Exit poll: The post referendum thread. No electioneering.

pleas advice wrote: »

Other than ultrasound, what would give an accurate gestational age?

Date from LMP, as was relied upon for centuries, before ultrasound machines were invented?

iguana wrote: »

In early pregnancy, HCG levels are an accurate indicator of gestational age. Scans don't provide pinpoint accuracy either past the first few weeks. Mine was a week off by 8 weeks past gestation. This attempt at an amendment is nothing more than an attempt to make 'bad' women submit to a transvaginal scan as some sort of warped attempt to punish them. It's disgusting but completely transparent.

Incorrect, there is a huge range of HCG levels so you couldn’t use them to see if someone is 6 weeks vs 9 weeks

foreverandever wrote: »

Incorrect, there is a huge range of HCG levels so you couldn’t use them to see if someone is 6 weeks vs 9 weeks

In the majority of cases HCG levels will be an accurate enough indicator. If someone says they are 4 weeks past gestation and they are actually 13, urine will tell you they are wrong. If they are 6weeks pregnant you will know they aren't actually in the second trimester, etc. It will suffice in most cases to let a doctor know if a pregnancy is early enough for medical termination.

It won't be accurate enough for a doctor to know if a woman who believes she is 9/10 weeks pregnant is correct or not. But by that stage scans aren't actually accurate enough to rely on either. There is less of a margin of error but it still exists. A scan can't be relied on to accurately say a woman is either 10 or 11 weeks pregnant, other measures have to be assessed too. I know precisely when my son was conceived. By 8 weeks past gestation all my scans were wrong and showing me to be entering the 2nd trimester. Earlier scans had been absolutely precise but once he was passed that point his rate of growth was faster than average and the scans could not be used for dating accuracy.

gandalf wrote: »

Ah it's the usual suspects wasting time as normal. Just when you think our TDs can't get any worse they lower the bar further.

At least they got rumbled on their claims of not filibusting when they continued to talk on an amendment that was flawed and couldn't be passed after that fact was pointed out to them.

Spend more time talking about how they are being silenced than actually trying to contribute something.
Not that I'm surprised

iguana wrote: »

In the majority of cases HCG levels will be an accurate enough indicator. If someone says they are 4 weeks past gestation and they are actually 13, urine will tell you they are wrong. If they are 6weeks pregnant you will know they aren't actually in the second trimester, etc. It will suffice in most cases to let a doctor know if a pregnancy is early enough for medical termination.

It won't be accurate enough for a doctor to know if a woman who believes she is 9/10 weeks pregnant is correct or not. But by that stage scans aren't actually accurate enough to rely on either. There is less of a margin of error but it still exists. A scan can't be relied on to accurately say a woman is either 10 or 11 weeks pregnant, other measures have to be assessed too. I know precisely when my son was conceived. By 8 weeks past gestation all my scans were wrong and showing me to be entering the 2nd trimester. Earlier scans had been absolutely precise but once he was passed that point his rate of growth was faster than average and the scans could not be used for dating accuracy.

No you’re still wrong, see the post above. And urine is 100% incorrect.

iguana wrote: »

I'm not wrong. I know exactly how it works. In the first few weeks of pregnancy in the vast, vast majority of cases HCG will allow a doctor to know that the pregnancy is early enough for medical termination. Urine is a fine indicator in the early weeks, blood may be taken for increased accuracy later on. When HCG level are too high for certainty, whether because the pregnancy is further advanced than presumed, multiple embryos or just very high levels, then scans can be utilised at the doctors' discretion. But that's when it's in the doctors' opinion that a scan is needed, not because of some punitive addition to the law extremely invasive* procedure to be mandatory when in many cases it will be completely unnecessary.

*In early pregnancy only a transvaginal scan will get an image of the sac/embryo. This is an intimate, invasive procedure that no-one should ever have to go through without their full consent. Most especially not a woman who may be very vulnerable at the time.

Before I start here are some of the medical references.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/17803619/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/17803618/?i=2&from=/17803619/related

For the 8 to 18 week age period, regular abdominal ultrasound is the gold standard to age gestation. Out by a few days in a population.

Run the wand across the belly. No requirement for transvaginal scan. This claim is scare mongering.

If nothing is showing, it's less than 6 weeks.
Something showing, 6-8 weeks.
Clear embryo which can be measured 8-10 weeks.
Clear fetal formation, 10-12 weeks. Just look up what to expect for the 8 week scan.

That's why there is a 9 week referal to the hospital, the hospital will have more accurate reliable equipment.

As for the others:

Urine, reasonably accurate up to 3 weeks, then it just confirms you are definitely pregnant. Please provide a reference to support accuracy claims.

HCG. Idication up to about 5 weeks, after that just well pregnant. Please supply a reference to support claims after 5 weeks.

LMP can be accurate but is very subjective and doesn't work for women with irregular cycles.

All reminds me of the time I was stopped at a morning random checkpoint last year.

Garda: Did you have any drink last night?
Me: Yes, three or four
Garda: You should be fine and seem fine but, I just need to be accurate for legal reasons. Can you just below into this bag.
Me: OK.
Garda: You are clear to go. A small bit showing but well below the limit.
Me: Fine.

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

Is this really their most egregious proposal, compared to say the one on "dignified disposal of foetal remains"? I don't believe this stuff should be specified in legislation but in practice I'd imagine women seeking abortions will be asked most of these questions anyway.

Interesting historical article on Slate.com about one of the early heroes of the legal abortion movement in the US, Patricia Maginnis. Good quote useful when understanding what these anti-woman TD's are up to along with the 'conscientious' doctors that are attempting to delay things:
--
(talking about what the state of things was when Maginnis took on the SF legal establishment)

"In either case, the debate revolved around doctors’ preferences and anxieties." (and not the woman's, my paraphrasing)
---
https://slate.com/human-interest/2018/12/pat-maginnis-abortion-rights-pro-choice-activist.html

uptherebels wrote: »

adjorned for 5 min by the ceann comhairle because mattie won't shut up. They have not even started and his persecution complex is at full throttle.:rolleyes:

Can he be censured?

ELM327 wrote: »

or aborted?


Seriously though... these men need to move on and realise that Ireland and its people have voted in their numbers against him and his ilk.

Realization's beyond them. They benefit too much from the status quo.

By censure, I meant, excluded from the debate if all he does is abuse his privilege. Seems almost like this is a gobsh!te's attempt at filibuster

Igotadose wrote: »

Realization's beyond them. They benefit too much from the status quo.

By censure, I meant, excluded from the debate if all he does is abuse his privilege. Seems almost like this is a gobsh!te's attempt at filibuster

Peadar said he had someone do a word-count to show they aren't filibusting :pac:
apparently it was 45k words to 50k, his side on 50k (i think)
doesn't seem to realise that its not just the speaking for 7 minutes
no mention of not withdrawing the unworkable amendment or submitting terrible amendments that aren't even close to having any support.

It's live now on Oireachtas TV.

That appears to have been the final Dail vote. 90-15 and the Bill goes to the Seanad.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/d%C3%A1il-passes-landmark-bill-providing-for-access-to-abortion-1.3721628

Sandor Clegane wrote: »

Mattie Mcgrath symbolizes all the hateful, repressive and downright evil attitudes of the Ireland of old, he wont be happy until Church and State are reinstated and the Magdalene laundries are reopened.

Deplorable man.

But sure didn't he fix the roads?