The Dilemma of the Undecideds in the abortion referendum

brendanwalsh

Abortion on demand will lead to a slippery slope.

Where do you draw a line in the sand?
Abortion due to down syndrome? Abortion due to cerebral palsy? Abortion due to cystic fibrosis?? Let's not forget the government can legislate however they like. Nothing stopping them.legislating for Abortion on demand at 8 months. Let's not forget Harris and Leo have already done about turns on their viewpoints in this referendum.

Citizens assembly suggested a liberal regime which is not in line with what most people want.

Sorry guys it's a no for me and I'll campaign vigorously for same all week.

blondeonblonde

DarkScar wrote: »

blondeonblonde wrote: »

Conversely if the answer is yes, then you are not against Irish women having abortion. You are simply against Irish women having abortions in Ireland. Not in my back yard.

What earthly difference does it make if you are opposed to something that is legal in another country?

I see. True colours coming out then. Is it not about Irish babies being aborted? Is that not the issue? Are the Irish babies being aborted in the UK not a problem for you? Or can you simply wash your hands of them because you can smugly claim that you've kept abortion out of Ireland? Grow up, it's already here in the form of a pill.
It's easy to turn a blind eye like you. The more difficult choice is to accept it and legislate.

SusieBlue

brendanwalsh wrote: »

Abortion on demand will lead to a slippery slope.

Where do you draw a line in the sand?
Abortion due to down syndrome? Abortion due to cerebral palsy? Abortion due to cystic fibrosis?? Let's not forget the government can legislate however they like. Nothing stopping them.legislating for Abortion on demand at 8 months. Let's not forget Harris and Leo have already done about turns on their viewpoints in this referendum.

Citizens assembly suggested a liberal regime which is not in line with what most people want.

Sorry guys it's a no for me and I'll campaign vigorously for same all week.

There’s about as much chance of the government legislating for unrestricted abortion up to 36 weeks gestation as there is of them lowering the age of consent to 6, or raising income tax to 80%.

It won’t happen. They’ve kicked the can down the road for the last 35 years, refusing to deal with the issue, they aren’t going to sway far from the current recommendations.
Stop scaremongering.

bleary

antiskeptic wrote: »

Problem.

Your link doesnt support your contention. It says the antibiotics recommended for maternal cases was administered. Without saying the stronger drugs were withheld because of the 8th.

Only time would tell us how things would be

Except it says that she was not prescribed the broad spectrum iv antibiotics she should have been. Instead she was prescribed antibiotics used for maternal cases to avoid affecting the equal life of the unborn. Directly from the link

Ms Knowles said .. an antibiotic with a broader range of cover, including E. coli, should have been administered at the time. However, the drug that was used is recommended for use in maternal cases.

blanch152

brendanwalsh wrote: »

Abortion on demand will lead to a slippery slope.

Where do you draw a line in the sand?
Abortion due to down syndrome? Abortion due to cerebral palsy? Abortion due to cystic fibrosis?? Let's not forget the government can legislate however they like. Nothing stopping them.legislating for Abortion on demand at 8 months. Let's not forget Harris and Leo have already done about turns on their viewpoints in this referendum.

Citizens assembly suggested a liberal regime which is not in line with what most people want.

Sorry guys it's a no for me and I'll campaign vigorously for same all week.

The bit in bold is one of the nonsense arguments from the NO side. The government can't legislate how they like. Firstly, any government has to get re-elected, so if they legislate for abortion that the people don't want, they will be thrown out at the next election and a new crowd will reverse their decision. Secondly, this current government are not a majority and are subject to agreement from SF and FF, neither of whom favour abortion on demand in the first 12 weeks. Finally, the NO side will ramp it up after the referendum, pressurising TDs.

So, of all the arguments presented by the NO side, this is one of the most disingenuous of a large number of disingenuous arguments.

DarkScar

blondeonblonde wrote: »

I see. True colours coming out then. Is it not about Irish babies being aborted? Is that not the issue? Are the Irish babies being aborted in the UK not a problem for you? Or can you simply wash your hands of them because you can smugly claim that you've kept abortion out of Ireland? Grow up, it's already here in the form of a pill.
It's easy to turn a blind eye like you. The more difficult choice is to accept it and legislate.

Ah your own true colours are coming out. You want child marriage as that is legal in some countries. Do you want more examples? I don't care what they do in other countries, you can go invade them yourself if you think our laws should be enacted there.

DarkScar

bleary wrote: »

Except it says that she was not prescribed the broad spectrum iv antibiotics she should have been. Instead she was prescribed antibiotics used for maternal cases to avoid affecting the equal life of the unborn. Directly from the link

Which they cocked up on because since 1992 legal precedent had the mother's right to life as superseding that of the unborn. They should have given broad spectrum antibiotics just as they shouldn't have cocked up the diagnosis in the first place.
Sepsis has around 50% mortality so you're straight to risk to life territory already well known at that stage in case law.

Overheal

ArmaniJeanss wrote: »

Not having had your first daughter doesn't necessarily mean you wouldn't have eventually had the same amount of children though. So we can't directly correlate say 5K abortions a year as being 5K less children that 'reduces the nation'.

e.g., A woman choosing not to have a kid at 18 may lead her to having 3 kids at 29, 32 and 35 that she otherwise wouldn't have felt able to have with a financially burdensome near-teenager around, and having missed out the career financing stability that being childfree in her early/mid20s gave her.
It's not necessarily a nice way of looking at it though.

Excellent point.

blanch152

DarkScar wrote: »

Which they cocked up on because since 1992 legal precedent had the mother's right to life as superseding that of the unborn. They should have given broad spectrum antibiotics just as they shouldn't have cocked up the diagnosis in the first place.
Sepsis has around 50% mortality so you're straight to risk to life territory already well known at that stage in case law.

If there was no 8th Amendment, there would have been no confusion. It all comes back to the 8th.

DarkScar

blanch152 wrote: »

If there was no 8th Amendment, there would have been no confusion. It all comes back to the 8th.

So because trained professionals with the backing of ethical panels don't understand our laws we should remove them.
Sepsis = clear risk of death = mother comes first to hell with baby
Is that too complicated?

bleary

So just checked up on this in the HSE report directly and these are quotes from it

Erythromycin is indicated for use prophylactically in preterm pre-labour rupture of the membranes in the absence of signs such as a faser pulse or lower blood pressure.Erythromycin has also been shown to delay delivery which is beneficial in the management of preterm pre-labour rupture of the membranes but not in cases of inevitable miscarriage.

In cases of septic shock, every hour of delay in administering an appropriate antibiotic therapy in adequate doses worsens the prognosis The investigation team considers that the Early administration of medication to expedite delivery, appropriate broad spectrum antibiotics for management of sepsis, and adequate fluid replacement was indicated.

And as an aside
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 considers that here was an apparent over-emphasis on the need not to intervene until the fetal heart stopped togetherwith an under-emphasis on the need to focus appropriate attention on monitoring for and managing the risk of infection and sepsis in the mother.
Similar incidents with a similar clinical context could happen again

blanch152

DarkScar wrote: »

So because trained professionals with the backing of ethical panels don't understand our laws we should remove them.
Sepsis = clear risk of death = mother comes first to hell with baby
Is that too complicated?

It is not our laws they don't understand, it is the ambiguous wording of a Constitutional amendment that can overrun any of our laws.

bleary

DarkScar wrote: »

So because trained professionals with the backing of ethical panels don't understand our laws we should remove them.
Sepsis = clear risk of death = mother comes first to hell with baby
Is that too complicated?

Apparently so

Hitman3000

antiskeptic wrote:

Licked straight from Da Juurnil. Old news rendered fake news

Fake news? Care to provide proof of its shall we say 'fakeness'.

Manach

For the initial OP, to do no harm is usually a good start to a reasonable decision. In the specific case relating to medicine it is known as the Inviolability of life based on early Hippocratic and other philosophic principles that : That Human life is a basic, intrinsic good. In the book, Law and Ethics in Medicine, Prof. Keown considers this in light of several current medical issues, including the termination of a viable unborn. In this case, the professor considered it an ethical wrong. Hence for the OP or other undecideds it something to objectively consider if they wish to remove the protections that the 8th amendment provides.

bleary

antiskeptic wrote: »

This conflicts with maternal health outcomes in Ireland being amonst the best in the world.

You dont know what the net effect of a new regime would be. You can suppose better because women wont have to travel,for instance but thats a simplistic view. You'd be about-turning health culture for a start.
Only time would tell us how things would be

the last time I checked the figures, Ireland was 8 or 9 deaths per 100,000 comparable to France. The UK was 10 deaths per 100,000
This is despite Ireland having a homogenous population in comparison and an aggressive maternity strategy.

In the UK services are normally midwife led which patients generally like, ours is consultant led. Home births are much more common in the UK. The hse does everything it can to stop these due to risk. Our c section rate , our inductions are all higher, to reduce risk, episiotomies are carried out to reduce risk.
All of these may reduce mortality but patients suffer longer term complications including incontinence and loss of function .

I guess I think it has to be an improvement if women could be treated in their own country with continuity of care . So do their doctors.
If women didn't turn up to a and e after bleeding for days after an abortion and lie about it.

If doctors and women could work together in their health care rather than doctors having to constantly act as if a pregnant woman's request are a threat they have to counter

LuckyLloyd

brendanwalsh wrote: »

Abortion on demand will lead to a slippery slope.

Where do you draw a line in the sand?
Abortion due to down syndrome? Abortion due to cerebral palsy? Abortion due to cystic fibrosis?? Let's not forget the government can legislate however they like. Nothing stopping them.legislating for Abortion on demand at 8 months. Let's not forget Harris and Leo have already done about turns on their viewpoints in this referendum.

Citizens assembly suggested a liberal regime which is not in line with what most people want.

Sorry guys it's a no for me and I'll campaign vigorously for same all week.

Polls indicate that most people do indeed want what is proposed.

VinLieger

DarkScar wrote: »

Ah your own true colours are coming out. You want child marriage as that is legal in some countries. Do you want more examples? I don't care what they do in other countries, you can go invade them yourself if you think our laws should be enacted there.

Some seriously pathetic straw man arguments here.

You say you dont care what happens in other countries which must be true as you are happy to ignore 5000 irish women having to go to the UK every year

ArthurDayne

Manach wrote: »

For the initial OP, to do no harm is usually a good start to a reasonable decision. In the specific case relating to medicine it is known as the Inviolability of life based on early Hippocratic and other philosophic principles that : That Human life is a basic, intrinsic good. In the book, Law and Ethics in Medicine, Prof. Keown considers this in light of several current medical issues, including the termination of a viable unborn. In this case, the professor considered it an ethical wrong. Hence for the OP or other undecideds it something to objectively consider if they wish to remove the protections that the 8th amendment provides.

What this contributor failed to mention of course is that Dr Keown is a Professor of Christian Ethics and sits on the Pontifical Academy for Life.

Dr Keown is a good man whose name I have no intention of slurring. But there is no doubt that his religious views have coloured his legal interpretation on a number of issues, most relevantly abortion. With that in mind, the term 'ethical wrong' which you use in your comment is an 'ethical wrong' from the perspective of a Professor of Christian ethics.

I can appreciate that religion can help provide people with an underpinning moral barometer in life. I would say firstly though that it is not necessarily inconsistent with your Christian views if your conscience weighs towards compassion for giving a woman a choice in deciding whether she wants the foetus developing inside her to become a person. I would secondly remind you that, while Christianity may well help you in the basic understanding of right vs wrong, 'Christian ethics' is not some divine word of God -- it is nothing more than the mere human interpretation of scripture and the perceived rules on morality which flow from that. Such interpretations have led to many wrongs and much suffering in the past. Thirdly, while 'Christian ethics' may be a lens through which one considers how law should be understood and applied, the imposition of those ethics on others with no evidential basis for their righteousness is a throwback to darker days in this country.

antiskeptic

pitifulgod wrote: »

Michelle Harte was prevented from getting treatment due to being pregnant. It was pretty high profile. Also the C case... You're refusing to acknowledge Savita but the reality is if she had been allowed to have an abortion when requested, she would most likely be alive.

http://www.thejournal.ie/cancer-treatment-while-pregnant-4001479-May2018/

Could you comment on the basis of the current law (not the law at Michelles time)

The current law says termination legal to "prevent the risk of death"

Risk of death isn't dying. If your dying, your not risking death. Risk of death is a zone you enter in which death is a distinct possibility.

Prevention of entry to that zone takes things back a step further. "Don't let the person enter the zone in which risk of death is a reasonable possibility"

Michelle was in remission from a malignant cancer because of a drug regime. Keeping her on the drugs would "prevent" her entering the zone where she would be at "risk of death", it being reasonable that if malignant cancer returned she would die.

If the current law would prevent a Michelle case then the 8th isn't to blame. The lack of the 2013 law, possible under the 8th is.

antiskeptic

Hitman3000 wrote: »

Fake news? Care to provide proof of its shall we say 'fakeness'.

What's disturbing is the fact that a poll older than the IT poll was published 3 days later than the IT poll. In a fast moving/changing environment, this is a significant thing to note

Chips Lovell

As we've pointed out before on other threads, let's ease up on the "fake news" thing.

Characterising legit news outlets or other people's posts as fake news is a form of trolling and will be sanctioned if it continues.

pitifulgod

antiskeptic wrote: »

Could you comment on the basis of the current law (not the law at Michelles time)

The current law says termination legal to "prevent the risk of death"

Risk of death isn't dying. If your dying, your not risking death. Risk of death is a zone you enter in which death is a distinct possibility.

Prevention of entry to that zone takes things back a step further. "Don't let the person enter the zone in which risk of death is a reasonable possibility"

Michelle was in remission from a malignant cancer because of a drug regime. Keeping her on the drugs would "prevent" her entering the zone where she would be at "risk of death", it being reasonable that if malignant cancer returned she would die.

If the current law would prevent a Michelle case then the 8th isn't to blame. The lack of the 2013 law, possible under the 8th is.

Seems pretty telling that you'll reject anything that is said to you.... The 8th is viewed to be the issue by many obstetricians from our National Maternity Hospitals. You can ignore that all you want but you're choosing to ignore reality.

Hotblack Desiato

antiskeptic wrote: »

If the current law would prevent a Michelle case then the 8th isn't to blame. The lack of the 2013 law, possible under the 8th is.

So did you support or oppose POLDPA?

hatrickpatrick

brendanwalsh wrote: »

Citizens assembly suggested a liberal regime which is not in line with what most people want.

You seem very confident of this, despite opinion polls showing a clear (if reduced) lead for the yes campaign - is this gut instinct, anecdotal, or do you have polling data which reflects this view?

Personally I feel that far more people want that than you might think. I know a lot of people who genuinely just don't believe that life begins in the first trimester, and that therefore any abortion which takes place during this time is totally inconsequential to everybody except the woman who has one. In that context, the reasons for it are entirely irrelevant because what's being done is in no way immoral.

I'm not trying to convince you that this is the case - clearly you don't believe this about the nature of human life and I entirely respect that. But I am suggesting that far more people believe this than have openly discussed it, because it sounds very blasé and insensitive to the other side given the emotional nature of the arguments which have been put forward.

You'll never hear somebody in a live TV or radio debate respond to the issue of, to take your example, Down Syndrome abortion by bluntly stating "well I don't believe that a foetus at 10-12 weeks gestation counts as alive, so I don't think it matters if the abortion is happening because of DS or because the woman has a hair appointment on her due date" - nobody will express this opinion because given the nature of the debate and the fact that the no side vehemently states that a foetus is a human life without leaving any room at all for discussion of the possibility that it isn't, it would appear extremely condescending and insensitive to air such a view.

But I do think it's far more common than it appears, especially among young people. Many yes campaigners I know very openly believe this - that in the first trimester and in the context of abortion, a foetus simply doesn't count as anything more than an unfertilised sperm or egg - so for those particular people with those particular views, no argument around disability, eugenics or anything else is going to matter, because fundamentally they just don't ascribe any philosophical or objective "value" to the early term foetus beyond very specifically the value - or lack thereof - that the aforementioned foetus's mother ascribes. In other words, they believe that at that stage of pregnancy, whether or not a foetus has value does not hinge upon whether it counts as "alive" - they genuinely do not believe this to be the case - but whether or not its mother actually wants to have a child.

Again, I'm not trying to convince you to adopt this view - I fully understand that almost nobody is going to change their mind about abortion at this late stage, and besides I believe this to be an issue of such a deep philosophical nature that most people probably made up their minds when they were very young and won't be changing them now any more than they're going to change their minds about whether or not there's a God. But I do feel that because this view is not being aired by the yes side or acknowledged by the no side, there are probably a huge number of people out there who think in this way but have kept very quiet about it. And that's why I personally believe that the number of Irish people who actually do support abortion "on demand", in other words without consideration as to why the woman wants to have one, is probably a lot higher than the debate up until now or indeed the opinion polls might lead one to believe.

Ultimately we won't know the answer until Friday night or Saturday morning, but that's my view.

Tl;dr, I personally believe that the number of people who believe that a first trimester foetus doesn't count as a life and therefore has no objective value beyond whether or not the mother wants to have a kit, is a lot higher than many think it is, and that this will ultimately be reflected in the result of the upcoming referendum. But that's only my own prediction, and I'm basing that more on political experience, personal experience and instinct than on polling stats.

I'd be interested to know whether your own view - that in fact, the majority of people are not as liberal about it as I have suggested - is based on similar criteria to mine, or whether you have anything more than that to back it up? I'll freely admit that I don't.

blondeonblonde

DarkScar wrote: »

Ah your own true colours are coming out. You want child marriage as that is legal in some countries. Do you want more examples? I don't care what they do in other countries, you can go invade them yourself if you think our laws should be enacted there.

Now you are just being facetious. Nobody is interested in your whataboutery arguments. I have no intention of invading anywhere, whatever that means...

We are talking about the effect of the law. We are talking about the effect of the 8th. It aims to afford equal right to Life of the unborn with the resultant effects on abortion in Ireland. The no argument is that it keeps abortion out of Ireland.....

But it plainly does nothing of the sort. Abortion is available to those who can order pills or who can afford to travel.

I'll say it again, nobody will be forced to have an abortion. Those who are against it should follow their conscience and continue to not have abortions. All we need is a choice for those unfortunate individuals and couples who find themselves in a difficult situation & who need medical care in a compassionate environment.

Overheal

Those Pills are illegal though and travel is shifting the responsibility somewhere else.

That’s like saying you’re against pedophilia but totally cool if your neighbor does sex tourism in the Philippines.

lawred2

Overheal wrote: »

Those Pills are illegal though and travel is shifting the responsibility somewhere else.

That’s like saying you’re against pedophilia but totally cool if your neighbor does sex tourism in the Philippines.

Prostitution is not legal in the Philippines. Nor is child abuse.

Abortion is a legal medical procedure in the UK.

So with respect your analogy is tasteless and incorrect in equal measures.

Overheal

lawred2 wrote: »

Prostitution is not legal in the Philippines. Nor is child abuse.

Abortion is a legal medical procedure in the UK.

So with respect your analogy is tasteless and incorrect in equal measures.

Do you care about the laws in some other country? It’s not your jurisdiction.

Seems to me you’ve established my point: you don’t really mind the act of abortion as long as it’s legal wherever it’s performed

lawred2

Overheal wrote: »

Do you care about the laws in some other country? It’s not your jurisdiction.

Jesus you just shifted those goal posts so much they became a dot..