The 8th Amendment Part 2 - Mod Warning in OP

_Dara_ · 25-04-2018 02:59PM

RobertKK wrote: »

But most GPs in a poll said they don’t want to be abortionists and won’t be.

There's nothing new about that. Even in countries where abortion is legal, doctors can elect to not carry about abortions themselves. Every doctor doesn't need to. As long as there are a decent number in each county that will, there's no issue with a doctor deciding not to perform them. They can give a referral to another doctor.

robarmstrong · 25-04-2018 03:00PM

RobertKK wrote: »

You don’t think the abortion rate will rise going by your post, why?

robarmstrong wrote: »

It isn't FFA, as the baby will develop healthily with no issues but the amniotic sac will rupture due to the pressure of the uterine walls (because the baby has implanted in an area that is not viable) leading my partner to miscarry.

Is this me "dressing up abortion as being compassionate" ? My partner does not have nor will she have access to a safe and legal abortion here and instead will have to miscarry continuously until we have a baby that has implanted in a viable area (like where the baby in the current pregnancy has).

Medical professionals have deemed her not suitable for legal abortion in this country due to the 8th, neither her health nor the babies health is in direct danger.

Do you think it's fair that her and women like her will have to miscarry continuously because the 8th is denying them the dignity of a safe and legal abortion in their own home country? Or are they "killing" the unborn that were going to die anyways?

Still waiting.

ELM327 · 25-04-2018 03:00PM

January wrote: »

The pills aren't dodgy, they might be if bought from an unreputable site but the ones that come from WOW and Women Help are not. They're safe.

Sorry. I let the emotions get the better of me there.

I know the pills aren't dodgy. But taking them alone is.
As are the "other methods" of inducing miscarriage.

ohnonotgmail · 25-04-2018 03:01PM

RobertKK wrote: »

You don’t think the abortion rate will rise going by your post, why?

Even if it does rise it makes little or no difference to those figures.

....... · 25-04-2018 03:04PM

This post has been deleted.

gandalf · 25-04-2018 03:04PM

Nettle Soup wrote: »

Who the hell is that idiot? I have never come across him before.
Does he have a following?

Former leader of Youth Defence, spoken at far right events in Europe, doesn't like immigrants or women. Tbh calling him a politician is a bit rich as I don't believe he has successfully been elected to anything. Failed politician and dubious human being would more apt. It's interesting examining the "leadership" of the forced birth brigade. An awful lot would linked to Opus Dei as well.

RobertKK · 25-04-2018 03:08PM

January wrote: »

Oh you've said previously that doctors told her she could go to England, now it was a pro-choice nurse? So not a doctor anymore?

Once a baby in utero is diagnosed with a heart condition in utero they're transferred to one of the three major Dublin hospitals for monitoring every week. Doesn't matter which condition that is whether it is HLHS, ASD, VSD, Aortic Stenosis, Pulmonary Stenosis etc etc I could go on but there's too many different ones. If the baby starts struggling then the mother will be induced and the baby transferred to Crumlin for care. Just like your nephew was transferred to be cared for.

Your sisters care was not unique, it's the care plan for every baby diagnosed with a heart condition in utero.

Please find where I said it was a doctor.

RobertKK · 25-04-2018 03:09PM

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Did the UK have the current abortion rate before 1968?

NuMarvel · 25-04-2018 03:12PM

ballsymchugh wrote: »

what happens if the referendum is a draw???

Lawyers make millions with all the court cases that determine what happens next in this instance

RobertKK · 25-04-2018 03:12PM

robarmstrong wrote: »

Still waiting.

Your case is sad, but hard cases make bad law.

ohnonotgmail · 25-04-2018 03:12PM

RobertKK wrote: »

Did the UK have the current abortion rate before 1968?

how could we possibly tell? they didn't export their problem to another country like we do. all abortions were surgical and performed in backstreets with no medical supervision. I'm sure that situation was far preferable from your perspective.

robarmstrong · 25-04-2018 03:13PM

RobertKK wrote: »

Your case is sad, but hard cases make bad law.

Why did you avoid the part where I asked you if I was dressing up abortion as compassionate and queried if I'm "killing" my unborn?

_Dara_ · 25-04-2018 03:16PM

RobertKK wrote: »

You don’t think the abortion rate will rise going by your post, why?

Well, I'd imagine that if abortion were available here, women would more time to think about whether they want one or not. Whereas there's more of a commitment involved in booking one in England and it takes more time to plan. So out of fear of running out of time, one might plan it as quickly as possible. And go through with it because the plan has been made. Maybe with more room to breath, some might decide against it.

amcalester · 25-04-2018 03:16PM

RobertKK wrote: »

Your case is sad, but hard cases make bad law.

Wrong way round.

Bad laws make hard cases.

....... · 25-04-2018 03:19PM

This post has been deleted.

robarmstrong · 25-04-2018 03:20PM

RobertKK wrote: »

Please find where I said it was a doctor.

RobertKK wrote: »

I have a nephew who was suppose to die not long after birth as he was diagnosed during pregnancy by the national maternity hospital as only having about 40 hrs of life when born before he would die.
One nurse did say she could go to England, which added distress given she was hinting she could go for an abortion.
He is now 10 years old and thanks to medical people who work to save lives, he is now living a normal life.
Being diagnosed during pregnancy as having an unborn with a life limiting condition is not always black and white as is often painted by the repeal side.

RobertKK wrote: »

You are saying Dr Rhonda Mahony who dealt with this case is a liar. Are you saying there are no heart conditions in humans that can kill?
Are you saying the unborn are immune to life threatening heart conditions?

It's quite confusing, a doctor was dealing with your case but it wasn't the doctor that suggested it, but a qualified maternity nurse?

....... · 25-04-2018 03:22PM

This post has been deleted.

January · 25-04-2018 03:34PM

RobertKK wrote: »

Please find where I said it was a doctor.

I'll put my hands up and apologise here. You never said it was a doctor, I was mixing you up with petalgumdrops for a second.

Again though, why would your sister take the advice (and I know she didn't) of a nurse, rather than a doctor. No doctor ever told your sister that your sisters child was definitely going to die, they said might die. Which is not the same. There are no fatal foetal heart conditions so it won't be covered under the proposed legislation if it does come into effect.

RobertKK · 25-04-2018 04:17PM

robarmstrong wrote: »

Why did you avoid the part where I asked you if I was dressing up abortion as compassionate and queried if I'm "killing" my unborn?

I don't believe most cases are compassionate. If the unborn is alive and then something is done so he/she isn't alive, then the life had to be killed for this situation to happen.
It is hard to dress up what abortion does and not appear to be trying to have a poke at someone. But it is taking an unborn human life and at the end of the process the life is dead, done intentionally for anything from health reasons, rape to one case I listened to in her story in the Irish Times, where it was she wanted the baby but her partner didn't so she had the life terminated.
Yesterday there this #menforyes but where is it that men are encouraged to support women who are pregnant? For some men, abortion is like getting a cheque when they don't want the baby as it means they won't have to pay the subsequent cost of child support. It isn't very compassionate when people think of themselves above the lives of others whether born or unborn, most abortions are simply healthy women aborting healthy unborn lives.

NuMarvel · 25-04-2018 04:27PM

RobertKK wrote: »

I don't believe most cases are compassionate. If the unborn is alive and then something is done so he/she isn't alive, then the life had to be killed for this situation to happen.
It is hard to dress up what abortion does and not appear to be trying to have a poke at someone. But it is taking an unborn human life and at the end of the process the life is dead, done intentionally for anything from health reasons, rape to one case I listened to in her story in the Irish Times, where it was she wanted the baby but her partner didn't so she had the life terminated.
Yesterday there this #menforyes but where is it that men are encouraged to support women who are pregnant? For some men, abortion is like getting a cheque when they don't want the baby as it means they won't have to pay the subsequent cost of child support. It isn't very compassionate when people think of themselves above the lives of others whether born or unborn, most abortions are simply healthy women aborting healthy unborn lives.

How is the status quo any more compassionate than what's proposed?

Stab*City · 25-04-2018 04:30PM

NuMarvel wrote: »

I doubt that's been finalised at this point yet. Abortions that are carried out in hospitals will probably be covered under the public system like any other procedure. However, it's expected most abortions will happen outside of a hospital setting because they can be carried out be administering some medication. And for that to be free, the government will have to negotiate with the GP bodies to agree rates, etc. That won't and can't happen before the referendum is passed.

What's your source out of curiosity?

I've just been bombarded with Yes/No everywhere i look so i just thought i should get a little informed.

bubblypop wrote: »

It is to repeal, or not, the 8th amendment. Which gives the unborn an equal right to life as the mother.
I can't believe you don't know this? I am not in the country at the moment, so I don't know how much information there is. Is there some lack of knowledge surrounding the referendum?

Probably not i just didn't bother reading up on it.

RobertKK · 25-04-2018 04:31PM

January wrote: »

I'll put my hands up and apologise here. You never said it was a doctor, I was mixing you up with petalgumdrops for a second.

Again though, why would your sister take the advice (and I know she didn't) of a nurse, rather than a doctor. No doctor ever told your sister that your sisters child was definitely going to die, they said might die. Which is not the same. There are no fatal foetal heart conditions so it won't be covered under the proposed legislation if it does come into effect.

Thanks January.

She didn't take the advice of the nurse, it just stuck with her what she said, and it didn't help her. Just added to the worry that her unborn wouldn't live. She was told it would have to be a managed birth as in a designated time, Crumlin on standby and would likely be dead within 40 hours of birth. This time limit assessment was around the time women who are of the mind would consider abortion as an option.
It would be covered in the proposed legislation as it was deemed a life limiting condition given she was told her unborn was given a time limit for when he could die. It was an abnormality that was picked up by the 3D scan and later by further investigation, they said the heart was very defective which would limit the life. The doctors in Crumlin said they knew of no other case in the country with this defect, but they did a great job both then and over the years to both treat, medicate and get a handle of the situation.

amcalester · 25-04-2018 04:37PM

RobertKK wrote: »

Thanks January.

She didn't take the advice of the nurse, it just stuck with her what she said, and it didn't help her. Just added to the worry that her unborn wouldn't live. She was told it would have to be a managed birth as in a designated time, Crumlin on standby and would likely be dead within 40 hours of birth. This time limit assessment was around the time women who are of the mind would consider abortion as an option.
It would be covered in the proposed legislation as it was deemed a life limiting condition given she was told her unborn was given a time limit for when he could die. It was an abnormality that was picked up by the 3D scan and later by further investigation, they said the heart was very defective which would limit the life. The doctors in Crumlin said they knew of no other case in the country with this defect, but they did a great job both then and over the years to both treat, medicate and get a handle of the situation.

Just because it (happily) worked out for your sister that doesn't mean it will for others, and perhaps they should be the ones to make the decision on whether to continue with the pregnancy rather than me or you (or the Irish voting population).

....... · 25-04-2018 04:37PM

This post has been deleted.

Stab*City · 25-04-2018 04:38PM

So let me get this straight the yes vote is to remove the text from law which says the unborns rights are equal to the mother? From a neutral standpoint looks like a bit of a raw deal for the unborn? Will this lead directly to legalized abortions? I have noticed this is a very divisive subject even between people like myself who usually don't care about this stuff. (Voting)

RobertKK · 25-04-2018 04:38PM

NuMarvel wrote: »

How is the status quo any more compassionate than what's proposed?

It is more compassionate when the constitution values all lives, both born and unborn lives. Rather than making it out it compassionate to remove that right to life and replace it with a choice to kill if that is the wish of the woman, as if the life in the womb is worthless.
There will never be agreement on abortion law. But if you go from the 8th amendment to what is proposed, we go from white to black in the contrast, restricted abortion laws to unrestricted any reason abortion laws up to 12 weeks, that is not compassionate.
People who are pro-choice may view the 8th as extreme, but what is proposed to replace it is extreme. I don't believe a majority will view the proposed changes as being compassionate and it is the biggest hurdle the Yes side faces.

....... · 25-04-2018 04:41PM

This post has been deleted.

RobertKK · 25-04-2018 04:43PM

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

It comes down to a moral viewpoint on life.
Is Killing the unborn for any reason ok? A lot of people are not comfortable with that.

Protecting all life where it is reasonable which includes the unborn is progressive.

25-04-2018 04:45PM

Stab*City wrote: »

So let me get this straight the yes vote is to remove the text from law which says the unborns rights are equal to the mother? From a neutral standpoint looks like a bit of a raw deal for the unborn? I have noticed this is a very divisive subject even between people like myself who usually don't care about this stuff. (Voting)

It's a very raw deal for the mother, who can be denied medical treatment because she is a few weeks pregnant.
Do you know women receiving cancer treatment are given pregnancy tests before their chemo? What do you thinkhappens if it's positive?

The 8th amendment has an impact on every pregnant woman in the country, whether 6 weeks or 6 months.

robarmstrong · 25-04-2018 04:46PM

RobertKK wrote: »

It is more compassionate when the constitution values all lives, both born and unborn lives. Rather than making it out it compassionate to remove that right to life and replace it with a choice to kill if that is the wish of the woman, as if the life in the womb is worthless.
There will never be agreement on abortion law. But if you go from the 8th amendment to what is proposed, we go from white to black in the contrast, restricted abortion laws to unrestricted any reason abortion laws up to 12 weeks, that is not compassionate.
People who are pro-choice may view the 8th as extreme, but what is proposed to replace it is extreme. I don't believe a majority will view the proposed changes as being compassionate and it is the biggest hurdle the Yes side faces.

Terminate, not kill.

The 8th has shown no compassion to my partner's struggle nor has it shown any compassion towards others like herself.

You can keep using terms like "kill" or "murder" but that doesn't make it so, just because you believe it to be, doesn't mean it is.

My partner and women like her are not considered for safe and legal abortions, ideally I would like the 8th changed to include her, but it isn't. Instead I'm getting an unrestricted abortion up to 12 weeks proposal, so I'm going to take it, I'm not going to wait on the whims of others who want different proposals, I'm voting yes.

What it seems to me is that some from the pro-life side show absolutely no compassion towards the women who genuinely suffer, and will vote to retain the 8th which in turn will leave them in the same place.

Whereas some from the pro-choice side show little to no compassion towards the unborn. Me? I show plenty of compassion towards the unborn, I didn't refer to the babies my partner miscarried as "fetuses" or any medical/scientific/legal term at any time. They were and always will be my babies.

I just have more compassion for the women who are forced to continually miscarry instead of being granted the dignity of a safe and legal abortion and either have to sit and suffer in silence, or be forced abroad to seek out the abortion. Regardless of my own personal beliefs about abortion, what it does and what entails, the women who suffer leave me more uneasy than abortion does.

The 8th Amendment Part 2 - Mod Warning in OP

Comments