The 8th Amendment Part 2 - Mod Warning in OP

garbo speaks wrote: »

Some women wear the "I've had an abortion" like a badge of honor. What a frightening time we live in where the liberal media has brainwashed society into thinking this is normal.

Nobody is saying it’s normal. Nobody is encouraging it either. And nobody is going to force an abortion on anybody.

Likewise, nobody should be shamed for having 1 or however many abortions. It’s not a shameful act. It’s her choice.

BarleySweets wrote: »

That’s a lie. You’re not being asked to vote on the life of the unborn in this referendum. Nobody is going to force abortions on anyone nor are they going to deny the right to life if a woman chooses to continue with her pregnancy.

You’re being asked to remove a constitutional restriction on abortion. There’s been two tragic stories written in the other thread on the 8th detailing how this restriction on abortion condemns women who are physically unable to endure a pregnancy, through illness or the effects of medication that they need to take. These women, should they accidentally become pregnant, are literally unable to seek medical attention here unless they get to the point where they are hours from death. How can you support that? Can you not imagine how much worry they and their families feel?

So what is the 8th amendment about?
We vote yes to remove it, we vote no to keep it.

Of course we are being asked to vote on the life on the unborn and whether he/she should continue to have constitutional protection, and if not unrestricted abortion will be introduced up to 12 weeks, and up to viability in the case of life limiting conditions and mental health grounds - mental health which will be similar to the UK version except there is no time limit given apart from viability of the unborn.

RobertKK wrote: »

So what is the 8th amendment about?
We vote yes to remove it, we vote no to keep it.

Of course we are being asked to vote on the life on the unborn and whether he/she should continue to have constitutional protection, and if not unrestricted abortion will be introduced up to 12 weeks, and up to viability in the case of life limiting conditions and mental health grounds - mental health which will be similar to the UK version except there is no time limit given apart from viability of the unborn.

We are not voting on abortion.
We are voting on women's health.

The government will then have the power to legislate for abortion, but it will not be in the constitution and can be changed at a later date. All that has been presented so far is a recommendation from the citizen's assembly.

ELM327 wrote: »

We are not voting on abortion.
We are voting on women's health.

The government will then have the power to legislate for abortion, but it will not be in the constitution and can be changed at a later date. All that has been presented so far is a recommendation from the citizen's assembly.

Oh please, keep telling yourself that. It will help the no side immensely if the Yes totally misses the elephant in the room which is the lives of the mother and the unborn.

ELM327 wrote: »

Delusion.
This is a post of complete and utter delusion.

Lies about chemotherapy? Speak to any of the leading oncologists or head of maternity departments, they will confirm this as bunkum.

https://twitter.com/john_mcguirk/status/983066151931523073?s=19
On a very related note...john Mc Guirk with another absolute clanger.. In the face of facts from a professor who actually knows what she is talking about (Louise Kenny)

ELM327 wrote: »

Delusion.
This is a post of complete and utter delusion.

Lies about chemotherapy? Speak to any of the leading oncologists or head of maternity departments, they will confirm this as bunkum.

You are the suffering from what you claim I am.

Audrey McElligott, who is originally from New Jersey but has been living for the past eight years in Blackrock, Co Louth, told how she was diagnosed with stage-four Hodgkin's Lymphoma while six months' pregnant.

She had three cycles of chemotherapy and delivered a healthy baby boy, Joseph Francis, now five.
"I am appalled to see abortion campaigners falsely claiming that women can't get cancer treatment in this country under the Eighth Amendment," said the mother of two.

Also speaking at the event, Prof Eamon McGuinness, a former chairman of the Institute of Obstetrics and Gynaecology at the Royal College of Physicians of Ireland, said no Irish doctor would ever fail to intervene to save the life of a pregnant woman - even if that risked the life of her unborn child.
Prof McGuinness said those who claimed the Eighth Amendment prevented Irish women from getting treatment "are either gravely mistaken, or substituting their personal views for medical facts".

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/abortion-referendum/eighth-did-not-stop-doctors-acting-to-save-me-36795994.html

garbo speaks wrote: »

Soon, having an abortion will be a must have like the latest handbag or fashion accessory. Shame on these people.

Ah come on!
This is a wind up surely?!?

BarleySweets wrote: »

I told you what the 8th is about. It’s literally just removing the constitutional block. What happens after is up to the government. You have quoted nothing more than rumors about what legislation the government will enact if the 8th is removed. Rumors.

Regardless of any of that, the real question: how do you think I should feel about a woman who has one or multiple abortions?

The government published the policy paper on what would be introduced. It is not rumour.

ELM327 wrote: »

He can say what he wants but that's only one doctor.
It does not reflect the reality.

Are you John McGuirk?

I'm sorry the post didn't back up what you say. He actually said people like you are using personal views for medical facts.

RobertKK wrote: »

The 8th amendment would allow her to get treatment and if the unborn died or was needed to be removed to save her life, it would be done.

It like the lies by Yes about cancer and no chemotherapy, when pregnant women do get chemotherapy.

No it wouldn't.
She would be expected to wait for a seizure to occur before being offered any intervention.
So she would have to play a waiting game, unable to take her medication, waiting for the seizure to come.
Which could happen at any time.

I'm sure when the seizure were to eventually occur, she would be offered be offered an abortion then, at that point.
But it won't be much use seeing as an ambulance is unlikely to have arrived by the time a seizure has stopped, never mind getting her into hospital, perform an emergency abortion and administer necessary medication.

The damage will have been done. It'll be too little too late, and mother and baby will be lost.
Because she will have been made wait until her life was in danger before being offered any help. Because of the 8th amendment.
This is the reality you are forcing on people you don't even know.

Delirium wrote: »

The woman was six months pregnant, chemotherapy is a problem for pregnancies in the first three months when the organs are still developing.

They can still get chemotherapy, to save the life of the unborn, first the life of the mother has to be saved. Even the former chairman of the royal college of obstetricians and Gynaecology at the Royal College of Physicians of Ireland, said no Irish doctor would ever fail to intervene to save the life of a pregnant woman - even if that risked the life of her unborn child.

garbo speaks wrote: »

Soon, having an abortion will be a must have like the latest handbag or fashion accessory. Shame on these people.

What kind of company do you keep, and what kind of women do you associate with, if this what you think they will do?
Are you acquainted with such women that you think will be treating abortion in such a manner?

You must have little respect to have such a low, ill advised attitude towards women. Its pathetic.

RobertKK wrote: »

The government published the policy paper on what would be introduced. It is not rumour.

The government is not allowed to waste taxpayers funds drawing up policy papers for what-if’s and maybes. Right now the 8th is in place so there is nothing to ponder. Policy will only have to be decided if the constitution is altered.

In that situation, as with all legislation, you yourself will have a say. You can lobby your TD, or vote for future TDs who’ll pass legislation you agree with, or even run yourself if you’re eligible. Democracy is marvelous and you have as much right to enact legislation if you get elected or lobby for laws you wish to see enacted as the rest of us.

RobertKK wrote: »

You have the patience of an angry bull.

I don't expect an apology as I don't think you are that type when wrong to admit, as I answered another poster while you were posting that crap.

Let me post it again: The former chairman of the royal college of obstetricians and Gynaecology at the Royal College of Physicians of Ireland, said no Irish doctor would ever fail to intervene to save the life of a pregnant woman - even if that risked the life of her unborn child.

Why was Savita not saved then?