NuMarvel wrote: » Firstly, the AG doesn't speculate. They may not always be right, but their opinions are based on more than conjecture or guesswork. Secondly, for someone who dismisses other opinions as speculation, you've provided nothing to back up your own claims, even when directly asked. So you too are speculating.
NuMarvel wrote: » And, no offence, but if asked to choose between the opinions of the AG and the unsupported speculations of Captain Obvious on the internet, no one in their right mind would choose the latter.
NuMarvel wrote: » This is exactly what happened. The woman was able to make her decision only after the court ruled. Judges and lawyers will continue to be the ultimate arbiters in maternity care. The HSE's own guidelines on consent say as much. This is the reality of the 8th, and if you don't like that then you either change it or accept it. You don't get to ignore it because it makes you uncomfortable.
2wsxcde3 wrote: » I don't believe abortion should be legal anywhere. Abortion on demand wasn't legal until Lenins USSR made it legal. Then the rest of the world followed. Great example the world followed there. And now we want to do the same here in Ireland?
Captain Obvious wrote: » You seem a little confused. I'm not saying anything is unconstitutional, including the current law. I'm saying there is nothing preventing a law being introduced that treats the mother and doctor differently. The only thing that goes against this is speculation, mainly by that of the AG. It has not been tested in court.
Captain Obvious wrote: » Again you are reaching and making up law. This case was very specific and was ruled in favour of the mother. It does not mean That's nothing but scaremongering and deliberate misrepresentation.
2wsxcde3 wrote: » Didn't the woman end up having a cesarean? So she was just wasting the hospitals time?? No wonder we have a trolley crisis with people like that clogging up the system going against the advice of doctors. If a woman swallows a container of pills in A&E she will have her stomach pumped against her will too. There is no such thing as complete bodily autonomy.
January wrote: » HSE: We're bringing this woman to court and citing the 8th amendment as the reason we're bringing her to court. Anti-choicers: THAT'S NOTHING TO DO WITH THE 8TH AMENDMENT #FAKENEWS!!!!!11!!
2wsxcde3 wrote: » The problem there is that some people today would consider Russias actions that were "pretty abhorrent in most respects towards human rights" to be progressive today. Some people want to see the death penalty reintroduced to Ireland (after being abandoned in 1954). To them, the USSR was "progressive" in killing people. Just like pro-choice people think the USSR was "progressive" in being the first country in the world to legalize abortion. North Korea legalized abortion in the 1950's before the UK and America. I guess North Korea was "progressive" too.
NuMarvel wrote: » You don't need case law to prove something is the law, because, well... it's the law and laws are presumed to be constitutional unless the courts find otherwise. The words in the constitution have meaning, they're not there for poetic license. If the constitution says the unborn's right to life is equal to a born person, and the state must defend and vindicate that right in its law then that's what the State must do. There's no room in there for exempting someone. But if you're a fan of case law, maybe you can cite the case law that supports your stance?
NuMarvel wrote: » What has been linked to is a story that shows that the 8th goes far beyond abortion, and that retaining the 8th means decisions on maternity care will ultimately be the purview of judges and lawyers, not women and their doctors. Normally medical cases only go to court where the patient has a lack of capacity to consent or there's a serious risk to life. But neither of those apply in this instance; this is solely because of the 8th.
retaining the 8th means decisions on maternity care will ultimately be the purview of judges and lawyers, not women and their doctors
pitifulgod wrote: » And women's suffrage was granted, maternity leave was rather high along with state crèches coming into place around the same time in Russia. Abortion was banned again under Stalin. While Soviet Russia was pretty abhorrent in most respects towards human rights during the early years, there were examples where progressive policies were put into place. Just because something happened in Soviet Russia, does not make it inherently bad...
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.)
Captain Obvious wrote: » Is there case law to support your claim?
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.
Captain Obvious wrote: » You can try anything in court. It's the courts decision that matters.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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: 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.
January wrote: » She shouldn't have been brought to court in the first place! She was brought to court because of the 8th.
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.
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
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.
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.”
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.
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.
