nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

The 8th amendment(Mod warning in op)

RobertKK

The citizens assembly voted to replace or amend the 8th amendment.

50% voted to replace or amend
44% voted to repeal
Rest preferred to not state an opinion

Now deciding how it will be replaced or amended
: Let the Dail legislate on the rights of the unborn
: Amend the provision in the constitution.

Meltdown on twitter by Repealthe8th people.

Mod- This thread has descended in to petty name calling. We've tried to let this thread run without too much mod interference but now it's on our radar we will be watching. From here on the name calling stops. If you can't debate civilly we will remove your right to post.

__________________

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

dr.fuzzenstein

What about having the decision made for you, forcing you to have surgery instead of medication.
And if that decision was not taken on scientific and medical grounds, but moral and religious grounds?
I would, like any sane person leave the country, because I don't believe in surgery for reasons of oogedy boogedy.

One eyed Jack

B0jangles wrote: »

Could your recent hip issue have been treated entirely with medication instead of surgery?

I know why you're asking that question, but I hope you'll appreciate how difficult it is to answer given that I'm not a medical professional. It could have been left as it was, and I would have managed fine. It could have been treated with medication, and I would have been fine, but it was determined by medical professionals at the time that I would be a good candidate for a procedure that had been successfully tried in the States.

If you could have had same result simply by taking a pill, would you have chosen to undergo surgery?

It would depend upon the outcome of taking the pill, which obviously if we were to draw a fair comparison, the outcomes wouldn't be the same. You might as well be asking me if I were experiencing an ectopic pregnancy and was told that I would not be given a pill but was told surgery was available, would I go for the surgery? Obviously I would. If I knew the conditions under which the surgery was to be performed, then I would likely say I wasn't willing to take that risk, and given the outcomes of previous cases and other cases I'm aware of which are cases of medical mismanagement in Ireland, I would be extremely hesitant.

Would you be happy to have that decision made for you?

Again, I'm happy to have some decisions made for me, such as what medical professionals with decades of experience in dealing with my condition would have over me, and then some decisions which place limitations on their options or place limits on the type of treatment available to me, I'm prepared to live with the consequences of those decisions.

The idea of maintaining that the 8th is responsible for any pregnant woman's death is to me at least the equivalent of suggesting that if a woman hadn't left her home, she wouldn't have been raped. It's an argument that completely ignores what actually caused her to be raped, in the same way that suggesting the 8th is responsible for the death of any pregnant woman ignores the actual cause of her death.

B0jangles

One eyed Jack wrote: »

In my opinion, it's the botched surgery.

For example, I recently had a hip replacement operation, and there are any number of it's and buts and possible scenarios with potential consequences -

If the surgeon had nicked an artery I would simply have bled to death.

If the surgery had been performed at another hospital where they have the equipment to recycle blood during surgery it would have immediately reduced my risk of exposure to any number of other outcomes.

If I hadn't had steel pins put in 20 years ago it would have made the hip replacement procedure much more straightforward.

If a click hip had been detected during a routine examination which was carried out on all babies at birth, then I might never have had to have a hip replacement now. It would simply have been a question of being put in a cast for a few months as opposed to having been missed out on completely. I don't know why it was missed out on, but I can't look back now at all the what if's, because each permutation presents it's own set of further possibilities, and there's no way of truly knowing anything with any degree of certainty.

Could your recent hip issue have been treated entirely with medication instead of surgery?

If you could have had same result simply by taking a pill, would you have chosen to undergo surgery?

Would you be happy to have that decision made for you?

One eyed Jack

B0jangles wrote: »

Say you have severe indigestion and for some completely incomprehensible reason (possibly rooted in religion) you can't be given a couple of rennies; the only legal option is gastric surgery to remove the excess acid.

The surgery is botched and you die on the operating theatre.

Is the root problem the specific instance of botched surgery or the insane requirement to have the surgery in the first place?

In my opinion, it's the botched surgery.

For example, I recently had a hip replacement operation, and there are any number of it's and buts and possible scenarios with potential consequences -

If the surgeon had nicked an artery I would simply have bled to death.

If the surgery had been performed at another hospital where they have the equipment to recycle blood during surgery it would have immediately reduced my risk of exposure to any number of other outcomes.

If I hadn't had steel pins put in 20 years ago it would have made the hip replacement procedure much more straightforward.

If a click hip had been detected during a routine examination which was carried out on all babies at birth, then I might never have had to have a hip replacement now. It would simply have been a question of being put in a cast for a few months as opposed to having been missed out on completely. I don't know why it was missed out on, but I can't look back now at all the what if's, because each permutation presents it's own set of further possibilities, and there's no way of truly knowing anything with any degree of certainty.

dr.fuzzenstein

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

You've been doing this for the entire thread and it's getting ridiculous at this point. Any time a point is made against you that you know you can't refute, you just say it's wrong. No attempt at a rebuttal of the argument, just literally sticking your head in the sand.

I think EOTR may believe this thread is a Panto.

One eyed Jack

NuMarvel wrote: »

Here's where you do that thing of just repeating the same thing over and over again.

Nice attempt at a swerve, but no dice. The point was the dangers the 8th puts women in, not what happens after they're put in danger.

I think Joey was pretty explicit in his claim that the 8th puts women's lives in danger. I'm not twisting anything or wilfully misinterpreting anything in that statement.

Mrs Thawley was only in surgery because the 8th denied her the option of a non-invasive treatment. A non-invasive treatment that would have had the same outcome as surgery, yet she was force to undergo surgery, which even at the best of times is never risk free. None of this is opinion, it is fact.

Before the 8th existed, the Offences Against the Person Act of 1861 would have been in play. That's why hypotheticals are just that. There's simply no way of knowing how it would have played out in any given circumstances where there are a number of factors to be considered.

I have stated more than once that the hospital and doctors bear responsibility for the effects of the surgery, but the 8th, and it supporters, bear responsibility for her being in surgery in the first place.

I hope you aren't expecting me to dignify that particular comment.

It'd be interesting to see how Ireland's rate of surgeries for ectopic pregnancies compares internationally. Do we have a higher rate, and if so, how do we justify continuing the use of surgery when there are other, less invasive options available? How would we continue justifying the use of valuable staff and infrastructural resources at a time when the health service is stretched to the limit when a more efficient means are available?

I was immediately going to suggest that the beancounters will already have done their homework, but then that would have ignored the more obvious answer - politics.

B0jangles

Say you have severe indigestion and for some completely incomprehensible reason (possibly rooted in religion) you can't be given a couple of rennies; the only legal option is gastric surgery to remove the excess acid.

The surgery is botched and you die on the operating theatre.

Is the root problem the specific instance of botched surgery or the insane requirement to have the surgery in the first place?

NuMarvel

One eyed Jack wrote: »

It's entirely inaccurate, and it's certainly not a fact. It's an opinion.

Here's where you do that thing of just repeating the same thing over and over again.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

It's only when a pregnant woman's life is already in immediate danger that the conditions of the 8th amendment become relevant, and even then the priority is to save the life of the pregnant woman.

Nice attempt at a swerve, but no dice. The point was the dangers the 8th puts women in, not what happens after they're put in danger.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

That's why allegations that racism and sexism in this fùcking country killed Savita are a matter of opinion, and why the allegation that the 8th amendment caused the death of Malak Kuzbary Thawley is a matter of opinion, both of which ignore the failure of numerous systems that should have been in place in the hospitals which, had they been properly implemented, would more likely have prevented their unfortunate deaths and prevented any future risk to pregnant women from substandard practices and incompetence in how these hospitals are run.

Mrs Thawley was only in surgery because the 8th denied her the option of a non-invasive treatment. A non-invasive treatment that would have had the same outcome as surgery, yet she was force to undergo surgery, which even at the best of times is never risk free. None of this is opinion, it is fact.

I have stated more than once that the hospital and doctors bear responsibility for the effects of the surgery, but the 8th, and it supporters, bear responsibility for her being in surgery in the first place.

It'd be interesting to see how Ireland's rate of surgeries for ectopic pregnancies compares internationally. Do we have a higher rate, and if so, how do we justify continuing the use of surgery when there are other, less invasive options available? How would we continue justifying the use of valuable staff and infrastructural resources at a time when the health service is stretched to the limit when a more efficient means are available?

222233

One eyed Jack wrote: »

It's entirely inaccurate, and it's certainly not a fact. It's an opinion.

It's only when a pregnant woman's life is already in immediate danger that the conditions of the 8th amendment become relevant, and even then the priority is to save the life of the pregnant woman.

That's why allegations that racism and sexism in this fùcking country killed Savita are a matter of opinion, and why the allegation that the 8th amendment caused the death of Malak Kuzbary Thawley is a matter of opinion, both of which ignore the failure of numerous systems that should have been in place in the hospitals which, had they been properly implemented, would more likely have prevented their unfortunate deaths and prevented any future risk to pregnant women from substandard practices and incompetence in how these hospitals are run.

You say it doesn't endanger women's lives, I would say you would possibly find that to be untrue, if we could measure the scope of injury caused by the eight amendment, much of which is probably undocumented given how far back it would go. Consider just for example those who have had abortions carried out illegally.

You are correct in saying that it's only when a woman's life is in "immediate danger" that the eight kicks in which is a VERY sad reality as it stems from an ideation that until or unless the problem becomes urgent it should be allowed to fester.

One eyed Jack

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

It isn't inaccurate. Womens lives are endangered by the 8th amendment. That is a fact.

It's entirely inaccurate, and it's certainly not a fact. It's an opinion.

It's only when a pregnant woman's life is already in immediate danger that the conditions of the 8th amendment become relevant, and even then the priority is to save the life of the pregnant woman.

That's why allegations that racism and sexism in this fùcking country killed Savita are a matter of opinion, and why the allegation that the 8th amendment caused the death of Malak Kuzbary Thawley is a matter of opinion, both of which ignore the failure of numerous systems that should have been in place in the hospitals which, had they been properly implemented, would more likely have prevented their unfortunate deaths and prevented any future risk to pregnant women from substandard practices and incompetence in how these hospitals are run.

Annasopra

end of the road wrote: »

again this is inaccurate.

It isn't inaccurate. Womens lives are endangered by the 8th amendment. That is a fact.

Zubeneschamali

end of the road wrote: »

i don't as we have abortion in extreme circumstances availible in ireland already.

Yes, but not because the pro-life movement were in favour of it.

We have it because they made a balls of the wording of the 8th and legalized abortion by accident.

captbarnacles

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

So business as usual.
The no side is perfectly OK with women traveling for abortions, they just don't want to sully this green isle with this dirty business.
So they can export the problem, whilst sitting smug on their moral high horse.
The hypocrisy of it all stinks to high heaven, because it is pretty clear that they don't give a flying fcuk about those women and their deafing silence on these points speaks volumes.
Your time to stick your head in the sand is over and you know it's over.
This is your last hurrah, soon sense will prevail, it is only a matter of time.

Not only export! they also blithley ignore that Irish women are having abortions in Ireland but unsafe ones with no medical support.

It's crystal clear from this thread that the pro-lifers don't care about women only about maintaining the pathetic facade of Ireland being anti abortion.

end of the road

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

And yet the reality is womens lives are endangered by it. But as Bannasidhe said earlier women are just collateral damage to save fetuss

again this is inaccurate.

Annasopra

thee glitz wrote: »

Nothing wrong with that - a position that will save many lives.

And yet the reality is womens lives are endangered by it. But as Bannasidhe said earlier women are just collateral damage to save fetuss

dr.fuzzenstein

So business as usual.
The no side is perfectly OK with women traveling for abortions, they just don't want to sully this green isle with this dirty business.
So they can export the problem, whilst sitting smug on their moral high horse.
The hypocrisy of it all stinks to high heaven, because it is pretty clear that they don't give a flying fcuk about those women and their deafing silence on these points speaks volumes.
Your time to stick your head in the sand is over and you know it's over.
This is your last hurrah, soon sense will prevail, it is only a matter of time.

NuMarvel

thee glitz wrote: »

Removing the protection afforded by the 8th completely would carry huge risks for the unborn.

We know that thousands of women already have abortions every year through travel, pills, or other means. How many more abortions would happen under your proposals compared to the status quo? And how many more abortions would happen under the Committee's proposals compared to yours?

thee glitz wrote: »

The risks I'd allow run are those posed by the unavailability of abortion on demand, whatever they are... not recognising the supposed risk of suicide as sufficient.

Whatever they are? How can you decide what risks are acceptable if you don't even know what the risks are?

thee glitz wrote: »

I appreciate your reply, but what I asked was about the proposal to implement such legislation, not the implication of doing so. A proposal to legislate for later availability would bring a greater risk of none at all.

I can see your logic there. Just as well the Assembly and Committee recommended a middle ground option that still means the majority of women can access abortion without jeopardising support for repeal.

thee glitz

NuMarvel wrote: »

What you said was that not repealing the 8th puts women's live in danger.

It follows that a proposal that would maintain some or many of the effects of the 8th would carry more risks than a proposal that would carry none of the effects of the 8th.

Removing the protection afforded by the 8th completely would carry huge risks for the unborn. The risks I'd allow run are those posed by the unavailability of abortion on demand, whatever they are... not recognising the supposed risk of suicide as sufficient.

I missed it, so I'm happy to answer it now; I wouldn't have a problem with that. The majority of women who access abortion do it within the first trimester (92% in Britain, higher in other European countries), so in effect, there would be little or no difference to the current proposal of up to 12 weeks.

I appreciate your reply, but what I asked was about the proposal to implement such legislation, not the implication of doing so. A proposal to legislate for later availability would bring a greater risk of none at all.

NuMarvel

thee glitz wrote: »

What I said was

What you said was that not repealing the 8th puts women's live in danger.

It follows that a proposal that would maintain some or many of the effects of the 8th would carry more risks than a proposal that would carry none of the effects of the 8th.

thee glitz wrote: »

I don't see any replies to this either

I missed it, so I'm happy to answer it now; I wouldn't have a problem with that. The majority of women who access abortion do it within the first trimester (92% in Britain, higher in other European countries), so in effect, there would be little or no difference to the current proposal of up to 12 weeks.

thee glitz

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

What I am saying is that EOTR prioritises banning abortion "on demand" over and above all else.

Nothing wrong with that - a position that will save many lives.

The result of that support of banning abortion "on demand" means that abortion in various extreme circumstances cannot be legislated for.

It only does so to the extent that extreme circumstances can't be allowed for by the constitution without doing so for all cases (any reason / no reason).

So saying he supports abortion in extreme circumstances is completely hollow words.

I don't believe it is, but can appreciate why you might think so. All it would take is a little constitution creativity to allow for abortion where necessary (the specifics to be determined by legislation), but not just because.

thee glitz

Bannasidhe wrote: »

I watched the whole vote. It was very clear. Each proposal was clearly made, any clarifications sought were provided, then the vote on that particular proposal was not only taken - they had a vote as to whether they would vote.
No apparent discrepancy at all - the resulting report reflected the vote.
Glad to clear that up.

I remember thinking it a bit odd at the time that more of the CA voted for abortion availability after 12 weeks than only to that time, but then recommending only to then. As above, I'm not too concerned about the CA anyway, particularly as it's probably not representative of the overall population.

thee glitz wrote:

would you accept the possibility of legislating for abortion on demand being kicked 10 years down the road if it meant an end to women dying due the 8th?

Bannasidhe wrote:

And what?

I'm trying to gauge the extent of prioritising ensuring women don't die for lack of an abortion vs general availability on demand.

NuMarvel wrote: »

The risks you referred to as being present in the current situation minus whatever ones might be mitigated by the alternative you'd propose in lieu of the Committee's recommendations.

What I said was

thee glitz wrote: »

I guess reference could be made to burden imposed by the continued protection of life.

I note that you weren't replying to my post, but to this obtuse misrepresentation of what I said by Bannasidhe.

I offered a very general proposal (and I don't see that anyone else has offered anything), having implied that I'm not well placed to draft / interpret constitutional law. So there's not necessarily any risks that mightn't be mitigated under what I proposed.

I don't see any replies to this either

thee glitz wrote: »

How would you feel if Leo said that the legislation that would follow repealing the 8th would allow abortion on demand up to 26 weeks?

Annasopra

thee glitz wrote: »

There are none so blind as those who will not see, or am I missing something?

What I am saying is that EOTR prioritises banning abortion "on demand" over and above all else. The result of that support of banning abortion "on demand" means that abortion in various extreme circumstances cannot be legislated for. So saying he supports abortion in extreme circumstances is completely hollow words.

end of the road

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

But you dont really

i do

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

you view preventing abortion in extreme circumstances as necessary in order to prevent so called "abortion on demand". Collateral damage.

i don't as we have abortion in extreme circumstances availible in ireland already.

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Extreme circumstances which are hard to really define.

not really, i gave some examples of what i believe to be extreme circumstances where i am okay with abortion being availible.

thee glitz

There are none so blind as those who will not see, or am I missing something?

end of the road wrote: »

because as said by me, there are many who disagree with abortion on demand, and on the grounds of it being likely that it would be legislated for, we wouldn't vote to repeal. if there is enough of us and the vote is caried then the problems still exist. however if there was no chance of abortion on demand being legislated for, there would have been huge support from the pro-life movement.

end of the road wrote: »

that is why we support abortion when necessary but don't when it isn't

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

Except that's not what you do.
You support abortion for medical reasons

end of the road wrote: »

i was referring to the case where carying the baby to term may cause permanent disability to the mother, something i have been clear about throughout the thread.

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

You continuously opine about how you support abortion in extreme circumstances. At the end of the day though you don't because you continuously put fetuss before womens lives.

end of the road wrote: »

i support abortion in extreme circumstances.

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

But you dont really because you view preventing abortion in extreme circumstances as necessary

Bannasidhe

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

But you dont really because you view preventing abortion in extreme circumstances as necessary in order to prevent so called "abortion on demand". Collateral damage.

Extreme circumstances which are hard to really define.

Montgolfier

I think everyone who votes to keep the 8th should have to take in an orphan or two. As a man I believe a woman has the right to do with her body his she pleases. Just like every trans gender, drug addict and sexual orientation.

Annasopra

end of the road wrote: »

i support abortion in extreme circumstances.

But you dont really because you view preventing abortion in extreme circumstances as necessary in order to prevent so called "abortion on demand". Collateral damage.

end of the road

pitifulgod wrote: »

Do you view mental health grounds to be legitimate grounds for an abortion out of interest?

i'm not 100% sure on that one but i would possibly be toards the no side

pitifulgod

end of the road wrote: »

i support abortion in extreme circumstances. i have been clear and consistent about it in the thread. that means ultimately that i don't put the unborn before women's lives, given that the threat to the mother's life is one such case where i support abortion.

no, no she didn't.

Do you view mental health grounds to be legitimate grounds for an abortion out of interest?

end of the road

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

Indeed. You continuously opine about how you support abortion in extreme circumstances. At the end of the day though you don't because you continuously put fetuss before womens lives.

i support abortion in extreme circumstances. i have been clear and consistent about it in the thread. that means ultimately that i don't put the unborn before women's lives, given that the threat to the mother's life is one such case where i support abortion.

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

I think Bannasidhe really summed up your stance quite well when referring to another poster.

no, no she didn't.