Outright lies in Campaign

Macha

Help!!!! wrote: »

Maybe some of us have our eyes open & can see we will have the same abortion business as in any other country

Please clarify how many abortions there will be, how much they will cost, and how that adds up to a business model.

Help!!!! wrote: »

Nope

& Nope, a termination would have happened if the infection was observed

http://www.thelifeinstitute.net/information/the-tragic-death-of-savita-halappanavar/

Help!!!! wrote: »

If the infection had been seen a termination could have happened
Why do people think the doctors are not allowed terminate the baby if the mother is at risk? Its in the constitution

Because doctors don't work with a copy of the constitution in their hands.

"Savita Halappanavar died as a direct result of Ireland's restrictive abortion laws and not simply because she contracted sepsis, the author of the independent report into her death has said."

https://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/ireland/author-of-savita-halappanavar-report-says-8th-amendment-contributed-to-her-death-810432.html

Help!!!! wrote: »

Cancer treatment does not affect the foetue/baby so she should have got treatment

That depends entirely on the type of cancer and the type of treatment. Even some scans to the abdomen can affect the foetus.

Itssoeasy

I decided to watch primetime and the no person said that abortion will be legalised to term. That isn't correct as far as I've read. When a fetus is viable it will delivered as the same as a premature baby.

Itssoeasy

I didn't watch the CB live debate last night and it seems I made the right decision looking online. The piece on prime Time was short but my question was there talking over each other like there was just now.

Ave Sodalis

Itssoeasy wrote: »

I decided to watch primetime and the no person said that abortion will be legalised to term. That isn't correct as far as I've read. When a fetus is viable it will delivered as the same as a premature baby.

It's not correct at all, and I'm pretty certain the No person is fully aware of that. You are right, after viability, there will be a delivery attempt. Currently, there is no proposed legislation for abortion after viability outside the current Protection of Life during Pregnancy (i.e. in the case of a risk to the life of the mother), and only very specific circumstances after 12 weeks.

spookwoman

Help!!!! wrote: »

Cancer treatment does not affect the foetue/baby so she should have got treatment

every cancer society site and even prolife sites say that chemo etc can cause problems in the first trimester and its best avoided

Ave Sodalis

Help!!!! wrote: »

Cancer treatment does not affect the foetue/baby so she should have got treatment

In a few cancer cases, (certain types, certain stages and often in the last trimester), you are right. However, this is not true across the board, and there are many cases of where a woman has been advised to not get pregnant or to travel to the UK if she can.

blanch152

Help!!!! wrote: »

Cancer treatment does not affect the foetue/baby so she should have got treatment

Another huge lie of the NO campaign.

Hotblack Desiato

Help!!!! wrote: »

If the infection had been seen a termination could have happened

She should have been given a termination to PREVENT infection from happening. This is medical best practice in this situation. This is what would have happened in any other developed country, except here and (probably) Malta.

Instead the 8th forced the doctors to gamble with her health and life, putting her at huge risk of sepsis and then hoping (and failing, in this case) to treat it in time.

Help!!!! wrote: »

Nope

& Nope, a termination would have happened if the infection was observed

http://www.thelifeinstitute.net/information/the-tragic-death-of-savita-halappanavar/

Life Institute link. No credibility whatsoever.

Help!!!! wrote: »

Cancer treatment does not affect the foetue/baby so she should have got treatment

Who told you that? The Life Institute again?

Nettle Soup

The No side is a very varied group of people but the common motto seems to be; win at all costs.

I really hope there are some good investigative documentaries after the referendum because I am very surprised at some of the tactics employed by No.

I notice the No posters far far outnumber the Yes posters in Galway in the past week. I honestly think they are a waste of money for both sides but one side is spending a lot more than the other.

Overheal

Help!!!! wrote: »

Cancer treatment does not affect the foetue/baby so she should have got treatment

Sorry but that's not always the case. If it were, why are women constantly pre-screened at treatment visits for pregnancy?

NuMarvel

Itssoeasy wrote: »

I decided to watch primetime and the no person said that abortion will be legalised to term. That isn't correct as far as I've read. When a fetus is viable it will delivered as the same as a premature baby.

They made the same claim about the current Protection of Life During Pregnancy Act. It was one of the reasons they opposed it, because they said it allowed abortion up to birth on "threat of their suicide" (their words). Obviously this would open the floodgates or some such thing.

And yet, here we are, 4 years later, a total of 77 abortions under the current law, as per recent statistics, and less than 10 of those on ground of suicide. So no floodgates there.

What's more, everyone who was so opposed to the current law when it was passed in 2013, and promised to see it struck down come hell or high water, is no the biggest fan of it. It's the bees knees if you go by some of them! I've even heard it said by No campaigners that it already covers the exceptional cases, so no changes are needed. Those are more No side lies btw.

Hotblack Desiato

Nettle Soup wrote: »

The No side is a very varied group of people but the common motto seems to be; win at all costs.

I really hope there are some good investigative documentaries after the referendum because I am very surprised at some of the tactics employed by No.

I don't know if you remember 1983, but I do and I'm not surprised at all, not one bloody bit.

Seth Brundle

Help!!!! wrote: »

Cancer treatment does not affect the foetue/baby so she should have got treatment

So some anti-abortion troll on the internet is better able to offer a qualified impartial opinion than a Professor of medicine?
:rolleyes:

bleary

More women gave Irish addresses when accessing abortions in the UK last year than were diagnosed with breast cancer. Which is sadly ironic considering some of them like Michelle harte needed an abortion because of a cancer diagnosis .

Because their body wouldn't be able to fight cancer and carry a baby
Because they couldn't access cancer trials while pregnant
Because they are mother's ,daughters ,wives and sisters who need to be there for as long as they can
Because they just couldn't.

GhostyMcGhost

The ad did not depict an Irish soldier, nor was it intended to depict an Irish soldier. It was intended to depict a man in a protective role, which is in a military force. It was not ever intended to imply an endorsement from the Defence Forces, and we would never do that, we respect the independence of the Defence Forces,

Except:
- It does depict a soldier (an Irish soldier is an assumption and is 100% implied)
- It was
- So It was intended to depict a soldier (contradiction right there)
- it was certainly intended to say that "soldiers" as "protector" as a whole would vote no

Just like the use of mother Theresa's image, the NO campaign are desperate and will stoop to any low to brainwash the undecided with lies and suggested imagery that have nothing to do with abortion, using such suggestive and relatable imagery to hoodwink people into a no vote

NIMAN

The NO side seem to be winning the advertising battle?

In sheer number of adverts and posters about, they do anyway.

Ave Sodalis

NIMAN wrote: »

The NO side seem to be winning the advertising battle?

In sheer number of adverts and posters about, they do anyway.

There's a No poster on nearly every structure in my area, two or three on some. There's also a giant roadside billboard (?) I seen two men putting up yesterday.

NIMAN

Up here in Donegal, I'd say the NO posters outnumber the YES's by at least 10 to 1.

Nettle Soup

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

I don't know if you remember 1983, but I do and I'm not surprised at all, not one bloody bit.

I was 10 but I do remember how different Ireland was - I thought we had matured.

antiskeptic

gctest50 wrote: »

miss this part ?

Why did the investigative report chaired by the professor not draw the conclusion the professor, in a private capacity espoused?

The report cites medical misadventure and systems failures as the chief causal in Savita's death. And the contributors to that chief cause continue in that vein - they don't implicate the 8th.

In so far as the 8th is mentioned, its clarity surrounding it which is implicated. Lack of clarity regarding the 8th is not the same thing as the fault of the 8th.

The report trumps the professor in that it is subject to the rigours of being a formal investigation, rather than being a personal opinion.

It's worth nothing that said clarity was provided for by the Protection of life during pregnancy act 2013. Legislation enacted under the 8th.

Medical guidelines arising from that state that it is legal to terminate a pregnancy without the risk to life being immediate and without that risk being inevitable (in its eventually transpiring)

Savita and Michelle were let down by a failure to legislate and clarify around the 8th. Not the 8th itself

Zubeneschamali

NIMAN wrote: »

The NO side seem to be winning the advertising battle?

They are certainly spending a metric tonne of money.

I notice that some of the more recent ones are heavier on text and not confined to the red/black horror movie colour scheme of the first round, for example, the 97% poster is in a less threatening black and yellow.

I am not sure they will see any value, most people went into this with a good idea of how they would vote, and bombarding them with hostile messages was always unlikely to change minds.

It might turn off enough voters to get a low turnout, which would help No. The 8th was passed with a low turnout (54%), and the higher turnouts for the 12th, 13th and 14th (68%) saw the pro-life side lose.

The 25th (a 2nd attempt to exclude suicide) narrowly failed 50/50 in a 43% turnout.

Ave Sodalis

antiskeptic wrote: »

Why did the investigative report chaired by the professor not draw the conclusion the professor, in a private capacity espoused?

The report cites medical misadventure and systems failures as chief causal in Savita's death. And the contributors to that chief cause continue in that vein - they don't implicate the 8th.

In so far as the 8th is mentioned, its clarity surrounding it which is mentioned. Lack of clarity regarding the 8th is not the same thing as the fault of then 8th.

The report trumps the professor in that it is subject to the rigours of being a formal investigation rather than a personal opinion.

Its worth nothing that said clarity was provided for by the protection of life during pregnancy act 2013. Legislation enacted under the 8th.

Medical guidelines arising from that state that it is legal to terminate a pregnancy without the risk to life being immediate and without that risk being inevitable (in its eventually transpiring)

Savita and Michelle were let down by a failure to legislate and clarify around the 8th. Not the 8th itself

No, the report clearly states, at several points that not only is the report contents limited by the 8th, but also that the 8th was at fault.

We strongly recommend and advise the clinical professional community, health and social care regulators and the Oireachtas to consider the law including any necessary constitutional change and related administrative, legal and clinical guidelines in relation to the management of inevitable miscarriage in the early second trimester of a pregnancy including with prolonged rupture of membranes and where the risk to the mother increases with time from the time that membranes are ruptured including the risk of infection and thereby reduce risk of harm up to and including death

O&G Consultant 1 stated that the patient and her husband were advised of Irish law in relation to this. At interview the consultant stated “Under Irish law, if there’s no evidence of risk to the life of the mother, our hands are tied so long as there’s a fetal heart”. The consultant stated that if risk to the mother was to increase a termination would have been possible, but that it would be based on actual risk and not a theoretical risk of infection “we can’t predict who is going to get an infection”.

https://www.hse.ie/eng/services/news/nimtreport50278.pdf

antiskeptic

Ave Sodalis wrote: »

No, the report clearly states, at several points that not only is the report contents limited by the 8th, but also that the 8th was at fault.





https://www.hse.ie/eng/services/news/nimtreport50278.pdf

The report you cite doesn't condemn the 8th. It recommends including the 8th in the assessment of how to avoid another Savita. Which is fair enough.

The opinion of the consultant doesnt demonstrate the 8th at fault. It can be the consultants understanding given guidelines he operates to arising from the 8th. A different thing.

The new guidelines would appear to resolve things -had they been in place. That they didnt exist for Savita is not the fault of the 8th.

I would point you again and welcome comment on the prime cause listed. Prime...

Ave Sodalis

antiskeptic wrote: »

The report you cite doesn't condemn the 8th. It recommends including the 8th in the assessment of how to avoid another Savita. Which is fair enough.

The opinion of the consultant doesnt demonstrate the 8th at fault. It can be the consultants understanding given guidelines he operates to arising from the 8th. A different thing.

The new guidelines would appear to resolve things -had they been in place. That they didnt exist for Savita is not the fault of the 8th.

I would point you again and welcome comment on the prime cause listed. Prime...

The investigation team considers that the situation was complicated by the difficulty associated with the application of the law in Ireland relating to the termination of a pregnancy. The investigation team is satisfied that concern about the law, whether clear or not, impacted on the exercise of clinical professional judgement.

Please re-read the report.

We recognise that such guidelines must be consistent with applicable law and that the guidance so urged may require legal change.

Hotblack Desiato

NIMAN wrote: »

The NO side seem to be winning the advertising battle?

In sheer number of adverts and posters about, they do anyway.

That's what tons of dodgy money from the US gets you.

Nettle Soup wrote: »

I was 10 but I do remember how different Ireland was - I thought we had matured.

Ireland overall has matured, but some people clearly have not.

Latest No poster - "6 MONTHS IS HORRIFIC VOTE NO" :rolleyes:

ArmaniJeanss

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

I notice that some of the more recent ones are heavier on text and not confined to the red/black horror movie colour scheme of the first round, for example, the 97% poster is in a less threatening black and yellow.

I am not sure they will see any value, most people went into this with a good idea of how they would vote, and bombarding them with hostile messages was always unlikely to change minds.

This is almost a textbook definition of 'anecdotal' but I did hear a conversation on the bus between two Indian lads in their late 20s/30s where one said 'I hear they are trying to bring in abortion up to 6 months, I'll definitely be voting no'. His friend seemed dubious but then when he had a poster pointed out to him further along the journey he agreed saying 'That IS grotesque', using the exact word on the poster.

edit : It may have been 'horrific' rather than 'grotesque', as I'm fairly sure its the exact poster referenced by HD in the post above me.

antiskeptic

Ave Sodalis wrote: »

Please re-read the report.

No problem. But you seem to be skipping the points I raise. When answering, could you address them in full:

The investigation team considers that the situation was complicated by the difficulty associated with the application of the law in Ireland relating to the termination of a pregnancy.

I've already pointed out that the reports cites the primary causal in Savita's death as: medical misadventure/systems failure (and I'd ask you not forget that). We may take the word "complicated" in that context to mean the following paraphrase:

"The situation was brought about primarily by medical misadventure. This primary situation was complicated by .... etc."




Now we turn to the "difficulty associated with application of the law..."

The law derives from the Constitution and isn't itself the Constitution.

As we have seen from the 2013 Act and the medical guidelines arising from that act, (the perceived) difficulty associated with application of the then-law (i.e. the law in Savita's time) appears to have been rectified. In other words, it's patently clear now that medics don't need to wait until a patient is skirting death before they can terminate.

Since the 2013 law/current guidelines would save a present-day Savita - without the Constitution having to be changed so as to make 2013 law possible, the Constitution can't be implicated in Savita's day. At most we can examine whether the law of Savita's day was too restrictive (it might not have been).

The investigation team is satisfied that concern about the law, whether clear or not, impacted on the exercise of clinical professional judgement.

"Concern about the (then) law" doesn't mean the law is necessarily implicated. The problem can lie the nature of the concerns about it. Why does that concern arise? Could that concern have been rectified by guideline changes? The report doesn't say. It doesn't condemn the law, rather, it merely points to the existence of concerns about its application.

Now, it might be that no better clarity (in advance of Savita) could have been gained w.r.t. the then-law, such as to alleviate such concerns. We don't know. But even that were the case, it would have been the law then which was at fault, in the first instance. That poor law led to restrictive, confused guidelines doesn't necessarily mean the Constitution forced that situation.

Since the 2013 Act (introduced without change to the Constitution) provides necessary clarity now, the Constitution is absolved from blame in Savita's day. In other words, the Constitution never prevented suitable law > guidelines > clarity being obtained such as to alleviate, in advance, the concerns alluded to in the report. Proof? the law and guidelines exist now, under the auspices of the 8th.

The problems with the then-law, if there was indeed problems with it, have now been resolved - without a change to the Constitution*. Any fault lies in not having introduced the 2013 Act > guidelines earlier. The State / Medical Council had since 1983 to do so. Perhaps it's only hard experience that can make better law. Whether law under the 8th or law under what replaces the 8th


*It may be that the current, clearer guidelines won't prevent another death in different circumstances. The law might still not be as encompassing and as clear as it could be. Guidelines might not interpret the law as well as they might. Guidelines might not be followed. In that event, we're back to wondering whether:

- it is the guidelines at fault

- or the law which informs the guidelines at fault

- or the Constitution which informs the law at fault.


The Constitution is the last thing in line to blame. With all due respect to the professor's personal opinion, he is neither a lawyer nor a legislator. Whether in his investigative capacity or in his personal capacity, he can't implicate the 8th without exhausting the pathway's to it: comprehension of guidelines on the ground > the guidelines themselves > the law which informs the guidelines > the Constitution which informs the law.

It's simply beyond the report's remit to do this examination. It can merely point to places where the problem might lie - given concerns were raised. And this is precisely what it does by way of it's recommendations.

.......

This post has been deleted.

Hotblack Desiato

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Why - because there is no acceptable number of women's deaths as "collateral damage" due to the 8th, and they know it. So it's deny deny deny all the way.

antiskeptic

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Why - because there is no acceptable number of women's deaths as "collateral damage" due to the 8th, and they know it. So it's deny deny deny all the way.

Actually, you're wrong there.

Whilst I have yet to see a case made for actual "collateral damage" arising from the 8th (folk who lick their arguments off a YES poster don't count) I accept it might not be possible to prevent all death that can be blamed on it (as opposed to failures in laws and guidelines it permits).

The question then revolves around how much life-in-the-womb collateral damage I'm prepared (as a voter) to trade for adult collateral damage. A.O.B. strikes me as too much.


I doubt you'll have a go at the argument a few posts above. I'd bet your happy to swallow the party line "The 8th killed Savita"

Remember your maths exams? Where you had to show your work rather than just spit out the answer? It's a bit like that.

gmisk

antiskeptic wrote: »

folk who lick their arguments off a YES poster don't count

What the heck does that even mean?


If I "licked" things from the No posters I would just go around shouting stats which are factually inaccurate or shouting incoherent nonsense!
License to kill????? etc etc
Gimme a break!

antiskeptic

gmisk wrote: »

What the heck does that even mean?


If I "licked" things from the No posters I would just go around shouting stats which are factually inaccurate or shouting incoherent nonsense!
License to kill????? etc etc
Gimme a break!

I was addressing hotblack. Not you. Hotblack seemed to prefer drive by regurgitation of the idea of death-by-8th. As opposed to showing how he gets to that idea.

You're welcome to have a crack. We were (a few posts above) having a look at the HSE investigation report into the matter. Which doesn't appear to support the death-by-8th idea. What are you going to do then: quote pro-choice talking heads who can't show their work?

.......

This post has been deleted.

ancapailldorcha

Non-constructive post deleted.

Vojera

Save the Eighth have released a booklet that some think deliberately looks like an official government release:
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/no-campaign-defends-booklet-resembling-official-publication-1.3496559

EDIT: Thread here on debunking the text of the booklet
https://twitter.com/Lawyers4Choice/status/996760035836514305

SusieBlue

Vojera wrote: »

Save the Eighth have released a booklet that some think deliberately looks like an official government release:
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/no-campaign-defends-booklet-resembling-official-publication-1.3496559

Waiting for the Love Boats crowd to zoom in and say its all a coincidence and no harm was meant, they didn't intentionally make it look like a government booklet.

jimmycrackcorm

GhostyMcGhost wrote: »

Except:
- It does depict a soldier (an Irish soldier is an assumption and is 100% implied)
- It was
- So It was intended to depict a soldier (contradiction right there)
- it was certainly intended to say that "soldiers" as "protector" as a whole would vote no

Ironic considering soldiers are specifically trained to kill.

antiskeptic

Vojera wrote: »

Save the Eighth have released a booklet that some think deliberately looks like an official government release:
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/no-campaign-defends-booklet-resembling-official-publication-1.3496559

EDIT: Thread here on debunking the text of the booklet
https://twitter.com/Lawyers4Choice/status/996760035836514305

Whatever floats your both ...

professore

Victor Meldrew wrote: »

I'm staunchly pro choice.

But I think we may be looking at an over-reach on the 26th. I was surprised by blanket repeal as a strategy.

I'd have gone for TFMR and strengthening the right to health as opposed to life of the mother, with provisions for Tablet abortion pills at a stretch up to 8 weeks.

That might be easier to get over the line as scruples would not be crossed. And possibly simple enough to get into the constitution. Even if I think there is no place for it there.

Do you not think some definition of when a fetus becomes a human being with full rights belongs in the Constitution? Repealing the 8th means that until a baby draws it's first breath outside the womb it has no rights under the Constitution. I can't understand why people don't see this as problematic. And by the way I am probably going to vote Yes, but am extremely uncomfortable with this part of it.

TheChizler

professore wrote: »

Do you not think some definition of when a fetus becomes a human being with full rights belongs in the Constitution? Repealing the 8th means that until a baby draws it's first breath outside the womb it has no rights under the Constitution. I can't understand why people don't see this as problematic.

Why do you think it's problematic?

Zubeneschamali

professore wrote: »

DRepealing the 8th means that until a baby draws it's first breath outside the womb it has no rights under the Constitution. I can't understand why people don't see this as problematic.

That was the way things stood from 1937 to 1983, it didn't seem to cause any issues.

What issues do you foresee?

Help!!!!

NuMarvel wrote: »

Even if there were 10,000 abortions a year, double the current estimated number, there still wouldn't be sufficient business to open up dedicated abortion clinics. The majority of abortions will be via the primary care system, and will probably happen at home if we follow the same practice as Scotland.

In fact Scotland is a good comparator. It has a slightly larger population that use, in 2016 had 12,000 abortions, and yet there is no dedicated private clinics in Scotland. The closest they have is one BPAS clinic in the entire country. But BPAS isn't a for profit business, it's a not-for-profit charity, and is mainly funded by the NHS, i.e. the public health system.

I know none of this will make any difference to you, because you're using the Life Institute as a source for your claims in other posts. But the fact remains that there's no evidence to suggest there will be any private abortion clinics in Ireland, and plenty of evidence to suggest there won't.

No woman has died in Ireland because of the 8th amendment so why have a referendum?

SusieBlue

Help!!!! wrote: »

No woman has died in Ireland because of the 8th amendment so why have a referendum?

Women have most certainly died because of the 8th amendment.

.......

This post has been deleted.

Help!!!!

gctest50 wrote: »

miss this part ?

She died because of sepsis which was not found. If it had been found doctors would have performed a termination
So the 8th had nothing to do with it

SusieBlue

Help!!!! wrote: »

She died because of sepsis which was not found. If it had been found doctors would have performed a termination
So the 8th had nothing to do with it

She had requested a termination a whole WEEK earlier when it was confirmed her baby was dying.
She was denied on the grounds that this is a "Catholic country" and made wait in hospital for nature to take its course, for a whole week, which in itself was a cruelty.
The sepsis was caused by her miscarriage. It poisoned her.

If she had been given an abortion when she first requested one, her sepsis could never have developed and she wouldn't have died.
The 8th most certainly had a hand in her death.

There are also the cases of Michelle Harte and Malek Thawley. Savita wasn't the only woman to lose her life.

Help!!!!

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

All those other posters are wrong
Savita would not have died if the infection was found because she would have had a termination
Its really not that hard to understand

Zubeneschamali

Help!!!! wrote: »

All those other posters are wrong
Savita would not have died if the infection was found because she would have had a termination
Its really not that hard to understand

She would not have had an infection in any other country because she would have had a termination a week earlier.

This is all in the reports, which I am sure you have read.

gmisk

Vojera wrote: »

Save the Eighth have released a booklet that some think deliberately looks like an official government release:
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/no-campaign-defends-booklet-resembling-official-publication-1.3496559

EDIT: Thread here on debunking the text of the booklet
https://twitter.com/Lawyers4Choice/status/996760035836514305

Wow clearly mocked up to mislead and full of rubbish what a shock

Help!!!!

SusieBlue wrote: »

Women have most certainly died because of the 8th amendment.

Nope!!

PRIMETIME: Dr. Eamon McGuinness: "No patient has died because of the 8th amendment, A confidential enquiry in this country and there is none listed, some of the information being put about is ridiculous... if these patients are dead, they must be in the confidential enquiry - and they are not."