The 8th Amendment Part 2 - Mod Warning in OP

Shadowstrife

Also, I can't stress this enough:

When contraception is free & abortion is Legal, the abortion rates fall dramatically.

Saving the 8th will not stop abortion. It will happen with the same regularity it always has, but swept under the rug in illegality.

nozzferrahhtoo

MkaylaK wrote: »

I did not intend to cause such a stir.

You didn't. This thread is 1000s of posts long and your input and the replies to it have been pretty low by general standards. It might feel like a stir to you. It is average to those of us who have been here awhile.

MkaylaK wrote: »

Down syndrome and Cleft palette fall into this category.

I trust you have citations to back this claim up?

MkaylaK wrote: »

"Until 17 weeks heart cells beat spontaneously" - My point was always that the heart is beating, spontaneously or otherwise, it's beating.

And despite claiming you do not want to been seen as running away, you are running away from my DIRECTLY asking you why you think the heart is at all important. Why do you pick it over any other organ, and why do you think any organ should be the mediation point for when and why to afford this entity moral and ethical concern?

MkaylaK wrote: »

"Does a fertilized egg have a right to life?" If it's actively growing and maturing as humans do, then yes.

That is a hell of an assertion. I trust you can back it up with.... well..... something?

MkaylaK wrote: »

There are always miracle children.

No. There is not "always". There is very rarely. That is why they describe it as a miracle. If it was happening often it would not be miraculous, it would be mundane. The thing is though we should not be mediating our laws and morality for the majority of people, the majority of the time off the back of hoping for the occasional miracle.

MkaylaK wrote: »

"Why the heart? Why not talk about the spleen or liver" - By all means, substitute whatever organ you wish instead of the heart. The same principle applies.

Yeah and the "principle" in question appears to just be listing organs arbitrarily. You are avoiding the question on why any given organ should be important however. Especially as we end life with those organs all the time. Such as when producing meat.

MkaylaK wrote: »

As I said, this has to be my final post for now as I have to study for the LC, but please remember, it's not too late to change your stance.

If you give me any arguments, evidence, data or reasoning to convince me that a 12 week old fetus deserves rights, or moral and ethical concerns, then I will change my mind instantly. Without hesitation, embarrassment, reservation or bias. I will instantly switch from being pro choice with regards abortion to be entirely anti choice.

After 1000s of posts on the thread however this has not been done by anyone. So I trust you will not take offence at my suspicion you are not about to start now.

LimeGreenBean

MkaylaK wrote: »

I cannot justify destroying innocent human life.

I can't believe this is my first post, but I guess this is the crux of the pro-life movement and to be honest, it has just really started to bug me how often this statement has been glossed over in the last few months. Not to be disrespectful to anyone on this thread or the repeal movement in general, you have changed many people's views on abortion. Anyways, in response to this argument:

You justify destroying human life every single day. Have you ever donated blood, or bone marrow, or a lung? No, probably not. Are you a murderer because you haven't? Countless people die waiting on kidney transplants lists. And you could give them a kidney, you could keep them alive. Are you a terrible person because you don't? If you are involved in a car crash and you're brain dead will the doctors and nurses ravage your body for organs? No, they won't, they'll ask your family what you want and they will respect your wishes.

We don't force people to donate their bone marrow, even though it would save countless lives. We don't call people up to donate their kidney's like it's jury service. We don't label suicide victims as murders, even though their now useless organs could have saved many people's lives. If you somehow find a surgeon and ask him to remove a kidney so that you can keep it in a jar, you won't be charged with murder, even though that kidney could have saved someone's life. The surgeon also won't be charged with murder. We respect people's right to do what they want to their body regardless of whether someone else will suffer or die.

Except, in pregnancy. A woman's organs keep the baby/foetus/whatever-name-you-want alive, she sustains their life. Should she not get to decide how her organs are used? Should she not get to decide what happens to her body? We allow brain-dead people to decide what will happen to their body when they die. Think about it, we give fewer rights to pregnant women, than we do to brain-dead people, in this country.

When I was 18, (which was only 4 years ago) I felt the exact same way you did, honestly. I just want to give you a different slant on things. I hope you vote, this will probably be your first one.

horseburger

captbarnacles wrote: »

At what point is it the ending of human life? fertilisation?

What do you reckon yourself?

Is an abortion not the ending of human life? I ask you this with reference to the fact, that if the pregnancy continues, that a life created by two human beings, a separate life that develops during pregnancy, isn't anything other than human.

I would have thought that fertilization, would more likely be described as the beginning of life - or at least one of the stages of early human life development - than the ending.

https://study.com/academy/lesson/what-is-human-fertilization-process-definition-symptoms.html

mohawk

As stated countless times by others repealing is about more then abortion.

Pregnant women deserve informed consent. We shouldn't have be subjected to episiotomies without our permission.

Women shouldn't be told they are having a miscarriage and then sent away for 10 days. That is inhumane.

Going back into abortion territory. Women's health should be an important consideration in antenatal care not just her life.

Triceratops Ballet

MkaylaK wrote:

"The legislation won't allow DS and cleft palette babies to be aborted." - Under proposed legislation any baby can be aborted up to 12 weeks without a specific reason and after this time limit, there will be no gestational limits in cases of a foetal condition or on grounds of risk to health. Down syndrome and Cleft palette fall into this category.

However they will not be aborted BECAUSE they have down syndrome or a cleft palate any more than they will be aborted because they have blonde hair rather than brown

MkaylaK wrote:

"What about the health/rights of pregnant women?"- It's already present in the constitution that a woman's life will always be the priority when pregnant. She will never be refused medical treatment when she needs it.

Do you know who Savita Halappanavar is? She was refused treatment and is dead.
Do you know that women can be forced to undergo treatment against their wishes because of the 8th?
Because of the 8th amendment the hse policy on consent excludes all pregnant women, you may remember the case of a brain dead woman kept on life support against her families wishes to keep her baby alive , they had to go to the high court to get life support turned off.

This is what the 8th amendment does and this is what we're voting on, I can't think of a single argument that can justify a constitutional article that has these consequences

Pedro K

MkaylaK wrote: »

Thank you for your replies and thank you to those who are supporting my original post. I did not intend to cause such a stir.
Due to the amount of replies I will not be able to reply to you all individually, (the leaving cert is fast approaching) but I do not want to be seen as running away from the situation so I will write this final post in response to some of the points raised.

"The legislation won't allow DS and cleft palette babies to be aborted." - Under proposed legislation any baby can be aborted up to 12 weeks without a specific reason and after this time limit, there will be no gestational limits in cases of a foetal condition or on grounds of risk to health. Down syndrome and Cleft palette fall into this category.

"What about the health/rights of pregnant women?"- It's already present in the constitution that a woman's life will always be the priority when pregnant. She will never be refused medical treatment when she needs it.

"Until 17 weeks heart cells beat spontaneously" - My point was always that the heart is beating, spontaneously or otherwise, it's beating.

"Read some 'In her shoes accounts" - I have. Do I think these people are awful people? Of course not but still, it would be hypocritical of me to say that I agree with abortion.

"Do I have a right to tell women in crisis pregnancies what is right for them?" No, but should we give an abortionist the right to end a life? Personally, I don't think so.

"Does a fertilized egg have a right to life?" If it's actively growing and maturing as humans do, then yes.

"What if the baby/foetus will die anyway?"- No doctor can ever diagnose a 0% chance of survival. They have to use the term "life -limiting condition" because they simply do not know if a life will last 5 seconds or 5 years after birth. There are always miracle children. (Please watch a few videos from the YouTube channel "Special books for special kids")

"Why the heart? Why not talk about the spleen or liver" - By all means, substitute whatever organ you wish instead of the heart. The same principle applies.

As I said, this has to be my final post for now as I have to study for the LC, but please remember, it's not too late to change your stance.

This is incorrect. You're either ignorant of the proposals, or being willfully misleading.

Neither of those two can be positively diagnosed before 12 weeks, and the Oireachtas committee specifically voted against allowing disabilities to be a reason for termination after the 12 week limit.

Edit: if you're going to mention to mental health angle, it's been done. We already have provisions for the potential suicide of pregnant women in PLDPA 2013 and in '14, '15, and '16, all put together, there were only 7 terminations carried out under this provision. Irish women didn't flock to their doctors claiming mental health issues after '13. There's nothing to suggest they will if the 8th is repealed.

Martina1991

MkaylaK wrote:

Under proposed legislation any baby can be aborted up to 12 weeks without a specific reason and after this time limit, there will be no gestational limits in cases of a foetal condition or on grounds of risk to health. Down syndrome and Cleft palette fall into this category.

After 12 weeks abortion will be permitted in cases of FFA or threat to the life of the mother. Down's syndrome or cleft palette is neither.

MkaylaK wrote:

It's already present in the constitution that a woman's life will always be the priority when pregnant. She will never be refused medical treatment when she needs it.

This is not true. Savitas case is the most obvious one. You said you looked at the in her shoes fb page.
Women have shared their stories of wanted pregnancies but had medical procedures performed on them without their knowledge or consent to speed up delivery.

MkaylaK wrote:

"Do I have a right to tell women in crisis pregnancies what is right for them?" No, but should we give an abortionist the right to end a life? Personally, I don't think so.

There are no buts about it. You don't have the right to tell anyone what to do with their lives.

MkaylaK wrote:

"What if the baby/foetus will die anyway?"- No doctor can ever diagnose a 0% chance of survival. They have to use the term "life -limiting condition"... There are always miracle children.

Yes believe it or not doctors can diagnose a 0% chance of survival with the aide of scans, genetic tests, second opinions.
You have no knowledge of the medical field.

The words always and miracle together are contradictory.

horseburger

swampgas wrote: »

Words like "human" and "life" mean many things depending on context.

Does abortion end a human life? Yes and No. Yes, it's a tiny human entity that may (with luck) develop into a baby, a child, a teenager, an adult. No, it's not a "human life" the same way you are. It's just not as developed, it doesn't have much history, it is lacking sentience, memories, thoughts, personality.

Is an embryo or foetus a human life with more value than the independence of the woman carrying it? I would argue not. Certainly not before 12 weeks. Probably not before 24 weeks.

Remember that the pregnant woman is human too, and has a life, and her health, happiness and autonomy all have a lot of value to her and her family.

So please stop banging on, and on, and on, and on, about abortion "ending a human life". Everyone here understands what abortion is and how it does, in a small sense, end a human life, but it is more important to protect grown women than it is to try to force every conception to birth.

Why is euphemistic language used, to avoid the fact of what abortion involves?

Why is the phrase 'ending of a pregnancy' used to describe abortion, considering that any birth can be described as an 'ending of a pregnancy'?

I haven't forgotten that the pregnant woman is human.

Billy86

horseburger wrote: »

A human life nonetheless. It is not arguable that any newborn baby is viable either, on the basis that it cannot survive on its own.

It needs someone else to care for it and ensure its survival.

There is a significant difference between dependence for care and biological dependence. Try feeding milk to a 10 week old removed foetus, let me know how it goes.

AtomicHorror

horseburger wrote: »

Mkaylak is recognizing that abortion is the ending of a human life.

Do you think abortion isn't the ending of a human life?

Of course it is. However, the "ending of a human life" is as morally meaningless a phrase as the "stopping of a heart". So if that was MkaylaK's implication, she merely implied one banality using another.

Seems unlikely to me, but I guess I'm biased towards assuming she was making a point.

mohawk

Shadowstrife wrote: »

Also, I can't stress this enough:

When contraception is free & abortion is Legal, the abortion rates fall dramatically.

Saving the 8th will not stop abortion. It will happen with the same regularity it always has, but swept under the rug in illegality.

Wish some posts could be thanked more then once.

Reducing crisis pregnancy is key.

swampgas

horseburger wrote: »

Why is euphemistic language used, to avoid the fact of what abortion involves?

Why is the phrase 'ending of a pregnancy' used to describe abortion, considering that any birth can be described as an 'ending of a pregnancy'?

"Ending a pregnancy" is actually pretty accurate for a first trimester pregnancy.

What you are trying to do is the opposite: conflate an embryo or foetus with a child or adult, as if they were equivalent. They really are not.

By banging on about "human life" you are refusing to acknowledge that there is a gradual and continuous process by which a fertilized egg becomes an adult. You can insist all you want that a sperm and egg that have just fused are "human life" and therefore just as important as the woman carrying it, but you would be wrong and you know it.

Human life is full of grey areas. Refusing to accept that such grey areas exist in human biology is just that - a refusal to accept reality.

horseburger

Billy86 wrote: »

There is a significant difference between dependence for care and biological dependence. Try feeding milk to a 10 week old removed foetus, let me know how it goes.

Here is an interesting aspect of the question of the issue of whether what is growing during a pregnancy is human or not.

The interviewer asks people when they consider human life status should be granted:

swampgas

horseburger wrote: »

I haven't forgotten that the pregnant woman is human.

Not just human. A person. With thoughts, ideas, dreams, fears, hopes, with friends, with family. So much more than simply human.

horseburger

swampgas wrote: »

"Ending a pregnancy" is actually pretty accurate for a first trimester pregnancy.

What you are trying to do is the opposite: conflate an embryo or foetus with a child or adult, as if they were equivalent. They really are not.

By banging on about "human life" you are refusing to acknowledge that there is a gradual and continuous process by which a fertilized egg becomes an adult. You can insist all you want that a sperm and egg that have just fused are "human life" and therefore just as important as the woman carrying it, but you would be wrong and you know it.

Human life is full of grey areas. Refusing to accept that such grey areas exist in human biology is just that - a refusal to accept reality.

I'm just stating that I don't see how an embryo or foetus can be considered anything other than human, since an embryo or foetus came into being through two other humans, and will undergo human life cycle and development, before and after pregnancy.

Isn't it the case though, that many people who advocate for abortion, including Irish public representatives, like Ivana Bacik, Ruth Coppinger and Clare Daly, do so for a wider availability of circumstances for abortion, and for stages of pregnancy later than the first trimester and later than 12 weeks.

It seems that there is nothing definite about the recommendations of the Oireachtas Committee, being exactly what will be legislated on, if the Eighth Amendment is repealed.

It sounds like that no one really knows right now, what legislation will cover, in the event of a majority vote to repeal.

This item by Sarah Barden in the Irish Times includes the following line:

"Members of the Oireachtas Committee on the Eighth Amendment have insisted they cannot compel the Government to accept their recommendations".

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/oireachtas-committee-on-eighth-amendment-publishes-40-page-report-1.3333670

horseburger

swampgas wrote: »

Not just human. A person. With thoughts, ideas, dreams, fears, hopes, with friends, with family. So much more than simply human.

I didn't argue otherwise.

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

mohawk

Fred Swanson wrote: »

So how do the pro lifers reconcile themselves with the morning after pill?

In fairness many were against that too.

Billy86

horseburger wrote: »

Here is an interesting aspect of the question of the issue of whether what is growing during a pregnancy is human or not.

The interviewer asks people when they consider human life status should be granted:

So would you try to feed a 10 week old removed foetus, and if not - why not?

swampgas

horseburger wrote: »

I didn't argue otherwise.

I can't see how anyone can support the 8th amendment, which prioritises a week-old embryo over an actual person.

Maybe I'm getting you wrong, but you seem to be saying that because an embryo or foetus is "human life" this means that it cannot be aborted, and to hell with the consequences for the pregnant woman.

What's proposed is to remove the 8th, and leglislate for abortions on request up to 12 weeks. That seems sensible to me. A woman should be able to decide for herself in the first 12 weeks of a pregnancy whether she wants to continue with it or not. After that the 8th should not be putting a woman's life at risk if the pregnancy goes wrong.

horseburger

Billy86 wrote: »

So would you try to feed a 10 week old removed foetus, and if not - why not?

Isn't it a good thing to try and ensure a foetus continues life cycle and development, if possible?

ohnonotgmail

horseburger wrote: »

Isn't it a good thing to try and ensure a foetus continues life cycle and development, if possible?

and if it isnt possible?

robarmstrong

horseburger wrote: »

Here is an interesting aspect of the question of the issue of whether what is growing during a pregnancy is human or not.

The interviewer asks people when they consider human life status should be granted:

The interviewer didn't ask people, he asked one person, one person does not equal "people" unless there are more videos stemming from this particular clip?

Also, those questions? Ridiculous. Taking a fetus out of utero partially to perform an operation and place said fetus back in is nowhere close in comparison to being considered being "born", video clearly shows the intelligence (or lack of in this instance) of the interviewer.

Billy86

horseburger wrote: »

Isn't it a good thing to try and ensure a foetus continues life cycle and development, if possible?

I'll need to press for a direct answer, are you saying you would try to feed a 10 week old removed foetus?

robarmstrong

Billy86 wrote: »

I'll need to press for a direct answer, are you saying you would try to feed a 10 week old removed foetus?

I can't imagine a 10 week old removed fetus would survive on a diet of lies, inaccuracies and intentional misinterpretations.

pleas advice

Pedro K wrote: »

Edit: if you're going to mention to mental health angle, it's been done. We already have provisions for the potential suicide of pregnant women in PLDPA 2013 and in '14, '15, and '16, all put together, there were only 7 terminations carried out under this provision. Irish women didn't flock to their doctors claiming mental health issues after '13. There's nothing to suggest they will if the 8th is repealed.

.

pleas advice wrote: »

just as there is a difference between 'threat to life' and 'serious harm to the health' of the woman, there is a difference between threat of suicide and serious harm to the mental health of the woman

Pedro K

pleas advice wrote: »

.

I replied to that earlier in the thread. The implication is the same. That women will flock to their doctors claiming mental health issues to procure abortions.

We heard that before when the PLDPA2013 was being debated. It didn't happen. We are hearing it again. Like many slippery slope fallacies before it.

You are being disingenuous at best to suggest that it will happen.

EDIT: here's my original reply.

Pedro K wrote: »

The implication is the same. That women will use the clause to claim mental health issues to procure a termination. That hasn't happened since 2013, there's nothing to suggest it will happen should we repeal the 8th, and, personally, I think women deserve more respect than that.

bertieinexile

Hi JDD
Thanks so much for that.
Your post was heartfelt, reasonable and showed a real willingness to engage with the other side of the argument. I'm tempted to ask what in the name of God you're doing on this thread.

JDD wrote: »

Firstly, can I thank you for coming back so comprehensively on my post. I’m presuming you are not an obstetrician and an obstetrician had a lot of input into the that post, so let me thank him/her also for taking time out of their day.

No obstetricians involved, except the ones who published on this subject. But thanks, these days I'll take compliments where I can find them. I'm thinking of changing my avatar.
http://flopcast.net/247/bob.jpg

I know the statistics. Ireland is a relatively safe place to give birth, I agree. I don’t believe pregnant women are monitored any more closely here than if I were to be pregnant in the UK or Denmark or Canada, and in fact the statistics bear that out. We have relatively the same amount of maternal deaths as other comparable countries who have liberal abortion regimes – so we’re not a “world leader” as you say. I don’t believe the strict regime here makes a woman’s pregnancy any safer.

Whether you want to apply the "world leader" tag or not, our maternity care takes place against the backdrop of the 8th amendment and is consistently ranked around 6th best in the world.
Whether you accept that WHO ranking, which puts us ahead of the uk, or the Maternal Death Enquiry which says we are statistically as safe as the uk, both make a nonsense of the claim that the 8th amendment endangers lives. Which a huge amount of the pro choice argument seems to be based on.

Do I think it makes it any less safe? People who would have concerns such as mine might choose to avail of the online termination pill, or go to the UK, so that would skew the statistics somewhat. Maternal deaths which would be deemed a direct result of the 8th for the remainder of women who choose to go full term I’d imagine are very rare (that would be of no comfort to their families, I’m sure), and therefore probably don’t have a statistically significant affect.

I understand you to be focussing on whether the 8th amendment makes a woman’s pregnancy any less safe when she is at risk of placenta accretia. My understanding is that no one chooses to go to term with diagnosed full blown placenta accretia. (Notwithstanding your situation described in the next paragraph.) The outcome for this condition is almost always caesarean hysterectomy. And the difference in difficulty, seriousness and recovery time between early elective caesarean hysterectomy and an emergency one taking place at term means if there is an option it is always the first.
But in either case it doesn't result in maternal deaths in Ireland. (That's what I meant by always successful.) And the same is true in other developed countries.

Regarding the safety of our system for pregnant mothers, it’s difficult to be perfectly objective and not bring personal experience into it – as happens with every personal choice. On my last pregnancy, my potential placenta accreta was missed until Week 38. I was scanned at Week 22 and the sonographer recommended I get a further scan at 34 weeks. She told me it was because it looked like I had placenta previa but the placenta would likely move before 34 weeks. If it didn’t, I’d have to have a c-section. I knew I was going to have a c-section anyway, so didn’t realise the import of having another scan. I’d never heard of placenta accreta. I raised it with my consultant at 38 weeks and he was quite flustered and insisted I get scanned straight away. I’m not at all blaming him, he works in an understaffed and over-stretched system, he missed the big red “rescan” stamp on my 22 week scan results, but that’s understandable when you’re dealing with women in 5 minute appointment slots. And he was brilliant during that stressful week before the surgery. But had I actually got the condition, and had gone into early labour – which I believe is quite common – they would not have had a chance to make all the preparations that they did and I might have a had a very different outcome.

So forgive me for being a little sceptical of this perfect maternity system.

If the condition is identified (and if present it usually is) a non emergency termination can be carried out. Depending on how early this happens the childs prospects can be good to very good.
It is important to note, and seems to be wilfully ignored by some, that our Medical Council guidelines, Section 48, which govern this stipulate that even if a threat to the mother’s life is not immediate or inevitable it can be acted upon and the pregnancy terminated.

This is at odds to what I was told. I was told had I gone for my scan at 34 weeks I would have been admitted to the hospital for four weeks until I had got to full term. I had asked whether I could have been induced at 34 weeks and they said that wasn’t the normal practice. They were absolutely convinced I had placenta accreta but ultrasounds can’t tell how far the placenta has grown into your uterus, so they had no idea how severe my condition might have been. At 34 weeks maybe 90% of the damage would have been done, but I find it odd that I would not have been presented with the pros and cons to my health and to the baby’s of waiting to full term and been allowed to choose to wait or avail of the early induction. Perhaps the severity of my condition wasn’t considered "close enough" to inevitable to warrant an induction. I wonder is that something to do with the 8th?

In trying to understand your story for myself I am focussed on the following.
1 You had a scan at 38 weeks

2 After this "They were absolutely convinced I had placenta accreta."

3 You didn't have a caesarean hysterectomy

So if I've understood right the ultrasound at 38 weeks revealed what was technically placenta accreta but it was determined somehow that it was not severe enough to warrant a caesarean hysterectomy and instead, happily, you were able to have a "normal" caesarean when the time came (39 weeks?).



You then had a further question for them as to what might have happened if you had had the 34 week scan.

You were told you wouldn't have been inducted at 34 weeks but would have been admitted to the hospital for four weeks until you had got to full term.

The way I understand that is they were answering your question in the context of knowing that your placenta accreta was not severe and that is what the 34 week ultrasound would have revealed. (I know what you were told about the accuracy of an ultrasound in determing the detailed extent of the condition. Nonetheless either it or an MRI is usually successful in determining if the situation is severe enough for intervention)

As mentioned above, in the case of diagnosed full blown placenta accretia it is far more desirable to perform an early elective caesarean hysterectomy. As I understand it nobody would choose to wait until it came to term to perform a much more serious emergency caesarean hysterectomy
But in relation to this hypothetical situation where you had the 34 week scan and your wondering whether you would "have been presented with the pros and cons to my health and to the baby’s of waiting to full term and been allowed to choose to wait or avail of the early induction.";
the one thing it is easy to say is that the judgements made at this point in your care would have had nothing to do with the 8th amendment.
As far as safeguarding the rights of the child went it would be a choice between delivery at 34 weeks and a delivery at term. When the survival rate for both is the same.

What also might be feeding into my choices is the fact that my last pregnancy was a crisis pregnancy. I have some health issues from my previous two pregnancies, not severe but painful and limiting. I really didn’t want to put the pressure on my body of a third pregnancy and c-section, especially at my age. I ordered the pills online the day I took the pregnancy test (4 weeks), and gave myself two weeks to think about it. In the end I warmed to the idea and was willing to take on the exacerbated health issues, so didn’t take the pills.

You're a hero. And you will be rewarded at private unexpected moments for the rest of your life.

Annasopra

MkaylaK wrote: »

Thank you for your replies and thank you to those who are supporting my original post. I did not intend to cause such a stir.
Due to the amount of replies I will not be able to reply to you all individually, (the leaving cert is fast approaching) but I do not want to be seen as running away from the situation so I will write this final post in response to some of the points raised.

"The legislation won't allow DS and cleft palette babies to be aborted." - Under proposed legislation any baby can be aborted up to 12 weeks without a specific reason and after this time limit, there will be no gestational limits in cases of a foetal condition or on grounds of risk to health. Down syndrome and Cleft palette fall into this category.

"What about the health/rights of pregnant women?"- It's already present in the constitution that a woman's life will always be the priority when pregnant. She will never be refused medical treatment when she needs it.

"Until 17 weeks heart cells beat spontaneously" - My point was always that the heart is beating, spontaneously or otherwise, it's beating.

"Read some 'In her shoes accounts" - I have. Do I think these people are awful people? Of course not but still, it would be hypocritical of me to say that I agree with abortion.

"Do I have a right to tell women in crisis pregnancies what is right for them?" No, but should we give an abortionist the right to end a life? Personally, I don't think so.

"Does a fertilized egg have a right to life?" If it's actively growing and maturing as humans do, then yes.

"What if the baby/foetus will die anyway?"- No doctor can ever diagnose a 0% chance of survival. They have to use the term "life -limiting condition" because they simply do not know if a life will last 5 seconds or 5 years after birth. There are always miracle children. (Please watch a few videos from the YouTube channel "Special books for special kids")

"Why the heart? Why not talk about the spleen or liver" - By all means, substitute whatever organ you wish instead of the heart. The same principle applies.

As I said, this has to be my final post for now as I have to study for the LC, but please remember, it's not too late to change your stance.

This is nonsense.

The idea there will be many abortions because of downs syndrome or a cleft palate is complete and utter nonsense
1 These conditions are not diagnosed under 12 weeks.
2 After 12 weeks in the proposed legislation abortion is only available in 3 specific circumstances

12 weeks +: Risk to life of pregnant person and foetus has not reached viability (Head 4)

12 weeks +: Risk of serious harm to health of pregnant person and foetus has not reached viability (Head 4)

12 weeks +: the foetus has been diagnosed with a condition likely to lead to its death before or shortly after birth (Head 6)

So please stop with the lies about abotions for cleft palates snd downs syndrome

It is ignorant and downright lies to say that it is in the constitution to say a womans health is given priority and that she will never be refused treatment when she needs it. This is just horrendous lies that wipes out Sheila Hodgers and Savita Halapanavar and the many other women whose lives have been put at risk because of the 8th.