The 8th Amendment Part 2 - Mod Warning in OP

Mr.H · 26-03-2018 10:36AM

ohnonotgmail wrote:

you asked when does a foetus become a baby. that is the question i answered. I made no mention of viability.

Fair point

Ave Sodalis wrote:

The heart beat you hear at 6 weeks is a pacemaker cell

Yea I know. I was just stating for the question purposes how early a beat can be heard.

Mr.H · 26-03-2018 10:37AM

Oldtree wrote:

Please do not say that you do not trust doctors to make an appropriate decision.

Please don't assume I will say anything. I didn't see that part in the wording and it actually does make things more clear.

nozzferrahhtoo · 26-03-2018 10:38AM

Mr.H wrote: »

My friends are fine. We have different opinions but that doesn't mean they should be shunned. I hope you don't shun your parents or any friends if they turn out to have a different opinion to you on this.

Read your post, and then mine, again. I was not suggesting anyone be shunned because their opinions differ. So I simply have no idea where you just pulled that response from.

I was referring to you saying "they tried to make me feel guilty for even asking."

And yes I would shun both family AND friends if they had that attitude towards me. Because such a person is not a friend. At all. People who attack you for merely asking a question are toxic, and I would happily recommend you have nothing to do with them.

ohnonotgmail · 26-03-2018 10:38AM

Mr.H wrote: »

My friends are fine. We have different opinions but that doesn't mean they should be shunned.

I hope you don't shun your parents or any friends if they turn out to have a different opinion to you on this.

I'll read your link later. In work on y mobile sp can't pen the link for some reason . But thanks for the link and I promise I will follow up later with a response.

Nobody has mentioned shunning anybody. But if your so-called friends make you feel guilty about your opinions then perhaps you do need better friends.

I had this discussion with a mate (pro life) of mine and they tried to make me feel guilty for even asking.

Mr.H · 26-03-2018 10:39AM

Hannibal_Smith wrote:

Did you Google? The first thing that came up when I googled feral viability was:-

Yea that's what I meant. Google throws a lot of various answers back.

I do like that doctors will check viability though.

seamus · 26-03-2018 10:48AM

Oldtree wrote: »

Why do you use the word "short" rather than giving an actual number of weeks?

No particular reason. The range is 22-25 weeks. Before this, practically all preterm births cannot survive independently. After it, practically all of them can.

This range has scoped down massively in the last 50-100 years; a century ago it would have been touch-and-go for a child born at 32 weeks. Nowadays the treatment for such a child is practically routine.

But it hasn't moved much from the 22-25 weeks limit for a few decades now. There are physical limitations to how much drugs and technology can compensate for the uterine environment, which was developed over of billions of years.

Neyite · 26-03-2018 10:54AM

Mr.H wrote: »

Yea that's what I meant. Google throws a lot of various answers back.

I do like that doctors will check viability though.

There isn't a stock answer for that.

It's each and every pregnancy that is different and each one is assessed accordingly and will differ from the next. Babies born full term or even overdue can be still born or not survive for long, others could be born very early indeed and survive against all the odds.

So one foetus could be viable at 24 weeks but most would not be. Then you've to factor in the cause of the early labour - it's usually because there are health conditions either with the foetus or mother that caused early labour and would have affected foetal health.

So viability is really a case by case basis and doctors would not be able to absolutely guarantee viability at any gestation. They can give you probabilities though.

Mr.H · 26-03-2018 10:54AM

I "should get better friends". So I should stop being friends with them? Meaning I would be shunning them. Anyway let's not get carried away with a silly misunderstanding. I accept that you didn't mean it that way.

I think this debate does just get everyone worked up. I'm sure I make them feel guilty also. It is I'm sure not intentional.

But 2 months from now we all have to get over the result no matter the outcome.

Oldtree · 26-03-2018 10:57AM

Mr.H wrote: »

Please don't assume I will say anything. I didn't see that part in the wording and it actually does make things more clear.

It was a fair assumption after your below comment, which was either glib or anti choice in the context of this discussion or seriously lacking an understanding of contraception methods.

Mr.H wrote: »

.Women already rightfully do have choice over their own bodies. They can choose not to have unprotected sex if they dont want to get pregnant. I mean if both parties are careful and use protection then you dont get pregnant.

david75 · 26-03-2018 10:58AM

NuMarvel wrote: »

This should put an end to the scaremongering about "abortion on demand up to birth":

Government will seek to ban late-term abortions

I suspected the Government would take this approach, because there was no way they wouldn't include some form of cut off in the legislation. And after reports a few weeks back that they were going to ask the Institute of Obstetricians & Gynaecologists about new guidelines on early delivery, I figured the legislation would use viability.

I'm sure No supporters and campaigners will find something about this development to be overly alarmist about, but it should at least but an end to the "abortion on demand up to birth" scenarios (which were never going to happen anyway).

I think we can all agree this is good news. Clarification that is needed but as NuMarvel said, will probably be ignored.

Zubeneschamali · 26-03-2018 11:01AM

Mr.H wrote: »

But 2 months from now we all have to get over the result

If repeal passes, I expect 95% of pro-8th voters to forget the whole thing. Abortion will be a private matter between women and their doctors, end of. This is what happened with divorce, contraception, gay marriage - once the change is in place it becomes the new normal.

The 5% are the sign-carrying protestors, who will no doubt continue to hold sign-carrying marches for life, but no-one will care about them.

If repeal does not pass, then nothing will change including the opinions of people like myself who are pro-repeal. I voted against the 8th in 1983, I will vote against it this time, and if it is not repealed, I should be available to vote against it for another 30-40 years or so.

Laneyh · 26-03-2018 11:09AM

Ismisejack wrote: »

Well I’ve listened to my local doctor, a pro life view she holds and understandably so after what she showed and informed me bout abortion . Let’s make it crystal clear , a 10 week old “fetus” is very much alive and aborting that child is murder and nothing short of it
Well

Assuming your local doctor is based in Ireland she will not have carried out any abortions nor had any patients seek abortions from her.
She may well be privy to some additional medical information that the rest of us are not but if she has pro-life views is unlikely to have liaised with clinics abroad.

Sofiztikated · 26-03-2018 11:16AM

Ismisejack wrote: »

Well I’ve listened to my local doctor, a pro life view she holds and understandably so after what she showed and informed me bout abortion . Let’s make it crystal clear , a 10 week old “fetus” is very much alive and aborting that child is murder and nothing short of it
Well

And what, exactly, did your local doctor show and inform you?

Hannibal_Smith · 26-03-2018 11:18AM

Mr.H wrote: »

Hannibal_Smith wrote:

Did you Google? The first thing that came up when I googled feral viability was:-

Yea that's what I meant. Google throws a lot of various answers back.

I do like that doctors will check viability though.

I think it's because it depends on each situation. My eldest was 4 weeks early, they checked the lungs, all was fine so he was grand. A friend of mine had a baby yesterday, 4 weeks early but she needed steroids before the baby was born. Two babies, same timeline premature wise, different action needed.

retro:electro · 26-03-2018 11:18AM

RobertKK wrote: »

It is ok for you to be upset and not others who have a different opinion?

That is what you are saying, you want double standards, one rule for yourself and another for others who don't share your views.

Irony. Irony everywhere.

I’m not surprised people don’t believe you. There was only one story here used as a stunt, and it’s not the one you think it is.

RobertKK · 26-03-2018 11:33AM

January wrote: »

Just the names of the heart conditions would be OK really. Its not identifying information to name them.

Why is the exact condition your business?
It is identifying for people who know outside the family and you can’t tell me who posts and doesn’t post on boards.

RobertKK · 26-03-2018 11:37AM

retro:electro wrote: »

Irony. Irony everywhere.

I’m not surprised people don’t believe you. There was only one story here used as a stunt, and it’s not the one you think it is.

The only stunts are people like you who go around posting crap like that because something doesn’t suit.
People do believe me, it is just a small cohort here who are repeal fanatics that have an issue and don’t believe and that is their problem.

seamus · 26-03-2018 11:42AM

RobertKK wrote: »

Why is the exact condition your business?
It is identifying for people who know outside the family and you can’t tell me who posts and doesn’t post on boards.

Because people don't believe you Robert.

Practically everyone who has appeared in the media (traditional and online) as a pro-life supporters has made wild, or inaccurate, or completely and deliberately dishonest claims.

At this point, the veracity of all pro-life supporters is called into question because those running the campaign have proven that they do not engage the debate in good faith and are willing to say absolutely anything, no matter how false, to validate their claims.

That is why you are being asked to back up your claims when you post anecdotes that are blatantly pro-life in agenda.

26-03-2018 11:44AM

Sofiztikated wrote: »

And what, exactly, did your local doctor show and inform you?

Doctors will be able to refuse abortion services to patients based on moral grounds. I belive that it will be a similar situation to a doctor who refuses to prescribe contraception to a patient based on their moral beliefs.

I've no problem with this, everyone is entitled to their beliefs and in such cases the patient may well end up with a doctor that has their medical health as their first priority rather than their personal views.

However if a licenced doctor is providing false information to a patient based on their personal beliefs, as a lot of the prolife posters on here are doing such as quoting false statistics from SPUC, then they should be reported, investigated and if found guilty have their licence revoked.

nozzferrahhtoo · 26-03-2018 11:46AM

Mr.H wrote: »

So I should stop being friends with them? Meaning I would be shunning them.

That was the meaning of it yes. Did someone suggest it meant something else?

Do let me know when you get around to reading the link I offered. I hope it contains much that relates to the question you asked.

retro:electro · 26-03-2018 11:46AM

RobertKK wrote: »

The only stunts are people like you who go around posting crap like that because something doesn’t suit.
People do believe me, it is just a small cohort here who are repeal fanatics that have an issue and don’t believe and that is their problem.

Boo hoo. My heart bleeds.

26-03-2018 11:51AM

RobertKK wrote: »

The only stunts are people like you who go around posting crap like that because something doesn’t suit.
People do believe me, it is just a small cohort here who are repeal fanatics that have an issue and don’t believe and that is their problem.

Robert you received a mod warning for consistently posting that the miss p case was a stunt by anti choice doctors when this isn't the case and refuted that they would be upset by reading your comments on here.

You can't expect people to not ask the same questions that you have based on one of your posts regarding a member of your family given you were so free with your opinion on the family of miss p.

RobertKK · 26-03-2018 11:52AM

seamus wrote: »

Because people don't believe you Robert.

Practically everyone who has appeared in the media (traditional and online) as a pro-life supporters has made wild, or inaccurate, or completely and deliberately dishonest claims.

At this point, the veracity of all pro-life supporters is called into question because those running the campaign have proven that they do not engage the debate in good faith and are willing to say absolutely anything, no matter how false, to validate their claims.

That is why you are being asked to back up your claims when you post anecdotes that are blatantly pro-life in agenda.

I don’t need people to believe me. I know I am telling the truth and if others don’t want to believe then it is not my problem they choose to be doubting Thomas’s.

RobertKK · 26-03-2018 11:54AM

DubInMeath wrote: »

Robert you received a mod warning for consistently posting that the miss p case was a stunt by anti choice doctors when this isn't the case and refuted that they would be upset by reading your comments on here.

You can't expect people to not ask the same questions that you have based on one of your posts regarding a member of your family given you were so free with your opinion on the family of miss p.

I am not posting about that case. Look others are trying to get me,
You bring it up too. Do you not see it is transparent what some are trying to do by trying to get me to talk about it again?
I posted a lot of detail but some people wants intrusive information on a child.

seamus · 26-03-2018 11:57AM

RobertKK wrote: »

I don’t need people to believe me. I know I am telling the truth and if others don’t want to believe then it is not my problem they choose to be doubting Thomas’s.

Oh I know. But if you're going to declare your position is based on the circumstances of an anecdote, just don't be surprised when people start asking questions about it.

That is, don't expect anyone's opinion to be swayed by a little ditty unless you're prepared to elaborate on it.

Sofiztikated · 26-03-2018 11:58AM

RobertKK wrote: »

Why is the exact condition your business?
It is identifying for people who know outside the family and you can’t tell me who posts and doesn’t post on boards.

I'm ok with not posting medical details of your nephew, because it can be identifying, and it's not your business to be doing so.

However, as you've misrepresented a documented case as a "stunt", then don't be surprised when people throw shade towards your latest "proof," which is undocumented and unverifiable.

Zubeneschamali · 26-03-2018 12:00PM

RobertKK wrote: »

People do believe me, it is just a small cohort here who are repeal fanatics that have an issue and don’t believe and that is their problem.

I believe that you believe the version you posted. I don't think you would make up a nephew with a heart condition to score debate points.

The reason folks are asking questions is because you said your nephew was diagnosed with a fatal fetal abnormality and has lived to be 10, with the implication being maybe more FFA cases would have similar results.

So, folks are asking was his condition one of those generally regarded as fatal? Or was it one of those which is sometimes fatal? What chance did doctors give at the time of the test?

There is a big difference between doctors warning a a couple that their child has only a 50% chance of living to adulthood and doctors warning another couple that their child will not survive an hour on its own.

nozzferrahhtoo · 26-03-2018 12:03PM

RobertKK wrote: »

I don’t need people to believe me. I know I am telling the truth and if others don’t want to believe then it is not my problem they choose to be doubting Thomas’s.

There is no reason why they should believe your story OR care to be honest. Despite the fact that people saying they did not care about your story triggered you into thinking they did not care about the life of your specific nephew directly. Which is two different things and you chose to get haughty about the latter, when the user in fact did the former.

The reason for not caring being that....... aside from the unverifiable nature of your anecdote, especially in light of your seeming inability/unwillgness to name or describe the condition.......... it is not really relevant to abortion at all, and only partially relevant to the 8th. And where it IS relevant to the 8th it would at best be a pro-repeal anecdote.

No serious medical diagnosis is 100%. We see people getting told they have months to live, who go on to live years, all the time. This happens. And there is reasons why it happens.

The point about the 8th debate is WHEN such diagnoses come, people feel that the 8th limits treatment options and types available to the woman.

The point about the abortion debate is WHEN such diagnoses come, abortion should be an OPTION. If a woman chooses not to take that option, and their child goes on to live a long life despite the diagnosis.... then that is great. But so what? Why should we in the context of THIS debate care a jot about your, or any other similar, anecdote?

In the light of this what possible relevance do you think a "after the diagnosis people hinted abortion but now look the child is alive and happy and healthy" type anecdote actually has???

RobertKK · 26-03-2018 12:04PM

Sofiztikated wrote: »

I'm ok with not posting medical details of your nephew, because it can be identifying, and it's not your business to be doing so.

However, as you've misrepresented a documented case as a "stunt", then don't be surprised when people throw shade towards your latest "proof," which is undocumented and unverifiable.

All I ever said was that a diagnosis of a life limiting condition/FFA is not always black and white and then I get a load of crap for it.
I said some cases are, others aren’t and then you see Seamus above seeing it as a blatantly pro life agenda, which raises questions if one is only allowed to post pro-repeal given the crap one receives if the message doesn’t suit the narrative that others want.

NuMarvel · 26-03-2018 12:18PM

RobertKK wrote: »

All I ever said was that a diagnosis of a life limiting condition/FFA is not always black and white and then I get a load of crap for it.
I said some cases are, others aren’t and then you see Seamus above seeing it as a blatantly pro life agenda, which raises questions if one is only allowed to post pro-repeal given the crap one receives if the message doesn’t suit the narrative that others want.

No one's said a FFA diagnosis is always black and white. You're arguing a point no one's made.

As I said to you before, the repeal campaign is about allowing ALL women in these situations to have their choice supported and recognised by Irish law.

Your nephew's family made a choice to continue with the pregnancy, and the law of the land allowed them to do that. There are families who make different choices, but the law doesn't grant them the same benefit.

Pro choice is about saying those families should be treated in the same way. It's not advocating for a particular choice, but advocating that everyone's choice is respected and provided for.

The 8th Amendment Part 2 - Mod Warning in OP

Comments