8th Amendment

volchitsa

volchitsa wrote: »

Examples please?

ProfessorPlum wrote: »

I'd be interested to know what section of law charges would be brought under

I have no idea what specific laws say this, it's something I was told by a friend who works in law, when we were chatting about women using drugs during pregnancy. Google turned up a link back to boards.ie

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=62809688&postcount=11

Black Menorca

anothernight wrote: »

I mentioned this study in a different thread, but you might want to know about it. It's called "Suicide: the leading cause of maternal death".
http://bjp.rcpsych.org/content/183/4/279

Inconvenient eh?

How many Irish women have committed suicide because they were pregnant? In your own time.

Black Menorca

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Very few committed suicide because they couldn't get an abortion, I'd imagine, since we have abortion on demand (if you are not poor, in an institution or an asylum seeker).

It is uncertain how many committed suicide because their pregnancy was a personal disaster and their upbringing meant abortion was unthinkable.

So is that none?

anothernight

First you asked:

Black Menorca wrote: »

How many women committed suicide because they were pregnant?

When given some evidence on suicide and pregnancy, you changed it to:

Black Menorca wrote: »

How many Irish women have committed suicide because they were pregnant? In your own time.

I don't know. You tell me.
I do wonder though, how relevant is it that they be Irish? What makes you think Irish women are any different than the women figuring in the studies we linked? Are you going to simply ignore the studies? Hmmm, where have I seen this before...

On Savita's husband, you said:

Black Menorca wrote: »

His nationality is irrelevant.

Consistency, where art thou?

Are you going to tell me which reports on Savita's death you were talking about? Or will you just ignore the one I mentioned? If you like I have the HSE's one here.

HSE report wrote:

These guidelines should include good practice guidelines in relation to expediting delivery for clinical reasons including medical and surgical termination based on available expertise and feasibility consistent with the law.
We recognise that such guidelines must be consistent with applicable law and that the guidance so urged may require legal change.

Black Menorca

anothernight wrote: »

First you asked:


When given some evidence on suicide and pregnancy, you changed it to:



I don't know. You tell me.
I do wonder though, how relevant is it that they be Irish? What makes you think Irish women are any different than the women figuring in the studies we linked? Are you going to simply ignore the studies? Hmmm, where have I seen this before...

On Savita's husband, you said:




Consistency, where art thou?

Are you going to tell me which reports on Savita's death you were talking about? Or will you just ignore the one I mentioned? If you like I have the HSE's one here.

I've been asked not to continue bringing up Savita by management and I am happy to comply. Maybe others should follow suit.

As to suicide? I've yet to see one case of a pregnant woman killing herself because fo her pregnancy.

Delirium

Black Menorca wrote: »

I've been asked not to continue bringing up Savita by management and I am happy to comply. Maybe others should follow suit.

As to suicide? I've yet to see one case of a pregnant woman killing herself because fo her pregnancy.

Before abortion was introduced in England in 1950, 10 per cent of women in Ireland who died by suicide were found to be pregnant, he said. While it was impossible to say why these women killed themselves, that figure now was much lower.

“The idea that no woman in pregnancy will ever kill herself because she is pregnant – I don’t know how anybody could stand over that when we look at our own history,” he said.


The idea of putting women through several interviews with psychiatrists was part of out “dreadful history” on treating women who were distressed during pregnancy.


“Women being put into psychiatric hospitals in the past, women being sent off to Magdalene laundries having their children taken from them: we don’t have a good history in this country in this regard,” he said.


Women would face a “double whammy” of being judged because of having an unwanted pregnancy and through the stigma of mental illness. “

Source

Black Menorca

SW wrote: »

Source

I'm sure 10% of those women were left handed also. But there's no evidence any of them committed suicide because of this fact.

My question still stands.

Delirium

Black Menorca wrote: »

I'm sure 10% of those women were left handed also. But there's no evidence any of them committed suicide because of this fact.

My question still stands.

how about you tell us what would meet your criteria for evidence since you seem to dismiss anything that people provide.

what would be good enough for you?

anothernight

Black Menorca wrote: »

I've been asked not to continue bringing up Savita by management and I am happy to comply. Maybe others should follow suit.

As to suicide? I've yet to see one case of a pregnant woman killing herself because fo her pregnancy.

I didn't ask you to bring her up again. I asked what relevance does the nationality have now, when it apparently didn't before, according to you. (I'm of the opinion that nationality shouldn't come into it).

Black Menorca

SW wrote: »

how about you tell us what would meet your criteria for evidence since you seem to dismiss anything that people provide.

what would be good enough for you?

Other people are bringing up the threat of suicide as a justification for abortion. I'm asking if there's been a case where a woman tragically committed suicide because of her pregnancy.

Thankfully, there seems to be no evidence of it happening.

Black Menorca

anothernight wrote: »

I didn't ask you to bring her up again. I asked what relevance does the nationality have now, when it apparently didn't before, according to you. (I'm of the opinion that nationality shouldn't come into it).

All I can do is refer you to my previous response.

anothernight

Black Menorca wrote: »

All I can do is refer you to my previous response.

Please point out which previous response you're referring to. I see none that actually answers my questions.

Or you can just answer:

Is nationality relevant? Yes/No.

You said it wasn't relevant, then you reframed a question to include *only* Irish women when given evidence that wasn't specific to Irish women. Which is it?


I'm also very curious to know what kind of evidence you will accept, as requested by SW, even if you have chosen to ignore his question too.

Black Menorca

Black Menorca wrote: »

I've been asked not to continue bringing up Savita by management and I am happy to comply. Maybe others should follow suit.

This response.

anothernight

Black Menorca wrote: »

This response.

See, that doesn't answer what I asked. I asked, why is nationality suddenly relevant? Nothing to do with Savita at all.

If you need a reminder, this is what I said:

anothernight wrote: »

I do wonder though, how relevant is it that they be Irish? What makes you think Irish women are any different than the women figuring in the studies we linked? Are you going to simply ignore the studies? Hmmm, where have I seen this before...

And it was in relation to you suddenly changing your question from "How many women committed suicide because they were pregnant?" to "How many Irish women have committed suicide because they were pregnant?" when presented with facts.

Do you remember now? Will you tell me why you're now only interested in Irish women, or why you think a similar study on Irish women wouldn't yield the same results? Or will you just ignore/dodge the question again?

K-9

Black Menorca wrote: »

I've been asked not to continue bringing up Savita by management and I am happy to comply. Maybe others should follow suit.

As to suicide? I've yet to see one case of a pregnant woman killing herself because fo her pregnancy.

Mod:

Just to clear this up, the most high profile case in recent years is obviously not off topic and is allowed, using it to throw slurs at others is not allowed. Insinuating that people only bring up the case to lobby or advocate for abortion isn't helpful to the thread and looks like an attempt to sidetrack any questions on it.

oscarBravo

Y'all do realise you're arguing with someone who believes that a raped teenager has a duty to be pregnant, right?

That's the sort of worldview that's not amenable to being influenced by mere evidence.

anothernight

oscarBravo wrote: »

Y'all do realise you're arguing with someone who believes that a raped teenager has a duty to be pregnant, right?

That's the sort of worldview that's not amenable to being influenced by mere evidence.

I do realise that, and that's the main reason I'm finding it loads of fun to argue *cough* debate with this person.
I would think he's a troll, except I've met people like him outside of the internet.

Black Menorca

K-9 wrote: »

Mod:

Just to clear this up, the most high profile case in recent years is obviously not off topic and is allowed, using it to throw slurs at others is not allowed. Insinuating that people only bring up the case to lobby or advocate for abortion isn't helpful to the thread and looks like an attempt to sidetrack any questions on it.

But it is my opinion that some people are bringing up Savita in a morbid attempt to bring in a liberal abortion regime into this country.

Now I received a warning for expressing this opinion before.

Is Savita fair game when it suits your personal point of view?

Clarity on this will be most welcome. Until then I'll continue to comply with your original request.

Black Menorca

oscarBravo wrote: »

Y'all do realise you're arguing with someone who believes that a raped teenager has a duty to be pregnant, right?

That's the sort of worldview that's not amenable to being influenced by mere evidence.

The duty is to do no intentional harm.

oscarBravo

Black Menorca wrote: »

The duty is to do no intentional harm.

And the right of a teenager not to be pregnant after a rape can go f*ck itself.

Compassion and empathy. Keep posting.

anothernight

Black Menorca wrote: »

The duty is to do no intentional harm.

That is not what you said.

Black Menorca

anothernight wrote: »

That is not what you said.

Both comments are complimentary.

anothernight

Black Menorca wrote: »

Both comments are complimentary.

If you say so.

Now, can you reply to this, please? http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=95889318&postcount=825

Black Menorca

anothernight wrote: »

If you say so.

Now, can you reply to this, please? http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=95889318&postcount=825

Nope.

anothernight

Black Menorca wrote: »

Nope.

I guess oscarBravo is right then. No evidence or reasoning is good enough for you. Glad we cleared it up.

Black Menorca

Awesome story, awesome woman.

Atlantis50

anothernight wrote: »

So you accuse them only when they use an inconvenient example? Is that it? Hers is a valid and very relevant example of how the Irish abortion laws can cause the loss of women's life. It's not me saying it, it's experts such as Dr Peter Boylan. But you know this already because it's already been brought up.

Are there any other names that Irish posters of boards.ie shouldn't mention, to avoid being accused of abusing people's memories? Or is hers the only one?

Savita died due to medical negligence, not the 8th Amendment.

There's clearly an agenda behind Peter Boylan's opinions and he should not have given evidence at all at the inquest because he was Dr. Katherine Astbury's boss for a period in the 1990s (He was Master of the National Maternity Hospital (Holles Street) while she worked there as a Senior House Officer).

Of course, other practicing obstetricians in Ireland do not share Boylan's views:

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/we-wont-let-women-die-says-professor-28901745.html

Nor do the majority of the membership of the Irish Medical Organisation:

http://www.rte.ie/news/2013/0405/379917-imo-abortion/

What do HIQA have to say about the case of Savita?

Atlantis50

oscarBravo wrote: »

Y'all do realise you're arguing with someone who believes that a raped teenager has a duty to be pregnant, right?

That's the sort of worldview that's not amenable to being influenced by mere evidence.

"The Irish Medical Organisation has rejected a motion supporting regulation of abortion in line with the X Case following a heated and emotive debate.
The motion was defeated by 42 votes to 32 at the IMO's annual conference.
The AGM has also rejected abortion in the case of victims of rape or incest who become pregnant."


http://www.rte.ie/news/2013/0405/379917-imo-abortion/

Atlantis50

PopePalpatine wrote: »

Ms X was 14 when she was dragged through the courts after becoming pregnant after being raped. It's likely that her body would be crippled by the strains of childbirth.

Ms X and Ms Y were both suicidal due to their pregnancies. The Twelfth Amendment guarantees the right of a woman to have an abortion if she is suicidal due to her pregnancy.

There is no Twelfth Amendment to the Irish Constitution.

Delirium

Atlantis50 wrote: »

"The Irish Medical Organisation has rejected a motion supporting regulation of abortion in line with the X Case following a heated and emotive debate.
The motion was defeated by 42 votes to 32 at the IMO's annual conference.
The AGM has also rejected abortion in the case of victims of rape or incest who become pregnant."


http://www.rte.ie/news/2013/0405/379917-imo-abortion/

Knew that link reminded me of something I'd read before.

Recently the Irish Medical Organisation held its 2013 AGM in Killarney, Kerry. During proceedings three votes were held relating to abortion and support of legislation, all of which were defeated. While this is certainly a disappointing result, anti-choice groups are using it as a victory to portray the incorrect view that Irish doctors do not support legislation for abortion.


The reality is that the voting was not representative of the medical community, and therefore the results of the votes don’t really matter. Here’s why.The three motions proposed by Dr Mary Favier were:

38. This meeting calls on the IMO to support regulation in relation to the provision of abortion services where there is a “real and substantial risk” to the life of the mother.
39. The IMO calls on the Government to legislate for women who become pregnant as a result of a criminal act that they would be allowed access to legal termination within Ireland.
40. The IMO calls on the Government to legislate for the provision of abortion services for women who are pregnant with non-viable fetal anomalies who choose to proceed with an abortion.

The first motion (motion 38) dealt with legislation for the X Case, and was defeated by 42 to 32. I’m looking for the results of the other two motions (get in touch if you know what they were!), but as they were defeated also, it’s probably fair to say that they had similar results.


First of all, motion 38 is already outlined in the Irish Medical Council Guidelines relating to abortion (page 21). Is it not a bit strange that doctors would vote effectively against their own guidelines?


However, as I already said, the voting was not representative of the community of doctors in Ireland. There’s no need for me to explain the difficulties in practising doctors to travel to Kerry from all over the country for a conference when it would demand several days leave from their busy profession. It makes sense to me that the attendees were doctors who were readily available to travel: doctors from the locality, and retired doctors. Of course, I could be wrong on that.


So anyway, all we know from this meeting is that 42 doctors are against abortion. How many doctors are there in this country? Over 18,000.

Not counting abstentions, if 74 people voted, they make up only 0.4% of the doctors in Ireland. 0.2% of doctors are therefore definitely against abortion. In reality, this number will be higher, but the point is that a defeated motion by 42 doctors is not the victory that certain anti-choice groups make it out to be.


You can be sure, though, that such people will conveniently blinker themselves and ignore these facts, congratulate themselves on an imaginary “victory”, all in an ongoing effort to try to deny women the humane healthcare they need.