The 8th amendment(Mod warning in op)

Martina1991

spookwoman wrote: »

I'm not anti choice in fact I'm for abortion, be it i don't want it, I can't afford it, it's going to interfere with my life, it's got something wrong with it after tests, medical reasons. I do think there has to be a line drawn when there is not actually a problem with the foetus or woman later on in the pregnancy.

I agree, certainly at 7 months the baby has a chance at survival. Perhaps the mother could be induced and the child taken into care.

FFA is one thing but I don't agree with terminating the pregnancy in the case of a chance of heart.

I would think and hope that no would be that callous.

January

suicide_circus wrote: »

The place for a fetus is a medical waste receptacle not a septic tank.

Tell that to the Catholic Church so...

spookwoman

Martina1991 wrote: »

I agree, certainly at 7 months the baby has a chance at survival. Perhaps the mother could be induced and the child taken into care.

FFA is one thing but I don't agree with terminating the pregnancy in the case of a chance of heart.

I would think and hope that no would be that callous.

I don't know but I always use the rule there could always be one

Sorry Mod didnt look at the post counts

Press_Start

I made a blog post that sparked a good discussion a while ago. Friend of mine used the quote;

"In an ideal world, abortion would be free and available, but noone would use it"

to me that says it all, and while I'm fully aware thet birth control fails, and I'm beginning to open up to the process of immediate abortion via a pill, I still don't agree with the use as a retroactive form of birth control.

Here's my ideal scenario where that would be ok.

You're signed on with the GP or whoever on prescription birth control. You're using it properly with a practical prevention change of 80-90% effectiveness. You become pregnant, and report this to the doctor. The doctor can make the descision and either go ahead with the abortion, giving you the options, or advise you to have the child and give it up through foster care. I'm fully aware that Birth Control fails, so do seatbelts, airbags and brakes but we still keep them and use them, and deal with the issues that arise after failure. I humbly believe that it will carry eventually, but I can't comprehend why people on the repeal argument can't understand why the moral implications make those of us on the other side feel uncmfortable.

*I'm on the side for heavy modification and reassessment of the 8th, not pro-life, abortion is nessessary at times*

sunshine and showers

spookwoman wrote: »

I'm not anti choice in fact I'm for abortion, be it i don't want it, I can't afford it, it's going to interfere with my life, it's got something wrong with it after tests, medical reasons. I do think there has to be a line drawn when there is not actually a problem with the foetus or woman later on in the pregnancy.

I'm not saying you are, but the whole "women will abort babies at 30 weeks on a whim" line is a simply not true. It is a myth perpetuated by those with an anti-choice agenda.

Over 90% of abortions occur by 12/13 weeks. The ones that occur later in pregnancy happen because of tragic circumstances - risk to the life of the mother, or a serious issue with the foetus such as a FFA.

The late term abortion narrative is a damaging portrayal of women - that we are so flippant that we can just decide at 30 weeks that it "doesn't suit us" anymore, so we'll just get an abortion. There are no facts to support this. It's utter bs.

.......

This post has been deleted.

spookwoman

sunshine and showers wrote: »

I'm not saying you are, but the whole "women will abort babies at 30 weeks on a whim" line is a simply not true. It is a myth perpetuated by those with an anti-choice agenda.

Over 90% of abortions occur by 12/13 weeks. The ones that occur later in pregnancy happen because of tragic circumstances - risk to the life of the mother, or a serious issue with the foetus such as a FFA.

The late term abortion narrative is a damaging portrayal of women - that we are so flippant that we can just decide at 30 weeks that it "doesn't suit us" anymore, so we'll just get an abortion. There are no facts to support this. It's utter bs.

How do you know there not been someone looking for a late term abortion be it someone with mental health issues. The thing is like it or not everything including things you don't like to hear have to be considered even if they are minuscule.

.......

This post has been deleted.

January

spookwoman wrote: »

How do you know there not been someone looking for a late term abortion be it someone with mental health issues. The thing is like it or not everything including things you don't like to hear have to be considered even if they are minuscule.

It wouldn't be performed, even if they were looking for it. Termination of pregnancy would occur, but termination of life wouldn't.

ohnonotgmail

spookwoman wrote: »

How do you know there not been someone looking for a late term abortion be it someone with mental health issues. The thing is like it or not everything including things you don't like to hear have to be considered even if they are minuscule.

whatever about the number looking for one, and there are no statistics to suggest there any, no doctor would perform an abortion at that late stage just because the woman changed her mind.

.......

This post has been deleted.

spookwoman

January wrote: »

It wouldn't be performed, even if they were looking for it. Termination of pregnancy would occur, but termination of life wouldn't.

I know it wouldn't be performed but it doesn't mean someone wont ask for one

.......

This post has been deleted.

sunshine and showers

spookwoman wrote: »

How do you know there not been someone looking for a late term abortion be it someone with mental health issues. The thing is like it or not everything including things you don't like to hear have to be considered even if they are minuscule.

I was discussing the myth that women *just decide* to have abortions at 30 weeks. They don't.

Mental health issues, in particular risk of suicide, can already be used to access terminations under the 8th.

As another poster pointed out, at 30 weeks, where there are no foetal issues, it isn't really an abortion - it's termination of a pregnancy. It's induced labour. When the baby is born, it is looked after. Nobody is leaving babies in the corner to die. That's more anti-choice bs.

January

spookwoman wrote: »

I know it wouldn't be performed but it doesn't mean someone wont ask for one

But even if they ask for one, what is wrong with them asking and being given their options? 'No, we won't terminate the life of your foetus because it is now viable outside of the womb, your options are to continue to term, or we can give a dose of steroids to strengthen the lungs of the foetus as they are not developed properly yet and then we can deliver via induction or ceserean section. Please be aware that we will have to make a referral to TUSLA because you have asked for us to terminate the life of the foetus growing inside you, they will work with you after the baby is born so that we can work towards the best care plan for you both'

spookwoman

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

The you get some prolife person going in somewhere looking one and knowing that lot they could bring it before the courts for whatever reason. Just think its better to cover all the bases.

ohnonotgmail

spookwoman wrote: »

The you get some prolife person going in somewhere looking one and knowing that lot they could bring it before the courts for whatever reason. Just think its better to cover all the bases.

what?? you think some 30-week pregnant pro-lifer is going to demand a pregnancy from the doctors, take them to court if they dont give her one (on what grounds i cant imagine) and then what? she goes "ha ha" i was only joking at the end?

.......

This post has been deleted.

kylith

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Well, in the future it may well be possible to remove a fetus from the womb and implant it into another, or an artificial womb, which would solve both the problems of unwanted pregnancy and of people who can't conceive.

That's the future though, and we can change the legislation when it's needed, but we can't legislate for what medical advances might be made in 50 years.

.......

This post has been deleted.

ohnonotgmail

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

she??? its not that small

spookwoman

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

We know she wont get an abortion but I wouldn't put it pass them to bring it so far to get a point across.
Look what Mullins said yesterday and remember the same mindset was behind savitas death

rainbow kirby

Stunts aren't a good reason to make restrictive law.

NuMarvel

spookwoman wrote: »

We know she wont get an abortion but I wouldn't put it pass them to bring it so far to get a point across.
Look what Mullins said yesterday and remember the same mindset was behind savitas death

Realistically, the Oireachtas aren't going to legislate beyond what the Assembly proposed in the event of repeal, so this is all moot.

If memory serves, the majority of Assembly members only recommended access to abortion after 22 weeks in 3 circumstances; i) where there's a risk to the woman's life, ii) where there's a serious risk to her health, and iii) where the unborn has an abnormality that is likely to be fatal.

Could someone go to court to challenge these restrictions? Sure. But I don't see how someone could win that challenge, and you haven't given any grounds for a successful challenge either.

Dotsie~tmp

January wrote: »

You don't seem to get the fact that had Savita been granted the termination when she had first asked for it then the very thing that caused the sepsis would not have been there. The 8th amendment meant that her requests for a termination had been declines, her life shouldn't have had to be left hanging in the balance before a doctor could decide whether they could perform a termination or not.

The report is clear that the medical team did not identify of manage the sepsis properly. This put them in a position where they had to do some bar-room lawyering as they didn't understand the conditions for the termination had already been made even under the 8th Amendment.

O&G Consultant 1 recalled at interview that on the 23rd of October the patient and the
patient’s husband enquired about the possibility of using medication to induce labour as they
indicated that they did not want a protracted waiting time when the outcome was going to be
an inevitable miscarriage. The consultant stated at interview that (s)he advised the patient
and her husband that this was not possible under Irish law. At interview, the consultant
indicated that the law is such that:

“If there is a threat to the mothers’ life you can terminate. If there is a potential major
hazard to the mothers’ life the law is not clear…. There are no guidelines for
inevitable miscarriages”

Abortion in the case of a threat to life of the mother is clearly established.

The “X Case”
7. In Attorney General v X & Others55 (the “X Case”) the Supreme Court considered the
requirements of Article 40.3.3° in circumstances we re the continuation of her
pregnancy is deemed to pose a serious risk to the life of the woman. The case
concerned a 14 year old girl who had become pregnant by rape. The Attorney General
applied to the High Court for an injunction preventing the girl from travelling to England
for an abortion. In the High Court a psychologist testified that the girl might commit
suicide if she was refused an abortion. The High Court granted the injunction but its
decision was overturned on appeal by a majority of the Supreme Court (Hederman J
dissenting). In the course of their judgments each member of the majority considered
how Article 40.3.3° was to be applied in circumstan ces where a pregnant woman’s right
to life was deemed to be at risk as a consequence of her pregnancy.

8. Finlay CJ laid down the test to be applied in such cases as follows:
“I, therefore, conclude that the proper test to be applied is that if it is established
as a matter of probability that there is a real and substantial risk to the life, as
distinct from the health, of the mother, which can only be avoided by the
termination of her pregnancy, such termination is permissible, having regard to
the true interpretation of Article 40, s. 3, sub-s. 3 of the Constitution.”56

9. The Chief Justice went on to hold that on the basis of the evidence before the trial
judge, and on the findings which he had made, Miss X satisfied this test in that it had
been
“established as a matter of probability, that there is a real and substantial risk to
the life of the mother by self destruction which can only be avoided by the
termination of her pregnancy.”57

10. O’Flaherty J formulated substantially the same test in the following terms:
“Until legislation is enacted to provide otherwise, I believe that the law in this
State is that surgical intervention which has the effect of terminating pregnancy
bona fide undertaken to save the life of the mother where she is in danger of
death is permissible under the Constitution and the law. The danger has to
represent a substantial risk to her life though this does not necessarily have to be
an imminent danger of instant death. The law does not require the doctors to wait
until the mother is in peril of immediate death. I believe the instant case to come
within this principle.”58

11. Egan J likewise adopted a test largely equivalent in substance to the foregoing,
namely:
“In my opinion the true test should be that a pregnancy may be terminated if its
continuance as a matter of probability involves a real and substantial risk to the
life of the mother. The risk must be to her life but it is irrelevant, in my view, that it
should be a risk of self-destruction rather than a risk to life for any other reason.
The evidence establishes that such a risk exists in the present case.”59

12. McCarthy J framed the test as follows:
“In my view, the true construction of the Amendment, bearing in mind the other
provisions of Article 40 and the fundamental rights of the family guaranteed by
Article 41, is that, paying due regard to the equal right to life of the mother, when
there is a real and substantial risk attached to her survival not merely at the time
of application but in contemplation at least throughout the pregnancy, then it may
not be practicable to vindicate the right to life of the unborn.”60

However we clearly have a grey area because medical professionals are dealing with guidelines that are suitably unhelpful or ambiguous that then forces them to take into their considerations legal questions. This is clearly NOT their area of competence.

I see that guidelines clearly need looking at taking into account the conditions for a legal abortion were present and not identified. Both medical regarding sepsis and legal regarding the unborn and mother health relationship. Lastly if this cannot be remedied without alteration of the 8th then I would personally be willing to look at voting yes to a repeal. All HIGHLY dependent on the replacement text however.

January

NuMarvel wrote: »

Realistically, the Oireachtas aren't going to legislate beyond what the Assembly proposed in the event of repeal, so this is all moot.

If memory serves, the majority of Assembly members only recommended access to abortion after 22 weeks in 3 circumstances; i) where there's a risk to the woman's life, ii) where there's a serious risk to her health, and iii) where the unborn has an abnormality that is likely to be fatal.

Could someone go to court to challenge these restrictions? Sure. But I don't see how someone could win that challenge, and you haven't given any grounds for a successful challenge either.

You've got it bit wrong there.

https://www.citizensassembly.ie/en/The-Eighth-Amendment-of-the-Constitution/Final-Report-on-the-Eighth-Amendment-of-the-Constitution/Final-Report-incl-Appendix-A-D.pdf

Chapter 1 outlines that the majority usually voted for no restrictions in most cases where there is risk to the health (physical or mental) of the woman, fatal fetal abnormality or suicide.

NuMarvel

January wrote: »

You've got it bit wrong there.

https://www.citizensassembly.ie/en/The-Eighth-Amendment-of-the-Constitution/Final-Report-on-the-Eighth-Amendment-of-the-Constitution/Final-Report-incl-Appendix-A-D.pdf

Chapter 1 outlines that the majority usually voted for no restrictions in most cases where there is risk to the health (physical or mental) woman, fatal fetal abnormality or suicide.

The Table for Reason 8 (Risk to health) on Page 34 puts majority support at the 22 week mark. The majority of the Assembly only supported no restrictions for health reasons when there was a serious risk to health (Reason 5).

January

NuMarvel wrote: »

The Table for Reason 8 (Risk to health) on Page 34 puts majority support at the 22 week mark. The majority of the Assembly only supported no restrictions for health reasons when there was a serious risk to health (Reason 5).

I said 'most' not all.

NuMarvel

January wrote: »

I said 'most' not all.

So what bit did I get wrong?

January

NuMarvel wrote: »

So what bit did I get wrong?

My apologies I read your post wrong and thought you had said up to and not after 22 weeks. Must go back to specsavers.

Apologies again!