Outright lies in Campaign

gctest50

Help!!!! wrote: »

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."

Captain Anti-choice himself ?


compared yo say :

Prof Sir Sabaratnam Arulkumaran :

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.

Anybody, any junior doctor, would have said this is a sepsis condition, we must terminate.

"She did have sepsis. However, if she had a termination in the first days as requested, she would not have had sepsis. If she had the termination when asked for it, the sepsis would not arise.

"We would never have heard of her and she would be alive today," he said.

Now ...... which one would you prefer to care for your pregnant O/H ?

SusieBlue

Help!!!! wrote: »

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."

And I would expect nothing less from a doctor who is as staunchly pro-life as he is.

The 8th most certainly had a hand in the deaths of Savita, Michelle Harte and Malek Thawley.
It is disingenuous to state otherwise.

Pete29

SusieBlue wrote: »

And I would expect nothing less from a doctor who is as staunchly pro-life as he is.

The 8th most certainly had a hand in the deaths of Savita, Michelle Harte and Malek Thawley.
It is disingenuous to state otherwise.

Saying Savita died because she was denied access to an abortion is like saying 9/11 happened because the hijackers mothers were denied access to an abortion. Hindsight is 20/20.

Savita died because she contracted sepsis, which is always a rare possibility during miscarriage. The sepsis she then contracted was an extremely virulent form antibiotic resistant E. Coli and her condition was then mismanaged by her medical team. One part report recalled a nurse checking on here to find her in her bed with her teeth chattering and her radiator stone cold. The report finds it was medical misadventure.

Zubeneschamali

Pete29 wrote: »

Savita died because she contracted sepsis, which is always a rare possibility during miscarriage.

Why do you think she requested an abortion a week earlier? Changed her mind? "Social abortion?" For the craic?

She requested an abortion because in civilized countries they know that once the miscarriage starts, there is no hope for the fetus and considerable risk for the woman.

She was told no because of the 8th, and the risk became reality, she got sepsis and died.

SusieBlue

Pete29 wrote: »

Saying Savita died because she was denied access to an abortion is like saying 9/11 happened because the hijackers mothers were denied access to an abortion. Hindsight is 20/20.

Savita died because she contracted sepsis, which is always a rare possibility during miscarriage. The sepsis she then contracted was an extremely virulent form antibiotic resistant E. Coli and her condition was then mismanaged by her medical team. One part report recalled a nurse checking on here to find her in her bed with her teeth chattering and her radiator stone cold. The report finds it was medical misadventure.

If she had been granted an abortion when she requested one she would not have developed sepsis and would not have died.
You can dress it up any way you want but it’s that simple.
The 8th had a hand in her death. There is no doubt about it.

antiskeptic

SusieBlue wrote: »

If she had been granted an abortion when she requested one she would not have developed sepsis and would not have died.
You can dress it up any way you want but it’s that simple.
The 8th had a hand in her death. There is no doubt about it.

Post 228 is for you and anyone else who thinks they can demonstrate (as opposed to assert) the 8th had a hand (any hand) in Savitas death.

The professor expressing a personal opinion outside the rigors of the official investigation can be set alongside any professional who expresses a personal opinion.

With respect, personal opinions are a dime a dozen.

The official investigation chaired (only chaired mind) by him trumps his and every other personal opinion. Its the gold standard and there is nothing in there which lays the blame, in any way, on the 8th.

Very Inconvenient. Which is why you and every other Yes-er ignores it.

oscarBravo

Pete29 wrote: »

Saying Savita died because she was denied access to an abortion is like saying 9/11 happened because the hijackers mothers were denied access to an abortion. Hindsight is 20/20.

Hi! Welcome back.

You may have missed the posts where I and others were wondering: in what circumstances would you be prepared to allow abortion?

mc25

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/abortion-referendum/my-circumstances-were-the-same-as-savita-halappanavar-s-1.3492038?mode=amp

This is for you all you "oh but she was totally allowed a termination under the 8th/subsequent legislation"

SusieBlue

antiskeptic wrote: »

Post 228 is for you and anyone else who thinks they can demonstrate (as opposed to assert) the 8th had a hand (any hand) in Savitas death.

The professor expressing a personal opinion outside the rigors of the official investigation can be set alongside any professional who expresses a personal opinion.

With respect, personal opinions are a dime a dozen.

The official investigation chaired (only chaired mind) by him trumps his and every other personal opinion. Its the gold standard and there is nothing in there which lays the blame, in any way, on the 8th.

Very Inconvenient. Which is why you and every other Yes-er ignores it.

I’ve already shown you information on two other threads where the independent chairsperson for the enquiry to her death confirmed the 8th had a significant role in her death and the doctor treating her admitted she was worried about the legal repercussions while giving her care.

I can absolutely provide a link for this if you need to say it a 3rd time.

It also doesn’t diminish the death of Michelle Harte which was the 8th also had a hand in.

Ave Sodalis

antiskeptic wrote: »

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



Having already pointed out the reports primary causal being medical misadventure/systems failure (and I'd ask you not forget that) we may take the word "complicated" to mean the following paraphrase:

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




Thereafter we have "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 law (as it was in Savita's time) appear to have been rectified.

This renders the then-law as potentially insufficient - but not necessarily the Constitution behind the law. I say potentially, since we don't know that the perceived difficulty couldn't have been rectified within the law > guidelines then. Since the 2013 law (from whence the current guidelines) is now apparently sufficient, without the Constitution having been changed, the Constitution can't be implicated in Savita's day. At most we can suspect the law of Savita's day was insufficient.





Concern about the law (as it was then) doesn't mean the law is necessarily implicated. The problem lies the nature of the concerns about it. Why does that concern arise? Could that concern have been rectified by guideline change? The report doesn't say. It doesn't condemn the law, 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 the law led to restrictive, confused guidelines doesn't necessarily mean the Constitution forced that situation.

Since the updated law of 2013 (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 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.


*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.

You have completely missed what I just said. Entirely. In fact, it would seem as though you were doing it on purpose. I did not skip your points, I gave you exact quotes from the report (which I also linked) which showed you were wrong.

The report was chaired by Professor Sabaratnam Arulkumaran, but it was carried out by a team. You are seriously jumping through hoops to try and prove your point, and I won't drag myself down and entertain what it is you're trying to do.

antiskeptic

Ave Sodalis wrote: »

You have completely missed what I just said. Entirely. In fact, it would seem as though you were doing it on purpose. I did not skip your points, I gave you exact quotes from the report (which I also linked) which showed you were wrong.

You did indeed give exact quotes. Thats a good starting point for it helps focus

What happens next is the quote is examined to see whether it support what you hold it supports.

Which is what I did. What we find is that there is no reference at all to the 8th in either of your quotes. Only the law.

Not good if you hold the 8th to blame. Not at all.

Moreover we find no blame laid on the law (although I think blame might be laid there to at least some extent).

Not good either.

The report was chaired by Professor Sabaratnam Arulkumaran, but it was carried out by a team. You are seriously jumping through hoops to try and prove your point, and I won't drag myself down and entertain what it is you're trying to do.

Indeed it was carried out by a team. Which is the reason why the report doesnt blame the 8th. The team isnt beholden to the professors personal view. If they shared it, it would be their report. Outside the team, the prof is free to express whatever view he likes

Its the team view, under official auspices which holds more weight. And it doesnt blame the 8th. Not even a hint of it.

----

Would someone else like to have a look at post 288 / the hse investigative report, if they still think the 8th is to blame in Savita's death?

Ave Sodalis

antiskeptic wrote: »

You did indeed give exact quotes. Thats a good starting point for it helps focus

What happens next is the quote is examined to see whether it support what you hold it supports.

Which is what I did. What we find is that there is no reference at all to the 8th in either of your quotes. Only the law.

Not good if you hold the 8th to blame. Not at all.

Moreover we find no blame laid on the law (although I think blame might be laid there to at least some extent).

Not good either.



Indeed it was carried out by a team. Which is the reason why the report doesnt blame the 8th. The prof isnt constrained by a team or a formal investigation when he airs a personal opinion.

Its the team view under official auspices which holds more weight. And it doesnt blame the 8th.

----

Would someone else like to have a look at post 288 / the hse investigative report, if they still think the 8th is to blame in Savita's death?

A very patronising post that further ignores what I had said, and the very report you are talking about. Further evidence of what the No side will do to try and twist and manipulate people.

antiskeptic

SusieBlue wrote: »

I’ve already shown you information on two other threads where the independent chairsperson for the enquiry to her death confirmed the 8th had a significant role in her death and the doctor treating her admitted she was worried about the legal repercussions while giving her care.

I can absolutely provide a link for this if you need to say it a 3rd time.

It also doesn’t diminish the death of Michelle Harte which was the 8th also had a hand in.

The profs personal opinion is trumped by the conclusions the formal investigation he chaired published. Thats the gold standard (in so far as there is one). If the report doesnt at all blame the 8th at all, then thats the best view we have.

What a doctor (especially one under the cosh) says about their concerns about the law at the time is of minor worth. Did the law actually constrain him? Feelings arent facts afterall.

It could be failure to have the law made clear - that there be clear cut guidance available - that was the problem


In order to blame the 8th you have to:

Find the guidelines were clear communicated and followed

Find the guidelines reflected the law accurately

Find the law reflected the constitution accurately.

Then and only then is it the constitutions fault.






And we find this isnt the case - proven by the existance of new law (2013 act) and clearer guidelines. All allowable under the 8th.

Ave Sodalis

antiskeptic wrote: »

The profs personal opinion is trumped by the conclusions the formal investigation he chaired published. Thats the gold standard (in so far as there is one). If the report doesnt at all blame the 8th at all, then thats the best view we have.

What a doctor (especially one under the cosh) says about their concerns about the law at the time is of minor worth. Did the law actually constrain him? Feelings arent facts afterall.

It could be failure to have the law made clear - that there be clear cut guidance available - that was the problem


In order to blame the 8th you have to find the guidelines reflected the law well. And the law reflected the constitution well. Then its the constitutions fault.

This isnt the case - proven by the new law and clearer guidelines. All allowable under the 8th.

Please re-read the report.

Macha

Yep, you can find it here.

Key part:

When the patient and her husband enquired about the possibility of having a termination, this
was not offered or considered possible by the clinical team until the afternoon of the 24th of
October due to their assessment of the legal context in which their clinical professional
judgement was to be exercised. The Irish constitution Article 40.3.3 (as inserted by the eight
amendment in 1983) states that: ‘the state acknowledges the right to life of the unborn and,
with due regard to the equal right to life of the mother, guarantees in its laws to respect, and,
as far as practicable, by its laws to defend and vindicate that right’ (See Appendix A for a
summary outline of the legal position in Ireland with respect to the regulation of the
termination of pregnancy and, in particular, as regards the protection of the right to life of the
pregnant woman and of the unborn).

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.

Ronan|Raven

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

They really are a sneaky bunch. Not one identifying mark on it bar small print on the final page.

antiskeptic

Ave Sodalis wrote: »

A very patronising post that further ignores what I had said, and the very report you are talking about. Further evidence of what the No side will do to try and twist and manipulate people.

All you said was re-read the report and quoted 2 bits of it.

No mention/inference of the 8th, at all, in either quote!

Its not my job to make your case. If you feel the report supports 8th to blame then go find that in it which supports you.

Im not being patronizing. Just flummoxed that somebody would suppose what they quoted as support

antiskeptic

Ronan|Raven wrote: »

They really are a sneaky bunch. Not one identifying mark on it bar small print on the final page.

Whilst technically true, youd want to be pretty dull not to know from whence it came. The green cover might fool someone into opening it.

If that swings a vote then god help us all

Ave Sodalis

antiskeptic wrote: »

All you said was re-read the report and quoted 2 bits of it.

No mention/inference of the 8th, at all, in either quote!

Its not my job to make your case. If you feel the report supports 8th to blame then go find that in it which supports you.

Im not being patronizing. Just flummoxed that somebody would suppose what they quoted as support

Between this thread and the one on AH, I know very well that you are going to try and take any small twist that you can, and go "aha, I told you you were wrong". It doesn't matter one iota what people actually say to you, you're going to turn it.

Seth Brundle

antiskeptic wrote: »

Whilst technically true, youd want to be pretty dull not to know from whence it came. The green cover might fool someone into opening it.

If that swings a vote then god help us all

The whole purpose of it is to swing votes and to spoof people into your blinkered way of thinking.
If that's not the case then why print and deliver all of them?

antiskeptic

Macha wrote: »

Yep, you can find it here.

Key part:

When the patient and her husband enquired about the possibility of having a termination, this
was not offered or considered possible by the clinical team until the afternoon of the 24th of
October due to their assessment of the legal context in which their clinical professional
judgement was to be exercised. The Irish constitution Article 40.3.3 (as inserted by the eight
amendment in 1983) states that: ‘the state acknowledges the right to life of the unborn and,
with due regard to the equal right to life of the mother, guarantees in its laws to respect, and,
as far as practicable, by its laws to defend and vindicate that right’ (See Appendix A for a
summary outline of the legal position in Ireland with respect to the regulation of the
termination of pregnancy and, in particular, as regards the protection of the right to life of the
pregnant woman and of the unborn).

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.

Thats it?!

That doesn't blame the 8th. It says (without comment) to look at every darn thing, including the 8th to ensure these kind of cases can be dealt with short if soneone having to die.

Within the report some things do have the finger aimed in their directions. The 8th doesnt feature.

If the 8th was a person, you'd be all dragged up on defamation charges based on this showing

antiskeptic

Ave Sodalis wrote: »

Between this thread and the one on AH, I know very well that you are going to try and take any small twist that you can, and go "aha, I told you you were wrong". It doesn't matter one iota what people actually say to you, you're going to turn it.

No mention/inference of the 8th AT ALL is, per definiton, doomed to failure as an argument in support of 8th to blame.

I dont know how to say it clearer than that to you.

Macha

antiskeptic wrote: »

Thats it?!

That doesn't blame the 8th. It says (without comment) to look at every darn thing, including the 8th to ensure these kind of cases can be dealt with short if soneone having to die.

Within the report some things do have the finger aimed in their directions. The 8th doesnt feature.

If the 8th was a person, you'd be all dragged up on defamation charges based on this showing

I..don't know what to say. I've debated people who stick to their views before but this is ridiculous. You clearly don't want to see what's right in front of your face.

Like the quote in my signature says: If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. ~ Bertrand Russell

So good luck to you.

antiskeptic

SusieBlue wrote: »

It also doesn’t diminish the death of Michelle Harte which was the 8th also had a hand in.

Post 228 and my last post to you above lay out the defence of the 8th in this case.

I'm not aware of an official investigative report, I've only read an Irish Times (iirc) piece by her consultant (iirc). Issues arose there but for now I'll address as follows.

The question is whether Michelle would be dealt with in the same manner today, given:

- the 2013 Act

- the current medical board guidelines derived from the act.

- proper on the ground understanding regarding application of the guidelines in the likes of Michelles case.

If you think she still wouldnt be given an abortion then please identify on which grounds not. We can look and see if this implicates the 8th

If you think she would be given an abortion now, then the 8th isnt implicated back in 2010. For the laws and guidelines which enable such a termination, now, derive from the 8th. The 8th can't help it if no one derives laws from it.

SusieBlue

This is actually ridiculous. Deny, deflect, ignore, rinse and repeat.

I’m not wasting my time trying to convince you otherwise when you’ll just word salad around the issue with absolutely no respect for the families or memories of those women.

The 8th had a hand in their deaths.
The 8th ensured their healthcare was compromised.
You not wanting to believe it doesn’t mean it’s not true.

I refuse to engage with you on the matter any further when we will never agree on the matter.

antiskeptic

Macha wrote: »

I..don't know what to say. I've debated people who stick to their views before but this is ridiculous. You clearly don't want to see what's right in front of your face.

Like the quote in my signature says: If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. ~ Bertrand Russell

So good luck to you.

Posters differ, debates die.

I'm interested in argumentation. For arguments are like mechanical things - you can see how something works.

I'm less taken by someone quoting something and leaving to poor mite to defend itself.

If you can't provide an argument to support your contention then your contention dies.

There are no victors in internet discussion forums - least of all self declared ones.

Thems simply my views. I've not much interest or time for any other way.


So.

Anyone prepared to provide argument as to why the 8th is to blame for anyones death.

We dont have to talk of the life its saved.

Ave Sodalis

antiskeptic wrote: »

Posters differ, debates die.

I'm interested in argumentation. For arguments are like mechanical things - you can see how something works.

I'm less taken by someone quoting something and leaving to poor mite to defend itself.

If you can't provide an argument to support your contention then your contention dies.

There are no victors in internet discussion forums - least of all self declared ones.

Thems simply my views. I've not much interest or time for any other wat

If you point blank ignore what people are saying, then people stop engaging.

antiskeptic

SusieBlue wrote: »

This is actually ridiculous. Deny, deflect, ignore, rinse and repeat.

I’m not wasting my time trying to convince you otherwise when you’ll just word salad around the issue with absolutely no respect for the families or memories of those women.

The 8th had a hand in their deaths.
The 8th ensured their healthcare was compromised.
You not wanting to believe it doesn’t mean it’s not true.

I refuse to engage with you on the matter any further when we will never agree on the matter.

Fair enough. All the best with your treatment and life

antiskeptic

Ave Sodalis wrote: »

If you point blank ignore what people are saying, then people stop engaging.

I tend not to blank an argument. No argument - little interest in engaging.

Overheal

Help!!!! wrote: »

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."

He's literally an adviser to the Save the 8th Campaign. He is not an objective voice.

Overheal

antiskeptic wrote: »

The profs personal opinion is trumped by the conclusions the formal investigation he chaired published. Thats the gold standard (in so far as there is one). If the report doesnt at all blame the 8th at all, then thats the best view we have.

What a load of crap.

I suppose Richard Feynman was also just a loon as well when he published his 'opinions' about the Challenger Disaster, which contradicted the official report he had also been party to.

antiskeptic

M

Overheal wrote: »

What a load of crap.

I suppose Richard Feynman was also just a loon as well when he published his 'opinions' about the Challenger Disaster, which contradicted the official report he had also been party to.

Party. Chair. Do you see the difference?

See post 228 if you want to wade in. It will save having to repeat myself - given the wife is hogging the laptop and I'm on the phone.

Thanks

NuMarvel

Overheal wrote: »

He's literally an adviser to the Save the 8th Campaign. He is not an objective voice.

He's also a pretty crap adviser too, because he'd never heard of Amanda Mellet, who won her case against Ireland at the UN, or the Ms P case, that involved the family of a pregnant brain dead woman going to the High Court to be allowed turn off life support.

Overheal

antiskeptic wrote: »

Party. Chair. Do you see the difference?

Oh well ****, as long as he was on the front of the table instead of the side, that makes it all different does it?

Maybe I should berate the Senior Justice of the SCOTUS for why they don't always agree with the majority opinion of the court?

Overheal

antiskeptic wrote: »

M

Party. Chair. Do you see the difference?

See post 288 if you want to wade in. It will save having to repeat myself - given the wife is hogging the laptop and I'm on the phone.

Thanks

I just wrote post #286 so I have no idea what you're talking about, nor do I care to make your diatribe easier on you.

antiskeptic

Overheal wrote: »

I just wrote post #286 so I have no idea what you're talking about, nor do I care to make your diatribe easier on you.

228. My apols. Read it and get back to me on the report if you like.

If you've some other authoritive source on blaming the 8th then by all means. We can all produce our own talking heads - so lets save time and not bother with that.

Overheal

antiskeptic wrote: »

228. My apols. Read it and get back to me on the report if you like.

Well now ive stepped out of the house and am on the phone so am unable to see post counts. please repost if its not too much bother. ta.

antiskeptic

Overheal wrote: »

Well now ive stepped out of the house and am on the phone so am unable to see post counts. please repost if its not too much bother. ta.

Im on phone too. Its about half way down page 8. Responding to Ave-something-or-other - so with quotes. Whenever as off to bed soon.

Overheal

antiskeptic wrote: »

Im on phone too. Its about half way down page 8. Responding to Ave-something-or-other - so with quotes. Whenever as off to bed soon.

This is page 8?

If you can’t be bothered to support your argument I can’t be bothered to read it just saying.

antiskeptic

Overheal wrote: »

This is page 8?

If you can’t be bothered to support your argument I can’t be bothered to read it just saying.

Different phones so. Whenever you get back to it is fine. Nite

gctest50

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/abortion-referendum/the-journey-i-had-to-take-after-my-20week-scan-was-torturous-36908423.html



The only way I could physically give birth in Ireland was to go full term.

They could not induce me because I was healthy.

We were also informed that by going to 40 weeks the birth would certainly be far more traumatic, for both baby and myself.

Another one to read for those that say the 8th doesn't affect

antiskeptic

gctest50 wrote: »

Another one to read for those that say the 8th doesn't affect

Can I take the shift to mean you agree no one as died because of the 8th?

Had we only been asked to amend the 8th for difficult cases and you'd likely be looking down the barrel of a very different referendum.

Seth Brundle

antiskeptic wrote: »

Can I take the shift to mean you agree no one as died because of the 8th?

People have died because of the 8th and you know this despite your attempts at being disingenuous.
The 8th has created conditions whereby doctors and medical staff are often not sure where the line may exist between giving an abortion and having to wait longer.
The 8th on its own doesn't directly cause death. Like many medical treatments it is needed as part of overall healthcare for a patient. However as some treatments will first require termination, this lack of treatment because of the unavailability of abortion has caused deaths.
Cancer patients have died because they couldn't be treated because the patient became pregnant. Savita and others died due to infections which shouldn't have happened had the patient been given a termination.
You know all this. You've been told it over and over again. But you are doing your best to fluff the thread with waffley questions asking the same thing over and over again with the intention if derailing the thread.
Now can we please let the thread continue on topic?

antiskeptic wrote: »

Had we only been asked to amend the 8th for difficult cases and you'd likely be looking down the barrel of a very different referendum.

You mean create specific scenario based legislation within the constitution? Really?

.......

This post has been deleted.

spacecoyote

The reality is, the only way antiskeptic would accept evidence that the 8th has caused deaths is would be if its actually listed on someone's death certificate as the cause of death.

But, that will never happen. You won't see:

Cause Of Death: 8th Amendment

But that, in no way, means that the 8th hasn't caused a death in this country.

Its a completed pointless argument to be engaged in, that can't be won, as I believe they have such a narrow definition of cause of death, that they can wriggle out of any corner

gctest50

antiskeptic wrote: »

Can I take the shift to mean you agree no one as died because of the 8th?

......

No

antiskeptic

Seth Brundle wrote: »

People have died because of the 8th and you know this despite your attempts at being disingenuous.
The 8th has created conditions whereby doctors and medical staff are often not sure where the line may exist between giving an abortion and having to wait longer.

Do you accept that the report into Savitas death doesnt draw this conclusion?

If not then cite where it does.

It you do then cite another neutral authoritative source which says it is the 8th and not the law / guidelines / confusion about the guidelines which is at fault

The 8th on its own doesn't directly cause death. Like many medical treatments it is needed as part of overall healthcare for a patient. However as some treatments will first require termination, this lack of treatment because of the unavailability of abortion has caused deaths

Next question. Do you believe that the current medical council guidelines, article 48.3, if available for Savita, would have shaped the doctors view differently regarding freedom to terminate?
.

Cancer patients have died because they couldn't be treated because the patient became pregnant.

Same question as above applied to Michelle Hartes case

Savita and others died due to infections which shouldn't have happened had the patient been given a termination.
You know all this. You've been told it over and over again. But you are doing your best to fluff the thread with waffley questions asking the same thing over and over again with the intention if derailing the thread.

It appears we must rely on your say so rather than your show so.

I suggest you show so. And if/ when you do, it will become clear that your charge is true.

If you can't demonstrate the 8th bad with something other than bald assertion then we are achieving the very aim of the thread.

antiskeptic

gctest50 wrote: »

No

Fair enough.

Would anyone like to argue (rather than simply cite the report in hope) the investigative report condeming / directly implicating the 8th?

.......

This post has been deleted.

Owryan

antiskeptic wrote: »

It you do then cite the authoritative source which says it is the 8th and not the law / guidelines / confusion about the guidelines which is at fault

Are you saying the guidelines, ie art8, are not at fault? but it's the confusion around the article that is?
If the article was clear then there should be no confusion, that there is suggests, yes the article is the cause.

Fwiw I'm leaning towards the no side but my god when you have people with the blinkers on so tight they are totally blind you have to question their motives.