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

The Dilemma of the Undecideds in the abortion referendum

1…457910…25

Comments

  • #182
    antiskeptic
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,550 ✭✭✭antiskeptic


    LeinsterDub wrote: »
    Can I ask why you've signed up for boards just to discuss this single issue?

    To discuss this single issue?


  • #183
    antiskeptic
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,550 ✭✭✭antiskeptic


    SusieBlue wrote: »
    Do you think 25 abortions a year is proportionate to the amount of women who experience risks to their life while pregnant?
    Or can we safely assume some of them were refused, and had to travel to the UK?
    Like Michelle Harte did?
    Like the lady on the radio who’s daughter has severe epilepsy did?
    Like I’ve been specifically told I’ll have to?

    Was Michelle Harte subject to the current guidelines? Was the woman who had severe epilepsy.

    Just asking.


  • #184
    DarkScar
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 226 ✭✭DarkScar


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    Nothing quite sums up this referendum "debate" like randomers on the Internet telling us that medical specialists are wrong.
    You're just as much a randomer on the internet yourself mate. You're deference to authority is cute, next you'll be insisting Savita's doctors were geniuses and there was nothing wrong with her.


  • #185
    LeinsterDub
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,229 ✭✭✭LeinsterDub


    antiskeptic wrote: »
    To discuss this single issue?

    I'm not accusing anyone of anything but in I'm always skeptical of single issue users who turn up just before a vote. Especially in this day and age of Russian bots and other such shills


  • #186
    DarkScar
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 226 ✭✭DarkScar


    SusieBlue wrote: »
    Do you think 25 abortions a year is proportionate to the amount of women who experience risks to their life while pregnant?
    Or can we safely assume some of them were refused, and had to travel to the UK?
    Like Michelle Harte did?
    Like the lady on the radio who’s daughter has severe epilepsy did?
    Like I’ve been specifically told I’ll have to?
    You can assume a lot of things. Not sure why you think that'll advance the discussion. The HSE does perform them, why nobody wants to accept medical specialists considered opinion on whether a condition is life threatening or not is beyond me.


  • Advertisement
  • #187
    Martina1991
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,548 ✭✭✭Martina1991


    DarkScar wrote: »
    Then they do not know the Irish constitution, which allows for termination where there is a risk to the life of the mother, which the HSE enacts about 25 times a year.

    In those 25 cases, the risk to the woman was death.

    You literally have to be dying in order to receive a termination.


  • #188
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,851 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    DarkScar wrote: »
    You're just as much a randomer on the internet yourself mate.
    Yes. But I'm not claiming to know better than medical professionals.
    You're deference to authority is cute, next you'll be insisting Savita's doctors were geniuses and there was nothing wrong with her.
    No, I won't. But why don't you explain to us exactly how you're better qualified to understand the complex interplay of the Irish Constitution and SusieBlue's medical treatment than her doctors are.


  • #189
    DarkScar
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 226 ✭✭DarkScar


    LeinsterDub wrote: »
    I'm not accusing anyone of anything but in I'm always skeptical of single issue users who turn up just before a vote. Especially in this day and day of Russian bots and other such shills
    Why, do you have some problem conducting an argument using facts and logic in the absence of knowing something about the identity of who you are arguing with?
    You're admitting your opinion is more about the person that the argument to be honest.


  • #190
    antiskeptic
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,550 ✭✭✭antiskeptic


    DarkScar wrote: »
    You're just as much a randomer on the internet yourself mate. You're deference to authority is cute, next you'll be insisting Savita's doctors were geniuses and there was nothing wrong with her.

    The HSE report into Savita's death shows us where the problems lay.

    It doesnt implicate the 8th. I prefer comment from experts outside the context of a referendum.


  • #191
    DarkScar
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 226 ✭✭DarkScar


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    Yes. But I'm not claiming to know better than medical professionals. No, I won't. But why don't you explain to us exactly how you're better qualified to understand the complex interplay of the Irish Constitution and SusieBlue's medical treatment than her doctors are.
    Well they are saying there is no threat to her life.
    Why are you claiming they are wrong? Don't you respect medical professionals' opinions? Or, oh let me guess, you're not saying anything at all suddenly.


  • Advertisement
  • #192
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,851 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    DarkScar wrote: »
    You're deference to authority is cute...
    DarkScar wrote: »
    ...why nobody wants to accept medical specialists considered opinion on whether a condition is life threatening or not is beyond me.

    Make up your mind.


  • #193
    SusieBlue
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,029 ✭✭✭SusieBlue


    Martina1991 wrote: »
    In those 25 cases, the risk to the woman was death.

    You literally have to be dying in order to receive a termination.

    This point is being lost and they aren’t believing me.
    If this wasn’t the case there would be no maternal deaths because every time there’s a small risk, a would could request and be granted a termination.

    Instead we have to wait until the threat is substantial enough to cause death before taking any action and that’s why women are dying and suffering when there is no need.


  • #194
    antiskeptic
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,550 ✭✭✭antiskeptic


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    Yes. But I'm not claiming to know better than medical professionals. No, I won't. But why don't you explain to us exactly how you're better qualified to understand the complex interplay of the Irish Constitution and SusieBlue's medical treatment than her doctors are.

    The doctors treating susie dont deal in the complex interplay. The have guidelines and navigation of those guidelines needs to be set out clearly before time.

    That didnt happen in Savitas day and there is no reason to suppose anythings different today.

    The 8th is innocent until proven guilty and there was a lot guilty in Savita before you got to looking at the 8th.


  • #195
    antiskeptic
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,550 ✭✭✭antiskeptic


    Martina1991 wrote: »
    In those 25 cases, the risk to the woman was death.

    You literally have to be dying in order to receive a termination.

    False. Read article 43.8 of the current medical council guidelines.

    Substantial risk. It need not be an immediate risk. And it need not be inevtable. A good example is the threat of return of a malignant cancer if you come of a drug trial. Michelle Hartes case, for example


  • #196
    MightyMandarin
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,723 ✭✭✭MightyMandarin


    SusieBlue wrote: »
    Tell the families of those women that their cases were dramatically ‘overstated, exaggerated and lied about’. I’m sure they’d only be delighted to hear your feelings about the death of their loved one.

    I'm sure Savita's husband is only delighted to see his deceased wife's image on 'yes' posters and booklets and her name plastered all over the Irish media after pleading for people to stop referring to her case.
    Women in Ireland receive substandard maternity care because of the grey area created by the 8th amendment.
    According to what study? You clearly disregard basic facts which are accepted by the primary medical spokesperson for 'Together for Yes' so where are you basing this from?


  • #197
    Martina1991
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,548 ✭✭✭Martina1991


    MightyMandarin wrote: »
    I'm sure Savita's husband is only delighted to see his deceased wife's image on 'yes' posters and booklets and her name plastered all over the Irish media after pleading for people to stop referring to her case.

    Source? Because her parents are supporting a Yes vote


  • #198
    SusieBlue
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,029 ✭✭✭SusieBlue


    MightyMandarin wrote: »
    I'm sure Savita's husband is only delighted to see his deceased wife's image on 'yes' posters and booklets and her name plastered all over the Irish media after pleading for people to stop referring to her case.

    Her parents are in full support of repeal.
    Her husband has never requested for people to stop referring to her case.
    He did request for people to stop vandalizing a Youth Defense premises in Savitas name many years ago, but that was long before the referendum was announced.
    According to what study? You clearly disregard basic facts which are accepted by the primary medical spokesperson for 'Together for Yes' so where are you basing this from?

    The UN have stated that our abortion laws violate human rights. The 8th amendment ties doctors hands in emergencies because it states the baby has an equal right to life as the mother.
    This can be interpretated differently by different doctors, causing confusion about what is and isn’t acceptable.


  • #199
    Martina1991
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,548 ✭✭✭Martina1991


    antiskeptic wrote: »
    Substantial risk. It need not be an immediate risk. And it need not be inevtable. A good example is the threat of return of a malignant cancer if you come of a drug trial. Michelle Hartes case, for example

    And what do you qualify as a substantial risk Doctor?


  • #200
    fergus1001
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,625 ✭✭✭fergus1001


    MightyMandarin wrote:
    Dr. Peter Boylan loves rattling off the P case as an example of "women dying because of the 8th" and it's absolute nonsense.


    sorry but I actually know the people involved in the p case, the father and kids had to watch their mother/wife turn into a corpse over the period of a 3 months it was horrific all against the wishes of the husband who was morning the loss of his wife and could not get closure


  • #201
    antiskeptic
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,550 ✭✭✭antiskeptic


    Martina1991 wrote: »
    And what do you qualify as a substantial risk Doctor?

    Can I take the answering with a question to mean you now agree you don't have to be dying?


  • Advertisement
  • #202
    groovyg
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,049 ✭✭✭groovyg


    MightyMandarin wrote: »
    I'm sure Savita's husband is only delighted to see his deceased wife's image on 'yes' posters and booklets and her name plastered all over the Irish media after pleading for people to stop referring to her case

    I don’t think Praveen lives in this ****hole country anymore. who would blame him, after he lost his wife and unborn baby he then had to deal with racist bigots

    https://www.thejournal.ie/praveen-halappanavar-receiving-abusive-letters-from-campaigners-977966-Jul2013/


  • #203
    Martina1991
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,548 ✭✭✭Martina1991


    antiskeptic wrote: »
    Can I take the answering with a question to mean you now agree you don't have to be dying?

    No i don't agree.

    Substantial risk to me is threat to someones life i.e. strong possibility of death.

    You seem to be claiming substantial risk is not threat to life and abortion was allowed in these circumstances.


  • #204
    LeinsterDub
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,229 ✭✭✭LeinsterDub


    DarkScar wrote: »
    Why, do you have some problem conducting an argument using facts and logic in the absence of knowing something about the identity of who you are arguing with?
    You're admitting your opinion is more about the person that the argument to be honest.

    I don't have an issue with logic and facts but this debate will and always come down to women's rights versus the subjective rights of what may or may not be a human life.


  • #205
    antiskeptic
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,550 ✭✭✭antiskeptic


    SusieBlue wrote:
    This can be interpretated differently by different doctors, causing confusion about what is and isn’t acceptable.

    Don't you suppose the same thing will occur after repeal? Doctors are going to have to decide on risk post 12 weeks and they will interpret differently. Death and serious health risk is still on the cards

    It seems to me that the problem is one of clarifying unto unified approach.


  • #206
    lufties
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,507 ✭✭✭lufties


    ancapailldorcha wrote: »
    lufties wrote: »
    Ever read the journal.ie? I used to think it was an actual news site years ago. They publish 4 or 5 yes articles a day. A recent one was about 'toxic masculinity'. The bias and outright agenda promoting is something Stalins Russia would have been proud of.
    In fact I'll bet in other rags like the independent, and Irish times its the same crap.

    Stay on topic please. This thread is about undecided voters in the abortion referendum.
    It is a post about the referendum. Oh I forgot, his site is connected with the journal.ie..and probably other establishment propaganda sites.

    Banned.


  • #207
    antiskeptic
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,550 ✭✭✭antiskeptic


    Martina1991 wrote: »
    No i don't agree.

    Substantial risk to me is threat to someones life i.e. strong possibility of death.

    Substantial to me means having substance. This risk is the kind of risk which can lead to death. A common cold is not a substantial risk

    The guidelines stating the risk need not need be immediate or inevitable gives further clues.

    The question is whether anyone has figured out how to interpret in a clinical setting


    You seem to be claiming substantial risk is not threat to life and abortion was allowed in these circumstances.

    The risk (as opposed to death) not having to be immediate inevitable leads me to suppose the doctor can act way back along the line.

    Point is, clarifcation needed as to what is permitted today - before we begin to think of blaming the 8th


  • #208
    SusieBlue
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,029 ✭✭✭SusieBlue


    antiskeptic wrote: »
    Don't you suppose the same thing will occur after repeal? Doctors are going to have to decide on risk post 12 weeks and they will interpret differently. Death and serious health risk is still on the cards

    It seems to me that the problem is one of clarifying unto unified approach.

    A woman will be able to decide herself based on the risks after speaking with her doctor, if the referendum passes.
    There will be no need for different interpretations because pre 12 weeks she can request an abortion and continue treatment.


  • #209
    antiskeptic
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,550 ✭✭✭antiskeptic


    SusieBlue wrote: »
    A woman will be able to decide herself based on the risks after speaking with her doctor, if the referendum passes.
    There will be no need for different interpretations because pre 12 weeks she can request an abortion and continue treatment.

    I was speaking of post 12. Savita was 17 weeks


  • #210
    blanch152
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 31,052 ✭✭✭✭blanch152


    antiskeptic wrote: »
    The doctors treating susie dont deal in the complex interplay. The have guidelines and navigation of those guidelines needs to be set out clearly before time.

    That didnt happen in Savitas day and there is no reason to suppose anythings different today.

    The 8th is innocent until proven guilty and there was a lot guilty in Savita before you got to looking at the 8th.

    What you don't understand is that once you repeal the 8th, you can have the exact same legislation in place banning abortion, adjust it slightly for hard cases, and adjust the medical guidelines accordingly.

    If the 8th remains in place, you have the risk of some gob****e from Youth Defence or some other pro-life organisation suing the doctor and the hospital on behalf of the unborn (or taking a judicial review, more likely). Why do you want to put those women through that, when removing the 8th and keeping the legislation would solve the problem for you?


  • Advertisement
  • #211
    blondeonblonde
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 374 ✭✭blondeonblonde


    antiskeptic wrote: »
    The HSE report into Savita's death shows us where the problems lay.

    It doesnt implicate the 8th. I prefer comment from experts outside the context of a referendum.

    HSE Report stated the following:

    The investigation found three key causal factors in Savita’s death, including:

    that there was inadequate assessment and monitoring of Savita, and that the clinical team failed to devise and follow a plan of care


    the failure to offer all management options to Savita


    a non-adherence to clinical guidelines related to the prompt and effective management of sepsis, severe sepsis and septic shock when it was diagnosed.


    Does "the failure to offer all management options to Savita" not include the failure to offer an abortion?? Which was not an option due to the 8th??


Advertisement