The 8th Amendment Part 2 - Mod Warning in OP

v638sg7k1a92bx · 17-04-2018 04:24PM

SusieBlue wrote: »

Because traveling to procure an abortion or taking abortion pills at home is unsafe for the woman in question. She has no medical supervision or aftercare while recovering and its extremely dangerous for her health.

And as roughly 4k women avail of abortion services each year, that's a huge amount of women that we're letting down by denying them healthcare.

So it's only a healthcare issue by virtue of having an abortion in the first place?

SusieBlue wrote: »

This isn't even touching on the women with wanted pregnancies having crisis's that require terminations, only to be denied on the grounds of a very faint fetal heartbeat.

But did we not legislate for abortion in cases where the mother's life is in danger?

I'm only asking here btw.

ohnonotgmail · 17-04-2018 04:27PM

Rogelio Tinkling Cue wrote: »

So it's only a healthcare issue by virtue of having an abortion in the first place?

But did we not legislate for abortion in cases where the mother's life is in danger?

I'm only asking here btw.

what about where her health is in danger?

v638sg7k1a92bx · 17-04-2018 04:29PM

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

what about where her health is in danger?

That's what I'm asking...

ohnonotgmail · 17-04-2018 04:30PM

Rogelio Tinkling Cue wrote: »

That's what I'm asking...

well then the woman is fecked.

gctest50 · 17-04-2018 04:30PM

The Legend Of Kira wrote: »

I condemn the actions of this guy,,

I condemn anyone removing posters or engaging in any sort of vandalism- just a pity quite a few on the repeal side can,t do likewise .

.........

We can do without the graphical medical images, we all know what a fetus looks like

Unnecessary pictures like those could be very upsetting for those women who have miscarried ( naturally )

.

Triceratops Ballet · 17-04-2018 04:33PM

Rogelio Tinkling Cue wrote: »

So it's only a healthcare issue by virtue of having an abortion in the first place?

But did we not legislate for abortion in cases where the mother's life is in danger?

I'm only asking here btw.

no we can't have legislation that contravenes the constitution

January · 17-04-2018 04:33PM

gctest50 wrote: »

We can do without the graphical medical images, we all know what a fetus looks like

Unnecessary pictures like those could be very upsetting for those women who have miscarried ( naturally )

They could also be upsetting for women who've had abortions (not me, personally) just because she's had an abortion doesn't maker her feelings less valid.

The Legend Of Kira · 17-04-2018 04:34PM

robarmstrong wrote: »

There's a difference, person in the first video was removing a poster that was legally placed there.

The pro-life posters are in breach of an act and are therefore illegal, fair game.

"" The pro-life posters are in breach of an act and are therefore illegal ""
What act are they in breach of ?

NuMarvel · 17-04-2018 04:35PM

Rogelio Tinkling Cue wrote: »

I'm only asking here btw.

FYI, there have a few posters who have started off on that track when it's become clear it just a tactic to wind people up or disrupt the thread. As such, it's hard for the rest of us to separate the genuine posters with questions from the messers, especially when they're new to the thread.

Can I suggest that you expand a little bit more on your own thoughts and position first to help the rest of us understand where you're coming from. You'll probably get better answers too because it'll give us some context as to where your question is coming from.

robarmstrong · 17-04-2018 04:39PM

The Legend Of Kira wrote: »

"" The pro-life posters are in breach of an act and are therefore illegal ""
What act are they in breach of ?

They continue to put them on ESB poles - S19 of the Litter Pollution Act 1997.

EDIT - It's also an offence not to display the name of the printer and publisher on any posters relating to an election or referendum.

Hence why tearing down the pro-life posters were fair game, the pro-choice poster was legal.

blanch152 · 17-04-2018 04:41PM

horseburger wrote: »

Perhaps Blanch.

There is knock on off placing the responsibility of legislation on public representatives though, in the sense that they very often vote with regard to their political career and not the issue being voted on.

For example Regina Doherty recently saying, that in 2014 she was ignorant of the issues regarding abortion in Ireland.

But she said that the time that she really believed what she had said.

She pretty much made a dismissive comment saying 'women who don't want to get preggers have contraceptives available to them so they should stop whinging'.

In the Irish Times item from 2014, Mary Minihan wrote:

"Speaking to radio station LMFM, Ms Doherty said she understood why political leaders were reluctant to act and said clear legislation would have to replace article 40.3.3 if it was removed. “I’m not sure that the current situation does satisfy anybody. It certainly doesn’t satisfy the pro-choice people, and that’s not a movement that I would be in sync with,” she said.
“Not everybody lives in the black or the white of pro-life or pro-choice ideologies, because there are lots of situations in the middle of the grey areas that when those situations visit people’s houses then they have to make very difficult decisions.”".

"Contraceptives"

Ms Doherty said she also disagreed with the pro-choice view that women in Ireland did not have determination over their own bodies.

“I genuinely and firmly believe that women already have the determination over their own bodies and that’s called contraceptives, so make the decisions before you find yourself in a position where you’re using an abortion as a form of a contraceptive afterwards.”".

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/fine-gael-td-backs-colleague-s-call-for-abortion-referendum-1.1912286

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/repeal-campaigners-will-not-accept-a-no-vote-says-minister-1.3430112?mode=sample&auth-failed=1&pw-origin=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.irishtimes.com%2Fnews%2Fpolitics%2Frepeal-campaigners-will-not-accept-a-no-vote-says-minister-1.3430112

That is a complete red herring and something that can be fixed by electing better politicians.

You have made it clear that you favour abortions in certain very limited circumstances that are not permitted by the 8th.

The only honest and decent approach is therefore for you to vote to repeal the 8th and lobby politicians for the abortion regimes you favour and vote for politicians who share your views so that they can be enacted.

gctest50 · 17-04-2018 04:42PM

NuMarvel wrote: »

FYI, there have a few posters who have started off on that track when it's become clear it just a tactic to wind people up or disrupt the thread...........

Should make a list of some of the tactics seen and add to it :

eg:

* Get thread-banned and claim it was only innocent questions and there is no justice

* Pick late at night when people are tired or maybe had a drink or two at home, try antagonise them and get them thread-banned

* Make slightly vague statement that is sure to be picked up on, then whine they're being attacked and it's not the main point of the thread and waaaaaa

etc

v638sg7k1a92bx · 17-04-2018 04:47PM

NuMarvel wrote: »

FYI, there have a few posters who have started off on that track when it's become clear it just a tactic to wind people up or disrupt the thread. As such, it's hard for the rest of us to separate the genuine posters with questions from the messers, especially when they're new to the thread.

Can I suggest that you expand a little bit more on your own thoughts and position first to help the rest of us understand where you're coming from. You'll probably get better answers too because it'll give us some context as to where your question is coming from.

My understanding was that that after Savita Halappanavar's inquest we have the Protection of Life During Pregnancy Act which is suppose to st out the circumstances when a woman can have an abortion. Does this not mitigate the health risk argument that is being put forward especially when the risk is as a result of the abortion rather than the pregnancy? In summary, what will repeal achieve that the Act doesn't if the argument for repeal is a healthcare issue?

Triceratops Ballet · 17-04-2018 04:50PM

Rogelio Tinkling Cue wrote: »

My understanding was that that after Savita Halappanavar's inquest we have the Protection of Life During Pregnancy Act which is suppose to st out the circumstances when a woman can have an abortion. Does this not mitigate the health risk argument that is being put forward especially when the risk is as a result of the abortion rather than the pregnancy? In summary, what will repeal achieve that the Act doesn't if the argument for repeal is a healthcare issue?

Did you read any of the other responses to your question about how it's a healthcare issue?

EDIT:

I've collected them all for you, it's not just about abortion:

Triceratops Ballet wrote: »

because due to the 8th amendment pregnant women are excluded from the HSE policy on consent, they don't have a right to consent to or refuse treatment during their pregnancy, there have been instances where the HSE has taken a case to the courts to try and compel a woman to undergo treatment she doesn't want.
For context all other patients can refuse treatment at any time, cancer patients can at any time refuse medical intervention even if it is advised by doctors and will prolong their lives

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

because threats to the health of a pregnant woman are not the basis for an abortion. a woman could have a condition that leaves her crippled but she still wont be allowed have an abortion. a pregnant woman with cancer will have all cancer treatment stopped in case it hurts the child. stuff like that.

baylah17 wrote: »

Read the numerous reports into the death of Savita Hallapanaver for your answer

SusieBlue wrote: »

Because traveling to procure an abortion or taking abortion pills at home is unsafe for the woman in question. She has no medical supervision or aftercare while recovering and its extremely dangerous for her health.

And as roughly 4k women avail of abortion services each year, that's a huge amount of women that we're letting down by denying them healthcare.

This isn't even touching on the women with wanted pregnancies having crisis's that require terminations, only to be denied on the grounds of a very faint fetal heartbeat.

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

gctest50 wrote: »

Just travelling on a ferry/plane for any medical procedure isn't as good as doing it locally if the same skills/care are available

stress, care in the future, additional cost, break in the chain of care

ohnonotgmail · 17-04-2018 04:51PM

Rogelio Tinkling Cue wrote: »

My understanding was that that after Savita Halappanavar's inquest we have the Protection of Life During Pregnancy Act which is suppose to st out the circumstances when a woman can have an abortion. Does this not mitigate the health risk argument that is being put forward especially when the risk is as a result of the abortion rather than the pregnancy? In summary, what will repeal achieve that the Act doesn't if the argument for repeal is a healthcare issue?

would you like to be a woman depending on that? and there is more to repeal than a healthcare issue.

why dont you tell us what your opinion of all this is? To establish some bona fides if nothing else.

17-04-2018 04:54PM

Rogelio Tinkling Cue wrote: »

But did we not legislate for abortion in cases where the mother's life is in danger?

I'm only asking here btw.

I would imagine most women prefer to be actually not dying before they are treated medically when they need treatment!

v638sg7k1a92bx · 17-04-2018 04:57PM

Triceratops Ballet wrote: »

Did you read any of the other responses to your question about how it's a healthcare issue?

EDIT:

I've collected them all for you, it's not just about abortion:

I read those but what I'm asking is, does the Protection of Life During Pregnancy Act 2013 not legislate for those type of scenarios already?

....... · 17-04-2018 04:58PM

This post has been deleted.

....... · 17-04-2018 04:59PM

This post has been deleted.

The Legend Of Kira · 17-04-2018 05:00PM

robarmstrong wrote: »

The Legend Of Kira wrote: »

"" The pro-life posters are in breach of an act and are therefore illegal ""
What act are they in breach of ?

They continue to put them on ESB poles - S19 of the Litter Pollution Act 1997.

EDIT - It's also an offence not to display the name of the printer and publisher on any posters relating to an election or referendum.

Hence why tearing down the pro-life posters were fair game, the pro-choice poster was legal.

Most of the no posters have either " love both " or " save the 8th " on em stating who they re from.

Sofiztikated · 17-04-2018 05:00PM

Rogelio Tinkling Cue wrote: »

That's what I'm asking...

As an example, if a woman has a missed miscarriage, and the fetus still has a heartbeat, but only slight one, nothing can be done to help her, bar tell her to wait.

robarmstrong · 17-04-2018 05:01PM

The Legend Of Kira wrote: »

Most of the no posters have either " love both " or " save the 8th " on em stating who they re from.

... They're still illegal if they're placed on ESB/eir poles.

They still lack the publishers and printers name, all they do is list the campaigners names.

ohnonotgmail · 17-04-2018 05:01PM

The Legend Of Kira wrote: »

Most of the no posters have either " love both " or " save the 8th " on em stating who they re from.

they require the name of the printer as well.

Triceratops Ballet · 17-04-2018 05:02PM

Rogelio Tinkling Cue wrote: »

I read those but what I'm asking is, does the Protection of Life During Pregnancy Act 2013 not legislate for those type of scenarios already?

not all of them no, hospitals can still act without the consent of their pregnant patients, they don't actually even have to inform them because they have no right to consent. They can also refuse lifesaving treatments to patients who are pregnant as it might go against the right to life of the unborn. None of this has anything to do with abortion, but is a direct result of the 8th amendment

v638sg7k1a92bx · 17-04-2018 05:03PM

Triceratops Ballet wrote: »

not all of them no, hospitals can still act without the consent of their pregnant patients, they don't actually even have to inform them because they have no right to consent. They can also refuse lifesaving treatments to patients who are pregnant as it might go against the right to life of the unborn. None of this has anything to do with abortion, but is a direct result of the 8th amendment

Act without consent as in do nothing an not carry out an abortion?

ohnonotgmail · 17-04-2018 05:06PM

Rogelio Tinkling Cue wrote: »

Act without consent as in do nothing an not carry out an abortion?

perhaps do some reading yourself and avoid the trickle of questions?

to answer specifically on medical consent for pregnant women.

http://parentsforchoice.ie/the-8th-amendment-and-maternity-care/

The HSE’s National Consent Policy restricts informed consent and informed refusal of treatment for pregnant women. To quote the policy page 41, Section 7.7.1 “because of the Constitutional provisions on the right to life of the unborn [Article 40.3.3] there is significant legal uncertainty regarding a pregnant woman’s right to [consent]”. This section of the policy allows the HSE to apply for injunctions from the High Court which compel pregnant women to receive treatment where they do not consent to proposed treatment plans, whether these are in line with international best practice or not.

Zubeneschamali · 17-04-2018 05:06PM

Rogelio Tinkling Cue wrote: »

I read those but what I'm asking is, does the Protection of Life During Pregnancy Act 2013 not legislate for those type of scenarios already?

No, it just puts into law the Supreme Court ruling in the X case from the 90s.

....... · 17-04-2018 05:07PM

This post has been deleted.

Triceratops Ballet · 17-04-2018 05:09PM

Rogelio Tinkling Cue wrote: »

Act without consent as in do nothing an not carry out an abortion?

no as in nothing to do with abortion at all. The 8th amendment affects every single pregnancy that happens in Ireland.
Act without consent as in c sections when the woman wants a natural birth (because the consultant has a schedule) excessive episiotomy etc

v638sg7k1a92bx · 17-04-2018 05:15PM

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

That's a but of a non sequitur as the debate isn't focused around women being forced to have c sections...

The 8th Amendment Part 2 - Mod Warning in OP

Comments