Outright lies in Campaign

SusieBlue

Prof Sir Sabaratnam Arulkumaran,who chaired the HSE inquiry into Ms Halappanavar’s death in 2012 has confirmed the 8th had a hand in her death.

The Eighth Amendment “played a major role” in the death of Savita Halappanavar during pregnancy. Prof Sir Sabaratnam Arulkumaran, said it was “very clear” to him Dr Katherine Asbury, the consultant treating her, had been “concerned about the legal issues” throughout her considerations as to whether to terminate the pregnancy.

The professor emeritus in obstetrics and gynaecology at St George’s University, London told the Oireachtas committee on the Eighth Amendment that: “Things were made more difficult because of the legislation.”

And another one

Prof Arulkumaran said: “It was very clear the things holding the hands of physicians was the legal issue. 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. We would never have heard of her and she would be alive today,” he said.

And another one:

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.

Prof Sir Sabaratnam Arulkumaran made the comment as he said the eighth amendment is "not working" and declared his "surprise" it has taken five years since Savita's death for a discussion on its removal to take place.

Take off the blinkers. Your proof is there. If you refuse to acknowledge it, that's fine, but stop being disingenuous.

Hitman3000

antiskeptic wrote:

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

Why do you seek to argue, you are not looking to be enlightened or offer a valid position? Even when facts are cited to you side step, ignore and repeat the same question when the poster becomes exasperated with your conduct. You are not debating you are waffling and seeking to derail the thread. The only way to deal with your nonsense is to use the ignore button. Tell John McGuirk 'hi'.

antiskeptic

spacecoyote wrote: »

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

Im working off the HSE investigative report. Its a bit more nuanced than a death cert.

Thus far nobody can find anything in it to blame the 8th.

Other than the recommendation that everything be looked at to ensure no Savita II: the guidelines, clinical practices, the law, the 8th. If it was the 8th the report isnt saying it

The primary cause given is medical misadventure / systems failures. If all that stemmed from the 8th, then 8th would be listed as chief cause and everything else secondary to it.

antiskeptic

Owryan wrote: »

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.

There is a sequence:

The Constitution

Law derived from the Constitution

Medical Guidelines derived from the law

Clinical practices derived from the guidelines

a) The investigate report, in it's recommendation says that all the above ought be looked at to prevent Savita II. In saying everything ought be looked at, including the 8th, it's not saying the 8th is to blame or not.

b) Prime fault is laid at the door of medical misadventure / systems failures. In so far as anything is laid at the 8th it is laid per a) above. The 8th isn't being directly implicated.

c) That clinical practices fail, that guidelines be fuzzy, that the law is restrictive, doesn't in itself implicate the 8th. All 3 can be bad without the 8th being bad.

d) New medical guidelines provide much more clarity. These stem from the 2013 Act. It would appear that if these were available during Savita's time, things would have been different. These new guidelines occur under the 8th. Thus, if Savita couldn't happen now because of the new guidelines / clearer clinical practices then the 8th in Savita's time can't be implicated. It was poor clinical practice / guidelines/law which caused the problem - now resolved.

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.

This is strictly about whether people have died because of the 8th. It's a chief plank of the Yes side. The case being examined is Savita Halappanavar. The HSE investigative report is the chief commentator on the facts.

If the 8th can't be condemned in this case then it is not I who is blind but a falsehood which is part dismantled.

antiskeptic

Hitman3000 wrote: »

Why do you seek to argue,

The 8th is blamed for peoples death. A chief plank of the YES side. I think they are wrong.

you are not looking to be enlightened or offer a valid position? Even when facts are cited to you side step, ignore and repeat the same question when the poster becomes exasperated with your conduct.

The HSE investigative report is the prime evidence in Savita's case. Not a bunch of obstetricians signing a petition during a referendum. Not the chair of the investigation commenting in personal capacity.

The report is the best objective argument we have as to what happened in Savita's case. It provides all the detail. I won't be deflected from that because there is no good reason to be.

Hitman3000

antiskeptic wrote:

The 8th is blamed for peoples death. A chief plank of the YES side. I think they are wrong.

You think they are wrong. A professor of medicine from the UK whom carried out a review and reported found the 8th contributed to her death. Now whom to believe a Professor of medicine with vast experience in his field of study versus a random waffler on the internet whose only qualification seems to be an inordinate ability to be deliberately obtuse. Hard choice but I will have to go with the Professor on this occasion.

Owryan

antiskeptic wrote: »

There is a sequence:

The Constitution

Law derived from the Constitution

Medical Guidelines derived from the law

Clinical practices derived from the guidelines

a) The investigate report, in it's recommendation says that all the above ought be looked at to prevent Savita II. In saying everything ought be looked at, including the 8th, it's not saying the 8th is to blame or not.

b) Prime fault is laid at the door of medical misadventure / systems failures. In so far as anything is laid at the 8th it is laid per a) above. The 8th isn't being directly implicated.

c) That clinical practices fail, that guidelines be fuzzy, that the law is restrictive, doesn't in itself implicate the 8th. All 3 can be bad without the 8th being bad.

d) New medical guidelines provide much more clarity. These stem from the 2013 Act. It would appear that if these were available during Savita's time, things would have been different. These new guidelines occur under the 8th. Thus, if Savita couldn't happen now because of the new guidelines / clearer clinical practices then the 8th in Savita's time can't be implicated. It was poor clinical practice / guidelines/law which caused the problem - now resolved.




This is strictly about whether people have died because of the 8th. It's a chief plank of the Yes side. The case being examined is Savita Halappanavar. The HSE investigative report is the chief commentator on the facts.

If the 8th can't be condemned in this case then it is not I who is blind but a falsehood which is part dismantled.

Talk about shifting the goalposts. If they suggested looking at the 8th then that implies it is at least partially at fault. As for lies, the big one is the constant, false claim by you and others that noone died as a result of the 8th.

blanch152

antiskeptic wrote: »

There is a sequence:

The Constitution

Law derived from the Constitution

Medical Guidelines derived from the law

Clinical practices derived from the guidelines

a) The investigate report, in it's recommendation says that all the above ought be looked at to prevent Savita II. In saying everything ought be looked at, including the 8th, it's not saying the 8th is to blame or not.

b) Prime fault is laid at the door of medical misadventure / systems failures. In so far as anything is laid at the 8th it is laid per a) above. The 8th isn't being directly implicated.

c) That clinical practices fail, that guidelines be fuzzy, that the law is restrictive, doesn't in itself implicate the 8th. All 3 can be bad without the 8th being bad.

d) New medical guidelines provide much more clarity. These stem from the 2013 Act. It would appear that if these were available during Savita's time, things would have been different. These new guidelines occur under the 8th. Thus, if Savita couldn't happen now because of the new guidelines / clearer clinical practices then the 8th in Savita's time can't be implicated. It was poor clinical practice / guidelines/law which caused the problem - now resolved.




This is strictly about whether people have died because of the 8th. It's a chief plank of the Yes side. The case being examined is Savita Halappanavar. The HSE investigative report is the chief commentator on the facts.

If the 8th can't be condemned in this case then it is not I who is blind but a falsehood which is part dismantled.

It is astonishing that you fail to recognise the inherent flaw in your argument.

The law is derived from the 8th.
The medical guidelines are derived from the 8th.
The clinical practices are derived from the 8th.

There is a cascading series of consequences due to the 8th.

Repeal the 8th and you can replace the law, the medical guidelines and the clinical practices with legislation and practices that account for the Savita situation. Without repeal, you can't change them.

antiskeptic

SusieBlue wrote: »

The Eighth Amendment “played a major role” in the death of Savita Halappanavar during pregnancy. Prof Sir Sabaratnam Arulkumaran, said

One wonders why the report which the Prof chaired didn't actually come to that conclusion.

Might it be that the Prof's current view (if it was his view at the time) wasn't the only view that went into making up the report?

On balance, who's view ought to take primacy? A formal investigative report involving a number of experts. Or the private view of a single expert delivered outside the auspices of a formal investigation?


I really don't know why you suppose a Obstetrics Prof in any position to comment on the restrictions or otherwise imposed by the constitution. All he knows of is the restrictions/confusion imposed by the guidelines. He might imagine the law imposes those restrictions on the guidelines. He might imagine the constitution imposes those restrictions on the law.

But in a place to evaluate himself? He's in no better position than you or I. He's an obstetrician

MayoSalmon

gmisk wrote:

Are we voting on exterminating the homeless next? John Waters zzz

How do you draw that conclusion?

antiskeptic

blanch152 wrote: »

It is astonishing that you fail to recognise the inherent flaw in your argument.

Let's look. I've added clarification in parenthesis. See if you agree

The law is derived from the 8th. (true)
The medical guidelines are derived from the 8th. (via the law)
The clinical practices are derived from the 8th (via the guidelines).

Seth Brundle

antiskeptic wrote: »

I really don't know why you suppose a Obstetrics Prof in any position to comment on the restrictions or otherwise imposed by the constitution. All he knows of is the restrictions/confusion imposed by the guidelines. He might imagine the law imposes those restrictions on the guidelines. He might imagine the constitution imposes those restrictions on the law.

But in a place to evaluate himself? He's in no better position than you or I. He's an obstetrician

So you're saying that an obstetrician isn't qualified to comment on the restrictions of the 8th amendment but much of your point is based on suggesting that doctors should know the law when they need to offer a termination to a patient (and that the 8th isn't involved in people dying but implementation and medical misadventure is the cause of deaths)?

Make up your mind please!

Ave Sodalis

antiskeptic wrote: »

One wonders why the report which the Prof chaired didn't actually come to that conclusion.

Might it be that the Prof's current view (if it was his view at the time) wasn't the only view that went into making up the report?

On balance, who's view ought to take primacy? A formal investigative report involving a number of experts. Or the private view of a single expert delivered outside the auspices of a formal investigation?


I really don't know why you suppose a Obstetrics Prof in any position to comment on the restrictions or otherwise imposed by the constitution. All he knows of is the restrictions/confusion imposed by the guidelines. He might imagine the law imposes those restrictions on the guidelines. He might imagine the constitution imposes those restrictions on the law.

But in a place to evaluate himself? He's in no better position than you or I. He's an obstetrician

If he was a lawyer, you'd be saying he's not an obstetrician...

blanch152

antiskeptic wrote: »

Let's look. I've added clarification in parenthesis. See if you agree

But all derive ultimately from the 8th. The clinical practice can only be in accordance with the medical guidelines. The medical guidelines can only be in accordance with the law. The law can only be in accordance with the 8th.

Remove the 8th and you remove the constraints on the others. It is as simple as that.

Hotblack Desiato

Just pointing out for the nth time that the legal and constitutional framework within which the doctors had to operate was outside the remit of the HSE report. Which is a pretty darn good reason why the HSE report does not mention the legal and constitutional framework which tied the doctors' hands...

antiskeptic

Owryan wrote: »

Talk about shifting the goalposts. If they suggested looking at the 8th then that implies it is at least partially at fault.

Not at all. Obviously, the 8th is part of the whole mechanism. It sit's at the top of the pile.

But when you're looking for a fault and decide to look everywhere for it, you don't suppose, by virtue of deciding to look everywhere for it, that everything is at fault from the outset.

The 8th could be totally guilty - everything downstream of it is rendered faulty by it being faulty.

The 8th could be totally innocent - something shy of it was at fault.

The report says to go look. It doesn't condemn the 8th in any way by saying that.


Tell me, do you think Savita could happen under the current guidelines? (assuming there wasn't medical misadventure / systems failures - they could happen even without the 8th)

Hotblack Desiato

Owryan wrote: »

Talk about shifting the goalposts. If they suggested looking at the 8th then that implies it is at least partially at fault. As for lies, the big one is the constant, false claim by you and others that noone died as a result of the 8th.

If you accept the fact that the 8th has caused the deaths of women, why are you considering voting to keep it in place?

As I asked earlier, is there an acceptable number of "collateral damage" deaths of women, and what is that number?

antiskeptic

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Just pointing out for the nth time that the legal and constitutional framework within which the doctors had to operate was outside the remit of the HSE report. Which is a pretty darn good reason why the HSE report does not mention the legal and constitutional framework which tied the doctors' hands...

The report does mention the legal and constitutional framework (more legal in fact). It says that there was lack of clarity arising out of it. Indeed, it sets as No.2 causal, the legal/constitutional framework

And it points the No.1 "finger" at medical misadventure/systems failures.

If confusion arising out of the legal/constitutional framework had been the leading cause of the problem, then that ought feature at No.1 causal.


Question for you: given the current, updated Medical Council guidelines (Art 43.8) which derives from the Act of 2013, do you think the doctors would feel their hands legally/constitutionally tied today in a Savita case.

If not, then the 8th isn't implicated in Savita's case - rather, the lack of an Act/Guidelines made possible by the 8th would be to blame.

In other words, are YES focusing on the past situation forgetting to mention that the past situation wasn't the fault of the 8th

Quin_Dub

OK - Enough of the round and round about whether or not the 8th amendment was a factor in the death of Savita.

Both sides have stated their viewpoint (repeatedly) and neither are going to be moved.

So , agree to disagree and move on.

Thank you.

Owryan

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

If you accept the fact that the 8th has caused the deaths of women, why are you considering voting to keep it in place?

As I asked earlier, is there an acceptable number of "collateral damage" deaths of women, and what is that number?

Yes, the 8th has led to women dying. I am in favour of a much less restrictive regime, however i have a problem with free, no questions asked abortions up to 12 weeks. Thats my issue, abortions where there is any risk to the mother or in cases of FFA i have no issues with.


There seems to be an attitude that you are yes or you are no, having concerns is not allowed.

SusieBlue

Owryan wrote: »

Yes, the 8th has led to women dying. I am in favour of a much less restrictive regime, however i have a problem with free, no questions asked abortions up to 12 weeks. Thats my issue, abortions where there is any risk to the mother or in cases of FFA i have no issues with.


There seems to be an attitude that you are yes or you are no, having concerns is not allowed.

I can see why someone might find themselves on middle ground like yourself. I can appreciate why many aren't ok with the 12 week limit.

I just honestly feel that by acknowledging that the 8th harms women, and has caused death, yet still voting No, we are turning these women and families into collateral damage and offering them up as sacrifices to stop the "bad abortions" that we aren't comfortable with.

Owryan

SusieBlue wrote: »

I can see why someone might find themselves on middle ground like yourself. I can appreciate why many aren't ok with the 12 week limit.

I just honestly feel that by acknowledging that the 8th harms women, and has caused death, yet still voting No, we are turning these women and families into collateral damage and offering them up as sacrifices to stop the "bad abortions" that we aren't comfortable with.

My preferred choice would be to vote yes, but i dont trust the political parties not to tamper with the proposed 12 week limit and extend it.



I had canvassers from the yes side call yesterday. They wanted to speak to my partner, im single but i have kids. They were dismissive of my viewpoint and said that it was only women they wanted to talk to, its only a womens issue.



They were the first yes campaigners i've spoken to, from my own perspective the no side have much more presence even if they are selling a sack of lies.

SusieBlue

Owryan wrote: »

My preferred choice would be to vote yes, but i dont trust the political parties not to tamper with the proposed 12 week limit and extend it.



I had canvassers from the yes side call yesterday. They wanted to speak to my partner, im single but i have kids. They were dismissive of my viewpoint and said that it was only women they wanted to talk to, its only a womens issue.



They were the first yes campaigners i've spoken to, from my own perspective the no side have much more presence even if they are selling a sack of lies.

Politicians are terrified of this issue. I hand on heart don't believe they will sway from the current recommendation and I can't see any government or party touching on these issues again for a very long time.
They will want to rock the boat as little as possible.
Sure it took 35 years to have the referendum, even though there has been talk of repeal since '83.
No government would touch on the issue until the public outcry grew so large, they had no choice.

That's unfortunate that you had a bad experience with them, if you know which organisation they are from you should complain.
It absolutely is a mens issue as much as womens - the result of this referendum will impact the healthcare of their wives, daughters, sisters and friends. Your say is very important.

NuMarvel

Owryan wrote: »

My preferred choice would be to vote yes, but i dont trust the political parties not to tamper with the proposed 12 week limit and extend it.

I don't trust political parties not to tamper with it and reduce it. And I think that's more likely than it being extended. But I'm still voting yes, because I think everyone agrees there needs to be change.

And whatever about the issue of abortion itself, I fundamentally believe it doesn't belong in the constitution. I'm willing to accept the possibility that future politicians might try to change the laws as a trade off for the certainty of knowing that a Yes vote will make things better for women in the here and now.

seamus

Owryan wrote: »

My preferred choice would be to vote yes, but i dont trust the political parties not to tamper with the proposed 12 week limit and extend it.

Serious question so, what would you prefer?

Would you prefer that the constitution explicitly said "12 weeks"?

The issue here is that you can't insert 500 lines into the constitution to regulate abortions; that's what the law is for. So encompassing all the complexities of abortion into a single line or a small article in the constitution is impossible for all intents and purposes.

The 8th amendment was an attempt to boil abortion down to a single, simple statement. And it failed abysmally.

So realistically the only way to regulate abortion, is through the law.

Not trusting politicians is something of a separate issue, since they legislate on lots of things all the time. They could legalise all drugs, they could drop the age of consent to 8. Ultimately they're bound by what the population elects them to do. So if they do move to extend it later on, it's because the electorate has told them to do so, it's not something they'll just do off their own bat.

Owryan

seamus wrote: »

Serious question so, what would you prefer?

Would you prefer that the constitution explicitly said "12 weeks"?

issues like abortion or divorce have no place in a constitution. They are matters for legislation. So, there should be no mention of abortion.


I've already said, i am not pro life, i am in favour of repeal, my concern is the proposed legislation.

blanch152

Owryan wrote: »

My preferred choice would be to vote yes, but i dont trust the political parties not to tamper with the proposed 12 week limit and extend it.



I had canvassers from the yes side call yesterday. They wanted to speak to my partner, im single but i have kids. They were dismissive of my viewpoint and said that it was only women they wanted to talk to, its only a womens issue.



They were the first yes campaigners i've spoken to, from my own perspective the no side have much more presence even if they are selling a sack of lies.

Trust in political parties is hardly the crucial issue, though, is it?

At least, if a political party enacts a more liberal abortion law than you want, you can vote for a political party at the next election that will reverse it. You can also lobby politicians to change the law the way you want. However, if the 8th remains in place, we are stuck with it, maybe for another twenty years, unless another tragic case provokes a public outcry in the interim.

I also think you forget about the risks on the other side of a more conservative approach being taken. Firstly, Sinn Fein do not support unrestricted abortion up to 12 weeks and Fianna Fail are deeply split on the issue. There is no guarantee that the current government proposals will get through the Dail once the referendum is passed. The type of disgusting activity currently engaged in by the NO side will be doubled and directly employed to pressurise TDs.

In the medium term, many people envisage a united Ireland (not myself, but however). That would bring with it some deeply conservative people and political parties who may end up holding the balance of power and insisting on a rowback of abortion policies.

Society changes and the laws have to change with it.

Hitman3000

Owryan wrote:

I've already said, i am not pro life, i am in favour of repeal, my concern is the proposed legislation.

Well unfortunately all that can happen is proposed legislation as the 8th is still there. However the legislation being proposed is as about as extreme as it will get if there is repeal. Any bill would have to go through all the usual stages, a significant number of TD's are against repeal so they would seek as conservative as possible. Plus the government is not in a strong position. The proposed legislation would put us inline with Austeria and Belgium. The claim by the NO campaign that what is proposed here is more liberal than the UK is verifiable nonsense. One word in the Irish wording 'SERIOUS' being the word non existent in the UK act, this is what makes us less liberal than the UK regime.

Outlaw Pete

I really wish we had more medical professionals on debates to address some of the mistruths we've heare seen so far, like the following two who I feel would have a lot to add......




https://twitter.com/DJKilmartin/status/990354549922848769

Hotblack Desiato

Owryan wrote: »

Yes, the 8th has led to women dying. I am in favour of a much less restrictive regime, however i have a problem with free, no questions asked abortions up to 12 weeks. Thats my issue, abortions where there is any risk to the mother or in cases of FFA i have no issues with.

There seems to be an attitude that you are yes or you are no, having concerns is not allowed.

Thanks for your thoughtful posts on this issue, it's appreciated.
Having concerns is very much allowed.

We are not voting on the 12 weeks, it's only a proposal. It's by no means certain that it will pass the Dail. It's by no means certain that the government will survive long enough to even put it to the Dail. We may get no new legislation at all. Until then, the POLDP Act stays in place, same as it is now, and abortion remains almost entirely illegal.

Lobby your TDs. Vote. Same as you would over any other issue you care about.

12 weeks is the norm in the developed world, the US and UK are very much outliers. No European country which introduced abortion on request up to 12 weeks - and many did this 30+ or 40+ years ago - has increased that limit.

So the experience of decades of legalised abortion is that 12 weeks turning into something bigger just does not happen.

The experience of Irish politics shows that it is extremely unlikely to happen. Politicians are terrified of abortion becoming a general election issue, most of them see being forced to take a stance on it either way as a vote loser. The vast majority of them, and I would include No campaigner TDs in this, want to get the referendum over with (I am convinced the only reason Varadkar agreed to a referendum was to try to neutralise abortion as a political issue and get it off the table) and get the legislation out of the way and then never have to touch the issue again with a bargepole as long as their careers last.

The No TDs might make an issue of it at election time but they will huff and puff and do nothing to restrict abortion because they will not have the numbers in the Dail. Equally a few left TDs might make noises about liberalising the laws further, but they will not have the numbers in the Dail to do anything about it, either.

The Irish public are actually quite conservative. If we weren't, either Yes would be winning by an absolute landslide, or we would have repealed it years ago, because making women second-class citizens in our constitution is abhorrent.

Risk to the mother - if that risk is anything less than a good chance of dying then nothing can be done. If the 8th is not repealed, there will be cases of women dying, it's inevitable. Not only that but the woman's health will remain a secondary consideration, as it is now, as soon as she becomes pregnant or is even suspected of being possibly pregnant.

FFA - again nothing can be done under the 8th.

Rape, incest etc. - again nothing can be done under the 8th.

12 weeks - the 12 week proposal was very carefully considered by the citizens' assembly and the Oireachtas committee, and allows rape and incest victims to end their pregnancies if they wish with the minimum of further trauma to them, but it's only a proposal. It's not set in stone, it can be changed like any other legislative proposal can be changed. But reducing it risks forcing women into a hasty decision. Many women don't realise they're pregnant for several weeks (and the 12 weeks is really 10 weeks after fertilisation, anyway, as it's counted from the last period.)

If you want the laws to change in any way then this can only happen by repealing the 8th. Then lobby and campaign for the legislation you want to see.

blanch152

seamus wrote: »

Serious question so, what would you prefer?

Would you prefer that the constitution explicitly said "12 weeks"?

The issue here is that you can't insert 500 lines into the constitution to regulate abortions; that's what the law is for. So encompassing all the complexities of abortion into a single line or a small article in the constitution is impossible for all intents and purposes.

The 8th amendment was an attempt to boil abortion down to a single, simple statement. And it failed abysmally.

So realistically the only way to regulate abortion, is through the law.

Not trusting politicians is something of a separate issue, since they legislate on lots of things all the time. They could legalise all drugs, they could drop the age of consent to 8. Ultimately they're bound by what the population elects them to do. So if they do move to extend it later on, it's because the electorate has told them to do so, it's not something they'll just do off their own bat.

This is the single most important question being asked.

For those against abortion in all cases without exception, simple, vote NO.

Anyone else, from those you support abortion in rape cases only or FFA only across the full range right up to liberal abortion, vote YES and lobby your politician to make the right law.

Hotblack Desiato

Owryan wrote: »

I had canvassers from the yes side call yesterday. They wanted to speak to my partner, im single but i have kids. They were dismissive of my viewpoint and said that it was only women they wanted to talk to, its only a womens issue.

Fecking ROSA again. I wish they'd just keep quiet for the good of the campaign.
Together for Yes do not take that approach at all and it's stupid to do so - every person who has a vote counts.

They were the first yes campaigners i've spoken to, from my own perspective the no side have much more presence even if they are selling a sack of lies.

Older, more religious, more motivated, more time on their hands, is the reason why. If you're a parent of young kids it's harder to be out leafleting or canvassing all day.

finbar10

seamus wrote: »

Serious question so, what would you prefer?

Would you prefer that the constitution explicitly said "12 weeks"?

The issue here is that you can't insert 500 lines into the constitution to regulate abortions; that's what the law is for. So encompassing all the complexities of abortion into a single line or a small article in the constitution is impossible for all intents and purposes.

The 8th amendment was an attempt to boil abortion down to a single, simple statement. And it failed abysmally.

So realistically the only way to regulate abortion, is through the law.

Not trusting politicians is something of a separate issue, since they legislate on lots of things all the time. They could legalise all drugs, they could drop the age of consent to 8. Ultimately they're bound by what the population elects them to do. So if they do move to extend it later on, it's because the electorate has told them to do so, it's not something they'll just do off their own bat.

As I've argued earlier in this thread, setting out the broad parameters/exceptions of an abortion regime in the constitution is probably not as unworkable as some propose (one of the legal experts to the citizens assembly discussed it as a viable avenue but this was never explored). One doesn't have to have reams of medical conditions or words in the constitution. Just a few sentences would do outlining some basic choices:

• Do we have an exception for serious threats to the health of the mother?
• Do we have a rape exception?
• Do we have a term limit?
• Do we have an exception for FFA?

and permit the Oireachtas to legislate for the fine details of these circumstances. I'm sure some adequate way could be found to frame an appropriate constitutional article if the political will was there. I have never really bought the all-or-nothing argument in this debate.

SafeSurfer

I read about a new campaign launched today by amongst other Pauline Mc Lynn. The Hear Me Out campaign asks those who have been negatively affected by abortion to put on the kettle, make a cuppa and talk about their experience with an undecided or no-voting friend or family member.
What a macabre tea party that would be. Surely the people most negatively affected by abortion are those who have had their lives ended.

Go on, go on, go on. Vote yes for abortion.

Owryan

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Fecking ROSA again. I wish they'd just keep quiet for the good of the campaign.
Together for Yes do not take that approach at all and it's stupid to do so - every person who has a vote counts.




Older, more religious, more motivated, more time on their hands, is the reason why. If you're a parent of young kids it's harder to be out leafleting or canvassing all day.

Nope, AAA/PBP

Hotblack Desiato

finbar10 wrote: »

• Do we have an exception for serious threats to the health of the mother?
• Do we have a rape exception?
• Do we have a term limit?
• Do we have an exception for FFA?

But the constitution would have to define:
Serious
Rape (as in, how to prove rape?)
What is a fatal foetal abnormality

and those just aren't possible in a workable constitutional amendment.

You could have a hard term limit with no exceptions - but that can't allow for risk to the woman's life.

If you leave it up to the Oireachtas to define these, then what's the point of putting them in the constution?

Hotblack Desiato

Owryan wrote: »

Nope, AAA/PBP

Same bunch really.

Nettle Soup

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Being brutally honest, I think there is a racist element to the fact that people don't accept the 8th was responsible for Savita's death. I saw that first hand in Galway when she died.

seamus

finbar10 wrote: »

I'm sure some adequate way could be found to frame an appropriate constitutional article if the political will was there. I have never really bought the all-or-nothing argument in this debate.

Can you see how these two statements are at odds with one another though?

You don't buy that it's all-or-nothing, but you don't know how a middle ground could be framed in the constitution. Instead, you're saying that "I'm sure a way could be found".

Surely if that was possible, it would have been suggested? By anyone, at some point. Yet nobody has. The pro-life side cannot even provide an alternative wording. They too are suggesting that "someone else" come up with an alternative.

Does that not say to you that it's practically impossible to frame the complexities of abortion into a small constitutional article? That the experts have tried and failed?

The only way it can be done - without creating unintentional constitutional rights, obligations or loopholes - is to provide a blanket ability to regulate them in law. This provides the scope to regulate for all, nothing and everything in between.

finbar10

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

But the constitution would have to define:
Serious

Why? The government's Heads of Bill uses and doesn't define the word "serious" either. Legalese is often fairly vague. I'm sure as long as there's a reasonable independent process in place to judge what "serious" means (perhaps statutory independent panels of appropriate doctors and psychiatrists as appropriate) then the courts, with their usual deference to the Oireachtas, will be happy go along with things (unless the legislation or its implementation gets to a point where that's markedly not the case).

Rape (as in, how to prove rape?)

Haven't studied the issue enough, but it seems a typical approach is to simply require that a police report has been made. Or just have a fixed term limit and avoid the issue (as per the government's approach).

What is a fatal foetal abnormality

The wording from the Heads of Bill for FFA is the kind of words that might be used: "where there is a medical condition affecting the foetus that is likely to lead to the death of the foetus either before birth or shortly after birth".

and those just aren't possible in a workable constitutional amendment.

You could have a hard term limit with no exceptions - but that can't allow for risk to the woman's life.

Whatever about rape, I don't think a serious risk to the pregnant woman's life would be particularly difficult to word.

If you leave it up to the Oireachtas to define these, then what's the point of putting them in the constution?

The people broadly know what they are getting. There are flexibilities but also limits as to how widely the Oireachtas can define them.

FFA can't be watered down to serious foetal abnormalities, or serious risk to just any risk to health (at least by simple Oireachtas majorities). There can be an appeal to the courts if implementation slips. If the eighth is removed, the courts will essentially treat this as a legislative/administrative matter that's purely the domain of the Oireachtas (not some rights-based issue).

finbar10

seamus wrote: »

Can you see how these two statements are at odds with one another though?

You don't buy that it's all-or-nothing, but you don't know how a middle ground could be framed in the constitution. Instead, you're saying that "I'm sure a way could be found".

Surely if that was possible, it would have been suggested? By anyone, at some point. Yet nobody has. The pro-life side cannot even provide an alternative wording. They too are suggesting that "someone else" come up with an alternative.

Does that not say to you that it's practically impossible to frame the complexities of abortion into a small constitutional article? That the experts have tried and failed?

The only way it can be done - without creating unintentional constitutional rights, obligations or loopholes - is to provide a blanket ability to regulate them in law. This provides the scope to regulate for all, nothing and everything in between.

See my last post (IMO reasonable wordings can be found for most exceptions; I don't know enough about rape exceptions in other countries, though a term limit might work instead). Where have the experts even tried and failed on all this ? The barrister giving testimony to the citizens assembly (CA) held it out as a feasible avenue, but the CA never explored the issue.

pleas advice

Nettle Soup wrote: »

Being brutally honest, I think there is a racist element to the fact that people don't accept the 8th was responsible for Savita's death. I saw that first hand in Galway when she died.

Well that's an outlandish accusation.

blanch152

finbar10 wrote: »

As I've argued earlier in this thread, setting out the broad parameters/exceptions of an abortion regime in the constitution is probably not as unworkable as some propose (one of the legal experts to the citizens assembly discussed it as a viable avenue but this was never explored). One doesn't have to have reams of medical conditions or words in the constitution. Just a few sentences would do outlining some basic choices:

• Do we have an exception for serious threats to the health of the mother?
• Do we have a rape exception?
• Do we have a term limit?
• Do we have an exception for FFA?

and permit the Oireachtas to legislate for the fine details of these circumstances. I'm sure some adequate way could be found to frame an appropriate constitutional article if the political will was there. I have never really bought the all-or-nothing argument in this debate.

It is not about the political will, it is about the legal atmosphere in this country.

There is absolutely no doubt that any legislation put in place under such a constitutional provision would be subject to numerous legal challenges and review and we would run out of letters in the alphabet to list the poor women who would be faced with dealing with those court cases.

As a solution, it is only slightly less inhumane than the current misogynist inhumane 8th amendment.

Seth Brundle

SafeSurfer wrote: »

I read about a new campaign launched today by amongst other Pauline Mc Lynn. The Hear Me Out campaign asks those who have been negatively affected by abortion to put on the kettle, make a cuppa and talk about their experience with an undecided or no-voting friend or family member.
What a macabre tea party that would be.

If she is trying to encourage people to discuss their difficult decisions without being judged then it is a good idea.
No campaigners seem to be unaware that people might not want an abortion but in their circumstances it is their only choice.
The sneering isn't needed!

SafeSurfer wrote: »

Go on, go on, go on. Vote yes for abortion.

I'm not going to vote for abortion. I'm going to vote to allow women and their families make an informed choice along with their doctors. I'm going to vote to prevent the exporting of our problems.

walshb

I think a yes vote is the best vote.

I can't see any huge rush for women to abort their pregnancies should a yes vote win out.

Most abortions are lifestyle/circumstance choices made by women/teens/ who are young, a little immature and who haven't lived enough to have the maturity and wisdom of an older woman. If they want to abort they will travel, and they are travelling. I don't think we as a 21st century nation should have no access/choice for these people.

.......

This post has been deleted.

walshb

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I never said that they were being reckless.

Not sure what point you are arguing or trying to contradict. Whether they are mothers or nor or whether the pill has failed, many are sought due to a lifestyle choice at the time....

Many are simply "At this time in my life I am not up for or ready for another baby." That is lifestyle....

And I have no beef with that. It's part of life and part of nature and part of being human.

.......

This post has been deleted.

walshb

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Yes, the word lifestyle is taken as a real negative description by some. But it's not, and shouldn't be. It's just reality.

And, what other reasons are there? It's either lifestyle (which covers a broad area) or health.

walshb

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Oh, and let's be real....this also happens........

Plenty women/girls are irresponsible and end up getting pregnant when they didn't intend to....It's life. I don't slate them for it, but I also don't tiptoe around it....it's their irresponsibility that led to it.