The 8th Amendment Part 2 - Mod Warning in OP

petalgumdrops wrote: »

Please go back and read my story John. My lab results were done in England. They have phones they can contact me without me physically being there. My story was clinically interesting based on its rarity

You never mentioned anything about having any tests done in England.

You said you had them done, but not where.

Triceratops Ballet wrote: »

That person providing the care can be anyone who (obviously subject to approval) volunteers to. In the case of a pregnancy there can be no transfer of responsibility, it the unborn are entirely dependent on a specific person, its a massively invasive undertaking to force on someone who does not want it

Yes but if the argument is on the contention that the unborn are burdensome, are born children not also burdensome, in terms of the way raising children affects the daily routine and financial circumstances of the people who care for them?

horseburger wrote: »

Yes but if the argument is on the contention that the unborn are burdensome, are born children not also burdensome, in terms of the way raising children affects the daily routine and financial circumstances of the people who care for them?

In the case of the born, the burden can be transferred to another party without physical obstacles or risk. It is not necessary to kill the child to remove that burden.

A foetus cannot be transferred. If the technology to do this were to exist, it would bring with it a risk to the health and life of donor and recipient.

I think the main part, the diagnosis, is true, but for whatever reason there are significant points that are not exactly as one would gather from reading the snippets given here. The poster is entitled to tell people only the bits she feels comfortable with, of course, but not to extrapolate from those to say that anyone else would react the same way she did.

Mods definitely have allowed their own agendas cloud their moderation of this thread. How many times have people questioned the authenticity of my ffa diagnosis, the procedure and process I went through. The doctors who reviewed my case. How is this supporting to women. To question or dispute that I received a ffa and how my pregnancy panned out. The refusal to acknowledge or accept any other point of view is disgusting. Because I went on to have a healthy baby I'm somehow not in any way allowed to have an opinion. Every procedure questioned, suggested ill change my story, that I did actually travel that I'm a liar.

If a lady who terminated for a ffa was questioned and pushed on why she didn't wait for an amino or why she didn't get a second opinion the posters would be banned.

Absolutely disgusting. I hope the undecided/ unregistered voters look at this and realise the hypocrisy of the supporting and trusting women mantra is only when it suits a narrative.

Will remove and unfolloe this thread now.

lazygal wrote: »

Why would Crumlim deal with a child that isn't born? I've had prenatal testing where the lab results were processed in the UK then sent to my maternity hospital. Then amniocentesis was the recommended course of action. Termination wouldn't be mentioned until all tests, including scans over many days, had been completed. Did you have maternity care here or in the UK?
The eighth amendment only hindered my maternity care. It in no way benefited me or my children.

If a diagnosis of ffa is given referral to a medical geneticist is procedure. For my case at least.
Do you want to dispute that?

petalgumdrops wrote: »

Mods definitely have allowed their own agendas cloud their moderation of this thread. How many times have people questioned the authenticity of my ffa diagnosis, the procedure and process I went through. The doctors who reviewed my case. How is this supporting to women. To question or dispute that I received a ffa and how my pregnancy panned out. The refusal to acknowledge or accept any other point of view is disgusting. Because I went on to have a healthy baby I'm someone not in any way allowed to have an opinion. Every procedure questioned, suggested ill change my story, that I did actually travel that I'm a liar.

If a lady who terminated for a ffa was questioned and pushed on why she didn't wait for an amino or why she didn't get a second opinion the posters would be banned.

Absolutely disgusting. I hope the undecided/ unregistered voters look at this and realise the hypocrisy of the supporting and trusting women mantra is only when it suits a narrative.

Will remove and unfolloe this thread now.

People we asking how the 8th saved your baby which was your claim. The answers as to how caused great consternation. And there is still no actual link how.

petalgumdrops wrote: »

If a diagnosis of ffa is given referral to a medical geneticist is procedure. For my case at least.
Do you want to dispute that?

No. I've done the same. Had harmony test, results came from UK lab slowing high risk for a FFA, amniocentesis recommended. All care provided by the maternity hospital. No reference to how the eighth could save my baby.

petalgumdrops wrote: »

Harmony test is not diagnostic. This is fact it is screening tool where odds are given. This can also be done via ultrasound where a ratio is given based on a number of factors, age, presence of a nasal bone, length of femur, stomach and head circumference. Amnio is the only conclusive diagnostic test.

That's what I said. No recommendations to terminate happen after harmony results. You're offered CVS or amniocentesis which is diagnostic and 100% conclusive.
How does the eighth save babies when I decided whether to travel based on tests I chose to have?

volchitsa wrote: »

The poster mentioned mosaic as the reason why her results were mistaken : a link aboout CVS says this
[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Be aware that if you have CVS, there's a 1 to 2 percent chance of getting an unclear result. This is called a confined placental mosaicism, in which some of the cell lines cultured from the placenta contain abnormal chromosomes and some are normal. If your CVS detects a mosaicism, you'll have to have amniocentesis and possibly other testing to determine whether your baby is affected.[/font]

[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]SO this is a known risk of getting mistaken results from CVS which requires an amniocentesis to eliminate this possibility.[/font]

[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]I don't believe a UK hospital would not warn a family of that?[/font]

Irish hospitals too. These are classed as invasive tests which can cause miscarriage. All of the tests side effects and accuracy are well laid out before you decide on whether to have them. They're mentally difficult to do as well. No one would have them done lightly.

I would never have thought that a London lab would ring a patient and tell them to terminate their pregnancy.

Thank God we have the 8th if this the carry on of London hospital labs.

erica74 wrote: »

I sit here baffled by the utter rubbish that comes out of the mouths of antichoice people. Some TD just said on the radio "The right to life is primary and the right to quality of life is secondary and you can't enjoy your secondary right without your primary right." WTF does that even mean??

The idea is that it is grand if a pregnancy leaves a woman a physical wreck as long as the result is a live baby, even one that has cerebral palsy, bilateral blindness, complete deafness and will require 24 hour care for its short life.

Because a baby's life, even 24 hours of life with serious handicaps, is worth crippling a woman, because who cares about her, not the Catholic Church, that's for sure.

These are the people we are dealing with.

petalgumdrops wrote: »

I didn't have a harmony test why would I have a screening test without any need to?

I had a CVS because of an anomaly scan(early at 12 weeks but a problem was dedicated) which on results termination was encouraged. I can only say this in so many ways. Do you insist on disputing this?g


"For those who believe no proof is necessary. For those who don't no proof is sufficient"

What UK lab called? What test results were they giving you?
Why an anatomy scan at 12 weeks? What problem meant you had a scan that either doesn't happen until 20 weeks or is done on your request or as part of testing such as the harmony test?

If the poster campaign in Dublin so far is anything to go by then the Repeal campaign have already lost the referendum. The anti - Repeal campaign have had their posters up for about a month now and of course they’re what you’d expect – simple, graphic no nonsense, fear-based messages claiming that repeal is a licence for wholesale baby murder. So far, so predictable. Only in the last fortnight have the pro - Repeal posters begun to appear. It’s bad enough that the pro-Repeal side were behind the ball in launching their campaign but the quality of the messages so far have been dreadful. The Labour party’s two posters – “For Compassion in a Crisis” and “For Women’s Health” are typical of the kind of bland, wishy washy, “let’s not offend anyone” approach common now in all establishment election and referendum campaigns. The worst I’ve seen so far though is the Together For Yes campaign poster – an awful yoke proclaiming “Sometimes a private matter needs public support”.

WTF ? I’m no idiot and I had to read that thing twice to make sense of it. This drivel was obviously dreamed up by some goateed chin stroking intellectual college students sitting in Starbucks over a few latte mochaccino’s along with their adoring doe eyed girlfriends. Does anyone in their right mind really think that this type of nonsense is going to win over floating/doubtful voters who haven’t decided yet?

Where are the graphic, hard hitting messages from the Yes side pointing out that it’s time we stopped forcing 5,000 women a year abroad? Where are the posters declaring that it could be YOUR daughter, girlfriend, sister or mother who might be forced into this awful journey? Where are the posters asking WHY WOULD YOU FORCE A RAPE VICTIM TO BEAR HIS CHILD? When are we going to learn that the “nicey, nicey” approach doesn’t work when you’re up against the religious right?