Exit poll: The post referendum thread. No electioneering.

dav3 · 27-05-2018 05:00PM

Shurimgreat wrote: »

Typically immature response.

The referendum is over. Its now onto the question of discussing the legislation.

So lets discuss it.

What is there to discuss? The people have had their say.

Legislation is up to the politicians.

Wrongway1985 · 27-05-2018 05:04PM

Shurimgreat wrote: »

There is only proposed legislation at the moment. You knew that already.

Try answer again rather than be dismissive.

A hard case where a raped woman misses the 12 week limit. What happens?

Is this not the main flaw in the proposed 12 week limit?

Would you say it's highly realistic that a victim of rape in trauma would fear being pregnant by the perpetrator?

Extremely unlikely she wouldn't seek to confirm pregnancy?

Okay so if that's the case...then is it also extremely unlikely to go on and discover they didn't realize they were pregnant till after cut off point?

Was it not the argument last week that you may be fully formed at 12 weeks seems people have moved on to that to pregnancies being discovered late, wow a fine jump and rape victim no less!

You seem to permit the use of a raped woman as part of your unlikely imaginary scenario as someone who went out and bought the wrong handbag.

Mountainsandh · 27-05-2018 05:04PM

Pugzilla wrote: »

Except as stated earlier, over 80% of abortion at 10-12 weeks are surgical.

But of course, the proportion of 10-12 weeks abortions is much less than abortions up to 10 weeks.

For example in the UK, 11% were performed at 10-12 weeks, and that number is falling as the years go. So in 81% of cases in the UK, the chemical option was a lot more likely to be chosen than surgical.

https://static.rasset.ie/documents/news/abortion-stats-2016-commentary-with-tables.pdf

2.25 The vast majority of abortions are performed under 13 weeks gestation (92% in 2016).
There has been a continuing increase in the proportion of abortions that are performed
under 10 weeks since 2006. In 2016, 81% of abortions were performed at under 10
weeks, a similar proportion to 2015 but increasing from 68% in 2006. In 2016, 11% were
performed at 10-12 weeks. This proportion has not changed since 2015, but the
proportion has halved from 22% since 2006. Abortions carried out at 13 weeks or later
gestation represented 9% which is unchanged from 2015 and decreasing slightly from
11% in 2006. (Table 3a.iii and Figure 5).

Shurimgreat · 27-05-2018 05:05PM

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Well according some NO posters innhere there should beb"rape commitees' set up to interview the woman in question and make the decision.

Me personally, I'd be happy to believe the woman and let her make the choice. If a woman presents herself at a doctor's over 12 weeks pregnant and says it's due to rape then let her have her termination.

Thanks Timbrr. Probably the best answer I've read and I appreciate your honesty. And I understand the implications of your answer even if many others do not.

Cantona's Collars · 27-05-2018 05:06PM

The BBC were reporting live from Dublin while waiting for the official results of the count. It was telling that they could find nobody from the no side to interview and give their reaction to the exit polls.

swampgas · 27-05-2018 05:08PM

Shurimgreat wrote: »

Athiest here so nothing to do with catholic church. I despise much of the hypocisy of the average CC follower.

Still not answered my original question in full nor even bothered to acknowledge the difficulty in framing legislation. I suppose you did concede that not all hard cases will be covered.

I didn't mean to imply that you were a Catholic, I was merely pointing out that the 8th was pretty much RC dogma. And that without it in place, legislators will be able to legislate for abortion just like they do for other matters, making their best efforts and revising as needed.

And I'm not simply conceding that not all hard cases will be covered, I'm stating that it would be impossible to do so - nobody can predict what the hard cases will be.

How many of those who voted for the 8th back in 1983 had any idea what hard cases would come down the tracks?

The broader point I'm making is that legislation can be changed quickly, unlike something in the constitution which requires a referendum. And that's why repeal was so very necessary.

_Dara_ · 27-05-2018 05:09PM

Elisabeth Wrong Stork wrote: »

The pills are a less good option after ten weeks as far as I recall.

The abortion pills would also be contraindicated for some medical conditions, surgery would be needed sometimes in ectopic cases (I'm not sure if they're included in Pete's figures). Selective abortions, where there's more than one foetus and you're only getting rid of one, obviously have to be performed surgically.

Some women will also opt for a surgical abortion because they'd prefer it. It's quicker, they might not trust the pills to work, and I'm googling studies now and for women who've had a medical abortion previously, the bleeding and pain was too bad for them to want to do it again.

The ratio of medical abortions to surgical abortions has been climbing continuously for years in the UK, and they're doing all they can to make sure that continues.

Oh yeah, absolutely there will be situations where medical abortion will not be suitable or just downright impossible and, yeah, preference too. But we’re going to hopefully be able to hit the ground running with having medical abortion as the go-to because we have a clean slate here.

freshpopcorn · 27-05-2018 05:10PM

Another thing I hope is that we don't see articles popping up when abortion is available in Ireland saying that I had to travel because the stigma still exists here.
The country voted in favor of it by a large majority and some still against it but this is the same in every country!

Shurimgreat · 27-05-2018 05:13PM

Wrongway1985 wrote: »

Would you say it's highly realistic that a victim of rape in trauma would fear being pregnant by the perpetrator?

Extremely unlikely she wouldn't seek to confirm pregnancy?

Okay so if that's the case...then is it also extremely unlikely to go on and discover they didn't realize they were pregnant till after cut off point?

Was it not the argument last week that you may be fully formed at 12 weeks seems people have moved on to that to pregnancies being discovered late, wow a fine jump and rape victim no less!

You seem to permit the use of a raped woman as part of your unlikely imaginary scenario as someone who went out and bought the wrong handbag.

Very difficult post to decipher I will be honest with you. I am trying to talk about dealing with hard cases here.

Ok here goes. A woman presents at her GP at lets say 14 weeks. She says she was raped. It took her 3 months of trauma to come to terms with it. Rape is traumatic we all accept that.

The doctor has no way to prove what she says is true or not. It may be true, it may not be.

Now can people but aside their yes or no biases, cut out the personal attacks, not make claims like "yeh you are ok with raped women" etc and answer how such a scenario should be handled in the legislation?

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5 · 27-05-2018 05:18PM

Elisabeth Wrong Stork wrote: »

No it's not because the proposed regime isn't a batshít dystopian nightmare where "the experts" assess if a woman has been subject to a "genuine" rape or if she's some "clown" like you were spouting off about last week.

If a woman is between 12 and 24 weeks pregnant as a result of rape, she can continue with that pregnancy, or, if it's endangering her physical or mental health then she will now have recourse to a termination.

Yay quoting myself. I assume I'm on ignore but the poster who quoted me isn't.

Water John · 27-05-2018 05:18PM

Up to 12 weeks is clear, we understand that from the proposed Bill. As we have only the Heads of the Bill, we wait and see the detail wording of what is proposed for medical grounds.
But I suspect most people know that.

Fred Swanson · 27-05-2018 05:19PM

This post has been deleted.

swampgas · 27-05-2018 05:19PM

Shurimgreat wrote: »

Very difficult post to decipher I will be honest with you. I am trying to talk about dealing with hard cases here.

Ok here goes. A woman presents at her GP at lets say 14 weeks. She says she was raped. It took her 3 months of trauma to come to terms with it. Rape is traumatic we all accept that.

The doctor has no way to prove what she says is true or not. It may be true, it may not be.

Now can people but aside their yes or no biases, cut out the personal attacks, not make claims like "yeh you are ok with raped women" etc and answer how such a scenario should be handled in the legislation?

Maybe the government could consult experts in the area and adapt the legislation in an appropriate way? I think that's a better approach than trying to get a bunch of internet posters to figure it out in advance.

And I know you think you have a gotcha here - you think women will roll up at 16 weeks or 20 weeks, claim they have been raped, and be provided with abortions no questions asked. As far as I can see the evidence doesn't suggest that this would be a significant issue.
.

27-05-2018 05:24PM

Fred Swanson wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

They have until, what next Friday to take them down?

Won't make much difference to the yes side out my way, most of their posters disappeared very mysteriously during the week.

Wrongway1985 · 27-05-2018 05:28PM

freshpopcorn wrote: »

Another thing I hope is that we don't see articles popping up when abortion is available in Ireland saying that I had to travel because the stigma still exists here.
The country voted in favor of it by a large majority and some still against it but this is the same in every country!

I think it's logical to expect any sort of stigma being elimated by simply going to a nearby town or city to cater for people who maybe fearful of being identified in their locality if that is what you mean instead of requiring to travel abroad. In terms of late stage procedures are we to presume will be limited to the more heavily equipped hospitals?

Mountainsandh · 27-05-2018 05:28PM

swampgas wrote: »

And I know you think you have a gotcha here - you think women will roll up at 16 weeks or 20 weeks, claim they have been raped, and be provided with abortions no questions asked. As far as I can see the evidence doesn't suggest that this would be a significant issue.

+1
It is so strange and insulting to have someone assume that a significant number of women would be like that.

It's weird, I've never experienced that level of mistrust or ... spite even, in real life. Thankfully.

end of the road · 27-05-2018 05:30PM

Shurimgreat wrote: »

Very difficult post to decipher I will be honest with you. I am trying to talk about dealing with hard cases here.

Ok here goes. A woman presents at her GP at lets say 14 weeks. She says she was raped. It took her 3 months of trauma to come to terms with it. Rape is traumatic we all accept that.

The doctor has no way to prove what she says is true or not. It may be true, it may not be.

Now can people but aside their yes or no biases, cut out the personal attacks, not make claims like "yeh you are ok with raped women" etc and answer how such a scenario should be handled in the legislation?

personally, i can't see how it could be handled after 12 weeks unless
1. it's done under the mental health grounds. my view is that would be the most likely way. the trama of such a horific crime would understandibly lead to mental health issues.
2. if there is a specific exemption for rape victims past 12 weeks, the doctor simply takes her word for it. unlikely that would be the method tbh.
3. we up the limit from 12 weeks. very possible but time would ultimately tell if such would actually happen.

Wrongway1985 · 27-05-2018 05:32PM

Shurimgreat wrote: »

Very difficult post to decipher I will be honest with you. I am trying to talk about dealing with hard cases here.

Ok here goes. A woman presents at her GP at lets say 14 weeks. She says she was raped. It took her 3 months of trauma to come to terms with it. Rape is traumatic we all accept that.

The doctor has no way to prove what she says is true or not. It may be true, it may not be.

Not in the proposed legislation, if it bothers you perhaps contact a local TD and see if in that drastically dramatic scenario they think it's relevant to pursue upon.

Fighting Tao · 27-05-2018 05:33PM

end of the road wrote: »

personally, i can't see how it could be handled after 12 weeks unless
1. it's done under the mental health grounds. my view is that would be the most likely way. the trama of such a horific crime would understandibly lead to mental health issues.
2. if there is a specific exemption for rape victims past 12 weeks, the doctor simply takes her word for it. unlikely that would be the method tbh.
3. we up the limit from 12 weeks. very possible but time would ultimately tell if such would actually happen.

I can see how it will be handled...under legislation that the TDs decide.

end of the road · 27-05-2018 05:36PM

Fighting Tao wrote: »

I can see how it will be handled...under legislation that the TDs decide.

and we are discussing that legislation, and the possible ways in which it may work.

Fighting Tao · 27-05-2018 05:36PM

So keeping the 8th and being unable to legislate for most cases is better than the TD struggling to legislate for one really obscure occurrence?

This thread can't get any more stupid.

eeepaulo · 27-05-2018 05:37PM

Didnt simon harris publish heads of bill so we could see

HEAD 4: RISK TO LIFE OR HEALTH
4. (1) It shall be lawful to carry out a termination of pregnancy in accordance with this Head where 2 medical practitioners certify that, in their reasonable opinion formed in good faith –

(a) there is a risk to the life of, or of serious harm to the health of, the pregnant woman,

(b) the foetus has not reached viability, and

(c) it is appropriate to carry out the termination of pregnancy in order to avert that risk.

(2) Of the 2 medical practitioners referred to in subhead (1) –

(a) one shall be an obstetrician, and

(b) the other shall be an appropriate medical practitioner.

The law
The second case where termination would be allowed is where there’s a threat to the life or health of the pregnant woman. Here, two doctors – one an obstetrician – must certify that there is a risk to the life of, or a risk of serious harm to the health of, the mother, and that termination is appropriate in order to avert that risk. Serious harm to health includes mental health. The procedure must be carried out by an obstetrician. Termination on this ground is available until the foetus is viable – that is, where it could survive outside the uterus. The proposal says that the viability of a foetus should be determined by the reasonable opinion of the doctors involved. David Kenny

The politics
After the 12-week period has elapsed, abortion will be legal only in specific circumstances, including those defined under this head: where there is a serious threat to the mental or physical health of the woman. Two doctors with relevant specialities must agree before the abortion can take place. Abortions under this head will not be permitted after the point at which the foetus can viably survive outside the mother’s womb – usually 24 weeks.

No-side campaigners have warned of “vague” mental-health grounds, pointing out that in Britain most abortions are permitted on mental-health grounds. They also warn that foetal disability or the mother’s material circumstances could be judged to threaten her mental health. Yes campaigners say that law, culture and existing medical practice will prevent this.

If the referendum is passed, this will become a key legislative battleground: how to craft the law to permit abortion in serious cases but not allow abortion on request up to 24 weeks. Pat Leahy

might change a bit but that is the gist

Fighting Tao · 27-05-2018 05:38PM

end of the road wrote: »

and it's that legislation we are discussing in relation to how it may work.

When was the last time you wrote legislation? It is something to be left to the experts because it's extremely difficult.

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1 · 27-05-2018 05:38PM

end of the road wrote: »

and we are discussing that legislation, and the possible ways in which it may work.

But it's all pure supposition. It's arguing just for the sake of it at this stage.

Water John · 27-05-2018 05:39PM

There is little point in hypotethical discussion until the detailed draft is made available. Then we can all study it and if we wish it to be altered, we contact our TDs.

Loafing Oaf · 27-05-2018 05:43PM

Cantona's Collars wrote: »

The BBC were reporting live from Dublin while waiting for the official results of the count. It was telling that they could find nobody from the no side to interview and give their reaction to the exit polls.

I predicted a couple of months ago (with what I thought was humorous exaggeration) that the pro-life movement would evaporate the instant the result was announced, if it was a yes. Looks like it happened even quicker than that...

Water John · 27-05-2018 05:45PM

Oh, they haven't gone away. Restricting the Bill as much as possible is next. Fortunately, they have little holt on TDs anymore. The treaths to them that they would make sure they lost the next election, (ask Lisa Chambers) is gone in a puff.

Zubeneschamali · 27-05-2018 05:48PM

Shurimgreat wrote: »

The referendum is over. Its now onto the question of discussing the legislation.

So lets discuss it.

OK - how about that abortion legislation, huh?

iguana · 27-05-2018 05:54PM

Shurimgreat wrote: »

The Yes side got the 8th repealed. Its now their responsibility to come up with legislation which covers all hard cases including raped women over the 12 weeks limit.

No it isn't. It's the responsibility of the government, most specifically Simon Harris and his team. The Yes side may campaign on it, as may the no side, but neither has responsibility for it.

27-05-2018 05:58PM

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

I predicted a couple of months ago (with what I thought was humorous exaggeration) that the pro-life movement would evaporate the instant the result was announced, if it was a yes. Looks like it happened even quicker than that...

I don't think this will be the case

https://www.facebook.com/savethe8th/posts/1376655072478676

The leadership of the various groups wont go away.

I'd say we could potentially see the likes of youth defence attacking medics and being abusive to patients around hospitals and GPs similar to how they acted around family planning clinics and hospitals in the 90s.

They should be allowed protest, but on the balance of this if they start acting like they have in the past they will have no grounds for complaint if physically removed or arrested by the Gardai.

Exit poll: The post referendum thread. No electioneering.

Comments