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

Ave Sodalis

Ave Sodalis wrote: »

I've wrote out and deleted so many posts in reply to these, but I actually can't form the words...

It says something about that person's existing bias when they read that story and assume the women was looking for an abortion. She wanted anything but! In a normal civilised country the baby would have been delivered as soon as she started going downhill. In Ireland she was left bleed almost to death.

SusieBlue

Credit where it’s due, I’d be the first to throw stones but I just had two very polite respectful LoveBoth campaigners knock on my door.

The offered me their leaflet, I said no thank you, that I was certain I’d be voting Yes.
They asked was I sure and I said yes, and they wished me goodnight and went on their way.

If only they could all be so polite and respectful.

Ave Sodalis

Flying Fox wrote: »

It says something about that person's existing bias when they read that story and assume the women was looking for an abortion. She wanted anything but! In a normal civilised country the baby would have been delivered as soon as she started going downhill. In Ireland she was left bleed almost to death.

Exactly, and if the daughter survived then, she would have likely survived if it was delivered a couple of hours earlier when the bleeding started.

volchitsa

sabat wrote: »

I've read that twice now and all I can gather from it is that she had a difficult pregnancy and birth but that both she and her daughter are alive and healthy. Is there not an inherent contradiction in using her 17 year old daughter as an emotional blackmail chip while simultaneously asserting that she would have gotten rid of her if she had the chance?

Are you saying that in other countries doctors choose to abort at 27 weeks because it's too complicated to save both, while in Ireland, the law forces doctors to save both?

So if the law changes in Ireland, you expect that doctors will choose to take the easy way out and let the baby die because the law doesn't force them to save it?

And do other European countries have a much higher rate of neonatal mortality than Ireland just because the law doesn't make them save the baby?

Like, seriously, WTF?

I wont be back in Ireland until next weekend, & I think I am glad to be missing everything that is going on!
my friend told me yesterday, she was in a pub at the weekend with a couple, early 50's, only 10 or so years older than us.
both are voting 'no'
their reason?

In USA, babies are aborted right up to birth, when they are taking them out, they stab the back of their neck with a really long needle, to kill them!
that will happen here...........apparently!!

so glad I don't have to deal with this absolute rubbish

antiskeptic

Overheal wrote: »

I also don’t understand the jump from medical student to aeronautics engineering.

Its not like its a shed load of docs signing it anyway - but if it 1000+ medical students signed the petition I don't think it attract much interest.


No slight on students of werktuigbouwen intended.

gctest50

bubblypop wrote: »

I wont be back in Ireland until next weekend, & I think I am glad to be missing everything that is going on!
my friend told me yesterday, she was in a pub at the weekend with a couple, early 50's, only 10 or so years older than us.
both are voting 'no'
their reason?

In USA, babies are aborted right up to birth, when they are taking them out, they stab the back of their neck with a really long needle, to kill them!
that will happen here...........apparently!!

so glad I don't have to deal with this absolute rubbish

A fifth of >55 have mental disorders :

‘Identified mental disorders in older adults in primary care: A cross-sectional database study’,

pleas advice

So we're shaming people with mental disorders now?

gctest50

pleas advice wrote: »

So we're shaming people with mental disorders now?

No no, but you just need to be aware of it

Pac1Man

pleas advice wrote: »

So we're shaming people with mental disorders now?

As I said, propaganda. Any which way will do.

sabat

Ave Sodalis wrote: »

I've wrote out and deleted so many posts in reply to these, but I actually can't form the words...

Please spell out for me how the 8th amendment affected her because I just don't see it. IE: specifically what treatment was available but denied to her. And by the way, if people put their personal anecdotes out there in an attempt to influence voters I'm perfectly entitled to question or analyse them.

OrlaFS2017

sabat wrote: »

Please spell out for me how the 8th amendment affected her because I just don't see it. IE: specifically what treatment was available but denied to her. And by the way, if people put their personal anecdotes out there in an attempt to influence voters I'm perfectly entitled to question or analyse them.

The baby would have been delivered earlier in any other country and been rushed into neonatal ICU.
In Ireland they had to wait until the woman was almost dead to do the same.
It’s really not that difficult to understand

antiskeptic

dudara wrote: »

It’s available on the Together for Yes website

https://www.togetherforyes.ie/doctors/

Can't see it anywhere myself. Anyone got a direct to the 1000+ doctors petition?

SusieBlue

sabat wrote: »

Please spell out for me how the 8th amendment affected her because I just don't see it. IE: specifically what treatment was available but denied to her. And by the way, if people put their personal anecdotes out there in an attempt to influence voters I'm perfectly entitled to question or analyse them.

Placenta previa is a condition where the uterus is very close or overlapping the woman’s cervix. It is a very dangerous and serious condition.

This can cause excessive bleeding in the third trimester.
When this happens, it’s medical best practice to deliver the baby ASAP so that the bleeding can be seen to and surgically stopped.

When the woman in this story presented at the hospital with this condition, they should have immediately delivered the baby. It was an emergency.

Instead, because the baby was absolutely fine, they let her sit there and haemorrage until her blood loss levels became critical.
At this point it would have started affecting the baby.
And only at this point, where she had all but bled out, was she sectioned and the baby delivered.

Either way, the baby HAD to be delivered that day. They unnecessarily made her wait until she was literally on deaths door to do it.
She came close to dying for no reason.

That is absolutely unacceptable and not medical best practice.

January

sabat wrote: »

Please spell out for me how the 8th amendment affected her because I just don't see it. IE: specifically what treatment was available but denied to her. And by the way, if people put their personal anecdotes out there in an attempt to influence voters I'm perfectly entitled to question or analyse them.

The 8th amendment affected her because they left her to hemorrhage for hours until her life was literally left hanging in the balance before doing anything about it because the foetus heartbeat was strong.

I'm seriously dumbfounded that you didn't get that from reading it.

Ave Sodalis

sabat wrote: »

Please spell out for me how the 8th amendment affected her because I just don't see it. IE: specifically what treatment was available but denied to her. And by the way, if people put their personal anecdotes out there in an attempt to influence voters I'm perfectly entitled to question or analyse them.

This has already been explained to you. It's spelled out quite clearly in the post. Without the 8th, the operation would have taken place earlier. They would not have left her to die, and took the foetus out whenever she was almost dead... as a way of saving the foetus, not her. Intervention would have happened a lot sooner, with little difference to the outcome of the baby.

smokingman

I'm seeing a sudden influx of anti choice ads from the organisations shown to be foreign run on my Facebook feed today...
Did Facebook unban them or something?

Ave Sodalis

antiskeptic wrote: »

Can't see it anywhere myself. Anyone got a direct to the 1000+ doctors petition?

It's at the bottom of that page

SusieBlue

SusieBlue wrote: »

Credit where it’s due, I’d be the first to throw stones but I just had two very polite respectful LoveBoth campaigners knock on my door.

The offered me their leaflet, I said no thank you, that I was certain I’d be voting Yes.
They asked was I sure and I said yes, and they wished me goodnight and went on their way.

If only they could all be so polite and respectful.

Not do much so in Kells tonight according to my wife.
Love Both campainers were around the park and in the Supervalu car park.
One guy in particular just approaching women and refusing to let them pass without taking a leaflet in the Supervalu car park.

When the supervisor from Supervalu came out and told him he had to leave the car park as it is private property and he didn't have a permit and they were receiving complaints from their customers, the campainer refused to leave saying no one complained to him.

My wife was about to say something, but a guy standing beside her called out and said he was complaining to him and the supervisor about his behaviour.

The campaigner tried to hand the guy and my wife a leaflet which was greated with a polite no thanks. He then proceeded to leave the car park stopping at every car on the way to place a leaflet.

Dressing gown

sabat wrote: »

Please spell out for me how the 8th amendment affected her because I just don't see it. IE: specifically what treatment was available but denied to her. And by the way, if people put their personal anecdotes out there in an attempt to influence voters I'm perfectly entitled to question or analyse them.

sabat wrote: »

Please spell out for me how the 8th amendment affected her because I just don't see it. IE: specifically what treatment was available but denied to her. And by the way, if people put their personal anecdotes out there in an attempt to influence voters I'm perfectly entitled to question or analyse them.

If she had died would you get it then? Cos if not there’s no point in trying to explain. You won’t hear what’s said with those hands over your ears. She didn’t die. Medical treatment isn’t just about not letting people die. That’s not where the bar is at. In France you would be prosecuted for not intervening to save the woman as it is a crime not to help someone when you can. We aren’t in France but can you see that a doctor is supposed to help someone get better BEFORE they are about to die. Oh, unless they are female, and may be or may be not pregnant. Because of the 8th amendment the health of the baby is put ahead that of the mother. So therefore, and I’m trying to explain slowly so you can follow, the 8th affected her because it DELAYED her treatment and she could have died. If you still don’t get it I’m sorry you will need to ask a child to explain it in easier terms for you so you can understand. My seven year old gets it..

A friend of mine got a booklet in the door from the anti choicers today, masquerading as an official government information leaflet but full of the usual lies. On the front it says "Your guide to the referendum: Information on the government's proposals" and inside it says "Unborn babies at all stages of pregnancy will have no constitutional rights and (in bold) you will never have a chance to vote on this again."

Has to be illegal surely?

pleas advice

Ave Sodalis wrote: »

This has already been explained to you. It's spelled out quite clearly in the post. Without the 8th, the operation would have taken place earlier. They would not have left her to die, and took the foetus out whenever she was almost dead... as a way of saving the foetus, not her. Intervention would have happened a lot sooner, with little difference to the outcome of the baby.

How did the 8th prevent the operation taking place sooner?
There was a case brought up earlier which happened before the 8th was in place, which was blamed on the 8th.

Overheal

antiskeptic wrote: »

Can't see it anywhere myself. Anyone got a direct to the 1000+ doctors petition?

Well you can’t see the difference between the Holocaust and abortions either so I’m hardly surprised. But, it takes time to load from that page as it’s loaded from a widget. Here’s a direct link to the petition signatures including 1000+ doctors as advertised.

https://airtable.com/shrjybYrav6nobuTs/tbllRWNV6aANY6htW?backgroundColor=green

Flying Fox

Flying Fox wrote: »

A friend of mine got a booklet in the door from the anti choicers today, masquerading as an official government information leaflet but full of the usual lies. On the front it says "Your guide to the referendum: Information on the government's proposals" and inside it says "Unborn babies at all stages of pregnancy will have no constitutional rights and (in bold) you will never have a chance to vote on this again."

Has to be illegal surely?

Any chance of getting some images of that one from your friend to pop up on here, and where they live roughly of course?

Be interesting to see if it's just a local thing or if more people start getting them.

fxotoole

antiskeptic wrote: »

Can't see it anywhere myself. Anyone got a direct to the 1000+ doctors petition?

https://airtable.com/shrjybYrav6nobuTs/tbllRWNV6aANY6htW?backgroundColor=green

joe40

For the people questioning the story about the lady that was allowed to suffer severe blood loss, to the extent that the doctor told the husband she had a 20% chance of surviving.
How much money would you gamble on a bet where there was an 80% chance you would lose?

Ave Sodalis

pleas advice wrote:

How did the 8th prevent the operation taking place sooner? There was a case brought up earlier which happened before the 8th was in place, which was blamed on the 8th.

Lets turn this question around, it might make the situation easier to understand; why did the doctors sit and wait for the woman to nearly bleed to death before operating, when the 8th was the only possible thing stopping them?

The story was in 2000... the 8th has been in place since 1983.

AnneFrank

Lots of applause for the no side

pleas advice

Previous case, happened in 1982, can't remember the name of the woman now

Ave Sodalis

pleas advice wrote:

Previous case, happened in 1982, can't remember the name of the woman now

Susan Hodgers.

We aren't talking about her right now.