The Dilemma of the Undecideds in the abortion referendum

nw1dqsv7amx026

SusieBlue wrote: »

Thanks for your kind words.

To your knowledge are pregnant women with cancer prevented from getting treatment?

SusieBlue

Jaylee Glamorous Sirloin wrote: »

To your knowledge are pregnant women with cancer prevented from getting treatment?

I think it would depend on what type of cancer, to be honest. I can’t say for sure.
I know that with cervical cancer it isn’t an option but I’m not familiar with other types so wouldn’t be in a position to guess.

Fr Tod Umptious

Jaylee Glamorous Sirloin wrote: »

So irish Times poll was:-
44% yes 32% no 17% j undecided with a 2% error margin.
I would assume the undecideds are less likely to vote but if they do, they will mostly vote no.
The poll was taken before the Claire Byrne show so I'd assume that will have an influence.
I'd say a low turnout is better for yes??

No a low turnout would be bad for YES.

The NO will get the vote out, older people tend to be more conservative and therefore more likely to vote NO, and older people turnout in bigger numbers in elections than younger people.

The YES really need to make sure they get the younger vote that is more likely to vote YES out an voting.

No use tweeting ones opinion on why a YES is needed without going to the polling station.

The YES need a big turnout.

DarkScar

SusieBlue wrote: »

Either way I won’t be offered a termination in Ireland until the cancer is terminal.

I'm sorry but this makes no sense in the context of the current constitution. If cancer is terminal it by definition cannot be treated so you have already passed the "risk to life of the mother" part that is already covered.

DarkScar

Jaylee Glamorous Sirloin wrote: »

To your knowledge are pregnant women with cancer prevented from getting treatment?

According to the HSE there were 25 abortions in Ireland in 2016 where there was a risk to the life of the mother. There's nothing more specific available.

SusieBlue

DarkScar wrote: »

I'm sorry but this makes no sense in the context of the current constitution. If cancer is terminal it by definition cannot be treated so you have already passed the "risk to life of the mother" part that is already covered.

The point is, I have to be actually dying to be allowed a termination. It can’t be a threat to my health, it has to be a threat to my life.

Without the 8th, should I find myself pregnant, I could discuss all options with my partner and if I was unwilling to take the risk, I could have a termination to continue treatment.

DarkScar

SusieBlue wrote: »

The point is, I have to be actually dying to be allowed a termination. It can’t be a threat to my health, it has to be a threat to my life.

Without the 8th, should I find myself pregnant, I could discuss all options with my partner and if I was unwilling to take the risk, I could have a termination to continue treatment.

But your post claimed you'd have to be terminal, which obviously isn't true.
Is your oncologist claiming your cancer is no substantial risk to your life?

SusieBlue

DarkScar wrote: »

But your post claimed you'd have to be terminal, which obviously isn't true.
Is your oncologist claiming your cancer is no substantial risk to your life?

It is true.
It is only allowed when the life of the mother is under threat.
Maybe I shouldn’t have used to word terminal because that might not be the case in every scenario, but it would certainly need to have progressed to a point where it’s serious enough to be warranting a threat to my life.

I’m not seeing an oncologist, I don’t have cancer yet. We’re trying to prevent that from happening.

If I found out I was pregnant tomorrow I would not be offered any more treatment until my condition had progressed to the point where there was a threat to my life.

Michelle Harte lost her life in similar circumstances. She was in remission when she fell pregnant.

road_high

guestwifi wrote: »

I was truly an undecided until I sat down last Monday night to watch the Claire Byrne Live special.

I'll be voting No this Friday.

Yea...right :rolleyes:

Galwayguy35

blondeonblonde wrote: »

I don't know which Repeal supporters you found to be obnoxious, Brid Smith spoke very well about her own experience of abortion although I'll grant you that she shouldn't have started calling Maria Stein a liar as it detracted from what was otherwise a very good contribution.

I saw an interesting No poster recently underneath which was listed a website link to abortionnever.ie and it really made me angry because it is such a blinkered view point.

It's all well and good to say abortion should never happen & in an ideal world it would never happen. I don't know anyone that thinks that abortion is an inherently good thing but the fact is that it is taking place here in Ireland and there are people boarding planes & boats to avail of abortion in the UK . And they are doing so for a multitude of reasons - whether for a crisis pregnancy, or a fatal fetal abnormality or because of rape or simply because they find themselves in a situation where they cannot contemplate a pregnancy.

Who are we to judge those people and there decisions? Who are we to say you must keep your baby and damn the consequences & negative effects on your mental & physical health?

The status quo is just not acceptable, abortion is here in Ireland and it is here to stay. It's only a matter of time before someone is hurt or dies due to being forced to contemplate taking abortion pills in an unregulated environment. Not to mention the impact of the 8th on healthcare.

Nobody is voting to make abortion mandatory in Ireland. We need to grow up as a society, acknowledge the facts before us and do the decent thing by providing proper health care to women in a difficult situation. Please don't bury your head in the sand and hope that abortion goes away.

It won't.

VOTE YES

Brid Smith is about as ill mannered a person as it's possible to be, she is never able to debate any issue she speaks on and uses personal attacks to try and bully people.

She did the Yes side no favours last Monday to get undecided voters to repeal the 8th.

Galwayguy35

Patww79 wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Both sides must be only campaigning in the city here in Galway, not one person called to anybodies door in the small town where I live.

antiskeptic

DarkScar wrote: »

I'm sorry but this makes no sense in the context of the current constitution. If cancer is terminal it by definition cannot be treated so you have already passed the "risk to life of the mother" part that is already covered.

Susieblue is incorrect. The current Medical Council guidelines (on the back of the 2013 Act) permit termination even when the risk isn't immediate,even when it isnt inevitable.

A person need not come off treatment for a potentially life threatening illness.

DarkScar

SusieBlue wrote: »

It is true.
It is only allowed when the life of the mother is under threat.

The word "terminal" does not mean "threat of dying", it means "certain to die". To say you need to be terminal before you have an abortion simply isn't true and makes no sense.

DarkScar

antiskeptic wrote: »

Susieblue is incorrect. The current Medical Council guidelines (on the back of the 2013 Act) permit termination even when the risk isn't immediate,even when it isnt inevitable.

A person need not come off treatment for a potentially life threatening illness.

Thanks. Obviously we don't know but the facts in this case are muddled by the reference to "terminal". Has anybody actually been denied a termination when they've had a risk of terminal illness? I certainly don't remember any cases in the media.

OldMrBrennan83

This post has been deleted.

LeinsterDub

Nomis21 wrote: »

In the unlikely event that the NO vote wins, it would only in any case be a matter of time before the 8th was overturned either by the European court of Human Rights, by changes in the demographic of the population or the Church being involved in yet more scandal.

Our constitution can only be changed by popular vote.

MightyMandarin

Galwayguy35 wrote: »

Brid Smith is about as ill mannered a person as it's possible to be, she is never able to debate any issue she speaks on and uses personal attacks to try and bully people.

She did the Yes side no favours last Monday to get undecided voters to repeal the 8th.

Spot on. Ideologically, I'd consider myself a socialist but christ almighty Smith and her ilk are literally the most inept bunch of clowns in Irish politics - yes, I'd consider her worse than the Healy Raes, simply because they actually do stuff for their constituency.

Herself and Daly are the biggest whingebags around and are the exact reason why the left in this country has failed so badly.

MightyMandarin

SusieBlue wrote: »

Then we have miss X. Miss P. How many more do we need? How many more women need to suffer?

Neither of those women died because of a lack of abortion, that is absolute rubbish.

Ms. X was permitted to travel but miscarried beforehand. Ms.P was in a vegetative state caused by an accident (which had nothing to do with the pregnancy) and the question was whether she should be kept alive in order to save the child, that's all.

Dr. Peter Boylan loves rattling off the P case as an example of "women dying because of the 8th" and it's absolute nonsense.

There's so much misinformation, scaremongering and lies on the "Yes" side. They are just as bad as the "No" side in this regard.

SusieBlue

MightyMandarin wrote: »

Neither of those women died because of a lack of abortion, that is absolute rubbish.

Ms. X was permitted to travel but miscarried beforehand. Ms.P was in a vegetative state caused by an accident (which had nothing to do with the pregnancy) and the question was whether she should be kept alive in order to save the child, that's all.

Dr. Peter Boylan loves rattling off the P case as an example of "women dying because of the 8th" and it's absolute nonsense.

There's so much misinformation, scaremongering and lies on the "Yes" side. They are just as bad as the "No" side in this regard.

I know they didn’t die from it, but it had a hand in their cases. That’s why I put them separate to Savita, Michelle and Malek Thawley.

SusieBlue

DarkScar wrote: »

Thanks. Obviously we don't know but the facts in this case are muddled by the reference to "terminal". Has anybody actually been denied a termination when they've had a risk of terminal illness? I certainly don't remember any cases in the media.

Michelle Harte was? She was in remission from cancer when she fell pregnant.
She was denied a termination to continue treatment. She went to the UK for a termination but she died anyway.

Despite the fact she was desperately unwell she still wasn’t allowed a termination in Ireland.

https://amp.independent.ie/regionals/goreyguardian/news/abortion-nightmare-for-cancer-sufferer-michelle-27340507.html

I can’t link properly because I’m on my phone but the link above confirms the same.

To make it clear - I have been told by the gynaecologist who is treating me that should I get pregnant, I will not be allowed any further treatment until I am no longer pregnant, or until there is a threat to my life.

SusieBlue

antiskeptic wrote: »

Susieblue is incorrect. The current Medical Council guidelines (on the back of the 2013 Act) permit termination even when the risk isn't immediate,even when it isnt inevitable.

A person need not come off treatment for a potentially life threatening illness.

Please don’t patronise me. I cannot speak for every single woman with cancer but I’m telling you what my doctor told me.

The will not continue lasering my cervix until I am no longer pregnant.
So you are wrong.

MightyMandarin

SusieBlue wrote: »

I know they didn’t die from it, but it had a hand in their cases. That’s why I put them separate to Savita, Michelle and Malek Thawley.

So why add them in? The situation would not have changed in the P case if the 8th Amendment did not exist. She still would've been in a vegetative state and died. The HSE were just unsure how to deal with the situation legally.

And those other cases are all completely overstated, exaggerated and at times, completely lied about. The reality is Ireland has a lower maternal death rate than the (much lauded, pro-choice) UK and our maternal health care is among the best in the world. This is not a fact in dispute, Dr. Boylan accepts this.

The whole idea of Ireland being some 3rd world backwards nation which treats pregnant women like dogs in the street is complete conjecture and bull****, and I'm honestly sick of this narrative being spouted in the media every single day.

SusieBlue

MightyMandarin wrote: »

So why add them in? The situation would not have changed in the P case if the 8th Amendment did not exist. She still would've been in a vegetative state and died. The HSE were just unsure how to deal with the situation legally.

And those other cases are all completely overstated, exaggerated and at times, completely lied about. The reality is Ireland has a lower maternal death rate than the (much lauded, pro-choice) UK and our maternal health care is among the best in the world. This is not a fact in dispute, Dr. Boylan accepts this.

The whole idea of Ireland being some 3rd world backwards nation which treats pregnant women like dogs in the street is complete conjecture and bull****, and I'm honestly sick of this narrative being spouted in the media every single day.

I asked how many women had to suffer after naming them, I thought that made it clear.

Tell the families of those women that their cases were dramatically ‘overstated, exaggerated and lied about’. I’m sure they’d only be delighted to hear your feelings about the death of their loved one.

Women in Ireland receive substandard maternity care because of the grey area created by the 8th amendment.

DarkScar

SusieBlue wrote: »

To make it clear - I have been told by the gynaecologist who is treating me that should I get pregnant, I will not be allowed any further treatment until I am no longer pregnant, or until there is a threat to my life.

To make it equally clear: the HSE's own records say they perform abortions where there is no immediate threat to the life of the mother.

BarryD2

Re OP... wishful thinking. There could be just as many shy voters who will vote Yes as No, that's if they vote at all. Outcome of this referendum really depends on whether the college aged vote comes out, like they did in the 'marriage rights' vote. If they do come out in numbers, that will decide it and rightly so, as they are the generation that will bear children in the coming years.

DarkScar

SusieBlue wrote: »

Please don’t patronise me. I cannot speak for every single woman with cancer but I’m telling you what my doctor told me.

The will not continue lasering my cervix until I am no longer pregnant.
So you are wrong.

Then they do not know the Irish constitution, which allows for termination where there is a risk to the life of the mother, which the HSE enacts about 25 times a year.

oscarBravo

DarkScar wrote: »

Then they do not know the Irish constitution, which allows for termination where there is a risk to the life of the mother, which the HSE enacts about 25 times a year.

Nothing quite sums up this referendum "debate" like randomers on the Internet telling us that medical specialists are wrong.

LeinsterDub

DarkScar wrote: »

Then they do not know the Irish constitution, which allows for termination where there is a risk to the life of the mother, which the HSE enacts about 25 times a year.

Can I ask why you've signed up for boards just to discuss this single issue?

antiskeptic

SusieBlue wrote: »

Please don’t patronise me. I cannot speak for every single woman with cancer but I’m telling you what my doctor told me.

The will not continue lasering my cervix until I am no longer pregnant.
So you are wrong.

You're not pregnant I understand?

Is that because of a failure by doctors to understand the guidelines, a failure in the legislation to properly identify risk to life. Or the 8th?

It seems to me that if someone dies under the current guidelines then their doctors didnt understand what substantial risk was, even though not immediate, even though not inevitable.

SusieBlue

DarkScar wrote: »

Then they do not know the Irish constitution, which allows for termination where there is a risk to the life of the mother, which the HSE enacts about 25 times a year.

Do you think 25 abortions a year is proportionate to the amount of women who experience risks to their life while pregnant?
Or can we safely assume some of them were refused, and had to travel to the UK?
Like Michelle Harte did?
Like the lady on the radio who’s daughter has severe epilepsy did?
Like I’ve been specifically told I’ll have to?

antiskeptic

LeinsterDub wrote: »

Can I ask why you've signed up for boards just to discuss this single issue?

To discuss this single issue?

antiskeptic

SusieBlue wrote: »

Do you think 25 abortions a year is proportionate to the amount of women who experience risks to their life while pregnant?
Or can we safely assume some of them were refused, and had to travel to the UK?
Like Michelle Harte did?
Like the lady on the radio who’s daughter has severe epilepsy did?
Like I’ve been specifically told I’ll have to?

Was Michelle Harte subject to the current guidelines? Was the woman who had severe epilepsy.

Just asking.

DarkScar

oscarBravo wrote: »

Nothing quite sums up this referendum "debate" like randomers on the Internet telling us that medical specialists are wrong.

You're just as much a randomer on the internet yourself mate. You're deference to authority is cute, next you'll be insisting Savita's doctors were geniuses and there was nothing wrong with her.

LeinsterDub

antiskeptic wrote: »

To discuss this single issue?

I'm not accusing anyone of anything but in I'm always skeptical of single issue users who turn up just before a vote. Especially in this day and age of Russian bots and other such shills

DarkScar

SusieBlue wrote: »

Do you think 25 abortions a year is proportionate to the amount of women who experience risks to their life while pregnant?
Or can we safely assume some of them were refused, and had to travel to the UK?
Like Michelle Harte did?
Like the lady on the radio who’s daughter has severe epilepsy did?
Like I’ve been specifically told I’ll have to?

You can assume a lot of things. Not sure why you think that'll advance the discussion. The HSE does perform them, why nobody wants to accept medical specialists considered opinion on whether a condition is life threatening or not is beyond me.

Martina1991

DarkScar wrote: »

Then they do not know the Irish constitution, which allows for termination where there is a risk to the life of the mother, which the HSE enacts about 25 times a year.

In those 25 cases, the risk to the woman was death.

You literally have to be dying in order to receive a termination.

oscarBravo

DarkScar wrote: »

You're just as much a randomer on the internet yourself mate.

Yes. But I'm not claiming to know better than medical professionals.

You're deference to authority is cute, next you'll be insisting Savita's doctors were geniuses and there was nothing wrong with her.

No, I won't. But why don't you explain to us exactly how you're better qualified to understand the complex interplay of the Irish Constitution and SusieBlue's medical treatment than her doctors are.

DarkScar

LeinsterDub wrote: »

I'm not accusing anyone of anything but in I'm always skeptical of single issue users who turn up just before a vote. Especially in this day and day of Russian bots and other such shills

Why, do you have some problem conducting an argument using facts and logic in the absence of knowing something about the identity of who you are arguing with?
You're admitting your opinion is more about the person that the argument to be honest.

antiskeptic

DarkScar wrote: »

You're just as much a randomer on the internet yourself mate. You're deference to authority is cute, next you'll be insisting Savita's doctors were geniuses and there was nothing wrong with her.

The HSE report into Savita's death shows us where the problems lay.

It doesnt implicate the 8th. I prefer comment from experts outside the context of a referendum.

DarkScar

oscarBravo wrote: »

Yes. But I'm not claiming to know better than medical professionals. No, I won't. But why don't you explain to us exactly how you're better qualified to understand the complex interplay of the Irish Constitution and SusieBlue's medical treatment than her doctors are.

Well they are saying there is no threat to her life.
Why are you claiming they are wrong? Don't you respect medical professionals' opinions? Or, oh let me guess, you're not saying anything at all suddenly.

oscarBravo

DarkScar wrote: »

You're deference to authority is cute...

DarkScar wrote: »

...why nobody wants to accept medical specialists considered opinion on whether a condition is life threatening or not is beyond me.

Make up your mind.

SusieBlue

Martina1991 wrote: »

In those 25 cases, the risk to the woman was death.

You literally have to be dying in order to receive a termination.

This point is being lost and they aren’t believing me.
If this wasn’t the case there would be no maternal deaths because every time there’s a small risk, a would could request and be granted a termination.

Instead we have to wait until the threat is substantial enough to cause death before taking any action and that’s why women are dying and suffering when there is no need.

antiskeptic

oscarBravo wrote: »

Yes. But I'm not claiming to know better than medical professionals. No, I won't. But why don't you explain to us exactly how you're better qualified to understand the complex interplay of the Irish Constitution and SusieBlue's medical treatment than her doctors are.

The doctors treating susie dont deal in the complex interplay. The have guidelines and navigation of those guidelines needs to be set out clearly before time.

That didnt happen in Savitas day and there is no reason to suppose anythings different today.

The 8th is innocent until proven guilty and there was a lot guilty in Savita before you got to looking at the 8th.

antiskeptic

Martina1991 wrote: »

In those 25 cases, the risk to the woman was death.

You literally have to be dying in order to receive a termination.

False. Read article 43.8 of the current medical council guidelines.

Substantial risk. It need not be an immediate risk. And it need not be inevtable. A good example is the threat of return of a malignant cancer if you come of a drug trial. Michelle Hartes case, for example

MightyMandarin

SusieBlue wrote: »

Tell the families of those women that their cases were dramatically ‘overstated, exaggerated and lied about’. I’m sure they’d only be delighted to hear your feelings about the death of their loved one.

I'm sure Savita's husband is only delighted to see his deceased wife's image on 'yes' posters and booklets and her name plastered all over the Irish media after pleading for people to stop referring to her case.

Women in Ireland receive substandard maternity care because of the grey area created by the 8th amendment.

According to what study? You clearly disregard basic facts which are accepted by the primary medical spokesperson for 'Together for Yes' so where are you basing this from?

Martina1991

MightyMandarin wrote: »

I'm sure Savita's husband is only delighted to see his deceased wife's image on 'yes' posters and booklets and her name plastered all over the Irish media after pleading for people to stop referring to her case.

Source? Because her parents are supporting a Yes vote

SusieBlue

MightyMandarin wrote: »

I'm sure Savita's husband is only delighted to see his deceased wife's image on 'yes' posters and booklets and her name plastered all over the Irish media after pleading for people to stop referring to her case.

Her parents are in full support of repeal.
Her husband has never requested for people to stop referring to her case.
He did request for people to stop vandalizing a Youth Defense premises in Savitas name many years ago, but that was long before the referendum was announced.

According to what study? You clearly disregard basic facts which are accepted by the primary medical spokesperson for 'Together for Yes' so where are you basing this from?

The UN have stated that our abortion laws violate human rights. The 8th amendment ties doctors hands in emergencies because it states the baby has an equal right to life as the mother.
This can be interpretated differently by different doctors, causing confusion about what is and isn’t acceptable.

Martina1991

antiskeptic wrote: »

Substantial risk. It need not be an immediate risk. And it need not be inevtable. A good example is the threat of return of a malignant cancer if you come of a drug trial. Michelle Hartes case, for example

And what do you qualify as a substantial risk Doctor?

fergus1001

MightyMandarin wrote:

Dr. Peter Boylan loves rattling off the P case as an example of "women dying because of the 8th" and it's absolute nonsense.

sorry but I actually know the people involved in the p case, the father and kids had to watch their mother/wife turn into a corpse over the period of a 3 months it was horrific all against the wishes of the husband who was morning the loss of his wife and could not get closure

antiskeptic

Martina1991 wrote: »

And what do you qualify as a substantial risk Doctor?

Can I take the answering with a question to mean you now agree you don't have to be dying?