Repeal the 8th - have we talked about Ireland's 'abortion war?'

Red C poll this morning was encouraging

Of course Maryz

Thanks for the link, DrMantis, that's really interesting.

Again, I'm not saying I agree with all the "no" side concerns; obviously a lot of stuff quoted is a crock of shite, but for the sake of the undecided middle I think reassurance is more important than dismissal of concerns, if you see what I mean.

Maryz you're not wrong. But I'm heartened by the occasional comment on those posts saying "I didn't realise the 8th meant that, I'm rethinking" because these outlying cases do highlight the absurdity of the situation.

And you'd think that bleeding for a month would be considered important.

DrMantis, I know that the promise has theoretically been given, but I think there is evidence from other countries showing that it is (no matter what law says) in reality hard to conscientiously object to certain medical treatments as a doctor or nurse.

Actually, there’s a significant recent study which shows precisely the opposite, based on cases from England, Portugal, Norway and Italy link here.

DrMantis, I know that the promise has theoretically been given, but I think there is evidence from other countries showing that it is (no matter what law says) in reality hard to conscientiously object to certain medical treatments as a doctor or nurse. As a medical/nursing student I'm not sure whether you can, in the UK for example, refuse to be involved in an abortion, or refuse to take on a placement that includes performing abortions.

I expect you can't, and indeed in most cases of medical treatments I would wary of giving staff an opt out. After all, if you are a doctor/nurse you can't just refuse to treat a patient if you don't agree with their views, or you don't agree with the medical guidelines of where you work - but I do think there is a valid concern when it comes to abortion in a country where traditionally it has been considered to be so morally wrong.

I may not agree with this line of argument, but I accept that many do, and rather than trying to bludgeon and force people into thinking it's not a concern, I'd much prefer taking the line of "I recognise you are worried about this, this is how we are going to minimise that concern", if that makes sense?

MrsHathaway, I've been reading stories like that all my adult life . Unfortunately to those who are avidly anti-abortion-under-any-circumstances-ever, the "sadness" and "distress" of a woman is irrelevant when put against the "death" of a "baby" - it's an argument that, with many people, will never be won.

And one of the anti-choice GPs on the Claire Byrne debate was very clear that he wasn’t happy with conscientious objection as it is commonly understood - he wanted to be able to refuse to treat a woman for termination of pregnancy AND refuse to refer her to someone who would.

Maryz there is no question of medical staff being forced to perform treatments they disagree with. The government have made it clear that the proposed legislation will make explicit allowance for conscientious objection, similar to the Protection of Life in Pregnancy Act. This is misinformation peddled by the No side.

I've been following the stories of women affected by the Eighth Amendment and at first I was mildly miffed that they seemed to be showing mainly the extreme cases. I've since realised they're doing so to convince those wavering, rather than targeting their echo chamber.

Anyway, I found [CW] this story particularly interesting because a woman twice experienced the heartbreak of finding out her unborn babies had conditions incompatible with life, but was allowed to terminate only one of those times. The story of the other time is harrowing so please be warned before clicking through.

This is not a popular view and I'll probably be roasted for saying it here (I have before), but the difficulty with the case of Savita Halappanavar is that, no matter how many times people say it, and how many people believe it, it wasn't Irish law that caused her to die, it was (a) the (wrong) interpretation of that law and (b) utterly appalling and neglectful medical treatment.

The hospital completely missed the symptoms of sepsis, there were unacceptable delays with her test results, and as a patient she was ignored. I suspect she was ignored by medical staff because she was pregnant, but that is no excuse for the lack of medical care. Since she died the entire protocol around sepsis has been changed, in every hospital in the country.

She should have been treated earlier. Under Irish law she could have, and indeed should have, received appropriate treatment for her illness (sepsis) - including removal of foetal tissue as the source of the infection - and that treatment would most likely have saved her life.

Under Irish law women have frequently been treated even if that treatment caused the incidental death of the foetus. What hasn't been legal is the deliberate "killing" of the foetus. To many Irish doctors there is a massive difference, even if the end result (death of the foetus) is the same.

There are doctors here concerned that if this referendum goes through they and other medical staff will be forced to carry out abortions against their wishes. Many of them want some sort of protection for staff who don't want to be involved on conscientious grounds.

I don't happen to agree with many of their statements, but I do believe they have some valid concerns and should, like everyone else, be listened to. I hate the fact that this debate is so polarised. I am pro-choice, absolutely, but I also believe that forcing medical staff to perform treatments that they believe is morally wrong isn't an acceptable way to do this.

For this referendum to go through, I think it's important that the "yes" side don't dismiss concerns that are relevant; again the need is to appeal to the middle-ground undecided. They were the ones blocking change in the past, they are the ones who will decide the outcome on Friday.

Neither life is at immediate risk lass but treatment is withheld from women with medical conditions if it is incompatible with pregnancy.
These doctors are morally opposed to abortion and are not speaking from an unbiased, purely professional perspective. The doctors on the other side (and there are 1300 of these, against 200 or so on the no side) have no moral position, as there is no ideological position which advocates for abortion.

Similarly, the legal professionals who are involved in campaigning for no are doing so because of their moral beliefs, their professional opinion is secondary.

Thanks Very.

I don't like that doctors are being slippery with the issue on this when it's something as fundamental as women dying.

You don't get it and neither does Ben Shapiro if that's his argument

Whether I "get it" or not is 100% irrelevant given that I am pro choice (and have said so on this thread)

Whether people like Ben Shapiro "get it" is also irrelevant as they don't agree with your concept of bodily autonomy when , as they see it , there are 2 lives to consider and neither is at risk.

The doctors on the Irish television show who said they will be voting No don't "get it" They were talking about their responsibility to both their patients- meaning the woman and whatever you want to call what is gestating inside her.

I think the medics on the no side are interpreting information very differently to most. They claim that Savita’s sepsis should have been identified earlier and treated so the eighth amendment wasn’t the cause, but medical mismanagement.
The law currently requires that a woman’s life must at pretty much immediate and direct risk before a termination can be carried out & they are fine with that.
They do not care where a woman’s health is compromised.
They are being called on it but the No side are happy to exploit the differences in interpretation between medical professionals & the ordinary person’s difficultly in figuring out the truth.
Many people will choose to believe whatever they wish.

"This presumably refers back to the "bodily autonomy argument" ? If so , then an anti- abortion stance would be that it is irrelevant in the case of abortion. The anti-abortion stance is predicated on the unique biological fact that a pregnant woman is responsibile for another life... In most cases, if left in utero the embryo will grow to be another human."

You don't get it and neither does Ben Shapiro if that's his argument.

Fetus is not a person but even if it was, it can't use your body to stay alive without your consent. Nobody can even force you to accommodate someone in your body and let him live off your blood, even if he will die otherwise. Nobody can even force you to donate blood to save someone's life.

Yes, there is something called bodily autonomy and it doesn't get put on hold when another person's life in danger.

Sonic not in Ireland and I don’t know, but where have these consultants claimed this? Clearly this should be challenged.

@InHerIrishShoes is an eye-opening Twitter feed, sharing women’s experiences in the current system.

Can someone in Ireland who knows more about this please explain how there are consultant obstetricians claiming no woman has ever died or been harmed by the 8th, and it has not ever hindered the care they give women (and therefore the 8th should be kept), when there is the Savita case, the Miss P case, and a huge number of other women sharing stories about becoming seriously ill as a result of, not just refusal to terminate, but also to provide other (semi-unrelated) medical treatment that they desperately need like cancer treatments/ops, removal of large cysts that are left to turn gangrene, etc in case it might harm the baby (even though it's very low risk)?

How are they allowed to lie? And are they getting called out on it?

I'm really surprised to hear that people are worried that it won't be a Yes vote. I'm not in Ireland, so am just campaigning on twitter and amplifying the pro-choice voice to counter some of the awful No stuff (which I've mostly seen coming from men).

I suppose this is the problem with echo chambers; I didn't know it was so precarious. I'm gutted.

Hopefully knowing it's not looking so good for Yes will spur more people out to vote. Less complacency.

Thanks, TheVeryThing, and solidarity, keep going, you’re doing amazingly. You have so many people’s support, and belief that you (as in the repeal campaign) can do this.

ACTION Those of us able to donate funds Abroad for Yes Facebook group]] (closed group; apply to join) to try and connect with someone who may be struggling to afford to fly back to vote.

Also raise awareness for Irish students in the UK there are NUS bursaries available to travel back to vote.

I feel less despondent now there are concrete things we can do. There is of course value in getting on social media and liking, sharing, supporting those in Ireland fighting for repeal is a valuable thing to do - I know myself that canvassing and campaigning can be emotionally exhausting and somewhat soul destroying, you really need to believe that what you’re doing WILL have an impact.

I've been canvassing over the last few weeks and I'm still (very cautiously) optimistic that it will pass. Don't be fooled by the number of posters for No, they have alienated more people than they have persuaded.
All we can do is keep knocking on doors and politely outlining the case for yes to the undecided voters. That's what I will be doing most evenings next week.
If you're in Ireland, then consider joining your local canvassing group, it's not too late. For anyone outside of Ireland who wants to help, the abroad for yes facebook page still has people looking for funding to travel home to vote.

Sometimes when a particular result is predicted, that prediction allows its supporters to stay at home and spurs the opposite side to go out and vote. Isn't that what happened re Brexit, enough to nudge Leave over the line?

So yeah DEFINITELY NO CHANCE REPEAL WILL WIN SO THOSE FIRMLY PRO LIFE HAVE NO NEED TO BOTHER VOTING.

Obviously it isn't equal right to life. It's women coming last, seen as breeding cattle.

I just don't understand how they can use the "equal right to life" wording in the 8th amendment to allow women like that poor Savita (?) lady to just die?! Because there was a heartbeat of a baby who would die anyway?! It's treating women as sub human and I'm beyond disgusted with all of the No voters.

No postal vote apart from special circumstances (disability, prison, some students but only if in the country, a few occupations).

Loads of youngsters travelled home to vote in the same sex marriage referendum; sadly this one doesn't seem to have been so far-reaching though I do know individuals making heroic efforts to come home.

Unfortunately I also know of organisations making heroic efforts to transport the entire over-70 population to their local polling booth too [cynical]

Is there no postal voting, why are people having to fly to vote?