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

Mrsmum

Mrsmum wrote: »

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

But if in the first trimester of pregnancy, they will not treat you in Ireland.
My cousin had 6 months of chemo last year, & had a pregnancy test before each treatment.

Would you really prefer your daughter not to get treatment?

_Dara_

Mrsmum wrote: »

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

My breast cancer treatment was incompatible with pregnancy. CT scans are also not allowed. That would contribute to a delayed diagnosis. Only certain cancer treatments are allowed during pregnancy and they are not suited to every person. So some patients will not be able to receive *any* treatment.

Also, breast cancer is not the only cancer. There are, I think, 200 different ones.

jluv

Paranoid Bob wrote: »

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.

Thanks for that!
But technically the referendum could have gone ahead without legislation being proposed?
I'm only trying to figure out why the legislation is part and parcel of the deal

spookwoman

Mrsmum wrote: »

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

If you start treatment in the first trimester there is an increased chance of miscarriage and deformities even pro life sites say it

MacMillan
Chemotherapy is the most common treatment given during pregnancy. You usually start chemotherapy after you are 14 weeks pregnant. At this stage research shows these babies don’t seem to have problems any different to babies whose mothers did not have chemotherapy.

The drugs you have will also depend on the type of cancer you have. Your doctor will avoid giving you certain drugs that could be harmful to the baby.

Irish Cancer Society
Avoid pregnancy during chemotherapy, in case the drugs harm your baby. Many doctors believe it is better not to get pregnant for 2 years after your chemotherapy ends. There can also be a risk of miscarriage, or birth defects in children. Speak to your doctor if you have any worries.

If you became pregnant before your cancer was diagnosed it is important to discuss all your options with your doctor.

It may be possible to delay chemotherapy until later in your pregnancy or until your baby is born.

In some cases, it is also possible to have chemotherapy and deliver a healthy baby. However, depending on your situation you may not have a choice.

Pro Life Info
Some women will ask to delay some treatments until such a time as the baby is unlikely to be adversely affected by such treatment. The unborn child has developed all its organs and limbs by the 12th week of pregnancy. Hence chemotherapy can be given to a woman in the second and third trimester without causing any abnormality in the unborn child.

PhoenixParker

Mrsmum wrote: »

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

Treatment for cancer is very heavily dependent on the characteristics of the particular cancer - where it is in the body and how aggressive a cancer it is.

Some need to be treated more urgently and cannot await the ending of a pregnancy.

https://www.macmillan.org.uk/information-and-support/audience/cancer-and-pregnancy/making-treating-decisions.html

Aside from all that, pregnancy is tough on the body.
Cancer treatment is tough on the body.

Physically and mentally I would not want to be trying to cope with both at once, especially while trying to be a mother to my living, breathing children.
Nor would I want to be trying to care for a newborn in the midst of cancer treatment.

Do you really think the state should force me to?
Even if say, I'm a single mother with three kids under 10 and no family support.

Mrsmum

kylith wrote: »

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

Obviously going along great.

kylith

Mrsmum wrote: »

Obviously going along great.

Do far. Anomoly scan in a few weeks, which I am obviously bricking it about. Especially since if there’s something wrong and the 8th isn’t repealed...

Paranoid Bob

jluv wrote: »

Thanks for that!
But technically the referendum could have gone ahead without legislation being proposed?
I'm only trying to figure out why the legislation is part and parcel of the deal

Right.

There is an Act required to create the referendum but that is, as you say, completely independent of the replacement to the Protection of Life During Pregnancy Act.
The only reason the government has published the heads of bill for the replacement is to give the debate some structure.

zom

gaius c wrote: »

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.

Taking into account percentage of Yes / No (potential) supporters on internet, this is already quite hacking to be honest...

NuMarvel

jluv wrote: »

Thanks for that!
But technically the referendum could have gone ahead without legislation being proposed?
I'm only trying to figure out why the legislation is part and parcel of the deal

Technically, you're absolutely right. There's no legal reason why the government has to say anything about what they would like to do afterwards. They could just say, we're proposing to make this change and we'll talk about what comes afterwards if you vote yes.

But from a practical point of view, that would have just played right into the hands of the No side. They'd have an absolute field day making all sorts of allegations about what would come afterwards, far more so than they are now. And Yes campaigners wouldn't have been able to counter those claims if there wasn't some guidance on what's proposed to follow.

Like Bob said, it gives some structure to the debate. Everyone has the same point of reference, and it (hopefully) leads to a more informed discussion. For all the talk that we can't trust politicians, I think most people know politicians won't be so foolish as to do a complete u-turn from laws suggested in the course of a referendum campaign. It'd be political suicide.

Dressing gown

Question. How will Brexit effect the ability to travel to the UK for an abortion (if at all)?

January

Dressing gown wrote: »

Question. How will Brexit effect the ability to travel to the UK for an abortion (if at all)?

It's not known yet.

Mrsmum

Regarding cancer, I really could pull loads of articles to say a woman can be treated during pregnancy but I accept there will always be exceptions. Cancer to my mind directly puts your life at risk and I can't see where the 8th in its actual wording prevents treatment. Doctors need to be given a directive as to what 'as far as practicable' means because if people are dying of cancer from non treatment then their interpretation is crap. It's a get out clause and rightly so for such situations if ever I heard one.

NuMarvel

Dressing gown wrote: »

Question. How will Brexit effect the ability to travel to the UK for an abortion (if at all)?

Unknown at this point I'd say. We'll have to wait to see what kind of Brexit deal is agreed first and how it addresses travel to and from the UK.

RobertKK

The Yes side are happy with Google because the No side had a big campaign paid for on the Google platform, while the TogetherForYes side have a national littering campaign to every household with 1.6 million leaflets for landfill, fires and recycling.

NuMarvel

Mrsmum wrote: »

Regarding cancer, I really could pull loads of articles to say a woman can be treated during pregnancy but I accept there will always be exceptions. Cancer to my mind directly puts your life at risk and I can't see where the 8th in its actual wording prevents treatment. Doctors need to be given a directive as to what 'as far as practicable' means because if people are dying of cancer from non treatment then their interpretation is crap. It's a get out clause and rightly so for such situations if ever I heard one.

Doctors already have their interpretation, via the PLDP Act, which is based on the X Case judgement. There must be a real and substantial risk to the woman's life before an abortion can be carried out. That doesn't mean there must be an immediate risk but it does mean that doctors can't just say someone has cancer, they might die otherwise.

And if you don't like that, then maybe you'll appreciate why some of us don't think complex clinical matters and life and death issues can be properly dealt with in something shorter than a tweet.

NuMarvel

RobertKK wrote: »

The Yes side are happy with Google because the No side had a big campaign paid for on the Google platform, while the TogetherForYes side have a national littering campaign to every household with 1.6 million leaflets for landfill, fires and recycling.

U ok hun?

Overheal

pitifulgod wrote: »

98%, 1 in 50 chance of failing is actually pretty substantial given a potential pregnancy. I think most people who have had sex, don't need the details of conception explained. Regardless of how the pregnancy comes about, I don't believe in forcing women to continue it against their will.

98% is very optimistic. The United States CDC collected the real data on this and found it’s more like 82%.

spookwoman

RobertKK wrote: »

The Yes side are happy with Google because the No side had a big campaign paid for on the Google platform, while the TogetherForYes side have a national littering campaign to every household with 1.6 million leaflets for landfill, fires and recycling.

6 hours ago

RobertKK wrote: »

Yes....who have all political party leaders supporting them, who have state bodies who get tax payers money supporting yes, the media is behind yes, the celebs lets not forget them...lol
Yes side is the establishment vote.

Of course Yes don't want a fair fight as they are worried that the No side are winning the hearts and minds for the hearts and minds of all human lives, not just some human lives.

Are there any Yes posters up that mention the unborn given we will be voting to keep or remove their right to life?
It does appear Yes are afraid of the unborn life in this debate.
Yes for some lives matter.
No for all lives matter.

You are sounding like a broken record. You have this thing of waiting for a few hours and repeating your statements

RobertKK

So disagreement on the Yes side. Dr Peter Boylan made look silly.

https://twitter.com/8threfnews/status/994298384373698562?s=21

Dr Rhona Mahony said at 9 to 10 weeks gestation that Down Syndrome can be diagnosed with a 99% certainty rate. 50% will abort.
Dr Peter Boylan tried to make out she was wrong.

RobertKK

spookwoman wrote: »

6 hours ago

You are sounding like a broken record. You have this thing of waiting for a few hours and repeating your statements

They are not the same.

_Dara_

Mrsmum wrote: »

Regarding cancer, I really could pull loads of articles to say a woman can be treated during pregnancy but I accept there will always be exceptions. Cancer to my mind directly puts your life at risk and I can't see where the 8th in its actual wording prevents treatment. Doctors need to be given a directive as to what 'as far as practicable' means because if people are dying of cancer from non treatment then their interpretation is crap. It's a get out clause and rightly so for such situations if ever I heard one.

A woman can *sometimes* be treated during pregnancy. In many cases it’s not possible. Even breast cancer has different sub-types with different treatment needs. And that’s only one type of cancer.

We are not talking “exceptions” here. I have the most common form of breast cancer and had I been pregnant, I could not have been treated with the best first line treatment.

Overheal

RobertKK wrote: »

The Yes side are happy with Google because the No side had a big campaign paid for on the Google platform, while the TogetherForYes side have a national littering campaign to every household with 1.6 million leaflets for landfill, fires and recycling.

You sound like Trump. Don’t sound like Trump. “Election interference is good if it helps me! Spasiba, comrade!”

RobertKK

NuMarvel wrote: »

U ok hun?

Fine and you?, just thinking about fire material that I will be using from the Yes campaign that will be delivered from an post.

jluv

Paranoid Bob wrote: »

Right.

There is an Act required to create the referendum but that is, as you say, completely independent of the replacement to the Protection of Life During Pregnancy Act.
The only reason the government has published the heads of bill for the replacement is to give the debate some structure.

Thank you for your reply..
Structure for debate..great..
But for me, I find it a major dilemma..
I am 100% for repeal. But not for the proposed abortion proposal. I'd like that to be a seperate debate and think it should be. Thats why I wanted to know if the legislation needed to be in place for repeal. As it seems not to be a requirement,and possibly a debating point, it may be adding a consious defining question for others (myself included)
Now I am quite happy to fight with my concsious and repeal but I'm also strong enough to let my feelings be felt on legislation. But I feel others are of the opinion that abortion on demand HAS to be the option. The government should take that off the table IMO to allow for a fair referendum.

Overheal

RobertKK wrote: »

Fine and you?, just thinking about fire material that I will be using from the Yes campaign that they will be delivered from an post.

Well it’s helping the local economy, supporting the local postal system rather than lining the profit margins in California.

Mrsmum

NuMarvel wrote: »

Doctors already have their interpretation, via the PLDP Act, which is based on the X Case judgement. There must be a real and substantial risk to the woman's life before an abortion can be carried out. That doesn't mean there must be an immediate risk but it does mean that doctors can't just say someone has cancer, they might die otherwise.

And if you don't like that, then maybe you'll appreciate why some of us don't think complex clinical matters and life and death issues can be properly dealt with in something shorter than a tweet.

But in that act, regarding cancer:
Two physicians, one an obstetrician and the other a specialist in the field of the relevant condition, must concur.[17] For example, if the woman has cancer, the two physicians would be an obstetrician and an oncologist. Where relevant, the specialists must also consult the woman's general practitioner (GP). The termination would be an elective procedure performed at an appropriate institution.
How is this not allowing for abortion if the doctors say it is necessary ?

eta not ignoring anyone else but need to do other things now.

Overheal

It’s also biodegradable and helps support the print shops.

NuMarvel

RobertKK wrote: »

Fine and you?, just thinking about fire material that I will be using from the Yes campaign that they will be delivered from an post.

That's what you're thinking about right now? Really? That seems.... petty. But you do you, buddy.

Martina1991

RobertKK wrote: »

So disagreement on the Yes side. Dr Peter Boylan made look silly.

Dr Rhona Mahony said at 9 to 10 weeks gestation that Down Syndrome can be diagnosed with a 99% certainty rate. 50% will abort.
Dr Peter Boylan tried to make out she was wrong.

Can be diagnosed.
Routine pregnancies are not screened for DS before 12 weeks.