The 8th Amendment Part 2 - Mod Warning in OP

02-04-2018 12:20AM

thee glitz wrote: »

Are ye fcukin jokin me like..? Ever met someone who was conceived through rape - did you ask them why they haven't killed themselves

This one bit, actually your whole post shows the lack of compassion you have for people. If I did meet someone in this situation and became friends I'd be more inclined to check they were ok and offer support if needed.

As for your other questions just read the prolife script.

PhoenixParker · 02-04-2018 12:29AM

thee glitz wrote: »

It's easy to pretend to show concern for rape victims and/or FFA cases etc until they're distinguished from other, trivial, cases. The pretence of care for same can be verified by an inappetite to legislate for stricter laws than proposed.

Trivial cases?
What exactly do you think of As a trivial case?

02-04-2018 01:05AM

thee glitz wrote: »

It's easy to pretend to show concern for rape victims and/or FFA cases etc until they're distinguished from other, trivial, cases. The pretence of care for same can be verified by an inappetite to legislate for stricter laws than proposed.

A loved one of mine was raped, but thankfully did not become pregnant. I've been there for them when ever they have needed me, not because I'm a saint or anything even fecking close to one, but simply because they are important to me and I love them. From my experience such a thing is a dark and terrible thing to have to come to terms with, and I'm the lucky one as it wasn't me that it happened to, being a man it's less likely to happen, but to be forced to carry the child of your rapist in such as case if you don't want to would just add to the pain.

I don't know if any of the pro choice side are pretending to be concerned about rape victims, FFA etc as you claim. I seriously doubt that they are pretending, especially not those posting on here. but I certainly am not pretending I am concerned for them and what they have to go through, not to mention getting basic health care denied because a person is pregnant. Nothing is trivial when faced with such a situation.

drillyeye · 02-04-2018 01:13AM

I have a simple question, but an important one to me. Maybe someone can answer here.

If the amendment is repealed, it is essentially taken out of the constitution? (I think that's correct)

But if it was taken out, that means its never going back into the constitution? (I think that's correct)

If so, does that mean, in a worst case scenario, that the amendment will be up for debate anytime? Like if a government decides to hold another referendum, or just change it itself? Or that opposition could simply hold an opposing view to a sitting government to gain political traction ad infinitum?

Maybe a simpler way to ask; once its out, will it ever be put back in?

applehunter · 02-04-2018 02:57AM

Senator Catherine Noone has once again shown up the Oireachtas Committee on the 8th Amendment for the farce that it was.

Kurtosis · 02-04-2018 06:55AM

applehunter wrote: »

Senator Catherine Noone has once again shown up the Oireachtas Committee on the 8th Amendment for the farce that it was.

Any context to this comment?

amdublin · 02-04-2018 07:21AM

applehunter wrote: »

Senator Catherine Noone has once again shown up the Oireachtas Committee on the 8th Amendment for the farce that it was.

Can you explain this more? I've no clue what you mean by this

amdublin · 02-04-2018 07:27AM

thee glitz wrote: »

Are ye fcukin jokin me like..? Ever met someone who was conceived through rape - did you ask them why they haven't killed themselves yet?

Ouch

Like a lot of things that some posters on the pro life side (I.e. keep repeal) say I don't agree with to the point of being aghast.

A couple of days ago one of their doctor spokespeople (PhD, not medical dr) said it was "noble" to keep a woman deceased and decomposing on life support so as not to endanger the baby she was carrying - against her poor grieving families wishes.

Ave Sodalis · 02-04-2018 08:10AM

thee glitz wrote: »

The government have indicated that legislation will be enacted if the amendment is repealed. If not, obviously it won't be. The legislation yes/no outcome can reasonably be expected to match the referendum yes/no.

That's not reasonable if you consider that, with enough lobbying, anything after the referendum is still up for debate regardless of the referendum outcome.

thee glitz wrote: »

Are ye fcukin jokin me like..? Ever met someone who was conceived through rape - did you ask them why they haven't killed themselves yet?

That isn't what the poster is saying at all. Through keeping the 8th, too many women have suffered and even died. FFA manage to get to birth suffer horribly before dying. People who have been raped and fall pregnant are more likely to suffer from antenatal depression, which in turn has been shown to have an effect on the child's mental health. Absolutely nobody has told a person who was conceived through rape to kill themselves, what a horrible thing to imply just to get a dig in.

drillyeye wrote: »

I have a simple question, but an important one to me. Maybe someone can answer here.

If the amendment is repealed, it is essentially taken out of the constitution? (I think that's correct)

But if it was taken out, that means its never going back into the constitution? (I think that's correct)

If so, does that mean, in a worst case scenario, that the amendment will be up for debate anytime? Like if a government decides to hold another referendum, or just change it itself? Or that opposition could simply hold an opposing view to a sitting government to gain political traction ad infinitum?

Maybe a simpler way to ask; once its out, will it ever be put back in?

It's taken out and replaced.

It's never going back in unless there's a referendum held in future. Any part of the constitution, or its amendments can be changed through referendum. The government cannot change the constitution itself. Maybe it won't be put back in, maybe it will. However, referendums are expensive and time consuming, so it will only be touched again with enough public interest.

Annasopra · 02-04-2018 09:20AM

drillyeye wrote: »

I have a simple question, but an important one to me. Maybe someone can answer here.

If the amendment is repealed, it is essentially taken out of the constitution? (I think that's correct)

But if it was taken out, that means its never going back into the constitution? (I think that's correct)

If so, does that mean, in a worst case scenario, that the amendment will be up for debate anytime? Like if a government decides to hold another referendum, or just change it itself? Or that opposition could simply hold an opposing view to a sitting government to gain political traction ad infinitum?

Maybe a simpler way to ask; once its out, will it ever be put back in?

Once it is out. It is very very very unlikely to be put back in. But who knows if the world takes a far right turn it is possible.

Think about it like this though. Nobody is seriously calling to ban divorce and marriage equality and to rerun those referenda.

Water John · 02-04-2018 12:43PM

The Referendum says it will put in the words, indicating that the Oireactais shall legislate, on the issue.

PopePalpatine · 02-04-2018 01:17PM

Kurtosis wrote: »

Any context to this comment?

Why add context when you can "triggurr de libs"?

January · 02-04-2018 01:44PM

The 'In Her Shoes' FB page has been targetted by 'pro-life' people, giving 1-star copy and paste reviews of the page. Imagine targetting women who are telling their stories from their point of view of their experience with the 8th amendment.

I'm not surprised with their tactics at all. It's shameful.

02-04-2018 01:58PM

January wrote: »

The 'In Her Shoes' FB page has been targetted by 'pro-life' people, giving 1-star copy and paste reviews of the page. Imagine targetting women who are telling their stories from their point of view of their experience with the 8th amendment.

I'm not surprised with their tactics at all. It's shameful.

Shame isn't in their vocabulary when trying to discredit information that goes against their agenda, unless it's directed at people who have had a termination. I'd expect things to get worse as we get closer to the date.

PhoenixParker · 02-04-2018 02:01PM

January wrote: »

The 'In Her Shoes' FB page has been targetted by 'pro-life' people, giving 1-star copy and paste reviews of the page. Imagine targetting women who are telling their stories from their point of view of their experience with the 8th amendment.

I'm not surprised with their tactics at all. It's shameful.

That's disgusting.
The stories there are heart breaking and a significant number have nothing to do with abortion they simply describe the direct negative impact of the 8th on women's healthcare.

bertieinexile · 02-04-2018 02:15PM

Looking back over the posts from the last few days I think there's one that stands out. It's by TerryDublin who may not think it but I'd say is the most important poster I've seen on the site. It's quoted below.
To my mind TerryDublin represents where most of the country is at.
He is inclined to feel abortion should be an option for women in some extreme cases but he believes abortion is wrong in every other case.
Given the response he got I doubt he's still around, but there are many more people who are casual viewers of this thread who are in the same position as TerryDublin. Like I say it's a really important point of view.

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.

My answer to you, for what it's worth, is trust your gut. Listen to the debate, you're not obliged to listen to everyone. Seek out the voices that sound most like yourself and see if they've anything to say.
But what matters is how you feel about it and the only expert on that is you.
When you finally go in to vote that is the only expert opinion you need to be bothered about.
Good luck, it's not easy.

RobertKK · 02-04-2018 02:18PM

applehunter wrote: »

Senator Catherine Noone has once again shown up the Oireachtas Committee on the 8th Amendment for the farce that it was.

Kurtosis wrote: »

Any context to this comment?

She said on twitter before deleting:
Sen Catherine Noone:
Easter mass in Knock Basilica this afternoon with my parents - an octogenarian priest took at least 3 opportunities to preach to us about abortion - it's no wonder people feel disillusioned with the church. #HappyEasterSunday #TogetherForYes #8thRef

As I said she deleted it as it was ageist and people found it strange that Ms Noone seemed surprised the church is against abortion.

January · 02-04-2018 02:21PM

That doesn't make the Oireachtas Committee a farce though?

bertieinexile · 02-04-2018 02:21PM

amdublin
I am seeing a lot of save the 8th posters gone up around Dublin city.
Specifically with the 1 in 5 pregnancies end in abortion in England, don't let this happen here. Am I right in thinking that this is Not factually correct. Because this stat includes miscarriages that end in abortion.

edwardM
It doesent include miscarriages, that was posted earlier.
One in Five pregnancies excluding miscarriages end in abortion in England and Wales, less in Scotland.

PhoenixParker
One question I had after that discussion was whether miscarriage treatment is included in abortion stats in the U.K.
Not every miscarriage requires treatment but for the significant portion that do, the treatment is the same as an abortion.
I can't find a definitive answer but if it is the case, it would massively increase the apparent abortion rate in the UK.

Neyite
The treatment is the same. Once you begin to miscarry and depending on the gestation week, it's possible you'd be offered medication to speed up the process of expelling the products of conception. That medication is the same as the ones offered in the case of abortion.
You would be offered the same abortificant medication and procedures here in Ireland provided they have established there is no heart beat, and you haven't began to miscarry two weeks after that scan.
I can't imagine whoever compiled the statistics quoted trawled through each medical record to establish whether there was a heartbeat at the time the medication or procedure began. If they did, I'm sure that the stats would be drastically different.
1 in 4 pregnancies end in a natural miscarriage. Once a miscarriage begins, losing the pregnancy is inevitable. Other jurisdictions help a woman manage that process safely to avoid sepsis or infection. That's not abortion.
But as usual, the PLC are happy to misrepresent actual facts in order to scaremonger.

The statement 1 in 5 pregnancies end in abortion in England is correct and has nothing to do with miscarriages.

You are asking whether the numbers being quoted for english abortions includes induced miscarriages because you want to then argue that the number of elective abortions was less than 1 in 5.

But we don't just have the UK statistics on the number of abortions, (177,350 in 2016) number of live births (663,157 ) and therefore the percentage (21% )
http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/policy/abortion/uk/ab-ukengland.html
We also know the number of those abortions that were carried out on mental health grounds, and that's about 97% of them.
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/679028/Abortions_stats_England_Wales_2016.pdf (page 15)
Nearly all abortions in england are of the type where it is claimed there was a threat to the womans mental health. Nothing to do with inducing miscarriages.

To make it clear that we are not dealing with miscarriages you could say that
"In one in five pregnancies in england where a woman has a choice in the outcome, the child dies."
To me that sounds a lot worse than the slogan on the poster.

Water John · 02-04-2018 02:22PM

Bertie, any polls taken, up to now, shows the country is in a different place than you.
If you wish to allow abortions in some, but only extreme situations, you should vote for Repeal and then canvass the politicians for the type of laws, that reflect your outlook.

BTW, as we know from divorce laws etc, Ireland is quite different culturally from England. Thus Statistics that apply there are not very relevant to Ireland.

RobertKK · 02-04-2018 02:24PM

January wrote: »

That doesn't make the Oireachtas Committee a farce though?

She was hardly an impartial chairperson though?

January · 02-04-2018 02:32PM

RobertKK wrote: »

She was hardly an impartial chairperson though?

A chairperson doesn't have to be impartial, that wasn't one of the rules of being on the committee or being the chair.

January · 02-04-2018 02:34PM

amdublin wrote: »

Can you explain this more? I've no clue what you mean by this

applehunter doesn't do context, they come into the thread and add their own little comments but refuses to engage in actual discussion.

Like his little 'dehumanize, then kill' comments that he just kept posting over and over for a while. It's good that he's moved on from just that though.

RobertKK · 02-04-2018 02:35PM

January wrote: »

A chairperson doesn't have to be impartial, that wasn't one of the rules of being on the committee or being the chair.

So you would have had no problem if the situation was equally reversed and a rabid pro-life person had been the chairperson and the outcome had been different?

bertieinexile · 02-04-2018 02:37PM

thee glitz wrote: »

If the result of repealing the 8th would be abortion without reason to 12 weeks, and later if 2 docs sign off on a health risk (and concerns were raised in the UK around pre-signed forms), then support among moderates will veer towards a no vote.

The yes campaign will fall on pushing it too far - ideal for strong no supporters.

Excellent point thee glitz, well put. That's the whole campaign right there. Here is what a doctor who worked for marie stopes for years had to say about how well they police the mental health grounds among other things

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4284290/Marie-Stopes-abortions-signed-just-phonecall.html

The woman who sat in front of me at the Marie Stopes Clinic in 2010 was in her late twenties, with brown quizzical eyes that mirrored her confusion.

She wanted an abortion, but she didn’t speak English. The best way forward would have been to dial into a phone translation service so that someone fluent in her language could explain the options and the risks they entailed.

But that would take time – and staff at Marie Stopes simply weren’t given time to provide proper care.

The management took every opportunity to cut costs, cut corners and squeeze patients through as fast as possible with the least demanding protocol for treatment.

On that particular day, I had sat in on the consultation and listened as a healthcare assistant (HCA) explained the options for an early termination of pregnancy while the woman’s husband translated.

The HCA had just 20 minutes to explain the procedures to each patient, perform an ultrasound and take a medical history and a blood sample.

On top of that, the HCA had to complete the paperwork. It was a punishing schedule. And in this case we were reliant on the patient’s husband to translate accurately what was being said.

The woman could opt for a two-day medical termination – taking the pill mifepristone and coming back the next day to take a second tablet, misoprostol. Or she could have an early surgical abortion, without anaesthetic, using a suction technique. Unfortunately, because she had not fasted, she could not be given a strong sedative before the procedure.

I wasn’t happy that she understood either what the surgical termination I would perform involved, or that she might feel some pain. She was scared and just wanted it over and done with, so she opted for a no-anaesthetic abortion.
We worked in an atmosphere of bullying and pressure – it was nothing more than a conveyor belt service.

Against my better judgment, I went ahead. Her particular case has stayed with me, because it felt so wrong.

I should have walked out of the door right then and turned my back on the Marie Stopes organisation, where I believe the women who sought help were taken advantage of as well as the doctors and the staff. We worked in an atmosphere of bullying and pressure – it was nothing more than a conveyor belt service.

More than 190,000 abortions are carried out each year in the UK. Around 60,000 of these are undertaken at Marie Stopes centres. I worked there one Saturday every month from 2003 to 2010, and then once a week until 2012. During the week, I was a consultant at King’s College Hospital, London.

At that time, Marie Stopes was performing around 30-35 surgical terminations a day at the clinic I worked in alone. About a quarter of them were over 14 weeks. Some 95 per cent of patients were funded by the NHS.

Many women are upset when they arrive at a clinic. Time should be given to talk to them, and to pick up on any signs that they don’t want to go through with the termination. But you couldn’t always be sure this had happened, because of the pressures everyone was under.

Legally, abortion forms require two medical signatures. I would fill in the forms without having met a patient, ticking the appropriate box to confirm that was the case.

I just had to rely on the HCAs and hope that if a woman was unsure or had been forced into a termination by her partner or parents, they had picked up the signs in the short time they had with the woman. There was a climate of fear at Marie Stopes. If we were taking too long signing forms, we’d be chivvied by administrative staff. Sometimes, I’d already be in the operating theatre, performing a procedure, when documents would be presented for me sign. To say it was a rushed would be an understatement.

Every now and again, a patient on my operating table would change her mind and leave the room. Could she have been better counselled? Certainly, more time spent with her might have thrown up her doubts. It’s likely she had simply not felt able to express doubts about what lay ahead to the HCA as she was sped through their checks.

I sometimes got the impression that the women I treated hadn’t been given the full picture, or had the pain properly explained to them. They often appeared to feel more pain than you’d expect, and that upset me, because once you have started a termination you can’t stop. I would just have to carry on, despite their cries.

There's plenty more in that article about how much of a joke the mental health criterion is in england.
You can deliberately avoid claiming your mental state is affected and still be approved.
The doctors who supposedly determine your mental state don't even need to meet you face to face

Under the wild proposed legislation that would follow a Yes vote here, as night the day, any woman would be allowed an abortion up to 24 weeks under these these "mental health grounds"
And I would be really really happy to spend from now until the end of May talking about this.

Water John · 02-04-2018 02:39PM

Catherine Noone isn't a 'rabid abortionist' as you put it. She Chaired the subcommittee fairly, despite abuse. The main proposal of 12 general limit, came from 3 FF members.

bertieinexile · 02-04-2018 02:43PM

thee glitz wrote: »

What I'd like to know is, if a No vote prevails, will there be a re-run of the referendum with tighter proposed legislation to follow? It would seem that, depending on it, repeal would gain more support and surely the re-run would be passed. Against this, it wouldn't be right to have a re-run any time soon a-la-nice or Lisbon.

Thats an argument that makes sense to a lot of people with the same doubts about this that you have.

Simi wrote:

If you vote no you are voting to ensure abortion remains illegal in all cases bar threat to life. The government is not going to rerun the referendum with new terms that are personally catered to your wishes! That is not how democracy works.

Oh yes it is. thee glitz already referred to the Nice and Lisbon referendums which we got to vote on twice. Even more relevant were the two divorce referendums in 1986 and 1995 where we didn't give the right answer the first time around
.
.

Finally, here, in my opinion, is the middle ground of Ireland telling the pro choice side - politicians, media and the rest - what it is they actually want.

thee glitz wrote:

What about the choice to allow for legislating for abortion.... just in cases where it's reasonably deemed to be necessary - would you support people having a vote on that?

RobertKK · 02-04-2018 02:45PM

Water John wrote: »

Catherine Noone isn't a 'rabid abortionist' as you put it. She Chaired the subcommittee fairly, despite abuse. The main proposal of 12 general limit, came from 3 FF members.

You put words in a loose quote which I had not said, but one has to be rabid in their support for repeal to go to church and be ageist and act like one came from outer space and just found out the church is against abortion.
She is a rabid pro-choice campaigner and that is why she did such a stupid tweet that she later had to delete as it did make her and the repeal side look really stupid and rather nasty for being ageist.

Water John · 02-04-2018 02:58PM

Robert you juxtapositioned CN to a rabid pro lifer, thus you made the claim CN was a 'rabid pro abortionist'. That's the reason for the parenthesis. A rabid pro choice person would be looking for a very liberal abortion law, similar to the UK. I see only one or two contributors here that advocated that.
Maybe one or two on the subcommittee eg Ruth Coppinger might have similar views, but Catherine Noone nor any FG or FF members of the committee, would have advocated that. So CN cannot be described as rabid abortionist.

RobertKK · 02-04-2018 03:25PM

Water John wrote: »

Robert you juxtapositioned CN to a rabid pro lifer, thus you made the claim CN was a 'rabid pro abortionist'. That's the reason for the parenthesis. A rabid pro choice person would be looking for a very liberal abortion law, similar to the UK. I see only one or two contributors here that advocated that.
Maybe one or two on the subcommittee eg Ruth Coppinger might have similar views, but Catherine Noone nor any FG or FF members of the committee, would have advocated that. So CN cannot be described as rabid abortionist.

So are you saying people who are for repeal should be referred to as being "pro abortionist"?

It is a very liberal abortion law that is being proposed and Catherine Noone uses the hastag together for yes, there was a person from together for yes on Morning Ireland and was supporting abortion to be allowed up to birth.

It was very stupid of Senator Noone to go to church and complain that the church teaches church teachings inside a church, and make a comment about the age of the priest.
I prefer to think it is her rabid support for repeal that caused her to be blind to what she posted, rather than assume the view came from being simply stupid.

The 8th Amendment Part 2 - Mod Warning in OP

Comments