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

kylith

PlaneSpeeking wrote: »

I'm a firm "Yes" to Repeal vote - and I asked a similar question.

The reply was "where there is life there is hope".

Good grief.

wexie

PlaneSpeeking wrote: »

I'm a firm "Yes" to Repeal vote - and I asked a similar question.

The reply was "where there is life there is hope".

kinda 'Alfie's Army' level of reasoning so....

SusieBlue

Thirdfox wrote: »

Unfortunately it "literally" isn't.

The 8th prevented her from getting an abortion when she requested one - that is absolutely factual.

The medical treatment she should have gotten would have resulted in a legal abortion which she would be entitled to under the 8th.

At the HSE enquiry Prof Arulkulmaran stated (again I refer to the Examiner opinion piece):
Arulkumaran said he would have offered to terminate the pregnancy on Sunday, Oct 21, and advised termination after Savita’s waters broke in the early hours of Monday, Oct 22.

This is within the remit of doctors operating under the 8th.

And here we have an article where Prof Arulkulmaran specifically states that the 8th amendment played a major role in Savitas death.

An excerpt from the article:

Prof Sir Sabaratnam Arulkumaran, who chaired the HSE inquiry into Ms Halappanavar’s death in 2012, said it was “very clear” to him Dr Katherine Asbury, the consultant treating her, had been “concerned about the legal issues” throughout her considerations as to whether to terminate the pregnancy.

The professor emeritus in obstetrics and gynaecology at St George’s University, London told the Oireachtas committee on the Eighth Amendment that: “Things were made more difficult because of the legislation.”

Triceratops Ballet

PlaneSpeeking wrote: »

I'm a firm "Yes" to Repeal vote - and I asked a similar question.

The reply was "where there is life there is hope".

That is utterly depressing

Zubeneschamali

PlaneSpeeking wrote: »

I'm a firm "Yes" to Repeal vote - and I asked a similar question.

The reply was "where there is life there is hope".

Which really means "Where there is life there are legal impediments to sensible treatment, but we have to try and put a brave face on it".

SusieBlue

Regardless, even if the sepsis had never happened, it was cruel and inhumane to keep a woman hospitalised for a week, waiting for her miscarriage to happen.
She was told there was no hope. She was told there was no chance the baby would survive.
Exactly who's best interests was it in, to prolong her grief and suffering, by keeping her waiting a week, when the pregnancy could have been terminated in a matter of hours when she first got the diagnosis?

Even if Savita was still in good health and had her miscarriage/abortion and hadn't died from the sepsis, it was extremely wrong to make her wait a week. She should have been allowed to speed up the process. There was no need to make her wait.
What a horrible thing to do to any couple.

This still happens to other women. Its disgraceful.

Ave Sodalis

Thirdfox wrote: »

When you say they did spot it - I refer you to her consultant's evidence at the coroner's inquest: (taken from the Examiner opinion piece I linked to in my previous post)

She didn’t think there was any threat to Savita’s health. As she said in her evidence to the coroner’s inquest: “there was no suggestion that she was in any way unwell...”

But equally I haven't read the full ins and outs of the report - so if you do have a link to a HSE report or similar which supports your view that the 8th was the primary reason for the medical treatment failure received by Ms Savita (and again genuinely) please do link it for me as I'd be interested to read that finding.

https://www.hse.ie/eng/services/news/nimtreport50278.pdf

We strongly recommend and advise the clinical professional community, health and social care regulators and the Oireachtas to consider the law including any necessary constitutional
change and related administrative, legal and clinical guidelines in relation to the management of inevitable miscarriage in the early second trimester of a pregnancy including with
prolonged rupture of membranes and where the risk to the mother increases with time from the time that membranes are ruptured including the risk of infection and thereby reduce risk of harm up to and including death

We recognise that such guidelines must be consistent with applicable law and that the guidance so urged may require legal change.

The investigation team is satisifed that concerns about the law,whether clear or not, impacted on the exercise of clinical professional judgement. The investigation team did not have the remit to attempt to review this aspect of Irish Law.

The records and interviews confirmed that - from the time of her admission, up to the morning of the 24th of October - the management plan for the patient was to “await events”
and to monitor the fetal heart in case an accelerated delivery might be possible once the fetal heart stopped. The interviewees stated to the investigation team that this was because of their interpretation of the law related to pregnancy termination.

nozzferrahhtoo

daheff wrote: »

It concerns me because I am a citizen of the state. My worst case scenario is legislation that cause more unforeseen problems for people (pregnant vulnerable women mostly)

Yes I missed it.

Not only did you miss it but you appear to have answered completely different questions than the one I asked. Perhaps I did not phrase it well so I can try again. For example you appear to have answered the question "Why does it concern you" but that is not what I was asking.

What I WAS asking was WHAT legislation you envision being enacted. And why that particular legislation concerns you specifically. In other words can you tell me your most coherent and plausible "worst case scenario" for what you think the legislation would or could be? And then tell me why THAT legislation is of concern? As in what effect of detriment do you envision it entailing?

Because without answering those questions your concerns simply seem vague whatiffery fueled by paranoia. A paranoia that does not seem to be justified when one looks at other countries in the world which have abortion. Even with diverse systems like the UK and Canada.

So what your ACTUAL concerns are here is entirely opaque so far and it would help if you would give them some form or substance. So far they are far to effete to grasp or parse meaningfully. And vague scare mongering of "unforeseen problems" misses the facts that 1) the 8th already appears to be replete with unforeseen issues which is why we want to reverse it and 2) If we did not make progressive changes for fear of the unforeseen.... would we ever get anything done anywhere? In law we ALWAYS take that risk. Why throw our hands up here?

Thirdfox wrote: »

The human right to life is a pillar of my moral and ethical outlook

The thing is it is a pillar in my moral and ethical outlook too. So I would be cautious of risking appearing as if you are claiming this is somehow the difference between you and pro choice people on this discussion.

The philosophical divide between many on the pro choice and many on the anti choice side however is where, when.... and most importantly on what basis why............. that life is assigned and comes on line.

For me there is no coherent basis being offered...... when asked most people seem to screech "human" and then run away.......... for affording such a right(or in fact any rights) to a 12/16 week old fetus.

I simply am not getting shown the point of it, the benefit of it, or the basis for it. And at best it seems to me to be a complete misunderstanding of what rights, morality and ethics even are, or are for.

And until someone can guide me over that stumbling block philosophically I see no way I can coherently A) Be against choice based abortion or concern myself with the father who has no right to prevent or enforce an abortion.

joe40

PlaneSpeeking wrote: »

Thirdfox wrote: »

Who was the guy who wrote that report and do you have a link to the interviews where he said the 8th was at fault? I'd like to look at his legal reasoning for saying so.

https://www.hse.ie/eng/services/news/nimtreport50278.pdf

Page 22 onwards.  It's chilling.

Repeal The 8th.

Thanks for that link, I never read that before.
Anyone that still thinks the 8th was not a factor just read pg 33 of that report. The consultant refers to irish law and the fact their hands were tied because at that stage there was no risk to life.

The Legend Of Kira

Despite the Rotunda hospital asking people not to protest outside with banner displays & despite high profile people in the no campaign such as John Mcguirk asking earlier this week for people to stop doing that, the icbr are reported to be back outside Rotunda hospital again today, they don,t listen to anyone or take anyone,s concerns on board.

amcalester

The Legend Of Kira wrote: »

Despite the Rotunda hospital asking people not to protest outside with banner displays & despite high profile people in the no campaign such as John Mcguirk asking earlier this week for people to stop doing that, the icbr are reported to be back outside Rotunda hospital again today, they don,t listen to anyone or take anyone,s concerns on board.

Zealots rarely do.

SusieBlue

The Legend Of Kira wrote: »

Despite the Rotunda hospital asking people not to protest outside with banner displays & despite high profile people in the no campaign such as John Mcguirk asking earlier this week for people to stop doing that, the icbr are reported to be back outside Rotunda hospital again today, they don,t listen to anyone or take anyone,s concerns on board.

That's because they're absolute scumbags with no respect for anyone or anything but their own self interests.
They are an ignorant, arrogant bunch of assh*oles of the highest order.

Zubeneschamali

joe40 wrote: »

Thanks for that link, I never read that before.
Anyone that still thinks the 8th was not a factor just read pg 33 of that report. The consultant refers to irish law and the fact their hands were tied because at that stage there was no risk to life.

Quoting, adding emphasis:

O&G Consultant 1 stated that the patient and her husband were advised of Irish law in relation to this. At interview the consultant stated “Under Irish law, if there’s no evidence of risk to the life of the mother, our hands are tied so long as there’s a fetal heart”. The consultant stated that if risk to the mother was to increase a termination would have been possible, but that it would be based on actual risk and not a theoretical risk of infection “we can’t predict who is going to get an infection”.

So the medical team were deliberately withholding the requested, correct treatment and waiting until her life was at risk before applying that very same treatment because that was their interpretation of the 8th amendment.

ELM327

The Legend Of Kira wrote: »

Despite the Rotunda hospital asking people not to protest outside with banner displays & despite high profile people in the no campaign such as John Mcguirk asking earlier this week for people to stop doing that, the icbr are reported to be back outside Rotunda hospital again today, they don,t listen to anyone or take anyone,s concerns on board.

John McGuirk and Love Both are intrinsically linked with the groups making these disgusting " protests ", this was explained earlier in the thread.

gmisk

The Legend Of Kira wrote: »

Despite the Rotunda hospital asking people not to protest outside with banner displays & despite high profile people in the no campaign such as John Mcguirk asking earlier this week for people to stop doing that, the icbr are reported to be back outside Rotunda hospital again today, they don,t listen to anyone or take anyone,s concerns on board.

There was a group of people covering them with bedsheets and rainbow flags yesterday....great response, its a horrendous thing to do, the lowest of the low but cant say I am surprised.

PhoenixParker

gmisk wrote: »

There was a group of people covering them with bedsheets and rainbow flags yesterday....great response, its a horrendous thing to do, the lowest of the low but cant say I am surprised.

It was fantastic that they did that.

If the love bothers hate that group so much why werent the ones to love women and stand in front of the hospital with bedsheets?

gmisk

gmisk wrote: »

There was a group of people covering them with bedsheets and rainbow flags yesterday....great response, its a horrendous thing to do, the lowest of the low but cant say I am surprised.

I just checked twitter and they are going again with flags and sheets to block them!
Absolute stars!

They have now cleared them from the Rotunda today!!!!!
and they are going to now checking Temple Street Childrens Hospital

Sofiztikated

ELM327 wrote: »

John McGuirk and Love Both are intrinsically linked with the groups making these disgusting " protests ", this was explained earlier in the thread.

PhoenixParker wrote: »

It was fantastic that they did that.

If the love bothers hate that group so much why werent the ones to love women and stand in front of the hospital with bedsheets?

It smacks of desperately wanting to "go viral" at this point.

They've gotten coverage, they've gotten acknowledgement, and now they're getting "shouted down."

Pretty soon we'll hear something about echo chambers, and dissenting against popular opinion. Any Garda action to move them would be pointed to as "Don't trust the Government."

Thirdfox

Triceratops Ballet wrote: »

thirdfox, do you think women who order abortion pills online and take them here in Ireland should be prosecuted?

No, because this does not help anyone - just like the old laws criminalising suicide.

I would hope that we work towards a society where the people who feel like they have been forced to take such a drastic step (which I'm sure most wouldn't unless they feel like they have no other option - who wants to order destructive drugs over the internet?) are supported to the extent that they may not need to take such steps.

Because of course when you do lliterally have the child growing within yourself you can't possibly prevent anyone taking a hanger to themselves or ordering pills online like you state. And I feel the 8th provides for these cases that women who are in such tragic/desperate situations where they are contemplating (or to be legally correct in case some picks up on my language - at risk of ) self-harm are given legal abortions in Ireland - I just want to understand how these circumstances arise and what we can do to avoid/minimise them.

But the question for me is not - "prosecute these evil women!!!!" (which if it is not clear, is not my thinking at all) but rather "what can we do to ensure these women are not placed in such a position?" Be that from governmental support for lone parents, additonal susidies for childcare/education or what other supports are identified as being necessary.

Eventually humans may be created in artificial wombs and a lot of the abortion debate will be rendered moot (bodily autonomy etc) - of course even then there will be unwanted pregnancies and rapes and FFA (which again I would be supportive of making an amendment to the 8th to provide for) - but from the outset my view isn't to punish people for making potentially desperate choices, but to seek how to minimise/eliminate the situation from arising.

And that's one thing I think everyone across the spectrum (potentially apart from absolute dogmatic religious types who never want abortions - I haven't met many who fall into this category however) can agree on - we want abortions to be safe and minimised, and when the situation calls for it - easily accessible. We simply have different bars of eligibility to this medical treatment - I feel that the 8th is a good/adequate compromise between the life of the unborn, the mother, her bodily autonomy and the father - you obviously disagree but I haven't been convinced that the alternative discussed (12 weeks abortion on demand or whatever the ultimate legislation may end up as) is a better balance of these competing rights - you probably feel that it is.

In terms of asking the question I hope you can do me the favour of discussing your rationale in asking it? Is it because you feel that anyone who is against the repeal must hate women or feel like they are baby incubators or property of some sort? From my perspective it is about the balancing of rights - we disagree on where this balance lies but it is simply not the case that this is a view rooted in misogyny or wanting to "punish" women or to wantonly put their lives at risk for the craic etc. Especially when we have such tough cases as rape (probably the worst violation of a woman's body) there better be strong reasons for why one holds the view they do (and not because a book told them so i.e. religous reasons).

If we take away the right to life (or from someone else's perspective ascribe the right to life) to a human being - there must be a good reason for doing so. You must be sufficiently convinced that such reasons exist that one partner can choose to do so for say up to the first trimester - I unfortunately am not.

Wrongway1985

Thirdfox wrote: »

The 8th prevented her from getting an abortion when she requested one - that is absolutely factual.

The medical treatment she should have gotten would have resulted in a legal abortion which she would be entitled to under the 8th.

No that isn't a fact what you are referring to only came into play with Protection of Life During Pregnancy Act 2013 as a result of what happened it wasn't in law for her.

We have had 35 years to put all these wonderful supports in for women in crisis pregnancies.
It hasn't happened.

Also, how can you possibly believe that the 8th amendment is saving any 'babies' when the constitution guarantees a woman's right to travel & have a termination?

ELM327

Thirdfox wrote: »

No, because this does not help anyone - just like the old laws criminalising suicide.

I would hope that we work towards a society where the people who feel like they have been forced to take such a drastic step (which I'm sure most wouldn't unless they feel like they have no other option - who wants to order destructive drugs over the internet?) are supported to the extent that they may not need to take such steps.

Because of course when you do lliterally have the child growing within yourself you can't possibly prevent anyone taking a hanger to themselves or ordering pills online like you state. And I feel the 8th provides for these cases that women who are in such tragic/desperate situations where they are contemplating (or to be legally correct in case some picks up on my language - at risk of ) self-harm are given legal abortions in Ireland - I just want to understand how these circumstances arise and what we can do to avoid/minimise them.

But the question for me is not - "prosecute these evil women!!!!" (which if it is not clear, is not my thinking at all) but rather "what can we do to ensure these women are not placed in such a position?" Be that from governmental support for lone parents, additonal susidies for childcare/education or what other supports are identified as being necessary.

Eventually humans may be created in artificial wombs and a lot of the abortion debate will be rendered moot (bodily autonomy etc) - of course even then there will be unwanted pregnancies and rapes and FFA (which again I would be supportive of making an amendment to the 8th to provide for) - but from the outset my view isn't to punish people for making potentially desperate choices, but to seek how to minimise/eliminate the situation from arising.

And that's one thing I think everyone across the spectrum (potentially apart from absolute dogmatic religious types who never want abortions - I haven't met many who fall into this category however) can agree on - we want abortions to be safe and minimised, and when the situation calls for it - easily accessible. We simply have different bars of eligibility to this medical treatment - I feel that the 8th is a good/adequate compromise between the life of the unborn, the mother, her bodily autonomy and the father - you obviously disagree but I haven't been convinced that the alternative discussed (12 weeks abortion on demand or whatever the ultimate legislation may end up as) is a better balance of these competing rights - you probably feel that it is.

In terms of asking the question I hope you can do me the favour of discussing your rationale in asking it? Is it because you feel that anyone who is against the repeal must hate women or feel like they are baby incubators or property of some sort? From my perspective it is about the balancing of rights - we disagree on where this balance lies but it is simply not the case that this is a view rooted in misogyny or wanting to "punish" women or to wantonly put their lives at risk for the craic etc. Especially when we have such tough cases as rape (probably the worst violation of a woman's body) there better be strong reasons for why one holds the view they do (and not because a book told them so i.e. religous reasons).

If we take away the right to life (or from someone else's perspective ascribe the right to life) to a human being - there must be a good reason for doing so. You must be sufficiently convinced that such reasons exist that one partner can choose to do so for say up to the first trimester - I unfortunately am not.

Most of these points have been dealt with several times across the three threads.

As someone who has direct and indirect experience of the mental health services in Ireland, I am confident to speak and state that especially outside of Dublin the supports are not there.

Regarding specifically mental health, suicidal ideology and legal terminations, you need to have 3 doctors, one of which to be an obgyn and one clinical psychologist, to sign off on the termination. Remember that it is a constitutionally enshrined right at that stage to a termination, But what they do instead is delay the option until viability, essentially forcing the woman to be an incubator against her will. Women can and have been sectioned in such instances, meaning they cannot leave the country.

How would you feel if you were violated in such a way, and know that your country voted for this en masse in 1983.

Sofiztikated

Thirdfox wrote: »

No, because this does not help anyone - just like the old laws criminalising suicide.

I would hope that we work towards a society where the people who feel like they have been forced to take such a drastic step (which I'm sure most wouldn't unless they feel like they have no other option - who wants to order destructive drugs over the internet?) are supported to the extent that they may not need to take such steps.

Because of course when you do lliterally have the child growing within yourself you can't possibly prevent anyone taking a hanger to themselves or ordering pills online like you state. And I feel the 8th provides for these cases that women who are in such tragic/desperate situations where they are contemplating (or to be legally correct in case some picks up on my language - at risk of ) self-harm are given legal abortions in Ireland - I just want to understand how these circumstances arise and what we can do to avoid/minimise them.

But the question for me is not - "prosecute these evil women!!!!" (which if it is not clear, is not my thinking at all) but rather "what can we do to ensure these women are not placed in such a position?" Be that from governmental support for lone parents, additonal susidies for childcare/education or what other supports are identified as being necessary.

Eventually humans may be created in artificial wombs and a lot of the abortion debate will be rendered moot (bodily autonomy etc) - of course even then there will be unwanted pregnancies and rapes and FFA (which again I would be supportive of making an amendment to the 8th to provide for) - but from the outset my view isn't to punish people for making potentially desperate choices, but to seek how to minimise/eliminate the situation from arising.

And that's one thing I think everyone across the spectrum (potentially apart from absolute dogmatic religious types who never want abortions - I haven't met many who fall into this category however) can agree on - we want abortions to be safe and minimised, and when the situation calls for it - easily accessible. We simply have different bars of eligibility to this medical treatment - I feel that the 8th is a good/adequate compromise between the life of the unborn, the mother, her bodily autonomy and the father - you obviously disagree but I haven't been convinced that the alternative discussed (12 weeks abortion on demand or whatever the ultimate legislation may end up as) is a better balance of these competing rights - you probably feel that it is.

In terms of asking the question I hope you can do me the favour of discussing your rationale in asking it? Is it because you feel that anyone who is against the repeal must hate women or feel like they are baby incubators or property of some sort? From my perspective it is about the balancing of rights - we disagree on where this balance lies but it is simply not the case that this is a view rooted in misogyny or wanting to "punish" women or to wantonly put their lives at risk for the craic etc. Especially when we have such tough cases as rape (probably the worst violation of a woman's body) there better be strong reasons for why one holds the view they do (and not because a book told them so i.e. religous reasons).

If we take away the right to life (or from someone else's perspective ascribe the right to life) to a human being - there must be a good reason for doing so. You must be sufficiently convinced that such reasons exist that one partner can choose to do so for say up to the first trimester - I unfortunately am not.

So keep the law, but don't punish for it? Now, I'm not a Lawologist, but that strikes me as redundant.

And just because you don't trust a woman not to get an abortion out of spite, I'd really rather my wife have access to the full range of care, should she require it. We want children, but if any difficulties arise, I'd prefer the choice WE make be the one, not the choice someone else makes be forced upon us.

PlaneSpeeking

Thirdfox wrote: »

No, because this does not help anyone - just like the old laws criminalising suicide.

I would hope that we work towards a society where the people who feel like they have been forced to take such a drastic step (which I'm sure most wouldn't unless they feel like they have no other option - who wants to order destructive drugs over the internet?) are supported to the extent that they may not need to take such steps.

Because of course when you do lliterally have the child growing within yourself you can't possibly prevent anyone taking a hanger to themselves or ordering pills online like you state. And I feel the 8th provides for these cases that women who are in such tragic/desperate situations where they are contemplating (or to be legally correct in case some picks up on my language - at risk of ) self-harm are given legal abortions in Ireland - I just want to understand how these circumstances arise and what we can do to avoid/minimise them.

But the question for me is not - "prosecute these evil women!!!!" (which if it is not clear, is not my thinking at all) but rather "what can we do to ensure these women are not placed in such a position?" Be that from governmental support for lone parents, additonal susidies for childcare/education or what other supports are identified as being necessary.

Eventually humans may be created in artificial wombs and a lot of the abortion debate will be rendered moot (bodily autonomy etc) - of course even then there will be unwanted pregnancies and rapes and FFA (which again I would be supportive of making an amendment to the 8th to provide for) - but from the outset my view isn't to punish people for making potentially desperate choices, but to seek how to minimise/eliminate the situation from arising.

And that's one thing I think everyone across the spectrum (potentially apart from absolute dogmatic religious types who never want abortions - I haven't met many who fall into this category however) can agree on - we want abortions to be safe and minimised, and when the situation calls for it - easily accessible. We simply have different bars of eligibility to this medical treatment - I feel that the 8th is a good/adequate compromise between the life of the unborn, the mother, her bodily autonomy and the father - you obviously disagree but I haven't been convinced that the alternative discussed (12 weeks abortion on demand or whatever the ultimate legislation may end up as) is a better balance of these competing rights - you probably feel that it is.

In terms of asking the question I hope you can do me the favour of discussing your rationale in asking it? Is it because you feel that anyone who is against the repeal must hate women or feel like they are baby incubators or property of some sort? From my perspective it is about the balancing of rights - we disagree on where this balance lies but it is simply not the case that this is a view rooted in misogyny or wanting to "punish" women or to wantonly put their lives at risk for the craic etc. Especially when we have such tough cases as rape (probably the worst violation of a woman's body) there better be strong reasons for why one holds the view they do (and not because a book told them so i.e. religous reasons).

If we take away the right to life (or from someone else's perspective ascribe the right to life) to a human being - there must be a good reason for doing so. You must be sufficiently convinced that such reasons exist that one partner can choose to do so for say up to the first trimester - I unfortunately am not.

What about women who are pregnant with their 6th/7th/8th whatever child.

They are not actively considering suicide. They just know that having this additional child will adversely impact the lives of the existing family.

Anti-choicers would force her to have that child. This is wrong.

Repeal The 8th.

PhoenixParker

Thirdfox wrote: »

Unfortunately it "literally" isn't.

The 8th prevented her from getting an abortion when she requested one - that is absolutely factual.

The medical treatment she should have gotten would have resulted in a legal abortion which she would be entitled to under the 8th.

At the HSE enquiry Prof Arulkulmaran stated (again I refer to the Examiner opinion piece):
Arulkumaran said he would have offered to terminate the pregnancy on Sunday, Oct 21, and advised termination after Savita’s waters broke in the early hours of Monday, Oct 22.

This is within the remit of doctors operating under the 8th.

What happened with Savita is that sepsis set in.

Her life wasn't in danger until sepsis set in therefore she wasn't eligible for abortion under the 8th.

Sepsis happens FAST.
It happens especially fast when you have an entire womb that's basically a massive gaping wound with an excellent blood supply and no way to clean it.

By the time her life was actually in danger it was too late to save her.

The ball was dropped by the hospital, no doubt about it. Maybe risk of sepsis could be construed as life in danger, but then any dirty cut can end game result in sepsis. . . Heck, my life is in danger driving a car.

Life in danger is always a judgement call, and sometimes the judgement will be called wrong.

Then women die.

Zubeneschamali

Thirdfox wrote: »

No, because this does not help anyone - just like the old laws criminalising suicide.

But as a lawyer, you must know that the State, by guaranteeing to protect and vindicate the equal right to life of the unborn, must apply legal penalties of a similar nature as in the case where the woman's right to life is violated. Abortion, while not murder, must carry some similar penalty. Hence the POLDPA has it carrying a 14 year jail sentence.

And if you don't agree that abortion should carry that penalty, you'd better vote yes, or we'll be looking at the Zed case: a teenager up on trial and facing 14 years in jail for taking internet pills.

The AG is Constitutionally obliged to do it, just like in the X case, and then the prolifers will run around and say "We never meant for this to happen!" and we'll have to scramble, as in the 13th and 14th amendments, to apply some botched fix to the botched text of our botch of a Constitution.

PlaneSpeeking

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

But as a lawyer, you must know that the State, by guaranteeing to protect and vindicate the equal right to life of the unborn, must apply legal penalties of a similar nature as in the case where the woman's right to life is violated. Abortion, while not murder, must carry some similar penalty. Hence the POLDPA has it carrying a 14 year jail sentence.

And if you don't agree that abortion should carry that penalty, you'd better vote yes, or we'll be looking at the Zed case: a teenager up on trial and facing 14 years in jail for taking internet pills.

The AG is Constitutionally obliged to do it, just like in the X case, and then the prolifers will run around and say "We never meant for this to happen!" and we'll have to scramble, as in the 13th and 14th amendments, to apply some botched fix to the botched text of our botch of a Constitution.

Hypothetical question - let's say a teacher saw pills bought online in someone's bag/locker, would they be mandated to report that ?

I'd hope not and would instead support the girl but wasn't there case in the North where someone was prosecuted after their flatmate went to the police ?

Thirdfox

Wrongway1985 wrote: »

No that isn't a fact what you are referring to only came into play with Protection of Life During Pregnancy Act 2013 as a result of what happened it wasn't in law for her.

The law is just a rehash of caselaw interpeting the meaning of the 8th - from my understanding. The whole premise of the Constitution is that legislation cannot trump the basic law - I would have expected medical professionals to understand the limits and scope of abortion as a medical treatment even prior to the 2013 Act.


Btw thanks for all the reports on the Savita case - that is a very interesting read and especially the Times/Examiner articles comments by the HSE inquiry chair - I'll need to look at that report in further detail but if it is the case the 8th did not legally protect Ms Savita's life then certainly I would be in favour of expanding abortion as a medical treatment option to ensure that such cases will not occur in Ireland. On the other hand it doesn't mean a whole scale repeal is the best option in my opinion (when looking at the proposed legislation that would be coming in in its stead).

And of course I defer to the expert medical analysis on the treatment side - in which case I was wrong in thinking that Ms Savita's case does not have a relation to the abortion debate - see - non-dogmatic views can be changed by good information

Still will give the full report a good read to bring myself fully up to speed on it.

joe40

Of all the arguments for "No"vote, the father's rights is the weakest, but also the most insidious.

It will resonate with a section of the electorate that are convinced everything these days is about women's right and men are been left behind. This will feed this narrative.
But seriously even if you oppose abortion how could you possibly argue that men, as a result of having sex with a woman, can control or influence her body and health care. The sex could have been forced, short term non serious relationship, one night stand whatever.
I'm saying this as a man and a father.
Could anyone please tell me how men's "rights" during a pregnancy could be enforced. How would they be workable.

Zerbini Blewitt

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

HIQUA are reporting on did the doctors do their job within the current procedures and guidelines. The answer is no.

HIQUA are not reporting that the current procedures and guidelines, because they follow the law of the land, are bonkers. That is outside the remit of their report.

This can be further confirmed by doing a word search in the HIQA report. There are no mentions of the following words:-

Abortion
Termination
8th
Eight
Amendment

Induction is mentioned once (in the non-education meaning of the word) on P137 – but it was not referring to Savita’s case in that section.