Board index » The Soup

Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 1771 posts ]  [Go to page]   Previous  1 ... 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93 ... 119  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: The 8th Amendment
PostPosted: Thu May 17, 2018 3:26 pm 
Offline
Of Systemic Importance

Joined: Sep 13, 2012
Posts: 5154
Ixelles wrote:
Is Dunphy a 'No' voter?

Yes. He states that his position is not far removed from Waters'. Which makes it even funnier.

_________________
"It's easy to confuse what is with what ought to be, especially when what is has worked out in your favour"
Tyrion Lannister


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: The 8th Amendment
PostPosted: Thu May 17, 2018 3:41 pm 
Offline
Nationalised
User avatar

Joined: Jan 1, 1970
Posts: 22901
Dubhgeannain wrote:
John Water. Irrational loss of the head here. :roll:

To Eamon Dunphy - "You're a fucking bollox. You can fuck off"

https://soundcloud.com/thestandwitheamo ... -waters-no

He's been going round the country canvassing and reacts in the exact opposite way as he'd hope someone on the doorsteps would.

This is the kind of knee jerk, abuse laden, reaction I was referring to and what this thread could well do without.


Everyone is human but that might change soon... the thread has been very well behaved, what are you referring too? :)

_________________
Follow The Pin - https://twitter.com/dailypinster

"Politicians are always realistically maneuvering for the next election. They are obsolete as fundamental problem-solvers." - Buckminster Fuller

"I was comfortable with a couple of banks being married today, instead i wake up and find I'm married to the banks." - Catbear

Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: The 8th Amendment
PostPosted: Thu May 17, 2018 4:20 pm 
Offline
Under CAB Investigation

Joined: Mar 14, 2013
Posts: 1838
can someone emend the polls so yes no maybe would vote add up to 100%

Resident in ireland is not a option on the day or at least mutually exclusive with voting or not

_________________
An increase in the number of paupers does not broaden the market. M. Kalecki


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: The 8th Amendment
PostPosted: Thu May 17, 2018 4:36 pm 
Offline
Under CAB Investigation

Joined: Nov 26, 2008
Posts: 1504
Dubhgeannain wrote:
John Water. Irrational loss of the head here. :roll:

To Eamon Dunphy - "You're a fucking bollox. You can fuck off"

https://soundcloud.com/thestandwitheamo ... -waters-no

He's been going round the country canvassing and reacts in the exact opposite way as he'd hope someone on the doorsteps would.

This is the kind of knee jerk, abuse laden, reaction I was referring to and what this thread could well do without.


That was absolutely brilliant. Bonkers doom mongering about wearing black caps in the voting booth with tanks in the streets before going full Tarantino at the very end!

_________________
The bust is getting bustier.....


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: The 8th Amendment
PostPosted: Thu May 17, 2018 5:33 pm 
Offline
Planning Tribunal Attendee

Joined: Jul 9, 2008
Posts: 1136
Location: In the Sandpit.
Luan wrote:
london_irish wrote:
ps200306 wrote:
. Savita: Savita tragically died as the result of medical negligence. The investigation into the case says it and the hospital admits it. That information is a single Google away and has been for a long time, so there is no benefit of the doubt for being merely misinformed. Someone who continues to push Savita as a pro-abortion martyr is a cynical liar.

Savita should have have had a termination as soon as it was determined her life was at risk. If the termination had occurred, would the medical negligence have happened?

If I turn left something happens if I turn right something else happens - medical negilance was the cause of her death.


Wow. These things are not alike at all.

You have a mother whose baby is dying, and poses a risk of infection to the mother. This baby is not going to survive and poses a risk to the mother. If the option to terminate immediately was there, then the next episode of care - carrying the baby to a stillborn death - with its attendant risks of injury, harm and medical negligence to the mother would have been wholly negated.

Therefore there would not have been the opportunity for medical negligence to present itself.

Besides, your loved one is ill. You obviously want a path of care that takes realities into account and causes the least harm, don't you?

I can't take people hiding behind this "medical negligence" agenda very seriously, TBH.


Last edited by london_irish on Thu May 17, 2018 5:37 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: The 8th Amendment
PostPosted: Thu May 17, 2018 5:36 pm 
Offline
Planning Tribunal Attendee

Joined: Jul 9, 2008
Posts: 1136
Location: In the Sandpit.
purple24 wrote:
ps200306 wrote:
london_irish wrote:
ps200306 wrote:
. Savita: Savita tragically died as the result of medical negligence. The investigation into the case says it and the hospital admits it. That information is a single Google away and has been for a long time, so there is no benefit of the doubt for being merely misinformed. Someone who continues to push Savita as a pro-abortion martyr is a cynical liar.

Savita should have have had a termination as soon as it was determined her life was at risk. If the termination had occurred, would the medical negligence have happened?

That is mixed up. Savita did have a termination as soon as it was determined her life was at risk. The determination wasn't made soon enough because the signs of sepsis which should have been spotted weren't. That was the medical negligence. Once the correct diagnosis was made, the termination went ahead regardless of fetal heartbeat.


Savita should have been granted a termination as soon as she requested one, which she wasn't. I agree that this was due to medical negligence in that the team had failed to diagnose the blood infection at that time, but if the 8th was not in place, it would not have gotten to the stage where she was refused one in the first place, and passed away as a result.


Exactly.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: The 8th Amendment
PostPosted: Thu May 17, 2018 5:52 pm 
Offline
Planning Tribunal Attendee

Joined: Jul 9, 2008
Posts: 1136
Location: In the Sandpit.
obese_cat wrote:
Dubhgeannain wrote:
John Water. Irrational loss of the head here. :roll:

To Eamon Dunphy - "You're a fucking bollox. You can fuck off"

https://soundcloud.com/thestandwitheamo ... -waters-no

He's been going round the country canvassing and reacts in the exact opposite way as he'd hope someone on the doorsteps would.

This is the kind of knee jerk, abuse laden, reaction I was referring to and what this thread could well do without.


That was absolutely brilliant. Bonkers doom mongering about wearing black caps in the voting booth with tanks in the streets before going full Tarantino at the very end!

No campaigner tells No voter to fuck off. One for the ages.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: The 8th Amendment
PostPosted: Thu May 17, 2018 6:22 pm 
Offline
Planning Tribunal Attendee

Joined: Jul 9, 2008
Posts: 1136
Location: In the Sandpit.
Open Window wrote:
Poacher turned gamekeeper wrote:
TheJackal wrote:
Irish Times IPSOS MRBI poll

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politic ... -1.3497830

44% Yes
32% No
17% Not Sure
5% Will not vote
2% Refused to answer


A whopping 24% said 'not sure'/refused to answer/'dont intend to vote'. No making large gains amongst the youngest voter group surprisingly.

Majority also say they are in favour of changing the law but state that the current proposals go to far. Although a majority also say that the proposal is an improvement on current situation.

It looks like its going to be tight.


Now that it's get's tighter, the various niche fronts and flanks need to be put under the spotlight. Returning citizens pretending to be eligible ot vote could sway it either way - https://hometovote.com, accord to the site is, "a project by London-Irish Abortion Rights Campaign"

NO one seems to care but I see on that site they are citing this legislation, Electoral Act, 1992

First the website states:

Quote:
* Under Section 11 (3) of the Electoral Act 1992, Irish citizens overseas may retain full voting rights for a period of 18 months, should they intend to return to Ireland within that timeframe.


I do not believe this is accurate, intends to resume residence is not the same as intend to return to Ireland.

Quote:
(3) For the purposes of this Part—

(a) a person shall be deemed not to have given up ordinary residence if he [b]intends to resume residence within eighteen months after giving it up[/b],

(b) a written statement by a person that he intends to resume residence within eighteen months after giving it up shall, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, be accepted as a correct statement.


Social media posts should clarify most intentions methinks. :x

Is this sneaky legislation, sneaky liberal interepation and application of legislation or something else. Trying to square it with this guidance which must be assumed to be derived for legislation considering source:

Quote:
To be eligible to be included in the Register of Electors, you must:

Be at least 18 years old on the day the Register comes into force (15 February)
Have been ordinarily resident in the State on 1 September in the year preceding the coming into force of the Register.

http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/go ... _vote.html


I'd be fairly certain those intending to return are only intending to return to vote and are not intending to resume residence but sure no one is asking. Anecdotally I only know of one person who has actually returned to resume residence somewhat timing it with the vote but they any others will be intending not to resume residence.


in fairness: https://www.irishtimes.com/life-and-sty ... -1.3497457
Quote:
Our most popular “Home to Vote” posters and ads read “Will you go Home to Vote No on May 25th?” alongside images of the “Cherishing all of the children of the nation equally” line from the Irish Proclamation of Independence, and quotations from Padraic Pearse. They have resonated with Irish people here who feel strongly connected to “home” and to our proud history in defence of human dignity and rights.

As an Irishwoman in the UK, I am proud of Ireland’s longstanding culture of life and the unique emphasis placed on the family. Perhaps the patriotic nature of those images strikes a cord with the Irish abroad like me, who have an emotional connection to Ireland and its politics no matter how far away we are.

Suzanne Conway is a member of the London Irish United for Life group. See hometovote.uk


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: The 8th Amendment
PostPosted: Fri May 18, 2018 3:11 am 
Offline
Of Systemic Importance

Joined: May 18, 2007
Posts: 6085
Location: On the Road
Quote:
Abortions happen relentlessly, on average 580 times a day, every day of the year, every year. In 2016, there were 211,900 abortions, for 785,000 births. Bluntly put, one in five babies are aborted. The National Institute for Demographic Studies reports that 33 per cent of women in France have recourse to abortion once in their lifetime, 9.5 per cent twice in their lifetime, and 4.1 per cent have 3 abortions. The 18-25 year olds are the most affected (90,000 in 2012). Abortion is a sad, repetitive and violent reality. It is so first of all for French women.


https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/it-w ... 9?mode=amp

I'm very surprised that this article has appeared in the Irish Times now.

It's very damning of what's proposed. Having read it I find it impossible to understand how anyone can propose to repeat that experience in Ireland.

Surely there's a better way than introducing the type of system that's described in that article?

_________________
"It is difficult to be certain about anything except what you have seen with your own eyes, and consciously or unconsciously everyone writes as a partisan.”
― George Orwell, Homage to Catalonia


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: The 8th Amendment
PostPosted: Fri May 18, 2018 6:45 am 
Offline
Planning Tribunal Attendee

Joined: Jul 9, 2008
Posts: 1136
Location: In the Sandpit.
Poacher turned gamekeeper wrote:
Quote:
Abortions happen relentlessly, on average 580 times a day, every day of the year, every year. In 2016, there were 211,900 abortions, for 785,000 births. Bluntly put, one in five babies are aborted. The National Institute for Demographic Studies reports that 33 per cent of women in France have recourse to abortion once in their lifetime, 9.5 per cent twice in their lifetime, and 4.1 per cent have 3 abortions. The 18-25 year olds are the most affected (90,000 in 2012). Abortion is a sad, repetitive and violent reality. It is so first of all for French women.


https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/it-w ... 9?mode=amp

I'm very surprised that this article has appeared in the Irish Times now.

It's very damning of what's proposed. Having read it I find it impossible to understand how anyone can propose to repeat that experience in Ireland.

Surely there's a better way than introducing the type of system that's described in that article?


There is a narrative that the media is pro-choice in the campaign but I'm not really seeing it. Brenda has had a good run in the IT, for example. The "Come home to vote no" article earlier.
Abortion is already a part of Irish life, we just export it, in general. I think it would be better if the control is put back under the supervision of Irish doctors, Irish medical professionals. Irish counselors. Irish people.
I've said this before, but an abortion platform will be part of every political party's policies from now on. If enough people want to reduce the 12 weeks or change the terms of it, they'll vote in a party with that mandate. See what happens at a State level in the US.
Quote:
The debate is not about maternal healthcare in Ireland, do not be fooled. It is an ideological question: do you really want abortion on demand at least up to 12 weeks? Do you really want to give carte blanche to your Government for abortions up to 6 months’ gestation?

So I can't understand this last sentence. The government would only do this if it thought it had support of people. It sounds a bit US right-wing conspiracy minded, but I stand to be corrected about what its supposed to mean.


Last edited by london_irish on Fri May 18, 2018 7:34 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: The 8th Amendment
PostPosted: Fri May 18, 2018 7:28 am 
Offline
Under CAB Investigation

Joined: Dec 2, 2013
Posts: 2541
The majority of Irish politicians are sick and tired of hearing about abortion. They don't want their stance on it to be used against them. They don't want any more hard cases coming across their desk leading them to have to instruct the state's law officers to restrict access to abortion. Coming up with a formulation that 75% of the populace to agree to that would deal with rape, incest and fatal foetal abnormality would be socially cohesive but would mean hard work, would require a complicated ongoing adjudication process and there would still be hard cases around the margins. Abortion would still be an issue for politicians. They would hate this. Women would end up getting questioned and scrutinised

Having a different termination point to the UK will a bit like bankruptcy still mean some women will be travelling to the UK I suppose. But in terms of the Irish establishment, the new No Questions Asked regime up to 12 weeks will give politicians and apparatchiks the relief of being able to avert eye contact when confronted with abortion requests and say "Ok, Whatever. Feel free. Your choice not mine"


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: The 8th Amendment
PostPosted: Fri May 18, 2018 7:41 am 
Offline
Planning Tribunal Attendee

Joined: Jul 9, 2008
Posts: 1136
Location: In the Sandpit.
GameBlame wrote:
The majority of Irish politicians are sick and tired of hearing about abortion. They don't want their stance on it to be used against them. They don't want any more hard cases coming across their desk leading them to have to instruct the state's law officers to restrict access to abortion. Coming up with a formulation that 75% of the populace to agree to that would deal with rape, incest and fatal foetal abnormality would be socially cohesive but would mean hard work, would require a complicated ongoing adjudication process and there would still be hard cases around the margins. Abortion would still be an issue for politicians. They would hate this. Women would end up getting questioned and scrutinised

Having a different termination point to the UK will a bit like bankruptcy still mean some women will be travelling to the UK I suppose. But in terms of the Irish establishment, the new No Questions Asked regime up to 12 weeks will give politicians and apparatchiks the relief of being able to avert eye contact when confronted with abortion requests and say "Ok, Whatever. Feel free. Your choice not mine"

Pro-life advocates will not stop in the event of a Yes vote (nor should they). The next battleground will be the numbers availing of this; numbers too low, the government is massaging the figure - too high and we have a moral crisis on our hands. Or some other formulation. The campaign will continue on either side for many years - the Pro-life side will want to (obviously) want to keep the issue alive as it is in the US. The emotion, vitriol, and bad feeling is not going to die down overnight.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: The 8th Amendment
PostPosted: Fri May 18, 2018 8:57 am 
Offline
Under CAB Investigation

Joined: Apr 4, 2008
Posts: 2564
According to this podcast the UK numbers are 1 in 6 if you include miscarriages and still births i.e. 1 in 6 pregnancies end up in abortion

https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p066x9fh

Still a very high number (IMO of course)

_________________
Borrowers seeking mortgages have had to resort to saving deposits, forcing many to sit by and watch house prices tumble without being able to do anything about it. Sunday Independent - June 1 2008

I know a lot of them, like [Jimmy] Flynn, [Noel] O’Flaherty and the Baileys. You meet the Baileys at Croke Park every time you go there. You can’t avoid getting a slap on the back going in from them. Most of these guys lost their shirt. I feel sorry for them - Bertie Ahern


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: The 8th Amendment
PostPosted: Fri May 18, 2018 9:04 am 
Offline
Nationalised

Joined: Nov 6, 2006
Posts: 8737
Location: Australia
Some old but useful stats

Quote:
In 2002 there were 251,000 births registered in Australia.

http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf ... endocument

Quote:
South Australia is the only state which collects and publishes data on abortions. In 2002 there were 5,147 medical abortions performed in South Australia, or 17.2 per 1000 women aged 15–44. Projected nationally, this would suggest that about 73,300 abortions were performed nationwide. This does not take into account differences between states. For example, unpublished data from Western Australia estimates a rate of 19.4 terminations per 1000 women in the same age bracket, which would indicate about 82,700 abortions projected nationally.[36]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_in_Australia

This backs that up

Quote:
the average number of Medicare-funded abortive procedures in the years 1995 to 2004 was approximately 75 700

https://web.archive.org/web/20141202035 ... b/CF7F6%22

So you could expect the numbers to pan out somewhere not too far from 20 - 33% of all births here based on this and the French and UK stats.
Now for some back of the envelope calculations:

Quote:
63,897 births in 2016

http://www.cso.ie/en/releasesandpublica ... mmary2016/

20% would be 12,700 approx to 21,000 which would be 33% but you would have to subtract the number of abortions currently from this as they already occur and they would be expected to be part of that 20-33%

Quote:
Some 3,265 females travelled from Ireland to the UK for abortions in 2016

http://www.thejournal.ie/how-many-irish ... 3-May2018/

That figure is the Republic (the North is 724 but not included for our stats)

So assume births would be 63897 + the 3265 = 67,162 births if nobody travelled to the UK (a % also would have been still births but we`ll ignore that for now its a basic calc)

Some ranges:
10% gives us 6,716, more than double current
16% - the 1 in 6 figure for the UK, is 11,148
20%, the other claimed UK rate, gives us 13,432
30%, the Aussie rate would be 20,148
33%, the French rate, 22,163

open to correction of course


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: The 8th Amendment
PostPosted: Fri May 18, 2018 10:20 am 
Offline
Nationalised
User avatar

Joined: Apr 1, 2010
Posts: 10348
purple24 wrote:
Genuinely question here for the nos - Savita was told, before she was refused termination, that a miscarriage was inevitable. If it had been the case where her life wasn't actually at risk, where is the logic in forcing her to continue with the pregnancy anyway?

The doctor believed she was going to miscarry within 24 hours and, in fact, her waters did break within 24 hours. She wasn't "forced" to continue with the pregnancy -- an invasive procedure wouldn't have been warranted under the circumstances.

london_irish wrote:
You have a mother whose baby is dying, and poses a risk of infection to the mother. This baby is not going to survive and poses a risk to the mother. If the option to terminate immediately was there, then the next episode of care - carrying the baby to a stillborn death - with its attendant risks of injury, harm and medical negligence to the mother would have been wholly negated.

You are making the same mistake as the previous poster. A surgical abortion would itself have been risky in the case of existing infection. When Savita was first reviewed, a miscarriage was already under way. The baby was going to be delivered one way or another, either by medical induction or -- as it turned out after the decision to induce was taken but before it could be performed -- spontaneous miscarriage.

london_irish wrote:
Therefore there would not have been the opportunity for medical negligence to present itself. Besides, your loved one is ill. You obviously want a path of care that takes realities into account and causes the least harm, don't you? I can't take people hiding behind this "medical negligence" agenda very seriously, TBH.

You seem to think there was some magical intervention available that the 8th Amendment prevented. Savita already had an antibiotic-resistant E-coli infection. That was what was causing the miscarriage in the first place. There was a magical intervention available -- timely diagnosis and treatment of the infection to avoid sepsis. The key causal factor in her death was inadequate assessment and monitoring.

You talk about a "medical negligence agenda" as if this is a convenient fabrication. Given the HSE and HIQA reports and the hospital itself all agree on the negligence, that's some conspiracy theory you have going. Something else worth considering: in the case of therapeutic abortion, a patient would be discharged immediately after a surgical procedure. A similar infection under those circumstances would be just a dangerous and, if negligently ignored, just as fatal.

_________________
"Prediction is very difficult, especially about the future" – Niels Bohr


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 1771 posts ]  [Go to page]   Previous  1 ... 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93 ... 119  Next

    Board index » The Soup

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: jmc and 6 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Jump to:  

Follow, Retweet @dailypinster



Pyramid Built, Is Better Built! - Latest Property Discussions www.thepropertypin.com