spookwoman wrote: » I'm not anti choice in fact I'm for abortion, be it i don't want it, I can't afford it, it's going to interfere with my life, it's got something wrong with it after tests, medical reasons. I do think there has to be a line drawn when there is not actually a problem with the foetus or woman later on in the pregnancy.
suicide_circus wrote: » The place for a fetus is a medical waste receptacle not a septic tank.
Martina1991 wrote: » I agree, certainly at 7 months the baby has a chance at survival. Perhaps the mother could be induced and the child taken into care. FFA is one thing but I don't agree with terminating the pregnancy in the case of a chance of heart. I would think and hope that no would be that callous.
sunshine and showers wrote: » I'm not saying you are, but the whole "women will abort babies at 30 weeks on a whim" line is a simply not true. It is a myth perpetuated by those with an anti-choice agenda. Over 90% of abortions occur by 12/13 weeks. The ones that occur later in pregnancy happen because of tragic circumstances - risk to the life of the mother, or a serious issue with the foetus such as a FFA. The late term abortion narrative is a damaging portrayal of women - that we are so flippant that we can just decide at 30 weeks that it "doesn't suit us" anymore, so we'll just get an abortion. There are no facts to support this. It's utter bs.
spookwoman wrote: » How do you know there not been someone looking for a late term abortion be it someone with mental health issues. The thing is like it or not everything including things you don't like to hear have to be considered even if they are minuscule.
January wrote: » It wouldn't be performed, even if they were looking for it. Termination of pregnancy would occur, but termination of life wouldn't.
spookwoman wrote: » I know it wouldn't be performed but it doesn't mean someone wont ask for one
....... wrote: » This post has been deleted.
spookwoman wrote: » The you get some prolife person going in somewhere looking one and knowing that lot they could bring it before the courts for whatever reason. Just think its better to cover all the bases.
spookwoman wrote: » We know she wont get an abortion but I wouldn't put it pass them to bring it so far to get a point across. Look what Mullins said yesterday and remember the same mindset was behind savitas death
January wrote: » You don't seem to get the fact that had Savita been granted the termination when she had first asked for it then the very thing that caused the sepsis would not have been there. The 8th amendment meant that her requests for a termination had been declines, her life shouldn't have had to be left hanging in the balance before a doctor could decide whether they could perform a termination or not.
O&G Consultant 1 recalled at interview that on the 23rd of October the patient and the patient’s husband enquired about the possibility of using medication to induce labour as they indicated that they did not want a protracted waiting time when the outcome was going to be an inevitable miscarriage. The consultant stated at interview that (s)he advised the patient and her husband that this was not possible under Irish law. At interview, the consultant indicated that the law is such that: “If there is a threat to the mothers’ life you can terminate. If there is a potential major hazard to the mothers’ life the law is not clear…. There are no guidelines for inevitable miscarriages”
The “X Case” 7. In Attorney General v X & Others55 (the “X Case”) the Supreme Court considered the requirements of Article 40.3.3° in circumstances we re the continuation of her pregnancy is deemed to pose a serious risk to the life of the woman. The case concerned a 14 year old girl who had become pregnant by rape. The Attorney General applied to the High Court for an injunction preventing the girl from travelling to England for an abortion. In the High Court a psychologist testified that the girl might commit suicide if she was refused an abortion. The High Court granted the injunction but its decision was overturned on appeal by a majority of the Supreme Court (Hederman J dissenting). In the course of their judgments each member of the majority considered how Article 40.3.3° was to be applied in circumstan ces where a pregnant woman’s right to life was deemed to be at risk as a consequence of her pregnancy. 8. Finlay CJ laid down the test to be applied in such cases as follows: “I, therefore, conclude that the proper test to be applied is that if it is established as a matter of probability that there is a real and substantial risk to the life, as distinct from the health, of the mother, which can only be avoided by the termination of her pregnancy, such termination is permissible, having regard to the true interpretation of Article 40, s. 3, sub-s. 3 of the Constitution.”56 9. The Chief Justice went on to hold that on the basis of the evidence before the trial judge, and on the findings which he had made, Miss X satisfied this test in that it had been “established as a matter of probability, that there is a real and substantial risk to the life of the mother by self destruction which can only be avoided by the termination of her pregnancy.”57 10. O’Flaherty J formulated substantially the same test in the following terms: “Until legislation is enacted to provide otherwise, I believe that the law in this State is that surgical intervention which has the effect of terminating pregnancy bona fide undertaken to save the life of the mother where she is in danger of death is permissible under the Constitution and the law. The danger has to represent a substantial risk to her life though this does not necessarily have to be an imminent danger of instant death. The law does not require the doctors to wait until the mother is in peril of immediate death. I believe the instant case to come within this principle.”58 11. Egan J likewise adopted a test largely equivalent in substance to the foregoing, namely: “In my opinion the true test should be that a pregnancy may be terminated if its continuance as a matter of probability involves a real and substantial risk to the life of the mother. The risk must be to her life but it is irrelevant, in my view, that it should be a risk of self-destruction rather than a risk to life for any other reason. The evidence establishes that such a risk exists in the present case.”59 12. McCarthy J framed the test as follows: “In my view, the true construction of the Amendment, bearing in mind the other provisions of Article 40 and the fundamental rights of the family guaranteed by Article 41, is that, paying due regard to the equal right to life of the mother, when there is a real and substantial risk attached to her survival not merely at the time of application but in contemplation at least throughout the pregnancy, then it may not be practicable to vindicate the right to life of the unborn.”60
NuMarvel wrote: » Realistically, the Oireachtas aren't going to legislate beyond what the Assembly proposed in the event of repeal, so this is all moot. If memory serves, the majority of Assembly members only recommended access to abortion after 22 weeks in 3 circumstances; i) where there's a risk to the woman's life, ii) where there's a serious risk to her health, and iii) where the unborn has an abnormality that is likely to be fatal. Could someone go to court to challenge these restrictions? Sure. But I don't see how someone could win that challenge, and you haven't given any grounds for a successful challenge either.
January wrote: » You've got it bit wrong there.https://www.citizensassembly.ie/en/The-Eighth-Amendment-of-the-Constitution/Final-Report-on-the-Eighth-Amendment-of-the-Constitution/Final-Report-incl-Appendix-A-D.pdf Chapter 1 outlines that the majority usually voted for no restrictions in most cases where there is risk to the health (physical or mental) woman, fatal fetal abnormality or suicide.
NuMarvel wrote: » The Table for Reason 8 (Risk to health) on Page 34 puts majority support at the 22 week mark. The majority of the Assembly only supported no restrictions for health reasons when there was a serious risk to health (Reason 5).
January wrote: » I said 'most' not all.
NuMarvel wrote: » So what bit did I get wrong?
