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

ELM327

RobertKK wrote: »

So do people think doctors will administer the abortion pills and then send them home, rather then make sure their patient is fine and lacking complications when she aborts?

That's a brainless question.
The appointment would have to happen anyway though, as if she didnt have a termination she'd be in for a 12 week checkup anyway.

So your point (of this taking up GP time) is moot.

Calina

RobertKK wrote: »

So do people think doctors will administer the abortion pills and then send them home, rather then make sure their patient is fine and lacking complications when she aborts?

As opposed to where women take the pills in secret now, you mean?

Unlikely. But you should really consider whether 'we haven't enough doctors to provide medical care' is a prolife argument: clue: it isn't.

The doctors threw the clothes off themselves over free medical care for the under 5s as well. This is not an abortion issue.

tigger123

RobertKK wrote: »

The new head of the doctors union had this to say:



http://www.thejournal.ie/maitiu-o-tuathail-interview-4005316-May2018/

Doctors are not in a position to provide a GP led abortion service.

Doctor's union representatives are in the middle of negotiations on a new contract with the State at the moment; they won't take on extra work, or facilitate the Govenrment on anything until it's factored in to their pay.

They're using it to make a point.

RobertKK

ELM327 wrote: »

I to the of yes in seven to the?
You're not even forming comprehensible sentences anymore.
Is this because your leader had a meltdown?

Leader in meltdown?, your trust women leader in the department of health who is responsible for this referendum should have resigned by now given the cover up in the cervical cancer scandal, women dead and more with terminal cancer and he says the HSE boss stepped down not because of the cover up and the hurt and pain caused to women but because it is the interest of public confidence in the system.

RobertKK

tigger123 wrote: »

Doctor's union representatives are in the middle of negotiations on a new contract with the State at the moment; they won't take on extra work, or facilitate the Govenrment on anything until it's factored in to their pay.

They're using it to make a point.

But there is a waiting list to see a lot of doctors, it is not like the doctors are twiddling their thumbs with no work. There is a shortage of doctors as it is.

Hammer Archer

Tom Mann Centuria wrote: »

I don't agree with RobertKK, if I could vote, I'd vote yes, but he's right about a lack of respect, in this thread at least, from Yes supporters. The level of vitriol and baiting posts from people apparently supporting yes is a sight to behold.

It's actually exasperating seeing this kind of post. We've seen several posters advocate that raped women should be grilled by a committee who would determine whether she was raped or not before she would be granted a termination. We've had a poster advocate forcibly removing women's wombs if they had an abortion. We've had people being called murderers etc as per usual. And, in my case, a rather charming no poster has for weeks now been constantly mocking and attacking the fact that my partner had a miscarriage and our own personal views on this miscarriage.
Any input on this or do you still think that it's only the yes side?

ELM327

RobertKK wrote: »

Leader in meltdown?, your trust women leader in the department of health who is responsible for this referendum should have resigned by now given the cover up in the cervical cancer scandal, women dead and more with terminal cancer and he says the HSE boss stepped down not because of the cover up and the hurt and pain caused to women but because it is the interest of public confidence in the system.

Disgusting.
How DARE you try to use the cervical smear issues to your sides gain.
You vile, VILE little man.

I wonder if it was you that put the disgusting poster at a school in kilcock? Manipulative and shocking, it's right up your street.

Paranoid Bob

ELM327 wrote: »

The linked article is about GP fatigue, and is in no way related to the outcome of this referendum.
The solution is more GPs, and this is needed irrespective of the outcome of the referendum.

It's very important not to play into the manipulation and lies of the NO side. Particularly RobertKK. The others are just mindlessly shouting into the void but Robert makes points that are twisted in a way that to the layman who offers but a cursory glance they seem to support no. It's only with critical thought and objectivity that they are exposed for the lies and manipulation that they are.

If it were a real issue they would have come out against the 8th, But they haven't

It is important to have an honest debate here.
Providing an abortion service, even in the simplest case, is more than providing two pills in a single appointment, as you had characterised it. At the very least there will be at least two appointments, 72 hours apart, with counseling available in that time. There should (I expect) also be an examination to make sure the pregnancy is not atypical in a way that would cause complications when taking the pill.


The goal here is to have a system that provides good health outcomes for people in Ireland. If the GPs say they need additional support for that we should listen.
This is not a reason to vote No, but it is a chance to be honest about the cost of voting Yes.

RobertKK

Calina wrote: »

As opposed to where women take the pills in secret now, you mean?

Unlikely. But you should really consider whether 'we haven't enough doctors to provide medical care' is a prolife argument: clue: it isn't.

The doctors threw the clothes off themselves over free medical care for the under 5s as well. This is not an abortion issue.

Of course it is a pro life issue, the more doctors the better it is for all lives.

ELM327

Calina wrote: »

As opposed to where women take the pills in secret now, you mean?

Unlikely. But you should really consider whether 'we haven't enough doctors to provide medical care' is a prolife argument: clue: it isn't.

The doctors threw the clothes off themselves over free medical care for the under 5s as well. This is not an abortion issue.

+1
That's the cervical cancer debacle and the "poor overrun doctors" that robert has tried to use as deflections today, and it's not even 9am.
Can't wait to see what's next.

The referendum is on a friday and that's the day he collects his pension so he can't vote? Perhaps? A rational, non manipulative argument? Unlikely.

RobertKK wrote: »

But there is a waiting list to see a lot of doctors, it is not like the doctors are twiddling their thumbs with no work. There is a shortage of doctors as it is.

Then we need more doctors and we need them anyway.
As I said, this is not related to the referendum at all.

Calina

RobertKK wrote: »

ELM327 wrote: »

I to the of yes in seven to the?
You're not even forming comprehensible sentences anymore.
Is this because your leader had a meltdown?

Leader in meltdown?, your trust women leader in the department of health who is responsible for this referendum should have resigned by now given the cover up in the cervical cancer scandal, women dead and more with terminal cancer and he says the HSE boss stepped down not because of the cover up and the hurt and pain caused to women but because it is the interest of public confidence in the system.

Is there a problem with trusting women because like they get cervical cancer or are you grasping at straws to try and get rid of Simon Harris about whom you wrote a whingung screed a day or two ago.

Cos anecdotally there is overlap between the antiabortion and anti HPV vaccination programme so I struggle to see a protecting women consistency here.

Plus if you cared about women with cancer you would be in favour of repealing the 8th amendment for reasons outlined by other posters and in assorted In Her Shoes testimonies.

ELM327

Paranoid Bob wrote: »

It is important to have an honest debate here.
Providing an abortion service, even in the simplest case, is more than providing two pills in a single appointment, as you had characterised it. At the very least there will be at least two appointments, 72 hours apart, with counseling available in that time. There should (I expect) also be an examination to make sure the pregnancy is not atypical in a way that would cause complications when taking the pill.


The goal here is to have a system that provides good health outcomes for people in Ireland. If the GPs say they need additional support for that we should listen.
This is not a reason to vote No, but it is a chance to be honest about the cost of voting Yes.

The GPs will say this anyway, they did the same about the under 5s care.
They are in a negotiation process with the state. It's not relevant to the issue at hand.

I've been to 2 abortions for 2 female close friends in the last 4 years.
There were 2 visits 1 day apart. The pills are administered, 1 orally and 1 vaginally.
After that the woman has to wait to ensure the pills have no side effects (other than severe blood loss) and that they have worked. "Passed the pregnancy" is how the UK nurses described it.

There was no active care needed, beyond the pills being administered (5 mins) and a check out.

RobertKK wrote: »

Of course it is a pro life issue, the more doctors the better it is for all lives.

Then hire more? Irrelevant to this issue.

ohnonotgmail

RobertKK wrote: »

So do people think doctors will administer the abortion pills and then send them home, rather then make sure their patient is fine and lacking complications when she aborts?

So NOW you are suddenly concerned with the health of women?

Calina

RobertKK wrote: »

Calina wrote: »

As opposed to where women take the pills in secret now, you mean?

Unlikely. But you should really consider whether 'we haven't enough doctors to provide medical care' is a prolife argument: clue: it isn't.

The doctors threw the clothes off themselves over free medical care for the under 5s as well. This is not an abortion issue.

Of course it is a pro life issue, the more doctors the better it is for all lives.

Including women's lives. Instead of shipping them out to surgical abortions in the UK like we do at present.

Zubeneschamali

Paranoid Bob wrote: »

I presume there are specific stories associated with each of those three points, but I don't know any of them.

Youth Defence. Per the Irish Times:

Anti-abortion groups the Life Institute and its sister organisation, Youth Defence, ignored six requests from the political watchdog regarding their potential status as a lobby group, it has emerged. The Standards in Public Office Commission (Sipo) sent letters and emails to both organisations seeking clarity on whether they should be registered as third parties for political purposes.
The commission has expressed frustration at current legislation, which provides no sanction to compel organisations to co-operate with it.

You will notice that Youth Defence is not on SIPOs list although they describe themselves on Facebook as "Ireland's largest and most active pro-life group".

Youth Defence has shared offices with the Life Institute and with Cóir over the years, both of which have registered.

Here is Senator Mullen begging for funds on US TV:

RobertKK

ELM327 wrote: »

Disgusting.
How DARE you try to use the cervical smear issues to your sides gain.
You vile, VILE little man.

I wonder if it was you that put the disgusting poster at a school in kilcock? Manipulative and shocking, it's right up your street.

Do you think it is good that a health minister is hanging onto his job because of the referendum which he is responsible for.
Do you think he has credibility when he says trust women but fails to condemn the man he employed who didn’t trust women and who had memos about keeping it covered up to avoid media attention back in 2016?
That is what is vile, it is vile we have dead and terminally ill women from cover ups

It was said last night on TV3 that the referendum is keeping Simon Harris in his job.

PhoenixParker

Paranoid Bob wrote: »

It is important to have an honest debate here.
Providing an abortion service, even in the simplest case, is more than providing two pills in a single appointment, as you had characterised it. At the very least there will be at least two appointments, 72 hours apart, with counseling available in that time. There should (I expect) also be an examination to make sure the pregnancy is not atypical in a way that would cause complications when taking the pill.


The goal here is to have a system that provides good health outcomes for people in Ireland. If the GPs say they need additional support for that we should listen.
This is not a reason to vote No, but it is a chance to be honest about the cost of voting Yes.

There are roughly 3500 abortions in the UK each year that we know about.
Allowing for those not providing addresses and those ordering pills, let's say 6000 abortions total in Ireland each year.

There are 2500 GPs operating in Ireland according to the HSE

So less than 3 abortions per year per gp, or 6 appointments per year per gp.

Many women having abortions will visit their GP anyway either before or after so those 6 are not necessarily additional visits over and above what would have happened anyway.

This is not something that will cause a massive increase in stress on GPs.
It's one extra under 6 patient.

NuMarvel

RobertKK wrote: »

So do people think doctors will administer the abortion pills and then send them home, rather then make sure their patient is fine and lacking complications when she aborts?

Scotland changed their laws last year to allow precisely this.

Women in Scotland will be allowed to take abortion pill at home

“Scotland is now the only part of the UK to offer women the opportunity to take misoprostol at home when this is clinically appropriate, a decision that allows women to be in control of their treatment and as comfortable as possible during this procedure.”

The change will bring Scotland in line with the US, France and Sweden

The pills themselves are perfectly safe, and there's no reason someone can't take the pills at home, barring something in their own individual medical history. And that's something that can be discussed between the woman and her doctor. They can discuss the option that best suits the woman's own personal circumstances, and schedule follow ups accordingly.

None of which can happen while the 8th is in place by the way.

gctest50

RobertKK wrote: »

.......,.

That is what is vile, it is vile we have dead and terminally ill women from cover ups

Like Savita for example

gctest50

Amazing the most vocal antichoice ones seem to fit the same profile :

Male, pale and stale and worried about their pension funds

tigger123

RobertKK wrote: »

Leader in meltdown?, your trust women leader in the department of health who is responsible for this referendum should have resigned by now given the cover up in the cervical cancer scandal, women dead and more with terminal cancer and he says the HSE boss stepped down not because of the cover up and the hurt and pain caused to women but because it is the interest of public confidence in the system.

What precisely has Simon Harris done that would warrant his resignation?

Galwayguy35

Have to admit I was one of the undecided group and I was struggling as to what way I would vote but after listening to the stories that have come out in the last few months I've decided to vote yes.

RobertKK

gctest50 wrote: »

Like Savita for example

There was no cover there. It was found to be mismanagement of Sepsis.

gctest50

RobertKK wrote: »

There was no cover there. It was found to be mismanagement of Sepsis.

Lies.


Unless you think you know more than Prof Sir Sabaratnam Arulkumaran

Savita Halappanavar died as a direct result of Ireland's restrictive abortion laws and not simply because she contracted sepsis, the author of the independent report into her death has said.

Anybody, any junior doctor, would have said this is a sepsis condition, we must terminate.

"She did have sepsis. However, if she had a termination in the first days as requested, she would not have had sepsis. If she had the termination when asked for it, the sepsis would not arise.

"We would never have heard of her and she would be alive today," he said.

NoVoter

robarmstrong wrote: »

January wrote: »

Already put the brand new no vote poster on ignore. Feels good.

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

You'd enjoy that, wouldn't you?

erica74 wrote: »

I haven't genuinely lol at a post on this thread in a while :pac:

The Yes side here claim that they are happy to engage in debate etc. I posted what I hoped was a fairly reasonable piece yesterday, giving my reasons for a No vote, and outlining why I feel some of the 'facts' as presented by the Yes side are anything but. I count approx 13/14 responses to my post from yesterday afternoon - the vast majority of these (a selection above) completely ignore my points in favour of some virtual high fiving and thanks whoring (including from posters who have said they are open to reasonable debate). It's of interest that even a Yes voter was attacked last night because he criticised the conduct of the Yes side on this thread. Seriously guys, look with some objectivity and see what a circle jerk this thread is - there are a lot (it is not just a few) Yes posters on this thread who are doing their side no good at all. I know I'm not going to be convincing anyone here to vote No, but at least try and show that there is some substance behind the Yes side, other than Right On virtue signalling. There were just two attempts (one only this morning) to debate the substantive issues I raised - I will reply to these separately. There were also one or two posters who said they had no problem with abortion on demand - that's fair enough; I disagree with that position, but I respect its honesty.

seamus wrote: »

It's curious, NoVoter, that all of your reasons for voting No are based on being unhappy with the laws and abortion practices in another jurisdiction, yet the effect of retaining the eighth amendment is to send all Irish abortions to that same jurisdiction.

Surely if the nature of what happens in the UK makes you so unhappy, you would prefer to bring these abortions back to Ireland where your vote can be used to influence the laws that you disagree with?

Voting No is a vote to continue to send abortions to the UK. That's a fact.

Voting Yes is a vote to bring those abortions back under Irish jurisdiction. That's a fact.

So given that, why are you voting No, when clearly a "Yes" vote is more aligned to your objections?

Seamus is one of the chief promulgators of misleading 'facts' on the Yes side, and perhaps its most erudite - yet even he has ignored the points I have raised (which directly contradict his own posts). To answer the above: the proposed legislation (abortion on demand until 24 weeks as I see it) is indivisible from a Yes vote in the referendum - it is very clear that this is what will be implemented following a Yes (which I accept is inevitable). Every party, every newspaper, pretty much every media outlet are on board - there will be a show of debate but in reality there will be no "influencing" these laws.

RobertKK

tigger123 wrote: »

What precisely has Simon Harris done that would warrant his resignation?

Spent months mostly tweeting about abortion when there was a crisis in the hospitals, and nothing about the bed shortages. His department fighting terminally ill women tooth and nail to the doors of court houses.
Simon says the HSE boss resigned not because of the cover up but for confidence in the health system - despite it being in memos from 2016 that the cover up was to avoid media attention. He can’t even be honest about why Tony O’Brien had to go.
The same Simon Harris who allowed the HSE boss have two jobs, when he was already failing at his current job, given the health system here needed full attention.

ohnonotgmail

NoVoter wrote: »

The Yes side here claim that they are happy to engage in debate etc. I posted what I hoped was a fairly reasonable piece yesterday, giving my reasons for a No vote, and outlining why I feel some of the 'facts' as presented by the Yes side are anything but. I count approx 13/14 responses to my post from yesterday afternoon - the vast majority of these (a selection above) completely ignore my points in favour of some virtual high fiving and thanks whoring (including from posters who have said they are open to reasonable debate). It's of interest that even a Yes voter was attacked last night because he criticised the conduct of the Yes side on this thread. Seriously guys, look with some objectivity and see what a circle jerk this thread is - there are a lot (it is not just a few) Yes posters on this thread who are doing their side no good at all. I know I'm not going to be convincing anyone here to vote No, but at least try and show that there is some substance behind the Yes side, other than Right On virtue signalling. There were just two attempts (one only this morning) to debate the substantive issues I raised - I will reply to these separately. There were also one or two posters who said they had no problem with abortion on demand - that's fair enough; I disagree with that position, but I respect its honesty.


Seamus is one of the chief promulgators of misleading 'facts' on the Yes side, and perhaps its most erudite - yet even he has ignored the points I have raised (which directly contradict his own posts). To answer the above: the proposed legislation (abortion on demand until 24 weeks as I see it) is indivisible from a Yes vote in the referendum - it is very clear that this is what will be implemented following a Yes (which I accept is inevitable). Every party, every newspaper, pretty much every media outlet are on board - there will be a show of debate but in reality there will be no "influencing" these laws.

Can you point out where these 24 weeks come into play? where are they mentioned in the proposed legislation?

RobertKK

gctest50 wrote: »

Lies.


Unless you think you know more than Prof Sir Sabaratnam Arulkumaran

Well an abortion advocate would say that. He said legalised abortion leads to less abortion as well...

seamus

NoVoter wrote: »

(abortion on demand until 24 weeks as I see it)

That's incorrect.

is indivisible from a Yes vote in the referendum

That's also incorrect.

there will be a show of debate but in reality there will be no "influencing" these laws.

That's begging the question. Identical to how the pro-life side accused the CA of bias before it even started and withdrew the pro-life speakers.

But let's entertain that notion for a second:
How are laws that you definitely cannot influence, ever - i.e. UK laws - preferable to laws that you definitely can influence, just perhaps with a lot of difficulty - i.e. Irish laws?

In effect your entire previous post - and in fact most of the pro-life campaign - consists of the following statement:

England allows X, Y & Z in relation to abortion, therefore Ireland should not allow abortion in case the same happens here and instead we should continue to send women to England for abortion.

It's a very bare and raw cognitive dissonance - We hate England's abortion laws, so let's keep using them for abortions.

kylith

RobertKK wrote: »

gctest50 wrote: »

Like Savita for example

There was no cover there. It was found to be mismanagement of Sepsis.

Which was caused by leaving her uterus an open wound for days on end.