Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
Abortion - Report of the Joint Committee on the Eighth Amendment of the Constitution
Comments
-
Try reading it again : he didnt say that, he was asked it by a senator.Sir Prof Sabaratnam Arulkumaran seems to have suffered from a brain fart when he gave that interview. He says...You don't start a sentence with the word "if" unless you don't really know what you are talking about, or else you are deliberately trying to be devious.
And he answered that it did.
(Did you deliberately edit that quote to change the apparent meanings there, or can you neither read nor write?)
That barrel has the bottom well scraped out of it by now. My quote above explains that issue : if she had had a termination when she asked, without there being any doubt about fetal hearbeats and stuff, the subsequent infection issues would not have arisen.Going back to the actual HSE report which he chaired and signed, it says on P.55 that key Causal Factor #2 was the
In plain English, that means her pregnancy should have been terminated/aborted. So the 8th amendment was not preventing an abortion in that case.
The good Sir seems to have forgotten the contents of the report, or else he never really understood the legal issues in the first place.
You can keep denying it, but as I said, I think it's reasonable to accept the explanations of an eminent obstetrician who examined her case in detail over the Lifesite version. Or yours. If that isn't repeating myself.
Reem Alsalem UNSR Violence Against Women and Girls: "Very concerned about statements by the IOC at Paris2024 (M)ultiple international treaties and national constitutions specifically refer to women & their fundamental rights, so the world (understands) what women -and men- are. (H)ow can one assess fairness and justice if we do not know who we are being fair and just to?"0 -
OK the way it is reported is a bit confusing so I misread that. He apparently only said the latter part “It was very clear the things holding the hands of physicians was the legal issue".Try reading it again : he didn't say that, he was asked it by a senator.
The legal issue which the hospital tried to use in its defence was the lack of clarity, because the govt. had failed to legislate for the x case at the time. That has since been remedied, in 2013. But despite the lack of legislation at the time, the constitutional position of the 8th amendment still allowed abortion back then if the mother's life was at risk.
That is not a direct answer to the senators question which asked specifically whether it was the 8th amendment that cost her her life. The direct answer to that question would be "No". Because the it was not the 8th that prevented the hospital from terminating the pregnancy.
I just quoted the section from the report that says the hospital was wrong in not making all options available if there was a known risk to her life.0 -
OK the way it is reported is a bit confusing so I misread that. He apparently only said the latter part “It was very clear the things holding the hands of physicians was the legal issue".
The legal issue which the hospital tried to use in its defence was the lack of clarity, because the govt. had failed to legislate for the x case at the time. That has since been remedied, in 2013. But despite the lack of legislation at the time, the constitutional position of the 8th amendment still allowed abortion back then if the mother's life was at risk.
That is not a direct answer to the senators question which asked specifically whether it was the 8th amendment that cost her her life. The direct answer to that question would be "No". Because the it was not the 8th that prevented the hospital from terminating the pregnancy.
I just quoted the section from the report that says the hospital was wrong in not making all options available if there was a known risk to her life.
Your own quote shows that the answer to that was yes.
But you are clearly determined to ignore what he said explicitly.
I think that tells us how objective you are on the question.Reem Alsalem UNSR Violence Against Women and Girls: "Very concerned about statements by the IOC at Paris2024 (M)ultiple international treaties and national constitutions specifically refer to women & their fundamental rights, so the world (understands) what women -and men- are. (H)ow can one assess fairness and justice if we do not know who we are being fair and just to?"0 -
The main legal issue at the time was that abortion was still illegal generally under the 1861 Offences Against the Person Act.Your own quote shows that the answer to that was yes.
But the 8th combined with the X-case made it legal in some circumstances, such as this one.
The 1861 legislation was only updated in 2013 to bring it into line with the 8th amendment of the constitution.
Then you have the fact that many staff have served their time in hospitals who have historically used RCC canon Law as the basis for their ethics policies. When they move to a different hospital, they may not be sure what is state law and what is the "ethos" of a hospital. Hence "this is a catholic country" comment reportedly made by one staff member.
Sir Prof Sabaratnam Arulkumaran may not have wanted to delve into all this local complexity, so was simply saying if there were no legal issues to consider then the patient would still be alive. Which is also your view, and I agree. An abortion would have made all the other malpractices that occurred later irrelevant.
However it is wrong to say the 8th amendment was to blame for preventing an abortion in that scenario.
It is ironic that many of the same TDs who failed to update the 1861 legislation to reflect the X-case/8th amendment position from 1992 to 2013 and only did so eventually after warnings from the ECHR, now want us to forego the constitution and put our trust entirely in their legislative abilities.0 -
I posted a link with figures, nonsensical you say, why is that?
Why if they are so nonsensical did you pick Canada firstly and mistakenly from them, when I then showed you Ireland was above Canada you jumped to Italy and Sweden which are above Ireland to try to turn the argument by using the same nonsensical figures?
I have agreed with you and Noz that the figures and percentages are negligible anyway, but still, they are a studious figure, they don't suggest Ireland is the great mother killer because of a constitutional number.
However it is of no benefit to have such a stipulation in the constitution as because of it we know at least one woman did die erroneously, and while maybe not included in any maternal death rate figures, who knows how many have died indirectly because of it, through not getting treatment for other illnesses.
The eighth needs to go. There are good arguments against it aside from blustering down shown figures with made up ones just for the sake of argument.
The three month limit being proposed is basically the sticking point for a lot of voters, the oireachtas being given the power to decide.
If you look at that then it wouldn't inspire confidence on the strength of any promises about said limits, they have already put that figure in, despite the ca not stipulating such in their report.
Some feel this can and only will go up as time goes by, its putting repeal voters off.
As I said, the oireachtas committee surprised most by even going that far, once the eighth is gone, who knows where it will stop.
The figures are nonsensical because there is no link between the number of maternal deaths and the availability of abortion. Zero correlation.
The point I was making and am still making is that the figures are nonsense. I don't have to defend the use of Canada or Sweden or Italy or the UK as I am only pointing out the nonsense of the argument.0 -
The figures are nonsensical because there is no link between the number of maternal deaths and the availability of abortion. Zero correlation.
The point I was making and am still making is that the figures are nonsense. I don't have to defend the use of Canada or Sweden or Italy or the UK as I am only pointing out the nonsense of the argument.
Your own first sentence is my point.0 -
Going back to the actual HSE report which he chaired and signed, it says on P.55 that key Causal Factor #2 was the
In plain English, that means her pregnancy should have been terminated/aborted. So the 8th amendment was not preventing an abortion in that case.
The good Sir seems to have forgotten the contents of the report, or else he never really understood the legal issues in the first place.
I have always understood that the medical team were abiding by the law (i.e. the 8th) in refusing Savita an abortion when she asked the first few times. Those refusals were legally mandated and it was essential that they were refused because yes, her health was under grave threat (from the textbooks) but her life wasn’t (the sepsis couldn’t have been detected for many hours yet, maybe 24 or 36).
So the following is what I understand to be the correct legal sequence of events that SHOULD have happened in the Savita case in 2012 (i.e. where at the end the 8th is ‘found innocent’):-
She is correctly refused an abortion because of fetal heartbeat present. There is a very serious threat to her health at that time but that is not grounds for being permitted a termination. No apparent threat to her life at this time (no sepsis to detect). But from then on, the medical team should have then monitored Savita extremely carefully (even if it took most of the manpower available in the hospital and even if it risked the health / life of other pregnant women or other emergency patients in the hospital).
They SHOULD have then detected the sepsis immediately when it started and then carried out the abortion. Savita might have a 10% to 20% chance of survival (I’m guessing those percentages) at *that point in time* but if she died then - the blame couldn’t be put at the door of the 8th – it should still be put on the 9 out of 30 of the medical team who treated her (like what eventually happened for the sepsis detection negligence in 2016) for not dealing with the extremely narrow margin for error in an extremely narrow time period in a normal busy hospital.
Looking at this in another way from the medical norms in countries like Netherlands where there is nothing like the 8th amendment:-
a second trimester miscarriage like this would be terminated immediately as it is completely senseless to continue to take extremely serious risks with a woman’s health or life for no coherent or logical reason, given the fetus will die anyway.
But you’re still maintaining that the 8th is not the cause of Savita’s death.0 -
Yes. This, in bold, is exactly the point.Zerbini Blewitt wrote: »I have always understood that the medical team were abiding by the law (i.e. the 8th) in refusing Savita an abortion when she asked the first few times. Those refusals were legally mandated and it was essential that they were refused because yes, her health was under grave threat (from the textbooks) but her life wasn’t (the sepsis couldn’t have been detected for many hours yet, maybe 24 or 36).
So the following is what I understand to be the correct legal sequence of events that SHOULD have happened in the Savita case in 2012 (i.e. where at the end the 8th is ‘found innocent’):-
She is correctly refused an abortion because of fetal heartbeat present. There is a very serious threat to her health at that time but that is not grounds for being permitted a termination. No apparent threat to her life at this time (no sepsis to detect). But from then on, the medical team should have then monitored Savita extremely carefully (even if it took most of the manpower available in the hospital and even if it risked the health / life of other pregnant women or other emergency patients in the hospital).
They SHOULD have then detected the sepsis immediately when it started and then carried out the abortion. Savita might have a 10% to 20% chance of survival (I’m guessing those percentages) at *that point in time* but if she died then - the blame couldn’t be put at the door of the 8th – it should still be put on the 9 out of 30 of the medical team who treated her (like what eventually happened for the sepsis detection negligence in 2016) for not dealing with the extremely narrow margin for error in an extremely narrow time period in a normal busy hospital.
Looking at this in another way from the medical norms in countries like Netherlands where there is nothing like the 8th amendment:-
a second trimester miscarriage like this would be terminated immediately as it is completely senseless to continue to take extremely serious risks with a woman’s health or life for no coherent or logical reason, given the fetus will die anyway.
But you’re still maintaining that the 8th is not the cause of Savita’s death.
You also make a good point about the level of care required by having to wait until sepsis has set in but act before it has taken hold. It's like playing Russian roulette, except in this case it's with other people's lives.
And in a busy maternity hospital, that has to be at the cost of care being given to other patients.Reem Alsalem UNSR Violence Against Women and Girls: "Very concerned about statements by the IOC at Paris2024 (M)ultiple international treaties and national constitutions specifically refer to women & their fundamental rights, so the world (understands) what women -and men- are. (H)ow can one assess fairness and justice if we do not know who we are being fair and just to?"0 -
Correct according to the 1861 (abortion)Act.Zerbini Blewitt wrote: »She is correctly refused an abortion because of fetal heartbeat present.
But not correct according to the 8th amendment to the constitution, which trumps any such outdated legislation.
The hospital knew the foetus would eventually die by itself, and was waiting for that to happen. That inaction caused a unacceptable risk to the mother's life.
Hence the HSE report listing...
...as a major causal factor in the tragedy.Failure to offer all management options to a patient experiencing inevitable miscarriage of an early second trimester pregnancy where the risk to the mother increased with time from the time that membranes were ruptured.0 -
Correct according to the 1861 (abortion)Act.
But not correct according to the 8th amendment to the constitution, which trumps any such outdated legislation.
How is it not correct according to the 8th - where in that short constitutional paragraph is the sophisticated wording that deals with overlooking heartbeat (surely an instance, in the terms set out in 1983, of an equal right to life of the unborn with the pregnant woman)
I’m not seeing that wording. I’m seeing the wording that the AG said at the time was totally vague & inadequate and would lead to major negative consequences (due to ambivalence).The hospital knew the foetus would eventually die by itself, and was waiting for that to happen. That inaction caused a unacceptable risk to the mother's life.
Hence the HSE report listing... ...as a major causal factor in the tragedy.
Actually forget my previous questions! This is the core of the issue - Why was the medical team waiting for the fetus inside Savita to die.
Had that waiting anything to do with the 8th amendment in your opinion? Or was there some other legal or medical reason for this waiting?0 -
Advertisement
-
Hmm. So you've told us Professor Arulkumaran got the law wrong. Presumably you have some knowledge of medicine or law, possibly both, to be so sure of this.Correct according to the 1861 (abortion)Act.
But not correct according to the 8th amendment to the constitution, which trumps any such outdated legislation.
The hospital knew the foetus would eventually die by itself, and was waiting for that to happen. That inaction caused a unacceptable risk to the mother's life.
Hence the HSE report listing... ...as a major causal factor in the tragedy.
So. Imagine you're a doctor with a miscarrying woman to deal with. No law of course (pre POLDPA) so probably no guidelines written.
At what point exactly are you legally allowed to intervene, given that the fetal heart is still beating? I'm not even asking you for a list of symptoms, just an evaluation of risks : 10% of death? 90%? Was 51%, as Dr Astbury thought, wrong? How would you know anyway?Reem Alsalem UNSR Violence Against Women and Girls: "Very concerned about statements by the IOC at Paris2024 (M)ultiple international treaties and national constitutions specifically refer to women & their fundamental rights, so the world (understands) what women -and men- are. (H)ow can one assess fairness and justice if we do not know who we are being fair and just to?"0 -
Its in the X-case interpretation of the text, valid since 1992.Zerbini Blewitt wrote: »How is it not correct according to the 8th - where in that short constitutional paragraph is the sophisticated wording ..
It was hospital policy at the time, apparently. Not required by the 8th amendment though.Zerbini Blewitt wrote: »This is the core of the issue - Why was the medical team waiting for the fetus inside Savita to die.
Its up to TDs to legislate and hospitals to have guidelines.So. Imagine you're a doctor with a miscarrying woman to deal with. No law of course (pre POLDPA) so probably no guidelines written.
At what point exactly are you legally allowed to intervene, given that the fetal heart is still beating?
The report mentions that risk increased significantly "from the time that membranes ruptured". Presumably sepsis is likely to set in after that, but I don't know much about these things. Obstetricians should know.0 -
So you plead ignorance. And yet when one of the world's most eminent obstetricians says things aren't that simple, as well as the Master of Holles St, you just know they're wrong. Must be great to be omniscient!
Its in the X-case interpretation of the text, valid since 1992.Zerbini Blewitt wrote: »How is it not correct according to the 8th - where in that short constitutional paragraph is the sophisticated wording ..
It was hospital policy at the time, apparently. Not required by the 8th amendment though.Zerbini Blewitt wrote: »This is the core of the issue - Why was the medical team waiting for the fetus inside Savita to die.
Its up to TDs to legislate and hospitals to have guidelines.So. Imagine you're a doctor with a miscarrying woman to deal with. No law of course (pre POLDPA) so probably no guidelines written.
At what point exactly are you legally allowed to intervene, given that the fetal heart is still beating?
The report mentions that risk increased significantly "from the time that membranes ruptured". Presumably sepsis is likely to set in after that, but I don't know much about these things. Obstetricians should know.
No I don't think you have a clue, just the usual religious certainties that you think give you the right to decide for others.Reem Alsalem UNSR Violence Against Women and Girls: "Very concerned about statements by the IOC at Paris2024 (M)ultiple international treaties and national constitutions specifically refer to women & their fundamental rights, so the world (understands) what women -and men- are. (H)ow can one assess fairness and justice if we do not know who we are being fair and just to?"0 -
Your own first sentence is my point.
But the full point there is there is no link in YOUR data set (about maternal deaths) in either direction.
Put another way, your link to that data set says nothing about the effect of the presence, or absence, of abortion at all. It just says "Here are the number of people who died in Ireland" and no inference in EITHER direction can be drawn to say that that figure would be higher OR lower were abortion to be available.
Whereas, while your actual point is unclear, it sounds more and more like you are TRYING to smuggle in the implication that the figure would be what the figure is either way, so doing away with the 8th, or bringing in abortion, would not benefit in any way.
Perhaps that is NOT the point/implication you are trying to make. But I can only assure you that it is coming across that way to me at least. And if it is NOT that, then what your point ACTUALLY is.... is still entirely unclear.0 -
Its in the X-case interpretation of the text, valid since 1992.
It was hospital policy at the time, apparently. Not required by the 8th amendment though.
I am still not clear on your position. Can you clarify:-
Are you saying that the medical team (using the x case findings) SHOULD have given her an abortion when she first requested it on day 3 of 7, i.e. 23 Oct (at a time when her life was not yet detected to be at risk as required by the x-case)?
Or do you mean a different timeline for a termination?0 -
So I was told that a sermon at a church in cork city last night was a savethe8th campaigner and several people got up and left. I would have thought a church would be home territory for the point of view being taken.
So not all practising Catholics(well they go to mass) are lock step with the savethe8th. I personally think the 8th ammendment should never have been put into the constitution. That was clearly a mistake then and has resulted in the mess we have now.0 -
Zerbini Blewitt wrote: »I am still not clear on your position. Can you clarify:-
Are you saying that the medical team (using the x case findings) SHOULD have given her an abortion when she first requested it on day 3 of 7, i.e. 23 Oct (at a time when her life was not yet detected to be at risk as required by the x-case)?
Or do you mean a different timeline for a termination?
The poster's opinion seems to be that it is a simple task for obstetricians, even though other countries don't do it, and several prominent obstetricians have said that it can actually very difficult to identify that point without fear of being accused of acting too soon.
Seems to be a case of a little knowledge being a dangerous thing.Reem Alsalem UNSR Violence Against Women and Girls: "Very concerned about statements by the IOC at Paris2024 (M)ultiple international treaties and national constitutions specifically refer to women & their fundamental rights, so the world (understands) what women -and men- are. (H)ow can one assess fairness and justice if we do not know who we are being fair and just to?"0 -
I mean at the later time when a life threatening risk emerged. You are quoting particular days there, but I am not in a knowledgeable enough position to agree or disagree with your timeline.Zerbini Blewitt wrote: »I am still not clear on your position. Can you clarify:-
Are you saying that the medical team (using the x case findings) SHOULD have given her an abortion when she first requested it on day 3 of 7, i.e. 23 Oct (at a time when her life was not yet detected to be at risk as required by the x-case)?
Or do you mean a different timeline for a termination?
The report mentions "from the time that membranes ruptured" as being a significant moment in this context. I presume then that future hospital guidelines could/should include that as one specific example of when a termination is warranted under the 8th amendment?
Maybe they have already done that, I don't know.
My point is that the Savita case is a tragedy that has become a typical Irish cover up. No real sanction for those at fault, and the taxpayer then foots the bill to compensate the victim's family, as usual. The hospital staff should have monitored her better, the management and their legal advisor should have had different policies in place, and the politicians should have had the PoLPA in place from 1993. Now we are being told its the constitution's fault.0 -
-
Advertisement
-
So why are you so sure that Pr Arulkumaran was wrong? How could you possibly know better than him, and how arrogant is it of you to come out with sone if thr things you did about him? (A brain fart? Seriously? I think that's quite shameless.)I mean at the later time when a life threatening risk emerged. You are quoting particular days there, but I am not in a knowledgeable enough position to agree or disagree with your timeline.
The report mentions "from the time that membranes ruptured" as being a significant moment in this context. I presume then that future hospital guidelines could/should include that as one specific example of when a termination is warranted under the 8th amendment?
Maybe they have already done that, I don't know.
That may be true. But it is all irrelevant to tne fact that such risky and complex care, which other countries don't evem attempt unless there is a chance that the baby will be saved, was only made necessary by Ireland's law which requires that doctors identify the moment where her life, not just her health, is in danger.My point is that the Savita case is a tragedy that has become a typical Irish cover up. No real sanction for those at fault, and the taxpayer then foots the bill to compensate the victim's family, as usual. The hospital staff should have monitored her better, the management and their legal advisor should have had different policies in place, and the politicians should have had the PoLPA in place from 1993. Now we are being told its the constitution's fault.
That is what Professor Arulkumaran said, and since you are unable to show why he is wrong by telling us at what point they could legally have terminated the pregnancy without there being any room for doubt over the legality then it's logical to suppose he is right, and to wonder why you continue to say he is wrong.Reem Alsalem UNSR Violence Against Women and Girls: "Very concerned about statements by the IOC at Paris2024 (M)ultiple international treaties and national constitutions specifically refer to women & their fundamental rights, so the world (understands) what women -and men- are. (H)ow can one assess fairness and justice if we do not know who we are being fair and just to?"0 -
I'm an atheist.
If you say so.
I neither know nor care. Your beliefs about abortion seem to be predicated on the religion-based "magic moment of conception" which is almost useless in scientific terms except as the beginining of another stage in the life cycle.
But I could be wrong and perhaps you are pro choice but just dislike Indian women or something. Who knows.
In any case your determination to prove Prof Arulkumaran wrong with your twists and turns every time you are proven to be wrong in some part or other shows that you are interested in defending the 8th, not the truth.
Why that might be really is your own problem.Reem Alsalem UNSR Violence Against Women and Girls: "Very concerned about statements by the IOC at Paris2024 (M)ultiple international treaties and national constitutions specifically refer to women & their fundamental rights, so the world (understands) what women -and men- are. (H)ow can one assess fairness and justice if we do not know who we are being fair and just to?"0 -
nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »But the full point there is there is no link in YOUR data set (about maternal deaths) in either direction.
Put another way, your link to that data set says nothing about the effect of the presence, or absence, of abortion at all. It just says "Here are the number of people who died in Ireland" and no inference in EITHER direction can be drawn to say that that figure would be higher OR lower were abortion to be available.
Whereas, while your actual point is unclear, it sounds more and more like you are TRYING to smuggle in the implication that the figure would be what the figure is either way, so doing away with the 8th, or bringing in abortion, would not benefit in any way.
Perhaps that is NOT the point/implication you are trying to make. But I can only assure you that it is coming across that way to me at least. And if it is NOT that, then what your point ACTUALLY is.... is still entirely unclear.
Its part of it. Where the campaign may fail is not because of repeal of the eighth, its because of it becoming more and more a debate about choice of abortion on demand.
Where there might be a danger to life posed by the eighth amendment, a point which would make a big majority vote for repeal, there is no connection to a danger to life posed by allowing abortion on demand, a fact that will change the mind of certain voters in favour of repeal and replace with something like the CA suggested.0 -
That seems to be a different point to the original intent behind your first link, but it is a point I can neither agree or disagree with really.
I just hope the general populace are intelligent enough to be informed of ALL the implications of repeal. Both in relation to abortion AND in relation to complications it can cause it medical processes and choices.
I feel no compulsion to speculate. I will just wait and see where the vote goes.0 -
nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »That seems to be a different point to the original intent behind your first link, but it is a point I can neither agree or disagree with really.
I just hope the general populace are intelligent enough to be informed of ALL the implications of repeal. Both in relation to abortion AND in relation to complications it can cause it medical processes and choices.
I feel no compulsion to speculate. I will just wait and see where the vote goes.
Me too. And I am still voting repeal, even though as you said earlier, probably for the wrong reasons.0 -
In the Savita case, most supporters of the 8th seem to ignore the initial refusal to carry out the termination when requested. They want to quickly skip past the root cause of her death which was the insane (but legally mandated) refusal to terminate.I mean at the later time when a life threatening risk emerged
...
I presume then that future hospital guidelines could/should include that as one specific example of when a termination is warranted under the 8th amendment?
Maybe they have already done that, I don't know.
...
My point is that the Savita case is a tragedy that has become a typical Irish cover up...
Now we are being told its the constitution's fault.
They then focus only on the subsequent medical negligence aspect of the case (which was complex) - by implication in their argument presuming that such negligence would also be present if there was no 8th amendment i.e. in vastly less dangerous circumstances (Fidelma Healy Eames is just one person who makes use of such deception).
However, if the termination was done as soon as the miscarriage was detected (obviously with Savita’s agreement) her death would very likely have been avoided.
This was no tragedy or cover up. This was a long predicted and guaranteed consequence of the offensively stupid 8th amendment. It is a mark of ongoing disgrace that other pro-lifers/8th supporters play this painfully transparent game with the Savita case, instead of facing it honestly.
So anyway, you think we should keep the 8th and do an ongoing ‘live’ trial & error with pregnancies of my (& others) relatives in the decades ahead - having the odd woman die every now and then. Then using each of those deaths (if it is a new rare case) to update the list for allowable terminations (in those cases) from then on - ad hoc fashion {of course ignoring that all these cases are long documented across the world of obstetrics}.
Well, at least this inner circle of madness suggestion of yours neatly matches the inherent criminal immorality of the 8th itself.0 -
Advertisement
-
I will be away on holiday when the referendum takes place. Does anybody know if I can vote by post or online?
The date has not been decided yet.
You can possibly vote by post but only in specific circumstancesYou will normally be required to vote in person at an official voting centre but you may be eligible for a postal vote if you are:
An Irish diplomat or his/her spouse posted abroad
A member of the Garda Sh
A whole-time member of the Defence Forces.
You may also be eligible for a postal vote if you cannot go to a polling station because:
Of a physical illness or disability
You are studying full time at an educational institution in Ireland, which is away from your home address where you are registered
You are unable to vote at your polling station because of your occupation
You are unable to vote at your polling station because you are in prison as a result of an order of a court.It was so much easier to blame it on Them. It was bleakly depressing to think that They were Us. If it was Them, then nothing was anyone's fault. If it was us, what did that make Me? After all, I'm one of Us. I must be. I've certainly never thought of myself as one of Them. No one ever thinks of themselves as one of Them. We're always one of Us. It's Them that do the bad things.
Terry Pratchet
0 -
Zerbini Blewitt wrote: »In the Savita case, most supporters of the 8th seem to ignore the initial refusal to carry out the termination when requested. They want to quickly skip past the root cause of her death which was the insane (but legally mandated) refusal to terminate.
.
Not disagreeing with anything you said, but just trying to understand how this would work in future with Repeal and legislation in place.
Can you explain how the removal of the 8th along with the legislation of the 12-week limit would have resulted in a better outcome?
Savita was at 17 weeks' gestation at the time, so this would not fall into the 12 - week limit for abortions.
After 12-weeks are we not back to similar situation as now, where the woman's life has to be at risk (Except in fetal abnormalities, Rape, possible suicide)?
Is there likely a provision of Fetus chances of survival being remote? How will this be determined?
Do we know what the legislation is going to allow after 12-weeks?
Is this clearly define yet, and if not when will we know?0 -
Noone is saying you have to raise the child if you don’t want to. You have choices. Give it up for adoption. There are plenty of couples in Ireland who’d love to adopt a child here, rather than having to go to Brazil or endure IVF. I spoke to a doctor years ago working in the UK who found it strange and tragic that unwanted lives were being hoovered out of wombs and disposed of in one part of his hospital, while down the corridor, petri dishes containing fertilised eggs were treated with reverence.0
-
ForestFire wrote: »Do we know what the legislation is going to allow after 12-weeks?
2 doctors (or in an emergency, 1 doctor) will be able to make the decision to terminate if either the fetus has no chance of survival (FFA or a miscarriage in progress) or the health of the mother is endangered.0 -
Esperanza12 wrote: »There are plenty of couples in Ireland who’d love to adopt a child here, rather than having to go to Brazil or endure IVF.
So what? There are many people in wheelchairs that would love to run around and play football too. That does not mean I, as someone who has the good fortune to be fully able bodied, should be expected to do it for them.Esperanza12 wrote: »I spoke to a doctor years ago working in the UK who found it strange and tragic that unwanted lives were being hoovered out of wombs and disposed of in one part of his hospital, while down the corridor, petri dishes containing fertilised eggs were treated with reverence.
I find it strange that anyone would find it strange. Much less a doctor of "something" (you did not mention) in an unverifiable anecdote you might have just made up.
But there is nothing strange about it that in one room someone might not want a child or to be pregnant........ while in another room there are people who not only want to have children but want it where possible made from THEIR OWN DNA and/or that of their partner.0 -
Advertisement
-
Esperanza12 wrote: »Noone is saying you have to raise the child if you don’t want to. You have choices. Give it up for adoption. There are plenty of couples in Ireland who’d love to adopt a child here, rather than having to go to Brazil or endure IVF. I spoke to a doctor years ago working in the UK who found it strange and tragic that unwanted lives were being hoovered out of wombs and disposed of in one part of his hospital, while down the corridor, petri dishes containing fertilised eggs were treated with reverence.
Adoption is a choice for someone who doesn't want to be a parent, but it doesn't help someone who doesn't want to be pregnant in the first place. You're asking someone to go through 9 months of pregnancy, and all that it entails, so someone else can become a parent.
And as an aside, the majority of Irish women who've travelled to Britain for an abortion wouldn't have been able to put the child up for adoption anyway. That's because the majority of women who travel are married, and up to November last year, the law didn't allow married couples to put their children up for adoption.0 -
Adoption is a choice for someone who doesn't want to be a parent, but it doesn't help someone who doesn't want to be pregnant in the first place. You're asking someone to go through 9 months of pregnancy, and all that it entails, so someone else can become a parent.
And as an aside, the majority of Irish women who've travelled to Britain for an abortion wouldn't have been able to put the child up for adoption anyway. That's because the majority of women who travel are married, and up to November last year, the law didn't allow married couples to put their children up for adoption.
If it means saving a life of a child that they created in the first place then, yes they should IMO. I think abortion when the mother's life is in danger is the only acceptable situation but this is just my opinion on the subject, unprotected sex when a child is not wanted is a part of the problem also.0 -
Chris_Heilong wrote: »unprotected sex when a child is not wanted is a part of the problem also.
But only a part. There are any number of other reasons why people can and do end up pregnant when they do not want to be.
Rape and abuse is mentioned often of course. Failed contraception is mentioned often.
What is not mentioned as often, but is equally valid so I try and mention it whenever I can.... is that often the people getting pregnant planned and intended to. But subsequently something in their circumstances changed.
Their work or financial situation maybe. Their health physically. Their health mentally as a result of a hardship. The relationship they were in during the conception may change or end. Or any number of other things commensurate with the vagaries of the multitude of individual lives and life stories that surround us each and every day.0 -
This post has been deleted.0
-
Chris_Heilong wrote: »If it means saving a life of a child that they created in the first place then, yes they should IMO. I think abortion when the mother's life is in danger is the only acceptable situation but this is just my opinion on the subject, unprotected sex when a child is not wanted is a part of the problem also.
Abortions aren't always because of unprotected sex. For one organisation, just over half the women who had an abortion were using at least one form of contraception.The British Pregnancy Advisory Service (BPAS), one of the country’s largest abortion charities, said 51 per cent of the 60,592 women it treated in 2016 were using at least one form of contraception when they became pregnant.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/07/06/half-abortions-due-failed-contraception-new-report/
And don't forget that in Ireland, pharmacists can legally refuse to dispense contraception like the morning after pill, as this young woman found out.
But in any case, I don't think forcing women to continue a unwanted pregnancy, especially one where it's intended that the child be put up for adoption, is an appropriate or proportionate response to someone making a mistake. A standard pregnancy already brings increased risks of mental illness, I would imagine that the risks are even greater again for a crisis pregnancy.0 -
Esperanza12 wrote: »Noone is saying you have to raise the child if you don’t want to. You have choices. Give it up for adoption. There are plenty of couples in Ireland who’d love to adopt a child here, rather than having to go to Brazil or endure IVF. I spoke to a doctor years ago working in the UK who found it strange and tragic that unwanted lives were being hoovered out of wombs and disposed of in one part of his hospital, while down the corridor, petri dishes containing fertilised eggs were treated with reverence.
By treated with reverence, do you mean being legally experimented on up to 14 days, with obligatory destruction thereafter?
Or is it only some fertilized eggs that are treated with reverence, and if so, what is your point apart from a feeble attempt at suggesting that women should serve as human petri dishes too?Reem Alsalem UNSR Violence Against Women and Girls: "Very concerned about statements by the IOC at Paris2024 (M)ultiple international treaties and national constitutions specifically refer to women & their fundamental rights, so the world (understands) what women -and men- are. (H)ow can one assess fairness and justice if we do not know who we are being fair and just to?"0 -
Join Date:Posts: 22734
We've created a new thread for discussion of the topic of When Does Life Begin here, because it was beginning to dominate this entire thread to the detriment of everything else. Please take any discussion of this topic there.
Thanks0 -
For full disclosure I am pro-choice but I am interested in the psychology of the opinions, reactions and emotions involved in this debate.
People who campaign for abortion legislation are not sinister child killers. Calling for abortion legislation is not exactly a feel-good campaign. There aren't popular viral ice bucket challenges for abortion. So why do you think people campaign for abortion and why do you think they would want it legalised?0 -
Moderators, Category Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 39,543 CMod ✭✭✭✭
Join Date:Posts: 37344
Mod: Threads merged.The foreigner residing among you must be treated as your native-born. Love them as yourself, for you were foreigners in Egypt. I am the LORD your God.
Leviticus 19:34
0 -
Moonmumbler wrote: »So why do you think people campaign for abortion and why do you think they would want it legalised?
I can only speak for myself. But I campaign for it because I believe rights, freedoms, choices, morality and ethics are in the business of mediating the well being of sentient creatures.
And if we want to curtail peoples rights, freedoms and choices..... and thus their well being..... we should have good reason to do so.
As the fetus being aborted (usually 10-12 weeks of gestation but nearly always by 16 weeks) is not itself a sentience or conscious agent, and never has been...... there is no reason on offer at this time to me to justify curtailing the freedoms and choices of the pregnant woman in deference to it.
So why do I think people would want it legalized? Because they care for the well being of actual conscious entities, like pregnant women.
Is any more reason needed?0 -
Advertisement
-
professore wrote: »What I do know is that I would like a clear cutoffs and terms to vote yes or no to, copperfastened in the constitution. Not some dopey politicians deciding after the fact. That's why I won't vode yes to a straight repeal vote.
We've established that this is impossible to do properly. The Attorney General back in 83 said as much when giving his legal opinion on the proposed wording of the 8th:
"The overall reason, which crops up in almost every facet of any attempted solution is that the subject matter of the amendment sough is of such complexity, involves so many matters of medical and scientific, moral and jurisprudential expertise as to be incapable of accurate encapsulation into a simple constitution-type provision."
Others in this and other threads have made a similar suggestion to you, but no one has been able to give an example of wording that would avoid the problems highlighted by the AG. If we put terms limits or other criteria in the constitution we're basically saying we want to keep having referendums and court cases about abortion for years to come.
Unless you're in favour of the status quo, which most people aren't, the only way to make any changes to our abortion laws is to vote repeal and let politicians legislate. Because it can't be done properly in our constitution.0 -
Moonmumbler wrote: »For full disclosure I am pro-choice but I am interested in the psychology of the opinions, reactions and emotions involved in this debate.
People who campaign for abortion legislation are not sinister child killers. Calling for abortion legislation is not exactly a feel-good campaign. There aren't popular viral ice bucket challenges for abortion. So why do you think people campaign for abortion and why do you think they would want it legalised?
If I had to boil my point of view down to its simplest form, it's this: we've voted to let women access abortion everywhere else, so why can't we let her access it here?
And I think that's the key thing that gets missed when we talk about women travelling. It isn't just that they travel, it's that we know it happens, we let it happen and absolutely nobody wants to stop them.
Obviously, my views are more complex than just that, but for me, the status of travel in the constitution played a big part in forming my views. If a woman's freedom to travel gets more priority than the unborn's right to life, then her right to bodily autonomy and health should as well.0 -
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/government-sets-out-21-clauses-to-regulate-abortion-1.3420425
I don't know if this article has the 21 principles correct, but having read them, I only have an issue with the combination of these two:
"Gestational limits will not apply in cases of a foetal condition or on grounds of risk to health"
"No distinction will be made between physical and mental health"
Taken together, these mean that a pregnancy of 34 weeks can be terminated if there is a risk to mental health. I am not sure that the balance is correct in relation to this. I would like to see the clear medical guidelines on this issue.
However, and this is the key point, despite my misgivings on this small issue, I will still be voting to repeal the 8th. If my fears turn out to be well-founded, rather than a misogynistic view of female behaviour (and they could be either), then if the 8th is repealed, the Oireachtas could, at any time, correct the situation. If medics are over-diagnosing mental illness in women in late gestation, this can be addressed either through medical guidelines or amending legislation after the 8th is repealed.
As a result, there is nothing to fear from repeal of the 8th. Early-term abortion is no issue for me. If late-term abortion becomes commonplace, well then, I can lobby politicians for change.0 -
We've established that this is impossible to do properly. The Attorney General back in 83 said as much when giving his legal opinion on the proposed wording of the 8th:
"The overall reason, which crops up in almost every facet of any attempted solution is that the subject matter of the amendment sough is of such complexity, involves so many matters of medical and scientific, moral and jurisprudential expertise as to be incapable of accurate encapsulation into a simple constitution-type provision."
Others in this and other threads have made a similar suggestion to you, but no one has been able to give an example of wording that would avoid the problems highlighted by the AG. If we put terms limits or other criteria in the constitution we're basically saying we want to keep having referendums and court cases about abortion for years to come.
Unless you're in favour of the status quo, which most people aren't, the only way to make any changes to our abortion laws is to vote repeal and let politicians legislate. Because it can't be done properly in our constitution.
most people indeed don't want the status quo to remain as such, however for some of us it's the least worst outcome then allowing abortion on demand.
letting politicians legislate for such an issue i would suggest just isn't viable given the proposals they have put forward.If I had to boil my point of view down to its simplest form, it's this: we've voted to let women access abortion everywhere else, so why can't we let her access it here?
And I think that's the key thing that gets missed when we talk about women travelling. It isn't just that they travel, it's that we know it happens, we let it happen and absolutely nobody wants to stop them.
Obviously, my views are more complex than just that, but for me, the status of travel in the constitution played a big part in forming my views. If a woman's freedom to travel gets more priority than the unborn's right to life, then her right to bodily autonomy and health should as well.
her right to bodily autonomy and health is given preference over the unborn in most cases where it is absolutely required. there are a few cases currently not covered and as unfortunate as that is, unless the government put forward a proposal that allows for those cases only rather then abortion on demand up to 12 weeks, unfortunately many of us are in the position where we are left with no option but to vote no to repeal.
in answer to your first question, there is no requirement to allow access to abortion on demand in ireland, and the fact women travel for it isn't a justification to allow it here IMO. the people had to vote for the right to travel because otherwise many who would not have been traveling to procure abortions would have been effected, which is not a good outcome. that vote in itself didn't necessarily say abortion is okay, as much as some may wish to think otherwise, but that realistically we cannot stop freedom of movement so there is no point in using resources on it.I'm very highly educated. I know words, i have the best words.
0 -
Moonmumbler wrote: »For full disclosure I am pro-choice but I am interested in the psychology of the opinions, reactions and emotions involved in this debate.
People who campaign for abortion legislation are not sinister child killers. Calling for abortion legislation is not exactly a feel-good campaign. There aren't popular viral ice bucket challenges for abortion. So why do you think people campaign for abortion and why do you think they would want it legalised?
a number of possible reasons IMO. contraceptive/lifestyle/convenience reasons seem to me to be the main reason. others are a bit more sinister such as seeing it as empowerment of women, and because the systems we have for dealing with children aren't up to scratch so we must allow the killing of the unborn to minimize the problem.
then you have a small extreme element who would be about the designer baby concept such as the baby being the wrong sex so they abort.
probably a lot more very sinister reasons as well but they would be believed only by a very tiny extreme minority.nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »I can only speak for myself. But I campaign for it because I believe rights, freedoms, choices, morality and ethics are in the business of mediating the well being of sentient creatures.
And if we want to curtail peoples rights, freedoms and choices..... and thus their well being..... we should have good reason to do so.
As the fetus being aborted (usually 10-12 weeks of gestation but nearly always by 16 weeks) is not itself a sentience or conscious agent, and never has been...... there is no reason on offer at this time to me to justify curtailing the freedoms and choices of the pregnant woman in deference to it.
So why do I think people would want it legalized? Because they care for the well being of actual conscious entities, like pregnant women.
Is any more reason needed?
of course as it has been established, sentience isn't a valid argument for abortion, given we don't ultimately base the right to life on sentience and the unborn will become sentient quite quick unless something intervenes to prevent it. the curtailing of the non-right to abortion on demand in ireland is based on good reasoning because it recognises the equal right to life of both mother and baby unless it is absolutely necessary for the opposite to be the case, for which the mother is the one saved. choice is what you are going to have for breakfast, not to kill another human being. as the fetus at 12 weeks and before is still a human being, and sentience and consciousness is irrelevant given we don't base human rights on them, that is a very good reason to not allow the killing of them. no freedoms and choices are being curtailed, because being able to kill a human being is not a freedom or a choice and the allowence of such has to be curtailed for the greater good of society, bar where extreme reasons require otherwise, hence pro-life being okay with medically necessary abortions, and people being okay with killing in self defence. the well-being of both mother and baby are paramount.https://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/government-sets-out-21-clauses-to-regulate-abortion-1.3420425
I don't know if this article has the 21 principles correct, but having read them, I only have an issue with the combination of these two:
"Gestational limits will not apply in cases of a foetal condition or on grounds of risk to health"
"No distinction will be made between physical and mental health"
Taken together, these mean that a pregnancy of 34 weeks can be terminated if there is a risk to mental health. I am not sure that the balance is correct in relation to this. I would like to see the clear medical guidelines on this issue.
However, and this is the key point, despite my misgivings on this small issue, I will still be voting to repeal the 8th. If my fears turn out to be well-founded, rather than a misogynistic view of female behaviour (and they could be either), then if the 8th is repealed, the Oireachtas could, at any time, correct the situation. If medics are over-diagnosing mental illness in women in late gestation, this can be addressed either through medical guidelines or amending legislation after the 8th is repealed.
As a result, there is nothing to fear from repeal of the 8th. Early-term abortion is no issue for me. If late-term abortion becomes commonplace, well then, I can lobby politicians for change.
i would be surprised if the politicians would change it dispite your campaigning however. i'd suspect that ultimately we will have to harmonise with british abortion law, to remove the complaints about women still traveling to the uk. most of us on the pro-life side also have no misogynistic view of female behaviour but we do believe that killing the unborn for non-necessary reasons is wrong and should not be availible in this country.I'm very highly educated. I know words, i have the best words.
0 -
end of the road wrote: »others are a bit more sinister such as seeing it as empowerment of women
Goodness me, mustn't have any of that!0 -
So still sticking to your tactic of dodging out of conversations with me and ignoring replies, while taking poor pot shots at my conversations with others then? How much material do you think you have simply ducked, dodged, and retreated from at this point???end of the road wrote: »of course as it has been established, sentience isn't a valid argument for abortion
That has not been "established" at all. You have asserted it on a number of occasions but simply run away from any conversation about backing up that assertion.end of the road wrote: »given we don't ultimately base the right to life on sentience
So you keep saying but when asked what we DO base it on the best you have offered (when not simply running away from the question) is the circular argument of taxonomy. You have never once explained what we base rights on, but merely refer to the words we use to describe the things that do get those rights.
Which as I said before is about as meaningful as answering a question like "What exactly is ownership" by offering the dictionary definition of "borders".
It simply does not answer the question. A question I think you patently can not answer and will go to any lengths to convince yourself that people have not noticed you can not answer.end of the road wrote: »it recognises the equal right to life of both mother and baby
Yet you have given no arguments, evidence, data OR reasoning to explain why a fetus should have ANY right to life, let alone an equal one. You just use words like "recognize" to attempt to imply using linguistics that this right is a given and a default, as if it objectively exists merely because you imagine it to be so.
This ultimately comes down to rights, what has rights, and why. And despite me asking time, and time, and time, and time again you have simply dodged the discussion on what rights are, what we assign them to, and on what basis. You merely screech the word "Human" at it every time, and then quite literally run away.0 -
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/government-sets-out-21-clauses-to-regulate-abortion-1.3420425
I don't know if this article has the 21 principles correct, but having read them, I only have an issue with the combination of these two:
"Gestational limits will not apply in cases of a foetal condition or on grounds of risk to health"
"No distinction will be made between physical and mental health"
Taken together, these mean that a pregnancy of 34 weeks can be terminated if there is a risk to mental health. I am not sure that the balance is correct in relation to this. I would like to see the clear medical guidelines on this issue.
Genuinely this could not possibly be a problem if the woman has had access to to abortion at the beginning of her pregnancy. It takes crazy laws like "you must be actually suicidal" like Ireland has for someone like Miss Y to happen.
Being identified as severely distressed over being pregnant from the moment she learned of it, to still be pregnant at 24 weeks. That was a result of the refusal to terminate earlier, not the woman's choice. It was barbaric.
In a country where abortion is available, a woman who has chosen to remain pregnant during the first trimester and who then becomes severely depressed about being pregnant is going to be someone who has developed some sort of psychosis during the pregnancy who is probably not going to be fit to consent to anything.
By removing the need to "prove" she is depressed "enough" for an abortion during the first trimester, that will remove the risk of a woman who cannot bear this pregnancy still finding herself pregnant months later.
Yes, very good point.However, and this is the key point, despite my misgivings on this small issue, I will still be voting to repeal the 8th. If my fears turn out to be well-founded, rather than a misogynistic view of female behaviour (and they could be either), then if the 8th is repealed, the Oireachtas could, at any time, correct the situation. If medics are over-diagnosing mental illness in women in late gestation, this can be addressed either through medical guidelines or amending legislation after the 8th is repealed.
As a result, there is nothing to fear from repeal of the 8th. Early-term abortion is no issue for me. If late-term abortion becomes commonplace, well then, I can lobby politicians for change.Reem Alsalem UNSR Violence Against Women and Girls: "Very concerned about statements by the IOC at Paris2024 (M)ultiple international treaties and national constitutions specifically refer to women & their fundamental rights, so the world (understands) what women -and men- are. (H)ow can one assess fairness and justice if we do not know who we are being fair and just to?"0 -
I'd agree with the first part alright. It may well be allowed already under the 8th, but nobody has ever legally tested it.Zubeneschamali wrote: »2 doctors (or in an emergency, 1 doctor) will be able to make the decision to terminate if either the fetus has no chance of survival (FFA or a miscarriage in progress) or the health of the mother is endangered.
The nearest situation I know of is when an Irish court ordered life support for a foetus to be switched off, after being satisfied it had no chance of survival.
An "equal right to life" cannot be vindicated if there is no chance of life anyway. That is the reasoning behind legalised abortion when there is a threat of suicide, as currently allowed under the 8th.
The second part is meaningless really. The word "health" is so open to interpretation that it basically means "abortion on demand". A pregnancy is tough on the body and could easily contribute to dental and skin problems.0 -
Advertisement
-
I have to admire the pro-lifers for the way they've management create this "abortion on demand" narrative.
They seem to be pushing this image that we'll suddenly see these queues of women down the street outside of a clinic on a Monday morning for their presto-chango fix.
It's completely ridiculous. People in countries that have legalised abortion do not use it as a method of contraception.
I know people that have made trips for abortions & it wasn't a fun jaunt for them, it was a serious decision & procedure & I fully support their rights to make that decision.
I don't like using such strong terms but i really do hate pro-lifers0
Advertisement