Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

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

1…281282284286287…324

Comments

  • #8492
    _Dara_
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,971 ✭✭✭_Dara_


    Sofiztikated wrote: »
    I've used and written that word so much in the last few days, it never looks right now.

    Genuinely a great word, and no matter what the outcome from the referendum, we've all expanded our vocabulary.

    Did you really not know that word before? :eek:


  • #8493
    _Dara_
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,971 ✭✭✭_Dara_


    quickbeam wrote: »
    Related to the above, why does an abortion have to happen for treatment to take place? Why not give the treatment and let the baby take their chance that they'll be affected by it or not. Best case scenario, both mother and baby will survive both the cancer and the pregnancy?

    The baby could survive alright but with deformities.

    Having seen the anguish of women who took thalidomide during their pregnancies, do you think most women are going to want to take the chance of damaging the growing foetus?


  • #8494
    pjohnson
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,014 ✭✭✭✭pjohnson


    Pugzilla wrote: »
    You better hope the No side can't find all the infinity stones before the referendum, otherwise half of the femnazis will be erased from existence with a single click of John Waters' fingers.

    Thats the lad who started arguing with a no voter and stormed off because he wasnt voting no properly right?

    I understand why McGuirk is the main poster boy now.


  • #8495
    quickbeam
    Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators Posts: 16,287 Mod ✭✭✭✭quickbeam


    _Dara_ wrote: »
    The baby could survive alright but with deformities.

    Having seen the anguish of women who took thalidomide during their pregnancies, do you think most women are going to want to take the chance of damaging the growing foetus?

    Always? Or is there a chance of a normal outcome?


  • #8496
    pq0n1ct4ve8zf5
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,070 ✭✭✭✭pq0n1ct4ve8zf5


    quickbeam wrote: »
    I'd like to ask a few questions, if I may, and have it answered by people on both side of the debate, as it's something I'm still confused about and I've never seen adequately answered in the debates.

    If a woman is pregnant and develops cancer, or has cancer and then gets pregnant, what exactly is in the wording of the 8th Amendment that prevents her getting treatment? As I understand it, the 8th Amendment guarantees equal right to life of mother and baby. But surely denying treatment to a pregnant woman denies her her half to that equality as it is putting the baby ahead of her, instead of equal to her. I presume I'm massively misunderstanding something as if this is the case, then surely the denying of treatment would have been taken to court long ago and a precedent being set allowing treatment for the mother?

    Related to the above, why does an abortion have to happen for treatment to take place? Why not give the treatment and let the baby take their chance that they'll be affected by it or not. Best case scenario, both mother and baby will survive both the cancer and the pregnancy?

    The problem is in the wording, the mother's right to health doesn't count, just to life. When precisely a risk to her health becomes a risk to her life, when does the balance tip from her right to life is being impinged on more than the foetus. So cases like ectopic pregnancies are fairly straight forward because there's an immediate risk to life for the mother, no chance for the embryo. Cases like cancer treatment, risk of septecemia and so on, not necesarily.

    A pregnancy could mean serious long term damage to a woman's health, but not her life, so tough titty.


  • Advertisement
  • #8497
    Overheal
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 86,725 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    quickbeam wrote: »
    Er, yeah.

    This has been answered before, but, it depends on the cancer and on the treatment, but most treatments and ailments (especially cervical cancer say) are at much higher risk of harming the fetus, even premature termination. So they will generally stop treatment until it reaches the point at which the cancer progresses to risking the life of the mother, since you can’t accurately predict what a cancer will do with any certainty: could be the cancer stays in remission for a year, or a couple months? But they’re not going to do anything but wait and see. Treatment will stop for weeks or months, or until the pregnancy is complete or the fetus is birthed forcibly or the fetal heartbeat can’t be detected. They can explore other treatment options but depending on the conditions that may not be available. So the health of the woman will continue to deteriorate, so long as there is no “substantial” risk to her mortality


  • #8498
    Sofiztikated
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,995 ✭✭✭Sofiztikated


    _Dara_ wrote: »
    Did you really not know that word before? :eek:

    Not obstreperous, no.

    Can't say it's common parlance* around here.

    *Using words that make me sound intelligent now.


  • #8499
    erica74
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,618 ✭✭✭erica74


    quickbeam wrote: »
    I'd like to ask a few questions, if I may, and have it answered by people on both side of the debate, as it's something I'm still confused about and I've never seen adequately answered in the debates.

    If a woman is pregnant and develops cancer, or has cancer and then gets pregnant, what exactly is in the wording of the 8th Amendment that prevents her getting treatment? As I understand it, the 8th Amendment guarantees equal right to life of mother and baby. But surely denying treatment to a pregnant woman denies her her half to that equality as it is putting the baby ahead of her, instead of equal to her. I presume I'm massively misunderstanding something as if this is the case, then surely the denying of treatment would have been taken to court long ago and a precedent being set allowing treatment for the mother?

    You are.


  • #8500
    _Dara_
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,971 ✭✭✭_Dara_


    quickbeam wrote: »
    Always? Or is there a chance of a normal outcome?

    It depends on the agent. There are many. Some of them are known teratogens. Some are thought to be. Would you take that chance?


  • #8501
    erica74
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,618 ✭✭✭erica74


    Sofiztikated wrote: »
    Not obstreperous, no.

    Can't say it's common parlance* around here.

    *Using words that make me sound intelligent now.

    Me too!
    I may have possibly heard it in my life but I definitely never used it before Bishop Brennan, or whoever it was, used it.


  • Advertisement
  • #8502
    ArmaniJeanss
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,807 ✭✭✭✭ArmaniJeanss


    quickbeam wrote: »
    I'd like to ask a few questions, if I may, and have it answered by people on both side of the debate, as it's something I'm still confused about and I've never seen adequately answered in the debates.

    If a woman is pregnant and develops cancer, or has cancer and then gets pregnant, what exactly is in the wording of the 8th Amendment that prevents her getting treatment? As I understand it, the 8th Amendment guarantees equal right to life of mother and baby. But surely denying treatment to a pregnant woman denies her her half to that equality as it is putting the baby ahead of her, instead of equal to her. I presume I'm massively misunderstanding something as if this is the case, then surely the denying of treatment would have been taken to court long ago and a precedent being set allowing treatment for the mother?

    Related to the above, why does an abortion have to happen for treatment to take place? Why not give the treatment and let the baby take their chance that they'll be affected by it or not. Best case scenario, both mother and baby will survive both the cancer and the pregnancy?

    The fetus doesn't have cancer so you can't start launching radiation at it, no more than you could give radiation therapy to any randomer in the street.
    The 8th Amendment by giving equal rights to the fetus thus means that the pregnant woman can't receive the treatment.


  • #8503
    Tipperary animal lover
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,505 ✭✭✭Tipperary animal lover


    RobertKK wrote: »
    Here in Ireland it started 4 or 5 weeks ago.

    was out of the country for two months just back today, seen it advertised on c4, also happy to see our voting cards had arrived, thank feck have missed most of all the goings on here re the carrying on over this sad situation of a referendum were having, people have been like rabid dogs I've been told, it's yes a vote in this house hold(two gay men just back from honeymoon), some of the things I've seen posted on forums is just unbelievable . .. some people need a good kick up the ass(it's only a saying before I'm tackled for using in appropriate language).


  • #8504
    Sofiztikated
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,995 ✭✭✭Sofiztikated


    erica74 wrote: »
    Me too!
    I may have possibly heard it in my life but I definitely never used it before Bishop Brennan, or whoever it was, used it.

    Don't call me Len, you little pri...

    oh.

    :pac:


  • #8505
    Try_harder
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,681 ✭✭✭Try_harder


    Has anyone changed their opinion since the referendum was called? Honestly?


  • #8506
    Just her
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 171 ✭✭Just her


    quickbeam wrote: »
    I'd like to ask a few questions, if I may, and have it answered by people on both side of the debate, as it's something I'm still confused about and I've never seen adequately answered in the debates.

    If a woman is pregnant and develops cancer, or has cancer and then gets pregnant, what exactly is in the wording of the 8th Amendment that prevents her getting treatment? As I understand it, the 8th Amendment guarantees equal right to life of mother and baby. But surely denying treatment to a pregnant woman denies her her half to that equality as it is putting the baby ahead of her, instead of equal to her. I presume I'm massively misunderstanding something as if this is the case, then surely the denying of treatment would have been taken to court long ago and a precedent being set allowing treatment for the mother?

    Related to the above, why does an abortion have to happen for treatment to take place? Why not give the treatment and let the baby take their chance that they'll be affected by it or not. Best case scenario, both mother and baby will survive both the cancer and the pregnancy?

    I don't think there is actually anything in the 8th they prevents her getting treatment, perhaps misinterpretation of it leading to a fear of litigation . I don't know what guidelines they are given to interpret it, but we do know abortions already happen in Ireland in line with the 8th.


  • #8507
    Tom Mann Centuria
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,285 ✭✭✭✭Tom Mann Centuria


    Try_harder wrote: »
    Has anyone changed their opinion since the referendum was called? Honestly?

    My wife has. She was a definite No, now a probable yes.

    Oh well, give me an easy life and a peaceful death.



  • #8508
    How Soon Is Now
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,196 ✭✭✭✭How Soon Is Now


    I wonder what the next referendum will be about?


  • #8509
    NuMarvel
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,279 ✭✭✭NuMarvel


    How Soon Is Now wrote: »
    I wonder what the next referendum will be about?

    Looks like it'll be blasphemy and the women's place in the home clause.
    Government Sets Indicative Timetable For Referendums

    The Government today, 26th September 2017, agreed an indicative timetable for a number of referendums on constitutional amendments and reforms to local government, arising from the work of the Citizens’ Assembly, the Convention on the Constitution, and the Programme for a Partnership Government:

    · Referendum on the Eighth amendment - May or June 2018
    · Referendums on Blasphemy (Article 40.6.1) and “Woman's life within the home” (Article 41.2.1) – October 2018
    · Plebiscite on directly elected executive mayors - October 2018
    · Referendums on Divorce, Extending the Franchise at Presidential Elections to Irish Citizens Resident outside the State, and Reducing the voting age to 16, – June 2019


  • #8510
    How Soon Is Now
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,196 ✭✭✭✭How Soon Is Now


    NuMarvel wrote: »
    Looks like it'll be blasphemy and the women's place in the home clause.

    Meh.


  • #8511
    FingerDeKat
    Closed Accounts Posts: 219 ✭✭FingerDeKat


    · Referendums on Blasphemy (Article 40.6.1) and “Woman's life within the home” (Article 41.2.1) – October 2018

    Wonder if the zombie worshippers will get mobile for that one.


  • Advertisement
  • #8512
    NuMarvel
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,279 ✭✭✭NuMarvel


    How Soon Is Now wrote: »
    Meh.

    There might be an EU Patent Court referendum at some point, if that's more to sir's liking? :D


  • #8513
    erica74
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,618 ✭✭✭erica74


    Try_harder wrote: »
    Has anyone changed their opinion since the referendum was called? Honestly?

    I haven't changed my opinion on this matter since I was a teenager. Before that, I was brainwashed by my mother, who is bananas.


  • #8514
    Lackey
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,118 ✭✭✭Lackey


    Did we not already vote on lowering the voting age for president to 16?


  • #8515
    How Soon Is Now
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,196 ✭✭✭✭How Soon Is Now


    NuMarvel wrote: »
    There might be an EU Patent Court referendum at some point, if that's more to sir's liking? :D

    When it's something of relevance to myself who knows!


  • #8516
    NuMarvel
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,279 ✭✭✭NuMarvel


    Lackey wrote: »
    Did we not already vote on lowering the voting age for president to 16?

    That was height. This is age :D.


  • #8517
    Buford T. Justice XIX
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,633 ✭✭✭✭Buford T. Justice XIX


    Pugzilla wrote: »
    The snowflakes are melting. I'll come clean. I've been paid by the evil No side. It's all a giant conspiracy.....
    Mod note: Pugzilla, don't post in this thread again.

    Buford T. Justice


  • #8518
    Larbre34
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,434 ✭✭✭✭Larbre34


    NuMarvel wrote: »
    Looks like it'll be blasphemy and the women's place in the home clause.

    Now if the disgruntled young rebels against #metoo, that we hear of today, really wanted something to organise against, it would be the latter.


  • #8519
    Sofiztikated
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,995 ✭✭✭Sofiztikated


    How Soon Is Now wrote: »
    When it's something of relevance to myself who knows!

    Do you work in/for a company that sells products in Europe?


  • #8520
    _Dara_
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,971 ✭✭✭_Dara_


    Sofiztikated wrote: »
    Not obstreperous, no.

    Can't say it's common parlance* around here.

    *Using words that make me sound intelligent now.

    Would you believe it's part of my vocabulary? I wouldn't use it very often but, yeah, it's been deployed on occasion. My sister and I were called walking dictionaries in school though. :pac:


  • Advertisement
  • #8521
    reubenreuben
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,251 ✭✭✭reubenreuben


    ArmaniJeanss wrote: »
    The fetus doesn't have cancer so you can't start launching radiation at it, no more than you could give radiation therapy to any randomer in the street.
    The 8th Amendment by giving equal rights to the fetus thus means that the pregnant woman can't receive the treatment.

    So the woman dies, when she could have been saved or prolonged her life


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement