bubblypop wrote: » The last time I asked you on this thread if you just don't care about women who have to undergo unnecessary operations, this is what you replied. Which basically means that you won't pretend to care that some women have to go through that. In other words, you don't care about living breathing human women.
Trudiha wrote: » I don't want to be tedious with my exoteric historical knowledge but it was the same jurisdiction when the Act came into law. It's exactly the same piece of law.
One eyed Jack wrote: » I understand that, but the point I'm making is that they aren't the same jurisdiction now. You would absolutely have had a point if women didn't die from mismanagement of ectopic pregnancies in the UK, but I think we can both agree that's simply not true.
One eyed Jack wrote: » Yes and when you replied, I thought it best to let it go rather than correct you and point out that I never said I don't care about women who have to undergo unnecessary operations. You posted about your own personal experience, and because I don't know you, I won't pretend that I care about you. You see me not pretending to care as a bad thing, I see anyone pretending to care as even worse. I don't expect you or anyone else here should care about me either, but I wouldn't assume that means you don't care about anyone.
Trudiha wrote: » No, what you claimed was that the Offences against Thr Person Act of 1861, an piece of legislation common to both states, prohibited the medical treatment of ectopic pregnancies where a heartbeat is still present. That's what's simply not true.
One eyed Jack wrote: » That's not what I said. I'm just pointing out that if the 8th didn't exist, it's still just as likely she wouldn't have been given the option of medication in this country. Therefore it's not the case that simply the existence of the 8th is responsible for her death. It would be like me arguing that if she hadn't been experiencing an ectopic pregnancy in the first place she wouldn't have died and her child would have been born. I don't use that argument though because it's entirely based upon presumptions that are in my favour, which would be biased. Instead I argue as to the actual cause of her death, which would be applicable in any number of circumstances, not just in the case of women who are pregnant.
bubblypop wrote: » I think most people would care that women have to undergo unnecessary operations because of a piece of legislation.
One eyed Jack wrote: » Oh good lord, no, that is not what I claimed. This is what I actually claimed - You made the point that she would be alive if she were in the UK, and I'm saying you simply have no way of knowing that. The UK is an entirely different jurisdiction to Ireland, it's irrelevant now as to what the laws are in the UK because the original point being made was about the existence of the 8th amendment. Without it we had the 1861 act, and any new legislation that has since been enacted in the UK is irrelevant here and now. Please god I hope that clears that up!
Trudiha wrote: » I haven't mention any new UK legislation. New UK legislation wouldn't be relevant, in the same way that the Offences Against The Person legislation, *that you brought up*, isn't relevant. The 8th amendment required this woman to be on an operating table, nothing else. Of course, I can't guarantee she'd still be alive, she might have been hit by a bus, however, she wouldn't have been on an operating table having an artery severed by an incompetent surgeon. That's the special thing that the 8th has brought to the situation.
One eyed Jack wrote: » That document I linked to wasn't written in this country, and as I said methotrexate isn't the "magic bullet" that's been bandied about in this thread, and it's not without it's complications. I don't know what your medical qualifications are, but you have to agree it would be foolish to diagnose someone over the internet, let alone determine the best course of action for them in their circumstances.
Kurtosis wrote: » What you'd hope would happen in healthcare is a patient and their doctor would discuss available treatment options, the relative advantages and disadvantages of each, and decide on the option that provides the best balance of benefits and harms.
Kurtosis wrote: » Thanks Trudiha and Jack for the clarifications regarding the Offences Against The Persons Act. I have not seen anyone in this thread bandying about statements that methotrexate is a "magic bullet" or without complications, this seems to be a strawman (although if you can point out where posters have done this I will gladly apologise). I explicitly mentioned that when deciding on any course of action in healthcare that it's about deciding on the optimal treatment which minimises risk of harm and maximises potential benefit:
Of course there may be cases where medical management is unsuitable, and similarly cases where surgical management is unsuitable. For cases where both types of management are possible, that is where the restrictions introduced by the eighth amendment are relevant. While it's difficult to attribute a single death to a treatment (i.e. saying that the counterfactual outcome would have been survival had a different treatment been used), it is possible to conclude a treatment is harmful. If one thousand ectopic pregnancy cases were randomly assigned to surgical management, and one thousand to medical management, any additional deaths occurring in the first group would be due to surgical management. Whatever that figure is, multiply that by the number of ectopic pregnancies where medical management would be suitable in Ireland per year, and you have an idea of how the eighth endangers womens' lives.
One eyed Jack wrote: » There's nothing in anything that's been written about the case to suggest that the doctors had any fear of any legal implications when they chose the course of action they did. At least I can point to where they gave the couple their medical opinion, and the couple agreed, so the doctors had their consent to any surgery, so I cannot see other than your own bias, how you could form the conclusion that the only reason methotrexate was not administered in those circumstances was as a result of the 8th amendment, or the doctors fear of any legal implications. I'm not a mind reader, but I don't think you are either.
Kurtosis wrote: » Of course there may be cases where medical management is unsuitable, and similarly cases where surgical management is unsuitable. For cases where both types of management are possible, that is where the restrictions introduced by the eighth amendment are relevant. While it's difficult to attribute a single death to a treatment (i.e. saying that the counterfactual outcome would have been survival had a different treatment been used), it is possible to conclude a treatment is harmful. If one thousand ectopic pregnancy cases were randomly assigned to surgical management, and one thousand to medical management, any additional deaths occurring in the first group would be due to surgical management. Whatever that figure is, multiply that by the number of ectopic pregnancies where medical management would be suitable in Ireland per year, and you have an idea of how the eighth endangers womens' lives.
One eyed Jack wrote: » Erm, I wasn't citing anyone in particular there, I just meant the assumption that methotrexates is assumed to be the default treatment for an ectopic pregnancy shouldn't be assumed, and that there are many factors which should be considered in determining the best course of action whether it be surgical or medical intervention.
You're asking me to engage in a hypothetical again and I'm sorry, but I just can't. My mind doesn't work like that.
Trudiha wrote: » You're right in that I'm not a mind reader but I can read the newspapers, here's a direct quote from the Indo, I'll follow up with a link, so you can read for yourself, there are no special powers required: "Mr Thawley he said had Googled ectopic pregnancy and had seen it could be treated with certain medicine but, counsel said, he was told that because the foetal sac had a heartbeat the only option was a surgical intervention."
You've either misunderstood or are misrepresenting what I've said about The Offenses Against The Person Act and the Abortion Act of England and Wales. There is nothing in the Abortion Act that allows the therapeutic removal of an unviable embryo because there is nothing in the Offences Against Thr Persons Act that would require it.
One eyed Jack wrote: That's not what I said at all, and what's quite breathtaking for me is that even after all this time, after all this discussion, you're still interpreting my posts with malicious intent or some desire that I have to deny women anything or harm women in some way.
pilly wrote: » which puzzles me no end.
One eyed Jack wrote: Where did I make any such claim first of all?
Edward M wrote: » Was just listening to local radio here in the car as I travelled, the Joe Finnegan show on shannonside/northern sound radio. They did a survey of local political TDs, cross party. A fair few didn't respond or said they would wait for the debates this week to see how they could reconcile what was on offer before making up their minds fully. A good proportion did respond and from those that did respond a sizable majority are not in favour of repeal, and of those in favour of repeal have strong reservations on the 12 week abortion limit. Surprisingly a good few females are against repeal. This covers counties Cavan, Monaghan, Leitrim, Longford and Westmeath.
pilly wrote: » Ah but it was you said Jack you're just trying to paint yourself in a good light here. The 8th is harming women and your campaigning against repeal will continue that hurt should it work. To quote the words of my father again "I care more about women than embryos". Your view is you care more about embryos which puzzles me no end.
nozzferrahhtoo wrote: » It becomes even more puzzling when you realize in other threads on other parts of the forum he talks about how the child only gets rights after birth, and how he believes a woman who does not want to be pregnant should be allowed terminate the pregnancy at any time, for any reason, and any stage of pregnancy. Something seriously does not add up for me there, but predictably when I asked for clarification (twice) he ignored it.
pilly wrote: » You claim to speak to a large number of pregnant women Jack tbf. Either that's claiming experience in the field or it's just a little spoof to back up your arguments. No-one goes around speaking to lots of pregnant women on a daily basis.
One eyed Jack wrote: » That's been asked and answered numerous times in the thread already. You simply can't have missed it given your talent for snorting through my posts to find any juicy tidbits for your latest attempt to undermine my points, just like you're doing now.
nozzferrahhtoo wrote: » I am still curious what your interest even is in a law that protects the right to life of the unborn given you have indicated to me in the past (assuming you were not just communicating poorly) that you believe a woman should be able to have a termination of her pregnancy at any stage, for any reason. I am very interested to hear how one can hold the position that a woman should have the right to terminate the pregnancy at any stage for any reason........ while also holding to the position the unborn should have a right to life. You have told us "that a woman should have full control over her own body at any stage in her pregnancy.". Is that not at odds with a law that gives a right to life to the unborn? You have also told us that "Before it's born, it's a foetus, inside a pregnant woman, who does not want to continue her pregnancy. After it's born, it's no longer a foetus, but an individual human being upon which we confer human rights." Is there not a contradiction in saying we confer rights after birth, but having a law that gives it rights before birth? Which is it? It can not be both! I genuinely would like to see the connection here, because at the moment it is like reading the posts of two totally different people posting under one single user name. Perhaps a simple re-wording of your points is all that is required for me to see the missing link, but right now things appear to by entirely contradictory. Or maybe even better, because second voices can often be clearer than one.... if someone ELSE understands how this conflict is resolved and understands OEJs position here, could you adumbrate it in your own words for me. Maybe I will understand the same point better simply made by a different person in a different way?
Originally Posted by pilly View Post You claim to speak to a large number of pregnant women Jack tbf. Either that's claiming experience in the field or it's just a little spoof to back up your arguments. No-one goes around speaking to lots of pregnant women on a daily basis. Never made any such claim pilly, and if others inferred that from my posts, that's their business. Also, I would be surprised if you took the word of anyone on the internet seriously. I certainly don't, but your point reminds me of those metoo movementarians who imagine men have never known or heard of women who have been sexually assaulted or raped before now, and this is all new to them. Of course it is.
captbarnacles wrote: » You do infer it Jack, so much so I wondered if you were involved in maternity business - medical or other.
WhiteRoses wrote: » I'll be very honest Jack, I've read your posts on numerous threads over the last couple of months and I'm still actually unclear as to what exactly your position on this referendum is. I mean absolutely no offence when I say I find your posts confusing to read.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w6.vanillicon.com/v2/6b0748b4741870baaad828fe92174b3c.svg)
