Martina1991 wrote: » That seems like a very ignorant view of abortion if that's what pro life people believe. That any woman would choose to have an abortion as a method of contraception. What women would seek abortion like an errand to run without serious consideration.
2wsxcde3 wrote: » The only reason I want to restrict the option for the woman is because abortion restricts the option for the unborn to live. I think women should be able to do whatever they want, but not affect the option of the unborn who wants to live. If you give the option to one, you take it away from the other. Its not easy. But i think the option to live trumps the option of not wanting to be pregnant for nine months. Life trumps all else. I know this is hard for some people, but the unborn should get to have their choice too.
kylith wrote: » Would you tell your wife or your sister that if she was diagnosed with cancer during pregnancy you would happily withhold treatment until it became terminal? Would you gladly tell her that she had to give birth to a baby with no brain and watch it die? Would you tell her it was right and proper that she has no say about her medical treatment while pregnant? Because that’s what supporting the 8th means.
2wsxcde3 wrote: » These are all good questions. But i think a baby even born with no brain should be allowed to naturally die and be given a decent burial with the rest of the family. They should be considered no more or no less than any other member of the family. They are just one of the family who didn't make it. I think in years to come the mother and father would appreciate their baby being given that dignity rather than being incinerated indiscriminately by a hospital. If all these difficult issues are what is really bothering the pro-choice side, then they should be campaigning for these only. Simon Coveney said it was not impossible to legislate for these cases only. But you know and i know that the pro-choice side want abortion on demand and for any reason, ideally up to 24 weeks.
2wsxcde3 wrote: » I'm just worried that in a country where we have a mental health problem that we are making the situation worse by lowering the dignity of unborn human beings. Pro-abortionists are saying that if something is a problem - get rid of it. I'm worried how that would subconsciously play out in the mind of someone who is suffering from depression and on the brink of taking their own life.
Captain Obvious wrote: » There is none. But making a woman a criminal simply for obtaining an abortion is not the only way to enforce the general rule. You can instead punish those who provide them.
AnneFrank wrote: » I felt a lot of older people who had differing views were labelled homophobes
2wsxcde3 wrote: » I'm just worried that in a country where we have a mental health problem that we are making the situation worse by lowering the dignity of unborn human beings. Pro-abortionists are saying that if something is a problem - get rid of it. I'm worried how that would subconsciously play out in the mind of someone who is suffering from depression and on the brink of taking their own life. We should be sending the message that life has value. And even if something is unwanted, there are other options available that offer a way out that doesn't end in the loss of a life.
2wsxcde3 wrote: » In the Kermit Gosnell case in America, one woman gave evidence at the trial that she had had 8 abortions by Kermit Gosnell.
NuMarvel wrote: » But at the moment, the law doesn't distinguish between the provider and the woman. It can't distinguish between them without at least changing if not outright removing the 8th.
NuMarvel wrote: » And even if it did, in reality it just means an increasing number of women will continue to import pills. And while decriminalising the woman means she'd be more likely to seek medical attention if something goes wrong, I'd prefer if she were able to have medical guidance from the start of the process.
Zubeneschamali wrote: » No, that would be unconstitutional according to the 8th.
Captain Obvious wrote: » That's speculation. And, afaik, it's based on advice received from the AG on a bill reducing the penalty to €1.
Zubeneschamali wrote: » It is not speculation. The 8th amendment makes the unborn's right to life equal to the mothers and states that the State must take all practicable steps to defend and vindicate that right. Killing the unborn must therefore be a crime comparable to killing the mother, which is why the PLDPA comes with a 14 year jail sentence for women who have abortions. The 8th absolutely requires it.
A woman taken to court by the HSE in an attempt to force her to have a caesarean section has gone public with her story to highlight the practical consequences of the eighth amendment. In September 2016, the HSE applied to the High Court for an order allowing it to use “reasonable and proportionate force [or] restraint” to perform surgery on Geraldine Williams, who was 40 weeks pregnant. This was to vindicate her baby’s right to life under article 40.3.3 of the constitution. Williams, from Ballyjamesduff, Co Cavan, already had three children delivered by caesarean section and wanted to have her fourth child naturally. She was in hospital and did not attend the court hearing. Her unborn baby was given separate legal representation. Judge Michael Twomey refused to grant the HSE the order, saying the increased risk inherent in a natural delivery did not justify “effectively authorising her to have her uterus opened against her will, something which would constitute a grievous assault if done on a woman who was not pregnant”. The day after the ruling, Williams gave birth by consensual caesarean section to Erikkah, a healthy 9lb girl. “People don’t realise the effect the eighth amendment can have on a woman’s right to have input into her care during pregnancy and childbirth,” Williams said yesterday. “It isn’t just to do with abortion. In Ireland every year 60,000 women give birth, so that’s a lot of people affected.” She told her story in a pro-repeal video made by Midwives for Choice. Williams said a scan on the morning of her baby’s due date showed increased fluid and she was warned this may indicate gestational diabetes. “I was told that trying for a natural birth was too high risk, but I held my ground,” she said. “I’d researched it. Labour is good for a baby’s lungs. The hormones the body produces during labour help them take their first breath. Even if a caesarean turns out to be needed, being in labour for a while is good for your baby. “I also knew the downside a caesarean can have for the mother, the effect on your emotional wellbeing, the physical toll, the long and painful recovery. I knew that to try for a natural birth was best for my baby, and for me. “The hospital staff didn’t agree. I didn’t feel listened to. I was told to think of all the mothers who’d lost babies.” Williams was admitted to hospital that night. While a nurse was attaching her to a foetal heart monitor, a consultant informed her the HSE was going to court next day to compel her to have a caesarean section. “I was in shock,” she said. “No one had ever said anything about court.All I could think of was what would happen to my baby. Could I go to jail? I was dumbfounded and panicked at the same time. I had been having the beginnings of contractions, but they stalled. I never felt more vulnerable in my life.” The hearing was held in camera. A leading obstetrician testified that his “guesstimate” was that a natural delivery would raise the risk of Williams’s uterus rupturing to 10% because of previous caesarean sections. In his subsequent judgment Twomey said no contrary evidence was provided, noting Williams’s barrister had only been informed of the case at 10am. The judge concluded it was “a step too far to order the forced caesarean section of a woman against her will”. “[When] I found out I’d won the case, it didn’t feel like a victory,” Williams said. “All I wanted was to get home to my children. I was angry that I’d been put through such an ordeal. “The following day I went into labour. When it became clear a natural birth was not to be, I looked for a section. I always knew I would if it was needed. I only ever wanted what is best for my family.”
January wrote: » Mother B has come out to share her story of how the 8th amendment affected her and her pregnancy and birth. https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/hse-used-eighth-to-try-to-force-me-to-have-a-caesarean-gz62kr9tbhttps://twitter.com/wendylyon/status/965143223130877952
swampgas wrote: » It is impossible to allow a woman to be in control of her own body and also have a law that says that every pregancy that occurs, wanted or unwanted, healthy or FFA, conceived willingly or by rape, MUST be continued.
Captain Obvious wrote: » What you've linked there is a story of doctors trying to use the 8th to force her to do something but a court siding in her favour despite the 8th. So the 8th had no effect on her pregnancy. She was allowed do it her way.
January wrote: » She shouldn't have been brought to court in the first place! She was brought to court because of the 8th.
2wsxcde3 wrote: I think women should be able to do whatever they want, but not affect the option of the unborn who wants to live. If you give the option to one, you take it away from the other. Its not easy. But i think the option to live trumps the option of not wanting to be pregnant for nine months.
Martina1991 wrote: » What about the right to life of the mother. Her right to life and her maternity care comes second to the foetus. She has no say in what procedures she has if it means the foetus still has a heart beat. Having a baby isn't just for 9 months. What about the physical, mental, emotional, financial strain of taking care or a child for the rest of your life that you did not want. If your 16 or have been raped or in a domestically violent relationship or homeless or drug addicted or whatever. I do not have the right to tell those women what to do. And neither do you.
2wsxcde3 wrote: Bodily autonomy is a fantasy. For example, if someone tries to commit suicide a guard will intervene and restrain the person against their will. It happens whether they are male or female. I presume you are against bodily autonomy for a woman in this situation? Bodily autonomy also doesn't exist in relation to prostitution. The state doesn't allow us to do what we want with our body.
2wsxcde3 wrote: » That case had nothing to do with the 8th. She was ignoring sound medical advice that could have led to her death:A leading obstetrician testified that his “guesstimate” was that a natural delivery would raise the risk of Williams’s uterus rupturing to 10% because of previous caesarean sections.
Martina1991 wrote: » If someone is decidedly suicidal then one attempt to save their life doesn't mean they won't try again by another means.
swampgas wrote: » Regardless of the outcome, the hospital were able to use article 40.3.3 to attempt to overrule the woman's lack of consent to the treatment they were insisting upon. There are lots of other issues around consent in this story, but without the 8th it is unlikely that there would have been a court case. Do we really need to be dragging judges into cases like this? It should be a medical decision based on best practice, but ultimately the patient (the pregnant woman in this case) should not be threated with a law suit because a consultant wants to coerce her into a surgical procedure that she doesn't want.
2wsxcde3 wrote: » Bodily autonomy is a fantasy. For example, if someone tries to commit suicide a guard will intervene and restrain the person against their will. It happens whether they are male or female. I presume you are against bodily autonomy for a woman in this situation? Bodily autonomy also doesn't exist in relation to prostitution. The state doesn't allow us to do what we want with our body.
Captain Obvious wrote: » You can try anything in court. It's the courts decision that matters.
Captain Obvious wrote: » Is there case law to support your claim?
swampgas wrote: » Bodily autonomy is a fantasy? You think the law should ignore your right to bodily autonomy in all cases? Should we just take one of your kidneys for a patient on a waiting list without your consent so, seeing as your bodily autonomy is just fantasy? Edit: given that bodily autonomy is a fantasy, do you also support removing the right to travel abraad for an abortion? (Not expecting an answer to this though, to be honest.)
