Eighth Amendment poll

[manfromdelmonte]

It’s amazing to think how far as a country we’ve come in 15 years from barely rejecting tightening abortion laws to hopefully finally legalising an absolutely basic and vital medical procedure. The new Ireland is a much better place than the one of ten or twenty years ago.

When did extinguishing the life of a unique individual for any or no reason whatsoever become a basic and vital medical procedure?

It's a right for mothers to choose in most democratic countries

[easytiger95]

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/oireachtas/miriam-lord-stony-faced-silence-from-anti-abortion-absolutists-1.3504884

Because everyone was so busy being respectful, it seemed inappropriate to start up a chant in the chamber when the awkward silence descended.

But, as the ditty goes, they were all very quiet over there.

The truth hurts.

After years and years of pouring cold words from closed hearts, the absolutists had nothing to say when called out on their fake concern for the hard cases.

When Leo Varadkar and Mary Lou McDonald nailed their rank hypocrisy, they kept schtum.

For over 30 years they, or those like them, had plenty to say about those hard cases when fighting with every fibre of their being to have them cast out of their own country, along with their less deserving, casually exiled sisters.

Then five years ago, they deliberately turned their backs to the hard cases when vehemently opposing every syllable in the Protection of Life During Pregnancy Act (PLDPA). Despite their unstinting efforts inside and outside Leinster House – the histrionics, the filibustering, the pressurising of colleagues, the unfounded scaremongering – that legislation passed into law.

Just one tiny concession and they railed against it, vowing to overturn it if ever there came a chance. That Bill recognised just one hard case, the hardest case of all: women who will most definitely die unless their pregnancy is ended.

But even the PLDPA was a step too far for the politicians who voted against it and were proud of the fact.

A death’s door directive for a gravely ill woman.

And they voted against it.

And they have remained implacable in their refusal to give any comfort to women who have been raped or women carrying a baby which won’t live outside the womb and who want to end their pregnancies.

Gullible doctors

Because you can’t trust women, who will be lining up to pretend they’re dying in order to procure abortions. And if they aren’t acting out death scenes in surgeries the length and breadth of Ireland, they’ll be pulling the wool over gullible doctors’ eyes by being suicidal all of a sudden.

As late as last weekend, Senator Rónán Mullen was sounding troubled about what exactly constitutes mental health, particularly where it pertains to a woman who may be experiencing a crisis pregnancy.

There is “a lack of evidence that mental health is health” was his astonishing remark while he ruminated on “the suicide thing” and other aspects of the PLDPA during an appearance on RTÉ’s The Week in Politics. It so angered his fellow Senator Grace O’Sullivan that she called for him to come into the Upper House “to explain to us why he said that he does not believe that mental health is health”.
 
The Green Party politician told the Seanad on Tuesday, “I don’t know what utopia he lives in but I live in a world where mental health is a real health issue to which we in this country . . . are not giving enough time.”

Meanwhile, back in the Dáil, the Sinn Féin leader was determined that people should not forget the doom-laden words and actions of politicians and anti-abortion campaigners who stood in total opposition to the PLDPA before it was enacted.

These same people are now trying to say that they supported it and that it gives more than adequate protection to women, but sure if it doesn’t, it mightn’t be a bad idea to take another look at the hard cases again.
Sinn Féin leader Mary Lou McDonald: the people now suddenly aware of the hard cases are the “very same people” who “themselves campaigned against the Protection of Life During Pregnancy Bill”. Photograph: Gareth Chaney Collins Sinn Féin leader Mary Lou McDonald: the people now suddenly aware of the hard cases are the “very same people” who “themselves campaigned against the Protection of Life During Pregnancy Bill”. Photograph: Gareth Chaney Collins   
And grant them their fervent wish that the Eighth Amendment remains in place.

“In the course of this debate, it is important that we deal in fact,” she told the Taoiseach during Leaders’ Questions. “I have heard assertions from the No campaign and its spokespersons that what they call hard cases, pregnancies as a result of rape, for example, or a pregnancy with a diagnosis of fatal foetal anomaly, that these cases can be dealt with under the current constitutional framework, and that is patently untrue.”

Mary Lou McDonald is right.

The Taoiseach absolutely agreed with her.

‘Hard law’

“I would contend that it is actually our hard laws that create those hard cases,” replied Varadkar. “And the Eighth Amendment is too hard and forces a very hard law on Irish people and Irish women.”

He reminded the Dáil of the amendment’s “eloquent” wording.

“It says that the right to life of the unborn is equal to that of the mother, so the right to life of a foetus of only a few days’ gestation is equal to the right to life of your mother, your sister or your female friends and co-workers.”

Mary Lou didn’t want anyone to forget that the people now suddenly aware of the hard cases are the “very same people” who “themselves campaigned against the Protection of Life During Pregnancy Bill”.

Remember, she said, that they talked about “the floodgates” opening and abortion become widely available as a result.

“They were wrong on this matter just as they are wrong now not to acknowledge that the Eighth Amendment blocks any action to legislate for what they call the hard cases. And how do we know this? We know this because we have tried.”

To suggest there is another solution is “entirely disingenuous”.

Leo Varadkar was alive to the pivoting of the previously unshakeable anti-abortion politicians and activists.

“What I see now, in the dying days, in the final days of this campaign is a tactic, a tactic by the No campaign to try and make out that there is some sort of alternative amendment that we could put into our Constitution,” he began, looking across the floor to the Fianna Fáil benches, where a majority of TDs voted against holding a referendum and even more are against repeal.

He had a question for them and the anti-abortion absolutists who now say repeal is not the answer.

‘Alternative amendment’

“I would ask those people, 30 years after that amendment was put into our Constitution, why in those 30 years has nobody put forward an alternative amendment that would deal with all of these hard cases? Why, only three days from the vote, are people suddenly raising that as a realistic argument and alternative?”

There was silence in the chamber. The Fianna Fáil TDs who are not backing their leader Micheál Martin’s position sat stony-faced. Not a peep out of one of them.

Which is when we contemplated our little chant about them all being very quiet over there.

But the Taoiseach filled the gap, answering for them.

Because what they are scrambling to propose “is not a realistic alternative; it is just a tactic”, declared Leo.

“And I believe the Irish people will see through that.”

Once again, not a sound from the people who turned a blind eye to the hard cases when they could have acted with reason and compassion. Because they knew in their hearts that the Taoiseach was speaking the truth.

They had 35 years to act on their concerns for women and their babies. Thirty-five years to do something about supporting the hard cases. Thirty-five years to show they care about more than just the fate of the foetus.

But they did nothing.

Now their bluff has been called and compassion is suddenly conjured up for the hard cases, along with more baseless predictions about floodgates opening and the whole country going to hell in a handcart.

They have cried wolf once too often.

Do they seriously expect anyone to believe anything they say anymore?


Well said Miriam Lord.

[Jim_Murphy_74]

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.

[Mayo4Sam]

I was interested in Rudi's claim about Iceland, turns out its pretty much true, not quiet but it seems that IF people find out about their child having DS then they terminate

from 2007 to 2015 every single pregnant woman in Iceland terminated a fetus with Down syndrome following a positive diagnosis

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/behind-the-lens-disappearing-down-syndrome/ you

Another tough one to call, its very different finding out after 3 months to actually having the baby and then finding out

Well no, his post was utter bollocks.

He claimed, as absolute fact, that the youngest person in Iceland with Down's Syndrome was 20. Zero evidence provided. There's no "pretty much true" here at all. He's 100% wrong.

He also claimed that "Clearly they have a cultural policy to eliminate the weakest or those who do not conform to some ideal model" despite the fact it is obvious that each case is an individual decision a) to get the test and then b) to decide whether to terminate or not.

He also then completely whiffed on the nature of Savita Halapanavar's death.

Jesus this is hard work to have an actual debate.

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

For the record I'll be voting yes but not because I think its a woman body and therefore her choice, I believe there is a second person involved (three if you include the father which I would, its as much our responsibility)

I also don't buy the FFA, I think this could be legislated for along with the rape/incest cases, messy but it could be done and as I've said before it accounts for less than 1% of pregnancies, thats not how legislation should work

Neither do I buy the argument that women are running the risk of a 14yr sentence, its never been handed down.

I'll be voting yes because I think its better/safer that women who are having abortions can have local care. The abortions will happen anyway, I never knew about abortion pills but if someone (probably young girl) is doing something like that then they need access to medical care. I think it will also help elevate some of the stress from what is already a stressful period

[gallsman]

Jesus this is hard work to have an actual debate.

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

For the record I'll be voting yes but not because I think its a woman body and therefore her choice, I believe there is a second person involved (three if you include the father which I would, its as much our responsibility)

I also don't buy the FFA, I think this could be legislated for along with the rape/incest cases, messy but it could be done and as I've said before it accounts for less than 1% of pregnancies, thats not how legislation should work

Neither do I buy the argument that women are running the risk of a 14yr sentence, its never been handed down.

I'll be voting yes because I think its better/safer that women who are having abortions can have local care. The abortions will happen anyway, I never knew about abortion pills but if someone (probably young girl) is doing something like that then they need access to medical care. I think it will also help elevate some of the stress from what is already a stressful period

Facts are facts. They're not open to debate or interpretation, unless you're Donald Trump and Kellyanne Conway, so yes you might find it difficult to debate with people who won't tolerate lies and disinformation.

Why are you looking for someone from the Yes side to counter the argument that people in Iceland terminate DS babies? Nobody appears to be disputing it. A significant majority of people have the test done, and of those with a positive diagnosis, almost all abort. Again, facts. That's their right to, under Icelandic law.

As for FFA, it has been shown time and time again that it can't be legislated for. As so many have asked, if it could be, why has nobody in 30+ years proposed it?!

[Jim_Murphy_74]

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.

[Syferus]

It’s amazing to think how far as a country we’ve come in 15 years from barely rejecting tightening abortion laws to hopefully finally legalising an absolutely basic and vital medical procedure. The new Ireland is a much better place than the one of ten or twenty years ago.

WhoooppeeeDooo. Lets celebrate killing children. Aren't we great?



As far as I understand it, legislation as it sits allows for intervention in the case of significant and imminent danger to the mother. The recent fatality was a result of undue delay in taking action. I don't see the need to throw the baby out with the bathwater to rectify this, a clarification from the courts would be sufficient.


I have grave concerns this is a slippery slope to abortion on demand - which I think is a horrible, horrible side-effect of liberalisation (which has in general done untold good) - folks being too quick to put their own rights on a pedestal and damn anyone else it affects.

If (and unfortunately IMO, likely when) the 8th is repealed, who actually thinks the 12 week limit will stay as such for long?

I, and especially you, have no right to decide what a woman does with her own body. People who peddle this idealised version of reality where every pregnancy being brought to term is the right thing to do live in a world the rest of us know to be a fantasy.

We could spend the next two months listing the thousands of situations that make abortion the best of an incredibly hard list of options for a woman to take but I suspect you have little interest in listening to reason based off this emotive post.

[Mayo4Sam]

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.

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

[Mayo4Sam]

Jesus this is hard work to have an actual debate.

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

For the record I'll be voting yes but not because I think its a woman body and therefore her choice, I believe there is a second person involved (three if you include the father which I would, its as much our responsibility)

I also don't buy the FFA, I think this could be legislated for along with the rape/incest cases, messy but it could be done and as I've said before it accounts for less than 1% of pregnancies, thats not how legislation should work

Neither do I buy the argument that women are running the risk of a 14yr sentence, its never been handed down.

I'll be voting yes because I think its better/safer that women who are having abortions can have local care. The abortions will happen anyway, I never knew about abortion pills but if someone (probably young girl) is doing something like that then they need access to medical care. I think it will also help elevate some of the stress from what is already a stressful period

Facts are facts. They're not open to debate or interpretation, unless you're Donald Trump and Kellyanne Conway, so yes you might find it difficult to debate with people who won't tolerate lies and disinformation.

Why are you looking for someone from the Yes side to counter the argument that people in Iceland terminate DS babies? Nobody appears to be disputing it. A significant majority of people have the test done, and of those with a positive diagnosis, almost all abort. Again, facts. That's their right to, under Icelandic law.

As for FFA, it has been shown time and time again that it can't be legislated for. As so many have asked, if it could be, why has nobody in 30+ years proposed it?!

You're mistaking lack of capacity and lack of appetite, theres a massive difference

[Syferus]

Jesus this is hard work to have an actual debate.

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

For the record I'll be voting yes but not because I think its a woman body and therefore her choice, I believe there is a second person involved (three if you include the father which I would, its as much our responsibility)

I also don't buy the FFA, I think this could be legislated for along with the rape/incest cases, messy but it could be done and as I've said before it accounts for less than 1% of pregnancies, thats not how legislation should work

Neither do I buy the argument that women are running the risk of a 14yr sentence, its never been handed down.

I'll be voting yes because I think its better/safer that women who are having abortions can have local care. The abortions will happen anyway, I never knew about abortion pills but if someone (probably young girl) is doing something like that then they need access to medical care. I think it will also help elevate some of the stress from what is already a stressful period

Facts are facts. They're not open to debate or interpretation, unless you're Donald Trump and Kellyanne Conway, so yes you might find it difficult to debate with people who won't tolerate lies and disinformation.

Why are you looking for someone from the Yes side to counter the argument that people in Iceland terminate DS babies? Nobody appears to be disputing it. A significant majority of people have the test done, and of those with a positive diagnosis, almost all abort. Again, facts. That's their right to, under Icelandic law.

As for FFA, it has been shown time and time again that it can't be legislated for. As so many have asked, if it could be, why has nobody in 30+ years proposed it?!

You're mistaking lack of capacity and lack of appetite, theres a massive difference

There was two other abortion referendums in the last twenty five years. The appetite for change has always been ther, it’s just directed in the correct way this time.

[Jim_Murphy_74]

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.

[Syferus]

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.

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 is the main event when it comes to society peering into a woman’s reproductive organs and having a say.

[Jim_Murphy_74]

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.

[Farrandeelin]

Clearly a sensitive issue, and there are posters on the board who are parents of kids with Down's Syndrome and other serious illnesses, but people are clearly being morons about the "healthy babies" point. Cleary no parent would wish their child to have Down's Syndrome. The fact that those children are subsequently then loved and cherished as much as any other child is completely f**king irrelevant.

You were sick as a child and your parents loved you? Well done. What the flying f**k does that have to do with the next couple facing unwelcome news around the health of their unborn child?

Nothing. I was just relaying my own personal experience. And thanks by the way.

[Franko]

Clearly a sensitive issue, and there are posters on the board who are parents of kids with Down's Syndrome and other serious illnesses, but people are clearly being morons about the "healthy babies" point. Cleary no parent would wish their child to have Down's Syndrome. The fact that those children are subsequently then loved and cherished as much as any other child is completely f**king irrelevant.

You were sick as a child and your parents loved you? Well done. What the flying f**k does that have to do with the next couple facing unwelcome news around the health of their unborn child?

Nothing. I was just relaying my own personal experience. And thanks by the way.

Is there any need to be so perennially angry and foul-mouthed gallsman?