Exit poll: The post referendum thread. No electioneering.

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

I still disagree it is not impossible to love both that is just a silly.
There is all this talk about those who suffered because of the 8th amendment.
On the other side of the coin there are those who have been born because of the 8th amendment?

That are now living happy lives?
There are bound to be mothers that say I am glad I didn't have that abortion when she looks into her child's eyes etc etc.

Thank you for returning to the point. You are entitled to your view, I will not put you down for it. But I will argue that you are wrong.

Firstly, the term 'love both' already has an inherent argument contained within it.
Would you still love the mother after the abortion?

Secondly, not once during the campaign did the no side present anyone who'd not had an abortion because it was illegal, which was all the 8th guaranteed..they knew that argument was already lost. They only presented women who'd had one and then regretted it, or those who had been persuaded to not have one. Apart from slogans which sounded good, no one on the no side had proof or I dare say believed the 8th saved a single life.

pleas advice wrote: »

are there any cases where a death was unavoidable, because of the 8th, but wouldn't have been otherwise? Any that I have seen linked, those deaths were not unavoidably caused by the 8th.

Is there any chance you would realise, even a little bit, that any women, whether due to right to travel or suicide, where long gone, and that any woman who died during childbirth, thanks to the 8th or not, actually wanted to have their babies?

yes.

is there any evidence for this statement
"The only lives the 8th could subsequently affect were mothers who actually wanted children, not to save but to kill, and it did that ruthlessly." ?

pleas advice wrote: »

yes.

is there any evidence for this statement
"The only lives the 8th could subsequently affect were mothers who actually wanted children, not to save but to kill, and it did that ruthlessly." ?

I think we both know we don't have to delve back too far to come up with an example. The term ruthless is because the 8th left no room for manoeuvre, its not a reflection on any individual.

[Deleted User]

pleas advice wrote: »

yes.

is there any evidence for this statement
"The only lives the 8th could subsequently affect were mothers who actually wanted children, not to save but to kill, and it did that ruthlessly." ?

Yep people not wanting to die or have their health affected for the rest of their lives are pretty ruthless alright, never mind the torment felt by others who were raped and found themselves pregnant, they were probably just asking for it right?

Good night to ya.

DubInMeath wrote: »

Yep people not wanting to die or have their health affected for the rest of their lives are pretty ruthless alright, never mind the torment felt by others who were raped and found themselves pregnant, they were probably just asking for it right?

Good night to ya.

all I'm asking, and it shouldn't be too hard to answer, is: is there even one case where a woman died, where the death was inevitable because of the 8th. (ie. the doctors did all they possibly could, within the law, and still the patient died) where she wouldn't have died otherwise?

DickSwiveller

Cupcake_Crisis wrote: »

Maybe we are, but that’s purely because there’s more of us. You can’t blame yes voters because no voters aren’t posting, and if they are posting it’s not anything to majorly help your argument.

And for what it’s worth, I don’t think going forward (legislation wise) is going to be messy. I think if the no side had anything nasty up their sleeves they’d have done it by now. In my opinion the legislation will be in place, relatively bump free, by January. Because there’s nothing to be gained by the no side by opposing the legislation now.

No posters aren't posting because they are met with a stream of ad hominem abuse by a mob. You can hardly Blame them

DubInMeath wrote: »

Yep people not wanting to die or have their health affected for the rest of their lives are pretty ruthless alright, never mind the torment felt by others who were raped and found themselves pregnant, they were probably just asking for it right?

Good night to ya.

Not helpful or relevant in any shape or form.

gctest50

DickSwiveller wrote: »

No posters aren't posting because they are met with a stream of ad hominem abuse by a mob. You can hardly Blame them

It's because this is a Yes country

spookwoman

pleas advice wrote: »

all I'm asking, and it shouldn't be too hard to answer, is: is there even one case where a woman died, where the death was inevitable because of the 8th. (ie. the doctors did all they possibly could, within the law, and still the patient died) where she wouldn't have died otherwise?

pleas advice wrote: »

all I'm asking, and it shouldn't be too hard to answer, is: is there even one case where a woman died, where the death was inevitable because of the 8th. (ie. the doctors did all they possibly could, within the law, and still the patient died) where she wouldn't have died otherwise?

You're clutching at straws now, and you know you are!

The death was never inevitable because of the 8th, it was as a result of the 8th.

To indicate foresight (inevitability) means that it was a deliberate act and you've already explained in your brackets that this was not the case.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Bn3YQDuemk

gctest50 wrote: »

It's because this is a Yes country

gctest50

DickSwiveller wrote: »

No posters aren't posting because they are met with a stream of ad hominem abuse by a mob. You can hardly Blame them

or maybe it's because ..... this is a Catholic country

DickSwiveller

gctest50 wrote: »

or maybe it's because ..... this is a Catholic country

I've no idea what you're on about

DickSwiveller wrote: »

I've no idea what you're on about

DickSwiveller (what an unfortunate name:)), or any other no voters, i'd be happy to argue any legitimate arguments you might want to make regarding the 8th amendment without resorting to pettiness.

Otherwise this thread is dead.

retro:electro

pleas advice wrote: »

all I'm asking, and it shouldn't be too hard to answer, is: is there even one case where a woman died, where the death was inevitable because of the 8th. (ie. the doctors did all they possibly could, within the law, and still the patient died) where she wouldn't have died otherwise?

I’m not sure what this question even means? The 8th wasn’t a virus or a contagious plague. Nobody caught a dose of the 8th and inevitably died as a result. The 8th was a barrier which specifically prohibited doctors from treating pregnant women in the same manner as they would a non pregnant woman.
It was due to the 8th that doctors couldn’t do all they could to save lives. The 8th placed the life of the unborn and the mother at equal value. They were to be treated equally. And in Savita’s case treated equally they were; as in they both died.

under the law as it was at the time, Savita could have been saved. She shouldn't have died, she needn't have died, even with the 8th amendment in place.

Mrtestosterone

Well looks like abortion on demand won't be available anymore, surprise surprise

https://m.independent.ie/irish-news/independent-td-plans-amendments-that-could-delay-abortion-law-36967331.html

pleas advice wrote: »

under the law as it was at the time, Savita could have been saved. She shouldn't have died, she needn't have died, even with the 8th amendment in place.

And yet the doctors were very much under the influence of the 8th in deciding they could not perform an abortion in spite of the diagnosis of inevitable miscarriage at 17 weeks. The doctor in charge of the inquest into her death confirmed that the 8th played a major factor in her death and mishandled care. http://www.thejournal.ie/doctors-savita-halappanavar-4027207-May2018/

Even on the last day, before she went into septic shock, they were checking the foetal heart rate, whether it was present or not.

In another country where there was not such a restriction they would have terminated the pregnancy two or three days earlier.

Whatever about what people might say, that morning just the fact that the health personnel wanted to listen to the baby’s heart that morning when she was severely sick, just indicates how worried the health personnel were about terminating the pregnancy.

Next perhaps you can review the definition of insanity? But please, keep trying to pretend the 8th never killed anybody - never mind that it is an irrelevant question at this point given that the 8th is dead and done.

Oh and in case anyone was keeping score: I haven't received a PM from Outlaw Pete confirming receipt of the 100 Euros he pledged to Santa Strike Force.

Overheal wrote: »

And yet the doctors were very much under the influence of the 8th in deciding they could not perform an abortion in spite of the diagnosis of inevitable miscarriage at 17 weeks.

where have I denied that?
Just one case where a death was inevitable, because of the 8th, thats all I'm asking for...

We know in Savita's case, things were missed, things could have been handled differently, lack of communication, etc. Her death was not an inevitable consequence of the 8th amendment.
What other cases are there?

pleas advice wrote: »

where have I denied that?
Just one case where a death was inevitable, because of the 8th, thats all I'm asking for...

We know in Savita's case, things were missed, things could have been handled differently, lack of communication, etc. Her death was not an inevitable consequence of the 8th amendment.
What other cases are there?

That's your one case: Savita.

Overheal wrote: »

Next perhaps you can review the definition of insanity?

something about doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results? Like the HSE not implementing any checks and procedures after cases like Ms Halappanavar that had occured in other hospitals in the decades before?

Overheal wrote: »

That's your one case: Savita.

not inevitable, could have and should have been prevented, within the law, as it was at the time

DickSwiveller wrote: »

I've no idea what you're on about

Doesn't surprise me in the least.

pleas advice wrote: »

something about doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results? Like the HSE not implementing any checks and procedures after cases like Ms Halappanavar that had occured in other hospitals in the decades before?

Like continuing to pretend the 8th didn't get a woman killed as if your opinion is going to save the 8th at this point.

Can we at all move on and let the woman rest in peace?

the 8th is gone, we know that. that battle is over, that war is over.

the 8th was a factor, one of many, in the death of Savita, the 'no' side agrees that, the 'yes' side doesn't seem to want to acknowledge any other factors, or drop the issue, and let the woman rest in peace.

...

Fighting Tao wrote: »

pleas advice wrote: »

We can all agree it was a tragedy that needn't have happened

It was a tragedy but one that should never have happened and only did so because of the 8th.