The 8th Amendment Part 2 - Mod Warning in OP

RobertKK · 19-04-2018 04:25PM

SusieBlue wrote: »

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.

She could take her medication. This is a repeal lie that you espouse.

Triceratops Ballet · 19-04-2018 04:26PM

AnneFrank wrote: »

There is stories on both sides, what about parents who were told their child might not survive and contemplated abortion, or were pressurized into nearly doing so, only for the child to be born to a wonderful life.
Seriously, this harassment is getting out of control.
Why not rename the thread, the vote yes only opinion thread, (otherwise it's open season on you)

Those parents are lucky that their choices were respected. People won't be forced to have abortions just because it's legal.
Nobody begrudges people in that kind of story their happy ending, it's wonderful.

Zubeneschamali · 19-04-2018 04:28PM

RobertKK wrote: »

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.

We have had several prolife senior gynecologists say that the 8th never stopped them from doing anything. I believe them. They would have done the same sh!t without the 8th.

One of these guys was practicing in the hospital where my kids were born, and my wife was well warned to stay the fcuk away from him by her girlfriends.

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5 · 19-04-2018 04:28PM

RobertKK wrote: »

She could take her medication. This is a repeal lie that you espouse.

Read it Robert. The medication that's effective can't be taken during pregnancy.

January · 19-04-2018 04:28PM

RobertKK wrote: »

She could take her medication. This is a repeal lie that you espouse.

And the baby could be born seriously deformed or disabled then.

robarmstrong · 19-04-2018 04:30PM

January wrote: »

And the baby could be born seriously deformed or disabled then.

Sure why would they care how deformed or disabled the baby is when it's born, all that matters is that it's born, didn't you know?

bruschi · 19-04-2018 04:31PM

SusieBlue wrote: »

What would you do if your daughter suffered a type of epilepsy similar to the condition described in the post I quoted, would you expect her to lay down her life on the odds that she may survive the pregnancy, or would you advise her to get the boat?

it seems to me the no side would rather ignore the absolute genuine cases of a necessity for abortion due to those who will get one "on demand" or for "lifestyle choices" or use it as contraception (which is an utterly nonsense theory).

Whilst it is true that those needing it for cases of rape or fatal fetal abnormalities are in the minority, the fact is they do need it, and it needs to be here for them. If that indeed brings in the rest of the types of abortions that the no side wish to keep sending abroad, then so be it. It is going to happen anyway, but we particularly owe it to those who need it as a matter of priority if the pregnancy needs to be terminated.

SusieBlue · 19-04-2018 04:31PM

RobertKK wrote: »

She could take her medication. This is a repeal lie that you espouse.

Incorrect, but regardless, you aren't answering my question.

If your daughter suffered from that condition and found herself pregnant, what would be your advice?

You seem confident she can take her medication (I disagree, I'm playing devils advocate) but what of the baby, who will be born disabled, because of this medication?
Or should she not take her medication and gamble with her life?
Which is the lesser of two evils, which would you advise?

Delirium · 19-04-2018 04:31PM

RobertKK wrote: »

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.

At six months, sure.

The problem is that in the first three months, it's more likely that they will delay chemotherapy as much as possible to allow the foetus to develop as much as it can to ensure survival/ minimal chances of minimal deformities.

Martina1991 · 19-04-2018 04:32PM

AnneFrank wrote: »

There is stories on both sides, what about parents who were told their child might not survive and contemplated abortion, or were pressurized into nearly doing so, only for the child to be born to a wonderful life.
Seriously, this harassment is getting out of control.
Why not rename the thread, the vote yes only opinion thread, (otherwise it's open season on you)

No one is forced to have an abortion.
If an abnormality is detected, the medical team have to be honest and say there is a chance the child may not survive. Therefore there is also a chance the child will survive.

Being told there is a 0% chance the child will survive is a different story and forcing a woman to continue the pregnancy is where the 8th gets in the way.

What harassment are you talking about?

AnneFrank · 19-04-2018 04:32PM

Triceratops Ballet wrote: »

Those parents are lucky that their choices were respected. People won't be forced to have abortions just because it's legal.
Nobody begrudges people in that kind of story their happy ending, it's wonderful.

I never said forced.

AnneFrank · 19-04-2018 04:35PM

Martina1991 wrote: »

No one is forced to have an abortion.
If an abnormality is detected, the medical team have to be honest and say there is a chance the child may not survive. Therefore there is also a chance the child will survive.

Being told there is a 0% chance the child will survive is a different story and forcing a woman to continue the pregnancy is where the 8th gets in the way.

What harassment are you talking about?

Again, i never said forced. I would agree with you for sure on ffa, but not a free for all up to 12 weeks.

BarleySweets · 19-04-2018 04:36PM

AnneFrank wrote: »

Again, i never said forced. I would agree with you for sure on ffa, but not a free for all up to 12 weeks.

Why not? What week would you put the limit for a free for all at then?

Martina1991 · 19-04-2018 04:37PM

AnneFrank wrote: »

Again, i never said forced. I would agree with you for sure on ffa, but not a free for all up to 12 weeks.

Potato Potato
Pressure: the use of persuasion or intimidation to make someone do something.
"backbenchers put pressure on the government to provide safeguards"
synonyms: coercion, force, compulsion, constraint, duress, oppression, enforcement, insistence

Martina1991 · 19-04-2018 04:38PM

AnneFrank wrote: »

Again, i never said forced. I would agree with you for sure on ffa, but not a free for all up to 12 weeks.

If you agree with me for FFA then you are in favour of repealing the 8th amendment.

Zubeneschamali · 19-04-2018 04:38PM

I'd guess for epilepsy we are talking about Epilim aka Valproate, Convulex, Depakote, Stavzor, etc. You can look up the side effects, but the risk of birth defects is very significant, tripling the risk of major defects.

Delirium · 19-04-2018 04:39PM

AnneFrank wrote: »

Again, i never said forced. I would agree with you for sure on ffa, but not a free for all up to 12 weeks.

will you be looking to repeal the right to travel for an abortion?

if you believe people are pressured into having abortions, then surely that equally applies to pressuring them to travel for one?

AnneFrank · 19-04-2018 04:39PM

Martina1991 wrote: »

Potato Potato
Pressure: the use of persuasion or intimidation to make someone do something.
"backbenchers put pressure on the government to provide safeguards"
synonyms: coercion, force, compulsion, constraint, duress, oppression, enforcement, insistence

No Martina, they are two very different things, please don't put words in my mouth.

Triceratops Ballet · 19-04-2018 04:40PM

AnneFrank wrote: »

I never said forced.

I know you didn't. I was pointing out that people won't be forced to have abortions.
Parents who receive bad news about their unborn child will still have the option to proceed with the pregnancy, it's only those who don't want to proceed who will be affected for the better if yes wins

Zubeneschamali · 19-04-2018 04:41PM

Martina1991 wrote: »

If you agree with me for FFA then you are in favour of repealing the 8th amendment.

One mad thing about this thead is that virtually every poster on the pro-life side has been in favour of abortion in some case or other which the 8th prohibits. Rape, incest FFA ...

(Not counting the mad lads like yerman in favour of abortion up to birth but voting to save the 8th for economic reasons!!)

Triceratops Ballet · 19-04-2018 04:42PM

AnneFrank wrote: »

Again, i never said forced. I would agree with you for sure on ffa, but not a free for all up to 12 weeks.

What is a free for all?

RobertKK · 19-04-2018 04:42PM

robarmstrong wrote: »

So what happened to Savita, then?

It was bad hospital care, look at the length of time it took to identify that she had E coli ESBL infection? They had been to India where they are from.

Travel to India was associated with the highest risk for the acquisition of ESBLs

http://aac.asm.org/content/54/9/3564.full

Look at the the treatment and time lengths, it took too long to identify the infection. It is also associated with around a 30% mortality rate in healthcare situations.

This is from a doctor on Savita.
https://www.irishexaminer.com/viewpoints/yourview/savitas-death-may-have-been-due-to-resistant-bacteria-strain-214431.html

Then this:
https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/savita-died-from-rare-infection-29207124.html

SAVITA Halappanavar died from an extremely rare and aggressive infection which an expert from the National Maternity Hospital had only seen five times in his 40-year career.
Three experts told the inquest that the 31-year-old dentist had died as a result of septic shock with the presence of an antibiotic-resistant Ecoli infection – and this had caused her to suffer multi-organ failure.

Finally the HIQA report said this:

14.11 Concluding remarks The findings of this investigation reflect a failure in the provision of the most basic elements of patient care to Savita Halappanavar and also the failure to recognise and act upon signs of her clinical deterioration in a timely and appropriate manner. The missed opportunities to intervene in her care that have been identified in this investigation, if acted upon, may have resulted in a different outcome for Savita Halappanavar.

http://cdn.thejournal.ie/media/2013/10/patient-safety-investigation-uhg.pdf

AnneFrank · 19-04-2018 04:44PM

Martina1991 wrote: »

If you agree with me for FFA then you are in favour of repealing the 8th amendment.

I would agree with some of your points yes, but not in what is being put to us if we repeal. I just don't think that is right.
If the 8th was to be replaced with just ffa or rape then yes i would totally vote yes, but my conscience simply will not allow me to vote for on demand abortion up to 12 weeks. That's just my view, but i'm sure the yes side will win anyway

SusieBlue · 19-04-2018 04:44PM

Triceratops Ballet wrote: »

What is a free for all?

I think she means we're all going to go start aborting full term babies while drinking wine and snorting coke just for lols, a proper girls day out!

AnneFrank · 19-04-2018 04:48PM

SusieBlue wrote: »

I think she means we're all going to go start aborting full term babies while drinking wine and snorting coke just for lols, a proper girls day out!

Is 12 weeks full term to you Susie ?
No, that's not what i meant at all and i never mentioned alcohol or drugs.

Triceratops Ballet · 19-04-2018 04:49PM

AnneFrank wrote: »

I would agree with some of your points yes, but not in what is being put to us if we repeal. I just don't think that is right.
If the 8th was to be replaced with just ffa or rape then yes i would totally vote yes, but my conscience simply will not allow me to vote for on demand abortion up to 12 weeks. That's just my view, but i'm sure the yes side will win anyway

But can you not see the sense in lobbying you local TD to change the proposed legislation then. As has been pointed out, we have a minority government which could collapse, just because legislation is proposed does not mean that is what will happen, but unless the 8th is repealed nothing can happen. Which means all of those parents of babies with FFA will still have to travel to England, and leave their babies there.

Triceratops Ballet · 19-04-2018 04:50PM

AnneFrank wrote: »

Is 12 weeks full term to you Susie ?
No, that's not what i meant at all and i never mentioned alcohol or drugs.

What did you mean then, what do you mean when you say free for all?

Martina1991 · 19-04-2018 04:52PM

RobertKK wrote: »

It was bad hospital care, look at the length of time it took to identify that she had E coli ESBL infection? They had been to India where they are from.

Look at the the treatment and time lengths, it took too long to identify the infection. It is also associated with around a 30% mortality rate in healthcare situations.

In a Microbiology lab, growing bacterial cultures takes 24-48 hours, maybe longer depending on the bacteria. There is no way of telling the bacteria to grow faster.

Identifying an antibiotic that would have been effective for Savita couldn't have been sped up and was not bad hospital care.

AnneFrank · 19-04-2018 04:53PM

Triceratops Ballet wrote: »

But can you not see the sense in lobbying you local TD to change the proposed legislation then. As has been pointed out, we have a minority government which could collapse, just because legislation is proposed does not mean that is what will happen, but unless the 8th is repealed nothing can happen. Which means all of those parents of babies with FFA will still have to travel to England, and leave their babies there.

I do take your point, but i won't be lobbying it's just not something i would do personally, but if it was tweaked i would vote yes.
Just not on demand for 12 weeks i just couldn't do it for my own reasons.
But going by all the polls the yes side should win hands down anyway

Martina1991 · 19-04-2018 04:55PM

Triceratops Ballet wrote: »

But can you not see the sense in lobbying you local TD to change the proposed legislation then. As has been pointed out, we have a minority government which could collapse, just because legislation is proposed does not mean that is what will happen, but unless the 8th is repealed nothing can happen. Which means all of those parents of babies with FFA will still have to travel to England, and leave their babies there.

+1
I don't think many pro life people think about this.
* The 8th helps no one as it stands.
* It has to be removed.
* There is proposed legislation for what it will be replaced with.
* Pro life people can lobby this proposed llegislation if they think it's too liberal.

The 8th Amendment Part 2 - Mod Warning in OP

Comments