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

Nettle Soup · 18-05-2018 05:10PM

I knew it would be difficult but I really did not think the Referendum campaign would be so fractious (after all the damage the 8th has done) and I certainly didn't think the No campaign would use so many dirty tricks. The bitterness on the No side seems ingrained almost to their DNA to the extent that they can ignore facts and reality. It really is fascinating. I hope there are studies done on it after the vote.

Sofiztikated · 18-05-2018 05:20PM

SusieBlue wrote: »

I assured the medical staff looking after me that I'm not pregnant, but I still have to pee on a stick at every appointment to prove it.

Not to be that person, but anyone that works in medicine will tell you people lie. Hell, work in Retail or Hospitality, and they'll tell you the same.

The issue isn't that you have to pee on a stick, its about what happens after.

....... · 18-05-2018 05:20PM

This post has been deleted.

SusieBlue · 18-05-2018 05:21PM

Sofiztikated wrote: »

Not to be that person, but anyone that works in medicine will tell you people lie. Hell, work in Retail or Hospitality, and they'll tell you the same.

The issue isn't that you have to pee on a stick, its about what happens after.

Oh I can totally see why they do it, they have to cover themselves.
I was saying that in response to someone who said they only test women who volunteer that they might be pregnant.
They do it to everyone, as far as I know.

B0jangles · 18-05-2018 05:22PM

After weeks of seeing YES posters being put up only to mysteriously vanish overnight* and be replaced with NO posters, we finally made our own dang posters and have put them up in street-facing windows.

I meant to do it anyway, but it's shameful to have to it simply because the official ones keep being stolen.

(*And no, they were not on ESB poles, traffic signs or hanging too low)

Bannasidhe · 18-05-2018 05:23PM

SusieBlue wrote: »

Well as a woman currently going through treatment to prevent cancer, I have to do a pregnancy test before each treatment and I've already been told by the medical staff looking after me that should I fall pregnant, I won't be receiving any additional treatment until that is no longer the case.
This translates to no more treatment until I have a baby in 9 months time, or until I travel to the UK for a termination.

Its very easy to dismiss these concerns when you aren't actually the one who is unwell.
Are you telling me that if you found out tomorrow you were pregnant while receiving cancer treatment, you would be delighted and have absolutely no concerns about your healthcare, and would be confident that the health system would prioritise you and look after you properly?
Pull the other one.

I took part in a cancer treatment trial about 11 years ago and every single time I turned up for the treatment the conversation went like this:

"We need you to take a pregnancy test"
"No need. I'm not pregnant"
"How can you be sure? No contraception is 100% effect you know"
"I'm sure, and I know".
"well what form of contraception are you using???"
"Homosexuality".

Every. Single. Time.

Hannibal_Smith · 18-05-2018 05:31PM

ELM327 wrote: »

Hannibal_Smith wrote: »

Back again lol...what about the Protection of Life During Pregnancy? How could that was brought in? That was as a result of the X case wasn't it? But was only brought in after Savitas death? I accept it doesn't go far enough, but it did bring in situations where abortion was allowed.

It did.
To use a car crash into a pedestrian. It doesn't allow you to warn the pedestrian before the crash, merely to lift the car off the pedestrian once it starts to crush them (but not before).

We are again hamstrung by the 8th. In cases of doubt, the constitution has higher standing than acts of the oireachtas. And this creates doubt. In medical terms, the doctor is limited by the concerns posed by the 8th. Actual concerns about actual or perceived limitations.

But abortion was expanded upon? Or maybe the Protection of Life During Pregnancy clarified what was meant by the constitution?

I understand it doesn't go far enough. I'm asking can the law be changed again or expanded upon like with the Protection of Life During Pregnancy?

Then again, I suppose we were waiting since the 90s for the law to be introduced and it was only brought in after another woman died, so you can't trust legislation, where it can be introduced, will be.

Hannibal_Smith · 18-05-2018 05:39PM

SusieBlue wrote: »

trixi001 wrote: »

And if the life of the mother is at risk, there is the option to terminate the pregnancy here also.
A woman with cancer, can have an abortion and then radiotherapy - that is not against the constitution - as there is a real risk to the life of the mother - the risk does not have to be immediate.

Well as a woman currently going through treatment to prevent cancer, I have to do a pregnancy test before each treatment and I've already been told by the medical staff looking after me that should I fall pregnant, I won't be receiving any additional treatment until that is no longer the case.
This translates to no more treatment until I have a baby in 9 months time, or until I travel to the UK for a termination.

Its very easy to dismiss these concerns when you aren't actually the one who is unwell.
Are you telling me that if you found out tomorrow you were pregnant while receiving cancer treatment, you would be delighted and have absolutely no concerns about your healthcare, and would be confident that the health system would prioritise you and look after you properly?
Pull the other one.

I read about this earlier on the back of posts with the other poster on changing the law. Apparently the Protection of Life During Pregnancy act says that:-

Risk of loss of life from physical illness
Two physicians, one an obstetrician and the other a specialist in the field of the relevant condition, must concur.[17] For example, if the woman has cancer, the two physicians would be an obstetrician and an oncologist. Where relevant, the specialists must also consult the woman's general practitioner (GP). The termination would be an elective procedure performed at an appropriate institution.

^^ copied from Wikipedia.

I have to say...if I found out I had cancer and was also in early pregnancy and had to wait for all these physicians to get together to decide whether I could have a termination I would be distraught. It doesn't say anything about what happens to the woman who is already undergoing treatment. I wonder where that's dealt with?

Sofiztikated · 18-05-2018 05:40PM

Bannasidhe wrote: »

I took part in a cancer treatment trial about 11 years ago and every single time I turned up for the treatment the conversation went like this:

"We need you to take a pregnancy test"
"No need. I'm not pregnant"
"How can you be sure? No contraception is 100% effect you know"
"I'm sure, and I know".
"well what form of contraception are you using???"
"Homosexuality".

Every. Single. Time.

Now, I may have missed a trick, but I'm fairly sure homosexual women can, and do, get pregnant.

It's best medical practice to run tests as required. I went for a scope the other day, and was refused as a urine sample came back as showing an infection, so due to the risk of sepsis, they couldn't proceed that day. Despite the fact I felt OK.

The real issue is what happens in the event of a positive test.

erica74 · 18-05-2018 05:40PM

Bannasidhe wrote: »

I took part in a cancer treatment trial about 11 years ago and every single time I turned up for the treatment the conversation went like this:

"We need you to take a pregnancy test"
"No need. I'm not pregnant"
"How can you be sure? No contraception is 100% effect you know"
"I'm sure, and I know".
"well what form of contraception are you using???"
"Homosexuality".

Every. Single. Time.

Legend.

erica74 · 18-05-2018 05:42PM

Hannibal_Smith wrote: »

I read about this earlier on the back of posts with the other poster on changing the law. Apparently the Protection of Life During Pregnancy act says that:-

Risk of loss of life from physical illness
Two physicians, one an obstetrician and the other a specialist in the field of the relevant condition, must concur.[17] For example, if the woman has cancer, the two physicians would be an obstetrician and an oncologist. Where relevant, the specialists must also consult the woman's general practitioner (GP). The termination would be an elective procedure performed at an appropriate institution.

^^ copied from Wikipedia.

I have to say...if I found out I had cancer and was also in early pregnancy and had to wait for all these physicians to get together to decide whether I could have a termination I would be distraught. It doesn't say anything about what happens to the woman who is already undergoing treatment. I wonder where that's dealt with?

Look up Michelle Harte. She had cancer, was undergoing treatment and it was working, then she found out she was pregnant, the treatment was pulled and ultimately she died. That's not the full story but Google her and you'll find the info. Prof Louise Kenny spoke about Michelle this week I think.

Dressing gown · 18-05-2018 05:43PM

Really sad In her shoes story today about what happens when a woman with no choice has a crisis pregnancy. She was young and broke so couldn’t afford to go to England. So she tried to cause an abortion herself. Her mental health was destroyed and she tried to kill herself twice. No lives saved. Just one destroyed. Apologies if the link doesn’t work.

https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=169945117013247&substory_index=0&id=142243109783448

_Dara_ · 18-05-2018 05:44PM

erica74 wrote: »

Look up Michelle Harte. She had cancer, was undergoing treatment and it was working, then she found out she was pregnant, the treatment was pulled and ultimately she died. That's not the full story but Google her and you'll find the info. Prof Louise Kenny spoke about Michelle this week I think.

Well, I think she would have died anyway, I think the cancer had spread at diagnosis but she should still have had the option of a termination in order to get treatment to prolong her life.

sightband · 18-05-2018 05:46PM

Flying Fox wrote: »

What the ...?

I was simply pointing out that there is plenty of aggression on the No side in response to the comments made by a poster on this thread.

I get the sense you think I'm making up what happened last night, I can assure you I'm not, but if you don't want to believe me that's fine. We did not engage with him, he saw the Yes badges and started on us, we said we understand that you have a different opinion and moved on, he followed us.

I am part of a canvassing group and I have witnessed the interactions my colleagues have had with people, including No voters and members of the No campaign when we've inadvertently crossed paths. No insults, no hysterics, everyone behaved themselves. That has been my experience, but again you can choose not to believe me if you wish.

you’re right, i don’t believe you. you wore a yes badge, didn’t engage at all, and were basically followed and quoted biblical scripture by some no campaigner because you wore a badge, in spite of you admitting to actively being involved in the yes campaign you completely tried to ignore this and were basically a victim of harassment. you’re full of sh*t.

Assetbacked · 18-05-2018 05:46PM

gmisk wrote: »

I would say some of the same things are true of some of those campaigning for a "No" vote as well.
It doesnt make it acceptable for either side to behave in this type of manner, it is horrible behaviour.

I would also say trying to champion social justice isnt exactly a bad thing, it is more the manner it is done in.
Societal norms like?

Women don't pursue careers as much as men do due to their wish to have babies, for example.

Bannasidhe · 18-05-2018 05:46PM

Sofiztikated wrote: »

Now, I may have missed a trick, but I'm fairly sure homosexual women can, and do, get pregnant.

It's best medical practice to run tests as required. I went for a scope the other day, and was refused as a urine sample came back as showing an infection, so due to the risk of sepsis, they couldn't proceed that day. Despite the fact I felt OK.

The real issue is what happens in the event of a positive test.

I have been pregnant and have the grandchildren to prove it. I got pregnant on purpose. I knew it happened, how it happened, when it happened.

I also knew it was never happening again unless I was raped.

There was no way I was pregnant at any time in the last 32 years. Yet every 2 weeks same questions.

Larbre34 · 18-05-2018 05:51PM

_Dara_ wrote: »

Well, I think she would have died anyway, I think the cancer had spread at diagnosis but she should still have had the option of a termination in order to get treatment to prolong her life.

She did have the option and women have taken it.

She would've had to gather her ravaged exhausted self, take herself and her husband / partner to the UK to have the termination, at great cost and at great risk to her health in transit.

This is the disgusting abdication of care and responsibility that exists in Ireland thanks to the 8th.

You know what to do folks.

Bannasidhe · 18-05-2018 05:52PM

Assetbacked wrote: »

Women don't pursue careers as much as men do due to their wish to have babies, for example.

Or to put it another way-women's careers are impacted due to their biological make up which means they have to take time off to have a baby (not always their wish btw) and men don't.

joe40 · 18-05-2018 05:53PM

There is about a 5 mile stretch of dual carriageway on the way into letterkenny.( only dual carriageway in the county but thats a different gripe), but ther must be literally thousands of small white wooden crosses all along the road. About 5 miles of maybe a metre apart.
Serious effort if nothing else, but does look a bit ridiculous.

Hannibal_Smith · 18-05-2018 05:55PM

erica74 wrote: »

Hannibal_Smith wrote: »

I read about this earlier on the back of posts with the other poster on changing the law. Apparently the Protection of Life During Pregnancy act says that:-

Risk of loss of life from physical illness
Two physicians, one an obstetrician and the other a specialist in the field of the relevant condition, must concur.[17] For example, if the woman has cancer, the two physicians would be an obstetrician and an oncologist. Where relevant, the specialists must also consult the woman's general practitioner (GP). The termination would be an elective procedure performed at an appropriate institution.

^^ copied from Wikipedia.

I have to say...if I found out I had cancer and was also in early pregnancy and had to wait for all these physicians to get together to decide whether I could have a termination I would be distraught. It doesn't say anything about what happens to the woman who is already undergoing treatment. I wonder where that's dealt with?

Look up Michelle Harte. She had cancer, was undergoing treatment and it was working, then she found out she was pregnant, the treatment was pulled and ultimately she died. That's not the full story but Google her and you'll find the info. Prof Louise Kenny spoke about Michelle this week I think.

Oh my god, just googled her:-

Prof Kenny said she believed continuing with the pregnancy posed a substantial threat to Ms Harte’s life and thus qualified her for a termination here in Ireland, but Cork University Maternity Hospital’s ethics committee disagreed and said there was not a substantial threat to her life.

:eek:

Not only that but:-

Yet, I found myself dealing with a woman with complex medical conditions and I had to say to her that not only can I not treat you here in Ireland, and you have to travel abroad, but I cannot even pick up the phone on your behalf to refer you – you just have to take your chances.

That is unbelievable! What are the no campaigners saying about this? Are they denying it's happening or are they happy to still vote no knowing this? Sorry, I know you probably can't answer that :pac: . But I'm curious to know how people can reconcile with that?

Sofiztikated · 18-05-2018 06:00PM

Bannasidhe wrote: »

I have been pregnant and have the grandchildren to prove it. I got pregnant on purpose. I knew it happened, how it happened, when it happened.

I also knew it was never happening again unless I was raped.

There was no way I was pregnant at any time in the last 32 years. Yet every 2 weeks same questions.

No, I get it, I really do.

For you, you couldn't/wouldn't be pregnant. But there is the possibility you could, through no fault of your own, and to proceed with treatment or not should be the choice given when presented with all evidence.

circadian · 18-05-2018 06:09PM

thebull85 wrote: »

Why does the anger seem more prevalent on the repeal side though? Why are they angry, why the contempt for opposing views.

The head on some of them young women, theyd have you locked up and the key thrown away for opposing them and there views if they had the chance.

91sn32Q_d.jpg?maxwidth=640&shape=thumb&fidelity=medium

Kinda vibe I'm getting right now.

Bannasidhe · 18-05-2018 06:09PM

Sofiztikated wrote: »

No, I get it, I really do.

For you, you couldn't/wouldn't be pregnant. But there is the possibility you could, through no fault of your own, and to proceed with treatment or not should be the choice given when presented with all evidence.

I would have known if there was a possibility of being pregnant. The assumption being my contraception could have failed and I wouldn't know. My, personal, "contraception" hadn't failed.
TBH it's part of the assumption of heterosexuality rife in the health services. Having to Come Out time and time again can be tiresome. Particularly when it's to the same people in the same department. But that has nowt to do with this topic.
The point is I was asked and if I had been pregnant I was off the trial.

_Dara_ · 18-05-2018 06:14PM

Larbre34 wrote: »

She did have the option and women have taken it.

I meant the option to have it in Ireland, obviously.

erica74 · 18-05-2018 06:18PM

Hannibal_Smith wrote: »

Oh my god, just googled her:-

Prof Kenny said she believed continuing with the pregnancy posed a substantial threat to Ms Harte’s life and thus qualified her for a termination here in Ireland, but Cork University Maternity Hospital’s ethics committee disagreed and said there was not a substantial threat to her life.

:eek:

Not only that but:-

Yet, I found myself dealing with a woman with complex medical conditions and I had to say to her that not only can I not treat you here in Ireland, and you have to travel abroad, but I cannot even pick up the phone on your behalf to refer you – you just have to take your chances.

That is unbelievable! What are the no campaigners saying about this? Are they denying it's happening or are they happy to still vote no knowing this? Sorry, I know you probably can't answer that :pac: . But I'm curious to know how people can reconcile with that?

I genuinely don't know how anyone can vote no after reading that story. Now, she possibly would have died anyway but, you can't deny, that the 8th meant she was denied care here in Ireland, waiting on the decision of the committee cost her valuable time and ultimately the 8th cost her her life. And she left a young son behind. But I suppose lovenone are personally ensuring that he and his dad have full support since Michelle's death.

Pugzilla · 18-05-2018 06:21PM

Pregnancy tests before medical procedures are nothing to do with the eight amendment. This is routine practice in every country.

Bannasidhe · 18-05-2018 06:24PM

Pugzilla wrote: »

Pregnancy tests before medical procedures are nothing to do with the eight amendment. This is routine practice in every country.

Way to miss the point.

In most civilised countries a termination of the pregnancy is possible so that treatment can commence/continue.

In Ireland we deny women that right.

Sofiztikated · 18-05-2018 06:26PM

Bannasidhe wrote: »

I would have known if there was a possibility of being pregnant. The assumption being my contraception could have failed and I wouldn't know. My, personal, "contraception" hadn't failed.
TBH it's part of the assumption of heterosexuality rife in the health services. Having to Come Out time and time again can be tiresome. Particularly when it's to the same people in the same department. But that has nowt to do with this topic.
The point is I was asked and if I had been pregnant I was off the trial.

I agree with your point, and that's what I want to see changed.

I know how tiresome constantly correcting people is, I'm sure you can appreciate being gay doesn't hold the monopoly on that. I'm an ex Presbyterian atheist, former inductee to the Orange Lodge, married to a Catholic woman, in the border counties.

Its just by sheer fact that you have functioning lady parts (if not, I apologise, and that's a completely different argument,) that they have to test for it, whether you tell them you are sure or not. There may be something that happened that you didn't want to deal with, or were unaware of, and for them to proceed with treatment, and put you at risk of a miscarriage, and not know about it would just be poor practice. People lie, and often to themselves, which I'm sure your aware of.

Zubeneschamali · 18-05-2018 06:27PM

fxotoole wrote: »

In 10 years time, demonisation like this will be a thing of the past. The influence of the Catholic Church and ultra conservative organisations is waning.

In fact, this might be their very last stand. I can't see anyone getting so excited about deleting the separation time limit on divorce or deleting the preamble.

_Dara_ · 18-05-2018 06:28PM

Pugzilla wrote: »

Pregnancy tests before medical procedures are nothing to do with the eight amendment. This is routine practice in every country.

We've been through this. Certain treatments can't be given to pregnant women in every country, sure. The issue is that in other countries, women can choose to have a termination in order to receive the treatment that is contraindicated with pregnancy. It has everything to do with the 8th amendment.

Another person completely and utterly missing the point.

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

Comments