The 8th Amendment Part 2 - Mod Warning in OP

kylith · 29-03-2018 12:09PM

The issue I have with the 72 hour waiting period is twofold. Firstly, it can be a pain in the arse to get time off work for one doctor appointment. Secondly it removes some anonymity from it: ‘so Mary in accounts had a doctor’s appointment on Monday and now she has another one on Thursday, eh? I wonder what that’s for. Wink, wink’

It wasnt me123 · 29-03-2018 12:28PM

kylith wrote: »

The issue I have with the 72 hour waiting period is twofold. Firstly, it can be a pain in the arse to get time off work for one doctor appointment. Secondly it removes some anonymity from it: ‘so Mary in accounts had a doctor’s appointment on Monday and now she has another one on Thursday, eh? I wonder what that’s for. Wink, wink’

No wink wink - there are loads of reasons why a woman could be visiting a doctor, even in the same week. And it doesn't have to be just 72 hours - they could go back the following week - you could say you had to go back for results of tests, bad periods, pulled a muscle, fell and need xray - I could come up with loads of quite easily explained reasons. Once a woman hits 21 plus, we are always at the doctor for "womens" problems. Company can't ask why you are going.

I am most definitely pro choice, the barbaric antiquated carryon over reproduction in this country is sickening - but I'm in favour of 72 hour wait - in my head mostly for younger women who may not have the life skills to deal with an unexplained pregnancy and may benefit from a bit of space.

Time off work is a different problem but, and I'm assuming a lot here, if you are a good employee, regular with your attendance, it would be a very poor employer which got annoyed over 2 medical appointments.

Repeal all the way and put the control with the individual concerned (woman, girl) and not with everyone else.

Berserker · 29-03-2018 12:33PM

kylith wrote: »

The issue I have with the 72 hour waiting period is twofold. Firstly, it can be a pain in the arse to get time off work for one doctor appointment. Secondly it removes some anonymity from it: ‘so Mary in accounts had a doctor’s appointment on Monday and now she has another one on Thursday, eh? I wonder what that’s for. Wink, wink’

Well, it could be any number of things from a medical perspective. It's far from uncommon to have to have to go back to a medical facility a few days or even a week after a procedure or visit. If you have a minor infection, an ear infection for example, the doctor will put you on a course of antibiotics, take a swab and you will have to return a week or so later for a review. Have the NAGP been consulted about these services yet? From talking to the GPs I know, they won't have the capacity to provide this service. Others will refuse to provide it.

....... · 29-03-2018 12:33PM

This post has been deleted.

January · 29-03-2018 12:38PM

It wasnt me123 wrote: »

No wink wink - there are loads of reasons why a woman could be visiting a doctor, even in the same week. And it doesn't have to be just 72 hours - they could go back the following week - you could say you had to go back for results of tests, bad periods, pulled a muscle, fell and need xray - I could come up with loads of quite easily explained reasons. Once a woman hits 21 plus, we are always at the doctor for "womens" problems. Company can't ask why you are going.

I am most definitely pro choice, the barbaric antiquated carryon over reproduction in this country is sickening - but I'm in favour of 72 hour wait - in my head mostly for younger women who may not have the life skills to deal with an unexplained pregnancy and may benefit from a bit of space.

Time off work is a different problem but, and I'm assuming a lot here, if you are a good employee, regular with your attendance, it would be a very poor employer which got annoyed over 2 medical appointments.

Repeal all the way and put the control with the individual concerned (woman, girl) and not with everyone else.

But whats to say she hasn't thought about it for a week or more before she visits the doctor then has to wait another 72 hours after that again? It also means that if a woman doesn't get to see a doctor (let's for example say it's not free and the woman has to pay for the doctor and the prescription but cannot afford it and has to save) until closer to 12 weeks. Then we have a 3 day waiting period and bang she's over 12 weeks and no abortion for her.

Its a minefield.

Berserker · 29-03-2018 12:39PM

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Can you explain what you mean by this? Also, your 'time off work line' is a load of nonsense. I'm a manager in work. If an employee tells me they need time off for a medical reason, you are directed by any decent HR team to approve it without question.

ArmaniJeanss · 29-03-2018 12:40PM

kylith wrote: »

The issue I have with the 72 hour waiting period is twofold. Firstly, it can be a pain in the arse to get time off work for one doctor appointment. Secondly it removes some anonymity from it: ‘so Mary in accounts had a doctor’s appointment on Monday and now she has another one on Thursday, eh? I wonder what that’s for. Wink, wink’

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

The 3 day thing is very useful during the referendum, as it's a handy rebuttal for the 'on-demand' claim.
Can hopefully be modified over time.

But important not to lose sight of the immediate goal here of getting the 8th repealed, don't get too caught up in the any bits of the proposed legislation that you don't agree with it.

Berserker · 29-03-2018 12:41PM

ArmaniJeanss wrote: »

The 3 day thing is very useful during the referendum, as it's a handy rebuttal for the 'on-demand' claim.
Can hopefully be modified over time.

So, the 'Yes' campaign here is essentially 'abortion on demand'?

....... · 29-03-2018 12:42PM

This post has been deleted.

January · 29-03-2018 12:45PM

Berserker wrote: »

So, the 'Yes' campaign here is essentially 'abortion on demand'?

No. Again with the anti-choice terms. Abortion on demand does not happen. Nobody demands an abortion.

ArmaniJeanss · 29-03-2018 12:46PM

Berserker wrote: »

So, the 'Yes' campaign here is essentially 'abortion on demand'?

Not at all, the Yes campaign is made up of people with many different ideas, some of which I am opposed to and some of which I'm onboard with.

Which is why as I said the important thing short term is to focus on getting the 8th repealed and not get bogged down in sideshows.

....... · 29-03-2018 12:47PM

This post has been deleted.

Berserker · 29-03-2018 01:00PM

ArmaniJeanss wrote: »

Which is why as I said the important thing short term is to focus on getting the 8th repealed and not get bogged down in sideshows.

I agree with you but the 'Yes' campaign has a problem with this. The more complexity you add to a referendum, the less likely it is to pass and people seem to be adding an awful lot of extras. Took a look at this thread. A 'Yes' vote could mean so many things. That's a problem, whether people want to admit that or not.

It wasnt me123 · 29-03-2018 01:01PM

January wrote: »

But whats to say she hasn't thought about it for a week or more before she visits the doctor then has to wait another 72 hours after that again? It also means that if a woman doesn't get to see a doctor (let's for example say it's not free and the woman has to pay for the doctor and the prescription but cannot afford it and has to save) until closer to 12 weeks. Then we have a 3 day waiting period and bang she's over 12 weeks and no abortion for her.

Its a minefield.

Absolutely true, the cost is going to be a huge issue for women, regardless of your circumstances, trying to come up with a minimum of €100 is not easy.

And they may have been thinking about it for weeks, absolutely true. I suppose I'm thinking more of a younger woman/girl in turmoil (I have a teenage daughter) as opposed to an older, more life experienced woman, that is probably still in turmoil but possibly more able to deal with it.

I agree with a ArmaniJeanss, we shouldn't get caught up in the minutiae - repeal is the goal but it is good to discuss all aspects of the proposed law.

Nettle Soup · 29-03-2018 01:02PM

This campaign will get dirty and a bit stupid from now on. I think Repeal will win but it will be close. Otherwise we may need to wait another 10-15 years but it will happen. It makes sense but I am not sure the country has matured enough yet. Only Ryanair and Aer Lingus benefits from a No vote. The government are taking a gamble by outlining the legislation in addition to the referendum but it's probably the right thing to do.

I was only 10 in 1983 but I distinctly remember people walking out of mass when the priest brought up the 8th referendum. I asked why and my parents explained that the Roman church were trying to influence a vote and some people felt they were wrong. They were very brave to do so in public during that era.
.

Berserker · 29-03-2018 01:05PM

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

That sounds easy to me. You fill out a few forms and find a suitable time to visit the doctor. Where's the problem?

amdublin · 29-03-2018 01:18PM

Nettle Soup wrote: »

I was only 10 in 1983 but I distinctly remember people walking out of mass when the priest brought up the 8th referendum. I asked why and my parents explained that the Roman church were trying to influence a vote and some people felt they were wrong. They were very brave to do so in public during that era.
.

They really were...

My mam and dad voted for it in 1983, they thought it was the right thing and they said it just seemed to be what you did then. Seeing it in action now they will be voting to Repeal in May.

Can anyone remind me.what percentage was the result in 1983?

ohnonotgmail · 29-03-2018 01:20PM

amdublin wrote: »

They really were...

My mam and dad voted for it in 1983, they thought it was the right thing and they said it just seemed to be what you did then. Seeing it in action now they will be voting to Repeal in May.

Can anyone remind me.what percentage was the result in 1983?

67/33

Nettle Soup · 29-03-2018 01:29PM

1983 Turnout = 53.67%

Yes = 66.90%
No = 33.10%

Valid Votes = 1,257,369

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eighth_Amendment_of_the_Constitution_of_Ireland

January · 29-03-2018 01:30PM

I think the turnout will be higher.

Berserker · 29-03-2018 01:32PM

January wrote: »

I think the turnout will be higher.

I'd expect a similar turnout to the SSM referendum. That was 60%+.

amdublin · 29-03-2018 01:36PM

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

67/33

Wouldn't it be great if that was reversed.

But I don't care, I will take 51/49 (for repeal)

seamus · 29-03-2018 01:36PM

January wrote: »

I think the turnout will be higher.

I think so, but democratic engagement in general seems to be pretty poor at the moment. The marriage equality referendum still only managed 60% turnout on the back of what was apparently a huge campaign.

What gives me hope is that the 1992 referenda saw the biggest turnouts in modern times and comprehensively voted in a pro-choice direction. And that was 26 years ago.

....... · 29-03-2018 01:50PM

This post has been deleted.

kylith · 29-03-2018 02:27PM

It wasnt me123 wrote: »

Once a woman hits 21 plus, we are always at the doctor for "womens" problems. Company can't ask why you are going.

.

No, they can’t ask why you’re going but people still talk and some offices are gossip mills.

And i’m sorry for your troubles but ‘we’ women are not ‘always’ at the doctor with ‘women’s’ problems. Barring the annual smear my bits don’t necessitate any doctor visits.

It wasnt me123 · 29-03-2018 02:39PM

kylith wrote: »

No, they can’t ask why you’re going but people still talk and some offices are gossip mills.

And i’m sorry for your troubles but ‘we’ women are not ‘always’ at the doctor with ‘women’s’ problems. Barring the annual smear my bits don’t necessitate any doctor visits.

I'm a woman - but you are probably younger than me - when you are older and have had children, you are often at smear tests, breast checks, I'm a diabetic so 6 mthly diabetic nurse checks, flu injection and thats 5 appointments if I never get sick during the year again.

I wasn't trying to make a sarky comment about "the little women" - I was just trying to say that there are absolutely loads of reasons women attend GPs, not just for termination information and pills.

Anyway I've moved on from my initial comment on this as January rightly points out there are other obstructions to just "nipping out to the GP".

January · 29-03-2018 02:43PM

It wasnt me123 wrote: »

I'm a woman - but you are probably younger than me - when you are older and have had children, you are often at smear tests, breast checks, I'm a diabetic so 6 mthly diabetic nurse checks, flu injection and thats 5 appointments if I never get sick during the year again.

I wasn't trying to make a sarky comment about "the little women" - I was just trying to say that there are absolutely loads of reasons women attend GPs, not just for termination information and pills.

Anyway I've moved on from my initial comment on this as January rightly points out there are other obstructions to just "nipping out to the GP".

Sméar tests are only every three years. I've 4 kids and I'm only at the doctor very rarely.

It wasnt me123 · 29-03-2018 02:48PM

January wrote: »

Sméar tests are only every three years. I've 4 kids and I'm only at the doctor very rarely.

Depends on your medical history - that was exactly the point I was trying to make in the initial post - people are at the GPs for a range of things, all the time, when I younger than 35 I never went near a GP, now its different.

Anyway, I think Repeal will happen and then anything above that is for the person to work out as best they can.

TerryDublin · 29-03-2018 02:48PM

I feel the Government have not fully represented my view. I always planned to vote for repeal as I don't want any woman who needs an abortion unable to have one. But I am against abortion otherwise so what do I vote.

My sons fiance is pregnant and we all watched her first scan on DVD. So excited all of us. How could I vote for laws that would mean she could end their babys life. My grandchilds life. I know its so young so small but its still living you know. If she would want to do such a thing I would want her helped with why she would want to do this. If it was finance or fear of not coping. Help with these.

All around me my friends work people seem to be caught up in this but only from the view of the woman and her rights reproductive. The baby seems to be lost in all of this. Forgotten. Women have so much help with difficulties they face and I am happy for this but why is stopping the baby to live further seen so insignificant. I hope I am wrong and I can vote for repeal but not abortion as birth control only abnormalities rape etc.

ohnonotgmail · 29-03-2018 02:50PM

TerryDublin wrote: »

I feel the Government have not fully represented my view. I always planned to vote for repeal as I don't want any woman who needs an abortion unable to have one. But I am against abortion otherwise so what do I vote.

My sons fiance is pregnant and we all watched her first scan on DVD. So excited all of us. How could I vote for laws that would mean she could end their babys life. My grandchilds life. I know its so young so small but its still living you know. If she would want to do such a thing I would want her helped with why she would want to do this. If it was finance or fear of not coping. Help with these.

All around me my friends work people seem to be caught up in this but only from the view of the woman and her rights reproductive. The baby seems to be lost in all of this. Forgotten. Women have so much help with difficulties they face and I am happy for this but why is stopping the baby to live further seen so insignificant. I hope I am wrong and I can vote for repeal but not abortion as birth control only abnormalities rape etc.

Its all well and good that in this situation the woman does have support. what if she didnt? do you think she should be forced to continue the pregnancy or take a plane to england at the risk of her health?

The 8th Amendment Part 2 - Mod Warning in OP

Comments