europe, and is more restrictive than many of those.

How many countries have specific legal protection for the unborn in legislation, never mind in their constitution?

RobertKK

Simi wrote: »

This is a very obvious and transparent lie being put forward by the no side. 'People' want a more restrictive regime and If you vote no now, the government will come back with a new proposal for a more restrictive regime that will satisfy all your reservations! Ignoring the fact that everyone will have differing opinions of what that more restrictive regime should look like and won't magically come to some sort of consensus. It's simply not going to happen.

The proposed legislation is supported by most people as has been shown time and again in opinion polls. The people on this thread claiming to be in 'the middle' are in actuality against abortion on pretty much all grounds.

I believe that most people, some of whom are uneasy about the proposed legislation, can see how damaging the eight amendment has been and continues to be to women in pregnancy and understand the need for it's immediate repeal regardless of what legislation follows.

A total of 40pc said unrestricted abortion up to 12 weeks was 'about right', while 8pc said it 'did not go far enough', a combined 48pc in favour.

However, 33pc said unrestricted abortion up to 12 weeks 'went too far' and a further 19pc were undecided - a combined 52pc against or unsure.

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/politics/poll-shows-strong-support-in-favour-of-abortion-referendum-but-12-week-proposal-splits-public-36615455.html

January

Simi wrote: »

The only reason with no time limit in the proposed legislation is for FFA. Abortions for health or risk to life are limited to viability ~24 weeks with early delivery after that point, except in emergencies where there is an immediate threat to the life of the woman. Abortions for rape, incest and any other reasons are limited to 12 weeks. But you already knew all that!

Even in emergencies where there is immediate threat to the life of the woman after 24 weeks it will be termination of pregnancy (most likely via cesarean) not an abortion.

RobertKK

volchitsa wrote: »

By definition, it's not extreme when it's similar to law in the rest of Europe, and is more restrictive than many of those.

How many countries have specific legal protection for the unborn in legislation, never mind in their constitution?

Clearly not enough when one sees how many abortions takes place.

RobertKK

Simi wrote: »

The only reason with no time limit in the proposed legislation is for FFA. Abortions for health or risk to life are limited to viability ~24 weeks with early delivery after that point, except in emergencies where there is an immediate threat to the life of the woman. Abortions for rape, incest and any other reasons are limited to 12 weeks. But you already knew all that!

Abortions performed outside of these circumstances will be punishable by up to 14 years in prison for the person performing the abortion. That sounds like a pretty strong protection to me.

...and who is going to perform these abortions, a poll found 65% of GPs said they would not.
There are already waiting lists for some to see their own doctor and the state thinks they should become abortionists to make waiting time longer.

volchitsa

RobertKK wrote: »

Clearly not enough when one sees how many abortions takes place.

So the proposed legislation is not extreme at all then, is it?

By any usual definition of extreme, as in, on the outer limits of something.

As opposed to a redefinition closer to "things I don't like", right?

volchitsa

RobertKK wrote: »

...and who is going to perform these abortions, a poll found 65% of GPs said they would not.
There are already waiting lists for some to see their own doctor and the state thinks they should become abortionists to make waiting time longer.

They said they weren't trained to do so, which is fair enough.
They didn't say it was because of massive principled opposition.

January

RobertKK wrote: »

...and who is going to perform these abortions, a poll found 65% of GPs said they would not.
There are already waiting lists for some to see their own doctor and the state thinks they should become abortionists to make waiting time longer.

Your stats are wrong. Again.

According to this article 65 percent of 497 GP's who responded to the survey in a closed forum would not provide abortions if the legislation was enacted. There were some 3,200 GP's that didn't even respond to the poll.

gctest50

RobertKK wrote: »

.........

Yes nothing extreme there...

Bit scared that the training wheels might be coming off the country ?

No one telling us how to live .........ooooo......ooooooo....

Some sort of weird throwback with some people - upset they missed out on the English ruling them

and they will fight when any reduction in control comes around - scared the whole place will turn into hell

RobertKK

Simi wrote: »

The only reason with no time limit in the proposed legislation is for FFA. Abortions for health or risk to life are limited to viability ~24 weeks with early delivery after that point, except in emergencies where there is an immediate threat to the life of the woman. Abortions for rape, incest and any other reasons are limited to 12 weeks. But you already knew all that!

Abortions performed outside of these circumstances will be punishable by up to 14 years in prison for the person performing the abortion. That sounds like a pretty strong protection to me.

btw this 'trust women' argument is not going to work. People usually trust people they know they can trust, people don't trust women or men just because someone says they must 'trust women'.
It just makes one think about trust, politicians will control abortion if repeal wins, does one trust politicians who flip flop and tell lies to get elected?
Trust women, one would find a lot of women who wouldn't trust other women in a random matter that is being asked, just as one wouldn't trust a random man if asked to.
Trust avoids the argument which is about the unborn and their current status of a right to life.

Simi

RobertKK wrote: »

...and who is going to perform these abortions, a poll found 65% of GPs said they would not.
There are already waiting lists for some to see their own doctor and the state thinks they should become abortionists to make waiting time longer.

This 'argument' has already been put forward in this thread or the previous one. Someone with a much better grasp of mathematics than me worked out that even with non compliance from 65% of GP's, a GP providing abortions would deal with ~ 2 cases per year. That's not exactly going to break the GP service now is it?

Simi

RobertKK wrote: »

btw this 'trust women' argument is not going to work. People usually trust people they know they can trust, people don't trust women or men just because someone says they must 'trust women'.
It just makes one think about trust, politicians will control abortion if repeal wins, does one trust politicians who flip flop and tell lies to get elected?
Trust women, one would find a lot of women who wouldn't trust other women in a random matter that is being asked, just as one wouldn't trust a random man if asked to.
Trust avoids the argument which is about the unborn and their current status of a right to life.

I'm going to assume you quoted my post by accident, as I didn't use the word trust once?

But just fyi, I trust women to make the decision that is best for them and their family and so do the majority of people I've spoken to!

RobertKK

gctest50 wrote: »

Bit scared that the training wheels might be coming off the country ?

No one telling us how to live .........ooooo......ooooooo....

Some sort of weird throwback with some people - upset they missed out on the English ruling them

and they will fight when any reduction in control comes around - scared the whole place will turn into hell

It will be the people who decide the referendum, it will be pro-choice/liberal leaning people who will use abortion if legalised which kind of makes it like a eugenics for pro-choice/liberals to have an overall lower birth rate.
Marie Stopes who has abortion clinics named after her was very against abortion but for eugenics...personally I support neither and wouldn't campaign for less liberals to be born.

volchitsa

RobertKK wrote: »

btw this 'trust women' argument is not going to work. People usually trust people they know they can trust, people don't trust women or men just because someone says they must 'trust women'.
It just makes one think about trust, politicians will control abortion if repeal wins, does one trust politicians who flip flop and tell lies to get elected?
Trust women, one would find a lot of women who wouldn't trust other women in a random matter that is being asked, just as one wouldn't trust a random man if asked to.
Trust avoids the argument which is about the unborn and their current status of a right to life.

I agree it is a bit oddly expressed, but in reality what it means is that the default position where patients and their next of kin have the final say in whether or not medical treatment is given should also apply to pregnant women.

It's not about trusting them to look after your wallet, it's about trusting them to look after their own families better than an outsider would. Including taking difficult decisions like turning off life support or ending a pregnancy.

RobertKK

Simi wrote: »

I'm going to assume you quoted my post by accident, as I didn't use the word trust once?

But just fyi, I trust women to make the decision that is best for them and their family and so do the majority of people I've spoken to!

You replied to a tweet that had a Sinead Kennedy quote that had mentioned trust.
The argument being when it comes to abortion and time limits to 'trust' women.

gctest50

RobertKK wrote: »

It will be the people who decide the referendum, it will be pro-choice/liberal leaning people who will use abortion if legalised which kind of makes it like a eugenics for pro-choice/liberals to have an overall lower birth rate.
Marie Stopes who has abortion clinics named after her was very against abortion but for eugenics...personally I support neither and wouldn't campaign for less liberals to be born.

RobertKK wrote: »

], it will be pro-choice/liberal leaning people who will use abortion if legalised which kind of makes it like a eugenics for pro-choice/liberals

a) if legalised ? abortion is available to those who can travel - stop scaremongering


b) Any source for your prediction of increase over todays rate

c) it not a hysterectomy

drillyeye

Ave Sodalis wrote: »

It's taken out and replaced.

It's never going back in unless there's a referendum held in future. Any part of the constitution, or its amendments can be changed through referendum. The government cannot change the constitution itself. Maybe it won't be put back in, maybe it will. However, referendums are expensive and time consuming, so it will only be touched again with enough public interest.

Appreciate the answer. Its pretty much what I thought already.

The thing is though, if its removed from the constitution, whats to say that it needs a referendum to change? I mean, couldn't it just be legislated by a government without input from the public?

That's a good point about divorce, but that is a much clearer "yes or no" deal, whereas abortion has a spectrum of potential changes.

I'll check into it further myself of course, but this very well looks like a deal-breaker to me. I don't feel comfortable at all with the proposal, it is essentially "we'll take it out and then......sure who knows!"

In fact, its a terrible proposition. Although I'd be in favour of certain changes being made, I am most certainly not in favour of a wild-west scenario where it could be changed and altered ad infinitum.

I wonder how many people are aware of this!! This referendum is a dreadful idea, its about as vague as you could possibly get.