Eighth Amendment poll

Started by Farrandeelin, May 01, 2018, 03:36:55 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

Are you in favour of repealing the 8th amendment?

Yes
47 (21.8%)
Yes but have no vote
73 (33.8%)
No
40 (18.5%)
No but have no vote
36 (16.7%)
Undecided
20 (9.3%)

Total Members Voted: 216

Voting closed: May 24, 2018, 03:36:55 PM

Hardy

Quote from: omaghjoe on May 05, 2018, 08:04:02 AM
Quote from: Hardy on May 04, 2018, 04:45:24 PM
If when the proposed legislation is enacted it will de facto represent the majority wish of the electorate, since that's what we elect governments for. If the electorate wishes to change its mind on the legislation, there will be a general election in due course.

eh?... with a minority government that won 25% of the popular vote?
General elections are not single issue plebiscites

Wow! I never thought of that.

What the hell are we going to do now that all our laws are invalid because one party doesn't have a majority in the government?

omaghjoe

Quote from: Hardy on May 05, 2018, 11:38:12 AM
Quote from: omaghjoe on May 05, 2018, 08:04:02 AM
Quote from: Hardy on May 04, 2018, 04:45:24 PM
If when the proposed legislation is enacted it will de facto represent the majority wish of the electorate, since that's what we elect governments for. If the electorate wishes to change its mind on the legislation, there will be a general election in due course.

eh?... with a minority government that won 25% of the popular vote?
General elections are not single issue plebiscites

Wow! I never thought of that.

What the hell are we going to do now that all our laws are invalid because one party doesn't have a majority in the government?

You didn't? I would have thought that obvious TBH

The laws won't be invalid but they in no way represent the wish of the majority  especially on single issues like you were professing.

Syferus

Quote from: omaghjoe on May 05, 2018, 04:39:43 PM
Quote from: Hardy on May 05, 2018, 11:38:12 AM
Quote from: omaghjoe on May 05, 2018, 08:04:02 AM
Quote from: Hardy on May 04, 2018, 04:45:24 PM
If when the proposed legislation is enacted it will de facto represent the majority wish of the electorate, since that's what we elect governments for. If the electorate wishes to change its mind on the legislation, there will be a general election in due course.

eh?... with a minority government that won 25% of the popular vote?
General elections are not single issue plebiscites

Wow! I never thought of that.

What the hell are we going to do now that all our laws are invalid because one party doesn't have a majority in the government?

You didn't? I would have thought that obvious TBH

The laws won't be invalid but they in no way represent the wish of the majority  especially on single issues like you were professing.

Do Tyrone people have a sarcasm bypass at birth or something?

sid waddell

Quote from: Syferus on May 05, 2018, 05:52:11 PM
Quote from: omaghjoe on May 05, 2018, 04:39:43 PM
Quote from: Hardy on May 05, 2018, 11:38:12 AM
Quote from: omaghjoe on May 05, 2018, 08:04:02 AM
Quote from: Hardy on May 04, 2018, 04:45:24 PM
If when the proposed legislation is enacted it will de facto represent the majority wish of the electorate, since that's what we elect governments for. If the electorate wishes to change its mind on the legislation, there will be a general election in due course.

eh?... with a minority government that won 25% of the popular vote?
General elections are not single issue plebiscites

Wow! I never thought of that.

What the hell are we going to do now that all our laws are invalid because one party doesn't have a majority in the government?

You didn't? I would have thought that obvious TBH

The laws won't be invalid but they in no way represent the wish of the majority  especially on single issues like you were professing.

Do Tyrone people have a sarcasm bypass at birth or something?
The Ballygawley bypass isn't the only one in the county, you know.

magpie seanie

Quote from: trileacman on May 05, 2018, 10:00:36 AM
Just a question for the Yes voters, do you see any problem with the large scale abortion of children with abnormalities? I seen a guardian piece lately that said 92% of babies with Down's syndrome were aborted in England since the pre natal screen for Down's syndrome came in. There were also suggestions that a similar pre natal test for aspergers and autism could see a similar discrimination against those conditions.

What's your argument in favour of conditions like that?

No one is arguing for that. It's a complete red herring and typical of the misinformation being put about by the No campaign. Under the proposed legislation elective abortions are not available after 12 weeks. As I understand it the test for Down's is only possible around 20 weeks. So there will be no change here in those circumstances.

magpie seanie

Quote from: macdanger2 on May 05, 2018, 12:23:59 AM
Quote from: sid waddell on May 04, 2018, 11:54:24 PM
Quote from: macdanger2 on May 04, 2018, 10:51:04 PM
Quote from: magpie seanie on May 04, 2018, 07:16:58 PM

While we're speaking about things being disingenuous - the "1 in 5" posters by the no campaign are an absolute disgrace. Statistically/factually incorrect and using the comparison of Britain which has vastly more liberal abortion laws that what is proposed for here if there's a yes vote. We have a referendum commission - surely they should have powers to prevent outright lies being peddled. There may be examples on the Yes side but I've not seen them (and I'm biased of course).


When I saw the posters, I assumed that that was bull also so I looked it up and as far as I could see, it's correct. In the last 50 years, there's been ~35m kids born in the UK (according to what looked like the UK CSO website) and 8.7m abortions (according to wiki) so it seems to be legit. I didn't interrogate those figures to any great extent so open to correction on those however

The statistic is inaccurate because it leaves out the 1 in 6 pregnancies which end in a miscarriage.

But here's the thing - the rate of abortion in the UK is irrelevant - in every single case, it is, thankfully, the woman's right to choose whether to continue with a pregnancy or not.

In every single case, the woman has the right to choose the correct decision for her. That's as it should be, and as it should be in Ireland too.

Fair enough, never considered that, should be 1 in 6 so.

On your other point, tbh I think speaking in absolute terms (or what sounds like absolute terms at least) such as that hard to understand. If a woman decided to abort at 36 weeks would that also be her choice? I don't think it would be good for society for such a thing to be allowed (even though it would be a rare rare occurrence)

No matter what your viewpoint, an absolute view on such a complex issue is incorrect imo - otherwise if you're a no voter, you believe that anything after the initial conception is murder and if you're a yes voter,  anything before birth is the mother's decision.

Also - not all miscarriages are reported so that would further widen the ratio. It's a completely false claim.

omaghjoe

Quote from: magpie seanie on May 08, 2018, 04:28:43 PM
Quote from: macdanger2 on May 05, 2018, 12:23:59 AM
Quote from: sid waddell on May 04, 2018, 11:54:24 PM
Quote from: macdanger2 on May 04, 2018, 10:51:04 PM
Quote from: magpie seanie on May 04, 2018, 07:16:58 PM

While we're speaking about things being disingenuous - the "1 in 5" posters by the no campaign are an absolute disgrace. Statistically/factually incorrect and using the comparison of Britain which has vastly more liberal abortion laws that what is proposed for here if there's a yes vote. We have a referendum commission - surely they should have powers to prevent outright lies being peddled. There may be examples on the Yes side but I've not seen them (and I'm biased of course).


When I saw the posters, I assumed that that was bull also so I looked it up and as far as I could see, it's correct. In the last 50 years, there's been ~35m kids born in the UK (according to what looked like the UK CSO website) and 8.7m abortions (according to wiki) so it seems to be legit. I didn't interrogate those figures to any great extent so open to correction on those however

The statistic is inaccurate because it leaves out the 1 in 6 pregnancies which end in a miscarriage.

But here's the thing - the rate of abortion in the UK is irrelevant - in every single case, it is, thankfully, the woman's right to choose whether to continue with a pregnancy or not.

In every single case, the woman has the right to choose the correct decision for her. That's as it should be, and as it should be in Ireland too.

Fair enough, never considered that, should be 1 in 6 so.

On your other point, tbh I think speaking in absolute terms (or what sounds like absolute terms at least) such as that hard to understand. If a woman decided to abort at 36 weeks would that also be her choice? I don't think it would be good for society for such a thing to be allowed (even though it would be a rare rare occurrence)

No matter what your viewpoint, an absolute view on such a complex issue is incorrect imo - otherwise if you're a no voter, you believe that anything after the initial conception is murder and if you're a yes voter,  anything before birth is the mother's decision.

Also - not all miscarriages are reported so that would further widen the ratio. It's a completely false claim.

Can  you apply some maths to the data like i did above to backup your claim instead of just repeating it? Perhaps you could come up with a figure instead of just saying the 1in4 is wrong.

It seems to me that for 2016 the 1in4 claim isn't to wide of the mark.


trileacman

Quote from: magpie seanie on May 08, 2018, 04:22:45 PM
Quote from: trileacman on May 05, 2018, 10:00:36 AM
Just a question for the Yes voters, do you see any problem with the large scale abortion of children with abnormalities? I seen a guardian piece lately that said 92% of babies with Down's syndrome were aborted in England since the pre natal screen for Down's syndrome came in. There were also suggestions that a similar pre natal test for aspergers and autism could see a similar discrimination against those conditions.

What's your argument in favour of conditions like that?

No one is arguing for that. It's a complete red herring and typical of the misinformation being put about by the No campaign. Under the proposed legislation elective abortions are not available after 12 weeks. As I understand it the test for Down's is only possible around 20 weeks. So there will be no change here in those circumstances.

https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/pregnancy-and-baby/screening-amniocentesis-downs-syndrome/

Test is carried out between 10-14 weeks. So much for the No side being the ones spreading misinformation.
Fantasy Rugby World Cup Champion 2011,
Fantasy 6 Nations Champion 2014

seafoid

This referendum if it passes will change social life in Ireland. The draconian reproductive  politics that defined the State for all of its life gave us things like the travel to Liverpool, adoption and a very strong sense of duty towards handicapped people. Other countries with abortion don't have as many handicapped people. Especially Protestant countries.
"f**k it, just score"- Donaghy   https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IbxG2WwVRjU

whitey

Quote from: seafoid on May 08, 2018, 09:43:30 PM
This referendum if it passes will change social life in Ireland. The draconian reproductive  politics that defined the State for all of its life gave us things like the travel to Liverpool, adoption and a very strong sense of duty towards handicapped people. Other countries with abortion don't have as many handicapped people. Especially Protestant countries.

Im in favor of a yes vote, but think you have to give women options especially when their lives are in danger. 

Speaking of adoptions, do they have "open adoptions" in Ireland, where the adoptive parents and birth parents stay in touch and the kids know from an early age that they are part of 2 separate families. I personally know 2 people (one being my cousin) who have this arrangement and it works out great. They usually meet up with the birth parents families once or twice a year and the kids even get to spend time with their other half brothers, sisters, cousins etc.  (Kinda defeats the whole "its not the right time for me to have a baby" argument)

trileacman

#175
https://www.nhs.uk/news/genetics-and-stem-cells/downs-syndrome-qa/

That's the nhs article that says 92% of foetuses with Down's syndrome are currently aborted.

Fantasy Rugby World Cup Champion 2011,
Fantasy 6 Nations Champion 2014

Farrandeelin

Quote from: trileacman on May 08, 2018, 10:00:52 PM
https://www.nhs.uk/news/genetics-and-stem-cells/downs-syndrome-qa/

That's the nhs article that says 92% of foetuses with Down's syndrome are currently aborted.

It's a woman's right to choose.
Inaugural Football Championship Prediction Winner.

sid waddell

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=106909728&postcount=1418

QuoteI've just had an x-ray cancelled for two weeks because of this amendment.

I'm clearly not pregnant but the only way round it is for a GP to do a test and sign a form. Like my mum signing a note for school.

This is my health we are talking about and I don't have the right to treatment. I am not even trusted to declare myself not pregnant.

REPEAL THE 8TH NOW

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=106913221&postcount=1460

QuoteSo, timing eh?

I've just had my mother come to me in tears with news about my younger brother , who's girlfriend is 27 weeks pregnant. A girl my own kids were delighted about ( my youngest, at 6, is the baby, over both sides of the family so he was chuffed that he wouldn't be anymore).

Myself and the missus had been wondering between us how come they'd had so many scans, seemed a lot over the last while. Apparently they'd noticed a few things and it's all come to a head now, having seen a geneticist and whatever other doctors you see about these things . I don't know the full ins and outs because I'm getting the information 3rd hand but the jist is the baby may survive , and could survive a long life span but it would not be a life worth lioving. A life being kept alive , pretty much just for th awake of not being dead. A life of suffering for both child and parents, aswell as sacrifice for any other children they may have. So now they are looking at the prospect of having to go abroad, to see doctors and specialist and go through all the hurt and suffering all over again , to have a baby induced that won't survive and then have to travel straight back home to deal with it.
These are two kids (relativly speaking I mean. They are mid 20s) and this is their first experience of pregnancy and the effects and stresses of what happens when it goes wrong. "Sorry folks, nothing we can do, here's a plane ticket so someone else can deal with you"


From the beginning I have been pro choice and tbh I assu ed my mother was too, but this resulted in a bit of heated discussion ( not helped that we were both upset) when she went on the "abortion on demand" bit . She didn't seem to see any issue or connection between her upset and what others might be dealing with I their lives just because our family's particular situation is wholly medical.


**** the laws and **** the 8th amendment.

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=106914307&postcount=1492

QuoteI'm being investigated for cervical cancer due to high grade genotyping cell changes picked up during an abnormal smear.
Before each appointment I have to do a pregnancy test, and If that test were to come back positive, there would be nothing they could do to help me.
In 9 months time it could have progressed to cancer but I still wouldn't be given an option to terminate.
I would be expected to gamble my life that all would be ok and wait to start treatment and testing after the baby is born in 9 months, or else go to the UK for a termination and continue the preventative treatment.
Either way, the Irish healthcare system cannot and will not do anything until I am no longer pregnant.
Luckily I'm not and don't plan to be any time soon but it's a scary thought.

sid waddell

Forcing doctors to wait until a woman's life is at risk is not proper healthcare.

It is effective homicide if the woman dies.

That's the reality of the 8th Amendment.


https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/eighth-amendment-causing-uncertainty-for-doctors-gynaecologist-1.3478274

Eighth Amendment causing uncertainty for doctors – gynaecologist

The Eighth Amendment should be repealed as it is causing uncertainty and difficulty for doctors and delaying the treatment of seriously ill women, a gynaecologist has said.

Speaking at the launch of Fine Gael's Yes campaign in Cork, Prof Richard Greene said the amendment and the termination of pregnancy were difficult issues with both sides of the debate offering opposing views as to how it affects practitioners and patients.

"How does it affect me as a clinician, dealing daily with women and I've been working in obstetrics and gynaecology for nearly 30 years? I would say the simplest message I would give about the Eighth Amendment is that it muddies the water –we just don't have clarity about how we should practise," said Prof Greene, who works at University College Cork and Cork University Maternity Hospital.

He offered examples of how the amendment, which guarantees an equal right to life to the mother and child, has an impact on his work at the hospital. He cited the case of a woman he called Sheila, who presented at 13-14 weeks pregnant with her cervix already open in a pregnancy that she really wanted.

"Sheila's water bag around the baby had gone, the chance that this baby would survive is about one or two in 1,000. The chances of that baby's lungs developing are limited and the risk of infection is very significant and we have to achieve another 10 weeks of pregnancy to get her to a viable gestation," he said.

"But I have to actually wait until her life is at risk to do what I know is an appropriate treatment. Yes, the 2013 Protection Of Life in Pregnancy Act will allow me to act once her life is in danger but effectively the Eighth Amendment is dictating a tardiness for both Sheila and myself."

Ectopic pregnancy
Prof Greene also instanced the case of a woman he called Nancy who presented with an ectopic pregnancy, in which the foetus was outside the uterus and unviable. She was also showing signs of bleeding which put her life at risk, he said.

"We discuss it with Nancy and her partner. The decision is made to treat her surgically and remove the pregnancy. There is a heartbeat but they accept that it is the appropriate treatment and it meets all the legal requirements," he said.

"However, I leave her and I am called to come back and counsel her again because she overhears a conversation where one staff member says to the other, 'Is this legal, the baby's heart is still beating?' So the correct choice of care is being questioned because of the Eighth Amendment."

Prof Greene also gave the example of a couple he named Martina and Joe who suffered "a profound loss of pregnancy at 38 weeks when their baby was stillborn" and three subsequent miscarriages before Martina became pregnant again only to discover the baby had anencephaly.

"This baby is not going to survive, it may be born alive but it will not survive. They were devastated given their story but they were absolutely horrified at the idea we had to wait for the pregnancy to proceed and go to the end of the pregnancy, knowing there was nothing to get out of it," he said.

"And the question they were asking was why cannot we do something now so that we can at least try again and hopefully have a child and I saw the horrendous pain they went through. In the end, the Eighth Amendment was adding to their grief and mental trauma.

"They eventually went to the UK for a termination but they are still pained by all of this. They never had a baby to take home, they had no burial place, they had no service with their family. Martina's physical life was not in danger but they are psychologically traumatised because of it."

Prof Greene accepted some believe the floodgates would open if the Eighth Amendment was repealed but the evidence from Eastern Europe and some US states where free contraception and early healthcare were provided suggested the number of terminations can be reduced multifold.

"I trust the women I looked after in pregnancy and I can honestly tell you they make good decisions after much consideration before they undertake a termination. The Eighth Amendment is affecting women and doctors in providing good healthcare and that's why I'm supporting a Yes vote."

omaghjoe

Quote from: trileacman on May 08, 2018, 10:00:52 PM77
https://www.nhs.uk/news/genetics-and-stem-cells/downs-syndrome-qa/

That's the nhs article that says 92% of foetuses with Down's syndrome are currently aborted.


There may be a bit of misinformation going on here, we never got this test but were offered it at the time and turned it down, as it involved risks to the baby. That carried out at the start of the 2nd trimester (week 14ish??) and  hence past the 12week cutoff. It is carried out by putting a needle through the sac (hence the risk) and testing the babies chromozones.

However now the test can be done earlier to that by examining the mothers blood. Since the babies blood cells cross the placentia into the mother's bloodstream they are there and can be idenitfied by the difference in the DNA. So they are able to tell all the genetic characteristics about the baby from pretty early this will include the Down's Syndrome test.
This can be carried out at week 10 a friend of ours got it dont recently and made the 12week announcement with the sex of the baby and all!
This is well before the 12week cutoff so there is no doubt there would be terminiations carried out for this reason.

And I think Seafoid makes an excellent point about how the nature of society would change as a result