Eighth Amendment poll

[Rufus T Firefly]

"Would you believe" team  did a good documentary last night on RTE 1:  "An Irish Solution".

Gave people on both sides of debate good time, mostly talking from experience rather than quoting facts and figures that everyone questions anyway.

For example they spoke with people dealing with FFA that had terminations and also those that went to term.  Spoke with parents (for and against) of people with Down Syndrome.

They examined Norway and it's experience of abortion as they thought laws were similar to Ireland.   Looked at how doctors, religious and women wrestle with aspects.   

I thought that if you are going to have abortion their model is much more sensitive (if that is right word) than UK for example.  They shun surgical abortion.  Women take tablets themselves rather than having medics administer drugs (Woman takes ownership).   After the event children are afforded baptism, funeral etc.  A lot of counselling before and after.  Public hospitals only, no private companies allowed.  Teenagers get free and confidential counselling, sex education and contraception in state run centres.    Also looked at societal issues around disability in Norway.

To me, looking for guidance in advance of the referendum it was 1,000 times better than Claire Byrne/Primetime shows.

As every the "Would you Believe" team excel.

/Jim.

I would have to say I would really struggle with that concept.

My sense would be that the vast majority of women contemplating an abortion would not regard the foetus as a human being. If the remains are being given a baptism and funeral, that suggests to me that the foetus is considered a child but the decision is being taken to kill it and then provide services to recognize that life! 

[stephenite]

"Would you believe" team  did a good documentary last night on RTE 1:  "An Irish Solution".

Gave people on both sides of debate good time, mostly talking from experience rather than quoting facts and figures that everyone questions anyway.

For example they spoke with people dealing with FFA that had terminations and also those that went to term.  Spoke with parents (for and against) of people with Down Syndrome.

They examined Norway and it's experience of abortion as they thought laws were similar to Ireland.   Looked at how doctors, religious and women wrestle with aspects.   

I thought that if you are going to have abortion their model is much more sensitive (if that is right word) than UK for example.  They shun surgical abortion.  Women take tablets themselves rather than having medics administer drugs (Woman takes ownership).   After the event children are afforded baptism, funeral etc.  A lot of counselling before and after.  Public hospitals only, no private companies allowed.  Teenagers get free and confidential counselling, sex education and contraception in state run centres.    Also looked at societal issues around disability in Norway.

To me, looking for guidance in advance of the referendum it was 1,000 times better than Claire Byrne/Primetime shows.

As every the "Would you Believe" team excel.

/Jim.

I would have to say I would really struggle with that concept.

My sense would be that the vast majority of women contemplating an abortion would not regard the foetus as a human being. If the remains are being given a baptism and funeral, that suggests to me that the foetus is considered a child but the decision is being taken to kill it and then provide services to recognize that life!

This post sums up a lot of why I find the entire debate depressing.

1. The assumption that it is only the woman who could/would contemplate an abortion.
2. Assumption that said decision infers SHE would not regard the foetus as a human being.
3. Regardless of above, that if the decision is taken point 2 is invalid one way or the other.

Knuckle dragging ape

[Rufus T Firefly]

Very decent of you - thanks for the personal attack my friend.

This post sums up a lot of why I find the entire debate depressing.

1. The assumption that it is only the woman who could/would contemplate an abortion.
2. Assumption that said decision infers SHE would not regard the foetus as a human being.
3. Regardless of above, that if the decision is taken point 2 is invalid one way or the other.

Knuckle dragging ape

I'll hold my hands up on point 1 - absolutely, it could be a man who would heavily influence the decision.

You have chosen to separate points 2 and 3 and the argument I'm making is that they are inextricably linked.

And yes, I accept that this scenario can happen - I'm saying that I struggle with the notion that a foetus / child can be killed and then offered a Christian service.

[AZOffaly]

Very decent of you - thanks for the personal attack my friend.

This post sums up a lot of why I find the entire debate depressing.

1. The assumption that it is only the woman who could/would contemplate an abortion.
2. Assumption that said decision infers SHE would not regard the foetus as a human being.
3. Regardless of above, that if the decision is taken point 2 is invalid one way or the other.

Knuckle dragging ape

I'll hold my hands up on point 1 - absolutely, it could be a man who would heavily influence the decision.

You have chosen to separate points 2 and 3 and the argument I'm making is that they are inextricably linked.

And yes, I accept that this scenario can happen - I'm saying that I struggle with the notion that a foetus / child can be killed and then offered a Christian service.

I understand what you are saying Rufus, but I think it's offered, and I imagine availed of, in scenarios where there are fatal foetal abnormalities. In that case, it wouldn't be contradictory, it would just be happening earlier than it would happen if the pregnancy wasn't terminated.

[Jim_Murphy_74]

I'm saying that I struggle with the notion that a foetus / child can be killed and then offered a Christian service.

I think that what Norwegian system conveys is that, to them as a society abortion is a necessary evil.  However, the doctors interviewed conveyed that it was not something they were entirely comfortable with.  The whole treatment with chaplin and acknowledgement of the baby (especially later term babies) is a reflection of the fact that this is a serious and moral matter.   It's a case that abortion is legal but not taken lightly.

/Jim.

[magpie seanie]

I'm saying that I struggle with the notion that a foetus / child can be killed and then offered a Christian service.

I think that what Norwegian system conveys is that, to them as a society abortion is a necessary evil.  However, the doctors interviewed conveyed that it was not something they were entirely comfortable with.  The whole treatment with chaplin and acknowledgement of the baby (especially later term babies) is a reflection of the fact that this is a serious and moral matter.   It's a case that abortion is legal but not taken lightly.

/Jim.

Good points Jim. There is no perfect solution. I'm voting Yes as I believe what's on the table is the (much) lesser of two evils. I don't know anyone who is "pro-abortion"....in fact the notion is patently ridiculous. I've just listened to a "debate" on OceanFM radio where the wonderful Declan Ganley (in between waffling and ignoring every question he was asked) maintained several times it is a simple black and white choice - you're either for abortion or against it. Anyone with any level of intelligence knows it's not black and white. So the constitution is not the place to deal with the issue. Legislation is and for those who "don't trust" politicians - listen to this....The citizens assembly proposed a more liberal 22 weeks but it was the Oireachtas committee that reduced the limit to the proposed 12 weeks. And I've outlines time and again here why that's a common sense approach to deal with the realities of what's happening today.

[macdanger2]

What will happen in the instance that a woman presents at say 11 weeks, has the 72h waiting period and then maybe can't get a hospital apt for 2 weeks. Would the abortion be allowed or not? Or would it be prioritised by the hospital? Or sent to a private clinic?

[magpie seanie]

The youngest person with down syndrome in Iceland is 20. Clearly they have a cultural policy to eliminate the weakest or those who do not conform to some ideal model. Shame on them, hopefully Ireland does not head the same way. What choice did these babies have or were the parents coerced into making their decision. Progressive society not. Savita Halapanavar died of sepsis not for the need of an abortion. I will be voting no, I do feel huge sympathy for couples with cases of ffa.

Can't let this go. She died of sepsis because she was denied the proper medical treatment to save her life because of concerns of her doctors over the 8th amendment. It couldn't be clearer. She wouldn't have died in most countries in the world as it wouldn't have been in question.

[magpie seanie]

What will happen in the instance that a woman presents at say 11 weeks, has the 72h waiting period and then maybe can't get a hospital apt for 2 weeks. Would the abortion be allowed or not? Or would it be prioritised by the hospital? Or sent to a private clinic?

I don't know. I'd hope if these provisions come in that there would be efficient procedures and resources to avoid this scenario. In any event I don't think the hypothetical woman in this case should be punished for a systems failure - do you? We've had enough women punished by our health system failing over the years.

[sid waddell]

I'm saying that I struggle with the notion that a foetus / child can be killed and then offered a Christian service.

I think that what Norwegian system conveys is that, to them as a society abortion is a necessary evil.  However, the doctors interviewed conveyed that it was not something they were entirely comfortable with.  The whole treatment with chaplin and acknowledgement of the baby (especially later term babies) is a reflection of the fact that this is a serious and moral matter.   It's a case that abortion is legal but not taken lightly.

/Jim.

Good points Jim. There is no perfect solution. I'm voting Yes as I believe what's on the table is the (much) lesser of two evils. I don't know anyone who is "pro-abortion"....in fact the notion is patently ridiculous. I've just listened to a "debate" on OceanFM radio where the wonderful Declan Ganley (in between waffling and ignoring every question he was asked) maintained several times it is a simple black and white choice - you're either for abortion or against it. Anyone with any level of intelligence knows it's not black and white. So the constitution is not the place to deal with the issue. Legislation is and for those who "don't trust" politicians - listen to this....The citizens assembly proposed a more liberal 22 weeks but it was the Oireachtas committee that reduced the limit to the proposed 12 weeks. And I've outlines time and again here why that's a common sense approach to deal with the realities of what's happening today.

There's a real similarity here between hard Brexit and the 8th Amendment.

Both are deeply simplistic, black and white, deluded, utterly unworkable ideas which hark back to the 1940s, and to which the concept of nuance is an affront.

Supporters of both simply do not understand you cannot turn the clock back to a previous time.

And the supporters of both hard Brexit and the 8th Amendment don't give a flying sheet about the real consequences for Irish people.

194,000 more people voted to give Irish women the explicit right to have an abortion in 1992 than voted for the 8th Amendment in 1983.

That is irrefutable proof that the deepest hypocrisy existed and still exists about Irish people's attitude to abortion.

The dirty little secret the No campaign has is that the 8th Amendment relies for its existence on Britiain's abortion laws.

If, hypothetically, Britain banned abortion tomorrow morning, No campaigners in Ireland would be fuming, because they would no longer have the safety valve that is necessary to indulge their delusion that abortion doesn't happen in Ireland.

To put it another way, the 8th Amendment is umbilically tied to Britain's abortion laws, which offer it protection like a foetus is protected by a mother's womb.

To survive, the 8th Amendment needs legalised abortion in Britain.

The 8th Amendment is fundamentally about delusion, illusion and cowardice - the delusion of the idea of Holy Catlick Oireland which was built up in opposition to Cruel, Godless England, the illusion that abortion isn't happening in Ireland, and the cowardice of abandoning the women who live in this state who feel they need an abortion.

[sid waddell]

The youngest person with down syndrome in Iceland is 20. Clearly they have a cultural policy to eliminate the weakest or those who do not conform to some ideal model. Shame on them, hopefully Ireland does not head the same way. What choice did these babies have or were the parents coerced into making their decision. Progressive society not. Savita Halapanavar died of sepsis not for the need of an abortion. I will be voting no, I do feel huge sympathy for couples with cases of ffa.

Can't let this go. She died of sepsis because she was denied the proper medical treatment to save her life because of concerns of her doctors over the 8th amendment. It couldn't be clearer. She wouldn't have died in most countries in the world as it wouldn't have been in question.

Prof Sir Sabaratnam Arulkumaran, author of the independent report into Savita's death:

https://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/medic-savita-died-as-result-of-abortion-laws-461173.html

"It was very clear the things holding the hands of physicians was the legal issue. Anybody, any junior doctor, would have said this is a sepsis condition, we must terminate.

"She did have sepsis. However, if she had a termination in the first days as requested, she would not have had sepsis. We would never have heard of her and she would be alive today."

[macdanger2]

What will happen in the instance that a woman presents at say 11 weeks, has the 72h waiting period and then maybe can't get a hospital apt for 2 weeks. Would the abortion be allowed or not? Or would it be prioritised by the hospital? Or sent to a private clinic?

I don't know. I'd hope if these provisions come in that there would be efficient procedures and resources to avoid this scenario. In any event I don't think the hypothetical woman in this case should be punished for a systems failure - do you? We've had enough women punished by our health system failing over the years.

I'm not saying anyone should be punished but this type of thing will surely arise and there'll be uproar if it's decided on a ad-hoc basis one way or the other.

[Rudi]

The youngest person with down syndrome in Iceland is 20. Clearly they have a cultural policy to eliminate the weakest or those who do not conform to some ideal model. Shame on them, hopefully Ireland does not head the same way. What choice did these babies have or were the parents coerced into making their decision. Progressive society not. Savita Halapanavar died of sepsis not for the need of an abortion. I will be voting no, I do feel huge sympathy for couples with cases of ffa.

Can't let this go. She died of sepsis because she was denied the proper medical treatment to save her life because of concerns of her doctors over the 8th amendment. It couldn't be clearer. She wouldn't have died in most countries in the world as it wouldn't have been in question.

Cant let this go either. A huge number of prominent consultants have came out and clearly explained the doctors in this case fucked up, nothing in the 8th amendment should have caused the death of SH.

[magpie seanie]

The youngest person with down syndrome in Iceland is 20. Clearly they have a cultural policy to eliminate the weakest or those who do not conform to some ideal model. Shame on them, hopefully Ireland does not head the same way. What choice did these babies have or were the parents coerced into making their decision. Progressive society not. Savita Halapanavar died of sepsis not for the need of an abortion. I will be voting no, I do feel huge sympathy for couples with cases of ffa.

Can't let this go. She died of sepsis because she was denied the proper medical treatment to save her life because of concerns of her doctors over the 8th amendment. It couldn't be clearer. She wouldn't have died in most countries in the world as it wouldn't have been in question.

Cant let this go either. A huge number of prominent consultants have came out and clearly explained the doctors in this case fucked up, nothing in the 8th amendment should have caused the death of SH.

Name and quote them and please indicate the level of access and knowledge they have about this case.

The official report is above. You wish to refute it so you'll need to do better than what you've said.

Even if you're right, it shows there is at best confusion among highly paid and educated professionals about the 8th amendment which is leading to improper treatment of women.

[Hound]

I'm saying that I struggle with the notion that a foetus / child can be killed and then offered a Christian service.

I think that what Norwegian system conveys is that, to them as a society abortion is a necessary evil.  However, the doctors interviewed conveyed that it was not something they were entirely comfortable with.  The whole treatment with chaplin and acknowledgement of the baby (especially later term babies) is a reflection of the fact that this is a serious and moral matter.   It's a case that abortion is legal but not taken lightly.

/Jim.

Good points Jim. There is no perfect solution. I'm voting Yes as I believe what's on the table is the (much) lesser of two evils. I don't know anyone who is "pro-abortion"....in fact the notion is patently ridiculous. I've just listened to a "debate" on OceanFM radio where the wonderful Declan Ganley (in between waffling and ignoring every question he was asked) maintained several times it is a simple black and white choice - you're either for abortion or against it. Anyone with any level of intelligence knows it's not black and white. So the constitution is not the place to deal with the issue. Legislation is and for those who "don't trust" politicians - listen to this....The citizens assembly proposed a more liberal 22 weeks but it was the Oireachtas committee that reduced the limit to the proposed 12 weeks. And I've outlines time and again here why that's a common sense approach to deal with the realities of what's happening today.

There's a real similarity here between hard Brexit and the 8th Amendment.

Both are deeply simplistic, black and white, deluded, utterly unworkable ideas which hark back to the 1940s, and to which the concept of nuance is an affront.

Supporters of both simply do not understand you cannot turn the clock back to a previous time.

And the supporters of both hard Brexit and the 8th Amendment don't give a flying sheet about the real consequences for Irish people.

194,000 more people voted to give Irish women the explicit right to have an abortion in 1992 than voted for the 8th Amendment in 1983.

That is irrefutable proof that the deepest hypocrisy existed and still exists about Irish people's attitude to abortion.

The dirty little secret the No campaign has is that the 8th Amendment relies for its existence on Britiain's abortion laws.

If, hypothetically, Britain banned abortion tomorrow morning, No campaigners in Ireland would be fuming, because they would no longer have the safety valve that is necessary to indulge their delusion that abortion doesn't happen in Ireland.

To put it another way, the 8th Amendment is umbilically tied to Britain's abortion laws, which offer it protection like a foetus is protected by a mother's womb.

To survive, the 8th Amendment needs legalised abortion in Britain.

The 8th Amendment is fundamentally about delusion, illusion and cowardice - the delusion of the idea of Holy Catlick Oireland which was built up in opposition to Cruel, Godless England, the illusion that abortion isn't happening in Ireland, and the cowardice of abandoning the women who live in this state who feel they need an abortion.

Christonabike, you're the worst debater I've ever come across. You do exactly what you accuse the No campaigners of, and for all your plethora of posts, you would have convinced not a single person who was undecided to vote Yes. Just like the opposite headcases on the No side you give out about would have convinced nobody to vote No. 

The stuff about the No campaign being upset if the UK banned abortion is absolute and utter nonsense. Most people on the No side are just not comfortable with blanket abortions up to 12 weeks. So I'm sure they would be delighted if UK banned it. People wanting abortions would presumably go to Iceland or Italy or somewhere else.