Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Repeal the 8th Bandwagoning

1…78101213…18

Comments

  • #272
    marienbad
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,463 ✭✭✭marienbad


    me_right_one wrote: »
    Does your mammy know you're using up all her internet?

    Does your nurse know you are ?


  • #273
    retro:electro
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,039 ✭✭✭✭retro:electro


    jameorahiely wrote: »
    So they are not "just cells".They are significant cells. Would that be fair to say? )

    I've never said they're "just cells"


  • #274
    marienbad
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,463 ✭✭✭marienbad


    D0NNELLY wrote: »
    you're not going to deflect what i said,



    im not going to decide anything. But i will absolutely counter random rubbish spouted

    better stop posting then


  • #275
    Will I Am Not
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,496 ✭✭✭Will I Am Not


    marienbad wrote: »
    In the land of the blind the one eyed man is king - and thankfully your day my friend is done , so lord it over others while you can because soon it will be in the past .

    If not the first referendum then the one after , And I for one will be glad to see the back of ye opposing every bit of progressive legislation for 50 years .

    I think that about covers it

    Here's the difference from what I see. It's all about winning the game for a lot of people on the pro choice side. The subject is almost secondary.

    There currently is no lording it over anybody because that would be ridiculously insensitive and downright f*cked up.

    Your perspective is worrying.


  • #276
    Pseudorandom
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 128 ✭✭Pseudorandom


    To quote the most relevant portion of the article I linked:
    The HSE’s National Consent Policy restricts informed consent and informed refusal of treatment for pregnant women. To quote the policy page 41, Section 7.7.1 “because of the Constitutional provisions on the right to life of the unborn [Article 40.3.3] there is significant legal uncertainty regarding a pregnant woman’s right to [consent]”.

    This section of the policy allows the HSE to apply for injunctions from the High Court which compel pregnant women to receive treatment where they do not consent to proposed treatment plans, whether these are in line with international best practice or not.


    This is in contrast to the following in section 7.7, which refers to non-pregnant adults:
    “When consent is refused if an adult with capacity to make an informed decision makes a voluntary and appropriately informed decision to refuse treatment or service, this decision must be respected, even where the service user’s decision may result in his or her death. In such cases it is particularly important to accurately document the discussions with the service user, including the procedure that has been offered, the service user’s decision to decline and the fact that the implications of this decision have been fully outlined.”


  • Advertisement
  • #277
    hatrickpatrick
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,798 ✭✭✭✭hatrickpatrick


    One eyed Jack wrote: »
    Secondly - I'm not getting hysterical about anything, I've been hearing the 'ball of cells' bollocks for about 20 odd years now, it wore thin after about the third time, now it's just laughable.

    Many feel exactly the same way about the "life begins at conception" argument.


  • #278
    marienbad
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,463 ✭✭✭marienbad


    The Fake Sheikh wrote: »
    Here's the difference from what I see. It's all about winning the game for a lot of people on the pro choice side. The subject is almost secondary.

    There currently is no lording it over anybody because that would be ridiculously insensitive and downright f*cked up.

    Your perspective is worrying.

    Then you need to read the post I was replying to , ''lording it over '' is exactly what was going on .

    So I can allay any fears you had on my perspective , but thanks for your concern


  • #279
    jameorahiely
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 825 ✭✭✭jameorahiely


    anna080 wrote: »
    I've never said they're "just cells"
    No you didn't I know. It was the other poster.


  • #280
    One eyed Jack
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 24,795 ✭✭✭✭One eyed Jack


    marienbad wrote: »
    In the land of the blind the one eyed man is king - and thankfully your day my friend is done , so lord it over others while you can because soon it will be in the past .

    If not the first referendum then the one after , And I for one will be glad to see the back of ye opposing every bit of progressive legislation for 50 years .

    I think that about covers it


    No, I think the democratic process will be around for another while yet, thankfully.


  • #281
    marienbad
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,463 ✭✭✭marienbad


    One eyed Jack wrote: »
    No, I think the democratic process will be around for another while yet, thankfully.


    I am counting on it Jack , otherwise we would never be rid of this last vestige of a catholic state for a catholic people mentality .


  • Advertisement
  • #282
    Outlaw Pete
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,423 ✭✭✭✭Outlaw Pete


    Lady Spangles wrote: »
    Ben Shapiro is a writer and commentator (for Breitbart, no less).

    Resigned.
    He's not a scientist and has no scientific qualification from what I can see.

    Cause scientific consensus has never been wrongheaded....

    The infancy of infant pain research: the experimental origins of infant pain denial.

    Skepticism toward infant pain characterized much of 20th century research and clinical practice, with infant surgery routinely conducted with minimal or no anesthesia into the 1980s. This paper offers a historical exploration of how this view became common by reviewing and analyzing the experimental infant pain research of the 19th and early 20th centuries that contributed to the development of infant pain denial.

    These experiments used pinprick and electric shock, and the results were generally interpreted as evidence of infants' underdeveloped pain perception, attributed to their lack of brain maturation. Even clear responses to noxious stimuli were often dismissed as reflex responding.

    Later these experimental findings were used by anesthesiologists to support the lessened use of anesthesia for infants. Based on the reviewed literature, this paper suggests that 4 interrelated causes contributed to the denial of infant pain: the Darwinian view of the child as a lower being, extreme experimental caution, the mechanistic behaviorist perspective, and an increasing emphasis on brain and nervous system development.

    Ultimately this history can be read as a caution to modern researchers to be aware of their own biases, the risks of null hypothesis testing, and a purely mechanistic view of infants..


  • #283
    Pseudorandom
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 128 ✭✭Pseudorandom


    I really wish we could reframe the debate about repealing the 8th amendment as less about abortion and more about giving pregnant women the right to refuse consent to medical procedures. The 8th amendment has made it so pregnant women lose the right to refuse any medical procedure if there is a perceived risk to the foetus (the only case I believe where an adult in their right mind is not allowed to refuse consent to surgery etc being performed on them).

    Symphysiotomies (cutting the cartilage in the pubic bone) are now looked on as barbaric (and in fairness, are no longer done in Ireland I believe) but required no consent from the mother.


  • #284
    One eyed Jack
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 24,795 ✭✭✭✭One eyed Jack


    marienbad wrote: »
    I am counting on it Jack , otherwise we would never be rid of this last vestige of a catholic state for a catholic people mentality .


    When are you ever going to get that for many people, their objection to broadening our abortion legislation in this country is not based on anything to do with religion? Your anti-religious... musings, have nothing to do with repealing the 8th amendment. They are another days discussion entirely.


  • #285
    Pseudorandom
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 128 ✭✭Pseudorandom


    For those of you looking for a scientific study, here's one to chew on:

    http://aimsireland.ie/what-matters-to-you-survey-2015/womens-experiences-of-consent-in-the-irish-maternity-services/


    Editting to make it clear that the below quote is not from the survey linked above! Just an example of consent issues in maternal healthcare.

    "The case of Hamilton vs HSE, concerned an action for negligence by a woman who was subjected to an artificial rupture of membranes (ARM), an intervention which is not best practice according to the UK’s National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) guidelines. She claimed that she did not consent to this procedure. The ARM led to a cord prolapse (a severe obstetric emergency) leading to a C-section having to be performed and serious damage to her baby. Ms Hamilton lost her case against the HSE with the court stating that:

    “Since, on the evidence, this was a routine procedure that [the midwife] was carrying out for the purpose of diagnosis to see if her fear of foetal distress was justified or not, it does seem strange that she would not have mentioned to the patient what she was going to do and have obtained her consent. The very fact that it was so routine suggests that the midwife would have done so. I am satisfied that the probability is that [the midwife] obtained the plaintiff’s consent and informed her about the ARM that she was going to perform”"


  • #286
    marienbad
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,463 ✭✭✭marienbad


    One eyed Jack wrote: »
    When are you ever going to get that for many people, their objection to broadening our abortion legislation in this country is not based on anything to do with religion? Your anti-religious... musings, have nothing to do with repealing the 8th amendment. They are another days discussion entirely.

    Well lets wait and see the cast of characters that line up to oppose repeal Jack.

    I suspect the usual suspects -Youth Defence , Alive , Iona , Coir etc etc . Is that religious enough for you ?

    And I suspect even the odd bishop or two might wave the old crozier about .


  • #287
    January
    Closed Accounts Posts: 23,862 ✭✭✭✭January


    jameorahiely wrote: »
    No you didn't I know. It was the other poster.

    I never said they were just cells either.


  • #288
    infogiver
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,505 ✭✭✭infogiver


    One eyed Jack wrote: »
    When are you ever going to get that for many people, their objection to broadening our abortion legislation in this country is not based on anything to do with religion? Your anti-religious... musings, have nothing to do with repealing the 8th amendment. They are another days discussion entirely.

    If you've spent many years convincing yourself that a 24 week gestation baby is not a baby but a clump of cells, then you have to have also convinced yourself that the only reason everyone else doesn't see it as a bunch of cells is because they have been brainwashed by religion.


  • #289
    Dick phelan
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,671 ✭✭✭Dick phelan


    noaddedsugar wrote: »
    Why though? I am a parent, it is a long, hard slog. Why should people be forced into it when there is a really simple solution? Why martyr yourself for 18+ years when you don't have to?

    FFS it's parenthood not being sent to a gulag, men do not have a choice if an unplanned pregnancy happens, I don't see why women should have some sort of cop out available, The economic argument also wears very thin given the welfare system in this country. Abortion is systematic of the culture we live in a very individualistic culture all about me me me, how about thinking about the baby being denied a chance at life because it doesn't suit someone to have them, they didn't ask to be created as i'v said they were most likely created by two people in consensual sex they don't deserve to have their shot at life taken away by two people or maybe 1 unwilling to take responsibility for their actions.


  • #290
    infogiver
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,505 ✭✭✭infogiver


    marienbad wrote: »
    Well lets wait and see the cast of characters that line up to oppose repeal Jack.

    I suspect the usual suspects -Youth Defence , Alive , Iona , Coir etc etc . Is that religious enough for you ?

    And I suspect even the odd bishop or two might wave the old crozier about .

    So you don't accept at all that there are atheists and people of other faiths who oppose abortion ?


  • #291
    January
    Closed Accounts Posts: 23,862 ✭✭✭✭January


    Dick phelan wrote: »
    FFS it's parenthood not being sent to a gulag, men do not have a choice if an unplanned pregnancy happens, I don't see why women should have some sort of cop out available, The economic argument also wears very thin given the welfare system in this country. Abortion is systematic of the culture we live in a very individualistic culture all about me me me, how about thinking about the baby being denied a chance at life because it doesn't suit someone to have them, they didn't ask to be created as i'v said they were most likely created by two people in consensual sex they don't deserve to have their shot at life taken away by two people or maybe 1 unwilling to take responsibility for their actions.

    Men don't have to risk their lives by being pregnant. Also, welfare system? Give me a break. 30 euro a week doesn't raise a baby.


  • Advertisement
  • #292
    infogiver
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,505 ✭✭✭infogiver


    January wrote: »
    Men don't have to risk their lives by being pregnant. Also, welfare system? Give me a break. 30 euro a week doesn't raise a baby.

    225 per week.


  • #293
    January
    Closed Accounts Posts: 23,862 ✭✭✭✭January


    infogiver wrote: »
    225 per week.

    And what about subsequent children? As I said 30 euro per week does not raise a child


  • #294
    JRant
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,255 ✭✭✭✭JRant


    I don't care when life does or does not begin, nor do i care if some people have abortions. I don't agree with them on a personal level but I can absolutely see why some may choose to have them.

    What I do care about is having an awful amendment removed from the constitution. It really has no place there and in a mature democracy it should be dealt with through legislation. If the repeal movement want to gain traction then they need to stop making this about a "clump of cells" or "make oppression" or other such nonsense and focus on the real issue, getting the amendment removed.

    "Well, yeah, you know, that's just, like, your opinion, man"



  • #295
    Pseudorandom
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 128 ✭✭Pseudorandom


    Dick phelan wrote: »
    FFS it's parenthood not being sent to a gulag, men do not have a choice if an unplanned pregnancy happens, I don't see why women should have some sort of cop out available, The economic argument also wears very thin given the welfare system in this country. Abortion is systematic of the culture we live in a very individualistic culture all about me me me, how about thinking about the baby being denied a chance at life because it doesn't suit someone to have them, they didn't ask to be created as i'v said they were most likely created by two people in consensual sex they don't deserve to have their shot at life taken away by two people or maybe 1 unwilling to take responsibility for their actions.

    Yes no man ever in the history of time has been able to avoid the consequences of an unplanned pregnancy :rolleyes:

    (Let's all take a minute to mentally adjust to the cognitive dissonance required to make a statement like that in the light of the Tuam findings)


  • #296
    Dick phelan
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,671 ✭✭✭Dick phelan


    January wrote: »
    Men don't have to risk their lives by being pregnant. Also, welfare system? Give me a break. 30 euro a week doesn't raise a baby.
    Risk their lives FFS the way some go on you'd swear pregnancy had a 50% mortality rate, this is a first world country very few people die as a result of pregnancy. More likely to get hit by a car crossing the road then dying because of pregnancy.


  • #297
    marienbad
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,463 ✭✭✭marienbad


    infogiver wrote: »
    So you don't accept at all that there are atheists and people of other faiths who oppose abortion ?

    Sure I do , why would you think otherwise ? But are you seriously contending that the amendment in the first place wasn't religiously inspired , like the ban on divorce , contraception etc ?

    Happily those days are done and now we are accepting people make decisions for themselves .

    And by the way I am an atheist and I personally would be very ambivalent about abortion but I don't feel the need to impose my views on anyone else .


  • #298
    222233
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,114 ✭✭✭222233


    Dick phelan wrote: »
    Risk their lives FFS the way some go on you'd swear pregnancy had a 50% mortality rate, this is a first world country very few people die as a result of pregnancy. More likely to get hit by a car crossing the road then dying because of pregnancy.

    Pregnancy does come with many risks, plus you can't take for granted the medical procedures they are subjected to as a result of their pregnancy. Not everyone for instance would be comfortable having a hand inserted into their vagina or having their cervix checked or giving birth or anything else. Pregnancy is a massive deal, with many risks.


  • #299
    January
    Closed Accounts Posts: 23,862 ✭✭✭✭January


    Dick phelan wrote: »
    Risk their lives FFS the way some go on you'd swear pregnancy had a 50% mortality rate, this is a first world country very few people die as a result of pregnancy. More likely to get hit by a car crossing the road then dying because of pregnancy.

    It's still a risk, and there's more than the risk of death. Incontinence, chronic pain, permanent scars, risk of blood clots during pregnancy. I see you're not going for the welfare angle anymore though.


  • #300
    Dick phelan
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,671 ✭✭✭Dick phelan


    Pseudorandom wrote: »
    Yes no man ever in the history of time has been able to avoid the consequences of an unplanned pregnancy :rolleyes:

    (Let's all take a minute to mentally adjust to the cognitive dissonance required to make a statement like that in the light of the Tuam findings)

    Yes because the Tuam scandal is relevant to the discussion, did i say no man has ever not taken responsibility for their child? Point is people look down on fathers who don't step up as Scumbags and imo rightly so, yet a women ends the life of her unborn baby and that's all ok to you. As i'v said man or woman you should take responsibility for the life you create, i look down on those who don't regardless of gender.


  • Advertisement
  • #301
    Pseudorandom
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 128 ✭✭Pseudorandom


    JRant wrote: »
    I don't care when life does or does not begin, nor do i care if some people have abortions. I don't agree with them on a personal level but I can absolutely see why some may choose to have them.

    What I do care about is having an awful amendment removed from the constitution. It really has no place there and in a mature democracy it should be dealt with through legislation. If the repeal movement want to gain traction then they need to stop making this about a "clump of cells" or "make oppression" or other such nonsense and focus on the real issue, getting the amendment removed.

    Yeah this basically. I disagree with you on many points, but the main concept that should be repeated more often is that this is NOT legalising abortion, this is simply removing an ill thought out constitutional amendment and turning it back over to the lawmakers.


Advertisement