8th amendment referendum part 3 - Mod note and FAQ in post #1

pleas advice

Igotadose wrote: »

1 in 5's demonstrably false - of live births I think the number's 16%. Of all pregnancies, probably much less due to miscarriages (not accounted for.)

Let's not be restating what's not true. It's what the No campaign lives off of.

of live births its 21%, of all (known) pregnancies its closer to 16%

RobertKK

Overheal wrote: »

8 maternal deaths per 100k love births. That’s still not 0.00000000% am I right?

Show me a country with 0 per 100k.

gaius c

Google blocking all ads relating to the 8thref is fairly draconian but probably necessary until we work out how to prevent big money hacking democracy.

Zubeneschamali

Still not tired of looking at this:

PhoenixParker

I don't really get the hang up about 1 in 5 pregnancies.
It's cherry picked to make the data look bad.

The ratio of live births to pregnancies depends as much on what size family people want to have as other factors like rate of unplanned pregnancy.

The more telling statistic is that 16 women per 1000 aged 15-45 have abortions each year in England and Wales. 1.6% is pretty low in my view.

We have no idea what Ireland's abortion rate is because no one can track it and it seems no one has done a survey.

Billy86

Overheal wrote: »

Does that also capture a woman who succumbs to cancer that could have been treated during the pregnancy?

And does it count suicides during unwanted pregnancies, also?

Mrsmum

Grayson wrote: »

You do make an argument there but not one I'd countenance. You say that if you withdraw life support machines the person would die. There's two problems.

1) you kind of address this by saying there's no brain and a dying body. The body isn't always dying. Not as long as it's on life support. There have been many cases where a body has survived after support has been taken away. All higher functions are gone but the part that controls breathing etc is gone. Yet the person is considered brain dead.

2) the foetus is on life support. It's just biological rather than mechanical. It is however fully dependant on it. And if we used that standard for determining life then technically terminations are OK until 9 months so long as it's done by withdrawing life support.
So I wouldn't even mention that. The ability of a body to survive without support shouldn't, in my opinion, be a determining factor.

Well my reasoning is good enough for me. If we are no longer talking about being really brain dead but have now skipped on to life support for the body, the question is what doctor would allow you to switch off the life support for a healthy developing body whose brain power is developing/improving as they wait. At the end of the day comparing the foetus to anything is pointless. It is unique.

Paranoid Bob

Overheal wrote: »

That’s a secondary argument. The 12 weeks is the proposed legislation after the floor is opened to that debate by the repeal of the 8th. You can repeal the 8th and then campaign your butt off to restrict it to rape, incest and life endangerment.

... and if this referendum is passed then on the 26th of May the unborn will continue to have all the rights afforded to them by the Protection of Life During Pregnancy Act. This argument that repealing the 8th means the unborn have no rights is another over-simplification; the unborn will have no constitutional rights, but will still have all the rights in the Protection of Life During Pregnancy Act.

The unborn will continue to have those rights until the government replaces that Act. There is a proposal for the replacement, but given our minority government and the prospect of a free vote, there is every reason to believe that proposal could be voted down, in which case the unborn will continue to have all the rights under the current Act.

When it comes to the next election you can bet that this will be an important part of the campaign and we are all free to ask the candidates and parties their position on abortion and vote for the candidates who agree with us.

... and that is how it should be. This is something that should be debated with our representatives, and it should be something that our representatives can change when the people want it to change.

For me; that is the simplest reason for voting Yes. The constitution is not the place for legislation. Vote Yes confident in the knowledge that on the 26th the unborn will have all the rights in the Protection of Life During Pregnancy Act; then campaign for the TDs that agree with your views on abortion, whether you think it should be available up to 12 weeks or you think it should be limited to the 'hard cases'.

PhoenixParker

Mrsmum wrote: »

Well my reasoning is good enough for me. If we are no longer talking about being really brain dead but have now skipped on to life support for the body, the question is what doctor would allow you to switch off the life support for a healthy developing body whose brain power is developing/improving as they wait. At the end of the day comparing the foetus to anything is pointless. It is unique.

If you want to talk about it in terms of life support, the real equivancy is with organ donation.

You can have a fully alive, living, breathing human being desperately in need of a kidney and you're the only match.

No law would force you to donate your kidney against your consent, no matter the circumstances, no matter the reason. You have bodily autonomy.

Except when your pregnant.
Why does a foetus get more rights then a living, breathing, full alive human?

bootpaws

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Still not tired of looking at this:

"Panic." Oil on canvas, 1832

pleas advice

PhoenixParker wrote: »

I don't really get the hang up about 1 in 5 pregnancies.
It's cherry picked to make the data look bad.

The more telling statistic is that 16 women per 1000 aged 15-45 have abortions each year in England and Wales. 1.6% is pretty low in my view.

it's not cherry picked, its abortions vs live births/stillbirths.

but an abortion rate of 1.6% sounds better, doesn't it? even though thats counting all women, whether they're pregnant or not...

robarmstrong

pleas advice wrote: »

it's not cherry picked, its abortions vs live births/stillbirths.

but an abortion rate of 1.6% sounds better, doesn't it? even though thats counting all women, whether they're pregnant or not...

It's cherry picked because it says 1 in 5 of ALL pregnancies, then excludes miscarriages and stillbirths (the save the 8th page I looked at said that anyways).

If they actually clarified it though I would say yes and agree with the information presented to be fair.

pitifulgod

_Dara_ wrote: »

What a toy-throwing buffoon. Both side’s ads are being blocked. This guy is an embarrassment to the No campaign but apparently he’s one of their figureheads? :eek:

That's a parody account. A buffoon nonetheless and weirdly believable as him.

swampgas

Mrsmum wrote: »

Well my reasoning is good enough for me. If we are no longer talking about being really brain dead but have now skipped on to life support for the body, the question is what doctor would allow you to switch off the life support for a healthy developing body whose brain power is developing/improving as they wait. At the end of the day comparing the foetus to anything is pointless. It is unique.

The woman who is pregnant is unique too. Her health and happiness matter more than a barely developed embryo or foetus.

Why not let women have children when they are willing and able? Rather than force women to continue with pregnancies they cannot cope with? Surely that better for women and children all round?

_Dara_

pitifulgod wrote: »

That's a parody account. A buffoon nonetheless and weirdly believable as him.

Ah ok, my bad. Will delete.

wexie

anybody wanna give any odds on whether or not he tweeted that from an android phone?

edit : ah pooh

pitifulgod

_Dara_ wrote: »

Ah ok, my bad. Will delete.

Did not negate its comedy value. :pac:

Paranoid Bob

_Dara_ wrote: »

What a toy-throwing buffoon. Both side’s ads are being blocked. This guy is an embarrassment to the No campaign but apparently he’s one of their figureheads? :eek:

He should boycott twitter too; the same policy applies on twitter as the rest of Google and YouTube...

(Just noticed this is a parody account. Shame.)

_Dara_

Paranoid Bob wrote: »

He should boycott twitter too; the same policy applies on twitter as the rest of Google and YouTube...

Sadly not him. My mistake.

gmisk

I listened to John Mc guirk on today fm talking about the Facebook ad ban.... He was useless... He has honestly imo done more damage to the save the 8th campaign than anyone else.

Mrsmum

PhoenixParker wrote: »

If you want to talk about it in terms of life support, the real equivancy is with organ donation.

You can have a fully alive, living, breathing human being desperately in need of a kidney and you're the only match.

No law would force you to donate your kidney against your consent, no matter the circumstances, no matter the reason. You have bodily autonomy.

Except when your pregnant.
Why does a foetus get more rights then a living, breathing, full alive human?

For my flesh and blood no law would be needed. That's not because I'm so wonderful. I think you'd be hard pushed to find a parent who wouldn't insist if they were the only match. Trying to compare it to this and that is no use. It's a one of a kind situation.

PhoenixParker

pleas advice wrote: »

it's not cherry picked, its abortions vs live births/stillbirths.

but an abortion rate of 1.6% sounds better, doesn't it? even though thats counting all women, whether they're pregnant or not...

1.6% does sound better and it’s more realistic.

The 1 in 5 is cherry picked in the hope that nobody will think too hard about how a statistic like that arises, or understand the deeper maths that causes it.

Suppose there are 10,000 women.
A certain number want to be pregnant (and get pregnant).
Of the remaining women 5% (500) get pregnant accidentally and have an abortion.

2000 get deliberately pregnant, 400 abortions
1 in 6 pregnancies gets aborted.

Say instead 1000 get pregnant deliberately, 450 abortions
Just under 1 in 3 pregnancies get aborted.

If 5000 plan pregnancies, 250 abortions
Just under 1 in 20 get aborted.

What matters in determining the % aborted isn’t the unplanned pregnancies it’s the number of planned pregnancies.
Obviously the real situation has some more complexity but the underlying calculation is roughly the same.

On the other hand, calculated the other way the range is 2.5%-4.5% of women having an abortion per year. Still a range, but narrower and more reflective of the real rate of abortion.

Mrsmum

Mrsmum wrote: »

For my flesh and blood no law would be needed. That's not because I'm so wonderful. I think you'd be hard pushed to find a parent who wouldn't insist if they were the only match. Trying to compare it to this and that is no use. It's a one of a kind situation.

If your daughter was pregnant, & got diagnosed with cancer at say 7/8 weeks. What would you like to happen? That she gets treatment for her cancer & lives or that the unknown unborn has the chance?
I'm going to guess, & tell me if I'm wrong, but you will pick the life of your daughter? Should she really have to travel to England to terminate her pregnancy in order to get cancer treatment here?

jluv

Ok..a very genuine question..
Why do we have an abortion legislation linked to the repeal of the 8th?
Would it not be better/clearer to have the referendum and then decide on legislation?
To me they are 2 different decisions and should be treated different..
Do we need the legislation to enable the referendum?

Mrsmum

bubblypop wrote: »

If your daughter was pregnant, & got diagnosed with cancer at say 7/8 weeks. What would you like to happen? That she gets treatment for her cancer & lives or that the unknown unborn has the chance?
I'm going to guess, & tell me if I'm wrong, but you will pick the life of your daughter? Should she really have to travel to England to terminate her pregnancy in order to get cancer treatment here?

Look you can get treatment while pregnant.

Prognosis
Overall survival of pregnant women with breast cancer may be worse than survival of nonpregnant women at all stages;[6] however, this may be primarily the result of delayed diagnosis.[9] Termination of pregnancy has not been shown to have any beneficial effect on breast cancer outcome and is not usually considered as a therapeutic option.[
From National Cancer Institute.

Women who are diagnosed with cancer while they are pregnant can start treatment for the disease immediately and do not need to worry about the effects this may have on their unborn child, a new study has found.
From Irish Health,com

Paranoid Bob

jluv wrote: »

Ok..a very genuine question..
Why do we have an abortion legislation linked to the repeal of the 8th?
Would it not be better/clearer to have the referendum and then decide on legislation?
To me they are 2 different decisions and should be treated different..
Do we need the legislation to enable the referendum?

Because uncertainty is worse than the debate we have now.

If there were no proposed legislation then the argument would be about unrestricted late term abortions and neonatal euthanasia, or about "we don't know what we're voting for."

Having the proposed legislation, even if it is likely to be voted down, gives the debate some structure.

Frank Bullitt

I could listen to McGuirk lose his **** on the radio all day, this is glorious.

(Listening to it now)

kylith

Mrsmum wrote: »

So that would be in the 7th to 8th month.

"Months 7 and 8: Transforming Cartilage to Bone
How are you doing on that calcium consumption? Keep downing those dairy products, because the majority of the calcium your baby gets from you is transferred during the third trimester — about 250 milligrams a day! She’s busy transforming cartilage to bone as well as developing muscle and building up a nice protective layer of fat".

Funny it wouldn't even be an abortion but a live birth at that stage.

No, 17 weeks. That’s the report I got from Ovio yesterday.

gmisk

Gintonious wrote: »

I could listen to McGuirk lose his **** on the radio all day, this is glorious.

(Listening to it now)

It's great isn't it lol

Frank Bullitt

gmisk wrote: »

It's great isn't it lol

How the hell does he have a job? He is a plonkler and a grade A one at that!