8th amendment referendum part 3 - Mod note and FAQ in post #1

ohnonotgmail · 08-05-2018 05:18PM

ASISEEIT wrote: »

I will check or you can check.

you are the one making the claim so you can check.

ASISEEIT wrote: »

Its also possible to have ongoing contact with your child once adopted.

I know. i said this earlier. but the contact is at the discretion of the adoptive parents.

January · 08-05-2018 05:19PM

RobertKK wrote: »

There will always be penalties for illegal abortions, they have penalties for illegal abortions where they are legal, in England it is up to life in prison.

Yes and abortions outside of the 12 weeks and then outside of the serious risk to the health or life of the mother or for FFA will be illegal still once legislation is put in place.

Triceratops Ballet · 08-05-2018 05:20PM

yourdeadwright wrote: »

I had two set of grand parents much older than 70 and my parents are older than 70, and none had these issues, These are not issues caused by the 8th, for godsake,
I'm all for voting YES but keep it sensible

nobody is saying it's because of the 8th, the 8th wasn't in place in the time period we're talking about. It's an example of what can happen when someone doesn't have access to family planning services (contraception and abortion) and the hardship that can inflict on some women and their families.

seamus · 08-05-2018 05:20PM

yourdeadwright wrote: »

These are not issues caused by the 8th, for godsake

Nobody said they were. Simply that the "keep your legs closed" argument is complete nonsense.

If provision of care was based on whether you should or shouldn't have done something, 99% of injuries would go untreated. And many other conditions like T2 diabetes, obesity and heart failure too.

M.Cribben · 08-05-2018 05:20PM

January wrote: »

Yes and abortions outside of the 12 weeks and then outside of the serious risk to the health or life of the mother or for FFA will be illegal still once legislation is put in place.

Has "serious" risk to health/life of mother been defined in the draft legislation yet?

ohnonotgmail · 08-05-2018 05:20PM

yourdeadwright wrote: »

I had two set of grand parents much older than 70 and my parents are older than 70, and none had these issues, These are not issues caused by the 8th, for godsake,
I'm all for voting YES but keep it sensible

and you know that how, exactly?

January · 08-05-2018 05:21PM

M.Cribben wrote: »

Has "serious" risk to health/life of mother been defined in the draft legislation yet?

No, and it cannot be until the 8th is repealed as we cannot debate the proposed legislation in the Dail until that happens.

SusieBlue · 08-05-2018 05:21PM

RobertKK wrote: »

Don't tell me to cop on, if you can't read reports that is not my fault.

Look at the reports.

From HIQA report in her death.
.

Here Robert, I've already posted this for you before but have another read. From the horses mouth:

Savita Halappanavar died as a direct result of Ireland’s abortion laws and not simply because she contracted sepsis, the author of the independent report into her death has said.

Prof Sir Sabaratnam Arulkumaran made the comment as he said the Eighth Amendment is “not working” and declared his “surprise” it has taken five years since Savita’s death for a discussion on its removal to take place.

He was speaking during a meeting of the Oireachtas committee on the future of the amendment. That meeting also heard former master of Holles Street Hospital Dr Peter Boylan call for the immediate repeal of existing laws and warn politicians will face “Groundhog day” if it does not happen.

Prof Arulkumaran said the reality is Savita died because of the abortion laws.

Asked specifically by Independent senator Lynn Ruane “if the presence of the Eighth Amendment cost Savita her life”, Prof Arulkumaran said: “It was very clear the things holding the hands of physicians was the legal issue. Anybody, any junior doctor, would have said this is a sepsis condition, we must terminate.

“She did have sepsis. However, if she had a termination in the first days as requested, she would not have had sepsis. We would never have heard of her and she would be alive today,” he said.

Triceratops Ballet · 08-05-2018 05:22PM

M.Cribben wrote: »

Has "serious" risk to health/life of mother been defined in the draft legislation yet?

I don't know but I doubt it, it's draft legislation, it might not be what we ultimately get.

yourdeadwright · 08-05-2018 05:22PM

Triceratops Ballet wrote: »

yourdeadwright wrote: »

I'm all for voting yes but Jesus Christ people need to be responsible ,she said she wanted 3 and had 7 when do people learn ,

so the married couple in question should just never have had sex again, until she had passed menopause?

Do you think everyone in the country that had sex had a child form it before 1990 or did they figure ways out not to get pregnant ?
Iv no issue with the Vote YES but no need for people to blame everything on the 8th

pitifulgod · 08-05-2018 05:22PM

RobertKK wrote: »

They have high maternal death in India.

https://www.hindustantimes.com/health/india-s-maternal-mortality-rate-on-a-decline/story-ZcnBG0kidtvPEkRnKNI0II.html

Simply fact, Savita would be alive if she had been allowed to have an abortion when she requested one. She was not legally allowed to have one at the point she requested one as there was not an immediate risk to her life.

Our maternal care is hampered by the eighth, this is backed up by the medical community with the exception of some outliers such as Eamon McGuinness who actually opposed abortions when there's a risk to a woman's life... These outliers also tend to be in bed with fundamentalist orgs such as Youth Defence and Iona.

Ally Dick · 08-05-2018 05:23PM

Unfortunately, the Yes vote will carry this by around 58% to 42%. I'm resigned to that fact. I just hope that Mattie McGrath and the Healy Raes create enough of a fuss when it goes to the Dail for it to ever get through the 12 weeks bit.

SusieBlue · 08-05-2018 05:24PM

yourdeadwright wrote: »

Do you think everyone in the country that had sex had a child form it before 1990 or did they figure ways out not to get pregnant ?
Iv no issue with the Vote YES but no need for people to blame everything on the 8th

Contraception fails all the time. It isn't foolproof. And lecturing someone about how they should have used a condom is of NO use to someone who is ALREADY pregnant.
Shoulda woulda coulda. That horse has bolted.

wexie · 08-05-2018 05:24PM

Ally Dick wrote: »

Unfortunately, the Yes vote wil carry this by around 58% to 42%.

That's AWESOME news.

thanks

pitifulgod · 08-05-2018 05:24PM

Ally Dick wrote: »

Unfortunately, the Yes vote wil carry this by around 58% to 42%. I'm resigned to that fact. I just hope that Mattie McGrath and the Healy Raes create enough of a fuss when it goes to the Dail for it to ever get through the 12 weeks bit.

The two guys who are currently actively trying to block drink driving legislation that will save about 8 lives a year? These are your guardians of morality? The ones who favour endangering lives.

yourdeadwright · 08-05-2018 05:24PM

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

yourdeadwright wrote: »

I had two set of grand parents much older than 70 and my parents are older than 70, and none had these issues, These are not issues caused by the 8th, for godsake,
I'm all for voting YES but keep it sensible

and you know that how, exactly?

These things called words and speaking , Again iv no problem with Voting YES at all,
Iv a problem with the ****e some yes voter go on with, People have a responsibly in themselves when its there or not ,

SusieBlue · 08-05-2018 05:25PM

yourdeadwright wrote: »

These things called words and speaking , Again iv no problem with Voting YES at all,
Iv a problem with the ****e some yes voter go on with, People have a responsibly in themselves when its there or not ,

For some people, having an abortion IS taking responsibility.

Triceratops Ballet · 08-05-2018 05:25PM

yourdeadwright wrote: »

Do you think everyone in the country that had sex had a child form it before 1990 or did they figure ways out not to get pregnant ?
Iv no issue with the Vote YES but no need for people to blame everything on the 8th

the couple in this specific example were having children before contraception was legal in the country. They could not use contraception, they had no access to abortion, it was legal for a husband to rape his wife.

King of Kings · 08-05-2018 05:25PM

SusieBlue wrote: »

Here Robert, I've already posted this for you before but have another read. From the horses mouth:

you are misintrepreting that.

sure an abortion would have treated her sepsis but do would proper medical care.

saying an abortion was the only manner of treatment is not true.

saying its a valid form of treatment ia like saying ban cars to reduce road deaths...an action that will get the end result but an extreme one.

January · 08-05-2018 05:26PM

yourdeadwright wrote: »

These things called words and speaking , Again iv no problem with Voting YES at all,
Iv a problem with the ****e some yes voter go on with, People have a responsibly in themselves when its there or not ,

You're talking ****e. Over half the women travelling for abortions to the UK last year were already mothers and over half were using one form of contraception. That is taking responsibility.

inter arma · 08-05-2018 05:27PM

Assuming the referendum is passed, then it will have to go the Dail for the appropriate legislation to be voted and agreed on. However, is it likely it will pass through the Dail? I saw a few days ago that Fianna Fail alone has over half of their TDs advocating a NO vote, not to mention the other no voters within Fine Gael, independents etc.

ohnonotgmail · 08-05-2018 05:28PM

yourdeadwright wrote: »

These things called words and speaking , Again iv no problem with Voting YES at all,
Iv a problem with the ****e some yes voter go on with, People have a responsibly in themselves when its there or not ,

you really think they would give those details to you?

yourdeadwright · 08-05-2018 05:28PM

SusieBlue wrote: »

yourdeadwright wrote: »

Do you think everyone in the country that had sex had a child form it before 1990 or did they figure ways out not to get pregnant ?
Iv no issue with the Vote YES but no need for people to blame everything on the 8th

Contraception fails all the time. It isn't foolproof. And lecturing someone about how they should have used a condom is of NO use to someone who is ALREADY pregnant.
Shoulda woulda coulda. That horse has bolted.

Your wrong as it may make them from making the same mistake twice,
Again I'm all for Vote yes but people can't throw away responsibility ,

gctest50 · 08-05-2018 05:28PM

King of Kings wrote: »

you are misintrepreting that.

sure an abortion would have treated her sepsis but do would proper medical care.

saying an abortion was the only manner of treatment is not true.

saying its a valid form of treatment ia like saying ban cars to reduce road deaths...an action that will get the end result but an extreme one.

You missed this bit :

Prof Arulkumaran said: “...Anybody, any junior doctor, would have said this is a sepsis condition, we must terminate.

SusieBlue · 08-05-2018 05:28PM

King of Kings wrote: »

you are misintrepreting that.

sure an abortion would have treated her sepsis but do would proper medical care.

saying an abortion was the only manner of treatment is not true.

saying its a valid form of treatment ia like saying ban cars to reduce road deaths...an action that will get the end result but an extreme one.

Savita was having a miscarriage. She was told there was no hope. She was suffering. She was in pain.
She asked for an abortion to speed up the inevitable, but was denied because of the faint heartbeat. She was in hospital for almost a week, in the process of miscarrying (a cruelty in itself), before she became really unwell.

The miscarriage then turned septic and poisoned her.
If she had been given an abortion when she first requested one, there would have been no opportunity for the sepsis to develop.
Either way there would have been the same end result - there was no hope for her baby.
But at least she might have escaped with her life.

King of Kings · 08-05-2018 05:29PM

Ally Dick wrote: »

Unfortunately, the Yes vote wil carry this by around 58% to 42%. I'm resigned to that fact. I just hope that Mattie McGrath and the Healy Raes create enough of a fuss when it goes to the Dail for it to ever get through the 12 weeks bit.

i hope the repeal fails but if i passes i hope the 12 weeks isnt passed in the dail.

had we been offered a better choice ... for reasons medical intervention or urgency. I'd would have voted for change
but not based on the current proposals.

ohnonotgmail · 08-05-2018 05:29PM

yourdeadwright wrote: »

Your wrong as it may make them from making the same mistake twice,
Again I'm all for Vote yes but people can't throw away responsibility ,

so they should be punished for being pregnant to make sure they dont do it again? and you complain about others talking ****e.

volchitsa · 08-05-2018 05:29PM

King of Kings wrote: »

you are misintrepreting that.

sure an abortion would have treated her sepsis but do would proper medical care.

saying an abortion was the only manner of treatment is not true.

saying its a valid form of treatment ia like saying ban cars to reduce road deaths...an action that will get the end result but an extreme one.

Wait.
What other "manner of treatment" do you think she should have got instead?

What would have been the less extreme action that could have been used?

King of Kings · 08-05-2018 05:30PM

gctest50 wrote: »

You missed this bit :

i didnt.

looksee · 08-05-2018 05:31PM

Some of the arguments in this thread are totally disgusting and show total lack of respect, compassion or understanding.

Like most pro-lifers I do not want to see abortion become the go-to option for lifestyle management or family planning, but I do not believe this will be the outcome of this vote. Mostly I do not see it is my or anyone else's business to dictate what medical care a woman should or should not have.

The subject of abortion should not be in the constitution at all, it is far too complex to deal with by the generalisations that can be dealt with there.

My understanding of the situation, and it is complicated, is that if the 8th is repealed we will be back to the situation that existed previously, where abortion was just banned totally, and could result in criminal charges. So why are the no side so determined to keep the 8th? Any change to law relating to abortion will not happen until after the repeal. I am open to correction on this.

Edit - load of replies while I was typing this, some have touched on my question.

8th amendment referendum part 3 - Mod note and FAQ in post #1

Comments