Abortion - Report of the Joint Committee on the Eighth Amendment of the Constitution

NuMarvel

recedite wrote: »

I don't think either of us knows the medical details of this, and anyway it is not very nice to discuss a personal tragedy in this way, unless some good for others can come of it. From your link it seems the unborn child was killed, and then subsequently the mother died anyway, so it was a double tragedy in the end. The abortion did not save the mother.

No doubt your implication is that an earlier abortion could have saved her. Yet you also say that her life was not at risk at the time. Another poster here puts it more bluntly; that she was "a goner anyway". I have no idea about that, and no comment.

I simply say that if her life was at risk, and having an abortion could have saved it, then it should have been performed without delay in Ireland. And the same goes for the Savita case.

The fact that the families in both cases received substantial cash settlements indicates to me a de facto admission of guilt in the way these women were treated/mistreated in state hospitals.

So no, it does not prove your point.

Seeing as my point was that the 8th affects the medical care pregnant women receives, and this case shows that the 8th affects the medical care a pregnant women received, I rather think the point is proven. But I can understand your need to pretend otherwise.

volchitsa

recedite wrote: »

I don't think either of us knows the medical details of this, and anyway it is not very nice to discuss a personal tragedy in this way, unless some good for others can come of it. From your link it seems the unborn child was killed, and then subsequently the mother died anyway, so it was a double tragedy in the end. The abortion did not save the mother.

No doubt your implication is that an earlier abortion could have saved her. Yet you also say that her life was not at risk at the time. Another poster here puts it more bluntly; that she was "a goner anyway". I have no idea about that, and no comment.

I simply say that if her life was at risk, and having an abortion could have saved it, then it should have been performed without delay in Ireland. And the same goes for the Savita case.

The fact that the families in both cases received substantial cash settlements indicates to me a de facto admission of guilt in the way these women were treated/mistreated in state hospitals.

So no, it does not prove your point.

But you just did. You agree that the abortion didnt save her life because she was dying anyway. So her doctors advised her to terminate the pregnancy, not for a cure but to avoid shortening her life even further. The need to stop palliative treatment because it would harm the baby, and possibly also the effect of the pregnancy itself meant she would die sooner but of cancer, not from the pregnancy.

So they told her to have an abortion, but were too afraid of the law to do it themselves.

Are you saying those extra months don't matter? I was being sarcastic when I said that - whereas you seem to approve of the basic message, though not the words. Am I right?

recedite

volchitsa wrote: »

But you just did. You agree that the abortion didnt save her life because she was dying anyway. So her doctors advised her to terminate the pregnancy, not for a cure but to avoid shortening her life even further. The need to stop palliative treatment because it would harm the baby, and possibly also the effect of the pregnancy itself meant she would die sooner but of cancer, not from the pregnancy.

So they told her to have an abortion, but were too afraid of the law to do it themselves.

Are you saying those extra months don't matter? I was being sarcastic when I said that - whereas you seem to approve of the basic message, though not the words. Am I right?

You're asking me to weigh up the life of an unborn child who had their whole potential life ahead of them, as against a few extra months of sickness for somebody who is dying anyway?

It would be a hard ethical choice for many people, and an easier one for others. There is an old saying that "hard cases make for bad laws".

I don't feel I can or should judge though, not least because I doubt it was ever such a binary choice. For example, if no abortion and no cancer treatment, what would be the chances of being healthy enough, and living long enough for a successful birth in such a scenario? I'm inclined to guess that neither the mother nor the unborn child had much chance of survival no matter what they did.

Also I'll point out that regardless of the outcome of this forthcoming referendum, we will continue to hear occasionally of a tragedy in an Irish maternity hospital. Sometimes compensation will be paid out, and sometimes it won't.

volchitsa

recedite wrote: »

You're asking me to weigh up the life of an unborn child who had their whole potential life ahead of them, as against a few extra months of sickness for somebody who is dying anyway?

It would be a hard ethical choice for many people, and an easier one for others. There is an old saying that "hard cases make for bad laws".

I don't feel I can or should judge though, not least because I doubt it was ever such a binary choice. For example, if no abortion and no cancer treatment, what would be the chances of being healthy enough, and living long enough for a successful birth in such a scenario? I'm inclined to guess that neither the mother nor the unborn child had much chance of survival no matter what they did.

Also I'll point out that regardless of the outcome of this forthcoming referendum, we will continue to hear occasionally of a tragedy in an Irish maternity hospital. Sometimes compensation will be paid out, and sometimes it won't.

So isn't the only sensible conclusion that nobody except the person concerned can possibly make such a difficult decision?

That is exactly why it's wrong to have doctors have the final word on something that is a very personal decision with no single "right" answer.

recedite

Society as a whole makes choices that restrict an individual person's freedom of choice. We make laws, and then we have to live by them.

For example, before the 1970's rape within marriage was considered an impossibility, a contradiction in terms. Husbands had certain "conjugal rights" over their wives. Nowadays that particular "freedom" has been restricted in most western societies, but not in some other societies.

It is true that historically society took away some freedom from pregnant women, but it did that in order to protect the unborn members of society.

Soon we will get to decide whether these "unborn members of society" are to be stripped of their societal membership and all their rights. Some people will look forward to getting the chance to do that, and some others will think twice about it.

NuMarvel

recedite wrote: »

Society as a whole makes choices that restrict an individual person's freedom of choice. We make laws, and then we have to live by them.

For example, before the 1970's rape within marriage was considered an impossibility, a contradiction in terms. Husbands had certain "conjugal rights" over their wives. Nowadays that particular "freedom" has been restricted in most western societies, but not in some other societies.

It is true that historically society took away some freedom from pregnant women, but it did that in order to protect the unborn members of society.

Soon we will get to decide whether these "unborn members of society" are to be stripped of their societal membership and all their rights. Some people will look forward to getting the chance to do that, and some others will think twice about it.

As per yesterday's ruling, the unborn does not have rights, plural. It only has one right - a right to life. A right that a) doesn't apply to all of the unborn anyway, and b) is already subject to the woman's rights, choices, and freedoms in specific circumstances.

What is being proposed is an extension of that and a rebalancing of rights between the unborn and the woman. The unborn will not be stripped of "all rights", because it is proposed that it will still be a criminal offence for a doctor to perform an illegal abortion.

As you say, society makes laws, and has to live by them, but society is not bound by those laws in perpetuity. We can change laws, especially laws like the 8th that have been shown to be inappropriate and not fit for purpose.

Zubeneschamali

NuMarvel wrote: »

As per yesterday's ruling, the unborn does not have rights, plural. It only has one right - a right to life. A right that a) doesn't apply to all of the unborn anyway, and b) is already subject to the woman's rights, choices, and freedoms in specific circumstances.

Women already have a constitutionally guaranteed right to abort said unborns, enacted by referendum.

As long as they don't do it in Holy Catholic Ireland.

Annasopra

recedite wrote: »

Also I'll point out that regardless of the outcome of this forthcoming referendum, we will continue to hear occasionally of a tragedy in an Irish maternity hospital. Sometimes compensation will be paid out, and sometimes it won't.

Actually no. This is is the whole point. Many of these tragic cases are a direct result of the 8th.

Edward M

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

Actually no. This is is the whole point. Many of these tragic cases are a direct result of the 8th.

recidite is right, of course the eighth is the one that can cause women problems, but by far the most cases of tragedy in maternity care are the babies.
The majority of cases by far are of babies who have had their lives affected or lost through medical malpractice or neglect.
Abortion or choice of is probably a very small portion of such cases.

volchitsa

Edward M wrote: »

recidite is right, of course the eighth is the one that can cause women problems, but by far the most cases of tragedy in maternity care are the babies.
The majority of cases by far are of babies who have had their lives affected or lost through medical malpractice or neglect.
Abortion or choice of is probably a very small portion of such cases.

So not relevant then, right?
Except in as far removing someone's right to decide on their treatment puts an extra moral and legal responsibility on the healthcare system not to allow its practititioners to mess up. If they can't do that - and they can't - then the woman herself must have the final say in what treatment she gets or not.

That is what went wrong with Savita Hallapanavar. In fact as a medical professional herself she was probably aware at some level of how seriously ill she was when she asked for a termination, while the staff were patronising her with "It's a catholic country, dear."

Annasopra

Edward M wrote: »

recidite is right, of course the eighth is the one that can cause women problems, but by far the most cases of tragedy in maternity care are the babies.
The majority of cases by far are of babies who have had their lives affected or lost through medical malpractice or neglect.
Abortion or choice of is probably a very small portion of such cases.

The goalposts are being shifted here. The 8th is a threat to womens lives. We are not talking about babies badly affected through medical malpractice or about abortion/choice (probably?) causing medical malpractice. We are talking about the negative affects of the 8th on womens healthcare and womens choices.

Edward M

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

The goalposts are being shifted here. The 8th is a threat to womens lives. We are not talking about babies badly affected through medical malpractice or about abortion/choice (probably?) causing medical malpractice. We are talking about the negative affects of the 8th on womens healthcare and womens choices.

The goal post have long been shifted.
The eighth is a bad amendment and needs to be repealed, but what has repeal of the eighth got to do with abortion on demand up to any given period?
Savita Halipinaver is being thrown around like a snowball (with no disrespect to her intended by me) and used as the reason for repealing the eighth, but quite why her situation would be seen as a reason for allowing abortion up to 12 weeks, or any period for that matter is unclear to me.

Zubeneschamali

Edward M wrote: »

Savita Halipinaver is being thrown around like a snowball (with no disrespect to her intended by me) and used as the reason for repealing the eighth, but quite why her situation would be seen as a reason for allowing abortion up to 12 weeks, or any period for that matter is unclear to me.

Abortion up to 12 weeks is only one of the changes being proposed. Abortion when the health of the mother is at risk (Savita), when FFA is diagnosed...

These require repeal of the 8th as well, but are separate from the 12 week no restrictions proposal.

Edward M

If you look at this report, more women per capita die in the UK, where abortion is liberal, than here during pregnancy and childbirth, the US is even worse.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/health/news/11581302/Women-in-the-UK-more-than-twice-as-likely-to-die-in-pregnancy-and-childbirth-as-many-European-countries.html

Edward M

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Abortion up to 12 weeks is only one of the changes being proposed. Abortion when the health of the mother is at risk (Savita), when FFA is diagnosed...

These require repeal of the 8th as well, but are separate from the 12 week no restrictions proposal.

But then should that be a separate vote?

Zubeneschamali

Edward M wrote: »

But then should that be a separate vote?

No, these are in the legislation. You don't get to vote for legislation.

The question you will vote on is just "Repeal the 8th? Yes/No."

nozzferrahhtoo

Edward M wrote: »

If you look at this report, more women per capita die in the UK, where abortion is liberal, than here during pregnancy and childbirth, the US is even worse.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/health/news/11581302/Women-in-the-UK-more-than-twice-as-likely-to-die-in-pregnancy-and-childbirth-as-many-European-countries.html

Not entirely sure what your point here is, or if there is one? Could you elaborate?

Though people dying in child birth has nothing to do with abortion? The fact they are giving birth sorta shows they likely did not have an abortion.

Further though the figures do not stack up with correlating abortion with those deaths. For example Canada has one of the more liberal approaches to abortion and if you check the Maternal Death Statistics per 100,000 births you find they have 7 per 100,000 compared to the US (14) and UK (9). While Ireland comes in at 8.

And on top of that the countries that do the BEST on those figures..... also have abortion. The number 1 country in that link is greece ("Abortion in Greece has been fully legalized since January 27, 1984.[1] Abortions can be performed on-demand in hospitals for women whose pregnancies have not exceeded twelve weeks.")

And finally when you say "than here" in your post..... are you getting that from your link? I only sped read the article but I am not sure I saw the figures from Ireland mentioned at all. So where are you basing the comparison to "here" on? Or are you in a different "here" than Ireland?

So genuinely just not seeing what point it is you might be hinting at with this post. Or indeed if there was in fact any intended?

Edward M

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Not entirely sure what your point here is, or if there is one? Could you elaborate?

Though people dying in child birth has nothing to do with abortion? The fact they are giving birth sorta shows they likely did not have an abortion.

Further though the figures do not stack up with correlating abortion with those deaths. For example Canada has one of the more liberal approaches to abortion and if you check the Maternal Death Statistics per 100,000 births you find they have 7 per 100,000 compared to the US (14) and UK (9). While Ireland comes in at 8.

And on top of that the countries that do the BEST on those figures..... also have abortion. The number 1 country in that link is greece ("Abortion in Greece has been fully legalized since January 27, 1984.[1] Abortions can be performed on-demand in hospitals for women whose pregnancies have not exceeded twelve weeks.")

And finally when you say "than here" in your post..... are you getting that from your link? I only sped read the article but I am not sure I saw the figures from Ireland mentioned at all. So where are you basing the comparison to "here" on? Or are you in a different "here" than Ireland?

So genuinely just not seeing what point it is you might be hinting at with this post. Or indeed if there was in fact any intended?

My point is that medicare is good here in general given the stats, childbirth here seems to have a better outcome than in a lot of other countries.
While one case is one too many, and I'm not sure how many there are here, of a needless death of a woman in childbirth, despite the eighth amendment, women seem to fare better here in childbirth than in many other so called more evolved states, where perhaps liberalisation has led to less care?

.......

This post has been deleted.

Edward M

....... wrote: »

Traditionally there were issues with how Ireland records maternality mortality.

This Fact Checker might be of interest to you:
http://www.thejournal.ie/maternal-deaths-mortality-rate-ireland-pro-life-campaign-statistics-2921139-Aug2016/

- which is good.

But back to the point you are trying to make. We must have some cases of women who go ahead with an unwanted pregnancy even if they want an abortion because they cant afford to travel or find out too late or whatever. There is no data available on the maternal mortality of unwanted pregnancies because we simply dont record that information.

OK I accept that.
Could we honestise the debate then and say that repealing the eighth is actually more about choice than health?

.......

This post has been deleted.

Edward M

....... wrote: »

Repealing the 8th IS about health.

But legislating for abortion afterwards is about choice.

Im not seeing any dishonesty here. We are talking about 2 separate things.

1: Repeal the 8th
2: Legislate for choice

Wheres the issue?

I'm not deliberately trying to be argumentative, just posing the,question that will be on some voters.
Repealing the eighth, yes or no, will be on the ballot paper, the choice after that won't other than allowing legislating for abortion.
A good many repeal supporters, who wouldn't be pro abortion, will have a difficulty not viewing one as leading to the other.
I know its hard to figure out how to appease this, but it could affect the vote.

.......

This post has been deleted.

Podge_irl

recedite wrote: »

and anyway it is not very nice to discuss a personal tragedy in this way, unless some good for others can come of it.

Personal tragedies are the entire reason this needs to be discussed (and the 8th ultimately repealed). This is not a harmless amendment to the constitution, it causes personal tragedies all the time.

NuMarvel

Edward M wrote: »

I'm not deliberately trying to be argumentative, just posing the,question that will be on some voters.
Repealing the eighth, yes or no, will be on the ballot paper, the choice after that won't other than allowing legislating for abortion.
A good many repeal supporters, who wouldn't be pro abortion, will have a difficulty not viewing one as leading to the other.
I know its hard to figure out how to appease this, but it could affect the vote.

If memory serves, you're going to vote for repeal even though you're not necessarily in favour of what's proposed to follow it.

So rather than asking how we can convince people like you, why don't you tell us what convinced you? Because that will make it easier for everyone in favour of repeal, you included, to convince others.

Edward M

NuMarvel wrote: »

If memory serves, you're going to vote for repeal even though you're not necessarily in favour of what's proposed to follow it.

So rather than asking how we can convince people like you, why don't you tell us what convinced you? Because that will make it easier for everyone in favour of repeal, you included, to convince others.

Basically it is because of the restriction on women's health and treatment for illnesses during pregnancy, I believe the mothers health is more important than the babys.
Rape, incest etc. I realise these things need dealing with.

nozzferrahhtoo

Edward M wrote: »

My point is that medicare is good here in general given the stats, childbirth here seems to have a better outcome than in a lot of other countries.

And still worse than others. So again it is not clear what your point is. I would say there is a MULTITUDE of factors that make any given state get better or worse on such a single-point statistic.

Even if we are good, we could be better. And saying essentially "well we are good DESPITE this bad thing over here" says nothing to me. Because my question is never "Are we good?" or "Are we better or worse than them over there?". My question is always "Where are we, and what can we still yet do better?".

The "perhaps" in your post is just that. Perhaps. Guess work. Vague straw grasping around mere correlation. But I am not sure the correlation is as powerful as your link suggested. The link I linked to put Ireland pretty much on a par with those other countries. Here it is again:

Canada have 7 per 100,000 compared to the US (14) and UK (9). While Ireland comes in at 8. Also since we are talking here about per ONE HUNDRED THOUSAND.... how significant really do you find a leap from 7 to 14? Sure a writer of sensetionalist headlines in a newspaper will scream things like "100% INCREASE!!!!". But 100% of a small number, is a small number.

Also you did not answer my question about how you were using that link to compare the UK to here, given that link did not mention here at all. Was there another link you were meant to include but didn't? Or did I miss something in your article maybe?

Edward M

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

And still worse than others. So again it is not clear what your point is. I would say there is a MULTITUDE of factors that make any given state get better or worse on such a single-point statistic.

Even if we are good, we could be better. And saying essentially "well we are good DESPITE this bad thing over here" says nothing to me. Because my question is never "Are we good?" or "Are we better or worse than them over there?". My question is always "Where are we, and what can we still yet do better?".

The "perhaps" in your post is just that. Perhaps. Guess work. Vague straw grasping around mere correlation. But I am not sure the correlation is as powerful as your link suggested. The link I linked to put Ireland pretty much on a par with those other countries. Here it is again:

Canada have 7 per 100,000 compared to the US (14) and UK (9). While Ireland comes in at 8. Also since we are talking here about per ONE HUNDRED THOUSAND.... how significant really do you find a leap from 7 to 14? Sure a writer of sensetionalist headlines in a newspaper will scream things like "100% INCREASE!!!!". But 100% of a small number, is a small number.

Also you did not answer my question about how you were using that link to compare the UK to here, given that link did not mention here at all. Was there another link you were meant to include but didn't? Or did I miss something in your article maybe?

Here's one with a numerical list.
https://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2010/apr/12/maternal-mortality-rates-millennium-development-goals

volchitsa

Edward M wrote: »

OK I accept that.
Could we honestise the debate then and say that repealing the eighth is actually more about choice than health?

Honestise? Are you serious?

There already is abortion for choice, because of the 13th, so what is left undealt with is mainly the harmful effects on women who do not want abortions.

Why on earth is it dishonest to say that?

nozzferrahhtoo

Edward M wrote: »

Here's one with a numerical list.
https://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2010/apr/12/maternal-mortality-rates-millennium-development-goals

Good, I was hoping I was not simply wrong and you were in fact working off a different link to the one you actually presented. It was either that, or I was going mad/blind

So the difference between Ireland and the UK, is 2.5. Not 2.5% but 2.5 women per 100,000? Is my maths off due to the frankly enormous Kebab I just ate or is that .0025% of a difference? (fixed not relative I mean).

I have seen people try to imply, suggest, or even outright assert, causation from correlation before.... but usually off the back of statistics that were at least significant or made an impression.

I have to admit I have never seen anyone do it off the back of a difference of .0025% before. Not even the Daily Mail who are known for it. Thanks for being the first.