Messages

31

General discussion / Re: Catholics voting DUP

« on: June 06, 2018, 05:04:19 PM »

I think the DUP are playing a dangerous game.  You would think they want to keep tight with the Brits until Brexit is resolved at least.  They could have been more careful and way less emotive about how they are going to bat about abortion.  I would have thought a more strategic thing would be say that it's a matter for discussion by assembly, so let's redouble our efforts etc.. etc.. 

By roaring and shouting about it they are bringing more attention on the rest of their whacky shite:  (Sammy on ethnics, Peter on sending Muslims to the shops, gays repulsing Ian Óg,  Poots on creationsim).  Arlene getting involved in Scottish Orange Order march adds more fuel.

I mean WTF?  Is there no single strategist among them all? I know people caricature this crew but surely someone in the party is saying hold the horses, let's box a bit clever here and stop playing to the caricature? 

/Jim.

32

General discussion / Re: Eighth Amendment poll

« on: May 31, 2018, 02:31:57 PM »

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/religion-and-beliefs/catholics-who-voted-yes-should-consider-confession-says-bishop-1.3511127

Could you throw him a few quid to help with the pope's visit and go to one of the papal masses?  Would that earn an indulgence to offset your vote?

/Jim.

33

General discussion / Re: Eighth Amendment poll

« on: May 30, 2018, 09:13:55 AM »

Well I have to say I was disappointed by the result and shocked at the margin.

Much similar to Brexit and Trump I don't blame the people for voting the way they did. I think they were hoodwinked under a couple of pretenses. Namely, it being a woman's health issue, that the unborn are somehow not human.

For many of us that wrestled with this, those two issues are not mutually exclusive.

and that it is going to happen anyway....

This is true and it's something that has to be at least considered.  When something is happening so widespread, if it's brought into the system it can be at least regulated.

But the overriding factor I believe is actually to somehow cast of any perception that the international view of Ireland as a backwater languishing under the authority of bishops. and the countries that legalise abortion are somehow more socially advanced and progressive by allowing it.

Maybe it's because you are out of the country and it was reported as such internationally.  As someone who followed the debate closely I would argue this was an irish discussion, framed in an irish context.  In fact if anyone pointed elsewhere it was the no side, as they based a lot of arguments on the UK experience.  Specifically comparing the original intent versus actually results.

The Yes campaign were successful in hammering those messages home and they got thru. Couple that with portraying No voters as ignorant and stupid at every opportunity and you have the ingredients for a successful campaign. Seemingly this was aided by a few insensitive blunders from the lead figures of the No campaign and graphic posters which people found off putting.

The yes side certainly captured the human side of women in difficult situations and getting them to tell their story.  The difficulty the no side had with this was their tactic from the start was to dismiss this group of women as "less than 3%" and not engage them.   It came across time and time again as lacking empathy for their situation.  So much so that they seemed to change their tactics in the final few days to claim that they were a coalition of "full on pro-lifers" and "soft yes voters who felt legislation went too far".  To me it came across as a bit cynical and I wonder was it behind the (alleged) split in the camp in the final days.

The challenge is to take the position back and build it from the ground up where as a society everyone recognizes that they are extinguishing an unborn person's life and not just a bundle of cells, so that even tho there is a choice one is right and one is wrong and that the right choice will be made in the majority of cases.

Again I think you do the broader discourse in Ireland a disservice.  I think very few are fully in either camp.  In fact I think that Simon Harris won a lot of voters with his argument that life is not black and white.  It's a case that there are grey areas and having an absolutist statement in the constitution doesn't lend itself to that.    The No side tried to keep the absolute line and it didn't resonate with the electorate.  Again they couldn't keep a consistent message on this:

https://twitter.com/newsworthy_ie/status/999588348221063169

As for making sure the right choice in the majority of cases then I think this is where the "soft yes" side need to front up.  Now that as a country we give people this choice, we need to ensure it's not the only choice.   Culturally we need to make sure that the options other than abortion are portrayed in a positive light.   Education and contraception are needed for young people to avoid a slew of teenagers (of their own or parents volition) come looking for terminations.   People of disability and their families must have all the supports they need.   

/Jim.

34

General discussion / Re: Eighth Amendment poll

« on: May 28, 2018, 02:43:51 PM »

Ok folks -practical realities
How many new Gynaecologists and support staff will the Health Service need for the 3 months no reason abortions?
24 month waiting lists not a runner here.

Surely anything less than 3 months will be a trip to the GP for a pill?  Maybe one scan at most?  What will these new Gynies and and staff be doing?

/Jim.

I thought the abortion pill required medical supervision etc? They are unsafe if not administered and monitored by a specialist?

Most of the time, no.  I would expect that the only medical supervision would be a general checkup and a scan in the case of history of ectopic pregancies.  Most would be prescribed pill once the matter is discussed and that they still want to proceed after the 72hour cooling off period.  They would be told to go home and wait for things to happen and contact medics in the event  of something going wrong.  I don't envisage many women being admitted while they wait for events to take their course after the pills.

/Jim.

Is a DNC required?

I'm not a medic but I guess if a woman has heavy bleeding during her subsequent periods the yes, a DNC would be required then.  I don't think you say it is definitely needed.

I would be of a belief (maybe mistaken) that under new legislation a woman can go to GP, discuss taking the pill, have a checkup and get prescription.  If they are unlucky enough to have issue they will feel free to return to GP for follow up.  I am guessing today that women are either taking pills or getting a one-off appointment in UK.  So any follow up treatment is already part of our system.   

For most cases I would guess the only extra "load" is that like any prescription medicine there will be some checking done up front.

Open to correction by the intelligentsia here of course.

/Jim.

35

General discussion / Re: Eighth Amendment poll

« on: May 28, 2018, 02:03:38 PM »

Ok folks -practical realities
How many new Gynaecologists and support staff will the Health Service need for the 3 months no reason abortions?
24 month waiting lists not a runner here.

Surely anything less than 3 months will be a trip to the GP for a pill?  Maybe one scan at most?  What will these new Gynies and and staff be doing?

/Jim.

I thought the abortion pill required medical supervision etc? They are unsafe if not administered and monitored by a specialist?

Most of the time, no.  I would expect that the only medical supervision would be a general checkup and a scan in the case of history of ectopic pregancies.  Most would be prescribed pill once the matter is discussed and that they still want to proceed after the 72hour cooling off period.  They would be told to go home and wait for things to happen and contact medics in the event  of something going wrong.  I don't envisage many women being admitted while they wait for events to take their course after the pills.

/Jim.

36

General discussion / Re: Eighth Amendment poll

« on: May 28, 2018, 01:49:35 PM »

Ok folks -practical realities
How many new Gynaecologists and support staff will the Health Service need for the 3 months no reason abortions?
24 month waiting lists not a runner here.

Surely anything less than 3 months will be a trip to the GP for a pill?  Maybe one scan at most?  What will these new Gynies and and staff be doing?

So, what are they going to do for women?

The answer, without a shadow of a doubt, is absolutely nothing.

They won't be campaigning for free contraception, or comprehensive sex education, or better supports for single parents, or better supports for parents of disabled children, or better childcare.

Most of the supports are also off limit to your average right wing conservative type.  I think it will be up to the "soft yes" representation to push for this.   Those that see abortion as a necessary evil but an evil all the same.  Coveney for example is making the right noises.

In fact some of the things that you class as supports would likely be fought tooth and nail by likes of Iona etc.. such as freer access to contraception and comprehensive sex education.

/Jim.

37

General discussion / Re: Eighth Amendment poll

« on: May 25, 2018, 11:19:15 AM »

When Michael McDowell was Attorney General in 2002, he proposed an amendment to the 8th....
The subsection shall not invalidate laws enacted by the Oireachtas to permit and regulate the termination of a pregnancy which is alleged in a prescribed form to be the result of a crime committed against the mother

Accepting the difficulties of subsequent legislation for rape, it shows that addressing many scenarios via an amendment could have been quite straight forward.

And Sid, any thoughts on my last post ?

Maybe from a pure legal point of view but generally proving "a crime committed against the mother" takes the legal system longer than 9 months.  So useless in a practical sense.

/Jim.

38

General discussion / Re: Eighth Amendment poll

« on: May 24, 2018, 12:01:25 AM »

Mullen is a disgrace. Young girl in tears telling the story of the time she went to Birmingham for an abortion.

"You deserve love and respect, regardless of what you have done"

Possibly trumped by his comments on mental health.

/Jim.

39

General discussion / Re: Eighth Amendment poll

« on: May 23, 2018, 11:28:25 AM »

Removing the 8th means it’s an entirely personal decision, as it always should have been. People can lobby for not aborting fetuses with serious conditions but realistically this referendum the main event when it comes to society peering into a woman’s reproductive organs and having a say.

I understand where you are coming from. However, other countries are heading almost full circle.  Cultural and societal drivers (if not legislative ones) are meaning that they are on the verge of compelling women to abort.   This is again "peering into a woman’s reproductive organs and having a say".

/Jim.

40

General discussion / Re: Eighth Amendment poll

« on: May 23, 2018, 10:28:09 AM »

Thanks Jim, good post. I had a conversation with the OH at the weekend about this and what we would do. It would be a tough call for anyone which probably leads towards your point 4 and Iceland v ireland

The figures and commentary from Rotunda and Holles Street suggest that we are heading in Icelandic direction for both 3 and 4.  The pace that technology for screening and testing is developing means that this will go way beyond DS.  With the right software and knowledge it's already possible to review an unborn's child DNA at home. 

The ethical choices coming down the line will leave this squabble about the 8th in the halfpenny place.

/Jim.

41

General discussion / Re: Eighth Amendment poll

« on: May 23, 2018, 09:41:26 AM »

Far enough it wasn't exactly what Rudi said, there are people with DS under 20.

But from that article, across an 8 year period anyone who found out they were carrying a DS baby terminated the pregnancy.

This is one of the arguments from the No side and I would like someone from the YES side to counter it

I can’t settle an argument between the Yes and No side as to the veracity of all these statistics but for what’s it worth.  I think that there are 4 major factors that drive these stats in Iceland:

1)   Availability of chromosome testing
2)   Availability of abortion
3)   Medical Professionals attitude’s to DS
4)   Societal attitudes to DS

Regardless of the 8th amendment, trying to block 1&2 is finger in the dam stuff.  So if LoveBoth and their assorted allies care about people DS, they will work on 3 & 4 regardless of the outcome on Friday.

Now, for a lot of their main spokespeople, this is not something they have shown to do before. 

So you know: this is why Down Syndrome Ireland reacted when Senator Ronan Mullen brought DS up in an article in the Irish Times a few months back.

/Jim.

42

General discussion / Re: Eighth Amendment poll

« on: May 23, 2018, 09:08:21 AM »

Firstly TBH I think its wrong that a woman in Savita's position are not given an abortion, the sac had burst, there was no possibility that the baby could survive that early.

I'm no legal expert (que the ad hominen) but its a bizarre interpretation of the amendment to say that in her case she should not have been able to terminate the pregnancy.

In fact I would be suspicious that the absolutist interpretation of the amendment was a cynical way to ensure that these cases arise and in do doing so turn a critical mass of public opinion to begrudgingly accepting legislation for unrestricted abortion as the only way to avoid these cases.


Regarding the case of Savita itself... since the sepsis was the likely cause of the miscarriage and was a result of failure of the medical team to identify the cause which was sepsis, it therefore went untreated. The reason it seems is that most of the medical guidelines for miscarriages are piggy backed from other countries that just abort and ask no questions. Ireland needs additional guidelines which have been rectified.

The sepsis was not being treated and this coupled with the continuation of the pregnancy while a fetal heartbeat remained accelerated the condition to the point where it turned it into a fatal condition.

I am open to correction on the case BTW but as far as I can make out these are the events which lead to her death. After this it is all if, buts & maybes


Would Savitta survived if the sepsis had been treated initially with no termination....most likely

Would Savitta have survived if the pregnancy if it had been terminated when the sac ruptured...most likely as it would have allowed the condition to develop more slowly and thereby allow it to be diagnosed before it reached an advanced stage.

I read a bit here and there about her case before now but I must admit the portrayal by the media was somewhat different. Thing is she did die from sepsis, she could and should have been saved if it had been identified when her waters broke and treated at that point... even if she did not have an abortion. An abortion in time could also have saved her (which incidentally I also think she should have got as there was no prospect of the baby surviving).

The medical guidelines have been updated to ensure it never happens again so if a mirror of this case arose the condition would be identified, treatment begun and the pregnancy would be terminated and the mother would have a much higher chance of survival.

Now the way this case has been spun to support the pro choice campaign is completely wrong IMO. To say that removal of the 8th is the only way to save mothers like Savitta is completely incorrect as those changes to the guidelines are already in place.
Going from inadequate medical care and lack of pregnancy guidelines which (is what the report found) caused the death of this woman.....
....to.....
............any woman should have the right to end a pregnancy for any or no reason at a quantum leap jump in logic.

Of course people are using this and other cases to make their point and there is some cherry picking ongoing.  No more than your are not a legal expert, I am not a medical expert.  Reading the HSE report I can't see a definitive statement as to whether sepsis lead to miscarriage or vice versa.  I tried to find some other cases and I found this lady's story:

https://twitter.com/InHerIrishShoes/status/998280875564466177

It seems to me that due to the 8th, Irish hospitals have a policy of not intervening until the danger has manifested itself.  A little reading on sepsis in particular shows that this is high risk stuff.  Let's be clear here:  even well managed sepsis cases carry a high risk of death.

So in the context of these cases I do believe that the 8th is an issue and I lean towards the "yes side" interpretation.

Like you I am concerned about the amount of terminations for "other" reasons.   I have though long and hard about this.  I am not convinced that abortion availability is as big a driver in these cases as is portrayed.   People will seek to terminate a pregnancy if they perceive that the outcome will be "bad".   My son has Down Syndrome so it is foremost on my mind.   I would recommend that people watch the documentary "A World without Down Syndrome" by Sally Philips to consider this.   Similar arguments can be made around contraception etc.. For this reason I have an issue with campaigners in this referendum.  To many are obsessed with a single point of principle.  Yes people wanting "a more liberal Ireland" and No keeping us conservative.   Abortion is addressing a plethora of issues and most of these kunts will move on to their next pet project after this.   Few if any hang around to address the issues.  Given that abortion is really already available I think that the issues need to be addressed better, rather than maintaining a ban that is in fact unimplementable.  If we make our society more caring of women (and in particular pregnant women) there will be less "no reason" abortions.

At the end of the day I have decided to look at next Friday's question in isolation.  The eighth amendment puts the rights of an unborn child as on a par with the mother's.  I just can't agree to that.   48hours out and I think I have made up my mind.

/Jim.

43

General discussion / Re: Eighth Amendment poll

« on: May 22, 2018, 03:12:48 PM »

This may or may not be true. But the Eighth Amendment now is not the same as when she did not receive proper treatment and a lot of people, including you, are attempting to give the impression that it is.

How is it different?

Maybe point out here:  https://www.taoiseach.gov.ie/DOT/eng/Historical_Information/The_Constitution/Constitution_of_Ireland_-_Bunreacht_na_h%C3%89ireann.html



/Jim.

44

General discussion / Re: Eighth Amendment poll

« on: May 22, 2018, 01:09:20 PM »

But, but, but...he doesn't know what he's talking about, or something.

The author of the investigation into Savita Halappanavar’s death has reiterated his finding that she would still be alive if the Eighth Amendment did not exist.

https://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/professor-savita-would-be-alive-today-if-not-for-8th-470954.html

Don't worry Matty McGrath got a call from a woman doctor he knows.  He will put this "so-called-expert" straight.  Just like he explained how a few drinks make nervous drivers safer.

Our maybe that lady DJ from Spirit FM, she seemed to know a lot more about these things than Peter Boylan.

Of course Dr. Arulkumaran is being sly intervening at this late stage.  It will minimize the time available to dig dirt up to discredit him.

/Jim.

45

General discussion / Re: RTE to show live coverage of Royal Wedding

« on: May 19, 2018, 03:09:10 PM »

I heard some Irish lad owns a pub in Windsor. Would you get a good early trade from lads that be giddy for making a start on the drink while the photos would be going on.  A few sausage rolls would sell well. A 12 o'clock wedding gives a fierce long time till the hotel would be ringing the bell for spuds.

/Jim.