The 8th Amendment Part 2 - Mod Warning in OP

Out of context in my opinion anyway

amdublin

DubInMeath wrote: »

It's above

!!!!!!!

Well that full quote...when read in full...is very different to the way Bertie presented it.

That's not on

amdublin

amdublin wrote: »

!!!!!!!

Well that full quote...when read in full...is very different to the way Bertie presented it.

That's not on

That's how I see it anyway.

amdublin

bertieinexile wrote: »

Thanks for that PhoenixParker. That's very honest.

This is what Bertie thanked and presented as what pp. said:
"Further, if anyone has the typical knee jerk reaction to these proposals I.e. that they're disgusting and horrific etc. (I did myself)"


Here is pp's full quote:

"Further, if anyone has the typical knee jerk reaction to these proposals I.e. that they're disgusting and horrific etc. (I did myself)
I suggest doing a little reading, particularly about abortion in Canada.

Canada has no limits, they "trust women" and late term abortion is rare and only done for medical reasons."



Very different messages there imo...

January

Hands up, who's surprised?

PhoenixParker

bertieinexile wrote: »

Thanks for your response ohnonotgmail. Sorry I didn't get back sooner. I'd happily talk about this issue all the way up to May 25. All day and all night.

In english law the grounds are risk of injury to the mental health of the woman

Harris's proposed grounds are threat “of serious harm” to the health of the mother,
Where Head 1 of the schedule helpfully explains that "health means physical or mental health"


We can discuss the finer points of those differences if you like, and whether you want to hang a whole referendum on the distinction you perceive beteween "injury" and "serious harm".

But the point that really matters - the thing that makes abortion on these grounds up to 24 weeks a crazy proposal for most of us - is that this distinction doesn't matter a damn to Marie Stopes. That's the reason I posted the link to the article about how easy it is to get an abortion from them on alleged mental health grounds.
Abortions signed off after just a phonecall: How Marie Stopes doctors approve abortions for women they've never met

If the doctor who signs off never even sees you will it make a damn bit of difference to him if the law says "injury" or "serious harm".

If "approvals are based on only a one-line summary of what a woman tells a call centre worker who has no medical training, .....and the telephone discussions can be as short as 22 seconds" do you really think it matters whether the law was looking for "injury" or "serious harm".

Bertie there's a massive difference between risk of injury and serious harm. You might not believe it but they are worlds apart in legal terms and medical terms.

Anything can constitute a risk of injury, injury is a wide open all encompassing term, a scratch is an injury. And all that's required is that there be a risk, not a big risk, not a serious risk. That gives scope for any pregnant woman to use it. Pregnancy itself constitutes a risk of injury.

Threat implies the risk is high and serious harm constitutes a long lasting effect.

There is no comparison between the two.

ohnonotgmail

bertieinexile wrote: »

Thanks for your response ohnonotgmail. Sorry I didn't get back sooner. I'd happily talk about this issue all the way up to May 25. All day and all night.

In english law the grounds are risk of injury to the mental health of the woman

Harris's proposed grounds are threat “of serious harm” to the health of the mother,
Where Head 1 of the schedule helpfully explains that "health means physical or mental health"


We can discuss the finer points of those differences if you like, and whether you want to hang a whole referendum on the distinction you perceive beteween "injury" and "serious harm".

But the point that really matters - the thing that makes abortion on these grounds up to 24 weeks a crazy proposal for most of us - is that this distinction doesn't matter a damn to Marie Stopes. That's the reason I posted the link to the article about how easy it is to get an abortion from them on alleged mental health grounds.
Abortions signed off after just a phonecall: How Marie Stopes doctors approve abortions for women they've never met

If the doctor who signs off never even sees you will it make a damn bit of difference to him if the law says "injury" or "serious harm".

If "approvals are based on only a one-line summary of what a woman tells a call centre worker who has no medical training, .....and the telephone s can be as short as 22 seconds" do you really think it matters whether the law was looking for "injury" or "serious harm".

If "the official note of the woman's reason for having the abortion can be completely different from what she had said on the phone" do you think it matters whether the law said "injury" or "serious harm".

If all you have to tell them is ‘I just don’t want the baby’ and then they "do the legal side of things" for you does it sound like they give a toss whether the law says "injury" or "serious harm".

Read this dialogue between a woman looking for an abortion and Marie Stopes.
Does it sound like Marie Stopes give a tinkers curse whether the law says "injury" or "serious harm" or just because it's Tuesday.
As long as there's any unquantifiable grounds for abortion up to 24 weeks they'll give you one just for asking.

Abortion on demand up to 24 weeks. Do they think we're mad?

i think you're making up a load of scaremongering nonsense based on a poor grasp of basic english.

We've had a few (two?) pro life posters claiming not to know that PLC means Pro Life Campaign in relation to this thread and ask does it mean post leaving cert course.

We've had first posts that mimic "articles" from spuc, but the posters claiming not to be aware of these articles or the spuc site itself.

And we've had consistent twisting of facts, well weak attempts at least and refusing to answer questions or provide links with proof.

Edit: And this is just those that haven't been banned for trolling.

So no I'm not.

amdublin

January wrote: »

Hands up, who's surprised?

I am. But I'm a bit naive/innocent some times.

That teaches me I guess.

bertieinexile

amdublin wrote: »

This is what Bertie thanked and presented as what pp. said:
"Further, if anyone has the typical knee jerk reaction to these proposals I.e. that they're disgusting and horrific etc. (I did myself)"


Here is pp's full quote:

"Further, if anyone has the typical knee jerk reaction to these proposals I.e. that they're disgusting and horrific etc. (I did myself)
I suggest doing a little reading, particularly about abortion in Canada.

Canada has no limits, they "trust women" and late term abortion is rare and only done for medical reasons."



Very different messages there imo...

Are either you or DublinMeath in any doubt as to what PhoenixParker's gut reaction was to these proposals.
Is that valuable? It may be off message but is it valuable?
Did I misrepresent in any way what that gut reaction was?

Thank you both for focussing attention on it. PhoenixParker is far from being the only one to have this kind of gut reaction to what's being proposed.
And thanks again to PhoenixParker for his honesty.

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5

bertieinexile wrote: »

Are either you or DublinMeath in any doubt as to what PhoenixParker's gut reaction was to these proposals.
Is that valuable? It may be off message but is it valuable?
Did I misrepresent in any way what that gut reaction was?

Thank you both for focussing attention on it. PhoenixParker is far from being the only one to have this kind of gut reaction to what's being proposed.
And thanks again to PhoenixParker for his honesty.

Do you like the honesty in the rest of the post?

freshpopcorn

Very surprised with my aunt she's in her early sixties and would always being extremely liberal about things over the years. She said Yesterday tough she's not voting because it doesn't effect her.

January

freshpopcorn wrote: »

Very surprised with my aunt she's in her early sixties and would always being extremely liberal about things over the years. She said Yesterday tough she's not voting because it doesn't effect her.

That's sad. Has she any daughters? Grand children? Nieces? Could you persuade her to vote for them?

It wasnt me123

freshpopcorn wrote: »

Very surprised with my aunt she's in her early sixties and would always being extremely liberal about things over the years. She said Yesterday tough she's not voting because it doesn't effect her.

Can you tell her that it affects you and you'd like her to vote to repeal?

freshpopcorn

January wrote: »

That's sad. Has she any daughters? Grand children? Nieces? Could you persuade her to vote for them?

It wasnt me123 wrote: »

Can you tell her that it affects you and you'd like her to vote to repeal?

No daughters but a few nieces. Reason why I found it strange was she used be giving out about it before.
The niece she'd be closet to will probably vote to keep it tough.

bertieinexile

bertieinexile wrote: »

Are either you or DublinMeath in any doubt as to what PhoenixParker's gut reaction was to these proposals.
Is that valuable? It may be off message but is it valuable?
Did I misrepresent in any way what that gut reaction was?

Thank you both for focussing attention on it. PhoenixParker is far from being the only one to have this kind of gut reaction to what's being proposed.
And thanks again to PhoenixParker for his honesty.

Your grabbing at straws Bertie, was the rest of his post not valuable because it goes against your agenda?

PhoenixParker

NuMarvel wrote: »

I wonder what piece of Shakespeare Senator Mullen will quote when he's trying to filibuster the referendum bill in the Seanad. If memory serves, it was Romeo and Juliet when he tried that trick during the Civil Partnership Bill. Can we add a poll? :P

Macbeth has a few relevant passages.

PhoenixParker

PhoenixParker wrote: »

Macbeth has a few relevant passages.

The merchant of Venice has a few that might apply in return

PhoenixParker

bertieinexile wrote: »

Thank you both for focussing attention on it. PhoenixParker is far from being the only one to have this kind of gut reaction to what's being proposed.
And thanks again to PhoenixParker for his honesty.

Her honesty.
I trust you’ll do the reading so.

bertieinexile

PhoenixParker wrote: »

Her honesty.
I trust you’ll do the reading so.

Her honesty. And I meant it PhoenixParker.
I'll get back to you on your substantial point about the legal grounds in the mental health case.

But on this issue I've a question for yourself, DubInMeath and electro-bitch who have both pitched in on this.
To all three of you separately;
A woman in Canada has a legal right to an abortion at any stage in her pregnancy without any requirement.
Legally the only reason she needs is that she wants it.

To what extent do each of you think doctors in Canada should facilitate this. After what point should a doctor say no.
In your opinion.

Water John

More bait. Let's focus on the Ref in this country. Speculation of what a medical doctor in Canada, may or may not decide, is utter nonsensical, whataboutery.

PhoenixParker

bertieinexile wrote: »

Her honesty. And I meant it PhoenixParker.
I'll get back to you on your substantial point about the legal grounds in the mental health case.

But on this issue I've a question for yourself, DubInMeath and electro-bitch who have both pitched in on this.
To all three of you separately;
A woman in Canada has a legal right to an abortion at any stage in her pregnancy without any requirement.
Legally the only reason she needs is that she wants it.

To what extent do each of you think doctors in Canada should facilitate this. After what point should a doctor say no.
In your opinion.

For me, after long and deep reflection, bodily autonomy is at the core of the whole thing.

Every woman has the right to say what lives in her body.
Just as you have the right to say no to a blood donation, a woman has the right to say no to a fetus occupying her uterus. I’ve made several posts on the comparison with organ donation, you can look them up. I’ve quoted two below.

A fetus has a right to bodily autonomy when it can be an automnous body, I.e. when it can, with the assistance of medical technology, survive independently of its mother.

Doesn’t mean I have to like the decision or applaud the person who makes it, but I believe she has that right.

I am a human, fully formed, living with a right to life as are you.

Imagine for instance that I need a blood donation. You are the only match. Without your blood I will die. My right to life does not trump your right to bodily autonomy.

It’s a procedure that would take maybe an hour band register as barely more than a scratch but the HSE will not have you hauled in, pinned down and your blood extracted. You can say no. Everyone might think you’re horrible for saying no, curse you, ostracize you whatever, but the courts or medical system wouldn’t force you

A fetus may indeed have a right to life just as much as you or I, but just as I don’t have a right to bits of your body, while fetus needs somebody else’s womb to survive, it is the person whose womb it is who gets to decide if she will carry it.

A fetus’s right to life shouldn’t preclude a woman from having an abortion.

Would you go through an 8 month procedure to donate an organ to a real live human being who won't survive without it?

For the first three months you take a pill that makes you vomit daily, feel exhausted. Your performance at work will be affected but convention is you don't tell anyone.

Then you move to a second set of medication. This results in weight gain of 10-15kg on average, causes frequent urination, difficulty sleeping, difficulty walking. You may get symptoms like not being able to walk for more than ten minutes due to hip pain, high blood pressure, diabetes which could well persist after the operation. You may end up hospitalised for days or weeks but either way you'll have frequent appointments resulting in missing work.

Then you'll go in for the operation. If you're lucky it'll go smoothly and they'll manage it by sticking a thick tube up your penis. It'll probably rip it a little but anaesthetic is discouraged. If that's not suitable you'll have major abdominal surgery and a six week driving ban. The government will pay you €270/week to cover all your expenses while you recover.

Would you do all that (and more) to save the life of a real life, living human being with a family and friends?

More importantly do you believe the government has the right to compel everybody in the country from 13 year olds to single parents struggling with young kids to go through that?

If not, why would you force someone to do it for a foetus?

Picture the italic bit as though the government decided to run a lottery. Every time you kiss someone or they kiss you, you get an entry. Picture yourself winning that lottery at a difficult point in your own life.

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5

PhoenixParker wrote: »

Further, if anyone has the typical knee jerk reaction to these proposals I.e. that they're disgusting and horrific etc. (I did myself)
I suggest doing a little reading, particularly about abortion in Canada.

Canada has no limits, they "trust women" and late term abortion is rare and only done for medical reasons.

This is the honesty I was referring to and which you cropped from your original post.

I'll be honest too, when I was younger I was appalled at the idea of abortion.

And then, like PP, I did some reading. And I lived in the real world. And, in all honesty, the more I knew about the issue, the more pro-choice I became.

I encourage anyone who cares about this issue to READ. Read the Oireachtas and Citizens' Assembly Reports and the reasoning behind the proposed legislation, read about what happens in countries with very restrictive abortion laws, read about the history of the pro-life and pro-choice campaigns (I mean mainstream stuff) and see where your conscience brings you when you are fully informed.

January

bertieinexile wrote: »

Her honesty. And I meant it PhoenixParker.
I'll get back to you on your substantial point about the legal grounds in the mental health case.

But on this issue I've a question for yourself, DubInMeath and electro-bitch who have both pitched in on this.
To all three of you separately;
A woman in Canada has a legal right to an abortion at any stage in her pregnancy without any requirement.
Legally the only reason she needs is that she wants it.

To what extent do each of you think doctors in Canada should facilitate this. After what point should a doctor say no.
In your opinion.

She has a legal right to an abortion an abortion does not automatically mean the foetus dies. It means the pregnancy is terminated. If the foetus is viable it will be born living unless it has a fatal abnormality.

RobertKK

Excluding Quebec which is the region with the most abortions in Canada, 587 abortions were 21 weeks plus in 2015.
Of the 23,561 abortions in hospitals excluding Quebec, 23,060 had no complications.
So at least some of those abortions were simple late abortions with no complications. Trust women...

Water John

Canadian law doesn't apply here, never will. No similar provision, is ever remotely likely to be proposed and passed, in this country.

PhoenixParker

RobertKK wrote: »

Excluding Quebec which is the region with the most abortions in Canada, 587 abortions were 21 weeks plus in 2015.
Of the 23,561 abortions in hospitals excluding Quebec, 23,060 had no complications.
So at least some of those abortions were simple late abortions with no complications. Trust women...

Way to massively skew the facts.

http://www.arcc-cdac.ca/backrounders/statistics-abortion-in-canada.pdf

100,000 abortion’s of which 587 were at greater than 21 weeks duration.
Complications refers to things like haemorrage and post procedure infection not ffa or health implications to the mother.

The number is comparable with the uk rate where late stage abortion is restricted.

So yes, trust women.

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/679028/Abortions_stats_England_Wales_2016.pdf

RobertKK

PhoenixParker wrote: »

Way to massively skew the facts.

http://www.arcc-cdac.ca/backrounders/statistics-abortion-in-canada.pdf

100,000 abortion’s of which 587 were at greater than 21 weeks duration.
Complications refers to things like haemorrage and post procedure infection not ffa or health implications to the mother.

The number is comparable with the uk rate where late stage abortion is restricted.

So yes, trust women.

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/679028/Abortions_stats_England_Wales_2016.pdf

The hospital figures have a disparity.

RobertKK

Water John wrote: »

Canadian law doesn't apply here, never will. No similar provision, is ever remotely likely to be proposed and passed, in this country.

Are you psychic?
I mean would people have said the leaders of both FG and FF would be supporting abortion, lets say 10 years ago?

PhoenixParker

RobertKK wrote: »

The hospital figures have a disparity.

If you read the report you will see that non-hospital locations do not perform abortions past 20 weeks (22weeks lmp)